Sensor sizes make no sense, but we fixed it!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- The naming terminology used for smaller sensors is both baffling and based on horribly outdated measurements standards. Chris lets you know why we're abandoning the old naming conventions, and what we're replacing it with.
Read our article detailing the changes:
www.dpreview.com/articles/415...
Read Phil Askey's 20 year old article detailing the problem:
www.dpreview.com/articles/809...
Music provided by BeatSuite.com
www.beatsuite.com
Rental equipment provided by The Camera Store
www.thecamerastore.com
0:00 - Intro
0:53 - The problem
1:37 - New naming format
3:26 - Sensor measurements
4:47 - The wrap
-----------------------
DPReview.com is the world's largest digital camera review website. Welcome to our UA-cam channel! Subscribe for new feature videos, reviews, interviews and more.
Discover the world's most in-depth digital camera reviews at www.dpreview.com - Наука та технологія
You should also communicate the weight of the sensor in terms of Nocts.
But the Noct is one of those imperial measurements!
This made me literally lol
Agreed
can somebody explain where this whole thing of using a "noct" as a unit of measuring weight began?
@@utkarshtiwari2089 Chris/Jordan started it as a joke because the Noct is so heavy. Been going on for at least a year I think.
"We are going to do it totally differently...by continuing to use the same confusing nomenclature!" Great job guys! How about skip the 1/2.3" BS and just go with dimensions.
They are keeping it so everyone knows what it has been commonly referred to up until now.
Great idea, just go with dimensions and calculate the area (do the math) for us.
Yeah! That would be like, you know, the way I shoot, in full auto, no calculations to do.
Yes. I haven't seen a Video this stupid in a long time. I had to check wether it was posted on April first
I think that just stating the total surface area without the "type" would've been better. Followed by what technology it is: Stacked/CMOS, all that stuff. It's straight to the point, it's what matters, no need for any types! That's just me though.
100%. The "type" really didn't explain ANYTHING, and is just going to make the confusion worse. See my other comments on using surface area as type. Same idea as yours, much more practical. Full frame would be 36mm x 24mm which is 864mm². Just call that Type-864. APSC is 24x16 which makes it Type-384. Micro 4/3? 18x13.5=243, so Type-243. The chance of two sensors with different aspect ratio landing the same surface area is slim to none, so your "Type" number will not duplicate. Yet this gives anyone a direct, apple-to-apple comparison of each sensor's potential light gathering capacity, and a rough idea of it's depth of field quality... which is really what we cared anyway. Plus, it differentiate the Canon vs everyone-else APS-C size; for Canon it would be 22.3x14.9 = 332, hence Type 332. Super 16? 12.52x7.41 = Type 93. If someone wants to build a new nomenclature, build one that make sense - not one that is JUST as confusing!!
Yep, not sure about the type thing, but the measurements are a great addition. Perhaps the pixel size would also be interesting to know.
is canon apsc still weirdly slightly smaller than other apsc or is it the same now in mirrorless?
Yep, agreed. What really matters is the surface area and aspect ratio of the sensor, plus any noteworthy technology in it. Also listing the crop factor vs full frame might be a useful metric too because then you can easily convert between different sensor sizes without any additional maths. Manually figuring out the crop factor for tiny phone sensors can be a huge pain, but it's kinda nice to know that my phone has a fixed 24mm f8 lens in comparison to full frame
It’s not just @The_Poopman. Many people, including me, agree with him. I like your system, but see no reason why the “type“ designation is helpful. The suggestion that you provide surface area and the relevant technology, is much more helpful. Additionally, I think it would be helpful if you provided any other information that you thought would advance our understanding , such as comparable megapixels, well depths, bayer pattern filters (if applicable), etc.
Going with a rounded out MM squared system makes sense. 1/2.3 is a 38 sensor. 2/3 is a 58 sensor. Most APS-c's are a 384. Canon's APS-C is a 338. If that nomenclature would take hold at least you'd know at a glance the sensor size, rather than having to go to a calculator to figure it out.
I made a similar suggestion.
This is exactly what we're doing going forward whenever we compare smaller sensors.
@@wilkbor I didn't read the comments before I made mine. Great minds.
@@dpreview Why not go a step further, and get rid of the fractions altogether? Instead of saying "Type 1/2.3" just say "Type 30" where 30 is the rounded area 29.61mm². Likewise APS-C is "Type 370" for 369.72mm², etc. Easier to say and immediately comparable.
it should be mm not MM in the first place
Was super happy DPReview tried to fix this confusion, then I saw their naming system & now I'm even more confused.
Who's going to remember all the new names. Why don't we just call them directly 44 x 33mm (1452mm²) Sensor, 35mm (864mm²) Sensor, APSC (372mm²) Sensor, etc., so any reader will get an idea about the sensor size.
Amen, I am on the same boat. The "type" really didn't explain ANYTHING, and is just going to make the confusion worse. In fact, since frame would be 36mm x 24mm = 864mm², just call that Type-864. APSC is 24x16 which makes it Type-384. Micro 4/3? 18x13.5=243, so Type-243. etc. It will also clearly differentiate the Canon "APS-C" which is not APS-C... at 22.3x14.9, that would be Type-332 compare to standard APS-C's Type-384. A Type number that directly correlates to each sensor's theoretical light gathering capability, and rough depth of field quality - area you should truly care. What's more simple than that!!??
THIS is the way to go! The aspect ratio might be of interest, bc a square would be most efficient in this regard.
A 3:2-type 864 sensor would be complete but maybe a bit bulky. I’m also fine with Type-864 sensor
Just use diagonal length. Nobody needs actual area. Do you shop for a 32" monitor or do you shop for a 438 square inch monitor? When's the last time you saw the square inches in a phone screen or TV? Areas are hard to visualize. Length is easy.
@@mbvglider tv screen sizes are also hard to compare… square mm gives you actual something relevant
@@hardywoodaway9912 I assure you that nobody knows what 1452 mm^2 is. To envision that, they'd have to imagine a rectangle of some sort of dimensions, in which case why did we even multiply the length and width out?
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Instead of fractions, I just want millimetres from corner to corner, and the aspect ratio. 20mm 3:2. You know what you're getting this way, in real terms.
Agree with this 100%.
Adding type in place of the inch notation is really no improvement at all.
That makes by far the most sense to me; it mirrors TV screen nomenclature everyone's familiar with. For instance, I have a TV that's 43" 16:9. Simple.
make full frame the 100%, and then compare everything to it. Like, APC is 70%
This is actually the simplest way by far! Bravo.
Nice alternative, but again, having the exact size in mm is the best IMO.
Yes - this is the way. Simple
Well, that’s called „crop-factor“… could be a standard thing though… I’m rather for using the area and possibly the aspect ratio:
A 3:2-Type 864 sensor, or just an 864 sensor.
@@lightningblenderSorry, I want percentage of surface area, not crop factor. 100% being full frame, APS-C being around 43%, micro 4/3 around 26% and 2/3" being 6.7% approx.
Why not just use the mm, the crop factor or percentage? Changing "inch" to "type" only solves one kind of confusion.
Exactly! What I would like is the diagonal in mm - then we can really understand the size
@@daniel.maitheny Right. This "new" system brings more confusion to an old problem.
@@Jonathantuba not really ... what about different aspect ratio
I'd use diagonal as a base. It's especially convenient since it also describes a lens to use for the sensor. And in the case of Type 1 different proportions have slightly different diagonals-it removes the need to have additional brackets like "Type 1 (4:3) sensor"-just say "15.9mm sensor". Even different APS-C are clearly compared and fit into the list as different options with just diagonal size.
55mm sensor/lens = Medium
43.3mm sensor/lens = FF
28.4mm sensor/lens = APS-C
26.7mm sensor/lens = APS-C (Canon)
21.77mm sensor/lens = 4/3
15.9mm sensor/lens = Type 1 (4:3)
15.86mm sensor/lens = Type 1 (3:2)
12.5mm sensor/lens = Type 1/1.28
7.8mm sensor/lens = Type 1/2.3
5mm sensor/lens = Type 1/3.4
Diagonal only gives you part of the picture, since different aspect ratios will give different diagonals. Manufacturers did this with TVs to try to make newer 16:9 screens seem way bigger than their 4:3 competition.
Using square millimeters or square centimeters will be fine enough for any comparisons. For example my K3 has 366.6 mm² APS-C sensor .)
Agreed. Surface area is really what matters.
Exactly. Its the only thing that makes sence.
Yes, this.
lol.
100% agreed. The "type" really didn't explain ANYTHING, and is just going to make the confusion worse. See my other comments on using surface area as type. Full frame would be 36mm x 24mm which is 864mm². Just call that Type-864. APSC is 24x16 which makes it Type-384. Micro 4/3? 18x13.5=243, so Type-243. etc. It will also clearly differentiate the Canon "APS-C" which is not APS-C... at 22.3x14.9, that would be Type-332 compare to standard APS-C's Type-384. A Type number that directly correlates to each sensor's theoretical light gathering capability, and rough depth of field quality - area you should truly care. What's more simple than that!!??
Am not so convinced by this new names.
I'd have gone to a complete metric system like "40 by 30mm" and so on..
As explained in the video, we’ll also be sharing the dimensions of these sensors when we use our new formatting, as well as the sqmm (in videos, at least).
This!
I agree with TomS. This is just using what is already confusing as a label. You could go metric and say type 10 as in under 10mm of sensor area. Type 20 as in under 20mm senor area and so on. I really love that you guys are thinking this way. I just saw camera conspiracies talk about this same thing. These conversations are headed in a good direction.
@@tropicothunder4262 Did you mean 10mm², or did you mean 10mm diagonal or something else that's not an area? I don't think talking about mm of area is ever going to clear up any confusion.
Completely agree. The "type" really didn't explain ANYTHING, and is just going to make the confusion worse. See my other comments on using surface area as type. Full frame would be 36mm x 24mm which is 864mm². Just call that Type-864. Micro 4/3? 18x13.5=243, so Type-243. etc. It will also clearly differentiate the Canon "APS-C" which is not APS-C... at 22.3x14.9, that would be Type-332 compare to standard APS-C's Type-384. A number that directly correlates to each sensor's theoretical light gathering capability will be far more useful than some cryptic fractional values.
Looking forward to seeing the real size and also the square area, this has to be a good way of estimating the actual performance, a big thumbs up for taking the time and effort
Comparing sizes using physical dimensions measured in SI units? That's crazy talk! 😉
Madness! ;)
Anyone proposing that should get sanctioned by government.
SI units are the standard unit of measurement in most of the countries in the world. They are simple, easy to remember and each of them has a direct relation to all others by the multiples of 10...
A lot of people think you are single handedly changing naming conventions for the industry. This seems like a rational system for reviews giving the measurements, area and connecting them to the manufacturer's naming data. Well done. A lot of work done for us. Thanks guys.
Why not just use the diagonal length?
In my mind it's easier than the type 2/3 because those are still numbers and people might still think they refer to actually dimensions
Edit:especially since APS-C has different sizes(diagonal lengths) with Canon having its own. And the "medium format" being slammed on sensors bigger than full frame. Think fujifilm, think Hasselblad, different sizes but the same name
Agreed. I wonder if people in this comments section seriously suggesting area have thought through all the math required to understand area. Diagonal length makes equivalency calculations, crop factors, etc. much simpler. All you need is one relatively small number and you understand everything. There's a reason why the math is the way it is in photography. Using area is silly.
@@mbvglider that's what I thought too.
Me too. The most impt adv it this naming is widely used in tv, displays, tablets.
@@alantan3582 Great point. And just like sensors, screens come in various pixel densities as well as aspect ratios, yet the diagonal is a convenient way to measure all of the different screen sizes.
I like the diagonal measure best. One number and done. Like TV size so simple.
Or We can use the crop factor in the nomenclature. That way it is easier to get the idea of the sensor size , focal length, bokeh etc in comparison to a full frame sensor.
This^
A beginner like me hasn't really understood why a medium format sensor is bigger than a full format sensor. Someone should look into that. :)
Medium format is smaller than large format film. Full frame is smaller, the same size as 35mm film. The first digital sensors didn't use the 'full frame' provided by those 35mm lenses.
HiHi, I have never thought about that. But I know Photography when film was used. At that time it did make more sense. 😁
I think I have to say it....i'm even more confused now. I think better way would center around 35mm FULL FRAME being considered (full frame) and then coming up with names from there....APS-C so on and so forth. Branding is all it is, doesn't need to be exact.
Cool to know the actual size in mm and the squared size. Awesome idea, and makes sensor sizes a lot easier to understand.
“1/2.3” breaks all the laws of math!
You’ve combined imperial with decimal!
😂💀
Awsome! Thank you for doing this. It really makes things a lot clearer.
Fantastic! I will adopt this for my channel too!!! 👏🏻👏🏻
Does FUji XT4 can autofocus now at side of the frame in video?
Adding the surface area and dimensions is super helpful, thank you. Maybe just completely scrap the 'type' as it means nothing to nobody outside the 1950's TV industry as you rightly said. If they were just labelled by their surface area it would be super easy - the larger number the bigger the sensor.
Yes, ‘type’ is redundant in terms of fractions etc. Type as far as technology such as ‘backlight illuminated’ or ‘stacked’ is important at any one point in time. In future maybe not so much.
Exactly, type doesn't ring a bell for me.
At the end of the day it's either you have a Full Frame Camera or no camera at all.
Medium format begs to differ and large format is holding its beer.
That sudden improvement in audio
Overdubbed mistake :D
Way overdue. Nice initiative, guys. Well done!
Guys, I have to ask, what camera and lens combination was used for this video? It might be only me, but I definately see some detailed and bold picture, that I really enjoy! Maybe a filter or LUT, please hsare! Regards! Nikolay
Our beloved Panasonic GH6 shot this episode. V-Log converted with Panasonic's 'Nicest-709 LUT'
👏👏👏 we knew you would be the ones to finally do something about this
I honestly can't tell if this is a joke video... Can someone explain why 'type 1/2.3' is better than 1/2.3"?
If you're going to revamp and standardise sensor size measurements, there a ton of better options! Personally I'd go for everything being a rounded decimal value which indicates the proportion of full frame (e.g. APS-C becomes 0.7x, medium format becomes 1.3x), but I get that people might not like that
metric people don't like to see the " which refers to inch.
Yes exactly my point. I feel like we've just all been trolled... lol They first say people can't do fraction, then they keep using fraction as the Type name. That's going to be JUST as confusing, if not more.
For someone seeing these descriptions for the first time, it would probably have them focus of the mm dimensions first and hopefully just ignore the tube type dimension.
It lacks the inch marking. 1/2.3" is 11 mm but the sensor size is just 7.7 mm diagonal. It has to be similar enough that people can associate it to 1/2.3" in other sources.
The upgrade is that it no longer misleads people into thinking 1/2.3" is representative of the sensor's size, 1/2.3" is just a bad name because it doesn't tell you something useful (at least no longer) about the thing. The problem with your proportion idea is that not all sensors have the same aspect ratio, otherwise it'd be a nice idea.
Thank you DPReview team! 😁
Great idea 💡 thank you!
Thanks for trying to bring some sense to the fragmented naming conventions, with time hopefully this will catch on and improve.
Thanks guys!
I like the idea of using the area measurement to compare plus your other updated naming ideas.
Thank god for you guys. Such a great system. 👏👏and stuff.
This sensor stuff is all very well, but is anyone else more interested in hearing about Chris’s time in London taking Ecstasy and going to raves?
Are there any cases where there is a significant difference between the area of the sensor and the largest area of any of the actual aspect ratios offered?
Where is this place?
I wonder if there's a difference between the classic Type 2/3 and the modern 1/1.5 found in smartphone cameras
Very similar size. Type 2/3 is 58mm square, Type 1/1.5 is 52mm square.
I think this is a brilliant idea! It puts things into perspective much better👍
Great video, great idea!
Finally! I like the physical size of the imaging area and the imaging resolution. This makes it much easier!
I love this, thank you!
Thank you! It all makes sense to me now.👏👏👏
Great initialive. Thank you.
I am for simply using the crop sizes as stadard. Many photographers know them anyway and they tell exactly the ratio to fullframe. You can also use it to calculate how lenses relate to sensor size.
But “full frame” is confusing itself…
Most people cannot comprehend how 1 inch sensor (116mm²) is 2.7 times smaller than a full frame sensor (860mm²) because 860 divided by 2.7 is 319mm and 116mm multiplied by 2.7 is 313mm.
And even if we divided 860 by 2 and we get 430 which we divide by 2 we get 215 which we finally divide by 1.7 and get 126mm.
Nowhere near. These are simple methods most people will do it by as well.
Can we simplify this and do the whole thing in hexadecimal?
This is great! it will save me a lot of googling every sensor size.
Do you think that "full frame" is a misnomer? Given that all sensor sizes use the full frame of it's given size. Also, there are larger sensors out there.
Would it be better to name them 135 after 35mm film, which the sensor size was taken from?
Brilliant! This should have all been mm x mm from the very beginning, even in the days of analog vidicon tubes!
Mind-blowing information 😮✌🏻
This is brilliant! Finally somebody explain this system! Suggestion: to compare even more these sensors I think it will be great to add the size of each pixel in micrometers (1/1000 of 1 millimetre)
Can you describe the feel after touching all the sensors with your fingers?
Where is the link for Richard Butler?
Thanks for seeking to clarify this confusing area of digital photography! Area measurement of each sensor is ideal, however, in this video, using black text over a dark blue sensor made the size unreadable. Better choice to use white text next time.
Why does medium format sensor sound smaller than full frame sensor ?
Thanks! Long overdue, I had no idea what those weird numbers meant.
And thanks for using metric; I don't think 17/64th's of an inch would have solved anything ;)
how about just get the diagonal measurement and state the aspect ratio? same as we do with TVs. so MFT would be 21.64mm 4:3 for eg.
I think you guys are doing a great job here because you are defining 3 options for how we will actually name them in the future and will see what people adopt and relate to. Personally I like the mm squared terminology because it highlights how much light the sensor can capture - and for me that has the most effect on IQ.... the downside though is that one does not tell you the aspect ratio which other people may find more important.
Using standard fraction forms, 1/x for example would allow for an easier comparison of sizes: type 1/1.5 is more clear than 2/3 when compared to something like a type 1/2.3. Including the type of sensor would be more informative rather than saying "type": CMOS 1/1.5 provides the necessary information without adding unnecessary. Kudos to you guys for trying to find some organization in the madness.
You deserve a Noble prize for this!
Brilliant, thank you
I know DPReview can't upend the entire industry, so this is fine, but definitely the best part of it is the millimeter measurement being included. If I were to create a new way from scratch, I'd take the diagonal in mm, just like TV screens are measured diagonally in inches (or cm). So I'd refer to them by the diagonal in mm, but when focusing on the censors themselves, also give the horizontal and vertical measurements just for those who don't want to reverse-engineer the Pythagorean Theorem based on sensor aspect ratios (which thankfully is mostly a simple 3x2 on APS-C and Full Frame at least).
Edit: Square mm area is included in the video (like the vertical and horizontal measurements), and I was betting on those with my "diagonal" system, but other comments also make a decent point about using area. So I'll list the different versions thus far. I still think my suggestion is best, or neck-and-neck with the "area" suggestion. But I also realize that both of these are too much of a divergence from industry standards to only be taken up by one (albeit popular) camera review company.
Old / Industry designation: 1/23'' sensor (??, ??)
New DPReview designation: Type 1/2.3 sensor(30 sq mm, 4.7mm x 6.3mm)
My suggestion: 7.9mm sensor OR SIMPLY 8mm sensor (30 sq mm, 4.7mm x 6.3mm)
Area suggestion, based on other comments: Type 30 sensor (4.7mm x 6.3mm, 7.9mm diagonal)
Great idea. I think the word “Size” might be better than “Type”. Since you use type I could see confusion when someone walks in a camera store. “High, I’d like to by a camera with a type one sensor” “I’m sorry, do you mean CMOS!” “What’s CMOS? Like type 1 or type 4/3 sensor”
Finally someone came up with an idea to end this sensor naming nonsense. Is this the best possible solution? I don't know, but it is definitely step in the right direction.
Nice work! The new system is so easy you only had to ADR a measurement correction one time!
(I keed, I keed)
And what size is medium format? It depends on whether we are talking film or digital, the year, the manufacturer, and next Friday's weather.
Wow! Before watching this whole video all the way through in the recent minutes, I did not know that a 1/2.3" sensor meant that it could fit inside of a certain type of tube used for televisions. Interestingly, one of my smartphones has a 1/2.5" sensor. If a sensor of a given measurement specification could fit inside a certain type or size of tube, perhaps its diagonal measurement from corner to opposite corner does indeed come into play.... In other words, a 1/2.3" sensor and a 1/2.5" sensor would be different from each other in the sense that they would fit inside tubes of different diameters, yet correspondingly, they would also need to have slightly different diagonal measurements from corner to corner. Thanks!
TV sizes are measured as the diagonal length in inches. This should be the same for sensors. Simple, straight line of numebrs.
Except sensors use different aspect ratios. TV's were 4:3 and now 16:9, so diagonal inches is easy. That said, I would be fine with diagonal as long as they mention the aspect ratio.
Only 1/7 of my cameras are "35mm" Full Frame, and I get great results using a 28.2mm (APS-C) and a 23mm (4/3) sensor for astrophotography using long exposures. These UA-camrs (Sony users) who go on about low light capabilities of full frame don't really know what they are talking about. It boils down to pixel size, speed of your lens, shutter, and gain or ISO. I would love you to do a video comparison on low light using long exposures. Possible pull out the old IMX071 or Nikon D7000 and see how good that camera was with its APS-C sized sensor but BIG pixels. Keep up the good work!
I appreciate the initiative! I find the absolute sizes in mm most helpful. I would like you to emphasize that part. But it will still be very helpful to see the absolute dimensions next to the type designation.
Love square millimeters. Does an additional "pixels per square millimeter" concept make sense? Or would you also have to work in something about the sensor type in order to make such a comparison meaningful?
superb🙌🏻👏🏼👏🏼
Excellent video, you should also do one explaining that megapixel count of cameras' sensor does not represent true difference of picture size. Unlike they want you to think, double the megapixels' sensor does not mean double picture resolution. True linear resolution will be far less than double. So when people are throwing themselves into getting a new camera because of the few megapixel difference it's kind of a waist😅
Thank God for you guys... such a great system ! 👏👏👏(Now please fix lens focal lengths as well and start talking about AoVs rather than focal lengths)
I would agree except some lenses can be mounted on different systems and the angle of view changes. See APSC and m43 lenses.
@@beaudjangles same applies to focal lengths too ? 10mm on FF is 16mm on Canon APS-C and 15mm on Nikon APS-C and 20mm on m43 ?
Thank you!! 👏👏👏
Great idea!
Great ideas.
👏🏻 yep definitely great! Though I would suggest also including the image circle required for the sensor apart of the discussion. Something especially important with interchangeable lens cameras with slightly unusual size sensors (like the RED Komodo).
Area and aspect ratio (with a common denominator) is all that's needed.
When talking sensor sizes, the area of the sensor is the most important.
I propose to present the size of the sensor as a percentage of its area compared to the area of a full-frame sensor.
245 for Hasselblad H
168 for Fuji GFX
100 for Nikon Z9
42.8 for Nikon Z50
38.8 for Canon EOS R7
26.8 for Olympus OM-1
13.4 for Xiaomi 12S Ultra (1 inch)
5.0 for Zenfone 8 (1/1.7 inch)
2.9 for IPhone 11 (1/2.55 inch)
The aspect ratio alone says nothing about the size of the sensor. The aspect ratio is needed to evaluate the size of the sensor only if you do not know the width and height of the sensor, but the diagonal is known. And only for those who are nit-picking to distinguish: "OK, the diagonal is 1/2.55 inches. But is it a 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratio?"
I feel just crop numbering be better, because as sensor actual size numbers dont mean much for most people. If know crop number the lens on some of the smaller sensors also be easy to calculate. Also M4/3 is that 1.9x and 2.3x still falls under m4/3 and then Aspc or super35mm also isnt a single size as 1.5x to 1.6x still apsc. Just saying crop numbering and also when using certain feature when it crop in also say the crop numbering will still makes sense.
Hi Chris, I watched your video and found it very interesting. My concern is one critical point everyone explains incorrectly. There are 2 key points when discussing image sensors. These are the Optical characteristics and the Technical characteristics of every image sensor. You did a great job explaining the Optical differences and failed, like everyone else, the Technical aspects of the image sensor were not clear. An image sensor is an electronic component with technical limitations. The size of the sensor does not change these technical limitations. For example, the sensor has an active noise component (floor) the moment the camera is switched on. Dishonest marketers decided not to tell the truth because selling more FF cameras is more important. We have the opportunity to manage the sensor's saturation and SNR. How does one do that? The daily repeated marketing phrase claiming "One sensor captures more light" is dishonest. The challenge we ALL face is how to best deal with the different reflected light intensities from the scene. All image sensors undersaturate in the shadow parts of the scene. That means a lower SNR and more visible image noise in the shadows. Your ISO simply amplifies the lower SNR in the shadow parts of the image signal. Why do all image sensors produce excellent image quality in bright light, and NOT only M43 sensors? Because the sensor saturates in good light. That means a high SNR, low visible noise, and more tonal data. Why? (think gamma & tonal data distribution) Go to my Blog for more information on what digital photographers should know... Best Siegfried
I had already left a comment on Richard's article last week, but since you raised the point again, here was my suggestion: take the usable area of the sensor in square mm followed by an aspect ratio. Drop all terminology about aps-c, full frame, m43 or whatever. Just something like: 857 mm2 (3X2) sensor, or words to that effect. That makes for easy comparison of sensor sizes without having to use brand names. It was just a thought.
I'm so glad you finally found a topic to go with those fantastic pants! Keep up the good work! 😉
Very inventive and funny, yet informative as always. How this channel isn't the bigger than some others is beyond me.
That is the thumbnails problem I think...
How does changing " to Type and making it a prefix instead of a suffix make anything clearer?
My Ricoh GR have a 1.7 inch sensor? Diagonally?
1/1.7" sensor is 9.5 mm diagonally. The markings make no sense.
@@okaro6595 dam i hope is seems to be bigger in my iphone
So you take a confusing system and confuse it some more, well done!
Clear as mud. Cheers
On the Samsung semiconductor website who makes some of these sensors. They have classifications for larger types as well as compact/mobile sensors. For example, medium format (crop) is labeled type 4.3.
To add to the confusion, leica has their own branding on sensor types. It reminds me of edm music with all the subgenres.
Finally! Thank you
If I was trying to work this I'd just go with the crop factor related to full frame. Detailed specs are all well and good for nerd, but mostly you just want to see how tiny it really is.
Fantastic!
Well done. It needs to be done everywhere.
IMHO referring to sensors by their area (30 mm² or 58 mm²) makes the most sense, as that immediately tells the viewer/reader how large or small the sensor is compared to the 35mm standard (864 mm²; many people reading this wouldn't have realized how big a difference in sensor size that is...). Of course, "full frame", "4/3rds" and "APS-C" also continue to make sense. So you should always include the sensor's area in the specs.
One of the problems with both the old and the new system, is the fact that non-US regions often use the comma as a decimal separator. So ‘2.3’ has no actual numerical meaning in many places outside the US. I suppose this becomes somewhat less of a hindrance in your proposed communication standard.
The transition to the 'type 1/2.3' doesn't give me much, but the actual size (dimensions and surface area) : YES! 👏
Yeah, I think that's just for people who don't know that the "inch" doesn't actually mean "inch".
It's removing a word that can be misleading to people :)
Of course eventually we all just want to use the actual size measurements I think!
100% agreed. The "type" really didn't explain ANYTHING, and is just going to make the confusion worse. See my other comments on using surface area as type. Same idea as yours: much more practical. Full frame would be 36mm x 24mm which is 864mm². Just call that Type-864. APSC is 24x16 which makes it Type-384. Micro 4/3? 18x13.5=243, so Type-243. etc.
The 1/2.3 gives a reference that you can be used to compare to other sources. If one source lists a camera with 6.2 mm x 4.6 mm and another lists another camera with 1/2.3" then how do you compare these if you do not master the markings?
@@okaro6595 Yes, agreed, but Type 1/2.3 or 1/2.3"... That makes it not much better (especially when other people will use the version with the 'inch').