Sensor size madness - and proposal of change...

Hope I am not alone with this sensor size classes based on vacuum tube size madness.

When we talk about 1" sensor for example in Sony RX100 or Nikon 1 - What exactly is 1" on the chip? Nothing my friends.

My sugestion - easy, understandable, clear:

Lets measure chips in square centimeters and round it to nearest whole number, we can have classes of sensors, that are easily understandable and give us perfect idea how big the sensor is.

Less than 1 cm² - mobile phones and amateur compacts - nothing of much interesting there.

1 cm²: Sony RX100, Nikon 1, Advanced Canon compacts

2 cm²: MFT, Blackmagic cinema camera

4 cm²: APS-C (Sony α, Sony E, Nikon DX, Pentax K, Samsung NX, Fuji X)

5 cm²: ASP-H (I think only Canon used this)


9 cm²: Full frame cameras

Over 10 cm²: Medium format territory

As you can see, you can describe sensor size using one single digit number, that means something rather than size of some obsolete vacuum tube diameter. What do you think?

goodgeorge said:

Hope I am not alone with this sensor size classes based on vacuum tube size madness.

Click to expand...

Sure, but if you are going to try and fix this, why restrict the usefulness it to a sub-set of photo enthusiasts.

What is wrong with simply using the actual sensor active area dimension dimensions (e.g 36 x 24 mm, 17.4 x 13 mm)? Full information in 2 numbers, and trivial to visualise what it means.

I could live with sensor diagonal and aspect ratio (43 mm 3:2, 22 mm 4:3).

There may be a case for area rounded to the nearest square mm, but I would prefer to include aspect ratio in the designation.

You may not be interested in compact cameras and mobile phones, but millions of other folk are. I don't always carry my DSLR. The difference between a 1/2.3 inch and 1/1.8 inch in a compact or bridge camera is significant, as is the difference between 1/3 inch and 1/1.7 inch in a mobile phone camera.

There are thousands of industrial cameras sold with sensor areas less than 1 cm². 2/3 inch (8.3 x 6.6 mm) is still popular for some applications, and could make a come-back for consumer cameras. Who knows what will become popular in future.

There are other serious photographers who care about the difference between a 33 x 39 mm and a 40 x 54 mm medium format sensor.

If we are going to fix this inconvenient nonsense, let's do it for everyone, in a way which is entirely clear and intuitive.

goodgeorge said:

When we talk about 1" sensor for example in Sony RX100 or Nikon 1 - What exactly is 1" on the chip? Nothing my friends.

My sugestion - easy, understandable, clear:

Lets measure chips in square centimeters and round it to nearest whole number, we can have classes of sensors, that are easily understandable and give us perfect idea how big the sensor is.

Less than 1 cm² - mobile phones and amateur compacts - nothing of much interesting there.

1 cm²: Sony RX100, Nikon 1, Advanced Canon compacts

2 cm²: MFT, Blackmagic cinema camera

4 cm²: APS-C (Sony α, Sony E, Nikon DX, Pentax K, Samsung NX, Fuji X)

5 cm²: ASP-H (I think only Canon used this)

9 cm²: Full frame cameras

Over 10 cm²: Medium format territory

As you can see, you can describe sensor size using one single digit number, that means something rather than size of some obsolete vacuum tube diameter. What do you think?

Click to expand...

--
Alan Robinson

alanr0 said:

goodgeorge said:

Hope I am not alone with this sensor size classes based on vacuum tube size madness.

Click to expand...

Sure, but if you are going to try and fix this, why restrict the usefulness it to a sub-set of photo enthusiasts.

Click to expand...

Actually: No - the number is easy to understand even for a newbie - bigger, better.

alanr0 said:

What is wrong with simply using the actual sensor active area dimension dimensions (e.g 36 x 24 mm, 17.4 x 13 mm)? Full information in 2 numbers, and trivial to visualise what it means.

Click to expand...

Of course, but maybe too much detail.... Maybe.

alanr0 said:

I could live with sensor diagonal and aspect ratio (43 mm 3:2, 22 mm 4:3).

There may be a case for area rounded to the nearest square mm, but I would prefer to include aspect ratio in the designation.

Click to expand...

The idea is to make it easy to "categorize size" not give exact measure.

alanr0 said:

There are thousands of industrial cameras sold with sensor areas less than 1 cm². 2/3 inch (8.3 x 6.6 mm) is still popular for some applications, and could make a come-back for consumer cameras. Who knows what will become popular in future.

