Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: MarkBarbieri on February 08, 2010, 09:06:31 pm
-
I'd really like a camera with a square sensor. Ideally, it would have three shooting modes - square, portrait, or landscape. The mirror would be etched with guides. This would save me the trouble of using an L bracket to switch modes.
-
That is a big mirror to flip out of the way.
-
It's been done before by 4 different MF manufacturers. The interesting thing now is it can be done with no mirror using an EVF. I know, they are not to the ask now, but they will sooner or later. I can't hardly wait.
Eduardo
That is a big mirror to flip out of the way.
-
I'd like a MF square sensor FF EVF :-)
-
Hi,
In my view wasting a lot of pixels for little convenience...
Best regards
Erik
I'd really like a camera with a square sensor. Ideally, it would have three shooting modes - square, portrait, or landscape. The mirror would be etched with guides. This would save me the trouble of using an L bracket to switch modes.
-
In my view wasting a lot of pixels for little convenience...
I agree with Erik,
Unless one predominantly shoots square compositions, it's going to waste the surface that could be used to acommodate more sensels (=resolution) for a rectangular sensor array. A rotating sensor/back is a much better solution. The debate could be about the aspect ratio of the rectangle to fit within the image circle.
Etching on the mirror is not very effective, it has to be done on the groundglass to be in focus (or on the back's LCD and/or with crop lines on the tethered monitor).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Etching on the mirror is not very effective, it has to be done on the groundglass to be in focus (or on the back's LCD and/or with crop lines on the tethered monitor).
*******
IIRC, that is the approach used with the Hasselblad CFV39; square and rectangular outline on the view screen and cropping mask with Phocus software.
Steve
-
Why should this be a waste? Square is a beautiful and challenging format. Besides square, this sensor could be used for a 4:5, 3:4 and 2:3 picture ratios in either vertical or format. You would capture on the whole square and later crop during editing for maximum efficiency. Imagine a second chance to best compose your catch on a big monitor!
Eduardo
Hi,
In my view wasting a lot of pixels for little convenience...
Best regards
Erik
-
And I'd like a camera with a round sensor to take full advantage of the lens's circle of illumination. But it ain't gonna happen. Leica is taking a huge risk with the new format of the S2. Otherwise, no reason we can't live with FF35 or 645.
-
Why should this be a waste? Square is a beautiful and challenging format. Besides square, this sensor could be used for a 4:5, 3:4 and 2:3 picture ratios in either vertical or format. You would capture on the whole square and later crop during editing for maximum efficiency. Imagine a second chance to best compose your catch on a big monitor!
Eduardo
The vast majority of images are not square: the dominant shape range is from 5:4 to 3:2 or maybe a bit beyond beyond.
So for most photography, a square sensor would be wasteful in sensor area (still rather expensive at MF sizes). In SLR's the deeper mirror has all kinds of disadvantages, not just size, weight and noise but also requiring the lens mount to be further from the focal plane, making wide-angle lens designs harder (remember Hy6 and its hampered wide angle options?)
The small corp of square image enthusiasts is clearly not enough to sustain square format digital, and in fact was doing a miserable job of supporting square format MF film, with a strong trend to 645 and 6x7 systems and away from the traditional square systems. The 6x6 greats Rollei and Hasselblad were losing market share and facing repeated financial crises for a decade or more before digital, and the only one that has survived in MF is Hassleblad, by going to 645.
-
And I'd like a camera with a round sensor to take full advantage of the lens's circle of illumination.
Panasonic comes close with the wider "oversized" 4/3 sensor in the GH1, which allows cropping to most popular shapes (from 4:3 to 16:9) using the full image circle diameter for which the lens system is designed. But that sensor is small enough that the extra size does not add greatly to the cost: it is less than 2mm wider than other 4/3 sensors. And it goes the other way from square: wider than 4:3 shape.
-
Why should this be a waste? Square is a beautiful and challenging format. Besides square, this sensor could be used for a 4:5, 3:4 and 2:3 picture ratios in either vertical or format. You would capture on the whole square and later crop during editing for maximum efficiency. Imagine a second chance to best compose your catch on a big monitor!
Eduardo
Well, you can certainly shoot square with any format. True shooting square cost some resolution, but shooting 3:2 or 4:3 with a square sensor costs even more. Since the majority of images are not square, and the majority of shooters do not shoot square very often, it makes more sense to provide a sensor the majority use, and let those that shoot square do the cropping.
