Camera "WOW!" wish list.

Mack

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
1,937
If someone really wanted to do a "WOW!" camera (Per the upcoming Olympus announcement...ahem!), I wish someone would incorporate an Arca-Swiss mount into the base of their cameras so one doesn't need to buy a special flat or L-plate for it that may also block the fully-articulated LCD screens too.

Also, if done, then use a square sensor so one does not need to flip from portrait to landscape or assign to it other format sizes like cinema, 16x9, etc. via a toggle button to toggle between square, landscape, portrait, etc. positions. The current lenses should cover a square format as is. This 35mm landscape/portrait flipping stuff is so 1960's.

Just call the new "WOW!" thing a "Mini-120" format based off the Hasselblad or the square-format shooting cameras. Flipping rectangular format cameras on plates or heads and sundry plates is a bit tedious and time consuming, imho - and more so if the things block access to the sundry connections in the body and hit the mounting plates which may need to be moved or removed.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
122
Location
California
If you use a square sensor, then a 4:3 crop would be smaller than the current m43 sensor. If cropping is not an issue then one can always select a 1:1 or 3:4 image ratio instead of rotating.
 

cjoliprsf

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
428
Location
Quebec, Canada
Real Name
Claude
I think the OP means a sensor that would be 18x18mm. Then one could crop horizontally at 18x13.5 or vertically at 13.5x18.
Such sensor would however have a diagonal slightly longer than the current 4/3 sensor, hence if using the sensor uncropped, there could be some vignetting.

And I agree this would be a great enhancement.
 

Mack

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
1,937
I think the OP means a sensor that would be 18x18mm. Then one could crop horizontally at 18x13.5 or vertically at 13.5x18.
Such sensor would however have a diagonal slightly longer than the current 4/3 sensor, hence if using the sensor uncropped, there could be some vignetting.

And I agree this would be a great enhancement.
Yes to the size.

Any vignetting could possibly be handled in camera much as it is now with some lenses they make and using the firmware/software to correct for as now.

Went through the LCD striking the L-plate matter today. For a $200 RRS L-plate on the E-M1X body, it really is an annoyance that one cannot flip the screen out and swivel it up or down. Have to dismantle the L-plate to use it. If the Arca-Swiss bottom was on the camera body, it would be no issue at all.

As to the Portrait-to-Landscape button on a square-sensor body, that would also help to eliminate the rotating collar on the telephoto lenses where one uses a handle or tripod on the collar and rotating that in conjunction when going from Landscape to Portrait mode with the body. If they did something like this on the E-M1X body along with a square LCD on back with the square sensor, I'd upgrade in an instant.

This body flipping stuff, and unbolting and re-bolting stuff when doing so, is archaic and slow (when you cannot find the tool to do so...ahem!) . Time for some manufacturer to up their game plan and quit thinking like it's still 1960. Imho, the Nikon Z mirrorless has that huge mount throat now along with its shallow sensor and could easily do a square sensor design. Might keep Canon and Sony at bay for a while too and might increase their sales showing some innovation too.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
122
Location
California
I think the OP means a sensor that would be 18x18mm. Then one could crop horizontally at 18x13.5 or vertically at 13.5x18.
Such sensor would however have a diagonal slightly longer than the current 4/3 sensor, hence if using the sensor uncropped, there could be some vignetting.

And I agree this would be a great enhancement.
I see. That is an interesting approach, though it would waste a lot of sensor space. Looking at my m1.3 sensor, I do not think the corners of an 18x18mm sensor would be able to get any light.
 

doady

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
703
Location
Canada
Every camera should have a multi-aspect ratio sensor. I don't know why that is a standard feature yet. Micro Four Thirds and GFX were my only choices because of my dislike of 3:2 aspect ratio. Aspect ratio is the one advantage of digital over film that hasn't been fully taken advantage of, especially for smaller formats like Micro Four Thirds.

