Square sensor?

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/11/2018 at 5:25 AM, Peter Branch said:

Back in the day I used a Rollei 6 x6 film camera and the negatives were almost always printed on a range of "Imperial" paper sizes, 10"x8", 16"x12", whole plate i.e.61/2" x 81/2", etc. Cropping was "The Norm".

Today with the SL the image is 3:2 and gets printed on A3, A4, etc. papers, which again necessitate a crop.

As far as I know nobody supplies Inkjet paper in any of the old "Imperial" sizes, or indeed in the Letter etc sizes more frequently used in the USA.

All this leads me to wonder why the "Crop Lines" that are available as optional settings in Leica's  digital viewfinders are all in old/obsolescent/obsolete film size and not in the formats of modern printing papers which many publications demand?  

 

Hello Everybody,

I would think that a square format would be most useful when copying something in sections where the square format would allow the copying of the most material in the least number of exposures. Such as multiple document copying or aerial mapping.

best Regards,

Michael

[BernardC]

16 hours ago, Brian C in Az said:

What is the advantage of choosing 1:1 in the body?

Wouldn't you essentially be limiting the amount of image captured? Would it not be better to crop in post processing where you can fine tune the actual crop?

Viewfinder crops (and other JPEG features like B&W) do not affect RAW files. You can fine-tune all you want in your favourite post-processing software.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Brian C in Az]

22 hours ago, pico said:

Maybe with a new large format, but with our tiny 36x24 format square is as crazy suggestions for a round format. What do we gain th a square? Perhaps in cutting CMOS chips there is a very little bit to be trimmed but it probably economical considering consumer expectations. IOW, it is a stupid idea.

What do we gain? Depends on the composition of the image. A 36x36 square offers more latitude in composure. As mentioned, you can shoot Portrait style without having to rotate the camera. When looking at a 36x24 landscape, the scene looks like the vertical portion has been chopped short. Looking at the GFX landscape images, they are more visually pleasing due to their large, more inclusive area. There is relatively little extra cost in manufacture, especially when the other option is for more pixel density. The GFX has shown that the large pixel can deliver if the image is large enough and doesn't require a 200% zoom with crop. Shooting an identical scene (such as Horseshoe Bend) requires a wider lens on the SL and then a significant crop with enlargement. With a square sensor, we would only need a small enlargement and almost no crop.

There is as much a market for a square sensor SL as there is for an SL with 50 mpx.

 

What is stupid is having a gorgeous round image focused by our lenses and only capturing 36x24 of it instead of 36x36 of it

[Michael Geschlecht]

17 minutes ago, Brian C in Az said:

What do we gain? Depends on the composition of the image. A 36x36 square offers more latitude in composure. As mentioned, you can shoot Portrait style without having to rotate the camera. When looking at a 36x24 landscape, the scene looks like the vertical portion has been chopped short. Looking at the GFX landscape images, they are more visually pleasing due to their large, more inclusive area. There is relatively little extra cost in manufacture, especially when the other option is for more pixel density. The GFX has shown that the large pixel can deliver if the image is large enough and doesn't require a 200% zoom with crop. Shooting an identical scene (such as Horseshoe Bend) requires a wider lens on the SL and then a significant crop with enlargement. With a square sensor, we would only need a small enlargement and almost no crop.

There is as much a market for a square sensor SL as there is for an SL with 50 mpx.

 

What is stupid is having a gorgeous round image focused by our lenses and only capturing 36x24 of it instead of 36x36 of it

Hello Brian,

there was actually a Thread about sensor/negative size & proportion here on this Forum, not that long ago.

Actually: Using the same image circle as "M" cameras film or digital use today: There would not be a 36mm X 36mm square image because the diagonal of the 24mm X 36mm image collection surface is approximately 43mm. Inside an approximately 43mm image circle you can only have an approximately 30mm X 30mm square image collection surface. To have a 36mm X 36mm image collection surface you would need an approximately 52mm image circle.

That would require a larger camera.

Sorry for the imprecise numbers. I am doing the math in my head. No calculator with me.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited December 19, 2018 by Michael Geschlecht

[pico]

23 minutes ago, Brian C in Az said:

What do we gain? Depends on the composition of the image. A 36x36 square

Oh, 36x36 is a whole new case. Today that's about medium format.  Ain't gonna happen for Leica M lenses.

[Brian C in Az]

37 minutes ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello Brian,

there was actually a Thread about sensor/negative size & proportion here on this Forum, not that long ago.

Actually: Using the same image circle as "M" cameras film or digital use today: There would not be a 36mm X 36mm square image because the diagonal of the 24mm X 36mm image collection surface is approximately 43mm. Inside an approximately 43mm image circle you can only have an approximately 30mm X 30mm square image collection surface. To have a 36mm X 36mm image collection surface you would need an approximately 52mm image circle.

That would require a larger camera.

Sorry for the imprecise numbers. I am doing the math in my head. No calculator with me.

Best Regards,

Michael

This image is shot with a Fuji GFX and Otus 28mm. You can see the image circle is large enough, even if you cropped the vignetting out, the image is still about 36x36.

I don't know how much larger the image circle is with the Otus compared to the M lenses. I would guess the R lenses have an image circle similar to this Otus lens which shows that the SL could have a 34x34 or 36x36 square sensor. Even if we had to crop a mm or 2 with certain lenses, it is doable.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The image you posted is not symmetrical.

Quote

I don't know how much larger the image circle is with the Otus compared to the M lenses.

You don't know. No evidence. Otus lenses are not Leica. Nuff said.

Edited December 19, 2018 by pico

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Again Brian,

Nice photo.

I am not trying to make a case for or against a square format. I am simply doing math.

Many lenses are designed to cover a larger format than the format that they end up being used for. An example is the 135mm F4.5 Hektor which was the standard 135mm lens for Leicas from the 1930's up until 1960. It was originally designed as a lens that would cover a 100mm X 125mm format. That is to say a 4 inch X 5 inch film format.

The problem with the 36mm X 36mm format is that the roughly 52mm diagonal, as opposed to an approximately 43mm diagonal for a 24mm X 36mm format means a substantially larger sensor. Which means a larger camera. Since the inside of an "M" body is already reasonably full.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited December 20, 2018 by Michael Geschlecht

[Chuck Albertson]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 5:15 AM, caissa said:

On the SL you can select square format in the camera or chose your square in post processing. Both is more than enough for me. And with more resolution - next gen - you get the desired 6000x6000 pixels.  Inventing and building a customized square sensor is prohibitatively expensive. Help yourself with software. 😉

The new LFI (1/2019) has an excellent feature by Edouard Caupeil ("On the Trail of James Baldwin," a tour through the US South) that was shot in square format with the SL. Interestingly, the equipment notes at the end of the piece say it was shot with the 35SL Summicron, as well as the 50SL Summilux.

 

[BernardC]

14 hours ago, Brian C in Az said:

This image is shot with a Fuji GFX and Otus 28mm. You can see the image circle is large enough, even if you cropped the vignetting out, the image is still about 36x36.

I've played around with this in the past, mostly with cine lenses, and the question isn't "how much will it cover", but "how far-out is it sharp?"

You can crop a fairly large square out the middle of the image, but then you get a picture which is sharp in the center, and very soft at the edges. The effect is similar to a center-spot filter.

There is nothing wrong with that look, but it is a very noticeable effect that isn't suitable for all images.

You need to crop to approximately 30x30mm to stay within the designed sharpness circle of a 24x36mm system lens.

[Brian C in Az]

23 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello Again Brian,

Nice photo.

I am not trying to make a case for or against a square format. I am simply doing math.

Many lenses are designed to cover a larger format than the format that they end up being used for. An example is the 135mm F4.5 Hektor which was the standard 135mm lens for Leicas from the 1930's up until 1960. It was originally designed as a lens that would cover a 100mm X 125mm format. That is to say a 4 inch X 5 inch film format.

The problem with the 36mm X 36mm format is that the roughly 52mm diagonal, as opposed to an approximately 43mm diagonal for a 24mm X 36mm format means a substantially larger sensor. Which means a larger camera. Since the inside of an "M" body is already reasonably full.

Best Regards,

Michael

I have no experience with the M. Not sure what the internals are like for the SL, but I would hazard a guess the square sensor would fit. The GFX body is similar in dimensions to the SL and Fuji fit a much larger sensor in it.

[Brian C in Az]

On 12/19/2018 at 4:00 PM, pico said:

The image you posted is not symmetrical.

You don't know. No evidence. Otus lenses are not Leica. Nuff said.

It's not my image, the person who posted it is a professional photography in Ca. He originally posted a couple slightly cropped images shot with the Otus 28 and Otus 85. I inquired as to vignetting, he then posted this uncropped image. He has no reason to lie, if he said it is uncropped, I believe it and you should too.

You are welcome to click on his images for uncompressed files and pixel peep since it appears that is your thing. I see no softness in his images. He posted a couple images shot with the Otus 85 of people in a stadium and you can zoom in and see individual faces very clearly. The people in the unzoomed view are as tall as this:  $

I don't understand your attitude or hostility. This is merely a discussion of possibilities and wants. 

No need to have a negative attitude or for rudeness.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Brian C in Az

[Jeff S]

Hasselblad concept camera...

https://m.dpreview.com/news/2911654347/hasselblad-shows-75mp-square-format-v-style-v1d-concept-camera

Jeff

[verwackelt]

oh no, please no square cameraformat anymore....
there was so many waste of barytapaper in the days of Film and paper 😉

Edited February 10, 2019 by verwackelt

[Peter Branch]

.0The optimum/maximum size square sensor that can be used with current Leica lenses given their 43.27mm image circle is 30.597mm square.

Such a sensor would have an area ~8% larger than a 24mm X 36mm sensor, an insignificant increase.

However if a square picture format is needed starting with an image 30.6mm, rather than 24.0mm, square, i.e. 60% larger, would be very significant.  

 

Edited February 11, 2019 by Peter Branch

[jaapv]

I never liked 6x6 or 4x4...

[scott kirkpatrick]

I used 6x6 briefly when taking group shots in grad school.  Trying to get 6-9 faces to render nicely using Tri-x 35mm, developed in Rodinal, was hopeless.  Plus-X 120 film in a Rolleicord, treated a bit more gently, was eye-opening.  The shape of the image was secondary to the clarity.