The size of the sensors is very important in the field of photography. The surface of the collector deeply conditions its ability to collect light, so if we compare two sensors of the same technology and different dimensions, the larger is always the larger. will get more light. When conditions are unfavorable and this resource is scarce, having a large sensor can help us take photos with less noise and more detail.

This is our starting point and it’s easy to internalize, but when it comes to evaluating the sensor size of a camera or mobile phone, users often run into a problem: the terminology brands offer us is not intuitive. This is not because they reflect the size of the sensor in inches, and users who are not integrated into Anglo-Saxon culture hardly ever use this unit of length.

However, that’s not all. There’s another added challenge: Usually the size of a sensor is expressed in the form of a partition that includes a non-integer number. And it is natural for many users to have difficulties when we want to compare two sensors of different sizes and both are described in this way. determine which one is the biggest and how much actual size difference there is between them. Fortunately, there is a solution to this problem.

Brands have an outstanding debt to users

Some media, such as DP Review, recommend using inches so as not to interfere with the correct assessment of the sensor surface by users. And yes, it makes sense, especially if we bear in mind that the number accompanying this unit often confuses us as it does not accurately reflect the actual size of the adder. In fact, this way of determining its size is part of a legacy we can leave behind to definitively remove this largely unnecessary complexity.

Interestingly, the size of the smallest sensors we usually find in smartphones and compact cameras is not defined by their actual measurements; installed by reference diameter of smallest chamber tube this may limit them. Camera tubes are electrical devices similar to thermionic or vacuum valve used in analog video recording cameras used in the early days of television, among other devices. They were inspired by the cathode ray tubes used in televisions.

In this detailed photo we can see what a Vidicon type photoconductive camera tube made by the RCA company looks like in the 1950s.

This naming system may seem far-fetched, and yes, from our current perspective it is reasonable to view it that way. Initially, however, this strategy made sense because camera tubes are functionally the precursors to the CCD and CMOS sensors we see in many electronic devices today. Not surprisingly, the purpose of these tubes was basically the same as that of modern image sensors: converting light into voltage values.

However, it is clear that defining the size of the smallest sensors in this way is very confusing due to its ambiguity and format. Ideally, cell phone and camera manufacturers will clearly state the actual measurements of their sensors, but few do. Therefore, in the table below, we have compiled some of the most used collectors on existing smartphones and cameras. To easily compare its size, we just need to look at its actual dimensions or area.

From the table we can see that larger sensors eliminate the confusing terminology used to describe smaller sensors. The biggest sensors we can find in mobile phones right now are one-inch sensors (although they can’t make 100% use of them right now), full-frame or full-format sensors have found their way into professional cameras. or for the enthusiasts. The largest, medium format ones, are ideal for artistic photography with a professional occupation.

Images: draconichiaro

More information: XP Review