Return to Answer

The sensors could be made to a square format (though the current diameter would not accommodate 36x36mm, it would need to be about 30mm) if there was a demand for it. But by that logic the question we may actually need to be answering is why aren't sensors circular given that lenses present a circular image?

There were some attempts at circular sensors in the phone space when Nokia were working on the PureView cameras like the 808 before PureView just became a marketing thing for their best cameras. The camera then used the surface area it needed to make the chosen aspect.

Going back to squares - other square sensors are available in the 35mm size range outside of the SLR space (like the SBIG stx-16803 aimed at astronomers - thanks Dan.)

One of the things is that inside a DLSR you also need space for a mirror to move into and also for a shutter mechanism. While the shape of cameras could change to accommodate it, it's a lot of R&D for a small payoff.

It's also telling that even the medium format cameras use a non-square sensor with the Leica S, Pentax 645D, Leaf AFi, Hasselblad H5D and PhaseOne medium-format systems all adopt a rectangular aspect-ratio similar to the 6x4.5 systems than 6x6.

Any increase in sensor area also means a non-linear drop in wafer yield (the number of useful sensors you can get out of a silicon wafer) as demonstrated graphically in this answer - again it's extra cost.

Little payoff is where the idea really falls down - Canon, Nikon, Sony etc all put huge amounts of money into R&D, if any of them thought there was a viable market then they'd go for it. I'm not seeing one and the lack of such DSLR cameras on the market would back that up.

The sensors could be made to a square format (though the current diameter would not accommodate 36x36mm, it would need to be about 30mm) if there was a demand for it. But by that logic the question we may actually need to be answering is why aren't sensors circular given that lenses present a circular image?

There were some attempts at circular sensors in the phone space when Nokia were working on the PureView cameras like the 808 before PureView just became a marketing thing for their best cameras. The camera then used the surface area it needed to make the chosen aspect.

Going back to squares - other square sensors are available in the 35mm size range outside of the SLR space (like the SBIG stx-16803 aimed at astronomers - thanks Dan.)

One of the things is that inside a DLSR you also need space for a mirror to move into and also for a shutter mechanism. While the shape of cameras could change to accommodate it, it's a lot of R&D for a small payoff.

It's also telling that even the medium format cameras use a non-square sensor with the Leica S, Pentax 645D, Leaf AFi, Hasselblad H5D and PhaseOne medium-format systems all adopt a rectangular aspect-ratio similar to the 6x4.5 systems than 6x6.

Any increase in sensor area also means a non-linear drop in wafer yield (the number of useful sensors you can get out of a silicon wafer) as demonstrated graphically in this answer - again it's extra cost.

Little payoff is where the idea really falls down - Canon, Nikon, Sony etc all put huge amounts of money into R&D, if any of them thought there was a viable market then they'd go for it. I'm not seeing one and the lack of such DSLR cameras on the market would back that up.

The sensors could be made to a square format (though not 36x36) if there was a demand for it. But by that logic the question we may actually need to be answering is why aren't sensors circular given that lenses present a circular image?

There were some attempts at circular sensors in the phone space when Nokia were working on the PureView cameras like the 808 before PureView just became a marketing thing for their best cameras. The camera then used the surface area it needed to make the chosen aspect.

Going back to squares - other square sensors are available in the 35mm size range outside of the SLR space (like the SBIG stx-16803 aimed at astronomers - thanks Dan.)

One of the things is that inside a DLSR you also need space for a mirror to move into and also for a shutter mechanism. While the shape of cameras could change to accommodate it, it's a lot of R&D for a small payoff.

It's also telling that even the medium format cameras use a non-square sensor with the Leica S, Pentax 645D, Leaf AFi, Hasselblad H5D and PhaseOne medium-format systems all adopt a rectangular aspect-ratio similar to the 6x4.5 systems than 6x6.

Any increase in sensor area also means a non-linear drop in wafer yield (the number of useful sensors you can get out of a silicon wafer) as demonstrated graphically in this answer - again it's extra cost.

Little payoff is where the idea really falls down - Canon, Nikon, Sony etc all put huge amounts of money into R&D, if any of them thought there was a viable market then they'd go for it. I'm not seeing one and the lack of such DSLR cameras on the market would back that up.

The sensors could be made to a square format (though the current diameter would not accommodate 36x36mm, it would need to be about 30mm) if there was a demand for it. But by that logic the question we may actually need to be answering is why aren't sensors circular given that lenses present a circular image?

There were some attempts at circular sensors in the phone space when Nokia were working on the PureView cameras like the 808 before PureView just became a marketing thing for their best cameras. The camera then used the surface area it needed to make the chosen aspect.

Going back to squares - other square sensors are available in the 35mm size range outside of the SLR space (like the SBIG stx-16803 aimed at astronomers - thanks Dan.)

One of the things is that inside a DLSR you also need space for a mirror to move into and also for a shutter mechanism. While the shape of cameras could change to accommodate it, it's a lot of R&D for a small payoff.

It's also telling that even the medium format cameras use a non-square sensor with the Leica S, Pentax 645D, Leaf AFi, Hasselblad H5D and PhaseOne medium-format systems all adopt a rectangular aspect-ratio similar to the 6x4.5 systems than 6x6.

Any increase in sensor area also means a non-linear drop in wafer yield (the number of useful sensors you can get out of a silicon wafer) as demonstrated graphically in this answer - again it's extra cost.

Little payoff is where the idea really falls down - Canon, Nikon, Sony etc all put huge amounts of money into R&D, if any of them thought there was a viable market then they'd go for it. I'm not seeing one and the lack of such DSLR cameras on the market would back that up.

The sensors could be made to a square format (though not 36x36) if there was a demand for it. But by that logic the question we may actually need to be answering is why aren't sensors circular given that lenses present a circular image?

There were some attempts at circular sensors in the phone space when Nokia were working on the PureView cameras like the 808 before PureView just became a marketing thing for their best cameras. The camera then used the surface area it needed to make the chosen aspect.

Secondly not all lenses do produce a round, uniform image. Many lenses are Aspherical.

The sensors could be made to a square format (though not 36x36) if there was a demand for it. But by that logic the question we may actually need to be answering is why aren't sensors circular given that lenses present a circular image?

There were some attempts at circular sensors in the phone space when Nokia were working on the PureView cameras like the 808 before PureView just became a marketing thing for their best cameras. The camera then used the surface area it needed to make the chosen aspect.

Going back to squares - other square sensors are available in the 35mm size range outside of the SLR space (like the SBIG stx-16803 aimed at astronomers - thanks Dan.)

One of the things is that inside a DLSR you also need space for a mirror to move into and also for a shutter mechanism. While the shape of cameras could change to accommodate it, it's a lot of R&D for a small payoff.

It's also telling that even the medium format cameras use a non-square sensor with the Leica S, Pentax 645D, Leaf AFi, Hasselblad H5D and PhaseOne medium-format systems all adopt a rectangular aspect-ratio similar to the 6x4.5 systems than 6x6.

Any increase in sensor area also means a non-linear drop in wafer yield (the number of useful sensors you can get out of a silicon wafer) as demonstrated graphically in this answer - again it's extra cost.

Little payoff is where the idea really falls down - Canon, Nikon, Sony etc all put huge amounts of money into R&D, if any of them thought there was a viable market then they'd go for it. I'm not seeing one and the lack of such DSLR cameras on the market would back that up.