01-07-2012, 10:16 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1325972138' post='14497']
Uhmm... The inch denomination for CRT tubes is calculated with the "edges" of the tube itself, yes. Says something about the screen size when not talking about CRT. So, for LCD screens 17" means 17" screen diagonal. With CRT not so, less.
Has nothing to do with other things like sensor sizes, though. Here 1.5" would mean... 1.5".
How 1.7" is used where 1/1.7" is meant? I have never seen this used, ever. Anyway. this "rumor" has little in common with the "official" information, where there is mention of a larger sensor camera with exchangeable lenses, with "native" lenses having an emphasis on compact, and where EF lens compatibility is also wanted.
That then means that the Canon mirrorless compact system will have nothing in common with what Nikon does, instead making a bigger sensor camera for IQ and possibilities, and making a few native lenses that are compact (nikon 1 lenses are not compact), and with EF compatibility.
[/quote]
Sorry, I am not talking about CRT tubes here. The whole 1/1.7" and 2/3 " lark does not refer to actual sensor sizes, but to video tubes in the early days of electronic video, with the use of vidicon tubes, which terminology is a handover from those days. The usable diameter for recording with such a tube was approximately 2/3 of the actual diameter, but depended a bit on type and size of tube. This terminology then continued to be used with video ccd devices, leaped over into cameras, and till this day is still used with compact cameras, and generally not a lot with dslrs, or the newer CSCs. That is where all these weird 1 over whatever sizes come from, which seem to bear no relation to the actual sensor sizes. Probably because manufacturers are trying to hide how small they really are (but maybe I am being a little cynical here).
Have a look here: [url="http://www.dpreview....or_sizes_01.htm"]http://www.dpreview....or_sizes_01.htm[/url]. There are other references to be found if you do some searching.
If you look around in some of the (popular) literature, you may also find that they do speak of 1.7"and 1.8" as shorthand for 1/1.7"and 1/1.8". And when actual, digital, sensor sizes are used, they are always dimensioned in mm, not in inch. So it either is a 1.5 inch sensor meaning one with a diameter of 2/3 of 1.5 inch, or it is a 1/1.5", meaning with a diameter of 2/3 of that. All in the old tradition of vidicon tube terminology and idiom, and of hiding the real size of compact canera sensors.
And whatever Canon is going to announce, who knows? Until the official announcement it is all speculation anyway. The post on the above site was pulled yesterday - I think Canon may have complained. Using inches as measure for the sensor, does seem to indicate a compact camera however, rather than anything akin a CSC. But that is also speculation.
Kind regards, Wim
Uhmm... The inch denomination for CRT tubes is calculated with the "edges" of the tube itself, yes. Says something about the screen size when not talking about CRT. So, for LCD screens 17" means 17" screen diagonal. With CRT not so, less.
Has nothing to do with other things like sensor sizes, though. Here 1.5" would mean... 1.5".
How 1.7" is used where 1/1.7" is meant? I have never seen this used, ever. Anyway. this "rumor" has little in common with the "official" information, where there is mention of a larger sensor camera with exchangeable lenses, with "native" lenses having an emphasis on compact, and where EF lens compatibility is also wanted.
That then means that the Canon mirrorless compact system will have nothing in common with what Nikon does, instead making a bigger sensor camera for IQ and possibilities, and making a few native lenses that are compact (nikon 1 lenses are not compact), and with EF compatibility.
[/quote]
Sorry, I am not talking about CRT tubes here. The whole 1/1.7" and 2/3 " lark does not refer to actual sensor sizes, but to video tubes in the early days of electronic video, with the use of vidicon tubes, which terminology is a handover from those days. The usable diameter for recording with such a tube was approximately 2/3 of the actual diameter, but depended a bit on type and size of tube. This terminology then continued to be used with video ccd devices, leaped over into cameras, and till this day is still used with compact cameras, and generally not a lot with dslrs, or the newer CSCs. That is where all these weird 1 over whatever sizes come from, which seem to bear no relation to the actual sensor sizes. Probably because manufacturers are trying to hide how small they really are (but maybe I am being a little cynical here).
Have a look here: [url="http://www.dpreview....or_sizes_01.htm"]http://www.dpreview....or_sizes_01.htm[/url]. There are other references to be found if you do some searching.
If you look around in some of the (popular) literature, you may also find that they do speak of 1.7"and 1.8" as shorthand for 1/1.7"and 1/1.8". And when actual, digital, sensor sizes are used, they are always dimensioned in mm, not in inch. So it either is a 1.5 inch sensor meaning one with a diameter of 2/3 of 1.5 inch, or it is a 1/1.5", meaning with a diameter of 2/3 of that. All in the old tradition of vidicon tube terminology and idiom, and of hiding the real size of compact canera sensors.
And whatever Canon is going to announce, who knows? Until the official announcement it is all speculation anyway. The post on the above site was pulled yesterday - I think Canon may have complained. Using inches as measure for the sensor, does seem to indicate a compact camera however, rather than anything akin a CSC. But that is also speculation.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....