Does Pentax listen?

About two years back I mad ea post on this site in which I 'asked' for a different type of pentax,...on with a square sensor.

The spec that I wanted was briefly, a sensor 23x23mm with jpegs from either horiz. or vert. images chosen by thumb switch and RAW from the full square sensor. This would make a very useful camera with no need for extra grips of having to turn the camera physically. I also asked for detachable v/f's and a remote lcd etc.

I am amazed to see almost this exact same idea now being suggested as forming the basis for the "K3D". At the time of my post it was treated with derision by other posters notably Uncle George.

While I take no credit for this rumour it does make me wonder if someone has been watching. If only they have been!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=30983324

Do us a favour, ask for a digital ME Super, please?

You're certainly not alone - I've been saying for some while that I'd like to see a square sensor too for the same reasons. Unfortunately the DSLR market seems very conservative so I'm not holding my breath.

Having said that, if one company were to use such a sensor and it proved a success (and I think it would) then we'd see all the others hopping straight onto the bandwagon. Pentax has always had a record for innovation so maybe - just maybe - they'll be the ones to go first. I'll keep my fingers crossed...

I've never wanted a FF sensor'd DSLR, but I did pose the question a while ago myself, mainly to determine whether a heavy investment in DA lenses would be eventually wasted.

I'd probably buy a 2¼" squaresque sensor'd DSLR eventually if I can retain my DA collection.

Brilliant idea. Well done Pentax, innovative as ever.

This was first mooted for 35mm cameras in the 1970s and it's not a bad idea in many ways.

On the other hand, in a world which is going widescreen it would seem counter-intuitive to go squarer when everyone else is going wider.

Time to dust off the Rolleiflex?

Whilst the 35mm SLR format was chosen as a parallel to cinema film, I'm not sure it would be sensible to do the same again and go widescreen with DSLR's.

I like the square format idea with the flexibility it could bring.

having a square sensor and an optional 16x9 (or other standard crops) live wireframe (in live view) mode that allows you to use the rocker switch on the back of the camera to set "Crop" box that the software would use on processing the raw files would be nice. then you move the red box to the area in the lcd and shoot knowing whats in the red wireframe is how the software will crop on import to computer.... but still save the square raw file if you change your mind later......

Makes you wonder what the medium format camera they were working on, before the Hoya buy out, was really going to be like.

P.S. Pentax if you're still listening 11-16 f2.8 DA* please

The square sensor is a nice idea and will put the FF discussion to rest as well.
It will give you a lot of freedom when shooting, you can select orientation in the camera but you don't need to. You just shoot and all cropping can be done on the PC.

As well as saving the need to rotate the camera for portrait format, it would be nice to have a high-resolution square format while still being able to use APS-C lenses.

But could a larger (square) sensor and focusing screen etc, with Shake Reduction, be squeezed into a body about the size of a K20D, or would it have to be much larger?

Didn't Agfa try "Square Format" on 35mm with the Karat/Rapid cassette? It wasn't very popular whatever format it was. Some manufacturers such as Olympus had half-frame cameras that also took the Karat/Rapid cassette.

Speaking as someone who has used 6x6 for about 30 years I hate the square format..... waste of film, hard to compose, cameras much bigger than they need be. Enlargers bigger than they need be. Lenses dearer than need be. If you send them for printing you get something the same width as a rectangular negative but only about 70% of the height of a rectangular negative.

There were also Kodak box cameras in sq. format (620 film) also a 127 Rollei. Not sure what 126 was.

shim

The 126 Cartridge from Kodak was 35mm film in an instant package that gave 24x24mm exposures. SLR designs from Zeiss Ikon and Kodak looked a little strange because they were narrower but higher to accommodate the square format.

The downfall was lack of a pressure plate for the film and the relatively poor construction quality of the cartridge itself. Just as with the much smaller 110 format.

YES!

To cite one instance, when the K10D was released Pentaxians bemoaned the lack of wireless flash compared to the cameras predecessor the istD, so what got added in the next firmware update

I also suspect complaints about the lack of a PC socket on the K10D resulted in the addition of this on the K20D too.

A lot of things still fall on deaf ears though as my K20D cant make a decent Cappuccino

Mine does.