Get Squared
This is a leak from an unnamed camera manufacturer about square sensors.
We have heard in the past that the 1Ds Mark IV would have a square CMOS sensor. Most people dismissed it as poppycock.
This rumor may appear to be in a different format that previous rumors, however this is how it was sent to me and I was told to post it as such.
by Dean Francis
Camera image sensors commonly use rectangular formats (3:2, 5:4, 16:9 aspect ratios). However, to obtain the highest image quality, the square format (1:1 aspect ratio) should be used. The advantages are surprisingly extensive as outlined below:
MAXIMIZED FIELD OF VIEW
The square format covers 100% of the maximum field of view. The maximum FOV is the largest area that can be covered by any four sided sensor (see diagram). A rectangular format (3:2) uses only 89% of the maximum FOV. Simply stated, the wider the rectangle, the smaller the photograph. The square format is about 11% larger – a considerable amount of image data.
PERIPHERAL LOSS MINIMIZED
Generally speaking, image quality suffers along the outer third edge of lenses. That’s where any circle of confusion (COC) issues become readily apparent, such as blurring, chromatic aberration, distortion, vignetting, etc. A rectangular format actually pushes outward into that area of the lens. 18% of the image (4 corners & 2 sides) are clearly degraded. However, the square format eliminates degradation (all 4 sides) and minimizes the remainder by pushing it farther into the corners.
MICRON GAIN IN RESOLUTION
Photo sites benefit dramatically when their size is increased. The square format has a surface area 12% larger than a rectangular format (3:2). Photo sites can be manufactured 12% larger, a gain of +1.12 per micron. The 12% increase also expands sensel (super pixel) variations of resolution and enables 16 bit RAW capture when coupled with improved binning algorithms.
CROP LOSS SOLVED
Cropping a landscape oriented photograph (3:2) down to portrait discards about 60% of the image data (see diagram). With a square format, only 20% is lost. Landscape vs. portrait orientation can be determined later based upon output. Once cropped, only 3% of the peripheral loss region remains (extreme corners).
ADVANCEMENTS
Photographers no longer have to rotate the camera and the secondary portrait grip becomes a thing of the past. Also, the quantity of materials is lessened (about 10%) by shortening the toe, foot and heal of the bottom plate. Weight is thereby decreased, allowing for significant changes and reallocation of the source/component materials. Additional battery capacity can be maintained and/or relocated to a secondary or supplemental location. The sensor is also cooled more evenly (about 5%) by equidistant dissipation of heat through the mount.
SUMMARY
The list of improvements for the square format is extensive, benefitting camera functionality in all photographic and video applications. It’s also highly cost effective from a materials/manufacturing standpoint, desirable from the consumer’s viewpoint and fully marketable as a standardized format.  Dean E. Francis
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
it makes sense but there must be some downfalls with such a sensor too, right?
I like.
I’m game, sounds like a pretty decent argument in-favor of square sensors. Still will be a weird transition. What would it do to our wide-angle lenses?
The other issue is for video modes. With a square sensor, you’d be using even less of the camera sensor to come back to a 16:9 aspect ratio. Not the biggest of deals because they already have a resolution significantly lower than a still image.
Interesting stuff. Might make Canon’s top end camera worth the premium.
That would not work with petal lens hoods supplied with most lenses.
Fixed your post:
That would not work with *existing* petal lens hoods supplied with most lenses.
You don’t think they’d find some way to sell a new hood to anyone who used one of their new sensors?
you guys really have no clue at all….. im sorry for you low iq creatures.
Not all EF or EFS lenses can accomodate this, if you look at your lenses you will see that some dont have round or square openings but rectangular, so you would be back to cropping with those.
Ross
To paraphrase Sun Tzu; with maneuver (or innovation) comes with great risk or great rewards.
Good luck Canon!
If people likes to look at square pictures, they would create square film hundred years ago. I guess I would have to learn how to use Canon Phtostitch, if this become our new standard.
it may be worth a try, be interested to see if it works, not an early adopter :-)
There is one simple negative to the bigger total sensor area – cost. If you have to crop a square back to a rectangle, you’re throwing away that extra area you just paid extra for. Unless square output formats become the next big thing, that’s a lot of cropping to be done.
So, CR gives us two back-to-back tidbits today.
1) New vertical grips are coming
2) Canon is moving to a square sensor format that will make portrait orientation
Why won’t square sensors become the norm? Because then the typical consumer would actually have to *do something* to get a 4×6 print made.
Even more importantly, since print formats are all rectangular, what would a square sensor mean for Canon’s beloved Direct Print feature?!? I’ll tell you – it would mean a cropping decision as part of the ‘direct’ print process, turning that into an ‘indirect’ print process. We all know that Canon is **never** going to eliminate Direct Print, so a square sensor will never happen.
2) Canon is moving to a square sensor format that will make portrait orientation IRRELEVANT
this would lead to canon L lenses sold without lenshood because you have to choose the right one your self
Hard to take someone seriously when they don’t even know what a sensel is.
pixel = picture element. One discrete element in a grid.
sensel = sensor element. One discrete element in a grid.
Not “super pixel.”
The most important thing is that we have a square sensel (we already do) and that they be as large as possible (see full frame designs) which is a factor that is being compromised not by overall sensor shape, but by the consumer drive for “more megapixels.” The reason the 5D outperforms the 50D and the 7D is precisely that: larger sensels.
Put today’s sensor tech into a 10 mp camera… then you’d really have a camera that would be a good performer. It’d be low noise in general, and capable of fairly high ISOs with high quality (evenly distributed) noise which is easily removed by stacking and high end spectral noise removal techniques. Less banding, less noise, better noise.
