D30 Replacement

[Steve Bryant]

I am in the market for my first digital camera and plan to await a successor to the D30. Whether it is the D60 or another model designation, I believe that it will be worth waiting. I have been shooting 35 mm for over thirty years and have been scanning and printing for the last six years.

I've been very interested in the speculation on the D60 and I too will be following any announcements from the PMA convention in Orlando in February. I have worked as an Avionics Engineer (aircraft electronics and instrumentation systems) for the past twenty-five years. I want to offer the following observations/guesses about the eventual successor to the D30:

The basic architecture of the D30 will be preserved (form factor/ergonomics, electronics including the CMOS sensor technology, etc.)

The CMOS sensor will eventually be enlarged to the full 35 mm size of 23.3 X 35 mm using the existing 9.9 micro meter pixel size yielding approximately 8.3 Mega Pixels. Once the details of this CMOS technology are refined in the D30 prosumer derivitive, it will be applied to a EOS-1D derivitive. The 9.9 micro meter/8.3 mega pixel array will probably stay with the prosumer camera for a number of years and features will be refined in the coming versions. Eventually the 1D derivitive will evolve with a smaller pixel measurement, perhaps approaching a 15 mega pixel array which will remain the size of existing 35 mm film frames.

Canon will perfect the CMOS technology and eventually will sell it to other camera manufacturers.

It will be important to get the sensor size of the digital SLR series back to the size of 35 mm film frames. Cannon and other SLR manufacturers have too much invested in lens designs to reinvent the wheel on every front. The lenses need to be equally suitable for film or digital cameras. Lenses like the new short focal length lenses are a temporary bridge to have a fairly normal zoom for those willing to spend the money. However, these lenses are much too costly to develop/manufacture/purchase to allow a vibrant digital SLR (interchangable lense) camera market to evolve when one considers basic supply versus demand curves.

There will be no "stitching" of the two or more sensors. Although fesable, this requires a lot of processing power which takes precious time and yields unsatisfactory results.--Steve B.

 

[Michael Martin]

I am in the market for my first digital camera and plan to await a
successor to the D30. Whether it is the D60 or another model
designation, I believe that it will be worth waiting. I have been
shooting 35 mm for over thirty years and have been scanning and
printing for the last six years.

I've been very interested in the speculation on the D60 and I too
will be following any announcements from the PMA convention in
Orlando in February. I have worked as an Avionics Engineer
(aircraft electronics and instrumentation systems) for the past
twenty-five years. I want to offer the following
observations/guesses about the eventual successor to the D30:

The basic architecture of the D30 will be preserved (form
factor/ergonomics, electronics including the CMOS sensor
technology, etc.)

The CMOS sensor will eventually be enlarged to the full 35 mm size
of 23.3 X 35 mm using the existing 9.9 micro meter pixel size
yielding approximately 8.3 Mega Pixels. Once the details of this
CMOS technology are refined in the D30 prosumer derivitive, it will
be applied to a EOS-1D derivitive. The 9.9 micro meter/8.3 mega
pixel array will probably stay with the prosumer camera for a
number of years and features will be refined in the coming
versions. Eventually the 1D derivitive will evolve with a smaller
pixel measurement, perhaps approaching a 15 mega pixel array which
will remain the size of existing 35 mm film frames.

Canon will perfect the CMOS technology and eventually will sell it
to other camera manufacturers.

It will be important to get the sensor size of the digital SLR
series back to the size of 35 mm film frames. Cannon and other SLR
manufacturers have too much invested in lens designs to reinvent
the wheel on every front. The lenses need to be equally suitable
for film or digital cameras. Lenses like the new short focal
length lenses are a temporary bridge to have a fairly normal zoom
for those willing to spend the money. However, these lenses are
much too costly to develop/manufacture/purchase to allow a vibrant
digital SLR (interchangable lense) camera market to evolve when one
considers basic supply versus demand curves.

There will be no "stitching" of the two or more sensors. Although
fesable, this requires a lot of processing power which takes
precious time and yields unsatisfactory results.
--
Steve B.

