p.3 #1 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
tctmp wrote:
So if your goal is 4:3, is it more economical to crop from 1:1 or 3:2?
On 1:1, you lose 25%. On 3:2, you crop to 2.67:2 and lose 11%.
The answer is obvious even if your goal is 4:3.
I don't want a square sensor, so that's a moot point. I want a 4:3 or 5:4 sensor.
I think the OP wants a square sensor that is actually larger than the image circle. In that case 1:1 wins every time, but you will never be able to use all of it at once.
The Panasonic LX100 cameras works that way, so it's definitely a solution, even if it would be very expensive for a larger sensor.
p.3 #2 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Makten wrote:
I think the OP wants a square sensor that is actually larger than the image circle. In that case 1:1 wins every time, but you will never be able to use all of it at once.
The Panasonic LX100 cameras works that way, so it's definitely a solution, even if it would be very expensive for a larger sensor.
I don't think your reading is correct. I think his first post is the largest square sensor that fits within the image circle. Except when the final product is not 1:1 which is most of the time for most users, it's a lot of wasted area to crop from it.
p.3 #3 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
I would really prefer a round sensor that covers the specified image circle, maybe a bit wider for IBIS, etc. Then choose the crop you want in post, also accelerometer data embedded to autocorrect the horizon.
Feb 27, 2026 at 01:22 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
tctmp wrote:
So if your goal is 4:3, is it more economical to crop from 1:1 or 3:2?
On 1:1, you lose 25%. On 3:2, you crop to 2.67:2 and lose 11%.
The answer is obvious even if your goal is 4:3.
Here is the math (not to embarrass you but to show it makes little difference but a squarer sensor would be slightly bigger).
FF cameras have an image circle that has to be 43.3mm in diameter. A full frame 3 X 2 sensor is a rectangle that is 24mm on one side, 36mm on the other side and has a diagonal of 43.3mm (matching the image circle diameter). That sensor is 864 square mm.
A FF sensor that was square that would fit in the same image circle would be 30.6mm on each side and of course would still have a 43.3mm diagonal to match the image circle of the lenses. 30.6 squared is 937.4 square mm, so with the same lenses with the same image circle if you made a square sensor it would be just a little bigger in area.
For completeness a 4 X 3 sensor that would fit in that image circle would be 26mm X 34.6mm and would be about 900 square mm in area. It would of course be in between in size.
You are right if your goal is a 4 X 3 image from the square sensor you would get a 30.6mm X 23mm crop if you went with 4 X 3 which is about 704mm squared and that is slightly smaller than the 32mm X 24mm we get when we crop 3 X 2 to a 4 X 3 aspect ratio for 768mm squared. That is a very small difference, however.
Note also if your goal is 5 X 4 image the square sensor actually gets you a slightly bigger crop (750mm squared) than the 3 X 2 sensor (720mm squared) but again the difference is very small.
p.3 #5 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
tctmp wrote:
I don't think your reading is correct. I think his first post is the largest square sensor that fits within the image circle. Except when the final product is not 1:1 which is most of the time for most users, it's a lot of wasted area to crop from it.
I think the OP is the right person to answer what he meant. Don't know why you quoted me in the first place; I'm just an advocate of "squarer" than 3:2.
Now, if I had a camera with a square sensor, I would in many cases use the square rather than crop. While I with a 3:2 sensor would always crop. So I would probably still prefer 1:1 over 3:2, even if I haven't put much thought into that since it doesn't exist.
With the 4:3 sensor in my main camera, I seldom crop. When I do, it's to 5:4, 65:24 or 1:1 (which at 33x33 is still larger than a "full frame" 1:1 sensor would be). I don't think I've cropped to 3:2 even once during the years I've had that camera and its predecessor.
p.3 #6 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Steve Spencer wrote:
You are right if your goal is a 4 X 3 image from the square sensor you would get a 30.6mm X 23mm crop if you went with 4 X 3 which is about 704mm squared and that is slightly smaller than the 32mm X 24mm we get when we crop 3 X 2 to a 4 X 3 aspect ratio for 768mm squared. That is a very small difference, however.
That's exactly my conclusion, the extra part i didnt bother to write that does not change the conclusion. OP's first post argues that since square sensor is biggest, so it's better to crop from it. That's purely a wishful opinion without mathematical basis. The math says that's not the case even for cropping to 4:3, one still ends up with a smaller useable area cropping from 1:1 compared to cropping from 3:2 (with the same diagonal), while incurring extra cost associated with a larger 1:1 sensor.
Had OP managed to go through the real math instead of being hand waving, he would have realized the issues in his first post, especially with the strong rhetoric words he used.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Note also if your goal is 5 X 4 image the square sensor actually gets you a slightly bigger crop (750mm squared) than the 3 X 2 sensor (720mm squared) but again the difference is very small.
Sure, why not just say the goal is square and one only shoots square. But to camera manufacturers, what's the percentage of photos that end up being square or close. The distribution of the aspect ratios is what they care about. I would think most photos have aspect ratio of 4:3 and beyond. And as others have mentioned before, human vision perspective is naturally rectangular.
Feb 27, 2026 at 04:09 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
tctmp wrote:
That's exactly my conclusion, the extra part i didnt bother to write that does not change the conclusion. OP's first post argues that since square sensor is biggest, so it's better to crop from it. That's purely a wishful opinion without mathematical basis. The math says that's not the case even for cropping to 4:3, one still ends up with a smaller useable area while incurring extra cost associated with a larger square sensor.
Had OP managed to go through the real math instead of being hand waving, he would have realized the issues in his first post, especially with the strong rhetoric words he used.
Sure, why not just say the goal is square and one only shoots square. But to camera manufacturers, what's the percentage of photos that end up being square or close. The distribution of the aspect ratios is what they care about. I would think most photos have aspect ratio of 4:3 and beyond. And as others have mentioned before, human vision perspective is naturally rectangular....Show more →
Well, 8 X 10, as well as 12 X 15 and 16 X 20, are still pretty common photo sizes and frames that a lot of people still use. It is an aspect ratio that I still find very nice for portraits even when they are only presented on screen. I think it may be used more often than you recognize in this post.
p.3 #9 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well, 8 X 10, as well as 12 X 16 and 16 X 20, are still a pretty common photo size and frame that a lot of people still use. It is an aspect ratio that I still find very nice for portraits even when they are only presented on screen. I think it may be used more often than you recognize in this post.
First, as I said, it's about the distribution. "common" without a percentage attached is not a useful argument. And 12x16 is 4:3.
Second, it's a weighted tradeoff acorss the aspect ratios. Even if we say 4:3 and 5:4 are a wash between the two croppings, what's the percentage of square photos against aspect ratio wider than 4:3, and the resulted impact from cropping. I feel the answer is obvious.
Feb 27, 2026 at 04:38 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
tctmp wrote:
First, as I said, it's about the distribution. "common" without a percentage attached is not a useful argument. And 12x16 is 4:3.
Second, it's a weighted tradeoff acorss the aspect ratios. Even if we say 4:3 and 5:4 are a wash between the two croppings, what's the percentage of square photos against aspect ratio wider than 4:3, and the resulted impact from cropping. I feel the answer is obvious.
I think it is actually about balance. My point was any differences when you crop to 4 X 3 or 5 X 4 are really small. Trying to make a case as the OP did that square is better or the case that you seem to be making that 3 X 2 is better doesn't make much sense to me. Either can crop to commonly used aspect ratios with only very small differences. If you used square a lot of course square would be better. If you use 3 X 2 a lot obviously 3 X 2 would be better. If you use something in between a lot it really doesn't matter much, but as someone who uses 4 X 3 a lot and 5 X 4 second most, I would prefer 4 X 3, but that is based on my usage and it is a personal preference and certainly not some claim that it is objectively better.
And yes, 12 X 16 is 4 X 3 and it was a typo that I fixed almost immediately after posting.
p.3 #11 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Whew. All this mathematical gymnastics is making my head hurt.
IMO as previously mentioned the easy, cost effective solution is a used GFX kit. Plenty of pixels to crop to your desired aspect ratio.
Quality glass that is made for the sensor and my assumption is that you won’t need blazing autofocus or tracking if you’re looking to make images in a particular aspect ratio.
Soon you may even be able to crop even more if there’s a 180mp sensor in the works.
p.3 #12 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think it is actually about balance. My point was any differences when you crop to 4 X 3 or 5 X 4 are really small. Trying to make a case as the OP did that square is better or the case that you seem to be making that 3 X 2 is better doesn't make much sense to me. Either can crop to commonly used aspect ratios with only very small differences. If you used square a lot of course square would be better. If you use 3 X 2 a lot obviously 3 X 2 would be better. If you use something in between a lot it really doesn't matter much, but as someone who uses 4 X 3 a lot and 5 X 4 second most, I would prefer 4 X 3, but that is based on my usage and it is a personal preference and certainly not some claim that it is objectively better.
And yes, 12 X 16 is 4 X 3 and it was a typo that I fixed almost immediately after posting. ...Show more →
From the camera makers' point of view, even if the 4:3 and 5:4 market can be achieved similarly from cropping from 1:1 or 3:2 sensors, they will choose 3:2 sensors. Because for the similar end result, 3:2 sensor is 10% smaller and cheaper.
