A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

sensor size?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 2nd 07, 07:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
SJ[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default sensor size?

Kind of a Newbie question on sensor size.
What is the difference between, 1/2.5 " or 1/1.6 " or 1/1.8 " on non-slr's
or 4/3" or 23.7 x 15.6 mm on a Nikon. Do more or bigger sensors necessarily
mean better pictures? and If so, why? thanks
Scott

  #2  
Old July 2nd 07, 08:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Allen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 368
Default sensor size?

SJ wrote:
Kind of a Newbie question on sensor size.
What is the difference between, 1/2.5 " or 1/1.6 " or 1/1.8 " on
non-slr's or 4/3" or 23.7 x 15.6 mm on a Nikon. Do more or bigger
sensors necessarily mean better pictures? and If so, why? thanks
Scott

The naming schemes used to describe sensor size is ridiculous. Why can't
they say '0.4"' instead of '1/1.6"', for instance, and actually give the
other rectilinear dimension also. Actual size (in mm would make much
more sense. I assume that somewhere in the deep dark reaches of digital
camera history some people thought that these strange and illogical
sizes would have some marketing edge; behind just about any illogical
description in any commercial lies a marketing decision. I will now step
of my soapbox (for now).
Allen
  #3  
Old July 2nd 07, 10:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Prometheus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 264
Default sensor size?

In article , Allen
writes
SJ wrote:
Kind of a Newbie question on sensor size.
What is the difference between, 1/2.5 " or 1/1.6 " or 1/1.8 " on
non-slr's or 4/3" or 23.7 x 15.6 mm on a Nikon. Do more or bigger
sensors necessarily mean better pictures? and If so, why? thanks
Scott

The naming schemes used to describe sensor size is ridiculous. Why
can't they say '0.4"' instead of '1/1.6"', for instance, and actually
give the other rectilinear dimension also. Actual size (in mm would
make much more sense. I assume that somewhere in the deep dark reaches
of digital camera history some people thought that these strange and
illogical sizes would have some marketing edge; behind just about any
illogical description in any commercial lies a marketing decision. I
will now step of my soapbox (for now).
Allen


It was not ridiculous in it origin. The size originally refereed to the
diameter of a TV tube, the diagonal of the sensitive element being about
2/3 of the tube. When CCD sensors where introduced the equivalent tube
diameter for a given diagonal was used because users could relate it to
the lens required and purchase a CCD camera which would use the lenses
they already had. There is now probably far more different sizes of CCD
than there ever were tubes.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams
  #4  
Old July 3rd 07, 01:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,818
Default sensor size?

SJ wrote:
Kind of a Newbie question on sensor size.
What is the difference between, 1/2.5 " or 1/1.6 " or 1/1.8 " on
non-slr's or 4/3" or 23.7 x 15.6 mm on a Nikon. Do more or bigger
sensors necessarily mean better pictures? and If so, why? thanks
Scott


Yes, it does matter. Get the largest pixel size for a given
megapixel count and you'll have lower noise, and higher ISO performance.

Some references:
Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

Roger
  #5  
Old July 3rd 07, 04:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ray Macey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default sensor size?

On Jul 3, 10:52 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
Yes, it does matter. Get the largest pixel size for a given
megapixel count and you'll have lower noise, and higher ISO performance.


Smaller sensors however can (but doesn't always) equate to smaller
camera bodies and/or lenses. Larger sensors also give you a wider
field of view for a given focal length, meaning wide angle lenses are
"wider" on larger sensors, and telephoto lenses are more "tele" on
smaller sensors.

Obviously that's in addition to the technical limitations of a smaller
sensor

Ray

  #6  
Old July 3rd 07, 02:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill Funk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,500
Default sensor size?

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 22:57:23 +0100, Prometheus
wrote:

In article , Allen
writes
SJ wrote:
Kind of a Newbie question on sensor size.
What is the difference between, 1/2.5 " or 1/1.6 " or 1/1.8 " on
non-slr's or 4/3" or 23.7 x 15.6 mm on a Nikon. Do more or bigger
sensors necessarily mean better pictures? and If so, why? thanks
Scott

The naming schemes used to describe sensor size is ridiculous. Why
can't they say '0.4"' instead of '1/1.6"', for instance, and actually
give the other rectilinear dimension also. Actual size (in mm would
make much more sense. I assume that somewhere in the deep dark reaches
of digital camera history some people thought that these strange and
illogical sizes would have some marketing edge; behind just about any
illogical description in any commercial lies a marketing decision. I
will now step of my soapbox (for now).
Allen


It was not ridiculous in it origin. The size originally refereed to the
diameter of a TV tube, the diagonal of the sensitive element being about
2/3 of the tube. When CCD sensors where introduced the equivalent tube
diameter for a given diagonal was used because users could relate it to
the lens required and purchase a CCD camera which would use the lenses
they already had. There is now probably far more different sizes of CCD
than there ever were tubes.


The first consumer digital cameras weren't DSLRs, so fitting the
correct size lens wasn't an option; the lens was fixed.
IMO, the sensor sizes were given the way they are in order to not
scare consumers away with the small sizes of sensors being used. Since
most consumers were using film sizes much larger than the sensors in
those first cameras, the marketing dep'ts wanted the cameras judged on
the merits of the images provided, not the sizes of the sensors.
Giving the sizes in an obscure measurement system that most consumers
would not bother to understand served that purpose.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faced a
revolt Friday over gas rationing. The country
is the second-biggest oil producer in the world,
but they can't make enough gas for their citizens.
You can always tell when Jimmy Carter is advising
a dictator.
  #7  
Old July 3rd 07, 03:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 464
Default sensor size?

On Jul 2, 2:15 pm, Allen wrote:
SJ wrote:
Kind of a Newbie question on sensor size.
What is the difference between, 1/2.5 " or 1/1.6 " or 1/1.8 " on
non-slr's or 4/3" or 23.7 x 15.6 mm on a Nikon. Do more or bigger
sensors necessarily mean better pictures? and If so, why? thanks
Scott


The naming schemes used to describe sensor size is ridiculous. Why can't
they say '0.4"' instead of '1/1.6"', for instance, and actually give the
other rectilinear dimension also. Actual size (in mm would make much
more sense. I assume that somewhere in the deep dark reaches of digital
camera history some people thought that these strange and illogical
sizes would have some marketing edge; behind just about any illogical
description in any commercial lies a marketing decision. I will now step
of my soapbox (for now).
Allen


The digital camera chips followed a line of descent through video
cameras. There was a long tradition of using the diagonal (or
diameter) measure to specify camera tube size (orthicons and
vidicons). This held over for first CCD chips. First digicams used
camcorder chips.

These were identified as a regular number for format diagonal or tube
diameter (i.e, one inch vidicon, half inch vidicon etc.) and
originally the same for chips. This fraction thing is NOT a long
holdover from some distant path, it is relatively new.

  #8  
Old July 3rd 07, 03:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 226
Default sensor size?

Bill Funk wrote:
[]
The first consumer digital cameras weren't DSLRs, so fitting the
correct size lens wasn't an option; the lens was fixed.
IMO, the sensor sizes were given the way they are in order to not
scare consumers away with the small sizes of sensors being used. Since
most consumers were using film sizes much larger than the sensors in
those first cameras, the marketing dep'ts wanted the cameras judged on
the merits of the images provided, not the sizes of the sensors.
Giving the sizes in an obscure measurement system that most consumers
would not bother to understand served that purpose.


Yes, agreed. They do understand megapixels (or at least think they do),
but not yet that "mine is bigger than yours" in sensor sizes might
actually have some benefit!

G

David


  #9  
Old July 3rd 07, 08:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Prometheus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 264
Default sensor size?

In article , Bill Funk
writes
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 22:57:23 +0100, Prometheus
wrote:

In article , Allen
writes
SJ wrote:
Kind of a Newbie question on sensor size.
What is the difference between, 1/2.5 " or 1/1.6 " or 1/1.8 " on
non-slr's or 4/3" or 23.7 x 15.6 mm on a Nikon. Do more or bigger
sensors necessarily mean better pictures? and If so, why? thanks
Scott
The naming schemes used to describe sensor size is ridiculous. Why
can't they say '0.4"' instead of '1/1.6"', for instance, and actually
give the other rectilinear dimension also. Actual size (in mm would
make much more sense. I assume that somewhere in the deep dark reaches
of digital camera history some people thought that these strange and
illogical sizes would have some marketing edge; behind just about any
illogical description in any commercial lies a marketing decision. I
will now step of my soapbox (for now).
Allen


It was not ridiculous in it origin. The size originally refereed to the
diameter of a TV tube, the diagonal of the sensitive element being about
2/3 of the tube. When CCD sensors where introduced the equivalent tube
diameter for a given diagonal was used because users could relate it to
the lens required and purchase a CCD camera which would use the lenses
they already had. There is now probably far more different sizes of CCD
than there ever were tubes.


The first consumer digital cameras weren't DSLRs, so fitting the
correct size lens wasn't an option; the lens was fixed.
IMO, the sensor sizes were given the way they are in order to not
scare consumers away with the small sizes of sensors being used. Since
most consumers were using film sizes much larger than the sensors in
those first cameras, the marketing dep'ts wanted the cameras judged on
the merits of the images provided, not the sizes of the sensors.
Giving the sizes in an obscure measurement system that most consumers
would not bother to understand served that purpose.


All very true, but the first CCDs were on TV cameras, hence the
importance of describing the CCD by the size users were familiar with,
i.e. 1, 2/3, 1/2. What is nonsensical is describing sensor sizes never
used in TV cameras by improper fractions, i.e. 1/1.8 and 1/2.7 have
sensor diagonals of 9 and 6.6 mm.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams
  #10  
Old July 4th 07, 04:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill Funk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,500
Default sensor size?

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 20:56:20 +0100, Prometheus
wrote:

In article , Bill Funk
writes
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 22:57:23 +0100, Prometheus
wrote:

In article , Allen
writes
SJ wrote:
Kind of a Newbie question on sensor size.
What is the difference between, 1/2.5 " or 1/1.6 " or 1/1.8 " on
non-slr's or 4/3" or 23.7 x 15.6 mm on a Nikon. Do more or bigger
sensors necessarily mean better pictures? and If so, why? thanks
Scott
The naming schemes used to describe sensor size is ridiculous. Why
can't they say '0.4"' instead of '1/1.6"', for instance, and actually
give the other rectilinear dimension also. Actual size (in mm would
make much more sense. I assume that somewhere in the deep dark reaches
of digital camera history some people thought that these strange and
illogical sizes would have some marketing edge; behind just about any
illogical description in any commercial lies a marketing decision. I
will now step of my soapbox (for now).
Allen

It was not ridiculous in it origin. The size originally refereed to the
diameter of a TV tube, the diagonal of the sensitive element being about
2/3 of the tube. When CCD sensors where introduced the equivalent tube
diameter for a given diagonal was used because users could relate it to
the lens required and purchase a CCD camera which would use the lenses
they already had. There is now probably far more different sizes of CCD
than there ever were tubes.


The first consumer digital cameras weren't DSLRs, so fitting the
correct size lens wasn't an option; the lens was fixed.
IMO, the sensor sizes were given the way they are in order to not
scare consumers away with the small sizes of sensors being used. Since
most consumers were using film sizes much larger than the sensors in
those first cameras, the marketing dep'ts wanted the cameras judged on
the merits of the images provided, not the sizes of the sensors.
Giving the sizes in an obscure measurement system that most consumers
would not bother to understand served that purpose.


All very true, but the first CCDs were on TV cameras, hence the
importance of describing the CCD by the size users were familiar with,
i.e. 1, 2/3, 1/2.


I was specifically talkkng about consumer cameras, not commercial TV
cameras.

What is nonsensical is describing sensor sizes never
used in TV cameras by improper fractions, i.e. 1/1.8 and 1/2.7 have
sensor diagonals of 9 and 6.6 mm.


Nonsensical in the sense that they don't mean much to the consumer,
yes.
Nonsensical from a marketing viewpoint? Not at all, as I pointed out
above.

This is a very common thing; take cars, for example.
The benchmark usually given for engine power is horsepower; ads tell
us that the more hp a car has, the more powerful it is. Than look at
how the ads promote this power; it isn't cruising at high speeds,
where horsepower actually comes into play; it's in accelleration,
where torque comes into play.
When you want to demonstrate your car's power (or lack of it; :-)) by
mashing down on the go pedal. The engine's torque makes it
accellerate.
Yet, we see almost no ads touting torque; only in truck ads does
torque get a mention.

It's marketing.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Barack Obama on Sunday reported his campaign
raised thirty-two million dollars in the second
quarter. He beat Hillary Clinton by ten million
dollars. His donations come from Democrats who
are exhausted by the whole Clinton psychodrama,
while her donations come from comedians who only
want to work half-days for the next eight years.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
question about relationship between sensor size and print size. ftran999 Digital Photography 8 February 22nd 07 04:37 PM
Megapixels vs Sensor size Bob Williams Digital Photography 3 January 27th 06 01:49 AM
sensor size John Digital Photography 11 January 9th 06 08:03 PM
megapixels and sensor size Jon Nadelberg Digital SLR Cameras 11 August 30th 05 03:26 AM
sensor size and telephoto .::SuperBLUE::. Digital Photography 7 March 5th 05 04:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.