Expect any pro larger sensor used on a Canon Pro (not D30, D60 etc.) to be a CCD sensor and not a CMOS.

 

[Scott Olds]

This may be one of the key factors that differentiates between the current Pro Series (1D on) and the Prosumer series (D30, "D60", and on).

CMOS for the prosumers for lower power consumption, high image quality, and lower fab cost, but unfortunately lower speed.

CCD for the pros that need the higher speed (PJs and sports shooters) and are willing to deal with the higher power consumption and other related issues (like more dust) as a trade off.

What I am really wondering about is the junction of the two. What I want is:

• Build quality of the 1D including magnesium body and all the seals
• 1D AF
• 6MP CMOS with its associated slower speed
• BP-511 batteries
• Detachable grip like that of the D30

While you may be quick to say this is the D60, I can't see that it will be. The main difference is that I want pro build quality (which I can't see the D60 getting) but am willing to sacrifice speed for image quality and top shelf AF. I will not be so bold to declare that this is in the future for Canon but I think that this is what lot of us want. Hopefully this, or something like it is in the works.

My two cents anyway.

Scott

I am in the market for my first digital camera and plan to await a
successor to the D30. Whether it is the D60 or another model
designation, I believe that it will be worth waiting. I have been
shooting 35 mm for over thirty years and have been scanning and
printing for the last six years.

I've been very interested in the speculation on the D60 and I too
will be following any announcements from the PMA convention in
Orlando in February. I have worked as an Avionics Engineer
(aircraft electronics and instrumentation systems) for the past
twenty-five years. I want to offer the following
observations/guesses about the eventual successor to the D30:

The basic architecture of the D30 will be preserved (form
factor/ergonomics, electronics including the CMOS sensor
technology, etc.)

The CMOS sensor will eventually be enlarged to the full 35 mm size
of 23.3 X 35 mm using the existing 9.9 micro meter pixel size
yielding approximately 8.3 Mega Pixels. Once the details of this
CMOS technology are refined in the D30 prosumer derivitive, it will
be applied to a EOS-1D derivitive. The 9.9 micro meter/8.3 mega
pixel array will probably stay with the prosumer camera for a
number of years and features will be refined in the coming
versions. Eventually the 1D derivitive will evolve with a smaller
pixel measurement, perhaps approaching a 15 mega pixel array which
will remain the size of existing 35 mm film frames.

Canon will perfect the CMOS technology and eventually will sell it
to other camera manufacturers.

It will be important to get the sensor size of the digital SLR
series back to the size of 35 mm film frames. Cannon and other SLR
manufacturers have too much invested in lens designs to reinvent
the wheel on every front. The lenses need to be equally suitable
for film or digital cameras. Lenses like the new short focal
length lenses are a temporary bridge to have a fairly normal zoom
for those willing to spend the money. However, these lenses are
much too costly to develop/manufacture/purchase to allow a vibrant
digital SLR (interchangable lense) camera market to evolve when one
considers basic supply versus demand curves.

There will be no "stitching" of the two or more sensors. Although
fesable, this requires a lot of processing power which takes
precious time and yields unsatisfactory results.
--
Steve B.

Expect any pro larger sensor used on a Canon Pro (not D30, D60
etc.) to be a CCD sensor and not a CMOS.

 

[shervinf]

Just because CMOS is slow now, doesn't mean that it will continue to be slow. Don't be shocked if the next EOS Pro Digital has a CMOS in it, instead of a CCD. CCDs are costly compared with CMOS, and they may be faster now, but technology has a tendency to catch up!

