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, 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.
"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.
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.
@@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.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 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.
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.
@@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?
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.
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!!??
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.
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).
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
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
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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...
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.
Your illustration of size at 4:26 is messed up. If your dimensions are correct, then the scale of the two shown is not the same. Also the one on the right is not proportioned correctly.
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.
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.
it is so confusing and does not take into consideration the aspect ratio of the sensor, why not using just sensor's width size in mm + aspect ratio? so that normal people can understand ... something like 35mm 3:2 (FF) or 43.8mm 4:3 (Hasselblad x1d) or 16mm 3:2 (1inch sensor)
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.
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.
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.
Removing inches and adding type at the start does nothing to really fix the naming problem as its still the same basic naming structure without the inches and adding type at the start. Its useful though that you will be saying the actual sensor dimensions as that is better than just an name change that doesn't really change the name in any meaningful way.
The types is just extra steps. Just give us the square mm. Or do a percentage, weighted at full frame being 100%. Everything else is just extra unnecessary words that confuse.
Dropping the " inches and replace it with Type? Total nonsense, what is the point when we still have these stupid fractions? Just specify the diagonal as we do with TV's but in mm. The aspect ratios are not that much different that they would matter much.
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?
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
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?
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?
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').
Hi Chris, in terms of IQ, having a FF sensor and crop mode available in the camera... what would be better for an image with the same composition?? a) Using the FF mode and crop after in post, or b) Using the crop mode in the camera to take the photo
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.
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.
So you are saying that if it weren't for a tv tube, we would still be using films? The timing is really perfect coz I just came from watching Camera Conspiracies video of ISO, Aperture numbers video and his old video of camera sensors. I am made of confusion now.
THANK YOU VERY MUCHO! really this will be super informative. Because phones and other devices are on the race to bigger sensors we all need a sane and sound way to compare
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 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.
Well you left out medium format. I am not sure you are ready to tackle that mess. Really it should be just diagonal mm and aspect so a 25mm 4x5, or 16x9 makes more sense as that's sort of what I am used to.
Or just use surface area and call it a day, since digital medium format sensor really isn't medium format film size either. Fuji's "medium" format sensors are 43.8x32.9, and the SMALLEST commonly accepted medium-format film (6x4.5) is 56x41.5mm... Their surface area is 1441mm² vs 2324mm² respectively, a huge difference. Just keep it simple and use Type number to reference surface area would fix all of that... GFX-50 would be Type-1441, full-frame would be 36x24=864mm²=Type-864, Micro 4/3 would be 18x13.5 = Type 243. Then every sensor type would be directly comparable for their theoretical light-gathering capability.
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!
That is a great idea to let go of the Inch thing. However I would like to have it as a crop factor from a full-frame 35mm. For example, it would be better if you call it APS-C aka 1.5x crop (no need for APSC of course). Full frame is a standard 3:2 ratio and if the sensor is in other ratios, it would be good to have your way of "Type " example: " 'Type 1/2.3' aka crop factor sth.(I don't know) with ratio of 4:3 "
That's actually a good idea, as we're already thinking in these terms. So, FF would be "x1@2:3", APS-C either "x1.5@2:3" or "x1.6@2:3", mFT would be "x2@4:3" etc. Would be nice, but I don't think that this will become accepted reality.
@@c.augustin Thanks. I just saw someone on another channel say just ditch inches and use actual millimeters. Milimeters is also going to give us a number greater than one, which is faster to work around in mind. But how big exactly is a millimeter is pretty hard to visualize for some. why I like using FF as a standard is I can calculate speed booster magnification for lenses. and I mess around with for example the EOSm, which is 1.6x, and records RAW with a tighter crop. If I just multiply, I get the actual working crop, and therefore what CCTV lense designed for that size crop sensor would give me best result.
