Leica; "4/3rds quality just not there."
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Leica; "4/3rds quality just not there."
Next: Film cam better than digital for harsh environments?
From: Bob G on 25 May 2010 09:48 On May 25, 6:23 am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <d9cdc081-af06-4055-96b4-2c4ddc14b186 > @c13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, Bob G says... > > > Full-frame four thirds: 24mm x 32mm > > Why not 27 x 36mm? > -- > Because the image area would then be covering the sprocket holes.
From: Alfred Molon on 25 May 2010 10:41 In article <pdenv5tio4br3hhidum2p02oje7toh5n53(a)4ax.com>, nate bishop says... > Because the diagonal is not four 1/3rds (1.33) inches. The diagonal of > those dimension is 1.77 inches. The aspect ratio is. The diagonal is irrelevant. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: nate bishop on 25 May 2010 11:00 On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:41:44 +0200, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <pdenv5tio4br3hhidum2p02oje7toh5n53(a)4ax.com>, nate bishop >says... >> Because the diagonal is not four 1/3rds (1.33) inches. The diagonal of >> those dimension is 1.77 inches. > >The aspect ratio is. The diagonal is irrelevant. Sensor sizes are named, defined, and measured by their diagonal in inches. Go educate yourself.
From: Alfred Molon on 25 May 2010 13:16 In article <mdpnv5df5nfsmc4904vp4hv09b30a4rtde(a)4ax.com>, nate bishop says... > >In article <pdenv5tio4br3hhidum2p02oje7toh5n53(a)4ax.com>, nate bishop > >says... > >> Because the diagonal is not four 1/3rds (1.33) inches. The diagonal of > >> those dimension is 1.77 inches. > > > >The aspect ratio is. The diagonal is irrelevant. > > Sensor sizes are named, defined, and measured by their diagonal in inches. > Go educate yourself. LOL - you educate yourself. Sensor sizes are measured in width and length. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: nospam on 25 May 2010 13:20
In article <MPG.266624532b3b812798c30f(a)news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Sensor sizes are named, defined, and measured by their diagonal in inches. > > Go educate yourself. > > LOL - you educate yourself. Sensor sizes are measured in width and > length. perhaps you should take your own advice. <http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01. htm> Sensors are often referred to with a "type" designation using imperial fractions such as 1/1.8" or 2/3" which are larger than the actual sensor diameters. The type designation harks back to a set of standard sizes given to TV camera tubes in the 50's. These sizes were typically 1/2", 2/3" etc. The size designation does not define the diagonal of the sensor area but rather the outer diameter of the long glass envelope of the tube. Engineers soon discovered that for various reasons the usable area of this imaging plane was approximately two thirds of the designated size. This designation has clearly stuck (although it should have been thrown out long ago). There appears to be no specific mathematical relationship between the diameter of the imaging circle and the sensor size, although it is always roughly two thirds. |