Reading mode: Light Dark

How big is the X10 sensor size?

Go to last post
S

SUPERHOKIE

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
218
Location
Fairfax, VA, US
I thought the G12, S95, LX5, etc... is as big as it gets when it comes to P&S sensor sizes. How much bigger is the X10's 2/3" sensor compared to the S95's 1/1.7" sensor? How is sensor size expressed BTW?
 
The sensor is 2/3" which is the same as 1/1.5", so it's bigger than 1/1.7" by a factor of 1.7*1.7/1.5*1.5 in surface area, which is a factor of 1.28, so it's not a lot bigger. A 2/3" sensor has 1/4 of the surface of the 4/3" sensor of the four-third an m43 system.

What reall makes the difference for the X10 is that it has an f/2.0 lens, which lets in twice the amount of light of an f/2.8 lens for instance.

Compared to the f200exr for instance every photosite of the X10 sensor receives over 3 times as much light and given the increased usable surface on a BSI CMOS sensor (which I think/hope is what the X10 uses) you can roughly estimate the net improvement to be a factor of 4, which means 2 ISO levels. You should be able to use the X10 at ISO100 under circumstances where the F200 requires ISO400. That is where the real benefit is, and the sensor size forms only a small contribution to this improvement.
SUPERHOKIE said:
I thought the G12, S95, LX5, etc... is as big as it gets when it comes to P&S sensor sizes. How much bigger is the X10's 2/3" sensor compared to the S95's 1/1.7" sensor? How is sensor size expressed BTW?
Click to expand...
--
Slowly learning to use the 450D, the Canon G6 and the Fuji F200.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .
 
Paul De Bra said:
The sensor is 2/3" which is the same as 1/1.5", so it's bigger than 1/1.7" by a factor of 1.7*1.7/1.5*1.5 in surface area, which is a factor of 1.28, so it's not a lot bigger. A 2/3" sensor has 1/4 of the surface of the 4/3" sensor of the four-third an m43 system.

What reall makes the difference for the X10 is that it has an f/2.0 lens, which lets in twice the amount of light of an f/2.8 lens for instance.

Compared to the f200exr for instance every photosite of the X10 sensor receives over 3 times as much light and given the increased usable surface on a BSI CMOS sensor (which I think/hope is what the X10 uses) you can roughly estimate the net improvement to be a factor of 4, which means 2 ISO levels. You should be able to use the X10 at ISO100 under circumstances where the F200 requires ISO400. That is where the real benefit is, and the sensor size forms only a small contribution to this improvement.
SUPERHOKIE said:
I thought the G12, S95, LX5, etc... is as big as it gets when it comes to P&S sensor sizes. How much bigger is the X10's 2/3" sensor compared to the S95's 1/1.7" sensor? How is sensor size expressed BTW?
Click to expand...
--
Slowly learning to use the 450D, the Canon G6 and the Fuji F200.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .
Click to expand...
All that plus a few years in sensor and software development and one should not dismiss one stop more improvement.
--
Rick Halle wrote:

" Keep in mind that tall buildings sway back and forth so they require faster shutter speeds."
 
How does the X10 sensor compare to micro 4/3 in term of size?
AV Janus said:
Paul De Bra said:
The sensor is 2/3" which is the same as 1/1.5", so it's bigger than 1/1.7" by a factor of 1.7*1.7/1.5*1.5 in surface area, which is a factor of 1.28, so it's not a lot bigger. A 2/3" sensor has 1/4 of the surface of the 4/3" sensor of the four-third an m43 system.

What reall makes the difference for the X10 is that it has an f/2.0 lens, which lets in twice the amount of light of an f/2.8 lens for instance.

Compared to the f200exr for instance every photosite of the X10 sensor receives over 3 times as much light and given the increased usable surface on a BSI CMOS sensor (which I think/hope is what the X10 uses) you can roughly estimate the net improvement to be a factor of 4, which means 2 ISO levels. You should be able to use the X10 at ISO100 under circumstances where the F200 requires ISO400. That is where the real benefit is, and the sensor size forms only a small contribution to this improvement.
SUPERHOKIE said:
I thought the G12, S95, LX5, etc... is as big as it gets when it comes to P&S sensor sizes. How much bigger is the X10's 2/3" sensor compared to the S95's 1/1.7" sensor? How is sensor size expressed BTW?
Click to expand...
--
Slowly learning to use the 450D, the Canon G6 and the Fuji F200.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .
Click to expand...
All that plus a few years in sensor and software development and one should not dismiss one stop more improvement.
--
Rick Halle wrote:

" Keep in mind that tall buildings sway back and forth so they require faster shutter speeds."
Click to expand...
 
