01-07-2012, 04:33 PM
The inch denomination is based on old imaging tubes, and says something about the tube diameter itself. The actual imaging area of such tubes is approximately 2/3 of the diameter, which would make it 1 inch if 1.5 inch was really meant, and this would make it about the same size as a 4/3 sensor.
However, 1.7" and 1.8" are also interchangeably used for 1/1.7"and 1/1.8", so I would expect this to be 1/1.5" indeed. One would think this is really the same as 2/3 ", but working backwards from a 1/1.7" sensor the sensor size would be approximately 8.6 mm X 6.5 mm, IOW, a tad smaller than 2/3 ", which is 8.8 mm X 6.6 mm.
Kind regards, Wim
However, 1.7" and 1.8" are also interchangeably used for 1/1.7"and 1/1.8", so I would expect this to be 1/1.5" indeed. One would think this is really the same as 2/3 ", but working backwards from a 1/1.7" sensor the sensor size would be approximately 8.6 mm X 6.5 mm, IOW, a tad smaller than 2/3 ", which is 8.8 mm X 6.6 mm.
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 ....
