The discussion on preferences for 4:3 vs 3:2 got me thinking. Why not square sensors?

Advantages:
Make better use of the image circle of the lens.
Can have the camera set to 4:3, 3:2, 2:3, 3:4 or just take the square and crop later.
Great for underwater verticals; no more compromises in strobe positions because the arm holders were designed for horizontals.

Cost:
50% increase in chip area for APS-C and 33% for 4:3.
Requires more memory and processing for the same performance if you process the whole square.
Longer travel shutter, bigger mirror.

The cost shouldn't increase the APS-c and 4:3 cameras much. It may not be much more than the cost of a vertical grip. FF will probably be significantly more expensive.

You think Canon or Nikon would go for the idea?

I don't think a square photo is aesthetically pleasing. To me the rectangular shape is more appealing. But you are right about everything else.

Here is something interesting about the 3:2 ratio that I just found on the net:

http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/golden_rectangle.html

I'm not in favor of square photos. It's everything else that I'm after.

Cool, I heard about the golden proportion, divine ratio etc etc but actually never though about 3:2 ratio thingy. I suppose it is close enough
So what we really needs is a 3.2:2 sensor and all shall be golden!

I wonder why sensors today are still flat and not concave so that all light traveling through the lens would have an equal distance to travel.

And as far as the shapes of sensors, why aren't they oval (or round?) just like our own vision? Is it something other than a matter of wasted paper that made compositions have corners? Or was it easier for bookbinders? Or possibly the decorated walls of ancient buildings were the precurser and therefore the tradition that two dimensional imagery has to have corners. If we think that form other than rectangles or squares are odd shapes for images, imho it's only because we've been brainwashed since birth.

sorry herb if I went slightly off topic....I'll get down from my spherical soap box now

btw, I wonder why images from microscopes, telescopes, and binoculars never fell into compositions needing corners? Possibly something to do with "purity" of image?

When I was shooting my Hasselblad (2 1/4 inch) underwater the main advice I got from editors and photo libraries was to stick the subject in the middle of the square and keep it quite small. That way the user could then choose to crop the picture into a vertical or a horizontal to fit their layout.

Basically they were saying - be a poor photographer. Don't express yourself in the frame. Don't compose the image. We'll do that.

Didn't really appeal to me.

Alex

Didn't Olympus have a camera with a square sensor ?


not completely sure but the E-1 may also have been square too.
there was a lot of talk about the great uses for this when it happened .. I wish I could find the site that discussed it but there was some good points.

update:

My sentiments exactly.

The square format also known as 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 in which Hasselblad became the gold standard all but died with the competition from 645 and 6 X 7 to a lessor extent. Now Hasselblad has risen to the top of the heep again with the 22 MP H1D and H2D both of which are based on the 645 format.

645 is a 4:3 ratio, the same ratio used in the Olympus E-1, E-300 and E-500. Many of you may not like this format but commercialy it has been the gold standard for medium format. As Alex pointed out the largest number of publications come much closer to the 4:3 ratio than the 3:2 ratio resulting in less crop from the format.

Without question the largest mumber of images sold in the world each year are from 3:2 aspect cameras, but 4:3 has its place and is hear to stay.

Underwater I am not so sure, but in the wedding business, square is often still the look of choice, mostly a remnant of the 6x6 guys but also I like the look a lot.
Bill