Having to or not having to turn a camera vertically for a vertically-oriented photos just seems like a matter of convenience or inconvenience. It doesn't really affect the photo, and vertical grips already partially address this issue. Even if a sensor allows for vertical photos, the LCD and EVF would still be horizontal, so it would be pointless.

Even 20 years ago, the instant feedback of a digital camera made photography so easy and convenient compared to film. And now with mirrorless ILCs and high-res LCDs and EVFs and processors that are leaps and bound ahead, people still complaining about small inconveniences. I would not even have been able to get into photography at all if not for convenience of digital, so I am not going to complain about having turn the camera 90 degrees for a vertically-oriented photo. Let's focus on the things that really can actually make a visible difference in photos, like HHHR for moving subjects, silent/electronic shutter without rolling shutter effect, eliminating the mechanical shutter, eliminating shutter shock, things like that.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
6,185
Location
Mars
Even if a sensor allows for vertical photos, the LCD and EVF would still be horizontal, so it would be pointless.
Square viewfinder would solve that and allow for additional information above/below or right/left of image.
HHHR for moving subjects,
Already available, it’s called full frame or medium format. Besides, HHHR will not be possible anytime soon for anything that moves.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
122
Location
California
Square viewfinder would solve that and allow for additional information above/below or right/left of image.

Already available, it’s called full frame or medium format. Besides, HHHR will not be possible anytime soon for anything that moves.
Leica and Panasonic have motion artifact removal in HR mode. It recognizes image spots where motion artifacts would occur and replace them with the data from a single shot. It works quite well with Leica SL2. This works only for slightly moving objects, like leaves and grass.
Would be nice to have that option.
 

doady

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
703
Location
Canada
Already available, it’s called full frame or medium format. Besides, HHHR will not be possible anytime soon for anything that moves.

That's the thing. Hi-res mode is closing the gap to larger sensors more and more while retaining the benefits of a smaller sensor. My camera needs tripod for hi-res, but the newer models can do it without tripod? Imagine if the technology allows hi-res mode to be used for even more situations.
 

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
197
Every camera should have a multi-aspect ratio sensor. I don't know why that is a standard feature yet. Micro Four Thirds and GFX were my only choices because of my dislike of 3:2 aspect ratio. Aspect ratio is the one advantage of digital over film that hasn't been fully taken advantage of,
I'm not clear what a "multi-aspect ratio sensor" means here. In digital, whatever sensor is in use, the other aspect ratios are just a subset of the actual physical sensor.

We could get into why the 3:2 aspect ratio is so popular and has been chosen as the default, of course. Yes, in some basic sense a square sensor (or actually circular but let's ignore that for now) would be the most flexible/efficient in terms of having maximum coverage and flexibility, and all the other aspect ratios could just be 'done in software.'

I like Olympus' approach where any other aspect ratio you choose is shown in the viewfinder and in raw, the camera saves the entire frame and it looks like that when opened in the computer, but if you crop, you can use the entire photo including what wasn't in your selected aspect ratio but saved in the raw file.

Of course since the preferred/saved aspect ratio is not using all the data, this really amounts to nothing more than just cropping - with some loss of data. As it is, at least on the OM cameras, you CAN choose a vertical 3:4 aspect ratio in software and not bother rotating your camera at all - just that those for whom the tripod plate / rotating issue is a problem want to easily change aspect ratio while maximizing use of the sensor data.

So yes, I can see some advantage of just going to a square format - and yes, you can certainly argue that digital hasn't 'made full use of' what could be done with a system to make more use in-camera of this. Hypothetically the camera could allow any arbitrary aspect ratio - just that the interface on the camera would be clunky (and a lot of people would just use the default aspect ratio anyway). Cropping on a computer is more flexible and allows any aspect ratio desired with the tools to do so more easily.

I find the idea intriguing and because I like square aspect ratio, I'd like to see this - but I'd probably continue to use the camera's default ratio and crop myself later. It's hard to say what 'most users' actually prefer because there are things we're just familiar with, and a horizontal aspect ratio is deeply ingrained (arguably for good or at least not-irrelevant biological reasons of how the eye scans faster horizontally).
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom