Sizing up the Nikon 1 and Fuji X10 image sensors

Two new oddball sensors in two months – where is the upside?   

I’m a simple soul, easily confused by technology. Image sensors in digital cameras have long confused me, but just lately I began to feel that I had a handle on them. That’s when Fujifilm announced the X10, little brother to the runaway-success X100, with a 2/3” size image sensor. And now it’s Nikon and the CX sensor on the Nikon 1 EVIL system. Oddball sizes, oddball crop factors – in Nikon’s case 2.7, for Fuji it’s just under 4.

The Fuji X10 is another cute retro camera, better-looking than the X100 I think, with full manual controls, optical viewfinder, manual zoom lens, 28-112mm in 35mm speak, f2 to 2.8 at the long end (that is tremendous), 10-FPS in continuous drive and 1080P video. It shoots RAW as well.http://www.eoshd.com/content/3886/fuji-x10-compact-first-impressions-and-iso-test

Crunching the numbers

I want to thank a very helpful individual for shedding new light on this subject but, sadly, I don’t know his or her name. All I know is that they updated the sensor comparison chart on Wikipedia to include both the new Fujifilm x10 and Nikon CX sensor. Here it is:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format (not true to scale)

Heaven only knows why digicam makers persevere with those arcane Imperial measures. To keep us in the dark? However, we can easily see from the graphic that the Fuji x10 sensor is the biggest kid on the digicam block. Most sensors there are 1/2.3” (yes, very confusing), while ‘serious’ models like the Canon G12 and Panny XL5 and Nikon P7100 tend to use 1/1.7” sensors.

Fuji went one better with a sensor that’s 35% ‘bigger’ than the premium digicams. I put bigger in quotation marks because the sensor is still tiny, just a little less tiny than its competitors. Fuji also resisted the temptation to load it up with 16 megapixels like its consumer models. At 12mp, the pixel density of the X10’s sensor is a lower than the current 10mp premium digicams with their 1/1.7” sensors, so it should handle noise a little better. 

The Nitty-Gritty

Our kind soul at Wikipedia has also given us a new chart with all the relevant numbers:

  Area (mm) is the number that matters here, and now we can see a few things quite clearly:

• The Fuji X10 2/3” sensor is over twice as big as the typical 1/2.3” digicam sensor
• The Nikon CX sensor is about twice the size of the Fuji X10
• The M43 sensor is twice as big as the Nikon CX sensor
• The Nikon DX sensor is over 3 times the size of the CX sensor, and 65% bigger than the M43 item
• The Nikon FX sensor is more than twice the size of the DX sensor

Crop factors

The key point here is that the crop factor is a misleading indicator of image size – when you look at 1.5 for DX and 2.7 for CX, you’re inclined to think that DX is less than twice the size. Wrong. It’s the total area that tells you how big sensors are.

Crop factors are more about the Field of View we get from a given sensor and lens. I got a headache thinking about how to work this, until I saw that Thom Hogan had already done it except for the Fuji (http://bythom.com/2011%20Nikon%20News.htm): 

• Standing at the same position, the equivalent focal length for a particular angle of view is X, 1.5X, 2X and 2.7X.
• Put a different way, an FX shooter would be using 300mm, a DX shooter 200mm, an m4/3 shooter 150mm and a 1 shooter 110mm.
• Standing at the same position with the equivalent focal length lens for the same angle of view, the equivalent DOF also changes: FX = f/4, DX = f/2.8, m4/3 = f/2, 1 = f/1.4.
• Standing at the same position with the equivalent focal length for a particular angle of view and the same number pixels (and the same fill ratio), about the same amount of photons should be captured by FX at f/5.6, DX at f/4, m4/3 at f/2.8, 1 at f/2.

The Pricing Muddle

As I said in my last piece on the Nikon 1 system, the current pricing is a dog's breakfast http://briard.typepad.com/get_the_picture/2011/09/nikon-1-you-want-lip-gloss-to-match-that-camera.html . In fact, that statement applies to the whole $500 - $900 dollar camera segment. At present, this price bracket is crowded with

• high-end digicams like the Canon G12/S100, Olympus ZX-1 and soon the Fuji x10
• EVIL cameras like the Sony NEX-C3 and -5N, several Panasonic models, three new Olympus PEN models, Samsung’s NX20, NX100 and NX200, and soon Nikon’s 1 system
• A dozen entry-level DSLRs from Canon, Nikon and Pentax ranging from $600 – 800.

In its press release, Nikon said the 1 system was designed to bridge the gap between its Coolpix range and its consumer DSLR range.

Problem is: the Nikon J1 kit is dearer than a D3100 kit, and the V1 costs more than the D5100. Olympus has left no price gap between the ZX-1 and the PEN E-PM1, and there are still PEN E-PL2 cameras in the retail channel, also priced at around $500. Sony’s CX3 also cuts across its high-end digicams, and the A35/55 DSLRs occupy the same price patch as the NX-5N.

It’s only a problem on paper, though, since consumers will choose the style of camera that appeals to them – digicams for pocketability/ease of use, EVIL systems for their novelty and chic, and DSLRs for predictable performance. If only camera makers would stop telling stories about ‘bridging gaps’ or building bridges between camera ranges. Why not be happy with giving us punter much more choice? We are, aren’t we?

Kim

 

Comments

[Pivo Kaiser]

I love it when people speak their mind and don't beat around the bush. Great comment, Kim (and: I discovered a blog I didn't know about, thanks to Google alerts).

I share your headaches about arcane measures and numbers and sizes.

But I am also baffled that the path Fuji seems to have taken (let's wait for first production samples) has not been recognized by other OEMs yet. Many consumers will flinch at m4/3 or other exchangable-lens bodies, once they see how the size of a zoom inflates the overall volume. And then they longingly look at compact zooms again.

Interesting times.

[Kim Brebach]

Thanks for the pos feedback, Pivo. It's not just the zoom lens but the EVF and flash in most cases that add so much bulk to the tiny bodies.
Fuji is on an interesting path I think, and marching to a different drummer. If only Kodak could retrieve its MOJO.

[Dave Win]

Great commentary, thanks. Regarding the Fuji 2/3, they already put them on the S100 (CCD, not CMOS0) and the results were outstanding. Not just the larger (than 1/1.7, etc.) size, but the shape of the sensors is more efficient. At the same range and image size, the S100 is just as sharp as some DSLRs when shooting, say readable license plates, hand held, at 300-400 yards. Take a look at the Fuji site (and, I believe Wikipedia) for details on the sensor shape and layout.
Regarding viewfinders, it's hard to imagine anyone shooting outdoors in bright light without one. I sold a Canon superzoom because of this--great colors, great IQ, but it was truly a "point and guess" camera since the LCD was totally unreadable in bright sunlight. A simple small-bore tube would be better.

[Dave Win]

Of course I meant "CMOS" but don't see any way to edit posts.

[Kim Brebach]

Thanks for the insight, Dave. I had no idea the old s100fs used a sensor this size.
I'm with you on viewfinders, and use my Nikon D5100 for any serious shooting.