Another Silly Idea

[Deleted member 29285]

While we're on the subject, my silly idea is a square sensor,
i.e. 18mm x 18mm (nominal) instead of the existing 18mm x 13mm (nominal).
That way if you want portrait format just take a square picture and crop it later. I would save all sorts of gymnastics turning the camera on its side, dislocating your wrist in the process.
It would avoid that cumbersome E-1X.
The lenses would still cover the whole square.
Years ago, 2 1/4 " square format was the norm.
For those who think they need a rectangular mask in order to compose a rectangular picture, then just have a switchable electronic mask in the viewfinder.
In theory it might add 5mm (18-13) to the height of the camera, but so what.
Anyone with anti-reasons ??

 

[WaltP]

I would love to have a square rangefinder and a square tlr-style camera available.

 

[Deleted member 29285]

I would love to have a square rangefinder and a square tlr-style camera available.

TLR style would be an interesting concept.
But thinking back to the Mamiya C330 TLR, that would require a whole new set of twin lenses.

 

[Bushboy]

It’s a great idea. I take two please.
And can I have a square lens with that...

 

[Tywais]

It’s a great idea. I take two please.
And can I have a square lens with that...

Instead of the circle of confusion you will have the square of confusion.

 

[Panolyman]

I think it's a brilliant idea, as it would surely harness most of the lens, rather than what's wasted with a rectangular sensor.
It reminds me of when I suggested (at work) that we should have portrait shaped monitors instead of the typical horizontal (landscape) ones, as all we ever worked on PC wise, were word documents and spreadsheets.
And can we go back to a flat earth while we're at it.

 

[WaltP]

Not TLRs, actually, I was thinking of the Hassy or Bronica. Imagine a little Hassy cradled in one hand - with a MFT lens mount, ibis, modern electronics, interchangeable finders... the back could house the workings since it would not have to move to change aspect, iso, film style.
Don't know where Tlr came from, but I'm flexible.

 

[WaltP]

18.7×15.2 seems to be enough for full diagonal multiaspect from 16:9 to 1:1 without portrait, if my math is correct... I first thought you're talking about plain square instead of multiaspect.

I'm thinking plain square. Please explain your math and how multi aspect would work better.
When you want to shoot in portrait mode, would you have to rotate the camera rig? At 4608x4608 (the 16MP Oly sensor squared) we don't need to move the camera to get any aspect ratio, right?

 

[Stanga]

Isn't a square also a rectangle?

 

[wjiang]

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/multi-aspect-sensors.96111/

 

[pdk42]

I think it's a brilliant idea, as it would surely harness most of the lens, rather than what's wasted with a rectangular sensor.
It reminds me of when I suggested (at work) that we should have portrait shaped monitors instead of the typical horizontal (landscape) ones, as all we ever worked on PC wise, were word documents and spreadsheets.
And can we go back to a flat earth while we're at it.

The first Xerox word processors (I'm talking back in the 70s - before Windows, Apple etc) introduced three startling concepts:

- A pointing device (nicknamed a mouse)
- Inside-out program logic (event driven UI)
- A portrait screen with black characters on a white background

 

[Paul C]

Portrait orientation - and reproducing the TLR effect

TLR's were great for portraits. You looked "over" the camera at your subject rather than squinting threateningly through a lens. That alone was worth a dozen wasted shots in the era of expensive films with subjects who were not professional models.

The key for me in swtching from full-frame to M4/3 was
[1] the size and weight advantage - 5 lenses in a camera bag where previously 2 would fit
[2] the Pansonic tilt and turn screen - which meant you could hold a G-series camera in portrait orientation, with the shutter just where it was on a Rolliflex - under the right thunb - with a big bright focus screen just where it should be too.

One go at holding the Lumix G2 and I was hooked !

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[drd1135]

TLR style would be an interesting concept.
But thinking back to the Mamiya C330 TLR, that would require a whole new set of twin lenses.

Not with a digital sensor. The camera could have the configuration of a TLR with a top horizontal LCD and only one lens. They'd have top be sure the LCD was bright and worked well in sunlight. Of course, they could retain the optical VF which some folks really like, but, as you said, you'd need all new lenses.

 

[Deleted member 29285]

Not with a digital sensor. The camera could have the configuration of a TLR with a top horizontal LCD and only one lens. They'd have top be sure the LCD was bright and worked well in sunlight.

With a top LCD and one lens you have the Bronica/Hassy/Mamiya RB67 concept.
And if daylight viewing is a problem you could add a viewing hood. That was common on the Bronica/Hassy/Mamiya TLR/Mamiya RB67.

 

[Paul C]

Not with a digital sensor. The camera could have the configuration of a TLR with a top horizontal LCD and only one lens.

You have it already - if you have a "tilt and turn" screen M4/3 camera - as came attached to Panasonics from model Number 1 - the G1 - all those years ago.

Here is the sequence: Portrait orientation - shutter button down; Flip-up the screen to lie like a TLR, Hold the camera with the left hand; Shutter under the right thumb.....frame, focus and fire!

Need a hood to overcome sunlight? Turn up the screen light gain and contrast controls.

I haven't used my TLR since my first Panasonic G2 - yet it survived in regular use for decades of my Nikon full-frame era because of its utility in portraits.

Olympus have taken a long time to catch up with their often limited screen mobility !

best wishes to you all - Paul C

 

[pdk42]

You have it already - if you have a "tilt and turn" screen M4/3 camera - as came attached to Panasonics from model Number 1 - the G1 - all those years ago.

Here is the sequence: Portrait orientation - shutter button down; Flip-up the screen to lie like a TLR, Hold the camera with the left hand; Shutter under the right thumb.....frame, focus and fire!

Need a hood to overcome sunlight? Turn up the screen light gain and contrast controls.

An alternative is to flip the camera 180degs so that the screen is at the bottom. That way you get some shielding of the screen with the camera body. Controls of course will be on the left so you'll need to hold the camera with the right hand.

 

[drd1135]

OTOH, people are willing to pay for optical finders, e.g., Leica M series and the much cheaper Fuji XPro series.

 

[skellington]

Some four thirds lenses have internal rectangular baffles. I think I've seen that some micro four thirds do as well.

So the "image circle" may not be round for all lenses; and lenses may not be designed or tested for anomalies outside the regular image area.

But multi-aspect / square / hex / circle sensor would be cool.

 

[Bytesmiths]

It reminds me of when I suggested (at work) that we should have portrait shaped monitors

I once had a curious monitor (I think it was called a "Radius") that rotated between the two orientations! As I recall, the software to switch orientations was problematic, and with some update of Mac OS, the monitor became permanently one way or the other.

 

[RichardC]

I really like the square format. Wasn't so good when we were doing weddings and one of the guys ignored the guides on the focusing screen came back with a load of pictures that wouldn't fit our slip in folders