Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1

    Default Sensor Size Misinformation

    For some time now I have been frustrated at the information given in WDC when differentiating between sensors in CSCs and now compact cameras.

    In the early days of Panasonic and Olympus MFT offerings their sensors were credited as Four Thirds - ie the 17.3x13mm effective - of the Olympus Four Thirds standard and as found in its DSLRs. Then the Samsung and Sony CSCs arrived, which are repeatedly credited as having "large APS-C" sensors, what exactly is 'large APS-C' anyway when you do not state the actual dimensions and there is no standard for APS-C? Now you repeatedly erroneously refer to the Panasonic and Olympus CSCs a having "Micro For Thirds" sensors; this is bad enough in standalone reviews, but in comparison reviews this seems to be a continuous attempt to misinform the reader that somehow APS-C is somehow far bigger than Four Thirds than it actually is.

    Now in the April 2012 issue the Canon G1X compact is reviewed. With its almost 4:3 ratio sensor at 18.7x14mm, this sensor is only slightly larger than Four Thirds; yet it is suddenly "something close APS-C", whereas Four Thirds is somehow vastly different and is worthy of being referred to with a 'micro' prefix. Please stop this erroneous misinformation, why not just simply state the actual dimensions - ie width x height in mm - of sensor sizes in your reviews?

  2. #2

    Default

    'large APS-C sensor' means that the sensor itself is just generally big, and NOT a variation of APS-C, seeing as APS is near enough a fixed size, its like saying 'I have big 50cm ruler' it wont be bigger than any other 50cm ruler, it's just big.
    And the 'micro four thirds' is marketing by Panasonic and Olympus...'micro' denotes the actual size of the camera, not the sensor, a regular four thirds camera would be, say, the olympus E5, and the CSC cameras are small in stature compared to that, thus earning the 'micro' denotation.
    Sorry, but what customer looking to buy a low spec CSC is going to be interested in the actual dimensions of a sensor? you forget its also a consumer aimed magazine alongside us enthusiasts and pros.

  3. #3

    Default

    Thanks for the feedback and sorry for the tardy response. I agree the whole sensor size issue is confusing, but we do generally put the physical dimensions of the sensor in the specifications. We try to avoid having too many clunky numbers in the main body text because it detracts from the narrative flow.
    We don't refer to the sensors in MFT cameras as just Four Thirds because the systems themselves are called Micro Four Thirds, and drawing attention to the fact that there is/was a different system just called 'Four Thirds' we feel would confuse the new camera buyer.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •