-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Sensor Sizes what a confusing mess.!
- Thread starter Zarathustra
- Start date
Wayne Larmon
Forum Pro
As for "why" the this form of naming persist, do you think that the camera manufacturers want to emphasize that the sensor in a $500 P&S is only about 10% of the size of then sensor in a $500 DSLR? Customers would start asking too many embarrassing questions.
Next you'll want inkjet manufactures to list the price of ink per gallon (or liter.)
Maybe it would be clearer if the percentages were based on FF. i.e.,
Full frame (e.g. 5D) 36 x 24 mm c860 sq mm 100%
Crop frame 1.5 (Nikon Pentax) 24 x 16 mm c370 sq mm 43%
Crop frame 1.6 (Canon crop) 22 x 15 mm c330 sq mm 38%
4/3" (Olympus DSLRs) 18 x 13.5 mm c 240 sq mm 27%
2/3" (KMA2 - my camera) 8.8 x 6.6 mm c 58 sq mm 6.7%
1/1.8" (Fuji 40 1/1.6") 7.2 x 5.4 mm c 39 sq mm 4.5%
1/2.7" (smaller 3-4Mp) 5.4 x 4.0 mm c 9.4 sq mm 1.1%
It would help if reviewers started putting the % size as part of the title of the review. i.e., "Canon G7 4.5% sensor" "Nikon D40 43% sensor" etc. Wouldn't this make sensor sizing be a lot more understandable? When comparing cameras.
Wayne
luigimtitaly
Member
Could you help me in choosing lens ?
I have this problem. Could I think that's wrong to buy DX lens for Nikon D200 or Canon 30 D?
If tomorrow Nikon or Canon go toward the full size I can't use my DX on a new camera ? isn'it ?
--
LuigiMtItaly
I have this problem. Could I think that's wrong to buy DX lens for Nikon D200 or Canon 30 D?
If tomorrow Nikon or Canon go toward the full size I can't use my DX on a new camera ? isn'it ?
--
LuigiMtItaly
luigimtitaly
Member
I'll try to write better (sorry for my english )
I would buy lens for the full size format. In this case, if Canon or Nikon decide to use the full size format, my lens will be mounted on a new camera without problem.
--
LuigiMtItaly
I would buy lens for the full size format. In this case, if Canon or Nikon decide to use the full size format, my lens will be mounted on a new camera without problem.
--
LuigiMtItaly
mamallama
Forum Pro
Despite the golden ratio and the Greeks and despite the following of old film history, I think we should go contemporary and adopt the current ISO A-series aspect ratio of 1:1.41 (or 1:sq rt2).
A-series Paper and frame sizes are already in use and available in most of the world. And the aspect ratio is pleasing and is actually about midway between the 3:2 and 4:3 that is now common.
--mamallama
For two dimensions you need two numbers. Simple as that. That is what the TV and monitor descriptions make an ever bigger mess about. My PC widescreen is sometimes referred to as a 23 inch. You don't know nothing untill you know the aspect ratio, 16:10
The discussion between Wayne and Paul shows how representing data as numbers is not neutral. Wayne uses Full Frame -which he implicitly defines as 'the size of a 35mm still frame' as his frame of reference. Historically correct, does not say anything about that being the right size for a digital sensor.
Paul uses his [?] Nikon or Pentax as the norm. Someone else said because that is the most common size. This we cannot know for sure. Installed base of Canon, with a slightly smaller sensor, may be bigger.
Also, he uses the term '1,5 crop', which is understandable if you know what is cropped from, that is the 36*24 frame. This one might vall anti-historical [Henry Ford's 'history is bunk']
Also note that the square mm and percentages are not a very interesting number
The discussion between Wayne and Paul shows how representing data as numbers is not neutral. Wayne uses Full Frame -which he implicitly defines as 'the size of a 35mm still frame' as his frame of reference. Historically correct, does not say anything about that being the right size for a digital sensor.
Paul uses his [?] Nikon or Pentax as the norm. Someone else said because that is the most common size. This we cannot know for sure. Installed base of Canon, with a slightly smaller sensor, may be bigger.
