Since the early days of film photography, we have been locked into the aspect ratio defined by the film, whether it be 3:2 from standard 35mm film, 4:5 from 4×5 large format film, or even 1:1 from 6×6 medium format film, which have produced their own specific results. The strange thing is that even after the transition to digital, aspect ratio remains one of the least challenged conventions in photography. Digital cameras became faster, more powerful, and more efficient. But the frame is still the same old 4:3 or 3:2 rectangle we’ve been stuck with for over a century.
If you think about it, most of the improvements in digital cameras since 2010 have revolved around speed. Fast autofocus. Fast burst rate. Fast processing. And don’t get me wrong, these are huge leaps in performance that use the better part of technological improvements to create a more efficient camera. But here’s the honest truth: Personally, I think any camera from ten years ago is already fast enough to take a shot. You can shoot portraits, landscapes, even sports and still get incredible results. After a while, this “faster, better, stronger” narrative begins to be repeated in each new camera iteration – a race to achieve more with diminishing returns.
The question is how fast does the camera need to be in practice if it is not changing the underlying way we generate images. This has made me think. Where is the next big change going to come from? What could really change in our approach to photography? Then it hit me—the square sensor!
We’re already starting to see glimpses of this in imaging devices. DJI’s Osmo Action 360 brought it into the conversation, and most recently, Apple put it into the iPhone 17’s front-facing camera. At first glance it may seem like a gimmick. But if you really think about what a square sensor can unlock in large-format digital cameras, it starts to feel like the next logical evolution.
A Lesson from the Past: APS Film
In the 1990s, the APS film system shook things up, although it did not last long and the transition to the digital age quickly obliterated it. APS film allowed photographers to select different aspect ratios—classic (C, 3:2), high-definition (H, 16:9), and panorama (P, 3:1)—on the same roll of film. At the time, this was a game-changer, because for the first time, the aspect ratio was not dictated by the format of your negative – it was a creative choice on the spot. It was revolutionary for its time, and opened up new ways of framing without forcing photographers to commit to a single aspect ratio.
In many ways, a square sensor feels like the logical digital descendant of that same disruptive spirit. Just as APS gave us some aspect ratio freedom in the film age, a square sensor can give us fluidity in the digital age, where images live on multiple platforms and aspect ratio matters more than ever.
Why a square sensor might be a genius move?
Like it or not, we now live in a multi-platform digital world where we need to adapt to get our work displayed. Shoot something for Instagram? This requires 1:1 or 4:5. for youtube? 16:9. For traditional print? 3:2 or 4:3. Instead of throwing away part of your frame by cropping it to a rectangular image, a square sensor that creates a larger square image makes it possible to pull any aspect ratio you want straight from the original capture.
We’ve already seen this exact idea disrupting the world of consumer video. The “Open Gate” recording was first popularized by Panasonic GH7 And now as seen in new mirrorless cameras Canon C50 And Panasonic S1R IIWhich captures the entire sensor readout, not just a cropped piece of it. Videographers love it because it gives them more flexibility in post: They can punch a 16:9 frame for YouTube or a vertical crop for TikTok and Instagram Reels into the same video that isn’t so tight in a recording format. This is one of the biggest changes in how modern cameras are designed for multi-platform content. Imagine bringing that same freedom to still photography through a square sensor.
Like me, there will always be purists who are adamantly against cropping in post, as it often ruins the original creation. This is because you are essentially re-creating an image that you did not plan for at the moment. But this is different. With the square sensor, it’s not about figuring it out later – it’s about expanding the scope of what a traditional camera can do. You’re still intentionally composing on location, with the benefit of an EVF that previews the crop in real time and doesn’t save an image in post. This means you’re not second-guessing yourself on a computer screen afterward – you’re making creative decisions right in the field, with the help of more sensor real estate. To me, it feels like a natural evolution of the composition, not a compromise.
And here’s why the timing makes sense: We’ve now reached a sweet spot where higher megapixel sensors and power efficiency live in balance. If you remember, about a decade ago, a 42 MP sensor chewed up batteries – imagine that. Sony A7R IINow, we have 60 and even 100 MP sensors that can last for at least half a day of shooting when paired with a processor that is efficient enough not to drain the camera’s battery.
Plus, with today’s insane megapixel counts packed into a sensor, why are we wasting them by cutting them down further? A square sensor ensures that every pixel is doing the work for you, whether vertically or horizontally. Combine this with efficient modern processors and improved battery technology, and suddenly, what once seemed impractical is actually a permanent solution that makes a square sensor practical today. Also, think about the possibility of getting better digital IS in video format because now we will have more headroom in the square sensor for stabilization without heavily cropping the image.
Furthermore, most lenses nowadays project a circular image circle. A traditional full frame or medium format sensor typically removes the top and bottom of the entire image circle. This means that a square sensor naturally captures more of the lens image circle than a standard rectangular crop – essentially, using the sharpest and cleanest area of the lens to its full potential rather than trimming out potentially valuable pixels. We’ve already seen this concept in action fujifilm gfx100rWhich has a cropped dial that fits directly into the design of the camera. Imagine the same concept, but starting with a true square sensor for more efficient results.
This is where it really excites me even more. If you’ve ever tried to hold a camera vertically without a grip, you know how awkward it feels. Bending wrists, raised elbows that could potentially knock someone in the face, and heavy luggage. With a square sensor, suddenly you don’t need to rotate the camera. You can create a vertical crop right there in the EVF without moving an inch. This means less fatigue, less gear, and more freedom to focus on composition.
Additionally, I think the implementation of square sensors will bring back something that digital has long lost. Film photographers who have shot 6×6 film may agree with me on this, as it creates a refreshing perspective compared to the traditional format. By reintroducing Square into the digital mainstream, large-format cameras could inspire a whole new wave of creative approaches.
final thoughts
So here’s my bet: The square sensor is going to be the next big frontier for digital cameras. It practically solves modern needs for flexibility, makes better use of today’s megapixel monsters, and challenges photographers to rethink composition. It’s no longer just about speed – it’s about unlocking better creative freedom with the same camera. I think the technology is mature enough to start experimenting. And honestly, the story around fast cameras is getting boring. Maybe it’s finally time for the frame to evolve.
