"True" Sensor Size - (Effective Area)

[Ninpo33]

Someone needs to make a website that compares *actual sensor sizes between cameras while recording in all the different modes with the various crops. I've had to do a deep dive comparing various models trying to get the real info on effective area used during filming and man, what a pain. Some sites are good at showing detailed info but that's before getting into actual use case scenarios. Really hard to just get the basic specs for shooting in ALL the various modes. 

I sold off my older Micro 4/3 Lumix gear a few months ago and finally said goodbye to some solid workhorse documentary gear. I was excited for new flagship gear from Panasonic and tried to time the market a bit and hold out as long as possible to sell the GX85 and GH5s. When the GH7 and S9 were announced I was a little disappointed since there was no new S2H or S2R to move to. The S5iix became a nice stand in and is great but I need a 3 camera setup for some travel doc stuff coming up in the fall and have been researching options since no new Panasonic flagships are coming just yet. The S9 is cool and I'll find one used here shortly but I miss my little GX85 a lot and there is really no full frame replacement.

Coming from years with micro 4/3, speed boosters and adapted lenses I am comfortable with the benefits and strengths of smaller sensors and the open gate modes on the GH5+ bodies really performed brilliantly. As I started looking into some FF and S35 alternatives I kept noticing how often an advertised cam would start to crop in significantly when switching between modes and while using various IBIS settings. Sony especially seems to do a great job of selling everyone on full frame cameras at a premium and then not being super transparent about how and when the camera punches in. Some S35 sensor cameras end up cropping in all the way to 2x once the stab is applied and here we are, back to Micro 4/3 again...

One takeaway from all of this is that it's really quite amazing that the FX3 has had such a solid 3.5 year run. It's low 10.2 mp video specs and cropped in 3840x2160 UHD aren't that amazing on paper. It is already a repackaged A7sIII and just keeps on performing with minimal updates and the barest of features compared to the competition. The image is quite good for such low specs and the Sony fanbois show no signs of slowing down on their love for the little guy.

Finally getting shutter angle and C4k at least and still a favorite all over social media. 

I want to see a direct comparison to the Fujifilm X-H2s in open gate 6k and the Sony FX3 shooting in UHD with full IBIS on. If using a 1.6x Anamorphic on the Fuji you're actually getting quite a bit of real estate there. And since the Sony crops in on the 3:2 sensor to achieve 4k 16:9 I feel like you are coming pretty close to a similar active area. 
 

 

[Ninpo33]

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-gfx-100-ii-initial-review-medium-format-movie-maker?comment=8057115270

DP review has done a good job charting and showing this information with easy to follow interactive tools on their GFX100 II review. I like it.

Now if only everyone could get on board with this. 

 

 

[KnightsFan]

I agree. Crop in each mode is an easy thing to precisely measure and communicate to potential buyers. Even when the crop is specified by a manufacturer, it's almost never more than 2 significant figures, nor do they specify whether they are listing horizontal, vertical, or diagonal crop. Sensor readout speed is another one that is easy to measure, and should be on the spec sheet for every mode.

[Benjamin Hilton]

Can I ask why it matters to you? 

[KnightsFan]

45 minutes ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

Can I ask why it matters to you? 

Because when I shop for cameras I want to know what FOV my lens will have. And in general it's good to list basic specs of things, similar to how microphones list their max SPL (would I still buy it if the max SPL were 1 dB lower? Probably).

[Ninpo33]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

Can I ask why it matters to you? 

Man, I can't tell if you are just trolling with your comments on this forum or if you are serious? 

Here's why... Spending $2,000 - $6,500 on a camera and not knowing that the features you thought you were getting are compromised or different than advertised because they are buried in the fine print somewhere. That you are able to shoot in 4k/60p but only with terrible rolling shutter and artifacts and a 2x crop into the sensor. Because you bought a full frame camera because you read online that it was worth it for various features but now when you go to use in in the real world it crops into APS-C mode and behaves like the other camera you were looking at for $1,000 less and all your lenses have a different field of view. You don't own any fast wide angle lenses and now you need to rethink things because you bought the camera to use your full frame fast wide angle lenses. 

Sony's most extreme image stabilization on some cameras crops in like 40% on the sensor. That means you are shooting with an area almost Micro 4/3 sensor sized. Try to find that information easily on a Sony website or YouTube video.

I know why they don't disclose things right up front and it's pretty obvious it's because they want to list the features to sell the camera and kind of bury the details about how or why it works. The headline is the 8k or 240p and the brand new shiny thing, meanwhile you have to wait for some honest YouTube reviewer to actually go through things and tell you what's ACTUALLY useable and not just a gimmick. 

The Sony Burano as an example. The HD 120p feature on a lot of new cameras... Just garbage image quality but looks great on paper. 

[MrSMW]

4 hours ago, Ninpo33 said:

I know why they don't disclose things right up front and it's pretty obvious it's because they want to list the features to sell the camera and kind of bury the details about how or why it works.

That's exactly it and pretty understandable, but I get your point!

[Ninpo33]

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

That's exactly it and pretty understandable, but I get your point!

I think Apple and Sony are the companies that just make things work really well most of the time and things are really tested and thought out and designed for consumers. When it comes to the fine details they’re like, “don’t worry about that, just use it, everything will be fine”. And most of the time it’s true, it will be fine. The FX3 is a great image and it’s a little pricey for a 3 year old camera but it’s still selling really well so who am I to argue. 
 

But there are a lot of us in the filmmaking community that want to extract the best possible image out of our tools and will research and tweak things. Even hack the camera, mod the physical design, really push it. At the very least I want to know my tools and their limitations and be at my best on set or on location. Some companies are really good at giving you all the info and letting you dial in what you need and make informed purchases. Others not so much.
 

Not to mention all the people that scoff at micro 4/3 and Super 35 sensor cameras who end up shooting in active stabilization modes and end up loosing all the benefits they always talk about in full frame. 

[Benjamin Hilton]

13 hours ago, Ninpo33 said:

Man, I can't tell if you are just trolling with your comments on this forum or if you are serious? 

Here's why... Spending $2,000 - $6,500 on a camera and not knowing that the features you thought you were getting are compromised or different than advertised because they are buried in the fine print somewhere. That you are able to shoot in 4k/60p but only with terrible rolling shutter and artifacts and a 2x crop into the sensor. Because you bought a full frame camera because you read online that it was worth it for various features but now when you go to use in in the real world it crops into APS-C mode and behaves like the other camera you were looking at for $1,000 less and all your lenses have a different field of view. You don't own any fast wide angle lenses and now you need to rethink things because you bought the camera to use your full frame fast wide angle lenses. 

Sony's most extreme image stabilization on some cameras crops in like 40% on the sensor. That means you are shooting with an area almost Micro 4/3 sensor sized. Try to find that information easily on a Sony website or YouTube video.

I know why they don't disclose things right up front and it's pretty obvious it's because they want to list the features to sell the camera and kind of bury the details about how or why it works. The headline is the 8k or 240p and the brand new shiny thing, meanwhile you have to wait for some honest YouTube reviewer to actually go through things and tell you what's ACTUALLY useable and not just a gimmick. 

The Sony Burano as an example. The HD 120p feature on a lot of new cameras... Just garbage image quality but looks great on paper. 

I'm totally serious on this forum. I get what you are saying here, we totally need to know what we are getting into with our gear before making purchases. From your original post though, I got the impression that you were wanting to know the little 1-3% differences in actual sensor usability effected by stabilization and such. To me I'm baffled by why that would make any real world difference to anyone. Wasn't trying to be mean or anything, just was truly curious. 

 

These days I do my best to try to rent for a day before making a purchase, there is nothing like a little personal quality time with a camera to see if it will work for my workflow. 

[Ninpo33]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

I'm totally serious on this forum. I get what you are saying here, we totally need to know what we are getting into with our gear before making purchases. From your original post though, I got the impression that you were wanting to know the little 1-3% differences in actual sensor usability effected by stabilization and such. To me I'm baffled by why that would make any real world difference to anyone. Wasn't trying to be mean or anything, just was truly curious. 

 

These days I do my best to try to rent for a day before making a purchase, there is nothing like a little personal quality time with a camera to see if it will work for my workflow. 

Yeah, that makes sense, I get it. 

But really some of the crop modes punch in almost 40%...!!! That's no joke. 

And after cropping in the newly advertised high frame rates like 120p and 240p modes turn to mush and are totally unusable so in the end, just a marketing gimmick. 

Lastly, everyone these days online is being sold on the full frame sensor for video in the consumer space and I constantly hear people laughing at micro 4/3 and APS-C cameras and thinking they have no value. I feel like it would be enlightening to a lot of newbies to see that their ZV-E1 is actually only shooting 10.2 megapixels for video and already cropped in on the full frame sensor to even achieve the measly 3840x2160 UHD. And then when you apply dynamic active stability you have a 30% crop in on that. So it's even more than Super 35 and those specs aren't advertised by Sony. 

[KnightsFan]

18 hours ago, Ninpo33 said:

Man, I can't tell if you are just trolling with your comments on this forum or if you are serious? 

I've been on this forum a long time, and I've never seen any indicator in this thread or anywhere else that @Benjamin Hiltonis trolling, or is anything other than a decent guy.

1 hour ago, Ninpo33 said:

Lastly, everyone these days online is being sold on the full frame sensor for video in the consumer space and I constantly hear people laughing at micro 4/3 and APS-C cameras and thinking they have no value. I feel like it would be enlightening to a lot of newbies to see that their ZV-E1 is actually only shooting 10.2 megapixels for video and already cropped in on the full frame sensor to even achieve the measly 3840x2160 UHD.

There are a couple ways to look at it imo. I'm a very procedural person, in that I conceptualize end result as a function of the inputs. If I know the inputs, I plan the output in my head, and that's how I approach a shoot. On the other hand, I know people who have no idea how big their sensor is, but also produce better films than I do. They look through the lens and know what they want. If the end result looks good, who cares if you're using 40% of the sensor?

Neither approach is wrong. But I do believe that products should have accurate and complete specs.

[Ninpo33]

3 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I've been on this forum a long time, and I've never seen any indicator in this thread or anywhere else that @Benjamin Hiltonis trolling, or is anything other than a decent guy.

There are a couple ways to look at it imo. I'm a very procedural person, in that I conceptualize end result as a function of the inputs. If I know the inputs, I plan the output in my head, and that's how I approach a shoot. On the other hand, I know people who have no idea how big their sensor is, but also produce better films than I do. They look through the lens and know what they want. If the end result looks good, who cares if you're using 40% of the sensor?

Neither approach is wrong. But I do believe that products should have accurate and complete specs.

Yeah I’m with you. 

But I’ve also gone in thinking I was going to use certain features on a new camera and ended up not being prepared because I didn’t bring wide enough lenses. I’ve also been yelled at by editors because the super 35 crop didn’t really match the full frame at all and had really ugly noise that took a lot of time to clean up. As mentioned, Fuji has done a great job being transparent about the new GFX 100ii crop modes and most likely that is because they are a feature a lot of people will be excited to utilize. The 40% crop on the ZVE1 however is kind of buried and Sony actually won’t give a straight official answer about the true crop with stabilization on. 
 

It makes sense though, totally different user and market segment . Cinema cameras are well specced and mostly give us all we need in the documentation so I was just thinking it would be nice to provide others with a quick tool they can use to actually see what the various modes do to the image/crop. Sort of like what people have done for anamorphic desqueeze and such. 
 

As we move into 8k sensors soon I’m sure these things will probably be a non issue soon enough.