Round lens Square sensor

**RuiC** · 02-11-2015, 03:40 AM

Is there any square sensor available for Ricoh to pick up and use ???

Sandy Hancock · 02-11-2015, 04:16 AM

I suggested a square sensor a while back HERE and it didn't get much traction.

The main problem is that it would have to be mirrorless to accommodate the required registration distance for K-mount.

konraDarnok · 02-11-2015, 05:14 AM

I highly doubt it, but dreaming stuff up, if the new camera had an LCD overlay in the viewfinder, it could crop to any format you cared for.

Surely the new DA mode will allow for square crops that maximize the DA image circle (if no crop at all for later post processing). It would be nice if the viewfinder reflected this crop. I'd be happy to stick with DA glass and shoot squares with more area than APS-C afforded.

Blue · 02-11-2015, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by konraDarnok

I highly doubt it, but dreaming stuff up, if the new camera had an LCD overlay in the viewfinder, it could crop to any format you cared for.

Surely the new DA mode will allow for square crops that maximize the DA image circle (if no crop at all for later post processing). It would be nice if the viewfinder reflected this crop. I'd be happy to stick with DA glass and shoot squares with more area than APS-C afforded.

APS-c sensors are not square.

DeadJohn · 02-11-2015, 09:20 AM

A square sensor is unlikely in the Ricoh DSLR. There's not much demand for it and not many sensors are manufactured in square format. There are also a few technical obstacles:

A square 36x36mm sensor would suffer from heavy vignetting with many lenses at the new expanded corners. Other optical imperfections would become more noticeable.
The shutter has to cover 50% more distance than for a standard rectangular full frame. It's solvable but increases costs because it's non-standard. This could also slow down burst mode and flash sync speed.
A larger mirror, prism, and viewfinder would be needed.

Shanti · 02-11-2015, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by DeadJohn

A square sensor is unlikely in the Ricoh DSLR. There's not much demand for it and not many sensors are manufactured in square format. There are also a few technical obstacles:

A square 36x36mm sensor would suffer from heavy vignetting with many lenses at the new expanded corners. Other optical imperfections would become more noticeable.
The shutter has to cover 50% more distance than for a standard rectangular full frame. It's solvable but increases costs because it's non-standard. This could also slow down burst mode and flash sync speed.
A larger mirror, prism, and viewfinder would be needed.

I know John, but when the new lenses cover -'more' than a 24X36mm size ,then I wonder what they are up to? The GH4 has a larger than 4/3 sensor, but only uses 4/3 of it,except for some special formats(16:9),if I remember right

beachboy2 · 02-12-2015, 06:24 AM

Here is a wild suggestion. The sensor will be octagonal (closest you can reasonably get to a round sensor). Will enable post shoot selection of portrait or landscape mode. Some support for this idea is the apparent almost octagonal shape of the viewfinder in the 3D mockup image.
bb2

rburgoss · 02-12-2015, 08:29 AM

Sensor "real estate" is very expensive. It makes no sense on having square sensors, knowing that 15 to 25% of the image will always be tossed, unless its destination is always INSTAGRAM. Of course there are some MF bodies and adaptors with square sensors, but those play in another league we are not even thinking to play with, like Hasselblad with $50,000 cameras or backs.

narual · 02-12-2015, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by skierd

He mostly used large format cameras, 4x5 and 8x10's. Mostly for the movements, plus the size of the film.
A square format dslr wouldn't interest me unless the sensor was a full 6cmx6cm...

I was just at an exhibit of his stuff recently, and they said later in his life he preferred to use a Hasselblad 6x6. Of course that's not all he used (in 1957, he was using an 8x10, a 7x17 panorama camera, a 4x5,a a 6x6, a 35mm, and 2 polaroids), but there was some quote about him liking it for flexibility. May have been the guy talking out of his butt, though, since I can't find the quote on google now.

Originally posted by Shanti

I know John, but when the new lenses cover -'more' than a 24X36mm size ,then I wonder what they are up to?

They're probably "up to" giving decent edge/corner performance, like we've been getting using film lenses on an APS-C sensor. I suspect if you held most of the film lenses at registration distance from a wall or something and shine a light in them, they'll light up the wall in a larger than 24x36 size, especially if they were lenses that were praised for their performance on film.

Might also assist in ensuring consistently high quality when using sensor shift.

Originally posted by rburgoss

It makes no sense on having square sensors, knowing that 15 to 25% of the image will always be tossed, unless its destination is always INSTAGRAM.

Why would the image be tossed? Because square paper isn't the most common? You lose a chunk of the image any time you print on 'standard' paper sizes larger than 4x6 anyway. By that rationale, camera sensors should be 4:5 instead of 2:3, since that is would cause the least cropping among common paper sizes. And there are plenty of other places besides instagram to display photos electronically, square or otherwise. Here, for example.

rburgoss · 02-12-2015, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by narual

Why would the image be tossed? Because square paper isn't the most common? You lose a chunk of the image any time you print on 'standard' paper sizes larger than 4x6 anyway. By that rationale, camera sensors should be 4:5 instead of 2:3, since that is would cause the least cropping among common paper sizes. And there are plenty of other places besides instagram to display photos electronically, square or otherwise. Here, for example.

Of course. That is why the actual real "commercial" formats were 4x5 inches, then 5x7, 8x10 (view cameras). In medium format, the ideal was 645 which gave the "less" cropping or "biggest usable image" for commercial purposes.

The 24 x 36 mm frame we got by accident, from "adapting" 35 mm MOVIE film to a "double frame horizontal" format for still pictures. Remember the so called "half frame" format from Olympus Pen cameras.

It was all about sucking every drop of juice from the available media (film - negative size - frames per roll) and about image quality for commercial or home printing.

With digital, we may have a bit of everything from the past, but not as limited. Frames per roll now translate to frames per memory card, then on frames per storage media (cloud, hd, blu-ray, dvd, cd, etc...) Of course, image quality plays a big roll here, but the limitation comes from the image sensor size. That is where the big cost happens. If it was only a matter of using a larger sensor (to match film frame) on older gear, how come this becomes a big issue and took Pentax 15 years to develop (at a reasonable cost). Canikons have it from 7-8 yrs ago, but they have the name and the customer loyalty (and market share) that allows them to gamble with those products.

If sensor size is not the big limitation, then why even Hasselblad or Mamiya has not produced a full size 6x6 (cms) sensor? Or even a square one, any size?. Short answer: COST!

tuco · 02-12-2015, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

... I'd pay top price for square screens as well. I

Get yourself, say, a Hasselblad V series camera (has a square frame) and one of their CFV-XX digital backs which support square format shooting but at a cropped factor. Squares and circles are special cases of generic rectangles and ellipses.

Clavius · 02-12-2015, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by tuco

Get yourself, say, a Hasselblad V series camera (has a square frame) and one of their CFV-XX digital backs which support square format shooting but at a cropped factor. Squares and circles are special cases of generic rectangles and ellipses.

Clavius googles...Ok, maybe not top price then...

tuco · 02-12-2015, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Clavius

Clavius googles...Ok, maybe not top price then...

That's been my grief for years. I want a digital back for my 500C/M but I really don't want to pay that much for such limited "digital" functionality when, for less or the same, you can get a MFD camera with way more modern features. I really feel digital backs, money-wise, should be a stepping stone into a full-blown MFD cameras instead of costing the same. But apparently, that's just a weird consumer view according to Hasselblad.

redrockcoulee · 02-12-2015, 12:40 PM

I would love a square sensor camera but do not think there will ever be one made that I could afford, it would be a low volume model I predict. I love the square format, most of my Hasselblad images are printed uncropped and I often have my WGIII set up to shoot in the square aspect ration. Sometimes I use it as a proof for composition for the Hasselblad when walking about and then come back later with the 500 C/M.

Tuco: I had thought about looking for a good deal on a CFV16 but decided that I mostly shoot black and white and use the darkroom and for colour I can shoot Portra and I own a Nikon CS8000 so it just is not worth it for me. My wife's SWC would not be so wide on digital. We are planning a 5 week trip to Scotland for photography and still have not decided if I am taking any colour 120 with me.

tuco · 02-12-2015, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by redrockcoulee

...
Tuco: ...My wife's SWC would not be so wide on digital.

Yeah, that's another one of those limiting "digital" features. No really wide angle shooting. It improves slightly with their larger backs but still. And with these digital backs on old film cameras, you pretty much can't take a picture of anything that's moving so it becomes limited to portraitures, still life and landscapes.

02-11-2015, 04:16 AM	#17
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,267	I suggested a square sensor a while back HERE and it didn't get much traction. The main problem is that it would have to be mirrorless to accommodate the required registration distance for K-mount. Last edited by Sandy Hancock; 02-11-2015 at 04:26 AM.