Shervin

 

[Scott Olds]

You are reading too much into my post. I am comparing the current and what would be the near future. While I do agree that the performance of CMOS will continue to improve, you must also make the assumption that CCD performance will also continue to improve. Now ignoring the cost issue, this makes the intercept point for when CMOS is capable of handling the same requirements as the CCD stretch out a little bit further. My personal belief is we are still at least two years out before CMOS can contend with CCD for the high frame rates on a production basis. I may have been somewhat misleading but I never stated that we wouldn't see a CMOS based pro EOS just not one soon with CMOS that has a high frame rate like the 1D. As I stated, what I want to see is a pro build WITH CMOS. I am willing to live with the slower frame rate that the current state of technology allows. As for the technology issue, I fully understand this factor. I'm an electronics engineer working in an industry that moves faster than the photography industry. I have to anticipate hwo things (like competitors) will try to catch up.

Scott

Just because CMOS is slow now, doesn't mean that it will continue
to be slow. Don't be shocked if the next EOS Pro Digital has a
CMOS in it, instead of a CCD. CCDs are costly compared with CMOS,
and they may be faster now, but technology has a tendency to catch
up!

Shervin

 

[Joo]

Lets not forget that PJs are not the only type of Pro photographers. There are plenty of Pro photographers that need better image quality more than high frames per second, high speed, weather seals, etc... Take for example studio photographers that do corporate product shots, wedding photographers, etc...

Joo

CMOS for the prosumers for lower power consumption, high image
quality, and lower fab cost, but unfortunately lower speed.

CCD for the pros that need the higher speed (PJs and sports
shooters) and are willing to deal with the higher power consumption
and other related issues (like more dust) as a trade off.

What I am really wondering about is the junction of the two. What
I want is:

• Build quality of the 1D including magnesium body and all the seals
• 1D AF
• 6MP CMOS with its associated slower speed
• BP-511 batteries
• Detachable grip like that of the D30

While you may be quick to say this is the D60, I can't see that it
will be. The main difference is that I want pro build quality
(which I can't see the D60 getting) but am willing to sacrifice
speed for image quality and top shelf AF. I will not be so bold to
declare that this is in the future for Canon but I think that this
is what lot of us want. Hopefully this, or something like it is
in the works.

My two cents anyway.

Scott

I am in the market for my first digital camera and plan to await a
successor to the D30. Whether it is the D60 or another model
designation, I believe that it will be worth waiting. I have been
shooting 35 mm for over thirty years and have been scanning and
printing for the last six years.

I've been very interested in the speculation on the D60 and I too
will be following any announcements from the PMA convention in
Orlando in February. I have worked as an Avionics Engineer
(aircraft electronics and instrumentation systems) for the past
twenty-five years. I want to offer the following
observations/guesses about the eventual successor to the D30:

The basic architecture of the D30 will be preserved (form
factor/ergonomics, electronics including the CMOS sensor
technology, etc.)

The CMOS sensor will eventually be enlarged to the full 35 mm size
of 23.3 X 35 mm using the existing 9.9 micro meter pixel size
yielding approximately 8.3 Mega Pixels. Once the details of this
CMOS technology are refined in the D30 prosumer derivitive, it will
be applied to a EOS-1D derivitive. The 9.9 micro meter/8.3 mega
pixel array will probably stay with the prosumer camera for a
number of years and features will be refined in the coming
versions. Eventually the 1D derivitive will evolve with a smaller
pixel measurement, perhaps approaching a 15 mega pixel array which
will remain the size of existing 35 mm film frames.

Canon will perfect the CMOS technology and eventually will sell it
to other camera manufacturers.

It will be important to get the sensor size of the digital SLR
series back to the size of 35 mm film frames. Cannon and other SLR
manufacturers have too much invested in lens designs to reinvent
the wheel on every front. The lenses need to be equally suitable
for film or digital cameras. Lenses like the new short focal
length lenses are a temporary bridge to have a fairly normal zoom
for those willing to spend the money. However, these lenses are
much too costly to develop/manufacture/purchase to allow a vibrant
digital SLR (interchangable lense) camera market to evolve when one
considers basic supply versus demand curves.

There will be no "stitching" of the two or more sensors. Although
fesable, this requires a lot of processing power which takes
precious time and yields unsatisfactory results.
--
Steve B.

