Sensor Sizes what a confusing mess.!

Zarathustra · Feb 23, 2007

Wouldn't be just easier to refer to sensor size by its DIAGONAL size just like TVs and Monitors ?

Are consumers being deliberately confused by this disparate sensor size nomenclature practic. ?

First we have those small sensors that are referred by type and no real size using the obsolete TV camera tubes.

No only is not a real size but it is in fractional units that are really counterintuitive.

To top it off is giving in Inches a system that only few countries use today, and definitely not suited for the scale of any camera.

Then We have the so called "Full frame" 35mm, which is not really full nor 35mm in its diagonal.

But wait, there is more...

As a bonus we have APS sensors sizes with that alphabet soup that who the hell knows which is larger or smaller, and nothing related directly about the size.

Not to be outdone here comes Oly with the 4:3rds. !!

Phil have said, regarding the Tube designation types. "This designation has clearly stuck (although it should have been thrown out long ago).
I said throw everything else, we still have time.
We really need a simpler, intuitive, and consistent sensor size designation.

I wonder why Phil and other influential reviewers don't do anything about it.

At least Sony is calling some of their sensors by its diagonal size in millimeters.

It should be like this.

7 mm 4:3
9 mm 4:3
22 mm 4:3
43.3 mm 3:2

..etc

Is so simple. !!

--

theatrus · Feb 23, 2007

On another note, why can't they make 8x12 frames? I like some of my pictures 8x10 (interestingly enough the vertical compositions), and many of my wide ones I'd like to keep 8x12.

Zarathustra said:
Wouldn't be just easier to refer to sensor size by its DIAGONAL
size just like TVs and Monitors ?
Are consumers being deliberately confused by this disparate sensor
size nomenclature practic. ?

First we have those small sensors that are referred by type and no
real size using the obsolete TV camera tubes.
No only is not a real size but it is in fractional units that are
really counterintuitive.
To top it off is giving in Inches a system that only few countries
use today, and definitely not suited for the scale of any camera.

Then We have the so called "Full frame" 35mm, which is not really
full nor 35mm in its diagonal.

But wait, there is more...
As a bonus we have APS sensors sizes with that alphabet soup that
who the hell knows which is larger or smaller, and nothing related
directly about the size.

Not to be outdone here comes Oly with the 4:3rds. !!

Phil have said, regarding the Tube designation types. "This
designation has clearly stuck (although it should have been thrown
out long ago).
I said throw everything else, we still have time.
We really need a simpler, intuitive, and consistent sensor size
designation.

I wonder why Phil and other influential reviewers don't do anything
about it.
At least Sony is calling some of their sensors by its diagonal size
in millimeters.

It should be like this.

7 mm 4:3
9 mm 4:3
22 mm 4:3
43.3 mm 3:2

..etc

Is so simple. !!

--

Paul W UK · Feb 23, 2007

OK very roughly it's like this:

Full frame (e.g. 5D) 36 x 24 mm c860 sq mm 232%
Crop frame 1.5 (Nikon Pentax) 24 x 16 mm c370 sq mm 100%
Crop frame 1.6 (Canon crop) 22 x 15 mm c330 sq mm 89%
4/3" (Olympus DSLRs) 18 x 13.5 mm c 240 sq mm 65%
2/3" (KMA2 - my camera) 8.8 x 6.6 mm c 58 sq mm 16%
1/1.8" (Fuji 40 1/1.6") 7.2 x 5.4 mm c 39 sq mm 11%
1/2.7" (smaller 3-4Mp) 5.4 x 4.0 mm c 9.4 sq mm 3%

Quite a range...but what amazes me is the quality I get at A4 and even A3 prints from my 8MP 2/3" sensor at 64 ISO. At larger print sizes or higher ISOs not surprisingly you need larger sensors. And what about the performance of the Fuji F10/11/20/30/40 range at high ISO from a sensor that size.

Yet the differences in area are pretty staggering...and we haven't even considered medium format.

Cheers,

Paul

--
http://www.pbase.com/paulwin

mamallama · Feb 23, 2007

theatrus said:
On another note, why can't they make 8x12 frames? I like some of my
pictures 8x10 (interestingly enough the vertical compositions), and
many of my wide ones I'd like to keep 8x12.

The US is too provincial to adopt new ways. If the US gets in step with the rest of the world and adopt ISO (A-series) sizes we wouldn't be having this discussion.

--mamallama

aardvark7 · Feb 23, 2007

You mean 10x8 or 12x8...