I've had square format camera (original Kodak 16mp DCS back), and while a few of my images utilized the entire sensor, the majority only utilized 11 to 12 mp or less. Granted looking through a square viewfinder gives you a different perspective, but you can certainly mask your standard viewfinder with a square if you want to do that.
Add to this the issues mentioned .. larger mirror, more challenging optics ... while it sounds intriguing it just doesn't make any sense.
-
Wayne, you are explaining this very well.
Another way to see it is that the wast majority of pictures are taken in some rectangular format. So, with a rectangular format most pictures would be cropped. This essentially means that we would have a crop factor, so wide angles would be not so wide.
For those who mostly take square pictures a square format would be optimal, but for all others it just means that a lot of assets are spent on something that will be cropped away.
Best regards
Erik
Well, you can certainly shoot square with any format. True shooting square cost some resolution, but shooting 3:2 or 4:3 with a square sensor costs even more. Since the majority of images are not square, and the majority of shooters do not shoot square very often, it makes more sense to provide a sensor the majority use, and let those that shoot square do the cropping.
I've had square format camera (original Kodak 16mp DCS back), and while a few of my images utilized the entire sensor, the majority only utilized 11 to 12 mp or less. Granted looking through a square viewfinder gives you a different perspective, but you can certainly mask your standard viewfinder with a square if you want to do that.
Add to this the issues mentioned .. larger mirror, more challenging optics ... while it sounds intriguing it just doesn't make any sense.
-
besides,
didn't most people who shot hasselblads(square ones) with film end up cropping anyhow?
Grandpa Ansel used Hasselblads a great deal in his later years, but he didn't print square that I can remember, or see in any of his photographs.
he cropped it down to 6x4.5 most of the time.
-Dan
-
Back in the day I used Hasselblads and thoroughly enjoyed working with a square format. But someone did mention something which hit a cord. They said it would be a larger mirror to get out of the way. When are the manufacturere going to stop giving still photographers features we have absolutely no need for (movie modes and pixel wars) and concentrate on meaningful developments, like say for instance greater tonal range or even MIRRORLESS cameras??? It can and should be done...
-
Another problem with the square sensor idea is that most lenses don't actually deliver a circular image to the sensor that "large" square can be "cut out of". Lenses are designed with physical rectangular light blockers in the optical path so as to greatly reduce non image forming stray light reaching the sensor. So a whole new series of lenses would need to be factored into the equation.
-
I have become quite a big fan of square pictures recently. But then I also love panoramic pictures. Having used two MFT cameras for a while now (G1 and GF1) and seen how useful the EVF is, it would be quite possible to make a similar camera with a square sensor. Assuming the number of pixels gets up to a reasonable number/cost ratio, why not? It would save having the inconvenience of rotating the camera 90 (where is the degree symbol on the keyboard?), and a simple switch could select whichever aspect ratio you would like from square to panoramic or vertical. I know you can crop afterwards, and I usually do, but still find it much easier to compose at the time of shooting if possible.
My old Mamiya RB67 had a square mirror and rotating back and really had quite a mirror slap. But EVF is the way forward in my opinion, much as I love shooting through an optical viewfinder.
As far as I am aware the square format only came about originally because of the twin-lens reflex cameras, where of course it is not possible to rotate the camera. Likewise, it is not possible to rotate a medium format SLR with a waist level finder unless one fits an accessory prism. Well it is possible, but when I tried it only led to madness! I am sure the square format was just a practical solution and not chosen for any aesthetic reason. Nonetheless, with the newer technology I can see square having some advantages. Not so sure about a circular sensor though!
-
The argument that square format is a waste is just a rubbish. Is the 612 or 617 format a waste?
For those who prefer the square format or 617, any other format is a waste, same rubbish argument.
Someone argued that Ansel Adam used HB square format, and yet none of his print is square. Good observation, but what does it prove?
There are a lot of professional photographers shoot and print square format.
However, as long as the small formaters (35mm or sub-35mm format) are the main driving force, I can understand that 2x3 or 3x4 formats to be the easiest/only sell for quite a while.
Even the key Med formaters (Mamya + Fuji) are only good at 6x4.5, I can't see how they can be interested in square format, even the 49x49 cropped format.
I shoot 35mm full frame DSLR, but 24x24 ends up to be the majority. To me 36mmx24mm is a real waste, but so be it.
Maybe, some sub-35mm formaters may find 24mmx24mm to be a sweet spot between the full frame and 1.5x cropping.
Or, it maybe between the 1.5x cropping and 4/3rd: 16mmx16mm.
-
Whilst I agree that square formats make for pretty distinctive images, are very useful if you want to have crop options later, experience often dictates otherwise, with framing/design being made to suit the format of the viewfinder.
The cropping of square originals does waste a lot of 'real estate' that would be beter used for the image, but what's to be done? The main practical problem I find with the concept of square isn't really a camera problem but a paper one: unless you are in a situation where you can use large rolls of paper, then the available cut sheets (and reasonably priced printers, say up to A3+) will only permit a relatively small square image within them, putting the square shooter at a disadvantage to his rectangular competitor who can have a more impressive amount of ink on display.
Rob C
-
The argument that square format is a waste is just a rubbish. Is the 612 or 617 format a waste?
Film has one huge advantage over electronic sensors: the same rolls of film can be used in cameras of a great variety of format shapes, from square to extreme panoramics like 6x17, which helps to make special-purpose cameras in less common formats economically viable. Sensors instead come in a fixed format, and a 6x6 or 6x17 sensor would have a far smaller market than ones in the dominant shape range, about from 5:4 to 3:2, and that would greatly increasing the costs of any such special purpose camera. Fabrication economies of sale probably dictate that sensors stay close to the predominant print shapes, with other shapes achieve by cropping and/or stitching.
-
It's a good observation that the digital sensor based camera is far less flexible than the film based camera when coming to the frame format.
On the paper size dictating, I think it's less a concern. Paper size is less dictating in the digital era. If you ignore the labor cost, the percentage of the cost per print is actually decreasing.
Besides, more often than before, there is no print at all but only the electronic display. So cropping the paper is not that much of a pain.
Oh yes, I forgot the format of the electronic frame. That needs to be square. ... , Well, what can I say, believe me, that's not on Canon, Nikon, Mamiya, or Fuji's concern list.
-
As of today, the sensor cost is still dominating the digital camera's cost. But I just attend the ISSCC/2010 at San Francisco, Sony gave one of the key note speech on the digital sensor.
Sony pointed out that the sensor's cost is decreasing that soon it will make sense to put a pair of sensors for 3D imaging, along with the global shuttering etc.
Guess what would be the frame format for 3D? Want to bet it'd be square?
Well it's good to dream for that, but I want it now.
-
As of today, the sensor cost is still dominating the digital camera's cost. But I just attend the ISSCC/2010 at San Francisco, Sony gave one of the key note speech on the digital sensor.
Sony pointed out that the sensor's cost is decreasing that soon it will make sense to put a pair of sensors for 3D imaging, along with the global shuttering etc.
What sensor size was the Sony rep. talking about? Almost certainly not the 56x56mm of square MF! Probably instead consumer digicams with 1/2.3" or smaller sensors (as in over 90% of digital cameras), which I can believe are quite cheap now, being only about one ninth the area of the smallest DSLR sensors (4/3") and so probably under one tenth the cost, helped by greater economies of scale.
Guess what would be the frame format for 3D? Want to bet it'd be square?
I'd bet it would be the same shape as the photographic industry has almost universally adopted so far, since 3D should not change shape desires much. So from 4:3 to 3:2 if primarily for stills, about 16:9 to 2:1 if primarily for motion, and maybe a middle ground of about 3:2 if for a balance of still and motion imaging.
-
'Scuse me for the strong reply - but much of this thread is off topic. A guy asks for a square format, and he's told he's off base. Naturally, he's asking to go upstream. I think he knows that.
Yes, of course, the market has drifted (run at full sprint?) to the rectangular format - somewhere between 4:5, 3:4, 2:3 (notice the obvious lack of consensus?). And like the original poster, I like a square sensor. Leaving cropping aside, for me the discipline of shooting square is a cry to compose the photos with a different set of compositional rules than rectangular. Just to stir up the pot, I'd offer that 4:5 has similar compositional emphasis (still well proportioned).
For some of us, an obvious minority, we would welcome the square sensor. Cropping a rectangular doesn't make a good bit of sense. Gee, wouldn't it be good to have a Phase 40+ back, square sensor, order the mounting you want.....
Geoff
-
IMHO Once you get used to shooting square, you really can't go back to 3::2
3::4 is a nice compromise though. I also like the 6::7 and 4::5 medium formats.
-
I happen to feel the same. If ever shows up any square format digital camera, it should have a big warning:
"Warning, may cause addiction ..."
The 6x7 format once was called "the ideal format". I now kind of agree -- it's the best compromise between square and 3x2.
3X2 is awful, 4x3 slightly better, 5x4 more better, 6x7 ideally compromised, but square is perfect.
IMHO Once you get used to shooting square, you really can't go back to 3::2
-
The 6x7 format once was called "the ideal format". I now kind of agree -- it's the best compromise between square and 3x2.
3X2 is awful, 4x3 slightly better, 5x4 more better, 6x7 ideally compromised, but square is perfect.
Except that the so-called 6x7 format is actually 56x70mm, the same 5:4 shape as 5x4 and 10x8, not a true 7:6.
And except the fact that the overwhelming majority of photographers show different preferences than you, and choose shapes between 5:4 and 3:2 for most prints, even photographers who do their own cropping and printing and so have control over prints shapes. For example, even when Ansel Adams printed from negatives with 5:4 shape, his cropping went in the wider direction (towards 4:3 etc.) more often that in the squarer direction.
My counting of shapes for published photographic prints and also paintings and drawings over many centuries shows a clear consistent domination by shapes from 5:4 to 3:2, with the mode somewhere between those extremes, around 4:3 to 7:5. The same pattern is seen by the dominant shapes offered for sensors, sheet film, photographic printing paper, drawing paper, and canvases in art supply stores.
So enjoy your personal enthusiasm for square images (there are some great ones, and I have one on my wall that I paid quite a lot for) but please acknowledge the reality that this is far from the most common preference, even amongst serious photographers and other visual artists.
-
Some people have said here already but the m4/3 systems (Olympus at the very least) can change the format they record in. You can change from 4x3, 16x9, 6x6 and a few others I can't remember off the top of my head. And since it's all done through the EVF or rear LCD you get the benefit of seeing what your going to take without the use of guides. When you switch to 6x6 you do loose some DPI as the camera just discards those pixels in favor of your format.
Adam
-
Some people have said here already but the m4/3 systems (Olympus at the very least) can change the format they record in. You can change from 4x3, 16x9, 6x6 and a few others I can't remember off the top of my head. And since it's all done through the EVF or rear LCD you get the benefit of seeing what your going to take without the use of guides. When you switch to 6x6 you do loose some DPI as the camera just discards those pixels in favor of your format.
Adam
Yeah, some of these m4/3 models that allow multi-format shooting, uses an over-sized sensor and then crop within it, to get the format they want (and maintain the crop factor of 2x). Unfortunately, they are wasting sensor pixels (of the oversized sensor) regardless of the format used for shooting, since the output are just crops within the same over-sized sensor.
-
If the mirror could be removed without any serious disadvantages to creative ease, I'd be in favour of a square format. One would have to rely upon an electronic viewfinder in place of the optical, but these have improved considerably over the years.
One of the main attractions of the Canon 50D was its 920,000 pixel LCD LiveView screen. If I could press my eye to an optical viewfider which produced a 1mp image, I think that might be sufficient (but I'm not sure, of course).
The idea behind the square sensor is simply a more efficient utilisation of the physical camera shape and size. Having dispensed with the mirror, a 5D2 instead of being a 21mp camera with a 3:2 aspect ratio, becomes a 32.5mp camera with a square aspect ratio, but retains the option of the 21mp 3:2 aspect ratio whenever that's considered appropriate.
In fact, one could take this a step further and have a dedicated button on the camera (like Michael's MLU button ), but this button, with each press, would change aspect ratio from 16:9 to 3:2 to 4:3 to 5:4 to 1:1 etc.
With such a camera, even the very common 4:3 aspect ratio image would have a greater pixel count than 21mp.
Apart from the disavantages of not having a true optical viewfinder, the only other concerns I can think of are the increased vignetting in the extreme corners of a square format using current Canon lenses, since such corners would intrude to a greater extent into the lens image circle, and the increased demands on battery life.
-
Any Phase One back (all but one are 4:3 rectangles) can be had a great price now and mounted vertically or horizontally on either a Mamiya RZ or a Hassy 500 series body. The mask for the ground glass includes both the vertical and horizontal crops. Depending on how often you switch between horizontal and vertical this may be just as good as a square sensor you intend to crop to 4:3 in one or the other direction.
-
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/the-cmo...or-squared-cr2/ (http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/the-cmos-sensor-squared-cr2/)