Sensor size in point and shoots?
Jun 3, 2014 07:11:39 #
oldtigger wrote:
lol, thanks to your in depth search Mogul we can be reasonably certain that a 1/2.3 sensor is smaller than a bread basket but bigger than a gnats ass.
On the first page of this thread, Jerry posted comparisons of the different sensors and their visual coverage for a fixed focal length. That should have given you your answer but if the math is what you wanted, then Mogul has now given you that too.
Personally I think that the visual size and coverage comparisons are more telling and easier to understand.
Jun 3, 2014 07:29:06 #
singleviking wrote:
On the first page of this thread, Jerry posted comparisons of the different sensors and their visual coverage for a fixed focal length. ...........
As jerryc41 said:
"When it gets to 4/3, 1/2.3, and 1" that isn't really 1", the terms become meaningless."
Jun 3, 2014 07:33:44 #
oldtigger wrote:
As jerryc41 said:
"When it gets to 4/3, 1/2.3, and 1" that isn't really 1", the terms become meaningless."
"When it gets to 4/3, 1/2.3, and 1" that isn't really 1", the terms become meaningless."
But the images and comparisons Jerry posted were very clear.
Jun 3, 2014 07:51:44 #
singleviking wrote:
But the images and comparisons Jerry posted were very clear.
as raqmanaz said:
"Yes I know the physical difference in size, but how do I interpret the numerical size of 1/2.3"?"
Jun 3, 2014 08:38:15 #
oldtigger wrote:
as raqmanaz said:
"Yes I know the physical difference in size, but how do I interpret the numerical size of 1/2.3"?"
"Yes I know the physical difference in size, but how do I interpret the numerical size of 1/2.3"?"
It's all related to the old CCD tubes they used for television cameras and old film stock.
The important thing to see is the size of the sensor itself and how small those millions of pixels are to fit on that chip. That's why full frame sensors have so much better light capture ability and accuracy.
Jun 3, 2014 09:24:21 #
singleviking wrote:
It's all related to the old CCD tubes they used for television cameras and old film stock.
The important thing to see is the size of the sensor itself and how small those millions of pixels are to fit on that chip. That's why full frame sensors have so much better light capture ability and accuracy.
The important thing to see is the size of the sensor itself and how small those millions of pixels are to fit on that chip. That's why full frame sensors have so much better light capture ability and accuracy.
its all related to the narrow focus of the human mind.
Having seen a man stabbed to death, some will rush about making laws to punish the fiend.
Others will explore the social ills that created him.
Those things don't matter.
The important question is:
"what grade of cutting oil was used when sharpening the knife?"
My point is that when trying to answer a question we too often address only that portion of the question which we find of interest with no concern for what the OP really wants.
Aug 6, 2014 04:01:20 #
Yes, sensor formatting and sizes has always been difficult and confusing; especially when you have 1/3.3 as a factor of measurement. The image sensor sizing is based on video camera's image pick-up sensors. e.g. 1" plumbicon tube, 2/3" vidicon tube, 1/2 image vidicon tube, 1/3" vidicon tube and 1/4" vidicon tubes. The digital camera image sensor (C-mos imager) is measured similarly whereas the size is the diagonal measurement of the image; 1/2.3 inches. Related to measuring the screen size of a flat screen TV. e.g.: a 50" LED flat screen TV (measured diagonally). This makes the sensor size a .3 of an inch larger than 1/2 inch! I hope this has "confused" or "amused" you.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.