Anyone know why we Brits put the large number first whilst you Americans are backwards...?!
LOL

mamallama · Feb 23, 2007

aardvark7 said:
You mean 10x8 or 12x8...
Anyone know why we Brits put the large number first whilst you
Americans are backwards...?!

Since the Revolution, we wanted to do thing different. Only we didn't follow Napoleon and adopt the metric system. Now with our non conforming paper sizes.

--mamallama

Barrie Davis · Feb 23, 2007

mamallama said:
theatrus said:

On another note, why can't they make 8x12 frames? I like some of my
pictures 8x10 (interestingly enough the vertical compositions), and
many of my wide ones I'd like to keep 8x12.

Click to expand...

The US is too provincial to adopt new ways. If the US gets in step
with the rest of the world and adopt ISO (A-series) sizes we
wouldn't be having this discussion.

Not so.

When American photographers describe f-lengths, they use millimetres the same as everyone else.

United States abandoned inches for lenses back in the mid '50s..... so we know they can do it when they want to! ;-)
--
Regards,
Baz

Barrie Davis · Feb 23, 2007

aardvark7 said:
You mean 10x8 or 12x8...
Anyone know why we Brits put the large number first whilst you
Americans are backwards...?!

In some circles the width is stated first...

Therefore, 10x8" is horizontal format... 8x10" is a vertical.

Logical enough for you, Mr. Spock?
--
Regards,
Baz

boozed · Feb 23, 2007

I can't decide whether or not you're aware that it's called 35mm film because it's 35mm wide...

Zarathustra said:
Then We have the so called "Full frame" 35mm, which is not really
full nor 35mm in its diagonal.

Tristan Cope · Feb 23, 2007

Paul W said:
OK very roughly it's like this:

Full frame (e.g. 5D) 36 x 24 mm c860 sq mm
232%
Crop frame 1.5 (Nikon Pentax) 24 x 16 mm c370 sq mm
100%
Crop frame 1.6 (Canon crop) 22 x 15 mm c330 sq mm
89%
4/3" (Olympus DSLRs) 18 x 13.5 mm c 240 sq mm
65%
2/3" (KMA2 - my camera) 8.8 x 6.6 mm c 58 sq mm
16%
1/1.8" (Fuji 40 1/1.6") 7.2 x 5.4 mm c 39 sq mm
11%
1/2.7" (smaller 3-4Mp) 5.4 x 4.0 mm c 9.4 sq mm
3%

Quite a range...but what amazes me is the quality I get at A4 and
even A3 prints from my 8MP 2/3" sensor at 64 ISO. At larger print
sizes or higher ISOs not surprisingly you need larger sensors. And
what about the performance of the Fuji F10/11/20/30/40 range at
high ISO from a sensor that size.

Yet the differences in area are pretty staggering...and we haven't
even considered medium format.

You missed 1.3 crop frame and 1.7. Any particular reason why you chose the 1.5 crop standard as "100%"?

I agree with the OP though, it would be much less confusing for consumers if the sensors were described by their diagonal size, or perhaps diagnal size and area. This really allows you to visualise how small a 1/2.7" sensor is, especially when they pack 8 million pixels into that area. Perhaps that is why they don't use the obvious simple system!

ajay67 · Feb 23, 2007

Barrie Davis said:
Not so.

When American photographers describe f-lengths, they use
millimetres the same as everyone else.

United States abandoned inches for lenses back in the mid '50s.....
so we know they can do it when they want to! ;-)
--
Regards,
Baz

& they all running 100 meters now, not yards

DDBazooka · Feb 23, 2007

XD, well said.

Leon Wittwer · Feb 24, 2007

--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

thebard37 · Feb 24, 2007

Tristan Cope said:
Paul W, UK wrote:
You missed 1.3 crop frame and 1.7. Any particular reason why you
chose the 1.5 crop standard as "100%"?

Either he owns a 1.5 or simply does the math amnd realizes that most DSLR's have a 1.5 type APS sensor. Even though I onw a 1.6 and a 4/3, and a couple 1 1/8 jobs, I think it is failry obvious that between Nikon, Pentax, Sony , and Samsung, there are simply more of them.

--

--
Zach Bellino
'I prefer my lo-mein of the veggie variety.'
--ZJB
'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

Petteri Sulonen · Feb 24, 2007

The problem with the diagonal measurement is that it doesn't say anything about aspect ratio. IMO it's at least as important to know whether a sensor is 2:3, 4:3, or 16:9 as whether it's 7, 9, or 22 mm in the diagonal.

Also, there's a precedent -- film formats are mostly listed this way: we have 24 x 36, 645 (=6 x 4.5), 6 x 6, 6 x 9, and so on.

It's a shame that digital inherited the confusing way these things are stated for television and other cine formats. How many people do you think are aware that 35 mm cine is different from 35 mm still?

Petteri
--
http://www.prime-junta.net/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/

dipics · Feb 24, 2007

LOL! So, I guess we don't use 35mm film here? And, think about it, exactly how many of these cameras are manufactured are in the U.S.?

DIPics

mamallama said:
theatrus said:

On another note, why can't they make 8x12 frames? I like some of my
pictures 8x10 (interestingly enough the vertical compositions), and
many of my wide ones I'd like to keep 8x12.

Click to expand...

The US is too provincial to adopt new ways. If the US gets in step
with the rest of the world and adopt ISO (A-series) sizes we
wouldn't be having this discussion.

--mamallama

John Bean (UK) · Feb 24, 2007

Petteri Sulonen said:
How many people
do you think are aware that 35 mm cine is different from 35 mm
still?

Maybe, maybe not - depends which 35mm cine and still formats are you thinking of. Offhand I can think of at least eight still formats, one of which (half frame) is a good approximation to Edison's original 35mm cine format. But of course there's mode than one 35mm cine format to consider as well...

"35mm" as a format description is much more confusing than it seems at first sight.

--
John Bean [GMT - is there any other?]

PAW 2007 Week 7:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/1/130209456/Large

Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April 2006): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582

Petteri Sulonen · Feb 24, 2007

...which is why I prefer the unambiguous 24 x 36 convention.

Of course, there is only one still format in mainstream use for 35 mm film, so unless you say "35 mm half-frame" or "35 mm panoramic" people will assume as a matter of course that you mean 24 x 36.

Petteri
--
http://www.prime-junta.net/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/

John Bean (UK) · Feb 24, 2007

Petteri Sulonen said:
...which is why I prefer the unambiguous 24 x 36 convention.

So do I. I was elaborating on your point, probably unnecessarily ;-)

Petteri Sulonen said:
Of course, there is only one still format in mainstream use for 35
mm film

I'm not altogether sure 24x36 is mainstream any more, but I'd have agreed without hesitation a year or two ago. An awful lot of 24x36 use has been supplanted by digital leaving a much higher proportion of those niche 35mm formats that are impossible to currently replace with digital cameras. Various panoramic formats spring to mind.

But having said that...

Petteri Sulonen said:
so unless you say "35 mm half-frame" or "35 mm panoramic"
people will assume as a matter of course that you mean 24 x 36.

Agreed.

--
John Bean [GMT - is there any other?]

PAW 2007 Week 7:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/1/130209456/Large

Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April 2006): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582

Barrie Davis · Feb 24, 2007

Petteri Sulonen said:
The problem with the diagonal measurement is that it doesn't say
anything about aspect ratio. IMO it's at least as important to know
whether a sensor is 2:3, 4:3, or 16:9 as whether it's 7, 9, or 22
mm in the diagonal.

Also, there's a precedent -- film formats are mostly listed this
way: we have 24 x 36, 645 (=6 x 4.5), 6 x 6, 6 x 9, and so on.

It's a shame that digital inherited the confusing way these things
are stated for television and other cine formats. How many people
do you think are aware that 35 mm cine is different from 35 mm
still?

I think, not many.

Nor even that the SAME format had two different names, depending on whether it was used for moving pictures or still ones. Now that was a bit confusing!!

For the information of those who like this kind of information....

24 x 18mm, framed across the 35mm film width, is a standard 'single' frame in a motion camera, but most often known as "half frame" in still cameras shooting that size. It was called "half frame" because it was half of the 'double frame' (24 x 36mm framed along the film) as used by most of the rest of the world's 35mm still cameras, and known in those cameras as "full frame"!

I agree about stating the sensor diagonal dimension.....

Seven or eight years ago, when I was first getting into evaluating digital cameras and before I put money down for my first one, I was much frustrated by the lack of information about real life dimensions of the image sensors on offer. It was the diagonal in millimetres that I most wanted to know, and was never told in brochures, specs. etc.

Although I have my personal favourite aspect ratio, (NOT 3:2) it is of secondary importance to me, if everything else is right.
--
Regards,
Baz

Sensor Sizes what a confusing mess.!

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

aardvark7

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts