# "1Dsq" & 3D [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 26, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/01/1dsq-3d-cr1/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/01/1dsq-3d-cr1/"></a></div>
<p><strong>1Ds Mark Squared</strong>

Received some information that we talked about <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/the-cmos-sensor-squared-cr2/">many moons ago</a>. The shift of the top end 1D camera to Ã‚Â a square sensor.</p>
<p>TheÃ‚Â informationÃ‚Â goes on to say Canon has the technology to do 8-10fps with a 35-40mp image file.</p>
<p><strong>3D Returns</strong>

We all love to dream about it, and the 3D is making its annual return to the rumor mill.</p>
<p><!--more--><strong>From <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_3d.html">NL</a></strong></p>
<ul>
<li>3D full frame – 18MP</li>
<li>No built in grip, 1 series ‘style’ build</li>
<li>7D/1D focus</li>
<li>Active focus screen (as per 7D)</li>
<li>ISO to 102400</li>
<li>Video as with 7D</li>
</ul>
<p><strong> Another vote for a smaller pro camera</strong>

Along with the above square sensor information, I was told again to expect a new top end camera body. Again, the “smaller body” was mentioned.<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Anastas (Jan 26, 2011)

*Re: \*

Waiting for the mythical 3D almost 3 years now... It's time canon to release it, or stop this bullshit!


----------



## fman (Jan 26, 2011)

*Re: \*

It looks to good to be true but
would be on my must have list...


----------



## bvukich (Jan 26, 2011)

*Re: \*

What about the lenses that have rectangular reflection masks?

The 24-105/4L is the most obvious example I can think of, as it is masked after the back element and clearly visible.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 26, 2011)

*Re: \*



bvukich said:


> What about the lenses that have rectangular reflection masks?
> 
> The 24-105/4L is the most obvious example I can think of, as it is masked after the back element and clearly visible.



yeah, I'm guessing the likelihood of this is about the same as the likelihood of the minnesota vikings being crowned this year's super bowl champion. just ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Ivar (Jan 26, 2011)

*Re: \*

18MP on FF - because of the bigger sensel size and newer technology the 1D high ISO must look awful in comparison i.e. it is pretty clear if those specs materialise the 1D update must follow.


----------



## jsolsona (Jan 26, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Canon Rumors said:


> 3D full frame â€“ 18MP



I would looove to see this.
I'm waiting for the 5D III but I'm not too happy with the supposedly super high MP
I'd love a FF at about 18MP. That would be the perfect camera


----------



## traveller (Jan 26, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

It sounds like every idiot is trying to jump onto the bandwagon. I guess this is how certain 'sources' imporve their CR# ratings: wait until you think an announcement might be close then cover off a base with a made up (but logical) set of specifications; if you're close you instantly improve to CR2 or CR3, if not try again next time from a different email address. 

Still, it keeps us amused-so I guess we're really the biggest idiots.


----------



## Stone (Jan 26, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

If only this rumor were finally true, add 8fps & I'd stand in line to get this body.
I'm skeptical of the 18MP, I just don't see Canon giving up the high MP bragging rights just yet. I would expect 21-24 MP especially if the 5DIII is going into the 30+ MP range.


----------



## Wahoowa (Jan 26, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

I recall that a 3D rumor last year that this camera would be designed specifically for "low light". If this camera comes out at a reasonable price, I will be all over it.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 26, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



> wait until you think an announcement might be close then cover off a base with a made up (but logical) set of specifications



Scratch the "logical" and I would agree.


----------



## jeremymerriam (Jan 26, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Canon Rumors said:


> <strong>1Ds Mark Squared</strong>
> 
> Received some information that we talked about <a href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/the-cmos-sensor-squared-cr2/\">many moons ago</a>. The shift of the top end 1D camera to Ã‚ a square sensor.</p>
> <p>TheÃ‚ informationÃ‚ goes on to say Canon has the technology to do 8-10fps with a 35-40mp image file.</p>
> ...



I think as a website made to churn out rumors, you should have a bit more discretion with all these rumors you come across. Maybe you should have the people give some sort of supportive evidence to these claims? There must be some way to filter through all this nonsense. The latest rumor is just plain nonsense a just as ugly as gossip


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



jeremymerriam said:


> I think as a website made to churn out rumors, you should have a bit more discretion with all these rumors you come across. Maybe you should have the people give some sort of supportive evidence to these claims? There must be some way to filter through all this nonsense. The latest rumor is just plain nonsense a just as ugly as gossip



Just what would you suggest for "supportive evidence"? He's using past history of the rumor provider as a "filter". If you have a better suggestion, we'd love to hear it.


