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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Making sense of the sensor size?
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message . .. The 1/1.8 type is about 5.32 x 7.18 mm, and the 1/2.5 type is 4.29 x 5.76 mm. You can find the *approximate* size of any sensor if you know the actual focal length of the camera's lens and its 35mm equivalence, both best taken at the long end of the zoom for the sake of better accuracy. Dividing the latter by the former will give you the digicam's lens factor. Dividing the diagonal of a full 35mm frame (about 43.2 mm) by the lens factor should give you the diagonal of the digicam's sensor. However, this is a rough method (because the camera lens's stated focal length may not be precise) and may not give you exactly the figures above. Expanding on this a little: Most (but not all) compact digicams have sensors in the 4 : 3 aspect ratio. This should be convenient for finding the diagonal of the sensor, since it's the 3-4-5 right triangle familiar if you remember your geometry, i.e. if one side is 3 units and the adjacent side is 4, the hypotenuse must be 5. So in the case of the 2/3 type sensor used in my Coolpix 8800 for example, the 6.6 x 8.8 mm sensor has a diagonal of just 11 mm. A full 35mm frame (24 x 36 mm) has a diagonal of about 43.2 mm, so the lens factor is 43.2 / 11 = 3.927. . . , and multiplying this by the lens's marked focal length (at the long end) of 89mm, the 35mm equivalence works out to about 349.5mm. This is close enough to the stated f.l. of 350mm at the long end. This is really just doing the same math suggested in my previous post, only backwards. The aspect ratios are different of course, the full-frame 35 being 3 : 2 while the digicam's is 4 : 3. But this doesn't really matter; it's always the format diagonal that's used in calculations of 35mm equivalence. Neil |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Making sense of the sensor size?
Neil Harrington wrote:
"RPS" wrote in message ... Could somebody please explain the jargon used to denote the sensor size? I mean numbers like 1/1.7. How does this translate to actual size (dimensions or area)? It actually doesn't translate very well at all, and is a goofy system that should have been abandoned long ago. The fraction refers to the old video tube size in inches, which is the way such sensors are traditionally sized but obviously has nothing to do with digital still cameras. What is the typical size for DSLR? Those are not described in that way; only compact cameras use the fractional inch method. Nikon and some other DSLRs mostly use a sensor of either 23.7 x 15.6 mm or 23.6 x 15.8 mm, in either case roughly the same as the full APS-C format and often referred to by that term. Most Canon DSLRs s have a slightly smaller sensor than that, some other makes are smaller still, and a very few are larger. For ZLR? For good P&S? Both of those types use sensors in the fractional inch sizes, though often the "inch" is omitted and "type" is substituted. So for example one manufacturer may call a particular sensor "2/3 inch" and another may call the same sensor "2/3 type." Whatever it's called, the 2/3 type is the largest sensor generally found in any digicam. Its actual size is about 6 x 8 mm. Other common sizes are 1/1.8 and 1/2.5 -- there are several other sizes as well, but those appear to be the ones most often used today. I have read of sensors as small as 1/3.2 but have never owned a digicam with that small a sensor myself. In high-end compact cameras of the type you call ZLRs, such as the Nikon Coolpix 8800, the 2/3 type was common. Most of today's superzoom ZLRs use much smaller sensors than that, however. For a very good but more compact camera such as the Nikon P5000, the 1/1.8 type is used and is undoubtedly the best choice. Smaller sensors than that are more likely to give problems with noise at the higher ISOs, all else being equal. But where extreme compactness is important it's usual to see sensors of 1/2.5 type or smaller. Also, many of the superzooms today use 1/2.5 type sensors. It is adequate for most ordinary use. Camcorders of course have much smaller sensors than these. Neil Wouldn't the whole thing make more sense if manufacturers would just agree to always state the sensor size in sq. millimeters!!!? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Making sense of the sensor size?
