Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-11-2009, 02:07 AM   #1
Forum Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Slovenia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 66
The almost full frame Pentax?

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.

01-11-2009, 02:26 AM   #2
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,952
But wouldn't that hurt their battery grip sales? After all, nobody would have to turn the camera for portrait orientation anymore.
01-11-2009, 02:28 AM   #3
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 302
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??
01-11-2009, 05:53 AM   #4
Veteran Member
geauxpez's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,197
Think of all those orphaned tulip hoods. What a shame. (c:

01-11-2009, 06:03 AM   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,250
what? why.... this is the most... ugh....

*facepalm*
01-11-2009, 07:41 AM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 278
A 1.3X sensor would be cool.
01-11-2009, 07:49 AM   #7
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
How about a 10x64 sensor, so we wouldn't have to do pano stitching anymore?

01-11-2009, 08:10 AM   #8
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
damn all these different sensors. seriously just give me a digital SLR with interchangeable finders...

01-11-2009, 09:01 AM   #9
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,476
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.
01-11-2009, 10:16 AM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
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.
01-11-2009, 12:38 PM   #11
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 46
It's really not a bad idea.

And historically the square format works well...



-Not a Pentax, but taken with one.
01-11-2009, 12:48 PM   #12
Veteran Member
ftpaddict's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yurp
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,669
I thought I'd dislike the square format, but having played with a Pentacon Six for a while, I started to feel the love.
01-12-2009, 01:24 AM   #13
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by denisv Quote
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


-

Last edited by stewart_photo; 01-12-2009 at 02:53 AM. Reason: Clarification of "lower pixel count" in last sentence.
01-12-2009, 01:30 AM   #14
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by stewart_photo Quote
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?
01-12-2009, 01:55 AM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,250
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
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...
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!
aps-c, camera, lenses, photography, sensor, times
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM
Full Frame Pentax DSLR Wheatfield Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 0 07-21-2008 06:43 PM
Pentax Full Frame possibility Anastigmat Pentax News and Rumors 48 01-11-2008 06:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:26 PM. | 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