# 36x36 mm cmos sensor



## axismundi (Jun 1, 2011)

anybody sees any chance for a Canon EOS cmos-sensor that says goodbye to the 24x36mm "full-frame" limitation and actually provides the maximum format that the EOS optical system allows?

From my understanding, a 36x36 mm square format would be handled by any EF-lense without any issues. The EOS optical system is a circle, right - not an ellipse.

This would increase the sensor surface by 50%, in words "fifty percent". Man - this is quite a lot.
I suppose it would allow for even more dramatically improved image quality, at least if you need large formats - like 2x2 m prints.


----------



## WarStreet (Jun 1, 2011)

I was strongly believing of a 1Ds with square sensor + fast fps in crop mode, and a new FF 1D with a price range of D3s since Canon can't leave this price range out. If Canon decide to merge a 1DS and 1D without a 1D replacement, than Canon will be forced to reduce the price of the 1Ds, as current 1D users will switch to D3s. 

I doubt that EF glass can be used on 36mm x 36mm, there will be too much vignetting. The current 36mm side can be accommodated since it is rectangular. The square sensor will need to be slightly smaller than that.


----------



## Kim (Jun 1, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> ... than Canon will be forced to reduce the price of the 1Ds, as current 1D users will switch to D3s.



I doubt people will do a full systems change due to price.


----------



## drummstikk (Jun 1, 2011)

Kim said:


> I doubt people will do a full systems change due to price.



Truer words never spoken. Price is about the LAST thing to enter into the equation if you are actually talking about the tools with which you make your living.

It took a true game changer like the Nikon D3 to get me to even THINK about switching systems. Several of the other Canon shooters in my area were looking longingly at the images the Nikon guys were getting in the crappy light situations, but nobody I know actually switched. Most people choke on the pricetag, and some of us who are heavy old-school manual focusers can't abide the idea of having to re-learn how to do it "backwards."

People like me who work in news/editorial/event photography should be in the ideal target market to switch to the Nikon D3 due to it's low-light chops. But, frankly, this area does not pay exceptionally well, so for most of us it's just too painful to consider dumping the 10 G's or more it would cost to switch even if you sell your current gear at a good price. And while the D3 is better in low light, Canon's are still quite good.

At the other end of the spectrum, the heavy duty commercial people who are raking in thousands per day don't HAVE to switch (at least not for the low-light capability) because they help themselves to light from a phalanx of Elinchroms. It may be a different story for hobbyists who may make their living in dentistry or lawyering, or the ones whose "system" is just a body and one or two lenses, but aside from that, there's not a whole lot of switching going on.


----------



## polpaulin (Jun 1, 2011)

a 1Ds with 36 x 36 sensor will be great , with 5 framing possibilities and no grip necessary


----------



## WarStreet (Jun 1, 2011)

drummstikk said:


> Kim said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt people will do a full systems change due to price.
> ...



Market rules apply to every item. If price for pro photographer's is not an issue, Canon can just double the price of the 1D and won't suffer any decrease in sales ? I find it difficult to believe this, especially since Canon would have definitely increased the price if they know it will increase profit. 

As like most companies, they have to deliver different price/performance range to cover different market needs. I feel that missing this slot, is strategically incorrect.


----------



## drummstikk (Jun 1, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> drummstikk said:
> 
> 
> > Kim said:
> ...



I think maybe I didn't say exactly what I meant. Didn't mean to say Canon had carte blanche to double the price of their flagship (unless, of course, they make it truly amazing). My main point is that there won't be a mass exodus to Nikon just because Nikon's flagship might happen to be cheaper. Users will simply delay or decline adoption of the new Canon if the price is too high for the market.

I acknowledged that price IS an issue for many photographers, including myself. But price is one of the lesser priorities among MANY when something as monumental as a system switch is contemplated.


----------



## jhpeterson (Jun 1, 2011)

This 36x36 mm sensor idea sounds most appealing. I've been thinking along these lines for the past few months, though I haven't wanted to share my thoughts without some acknowledgement it's a reasonable possibiility.
There are a lot of good reasons to go with this format, including no more need to change camera position when shifting between horizontal and vertical formats AND that this will allow an almost-unlimited number of aspect ratios, a few of which could be pre-selected in-camera or developed in post-processing of the RAW files.
As for the matter that most lenses currently aren't capable of full coverage of this larger circle, it would only be of concern when one wished to use the entire image, something that is rather infrequent in real-world situations. I imagine that Canon has already thought out the problem and is working on II and III versions of current lenses offering improved coverage. In fact, I think some of the latest optics already offer equal or better performance at the 36x36 limits than the earlier models did at 24x36.


----------



## WarStreet (Jun 1, 2011)

drummstikk said:


> I think maybe I didn't say exactly what I meant. Didn't mean to say Canon had carte blanche to double the price of their flagship (unless, of course, they make it truly amazing). My main point is that there won't be a mass exodus to Nikon just because Nikon's flagship might happen to be cheaper. Users will simply delay or decline adoption of the new Canon if the price is too high for the market.
> 
> I acknowledged that price IS an issue for many photographers, including myself. But price is one of the lesser priorities among MANY when something as monumental as a system switch is contemplated.



Now I understand what you mean and agree with you 100%. I guess it's me who explained my meanings incorrectly on my first post. My main point is more on the market strategy, rather switching of users.


----------



## adamdoesmovies (Jun 1, 2011)

I'm not sure what happened to my post last night - I replied to this with a very good explanation. 

Basically, the size of the sensor is limited by the flange distance, which influences how big the mirror can be. The flange distance is 44mm. Using the Pythagorean theorem sqrt((36^2) + (36^2)), it is easy to determine that with a 36mm sensor, the mirror would have to be about 51mm long, causing the mirror to run straight into the lens. A live view solution is possible, but anyone who'd pay the extra money for a huge sensor like that certainly wants an optical viewfinder. 

In short, without a radical re-design of the camera, or a completely new lens system based on medium format distances, this is not possible. An APS-C square, however... that's another story!


----------



## EYEONE (Jun 1, 2011)

adamdoesmovies said:


> I'm not sure what happened to my post last night - I replied to this with a very good explanation.
> 
> Basically, the size of the sensor is limited by the flange distance, which influences how big the mirror can be. The flange distance is 44mm. Using the Pythagorean theorem sqrt((36^2) + (36^2)), it is easy to determine that with a 36mm sensor, the mirror would have to be about 51mm long, causing the mirror to run straight into the lens. A live view solution is possible, but anyone who'd pay the extra money for a huge sensor like that certainly wants an optical viewfinder.
> 
> In short, without a radical re-design of the camera, or a completely new lens system based on medium format distances, this is not possible. An APS-C square, however... that's another story!



It's not that radical. The Sony A900 has a mirror motion that is pushed up rather than swung up. I believe a film Nikon had the same principle back in the day. If Canon wanted to make a square sensor they could easily modify the mirror motion to make it work.


----------



## sjaudio (Jun 1, 2011)

the "full frame sensor" _IS_ is the maximum allowed space on an EOS system A square sensor would give you roughly a 24x24 mm square, not 36x36. As was mentioned by adamdoesmovies, you'd need a redesigned mirror system to go any larger as well as new lenses. There are plenty of discussions (as well as diagrams) on this forum and others on why you couldn't go with a large/square sensor without a complete redesign.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> If Canon wanted to make a square sensor they could easily modify the mirror motion to make it work.



Easily? Probably not. But I agree that they likely could (perhaps with some compromises on frame rate?).



axismundi said:


> From my understanding, a 36x36 mm square format would be handled by any EF-lense without any issues. The EOS optical system is a circle, right - not an ellipse.



It's a circle for most, but not all, lenses. For example, the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS has a rectangular baffle over the rear element, meaning the image 'circle' from that lens is actually a rectangle. Likewise, the new 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II has a baffle on the back where the corners are rounded off, so it couldn't quite cover a full square sensor.


----------



## HughHowey (Jun 1, 2011)

Might not work. If the "rectangle" maxes out the circle of light from the lens (and why wouldn't they do it this way?), then a square would have a smaller "wide" side.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2011)

HughHowey said:


> If the "rectangle" maxes out the circle of light from the lens (and why wouldn't they do it this way?), then a square would have a smaller "wide" side.



That's exactly right. From Canon's TS-E article, which clearly shows that except for the TS-E lenses, the image circle of FF Canon lenses cannot cover a 36x36 mm sensor.






So, if you use the EF lens image circle as the limiting factor, the 36x36mm square sensor is a non-starter. Basic geometry tells us that *the largest square that can be inscribed within a 43.2mm diameter image circle is 30.55 x 30.55mm*.

That means your hypothetical square sensor suitable for use with EF lenses, when cropped to a 3:2 aspect ratio, will give you a 36.7mm diagonal, which means a 1.18x crop factor compared to a current FF sensor (i.e. closer to APS-H than to FF).


----------



## TexPhoto (Jun 1, 2011)

OK I can't have 36x36mm because there "might" be some vignetting? SO what!, crop it.

