What aspect ratios do Pentax users like?

Phil A Martin wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

Phil A Martin wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

For a given image circle, the closer you get to square the more pixels you end up with. I think a 1:1 sensor would be really cool.

Except... then you lose those pixels you'd have had in the wider ratios, a nice thought, you wouldn't even have to rotate the camera for portrait orientation, but again you lose all that additional information on the sides of the image. That is of course if you're sensor only fits in the image circle, if instead its actually larger than the image circle that could be good.

I've tried to make that argument in the past, but too many people are against it. "What's so hard about rotating the camera to portrait?"

That was the reasoning behind the old square format cameras as used by the press. Take the photo and crop it for the press later. The thing is it would have been hard to rotate a TLR with a rectangular negative. The Mamiya RB 67 over comes this by having a rotating back, hence RB but with a modern DSLR and a grip attached, it really is no bother shooting vertically. That's in part why I favour having a battery pack attached.

With the prices of FF sensors coming down, it wouldn't be hard to use one as an oversized square APS-C. You'd throw away 1/3 of the pixels, but that wouldn't be a show stopper.

Yes, I've heard the grip argument too. I like my cameras on the smaller side, so a grip just doesn't suit me.

But a larger square format sensor and you're back to square one with a bigger camera.

Nobody is going to release a square sensor anytime soon, so the argument is pedantic. Never the less, the diagonal of APS-C is 28mm. That would allow a square sensor of approx 19.8mm on each side, vs the 24mm x 16mm arrangement for the 3:2 sensor. I don't see how that would really add to a camera's size.