# The 1-inch Sensor Myth (Fraud?)



## JumboShrimp (Feb 24, 2016)

I am certain you all know this, but just to refresh your memory, there is no such thing as a 1-inch sensor, such as the new Nikon DL's seem to have.

Our good friend, Ken Rockwell, has this explanation:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/one-inch-sensor.htm


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 24, 2016)

This is no different from the 2/3 in sensor. Its been the standard way for 50 years of describing the P&S Sensors and consistent with all other P&S Cameras.

I suppose that some do not understand how P&S sensors are specified and re-discover it over and over.

DSLR's use a different method to describe sensor size but even APS-C sensors are not a standard size.


----------



## slclick (Feb 24, 2016)

Well, you can split hairs and download spec sheets or you can shoot.


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 24, 2016)

I'd be curious to see how well understood it is. I'd suspect that most people would think a 1" sensor was 1" long in some direction. 

Of course, a lot of sensor sizes are arbitrary. EG the image above shows a medium format sensor that is 33x44mm. I can't think of any medium format camera that shoots images that small. But linking 1" sensors to a measurement makes me think that they are being deceptive.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Feb 24, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> I'd be curious to see how well understood it is. I'd suspect that most people would think a 1" sensor was 1" long in some direction.
> 
> Of course, a lot of sensor sizes are arbitrary. EG the image above shows a medium format sensor that is 33x44mm. I can't think of any medium format camera that shoots images that small. But linking 1" sensors to a measurement makes me think that they are being deceptive.



What do you mean you can't think of any medium format camera that shoots images that small? Most of them do (Pentax 645D, 645Z, Hasselblad H5D-50c, H5D-200c, Phase One IQ3-50, Leica medium format cameras etc..)


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 24, 2016)

I meant - medium format _film_ cameras, where 60 x 45 is about as small as it gets and most are 60x60 or 60x70 are the most common. Calling a 33X44 sensor "medium format" is the same as calling a 13x8 sensor a 1" sensor.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 24, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> I'd be curious to see how well understood it is. I'd suspect that most people would think a 1" sensor was 1" long in some direction.



In my (deleted) post, I indeed said *well understood*. That's different from *widely known*.


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 24, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be curious to see how well understood it is. I'd suspect that most people would think a 1" sensor was 1" long in some direction.
> ...


It is actually confusing considering none of the measurements (length, breadth, diagonal and length + breadth) are equal to 1". That graph needs measurements marked along X and Y axis. What is the size of phone camera sensors.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 24, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Hillsilly said:
> ...



My issue is with Rockwell outright saying "many makers lie about it to get us to think that these cameras have larger sensors than they actually do." It's not a lie, they're using a standard paradigm - optical format. It's not fraudulent or felonious as Rockwell alleges. It's maybe confusing or archaic, but it isn't fraud.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 24, 2016)

Video cameras were always specified in inches fraction, measured diagonally sensor.
As the sensors of the first digital cameras were basically video sensors, it seemed acceptable to specify that particular point and shoot camera using inches fraction diagonally.

Today we have digital sensors in proportion 4x3, 3x2, 16x9, and it seems to me that the right to insist on an inaccurate measurement is to confuse the average buyer, who will compare this with video cameras $ 80,000 and only 2/3 ".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2016)

Industry standard, old news. Confusing? Maybe, but at least it's consistent. I bet what confuses most people is math - how many think 1/1.7" is smaller than 1/2.3" because 1.7 is smaller than 2.3? Sensor size isn't usually a top-line spec for P&S anyway, which leads to, "What, your expensive 1D X has only 18 MP and my little pocket cam has more?!?," comments. 

KR stirs the pot with some clickbait, and some people seem to want to help him feed his growing family by posting links to his drivel instead of appropriately just ignoring him.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 24, 2016)

As a minimum I consider it misleading if not deceptive. Recall that camera manufacturers are marketing these 1" sensor products to a generation that doesn't even know what a vacuum tube is, let alone the old conventions of what size sensing area could be placed on the end of one. On the other hand, buyer beware and let the image samples speak for themselves.



Ph0t0 said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be curious to see how well understood it is. I'd suspect that most people would think a 1" sensor was 1" long in some direction.
> ...



You have obviously also discounted the beloved "baby Rollei" which shot 40mm x 40mm on 127 film. Also the old "Super Slides" which were 38 x 38 images. All considered medium format because they were larger than 24 x 36. Back then the real debate was whether 2-1/4" x 3-1/4" sheet film was large format or not. Most considered anything using individual sheets of film "large format" yet this size was slightly smaller than some 120 roll film negatives (6x8 & 6x9).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sensor size isn't usually a top-line spec for P&S anyway



Exactly. I suspect most people who care what the dimensions are of the sensor is in a camera they're considering buying will do the minor legwork of running a google search. For the overwhelming remainder of consumers, it's inconsequential.