Unfortunately, the megapixel marketing has hooked a lot of people. Me, I’d rather have quiet, smooth rendition than noisy details.
ever heard of hasselblad or the 6×6 format?
the wide angle lenses wouldn’t be as wide as before… especially when croped to 3:2 in post
Great! At Last some one is considering something smart… Come on canon! get Square..
I heard they are introducing a round sensor that will allow 100% coverage.
Instead of a memory card, it will have a permanent hard drive embedded in the camera. When it fills up, you send the camera in and they send you a new one.
I heard it is going to be called Candak or maybe a Konon. Some guy named Eastman supposedly came up with the idea.
Why stop at square sensors? Make it a round sensor so we can take advantage of the entire glass area. No worries about orientation or unlevel horizon either.
Early film plates were square but I think the art connection was an influence here. Literially portraits and landscapes.
I was just going to post the same thing :-)
Seriously though, square photos look horrible, and I don’t want to have to go through and crop every single picture I take.
The whole point is that you use the maximum angle in the diagonal of the frame you select. Whenever you crop from a fixed image format, you loose.
Or to petal-shaped lens hoods that are cut more generously (to fit all formats), and that are therefore less effective.
The cost of the sensor might be be the main issue. As pointed out lens hoods would need to change but that would not be too expensive for most folks.
As to “Why won’t square sensors become the norm? Because then the typical consumer would actually have to *do something* to get a 4×6 print made.” – this could be an optional setting in the camera to only save jpgs in a certain aspect shape. Not seeing any reason to make this option available for RAW. any one shooting RAW already has a little work to do before printing.
I would also think some markets would need to be put in the view finder so folks could get an idea of what crop X would look like. I have seen something similar with video cameras.
If the cost is kept in line I like the idea.
+1 ;-)
I often crop to square, but I also often crop to 2:1 or even 3:1. It all depends on the subject.
Very interesting. I do square crops.
One more implication: if you are taking rectangular crops, they can all have the same dimensions even if the camera is not level. Beyond taking the rectangular crop from the square, you never need to crop smaller to fix the horizon. In fact, if cropping or square is optional, the camera could auto level in crop mode with an orientation sensor.
Patent pending…
No point in that: It is even more difficult to manufacture than a large square one. And you cannot really fit any more on a production wafer.
throwing away extra, reminiscent of some raw vs jpeg arguments, no?
You usually do pay more for a device with more features. I’m sure there would be an auto crop option in-camera with a user-defined button or something to switch to portrait crops instantly vs rotating the camera body.
so if this is CR2, which camera is it going to?
Two words: PASSPORT PHOTOS.
To apply this to Canin one would have to assume that Canon innovates rather than increments on existing technology. Canon appears fixated more on more megapixels rather than better IQ/DR.
Sad to say, but if this happens it’ll be more likely to be Nikon, although I’ll be happy to see Canon (not it’s fanbois try to) prove me wrong
And the best feature of all:
A square sensor allows to increase the number of Megapixels without degrading the image quality of a 3:2 landscape.
Larger mirror hence lower FPS?
1×1 or 2×2 pics anyone? :)
The 24-105mm would not give a circular image, will it?
Hard to take someone seriously when they’re going off about a “sensel”…
If you’d rather have less noise at the cost of detail, just throw more noise-reduction at it. You can do that with a high density sensor. Can’t go the other direction though.
I can see the 1Ds4 being a square sensor….for studio work.
But the 60D being square, I doubt it.
I can see Canon putting a “portrait mode” button on the camera wih automatic cropping. Not a big problem.
When detector surface estate becomes cheap, it would make sense to inscribe the image circle in the detector (instead of the other way), and let the user choose an arbitrary aspect ratio for their image that optimises the field of view available from the lens. Hm, wasn’t there a (non-Canon) camera recently announced that had something like this, or did I dream this up?
What about mirror size? It would not fit into current mirror box, at least for 100% view.
The rumor says “an unnamed camera manufacturer”, and since it wont work on a dSLR (no room for a larger mirror) it’s safe to assume it’s not Canon. Panasonic do make several camera with multiformat senors, e.g LX3 and GH1 and a number of P&S models. And on mFT it would make sense (except for corst) since an EVF can mask to any format the user select.
I completely did not get this. What you said would be true if the sensor was circular, but being square would still imply smaller rectangular cropping sizes for non-level pictures. Or, what did I misunderstand?
I can’t believe you’re falling for this old rumor. Something like this CANNOT happen for the existing 35mm SLR format. One of two things would have to happen–either the reflex mirror would need to be eliminated, or every EF lens would have to be redesigned for a longer flange focal distance. If the former, then the 1Ds4 would not be an SLR and you would have no optical viewfinder. If the latter, which is even more absurd, then ALL existing EF lenses would lose infinity focus on such a body. Either way, the kind of changes involved would make it impossible. The mirror clearance on existing EOS bodies is already extremely small–there simply is no more room.
I also believed that modern 35mm lenses are designed for the 35mm 3:2 format and have internal baffles to combat flair and distortion. So for Canon or Nikon to go down the square sensor route then this would require a new set of lenses to make full use of the square sensor. No impossible though, maybe something along the lines of the Leica medium format SLR in form but able to take new ‘square’ format lenses or existing EF lenses in 35mm format.
I can’t see Canon and Nikon (or any other DSLR manufacturer) going down this route, maybe Hasselblad but it already has the H series cameras, does it need a square format? probably not.