Expect any pro larger sensor used on a Canon Pro (not D30, D60
etc.) to be a CCD sensor and not a CMOS.

--Joo C. Chung-------------------------------------------Canon D-30 & PowerShot S100Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture.

 

[O.Olsson]

You are reading too much into my post. I am comparing the current
and what would be the near future. While I do agree that the
performance of CMOS will continue to improve, you must also make
the assumption that CCD performance will also continue to improve.
Now ignoring the cost issue, this makes the intercept point for
when CMOS is capable of handling the same requirements as the CCD
stretch out a little bit further. My personal belief is we are
still at least two years out before CMOS can contend with CCD for
the high frame rates on a production basis. I may have been
somewhat misleading but I never stated that we wouldn't see a CMOS
based pro EOS just not one soon with CMOS that has a high frame
rate like the 1D. As I stated, what I want to see is a pro build

and I upgrade. I will pay 3000-3500$ for it. And I would not condider upgrade until I have the need to do A1 prints.
O.Olsson

WITH CMOS. I am willing to live with the slower frame rate that
the current state of technology allows. As for the technology
issue, I fully understand this factor. I'm an electronics engineer
working in an industry that moves faster than the photography
industry. I have to anticipate hwo things (like competitors) will
try to catch up.

Scott

Just because CMOS is slow now, doesn't mean that it will continue
to be slow. Don't be shocked if the next EOS Pro Digital has a
CMOS in it, instead of a CCD. CCDs are costly compared with CMOS,
and they may be faster now, but technology has a tendency to catch
up!

Shervin

--O.Olsson

 

[Tom Colling]

I can only hope that the future of digital cameras takes full advantages of the current excellent 35mm lenses that are already on the market.

Namely, a square CCD (or CMOS), sized to take full advantage of the available light that lenses offer. We can then crop to 4:3 or 3:2 or whatever ratio we want then. Heck, in the next few years, our photo albums will be all viewed on a screen or we'll be printing off our own books (Apple is offering this for $30 for a hardbound photo album) anyway, and we will create the shape of the photo to what we want to do creatively, not be sticking to 4"x6" or 8"x10".

Please ignore all this "multiplier" nonsense. Photographers who understand know its cropping, not multiplying the length of the lens. (Could the multiplier effect be equated to digital zoom?)

If you need to make the general public understand, come out with a line of digital camera lenses, which are exactly the same as your existing lenses, but relabeled with the adjusted zoom numbers to match the CCD.

Anyone else feel the same way?

 

[Trenton]

but unfortunately lower speed.

need the higher speed

• 6MP CMOS with its associated slower speed

am willing to sacrifice
speed for image quality and top shelf AF.

Do you mean fps or AF speed?

 

[Slane Masda]

Namely, a square CCD (or CMOS), sized to take full advantage of the
available light that lenses offer. We can then crop to 4:3 or 3:2

or whatever ratio we want then. .....we will create the shape of the photo to what we want to do creatively, not be sticking to 4"x6" or 8"x10".

If you're cropping anyway, the choice of initial form factor is arbitrary. Most people prefer rectangular to square as their default image shape, hence, for a given number of pixels, they'd get more "mileage" from a rectangular CMOS

Please ignore all this "multiplier" nonsense. Photographers who
understand know its cropping, not multiplying the length of the
lens.

Agreed. Anyone who's worked with telephoto lenses on medium format understands this.

(Could the multiplier effect be equated to digital zoom?)

My understanding is that digizoom (which admittedly I've never used) upsamples from a central portion of the image. Generally, upsampling is a) needed relatively infrequently on the D30 if you've framed carefully to begin with, and b) can be done under your control rather than using a generic algorithm as provided in digizoom. So I don't think this is a valid comparison.--James

 

[Michael Martin]

Lets not forget that PJs are not the only type of Pro
photographers. There are plenty of Pro photographers that need
better image quality more than high frames per second, high speed,
weather seals, etc... Take for example studio photographers that do
corporate product shots, wedding photographers, etc...