02-11-2015, 09:20 AM	#20
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,833	A square sensor is unlikely in the Ricoh DSLR. There's not much demand for it and not many sensors are manufactured in square format. There are also a few technical obstacles: A square 36x36mm sensor would suffer from heavy vignetting with many lenses at the new expanded corners. Other optical imperfections would become more noticeable. The shutter has to cover 50% more distance than for a standard rectangular full frame. It's solvable but increases costs because it's non-standard. This could also slow down burst mode and flash sync speed. A larger mirror, prism, and viewfinder would be needed.

02-11-2015, 10:52 AM	#21
Shanti Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Western Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 927 Original Poster	Originally posted by DeadJohn A square sensor is unlikely in the Ricoh DSLR. There's not much demand for it and not many sensors are manufactured in square format. There are also a few technical obstacles: A square 36x36mm sensor would suffer from heavy vignetting with many lenses at the new expanded corners. Other optical imperfections would become more noticeable. The shutter has to cover 50% more distance than for a standard rectangular full frame. It's solvable but increases costs because it's non-standard. This could also slow down burst mode and flash sync speed. A larger mirror, prism, and viewfinder would be needed. I know John, but when the new lenses cover -'more' than a 24X36mm size ,then I wonder what they are up to? The GH4 has a larger than 4/3 sensor, but only uses 4/3 of it,except for some special formats(16:9),if I remember right

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
why are lenses round and not square	Luuk	General Photography	23	08-16-2014 08:21 AM
Why not a square sensor?	Tony Belding	Pentax Full Frame	32	05-10-2013 06:59 AM
Wacky Theory: Square-sensor Pentax FF?	deadwolfbones	Photographic Industry and Professionals	43	03-25-2012 04:14 PM
Rumour: K3D, 22 Mp, square sensor	cateto	Pentax News and Rumors	134	02-27-2009 11:45 AM
Pentax square format sensor -- or is it Nikon?	filmamigo	Pentax News and Rumors	5	02-17-2009 07:39 AM

02-11-2015, 03:40 AM	#16
RuiC Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Lisboa - The best destination in Europe Posts: 633	Is there any square sensor available for Ricoh to pick up and use ???

02-11-2015, 05:14 AM	#18
konraDarnok Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Albums Posts: 969	I highly doubt it, but dreaming stuff up, if the new camera had an LCD overlay in the viewfinder, it could crop to any format you cared for. Surely the new DA mode will allow for square crops that maximize the DA image circle (if no crop at all for later post processing). It would be nice if the viewfinder reflected this crop. I'd be happy to stick with DA glass and shoot squares with more area than APS-C afforded.

02-11-2015, 07:50 AM	#19
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by konraDarnok I highly doubt it, but dreaming stuff up, if the new camera had an LCD overlay in the viewfinder, it could crop to any format you cared for. Surely the new DA mode will allow for square crops that maximize the DA image circle (if no crop at all for later post processing). It would be nice if the viewfinder reflected this crop. I'd be happy to stick with DA glass and shoot squares with more area than APS-C afforded. APS-c sensors are not square.

02-12-2015, 06:24 AM	#22
beachboy2 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 222	Here is a wild suggestion. The sensor will be octagonal (closest you can reasonably get to a round sensor). Will enable post shoot selection of portrait or landscape mode. Some support for this idea is the apparent almost octagonal shape of the viewfinder in the 3D mockup image. bb2

02-12-2015, 08:29 AM	#23
rburgoss Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, Costa Rica Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 972	Sensor "real estate" is very expensive. It makes no sense on having square sensors, knowing that 15 to 25% of the image will always be tossed, unless its destination is always INSTAGRAM. Of course there are some MF bodies and adaptors with square sensors, but those play in another league we are not even thinking to play with, like Hasselblad with $50,000 cameras or backs.

02-12-2015, 10:01 AM	#24
narual Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: South Bend (Notre Dame), Indiana Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,988	Originally posted by skierd He mostly used large format cameras, 4x5 and 8x10's. Mostly for the movements, plus the size of the film. A square format dslr wouldn't interest me unless the sensor was a full 6cmx6cm... I was just at an exhibit of his stuff recently, and they said later in his life he preferred to use a Hasselblad 6x6. Of course that's not all he used (in 1957, he was using an 8x10, a 7x17 panorama camera, a 4x5,a a 6x6, a 35mm, and 2 polaroids), but there was some quote about him liking it for flexibility. May have been the guy talking out of his butt, though, since I can't find the quote on google now. Originally posted by Shanti I know John, but when the new lenses cover -'more' than a 24X36mm size ,then I wonder what they are up to? They're probably "up to" giving decent edge/corner performance, like we've been getting using film lenses on an APS-C sensor. I suspect if you held most of the film lenses at registration distance from a wall or something and shine a light in them, they'll light up the wall in a larger than 24x36 size, especially if they were lenses that were praised for their performance on film. Might also assist in ensuring consistently high quality when using sensor shift. Originally posted by rburgoss It makes no sense on having square sensors, knowing that 15 to 25% of the image will always be tossed, unless its destination is always INSTAGRAM. Why would the image be tossed? Because square paper isn't the most common? You lose a chunk of the image any time you print on 'standard' paper sizes larger than 4x6 anyway. By that rationale, camera sensors should be 4:5 instead of 2:3, since that is would cause the least cropping among common paper sizes. And there are plenty of other places besides instagram to display photos electronically, square or otherwise. Here, for example.

02-12-2015, 10:29 AM	#25
rburgoss Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, Costa Rica Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 972	Originally posted by narual Why would the image be tossed? Because square paper isn't the most common? You lose a chunk of the image any time you print on 'standard' paper sizes larger than 4x6 anyway. By that rationale, camera sensors should be 4:5 instead of 2:3, since that is would cause the least cropping among common paper sizes. And there are plenty of other places besides instagram to display photos electronically, square or otherwise. Here, for example. Of course. That is why the actual real "commercial" formats were 4x5 inches, then 5x7, 8x10 (view cameras). In medium format, the ideal was 645 which gave the "less" cropping or "biggest usable image" for commercial purposes. The 24 x 36 mm frame we got by accident, from "adapting" 35 mm MOVIE film to a "double frame horizontal" format for still pictures. Remember the so called "half frame" format from Olympus Pen cameras. It was all about sucking every drop of juice from the available media (film - negative size - frames per roll) and about image quality for commercial or home printing. With digital, we may have a bit of everything from the past, but not as limited. Frames per roll now translate to frames per memory card, then on frames per storage media (cloud, hd, blu-ray, dvd, cd, etc...) Of course, image quality plays a big roll here, but the limitation comes from the image sensor size. That is where the big cost happens. If it was only a matter of using a larger sensor (to match film frame) on older gear, how come this becomes a big issue and took Pentax 15 years to develop (at a reasonable cost). Canikons have it from 7-8 yrs ago, but they have the name and the customer loyalty (and market share) that allows them to gamble with those products. If sensor size is not the big limitation, then why even Hasselblad or Mamiya has not produced a full size 6x6 (cms) sensor? Or even a square one, any size?. Short answer: COST!

02-12-2015, 11:36 AM	#26
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,019	Originally posted by Clavius ... I'd pay top price for square screens as well. I Get yourself, say, a Hasselblad V series camera (has a square frame) and one of their CFV-XX digital backs which support square format shooting but at a cropped factor. Squares and circles are special cases of generic rectangles and ellipses.

02-12-2015, 12:09 PM	#27
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by tuco Get yourself, say, a Hasselblad V series camera (has a square frame) and one of their CFV-XX digital backs which support square format shooting but at a cropped factor. Squares and circles are special cases of generic rectangles and ellipses. Clavius googles...Ok, maybe not top price then...

02-12-2015, 12:29 PM	#28
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,019	Originally posted by Clavius Clavius googles...Ok, maybe not top price then... That's been my grief for years. I want a digital back for my 500C/M but I really don't want to pay that much for such limited "digital" functionality when, for less or the same, you can get a MFD camera with way more modern features. I really feel digital backs, money-wise, should be a stepping stone into a full-blown MFD cameras instead of costing the same. But apparently, that's just a weird consumer view according to Hasselblad.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-12-2015, 12:40 PM	#29
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	I would love a square sensor camera but do not think there will ever be one made that I could afford, it would be a low volume model I predict. I love the square format, most of my Hasselblad images are printed uncropped and I often have my WGIII set up to shoot in the square aspect ration. Sometimes I use it as a proof for composition for the Hasselblad when walking about and then come back later with the 500 C/M. Tuco: I had thought about looking for a good deal on a CFV16 but decided that I mostly shoot black and white and use the darkroom and for colour I can shoot Portra and I own a Nikon CS8000 so it just is not worth it for me. My wife's SWC would not be so wide on digital. We are planning a 5 week trip to Scotland for photography and still have not decided if I am taking any colour 120 with me.

02-12-2015, 12:56 PM	#30
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,019	Originally posted by redrockcoulee ... Tuco: ...My wife's SWC would not be so wide on digital. Yeah, that's another one of those limiting "digital" features. No really wide angle shooting. It improves slightly with their larger backs but still. And with these digital backs on old film cameras, you pretty much can't take a picture of anything that's moving so it becomes limited to portraitures, still life and landscapes.