Could the sensor in the D800 be made in 36x36 size and still have the same pixel density.
The 35mm lenses should be able to cover the 36x36 size because the lenses already can cover the 36mm on the long side. This would make the current sensor 54MP and give us a square format thus having no need to shoot vertical. Does any of this make sense.
Question: Square format is it a possibility with current equipment
(26 posts) (12 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
While the sensors do cover 36mm on the long side, they are covering that 36mm distance only 12mm up from the center of the frame. With a square sensor that was 36mmm x 36mm, the top and bottom edges would be 18mm from the center of the frame, and the corners would fall outside the image circle, resulting in severe vignetting or possibly completely blacked out corners.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The diameter of the image circle equals the diagonal of the rectangular image format.
So for the 24 x 36 mm this will be 43.2 mm.
If you want to fit a square into this circle it would be app. 30.5 x 30.5 mm.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mmmm... A 36mm x 24mm sensor requires a lens to cover a minimum of 43mm diameter circle. Actual coverage is most likely in the 46-47mm to make certain the circle's edges are not being used. To cover a 36mm x 36mm square would be a diagonal of 51mm. Or an actual coverage of 54-55mm. This is nearly 20% larger than the standard FX coverage and would require completely different lenses. Check out the cost of the Leica stuff to cover their 30 x 45mm sensor... a 54mm diagonal.... at $5,000 to $9,000 each.... and nothing to write home about!
I think I like my 36mm x 24mm format. Maybe even 30mmx 24mm.... yes 4 x 5!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Interesting thought, especially as applied to the D800 sensor. It would seem you could do as suggested. Take existing Nikon full frame lenses and produce a body which uses a square sensor taking full advantage of the circle image covered by the lens. Exactly what size would this be? 30.5 x 30.5 mm? How many pixels would it have? 40 mp? Not enough of a gain to justify the cost. But if you could do it and get a 50 mp sensor and sell the body for $5,000 it would be worth it.
Would this be one more step towards getting medium format out of 35mm equipment? Can use the same lenses, just need a new body and a new sensor. Camera may not need to be much larger in size. I like the idea since it can give you a larger sensor but still let you use all your existing FF lenses. Hope Nikon does some calculations to see if they could produce such a camera.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ok, I have to ask this - why not just crop the image?
Maybe I'm just lost on why people want to turn a Toaster into an Ice Cream machine.
Posted 1 year ago # -
donaldejose said:
Hope Nikon does some calculations to see if they could produce such a camera.No need for Nikon to do a calculation, we can do it ourselves. A 24 x 36mm sensor covers 864 square millimeters. A 30.5mm squared sensor (the limit to fill out the same image circle) would have an area of 930 square millimters, which is a gain of less than 8%. Because the image height is now 30.5mm instead of 24, the mirror needs to be longer, by exactly (30.5 - 24) x squareroot(2) = 9.2mm. Many lenses (14-24mm, 24 f/1.4, the PC lenses) already clear the mirror with so little clearance, that a rearmounted gel filter would be scraped off. A 9.2mm longer mirror would require a new mount and make all wideangle lenses and all f/1.4 lenses obsolete. So: we can forget about this concept, the f-mount was never meant for this.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
Ok, I have to ask this - why not just crop the image?Maybe I'm just lost on why people want to turn a Toaster into an Ice Cream machine.
Gosh, Tao, I think the idea is to turn the NIKON into a Hasselblad or Leica... or Mamiya, or whatever. Nelson Rockefeller was asked once "how much is enough?" His answer was "Always a little more than you have."
Posted 1 year ago # -
Assuming the gain in pixels is only 8%, it wouldn't be worth it. I think you have to have a gain of more like 20% + to make a "mini-Hassy."
Posted 1 year ago # -
mm Intresting, if you would make a 36 x 36 sensor, you could use this for :
- Square image at 30.5 x 30.5 image
- 24 x 36 mm image in horizontal or vertical direction, so portrait stile, without flippin the camera,If you take this 1 step further and makae a circular sensor with a 43mm diameter you could also use it for 24 x 36 image in any direction ( auto horizon leveling gets possible..)
