p.4 #1 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Not sure it was because of film advance. I think the first cameras had a simple knob to turn as much as needed, and that 24x32 was used initially.
However, it could have been expanded because of available image circle for a particular lens, or just to get larger area on the relatively narrow film.
Doesn't really matter if it was very intentional to use 3:2 because of Barnacks preferences; it's still weird that we use that today when there are no restrictions in aspect ratios at all. I'm sure it's only by tradition, nothing else. If Barnack would have chosen 4:3, that would instead have been the norm still. But he didn't, and here we are.
p.4 #2 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Of course, it's tradition, and it makes sense, since the format and its associated focal lengths are deeply ingrained in the collective memory. That's why even today, people almost instinctively convert every focal length of the later "smaller 35mm formats" to the full 35mm format, even though these have existed for so long.
Nevertheless, a digital 6x6 with a waist-level viewfinder would be a dream.
p.4 #3 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Nifty Fifty wrote:
It would have been easy to transport 7 holes. What would have been the problem?
Without changing the spacing between frames you’d need to advance 6.6 sprockets for 5:4 and 7.1 sprockets for 4:3. Maybe there were reasons why they did not want to change to tighter spacing between frames (more risk of overlap if there is some play in the film advance?)
As Makten said it doesn’t really matter all that much, I was just curious.
p.4 #4 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
I wouldn't rely on an exact format for calculations regarding transport mechanisms. With roll film, the exact formats always deviate from the "standard format," and to varying degrees between different manufacturers. And nobody has ever complained about that.
p.4 #5 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
I used to borrow my Dad’s square format Rolleiflex in the 60’s and 70’s. I cannot figure out if the idea of square format appeals to me out of utility or nostalgia.
Seriously, though, I do most of my portrait work on Fuji (pseudo) medium format due to the pleasing aspect ratio (and skin tone gradation) and Sony cameras for everything else. When I use my Sony cameras for portraits, I find myself, more often than not, cropping (throwing away) the long end, or using “Content Aware Fill” to extend the narrow side.
Feb 28, 2026 at 07:50 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #6 · 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 →
I quoted you because I did the math that you and the OP were discussing. I made it clear that in my view the advantage of 3 X 2 when cropping to 4 X 3 over square when cropping to 4 X 3 was very small. That is still my opinion. The difference in size is a crop factor of 1.05X. Or expressed another way on the Sony A7r V (which has the highest pixel density among FF cameras and therefore the most difference) cutting the long side of the 3 X 2 native aspect ratio to create a 4 X 3 aspect ratio reduces the 9,504 pixels to about 8,448, whereas if the sensor were square cropping to a 4 X 3 aspect ratio would reduce the long side to 8,081 pixels. I think that is trivial, YMMV. Similarly, if you do the math, the advantage for a square aspect ratio when cropping to 5 X 4 is also very small. There the crop factor for 3 X 2 vs. square is 1.02X. Again, I would consider this crop factor advantage trivial.
As to whether 3 X2 was selected for it efficiency in cropping or because that was the film format I won't argue any further. I don't find your argument to be persuasive at all and I will leave it that. On that matter we can hopefully agree to disagree.
p.4 #7 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
old-gregg wrote:
non-square aspect ratios are moronic.
“Moronic?” ;-)
Few people really want to make square photographs. Sure, they exist, but left to their own devices few visual artists tend to adopt the square format for their work. I don’t know why, but even in the long history of painting we usually see some kind of portrait or landscape non-square format.
So putting a square sensor (or square film format) in a camera has only one real advantage: you don’t need to rotate the camera. But given the preference for non-square formats, most of us would probably rather get more resolution along whichever axis we want to be longest at the cost of having to rotate the camera… than accepting lower long-size resolution and “wasted” pixels along the other axis… just so we don’t have to rotate.
Bottom line: There’s really no demand for such a thing.
Historical note: if you really want to get serious about using the entire projected image circle, historically there have been systems designed to produce a circular image (and circular prints).
p.4 #9 · 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. ...Show more →
You and Steve certainly didn't realize that the first Nikon DSLR, D1 has a sensor size of 23.6x15.6, and the first Canon, D30 has a sensor size of 22.7x15.1. Neither of them are 35mm film size. And there was certainly no requirement to stick to a particular sensor dimension since it's all digital, so it's silly to argue a digital sensor has to be same dimension as film. And they could certainly change to something like 20x20, 21x18 if they think that's the aspect ratio people want, and it will be accepted if indeed the preference of people. But the only constant that they decided to stick with is the 3:2 aspect ratio. The only reason we end back to the 36x24 sensor dimension later is because that's the size given the 3:2 aspect ratio that camera makers decided to be versatile and the same lens image circle.
So obviously you guys' logic is completely backwards.
Makten wrote:
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.
He's certainly arguing that 3:2 is no better than 1:1 by taking only a small subset and minimizing the difference, just like what you are arguing, especially as a response to my posts, even though with a qualifier for his usage. Not responding to post quoting me would imply I agree with his implication. In this case, I don't, so I'm right to respond to point out that his and your usage case is a very small subset and not representative of the overall usage spectrum.
p.4 #10 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
tctmp wrote:
You and Steve certainly didn't realize that the first Nikon DSLR, D1 has a sensor size of 23.6x15.6, and the first Canon, D30 has a sensor size of 22.7x15.1. Neither of them are 35mm film size. And there was certainly no requirement to stick to a particular sensor dimension since it's all digital, so it's silly to argue a digital sensor has to be same dimension as film. And they could certainly change to something like 20x20, 21x18 if they think that's what people want, and it will be accepted if indeed the preference of people. But the only constant that they decided to stick with is the 3:2 aspect ratio. The only reason we end back to the 36x24 sensor dimension later is because that's the size given the 3:2 aspect ratio that they decided to be versatile and the same lens image circle.
So obviously you guys' logic is completely backwards.
He's certainly arguing that 3:2 is no better than 1:1 by taking only a small subset and minimizing the difference, just like what you are arguing, especially as a response to my posts, even though with a qualifier for his usage. So I'm right to respond to point out that his and your usage case is a very small subset and not representative of the overall usage spectrum....Show more →
Why do you think that most cameras still have the viewfinder on top, even though there is no pentaprism? Is it because it's the perfect placement? Or is it because people are afraid of changing habits?
p.4 #11 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Makten wrote:
Why do you think that most cameras still have the viewfinder on top, even though there is no pentaprism? Is it because it's the perfect placement? Or is it because people are afraid of changing habits?
When you have to bring something so far unrelated, it's obvious that you don't have valid arguments anymore. But if you think you are a better UX guy, then make your proposal about where it should be located, organize a poll and find out if people actually agree with you, or if you are a fool.
Makten wrote:
No point in arguing with you. Bye.
Silly, then don't bring it up.
Feb 28, 2026 at 12:52 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #12 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
tctmp wrote:
You and Steve certainly didn't realize that the first Nikon DSLR, D1 has a sensor size of 23.6x15.6, and the first Canon, D30 has a sensor size of 22.7x15.1. Neither of them are 35mm film size. And there was certainly no requirement to stick to a particular sensor dimension since it's all digital, so it's silly to argue a digital sensor has to be same dimension as film. And they could certainly change to something like 20x20, 21x18 if they think that's the aspect ratio people want, and it will be accepted if indeed the preference of people. But the only constant that they decided to stick with is the 3:2 aspect ratio. The only reason we end back to the 36x24 sensor dimension later is because that's the size given the 3:2 aspect ratio that camera makers decided to be versatile and the same lens image circle.
So obviously you guys' logic is completely backwards.
He's certainly arguing that 3:2 is no better than 1:1 by taking only a small subset and minimizing the difference, just like what you are arguing, especially as a response to my posts, even though with a qualifier for his usage. Not responding to post quoting me would imply I agree with his implication. In this case, I don't, so I'm right to respond to point out that his and your usage case is a very small subset and not representative of the overall usage spectrum....Show more →
Wow, you are now telling me what I realize and don't realize. For the record I do realize (and knew) that the first digital DSLR cameras had APS-C sized sensors. Why are APS-C sized sensors 3 X 2 format? Is is because it is such an efficient aspect ratio? I remain totally unconvinced. I think it is far more likely that 35mm film was 3 X 2 (as others have pointed out) because this allowed the easiest use of cinema films. APS-C film was pretty explicitly designed to mimic 35mm film and therefore were mostly 3 X 2 aspect ratio. Finally APS-C sensors were 3 X 2 because APS-C film (and 35mm film) were 3 X 2. I don't think it is an inefficient aspect ratio, but I don't think efficiency of the aspect ratio had anything to do with it use in 35mm film, APS-C film, APS-C digital, or 35mm digital. I think it was the carrying on of a tradition that arose from a quirk of cinema film and it worked well enough that the tradition continued. I think there is zero evidence that any one sat down and said, "This is the most efficient aspect ratio, so let's use it." I think if they did, then they likely would have picked 4 X 3 instead, but that is just speculation on my part. I have no idea why m4/3rds picked the 4 X 3 aspect ratio or why 44 X 33 sensors picked that aspect ratio, but in both those cases it was unlikely to be a carrying on of tradition. In contrast both APS-C sensors and FF sensors seem to be 3 X 2 as a carrying on a tradition of common film formats.
p.4 #13 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Steve Spencer wrote:
Wow, you are now telling me what I realize and don't realize. For the record I do realize (and knew) that the first digital DSLR cameras had APS-C sized sensors. Why are APS-C sized sensors 3 X 2 format? Is is because it is such an efficient aspect ratio? I remain totally unconvinced. I think it is far more likely that 35mm film was 3 X 2 (as others have pointed out) because this allowed the easiest use of cinema films. APS-C film was pretty explicitly designed to mimic 35mm film and therefore were mostly 3 X 2 aspect ratio. Finally APS-C sensors were 3 X 2 because APS-C film (and 35mm film) were 3 X 2. I don't think it is an inefficient aspect ratio, but I don't think efficiency of the aspect ratio had anything to do with it use in 35mm film, APS-C film, APS-C digital, or 35mm digital. I think it was the carrying on of a tradition that arose from a quirk of cinema film and it worked well enough that the tradition continued. I think there is zero evidence that any one sat down and said, "This is the most efficient aspect ratio, so let's use it." I think if they did, then they likely would have picked 4 X 3 instead, but that is just speculation on my part. I have no idea why m4/3rds picked the 4 X 3 aspect ratio or why 44 X 33 sensors picked that aspect ratio, but in both those cases it was unlikely to be a carrying on of tradition. In contrast both APS-C sensors and FF sensors seem to be 3 X 2 as a carrying on a tradition of common film formats. ...Show more →
First aps-c is not popular in film and only has a very small market, and there are other aps formats too.
I said you guys didn't realize because you guys insist it's the 35mm film. You can go back and read your own writings. aps-c is not 35mm.
But most importantly, is there a requirement that for every 24 digital clicks, one has to buy a roll of film? If no such constraint which could dictate the decision based on film supply, why do digital camera makers even care what the sensor aspect ratio or dimension is in relation to any films. I'm surprised at this stage, you still can't seem to grasp this basic logic.
p.4 #14 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
tctmp wrote:
When you have to bring something so far unrelated, it's obvious that you don't have valid arguments anymore. But if you think you are a better UX guy, then make your proposal about where it should be located, organize a poll and find out if people actually agree with you, or if you are a fool.
Silly, then don't bring it up.
The fact that you don't even understand that viewfinder placement and aspect ratio are related, says it all.
p.4 #15 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
Makten wrote:
The fact that you don't even understand that viewfinder placement and aspect ratio are related, says it all.
Now, where is that "hide me" button...
No, the connection is very slim and bordering totally irrelevant. And I don't care to be dragged into some other unrelated discussions so that you can distract from your failures.
And I did provide you with an idea to prove your worth on your new subject if your opinion has any actual worth. But seems that you are not the type to walk the talk.
p.4 #16 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
popcorn time….
Feb 28, 2026 at 03:16 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #17 · Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
tctmp wrote:
First aps-c is not popular in film and only has a very small market, and there are other aps formats too.
I said you guys didn't realize because you guys insist it's the 35mm film. You can go back and read your own writings. aps-c is not 35mm.
But most importantly, is there a requirement that for every 24 digital clicks, one has to buy a roll of film? If no such constraint which could dictate the decision based on film supply, why do digital camera makers even care what the sensor aspect ratio or dimension is in relation to any films. I'm surprised at this stage, you still can't seem to grasp this basic logic....Show more →
Oh, I grasp your reasoning (I wouldn’t call it logic, it is an argument not a conclusion based on inferences). I just find it totally unpersuasive. You obviously don’t find my reasoning that the decision was based on tradition persuasive. Rather than suggesting the other isn’t understanding logic maybe we should just agree to disagree as I don’t think there is any way that either of us is going to persuade the other.
Sony, I command you to release a 8,075 × 8,075 pixel square sensor!