Think about it. Let's say your camera has a big square sensor and the resulting RAW image would have more vignetting than the current rectangular sensor. So What? Crop it to rectangular, or square, or a circle. Whatever you the photographer want. Hell you could crop to horizontal or verticle with no loss from the current system.

Remember the edge of the image produced by the lens is not a hard line. Unlike the diagrams above. It tapers off slowly, and even that changes with zoom, focus, and aperture changes. (Again, unlike the diagrams above) 

So no, a square sensor need not be smaller on the wide side, it just will require the photographer understand unless he crops it to the exact size of the current sensor there may be a little more work involved. 

The jpeg could default to the current FF size to avoid shock and horror by people who don't understand there is still a little work to do after the photo is taken.


----------



## jhpeterson (Jun 1, 2011)

TexPhoto said:


> OK I can't have 36x36mm because there "might" be some vignetting? SO what!, crop it.
> 
> Think about it. Let's say your camera has a big square sensor and the resulting RAW image would have more vignetting than the current rectangular sensor. So What? Crop it to rectangular, or square, or a circle. Whatever you the photographer want. Hell you could crop to horizontal or verticle with no loss from the current system.
> 
> ...


I think that's exactly the point!
Rather than limit the photographer to one particular format, this would give them the opportunityy to use whatever would work best for their specific situation. I like the idea of JPEG defaults, say perhaps in 3:2, 4:3 and 1:1 in both horizontal and vertical modes. Maybe 16:9, too. Seems to me this would deliver noticably greater IQ in most all circumstances than the present "fixed-format" setups.
Also, it would give all lenses a certain amount of "shift" function, which one would work on (from the RAW files in post-processing. And, in cases where a certain amount of falloff was acceptable, it would offer a much larger file from most all current (FF) lenses.


----------



## akiskev (Jun 1, 2011)

I think that some Panasonic models like the GH2 do the thing you describe to some extend.
It is called "multi-aspect sensor" but the sensor's total surface area is never used to capture a single image.


----------



## Admin US West (Jun 1, 2011)

TexPhoto said:


> OK I can't have 36x36mm because there "might" be some vignetting? SO what!, crop it.
> 
> Think about it. Let's say your camera has a big square sensor and the resulting RAW image would have more vignetting than the current rectangular sensor. So What? Crop it to rectangular, or square, or a circle. Whatever you the photographer want. Hell you could crop to horizontal or verticle with no loss from the current system.
> 
> ...



The real question is who would pay a medium format price for a sensor that they could not fully use. Costs to produce sensors go up exponentially with size. Its going to cost a whole lot more.

By paying the price for a medium format camera, you could use the whole sensor.


----------



## drummstikk (Jun 1, 2011)

motorhead said:


> In fact I recently read that typically, if a professional was trained on a particular range of kit, that tends to be what he or she sticks with for life.



I'd say that's quite true. Although I did switch from Nikon to Canon in about 1991. It was a relative nightmare then, mainly due to the manual focus direction issue. But at the time, with much more of my working life ahead of me than there is now, and having the greater flexibility of the young, I decided to take the plunge. Back then, the comparison was Nikon F4 vs. Canon EOS-1, and the EOS was revolutionary by comparison. At this point, having progressed much further into "old fart-hood", I wouldn't put myself through that again without an *extremely* good reason.

I will take back one thing I said earlier. I do know at least one Canon shooter who switched to Nikon D3, but that was in a "pool equipment" situation at a large newspaper. The photographer was able to switch with no cash outlay on his part, and would have been able to switch back after a few weeks or months if things were not working out. Most of us don't have anywhere near that kind of flexibility. I haven't run into this individual for a long time, so I'm not sure if he stayed with it permanently or not.


----------



## HughHowey (Jun 1, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> HughHowey said:
> 
> 
> > If the "rectangle" maxes out the circle of light from the lens (and why wouldn't they do it this way?), then a square would have a smaller "wide" side.
> ...



No shit? I was right about something? Wait 'til I tell my wife about this!!


----------



## aldvan (Jun 2, 2011)

akiskev said:


> I think that some Panasonic models like the GH2 do the thing you describe to some extend.
> It is called "multi-aspect sensor" but the sensor's total surface area is never used to capture a single image.



My backup Leica D-Lux 4 let me choose among 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9. I don't know how that choice is made possible (mechanically or electronically), but, to be honest for me that is not one of the little camera's main features...


----------



## sjaudio (Jun 6, 2011)

I don't see much logic in Canon going for a square sensor, but how about a 4x5? It's approximately the same surface area as the current full frame sensor and if Canon is really going after the medium format crowd with their next 1Ds, it would make more sense to go with that ratio. What do you guys think?