Also, he uses the term '1,5 crop', which is understandable if you know what is cropped from, that is the 36*24 frame. This one might vall anti-historical [Henry Ford's 'history is bunk']
Also note that the square mm and percentages are not a very interesting number
Wayne Larmon
Forum Pro
It is because there is a fairly high correlation between square mm and image quality. Sort of like how "horse power" correlates with several important automotive performance characteristics. Imagine if an automobile would randomly (as far as you are concerned) come with a 25 horsepower engine. Or with a 300 horsepower engine. But you wouldn't know before you bought the car because you wouldn't be told the horsepower. Because "horsepower" wasn't a defined quantity. You might idly wonder why it takes so long for the car to get going. Or, maybe why the gas mileage isn't too good. (Different car.) But you wouldn't know why, because there wasn't any descriptive unit like "horsepower." You might be told the number of cams in the engine. Or you might be told the size of the air cleaner. Or the size of the gas tank. But this wouldn't describe the power of the engine as clearly as "horsepower" does.
To climb farther on my high horse, it is like how "watts" are used with audio amps. Once upon a time, there was no standard definition for how "watts" were defined as a measure of the output power of audio amplifiers. So audio equipment manufacturers could define "watts" any way they wanted to. So you'd see ridiculous wattage claims, like "400 watts" for a small, $50 audio receiver. But the US FTC stepped in and made a rigorous definition for watts. They defined exactly how watts needed to be measured. And for a while this worked. Watts were a meaningful measure of audio amplifier power. (But for some reason, everybody forgot abut this rule and we are back to meaningless watt claims. But "watts" used to mean something definite. At least for a while. Honest.)
The point of the OP is that the current method of describing sensor sizes is needlessly cryptic, such that most (i.e., non-DPReviewers) consumers don't have the foggiest concept of the size of sensors in various digital cameras. Go on, ask your wife/mother/father/friend-at-work, etc. if they know what size sensor is in their camera. And if they know the significance of the size.
There is nothing wrong with giving two dimensions, but "1.1% sensor" drives the point home harder. Because "1.1% sensor" has an implicit comparison, whereas "5.4 x 4.0 mm" doesn't.
Wayne
I don't think IQ [whatever the definition of that) increases square, that is with surface. At most with length. But in reality output does not correlate so directly to basic physical parameters.
The horsepower analogy is not usefull. Horsepower is output. The equivalent of sensor size would be cilinder volume.
For a % to have meaning you still have to know 'of what'. My car has a 5% engine ? In which 100% is a Mack truck?
The horsepower analogy is not usefull. Horsepower is output. The equivalent of sensor size would be cilinder volume.
For a % to have meaning you still have to know 'of what'. My car has a 5% engine ? In which 100% is a Mack truck?
Wayne Larmon
Forum Pro
Well for sensors, 100% was defined as FF 36 x 24 mm. I already said that in my earlier post. FF 36 x 24 mm (AKA 35mm) is already understood by consumers, which is why I used it as the base size. I never said anything about using % for rating engines. There isn't any comparable single "base" engine horsepower that compares to the 35mm film size.
Analogies aren't precise definitions. My point was about the importance of a single number that clearly defines (for the majority of consumers) a very important characteristic. I used "horsepower" as an example of a universally understood single number that defines a very important characteristic. And that there currently isn't such a number for sensors. Because the only number that is used is hopelessly obscure (for most consumers.)
Almost everybody understand that a 300 horsepower engine is a lot more powerful than a 50 horsepower engine. But they don't understand the difference between (for example) an APC-S sensor and an 1 2/7" sensor. Because the meaning of these dimensions aren't universally understood.
Yes, giving the dimensions as Lmm x Wmm, as you suggested, would be also be a huge improvement over the current 1950s vacuum tube vidicon naming system. I'm not going to quibble over whether this is better than a % system. The objective is to make it be easily understandable. So that consumers may begin to think about the questionable value of teensy sensors.
Wayne
Bob Blount
Veteran Member
The bottom line for me, since I don't design cameras, is IQ. If that exists with reasonable noise, I am happy. Can you believe, an engineer not needing every last detail to substantiate his decision. Not any more!
