You should also communicate the weight of the sensor in terms of Nocts.

Going with a rounded out MM squared system makes sense. 1/2.3 is a 38 sensor. 2/3 is a 58 sensor. Most APS-c's are a 384. Canon's APS-C is a 338. If that nomenclature would take hold at least you'd know at a glance the sensor size, rather than having to go to a calculator to figure it out.

"We are going to do it totally differently...by continuing to use the same confusing nomenclature!" Great job guys! How about skip the 1/2.3" BS and just go with dimensions.

I think that just stating the total surface area without the "type" would've been better. Followed by what technology it is: Stacked/CMOS, all that stuff. It's straight to the point, it's what matters, no need for any types! That's just me though.

Was super happy DPReview tried to fix this confusion, then I saw their naming system & now I'm even more confused.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 Instead of fractions, I just want millimetres from corner to corner, and the aspect ratio. 20mm 3:2. You know what you're getting this way, in real terms.

Who's going to remember all the new names. Why don't we just call them directly 44 x 33mm (1452mm²) Sensor, 35mm (864mm²) Sensor, APSC (372mm²) Sensor, etc., so any reader will get an idea about the sensor size.

make full frame the 100%, and then compare everything to it. Like, APC is 70%

Why not just use the mm, the crop factor or percentage? Changing "inch" to "type" only solves one kind of confusion.

Using square millimeters or square centimeters will be fine enough for any comparisons. For example my K3 has 366.6 mm² APS-C sensor .)

I'd use diagonal as a base. It's especially convenient since it also describes a lens to use for the sensor. And in the case of Type 1 different proportions have slightly different diagonals-it removes the need to have additional brackets like "Type 1 (4:3) sensor"-just say "15.9mm sensor". Even different APS-C are clearly compared and fit into the list as different options with just diagonal size. 55mm sensor/lens = Medium 43.3mm sensor/lens = FF 28.4mm sensor/lens = APS-C 26.7mm sensor/lens = APS-C (Canon) 21.77mm sensor/lens = 4/3 15.9mm sensor/lens = Type 1 (4:3) 15.86mm sensor/lens = Type 1 (3:2) 12.5mm sensor/lens = Type 1/1.28 7.8mm sensor/lens = Type 1/2.3 5mm sensor/lens = Type 1/3.4

Am not so convinced by this new names. I'd have gone to a complete metric system like "40 by 30mm" and so on..

Comparing sizes using physical dimensions measured in SI units? That's crazy talk! 😉

Looking forward to seeing the real size and also the square area, this has to be a good way of estimating the actual performance, a big thumbs up for taking the time and effort

Why not just use the diagonal length? In my mind it's easier than the type 2/3 because those are still numbers and people might still think they refer to actually dimensions Edit:especially since APS-C has different sizes(diagonal lengths) with Canon having its own. And the "medium format" being slammed on sensors bigger than full frame. Think fujifilm, think Hasselblad, different sizes but the same name

A lot of people think you are single handedly changing naming conventions for the industry. This seems like a rational system for reviews giving the measurements, area and connecting them to the manufacturer's naming data. Well done. A lot of work done for us. Thanks guys.

Or We can use the crop factor in the nomenclature. That way it is easier to get the idea of the sensor size , focal length, bokeh etc in comparison to a full frame sensor.

A beginner like me hasn't really understood why a medium format sensor is bigger than a full format sensor. Someone should look into that. :)

At the end of the day it's either you have a Full Frame Camera or no camera at all.

I think I have to say it....i'm even more confused now. I think better way would center around 35mm FULL FRAME being considered (full frame) and then coming up with names from there....APS-C so on and so forth. Branding is all it is, doesn't need to be exact.

I am for simply using the crop sizes as stadard. Many photographers know them anyway and they tell exactly the ratio to fullframe. You can also use it to calculate how lenses relate to sensor size.

Cool to know the actual size in mm and the squared size. Awesome idea, and makes sensor sizes a lot easier to understand.

I honestly can't tell if this is a joke video... Can someone explain why 'type 1/2.3' is better than 1/2.3"? If you're going to revamp and standardise sensor size measurements, there a ton of better options! Personally I'd go for everything being a rounded decimal value which indicates the proportion of full frame (e.g. APS-C becomes 0.7x, medium format becomes 1.3x), but I get that people might not like that

Adding the surface area and dimensions is super helpful, thank you. Maybe just completely scrap the 'type' as it means nothing to nobody outside the 1950's TV industry as you rightly said. If they were just labelled by their surface area it would be super easy - the larger number the bigger the sensor.

That sudden improvement in audio

Thanks for trying to bring some sense to the fragmented naming conventions, with time hopefully this will catch on and improve.

This is brilliant! Finally somebody explain this system! Suggestion: to compare even more these sensors I think it will be great to add the size of each pixel in micrometers (1/1000 of 1 millimetre)

“1/2.3” breaks all the laws of math! You’ve combined imperial with decimal! 😂💀

👏👏👏 we knew you would be the ones to finally do something about this

Awsome! Thank you for doing this. It really makes things a lot clearer.