Ron Hunter wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote: "RPS" wrote in message ... Could somebody please explain the jargon used to denote the sensor size? I mean numbers like 1/1.7. How does this translate to actual size (dimensions or area)? It actually doesn't translate very well at all, and is a goofy system that should have been abandoned long ago. The fraction refers to the old video tube size in inches, which is the way such sensors are traditionally sized but obviously has nothing to do with digital still cameras. What is the typical size for DSLR? Those are not described in that way; only compact cameras use the fractional inch method. Nikon and some other DSLRs mostly use a sensor of either 23.7 x 15.6 mm or 23.6 x 15.8 mm, in either case roughly the same as the full APS-C format and often referred to by that term. Most Canon DSLRs s have a slightly smaller sensor than that, some other makes are smaller still, and a very few are larger. For ZLR? For good P&S? Both of those types use sensors in the fractional inch sizes, though often the "inch" is omitted and "type" is substituted. So for example one manufacturer may call a particular sensor "2/3 inch" and another may call the same sensor "2/3 type." Whatever it's called, the 2/3 type is the largest sensor generally found in any digicam. Its actual size is about 6 x 8 mm. Other common sizes are 1/1.8 and 1/2.5 -- there are several other sizes as well, but those appear to be the ones most often used today. I have read of sensors as small as 1/3.2 but have never owned a digicam with that small a sensor myself. In high-end compact cameras of the type you call ZLRs, such as the Nikon Coolpix 8800, the 2/3 type was common. Most of today's superzoom ZLRs use much smaller sensors than that, however. For a very good but more compact camera such as the Nikon P5000, the 1/1.8 type is used and is undoubtedly the best choice. Smaller sensors than that are more likely to give problems with noise at the higher ISOs, all else being equal. But where extreme compactness is important it's usual to see sensors of 1/2.5 type or smaller. Also, many of the superzooms today use 1/2.5 type sensors. It is adequate for most ordinary use. Camcorders of course have much smaller sensors than these. Neil Wouldn't the whole thing make more sense if manufacturers would just agree to always state the sensor size in sq. millimeters!!!? Another useful addition would be to state the pixel pitch of the sensor. This gives an indication of the ultimate light gathering ability of each pixel on the sensor. Small pixel pitch = low signal/noise ratio = high noise level in low light conditions. For instance, A 10 MP Canon G7, with a 1/1.8" sensor has a smaller pixel pitch than, say a 5MP Panasonic FZ 20 with a 1/2.5" sensor. The Canon Sensor itself is larger but its pixel pitch is smaller than that of the Panasonic sensor. Bob Williams |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Making sense of the sensor size?
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: "RPS" wrote in message ... Could somebody please explain the jargon used to denote the sensor size? I mean numbers like 1/1.7. How does this translate to actual size (dimensions or area)? It actually doesn't translate very well at all, and is a goofy system that should have been abandoned long ago. The fraction refers to the old video tube size in inches, which is the way such sensors are traditionally sized but obviously has nothing to do with digital still cameras. What is the typical size for DSLR? Those are not described in that way; only compact cameras use the fractional inch method. Nikon and some other DSLRs mostly use a sensor of either 23.7 x 15.6 mm or 23.6 x 15.8 mm, in either case roughly the same as the full APS-C format and often referred to by that term. Most Canon DSLRs s have a slightly smaller sensor than that, some other makes are smaller still, and a very few are larger. For ZLR? For good P&S? Both of those types use sensors in the fractional inch sizes, though often the "inch" is omitted and "type" is substituted. So for example one manufacturer may call a particular sensor "2/3 inch" and another may call the same sensor "2/3 type." Whatever it's called, the 2/3 type is the largest sensor generally found in any digicam. Its actual size is about 6 x 8 mm. Other common sizes are 1/1.8 and 1/2.5 -- there are several other sizes as well, but those appear to be the ones most often used today. I have read of sensors as small as 1/3.2 but have never owned a digicam with that small a sensor myself. In high-end compact cameras of the type you call ZLRs, such as the Nikon Coolpix 8800, the 2/3 type was common. Most of today's superzoom ZLRs use much smaller sensors than that, however. For a very good but more compact camera such as the Nikon P5000, the 1/1.8 type is used and is undoubtedly the best choice. Smaller sensors than that are more likely to give problems with noise at the higher ISOs, all else being equal. But where extreme compactness is important it's usual to see sensors of 1/2.5 type or smaller. Also, many of the superzooms today use 1/2.5 type sensors. It is adequate for most ordinary use. Camcorders of course have much smaller sensors than these. Neil Wouldn't the whole thing make more sense if manufacturers would just agree to always state the sensor size in sq. millimeters!!!? Almost ANY method of describing sensor size would make a lot more sense than the one they're using. Neil |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Making sense of the sensor size?