So one could ask : why not round sensors.. ? :-)
IF ... if... :-) omg i'm gonna need a huge sensor when i want to be able all the things i could like... :-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
If you know you want a square, hi res, landscape
take 3 or 4 vertical images and stitch in Photoshopbetter still take 8 images in 2 rows
Posted 1 year ago # -
you should try a DX lens on an FX body ( old film camera ideal) many cover the whole frame at 28mm ...worked great on a sigma and tamron 18-200 lens ...well on FX 28 is wide......
Posted 1 year ago # -
DutchNixon: It is not about making a 36mm x 36mm sensor. If you did you would need an entirely different set of lenses. The idea was how big a square image do current FX lenses cover and can you make a D800 sensor taller (more square, not a rectangle) to take advantage of the image which the FX lens now throws both above and below the current sensor. My point was it will depend upon the megapixel increase you could obtain. If you could gain something like 20% more pixels you may be able to use all your current FX lenses on a slightly different body to be a "mini-Hassy." But others here have said you could only gain about 8% more pixels and I am sure that would not be enough to justify the concept. So it just won't work.
Posted 1 year ago # -
donaldejose said:
DutchNixon: It is not about making a 36mm x 36mm sensor. If you did you would need an entirely different set of lenses. The idea was how big a square image do current FX lenses cover and can you make a D800 sensor taller (more square, not a rectangle) to take advantage of the image which the FX lens now throws both above and below the current sensor. My point was it will depend upon the megapixel increase you could obtain. If you could gain something like 20% more pixels you may be able to use all your current FX lenses on a slightly different body to be a "mini-Hassy." But others here have said you could only gain about 8% more pixels and I am sure that would not be enough to justify the concept. So it just won't work.MMM Do not take this too seriously :-) .....
But..., if a lens can cover a 24*36 rectangle sensor, then it can also cover a 36x36 square sensor since the lens projects a round image..
AND it can cover a round sensor with a radius of 21.5 mm since that is half the diagonal of the 24x36mm image hence the possible 43mm diameter round sensor ... This way you could utilize the max size sensor that an FX lens can cover.. :-)I Know this is all just a fantasy, but hey i did not start this.... :-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
msmoto said:
Nelson Rockefeller was asked once "how much is enough?" His answer was "Always a little more than you have."I apply Rockefeller quotes only to booze or ice cream - anything else is just pure greed;)
I'm just laughing how everyone is trying to do the math. It reminds me of this video. http://youtu.be/Qhm7-LEBznk
Dutch Nikon is correct - lenses project a circle so it will cover a 36x36 square sensor. Considering normal vignetting that is shown with lenses it would be the same with this.That being said, I think there would be a good market for a DX type (24x24) square format camera with tons of software filters (like hipstamatic (what insta gram copies)) even with an external printer like the Polaroid Pogo. Hell even make it use Nikon lenses but only manual focus/aperture. Keep it around $250 and I think it would be a huge seller. LoFi Digital.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
That being said, I think there would be a good market for a DX type (24x24) square format camera with tons of software filters (like hipstamatic (what insta gram copies)) even with an external printer like the Polaroid Pogo. Hell even make it use Nikon lenses but only manual focus/aperture. Keep it around $250 and I think it would be a huge seller. LoFi Digital.
This would be interesting, but didn't they do that and call it a V1 or J1????? When they bring out the cheap version of the J1/V1 this may be the answer....
But back to the original idea of the slightly taller sensor... I think someone nailed it when they said the mirror would have to be bigger and that is a monstrous challenge. So, I am still waiting for my D400.... now that they have announced the D3200...
$250 for a Knee-Cone?
Posted 1 year ago # -
msmoto said:
This would be interesting, but didn't they do that and call it a V1 or J1????? When they bring out the cheap version of the J1/V1 this may be the answer....No I'm suggesting make a digital square sensor holga - no mirror, no AF, no wiz bam anything, uncoupled viewfinder, no flash (or just low/med/high settings), and a cheap lcd back. Basically take a holga, use a lens coupling of a Nikon (or other camera) so you can use the lenses and make it as simple as can be.
Look at the size of the pentax MF or even the Leica S2 cameras and that is what you would be looking at. Actually the Pentax is a 44x33mm sensor (40mp).
Posted 1 year ago # -
@TaoTeJared.... I am learning too much. Never had even heard of a Holga, but i have now. Maybe the pinhole digital would be interesting.
But the concept of a small sensor, square, does sound rather retro.... and appealing.....
Posted 1 year ago # -
I started thread asking if we could accomplish square format using current lenses. 24x36 is an odd size that we have been saddled with since motion picture film was converted to still cameras. it does not match the normal print sizes. When you print 8x10. 11x14, 16x20 the 36mm side gets cropped down anyway, so you are not using the whole sensor. Square format be it 30x30 or what ever our 35mm lenses would cover allows us to not have to shoot vertical and gives a more usable area to print from.
Posted 1 year ago # -
sjones said:
I started thread asking if we could accomplish square format using current lenses. 24x36 is an odd size that we have been saddled with since motion picture film was converted to still cameras. it does not match the normal print sizes. When you print 8x10. 11x14, 16x20 the 36mm side gets cropped down anyway, so you are not using the whole sensor. Square format be it 30x30 or what ever our 35mm lenses would cover allows us to not have to shoot vertical and gives a more usable area to print from.I think the idea is excellent. And, in the post processing, I almost always crop to 4 x 5, then adjust. And you are correct about the coverage of the lens, about a circle 30mm. But as has been pointed out, the mirror requirements instead of 24mm vertical would now be over 30mm. And the rapid movement with a "24mm" mirror when made 30.5mm, would be less rapid by a factor of almost 40% as the acceleration is affected by the square of the size. So, instead of say, 10 FPS, it is now down to 6 FPS. The design and manufacture of an entirely new body would seem to not justify the costs as most folks would not buy because of this feature. Most will turn the camera up or shoot everything horizontal or simply crop to 4 x 5 or square. But the discussion is interesting.
Posted 1 year ago # -
You might be interested in this:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr3-hot-new-sony-a1s-with-full-frame-square-sensor/
Posted 1 year ago # -
sjones said:
I started thread asking if we could accomplish square format using current lenses. 24x36 is an odd size that we have been saddled with since motion picture film was converted to still cameras. it does not match the normal print sizes...6 of one, 1/2 a dozen of another. I don't hold to any rules of what "normal" size/ratio is. In my mind, the image dictates the format, not paper. I have been playing with the Facebook timeline cover photos lately (which are more anamorphic like) and I like the possibilities.
That being said, Lenses are lenses, square, circular, 35mm film, they don't know the difference. For the best IQ it probably would have to be a 24mm X 24mm square rather than the 36mm.
Posted 1 year ago # -
You could solve the mirror issue by using a High Definition Electronic Viewfinder similar to Nikon's Live View. But I think the limiting factor is the "circle of image sharpness" projected by the lens on the sensor. If it as small as 24mm x 24mm I don't see any advantage. Just crop the current D800 sensor image. The larger the sensor the more loss of IQ you will have in the corners. Interesting idea though because it could reuse all Nikon's current FX lenses in a new format.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well, I thought this topic was dead. But, it seems to be going and now an idea.... if we did what you are saying, donaldejose, and used a High Definition Electronic Viewfinder with a 30mm X 30mm format, we could have a V1 with the definition of the D4/D800 dependent only on the sensor characteristics. But, is there not a problem with the live view and continuous auto focus that would need to be resolved?
I actually believe at some time in the future, the mirror camera in which the mirror moves will be a thing of the past. Some technology which would allow a mirror to have a mirrored surface due to an electronic signal, then become clear when the signal changes, this would allow a standard TTLR viewfinder but would work at 60 FPS. Then the 30mm square format would be a no brainer, maybe combined with 36mm X 24mm. Did someone say D5?
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
