# Patent: A new mirrorless camera body design with integrated grip with pass-through



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 12, 2021)

> Here is an interesting patent application showcasing what appears to be new design and functionality of an integrated grip mirrorless camera body. At this time, there’s no way to really know if this design is in fact one Canon is moving forward with on a camera body such as an EOS R1, or if it’s just part of the design process.
> Japan Patent JP,2021-117300,A  mostly deals with a secure grip for both horizontal and vertical shooting.
> This design is quite unique in that there is an open cavity in the body that your fingers can grip through as you can see in the patent illustration below.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 12, 2021)

That is a radical design. You might be able to free up the real estate with the mechanical parts removed, but I agree it will be a tight fit. Should this be to address sensor heat, wonder how warm it will be by your fingers on this new grip.


----------



## tcphoto (Aug 12, 2021)

If you watch the Apple rumor sites, the drawings submitted for Patent applications are rather rudimentary and don't really match the finished product. The R1 is in the pipeline and this filing may be it or another similar body in development. Like Nikon, the pro bodies all have an integrated grip why would they change now?


----------



## Tremotino (Aug 12, 2021)

111a and 111b and 120a and 120b seems interesting to me.
Especially 111a seems a cool idea.


----------



## Bahrd (Aug 12, 2021)

wsmith96 said:


> Should this be to address sensor heat, wonder how warm it will be by your fingers on this new grip.


An orientation sensor could be used to switch the air flow direction accordingly.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 12, 2021)

tcphoto said:


> If you watch the Apple rumor sites, the drawings submitted for Patent applications are rather rudimentary and don't really match the finished product. The R1 is in the pipeline and this filing may be it or another similar body in development. Like Nikon, the pro bodies all have an integrated grip why would they change now?


It's the pass-through that is unique and doesn't scream "rudimentary". Though this could just be throwing darts at a dartboard and protecting any and all ideas.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 12, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It's the pass-through that is unique and doesn't scream "rudimentary". Though this could just be throwing darts at a dartboard and protecting any and all ideas.


Freedom To Operate and avoiding other using ideas that you've canned for sure.

But since they've gone to the point of spending money on a patent application, they do think it has _some_ value. Otherwise they'd just publish the idea in an obscure local newspaper with cyrrilic letters like the first insulin pen.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 12, 2021)

The touch bar makes a lot of sense to me in this design.
It is not ideal but a second joystick would be awkward for some people depending on their hand size.
The length of a touch bar can accommodate more hand sizes.
People would still complain about it.


----------



## blindsleep (Aug 12, 2021)

I would almost be willing to put money down this would go into their video line if it was ever utilized at all.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 12, 2021)

blindsleep said:


> I would almost be willing to put money down this would go into their video line if it was ever utilized at all.


You could be right.
There is a segment of video that prefers variable aperture.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Aug 12, 2021)

Would be just perfect for wildlife and sports, especially with a 400/500/600mm white lens.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Aug 12, 2021)

Well... and why not simply integrate a mechanism that turns the sensor (or the whole cage of the mount) in either portrait or landscape mode (with a button to do so) or would be able to determine horizontal/vertical position by itself with a switch... or a fixed cross shape sensor... or a square sensor... round sensor, etc. ?


----------



## Cyborx (Aug 12, 2021)

Weird.. 

Could we focus on making an R5 in an R3 body please? Hi-res, fast, mirrorless, probody with inbuilt batterygrip. 

That is what most of us are waiting for now, for the past couple of years. Would be great. Thank you!


----------



## SilverBox (Aug 12, 2021)

This could be very cool for the action oriented hybid shooter


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 12, 2021)

More battery space is possible with this concept.


----------



## landon (Aug 12, 2021)




----------



## canonmike (Aug 12, 2021)

Thx for posting, Craig.....Very interesting, if they could make it work. Would eliminate the need for an auxiliary hand strap, which I love using for run and gun filming, albeit doesn't work very well when shooting in vertical position. Would make for very secure handling. I never realized how nice hand straps are until using a wedding photographer friend's EOS 5Diii body, a few yrs back, that had a strap attached. They are a game changer. Now, whenever I acquire a new body, that's one of the first accessories I purchase. This design would also make vertical shooting just as secure as current horizontal hand strap shooting. I have never cared much for neck straps, except on small bodies, like the M series or point and shoot cams.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 12, 2021)

As a person with a combination of carpal tunnel and neuropathy in my hands, a handle would give me a more secure grip.


----------



## amorse (Aug 12, 2021)

The idea of replacing the physical control wheels/dials with touch bars makes me uncomfortable, personally. The missing joystick may be a bigger problem for some, but it does appear to have that big eye-cup from he R3, so maybe the thinking is the joystick will be less necessary if they get eye AF right? I've always liked that Canon tries some weird stuff occasionally, but I guess I'd really need to try this to see if I could get by with it.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Aug 12, 2021)

blindsleep said:


> I would almost be willing to put money down this would go into their video line if it was ever utilized at all.


Yes, those video people that also shoot portrait orientation videos would really love this, I suppose. Fake phone videos, could be used in phone ads.


----------



## landon (Aug 12, 2021)

I think this is good for the camera industry. Something different than people's smartphone. People often have their smartphone and Go-pro for filming. The Go-Pro is a specialty. So if manufacturer create something different/specialty then people might have renewed interest in the camera market. It might not sell a lot, but at least get people talking.


----------



## Robolon (Aug 12, 2021)

The open grip design might also improve passive cooling, because of the increased surface area. Also this area won't be covered by a hand. I wonder, where they would put the memory cards and the batteries (if the form factor allows for seamless integration, and if there will be new batteries for souch a system). Also the heat could be moved away from inside the hand. On a long day of shooting, I find my self with very sweaty hands, which will over time degrade the rubber finish of the grip.


----------



## AJ (Aug 12, 2021)

Seems like wasted space that could be better utilized by a bigger screen.


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 12, 2021)

landon said:


> View attachment 199542


By the screen, is that the touchbars or are those vents? To me it looks like the touchbars are on the grip itself.


----------



## landon (Aug 12, 2021)

wsmith96 said:


> By the screen, is that the touchbars or are those vents?


The 4th picture from the article (the bottom left), makes it look like a touch bar?


----------



## Ian K (Aug 12, 2021)

I can see a few advantages it could provide. Having two separate spaces would allow the components that get hot to be separated from each other. For example the memory cards could be in the grip and the processing components in the main body. The heat generated by the memory card wouldn't then affect the image processing.

From a storage and transport scenario it's not great. It's a lot of extra space that would require a larger camera bag.


----------



## criscokkat (Aug 12, 2021)

People keep saying that this design seems like it could be used for a pro setup, and it could, but I see this as more of a pro-consumer level "Let's see how this really works in the real world and sells" design.


----------



## domo_p1000 (Aug 12, 2021)

I remember the somewhat revolutionary change in design as the pro Canon line moved from an FD mount to an EF mount (albeit the T90 had given a glimpse of what was to come - and perhaps this could be an 'R90', if you like)... the press photographers et al, coped well enough - no need for surgery on body parts to cope with the new design ergonomics! This overall concept sits well with me (and it is quite surprisingly bigger than the R3, so there would be room to fit everything in).

I like the look of dual thumb wheels within the body gap (111a & 111b).

Just a bit of fun... scales are not quite right, but not far off. The design evolution certainly doesn't look too silly: FD > EF > RF


----------



## snappy604 (Aug 12, 2021)

interesting concept... perhaps in future could make things more modular to allow the core to be swapped out and the grip/power be independent/sold separately.


----------



## DBounce (Aug 12, 2021)

landon said:


> View attachment 199542



I can't see this design being the R5C. There is no articulating screen, which is a must have for video shooters. However, I think this would be a awesome looking R1. The new design would differentiate the mirrorless lineup.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Aug 12, 2021)

AJ said:


> Seems like wasted space that could be better utilized by a bigger screen.


The space is for your hand - that's the point.


----------



## melgross (Aug 12, 2021)

wsmith96 said:


> That is a radical design. You might be able to free up the real estate with the mechanical parts removed, but I agree it will be a tight fit. Should this be to address sensor heat, wonder how warm it will be by your fingers on this new grip.