Joo

The EOS 1D has no trouble doing all of that. I've had a 1D since the middle of Dec. and there is not one application you mentioned that it couldn't handle. The 1D image quality is close to the 6mp Kodak that you can't tell them apart.

CMOS for the prosumers for lower power consumption, high image
quality, and lower fab cost, but unfortunately lower speed.

CCD for the pros that need the higher speed (PJs and sports
shooters) and are willing to deal with the higher power consumption
and other related issues (like more dust) as a trade off.

What I am really wondering about is the junction of the two. What
I want is:

• Build quality of the 1D including magnesium body and all the seals
• 1D AF
• 6MP CMOS with its associated slower speed
• BP-511 batteries
• Detachable grip like that of the D30

While you may be quick to say this is the D60, I can't see that it
will be. The main difference is that I want pro build quality
(which I can't see the D60 getting) but am willing to sacrifice
speed for image quality and top shelf AF. I will not be so bold to
declare that this is in the future for Canon but I think that this
is what lot of us want. Hopefully this, or something like it is
in the works.

My two cents anyway.

Scott

I am in the market for my first digital camera and plan to await a
successor to the D30. Whether it is the D60 or another model
designation, I believe that it will be worth waiting. I have been
shooting 35 mm for over thirty years and have been scanning and
printing for the last six years.

I've been very interested in the speculation on the D60 and I too
will be following any announcements from the PMA convention in
Orlando in February. I have worked as an Avionics Engineer
(aircraft electronics and instrumentation systems) for the past
twenty-five years. I want to offer the following
observations/guesses about the eventual successor to the D30:

The basic architecture of the D30 will be preserved (form
factor/ergonomics, electronics including the CMOS sensor
technology, etc.)

The CMOS sensor will eventually be enlarged to the full 35 mm size
of 23.3 X 35 mm using the existing 9.9 micro meter pixel size
yielding approximately 8.3 Mega Pixels. Once the details of this
CMOS technology are refined in the D30 prosumer derivitive, it will
be applied to a EOS-1D derivitive. The 9.9 micro meter/8.3 mega
pixel array will probably stay with the prosumer camera for a
number of years and features will be refined in the coming
versions. Eventually the 1D derivitive will evolve with a smaller
pixel measurement, perhaps approaching a 15 mega pixel array which
will remain the size of existing 35 mm film frames.

Canon will perfect the CMOS technology and eventually will sell it
to other camera manufacturers.

It will be important to get the sensor size of the digital SLR
series back to the size of 35 mm film frames. Cannon and other SLR
manufacturers have too much invested in lens designs to reinvent
the wheel on every front. The lenses need to be equally suitable
for film or digital cameras. Lenses like the new short focal
length lenses are a temporary bridge to have a fairly normal zoom
for those willing to spend the money. However, these lenses are
much too costly to develop/manufacture/purchase to allow a vibrant
digital SLR (interchangable lense) camera market to evolve when one
considers basic supply versus demand curves.

There will be no "stitching" of the two or more sensors. Although
fesable, this requires a lot of processing power which takes
precious time and yields unsatisfactory results.
--
Steve B.

Expect any pro larger sensor used on a Canon Pro (not D30, D60
etc.) to be a CCD sensor and not a CMOS.

--
Joo C. Chung
-------------------------------------------
Canon D-30 & PowerShot S100

Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture.

 

[Tom Colling]

Namely, a square CCD (or CMOS), sized to take full advantage of the
available light that lenses offer. We can then crop to 4:3 or 3:2

or whatever ratio we want then. .....we will create the shape of the photo to what we want to do creatively, not be sticking to 4"x6" or 8"x10".

If you're cropping anyway, the choice of initial form factor is
arbitrary. Most people prefer rectangular to square as their
default image shape, hence, for a given number of pixels, they'd
get more "mileage" from a rectangular CMOS

Please ignore all this "multiplier" nonsense. Photographers who
understand know its cropping, not multiplying the length of the
lens.

Agreed. Anyone who's worked with telephoto lenses on medium format
understands this.

(Could the multiplier effect be equated to digital zoom?)

My understanding is that digizoom (which admittedly I've never
used) upsamples from a central portion of the image. Generally,
upsampling is a) needed relatively infrequently on the D30 if
you've framed carefully to begin with, and b) can be done under
your control rather than using a generic algorithm as provided in
digizoom. So I don't think this is a valid comparison.
--
James

Thanks, James. I guess digital zoom and the "multiplier effect" are two entirely different things, I was just thinking it might help someone who doesn't understand what's really going on to get the gist of it. I suppose most of the people in this forum know what each is (by now, at least).

As far as the square CCD goes, geometrically speaking, a square fitting inside of a circle can cover more area than a rectangle inside of a circle, and therefore more information is gathered, making the most use of the lens. (I'm not sure on this, but the arrangement could reduce vignetting? need some help there).

To take it one step further, an EVF (and possibly optical viewfinder) could allow the user to block out a 4:3 or 3:2 horizontal or vertical rectangle, or any other shape for that matter for composition purposes. Maybe the camera could even turn off pixels to save storage space.

Or maybe I should go to work for some government think tank that does nothing but come up with crazy-ass ideas that don't make any sense, all on the taxpayers dime. BRUHAAHAA, I'm mad I tell you, MAD!

 

[JCDoss]

...Eventually the 1D derivitive will evolve with a smaller
pixel measurement, perhaps approaching a 15 mega pixel array which
will remain the size of existing 35 mm film frames.

Since you are an engineer, I'll ask you this question...

Right now, the rule of thumb is that the larger the pixel, the better the S/N ratio and the better the capabilities of the sensor at high sensitivities (ISO). The D30 performs excellently at ISO 100-400, pretty good at 800, and so-so at 1600, however the pixel size of 10um is somewhat limiting for enlarging and cropping.

How do you think technology will solve the problem of incorporating higher S/N ratios and high ISO capability in a large sensor with pixels, say, 5um square (like ones present in consumer digicams)? First, do you think this will happen? If so, is on-chip processing the way to go?

FYI, if a the D30's chip were expanded to full frame, it's resolution would be over 8MP... however, if we reduce the pixel size from 10um to 5um, that will quadruple the resolution to 32MP, which many believe exceeds 35mm film resolution (estimated at 24MP).

There will be no "stitching" of the two or more sensors. Although
fesable, this requires a lot of processing power which takes
precious time and yields unsatisfactory results.

Really? The articles I've read recently seem to suggest that it's more economical than attempting to produce larger chips without stitching.

JCDoss

 

[Lee Rothman]

All I know is if Canon builds the following in the next year I'm dead meat:

• Autofocus even similar to the performance of the 1D's Chip
• LCD review with magnifications (preferrably 3x, 5x, and maybe even 7x)
• Built-In style battery grip with a Lithium Ion or Lithiom Polymer battery
• 6-10mp CMOS chip
• Replaceable Focus Screen
• More Metering Options (spot included)

 

[JCDoss]

Namely, a square CCD (or CMOS), sized to take full advantage of the
available light that lenses offer...

Remember that a square sensor built for the 43mm diagonal of the 24x36 frame will measure 30.4x30.4mm.

We can then crop to 4:3 or 3:2 or whatever ratio we want then...

True, but can you imagine cropping every single photo we take into the proper ratio?? How about automatically doing it in-camera? You could do it through an electronic mask with frames that light up or are masked in the viewfinder somehow.

JCDoss

 

[JCDoss]

As far as the square CCD goes, geometrically speaking, a square
fitting inside of a circle can cover more area than a rectangle
inside of a circle, and therefore more information is gathered,
making the most use of the lens. (I'm not sure on this, but the
arrangement could reduce vignetting? need some help there).

The most important factor is the diameter of the circle which must equal (or be slightly greater than) the diagonal of the frame. If we assume this is true for a 24x36 frame, the diagonal of which is 43mm, then the diameter of the circle is 43mm, and the diagonal of the square must not exceed 43mm. The resulting square would be 6mm taller and 6mm 'skinnier.' Area within both the rectangle and the square would be equal.

The end result is that your landscape and portrait orientation shots taken at 3:2 aspect ratio would again be cropped relative to 35mm film (maximum dimension of 30x20).

To take it one step further, an EVF (and possibly optical
viewfinder) could allow the user to block out a 4:3 or 3:2
horizontal or vertical rectangle, or any other shape for that
matter for composition purposes. Maybe the camera could even turn
off pixels to save storage space.

You're touching the idea from my previous post in this thread. I'd never replace the optical viewfinder with an EVF, though. Perhaps a lit frame in the viewfinder would be more helpful... or some sort of viewfinder mask that blocks out the outer edges. Of course, if you're intent is to crop, the sensor MUST throw out the outer pixels, or else there's no point in doing it in-camera.

...crazy-ass...

but not crazy-A-R-S-E.

JCDoss

 

[JCDoss]

All I know is if Canon builds the following in the next year I'm
dead meat:

• Autofocus even similar to the performance of the 1D's Chip
• LCD review with magnifications (preferrably 3x, 5x, and maybe

even 7x)

• Built-In style battery grip with a Lithium Ion or Lithiom Polymer

battery

• 6-10mp CMOS chip
• Replaceable Focus Screen
• More Metering Options (spot included)

 

[Tom Colling]

Namely, a square CCD (or CMOS), sized to take full advantage of the
available light that lenses offer...

Remember that a square sensor built for the 43mm diagonal of the
24x36 frame will measure 30.4x30.4mm.

We can then crop to 4:3 or 3:2 or whatever ratio we want then...

True, but can you imagine cropping every single photo we take into
the proper ratio?? How about automatically doing it in-camera?
You could do it through an electronic mask with frames that light
up or are masked in the viewfinder somehow.

JCDoss

JCDoss,

Looks like we had the same idea, my next post says that also. Doing the math from above 24 x 36 = 864, 30.4 x 30.4 = 924.16. More of the lens is being used, more information is gathered. And I believe the "best" part of the lens is being used with a square CCD.

-Tom

 

[JCDoss]

The most important factor is the diameter of the circle which must
equal (or be slightly greater than) the diagonal of the frame. If
we assume this is true for a 24x36 frame, the diagonal of which is
43mm, then the diameter of the circle is 43mm, and the diagonal of
the square must not exceed 43mm. The resulting square would be 6mm
taller and 6mm 'skinnier.' Area within both the rectangle and the
square would be equal.

The area within the square will NOT equal the area within the rectangle.
A(square) = 30x30 = 900sqmm.
A(rectangle) = 24x36 = 864sqmm.

Therefore, a square format will use more of the lens.

JCDoss

 

[Al Goldis]

I can only hope that the future of digital cameras takes full
advantages of the current excellent 35mm lenses that are already on
the market.

Namely, a square CCD (or CMOS), sized to take full advantage of the
available light that lenses offer. We can then crop to 4:3 or 3:2
or whatever ratio we want then. Heck, in the next few years, our

This comes up on a fairly regular basis, but there are a couple problems with a 35mm square format that always seem to get glossed over.

Many lenses produce a circular image. However, many other lenses for the 35mm system we use are designed for a rectangular image. Ignoring the flower petal hoods which sometimes can easily be removed (or sometimes not), many lenses still have internal rectangular baffles.

I suppose you could still use those rectangular lenses with a smaller image circle to get a square image, but why force those of us who want a 3:2 image into a square when all you have to do is crop?

The 35mm systems have always been 3:2 and I don't see that changing. If you want square, you can crop or buy a Hasselblad with a fantastic digital back.

BTW, the other reason I don't see square format coming to 35mm-type systems... virtually all of the consumer cameras are rectangular too (although more 4:3 than 3:2). If people wanted square images, we would see it in consumer cameras.