----------



## Famateur (Feb 24, 2016)

Learned something new. Thanks!

It would make sense to abandon the antiquated term, but anyone wanna guess how long the 3 1/2" floppy will be the universal "Save" icon in software? My kids know what that icon means, but they've never seen or held a floppy disk! We still refer to carriage returns in ASCII, but we're not using typewriters with carriages. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples. Sometimes things just stick around...


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 25, 2016)

old-pr-pix said:


> You have obviously also discounted the beloved "baby Rollei" which shot 40mm x 40mm on 127 film...



Point taken. So...the whole concept of sensor size naming is to provide a familiar reference base for all those 127 film shooters who also have an affinity for valve radios? Makes sense. We wouldn't want to upset those guys.


----------



## Tinky (Feb 25, 2016)

This reminds me of the fable of the horses @rse and the space shuttle.

It's the convention that is understood by the designers, the physicists. The consumers don't really matter too much. The ones who care enough to understand should also be capable of grasping the very basic maths.

Diagonals are good because in a circular shape the diagonals are the key to the area.

Don't even start me on 'full frame'.


----------



## RGF (Feb 25, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be curious to see how well understood it is. I'd suspect that most people would think a 1" sensor was 1" long in some direction.
> ...



When I saw the term 1" sensor, I thought it was an actual measurement of the diagonal across the sensor, not an historic vacuum tube measurement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2016)

RGF said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Hillsilly said:
> ...



So you thought it was an APS-C sensor, but they didn't call it that?


----------



## monkey44 (Feb 25, 2016)

Kinda reminds me of buying a 2x4 at the lumber yard, and measuring it when you get it home. 1-1/2" x 3-1/2" is the actual size today.

Years ago, when rough-sawn was the norm, the actual dimension was 2" x 4", but as the milling changed, the dimensions changed. It first went to 1-5/8 x 3-5/8, then shaved off to 1-1/2 x 3-1/2 ... but pricing per board foot still counts it as 2 x 4 when calculating $$$$...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2016)

monkey44 said:


> Kinda reminds me of buying a 2x4 at the lumber yard, and measuring it when you get it home. 1-1/2" x 3-1/2" is the actual size today.
> 
> Years ago, when rough-sawn was the norm, the actual dimension was 2" x 4", but as the milling changed, the dimensions changed. It first went to 1-5/8 x 3-5/8, then shaved off to 1-1/2 x 3-1/2 ... but pricing per board foot still counts it as 2 x 4 when calculating $$$$...



Sure, and if you take the pseudobeefpinkslime patty from a McD 'Quarter Pounder' and weigh it, it's not 4 oz after they give it to you. 

The point remains, people who care about such things can look up the details.


----------



## Mancubus (Feb 25, 2016)

I agree with Ken Rockwell on this one. 1 inch sensors are a fraud because it's clearly misleading since none of dimensions are even close to 1 inch.

If it was up to me, camera manufacturers should immediately rename the sensor size to something more realistic. In addition to that, every person who bought a 1 inch sensor camera in the past 2 years should be entitled to choose between a full refund or a replacement for a camera with a sensor that is actually at least 1 inch in it's diagonal.

This reminds me of the 4k screens. When it was 1080p, the 1080 was the number of vertical pixels on the screen. To keep consistency, 4k displays should be actually called 2160p. Even if they count the horizontal pixels, it's actually 3840 (with few exceptions) which is still less than 4000.

Corporations should not be allowed to sell stuff with misleading names and labels, I can't believe that some people don't see anything wrong with 1 inch sensors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> If it was up to me, camera manufacturers should immediately rename the sensor size to something more realistic. In addition to that, every person who bought a 1 inch sensor camera in the past 2 years should be entitled to choose between a full refund or a replacement for a camera with a sensor that is actually at least 1 inch in it's diagonal.



Lol. Next, Canon should refund everyone who's ever bought an APS-C camera 10% of their purchase price because Canon's APS-C is 10% smaller than Nikon's APS-C. 

How much do car manufacturers owe you because you don't get the gas mileage promised by the EPA label?

Read my lips, no new taxes. 

We get it, it's someone else's fault you didn't read the fine print.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 25, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> I agree with Ken Rockwell on this one. 1 inch sensors are a fraud because it's clearly misleading since none of dimensions are even close to 1 inch.



Can I get my money back for all the 135 format film I bought? It's nowhere close to 135mm or inches, even along the perimeter.


----------



## tr573 (Feb 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > If it was up to me, camera manufacturers should immediately rename the sensor size to something more realistic. In addition to that, every person who bought a 1 inch sensor camera in the past 2 years should be entitled to choose between a full refund or a replacement for a camera with a sensor that is actually at least 1 inch in it's diagonal.
> ...



for that matter not even the 1.5 crop ones are as big as an APS-C (3:2 ratio) film frame, so they all owe us money


----------



## Johnrr44 (Feb 25, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> This is no different from the 2/3 in sensor. Its been the standard way for 50 years of describing the P&S Sensors and consistent with all other P&S Cameras.
> 
> I suppose that some do not understand how P&S sensors are specified and re-discover it over and over.
> 
> DSLR's use a different method to describe sensor size but even APS-C sensors are not a standard size.



From where I photograph, this is much ado about nothing. 1" is just a name to me. I care about IQ. I know that a larger sensor of high quality and many pixels will provide a better image that a lesser one. I can see by the graphic that 1" is generally going to be better than 1/1.8, but not as good as APS-C or full frame. 

I shoot 1", 1.5", APS-c, and FF cameras, but not 1/1.8, because I didn't like the results I got from a G9. While I accept that I won't have a 6 X 4.5 again, today's FF is adequate for the landscapes I shoot and print, APS-C is useful for wildlife, and 1" and 1.5" are easy to travel with and photograph family events. I hope that Canon improves the sensor in the G1X Mk2, because the camera it comes in is easy to travel with and has a good lens, but I'm not holding my breath. 1" seems to be where companies are putting energy into because it differentiates them from phones, so I expect to see more progress in IQ.

If I want more data to back up those conclusions, I will take the actual measurements of the sensor dimensions of each, perform some calculations, and graph the results. 1" is just a name.


----------



## monkey44 (Feb 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> monkey44 said:
> 
> 
> > Kinda reminds me of buying a 2x4 at the lumber yard, and measuring it when you get it home. 1-1/2" x 3-1/2" is the actual size today.
> ...



And the only reason builders cared was because it threw off the layout we had memorized over the years. But, we knew it, adjusted for it, and moved on ... course, the price remained the same, but the code said: 2x4, and the invoice said, 2x4 and the house still came out looking the same ... so, it's about using what the "label' says, and using it properly according to your training. If the sensor is really 3/4" and you've been shooting with a 3/4", nothing changes just because you suddenly realize what you read on the label it's different - you don't change your technique because of the label. 

In fact, I never even look at the sensor size with any frame of reference except one is larger than another - but I learn what the camera will produce by looking at the results, not reading the tech specs. Nice to know specs, but the specs do less for the shot than the experience you get shooting with it.


----------



## Mancubus (Feb 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > If it was up to me, camera manufacturers should immediately rename the sensor size to something more realistic. In addition to that, every person who bought a 1 inch sensor camera in the past 2 years should be entitled to choose between a full refund or a replacement for a camera with a sensor that is actually at least 1 inch in it's diagonal.
> ...



It's not the same thing. APS-C does not mean X mm by Y mm. 

The gas mileage is subject to many variables that can affect the consumption, it might even be better than the specs. However, under no circumstances the 1 inch sensor will actually have 1 inch, this is why I call it a fraud.


----------



## tr573 (Feb 25, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mancubus said:
> ...



APS-C means 25.1 x 16.7mm , or at least it used to until digital.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 25, 2016)

O.K. I agree performance is far more important than labels. However, I think most folks here would be upset if the new 70-200 mm f2.8 zoom they bought turned out to be only 40-120 mm at f3.5! Maybe not?!

At MFD most 70-200's other than Canon seem to fall way short (typically 135-150mm due to focus breathing) and there doesn't appear to be a global revolt. So it seems many people just don't notice or care?

Manufacturers do tend to keep most lenses to within about 10% of the stated values for FL (at infinity) and aperture (f-stop, not T-stop). But I don't know any that "promise" to be that close. There's probably an ISO standard for those however.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 25, 2016)

Can I get my money back for all the 135 format film I bought? It's nowhere close to 135mm or inches, even along the perimeter.
[/quote]

I assume your just kidding, but nice try, but no one ever said it was 135 mm film. 135 is the Kodak assigned number for the packaging of dual sprocket 35mm film in cassettes of typically 24 or 36 exposures. The Kodak numbers had nothing to do with the dimension of the film as far as I know. Common still today is 120 roll film while most of the others have faded into history. (108, 110, 126, 828, 620, 127, etc. all long ago favorites I used at some point.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> It's not the same thing. APS-C does not mean X mm by Y mm.
> 
> The gas mileage is subject to many variables that can affect the consumption, it might even be better than the specs. However, under no circumstances the 1 inch sensor will actually have 1 inch, this is why I call it a fraud.



It's exactly the same thing. 

Which measured physical dimension of Canon's 35mm f/1.4L II lens is 35.0 mm - length? width? diameter? 

Ever taken a vitamin supplement? Why does 100 International Units (IU) of vitamins A, C, D, and E represent wildly different actual physical amounts of each molecule?

We define a convention and stick to it, unless and until it is changed. If you need to know that 100 IU of vitamin C is 5 mg of ascorbic acid, you can look it up.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 25, 2016)

old-pr-pix said:


> > Can I get my money back for all the 135 format film I bought? It's nowhere close to 135mm or inches, even along the perimeter.
> 
> 
> 
> I assume your just kidding, but nice try, but no one ever said it was 135 mm film. 135 is the Kodak assigned number for the packaging of dual sprocket 35mm film in cassettes of typically 24 or 36 exposures. The Kodak numbers had nothing to do with the dimension of the film as far as I know. Common still today is 120 roll film while most of the others have faded into history. (108, 110, 126, 828, 620, 127, etc. all long ago favorites I used at some point.)



I'm half kidding. Point being, just like nobody said 135-format was 135mm film, nobody ever said a 1"-format sensor had any linear 1" dimensions. It's the name of the format.


----------



## martti (Feb 26, 2016)

They could call it a 'barleycorn' or a 'shaftment' sensor because those measures have nothing to do with the imaging area, either. Or a 'pole sensor'. Using an inch in the name really leads all but the Enlightened to think that there is something related to 25.4 millimetres in that object while there isn't.
It would be nice if they'd start using square millimetres in these things so that they would actually give regular people something to go by. Of course it is cool to know the modern monk latin and be In The Know while others aren't.
But caveat emptor and canem also. Could Coca-Cola call their 1.5 litre bottle a 'gallon on Coke'. No way? And why not? Because women do most of the household shopping and they would not tolerate that kind of BS. Men do.


----------



## slclick (Feb 26, 2016)

So, I shouldn't wait for my settlement check?


----------



## tr573 (Feb 26, 2016)

martti said:


> They could call it a 'barleycorn' or a 'shaftment' sensor because those measures have nothing to do with the imaging area, either. Or a 'pole sensor'. Using an inch in the name really leads all but the Enlightened to think that there is something related to 25.4 millimetres in that object while there isn't.
> It would be nice if they'd start using square millimetres in these things so that they would actually give regular people something to go by. Of course it is cool to know the modern monk latin and be In The Know while others aren't.
> But caveat emptor and canem also. Could Coca-Cola call their 1.5 litre bottle a 'gallon on Coke'. No way? And why not? Because women do most of the household shopping and they would not tolerate that kind of BS. Men do.



Anyone who cares what size the sensor in their camera is, knows what a 1" sensor means, or will find out in their research prior to purchasing. It's just such a non-issue.

I highly doubt a single person in the history of digital camera purchasing, has heard a camera had a 1" sensor and immediately thought:

"By golly, that's probably 25.4mm wide which makes it bigger than an APS-C sensor camera that's a few mm smaller! TAKE MY MONEY PLEASE"


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 26, 2016)

To beat the dead horse... here is a quote directly from the Canon marketing material for the G9 X:

"At 1.0 inch, the image sensor on the PowerShot G9 X camera is larger than the ones on most other compact cameras. This allows it to capture a greater range of light, so bright areas of the image, like clouds on a sunny day, can be more detailed and less likely to be washed or blown out... The 20.2 Megapixel* resolution is outstandingly high, giving you the option of printing out bigger photos or cropping in to highlight the best part."

And, from the detailed specifications: "Image Capture Device - Type 20.2 Megapixel*, 1.0-inch CMOS (sensor aspect ratio: 3:2) *Image processing may cause a decrease in the number of pixels."

Even the Specification section of the user manual (p. 204) declines to identify the actual dimensions of the sensor defining instead: 'Image size - 1.0 type'"

I can find no information in the Canon material for this camera that admits to the sensor being 13.2 mm x 8.8 mm, although the DPReview clearly states that as its size. (The presumed industry standard for 1" size vacuum tube sensor would be 16mm on the diagonal, so this sensor at 15.86 mm diagonal is 'close enough.') If Canon does disclose the actual dimensions it is buried somewhere I haven't found.

