Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-14-2013, 04:25 PM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: So-central, MI / Central, IN
Posts: 173
If the primary objective is to get an FF competitive sensor offering into the Pentax camp as soon as possible... then LOL- I agree with Kerrowdown's previous comment.

But naturally, if the ultimate goal is to optimize or maximize on the image circle provided by the lens... then a square or round sensor makes perfect sense.

Aesthetic drawbacks regarding a square format ratio? Hah! There are none!

Any square format user from the film days experienced this. Some images just look great square. And for all of the other images that don't... well, square includes- every possible rectangular ratio... horizontal or vertical. Even better yet, many times a specific image captured on a square format will readily accommodate both a horizontal and a vertical rectangular framing... from that single image. If an individual has a preference (or requirement) for a specific rectangular format- that is what focus screen masks or etchings are for.

04-15-2013, 11:29 AM   #17
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Helsingborg, Sweden
Posts: 71
36x36 possible?

Wouldn't 36x36 need a "higher" mirror and by this deeper chamber (>50,1 mm) and by this a new mount!

I suppose max would be somewhere around square 27 to 28 mm to be within registration distance with some margin?

Where to find this sensor?

Cheers,
Lars
04-15-2013, 02:10 PM   #18
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,933
I think the reason square wasn't popular in the first place is composition. Square tends to "capture" or "limit" the content of the photo. The landscape orientation 3:2 is more fluid, more the way we normally see the world. Its also easier to compose landscape shots and portraits. Square photos can be really great, too, but they are very different and not quite as versatile, in my opinion.
04-16-2013, 11:45 AM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 647
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lars Quote
Wouldn't 36x36 need a "higher" mirror and by this deeper chamber (>50,1 mm) and by this a new mount!
I hadn't thought about that particular problem. The more I think about this, and where camera technology is going, the more it seems like the mirror just needs to go away. How about something with an EVF more like an overgrown Olympus OM-D?

04-16-2013, 12:14 PM   #20
Moderator PEG Judges
Loyal Site Supporter
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 33,158
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
Why not a square sensor?
I'd be happy just now with a bigger rectangle, sort of FF size, but I'm having enough problems even getting one of those from Pentax.
04-16-2013, 12:48 PM   #21
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
If using square sensor I would like an oversized sensor that cover the whole image circle. 28×28mm for APS-C or 43×43mm for FF. Then it would be possible to use both 30×30mm and 36×24mm format on a FF camera (or any other format with full image diagonal of 43mm). And if using RAW format it would be possble to change image format without cropping after the image is captured.

Edit: Forgot to mension that with oversized sensor it is also possible to trim the rotation of the image without cropping.

Last edited by Fogel70; 04-16-2013 at 01:37 PM.
04-16-2013, 07:35 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
If using square sensor I would like an oversized sensor that cover the whole image circle. 28×28mm for APS-C or 43×43mm for FF. Then it would be possible to use both 30×30mm and 36×24mm format on a FF camera (or any other format with full image diagonal of 43mm). And if using RAW format it would be possble to change image format without cropping after the image is captured.

Edit: Forgot to mension that with oversized sensor it is also possible to trim the rotation of the image without cropping.
That's a bigger sensor than the, what, $8k? 645D...
04-16-2013, 08:50 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
That's a bigger sensor than the, what, $8k? 645D...
Yep, so it will not be any FF version of a camera like this, unless there will be a new type of senors that are much cheaper ro manufacture.

04-30-2013, 12:39 PM   #24
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,213
There are 6x6 film cameras. Of course they used 120 or 220 film.
05-06-2013, 10:43 PM   #25
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
The main reason that sensors are not square, is because if they were, you'd need to crop every single image
05-07-2013, 08:30 PM   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 647
Original Poster
I've found out, to my surprise, that Micro Four Thirds actually supports something like this in the standard. Even though most of the cameras use a native 4:3 sensor, the M43 standard only specifies the diagonal size, not the actual aspect ratio. Panasonic came out with a camera that has "multi-aspect capability" with an oversized sensor, and it shoots different aspect ratios by cropping down to the M43 diagonal size, instead of starting with a 4:3 image and cropping from there. Seems like a nifty idea to me.
05-08-2013, 12:54 AM   #27
Pentaxian
deus ursus's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Stårheim, Norway
Posts: 311
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
The main reason that sensors are not square, is because if they were, you'd need to crop every single image
Well, that depends on what format you want on your pictures, doesn't it? If you want square images, you won't have to crop the pictures from a square sensor, but you'd have to crop the images from a rectangular sensor, and vice versa.
05-08-2013, 01:07 AM   #28
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,880
....get back to us when you can make a square with the same area as a 36mm circle.

Last edited by Digitalis; 05-08-2013 at 01:20 AM.
05-08-2013, 01:17 AM   #29
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
The main reason that sensors are not square, is because if they were, you'd need to crop every single image
Yep, I guess it depends on the aspect ration of the majority of the shots. E.g. optimize for the common case. If the majority are square, then a square sensor makes sense. But I would think that the majority are rectangular, in which case you would have to crop all those shots.

The reason why most shots are rectangular may have something to do with people having more horizontal than vertical peripheral vision. E.g. we are used to seeing the world that way.
05-08-2013, 02:48 AM   #30
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
I recently spent some time shooting a vintage Ricoh Diacord G with Kodak Ektar 100 -- great old camera, great modern wonder-film. I was very impressed with the output from it. As I was reviewing those square photos in Aperture, and cropping some of them as needed, it got me started thinking about where we've come from and where we're going with digital cameras.

It's not 1960 anymore. The future of photography shouldn't be tied to 35mm film format and pentaprism-based SLR designs. Instead of another "me too" full-frame camera that mimics 135 format, I'd love to see some company think outside the 3:2 aspect ratio box and give us a large, square sensor.

There would be no more concern about turning your camera on its side to frame a shot. That could all be done digitally, cropping the image to whatever final aspect ratio you want, either horizontal or vertical. Composing shots in this way becomes easy if we get rid of the optical viewfinder and go all LCD/EVF -- and that's the future, realistically speaking. The time is fast approaching to send the pentaprism off to its honorable, well-earned retirement.

A square frame makes most efficient use of a given light circle. So, I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations. Your diagonal on 135 format is about 43mm. A 30x30mm sensor would have a 42.4mm diagonal (thank you, Pythagoras), so all the "full frame" lenses, old and new, should cover that image circle neatly. Depending on the crop options you chose, a lot of APS-C glass could be usable, too. Actually, all of it could be usable if you simply put in a compatibility setting; the camera could use the portion of the sensor that the lens's light circle covers, and the electronic viewfinder could scale accordingly.

IMHO, this should be the successor to the DSLR. The K-01 was a sort of awkward step (or stumble, maybe) in roughly the right direction. Put an EVF on it, and swap in a 30mm square sensor, and it could be the beginning of something great.
While I agree with you 100%, I'm afraid you are making to much sense for a lot of people. The current for of DSLR has still one foot in the film-era, even though there's no film in sight.


QuoteOriginally posted by Tesla Quote
The golden ratio is pleasing to the eye, otherwise it would make sense.
Is it? I personally find square photos much more pleasing. Does that mean all cameras should have square format, just to please me? No way! Just as not all cameras should be rectingular just to please someone else.

Actually, I've been cropping my 3:2 pictures to square format occasionally. Only for prints though. Viewing square images on 3:2 displays sucks. Sadly, there are little to no square TV's, monitors or digital photoframes. (OMG, I would love square digital photoframes! Seeing portrait oriented pictures on landscape photoframes hurts my eyes. Square format would solve all that.)


QuoteOriginally posted by hcarvalhoalves Quote
The future of photography isn't tied to 35mm film format just because of inertia, it's tied because 35mm film made sense, which in turn made sense because it's based on the golden-ratio.
No, it definitely is due to inertia. The golden ratio is some sort of vague rule that people invented in the past and claimed that it was most pleasing to THEIR eyes. I'll take their word for it, if they find it pleasing: sure. So, it made sense to them. Strange thing tends to happen though: People get their own pair of eyes when they are born. Together with their own taste, opinions, culture, and what not. What's pleasing to the eyes of some long-dead people, doesn't mean it's pleasing to others right now. Otherwise, we would also still be wearing the same clothes as people were when the golden rule was made up.

There clearly is a market for it, square format is currently a big thing on the online image deposits. It may be a small market, to be ripe for the picking by a brand that likes to occupy niches. Retorical question: Do we know such a brand?

A sensor with a diagonal of 43,27mm (same as FF) but rectangular format (30,6mm x 30,6mm) would have a slightly bigger surface area then an FF sensor whilst still being compatible with existing FF lenses.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, circle, format, full-frame, image, light, pentax, ratio, sensor, square, time, viewfinder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why not a recall?? slip Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 03-14-2013 05:34 AM
Wacky Theory: Square-sensor Pentax FF? deadwolfbones Photographic Industry and Professionals 43 03-25-2012 04:14 PM
Why do people want a Full Frame sensor? RobG Pentax DSLR Discussion 98 02-15-2012 09:12 AM
Why does Leica use square lens hoods? bwDraco Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 29 08-22-2011 09:58 AM
why not something like this? - not a Pentax axl Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 131 09-27-2010 11:35 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:33 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top