The sensor isn’t in the grip. Likely batteries and some other electronics will be. It’s likely the processor will also be in the main body. If there’s no mechanical shutter, something we’re getting closer to, then the smaller central portion won’t have a problem holding components.


----------



## macrunning (Aug 12, 2021)

C-R-I-N-G-E


----------



## landon (Aug 12, 2021)

DBounce said:


> I can't see this design being the R5C. There is no articulating screen, which is a must have for video shooters. However, I think this would be a awesome looking R1. The new design would differentiate the mirrorless lineup.


I don't think this is the R5c or R1. Just some things will translate over.

I'm a bit worried, R5c is “slightly larger than the EOS R5”. Is it large enough for ND filters and BNC audio input? All I'm asking is for Canon's version of 6Kpro with better ergonomics, RF mount.


----------



## melgross (Aug 12, 2021)

Whether this design is close to something Canon will produce, or not, I’m happy to see that they are willing to look at new concepts, whether they work out or not in practice.

the early digital camera market was full of odd and interesting designs that never made it. The industry settled on the tried and true ergonomics of the long time film camera. People were just more comfortable with those designs. This isn’t too radical, actually. The opening is the big difference. But if you closed that, it would be similar to most large double grip models.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 12, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Well... and why not simply integrate a mechanism that turns the sensor (or the whole cage of the mount) in either portrait or landscape mode (with a button to do so) or would be able to determine horizontal/vertical position by itself with a switch... or a fixed cross shape sensor... or a square sensor... round sensor, etc. ?


Very good idea but I think you have to turn the lens with the sensor due to the contacts between lens and body! But just that might be possible.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 12, 2021)

Maybe some design with global shutter omitting the need of a mechanical shutter which would need more space around the sensor? Woud be great ...


----------



## Lurker (Aug 12, 2021)

Doesn't the sensor look small in the opening? APS-C? R7?


----------



## slclick (Aug 12, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Weird..
> 
> Could we focus on making an R5 in an R3 body please? Hi-res, fast, mirrorless, probody with inbuilt batterygrip.
> 
> That is what most of us are waiting for now, for the past couple of years. Would be great. Thank you!


Yeah, let's not discuss the actual post here


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 12, 2021)

I love that Canon is coming up with crazy ideas, but this one seems odd to me in that it solves a video issue (heat) with a camera feature designed for stills (vertical shooting). And does so by shrinking internal real estate available while simultaneously expanding the camera's effective volume.

There would definitely be a few people who would love it for gripping, though. People following skiers down the slope, etc. 

The camera design holds the viewfinder quite a bit away from the hands, which strikes me as a it less stable. But I think this is one of those ideas you'd have to check out physically, with something real in your hands.


----------



## slclick (Aug 12, 2021)

slclick said:


> Yeah, let's not discuss the actual post here
> 
> 
> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 12, 2021)

You probably could store a banana in the gap if you are on a long hike.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 12, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Well... and why not simply integrate a mechanism that turns the sensor (or the whole cage of the mount) in either portrait or landscape mode (with a button to do so) or would be able to determine horizontal/vertical position by itself with a switch... or a fixed cross shape sensor... or a square sensor... round sensor, etc. ?


Patent the idea quickly (a flipping sensor). 
At some point a square sensor might be a reality. Circular I suppose it more wasteful.


----------



## Easer (Aug 12, 2021)

I would rather have a larger screen....


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 12, 2021)

This is the kind of innovation that made me switch to Canon. It feels "futuristic" yet practical and sensible.

Liberated from the form dictated by a scrolling roll of film.
Not just active thermal, but passive thermal lets the hot stuff be away from the points of continuous firm pressure contact (see "low temperature burns").
May be new ways to hold it, including passing the hand or thumb through the hole, allowing odd angles of shooting.
It makes me recall the camera used by the moon-walking astronaut in Kubrick's 2001, which seemed to "cock" by a rotational motion. Doesn't look the same, but triggered a memory. https://i2.wp.com/annsilverthorn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2001-1-moon-monolith.jpg
Even if a bigger body to provide the gap, it's probably easier to hold, even with a finger or two.
It doesn't have to add weight.
Radical design changes get traditionalists worrying, but I'm very enthusiastic.


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 12, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> You probably could store a banana in the gap if you are on a long hike.


If we are going there, it would make a nice hand towel bar too. Or, if made from magnesium, this could be he worlds largest set of brass knuckles...

oh man, if the camera strap mount is really strong, it could double as a zip line handle.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 12, 2021)

wsmith96 said:


> If we are going there, it would make a nice hand towel bar too. Or, if made from magnesium, this could be he worlds largest set of brass knuckles...
> 
> oh man, if the camera strap mount is really strong, it could double as a zip line handle.


Good ideas. You could use it as a kettlebell or a new sport at the Olympics to replace the discus. It could be a keyholder.


----------



## mpmark (Aug 12, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It's the pass-through that is unique and doesn't scream "rudimentary". Though this could just be throwing darts at a dartboard and protecting any and all ideas.


As I work in a R&D company, they just don’t do this, highly unlikely. The costs and prototyping is a huge waist of time unless you seriously are trying to bring something to market.


----------



## martin_p_a (Aug 12, 2021)

This made me wonder something somewhat related… Has there – or why hasn’t there – been interchangeable lens cameras made with a square sensor? This would maximize the used imaging area (when shooting square – popular format for social media nowadays), and although it wouldn’t maximize it if you were to crop for portrait or landscape, with mp count these days, it would still be super usable.

It would negate the need for an integrated grip, and software could provide the option to apply a matte while you shoot to see the proper orientation, all without having to rotate to camera.

My medium format TLR camera shoots square, but the design of the camera isn’t made to shoot with the camera sideway, so I guess it is necessary there. Just wondering if it’s something camera manufacturers have toyed with before?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Aug 12, 2021)

It would give a lot more surface area for cooling and increase rigidity. I am unsure if it would ever come out, but I am sure someone will make it look like a Tomy brand toy.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 12, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> I love that Canon is coming up with crazy ideas, but this one seems odd to me in that it solves a video issue (heat) with a camera feature designed for stills (vertical shooting). And does so by shrinking internal real estate available while simultaneously expanding the camera's effective volume.
> 
> There would definitely be a few people who would love it for gripping, though. People following skiers down the slope, etc.
> 
> The camera design holds the viewfinder quite a bit away from the hands, which strikes me as a it less stable. But I think this is one of those ideas you'd have to check out physically, with something real in your hands.





[email protected] said:


> But I think this is one of those ideas you'd have to check out physically, with something real in your hands.


I couldn't agree more. I'd have to hold it in my hands, use it for a few hrs or days, then deicide whether I loved it or hated it.


----------



## weixing (Aug 12, 2021)

With this design, you can actually use your camera as a dumbbell...  Also, basically any strap can be use for this design and you can use a hook hanger to hang your camera for fast access... ha ha ha


----------



## canonmike (Aug 12, 2021)

Indeed. We seniors always appreciate an effective solution to make holding gear easier and less painful.


----------



## mbike999 (Aug 12, 2021)

It definitely screams cinema to me. Grip would be useful for heavy rigged up setups with cages, video recorders, etc.


----------



## entoman (Aug 12, 2021)

wsmith96 said:


> That is a radical design. You might be able to free up the real estate with the mechanical parts removed, but I agree it will be a tight fit. Should this be to address sensor heat, wonder how warm it will be by your fingers on this new grip.


It's an interesting concept, and may possibly be more ergonomic and efficient than existing designs. Also of course the pros who this is aimed at are far less concerned about a camera's cosmetics and aesthetics than amateur enthusiasts. By IMO it's just *too* radical to sell - pros are notoriously conservative.


----------



## OpticalAllusions (Aug 12, 2021)

martin_p_a said:


> This made me wonder something somewhat related… Has there – or why hasn’t there – been interchangeable lens cameras made with a square sensor? This would maximize the used imaging area (when shooting square popular format for social media nowadays), and although it wouldn’t maximize it if you were to crop for portrait or landscape, with mp count these days, it would still be super usable.
> 
> It would negate the need for an integrated grip, and software could provide the option to apply a matte while you shoot to see the proper orientation, all without having to rotate to camera.
> 
> My medium format TLR camera shoots square, but the design of the camera isn’t made to shoot with the camera sideway, so I guess it is necessary there. Just wondering if it’s something camera manufacturers have toyed with before?