To me it is clear that Canon wants to mislead potential buyers into believing this camera's sensor is somehow 1" in dimension. Technically, by constantly referring to it as "1.0 inch" they are also implying a certain level of accuracy in that dimension. 1 inch is an approximation. "1.0 inch" should be a much more accurate measurement.


----------



## RGF (Feb 26, 2016)

old-pr-pix said:


> To beat the dead horse... here is a quote directly from the Canon marketing material for the G9 X:
> 
> "At 1.0 inch, the image sensor on the PowerShot G9 X camera is larger than the ones on most other compact cameras. This allows it to capture a greater range of light, so bright areas of the image, like clouds on a sunny day, can be more detailed and less likely to be washed or blown out... The 20.2 Megapixel* resolution is outstandingly high, giving you the option of printing out bigger photos or cropping in to highlight the best part."
> 
> ...



By compact cameras, do they mean smart phones?


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 27, 2016)

tr573 said:


> Anyone who cares what size the sensor in their camera is, knows what a 1" sensor means, or will find out in their research prior to purchasing. It's just such a non-issue.



Unless you're a writer for CNET.
http://www.cnet.com/uk/products/sigma-sd-quattro/



> the sd Quattro H uses the same sensor technology in the larger APS-H format, which has a focal-length equivalent of 1.3x of full frame, about the same size as the 1.5-inch sensor Canon uses in its G1 X series.


----------



## fentiger (Feb 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > If it was up to me, camera manufacturers should immediately rename the sensor size to something more realistic. In addition to that, every person who bought a 1 inch sensor camera in the past 2 years should be entitled to choose between a full refund or a replacement for a camera with a sensor that is actually at least 1 inch in it's diagonal.
> ...


the word VW springs to mind


----------



## martti (Feb 27, 2016)

Something very strange happened to my post where I suggested having a 'T' as a unit of the area of a photographic sensor. Like thousands of square millimetres. An 'inch' sensor would be 0.21, 4/3 0.37 and finally FF 0.9.


Or being a bit crude, call the FF 'T' and then the 'inch' sensor a a fifth T and a 4/3 as a third T.

It is just that the manufacturers do not want us to know what the sensor size is.
Ken is right. They are lying.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 27, 2016)

martti said:


> It is just that the manufacturers do not want us to know what the sensor size is.



They tell you the actual focal length of the lens and the 35mm equivalent. Is the math really so difficult?!?


----------



## martti (Feb 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > It is just that the manufacturers do not want us to know what the sensor size is.
> ...




A good one! ;D


----------



## JumboShrimp (Mar 1, 2016)

OP here. Just saw the attached newspaper article regarding Subway's issues with their "foot long" hot dog. Anyone think this is the same issue concerning misrepresentation? (A bit tongue-in-cheek, of course. ;D )


----------



## martti (Mar 2, 2016)

This clip was from Australia where they have already adapted the metric (SI) system.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2016)

martti said:


> This clip was from Australia where they have already adapted the metric (SI) system.



Yeah, but the TV jingle would suck: "Five-dollar, five-dollar...five-dollar thirty-point-five centimeter looooong."


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 2, 2016)

Subway thought they could fool Australians by selling selling us smaller sandwiches. And they got away with it for years because nobody outside of the US or Liberia has any idea what an inch, foot or pound is. But luckily one smart bloke realized it is meant to be 30.5cm and for the next four years, we're all going to get bigger sandwiches. Yay!. 

I'm sure the guys in Japan were thinking the same way with their 1" sensor. It sounds pretty big, and 99% of the world wouldn't know better and the other 1% would be thinking, "well..you've got take into account the thickness of the valve housing..." But now that the few dozen of us who have read this thread know that an inch is meant to be 25.4mm, and we've learnt that is way, way bigger than their sensor, I think the game is up. I can see a class action coming.


----------



## kphoto99 (Mar 2, 2016)

Australia is not the first one to sue Subway for a to short of a sandwich.

The same happen is US last year:

http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/10/21/subway-settles-lawsuit-over-too-short-footlongs.html


----------



## JumboShrimp (Mar 2, 2016)

OP here (yes again, sorry).

Just a casual survey to see how the various manufacturers call their 1-inch sensors (quotes from their own websites, not website reviews):

Canon G7XMK2: 1.0-inch
Nikon DL18-50: 1.0 inch type
Lumix FZ1000: 1-inch
Sony RX10: 1.0 in type (13.2x8.8mm)

Interesting that some of them add the ".0" as if to add more accuracy to something that is inherently inaccurate. Also interesting that Sony clarifies the actual size (Kudos to Sony). Confusion abounds, I guess.


----------