----------



## jhpeterson (Jun 6, 2011)

sjaudio said:


> I don't see much logic in Canon going for a square sensor, but how about a 4x5? It's approximately the same surface area as the current full frame sensor and if Canon is really going after the medium format crowd with their next 1Ds, it would make more sense to go with that ratio. What do you guys think?


I, for one, have never cared much for the 4:5 ratio. It's boring, trite, too close to square for my liking. Maybe that's because I've primarily worked in the 35mm format, and have long appreciated its close to "golden rectangle" proportions. 
But the real beauty of a square sensor would be its versatility. The idea of never having to turn the camera to change from a horizontal to a vertical shot is very appealing to me, with the ability to produce a usable image in a wide variety of fomats an added bonus.


----------



## Heidrun (Jun 6, 2011)

I would love to have a square 36x36 sensor. I think it would suite my pictures very well


----------



## ReyMorlu (Jun 9, 2011)

Hey guys!! What r u speaking about??? 

A square shaped digital is my dream, since I sold out two years ago, all my Hasselblad equipement... I miss up the beautifull and interesting composition capabillities that a square gives.

BUT I do not know if you have noticed a few technical little problems, that MAKES ABSOLUTELLY IMPOSIBLE to still using EOS lenses (that we use nowadays in our equipements) in a ficticious 36x36 sensor in special way with reflex design.
FF Lens coverage circle is 43.26mm (I have to admit that a 600mm lens in example has much more but... impossible to be used in practice, because of mount)
36x36mm needs 50.9 circle diameter! not covered by lenses... then impossible!! :'(
Other option 30.5x30.5mm... OMG yeah! This might be... but... what about the mirror cell?? :-[ we have to increase the size of the damn mirror and then, the camera body! about 6mm deeper increasing then distance from focal plane & lens rear mount... like an extension tube, if makro are your expectations OK, but for the rest of us Â¡What a shit! No infinite focus is a hard lack... Isn't it? LOL
The last possibillity is -I think- 24x24 tini format , in a special trial camera that I'm sure will never comes to light.

Why I sold my Hassy?... because I live in Canary Islands and no 120 film & lab developement!! 
And moreover, I do not pay for a digiback 11.000$, not crazy enough!


----------



## adamdoesmovies (Jun 10, 2011)

ReyMorlu said:


> Hey guys!! What r u speaking about???
> 
> A square shaped digital is my dream, since I sold out two years ago, all my Hasselblad equipement... I miss up the beautifull and interesting composition capabillities that a square gives.
> 
> ...



You should have sold the body, kept the lenses, and gotten a converter. I ended up doing this instead of selling my mamiya, and its old manual focus lenses now have a way of making pretty much everything else in my kit seem inferior.


----------



## jeremymerriam (Jun 11, 2011)

drummstikk said:


> Kim said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt people will do a full systems change due to price.
> ...



Legitimate/professional commercial photographers are not shooting with SLR bodies. They are shooting medium format.


----------



## Heidrun (Jun 11, 2011)

Dont know why people are saying that you cant have a 36x36 sensor. Now it is 36x24 , and a lens is round.. so i dont see the problem here.
I want a square one, and i want it bad


----------



## bikersbeard (Jun 11, 2011)

read the above posts, it explains why you cant have 36x36..


----------



## gferdinandsen (Jun 11, 2011)

Out of curiousity, why can't you crop to a 1:1 ratio in Photoshop? I currently use a 5D2, on my PIXMA9500, it cannot print a full resolution (13x19) so cropping will not cause any noticable pixalization (much less printing an 8x8 or 8x10, or 8x12). It's much cheaper to change in post-processing than make a sensor that is significantly larger.

There really seems to be a lot of "I want therefore Canon should make". I learned to shoot with 35mm, when you learn on film/transparancies, you learn learn how to make do with what you have, not how to make the technology adapt to what you want


----------



## dougkerr (Jun 11, 2011)

axismundi said:


> anybody sees any chance for a Canon EOS cmos-sensor that says goodbye to the 24x36mm "full-frame" limitation and actually provides the maximum format that the EOS optical system allows?
> 
> From my understanding, a 36x36 mm square format would be handled by any EF-lense without any issues. The EOS optical system is a circle, right - not an ellipse.


The largest square format that the current EF lens image circle (when an actual circle) could handle is 30.6 x 30.6 mm.

In some of the lenses, the image boundary is not quite a circle. Then a slightly smaller square format is all that could be handled.

Best regards,

Doug


----------



## Rocky (Jun 11, 2011)

Heidrun said:


> Dont know why people are saying that you cant have a 36x36 sensor. Now it is 36x24 , and a lens is round.. so i dont see the problem here.
> I want a square one, and i want it bad



There will not be enough room for the movement of the reflex mirror. The existing EF lens will just clear the movement of the mirror for a 24mm high sensor. now you are asking another 12mm extra.


----------



## Heidrun (Jun 11, 2011)

Rocky said:


> Heidrun said:
> 
> 
> > Dont know why people are saying that you cant have a 36x36 sensor. Now it is 36x24 , and a lens is round.. so i dont see the problem here.
> ...



Skip the mirror and make an electronic one, That will also elimiinate problem wioth the mirrorshake


----------



## Rocky (Jun 11, 2011)

Heidrun said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Heidrun said:
> ...


There is only ONE TS-E lens will give you 36 X36 mm coverage. Do you think that Canon will make a camera that is based on ONE lens only and with the slow AF and view finder of a point and shoot. Will you buy this camera.? The standard coverage of FE lens is 30.4 MM square.


----------



## jhpeterson (Apr 1, 2012)

It's no April Fool's joke that I'm dredging up this old post.
I've been away most all the last three month on shoots, but found some time to think more about this. The more I did, the more convinced I am this idea is worth pursuing.
Since the price of sensors keeps coming down, it's only a matter of time before a 36x36 one costs no more than a 24x36 does at present. And, with the mirrorless movement continuing to gain more followers, it likely won't be long before we see electronic viewfinders in pro-level DSLRs. Doing without the mirror will solve one of the problems that has limited what image size we can produce from our cameras, as the current configuration of 35-mm style cameras is pretty much maxxed-out at 24mm in the short dimension.
So, the only remaining significant obstacle appears to be lens coverage. I don't, at least at the moment, expect to see many lenses capable of delivering 36x36mm images without SOME vignetting. But, if we can accept a certain amount of fall-off, I think we've opened the door to many exciting aspect-ratio possibilities. After all, how many times is the final image we REALLY want a square? 
Permit me a few moments here to make some calculations. The diagonal of 24x36mm image measures just a little over 43.2mm. I'd like to think every lens that produces an acceptable image for full-frame 3:2 cameras covers at least this, and some a bit more. This would also give us 30.6x30.6mm for a square, 26.9x33.7 for 5:4, almost 25.7x34.3 at 4:3 and, for those of us into panoramic vistas, 19.4x38.8 for 2:1 and 13.7x41.1 at 3:1. 
Maybe, what we would really want to see is a sensor that allows us to take full advantage of the optics we've paid some seriously money for. Say one, 45mm in diameter, more or less, since I suspect much of our glass covers somewhat more than it was designed for. And, if it doesn't quite measure up, we can always stretch things a bit with software.


----------



## Spooky (Apr 1, 2012)

you're right, thinking outside the box! There are quite a few obstacles but non are impossible, maybe expensive though.

Regarding the mirror, how about a semi-transparent (pellicle) as was in the old EOS1 (RT?), that would remain fixed. I don't know what the mount - sensor distance is and this may limit this. An electronic finder would be ok but we wouldn't get the fast AF. 
Looking through the old posts, most miss the fact that you crop for the final result, not end up with a vignetted square image. The lens baffles could be removed?
How about a new body, waist level finder and rotating back for our EF lenses?


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 2, 2012)

Would the 36x36mm sensor/format have issues with lens hoods? I'm looking at my 24mm lens right now, and I think with the hood on you'd have issues. They are petal cut hoods for a reason, right?


----------



## jhpeterson (Apr 2, 2012)

Spooky said:


> you're right, thinking outside the box!


Seems like I occasionally put my engineering school education to good use!
Indeed, the square sensor would be a boon to any photographer who needed to quickly shift from horizontal to vertical, or vice versa. And, since I'm left-eyed, especially true for me. It always presented interesting challenges to my picture taking, going back to film days when I'd have to take the camera from my eyes to advance to the next frame. Built-in motors made the problem irrelevant, but to this day I've found the vertical button on grips and pro bodies to be rather useless, as it's in a most awkward location. (On the plus side, I'll bet the way I have to hold the camera for verticals makes me inherently steadier than my right-eyed colleagues.)
I mentioned some time back that I think some presets for different formats could be included, at least for JPEG files, much like that for image size and levels of compression. Of course, most all your better image editing software now does this rather easily.
As for the lens hood issue, it seems a relatively minor problem. And, while the cost for some of them is no longer small change, at least in the case of the supertelephotos with hoods that run as much as what one can pay for a decent lens, the last I looked they were all circular in shape.


----------

