[biz-engineer]

This may be sounding like a weird question, because there are lot of camera models and lenses to chose from full frame cameras (324x36 , 3:2 ratio). So many brands, so many lenses, all doing about the same thing, plus or minus little features. If I strip down small differences, the little customization between camera models (small add-on features such as like pixel shift, astro-tracing, focus bracketing, eye AF, OVF or EVF), between camera brands, what's left: what's left is digital color full frame 24x36 , 3:2 ratio. If I remove the outer shell, under the hood of the majority of camera is a 24x36 3:2 color sensor. Wasn't Henry Ford who said "You have all the choice of colors of cars , as long as it's black".

I'm asking myself:

- Can I have a monochromatic sensor? Answer: mostly not , or at a price that's out of what I'm willing to pay (e.g Leica).
- Can I have a camera with a 5:4 color sensor? Answer: No I can't. Can I have it monochrome? Even less.
- Can I have a camera with a 1:1 sensor camera? Answer: No I can't.
- Can I have a camera with 4:3 sensor? Yes, but it's micro 4/3 (small) or medium format (expensive).
- Can I have a camera with 4:3 sensor , monochromatic? No.

At that point, you could say: "please stop bothering us , buy a full frame camera like everyone else, and shut up"

Why Canon , Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic, Pentax, all want to eat in the same plate, when no one is even looking at the other plates nearby with zero competitors?

Why don't we have two brands offering full frame, two other brands offering 4:3 and two other brand offering 1:1 cameras ? + offering both color and b&w models for each format?

Is it so difficult to design and cut a sensor other than 3:2 ? Don't know how to make it 5:4 ? Too difficult?

Is it so difficult to make a camera without CFA? Humm I doubt.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 02-01-2021 at 04:44 AM.

[Wasp]

My Samsung NX1 has 16:9 mode that crops away the top and bottom parts of the screen. You actually see 16:9 in the viewfinder. I think some Fujifilm models have a 1:1 mode.

[dbs]

If a consortium bought every camera manufacturer then yes ..... otherwise status quo

[biz-engineer]

My Samsung NX1 has 16:9 mode that crops away the top and bottom parts of the screen. You actually see 16:9 in the viewfinder. I think some Fujifilm models have a 1:1 mode.

Of course, you can crop digital to any aspect ratio as long as you remove image area. You can also add a red filter digitally (remove green and blue channels before desaturation), and have plenty of noise, not going to happen with a sensor without CFA.

[house]

Our economy drives everything to the same point. There is very little variety across the board. Products, movies, buildings even how sports are played. All basically the same.

The number of manufacturers decline rapidly. You may have several "fronts" but mostly on the same product. Even things like car colours show less and less variety.

Its an over optimisation due to ownership and control of capital.

[biz-engineer]

For cameras, I'm asking myself: are 4 camera makers better off competing for the same slice of the same pie, or pay the extra cost of offering a product that no other company offers?

[ffking]

It is interesting in terms of the old MF film days - you could by MF cameras that shot 6x6, 6x4.5, 6x7. 6x19 - maybe more? - but they all used the same film. Possibly you have to ask the sensor makers rather that the camera makers, but the problem might be that a non-standard sensor would be too expensive for the limited uptake of a single camera that used it (and, of course, if it proved popular and everyone took it up,then e'd be back where we are with everyone doing the same thing...)

[Henrico]

All nowadays formats fit in the projected image circle so a piece if the scene is lost anyway. How nice would it be to use a 43 x 43 mm sensor that covers the whole FF image circle and you could choose the crop dimensions yourself? A 1:1 picture then is a 40 x 40 mm crop or so.

Such a camera extracts the whole scenery your FF lenses can project. Value for money...

[othar]

For cameras, I'm asking myself: are 4 camera makers better off competing for the same slice of the same pie, or pay the extra cost of offering a product that no other company offers?