Now on the rest of 1:1 and 3:2 photos, and may be 2:1 photos, if they only wants to use 1 aspect ratio sensor, which one will they use? Of course it depends on how many photos are in each ratio. I'm pretty sure there are way more wide photos than square ones out there.
So to the camera makers, if they have to choose between 1:1 and 3:2, it seems a no brainer that they will pick the non square version.
Feb 27, 2026 at 06:00 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
tctmp wrote:
From the camera makers' point of view, even if the 4:3 and 5:4 market can be achieved similarly from cropping from 1:1 or 3:2 sensors, they will choose 3:2 sensors. Because for the similar end result, 3:2 sensor is 10% smaller and cheaper.
Now on the rest of 1:1 and 3:2 photos, and may be 2:1 photos, if they only wants to use 1 aspect ratio sensor, which one will they use? Of course it depends on how many photos are in each ratio. I'm pretty sure there are way more wide photos than square ones out there.
So to the camera makers, if they have to choose between 1:1 and 3:2, it seems a no brainer that they will pick the non square version. ...Show more →
Obviously you are greatly simplifying things. 1:1 and 3:2 are not the only choices. Camera makers sometimes choose 4:3 for the sensor size. Both 44 X 33 sensors and micro 4/3rds sensor are examples when a different aspect ratio from 3:2 was chosen. And I personally much prefer that to be the aspect ratio of the sensor that I use. I wish that cameras that use a 43.3mm image circle (i.e., FF size) came with that sort of sensor. I realize that isn't going to happen, however, and it has nothing to do with how many photos are used with each ratio and everything to do with the evolution of 35mm film to digital sensors.
p.3 #14 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Steve Spencer wrote:
Obviously you are greatly simplifying things. 1:1 and 3:2 are not the only choices. Camera makers sometimes choose 4:3 for the sensor size. Both 44 X 33 sensors and micro 4/3rds sensor are examples when a different aspect ratio from 3:2 was chosen. And I personally much prefer that to be the aspect ratio of the sensor that I use. I wish that cameras that use a 43.3mm image circle (i.e., FF size) came with that sort of sensor. I realize that isn't going to happen, however, and it has nothing to do with how many photos are used with each ratio and everything to do with the evolution of 35mm film to digital sensors....Show more →
Sorry your argument doesn't hold water. Why doesnt m34 use square sensor instead then? Since they obviously started from scratch and nothing holds them back.
The same can be said on digital cameras to some extent. As long as the sensor fits inside the image circle, why would people object if it provides a better aspect ratio that people want.
My point is that square sensor is least useful and least efficient when there is a spectrum of aspect ratios to cover. That's why no general purpose cameras have been using it for a long while. You can argue between 4:3 and 3:2, which one covers the spectrum better, but you definitely can't ague for 1:1.
Yes, 3:2 have been the main ratio in film, but maybe that's because they win out as being the most efficient ratio, and there is no reason to really change even when you have chance to change when transitioning to digital.
p.3 #15 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Attached are a table and a plot that show the relative sensor area for different sensor aspect ratios when cropped to various aspect ratios. Most of the data and the plot are independent of the sensor size or the pixel size. Only those numbers that are specific to the Sony a7R5 sensor technology are labeled as such. I adjusted the pixel density so that the 3:2 sensor matched the A7R5 61MP spec. If you find any errors let me know.
Feb 27, 2026 at 07:02 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
tctmp wrote:
Sorry your argument doesn't hold water. Why doesnt m34 use square sensor instead then? Since they obviously started from scratch and nothing holds them back.
The same can be said on digital cameras to some extent. As long as the sensor fits inside the image circle, why would people object if it provides a better aspect ratio that people want.
My point is that square sensor is least useful and least efficient when there is a spectrum of aspect ratios to cover. That's why no general purpose cameras have been using it for a long while. You can argue between 4:3 and 3:2, which one covers the spectrum better, but you definitely can't ague for 1:1.
Yes, 3:2 have been the main ratio in film, but maybe that's because they win out as being the most efficient ratio, and there is no reason to really change even when you have chance to change when transitioning to digital....Show more →
Sorry you are mischaracterizing my argument. I never argued that a square sensor was better. You misunderstood me if you thought I said that. You are criticizing something I am not arguing.
What I am arguing is 1) that any advantage the 3 X 2 has even over a square sensor if you shoot at 4 X 3 or 5 X 4 as I mostly do is very small to the point of being trivial for me. 2) That for me 4 X 3 is the most useful aspect ratio for a sensor, and finally 3) I am arguing that the main reason 24 X 36 sensor are in a 3 X 2 ratio has very little if anything to do with it being an efficient ratio and everything to do with that being the exact size of 35mm film. So if you want to have a conversation I am fine with that but please discuss what I am arguing not what I am not arguing.