----------



## gmrza (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

If you consider Canon's need to differentiate the 1Ds range from the 5D range, a square sensor could be a way to do that, given that it is probably a more practical aspect ratio for studio use. Another benefit is for those instances when you have to use direct on-camera flash, and you have no way of avoiding ugly shadows other than keeping the camera upright, you don't lose so much in cropping.
That may be sufficient for wedding and portrait shooters to prefer a 1Ds series camera over a 5D series camera...
From an engineering perspective, a square sensor may be less demanding on lenses than a 2:3 sensor - because of less use of the fringes of the light circle. While I do not have sufficient technical expertise in this area, I suspect a square sensor might allow Canon to pack in more, smaller pixels and still get sufficient image quality.
After all, a 24x36mm frame is purely a relic of 35mm film.


----------



## Mark (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

I use the 7D for shooting video quite a bit. For me, the one most important feature that would justify buying the next camera Canon puts out is for the video to autofocus like a regular camcorder or the Sony mirrorless cameras. I have all Canon lenses but have even considered buying a Sony just for the video autofocus capability.

Have you heard anything about video autofocus in an upcoming Canon DSLR?


----------



## J-Man (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: “1Dsq” & 3D [CR1]*

I don't think it would be too hard for a company with the resources that Canon has, to release a new format to expand their market share.
Could it be possible that the lens manufacturing problems Canon is currently having might be due to adapting their production lines to a new mount design and therefor delaying the announced lenses.... 
Granted it could also be Canons loose AF tolerances biting them in the butt.

The 3D specs sound good, I might part with my 1DIII
** 3D full frame – 18MP*
I'd be happy with anything between 15 & 21MP.
** No built in grip, 1 series ‘style’ build*
Full weather sealing is a must have now days.
** 7D/1D focus*
If not: = FAIL
** Active focus screen (as per 7D)*
Must be able to manual focus easily!
** ISO to 102400*
As long as 50-1600 are noise free, and no $%^&%% banding!
** Video as with 7D*
With improved AF for live view & video I hope.


----------



## macfly (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

I'd be very surprised because there are so few real uses for square images these days. Nobody buys cd's or albums anymore, so where's the reason to go square? Maybe mp bragging rights, but other than that everyone will be cropping it all the time, so a 42mp will reall be more like a 35mp. However the idea of a camera that is always held the correct way up is reather appealing

6x7 is actually about the most useful of all the aspect ratios I've used over the years in terms of using the most of the film regadless of whether its single page, double page or billboard. 

Ah well, I hope they don't take too long with it, whatever it is, because Nikon is starting to look awefully good these days!


----------



## Gcon (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

Oooh the 3D is exactly what I want. Well I'd like to stay at 21MP (I'm a 5DmkII user) but for the stuff I shoot and sizes I print then 3MP difference (14% drop) probably wouldn't be an issue, but if they can increase low-light performance, add 1d-level pro weather sealing, up the shutter speed and improve the AF then I am so there!!!

Lenses - new improved 50mm f/1.2L II would be good to go with it - a low-light specialist body needs a better low-light prime to go with it.. hint hint...


----------



## Osiris30 (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Canon Rumors said:


> <strong>1Ds Mark Squared</strong>
> 
> Received some information that we talked about <a href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/the-cmos-sensor-squared-cr2/\">many moons ago</a>. The shift of the top end 1D camera to Ã‚ a square sensor.</p>
> <p>TheÃ‚ informationÃ‚ goes on to say Canon has the technology to do 8-10fps with a 35-40mp image file.</p>
> ...



Ok, so let's see... Canon is going to bring out all new lenses for this square format sensor, and we haven't seen a single square format lens patent... right that does that one in.

As for this 3D.. Anyone who thinks Canon is going to drop their sensel density needs to give their heads a shake. ISO performance and sensel size have *very* little to do with each other, the newest Sony APS-C proves this point. The current Nikon high-iso monster which shall be unnamed is that way due to other design reasons, not the sensel size. 

I *really* wish people would get over this silly internet myth that smaller pixels are bad (and it is a myth until a point we aren't close to). You actually improve DR with more smaller sensels due to highlights not being blown to kingdom come.

While I appreciate the rumors didn't originate with CR, I do wish people would apply a little critical thinking to some of them. If you guys *want* something from a sensor how about faster microlenses, something f0.6 or so to allow f1.2 lenses to actually be used to their full advantage in terms of light gathering. The only reason I don't own an f1.2 lens is I can't use it at close to f1.2 from a light gathering perspective (and I really don't need DOF that thin.. not that I couldn't handle it, but I don't need it for artistic purposes).

Give me a 40MP, 4:1 binned (optionally) FF sensor with fast microlenses and I will buy it. Immediately. Give me nice low readout noise and nicely designed wells of a good depth. Move as much of the support circuitry to the back of the sensor to improve sensel density.. these are the things people would be asking for if they stopped to think about how light and sensors *actually* work... oh and if someone (anyone, I'd switch brands for this in a heartbeat), can come up with a way to have the bayer filter be movable so I can put the camera in true monochrome mode, they would be my god (and yes I know it won't happen, but if we're dreaming.. )


----------



## Osiris30 (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



dilbert said:


> Osiris30 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



There are many more than that.. I just can't be bothered to go and figure out which they are right now. Not to mention I wouldn't want to see the corners on a 36mmx36mm sensor with the lens that don't have the baffle on the back of them. 

Oh I just thought of a lens with a baffle on the back that's not square (enough).. the 70-200 f2.8 Mk II.. Canon's best 'pro' zoom lens ever (sorry but I usually don't study the rear-end of most lenses)


----------



## macfly (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

I think the patents are a very pertinent point, and I really can't see Canon building a whole new system for the ever shrinking stills market. I bet that their focus will be on video all the way now.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Osiris30 said:


> Ok, so let's see... Canon is going to bring out all new lenses for this square format sensor, and we haven't seen a single square format lens patent... right that does that one in.
> 
> As for this 3D.. Anyone who thinks Canon is going to drop their sensel density needs to give their heads a shake. ISO performance and sensel size have *very* little to do with each other, the newest Sony APS-C proves this point.The current Nikon high-iso monster which shall be unnamed is that way due to other design reasons, not the sensel size.
> 
> ...



1. Which new Sony sensor are you talking about, 16MP or 24MP?

2. What are the "other design reasons" for the relatively low large pixel size in the "Nikon high-iso monster"?

3. As for the "silly Internet myth" about pixel size, go to the Canon USA website and look at their bragging about the sensor for the new M40/M41/M400 camcorders. Coming from Canon, it's downright weird. If pixel size doesn't matter, is binning desirable only to reduce file size? Also, you might want to talk with the people who designed the sensor for the Red Epic movie camera. They're claiming 13.5 stops of DR with relatively large pixels.

4. I didn't know that microlenses even had f-stops. Could you elaborate?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Osiris30 said:


> Ok, so let's see... Canon is going to bring out all new lenses for this square format sensor, and we haven't seen a single square format lens patent... right that does that one in.



I'm with dilbert on this one...lenses are round, and they project an image circle. How you sample the light within that circle - rectangular or square - is independent of the lens. The only exception to that is where there is a rectangular baffle at the rear of the lens, which I've seen on the 24-105mm and nowhere else (some telephoto lenses have a square baffle with slightly rounded corners, but not something that would impinge on the shape of the image circle).


----------



## NotABunny (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Bob Howland said:


> What are the "other design reasons" for the relatively low large pixel size in the "Nikon high-iso monster"?



See http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911 for the real factor responsible for low image noise: sensor size.




Bob Howland said:


> If pixel size doesn't matter, is binning desirable only to reduce file size?



Sensor / image resolution has nothing to do with noise *per image*, but it affects the noise *per pixel*.


----------



## KyleSTL (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Osiris30 said:


> Not to mention I wouldn't want to see the corners on a 36mmx36mm sensor with the lens that don't have the baffle on the back of them.



The image circle for a an EF lens would make a 30.6mm square sensor. Sensor size would be constrained by the hypotenuse (43.266mm), not the width of a 3:2 ratio frame. For the record, a 36x24mm sensor is 864 mm2, a 30.6mm square sensor is 936 mm2. That is an 8% increase of surface area. That, coupled with the fact that a square sensor would have less sensor area outside of the 'sweet spot' of the lens would likely result in slightly sharper images.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

>The image circle for a an EF lens would make a 30.6mm square sensor. 

If we're talking about a camera at $8-10K+, why not make a sensor that covers the entire image circle; then let the photographer decide how to crop it. Will that create wasted silicon? Yup, but this is not a consumer camera, and it would eliminate the need for a "vertical" grip.


----------



## macfly (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: “1Dsq” & 3D [CR1]*

"They don't need to build a whole new lens system."