Sean
“However, to obtain the highest image quality, the square format (1:1 aspect ratio) should be used”
Right. How about a circular sensor filling out the whole image circle :rolleyes:
Not very likely to see this. Ever.
More pixels is only worse if you underexpose your images (i.e. are readout noise limited), or you have gaps between the pixels so that the effective detector surface decreases. What really matter for a good sampling of a scene is how many photons you are able to register and resolve. Effective detector surface being equal, more pixels will not make the image noisier (except for underexposed images). A well-exposed image actually benefits from more pixels, because of the greater dynamic range you get (yes, the pixels are smaller, but their collective electron wells are larger).
Basically, you can collect more photons (per “sensel”) without getting saturated, improving the S/N for a single image (it also means correspondingly longer exposure time).
Increasing the number of pixels thus makes sense except for very low-light photography. Even when the detector oversamples the picture there are S/N advantages with more pixels (more photo-electrons per exposure), but generally it is pointless to overresolve the picture as the S/N advantage is offset by longer exposure times.
So the first EOS with a image circle-filling square detector that would be able to use existing EF lenses would need to be EVIL. BTW, do all EF lenses have circular image circles?
The optics are most likely circular for manufacturing reasons, but I can imagine there being internal baffling etc that would break the circular symmetry.
I agree this rumour isn’t credible, but it’s never the less fun to discuss it :)
Is it possible that Canon are going to build a M.F. camera to compete with the Leica S2?
I know the Leica has a 30x45mm sensor.
Just a thought….
I can see a future sensor completely circumscribing the image circle and making only use of an arbitrary (user defined) rectangle inscribed by the circle.
why not square lenses to square sensors ;)
and … If they use square sensors bigger that fov…
ummm… wouldn’t this need a whole new line of lenses? A lot of L glass has a rectangular baffle on the back or am I missing something? at this point why not just go to medium format?
I hate.
Difference is there’s not really a hardware cost to giving both RAW and jpeg, where a bigger sensor would increase costs.
I’m really not convinced this adds value for most people.
eeeeeeveryone’s an expert! ;)
I come from shooting MF film. Shooting square is simply a different mentality…but one I prefer. I don’t mind having to crop my work…I do now anyway. And who cares that you cant output 4×6 prints natively. Really, who buys a $7K camera to output 4x6s at Walmart?
I’ve seen some amazing photos from DSLRs…even taken one or two myself…recently with a 5DmkII…but I’ve never seen any DSLR that can touch the detail and (for lack of a better word) bit depth information of a DMF system. I rented an H3D system and the capabilities of that sensor/process is incredible. It’s only downfall was the lack of clean higher ISO output.
If I didn’t have $12K invested in Canon glass…I would “upgrade”.
So if Canon can release a 32Mp, 16Bit, square sensor, leaf shutter camera, that can output clean higher ISO images (as clean as the 5DmkII for a start)…..
I’ll buy two.
PS, would there be any physical limitations to the shutter sync speed on an EVIL camera? Couldn’t you sync 1/2000th? Another “hope” of my for this camera is a leaf shutter….but if I can get the higher sync speed with EVIL, even better
Anyone notice the 32 mp part in the diagram?
Funny you bring this story in. At least once a month, an engineer wanabee logs on our photo forum and proudly announces he has discovered a way to have bigger sensors while keeping your lenses… square format.
The area gain is ridiculous (8%), and users would certainly crop to 2/3 for portrait and 3/2 for landscape.
This is the most frequent stupid idea I have ever heard, and that is why MF camera went from 6×6 to 6×4.5 or so.
The beauty of a 1DsIV in my mind is pro features on a full frame sensor. I for one would much rather keep the wide end of my wide angles and depth of field at fast apertures (the main reason i went full frame). I can’t ever imagine canon going down this path unless it was an entirely new camera outside the current EOS line. As for the landscape/portrait argument, is it really that hard to reorient your camera? Takes me about half a second. And as far as composition goes, i think far too few think about this at the time they press the shutter. The only people i could see this benefiting are those who specifically want a square output right from the beginning. In effect, all most people would end up with is a very expensive small rectangular image. Just looking at the picture, would that 3:2 image approximate one provided by an APSC sensor? Hmmm….
Yeah, and Slovakia will win the Ice Hockey World Championship 2010…
People, this rumor is BS
Also cost is correlated to surface area; larger = more $$$.
In theory this sounds nice, until you you realize that most compositions just work better with a 3:2 (or similar) aspect ratio. Thus the square sensor image will be cropped for the final output, throwing out all of advantages of increased area. Granted, your entire image would be in the sweet spot of the lens… but if you wanted that, you can get that now for a lot less cost – just use APS-C.
In the end, rectangular sensors make sense because you’re not paying for the area you don’t use (either in dollar terms or performance terms such as FPS or storage space) and it’s easy to switch which way you want to allocate the area you do have (just rotate the camera.)
The square sensor format is NOT for the DSLR line, but for the high-end P&S line. Think G12, not 60D.
I don’t see why cropping is even necessary consideation. Portrait and landscape would cease to have meaningduring picture-taking. We could have square images – either files or prints. But cropping to any aspect ratio would always be an option.
Square sensor means the direct print button wil cause your printer to instantly burst into flames
The cost of a larger sensor is not a linear thing. Adding 25% to the area may increas the price by 4X. ‘m sure Ieveryone will line up to pay $15,000 for a 1Ds MK IV with a square sensor.
Like it or not, Computor monitors, TV sets, theatre screens, are rectangular. Printers are setup that way as well. That will be the output format.
You are just paying lots of extra $$$ and then throwing much of the image away because you don’t want to rotate the camera 90 degrees !
If canon has a cost effective way to make larger sensors, then 5d MK II prices should be reduced by $1,000.
Ok, but… much better would be to have a round sensor or at least a multi format sensor like the Panosonic Lumix LX3
The author of this document is making lots of claims without substantiation, and they don’t sound plausible.
What are the 2 circles indicated in the diagram? From what I see, the square sensor probably has the same area as the 3:2 sensor, so unless your aim is to get a square photograph as the output, you are effectively having a smaller sized sensor since you are cropping of the sides to get a 3:2 ratio. Thus, peripheral loss will of course be less as you effectively have a smaller sensor!
Well of course, if you want a square image, a square sensor will certainly be the way to go. But what is the issue with crop loss? From that section, it sounds like the author still wants a 3:2 format. Yes, indeed if you crop a square image to 3:2, you lose less than cropping a 3:2 landscape image to 3:2 portrait, but don’t you know that the camera can be rotated? If you always make the wrong decision when composing and thus need to crop, then it’s simply too bad. But it doesn’t make sense to sacrifice a larger image that you get from a 3:2 sensor when you compose correctly, just to get the flexibility to crop.
But the mirror and optical viewfinder are both dead.
Two issues is that monitors aren’t 1:1 so one will use less area and resolution when viewing the images. Also our own field of view from our eyes aren’t square. And for portraits cropping a square area vs tilting the camera will give lower resolution to.
But the cost of a slightly bigger sensor can’t be much vs trying to fix lens issues out on the sides and against the price of the whole system with lenses and all.
That depends on where you look …
“No worries about orientation or unlevel horizon either.”
Don’t ask don’t tell!
Hmm, slap an EFS UWA on a FF camera and bam, round picture.
this is a lot of blabla ignoring the fact that for this you would need a larger mirror+box and larger sensor area. both of which are the expensive/big parts in the camera.
When I was a kid I got a used camera back in the 80ies which photos ended up being 9×9 cm.
Also aren’t polaroids pretty square?
Lot’s of communities and avatar settings and such on webpages specify image size in a square format.
And for wide angel photography it may be pretty cool to see high in the sky and more so on the ground, city/street/building shoots which are wide in both directions. Or say a waterfall out in the forest with wide coverage both over the fall and the surroundings.
Neither format fits good for images of the other format, of course, but both got benefits.
The claimed cropped portrait benefit in this article isn’t a benefit at all though since people WILL turn their camera to get more coverage.
If it would be in say an MILC I wouldn’t mind covering my walls with square shots.
Btw, of course print formats are rectangular because the normal data is. If people started to shoot square photos they would just print square ones instead ..
The Panasonic DMC-GH1 sensor is slightly bigger (or atleast different shape) and crop it somewhat depending on what photo setting you choose to shoot in.
If you don’t want to use any different ratios it’s wasting pixels but if you do want the ability you wasteless than with another sensor.
I don’t know if they really shoot in 4:3 or not but it’s most likely to behave well with 4:3, standard 3:2 and video 16:9.
Hopefully a MILC. And hopefully not more crop than APS-C :)
Guess they may make it APS-C height and crop the width though :(
Isn’t plenty of glass out-resolved by the sensor anyway?
And purple fringing and such issues may become less with lower pixel density?
And eventually all surface area isn’t useful but taken up with some other electronics, don’t know, but if it is and said electronic take the size it does no matter what the size of the pixels are then more pixels = more electronic = less total area available for pixels = worse in any case.
Though noise levels seem so low nowadays anyway.
why no circle sensors
you would use the whole fov in every direction
you can change image orientation without cropping more and more imageinformation (well just once to get the rectangular picture out of the circle for prints/web)
the sensor could be build with a new kind of pattern maybe a hexagonal one
this would also solve some moiree problems maybe
Larger mirror: think about how it’ll swing up. Flange distance on EF mount would no longer be sufficient. Would they go to the trouble of bringing in a new mount?
Maybe you can read the pixels in a circular fashion from the edges and inward and write them down as you go on a circular piece of plastic.
But that would be pretty sweet, if they could make it fast enough, put a small censor on a rotating pin which spins covering the whole light area and samples the light in that area as it goes/passes =P. It just need to spin fast enough so nothing is able to move quicker before it have made a full lap ;D
Would save sensor area! ;D
The viewfinder would obviously be electronical and show the current crop if any at 100% coverage.
What he mean is that the top and the bottom of the image would contain data you wouldn’t use in a rectangular crop. That makes it easy to take some of the otherwise non-existing data to fill in data for a tilt or crop away some more.
Tilting the crop would however also crop away some at the sides so you wouldn’t get the same width resolution on all photos of they where adjusted for level horizon all the time.
Get a square photo in photoshop, place a rectangular crop over it, pull one of the corner and start rotating it, the data outside the cropped rectangle than you started the process is “extra data” which you wouldn’t have had with the rectangular sensor, so you don’t need to crop away any more height resolution to fix the horizon, however you will have to pull in the sides and lose some on the width.
I’m ambivalent.
To fit on the image circle, the sides of the square would be approx. 30mm. Crop to 3:2 and you get 30×20. APS-H sensors are 29×19. Unless want square pictures, you just turned your 1DsIV into an APS-H camera.
Next time you troll like that, get your grammar right. It will work better that way.
Uncle Ben
With Panasonic selling lots of four-thirds MILCs, Olympus, Samsung and Sony also fighting for the market and Canon cameras with their slightly higher crop already being able to mount Nikon lenses what Canon and Nikon should do would be do define their own sensor (make it big please, APS-C or APS-C with the same height as width if they want to go this route) and mount for their MILC camera.
Then they could both use each-others MILC-lenses and adapters for both brands regular lenses.
Sure they would get more competition by each other in the lens segment, but also bigger market if they release something good… But it would more or less be a nail in the coffin for all others initiatives and kill them of making it all Canons and Nikons market… (Or create a standard which the others would be forced to adapt.)
Throw away the mirror and optical viewfinder. If they want a square sensor start using it in a new line of MILC cameras where they can change whatever they want without breaking anything because it’s all new anyway.
Directly!
Assuming Canon would want to use a mirror forever …
32mp square format cam for avatars on forums!? :P
The mirror WILL be eliminated. It serves no purpose longer since you can see what ends up on the sensor but couldn’t see what ended up on the film ..
If they do it with current flange distance then they can keep the old lenses, or they short it and have to get some new ones.
L7
LOL my video cam has a harddrive. USB cable FTW!
Why not circular sensors for circular lenses?
Your opinion only.
Tokina 11-16?
EF-S won’t fit.
If they make a EVIL camera they may want to shorten the flange distance and will then have to make new glass anyway.
And if they are already designing a new camera type playing around with ideas like this seem reasonable. They can do whatever they want.
I assume the more digital people go the less they assume all photos will be 3:2 (15×10 cm on print.)
+1 makes sense to me…
Neat idea, but in the age of everyone wanting to maximize their shutter sync speed, even getting 1/200 out of this thing would be an incredible act (assuming you can overcome the mirror depth issue). Remember that the shutter moves across the shortest axis of the sensor – by extending that, we make it move a lot further; that’s bad for sync.
I would also be surprised if this got past marketing from the standpoint that the ‘effective’ sensor size for most users (still locked into a 3:2 world) wouldn’t be much (if at all) larger than what they have now – and we all know how the marketing department loves MPs.
Still, this would be fascinating as an above-1Ds piece (say, post merging of the 1D and 1Ds?) to directly compete with the MFD studio market, while the 1D replacement line focuses on location / PJ work. Maybe, 6.5-7k on a side for the sensor?
+1
This is certainly not new, has been tried and tried again, it’s just not practical.
+++++1
Hasselblad 6×6 is the best format out there hands down.
Sounds more like some guy’s silly engineering dream.
Won’t happen.
And a terrible opinion at that. Shoot a Hassy 6X6 for a year, then get back to me. My money says you’ll wish all cameras had square sensors.
that smartest thing Hasselbad could have ever done was further develop the 6×6 format in the dig realm. THey half-assed it so far with the CFV-39 (1.5 crop in square format), but that doesn’t count. Square sensors make more sense, just like square film made more sense than 645. THere was one company who kenw the deal- Sinar with the Hy6. A camera built to handle wht would have been the inevitable future full-frame 6×6 sensors. Too bad the lens manufacturer went out of business and killed that camera…
If this is rumor is true, Canon actually knows how to shape the future in a real way of true progress.
+1 and spelling.
Why not just use the full image? Square framing is superior… if you know how to utilize it.
in most situations. Obviously “landscape” works best for shooting it’s namesake.
not if the lenses are designed accordingly.
A 56x56mm sensor in a MF camera would be just slightly better than any APS-H sensor…
somehow MF cameras pull off sync speeds upwards of 1/500 second (and I’m not talking about leaf shutters, if I was I’d be saying 1/1000); sync speed would NOT be an issue if designed correctly. And Canon obviously has the technology to advance such trivial issues, I would hope…
Square format is the most obvious and versatile type of framing to use, and I’m not talking about with the intention of post-cropping either. Try using a Hassy V series body with a 30mm lens, and tell me how that compares to an APS-C camera image shot with a 15mm lens… it doesn’t. With a digi square sensor, you can have a landscape mode for that format if desired (like DX crop on Nikon) Shooting every photo to crop later is shooting sloppy and without real integrity- for people who never shot with film…
Well, the field of view from our eyes are not ‘portrait’ yet we still take those pictures. And lower resolution is not a big deal – at 32 MP you have a lot of spare pixels unless you’re enlarging photos into a bedroom wall size – the better image quality will vastly outweigh any resolution loss.
Reminds me of those age 3-4 puzzles where the kid tries smashing a square peg into a round hole.
Humor aside, I bet something like this involves a new format – a DSLR body that’s electronically cropped at whim. That keeps the currently owned “rectangular” baffled lenses in the game. Shutter flip and clearance? Solved by butterflying it – splits it in half for twice the responsiveness.
Throw in sensor that moves forward and back to adjust the focal plane. Bingo… full use of EF and EF-S glass, flip a switch for selectable form factors, pre or post crop plus binning.
…Anyway, that would just about do it.
Ramble, ramble.
Presently, contrast-detection AF via the CMOS sensor is too slow. A secondary mirror is required for phase-detection AF systems. A flagship 35mm camera intended to be used by professionals is not the place to experiment with a mirrorless body. If a mirrorless digital system were feasible for the professionals, it would have already come out–rangefinders are not new. Digital P&S cameras are mirrorless. Your belief that the SLR will be obsolete anytime soon is not based in any kind of real understanding of how a modern SLR works.
Square would be awesome. Sorry, but anyone who does not see the advantages is not seeing the big picture.
SPORTS:
Baseball: Right handed pull hitter at bat so your sitting on short/third. Will it be a hard grounder/diving catch or a line drive/leaping catch? With square, no need ever to guess wrong again.
Diving: As the diver twists and somersaults, the optimum crop can alternate between vertical and horizontal a dozen times in about 2 seconds. With square you can avoid ever cutting off arms or legs ever again.
TRIPOD USE:
Most tripod ball heads and pan heads become “awkward” in vertical orientation. Not need to deal with that with square.
PANORAMAS:
You would need fewer images to stitch a pano with square images than with vertical images.
If you shoot Raw, just about the only creative decision you can’t tweak in post is orientation – unless you have a square sensor. ANY picture can be vert. or hor.
FLASH BRACKETS:
I’d still use one to get more height on the flash, but I’d no longer need one with funky design (such as stroboframes) to be able to do vert. or hor.
Embrace the square.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me the lag between the 1D and 1Ds is considerably longer with the Mark IV than with the Mark II or Mark III. A radical redesign that would be required to go to square would be a good explanation for this. (Though a square 1Ds would be less desirable for sports unless they can get past the usual 4 fps limitation.)
I’d also love an expanded square APS-C sensor (22.3 x 22.3mm). This should allow faster fps and would get around the rectangular internal baffle lens problem.
Either this is brilliant sarcasm…
Or you really don’t know that the original Kodak Brownie shot square images.
sorry my question
i’m a novice and not an experpt of technology
WILL BE A MEDIUM FORMAT ?
It’s just a matter of processing power, surely this will improve until contrast-detection AF becomes quick enough. The Panasonic already does well, and this will only improve. How soon is hard to tell, but eventually.
Who cares how you get there, the end result is what’s important.
The only reason we are even talking about “wasting pixels” is that, currently, the detector is expensive. Since the price of detectors is declining more rapidly than lenses (which are hardly getting cheaper), we will eventually reach a point when it makes sense to sample as much as possible of the image circle, nevermind if pixels are wasted. With enough pixels to Nyquist sample the full image circle at 90% quantum efficiency, detector improvements will become marginal.
The Canon claim is that microlense arrays make away with the “gaps” taken up by electronics.
I think it’s not gonna happen. What was that explanation about the cropping? why would you crop a horizontal shot to portrait mode? Just rotate the camera. And cropping the square format to horizontal or portrait format (which are mostly used for all the commercial work) would loose more FOV than using a fullframe camera shot rotated according to the needs of the picture format.
I’m still confused. What you say (“dimension will change”) contradicts what he says (“dimensions will stay the same”).
To give an example. Imagine you have a perfectly level image on a square detector, and crop it to get a nice landscape rectangle. Then the diagonal of that rectangle will be larger than the side of the square. This means that the same rectangle crop would not fit on an inclined orientation of the square -> the cropping dimensions would have to change.
The only rotational symmetric geometry the cropping would not have to change in is the circular detector; OR if only a circular part of a rectangular detector was used. (a square shape is the rectangular shape that will maximise the area taken up by an inscribed circle).
This is unlikley as cropping from 1:1 to 3:2 the sensor will be smaller than traditional 35mm full frame, therefore stopping the 1DS from being a 35mm camera.
I sure hope they wont, but the sensor is the single most expensive component in a dSLR and a square one will add surface area and cost. It doesn’t really make much sense to introduce a square one in a low end model where price is most important – and where we’re likey to see the first Canon mirrorless models.
It reminds me this year’s april joke on Dpreview with rounded sensor :))
The problem is that the lens projects a round image field.
You can fit a square inside that, but also rectangles. The rectangles can be wider but less high (or vice versa) while still having the same diagonal, corner to corner, as the square. This means that they still fit perfectly into the image circle.
Of course you could just save the image data of the entire sensor and do all your cropping in post processing – I guess that would be a reasonable default option for RAW images.
The danger is that parts of the sensor will lie outside the image circle where the lens performs best, and pixel peepers will complain that that part of the image is soft, vignetted, …
Here is the only way a square sensor would work for 35mm photography.
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1695/squarecmos.gif
The area in red would be the sensor size giving a full 35mm frame in either landscape or portrait. User could choose an image size from 3:2, 2:3 or central 1:1. 16:9 and other ratio’s could be possible.
However this is still unlikely as a sensor like this would be very expensive and the mirror would be huge.
This is purley theoretical.
The problem with this CR2 rumor is that Dean Francis is not the first one and certainly would not be the last one to thnk that he was the only one brilliant enough to come up with this idea. I’ve seen countless variants of this idead many times, and so far nothing has come out of those. If Canon’s gonna change the sensor format then they might as well build a whole new camera & lens system, why stick with a film SLR-based body after all…
I have used a Hassleblad over years and so have no probs with square. However as a huge fan of the Video DSLR a square is not much good for that. However all Canon has yo do is release a video body that uses EOS mount and geared up for video, but this brings in problem of not having stills and movies in one package. Mmm if rumour is true would be interesting to see how Canon goes forward. Knowing Canon they will follow the money! Not what people ‘really’ want. Evidence in their lack of firmware releases!
I hope this is more than a rumor.
i dont think this is gonna happen for canon.
except its for a new mount (filming lenses and camera?)
you would lose for example 180° on the 15mm fisheye
Why would that be? If anything, the round image projected by a fisheye fits _better_ into a square than into a rectangle.
Good point!
Add to that large pentaprism and viewfinder.
The 35mm format is rectangular to get more image area out of a rather narrow strip of film.
It is a good compromise between keeping the camera and film capsule small, and having usable resolution – especially with the quality of film when the format was created.
This discussion is about 35mm-format.
To directly answer your question:
WILL BE NOTHING BECAUSE WILL NEVER COME .
That would even make sense, as a lot of other things need to be adjusted (viewfinder, LCD screen, lens). Much easier done on a single P&S than a complex interchangeable lens system.
Slap hard!
“idead” LOL
At first I thought Apple had a new product for funerals.
Just got to getz me a circle printer now.
LOL REAL hard. Who cares about broken mirrors and such. ;)
Flash sync speed has nothing to do with the mirror.
You could go much faster with a central shutter instead of image plane shutter that has two edges traveling across the image field.
The fastest flash sync speed is when the leading edge has cleared the image field before the trailing edge starts closing.
first of all many lens hoods will be useless, as they will vignete. Some lenses have fixed petal shapped hood so again this lenses will hava no use
I think it is a good idea, circular sensor would be better though, mor cropping cappabilities
35mm was born from the needs of an asmatic amateur photographer who couldn’t bring a true 1:1 format up the mountains. 3:2 is not normal, it’s abnormal.
Another non sense idea, just to get money from our pockets, after that what? circular sensors, to take pictures of the moon without loosing pixels…
I would love to see it!
If you truly know how to use a tool (the camera) you don’t need other tools (Photoshop) to fix your results. THAT’S what’s important… at least to someone with any pride in what they do. Photoshop is not an excuse for sloppiness/ lack of caring how to compose/ expose/ shoot a photo…
And that goes for all the big-time industry players who can’t take the time on location to properly shoot a photo, shoot multiple ones, then pay some dude to spend weeks stitching/ merging all his half-assed photos together to make an actual pleasing “photo”. That’s not a photo, that’s graphic design…
Square stills, rectangle crop for movie mode? Not an unreasonable idea. The smaller SLR body works much better for stills/ video than some big bulky camcorder, thank you. I’m all for combining the attributes of video and stills for one tool, but let’s not step back in time and have to lug some large format-like body around for a quick photo or two. If you want EOS lens capabilities on a camcorder, Canon already makes an adapter for the XL-1 I believe.
Rediculous. All the reasons they site need to be cropped to deal with 99% of all prints made, 4×6, or worse, 5×7/8×10…
Ask hassleblad owners how much they use the full 6×6 format. Why do you think Mamiya RZs are so big?
“Ridiculous”
What is “normal”?
Don’t forget that many lenses have internal baffles which crop their image circle to 3:2 even before the image gets to the sensor.
To make this idea work, you’d have to either have to issue new versions of all those lenses, accept that some lenses only work in landscape orientations (relative to the bottom of the camera) or have a rotating mount that would allow you to turn the lens depending on whether you were shooting 3:2 or 2:3.
However, I think the primary problem with this idea is the mirror size (and view finder, and autofocus sensor, and, and, and, …) necessary to support this larger image circle. On the other hand, we’ve already heard that the limiting factor for high fps right now is the mirror, and if I recall correctly, we’ve seen a patent for a fixed mirror or alternative mechanism moving mirror, so maybe Canon is laying the groundwork to make this possible.
Many professional lenses have a inner square that blocks light on the top and bottom and only leaves light for rectangular 35mm.
These lenses wouldn’t work neither.
Or the growing amount of rounder faces.
Canon first built a “fixed mirror” camera in 1966, the Pellix. The last one was was the 10 fps EOS1n RS film camera (1995-2001).
Wow, talk about a polarizing issue. Lot’s of strong opinions on both side of the fence. I definitely see clear advantages and disadvantages with this proposed format. I do concur with other posters, in that this idea has been floating around for several years. IMO, think most of the “resistance” is due to the workflow changes that will be required as a result of the new format. Anyway, will be fun to watch it unfold :)
Yeah, while there are times you end up wanting to crop out that way as it turns out later or maybe while shooting sports and you don’t have time to rotate, they seem to forget about all of the other times where you actually want something other than square and want it off-aspect in the direction shot! What about all of those more common situations? Then you are trading away light capture area and resolution.
Seems to me it would hurt more photos than help, on average.
good points both ;)
(btw why in the world do like maybe 3 out of eery 4 people at this point spell “ridiculous” “rediculous” ?!! Ten years ago it was maybe only 1 in 5 spelling it that way. My question is why? Who in the world pronounces it RED(?)-ick-u-louse? If people pronounced it that way, if the e key was near the i key, if a few people used it randomly (i.e. in a rush, not paying attention) I could understand, but I just don’t get this one, where does it come from that so many spell it this way again and again these days?)
What about “definately”?
That one drives me up the wall.
As does “lense”.
Exactly my thoughts – possibly no space for bigger mirror in the mirror box (its depth), bigger pentamirror, bigger shutter etc. I think it brings up many problems.
manufacturing material reduction? Sorry, cam body will need to be taller, a square mirror will be bigger and taller: taller = more body. Bigger and taller body = more metal = heavier.
Oh and no need for extra battery grip? CFOs will just kill the idea right there. Battery grip = $$$
No way in the world.
The only way this could occur is if Canon created a new medium format style camera.
If their are any sensor ratio changes to EOS camera or point and shoot cameras it will be to 16:9 sensors, not square sensors.
The idea that CFO’s could veto a design based on no ability to sell an auxiliary battery grip is entirely ridiculous. That would put the whole 1D series on the chopping block. I’m sure the CFO’s like the 1D just fine.
I firmly believe the square format sensor is an excellent idea. Design of this type of camera will obviously be a challenge. This thread shows that marketing it to non-professionals will be even more difficult.
I discussed this rumor with a guy I know who switched to Nikon D3 from Canon 1D a couple of years back. He said if Canon made this kind of camera, he might switch back.
(Unlike me, he has the kind of client list that can justify two system changes in 3 years. Meanwhile, I just replaced the shutter in my 5D Mark Nothing to keep it going for a couple more years. . .)
bollocks
Hasselblad (note corrected spelling) owners almost NEVER use the full 6×6 format. That’s not the what it’s for.
if you’re creative at all, you will find reasons to crop ANY format. Square just maximizes the options.
Locking into a rectangular format is an idea dictated by the era when photographic materials were sold almost exclusively in long narrow strips (“rolls”). In the era of memory cards and high-resolution sensors, this is an obsolete constraint on the craft.
This is a narrow claim. This guy makes the assumption that the goal is to make maximum use of the image circile from the lens, and makes over-expanded reasoning as to why this is important.
The goal is to make a camera with the standard aspect ratio. And continue to improve it.
A square sensor is a different type of camera, for a different crowd.
Square definitely maximizes options, but most Hasselblad 500 or 2000 series owners I know (including myself) love those cameras FOR the 6×6 format/ framing, and not with the intention to crop it later on.
If you’re truly creative at all, you will find reasons to properly use the specific camera’s format/ framing being used as it was designed. Cropping every image shot is for sloppy/ lazy people who choose not to utilize/ care to use the proper tool for the photo, plain and simple. If that means using a camera design from 60 years ago for some shots, so be it. Cropping to square in post is an insult to the true craftsman. And same goes for shooting 6X6 and cropping to 6X4.5. Just use a 645 back if you really want that kind of framing.
But I agree that the current state of all camera companies exclusively sticking to the rectangular format for all camera models is silly at best. If a camera company REALLY wants to be innovative beyond being caught up in silly pixel count race, they would create a camera that has multiple format options built into the body for a truly versatile tool.
16:9 ? That’s the most idiotic format ever.
how many of your screens are not 16:9?
I don’t buy this at all. Firstly, the area of the square is 8.33% bigger than the rectangular area. Secondly, there are a log of legacy problems with this: lens hoods that assume a rectangle, flash units, etc, etc.
If you’re telling me that canon is going to pull a “leica s2” move, i’d tell you you’re off your rocker. there’s no user base for that.
The same logic could be applied to TV screens. You are wasting all that screen getting that panorama at the expense of height.
Yeah, get used to it.
Just about every TV and computer monitor is now this format.
I want a round sensor.
Wow. At what point does one decide their experience allows them to replace reasoning with sheer ego?
I’m sure you’ve experienced plenty, but your logic is abysmal.
“Just use a…” Seriously? That easy, huh? Do we all have limitless resources to purchase multiple systems?
Assuming we do: Do we really want the burden of coping with multiple systems?
Assuming we do: Are we just going to always stay in our studio-shell were we have access to our myriad equipment, or do we take several systems everyone we go?
Assuming we do: Do we feel it’s okay to have the burden of switching between systems so as not to dirty ourselves with cropping the system in use, regardless of breaking flow, missing shots, and just the inconvenience itself?
I could go on… In only the most contrived scenarios are your words even coherent, and they even then remain much less than cogent.
“If you’re truly creative at all…” …you can visualize framing without even the camera. Sight, hands, Ansel’s cardboard with a cutout…To suggest it has to be just the right format camera or framing becomes compromised is… for sloppy/ lazy people.
Lastly (and I’m holding back plenty) “post…is an insult to the true craftsman”… ? I suppose film-era darkrooms are legit but the digital darkroom is somehow amateurish? Perhaps you yourself are amateurish at the helm of a digital work-flow, but that doesn’t discount the great work being done but a great many, or forgive your snobbish ignorance in not seeing it.
I’m embarrassed for you.
…by* a great many.
multi-dimensional triangle sensor > two dimension square sensor.
Think about it.
Did the Egyptians build a square pyramid? Could you even build a square pyramid?
Of course not! It’s logically impossible.
Of course Canon will implement this ancient and futuristic innovation. They could have three shutters getting taking shots of three different angles at once. The square sensor is dead and buried with Beta and walkmans.
And the fact that a 16:9 screen of the same diagonal length as a 4:3 is cheaper to produce has absolutely nothing to do with it …
Interesting responses, seems like a hot button issue to some.
If they made a square sensor, wouldn’t they have to renew some lenses. For example, look at the mount of a 24-105 you will see a rectangular shaped window, therefore the sensor would probably have to be smaller because of top and bottom obstruction. Also, if you think about it, all computer monitors have the 16:9 aspect ratio, no more square monitors. Even televisions are 16:9. So why would the electronic and computer industry change aspect ratio and camera industry go back to square one? I know and understand the advantages, but I don’t want to change my lenses and look at pictures on my monitor squared off.
frankly i think the level of nonesense is what triggers heated responses.
additionally, if you need a bigger mirror, you will need to increase the distance between the mount and the film plane, so none of the current lenses could possibly work.
this would not be a concern if the camera is a mirrorless (a-la 4:3) camera. that’s an interesting thought actually.
How about a circular sensor? 100% efficiency!
How about a circular sensor? 100% efficiency.
i want one shaped iike a shapely butt. that is proven to attract some attention to your pictures.
I strongly doubt they’ll ever go to a square sensor — without significantly reworking their lens lineup.
Ever look at the back of these lenses? They all have rectangular cutouts. Petal hoods? Designed for rectangular sensors/film. Most of the major lenses would have to be redone to even allow a square sensor without significant mechanical vignetting at the top and bottom.
I still can’t believe someone is lame enough to post under the name 5D Mark II TEAM. wow.
someone needs to read about aspect ratios before making stupid uneducated comments.