The 1-inch Sensor Myth (Fraud?)

[JumboShrimp]

I am certain you all know this, but just to refresh your memory, there is no such thing as a 1-inch sensor, such as the new Nikon DL's seem to have.

Our good friend, Ken Rockwell, has this explanation:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/one-inch-sensor.htm

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

This is no different from the 2/3 in sensor. Its been the standard way for 50 years of describing the P&S Sensors and consistent with all other P&S Cameras.

I suppose that some do not understand how P&S sensors are specified and re-discover it over and over.

DSLR's use a different method to describe sensor size but even APS-C sensors are not a standard size.

 

[slclick]

Well, you can split hairs and download spec sheets or you can shoot.

 

[Hillsilly]

I'd be curious to see how well understood it is. I'd suspect that most people would think a 1" sensor was 1" long in some direction.

Of course, a lot of sensor sizes are arbitrary. EG the image above shows a medium format sensor that is 33x44mm. I can't think of any medium format camera that shoots images that small. But linking 1" sensors to a measurement makes me think that they are being deceptive.

 

[Ph0t0]

I'd be curious to see how well understood it is. I'd suspect that most people would think a 1" sensor was 1" long in some direction.

Of course, a lot of sensor sizes are arbitrary. EG the image above shows a medium format sensor that is 33x44mm. I can't think of any medium format camera that shoots images that small. But linking 1" sensors to a measurement makes me think that they are being deceptive.

What do you mean you can't think of any medium format camera that shoots images that small? Most of them do (Pentax 645D, 645Z, Hasselblad H5D-50c, H5D-200c, Phase One IQ3-50, Leica medium format cameras etc..)

 

[Hillsilly]

I meant - medium format film cameras, where 60 x 45 is about as small as it gets and most are 60x60 or 60x70 are the most common. Calling a 33X44 sensor "medium format" is the same as calling a 13x8 sensor a 1" sensor.

 

[3kramd5]

I'd be curious to see how well understood it is. I'd suspect that most people would think a 1" sensor was 1" long in some direction.

In my (deleted) post, I indeed said well understood. That's different from widely known.

 

[ritholtz]

I'd be curious to see how well understood it is. I'd suspect that most people would think a 1" sensor was 1" long in some direction.

In my (deleted) post, I indeed said well understood. That's different from widely known.

It is actually confusing considering none of the measurements (length, breadth, diagonal and length + breadth) are equal to 1". That graph needs measurements marked along X and Y axis. What is the size of phone camera sensors.

 

[3kramd5]

I'd be curious to see how well understood it is. I'd suspect that most people would think a 1" sensor was 1" long in some direction.

In my (deleted) post, I indeed said well understood. That's different from widely known.

It is actually confusing considering none of the measurements (length, breadth, diagonal and length + breadth) are equal to 1". That graph needs measurements marked along X and Y axis. What is the size of phone camera sensors.

My issue is with Rockwell outright saying "many makers lie about it to get us to think that these cameras have larger sensors than they actually do." It's not a lie, they're using a standard paradigm - optical format. It's not fraudulent or felonious as Rockwell alleges. It's maybe confusing or archaic, but it isn't fraud.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Video cameras were always specified in inches fraction, measured diagonally sensor.
As the sensors of the first digital cameras were basically video sensors, it seemed acceptable to specify that particular point and shoot camera using inches fraction diagonally.

Today we have digital sensors in proportion 4x3, 3x2, 16x9, and it seems to me that the right to insist on an inaccurate measurement is to confuse the average buyer, who will compare this with video cameras $ 80,000 and only 2/3 ".

 

[Loswr]

Industry standard, old news. Confusing? Maybe, but at least it's consistent. I bet what confuses most people is math - how many think 1/1.7" is smaller than 1/2.3" because 1.7 is smaller than 2.3? Sensor size isn't usually a top-line spec for P&S anyway, which leads to, "What, your expensive 1D X has only 18 MP and my little pocket cam has more?!?," comments.

KR stirs the pot with some clickbait, and some people seem to want to help him feed his growing family by posting links to his drivel instead of appropriately just ignoring him.

 

[old-pr-pix]

As a minimum I consider it misleading if not deceptive. Recall that camera manufacturers are marketing these 1" sensor products to a generation that doesn't even know what a vacuum tube is, let alone the old conventions of what size sensing area could be placed on the end of one. On the other hand, buyer beware and let the image samples speak for themselves.