Some cameras let you pick the aspect ratio in camera. So why not make a square sensor and let the user pick the "orientation" on the fly!


----------



## tcphoto (Aug 12, 2021)

I think I found an early prototype.


----------



## neurorx (Aug 12, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> You probably could store a banana in the gap if you are on a long hike.


I was thinking child entertainment-doubles as a rattle.


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 12, 2021)

Could heat be a problem with a global-shutter sensor? It would be interesting if this was their solution to cool a global-shutter stills camera, but I do *highly* doubt Canon would risk such unusual ergonomics to come out in their flagship pro camera, especially another attempt at the very-poorly received touchbar.

That said, I wouldn't consider this specific patent's design as the exact look of whatever they're considering, it's lacking the third top control wheel that all other R-series cameras have. 0 chance Canon adds a third-wheel to all their photography, including the R3, and then randomly ditches it for another touchbar. So even if they are considering this design tangibly, there is definitely a lot that could change.

Interesting to me is that there is one AF joystick located at the corner of the screen. Solves the problem of needing one for each orientation, but feels like it's a compromise since it's not in an ideal spot either way you hold the camera, vs having two.


----------



## usern4cr (Aug 12, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Well... and why not simply integrate a mechanism that turns the sensor (or the whole cage of the mount) in either portrait or landscape mode (with a button to do so) or would be able to determine horizontal/vertical position by itself with a switch... or a fixed cross shape sensor... or a square sensor... round sensor, etc. ?


I had the same idea (well, only about the rotating 3:2 ratio sensor). Look at all the effort, extra space & cost & weight to make the dual grip even bigger than it was before! If you're going to go to that much trouble for portrait shots without moving your hand position, you might as well just add a 90 degree rotation mechanism to the existing sensor module. Whatever extra space & weight & cost it required to do so would have to be much less than all the extra stuff this patent is adding! I'd expect that a rotating sensor design would be smaller & lighter than the existing dual grip approach once implemented properly. And then they're only be one way to hold the camera as the sensor would rotate as needed, and the bottom could be designed to attach to a tripod without interfering with a 2nd grip and they're be no need for any "L bracket"! I'd pay extra for that in a heartbeat!

Of course, if the cost of a 3:3 sensor (36 x 36mm) could be made affordable in the future (something I don't know, but suspect might be possible), then simply making the existing 3:2 IBIS sensor into a 3:3 IBIS sensor would remove the need for a rotating sensor as well as the dual grip. That'd be the ideal choice if the extra cost of the enlarged sensor & IBIS module & body enclosure could be made to be the same (or less) as the extra cost of the existing bigger dual grip design. This design would work only if there was enough clearance in the existing R mount for the 3:2 portrait image to clear the mount pins at the bottom of the mount (also something I don't know as it'd be a close fit).

*EDIT* : I've since learned that many RF lenses have rectangularish panels at their mount, which would make it impossible to take advantage of a 3:2 FF vertical sensor area. So a 3:3 square sensor or a 90 degree rotating 3:2 sensor would both be worthless for portraits with those lenses. Therefore I now am giving up this idea and know I'll have to rotate by hand or else buy a dual grip body for portraits.


----------



## domo_p1000 (Aug 12, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> That said, I wouldn't consider this specific patent's design as the exact look of whatever they're considering, it's lacking the third top control wheel that all other R-series cameras have. 0 chance Canon adds a third-wheel to all their photography, including the R3, and then randomly ditches it for another touchbar.


Perhaps this absence is a nod towards it being a R1 concept: All of the 1D's have had three wheels and this follows that lead, with one above each of the two shutter releases but then the design necessitates two thumb wheels within the 'gap', labelled 111a and 111b, rather than the single rear thumb wheel of the 1D's.


----------



## UpstateNYPhotog (Aug 12, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Weird..
> 
> Could we focus on making an R5 in an R3 body please? Hi-res, fast, mirrorless, probody with inbuilt batterygrip.
> 
> That is what most of us are waiting for now, for the past couple of years. Would be great. Thank you!


Yes. I find the R5/R6 form factor a deal killer with or without the grip.


----------



## UpstateNYPhotog (Aug 12, 2021)

domo_p1000 said:


> I remember the somewhat revolutionary change in design as the pro Canon line moved from an FD mount to an EF mount (albeit the T90 had given a glimpse of what was to come - and perhaps this could be an 'R90', if you like)... the press photographers et al, coped well enough - no need for surgery on body parts to cope with the new design ergonomics! This overall concept sits well with me (and it is quite surprisingly bigger than the R3, so there would be room to fit everything in).
> 
> I like the look of dual thumb wheels within the body gap (111a & 111b).
> 
> ...


Still own both the left two in this image, yes it is an LA Olympic one!


----------



## UpstateNYPhotog (Aug 12, 2021)

weixing said:


> With this design, you can actually use your camera as a dumbbell...  Also, basically any strap can be use for this design and you can use a hook hanger to hang your camera for fast access... ha ha ha


You just keep putting on bigger big white lenses to up the workout!


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 12, 2021)

Using this with gloves on? Has anyone used the R's touch bar with gloves?


----------



## scottburgess (Aug 13, 2021)

The smaller mount/sensor afforded by this configuration make me wonder if this is the future of the EOS-M line. I can imagine that a light, grippable body with lighter lenses might aid the elderly coping with sarcopenia, though the tiny screen could be aggravating.

I can't imagine a desire for vertical shooting among video enthusiasts, though I am sure some weirdo is reading this post on his vertically-oriented computer screen this very moment, shaking his fist and shouting, "Heathens!" While I've also, like Martin, pondered the area efficiency of square sensors my conclusion is that there isn't a market for it outside of astrophotography as there are no print media or video screens which match. There might also be costs associated with the unusable wafer perimeter, and now I'm curious to pull out the equations again to test that. Here if one had a square sensor there is no reason for rotating the camera in the fashion supported.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 13, 2021)

I will pray to the camera Gods that this is not the R1 design...I agree, this is a loss of functional real estate on the back of the camera for buttons and electronics. Additionally, I can't at this point figure out what benefit it would provide me unless I kept my camera on a big ass D-ring while climbing a mountain which I plan to make sure I never do. haha


----------



## unfocused (Aug 13, 2021)

Not an R1. The flagship is not the place for radical new designs. If it ever sees the light of day, I would not be surprised to see it as an alternative configuration to an existing line rather than an outright substitution. For example, taking all the R5 specs and putting them into this body design with the 1 series battery.

I'm a little skeptical about the ergonomics as well. If your hand is wrapping around the grip, I think it might make selecting buttons, wheels and touch screens a bit more clumsy.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Aug 13, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Using this with gloves on? Has anyone used the R's touch bar with gloves?



The better question is, has anyone 'intentionally' used the R's touch bar  . Honestly, the only real use I got out of it was to review pictures quickly (nothing during picture taking).


----------



## Australisblue (Aug 13, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> I had the same idea (well, only about the rotating 3:2 ratio sensor). Look at all the effort, extra space & cost & weight to make the dual grip even bigger than it was before! If you're going to go to that much trouble for portrait shots without moving your hand position, you might as well just add a 90 degree rotation mechanism to the existing sensor module. Whatever extra space & weight & cost it required to do so would have to be much less than all the extra stuff this patent is adding! I'd expect that a rotating sensor design would be smaller & lighter than the existing dual grip approach once implemented properly. And then they're only be one way to hold the camera as the sensor would rotate as needed, and the bottom could be designed to attach to a tripod without interfering with a 2nd grip and they're be no need for any "L bracket"! I'd pay extra for that in a heartbeat!
> 
> Of course, if the cost of a 3:3 sensor (36 x 36mm) could be made affordable in the future (something I don't know, but suspect might be possible), then simply making the existing 3:2 IBIS sensor into a 3:3 IBIS sensor would remove the need for a rotating sensor as well as the dual grip. That'd be the ideal choice if the extra cost of the enlarged sensor & IBIS module & body enclosure could be made to be the same (or less) as the extra cost of the existing bigger dual grip design. This design would work only if there was enough clearance in the existing R mount for the 3:2 portrait image to clear the mount pins at the bottom of the mount (also something I don't know as it'd be a close fit).