@@yuxuanhuang3523 While I'm quite familiar with mm sizes, I nearly always think in crop factors when dealing with digital cameras (I started using cameras with 35 mm film, so thinking if FF focal lengths is completely natural for me). I even think in FF focal lengths when using large format (4x5 is actually x0.33 or /3, so a 150 mm lens is roughly equal to a 50 mm FF lens). This is often heavily criticized to use the 35 mm film/sensor format as a "standard", but it is the way it is (it was the dominant image format since the early sixties of the last century).
@@c.augustin Ah yes, I forgot to mention focal length conversion. Actually that is what I am thinking of all the time. I use Canon so I always remember to divide by 1.6 when I see a tutorial saying optimal focal length
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.
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.
Someone needs to make a 1 inch mirror-less system. Everyone has been pushing full frame cameras but when you shoot 16:9 video you don't even use the whole sensor size anyway. You should factor actual used sensor for video as that's what most youtubers use.
Is there a reason why we don’t follow displays and just use diagonal lengths in the naming? It’s simple, well accepted. The aspect ratio is usually 3:2 or 4:3 and can be stated clearly. Why reinvent the wheel?
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.
Can we also just say what the angle of view is for a lens on the sensor for which it is designed? Having to convert focal length from full-frame for apsc/mft lenses is very silly
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 ;)
But I'm sure they'll continue to refer to apertures of all sensors in their stated light gathering size, except for Micro4/3s which will always be referred to in it's smaller Full Frame equivalent number depth of field related number.
What everyone calls “full frame”, is a small sensor too. 35mm format’s original name was “Kleinbild”, literally meaning small frame. So, are we calling “full frame” 35mm format for consistency and accuracy?
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.
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.
"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
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.
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
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
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.
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?
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.
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!!??
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 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.
Your illustration of size at 4:26 is messed up. If your dimensions are correct, then the scale of the two shown is not the same. Also the one on the right is not proportioned correctly.
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.
Seriously? After 20 years all you can think of is replacing the inch symbol by "Type"? How does that solve anything?
Did you watch the whole video?
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?
it is so confusing and does not take into consideration the aspect ratio of the sensor, why not using just sensor's width size in mm + aspect ratio? so that normal people can understand ... something like 35mm 3:2 (FF) or 43.8mm 4:3 (Hasselblad x1d) or 16mm 3:2 (1inch sensor)
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^
Fantastic! I will adopt this for my channel too!!! 👏🏻👏🏻
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. 😁
Cool to know the actual size in mm and the squared size. Awesome idea, and makes sensor sizes a lot easier to understand.
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.
Way overdue. Nice initiative, guys. Well done!
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.
So you take a confusing system and confuse it some more, well done!
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.
"sensor area" given in mm2 should be the standard everyone uses
Thank you DPReview team! 😁
Area and aspect ratio (with a common denominator) is all that's needed.
That sudden improvement in audio
Overdubbed mistake :D
👏👏👏 we knew you would be the ones to finally do something about this
Can you describe the feel after touching all the sensors with your fingers?
Does FUji XT4 can autofocus now at side of the frame in video?
Removing inches and adding type at the start does nothing to really fix the naming problem as its still the same basic naming structure without the inches and adding type at the start. Its useful though that you will be saying the actual sensor dimensions as that is better than just an name change that doesn't really change the name in any meaningful way.
Did you watch all the way through?
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...
The types is just extra steps. Just give us the square mm. Or do a percentage, weighted at full frame being 100%. Everything else is just extra unnecessary words that confuse.
Finally! I like the physical size of the imaging area and the imaging resolution. This makes it much easier!
Dropping the " inches and replace it with Type? Total nonsense, what is the point when we still have these stupid fractions? Just specify the diagonal as we do with TV's but in mm. The aspect ratios are not that much different that they would matter much.
Can we simplify this and do the whole thing in hexadecimal?
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
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?
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'
Please make a video on Z9 firmware 2.1
Where is the link for Richard Butler?
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?
Why does medium format sensor sound smaller than full frame sensor ?
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 ?
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?
Total area of the sensor would be an easy universal measurement for all sensors.
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').
I thought at the end of the video, he will say f it, we make it eveb more complicated and it was a joke, but turn out, it isn't?!
How does changing " to Type and making it a prefix instead of a suffix make anything clearer?
Hi Chris, in terms of IQ, having a FF sensor and crop mode available in the camera... what would be better for an image with the same composition??
a) Using the FF mode and crop after in post, or
b) Using the crop mode in the camera to take the photo
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.
Nice work! The new system is so easy you only had to ADR a measurement correction one time!
(I keed, I keed)
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.
How about a browser extension to do the conversion on other websites automatically?
So you are saying that if it weren't for a tv tube, we would still be using films? The timing is really perfect coz I just came from watching Camera Conspiracies video of ISO, Aperture numbers video and his old video of camera sensors. I am made of confusion now.
Brilliant! This should have all been mm x mm from the very beginning, even in the days of analog vidicon tubes!
THANK YOU VERY MUCHO! really this will be super informative. Because phones and other devices are on the race to bigger sensors we all need a sane and sound way to compare
Just the aspect ratio followed by the area in square mm would be better surely?
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.
You deserve a Noble prize for this!
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.
Can anyone enlighten me how we even ended up with using an inverse size? Why is it 1/1.5" and not just 0.6667"?
Well you left out medium format. I am not sure you are ready to tackle that mess. Really it should be just diagonal mm and aspect so a 25mm 4x5, or 16x9 makes more sense as that's sort of what I am used to.
Or just use surface area and call it a day, since digital medium format sensor really isn't medium format film size either. Fuji's "medium" format sensors are 43.8x32.9, and the SMALLEST commonly accepted medium-format film (6x4.5) is 56x41.5mm... Their surface area is 1441mm² vs 2324mm² respectively, a huge difference. Just keep it simple and use Type number to reference surface area would fix all of that... GFX-50 would be Type-1441, full-frame would be 36x24=864mm²=Type-864, Micro 4/3 would be 18x13.5 = Type 243. Then every sensor type would be directly comparable for their theoretical light-gathering capability.
@@WallaceLau still need an aspect ratio to define super 35
You should also add the crop factor. That will help to understand focal length equivalences.
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.
As a lot of people point out, just giving the total surface area is fine, if you wanted to dumb it down you could do an imperial diagonal measurement and round it to the closest:
*---- System cameras ----*
ULF = 175 392mm² - 23 inches (LS911)
LF = 16 677mm² - 7.24 inches (LS45)
MF = 2 159mm² - 2.64 inches (Hasselblade)
FF = 860mm² - 1.7 inches
APS-H = 545mm² - 1.35 inches
APS-C = 370mm² - 1.12 inches
APS-C = 329mm² - 1.05 inches (Canon)
Foveon = 286mm² = 0.98 inches (Sigma pre-Merrill)
1.5” = 262mm² = 0.92 inches (Large compact)
4/3 = 225mm² - 0.85 inches (Micro Four Thirds)
*---- Pocketable & Super zooms ----*
1 inch = 116mm² - 0.62 inches (Sharp AQUOS R6)
1/1.12” = 98mm² - 0.56 inches (Mi 11 Ultra)
1/1.2” = 85mm² - 0.53 inches (Nokia 808)
2/3” - 57mm² - 0.43 inches (Nokia Lumia 1020)
1/1.7" = 43mm² - 0.38 inches (Huawei P30 Pro)
1/2.3" = 28mm² - 0.30 inches
*---- Smartphone & Specialised ----*
1/2.5” = 25mm² - 0.28 inches (iPhone XS & 13)
1/2.6” = 23mm² - 0.27 inches
1/3.0” = 17mm² - 0.24 inches (iPhone 5s & 8)
1/3.2” = 16mm² - 0.22 inches (iPhone 4 & 5)
1/3.6” = 12mm² - 0.20 inches (Nokia Lumia 720)
1/4” = 10mm² - 0.18 inches (iPhone 3G)
1/6” = 4.2mm² - 0.12 inches
1/8” = 2mm² - 0.8 inches
1/10” = 1.2mm² - 0.06 inches
1/36” = 0.3mm² - 0.03 inches
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!
Thank god for you guys. Such a great system. 👏👏and stuff.
This is great! it will save me a lot of googling every sensor size.
Thanks for trying to bring some sense to the fragmented naming conventions, with time hopefully this will catch on and improve.
That is a great idea to let go of the Inch thing. However I would like to have it as a crop factor from a full-frame 35mm.
For example, it would be better if you call it APS-C aka 1.5x crop (no need for APSC of course). Full frame is a standard 3:2 ratio and if the sensor is in other ratios, it would be good to have your way of "Type "
example: " 'Type 1/2.3' aka crop factor sth.(I don't know) with ratio of 4:3 "
That's actually a good idea, as we're already thinking in these terms. So, FF would be "x1@2:3", APS-C either "x1.5@2:3" or "x1.6@2:3", mFT would be "x2@4:3" etc. Would be nice, but I don't think that this will become accepted reality.
@@c.augustin Thanks. I just saw someone on another channel say just ditch inches and use actual millimeters. Milimeters is also going to give us a number greater than one, which is faster to work around in mind. But how big exactly is a millimeter is pretty hard to visualize for some.
why I like using FF as a standard is I can calculate speed booster magnification for lenses. and I mess around with for example the EOSm, which is 1.6x, and records RAW with a tighter crop. If I just multiply, I get the actual working crop, and therefore what CCTV lense designed for that size crop sensor would give me best result.
@@yuxuanhuang3523 While I'm quite familiar with mm sizes, I nearly always think in crop factors when dealing with digital cameras (I started using cameras with 35 mm film, so thinking if FF focal lengths is completely natural for me). I even think in FF focal lengths when using large format (4x5 is actually x0.33 or /3, so a 150 mm lens is roughly equal to a 50 mm FF lens). This is often heavily criticized to use the 35 mm film/sensor format as a "standard", but it is the way it is (it was the dominant image format since the early sixties of the last century).
@@c.augustin Ah yes, I forgot to mention focal length conversion. Actually that is what I am thinking of all the time. I use Canon so I always remember to divide by 1.6 when I see a tutorial saying optimal focal length
No. Please, just mm x mm.
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.
Well done. It needs to be done everywhere.
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.
I like the idea of using the area measurement to compare plus your other updated naming ideas.
Someone needs to make a 1 inch mirror-less system. Everyone has been pushing full frame cameras but when you shoot 16:9 video you don't even use the whole sensor size anyway. You should factor actual used sensor for video as that's what most youtubers use.
Can we start calling 4/3” sensors 110 sized?
Why don't you add a link a list of sensors sizes using this standard. I think it would be interesting to see the sizes side by side.
Is there a reason why we don’t follow displays and just use diagonal lengths in the naming? It’s simple, well accepted. The aspect ratio is usually 3:2 or 4:3 and can be stated clearly. Why reinvent the wheel?
Diagonals have the problem that full frame is not nice, it is 43.27 mm.
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.
Where is this place?
Full Frame could be a Type 2.7 Sensor or 8/3. APS-C would be Type 1.8 or 16/9 (yikes!) and MFT would be Type 1.33 or 4/3. Makes sense, right?
I so enjoyed the Type Jordan video quality on this
Can we also just say what the angle of view is for a lens on the sensor for which it is designed? Having to convert focal length from full-frame for apsc/mft lenses is very silly
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 ;)
Awsome! Thank you for doing this. It really makes things a lot clearer.
I think this is a brilliant idea! It puts things into perspective much better👍
We need a side-by side infographic of all the sizes, from the smallest to medium format, in mms, w/ surface area, please!
But I'm sure they'll continue to refer to apertures of all sensors in their stated light gathering size, except for Micro4/3s which will always be referred to in it's smaller Full Frame equivalent number depth of field related number.
What everyone calls “full frame”, is a small sensor too. 35mm format’s original name was “Kleinbild”, literally meaning small frame.
So, are we calling “full frame” 35mm format for consistency and accuracy?