| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/05/2006 09:11:55 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by gbautista87:
Also, a rotating sensor would also require a rotating mirror, pentaprism, focusing screen, and viewfinder. Imagine the amount of engineering involved in developing a device(s) that would do that. |
I don't like the idea of a rotating sensor; too much chance of forgeting it in the wrong orientation... I would prefer a square sensor.
But I don't see why you would have to rotate the mirror and all. In fact if you rotate the mirror, it won't bounce the light back at the viewfinder.
You don't need to alter the light path of the viewfinder. You just need a square viewfinder with gridline for orientation. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 09:17:54 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by fplouffe:
I don't like the idea of a rotating sensor; too much chance of forgeting it in the wrong orientation... I would prefer a square sensor. |
You could have some in built mechanism to remind people what orientation they are in, such as making them raise their right hand and lower their left in a 90 degree twisting motion to "trigger" the orientation sensor.
You could even reverse this (lower right and raise left) for left handed people.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 09:38:12 AM · #28 |
Interesting stuff.
I'm still hoping that Canon acquires Rollei one day and shoves an APS-C in their to bring square format to the masses.
Square format works just fine for MF cameras and their lenses. Scaling things to an APS-C+ context would be fantastic. You wouldn't get the HUGE resolution of MF cameras, but you would be able to do some of the same types of things that are pretty darn cool. Having one of those 2x2 inch ground glass deals would rock, as would having dual lenses.
I have only used it very briefly, but I pretty much fell in love with it so much, I bought an angle viewfinder and often use it to shoot candids, especially of kids. People respond differently to being snapped with a top view camera.
Waist level shooting is pretty cool too.
If I was smart, I'd keep my nose out of the whole rotating sensor thing going on here, but while I can see that there would be a need for a totally different kind of sensor mount for a full 360 degree rotation, or even a 90, I also seem to feel that the guys who make lenses with very precise movements might be able to pull it off...
You would still probably lose an absoluteness in the consistency of the results though. I can think of a LOT of different kinds of photography where that would cause certain individuals to defenestrate their cameras in rage.
Message edited by author 2006-06-05 09:41:38. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 10:14:15 AM · #29 |
| EVERYTHING is made for right handed people - that sucks! The reason I loved the CD Mavica is that the CD drive made a good grip for a lefty. I would love a left handed camera as well as just about everything else. Sometimes I really feel handicapped when people see the way I do right handed things left handed and they feel compelled to tell me how weird it looks. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 11:23:02 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Interesting stuff.
I'm still hoping that Canon acquires Rollei one day and shoves an APS-C in their to bring square format to the masses. |
Funny you should mention that, because as I was reading through the thread I was thinking about posting about my camera that DOES have a square sensor. It's a Yashica Mat 124G ... Rollei clone.
Yes, it uses an acetate sensor rather than CMOS or CCD, but it does the job nicely. :) Only trouble is it's hard to find square frames these days.
Originally posted by gbautista87:
First of all, not as many scenes/objects look good with a square crop.
Secondly, there are not as many uses for a picture that is cropped as a square. |
True... it's best to choose subjects that suit a square or near-square shape. But then, it's really no different to moving between different rectangular formats between capture and output. I'm sure most of the photographers printing on 8x10 paper (4:5) are capturing in 35mm (2:3) or MF (1:1, 6:7, 2:3), not 4:5 large format cameras.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 11:29:09 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
I've never thought about it before, but it suddenly dawned on me today that every camera I've ever come across is made for right handed people. I'm left-handed (though only for a few things) but it's never bothered me.
Is there anyone out there who would REALLY feel happier with a left-handed camera? And are there any other strange changes you'd like to see in camera design? |
I'm right handed at writing but use my left hand for a lot of other things (sports, etc) I would love to try a left handed one to see how it would feel...
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 06:34:38 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
I'm left handed and actually find the way cameras are designed are best this way. Pressing the shutter and spinning dials with my right hand is no big deal as it doesnt require a lot of precise moevements. Whereas my left hand is the one being used to adjust the zoom and focus on my lens - much more important in my mind as far as precision. |
I've never used an SLR, so I didn't think of this. However I can see that you are right - I do the things that require precision with my left hand and the things that require strength with the right, so this works out well.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/22/2025 09:15:45 PM EDT.
