1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

FujiFilm FinePix X10

Discussion in 'AP Magazine Feedback & Suggestions' started by nspur, Nov 5, 2011.

  1. Blind Pugh

    Blind Pugh Well-Known Member

    As a footnote to my last post......

    I remember when using 35mm film I would not shoot on film above 400 ASA because of the grain. Now even a good bridge camera can produce more than acceptable results in reasonable light at 800 ISO.
    It looks like both Nikon and Fuji may have cracked that barrier with their new small sensor technology.

    Ian
     
  2. mark_jacobs

    mark_jacobs Retired

    Just to point out - at no post in particular - that some recent posts are, IMO, better suited to being new topics in other discussion areas :)
     
  3. Blind Pugh

    Blind Pugh Well-Known Member

    Fair comment, but it is related to the confusion of the sensor sizes and trying to find a universal format .
    Point taken.
     
  4. DaveS

    DaveS Well-Known Member

    At the risk of being accused of starting a new topic :).

    The problem with these small sensor sizes is that they refer to an old broadcast system from the days of vidicon tubes.

    1/3", 1/2" 2/3" etc refer to the diameter of the tube, the actual sensor area being considerably smaller. This then crept in to domestic camcorder usage and hence to small digicams.

    Why this should be so escapes me, using it for professional broadcast cameras makes a certain (If obsolete) sense, however the only reason I can see for using it in a domestic / consumer setting is to bamboozle the public and hide the real size of the sensor.

    Even worse are misbegotten terms like 1/1.8 or 1/2.3 (The root cause of the current "Discussion").

    As has been said above, either use a diagonal measurement in mm, or else give the true sensor dimensions in mm.

    OK, I'm done :)

    Dave
     
  5. Richard Sibley

    Richard Sibley AP Deputy Editor

    Given the choice, which measurement would be preferred?

    a) 1/??
    b) mm x mm
    c) diagonal mm
    d) mm2

    We want to make it as easy and straightforward to understand as possible.

    Personally I feel that the there are many who are now familiar with the sensor sizes as fractions, but that a mm x mm, with mm2 in brackets after, would be the best option.

    Perhaps, for example 1/2.3in (6.6mm x 4.62mm, 28.5mm2) would be the best description all round?

    Give us your thoughts - how would you describe it?

    We'll, of course, take all your thoughts on board.
     
  6. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    I would definitely prefer mm x mm (1.6)

    i.e..... mm with a full frame conversion factor. That would give most of what you need to know about a format.

    This is not quite one of the suggestions you have given , but in practical use it would save us working things out for ourselves, and compounding our own errors in to the mix.

    I think it would be a great service to digital photography, if AP abandoned the archaic video tube standard completely.
    Even advising advertisers to do the same.

    Kudos to AP for leading the way.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2011
  7. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    I like b) best.....if I wanted to know the area or diagonal, which I never have yet, then it's easy to work out.
     
  8. Blind Pugh

    Blind Pugh Well-Known Member

    The total surface area of the sensor( mm2 ) sounds like a good one . That is also easy for everyone to see , and is perhaps the most useful.

    Ian
     
  9. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler


    Agreed. That's the way I would like to see it.
     
  10. DaveS

    DaveS Well-Known Member

    OK, I'll come back and say B definitely as you can easily work everything out from that, it also gives you the aspect ratio, which diagonal and area do not do.

    You could give the crop from the 135 format, though different aspect ratios could make that slightly misleading, though not deliberately so.

    Dave
     
  11. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    WHS

    Crop factor for me. :)

    1/2.3" 5.58x

    1/1.5" 3.94x

    1" 2.7x (based on Nikon V1)

    4/3 2x

    APS 1.5x

    full frame 1x

    etc

    High x factor small sensor possibly noise issues. We know the info is there hiding abit on the lens barrel when we see the true focal length of a lens. I don't think we need the square mm. I am for x factor as it's clear at a glance that it's a small sensor.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2011
  12. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    mm x mm plus crop factor sounds perfect.
     
  13. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    I would not like to see the video tube standard retaind in any way.
    Even when you are given it, you have no Idea of the size of the sensor.
    It only gives you a diameter of the tube that could be used not an actual measurement that is used nor do you know, nor can you work out the aspect ratio.
     
  14. Blind Pugh

    Blind Pugh Well-Known Member

    The crop factor is easy really. Most of us already know that MFT has x2 , and APS 1.5x etc,. And it is easy follow the logic that the higher the crop factor, potentially the higher the noise. Although I can see the argument for surface area I think I will stick with crop factor ( my original thoughts on this ).
     
  15. NickLeon

    NickLeon Member

    So where would the Fuji X10 fit in the list above?
     
  16. Richard Sibley

    Richard Sibley AP Deputy Editor

    Ok...thanks for all your thoughts so far.

    We're going to sit down as a team and, taking on board what has been said, come up with a suitable solution.

    Personally, I think the surface area is the most useful figure, although I appreciate this doesn't allow for an aspect ratio and is a bit of an abstract number. Everyone knows how large a 35mm film frame is so a 1.5x ratio is easy to understand.

    I don't want to make anyones brain explode, but would a pixel density figure be of use? I appreciate that if you have the sensor dimensions and the resolution you can work this out, but would it be useful written with the sensor specifics?
     
  17. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    As well - and pixel pitch as well, as that if possible...in fact rather more than pixel density.
     
  18. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    I don't think surface area would be any clearer than what we have now, neither would pixel density. The simplest solutions are usually the best, so if we are told the sensor dimensions (width x height) and the crop factor, that would seem the simplest solution. It works for APS-C sensors, with most manufacturers having slightly different sensor dimensions, so there is no reason why it should not work with other size sensors.
     
  19. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    1/1.5" (2/3") x3.94 :)
     
  20. Richard Sibley

    Richard Sibley AP Deputy Editor

    1/1.5

    To be honest I'm thinking the simpler the better - the quoted 'old school' sensor size measurement with the dimesions in mm next to it. Otherwise I think it may become too complex. If you have these measurements, as many of you have said, everything else can be calculated.

    With regards to the magnification factor - I can understand this, but it also relates to lenses. For example, on a compact camera would you want us to write 6.0 - 22.5 mm lens? Even with the appropriate magnification factor this is still not the simplest way of understanding the optic - it is easier for us to write 28-105mm equivalent, and is instantly understood.

    We'll sit down and discuss it and will find a way. i think the copy will be as simple to understand as possible, and we may put any further details regarding the sensor in the specification panel. This would seem the most logical thing to do.
     

Share This Page