« on: January 05, 2012, 06:40:56 PM »
There's no doubt that it will have a 1/1.5" (smaller than Nikon 1) and not a 1.5" (bigger than Canon 1D) at this price point. Also Canon wouldn't dare create such a rift in their lineup, using a sensor that big in a "compact" body.
Still, the f/16 (minimum) aperture is interesting, usually compact don't go that small.
1/5" is bigger than the 1D series' sensor???
Ummmm...not quite. What was stated was that 1.5" (not 1/5") is bigger than APS-H. Decimal point, not fraction. It's still not correct, but a 1.5" sensor would fall between 4/3" and APS-C in terms of size. The fractional and larger inch designations are the outmoded nomenclature used for digicam/camcorder sensor sizes (which derives from vacuum tube diameters of the 50s era), and a 1.5" sensor would have approximately a 1" diagonal measure = 25.4 mm, and the diagonal measure of Canon's APS-C is 26.7mm.Come on ... Have you read anything at all? Ah, I see, 1.9 (crop factor) is bigger than 1.3
It seems that someone wasn't reading, but that someone was you, not OvelhaMacho.
Neuro, I am disappointed . Of course I knew he meant decimal point and not fraction. I was just teasing him while saying 1.9 is bigger than 1.3. I said that he wasn't reading because you, among others, have said in this thread that a 1.5" sensor is smaller than APS-C and bigger than 4/3" sensor. Besides, you are the first in this thread who mentioned the 1.9 crop factor. See ... I was reading