The Canon S95 has a sensor area of 41.34mm2 and a pixel density of 24mp per cm2
The Panasonic LX5 is 45.84mm2 with pixel density of 22mp per cm2

The X10 is 58.08mm2 with a pixel density (at full res.) of 20mp per cm2.

The X10 has a sensor 40.4% larger than the Canon S95, this should equate to far superior image quality compared to all current 10mp premium compacts.

The X10 should revolutionise the compact market.
 
How about X10 vs (E-PL1+Pana 1.7 pancake)? f1.7 allows even more light in but combine it with E-PL1, I never got satisfactory results and left wanting specially when it came to auto focus and low light capabilities.

Hope X10 is all in 1 package - a worthy camera to be kept all the time.
 
hlwick59 said:
How does the X10 sensor compare to micro 4/3 in term of size?
Click to expand...
The answer is already there in the remarks from Paul De Bra that you quoted.
hlwick59 said:
AV Janus said:
Paul De Bra said:
The sensor is 2/3" which is the same as 1/1.5", so it's bigger than 1/1.7" by a factor of 1.7*1.7/1.5*1.5 in surface area, which is a factor of 1.28, so it's not a lot bigger. A 2/3" sensor has 1/4 of the surface of the 4/3" sensor of the four-third an m43 system.

What reall makes the difference for the X10 is that it has an f/2.0 lens, which lets in twice the amount of light of an f/2.8 lens for instance.

Compared to the f200exr for instance every photosite of the X10 sensor receives over 3 times as much light and given the increased usable surface on a BSI CMOS sensor (which I think/hope is what the X10 uses) you can roughly estimate the net improvement to be a factor of 4, which means 2 ISO levels. You should be able to use the X10 at ISO100 under circumstances where the F200 requires ISO400. That is where the real benefit is, and the sensor size forms only a small contribution to this improvement.
SUPERHOKIE said:
I thought the G12, S95, LX5, etc... is as big as it gets when it comes to P&S sensor sizes. How much bigger is the X10's 2/3" sensor compared to the S95's 1/1.7" sensor? How is sensor size expressed BTW?
Click to expand...
--
Slowly learning to use the 450D, the Canon G6 and the Fuji F200.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .
Click to expand...
All that plus a few years in sensor and software development and one should not dismiss one stop more improvement.
--
Rick Halle wrote:

" Keep in mind that tall buildings sway back and forth so they require faster shutter speeds."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
john carson
 
what about Nikon V1 vs X10
 
That is if my wife went from 120 pounds to 153.60 pounds.

That is a LOT BIGGER!!
Paul De Bra said:
The sensor is 2/3" which is the same as 1/1.5", so it's bigger than 1/1.7" by a factor of 1.7*1.7/1.5*1.5 in surface area, which is a factor of 1.28, so it's not a lot bigger. A 2/3" sensor has 1/4 of the surface of the 4/3" sensor of the four-third an m43 system.

What reall makes the difference for the X10 is that it has an f/2.0 lens, which lets in twice the amount of light of an f/2.8 lens for instance.

Compared to the f200exr for instance every photosite of the X10 sensor receives over 3 times as much light and given the increased usable surface on a BSI CMOS sensor (which I think/hope is what the X10 uses) you can roughly estimate the net improvement to be a factor of 4, which means 2 ISO levels. You should be able to use the X10 at ISO100 under circumstances where the F200 requires ISO400. That is where the real benefit is, and the sensor size forms only a small contribution to this improvement.
SUPERHOKIE said:
I thought the G12, S95, LX5, etc... is as big as it gets when it comes to P&S sensor sizes. How much bigger is the X10's 2/3" sensor compared to the S95's 1/1.7" sensor? How is sensor size expressed BTW?
Click to expand...
--
Slowly learning to use the 450D, the Canon G6 and the Fuji F200.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .
Click to expand...
 
