proposed new sensor sizes

[CharlesRamsey]

If you shoot an 8 by 10 portrait with a four thirds camera you are using only 60 percent of your sensor. You could make a speciality camera for portraits a reasonable way to do this is to make a sensor with the same distance from the center to the corner as the one you are replacing in other words one that has a crop factor of 1. For a camera that takes four thirds lenses this works out to 16.9 mm by 13.5 mm. Why not combine this with the 13.5 mm by 18 mm sensor into one that is 16.9 mm by 18 mm. It turns out a sensor this size would also allow you to shoot square format using a 15.3 mm by 15.3 portion of the sensor with  a crop factor of 1. If you want to shoot sixteen by nine format extend the sensor to 16.9 mm by 18.9 mm still with a crop factor of 1. This is not an unreasonable size sensor since you are using your lens more efficiently you may want to increase the pixel size to offset the cost of the larger sensor. Camera makers used undersized sensors not so much for the cost of the sensor but for the cost of the processor and the storage and the power needed to run them. This has changed processors and storage prices will continue to drop as well as power consumption. It may be possible to shoot at a crop factor of .85 with the do it all sensor there will be times when it is important to get the shot and not worry about wether it is pretty. If I could design my own camera it would have a panic button where you grab the camera squeeze and it starts shooting in the format that allows the quickest startup. Since normally the corners are not used it may be possible to use sensors with corner defects. AMD does this, a triple core processer is a quadruple core processor with a defective core this of course brings down prices. For cameras with 35 mm lenses the sensor size works out to 33.8 mm by 37.7 mm. You may be saying why not use the 36 mm by 36 mm sensor made by kodak? These big sensors are expensive and slow to process it makes sense at this level to worry about every millimeter.

[ckimmerle]

Are you asserting that a sensor that is in a 1x1.25 format would be more useful than one that is 2x3? If so, how do you justify that position?

Also, I don't understand how your "solution" is any different than the "problem". You say you dislike using only a portion of the sensor when printing 8x10, yet suggest camera manufactures adopt a 1x1.25 sensor format (so you can print full frame 8x10) and those wanting a wider format can simply use only a portion of the sensor. It's the same exact "problem", only it's tailored specifically to please you. Not sure I see that as entirely fair.

And FWIW, sensors are made small to keep camera/lens combinations small, not as a conspiracy to cheat the consumer. Otherwise,  there would be no 10 or 12 megapixel small sensors on the market.

[marcmccalmont]

As I see it the camera is system limited by the image circle of the lens. In the past I proposed a circular sensor and circular RAW file to be cropped into any aspect ratio during RAW conversion.
Marc

[Jonathan Wienke]

Wow. Somebody needs a new tinfoil hat. And a clue that not everyone shoots 4:5 aspect ratio images all the time. Some people shoot panoramas, where a 3:2 ratio isn't wide enough and stitching or cropping is needed. Selection of camera aspect ratio has always been a compromise; no single option is ideal or appropriate for all images or styles of shooting.

I would like to see a square-format camera, but it will probably never show up in a SLR format because of increased mirror size (which makes it harder to fit the mirror between the lens and the sensor with sufficient clearance for the mirror to flip out of the way during exposure) and associated vibrations.

[Tom Montgomery]

As I see it the camera is system limited by the image circle of the lens. In the past I proposed a circular sensor and circular RAW file to be cropped into any aspect ratio during RAW conversion.
Marc

With the pixel elements arranged in a spiral!  
Cool.
*starts writing bi-cylindrical interpolation algorithm*
 

T.

[RSL]

Charles, That's what mat cutters are for. You cut the mat to fit the aspect ratio of the final print.

[Misirlou]

I agree with Jonathan. I end up cropping my final shots to squares most of the time anyway. I suppose what I need most is a CFV back for my old Hasselblads, but then I would lose all that great EXIF exposure data.

Maybe someone could develop a TLR front end for the sensors they use in the CFV backs. Or maybe something like a Mamiya C330 with several interchangeable lens units.

Of course, then I'd have the ideal tool for taking shots of flying pigs...

[CharlesRamsey]

OK it seems I was misunderstood I take full responsibility. It seems panasonic had the same idea except for the addition of the 5/4 sensor here it is with a nice diagram. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1/

[Robert Roaldi]

Jibes aside (the tin foil hat suggestion made me laugh), I can see some utility to selecting a specific crop in camera, something which can be made easy for users using EVFs. There may be other uses but time lapse comes to mind. If you have to match the framing for HD or SD, say, either because of preference or to match older footage, it would be convenient to frame the shots before taking them rather than cropping thousands of frames after the fact. I don't know much about  high-end camcorders, maybe they do this already to facilitate time lapse.

There may be other reasons for forcing a specific aspect ratio, to fit an exhibit's format or other esthetic reason, in which case it wold make the job easier to select that crop in camera before shooting. This is probably not a widespread need, but given that it can probably be (relatively easily) done in firmware, you'd think someone would offer it as a feature or an option in a model or two. I think the Panasonic LX3 made do this, but I may have the model number wrong. I am surprised it hasn't caught on more.