I'd be curious to see how well understood it is. I'd suspect that most people would think a 1" sensor was 1" long in some direction.

Of course, a lot of sensor sizes are arbitrary. EG the image above shows a medium format sensor that is 33x44mm. I can't think of any medium format camera that shoots images that small. But linking 1" sensors to a measurement makes me think that they are being deceptive.

What do you mean you can't think of any medium format camera that shoots images that small? Most of them do (Pentax 645D, 645Z, Hasselblad H5D-50c, H5D-200c, Phase One IQ3-50, Leica medium format cameras etc..)

You have obviously also discounted the beloved "baby Rollei" which shot 40mm x 40mm on 127 film. Also the old "Super Slides" which were 38 x 38 images. All considered medium format because they were larger than 24 x 36. Back then the real debate was whether 2-1/4" x 3-1/4" sheet film was large format or not. Most considered anything using individual sheets of film "large format" yet this size was slightly smaller than some 120 roll film negatives (6x8 & 6x9).

 

[3kramd5]

Sensor size isn't usually a top-line spec for P&S anyway

Exactly. I suspect most people who care what the dimensions are of the sensor is in a camera they're considering buying will do the minor legwork of running a google search. For the overwhelming remainder of consumers, it's inconsequential.

 

[Famateur]

Learned something new. Thanks!

It would make sense to abandon the antiquated term, but anyone wanna guess how long the 3 1/2" floppy will be the universal "Save" icon in software? My kids know what that icon means, but they've never seen or held a floppy disk! We still refer to carriage returns in ASCII, but we're not using typewriters with carriages. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples. Sometimes things just stick around...

 

[Hillsilly]

You have obviously also discounted the beloved "baby Rollei" which shot 40mm x 40mm on 127 film...

Point taken. So...the whole concept of sensor size naming is to provide a familiar reference base for all those 127 film shooters who also have an affinity for valve radios? Makes sense. We wouldn't want to upset those guys.

 

[Tinky]

This reminds me of the fable of the horses @rse and the space shuttle.

It's the convention that is understood by the designers, the physicists. The consumers don't really matter too much. The ones who care enough to understand should also be capable of grasping the very basic maths.

Diagonals are good because in a circular shape the diagonals are the key to the area.

Don't even start me on 'full frame'.

 

[RGF]

I'd be curious to see how well understood it is. I'd suspect that most people would think a 1" sensor was 1" long in some direction.

In my (deleted) post, I indeed said well understood. That's different from widely known.

When I saw the term 1" sensor, I thought it was an actual measurement of the diagonal across the sensor, not an historic vacuum tube measurement.

 

[Loswr]

I'd be curious to see how well understood it is. I'd suspect that most people would think a 1" sensor was 1" long in some direction.

In my (deleted) post, I indeed said well understood. That's different from widely known.

When I saw the term 1" sensor, I thought it was an actual measurement of the diagonal across the sensor, not an historic vacuum tube measurement.

So you thought it was an APS-C sensor, but they didn't call it that?

 

[monkey44]

Kinda reminds me of buying a 2x4 at the lumber yard, and measuring it when you get it home. 1-1/2" x 3-1/2" is the actual size today.

Years ago, when rough-sawn was the norm, the actual dimension was 2" x 4", but as the milling changed, the dimensions changed. It first went to 1-5/8 x 3-5/8, then shaved off to 1-1/2 x 3-1/2 ... but pricing per board foot still counts it as 2 x 4 when calculating $$$$...

 

[Loswr]

Kinda reminds me of buying a 2x4 at the lumber yard, and measuring it when you get it home. 1-1/2" x 3-1/2" is the actual size today.

Years ago, when rough-sawn was the norm, the actual dimension was 2" x 4", but as the milling changed, the dimensions changed. It first went to 1-5/8 x 3-5/8, then shaved off to 1-1/2 x 3-1/2 ... but pricing per board foot still counts it as 2 x 4 when calculating $$$$...

Sure, and if you take the pseudobeefpinkslime patty from a McD 'Quarter Pounder' and weigh it, it's not 4 oz after they give it to you.

The point remains, people who care about such things can look up the details.