I too have been keen on something similar to this for quite some time. The optimal would be a circular sensor that covered the lens image circle and allowed full frame portrait and landscape (and any other ratio/size that would fit within). Having a button to instantly switch between portrait and landscape without needing to physically rotate the camera would be totally awesome. Much easier for tripods too as you mention.

Assuming the complexities of designing a sensor like this wasn’t too great, the only real downsides I see would be additional cost (I’d certainly be willing to pay more for this feature.. but I guess how much would be the question?) and a redesign of the EVF to allow a larger view in portrait mode?

I’m not a fan of the large 1D style bodies (and now R3…), I much prefer the smaller form factor of my Canon R5, nicer to travel with (not that there’s much of that going here at the moment…) and carry around plus slightly less intimidating to people when I pull out my camera. A feature like this would make the bigger style slightly redundant (imo anyway, some might disagree and prefer a larger body even in just landscape but I’m not in that camp. Maybe an optional grip that could bolt on more securely so it felt 100% part of the camera could cater for those people and reduce the number of camera lines a little).


----------



## usern4cr (Aug 13, 2021)

Australisblue said:


> I too have been keen on something similar to this for quite some time. The optimal would be a circular sensor that covered the lens image circle and allowed full frame portrait and landscape (and any other ratio/size that would fit within). Having a button to instantly switch between portrait and landscape without needing to physically rotate the camera would be totally awesome. Much easier for tripods too as you mention.
> 
> Assuming the complexities of designing a sensor like this wasn’t too great, the only real downsides I see would be additional cost (I’d certainly be willing to pay more for this feature.. but I guess how much would be the question?) and a redesign of the EVF to allow a larger view in portrait mode?
> 
> I’m not a fan of the large 1D style bodies (and now R3…), I much prefer the smaller form factor of my Canon R5, nicer to travel with (not that there’s much of that going here at the moment…) and carry around plus slightly less intimidating to people when I pull out my camera. A feature like this would make the bigger style slightly redundant (imo anyway, some might disagree and prefer a larger body even in just landscape but I’m not in that camp. Maybe an optional grip that could bolt on more securely so it felt 100% part of the camera could cater for those people and reduce the number of camera lines a little).


A larger 3:3 (36 x 36mm) sensor would already be a very large investment for Canon, and probably more than it will ever do. I also don't know if the electrical pins along the lower part of the mount would partially block enough of the light to the lower corners of the 3:2 portrait portion of the sensor to make this idea moot anyway. But I am confident that they will never come out with a circular sensor (as you hope for) since it will waste much more space on a large silicon wafer as well as requiring even more clear pathway to every part of the full diameter circular sensor, as well as an even bigger IBIS module and body than the 3:3 sensor would, and (finally) I don't think you'll get much benefit from a 43(or so)mm diameter circular sensor compared to a 36x36mm sensor intended for 3x2 landscape or portrait shots since pretty much everyone expects images to be in a rectangular format.

Yes, a 3:3 sensor to allow 3:2 portrait shots without rotating the camera would beg for the addition of a square EVF to fully view both landscape and portrait modes, but that wouldn't be an absolute requirement if they thought the user would tolerate using the existing 3:2 EVF (and back LCD) in portrait mode (giving a smaller view of the 3:2 image).

And yes, all of this would be for the benefit of only those wanting a smaller/simpler body than the dual grip ones. In these times of diminishing high-end sales (vs smart phones) I have a feeling that these ideas will never happen (unfortunately).


----------



## Australisblue (Aug 13, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> A larger 3:3 (36 x 36mm) sensor would already be a very large investment for Canon, and probably more than it will ever do. I also don't know if the electrical pins along the lower part of the mount would partially block enough of the light to the lower corners of the 3:2 portrait portion of the sensor to make this idea moot anyway. But I am confident that they will never come out with a circular sensor (as you hope for) since it will waste much more space on a large silicon wafer as well as requiring even more clear pathway to every part of the full diameter circular sensor, as well as an even bigger IBIS module and body than the 3:3 sensor would, and (finally) I don't think you'll get much benefit from a 43(or so)mm diameter circular sensor compared to a 36x36mm sensor intended for 3x2 landscape or portrait shots since pretty much everyone expects images to be in a rectangular format.
> 
> Yes, a 3:3 sensor to allow 3:2 portrait shots without rotating the camera would beg for the addition of a square EVF to fully view both landscape and portrait modes, but that wouldn't be an absolute requirement if they thought the user would tolerate using the existing 3:2 EVF (and back LCD) in portrait mode (giving a smaller view of the 3:2 image).
> 
> And yes, all of this would be for the benefit of only those wanting a smaller/simpler body than the dual grip ones. In these times of diminishing high-end sales (vs smart phones) I have a feeling that these ideas will never happen (unfortunately).


I am not expecting something like this to come out anytime in the near future, I like to dream though. Surely at some distant point they'll be scratching their heads for the next innovation? "Ok team, we have our 4 Gigapixel sensor, 8,000 frames per second, 32K video, 35 stops dynamic range that's a few years old now.. hmm ideas?? Hang on, I remember a post on Canon Rumors from earlier this century about an idea.." :-D Yeah, there are other shapes that would allow for full frame landscape/portrait being slightly more efficient with silicon use but none quite as flexible.

It's also not just about size but also speed and convenience not needing to flip the camera around, I find in some action situations I change quite a lot and slows down the flow of things a little, maybe it's just me and everyone's situation/preferences are different.

Anyway, this idea wouldn't work with some of my RF lenses as far as I can see as they have a rectangular cutout at the rear to match the current sensor shape (not all RF lenses are like this though from a quick look at a couple in my collection).


----------



## martin_p_a (Aug 13, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Well... and why not simply integrate a mechanism that turns the sensor (or the whole cage of the mount) in either portrait or landscape mode (with a button to do so) or would be able to determine horizontal/vertical position by itself with a switch... or a fixed cross shape sensor... or a square sensor... round sensor, etc. ?


I thought about that, but I guess it would be another potential point of failure


----------



## Chig (Aug 13, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> 111a and 111b and 120a and 120b seems interesting to me.
> Especially 111a seems a cool idea.


Looks like this (111a/b) replaces the rear scroll wheel and set button , very clever design


----------



## Chig (Aug 13, 2021)

Un


Pierre Lagarde said:


> Well... and why not simply integrate a mechanism that turns the sensor (or the whole cage of the mount) in either portrait or landscape mode (with a button to do so) or would be able to determine horizontal/vertical position by itself with a switch... or a fixed cross shape sensor... or a square sensor... round sensor, etc. ?


Unfortunately the R mount contact base would obscure a square or round full frame sensor but for aps-c it would work .


----------



## Chig (Aug 13, 2021)

amorse said:


> The idea of replacing the physical control wheels/dials with touch bars makes me uncomfortable, personally. The missing joystick may be a bigger problem for some, but it does appear to have that big eye-cup from he R3, so maybe the thinking is the joystick will be less necessary if they get eye AF right? I've always liked that Canon tries some weird stuff occasionally, but I guess I'd really need to try this to see if I could get by with it.


Rear scroll wheel appears to be replaced with dual scroll wheels 111a & 111b mounted on the inside of the handle


----------



## martin_p_a (Aug 13, 2021)

Australisblue said:


> I am not expecting something like this to come out anytime in the near future, I like to dream though. Surely at some distant point they'll be scratching their heads for the next innovation? "Ok team, we have our 4 Gigapixel sensor, 8,000 frames per second, 32K video, 35 stops dynamic range that's a few years old now.. hmm ideas?? Hang on, I remember a post on Canon Rumors from earlier this century about an idea.." :-D Yeah, there are other shapes that would allow for full frame landscape/portrait being slightly more efficient with silicon use but none quite as flexible.
> 
> It's also not just about size but also speed and convenience not needing to flip the camera around, I find in some action situations I change quite a lot and slows down the flow of things a little, maybe it's just me and everyone's situation/preferences are different.
> 
> Anyway, this idea wouldn't work with some of my RF lenses as far as I can see as they have a rectangular cutout at the rear to match the current sensor shape (not all RF lenses are like this though from a quick look at a couple in my collection).


I didn’t think about the rectangle cutout at the back of some lenses, but looking at the pins in the mount, it wouldn’t work with RF as it is.

Another potential idea with a square sensor is that the orientation of your shot could be handled with metadata; the captured image would always be the full square sensor, and the crop for orientation (if not shooting square) could be applied non destructively in camera, with all the pixels accessible if you wanted to crop differently, rotate to correct horizon, or even change from landscape to portrait and vice-versa…


----------



## tapanit (Aug 13, 2021)

Chig said:


> Unfortunately the R mount contact base would obscure a square or round full frame sensor but for aps-c it would work .


There's room at the top though. So if not a full square, a 6:5, 36x30 mm² sensor could fit. Or (because corners of such a sensor would fall out of the image circle), a T-shaped sensor that could do either 36x24mm² horizontal or 24x30mm² vertical images.


----------



## Australisblue (Aug 13, 2021)

martin_p_a said:


> I didn’t think about the rectangle cutout at the back of some lenses, but looking at the pins in the mount, it wouldn’t work with RF as it is.
> 
> Another potential idea with a square sensor is that the orientation of your shot could be handled with metadata; the captured image would always be the full square sensor, and the crop for orientation (if not shooting square) could be applied non destructively in camera, with all the pixels accessible if you wanted to crop differently, rotate to correct horizon, or even change from landscape to portrait and vice-versa…


I decided to do a diagram rather than trying to just visualise it in my head.




A square sensor would certainly be a pretty good option and is 50% larger surface area, still smaller than a Fujifilm GFX 100S Medium Format (1,296 mm^2 vs ~1,444 mm^2) which although not cheap, are still affordable all things considered (I know, a bit hard to compare completely different cameras, but still). Make it 67 MP  Just dreaming, still, of course.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 13, 2021)

Because let’s face it, it is so much easier to make a new format that the current lenses don’t work on just to save turning your camera 90°.

I can’t remember how often this thoughtless thought experiment has come up on this forum over the years but it isn’t going to happen.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Aug 13, 2021)

Chig said:


> Un
> 
> Unfortunately the R mount contact base would obscure a square or round full frame sensor but for aps-c it would work .


Right, though, if we reach that extreme design (i.e. round sensors) I bet mounts design would have changed before that (and many other things around us probably  ). Even cross-shaped FF sensors would need some room at the bottom where the contacts are nowadays. The moving/rotating cage would be another way around to keep the actual mount design.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Aug 13, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> Patent the idea quickly (a flipping sensor).
> At some point a square sensor might be a reality. Circular I suppose it more wasteful.


Round is an ideal "expression". Pixels that are not to be used for any existing shape could be ignored (I bet this would be quite expensive to produce then, though). Anyway, I like the idea of rotating cage. A bit of a Sci-Fi feeling. And for the patent, well, many imaginative children probably should be paid for their ideas...


----------



## Australisblue (Aug 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Because let’s face it, it is so much easier to make a new format that the current lenses don’t work on just to save turning your camera 90°.
> 
> I can’t remember how often this thoughtless thought experiment has come up on this forum over the years but it isn’t going to happen.


I was wondering how long it would take for the fun police to arrive.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 13, 2021)

Australisblue said:


> I was wondering how long it would take for the fun police to arrive.


Yeh I got here. Do you really see a time within the next twenty years that Canon will come out with yet another lens mount?


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Yeh I got here. Do you really see a time within the next twenty years that Canon will come out with yet another lens mount?


RF-s??


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 13, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> RF-s??


Well if they did that they would have an even smaller image circle so your square is going to be even smaller....


----------



## Bahrd (Aug 13, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Well... and why not simply integrate a mechanism that turns the sensor (or the whole cage of the mount) in either portrait or landscape mode (with a button to do so) or would be able to determine horizontal/vertical position by itself with a switch... [...] ?


What about an EVF? Should it switch accordingly? 
As @privatebydesign said - just rotate the camera by 90° (with a 1D-shaped body I have even found it convenient for left-handed operations).


----------



## Australisblue (Aug 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Yeh I got here. Do you really see a time within the next twenty years that Canon will come out with yet another lens mount?


I don't recall myself mentioning a new camera mount, only a friendly discussion about something we already know isn't happening.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 13, 2021)

Australisblue said:


> I don't recall myself mentioning a new camera mount, only a friendly discussion about something we already know isn't happening.


The point about the new lens mount is due to the fact that the sensors, as you have hypothesized and drawn them, require a larger image circle than current lenses have.

I fully encourage and enjoy friendly discussions, but also feel actual facts are a sound basis for them even when it is just a thought experiment.

In this diagram of yours the black rectangle represents current 24mm x 36mm sensors, the circle is very close to the image circles projected by RF lenses, ergo, to cover a square sensor the size of your suggested square, you would need new lenses which would require another mount.


You also ignore the fact that the square format has been around for a long time, indeed I own a 6x6 camera back, and it is an incredibly niche and unpopular aspect ratio, especially now record and CD covers are a severely diminished market.

So please, let’s have a friendly discussion, but let’s include history and physics in it.


----------



## Australisblue (Aug 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The point about the new lens mount is due to the fact that the sensors, as you have hypothesized and drawn them, require a larger image circle than current lenses have.
> 
> I fully encourage and enjoy friendly discussions, but also feel actual facts are a sound basis for them even when it is just a thought experiment.
> 
> ...


Just trim off the corners, I thought that was obvious.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Aug 13, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> What about an EVF? Should it switch accordingly?
> As @privatebydesign said - just rotate the camera by 90° (with a 1D-shaped body I have even found it convenient for left-handed operations).


And how about keeping the camera always in the same position  ?
Or at the other extreme opposite, being able to rotate it thoughtlessly in any position...  ? (endless debate, don't you think ?).

Anyway, you're right, any of that kind of design would probably imply a weak efficiency to cost ratio, considering what can be actually produced with earth ressources at this right time (maybe, nothing more) and many other subjects that humans should prioritize vs "futuristics" camera designs.

On the other hand (OK... ), left-handed needs are not addressed either by the design shown in this article (sadly, as usual, may I say)... but could be.
Cameras should have the ability of assigning buttons and dials symmetrically...
I'm supposed to be right handed, but still, I would like to have the ability to change hand (and eye) from time to time. In fact, I would really like cameras to be indifferent to orientation and even, I bet I would use it all the time if it was to be an actual thing.

And indeed, this could already be quite challenging as a design goal, without even thinking of rotating cages or so, which implies the use of much more - maybe unavailable - components to be realised ...









Umbrella by Pierre-Lagarde on DeviantArt







www.deviantart.com












Tribal Tech by Pierre-Lagarde on DeviantArt







www.deviantart.com


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 13, 2021)

It would work with an APS-C sensor though. It could be 24x24 mm and there would be enough space for the pins. Of course that could mean that you would need to use a full frame lens on your APS-C body, as APS-C lenses might still have that rectangular cutout. 

The 3:2 format wastes quite a lot of area of the image circle. For a given circle that largest rectangle with all corners on the circle is a square. 4:3 for example is closer to q square and therefore uses more of the image circle. 

If wish Canon had found a way to place the pins outside the image circle. The could be in the mount for example. Than we could have any screen ratio we want. For Instagram for example I could use a 5:4 ratio that gives you the largest images there. At each ratio the corners would be at different points of the circle. So each ratio would catch some pixels that other ratios would not catch. So it would be better than just using 3:2 and then cropping to the required ratio. 4:3 for example may be less wide that 3:2, but at the same time the height grows a little.

If the technology for producing sensors is already there for years, I wonder if it would really be expensive to make them a little bigger.


----------



## Australisblue (Aug 13, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It would work with an APS-C sensor though. It could be 24x24 mm and there would be enough space for the pins. Of course that could mean that you would need to use a full frame lens on your APS-C body, as APS-C lenses might still have that rectangular cutout.


Yeah I was forgetting the pins on the full frame RF get in the way anyway.


----------



## dflt (Aug 13, 2021)

UnderWater


----------



## usern4cr (Aug 13, 2021)

Australisblue said:


> I am not expecting something like this to come out anytime in the near future, I like to dream though. Surely at some distant point they'll be scratching their heads for the next innovation? "Ok team, we have our 4 Gigapixel sensor, 8,000 frames per second, 32K video, 35 stops dynamic range that's a few years old now.. hmm ideas?? Hang on, I remember a post on Canon Rumors from earlier this century about an idea.." :-D Yeah, there are other shapes that would allow for full frame landscape/portrait being slightly more efficient with silicon use but none quite as flexible.
> 
> It's also not just about size but also speed and convenience not needing to flip the camera around, I find in some action situations I change quite a lot and slows down the flow of things a little, maybe it's just me and everyone's situation/preferences are different.
> 
> Anyway, this idea wouldn't work with some of my RF lenses as far as I can see as they have a rectangular cutout at the rear to match the current sensor shape (not all RF lenses are like this though from a quick look at a couple in my collection).


OUCH! I just looked at my RF lenses, and 3 of them (15-35L, 24-70L, 1.4 TC) have the rectangular(or rectangular-ish) mask at the mount! That means (to me) that the whole idea of a square sensor, or an additional 90 degree sensor rotation, to allow 3:2 portrait shots is a non-starter for the RF system for that reason alone. So, we're back to rotating your single grip camera for portraits or to using a dual grip body. I just learned something today! - Thanks for mentioning this, Australiablue.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Because let’s face it, it is so much easier to make a new format that the current lenses don’t work on just to save turning your camera 90°.


It’s not intended to save turning the camera 90° when taking the picture, it’s intended to save _not_ turning the camera 90° when taking the picture.

Because let’s face it, it would be so much easier to buy a new format and several new lenses to save learning how to compose the shot you want, rather than just pressing the shutter button and making all the decisions later.


----------



## martin_p_a (Aug 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The point about the new lens mount is due to the fact that the sensors, as you have hypothesized and drawn them, require a larger image circle than current lenses have.
> 
> I fully encourage and enjoy friendly discussions, but also feel actual facts are a sound basis for them even when it is just a thought experiment.
> 
> ...


When looking at the popularity of Instagram, I’d argue it isn’t an unpopular format… most shoot with their phone, but for someone looking to upgrade their camera to up their Instagram game, I can imagine that shooting square could be an interesting option… but it’d need to come in mainstream cameras (probably also with a UI overhaul, internet capabilities to upload and maybe even apps to edit on device, but that’s another discussion and not something I’d want for myself, but maybe something that could bring a new audience to dedicated cameras…)

And then, just because people don’t buy physical records and CDs doesn’t mean the digital version doesn’t need a cover image… I’d say there’s even more music being produced now, cause it’s way easier than before, and it all needs cover art (not always photos but still)




neuroanatomist said:


> It’s not intended to save turning the camera 90° when taking the picture, it’s intended to save _not_ turning the camera 90° when taking the picture.
> 
> Because let’s face it, it would be so much easier to buy a new format and several new lenses to save learning how to compose the shot you want, rather than just pressing the shutter button and making all the decisions later.



Same could – and has been — said for any photography innovation… « learn how to focus rather than letting the AF do it for you », « learn to change your roll of film rather than choosing the appropriate ISO for each shot on your digital camera », « use a tripod rather than relying on IS/IBIS », « learn to time your photos rather than looking for higher FPS bodies », etc. That’s a very trite argument.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 13, 2021)

martin_p_a said:


> When looking at the popularity of Instagram, I’d argue it isn’t an unpopular format… most shoot with their phone, but for someone looking to upgrade their camera to up their Instagram game, I can imagine that shooting square could be an interesting option…


You can select a 1:1 crop with the R series. So while I agree that the popularity of Instagram and other social media make the square format more popular, there is no reason you would need a special camera to shoot in a square format.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 13, 2021)

What I always enjoy about the square format discussions is that so many people think you can get a larger image out of the lens circle with a square crop. I barely passed geometry but I at least know that the total area won't change if you draw a square or a rectangle within the circle.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 13, 2021)

martin_p_a said:


> When looking at the popularity of Instagram, I’d argue it isn’t an unpopular format… most shoot with their phone, but for someone looking to upgrade their camera to up their Instagram game, I can imagine that shooting square could be an interesting option… but it’d need to come in mainstream cameras (probably also with a UI overhaul, internet capabilities to upload and maybe even apps to edit on device, but that’s another discussion and not something I’d want for myself, but maybe something that could bring a new audience to dedicated cameras…)
> 
> And then, just because people don’t buy physical records and CDs doesn’t mean the digital version doesn’t need a cover image… I’d say there’s even more music being produced now, cause it’s way easier than before, and it all needs cover art (not always photos but still)


Instagram started with the square format, now not so much, fewer and fewer posts are square. But as you say yourself, most posts are direct from phones so how relevant is the ‘proper‘ camera in that? Even a square cropped 4/3 sensor gives much higher image quality than a phone, so where’s the benefit in forcing the proper camera user into shooting square full time, then they’d need to crop for the other formats Instagram supports!

Most music imagery for releases is tied into the video shoots or is a graphics image , square format is close to extinct in the commercial world.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2021)

martin_p_a said:


> When looking at the popularity of Instagram, I’d argue it isn’t an unpopular format… most shoot with their phone, but for someone looking to upgrade their camera to up their Instagram game, I can imagine that shooting square could be an interesting option…


That’s just what a new high-end, square ‘fuller frame’ sensor camera needs – a dedicated Instagram button. Great idea!

Of course, Canon tried something like that once, and never again.




But I’m sure it would succeed on a much more expensive model, with an Instagram button instead of a Facebook button.



martin_p_a said:


> Same could – and has been — said for any photography innovation… « learn how to focus rather than letting the AF do it for you », « … That’s a very trite argument.


It was a tongue-in-cheek argument, but thanks for playing.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 13, 2021)

unfocused said:


> What I always enjoy about the square format discussions is that so many people think you can get a larger image out of the lens circle with a square crop. I barely passed geometry but I at least know that the total area won't change if you draw a square or a rectangle within the circle.


That is not true. Just think of the extreme: A rectangle that is only 1 pixel tall and the length of the rectangle is the diameter of the circle. If you increase the height, the width gets smaller and smaller until the width is only one pixel, while the height is the diameter of the circle. Those rectangles have the smallest area possible (if you do not count an area of zero) and the area grows if you go aways from those extemes. The maximum area is when height and with are the same. That is a square. If the circle has a radius of 1, the square has exactly the area of 2, while the area of a rectangle with the ratio is only 24/13, which is less than 2. A 4:3 rectangle would have the area of 48/25, which is less than 2, but more than 24/13.

The general area of a rectangle with an ratio of A:B with corners on a circle with radius 1 is (4xAxB)/(A^2+B^2). If the radius of the circle in R instead of 1, you just have to mutiply the area by R^2.


----------



## amorse (Aug 13, 2021)

Chig said:


> Rear scroll wheel appears to be replaced with dual scroll wheels 111a & 111b mounted on the inside of the handle


Good catch! I didn't notice that


----------



## martin_p_a (Aug 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Instagram started with the square format, now not so much, fewer and fewer posts are square. But as you say yourself, most posts are direct from phones so how relevant is the ‘proper‘ camera in that? Even a square cropped 4/3 sensor gives much higher image quality than a phone, so where’s the benefit in forcing the proper camera user into shooting square full time, then they’d need to crop for the other formats Instagram supports!
> 
> Most music imagery for releases is tied into the video shoots or is a graphics image , square format is close to extinct in the commercial world.


I mean camera companies can do nothing and maybe continue losing market shares to cell phones, or can try to attract new demographics… just because now most images posted on Instagram are from cell phone doesn’t mean that it’s impossible or futile trying to have a bigger proportion of images from dedicated cameras, but then they need to address friction points people have with cameras they don’t have with cell phones.

As for forcing people to crop in post, if the orientation is handled in metadata, then that’s a non issue. It would act the same way it does now if you were to go crop a picture that already has a crop; it would display in portrait or landscape (however you set it when shooting) then if you opened the crop tool, it would show you the additional pixels captured. Unless you shot jpeg, the orientation crop, just like the color, wouldn’t be baked in. 

We probably listen to very different music then, cause most of what I listen to has photography-based cover art that isn’t derived from a music video.


----------



## martin_p_a (Aug 13, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s just what a new high-end, square ‘fuller frame’ sensor camera needs – a dedicated Instagram button. Great idea!
> 
> Of course, Canon tried something like that once, and never again.
> 
> ...


I don’t know why you feel the need to be this condescending… 

I never said it needed to be a high-end model. Also, obviously, just putting a button to publish photos directly to social media is a half-assed proposition. Most people, I assume, want to, at minimum, put filters on their pictures before posting, or do more extensive edits, and write a caption. If the camera can’t handle that, than the phone is still a more seamless tool. Just because as photographers we are used to the UI as it is, and the limitations of the UX and the more involved workflow doesn’t mean it can’t be improved and be made more appealing and practical for newcomers. Complacency is what leads to irrelevancy. Sears (in Canada at least) used to be big with their catalogue, but missed all the important societal changes and barely tried to adapt, and it doesn’t exist anymore.

If you want your argument to come off as tongue-in-cheek then you should write it as such.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 13, 2021)

martin_p_a said:


> I mean camera companies can do nothing and maybe continue losing market shares to cell phones, or can try to attract new demographics… just because now most images posted on Instagram are from cell phone doesn’t mean that it’s impossible or futile trying to have a bigger proportion of images from dedicated cameras, but then they need to address friction points people have with cameras they don’t have with cell phones.
> 
> As for forcing people to crop in post, if the orientation is handled in metadata, then that’s a non issue. It would act the same way it does now if you were to go crop a picture that already has a crop; it would display in portrait or landscape (however you set it when shooting) then if you opened the crop tool, it would show you the additional pixels captured. Unless you shot jpeg, the orientation crop, just like the color, wouldn’t be baked in.
> 
> We probably listen to very different music then, cause most of what I listen to has photography-based cover art that isn’t derived from a music video.


There will never be a camera to rival the phone camera market, unless it has phone functionality in it, ergo it becomes a phone with a camera in it! The small and poor IQ P&S market is long since dead, the camera manufacturers can’t compete with the R&D that the big tech companies have and for most people most of the time the images they get out of their phones is more than good enough. Heck there are a lot of you tubers with millions of followers that use phone footage most of the time.

The big three have all said they see the future of the ‘camera’ market (meaning their businesses) as fewer sales but much more expensive, and that is where they are all heading.

The cover art, where it has elements of photographic images in, wasn’t shot on a square format sensor. That was my point. In the past it was. There is practically zero commercial use for the square format, that was all I was trying to say, whereas in the past there were one or two niches based on it.


----------



## TAF (Aug 13, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s just what a new high-end, square ‘fuller frame’ sensor camera needs – a dedicated Instagram button. Great idea!
> 
> Of course, Canon tried something like that once, and never again.
> 
> ...



It could replace the "Rate" button.

Is there anyone who uses that button?

I sometimes wonder if it is even hooked up (rather like the street crossing buttons, that are not always real).

Still waiting for that one to be reprogrammable...unless, of course, its fake.


----------



## Chig (Aug 13, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It would work with an APS-C sensor though. It could be 24x24 mm and there would be enough space for the pins. Of course that could mean that you would need to use a full frame lens on your APS-C body, as APS-C lenses might still have that rectangular cutout.
> 
> The 3:2 format wastes quite a lot of area of the image circle. For a given circle that largest rectangle with all corners on the circle is a square. 4:3 for example is closer to q square and therefore uses more of the image circle.
> 
> ...


A 27mm diameter circular sensor for an aps-c R7 body would be ideal and it would be mostly used with full frame lenses of course for wlidlife/sports.

You could select landscape , portrait or square and the camera could keep the selected aspect automatically level however you hold the camera (I find when I'm shooting the camera is often slightly tilted and I have to level up every image afterwards which is a nuisance). The raw data for the whole circle would be recorded too so you could change the aspect later in your computer.
Sometimes you may want to keep the whole circle for a print too.


----------



## Chig (Aug 13, 2021)

TAF said:


> It could replace the "Rate" button.
> 
> Is there anyone who uses that button?
> 
> ...


The rate button is reprogrammable , you can change it to protect instead


----------



## Emyr Evans (Aug 13, 2021)

Chig said:


> The rate button is reprogrammable , you can change it to protect instead


I use it for voice memos and playback.


----------



## martin_p_a (Aug 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The cover art, where it has elements of photographic images in, wasn’t shot on a square format sensor. That was my point. In the past it was. There is practically zero commercial use for the square format, that was all I was trying to say, whereas in the past there were one or two niches based on it.


Ah, ok. Of course, it’s being shot on whatever camera is available and popular right now. But if, say, the Canon Q5 with QF mount and square sensor was to be released in 2087, cover art could be shot on it, and landscapes and portrait could be shot then cropped; the same way today we shoot in portrait or landscape then crop to square when needed.


----------



## usern4cr (Aug 13, 2021)

Hey - I just thought of a new way to "beat a dead horse"! 

There is another crazy way that you could have a future RF body rotate the existing 3:2 sensor to take FF 3:2 portraits and_ be compatible with ALL RF (& EF lenses)!_ What crazy idea is that, you might ask? "All you have to do" (ha!) is to rotate the sensor IBIS module 90 degrees, AND rotate the entire R mount and shutter assembly on the body 90 degrees  which would rotate the lens so that all the optics are absolutely the same. Crazy enough? Well, a determined engineer might be able to do this and make a body size somewhere inbetween an R5 and R3, and then there's no dual grip needed. If you want to avoid the rotating motor & preserve battery life, make the R mount / shutter / IBIS module a single rotating component that the user can press a release button and manually twist 90 degrees. You could leave the EVF alone, or rotate it too, or (better yet) make a square EVF. Probably leave the back LCD untouched since it's often not used when taking the photo anyway, or make it square, too. While they're at it, add a pair of Arca-Swiss grooves (or a new Canon set of tiny reinforced quick-release indentations  ) on the bottom edges for quick release tripod mounting, and you'd never need a tripod quick release plate or an "L bracket" again! Woo-hoo! 

Until then (AKA "never"  ), I'll just rotate by hand my R5!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2021)

martin_p_a said:


> Ah, ok. Of course, it’s being shot on whatever camera is available and popular right now. But if, say, the Canon Q5 with QF mount and square sensor was to be released in 2087, cover art could be shot on it, and landscapes and portrait could be shot then cropped; the same way today we shoot in portrait or landscape then crop to square when needed.


Yes, shoot the square picture and decide on the framing later. Sort of like shooting all focal planes at once then choosing the focal depth later. Yet another innovation yet that could help those complacent camera makers avoid the fate of Sears.

By the way, what ever happened to Lytro, anyway? Oh, that’s right.


----------



## martin_p_a (Aug 13, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, shoot the square picture and decide on the framing later. Sort of like shooting all focal planes at once then choosing the focal depth later. Yet another innovation yet that could help those complacent camera makers avoid the fate of Sears.
> 
> By the way, what ever happened to Lytro, anyway? Oh, that’s right.


By all means, let’s use the example of a _startup_ with the implementation of an idea that wasn’t fully baked yet. If the technology was mature enough and the implementation made it useful, maybe it would’ve made its way to modern cameras. You’re just reusing the same "tongue-in-cheek" argument you used before. I’m sure many said the same thing when the first nascent implementation of eye AF was introduced and wasn’t working as well as it does today.

I had heard that photography forums have a certain reputation… I just asked a question. There is an intelligent way to explain why you think something is not the best solution, or that you think the downsides outweigh the benefits, and to have a conversation about it. But _some_ choose to be pedantic or patronizing instead.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2021)

martin_p_a said:


> By all means, let’s use the example of a _startup_ with the implementation of an idea that wasn’t fully baked yet. If the technology was mature enough and the implementation made it useful, maybe it would’ve made its way to modern cameras. You’re just reusing the same "tongue-in-cheek" argument you used before. I’m sure many said the same thing when the first nascent implementation of eye AF was introduced and wasn’t working as well as it does today.
> 
> I had heard that photography forums have a certain reputation… I just asked a question. There is an intelligent way to explain why you think something is not the best solution, or that you think the downsides outweigh the benefits, and to have a conversation about it. But _some_ choose to be pedantic or patronizing instead.


The idea of a square sensor has been discussed many, many times in the last decade-plus on this forum, and no doubt on others. But your analogies of autofocus, on-the-fly ISO changes, and OIS/IBIS, are not relevant, because they were new technologies. A square sensor is not a new idea, it existed when we called sensors film…and it was far from the most popular format then.

So your question pertains to an idea that is not novel on these forums, and more importantly not novel in the photography market – where it was not appreciably successful.

If the reputation of photography forums is one of low tolerance for inanity, then I’m guilty as charged.


----------



## entoman (Aug 14, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> I use it for voice memos and playback.


That's what I use it for too.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 14, 2021)

TAF said:


> It could replace the "Rate" button.
> 
> Is there anyone who uses that button?
> 
> ...


I use it all the time. After a big play as I’m chimping to see if I got the shot I star the best one. During halftimes and after the game I run through the captures and star the best ones. Much faster than doing it on the computer later and saves me a ton of time not having to cull through 3000 frames waiting for the computer to render them.

I’ve even used ratings to ID players I need shots of. Five stars for #38, four for #7 etc. then I can filter for those players. 

Even during other events I’ll often rate shots. It sounds like you’ve never shot on a deadline.


----------



## Bonich (Aug 14, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> Very good idea but I think you have to turn the lens with the sensor due to the contacts between lens and body! But just that might be possible.


Why not just turning the sensor?
Yes, lens bends have to be adopted ...


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 14, 2021)

Bonich said:


> Why not just turning the sensor?
> Yes, lens bends have to be adopted ...


The rectangular format of the sensor makes way to the contacts for camera-lens data communication. If you turn the sensor it will be partly screened by the lens contact array (at least in FF cameras) - so you have to turn the lens with the sensor and the contact array:


https://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/eosr5r6.png



It is maybe just some vignetting of the 1 or 2 mm but I think this might be annoying. Or we need a new lens mount RF2 with rearranged contacts ... 

For APS-C or Super35 it will work (while not so important for Super35 video).


----------



## DBounce (Aug 14, 2021)

I think this design makes a lot of sense. One of the biggest sources of heat in the Eos R5 is the memory cards. By isolating them in the handgrip it should greatly contribute to a cooler running camera.

The truth is, barring a totally new technology, like optical circuit boards, a radical redesign of the camera body would seem a necessary measure to allow for the high levels of performance that this cameras will no doubt be capable of providing.
In all honesty, this is the most interesting thing I’ve seen in the mirrorless market in years. If it brings with it killer specs… and I suspect it will, then I’m definitely adding one to my collection.


----------



## Franklyok (Aug 15, 2021)

Are next generation R1 series going to be so big battery suckers , that it would be good idea to separate hot batteries (in the grips ) from motherboard.

2 batteries, 1 per grip?


----------



## AlanF (Aug 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> What I always enjoy about the square format discussions is that so many people think you can get a larger image out of the lens circle with a square crop. I barely passed geometry but I at least know that the total area won't change if you draw a square or a rectangle within the circle.


Fortunately, you don't have to be a Euclid or Pythagoras to take good photos.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I use it all the time. After a big play as I’m chimping to see if I got the shot I star the best one. During halftimes and after the game I run through the captures and star the best ones. Much faster than doing it on the computer later and saves me a ton of time not having to cull through 3000 frames waiting for the computer to render them.
> 
> I’ve even used ratings to ID players I need shots of. Five stars for #38, four for #7 etc. then I can filter for those players.
> 
> Even during other events I’ll often rate shots. It sounds like you’ve never shot on a deadline.


When I did a lot of wildlife photography I used it quite a bit, there's often downtime in the field and I'd pre-sort my images using the rating button to save time later.


----------



## amfoto1 (Aug 15, 2021)

To me this camera just looks weird. I can imagine the designers chuckling to themselves while designing it. Was the patent application submitted on April Fool's Day?

Maybe it's click bait for the rumor trolls who watch the patents or serves a more nefarious purpose to flush out any confidential information leaks within the corporation! ☺


----------



## Jack Jian (Aug 16, 2021)

This is what a new generation chips can achieve, an shrinking size. With the mirror and shutter assembly out of the way, in fact, the body alone can be made as slim as an iPhone. Real estate is no longer an issue. The future is exciting!

For ref:, in sheer computing power, if an iPhone 12 is made to perform only what an R5 does, it'll perform far better and faster.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 16, 2021)

I notice Gannon over at DPR has picked up on this story. Really, he could maximise his scoops if he checked-in on Canon Rumors more regularly:

_"What’s more interesting, and so far not reported on elsewhere, is that Canon also notes this cutaway design could be achieved through the use of an add-on attachment, not unlike the vertical grips Canon has released alongside its EOS R, R5 and R6 mirrorless camera systems. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize this modularity could result in a Sigma fp-style camera with the option to add a more robust grip for times when you need a better handle on the camera. A left-hand variant of the design is shown off as well, which may turn the ol’ left-handed camera April Fool’s joke into a reality."_


----------



## freejay (Aug 17, 2021)

I just think this is just genius! For were the action is this will be the most secure way to hold a camera while running around or stuff like that.


----------



## entoman (Aug 25, 2021)

DBounce said:


> I think this design makes a lot of sense. One of the biggest sources of heat in the Eos R5 is the memory cards. By isolating them in the handgrip it should greatly contribute to a cooler running camera.
> 
> The truth is, barring a totally new technology, like optical circuit boards, a radical redesign of the camera body would seem a necessary measure to allow for the high levels of performance that this cameras will no doubt be capable of providing.
> In all honesty, this is the most interesting thing I’ve seen in the mirrorless market in years. If it brings with it killer specs… and I suspect it will, then I’m definitely adding one to my collection.


Better still, design all cameras so that there's an *option* to transmit the image files by ftp direct to external memory, thereby eliminating most of the heat source?
From what I understand, ftp image file transmission is already available on Sony a9ii and a few other cameras, and will be available in R3 and Z9...

The body format in the Canon patent looks bulky too. Personally I prefer a more compact body like the R5, with the option to fit a vertical grip for specific situations where I'll be shooting a lot of material vertically, or when I want a longer-lasting non-interrupted power source.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> The body format in the Canon patent looks bulky too. Personally I prefer a more compact body like the R5, with the option to fit a vertical grip for specific situations where I'll be shooting a lot of material vertically, or when I want a longer-lasting non-interrupted power source.


Ergonomics is a personal thing. When I use a non-gripped camera, my hand is sore by the end of the day. I think mainly my 5th digit being curled under and even more the lack of weight to counterbalance a heavier lens – even the 24-105/4L feels unbalanced on my R, and the other day I was shooting with the (adapted) 11-24/4L and that was a whole other level of front-heavy.

I used a gripped 7D and 5DII, which were ok but the integrated grip has a different shape that I find much more comfortable (the add-on grips bulge on both sides to accommodate transverse batteries, the 1-series only bulges in front). I also found the flex between grip and body to be problematic on a tripod, but removing and replacing the grip is a PITA.

Not at all sure how I’d feel about something like this patent design. Bulk isn’t a big deal (my camera bags are sized for pro bodies), but not sure about all-day comfort, and too much weight savings would be bad for me (as above, it’s more about balance than total mass).


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ergonomics is a personal thing. When I use a non-gripped camera, my hand is sore by the end of the day. I think mainly my 5th digit being curled under and even more the lack of weight to counterbalance a heavier lens – even the 24-105/4L feels unbalanced on my R, and the other day I was shooting with the (adapted) 11-24/4L and that was a whole other level of front-heavy.
> 
> I used a gripped 7D and 5DII, which were ok but the integrated grip has a different shape that I find much more comfortable (the add-on grips bulge on both sides to accommodate transverse batteries, the 1-series only bulges in front). I also found the flex between grip and body to be problematic on a tripod, but removing and replacing the grip is a PITA.
> 
> Not at all sure how I’d feel about something like this patent design. Bulk isn’t a big deal (my camera bags are sized for pro bodies), but not sure about all-day comfort, and too much weight savings would be bad for me (as above, it’s more about balance than total mass).


I agree that ergonomics is a personal thing, although there are a few basic rules such as leaving a sensible gap between the grip and the lens - a problem with early Sony cameras. I've owned, hired or borrowed virtually every camera that Canon has made, at some stage. I found the 5D and 7D series handled extremely well. The gripped 1Dxii handled even better, but was just too heavy to carry, and I often shoot in very tight situations, sometimes with the camera on the ground, and need to have the lens as low as possible, so most of the time I prefer ungripped bodies. I can't get on with the RP, which I find much too small and fiddly, especially if using anything longer than a 100mm lens. The R5 balances well in my (largish but skinny) hands, with all the lenses I own (listed below).


----------