Dilbert, make a circle that touches the edges of a rectangle with an aspect ratio of 1.5 x 1 then make a circle around the squares made up of the 1.5 dimension, and you'll see that the area of coverage is significantly expanded.

As other her noted the square will be smaller than the 1.5 dimension if they went that way but kept the current lenses. I'd say this has a snowball's chance in hell of being true, but hey, Canon have made some really bad decisions lately, like messing up the once wonderful G series, so maybe.


----------



## KyleSTL (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Orangutan said:


> >The image circle for a an EF lens would make a 30.6mm square sensor.
> 
> If we're talking about a camera at $8-10K+, why not make a sensor that covers the entire image circle; then let the photographer decide how to crop it. Will that create wasted silicon? Yup, but this is not a consumer camera, and it would eliminate the need for a "vertical" grip.


So you would prefer vignetting in all images, with post-processing on every image to eliminate the black areas by cropping?


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

>So you would prefer vignetting in all images, with post-processing on every image to
>eliminate the black areas by cropping?

Cropping already occurs, it just happens before image capture. By capturing the entire available scene, the photographer gets to decide after the fact whether it's landscape, portrait, square or oval. 

The reasoning is similar to JPEG capture vs. raw with JPEG conversion: if you start with JPEG capture you have limited your data up front. If you capture raw you give yourself more to work with later, even though you will need to do some kind of post-processing.

If you're thinking "I don't want to apply manual cropping to thousands of photos," consider that the software that supports this camera will have features to make this easier.

In short, no, I don't want vignetting, I just want to have maximum data, and never have to rotate my camera to change orientation.

To be honest, though, this is just hypothetical for me since I could not afford $8k for a body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



macfly said:


> Dilbert, make a circle that touches the edges of a rectangle with an aspect ratio of 1.5 x 1 then make a circle around the squares made up of the 1.5 dimension, and you'll see that the area of coverage is significantly expanded.
> 
> As other her noted the square will be smaller than the 1.5 dimension if they went that way but kept the current lenses.



I don't think anyone mentioned that a hypothetical square sensor would be 36mm x 36mm. Obviously, geometry precludes that possibility with current lenses (except the TS-E lenses, which have a large enough image circle).


----------



## EYEONE (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

This is exactly what I was thinking. Why not make the sensor go all they way to the edges of the lens? The you could switch between portrait and landscape at the touch of a button. And it would be FF in both directions.


----------



## bvukich (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



KyleSTL said:


> Osiris30 said:
> 
> 
> > Not to mention I wouldn't want to see the corners on a 36mmx36mm sensor with the lens that don't have the baffle on the back of them.
> ...



OK... now take your 30.6mm square sensor and crop it to a normal AR and you only have 30.6x20.4 and only 624mm^2. Significantly smaller than FF, and just a smidge over APS-H.


----------



## KyleSTL (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Orangutan said:


> Cropping already occurs, it just happens before image capture. By capturing the entire available scene, the photographer gets to decide after the fact whether it's landscape, portrait, square or oval.
> 
> The reasoning is similar to JPEG capture vs. raw with JPEG conversion: if you start with JPEG capture you have limited your data up front. If you capture raw you give yourself more to work with later, even though you will need to do some kind of post-processing.
> 
> ...


Well, in the case of a 36x36mm sensor, the manufacturing cost would go up at least 50% over current FF sensors (aside from R&D and other associated costs). And a 43.3x43.3mm sensor would be at least 116% more costly.

In the case of the 36x36mm sensor 4.5% of the sensor would be outside the image circle. For the 43.3mm square it would be 27.3%.

Since CR has been reporting for quite some time that Canon would make a 'radical departure' with the 1Ds replacement, I would say this is slightly feasible. This is no more radical than the idea of a removable back similar to the MF digitals. And Canon, Kodak, Nikon and the like have experience with the selectable aspect ratio in the past with the APS system of cameras.


----------



## traveller (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



KyleSTL said:


> Well, in the case of a 36x36mm sensor, the manufacturing cost would go up at least 50% over current FF sensors (aside from R&D and other associated costs). And a 43.3x43.3mm sensor would be at least 116% more costly.


I haven't bothered checking your calculations (!), but whatever the figure I'd have to agree. 

Sensor size is very strongly correlated with price; sure it may be technically possible to do multiple aspect ratios with the new 1Ds (a la GH2), but it's all irrelevant unless the market is willing to pay a premium price for this. Are pros really demanding multiple aspect ratios? 

All we've heard so far is doubts that the 1Ds series can remain viable at its current price point. Will adding even more expense make it more compelling, or simply drive recession hit pros to cheaper options?


----------



## Justin (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

In terms of cost of production and pricing, look to the Pentax 645D for a comparison of what Canon would be shooting for for a "radical departure" body. The Pentax silicone is quite a bit bigger at 44mm x 33mm. The body is priced at $10k. 



traveller said:


> KyleSTL said:
> 
> 
> > Well, in the case of a 36x36mm sensor, the manufacturing cost would go up at least 50% over current FF sensors (aside from R&D and other associated costs). And a 43.3x43.3mm sensor would be at least 116% more costly.
> ...


----------



## Justin (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

Thanks for reposting this. I remember reading it awhile ago, and thought it was brilliant. I would love a sensor like this in the flagship Canon or even better, the 5D successor. 



dilbert said:


> macfly said:
> 
> 
> > "They don't need to build a whole new lens system."
> ...


----------



## gmrza (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



dilbert said:


> So?
> Why would you crop it to a "normal" AR?
> And what is a "normal" AR?
> 3:2 because that's what 35mm film used?
> ...



Aside from the legacy of 35mm film, there is the proximity to the golden ratio that favours the
3:2 aspect ratio. (Actually 16:10 would be closer.)
I get the point though of asking "what is a standard aspect ratio?"
Take a look at a wedding album - you will see all sorts of aspect ratios that can readily be printed.

What will be a technical consideration in working with a square sensor is that the sensor will be
higher (even if only 30.6mm) - quite a bit higher than 24mm. That means that the reflect mirror
and pentaprism need to be totally redesigned (assuming a SLR design).
It has even bigger implications for the shutter. Building a focal plane shutter than has to travel
30.6mm will probably be quite a technical challenge - especially when you want to maintain
a reasonable flash sync speed. I doubt that 1Ds buyers would accept anything less than 1/250sec.
My uneducated guess is that with the same curtain travel speeds, you would not be able to
reach 1/200s on a 30.6mm high sensor. (I stress - _uneducated guess_.) By increasing
the travel speed of the curtains, you increase the mechanical stresses, which means durability
becomes an issue. Another way around that is to go back to an electronic shutter, which however
is a compromise from an image quality perspective.

Canon would need to do a great deal of engineering to change the sensor aspect ratio. That
said, there has been a long delay since the launch of the 1Ds3.


----------



## Osiris30 (Jan 28, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Bob Howland said:


> Osiris30 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, so let's see... Canon is going to bring out all new lenses for this square format sensor, and we haven't seen a single square format lens patent... right that does that one in.
> ...



1) The new 16mp APS-C which is light years ahead of any previous Sony/Nikon APS-C despite a massive increase in sensel density pre sq mm.

2) Improvements in the core technology had more to do with the performance there than the raw size of the sensel.

3) No, binning can improve noise, but not due to increasing the sensel size, but because it can lead to a reduction in read out noise. As for Red Epic, they still haven't said exactly what they are doing either.. in fact they won't say much of anything over than quoting the DR.. there are a lot of things you can do to increase DR if you're going to be sneaky about it *and* if you have the luxury of knowing you're never going to have to support 1/8000 as a shutter speed.

4) I'll see if I can find a few relevant articles for you. They aren't f-stop in the sense of an aperture, but they will only gather light up to a certain point. It's a complex subject and well beyond the scope of posting here (hence while I'll find you links).


----------



## Osiris30 (Jan 28, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



neuroanatomist said:


> macfly said:
> 
> 
> > Dilbert, make a circle that touches the edges of a rectangle with an aspect ratio of 1.5 x 1 then make a circle around the squares made up of the 1.5 dimension, and you'll see that the area of coverage is significantly expanded.
> ...



Admittedly that's the assumption I've made here. If it's smaller than convention 36mm, then I have to wonder how well it would be accepted (since if you need to crop a 2x3 image you now have a *smaller* sensor area).


----------



## Joe J (Jan 28, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



So?
Why would you crop it to a "normal" AR?
And what is a "normal" AR?
3:2 because that's what 35mm film used?
16:9 because that's what wide screen TV uses?
4:3 because that's what a lot of computer monitors are?

If a 3:2 is always cropped in order to fill a 16:9, then what's the point of a 3:2 sensor?
If a 3:2 photo never fills a 4:3 or 16:9 screen, what's the point of a larger screen?

