Parallax, I don't quite see the issue you're putting forth. Are you just saying the FF purists will whine that it's not traditional? The square sensor I move to below would, I imagine, make the FF enthusiasts happier than they are with aps-c; you're gaining sensor size, and at least SOME advantage to carrying 35mm lenses.
Rawhead, you replied while I was typing this up, and discussing going square. You're right, it would require a bigger focusing screen, mirror, and prism. You'd also likely need to increase the size of the shutter. However, you're incorrect on the requirement of changing the registration distance. A square based off the aps-c width would have a height of approximately 24mm (less in practice) This actually puts it at the same height as the 35mm film bodies, but with the same 2/3s of the width that aps-c cameras already produce. Pentax, along with Nikon, Canon, and Sony/Minolta, has kept the same registration distance from the 35mm days, so Olympus and Sigma are the only two I can imagine not being capable of this. Though is it Canon where the aps-c lenses break FF mirrors? Anyway, for the purpose of this forum (pentax), registration distance is a non-issue.
Body size will increase, but probably not enough to offset the bulk removed in accessories. While you're at it, drop the onboard flash to compensate a bit; most buyers will probably barely miss it.
Well, I was thinking about this instead of chiral and achiral molecules during class, and tried to do some quick calculations for the number of shapes that would fit on a 200mm wafer. (Standard for CMOS imager production according to DALSA) Unfortunately, rectangle packing is a hell of a lot more complicated than I initially thought (or didn't think).
Anyway, If your goal is to produce a sensor capable of both the 3:2 and 2:3 formats, the simplest shape would be a 1:1 square sensor with side length of the longer side of the base imager, approximately 24mm in this case. A square with side length equal to the long side of a 3:2 rectangle is going to have 50% more area than the rectangle.
For simplicities sake, we'll go ahead and assume that area=cost. Technically speaking, with increasing area, cost increases in jumps; according to the great wiki, aps-h is about as big as you can go without making a huge jump in cost, with 28.7x19mm dimensions, totaling 548mm^2 area it's only slightly smaller than the 23.6mm square based off of aps-c, which would have a total area of 556.96mm^2. So I would imagine that this sensor could be produced without making the leap to the multi-mask methods that make FF sensors so extraordinarily expensive.
Unfortunately, I've got no clue what the cost breakdown of a modern dslr is, so I can't really continue with a good estimate of the added cost. However, the rise of the bottom end dslr market, where users seem more apt to replace bodies than collect lenses, would suggest that the manufacturers are no longer pulling most of their profit from lenses as was rumored in the past. In other words; dslrs are cheaper to produce than we think, and the cost has little bearing on what we pay for them.
I'd call this camera a win if it could be made for less than 400 USD more than the K-5, seeing as it eliminates the vertical grip and L-plate, the two of which come to a similar sum. Admittedly, I've never used a vertical grip or an L-plate, but I'd imagine the plate interferes with using the grip comfortably, whereas you'd never need to remove the plate from the proposed body.
Ok, so our square sensor will produce some major vignetting on in the corners with dedicated aps-c lenses. However, you'll still get at least 3:2 formats perfectly, and it'd be an excuse to start selling higher priced FF lenses again. Pentax may not view this as an advantage, seeing as they're currently selling aps-c lenses at FF prices. But with lenses with a big enough image circle, you'd have the option of a square output with oh so many more crop options. It'd also make it possible to get 8x10's of subjects that just barely fit in the frame, something that's been annoying me lately.
Last edited by m88k; 10-15-2010 at 10:47 AM.
Reason: fixed indents