The almost full frame Pentax?

denisv · 01-11-2009, 02:07 AM

Instead of totally reengineering their cameras and lenses to use the 36x24mm format instead of the APS-C 23.6x15.7mm, couldn't Pentax simply use a 24x24mm sensor?

24x24mm is 1.6 times bigger than the APS-C and 1.5 times smaller than the FF.

Since lenses project a square, we could still use crop lenses on a substantially bigger sensor.

Mike Cash · 01-11-2009, 02:26 AM

But wouldn't that hurt their battery grip sales? After all, nobody would have to turn the camera for portrait orientation anymore.

NicholasN · 01-11-2009, 02:28 AM

I am sure they'd be more worried about camera body and lens sales than battery grip sales.

My only question is, if you have a 24 x 24 sensor don't you lose the 6:4 image ratio??

*geauxpez* · 01-11-2009, 05:53 AM

Think of all those orphaned tulip hoods. What a shame. (c:

Vylen · 01-11-2009, 06:03 AM

what? why.... this is the most... ugh....

*facepalm*

whatever7 · 01-11-2009, 07:41 AM

A 1.3X sensor would be cool.

jsherman999 · 01-11-2009, 07:49 AM

How about a 10x64 sensor, so we wouldn't have to do pano stitching anymore?

*séamuis* · 01-11-2009, 08:10 AM

damn all these different sensors. seriously just give me a digital SLR with interchangeable finders...

*Ratmagiclady* · 01-11-2009, 09:01 AM

I don't know if it'd really fly in the marketplace, but that's a great idea, for some things, square format: you could put an angled finder on a square/switchable rectangular format camera, and basically design the whole thing for ultimate steadiness.

As side benefits you get smpler flash bracketry and tripod mounting, ...Also you could set it up to always capture the square in RAW to make editors happy.

Not a bad idea, really. They should probably at least do this on any medium format digital they come up with.

IsaacEastgate · 01-11-2009, 10:16 AM

I think this is a brilliant idea. Starter photographers often find that the 3:2 format is the most effective because it makes their photos look cinematic, which is frankly amature. For most situations a square format sensor would be best, and you're right it would take more advantage of the lenses we already have.
This is some good thinking and anyone who doesnt agree probably doesn't have much experience in photography.

*CalendarGuy* · 01-11-2009, 12:38 PM

And historically the square format works well...

-Not a Pentax, but taken with one.

ftpaddict · 01-11-2009, 12:48 PM

I thought I'd dislike the square format, but having played with a Pentacon Six for a while, I started to feel the love.

stewart_photo · 01-12-2009, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by denisv

Instead of totally reengineering their cameras and lenses to use the 36x24mm format instead of the APS-C 23.6x15.7mm, couldn't Pentax simply use a 24x24mm sensor?

24x24mm is 1.6 times bigger than the APS-C and 1.5 times smaller than the FF.

Since lenses project a square, we could still use crop lenses on a substantially bigger sensor.

There wouldn't be any great advantage beyond not having to orient the camera for horizontal or vertical shots, but the disadvantages would include increased camera size to accommodate the taller image sensor and a significantly lower pixel count (image resolution).

The latter (pixel count) is explained by how the rectangular format uses the image circle thrown by the lens versus how a square format would use that same circle. To help visualize this (Geometry Workshop 101), place a rectangle into a circle until the four corners of the rectangle touch the boundary of that circle and then note the width of the rectangle. In camera equivalent terms, this would be the width of the effective image sensor and the pixel count in that equals the resolution of the final image at it's widest point. Now place a square into that same circle and you'll discover that the width of the square has to decrease sharply for the overall square to fit into that circle. That decrease is a loss in pixel count, and a loss of image resolution of the final image at it's widest point.

If you want to visualize it another way, go back to that rectangle with the four corners touching the boundary of that circle. Remember, the width of this is the width of the effective image sensor and the pixels in that equal the resolution of the final image at it's widest point. Now draw lines to extend the top and bottom of the rectangle out until it forms a square and then note how far the corners of that square now extend outside the circle. For the square to fit into the circle, either the size of the circle (the image circle thrown by the lens) has to increase dramatically or the size of the square has to decrease dramatically. Since you want to use the same lenses (same image circle thrown by the lens), that means the size of the square has to decrease - hence lower pixel count in the resulting image at it's widest point.

stewart

-

*séamuis* · 01-12-2009, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by stewart_photo

There wouldn't be any great advantage beyond not having to orient the camera for horizontal or vertical shots, but the disadvantages would include increased camera size to accommodate the taller image sensor and a significantly lower pixel count (image resolution).

The latter (pixel count) is explained by how the rectangular format uses the image circle thrown by the lens versus how a square format would use that same circle. To help visualize this (Geometry Workshop 101), place a rectangle into a circle until the four corners of the rectangle touch the boundary of that circle and then note the width of the rectangle. In camera equivalent terms, this would be the width of the effective image sensor and the pixel count in that equals the resolution of the final image at it's widest point. Now place a square into that same circle and you'll discover that the width of the square has to decrease sharply for the overall square to fit into that circle. That decrease is a loss in pixel count, and a loss of image resolution of the final image at it's widest point.

If you want to visualize it another way, go back to that rectangle with the four corners touching the boundary of that circle. Remember, the width of this is the width of the effective image sensor and the pixels in that equal the resolution of the final image at it's widest point. Now draw lines to extend the top and bottom of the rectangle out until it forms a square and then note how far the corners of that square now extend outside the circle. For the square to fit into the circle, either the size of the circle (the image circle thrown by the lens) has to increase dramatically or the size of the square has to decrease dramatically. Since you want to use the same lenses (same image circle thrown by the lens), that means the size of the square has to decrease - hence lower pixel count.

stewart

bare with me here because most of this is a bit above me but pixel count isn't the only factor of resolution is it?

Vylen · 01-12-2009, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by séamuis

bare with me here because most of this is a bit above me but pixel count isn't the only factor of resolution is it?

yes and no. Thats because "resolution" is a means to describe how much detail an image holds.... pixel count is one way to describe it.. its independent of the other ways to describe resolution...