The new Sony patent found by Egami fall under the category “crazy patents”. I doubt this Sensors and LCD rotation tech will ever find his way in a real NEX production camera. You tell me if you would find this feature useful! Isn’t it easier to rotate the camera? 🙂
90 Responses
Not sure about a rotating sensor, although a fixed square sensor would be the bees knees for both landscape and portrait.
Good call, I have long thought that a large square with digital cropping (vertical/horizontal) that covered the image circle would be wonderful. With flash this would really be ideal. Also i would bet a larger sensor would be cheaper than moving parts in the long run (not to mention much more reliable).
No, larger (or even different) sensor is always more expensive.
I found this feature is useful for landscape photographers who has already fixed the camera and leveled it carefullyly on the tripod.
Once he wants to orient the view to portrait orientation, he won’t have to readjust the level again. This might save adjustment time significantly.
Totally agree Souththichai! The ‘L’ bracket makers will not be too happy 🙂
I would love to see square sensor instead. Better than nothing though: it’s very inconvenient to shoot in portrait mode right now.
Square sensor is the way to go. I just wish that Hasselblad’s square digital back was full size rather than 1.5x crop factor. Never really understood why it isn’t like that. It’s not that hard to crop to whatever rectangular you want from square.
Tilt shift can be achieved by sn e mount adapter.
Also possible a telescoping adater (0-200mm) extension.
Incorporate a ssm motor for auto focus on non autofoucus lenses snd it would also double as an extension tube that could be left on.
Square sensor gets my vote.
Make it 80-100mp and 36mmit square.
People that would want a square sensor are the same people who would most benefit from higher resolution.
Square sensor is way more expensive than current APS-c sensors.
Of course it is. You get what you pay for.
A 36×36 square sensor will be more expensive than your c sensor and worth it.
So what is the issue with that?
The issue is I don’t need it in order to get a rectangular crop.
Thats exactly what I expected, you have no answer.
You may not need any more resolution than will fit on a tv screen and probably dont need to crop for dual formats.
But some of us need to take the pictures you dont.
This was supposed to be a response to your ither coment not this one.
A 36×36 sensor would be useless for un-cropped square pictures in the E mount as the corners would be blocked off. You’d also need lenses with a larger image circle than most current “full-frame” lenses
The “way more”‘s size depends heavily on sales.
To me this sounds very interesting as an interim step to a “tilt/shift” sensor with on sensor PDAF. Think about the possibilities in a big mirrorless DSLR shaped body. FF lenses could be used like T/S lenses – at least in crop mode.
I like this feature
Inspired by the Mamiya RB-67 rotating back?!
Such design will be good for portraits and landscapes, I’d like Sony to make a new RX-10 with APS-C sensor n Zeiss 16-80/f4 to get this feature, then it will be a perfect pocket camera for travelling!
square sensor will cost you some wide coverage,33*33 vs 36*24,unless it is an oversize 36*36 sensor.
36×36
Don’t think you’ll be able to fit a 36×36 sensor in the existing mount.
You’re correct, no space there. I managed to get Hasselblad 501c last week and having square is really really good. No need to rotate camera, no awkward positions and so on. Larger mount would be needed for Sony, at least from the pics it looks like that.
Yep, square is really great. How about a sensor like that (everything except the green part):
http://www.rytterfalk.com/wp-content/upload/1253263718-sensors.jpg
🙂
After a quick and rough calculation, the current mount should be able to accept something like 30x30mm sensor. Not bad.
Square or rotating backs were good for medium format reflex cameras with a waist level viewfinder as it avoided the need for a large, heavy eye-level prism finder.
Really, how difficult is it to rotate a NEX 90°? If you have a problem with this, get an L-bracket or a vertical grip.
Rather than a rotating sensor, I’m sure most people would prefer to see IBIS in APS-C NEX cameras (as well in the fulll frame NEX).
No doubt you can stabilize your camera far better in a horizontal position then vertical. Although it’s easier to modify settings with the different wheels and buttons. From that point if view the moving sensor and display is a great idea!
+1 for square sensor, 24x24mm, providing the usual horizontal ratios + vertical, center square crop 18x18mm (still missing in Nexes while RX100 does that) and “fullframe” 24x24mm (lot of 3rd party lenses would cover that). But its not gonna happen I guess.
it is very useful for 3d photography or pan panorama.
Why not make a round sensor the size of the image circle of the lenses.fill up the hole bayonet, then you can crop in whatever square-portret or landscape or panorama you want. great for fisheye.
36x36mm square sensor is the way to go.
There is very little advantage (if any) to rotating componenents rather than the camera.
You still need to shoot the subject twice if you want both formats
Square sensor allows change of format without the loss of 60% of the image.
The current maximum resolution available is enough to photogragh a whole bird without featers OR a single feather with detail.
Niether one can fly.
Lens coverage should be sufficient except possibly in the extreme corners which will probably be cropped anyway.
I generally only purchase lenses that do not have the rectsngular mask in the rear nut i would imagine ther must be a reasnably simple way to modify the others.
People that want square sensors are also those most likely to want extremely high resolution.
I can imagine many medium format lens owners will be tempted to buy NEX styled camera with 36×36 sensor as their digital back.
Don’t know, it will defy whole point of those lenses since it would be 1.5x crop, so all advantages of those lenses would disappear.
+1
Isn’t it stupid to have turn a DIGITAL camera if you want to take portrait photo? What a simple idea to use a square shaped sensor and just switch guidelines or take squareshaped photo and decide later.
You don’t need a square sensor for that.
Since you clearly object to anyone having a square or high resolution sensor please tell me how YOU plan to use the same picture in both verticle and horizontal formats.
Bear in mind you only get one chance to take each picture anywhere but a studio.
Also tell me how YOU would allow space for text.
Apparently you know some method that I don’t.
It’s not my job to teach you how to make a photograph.
It’s obviously not: you can’t teach anything you have no idea about
A rotating sensor is a solution in search of a problem. Just make the sensor 36×36 and be done with it.
you could set the sensor to constant rotation for some nice effects.
just think about video mode + rotation!!!
Next Sony inovation would be objective rotation 🙂
or square sensor rotation, rofl
Would very much like some sort of rotate option. Never yet used s camera that woke as well in vertical orientation, even with a grip. Seems easier to do it with a square sensor, though.
Maybe useful, but IMHO falls into the ‘over-engineering’ category. If you are going to move the sensor though, lets give it tilt and shift capabilities.
+1
Im camera Tilt & Shift would be an excellent use of a moving sensor!
… and in a mirrorless DSLR body you have enough space for it. Only the necessary flange distance might be an engineering challenge.
+1 though, shift isn’t very useful as you can do this in software.
Which magical piece of software would allow me to do that?
It would save me time on-location when shooting interiors not having to shift to get additional photos for stitching later (for a wider field-of-view).
Shift is usually used to avoid converging verticals – and of course you can correct for those in software. The other ways are either to use a wider angle lens (so that you can get the whole subject in without tilting the camera) and crop – or to shift the camera and use stitching.
+1 That would be an awesome application of moving sensors.
I welcome sensor rotation, in fact I have been hoping for it to happen for sometimes. It makes taking photo in portrait format easy without the weight and bulk of vertical grip.
also good for auto leveling, especilly in video mode.
Ther vertical battery grip for the a99 is extremely comfortable and lightweight. It has been a joy to use, far better than the Canon battery & wi-fi grips I’ve used. The ergonomics really makes portrait shooting steadier. Plus, the battery life of the a99 is terrible, so there is the added battery benefit.
Sounds like a more or less natural extension of the olympus 5-axis ibis. If it can be done with simple modification of existing technology, maybe it’s cheaper than cutting out squares.
Don’t get the point of the rotating screen though. Is it any way better than swivel?
In age of medium format film, rotating back was pretty useful thing. If you have bit heavier dSLR today (and mounted on tripod) then it would be helpful even today. Plus you wouldnt need things like L-brackets.
Just an observation: Easier is not always better. Many never found the “hardship” of changing backs or plates a problem, even though other choices of photo equipment were “easier.” Now, with degenerative nerve issues limiting my range of motion, it’s not so easy to just flip the camera’s orientation (and if they made the ability to change orientation possible without opening the camera **shrug**). Hey, some people are willing to pay for Hasselblad priced NEX cameras with no more ease added than name branding. Furthermore, who knows what might emerge from this technology beyond the assumption that it is only an alternative for the “easier” choice of changing the camera’s orientation.
Square sensor will make more sense. Any moving parts in the sensor chamber introduce potential debris problem if not manufactured properly. For example, the notorious dust/oil has been spilled from the moving mirror/shutter in some DSLRs.
Square sensor => cost increase for both sensor and shutter.
mirror/shutter need to move in microseconds, rotating sensor doesn’t need to be fast
Why cost increase for sensor and shutter?
Stupid question. If sensor is free, give me your sensor!
Free sensor? What are you even talking about? Try to make sense before calling someone “stupid”.
Because both the sensor and shutter would need to be larger – unless you’re talking about a square sensor that has the same, or less area, as existing rectangular sensors. In that case you’d sacrifice quite a bit when taking vertical or horizontal shots.
If we decide to keep the same mount and simply switch from a rectangular to a square sensor, the difference in its area would be less than 10%. I doubt that would affect much the price.
Sensor Rotation.. Another thing that can get broken easily…
This is a joke right? Why would I rotate the screen & senzor of NEX-5 camera….the thing is 200 grams people….you can swing it any direction with 2 fingers.
Please don’t add this innovation before Body Integral SSS (aka IBIS)
A simple shutter release on the front of the camera would provide for comfortable vertical shooting, which is what this design seeks to provide. No need for such extreme mechanics. Just put a second shutter button on the front and all controls will still be available to the thumb.
Shutter release on front like the old Topcon Super D here
http://host.gmcamera.com/flexshare/images/4D-21544/20120419_1311.JPG
That’s all we need for vertical shooting.
I’m a fashion photographer. 99.9% of my work is vertical. A front shutter button would work great for this.
Vertical battery grip?
The existence of portrait grips tells us there’s a need for something. But between this and oversized square sensor, I don’t think this could be cheaper and easier unless it is a side effect of how they implement IBIS.
I would find the rotating sensor ideal during certain portrait sessions. It could save me the bulk of a vertical grip. I don’t know if I’d buy such a system but it has potential.
Many lenses have a rectagular baffle in the rear.
Lens mount as well as sensor and display would all need to rotate together.
Square sensor accomplishes same as this AND we get a larger image. Lenses would have to gave no baffle or be modified but this appears like it would be simple to do
Althogh this patent is silly dare we hope that sony is at least thinking about a square sesor?
Hoping this isn’t the NEX-5T…
while i would like to see a square format sensor, after thinking about this its not that bad of an idea.
when trying to shoot landscape photog theres always uneven land, and so having to adjust the height is a pain sometimes so if the sensor can do self leveling that’d be awesome. but changing the tilt on a ball head ain’t hard either
i guess it’d be good for lazy people who dont want to raise their arm to shoot in portrait
Get an L-bracket that is desgined to change from horizontal to vertical around the cenral axis of the camera – or use the center column of your tripod do adjust height. If your tripod is properly leveled it shouldnt be a problem – and, as you said, “changing the tilt on a ball head ain’t hard either” if the tripod is not perfectly level.
An IBIS system could probably be designed so that it would do a fine degree of self leveling when the camera is on a tripod.
yes, im getting around to upgrading my tripods with one set of QR mounts adapted on each, just gotta get around to doing it but its not much of an issue right now because im too busy to go out shooting anyway
Custom Brackets makes such a rotating mount in numerous variations, either with or without flash mounts:
http://www.custombrackets.com/products/camera-flash-brackets/digital-pro-series-brackets.html
What seems strange about all this discussion thread is little discussion of the fact that Sony is not talking about a switchable square sensor or any such thing but a rotation system for the sensor (and LCD) that is capable of any angle setting to auto level the photo. That auto level fits right in with Sony’s gimmick stuff. And knowing how they usually do things the worry is they may make it so you can’t turn it off?
Judging from the LCD part they assume that everyone shoots with the LCD held out in front of them.
Just checked my Sony E Mount lenses. They’ve got rectangular baffles. So this would be silly on E Mount (unless it turns the lens also, but that would make the lens unstable). So no rotating sensor OR square sensor on E Mount any time soon.
What are those rectangular baffles for?
If the camera had an EVF that would need to rotate that as well. So, if they ever implement this, I suspect it would probably appear in some mid-range APS-C NEX without an EVF as a gimmick to attract customers who can’t figure out how to hold and operate the camera vertically – and have never heard of a vertical grip or an L bracket
The design is about rotation at any angle for auto leveling. It’s not about mere switching between vertical and horizontal. Note the drawings show not only 0degrees and 90 degrees but also 45 degrees.
We know what the desighn is about snd it is foolish as you say.
The square sensor we are all talking about is the right way to acomplish whatt this patent is a poor attempt af.
It would also be a REAL improvement instead of the gimmick this patent is and could actually be considered a substantial improvement.
Sony DOES NOT MAKE SUBSTSNTIAL IMPROVEMENT THEY ONLY PROMISE THEM.
That has been and currently is thier unwavering policy.
That wsy they believe people will buy 3 or 4 minor improvements instead of a single real improvements.
Unfortunately that makes the likelihood of actually seing a square sensor very small.
Yet another proof that Sony’s innovation and marketing is about gadgets and fancy features but nothing to be taken seriously.
There should be a square sensor.
Nex is not the camera for rotational or square sensor it belongs on a larger more professional camera. Possibly a mount or dslr style e mount.
The casual shooter will not be the buyer for this.
36X36 mm with at least 88mp would be optimal.
People that do not need this high a resolution will not want the squre senser either. Lens baffles can be modified or removed.
Corner vignetting will usually not occur in a critical area (who would place the subject in the extreme corner) and firmware can detect and correct it.
Exmor sensor could be replaced with Exmor-r sensor or better yet a new stacked sensor.
Only one or two cameras should have these features as the average shooter will prefer the more trditional format.
Pros will love the luxury of spontaneous shooting now and deciding format latter.
Panoramas and stitching are easier because more image means fewer pieces to stitch.
I usually shoot a safety picture of the complete composition AND multiple close ups for stitching. Not having to rotate the format for both would be a pleasure.
Add campaigns allways need to be used in multiple formats and require sufficient background to fit text. They also require lots of resolution because they will be big.
Any bird phitographers here? NO CAMERA CURRENTLY MADE CAN PHOTOGRAPH A BIRD WITH FEATHERS!!!
You can shoot a bird or a feather but not both.
People are so used to crappy photos they think they are good.
Look at any photo e en the best pro photos
People dont have hair
Butterflies dont have scales on thier wings.
Trees dont have leaves.
Flowers dont have pollen
I can see every one of those things in real life but not in pictures.
For those who think it cant be done!
The current point and shoot Exmor-r sensor scaled up to 36x36mm would yield about 400mp.
Current high quality primes of 300-350 lp/mm would also yield about 400mp.
Current master quality lenses used in testing labs exceed 600the lp/mm that would yield over 1000mp.
The details I described above can be seen at 100-200mp.
I am not suggesting we go to 200 mp in a single jump but we should certainly be able to do better than 36mp.
My suggested benchmark for this current generation of sensors is a minimum of 54mp for a full frame camera or 88mp for a 36mm square sensor.
Both of these goals can be achieved simply by scaling up the current 24mp c size sensor to these larger sizes with NO INCREASE IN RESOLUTION and NO NEW TECHNOLOGY!
Lol, I just read the article and some major things got lost in translation (or the lack thereof). This is a patent for SYNCHRONIZED rotation of sensor and display. Everyone who’s worked with L brackets knows how useful such a feature would be.
However, it probably won’t become a real product since a lot of E mount lenses don’t have circular image circles (lol) because of the flare protection piece behind the back lens (usually rectangular and not square), at least for APS-NEX. It’d be a great WOW-feature for the FF NEX though.
SQUARE sensors? really?
most comments talk about this being the BIG deal.
i FULLY disagree:
where the hell i will look square pictures if all screens today are 16:9?
square sensor actually lose width image, how the hell are they better for landscape?
and the worst “just shot and crop later” seems like the amateur that fast shot like dozens photos in hope ONE look good… but ok, today digital photography its more composition forgiving
CANIKONs seems to hold on old days where getting a photo was 10% time taking the photo and 90% time in photoshop/black room/raw/etc, so they will be happy adding time cropping every single photo
SQUARE sensors (or film for that matter) only make sense for taking photos from things that look good at either horizontal and vertical, and thats a tiny %
BESIDES people who want a square sensor its because they shot vertical BUT they fail to understand that a square sensor will reduce the width, so theres more LOST image than gain with a square sensor, you will lose in landscape, wide angle lenses, shoting full bodie persons, buildings, etc… and you gain what? not to move your camera 90 degrees, give me a break, i wont lose the most to gain a little (i always shoted more horizontal than vertical and in today digital world i avoid vertical at most)
What exactly are you loosing? 36x36mm sensor would result in LARGER area than 36x24mm. You see? Simple math there, 36 > 24.
And what does your computer screen (btw most of them are 16:10) got to do with a photograph? Your widescreen monitor is designed aspect ratio-wise for watching films and to have 2 A4 pages next to each other on it.
I believe they should create a camera with just a spetacular EVF with great magnification and get rid of the LCDscreen. It would make the camera cheaper, smaller and lighter.
For enthusiasts, what is the true purpose of the LCD??
Chimping 😉
Leaf has had this for a long time about 5 years selling rotating sensor. usually used when camera is mounted to a tripod or studio Stand.
of course like your website but you have to check the spelling on quite a few of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I in finding it very troublesome to inform the truth nevertheless I will certainly come again again.