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: "RPS" wrote in message ... Could somebody please explain the jargon used to denote the sensor size? I mean numbers like 1/1.7. How does this translate to actual size (dimensions or area)? It actually doesn't translate very well at all, and is a goofy system that should have been abandoned long ago. The fraction refers to the old video tube size in inches, which is the way such sensors are traditionally sized but obviously has nothing to do with digital still cameras. What is the typical size for DSLR? Those are not described in that way; only compact cameras use the fractional inch method. Nikon and some other DSLRs mostly use a sensor of either 23.7 x 15.6 mm or 23.6 x 15.8 mm, in either case roughly the same as the full APS-C format and often referred to by that term. Most Canon DSLRs s have a slightly smaller sensor than that, some other makes are smaller still, and a very few are larger. For ZLR? For good P&S? Both of those types use sensors in the fractional inch sizes, though often the "inch" is omitted and "type" is substituted. So for example one manufacturer may call a particular sensor "2/3 inch" and another may call the same sensor "2/3 type." Whatever it's called, the 2/3 type is the largest sensor generally found in any digicam. Its actual size is about 6 x 8 mm. Other common sizes are 1/1.8 and 1/2.5 -- there are several other sizes as well, but those appear to be the ones most often used today. I have read of sensors as small as 1/3.2 but have never owned a digicam with that small a sensor myself. In high-end compact cameras of the type you call ZLRs, such as the Nikon Coolpix 8800, the 2/3 type was common. Most of today's superzoom ZLRs use much smaller sensors than that, however. For a very good but more compact camera such as the Nikon P5000, the 1/1.8 type is used and is undoubtedly the best choice. Smaller sensors than that are more likely to give problems with noise at the higher ISOs, all else being equal. But where extreme compactness is important it's usual to see sensors of 1/2.5 type or smaller. Also, many of the superzooms today use 1/2.5 type sensors. It is adequate for most ordinary use. Camcorders of course have much smaller sensors than these. Neil Wouldn't the whole thing make more sense if manufacturers would just agree to always state the sensor size in sq. millimeters!!!? Almost ANY method of describing sensor size would make a lot more sense than the one they're using. Neil Pretty much an obvious truth! One might as well describe it by weight as the current method. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Making sense of the sensor size?
Almost ANY method of describing sensor size would make a lot more sense than the one they're using. Neil You can be sure they want to keep it confusing to the customers by not showing how small a sensor they are buying, mine is a 1/1.7... (s6000fd) because they want folks in a "happy buying dillusion" and so happy with what they buy. I did my research, and it's all I need in a digital, for quality and budget. But that new f50fd has a larger sensor of 1/1.6... and pocketable... yearn width: 7.600 / height: 5.700 / diagonal: 9.500 / diameter 14.941 millimeters xenarshooter |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Making sense of the sensor size?
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 12:53:12 -0700, xenarshooter wrote:
You can be sure they want to keep it confusing to the customers by not showing how small a sensor they are buying, mine is a 1/1.7... (s6000fd) because they want folks in a "happy buying dillusion" and so happy with what they buy. I did my research, and it's all I need in a digital, for quality and budget. But that new f50fd has a larger sensor of 1/1.6... and pocketable... yearn width: 7.600 / height: 5.700 / diagonal: 9.500 / diameter 14.941 millimeters But how does the number of megapixels compare? If the F50fd has significantly more than the S6000fd, then the S6000fd has the better sensor of the two. F50fd == 12mp, S6000fd == 6mp. If you want a pocketable Fuji, yearn for an F31fd (6mp) or an F40fd (8mp), NOT the F50fd. The F31fd would probably be the best choice, if you can still find one. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Making sense of the sensor size? | RPS | Digital Photography | 21 | September 6th 07 09:55 AM |
sensor size? | SJ[_2_] | Digital Photography | 10 | July 4th 07 04:01 PM |
question about relationship between sensor size and print size. | ftran999 | Digital Photography | 8 | February 22nd 07 03:37 PM |
sensor size | John | Digital Photography | 11 | January 9th 06 07:03 PM |
Framed and Exposed: Making Sense of Camera Sensors | Frank ess | Digital Photography | 0 | July 7th 04 05:18 AM |