The point here being that aside from historical bias towards 3:2 there is no reason for digital photographs to be that way.
[/quote]

Agreed, 100%


----------



## Joe J (Jan 28, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

Anyone who has issues with using a "square format" sensor should buy a Hasselblad 500 series camera with an 80, 120 or 150mm lens, 10 rolls of Provia 100f or Velvia 100, and shoot at least 2 photos a day for 2 months. By the time those two months are up, you'll be wondering why every camera doesn't have a square sensor (with a landscape/ portrait crop option, for those few occasions where that works better). Guaranteed...


----------



## kubelik (Jan 28, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Joe J said:


> Anyone who has issues with using a "square format" sensor should buy a Hasselblad 500 series camera with an 80, 120 or 150mm lens, 10 rolls of Provia 100f or Velvia 100, and shoot at least 2 photos a day for 2 months. By the time those two months are up, you'll be wondering why every camera doesn't have a square sensor (with a landscape/ portrait crop option, for those few occasions where that works better). Guaranteed...



I think it's very much an individual taste thing, still. I have an old 503 CM that I've shot several rolls on (I'll be honest, I don't use it that often), and it's just different. I definitely prefer hauling my 5DII around to hauling that block around. it makes you compose differently and think about your photography differently, but I wouldn't say its better or worse.

the most important thing I don't like is the cost of lenses that are large enough to cover a square image sensor. and the need to buy a totally new set of them. for that reason, I think all the square sensor rumors are very unrealistic, unless canon is looking to seriously alienate a large portion of its professional and serious amateur customer base.


----------



## Osiris30 (Jan 28, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Joe J said:


> Anyone who has issues with using a "square format" sensor should buy a Hasselblad 500 series camera with an 80, 120 or 150mm lens, 10 rolls of Provia 100f or Velvia 100, and shoot at least 2 photos a day for 2 months. By the time those two months are up, you'll be wondering why every camera doesn't have a square sensor (with a landscape/ portrait crop option, for those few occasions where that works better). Guaranteed...



I don't have any issue with the format.. I actually love it.. but seeing it from Canon is another matter entirely.


----------



## Joe J (Jan 28, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

I don't have any issue with the format.. I actually love it.. but seeing it from Canon is another matter entirely.
[/quote]

I agree; I don't really see Canon going that route either, but from a personal/ outsider's/ photographer's perspective, it would be better for Canon, and photographers if they explored that avenue. It would be nice...


----------



## Joe J (Jan 28, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



kubelik said:


> Joe J said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who has issues with using a "square format" sensor should buy a Hasselblad 500 series camera with an 80, 120 or 150mm lens, 10 rolls of Provia 100f or Velvia 100, and shoot at least 2 photos a day for 2 months. By the time those two months are up, you'll be wondering why every camera doesn't have a square sensor (with a landscape/ portrait crop option, for those few occasions where that works better). Guaranteed...
> ...




Understandable about having to haul around a second body and set of lenses on every shoot; I go through that all the time, and it's a pain in the ass, to be honest. But at the end of the day, the square format/ image quality/ better (larger) glass makes it worth it for me personally.
Square format isn't necessarily "better or worse" (as landscape/ portrait can work better in some instances), but it's a by far better sensor size format as a base for giving maximum options for a photographer. And who wouldn't want all the possible in-camera composing options? Not to mention the multiple other benefits to a larger sensor. 

Square sensors are only unrealistic if you are afraid of change. I think if someone came out with a digital square format system that's superior to everything else out there in multiple aspects, both now and the long term, most professional photographers (including myself) would have no problem making the investment to switch to a better system. There is no alienation of anyone if the new system that much better than everything else, only common sense to evolve your photography with a better system...


----------



## Rocky (Jan 28, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Joe J said:


> Anyone who has issues with using a "square format" sensor should buy a Hasselblad 500 series camera with an 80, 120 or 150mm lens, 10 rolls of Provia 100f or Velvia 100, and shoot at least 2 photos a day for 2 months. By the time those two months are up, you'll be wondering why every camera doesn't have a square sensor (with a landscape/ portrait crop option, for those few occasions where that works better). Guaranteed...


I do not have problem with the squre format. However, I do want to point out why Hasselblad (also Rollieflex and other copies) is using a square format. The penta prism for Hasslblad (Rollieflex also) is extremely heavy and expensive. so It it not an option for most of the users. Waist level view finder is the norm for the users. So can you imagine people using it side way??? The squre format will eliminate the rotaion of the camera body. 
Back to the arguement about "Standard height to width ration". There is no standard. However, human vision do have more width than height, it is about 3:2, individual milage may vary. That is why the movie industry set this standard at the beginning and Leica adopted it since day one and evey body follows. TV has been using 4:3 for a long time. Movies has been using wide screen for a long time also. DH TV has moved away from 4:3. So what is the right ratio???
The only thing that we will give up in square format is the angle of view in the horizotal direction. For any given lens, it will be narrower.
There are people agrue that with square format ( based on existing FF lens) will have less usable sensor area. It nay not be the case. Let us use 8 X 10 print as a case for discussion. For a FF, an 8 X10 will use 24mm X 30mm area of the sensor. on a quare 30mm X 30mm sensor, it will stil use 30mm X 24mm. Exactly the same! For 12 X14 print, 24mm x 28mm will be used from FF. It is actually smaller than the 30mm X 25.7 mm from the 30mm square sensor.


----------



## Etienne (Jan 28, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

FF is 36 x 24 mm
A square sensor would have to be 36 x 36 mm, to reproduce the wide angle and DOF characteristics of FF.
This would probably make the body much more expensive.


----------



## KitH (Jan 28, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

wasn't something written before Chirstmas about the production cost of FF sensors? specifically they're very difficult to manufacture and prone to wastage through random defects. As I recall, APS-H was the largest size to fit onto the dies used to make silicon wafers without risking excessive wastage when a defect occurs. My guess is a square format APS-H might be a lot easier to produce and could allow them to get to higher quality than FF at a reasonable fabrication cost. Then carry on using the best parts of the EF lenses. 

I'm biased, I like square. I was given a 6x6 Rollei for my 18th birthday, which led to many splendid pictures, but rather poor school exam results. I still have that camera. No idea where those exam certificates are.


----------



## bvukich (Jan 29, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

I guess, if you cant beat 'em, join 'em...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOuW9odA9hA


----------



## Catastrophile (Jan 29, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*

if the FF sensor is increased by a factor of just 5.8% diagonally (ie to ~ 37.7x26mm, diagonal=45.7mm instead of 36x24mm, digonal=43.26mm), then one can shoot 16:9 (using all the 37.7mm and cropping a little bit from the 26mm), or 3:2 (cropping from both to 36x24), or 4:3 (using all 26 while cropping a bit from the 37.7), such cropping would result in an imaging area that has exactly a diagonal of 43.26mm (ordinary diagonal of FF), so FF lenses would be able to cover up to these dimensions for all 3 mentioned aspect ratio's without corner issues. would be nice if the RAW image use the whole 37.7x26 and one can decide later how the image will be cropped. just to note here the whole area itself is very close to 3:2 in aspect ratio. 

have a look at this diagram if you find the explanation above not clear enough:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2932234860_0f0d5242ed_z.jpg?zz=1
it was originally about one of the Panasonic multi-aspect cameras, so forget about the number of pixels in the W & H dimensions, and think in terms of the given percentage numbers, 100 is the diagonal of the original sensor (43.26 for FF).


----------



## bvukich (Jan 29, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



privatebydesign said:


> When will you guys get it? With the EF registry distance of 44mm you can't have a mirror that will give you a short side much over 24mm. It has nothing to do with lens baffles or image circles. It is impossible to make a reflex camera with a 44mm lens registry distance anything over a 26mm square, even a non moving pellicle mirror can't do it. The only way you can realise a longer short side, and see through the lens, is to read off the sensor.



That part never even crossed my mind.

A mirror to cover a 30.6mm tall sensor would be an absolute minimum of 43.27mm tall.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 29, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



privatebydesign said:


> When will you guys get it? With the EF registry distance of 44mm you can't have a mirror that will give you a short side much over 24mm. It has nothing to do with lens baffles or image circles. It is impossible to make a reflex camera with a 44mm lens registry distance anything over a 26mm square, even a non moving pellicle mirror can't do it. The only way you can realise a longer short side, and see through the lens, is to read off the sensor.


From 24 X 36mm to 30X30mm, the "Shortside" onlyincreased by 6mm, ie. 3 mm on each end of the "short side". If you look inside the film slr or FF dslr. You can see that there are easily 3mm space between the edge of the view finder and the insde of the camera body. This space is "reserved for the morror movement. If we think outside of the box and put the mirror hinge at the bottom of the camera. It may be doable.


----------



## Admin US West (Jan 30, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Rocky said:


> From 24 X 36mm to 30X30mm, the "Shortside" onlyincreased by 6mm, ie. 3 mm on each end of the "short side". If you look inside the film slr or FF dslr. You can see that there are easily 3mm space between the edge of the view finder and the insde of the camera body. This space is "reserved for the morror movement. If we think outside of the box and put the mirror hinge at the bottom of the camera. It may be doable.