Point 2 is my personal preference so there isn't really any point in your challenging that. Point 1 is also my opinion, so not much point in challenging that either. If you want to defend the 3 X 2 ratio of FF cameras is more about the efficiency of that aspect ratio than about the size of 35mm film, then I am all ears and would like to hear you make that case. I think that is a pretty tough argument to make, however,
p.3 #17 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Steve Spencer wrote:
I never argued that a square sensor was better.
Thanks for clarifying this.
Steve Spencer wrote:
What I am arguing is 1) that any advantage the 3 X 2 has even over a square sensor if you shoot at 4 X 3 or 5 X 4 as I mostly do is very small to the point of being trivial for me. Point 1 is also my opinion, so not much point in challenging that either.
Except your opinion is in response to my argument that 3:2 sensor beats 1:1 sensor. If you just want to express your opinion only, you should just make a simple post instead of quoting anyone. Having said that, I didn't say you can't have that opinion or have to change your opinion. But I'm allowed to quote it and point out your individual opinion doesn't matter to the camera makers, and they look at a spectrum of usage cases to decide on a single aspect ratio to provide.
Steve Spencer wrote:
2) That for me 4 X 3 is the most useful aspect ratio for a sensor, Point 2 is my personal preference so there isn't really any point in your challenging that.
As I said earlier, I'm not debating whether 4:3 or 3:2 is better.
Steve Spencer wrote:
finally 3) I am arguing that the main reason 24 X 36 sensor are in a 3 X 2 ratio has very little if anything to do with it being an efficient ratio and everything to do with that being the exact size of 35mm film.
As I said earlier, sorry I disagree. Especially considering that there are plenty of opportunities for other aspect ratios to show up. I'm inclined to believe that 3:2 thrived because it's indeed the ratio that's versatile while 1:1 died because it's less useful. This is like you argue someone who won the game because it has everything to do with being lucky, while I argue someone who won the game because they are indeed better. I don't think I need to provide more arguments than you given the results, and probability wise, who's more likely to be correct is obvious.
p.3 #18 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
tctmp wrote:
Thanks for clarifying this.
Except your opinion is in response to my argument that 3:2 sensor beats 1:1 sensor. If you just want to express your opinion only, you should just make a simple post instead of quoting anyone. Having said that, I didn't say you can't have that opinion or have to change your opinion. But I'm allowed to quote it and point out your individual opinion doesn't matter to the camera makers, and they look at a spectrum of usage cases to decide on a single aspect ratio to provide.
As I said earlier, I'm not debating whether 4:3 or 3:2 is better.
As I said earlier, sorry I disagree. Especially considering that there are plenty of opportunities for other aspect ratios to show up. I'm inclined to believe that 3:2 thrived because it's indeed the ratio that's versatile while 1:1 died because it's less useful. This is like you argue someone who won the game because it has everything to do with being lucky, while I argue someone who won the game because they are indeed better. I don't think I need to provide more arguments than you given the results, and probability wise, who's more likely to be correct is obvious....Show more →
How can you seriously believe that 3:2 would be a thing if it wasn't for the 35 mm film? As stated earlier several times; there are almost no other camera systems that use that aspect ratio. It was only to get the largest area with a "reasonable" aspect ratio and size of camera and optics, when using an existing width of film reel.
With the larger 120 film, you had enough area to get nice quality out of the ordinary crop ratios of 1:1, 5:4 and 4:3. There are a few 6x9 medium format cameras, but they are quite uncommon.
Also, Spencer has not argued that 1:1 is better than 3:2. You are barking up the wrong tree. Quote the OP instead if this is your problem.
p.3 #19 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Makten wrote:
How can you seriously believe that 3:2 would be a thing if it wasn't for the 35 mm film? As stated earlier several times; there are almost no other camera systems that use that aspect ratio. It was only to get the largest area with a "reasonable" aspect ratio and size of camera and optics, when using an existing width of film reel.
With the larger 120 film, you had enough area to get nice quality out of the ordinary crop ratios of 1:1, 5:4 and 4:3. There are a few 6x9 medium format cameras, but they are quite uncommon.
Also, Spencer has not argued that 1:1 is better than 3:2. You are barking up the wrong tree. Quote the OP instead if this is your problem. ...Show more →
Do we know why Barnack chose 36x24 over 32x24 or 30x24 (with matching lenses with a slightly smaller image circle)? The 24mm height was defined by the use of 35mm film but not so sure that 3:2 was a given?
Edits: looks like this is related to the number of sprocket holes the film advances - 18x24mm motion picture advance 4 sprockets per frame, 36x24mm advances by 8 and other aspect ratios would have required odd numbers making the film advances mechanism complicated. So seems that 3:2 was indeed chosen „by chance“ and not for aesthetic preference or because it is more versatile than 1:1
Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