Thank God for you guys... such a great system ! 👏👏👏(Now please fix lens focal lengths as well and start talking about AoVs rather than focal lengths)

Brilliant! This should have all been mm x mm from the very beginning, even in the days of analog vidicon tubes!

I like the idea of using the area measurement to compare plus your other updated naming ideas.

Fantastic! I will adopt this for my channel too!!! 👏🏻👏🏻

Does FUji XT4 can autofocus now at side of the frame in video?

Thanks! Long overdue, I had no idea what those weird numbers meant. And thanks for using metric; I don't think 17/64th's of an inch would have solved anything ;)

This sensor stuff is all very well, but is anyone else more interested in hearing about Chris’s time in London taking Ecstasy and going to raves?

I think you guys are doing a great job here because you are defining 3 options for how we will actually name them in the future and will see what people adopt and relate to. Personally I like the mm squared terminology because it highlights how much light the sensor can capture - and for me that has the most effect on IQ.... the downside though is that one does not tell you the aspect ratio which other people may find more important.

Way overdue. Nice initiative, guys. Well done!

Finally! I like the physical size of the imaging area and the imaging resolution. This makes it much easier!

Where is this place?

👏🏻 yep definitely great! Though I would suggest also including the image circle required for the sensor apart of the discussion. Something especially important with interchangeable lens cameras with slightly unusual size sensors (like the RED Komodo).

This is great! it will save me a lot of googling every sensor size.

Excellent video, you should also do one explaining that megapixel count of cameras' sensor does not represent true difference of picture size. Unlike they want you to think, double the megapixels' sensor does not mean double picture resolution. True linear resolution will be far less than double. So when people are throwing themselves into getting a new camera because of the few megapixel difference it's kind of a waist😅

I think this is a brilliant idea! It puts things into perspective much better👍

Thanks for seeking to clarify this confusing area of digital photography! Area measurement of each sensor is ideal, however, in this video, using black text over a dark blue sensor made the size unreadable. Better choice to use white text next time.

Nice work! The new system is so easy you only had to ADR a measurement correction one time! (I keed, I keed)

Are there any cases where there is a significant difference between the area of the sensor and the largest area of any of the actual aspect ratios offered?

If I was trying to work this I'd just go with the crop factor related to full frame. Detailed specs are all well and good for nerd, but mostly you just want to see how tiny it really is.

TV sizes are measured as the diagonal length in inches. This should be the same for sensors. Simple, straight line of numebrs.

Thanks guys!

I feel just crop numbering be better, because as sensor actual size numbers dont mean much for most people. If know crop number the lens on some of the smaller sensors also be easy to calculate. Also M4/3 is that 1.9x and 2.3x still falls under m4/3 and then Aspc or super35mm also isnt a single size as 1.5x to 1.6x still apsc. Just saying crop numbering and also when using certain feature when it crop in also say the crop numbering will still makes sense.

I appreciate the initiative! I find the absolute sizes in mm most helpful. I would like you to emphasize that part. But it will still be very helpful to see the absolute dimensions next to the type designation.

Thank you DPReview team! 😁

Great idea 💡 thank you!

Can we simplify this and do the whole thing in hexadecimal?

That is a great idea to let go of the Inch thing. However I would like to have it as a crop factor from a full-frame 35mm. For example, it would be better if you call it APS-C aka 1.5x crop (no need for APSC of course). Full frame is a standard 3:2 ratio and if the sensor is in other ratios, it would be good to have your way of "Type " example: " 'Type 1/2.3' aka crop factor sth.(I don't know) with ratio of 4:3 "

Great idea!

Great video, great idea!

Thank you! It all makes sense to me now.👏👏👏

Thank god for you guys. Such a great system. 👏👏and stuff.

Where is the link for Richard Butler?

I had already left a comment on Richard's article last week, but since you raised the point again, here was my suggestion: take the usable area of the sensor in square mm followed by an aspect ratio. Drop all terminology about aps-c, full frame, m43 or whatever. Just something like: 857 mm2 (3X2) sensor, or words to that effect. That makes for easy comparison of sensor sizes without having to use brand names. It was just a thought.

Finally someone came up with an idea to end this sensor naming nonsense. Is this the best possible solution? I don't know, but it is definitely step in the right direction.

Can you describe the feel after touching all the sensors with your fingers?

This is a great idea, wish something like this happened a long time ago. Just my thought, but it seems like the simplest and most easy for most people to understand would be simply putting the diagonal measurement along with the aspect ratio. this is the same system used to measure screen size and widely understood. ei, 20mm 4.3 or 20mm 16.9, super easy to visualize.

I wonder if there's a difference between the classic Type 2/3 and the modern 1/1.5 found in smartphone cameras

Area and aspect ratio (with a common denominator) is all that's needed.

Why does medium format sensor sound smaller than full frame sensor ?

On the Samsung semiconductor website who makes some of these sensors. They have classifications for larger types as well as compact/mobile sensors. For example, medium format (crop) is labeled type 4.3. To add to the confusion, leica has their own branding on sensor types. It reminds me of edm music with all the subgenres.

