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. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    To answer you question on 6.0 -22.5mm. I say no the crop or mag factor is there to demo to users how much the sensor is smaller than the FF pro cameras. Also it can be used for MF as well by having fraction of like 0.5x for say the Hasselblad H4D 200MS. Probably just for comparision though. Unless your the deep pocket shooter. :D
  2. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    I can not think of a situation where the surface area or the Video tube size would be useful. I use neither in any calculation or Photo related decision.

    The Ratio is useful when thinking about the lenses that you already own. and the mm X mm gives both size and aspect ratio in one go.

    Pixel count is already given in all reviews, and density and more technical aspects are better given in the commentary where they can be related directly to results and quality.
  3. Blind Pugh

    Blind Pugh Well-Known Member

    At least something positive may come from the unfortunate errors made by MG. He may end up becoming some sort of hero !!.
  4. NickLeon

    NickLeon Member

    Thanks for that - so roughly half the size of micro four thirds right?
  5. DaveS

    DaveS Well-Known Member

    Given the sensor dimensions and pixel count, everything else follows easily.

  6. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    No it is nearly a 1/4 of the size of a 4/3


    It would be the possibly useful 3x sensor that is a half of a 4/3 (which is like a 1/4 frame 35mm)

    Piece of history, 110 film was (is?) the same size as 4/3 is today. :D

    Disc negs was the 3x version for film.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2011
  7. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    If you had been told the mm x mm size all would have been obvious....:D
  8. NickLeon

    NickLeon Member

    Yes indeed - or as I suggested earlier a nice little diagram that demonstrated the different sizes would cut out a lot of brain strain for non-technical folks like me.
  9. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Now that is good suggestion. :cool:

    Actual size of 35mm frame with the sensor for the camera being reviewed in highlight colour with the other sensors in grey.

    I've seen similar stuff on websites it does make it clear where the sensor fits in the real world.
  10. Blind Pugh

    Blind Pugh Well-Known Member

    Perhaps there could be a glossary at the back of the magazine that shows a simple diagram with all the sensor sizes on. Then everyone could use it as a guide and reference. If thatbis not possible because of editorial space, then just put a sensor size guide on this website, and publish the link in the magazine.
  11. nf3996

    nf3996 Well-Known Member

    I like the idea of a diagram too. Perhaps each review could contain such a diagram with all the sensor information for the camera under review alongside, ie. 2/3", xmm x xmm, xmm2, diagonal, 'crop' factor, pixel density etc.

  12. AlanClifford

    AlanClifford Well-Known Member

    A 6.0 -22.5 is definitely not equivalent to 28-105 when considering depth of field. Quoting both would be useful.
  13. AlanClifford

    AlanClifford Well-Known Member

    I'd prefer some sort of indication of area, such as square mm or mmxmm. Also, pixel density figures are wonderful and really highlight the diifference between point-and-shoot sensors and dslrs.
  14. Blind Pugh

    Blind Pugh Well-Known Member

    Yes, it seems to make sense. Then there doesn't have to have a new set of codes or standards devised for anyone. It is just plain to see.


Share This Page