There are other serious photographers who care about the difference between a 33 x 39 mm and a 40 x 54 mm medium format sensor

Click to expand...

You can easily use this for medium format and for small format. Simply by using decimal numbers for small sensors (0.4, 0.6) or larger than 10 for medium format (13, 15). Pretty simple huh?

For a basic measure of sensor scale, I would rather use the square root of area: this is a bit more visually relevant. A FF sensor is typically not considered twice as good as an APS-C sensor, photographically speaking. We see this in film: formats have to become quite huge in order to gain an incremental increase in visual image quality, and it seems that this gain is not proportional to area, but is rather closer to the square root of area.

goodgeorge said:

alanr0 said:

goodgeorge said:

Hope I am not alone with this sensor size classes based on vacuum tube size madness.

Click to expand...

Sure, but if you are going to try and fix this, why restrict the usefulness it to a sub-set of photo enthusiasts.

Click to expand...

Actually: No - the number is easy to understand even for a newbie - bigger, better.

Click to expand...

If a single number, it is better to be a linear dimension, not quadratic (area).

Here is a counter proposal: use the crop factor. For example FF/2 is m43, FF/1.6 is Canon crop, FF/0.8 (or so) is MF, etc.

J A C S said:

goodgeorge said:

alanr0 said:

goodgeorge said:

Hope I am not alone with this sensor size classes based on vacuum tube size madness.

Click to expand...

Sure, but if you are going to try and fix this, why restrict the usefulness it to a sub-set of photo enthusiasts.

Click to expand...

Actually: No - the number is easy to understand even for a newbie - bigger, better.

Click to expand...

If a single number, it is better to be a linear dimension, not quadratic (area).

Here is a counter proposal: use the crop factor. For example FF/2 is m43, FF/1.6 is Canon crop, FF/0.8 (or so) is MF, etc.

Click to expand...

More numbers and you have to know what FF means. Most photographers do know that, but it is hard to explain to newbies.

If a complete newbie comes to photography and sees, that one camera has a sensor with area 3 and the other 8, he can immediatelly imagine what it means.

goodgeorge said:

J A C S said:

goodgeorge said:

alanr0 said:

goodgeorge said:

Hope I am not alone with this sensor size classes based on vacuum tube size madness.

Click to expand...

Sure, but if you are going to try and fix this, why restrict the usefulness it to a sub-set of photo enthusiasts.

Click to expand...

Actually: No - the number is easy to understand even for a newbie - bigger, better.

Click to expand...

If a single number, it is better to be a linear dimension, not quadratic (area).

Here is a counter proposal: use the crop factor. For example FF/2 is m43, FF/1.6 is Canon crop, FF/0.8 (or so) is MF, etc.

Click to expand...

More numbers and you have to know what FF means. Most photographers do know that, but it is hard to explain to newbies.

Click to expand...

Well, do you know what a meter is? Most people would be astonished if they saw the definition and yet, they use it every day; except the Americans, of course.

What good would do to newbies if they knew the area of their sensor in cm? On the other hand, the crop factor can be useful.

goodgeorge said:

If a complete newbie comes to photography and sees, that one camera has a sensor with area 3 and the other 8, he can immediatelly imagine what it means.

Click to expand...

I doubt that they will know what to do with that info.

Hi,

Makes some sense to me, I shoot both 43 mm and 60 mm.

Best regards

Erik

J A C S said:

goodgeorge said:

J A C S said:

goodgeorge said:

alanr0 said:

goodgeorge said:

Hope I am not alone with this sensor size classes based on vacuum tube size madness.

Click to expand...

Sure, but if you are going to try and fix this, why restrict the usefulness it to a sub-set of photo enthusiasts.

Click to expand...

Actually: No - the number is easy to understand even for a newbie - bigger, better.

Click to expand...

If a single number, it is better to be a linear dimension, not quadratic (area).

Here is a counter proposal: use the crop factor. For example FF/2 is m43, FF/1.6 is Canon crop, FF/0.8 (or so) is MF, etc.

Click to expand...

More numbers and you have to know what FF means. Most photographers do know that, but it is hard to explain to newbies.

Click to expand...

Well, do you know what a meter is? Most people would be astonished if they saw the definition and yet, they use it every day; except the Americans, of course.

What good would do to newbies if they knew the area of their sensor in cm? On the other hand, the crop factor can be useful.

J A C S said:

If a complete newbie comes to photography and sees, that one camera has a sensor with area 3 and the other 8, he can immediatelly imagine what it means.

