I found some existing questions(1) (2) (3) sure square sensors, but these would be excessive for the purpose described here.
For low aspect ratio photos, p. Ex: 1: 1, 6: 5, 5: 4 and 4: 3, the 3: 2 ratio of APS-C and 35 mm sensors strikes a significant part of the image circle. A rather modest increase of 28% of the sensor surface allows:
- All ratios from 3: 2 to 1: 1 for native use of the lens, providing 61% more image area in the case of 1: 1 photos (squares)
- Overview of the electronic viewfinder (live view) for easy tracking of the subject
- The image format must be selected in post-processing without additional cropping, if the complete reading of the sensor is recorded.
- Fixed barrel distortion with little or no typical cropping
Formats such as 5: 4 and 1: 1 may be less popular than 3: 2 but they are not uncommon. The partial increase of the sensor surface (and the mechanical and electronic modifications necessary to support it) should not have Major effect on price; this would not totally push a camera into a different class (see the sensor surface increase of about 132%, from APS-C to 35mm). Even at a high cost, this would be an excellent differentiating feature for the flagship cameras; Since it is often stated that goals are the main investment in a photographic system, making the most of them should be a strong selling point.
Given the benefits listed above, illustrated below, I wonder why this is not already common on high-end cameras? Is there anything that makes the manufacture of a sensor, shutter or IBIS unit 28% higher really prohibitive? Are the benefits, in my opinion, incorrect or unattractive? Are people just not aware of this technical option and have not expressed a request?
Respond preemptively to possible concerns:
- The size of the file, the speed of the buffer, etc. must remain the same for a selected 3: 2 aspect
- A standard 3: 2 EVF file can be used by simply displaying another slightly smaller format.
- Vignetting should not be displayed unless a full sensor reading option is specifically selected
For APS-C lenses, my proposal would be a 23.50 mm × 19.95 mm sensor, shown in Figure 1 in light blue with standard APS-C and 35 "full frame" formats (respectively wine and pink) superimposed with the APS-C model. minimum image circle. Figure 2 shows the substantial difference in the image area between a 1: 1 crop of the APS-C (green) and the native 1: 1 (dashed).
Follow-up of the subject
Referring to Figure 1, if a standard 3: 2 image is desired, there remains an unused area of the proposed sensor. The supplier can take advantage of this vision in the electronic viewfinder, with appropriate cropping guides for the target format. This would facilitate the tracking of a subject, for example birds in flight.
Ad hoc harvest in post
If an option is provided to record the entire readout of the sensor in RAW format (or JPEG in this case), you can defer the decision of the aspect ratio to display it without additional cropping. This could be used to record a poorly composed photo or simply to change the artistic desire. This would also improve the ability to respond to a client's request to print a given image in a specific format, for example. 8 × 10, 11 × 14 20 × 24.
Barrel distortion, common in wide-angle lenses, usually requires additional cropping (yellow frame) after correction (either in camera or after), because the sensor (green frame) does not capture any distorted image . (Fig. 3)
Without changing the image circle, it is always possible to capture a wider usable viewing angle if the sensor is extended. (Fig. 4) Obviously, the recoverable surface depends on the aspect ratio, with only the top and bottom recoverable at 3: 2 and only the 1: 1 sides.
Yield of the wafer
A response made the request
A sensor area with a more square aspect ratio leads to considerably worse yields for platelets.
In attempting an approximation using the CALY yield calculator, I see a 35% increase in the cost of the proposed sensor compared to the APS-C, compared to an increase of 232% for the 35mm .
The standard matrix APS-C 23,50 × 15,60 dies on a 300 mm slice:
Use of the proposed 23.50 × 19.95 matrix with the same parameters:
As expected, a much better performance than 35.7 × 23.8 "full screen":