Paul De Bra said:
The sensor is 2/3" which is the same as 1/1.5", so it's bigger than 1/1.7" by a factor of 1.7*1.7/1.5*1.5 in surface area, which is a factor of 1.28, so it's not a lot bigger. A 2/3" sensor has 1/4 of the surface of the 4/3" sensor of the four-third an m43 system.
Click to expand...
I've read many times that the sensor sizes were based on vidicon tube size designations that didn't accurately represent sensor sizes. According to a wikipedia article the tube sizes and sensor size designations actually are pretty closely aligned, and the article presents an alternative rule for figuring out the sensor dimensions by easily determining the sensor diagonal from the size designation which is surprisingly accurate at least for the larger sensors. The rule is that the sensor size designation (in inches) is equal to the diagonal of the sensor (in millimeters) divided by 16. So a 2/3" sensor (== 0.67) should be 11mm (the sensor diagonal according to DPR's glossary) / 16, and 11/16 == 0.69. Trying the common 1/2.3" sensor designation, the diagonal should be 7.7/16 which equals 0.48, and 1/2.3 equals 0.43. Close, but no cigar. Here's a quote from that article, a diagram of a vidicon tube, and a photo of a 2/3" vidicon tube :
Paul De Bra said:
The size of video camera tubes are expressed in a strange parameter called the optical format. The optical format is defined as the diagonal length of the sensor (in mm) divided by 16. The result is expressed in inches (not converted to inches!). For instance, a 6.4x4.8 mm sensor has a diagonal of 8.0 mm and therefore an optical format of 8.0/16 = 1/2". The reason why it is expressed in inches is historical: a standard size one inch vidicon tube has only 16 mm of useful imaging area. Therefore 1 inch optics became 16 mm, 1/2 inch optics became 8 mm, etc.[100]

Although the video camera tube is now technologically obsolete, the optical format is still used today to express the size of image sensors found in most compact digital cameras. The parameter is also the source of the "Four Thirds" in the Four Thirds system and its Micro Four Thirds extension—the imaging area of the sensor in these cameras is identical to that of a 4/3" video camera tube.
Click to expand...








http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube
 
According to Amatuer Photographer reviewer Matt Gallagher in this weeks nag (Nov 12th Issue) the sensor size is 1/2.3inch and the reviewer quotes that it uses the same size sensor has the Pentax Q camera. I have emailed them to question this, as according to Fuji the X10 uses a 2/3 inch sensor.
 
Paul De Bra said:
Compared to the f200exr for instance every photosite of the X10 sensor receives over 3 times as much light and given the increased usable surface on a BSI CMOS sensor (which I think/hope is what the X10 uses)
Click to expand...
CMOS, but not BSI.
 
The dpreview website itself gives sensor dimensions for all the cameras in it's camera database pages; here is the one for the X10:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/compacts/fujifilm_x10

From that page it is shown to be: 1/2/3" (8.8 x 6.6 mm)

Also, a search of the web produces this very handy chart:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_-_updated.svg

You can see that the size difference between the 1/2/3 and the 1/1.7" which is 1/1.7" (7.49 x 5.52 mm) on the Canon S100, looks to be minimal but still would affect pixel density and likely IQ at least at higher ISOs to some degree I would think.

ML
 
mikeyL said:
The dpreview website itself gives sensor dimensions for all the cameras in it's camera database pages; here is the one for the X10:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/compacts/fujifilm_x10

From that page it is shown to be: 1/2/3" (8.8 x 6.6 mm)

Also, a search of the web produces this very handy chart:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_-_updated.svg

You can see that the size difference between the 1/2/3 and the 1/1.7" which is 1/1.7" (7.49 x 5.52 mm) on the Canon S100, looks to be minimal but still would affect pixel density and likely IQ at least at higher ISOs to some degree I would think.
Click to expand...
The linear dimension differences may be small but they amount to the X10's sensor area being about 34% larger. Also where did you get the '1' from in '1/2/3"'? Neither of your sources show that. They show 2/3" which is the same as 1/1.5" which is sometimes used instead of 2/3". What you wrote could be mistaken for the most common sensor size which is 1/2.3", a much smaller sensor.
 
mikeyL said:
You can see that the size difference between the 1/2/3 and the 1/1.7" which is 1/1.7" (7.49 x 5.52 mm) on the Canon S100, looks to be minimal but still would affect pixel density and likely IQ at least at higher ISOs to some degree I would think.
Click to expand...
I am not sure why it is thought the difference is minimal, one third (or even one quarter) could not be considered minimal no matter how one looks at it.

As for pixel density, even at 12mp full resolution the X10 has the lowest pixel density of all current premium compact cameras, when you consider the EXR modes (for low light) the pixel density is less than half that of the closest competition.

When you consider the X 10's bright lens, (and the very slow lens at tele of the S100) there will likely be quite a gulf between the two.

From my experience with compact cameras, the sensor size and pixel density is of primary importance and one of the most reliable ways to determine the likely image quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top