How would auto focus work? Where would the sub mirror be located? The mirror would hit the sensor if it swung down, and block all light if it swung up. Remember, the mirror is diagonal at about 45 degrees, so it grows more than the increase in the sensor height.


----------



## bvukich (Jan 30, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Rocky said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > When will you guys get it? With the EF registry distance of 44mm you can't have a mirror that will give you a short side much over 24mm. It has nothing to do with lens baffles or image circles. It is impossible to make a reflex camera with a 44mm lens registry distance anything over a 26mm square, even a non moving pellicle mirror can't do it. The only way you can realise a longer short side, and see through the lens, is to read off the sensor.
> ...



The mirror is on a 45 degree angle, so 6mm of sensor equates to 8.48mm of mirror ( 6*sqrt(2) ). There is only 44mm from the front face of the flange, to the film (sensor) plane. Being able to flip up a 43.27mm mirror in that space will be tight, to say the least. With careful body design, it _may_ be possible.

To flip down, you would probably need even more room, because then you have to clear the shutter too.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 30, 2011)

*Re: 1Dsq & 3D [CR1]*



kubelik said:


> ... the most important thing I don't like is the cost of lenses that are large enough to cover a square image sensor. and the need to buy a totally new set of them. for that reason, I think all the square sensor rumors are very unrealistic, unless canon is looking to seriously alienate a large portion of its professional and serious amateur customer base.



Canon has done that before when they switched from the FD mount to the EF mount in 1987. The FD mount was introduced when Canon built their first Pro Camera, the F1. And lots of Pros were really unhappy when Canon made all their FD lenses obsolete. No reason that history can't be repeated.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 30, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



Rocky said:


> Back to the arguement about "Standard height to width ration". There is no standard. However, human vision do have more width than height, it is about 3:2, individual milage may vary. That is why the movie industry set this standard at the beginning and Leica adopted it since day one and evey body follows. TV has been using 4:3 for a long time. Movies has been using wide screen for a long time also. DH TV has moved away from 4:3. So what is the right ratio???



In the conventional motion picture format, frames are four perforations tall, with an *aspect ratio of about 1.37:1, 22 mm by 16 mm (0.866 in Ã— 0.630 in)*. This is a derivation of the aspect ratio and frame size *designated by Thomas Edison (24.89 mm by 18.67 mm or 0.980 in by 0.735 in) at the dawn of motion pictures, which was an aspect ratio of 1.33:1*

VistaVision (used for a few years by Paramount Studios) was an 8 perf wide (film running sideways in the camera) format that was changed from sideways (using an optical printer) to conventional 4 perf for projection at aspect ratios between 1.66:1 and 2.00:1 By making a reduction print from the larger they got finer grain prints. When film improved VistaVision died.

So no motion pictures were ever shown at 1.5:1. Low budget wide screen was done by shooting 1.37:1 and cropping the picture to 1.85:1 with a projector mask.

Leica just took vertical 4 perf and changed it to horizontal 8 perf for their cameras.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 30, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



privatebydesign said:


> Canon made the right choice when they switched lens mounts in '87. They knew, and understood from the outset, that AF worked best when the AF motor is in each lens.



That's beside the point. Doesn't make any difference why they did it, or that it was what allowed Canon to over-take Nikon with Pro shooters.

The point is that Canon did it ... and will probably do it again at some point, when they see an advantage to doing it, i.e. a square sensor or a mirror-less camera.


----------



## Osiris30 (Jan 30, 2011)

*Re: â€œ1Dsqâ€ & 3D [CR1]*



c.d.embrey said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Canon made the right choice when they switched lens mounts in '87. They knew, and understood from the outset, that AF worked best when the AF motor is in each lens.
> ...



So by that logic, anything that has ever happen will happen again. Sorry but that argument is so incredibly weak it's not even funny. Canon caught a LOT of flak over the move to EF at the time. It cost them *alot* of pros, even if they stayed with Canon they lost a ton of good will, at the time.

Canon may launch a new mount for mirrorless, but only because the flange back requirements will be lower. This will mean it will still be compatible with EF lenses through an adapter. The same isn't true if you go to a square sensor and need to increased the flange back. Unless Canon goes MF I don't think you'll see a new, non-mirrorless mount for a LONG time.

Just because something has happened in the past doesn't mean it will or should happen in the future.


----------

