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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |