Never understood why some prefer a 4x3 sensor or a 3x2 sensor so passionately?

[BobShaw]

Thanks for the info! It seems that the newer Canons don't have this feature anymore, at least not the 5D/6D series which are more suitable for the architectural/interiors works that I do mostly.

The 5Ds does. You can assign it to the Mn button and change at will crop ratio and also aspect ratio 1:1, 4:3, 16:9 and of course 3:2. The limitation is that you can't use the viewfinder for 4:3 and 16:9. So Live view only. No idea why. You do get 7712x5792 or 44.7 MP though

[EinstStein]

Neither are good.
It has to be square.

[bpepz]

3x2 ratio is too wide. Unless you want to shoot vertically all the time, the 3x2 ratio is really unsuited to taking photos of people. It makes you have to step further back to fit someone in the frame. If it was 4x3, you could get a lot closer and achieve the composition your looking for, which leads to more background blur or a more 3d look.

I am actually really surprised someone has not made a 36x27mm sensor. You could essentially be able to use the same lenses and everything else, but you would be gaining more sensor real estate.

[Theodoros]

I am actually really surprised someone has not made a 36x27mm sensor. You could essentially be able to use the same lenses and everything else, but you would be gaining more sensor real estate.

A 36x27mm sensor would cause the mirror of DSLRs to be longer and thus the mirrorbox of completely different design... Flange distance would have to be increased and existing lens series (despite the capability of image circle size) wouldn't be usable.

Keeping the existing flange distance, mirrorbox designs, prism designs, focal plane shutters and lens series with digital sensors arrival, was the (only) logical thing for traditional SLR makers during the film days to do...

EDIT: Same thing of course as with traditional MF DSLR makers that all use a mirrorbox compatible with 56x42mm image areas...

[Theodoros]

Good point Theo.

But what if Sony made a 36 x 36 sensor and housed it in a mirrorless evf body? People could select in the menu their preferred format and all existing lenses would be compatible, apart from the need to redesign some petal lens hoods.

Or am I missing something?

OK, just realised a lot of lens would vignette..... back to the drawing board.

Paul

With mirrorless there is no limitation other than the diameter of the lens flange and the flange to sensor distance... Once the maker sets the mechanical construction standards, he can use whatever sensor ratio of sides that has the same diagonal as a different aspect ratio... For instance Sony, that currently uses 3:2 ratio 36x24mm sensor and a flange diameter that looks to be limited to this diagonal, they can make a 34x25.5mm sensor (or about that) of 4:3 ratio or a 29x29mm (about) sensor of 1:1 ratio that one would be able to use his existing line of lenses on.

EDIT: The Leica T mount is even more advanced mechanically... it is of 5mm larger diameter (that's a lot) from the Sony and its flange distance is of +1mm (19mm with respect to 18mm for the Sony)... It can therefore use even wider diameter sensors of larger image area than its current 36x24mm sensor as long as the lenses used have an image circle that is equal or larger than the mount's diameter.

[GrahamBy]

But what if Sony made a 36 x 36 sensor and housed it in a mirrorless evf body?

Why not just take a full frame DSLR and crop it to 24x24?

[Rob C]

Why not just take a full frame DSLR and crop it to 24x24?

But there'd be no point: you can do that already by cropping... the gain would be squaring up on the longer side. Composing to crop isn't as easy as it sounds; also, that extra bit you know you are going to lose annoys the hell out of one when on a tiny format - it's not like cropping 6x6... ;-)

We could go round and around all day.

Rob

[Telecaster]

I'll go round some more.    Make the sensor 36mm square, put it in an EVF-based body, then choose from a myriad of framing options including 36x24mm vertical (no more need to flip the camera 90° unless you want to) and ~30mm square. Some lenses won't accommodate all the options, others will. Have fun.

-Dave-

[Graham Welland]

Personally I prefer square, then 5:4, 4:3 and full panoramic 6:17 or 6:12 equivalents. 3:2, as mentioned by others seems fine for wider landscape images but doesn't resonate with me as it doesn't feel like a natural comfortable source ratio to me. For verticals 3:2 is just too narrow IMHO.

The crop afterwards argument does fly for me. Whenever I crop down a 3:2 image I just wish that I'd shot it on a squarer format in the first place.

[uaiomex]

Years asking for this.
Best

I'll go round some more.    Make the sensor 36mm square, put it in an EVF-based body, then choose from a myriad of framing options including 36x24mm vertical (no more need to flip the camera 90° unless you want to) and ~30mm square. Some lenses won't accommodate all the options, others will. Have fun.

-Dave-

[Rob C]

Years asking for this.
Best

Maybe Sony?

;-)

Rob

[uaiomex]

Yes Rob.
Who else? 

Maybe Sony?

;-)

Rob

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'll go round some more.    Make the sensor 36mm square, put it in an EVF-based body, then choose from a myriad of framing options including 36x24mm vertical (no more need to flip the camera 90° unless you want to) and ~30mm square. Some lenses won't accommodate all the options, others will. Have fun.

Hi Dave,

Easier said than done. Not only does the price of such a sensor go up a lot (it might need 4 stitched patterns to fill, and it will have lower yield). Also, it requires new series of lenses with a significantly larger (e.g. 51 mm instead of 44 mm) image circle, giving bulkier/heavier lenses, especially for those with wider apertures.

Cheers,
Bart

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Bart,

I agree on the issue with costs, but I don't thing the image circle is that crucial, many lenses cover quite a bit more than 43 mm and there are many options to fit framing within a 43 mm image circle.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Dave,

Easier said than done. Not only does the price of such a sensor go up a lot (it might need 4 stitched patterns to fill, and it will have lower yield). Also, it requires new series of lenses with a significantly larger (e.g. 51 mm instead of 44 mm) image circle, giving bulkier/heavier lenses, especially if those with wider apertures.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

I shoot with in camera composition in mind although I will crop if required.  I guess that comes from decades of shooting 35mm film.  Now, when I shoot MF 6x7 film, I have no choice of format unless I crop afterwards.

The interesting thing is when I go traveling on vacation with a digital camera and shoot both 16:9 video clips and 4:3 stills and then put them all on a video BluRay DVD to show on my HDTV.  Jumping from 4:3 stills with some 16:9 movie clips mixed in bothered me so I cropped my 4:3 stills to 16:9 so the show is all 16:9.  That doesn't work very good because often the composition cropping fails due to the change in format.  So on the the last trip I shot stills in 16:9 to match the movies.  But I miss the 4:3 format because you lose the height and 16:9 often is just too wide for most things. 

Maybe I'll try 3:2 stills.  It might not be so glaring to the 16:9 videos.

[hasselbladfan]

Thanks, guys. Good discussion. Good insights.

[Telecaster]

Easier said than done.

Yup. But: what Erik said! Anyway, this is (for me) more about blue-sky wishes than real-world expectations.

-Dave-

[GrahamBy]

this is (for me) more about blue-sky wishes than real-world expectations.

Yep. Can't imagine any of this ever happening.

[bpepz]

A 36x27mm sensor would cause the mirror of DSLRs to be longer and thus the mirrorbox of completely different design... Flange distance would have to be increased and existing lens series (despite the capability of image circle size) wouldn't be usable.

Keeping the existing flange distance, mirrorbox designs, prism designs, focal plane shutters and lens series with digital sensors arrival, was the (only) logical thing for traditional SLR makers during the film days to do...

EDIT: Same thing of course as with traditional MF DSLR makers that all use a mirrorbox compatible with 56x42mm image areas...

Hmm, I kind of disagree with most of that except for the mirror design. Most serious cameras going forward for 35mm are going to be mirrorless, so its really not an issue.

I don't see why flange distance would change at all. the 36x24mm sensor is literally cutting off the image coming from the lens. If more sensor was there, there is no reason why it would not capture it.

[Theodoros]

Hmm, I kind of disagree with most of that except for the mirror design. Most serious cameras going forward for 35mm are going to be mirrorless, so its really not an issue.

It would really be helpful, before you disagree by... agree (!!!) to read what the conversation at the time was about... If you look back then, It was on the proposal to have 27X36mm sensors on (mirrorbox) DSLRs (which will be with us for as long as photography exists... Mirrorless (or their market penetration) have nothing to do with the subject I was replying on... In fact I state that mirrorless can have whatever image ratio as long as the sensor diagonal is kept constant, some few comments later...

I don't see why flange distance would change at all. the 36x24mm sensor is literally cutting off the image coming from the lens. If more sensor was there, there is no reason why it would not capture it.

Not the case at all... Mirrors in mirrorbox DSLRs are designed so that they can project the 24mm height to the viewfinder... If the sensor was of 27mm of height, the image projected in the (optical) VF would still be a cropped one of 24mm height... This means that a longer mirror (expanded towards the flange) would be required as to add the 3mm missing and then the flange distance should be increased as to allow for a longer mirror...

More than that, other than the longer mirror, the mirrorbox design geometry should be altered altogether... This is due to the center of the image area need to be retained in line with the lens axis, which would then require the mirror center for 27mm image area to be aligned on the very same axis (in other words the center of the mirror distance to the VF's screen should be increased so that focus ability would be retained...). Other than that, the VF's pentaprism  would require to be (completely) redesigned...