We haven’t forgotten about the Canon EOS R1, and you probably haven’t either [CR2]

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,090
8,303
Of course they do, the image circle is a circle and currently reaches the edges of the sensor. If that sensor were round it would therefore reach fine.
Let's review what you initially claimed:

How about a 35mmx35mm sensor, or a 35mm circle sensor

I suggest you obtain and study a basic geometry textbook. Hint: look up the part about squares inscribed in circles. I'm sure you won't bother, though.

For a 43.2 mm diameter circle (the size of a FF image circle), the largest square that can fit within it has sides of 30.6 mm. A '35x35mm sensor' as you suggest would not be fully covered by many current lenses. A 30.6x30.6mm square sensor, when cropped to 3:2, would mean a decrease in light gathering and thus an increase in image noise compared to the current situation.

A 35mm circular sensor would be fully covered by a full frame image circle, of course, but would yield rectangular crops from an area smaller than a FF sensor, with the concomitant decrease in light gathering and increase in image noise. A 43.2mm circular sensor would work (and may be what you are actually trying to suggest), in that it would enable FF-size 3:2 crops in either orientation and work with current lenses. But in both cases, circular sensors are non-starters for manufacturing reasons. Silicon and the lithography needed to produce large sensors remains a significant cost, and cutting round sensors instead of rectangles out of the wafers means wasting a lot of the material along with significantly higher loss rates (it's not like cutting round cookies out of a sheet of dough where you can just ball the dough back up, roll it out again and cut out more cookies!).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
592
747
USA
Of course they do, the image circle is a circle and currently reaches the edges of the sensor. If that sensor were round it would therefore reach fine.
There would not be a need to crop every time, you could easily set the image size and shape in software while recording the whole sensor in RAW format. GoPro does this on the Hero 11. It just means that you could choose either landscape, portrait, or choose later, or you could choose level landscape and have the camera correct in real-time for leveling as the GoPro does amazingly well.
waste is a pretty weak excuse, this is a $10k camera body! Even if that's an issue for round, it's certainly not for square which would allow the portrait/landscape thing
RE; Image circle, I was referring to the 35x35mm sensor proposed, not the round one. I don't think the image circle of RF lenses would quite reach that. Image circle for FF 35mmx24mm (3:2 format) is 42mm. for 35x35 it would have to be 49.5mm.


Agreed waste for square sensors would not be an issue. For round, I do suspect it is why it won't take over the rectangular format for larger sensor size cameras. Though it is an interesting thing for the go-pro, as much of the time you can't be sure what orientation the camera will be in at any given moment it is quite useful for certain situations. I hope not all cameras go to the 10k price point....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
525
472
I till hope that one day we will have a camera with two sensor that could slide up and down. That would make everybody happe. One sensor with 90 megapixels and the other one with 24 megapixels.

Mirrorless cameras have the big advantage that they calculate the autofocus from the sensor. So even if that sliding mechanism would not keep the sensor 100% in place, aurofocus would still work perfectly. All you need is enough space in the camera body to slide the sensor up or down. A 1D series camera should have that space. Not sure how that would work with IBIS though.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,194
1,052
Do the people buying ultra high end bodies care about 8k video? I always assumed that was a mid to low range thing because at the high end people are buying actual video cameras like the Red or similar.
It is not about 'people' but projects. I use Red or Alexa or Sony on features and use Canon 8k for small or self-funded films.
 
Upvote 0

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,194
1,052
I'd like to see them get rid of CF Express and just adopt M.2 in some kind of caddy. Given the storage needs of a modern high end camera it makes sense to just adopt proper storage. A 1 series camera body is certainly large enough to do so.
Not me. I do want Canon to keep the weight and size down. Besides, I have a huge investment in CF Express. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,194
1,052
Not at all, I was just saying that people spending 10k for a camera to capture video are generally buying video camera bodies, not photo camera bodies. People buying mid to low end cameras don't have much choice if they want interchangeable lenses, hence the popularity of video in cheaper bodies. I just don't see it as a compelling feature in an R1. I've no issue with it being included, but to call it out as a major improvement seems odd in a primarily stills device.
Incorrect assumptions sir.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
6,976
5,128
69
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
And yet, here we are still with rectangle sensors and camera grips in 2022. Just because it's been mentioned before doesn't make it a bad idea...
Maybe not. But when the last major camera that used one was the original Kodak box camera, you might consider why that is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,194
1,052
I've been on the fence about buying an R3, mostly because of the unknown specs of the upcoming R1.

The main thing "holding me back" from just getting the R3 is that I'd prefer a larger sensor (between 35 and 65 MPx or so). If the R1 ends up being significantly more than that, like 80MPx or more, I'll need to consider whether that's really ideal. Handling 80MPx files would be a pain in the butt, especially if shot at 30fps or more. Noise performance would need to be equal to the R3 when down-sampled to consider it as an option.

There are also a few other features that I'd love to see in the high-end Canon cameras.
- pre-capture mode (buffering shots when half-pressing the shutter button, and saving a buffer once you press it)
- more options for burst rates (not just having 30, 15, and 3 fps options; perhaps also having options for 10 and 6 fps)
Please consider R5. It may just work great for your needs. It works great for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
6,976
5,128
69
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
To those who don't like the focus on video: bear in mind that the video folks are making your still camera cost maybe $1000 less than it would without those features.
I used to agree with that, but as video features become more and more sophisticated and require new design changes to implement at the high end, I'm beginning to think that we are entering an era where super-sophisticated video-only features may have a diminishing return.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

Curahee

I'm New Here
Jun 7, 2022
20
16
Of course they do, the image circle is a circle and currently reaches the edges of the sensor. If that sensor were round it would therefore reach fine.
There would not be a need to crop every time, you could easily set the image size and shape in software while recording the whole sensor in RAW format. GoPro does this on the Hero 11. It just means that you could choose either landscape, portrait, or choose later, or you could choose level landscape and have the camera correct in real-time for leveling as the GoPro does amazingly well.
waste is a pretty weak excuse, this is a $10k camera body! Even if that's an issue for round, it's certainly not for square which would allow the portrait/landscape thing
Would not a round sensor waste a lot of pixels? A 100 MP sensor would actually be about 40 MP useable once cropped (I did not do the math). Where an 80 MP sensor wastes nothing except for post cropping if desired but not required. Also the computing power I would imagine would be exponentially greater (More heat, more difficulty to eliminate rolling shutter or more difficult for global shutter). Also just getting shutter speed up on the sensor and again all that effort and most of it wasted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,194
1,052
I do not like the developement that more megapixels are now considered more premium or flagship than low megapixels. If you compare the R5 and the R3, you see how much better the R3 is in low light evne if you scale the R5 images down to the resolution of the R3. Is that just because of the stecked BSI sensor? I also hate that resolution decisions are taken with video in mind. So they might opt for 89.3 megapixels that are required for a 12K resolution, if I made the calculation right. Even for 8K a 12K oversampling would give good results, as it would basically use 9 pixels to get 4 pixels.

The "new ergonomics" sound scary. Please to not give us a tiny toy camera like that Sony A1 that still costs as much as a big camera!
Hmmm. Has there not been enough debates that high resolution does not create noise? IF R3 is indeed "So much better", it needs to be evaluated if there is something else going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,194
1,052
I used to agree with that, but as video features become more and more sophisticated and require new design changes to implement at the high end, I'm beginning to think that we are entering an era where super-sophisticated video-only features may have a diminishing return.
Very possible that the video features are making cameras more expensive. However, the number of people who want to buy just a still camera maybe be miniscuile.
 
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0