Making sense of the sensor size?

Re: Making sense of the sensor size?

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "RPS" <rps@null.void> wrote in message
>> news:290820071028155958%rps@null.void...
>>> 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

Re: Making sense of the sensor size?


"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter,net > wrote in message
news:hcmdnTGYjaSPtUTbnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews,com ...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "RPS" <rps@null.void> wrote in message
>> news:290820071028155958%rps@null.void...
>>> 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

Re: Making sense of the sensor size?

Neil Harrington wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter,net > wrote in message
> news:hcmdnTGYjaSPtUTbnZ2dnUVZ jCdnZ2d@giganews,com ...
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> "RPS" <rps@null.void> wrote in message
>>> news:290820071028155958%rps@null.void...
>>>> 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.

Re: 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

Re: 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.