Click to expand...

I doubt that they will know what to do with that info.

Click to expand...

I am far from saying, that it is self-explanatory. But it is far easier to understand, than curent custom.

Newbies will understand, that bigger is better.
Experienced users will easily imagine the size.

I am experienced user and if a newbie asked me now, what the number x/y" means, i would have a hard time explaining it.

goodgeorge said:

goodgeorge said:

I doubt that they will know what to do with that info.

Click to expand...

I am far from saying, that it is self-explanatory. But it is far easier to understand, than curent custom.
Newbies will understand, that bigger is better.
Experienced users will easily imagine the size.
I am experienced user and if a newbie asked me now, what the number x/y" means, i would have a hard time explaining it.

Click to expand...

They understand even now that 1" is larger than 1/2.3", for example (well, they have to be good with elementary school math for that) and if it is not measured in inches, like m43 and larger, it must be larger.

J A C S said:

goodgeorge said:

J A C S said:

I doubt that they will know what to do with that info.

Click to expand...

I am far from saying, that it is self-explanatory. But it is far easier to understand, than curent custom.
Newbies will understand, that bigger is better.
Experienced users will easily imagine the size.
I am experienced user and if a newbie asked me now, what the number x/y" means, i would have a hard time explaining it.

Click to expand...

They understand even now that 1" is larger than 1/2.3", for example (well, they have to be good with elementary school math for that) and if it is not measured in inches, like m43 and larger, it must be larger.

Click to expand...

It is confusing af. Sorry.

goodgeorge said:

J A C S said:

goodgeorge said:

goodgeorge said:

I doubt that they will know what to do with that info.

Click to expand...

I am far from saying, that it is self-explanatory. But it is far easier to understand, than curent custom.
Newbies will understand, that bigger is better.
Experienced users will easily imagine the size.
I am experienced user and if a newbie asked me now, what the number x/y" means, i would have a hard time explaining it.

Click to expand...

They understand even now that 1" is larger than 1/2.3", for example (well, they have to be good with elementary school math for that) and if it is not measured in inches, like m43 and larger, it must be larger.

Click to expand...

It is confusing af. Sorry.

Click to expand...

When I moved to the US, all those feet, inches, miles, oz, gallons, pints, lb; drill bits as 1/8", 5/16", etc., were confusing (and I am supposed to be good with numbers) but I got used to it. 300 million people seem to be OK with those units of measurement.

How about, and I may be going out on a limb here, ___ x ___ mm.

-- Bob
http://bob-o-rama.smugmug.com -- Photos
http://www.vimeo.com/boborama/videos -- Videos

Specificity=Clarity. Anything else would be replacing one bad system with something equally useless.

BobORama said:

How about, and I may be going out on a limb here, ___ x ___ mm.

-- Bob
http://bob-o-rama.smugmug.com -- Photos
http://www.vimeo.com/boborama/videos -- Videos

Click to expand...

goodgeorge said:

Hope I am not alone with this sensor size classes based on vacuum tube size madness.

When we talk about 1" sensor for example in Sony RX100 or Nikon 1 - What exactly is 1" on the chip? Nothing my friends.

My sugestion - easy, understandable, clear:

Lets measure chips in square centimeters and round it to nearest whole number, we can have classes of sensors, that are easily understandable and give us perfect idea how big the sensor is.

Less than 1 cm² - mobile phones and amateur compacts - nothing of much interesting there.

1 cm²: Sony RX100, Nikon 1, Advanced Canon compacts

2 cm²: MFT, Blackmagic cinema camera

4 cm²: APS-C (Sony α, Sony E, Nikon DX, Pentax K, Samsung NX, Fuji X)

5 cm²: ASP-H (I think only Canon used this)

9 cm²: Full frame cameras

Over 10 cm²: Medium format territory

As you can see, you can describe sensor size using one single digit number, that means something rather than size of some obsolete vacuum tube diameter. What do you think?

Click to expand...

A nice idea but IMO rounding has destroyed any advantage it had.

The vacuum tube sizes are generally use for small sensors where your system just gives values of 0 after rounding.

The iPhone 8 has a 1/3" (0.17cm²) sensor
The Pentax Q has a 1/2.3" (0.28cm²) sensor
& the Q7 has a 1.1.7" (0.43cm²) sensor

The fractional inch descriptions allow details to be found, while your system has all of them rated the same, with your comment of nothing of interest (to you).

It also skews the appearance of other sensors

MFT is 2.25 cm²
Canon APSC is 3.29 cm²
Other APSC is 3.7 cm²
APSH is 5.2 cm²
& FF is 8.6 cm²

Your rounding makes MFT look to be half that of APSC, which is not the case. Did you deliberately miss out the Canon APSC which only rounds to 3, although it's not that much smaller than everyone else's APSC?

Using sensor size in mm² and not worrying that it's no longer a single digit is far more useful, in as far as sensor area is relevant. IMO it's far from the whole story, indeed for many photographers not really relevant at all.

I would also think the place this scale becomes most useful is with the very cameras you decide to ignore. If a photographer is buying a new phone, he may well be highly concerned in getting the best camera he can, as it's the camera they will have with them all the time...

Oh yes, it seems the Blackmagic cameras are wrong on your scale too - they have quite a range of sensor sizes:

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema camera is 0.876 cm² rounding to 1
Blackmagic Cinema Camera EF is 1.4 cm² rounding to 1
Blackmagic URSA mini 4k is 2.51 cm² rounding to 3
Blackmagic URSA mini 4.6 is 3.61 cm² rounding to 4

I didn't find one that rounds to 2, but my list of sensor sizes is getting old.

The EF model is nearly twice the sensor size of the pocket but gets the same class. The mini4k is less than twice the sensor size of the EF, but gets two classes higher!

I personally find the aspect ratio of all of the Blackmagic range too extreme for my typical use so they've never been of much interest to me, even though I have lenses/adapters for MFT.

J A C S said:

goodgeorge said:

J A C S said:

goodgeorge said:

J A C S said:

I doubt that they will know what to do with that info.

Click to expand...

I am far from saying, that it is self-explanatory. But it is far easier to understand, than curent custom.
Newbies will understand, that bigger is better.
Experienced users will easily imagine the size.
I am experienced user and if a newbie asked me now, what the number x/y" means, i would have a hard time explaining it.

Click to expand...

They understand even now that 1" is larger than 1/2.3", for example (well, they have to be good with elementary school math for that) and if it is not measured in inches, like m43 and larger, it must be larger.

Click to expand...

It is confusing af. Sorry.

Click to expand...

When I moved to the US, all those feet, inches, miles, oz, gallons, pints, lb; drill bits as 1/8", 5/16", etc., were confusing (and I am supposed to be good with numbers) but I got used to it. 300 million people seem to be OK with those units of measurement.

Click to expand...

Don't mention the "Gimli Glider" (Canadian) or the NASA Mars Climate Orbiter: pounds are not equal to kilos and pound-seconds^2 are not equal to newton-seconds^2. The second incident was a $125m mistake and the first a very interesting experience for the 61 passengers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

petrochemist said:

goodgeorge said:

Hope I am not alone with this sensor size classes based on vacuum tube size madness.

When we talk about 1" sensor for example in Sony RX100 or Nikon 1 - What exactly is 1" on the chip? Nothing my friends.

My sugestion - easy, understandable, clear:

Lets measure chips in square centimeters and round it to nearest whole number, we can have classes of sensors, that are easily understandable and give us perfect idea how big the sensor is.

Less than 1 cm² - mobile phones and amateur compacts - nothing of much interesting there.

1 cm²: Sony RX100, Nikon 1, Advanced Canon compacts

2 cm²: MFT, Blackmagic cinema camera

4 cm²: APS-C (Sony α, Sony E, Nikon DX, Pentax K, Samsung NX, Fuji X)

5 cm²: ASP-H (I think only Canon used this)

9 cm²: Full frame cameras

Over 10 cm²: Medium format territory

As you can see, you can describe sensor size using one single digit number, that means something rather than size of some obsolete vacuum tube diameter. What do you think?

Click to expand...

A nice idea but IMO rounding has destroyed any advantage it had.

The vacuum tube sizes are generally use for small sensors where your system just gives values of 0 after rounding.

The iPhone 8 has a 1/3" (0.17cm²) sensor
The Pentax Q has a 1/2.3" (0.28cm²) sensor
& the Q7 has a 1.1.7" (0.43cm²) sensor

The fractional inch descriptions allow details to be found, while your system has all of them rated the same, with your comment of nothing of interest (to you).

It also skews the appearance of other sensors

MFT is 2.25 cm²
Canon APSC is 3.29 cm²
Other APSC is 3.7 cm²
APSH is 5.2 cm²
& FF is 8.6 cm²

Click to expand...

Easier in square mm - then no points.

017, 225, 370, etc...

But I like the general idea.

--

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery