Sensors

On 3 Dec 2006 05:18:42 -0800, "Conrad" <cweiler1.TakeThisOut@mac.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I'm guessing that a 1/2.5" sensor is larger than a 1/2.3" sensor. Is
>this correct?

No, that's exactly wrong. It is indeed a fraction, so
the larger the denominator, the smaller the sensor.
The fraction refers to the diagonal of sensor in inches.

So 1/2.5" = 0.4" diagonal. 1/1.8" = 0.56" diagonal.

>Also, does Sony make most of the point and shoot sensors used in
>today's cameras (various companies)?

Not sure about that, at all. AFAIK, Canon make
their own sensors. I wouldn't be at all surpsised if
Samsung was a major player here.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Sensors 

>
> Not sure about that, at all. AFAIK, Canon make
> their own sensors.

Sensors in all Canon's P&S are made by Sony
 >> Stay informed about: Sensors 

I don't think Samsung makes sensors. Or, if they do they don't make many.
Since Pentax and Samsung are buddy buddies I would have expected Pentax to
use a Samsung sensor in the K10D if Samsung made sensors. Instead Pentax and
the Samsung version of the K10D uses a Sony sensor.

LJC


"Raphael Bustin" <rafeb.DeleteThis@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:tak5n2tbr9iuq5pcupjdrgl6umjdustjtt@4ax.com...
> On 3 Dec 2006 05:18:42 -0800, "Conrad" <cweiler1.DeleteThis@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm guessing that a 1/2.5" sensor is larger than a 1/2.3" sensor. Is
>>this correct?
>
> No, that's exactly wrong. It is indeed a fraction, so
> the larger the denominator, the smaller the sensor.
> The fraction refers to the diagonal of sensor in inches.
>
> So 1/2.5" = 0.4" diagonal. 1/1.8" = 0.56" diagonal.
>
>>Also, does Sony make most of the point and shoot sensors used in
>>today's cameras (various companies)?
>
> Not sure about that, at all. AFAIK, Canon make
> their own sensors. I wouldn't be at all surpsised if
> Samsung was a major player here.
>
>
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Sensors 

In article <tak5n2tbr9iuq5pcupjdrgl6umjdustjtt.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, Raphael Bustin
<rafeb.TakeThisOut@speakeasy.net> writes
>On 3 Dec 2006 05:18:42 -0800, "Conrad" <cweiler1.TakeThisOut@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm guessing that a 1/2.5" sensor is larger than a 1/2.3" sensor. Is
>>this correct?
>
>No, that's exactly wrong. It is indeed a fraction, so
>the larger the denominator, the smaller the sensor.
>The fraction refers to the diagonal of sensor in inches.
>
>So 1/2.5" = 0.4" diagonal. 1/1.8" = 0.56" diagonal.
>
Except that the inches are about 17mm rather than 25.4mm due a
historical nomenclature quirk, whereby a 1" diameter vidicon tube had a
useful image diagonal of 16-18mm depending on how critical the camera
designer was. An extra few picture lines of resolution in the centre at
the expense of increased edge and corner distortion, that sort of thing.

So 1/2.5" = 17mm /2.5 = 6.8mm diagonal (only 0.27", not 0.4")
and 1/1.8" = 17mm / 1.8 = 9.4mm diagonal (only 0.37", not 0.56").

It is quite surprising that such nomenclature is still in use since
marketing types can only comprehend "bigger is better", but I guess they
are well used to telling their WAGs that 150mm is actually 9".
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 >> Stay informed about: Sensors 

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 20:01:20 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
<rkm RemoveThis @nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <tak5n2tbr9iuq5pcupjdrgl6umjdustjtt RemoveThis @4ax.com>, Raphael Bustin
><rafeb RemoveThis @speakeasy.net> writes


>Except that the inches are about 17mm rather than 25.4mm due a
>historical nomenclature quirk, whereby a 1" diameter vidicon tube had a
>useful image diagonal of 16-18mm depending on how critical the camera
>designer was. An extra few picture lines of resolution in the centre at
>the expense of increased edge and corner distortion, that sort of thing.
>
>So 1/2.5" = 17mm /2.5 = 6.8mm diagonal (only 0.27", not 0.4")
>and 1/1.8" = 17mm / 1.8 = 9.4mm diagonal (only 0.37", not 0.56").
>
>It is quite surprising that such nomenclature is still in use since
>marketing types can only comprehend "bigger is better", but I guess they
>are well used to telling their WAGs that 150mm is actually 9".


Thanks for that correction. As someone else
pointed out, the best "reference" is at dpreview.com:

<http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp>

I always assumed it was *meant* to be misleading!

It's interesting that the manufacturers themselves
generally downplay sensor size -- except in the
small segment of cameras where large sensors
are a feature.

Eg., when I was shopping for my latest P&S camera,
it took a special effort to find one with a sensor that
was at least as large as the camera it was replacing.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Sensors 

Le Patriote wrote:
>> Not sure about that, at all. AFAIK, Canon make
>> their own sensors.
>
> Sensors in all Canon's P&S are made by Sony

Mais non.

lsmft
 >> Stay informed about: Sensors 

Hi,

Thanks to all who answered my question about sensors and added extra
information.

Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon
 >> Stay informed about: Sensors 

>
> Mais non.

you dont know what is a Point & Shout dont you ? Canon makes only cmos
sensors and its for their DSLR.

All the other ones (CCD) are made by Sony now.
 >> Stay informed about: Sensors 

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:10:42 -0500, Le Patriote wrote:

>> Mais non.
>
> you dont know what is a Point & Shout dont you ?

Aren't they the ones known for having noisy sensors?
 >> Stay informed about: Sensors