Only 1/7 of my cameras are "35mm" Full Frame, and I get great results using a 28.2mm (APS-C) and a 23mm (4/3) sensor for astrophotography using long exposures. These KZfaqrs (Sony users) who go on about low light capabilities of full frame don't really know what they are talking about. It boils down to pixel size, speed of your lens, shutter, and gain or ISO. I would love you to do a video comparison on low light using long exposures. Possible pull out the old IMX071 or Nikon D7000 and see how good that camera was with its APS-C sized sensor but BIG pixels. Keep up the good work!

Great initialive. Thank you.

Guys, I have to ask, what camera and lens combination was used for this video? It might be only me, but I definately see some detailed and bold picture, that I really enjoy! Maybe a filter or LUT, please hsare! Regards! Nikolay

So you take a confusing system and confuse it some more, well done!

The transition to the 'type 1/2.3' doesn't give me much, but the actual size (dimensions and surface area) : YES! 👏

I'm so glad you finally found a topic to go with those fantastic pants! Keep up the good work! 😉

You deserve a Noble prize for this!

I love this, thank you!

Brilliant, thank you

Size in mm always made sense as full frame was always that way. You can also draw it out with a ruler, which very few could do with inches!

Wow! Before watching this whole video all the way through in the recent minutes, I did not know that a 1/2.3" sensor meant that it could fit inside of a certain type of tube used for televisions. Interestingly, one of my smartphones has a 1/2.5" sensor. If a sensor of a given measurement specification could fit inside a certain type or size of tube, perhaps its diagonal measurement from corner to opposite corner does indeed come into play.... In other words, a 1/2.3" sensor and a 1/2.5" sensor would be different from each other in the sense that they would fit inside tubes of different diameters, yet correspondingly, they would also need to have slightly different diagonal measurements from corner to corner. Thanks!

Mind-blowing information 😮✌🏻

Great ideas.

I think a more appropriate metric is the pixel size (pitch). Camera sensors are light-gathering devices and I think this is a more relatable way to understand their performance.

Fantastic!

And for the Japanese makers the improved revisions are hopefully referred with suffix Ko, Otsu, Hei and Tei, ie. Type 1 Otsu.

Well done. It needs to be done everywhere.

in addition to all of that, I would add the crop factor of each sensor. Typically, for smartphones and stuff like that, companies like Apple like to use the "equivalent" focal lenght, saying that they have a 22mm and a 50mm lens on heir phones, it's obviously not 22 and 50mm lenses, but it gives us the same angle of view as a 22 and 50mm would on a full frame camera. The problem with that is the fact that people could get confused by the marketing thinking that the "50mm equivalent" f/2.8 lens on the Iphone will give you similar bokeh as a full frame 50mm at f/2.8 which is obviously not true. Having the crop factor would allow us to get a sensoe of the depth of field we're dealing with those very small camera sensors. Works also for compact cameras that tent to use equivalent focal lengths on their interface when you're moving the zoom rocker. Granted, you can always refer to the markings on the lens to know the "real" focal length, but that'd be nice to have

Oh man I still have a canon 1 D m a apc H sensor 8 mp and still hoping that one day that thing can be upgraded, before the battery’s where hard to come by, but that problem is past, it’s my favourite camera dough it weighs a ton. And keep hope for the future

Yes bout time someone did the sensible thing. So what you going to call the two main medium format sizes?

Thank you!! 👏👏👏

the micro four thirds or even four thirds us also a fraction of the same idea. It's not 4/3 out of a full frame, but 4:3 is great. aspect ratio matters as the diagonal limits your lens options. So area + aspect ratio would be great. Or diagonal and aspect ratio instead

Rather than incremental change, let’s just double down on naming the sensor by area in mm^2. There will be no overlap with different aspect ratios, and you can mention the aspect ratio if it differs from the norm. That will also make it easier to communicate when a camera has a large sensor but don’t use the full width (like some smartphones are doing)

We need a side-by side infographic of all the sizes, from the smallest to medium format, in mms, w/ surface area, please!

My Ricoh GR have a 1.7 inch sensor? Diagonally?

I so enjoyed the Type Jordan video quality on this

superb🙌🏻👏🏼👏🏼

When I started to really get into understanding cameras and what makes them tick, there was a lot of stuff I never knew. Like you said, the smaller type sensors snd all the way up to large format which are significantly larger and much more expensive than a full frame 35mm equivalent sensor. There are ways to figure out the crop factor from the lens equivalent and actual size. However I am sure you guys can explain it better. One thing mobile manufacters need to stop doing is advertising sony imx as 1" sensors. If it was 25.4mm diagonal then it would significantly larger than the phone could accommodate in the chassis.

Weird this popped up in my feed right above JerryRigEverything’s video of his tear down of the new xiaomi phone and he talked about exactly this problem since the phone has a 1-inch sensor.

Sensor type (APS-C) is good, but no need to bog the description down with both height-width AND surface area, since they essentially describe the same thing, IMO. So maybe just pick one and let readers do some math?