:::DX squared:::

[Heath Bennett]

Does anyone know if DX lenses would be able to work with a square sensor?

This could be a way of Nikon increasing the size of the sensor (thus upping megapixel count), while not ignoring DX, and eliminating problems associated with the full frame cameras (vignetting, corner softness, etc).

I like the thought of this as it would be a very croppable image. As a designer/photographer I often wish that portrait images were shot as landscape and vice versa.

The biggest issue would be people that have never used square formats in getting used to it...

What do you think? Should I give Nikon a call?

[Glen]

Heath, there would be no reason why it wouldn't work. The thing most likely to be the deal killer is the sales of the olympus dslr with their 4/3 systems. Or more correctly, the lack of them. I actually think it is good format.

[Heath Bennett]

Perhaps Olympus just didn't promote it properly. I know very little about the format. So 4/3 would be the same aspect as an older television? EDIT - or any monitor running 800x600/1024x768/1600x1200?

Nikon's clout could use it very well. Image a 20 megapixel square sensor with the D2x's micon size and acuity. I would buy that!

[losfp]

It's been a while since I did any calculations more strenuous than 4 goals + 5 behinds = 29 points (or, if you prefer, 2 tries, 1 conversion = 12 or 10 points, depending)....

But I wouldn't think that switching to a square format would give you an appreciable increase in the sensor size, given that 3:2 is not THAT far off square. And if you crop it back down to 3:2 for a specific effect, you'd lose resolution compared to a 3:2 sensor that fits in the same-sized circle of light.

Interesting thought though...

[Heath Bennett]

losfp - in my knowledge the DX format is not 4/3 - rather it is closer to widescreen - 1680x1050 (not cinema - this is another step again). Resolution of 4/3 - 800x600, resolution of D70 3008x2000 (close to 3/2).

EDIT - please note the above resolutions are examples only, and do not attempt to say that 4/3 is ONLY 800x600, or that widescreen is only 1680x1050.

I think there is a fair amount of light 'real estate' to capitalise on with a DX square format.

[Heath Bennett]

D2x 4288x2848= 12.2 MP
D2x on square DX 4288x4288= 18.4 MP

[Alpha_7]

Just thinking stupid thoughts to myself but if you did have a square sensor, you could setup the camera to take 3:2 and 2:3 shots (as in Landscape and portrait) without changing the orientation of the camera as in it just crops the sides or the top and bottom depending on the orientation.

[Heath Bennett]

No that makes sense - like a High Speed Crop mode for portrait or landscape. But it could get confusing.

[phillipb]

Just think, no more need for L brackets or hand grips. I like it.

[losfp]

D2x 4288x2848= 12.2 MP
D2x on square DX 4288x4288= 18.4 MP

With all due respect Heath, I think your numbers aren't quite accurate. (just let me begin by stressing that I am not 100% sure on all these, this is just my argument)

Assuming that the lens throws a roughly circulular area of light onto the sensor.... And that the DX format sensor example above is 4288 x 2848, with the corners just short of touching the edges of this circle. In that case, you CAN'T get 4288 x 4288 because in order to increase vertical size, you have to decrease the horizontal size, otherwise the corners will get cut off by the edge of the circle. You COULD get 4288x4288 by increasing the pixel density, but that is contrary to what you are trying to achieve here (which is increasing the physical size of the sensor).

I've painstakingly hacked my way through the calculations (thank christ I remember Pythagoras' Theorem from school), and I've worked out that if you retain the same pixel density, then the biggest square you can get in that circle of light would be 3639px

3639x3639 = 13.2MP, ie: not a massive difference.

Happy to be proven wrong though

[Heath Bennett]

Good point, well illustrated. I agree, my mistake

[Steffen]

As I understand it, you're talking two different issues here, one easily solved and one seemingly impossible to solve.

The first one is the issue of pixel density, or croppability. Easy fix: just take the shot with a higher MP sensor (and the optics to match) and you can crop away at your heart's desire.

The more sinister one (and one of my pet-peeves) is the issue of format. Are we ever going to get rid of utterly idiotic formats like 4:3, 3:2, etc? I mean, who ever decided on a sensor with unmanagable aspect ratio like that deserves to be sent to the technology hall of shame.

The way I see it, there are only two formats worth sticking to in the digital age: 1:1 (aka square) or 1:sqrt(2) (aka DIN A). Both these formats boast mathematical beauty, and both have have heaps of practical benefits.

I think it would be a bold but brilliant move for any camera maker to go for either DIN A (preferrably) or square format. Like that's ever gonna happen...

Cheers
Steffen