A new aspect ratio of a sensor won't get more people interested in photography, so you basically fight for attention from the same number of people and every short term gain by offering something new will be eaten away by the necessary investment to create a new camera and lens lineup.
If it is successful the other manufacturers will produce their own offers shortly after and if not you wasted a lot of money on an experiment

[othar]

All nowadays formats fit in the projected image circle so a piece if the scene is lost anyway. How nice would it be to use a 43 x 43 mm sensor that covers the whole FF image circle and you could choose the crop dimensions yourself? A 1:1 picture then is a 40 x 40 mm crop or so.

Such a camera extracts the whole scenery your FF lenses can project. Value for money...

Or you could use APS-C lenses on FF instead

[Kevin B123]

A square format of 43x43 would be 2.17 times the area of a full frame sensor, quite a bit more costly. Without changing anything else, taking the 36mp to that size would give 78MP, quite a beast. Let me know when it is for sale.
And all existing FF lenses will work.

Edit: This is completely wrong. Duh!
43mm is the hypotenuse, so the sides are 30.4mm, giving just 1.07 times the area, 38.5MP.

[aslyfox]

hmm

is the job of a camera manufacturer to

1 - make cameras that they can sell, in other words, cameras designed for the mass market, with " options " designed to appeal to the most potential customers

or

2 - to be specialists who build a camera to order


" that is the question "

the answer, to me, is the first option

how many cameras of a certain design must be sold in order to let the manufacturer make a profit

[DeadJohn]

Human eyesight is more horizontal than vertical, so it's not surprising that photography and display technologies developed into horizontal formats. Manufacturing and standardization settled on some common aspect ratios.

- Can I have a monochromatic sensor? Answer: mostly not , or at a price that's out of what I'm willing to pay (e.g Leica).

If you and others were willing to pay more for a Leica monochrome, sales volume would grow, other brands might start making monochrome cameras, and prices would drop.


Monochrome and 1:1 sensors are available for niche astrophotography. Astrophotography camera bodies are simpler than DSLRs (they have no display, controls, battery, or cards slot, but they do often add sensor cooling) and can only take a photo by connecting your own computer, yet cost more due to low sales volume. Those sensors don't make it into DSLRs because there's not enough demand.

[UncleVanya]

The Panasonic LX100 and LX3/5/7 series provided a multi aspect sensor that gave users the ability to choose the aspect ratio. The feature is one I like, but it doesn’t have a lot of traction. The way the feature was implemented it reduced the maximum resolution possible from the 4:3 chip to provide this flexibility.

In many ways the problem is more about the limited number of producers of larger size sensors. As for the CFA, that part appears easier to customize. The PDAF sensors that are on chip are added as part of the CFA step and we have been led to believe that there are sensors made with and without PDAF based on the same basic sensor. Add to that the fact that Fuji has some xtrans sensors that appear to have the same sensor layer as some standard CFA based units and it starts to appear like relatively low demand for alternative CFA’s is the main factor for the lack of monochrome sensors.

On aspect ratio, I’d guess the yields could be similar for most aspect ratios - although for a given wafer there’s likely some that are more efficient than others. Ultimately we are back to demand - and the cost of custom vs commodity.

[AstroDave]

If you and others were willing to pay more for a Leica monochrome, sales volume would grow, other brands might start making monochrome cameras, and prices would drop.


Monochrome and 1:1 sensors are available for niche astrophotography. Astrophotography camera bodies are simpler than DSLRs (they have no display, controls, battery, or cards slot, but they do often add sensor cooling) and can only take a photo by connecting your own computer, yet cost more due to low sales volume. Those sensors don't make it into DSLRs because there's not enough demand.

I think it would be trivial to make a simple B&W camera: get e.g. Sony to make chips with no Bayer array (cheaper for Sony - they already make such chips) and just use them in an existing camera. Other than perhaps changing the gain of what would have been the RGB channels (make them all the same!) nothing else needs to be done. The software for handling the output might need to be different, but not much - all sorts of existing software know how to deal with the individual pixels. Just educate it for B&W output.

There must be some market for this, given the various software intended for making B&W images from current RGB data - which is still stuck with the inherent idiosyncrasies of the filter effects.