--
Bob,
'We don't make a photograph with a camera; we bring to the act of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen, the music we have heard and the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams
Sony R1
Canon Pro1
Casio Z750
Nikon 3100
--
Bob,
'We don't make a photograph with a camera; we bring to the act of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen, the music we have heard and the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams
Sony R1
Canon Pro1
Casio Z750
Nikon 3100
hbx2004
Veteran Member
Agree 100%. If we look at available (I checked Canon) photo paper sizes, we can see that only 4x6" is exact 2:3 -none of others match 2:3 or 3:4 ratio:
4x6" =10x15cm
8x10" =20x25,4cm
8,5x11" =21,6x28cm
A4 =21x29,7cm
10x12" =25,4x30,5cm
A3 =29,7x42cm
So we have (in most cases) 2:3 or 3:4 cameras, but no paper match to print without cropping.
Bogdan
--
My pictures are my memories
http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/
In some limited areas - yes. But still are used miles, gallons, inches, foots, yards, mpg, mph and other old units and their derivatives.
Rumpis
)
--
Rumpis
)
mamallama
Forum Pro
Only when forced to by international competition and the Olympics. When you still go to the store to buy things (fabric, pipe, etc) it's still feet and yards.& they all running 100 meters now, not yards
--mamallama
Indeed!
I thought taking full frame as 100% was a little harsh as most DSLRs are 1.5 or 1.6 crop and are deemed to produce pretty good results acceptable for much professional work. I have only a 2/3 sensor camera (KMA2) and was quite shocked at the area %age comparisons...but even more shocked at how good the results are that I get from such a tiny sensor albeit at ISO 64 and up to A3 print size. But looking at sensor areas does offer some food for thought.
Clearly it's not a comparison that smaller sensor camera manufacturers would be keen to make too transparent, hence the (intentionally) confusing sensor descriptions.
Well it would certainly damage sales of smaller sensor cameras...and might encourage the production of some better quality compacts using at least 2/3 and above size sensors. Might also do quite a lot for Canon 5D sales.
Cheers,
Paul
--
http://www.pbase.com/paulwin
Yes, these are the numbers, but there better be a very compelling reason before I would want government to start imposing regulations on how the sensor size is stated.
Is there a clear measureable way in which FF cams are 100 times better then 1/2.7 cams? How many stops advantage do they really have?
Even if they do tell us the exact size of the sensor (2 dimensions) we still need to know what fraction of the area of that senor is photosensitive, or just what fraction of the incoming light is measured.
To confound all this order, CMY cams capture twice the light as RGB cams. Is this right?
If so, should they be allowed to look twice as good when they are not ... or are they?
Maybe we should regulate a whole bunch of camera properties, for example should we force them to report the depth of field in some standard configuration, which I'm sure most consumers would prefer to be longer?
Marketing is marketing is marketing, we live with what we get. The battle is lost before the consumer throws a single punch. They're going to do whatever works best for them not what is most informative. I guess I'm a hands-upper.
In the end, there's usually enough info for anyone who really cares (all the people here) to find out what they need to know.
-m
Is there a clear measureable way in which FF cams are 100 times better then 1/2.7 cams? How many stops advantage do they really have?
Even if they do tell us the exact size of the sensor (2 dimensions) we still need to know what fraction of the area of that senor is photosensitive, or just what fraction of the incoming light is measured.
To confound all this order, CMY cams capture twice the light as RGB cams. Is this right?
If so, should they be allowed to look twice as good when they are not ... or are they?
Maybe we should regulate a whole bunch of camera properties, for example should we force them to report the depth of field in some standard configuration, which I'm sure most consumers would prefer to be longer?
Marketing is marketing is marketing, we live with what we get. The battle is lost before the consumer throws a single punch. They're going to do whatever works best for them not what is most informative. I guess I'm a hands-upper.
In the end, there's usually enough info for anyone who really cares (all the people here) to find out what they need to know.
-m
Wayne Larmon
Forum Pro
I never said any thing about government regulation. My suggestion was that reviewers start using measurements that clearly convey the respective sensor sizes. A sensor size such as 1 2/7" doesn't convey any meaning to the typical consumer.
FWIW, here is a corrected version of the table I gave earlier. I had made some mistakes in calculating the percentages:
Current naming mm Sq mm Percent
---------------------------------------------------------------
Full frame (35mm film, 5D) 36 x 24 864 100%
1.5x crop (Nikon DSLRs) 24 x 16 374 43%
1.6x crop (Canon DSLR) 22 x 15 330 38%
4/3" (Olympus DSLRs) 18 x 13.5 243 27%
2/3" (Luxury P&S) 8.8 x 6.6 58 6.7%
1/1.8" (High end P&S) 7.2 x 5.4 39 4.5%
1/2.7" (P&S) 5.4 x 4.0 20 2.3%
1/3.6" (P&S) 4.0 x 3.0 12 1.3%
(This table was much easier to read before DPReview stripped out all the formatting spaces. Sorry.)
As it is right now, most consumers have no idea that sensor sizes are different. That the only difference between (for instance) a DRebel XIi and small P&S is the things that they can see (size, number of buttons, etc.)
Because in the film days, there was (for the most part) no difference. SLRs uses 35mm films. As did small, silver P&Ss. They all used 35mm film. (Again, for the most part.)
Consumers haven't been educated about the vast differences in sizes of the light gathering elements that digital cameras use. Listing the sensor size with the current naming system does nothing to dispel this confusion.
However since you have introduced government regulation.... In the US, we have regulations that food products must be prices as $ oz. (Or whatever is the most common unit of measure.) So that a consumer can readily determine the true cost of food products. And won't be confused because the manufacturers package the foods with differing non-integral amounts (i.e., 13.7 oz. for one. 37.4 oz. for another). Yes, the consumer can make the calculations themselves, if they bring a calculator and do the computations right there in the store aisle. But common sense tells us that consumers won't do that. And is a needless burden, because the sole reason why manufacturers package food in weird quantities was to prevent the consumer from easily determining the true costs.
Until the US uniform pricing laws went into effect, consumers were shopping blind. It isn't too much of a stretch to apply the same logic to sensor sizing.
Wayne
I have to say yet again that I think taking full frame as 100% is way too harsh....when most DSLRs then fall between 27% and 43% ..
1.5x crop (Nikon DSLRs) 24 x 16 374 43%
1.6x crop (Canon DSLR) 22 x 15 330 38%
4/3" (Olympus DSLRs) 18 x 13.5 243 27%
Full frame users probably represent less than 5% of all digital users...so to take that as the 'standard' doesn't generate a comparison that is very useful to most buyers. By taking the top quality crop format DSLR as the 100% as I did I would say the comparisons are more relevant. A classification based on full frame would only serve to make the top pros feel good...which I imagine they already do;-)
By the same token if you took medium format 645 format as your standard, 35mm format would be just 32% of the area.
Paul
--
http://www.pbase.com/paulwin
1.5x crop (Nikon DSLRs) 24 x 16 374 43%
1.6x crop (Canon DSLR) 22 x 15 330 38%
4/3" (Olympus DSLRs) 18 x 13.5 243 27%
Full frame users probably represent less than 5% of all digital users...so to take that as the 'standard' doesn't generate a comparison that is very useful to most buyers. By taking the top quality crop format DSLR as the 100% as I did I would say the comparisons are more relevant. A classification based on full frame would only serve to make the top pros feel good...which I imagine they already do;-)
By the same token if you took medium format 645 format as your standard, 35mm format would be just 32% of the area.
Paul
--
http://www.pbase.com/paulwin
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
Now imagine the state the forums would be in when we get asked what the difference is between:
A, 5·680 mm by 4·536 mm and
B, 6 mm by 4·8 mm.
I can just imagine the answers and rows that will follow. I mean we can't even agree on what full frame and crop mean...
Regards, David
PS And think what the marketing people will come up with to avoid giving anything useful away!
A, 5·680 mm by 4·536 mm and
B, 6 mm by 4·8 mm.
I can just imagine the answers and rows that will follow. I mean we can't even agree on what full frame and crop mean...
Regards, David
PS And think what the marketing people will come up with to avoid giving anything useful away!
Pedagydusz
Veteran Member
You will probably get better answers if you ask this question in the Canon or Nikon forums
--
Antonio
http://ferrer.smugmug.com/
--
Antonio
http://ferrer.smugmug.com/
sorry, that was my mistake.
the problem I see with this is that the sensor size is not equivalent to weight in food; the number of pixels is more comparable although still not good. It's reasonable to by food per unit weight, in fact that is how one buys produce and meat often. The same can't be said of electronics.
I think manufacturers are trying to obscure the size differences. However, to be fair to them, I think the size differences overstate the quality differences.
-m
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum