AX100 - Sensor size confusion, please help me out...

[Spartacus]

So this whole inch stuff has always confused me, coming from a metric country, but this ain´t the cause for my confusion, I think I just have a hole in my brain when it comes to sensor sizes.
Please help me break it down for:
The AX100 has 1 inch sensor, meaning A LOT bigger than a on-third-inch sensor, like in good old HVX days, right?
It´s even bigger than traditional 2/3 inch ENG cameras.
So DoF wise, the AX100 will let you more easily separate your talent from a background, than a 2/3" ENG cam, given the same aperture and focal length...?

Maybe my confusion with this comes from old 1/3" HVX sensor defending arguments, saying the lenses would get too big when upping the sensor size for HVX style cameras...

Anyhow, I need to buy cameras for people who will only get minimal camera training (for "documentation" work, not even documentary...),and a classic style camcorder seems like a saver route than opting for DSLRs...

Thanks!

 

[Bruce Watson]

So this whole inch stuff has always confused me, coming from a metric country...

Even the USA is a metric country. Has been since 1875, when it was one of the 17 original signatories of the Treaty of the Metre. The difference is, the USA doesn't practice the metric system, while the entire rest of the world practices metric. Just the USA, Myanmar, and Liberia use the old British Imperial measurement system. That's it. When will the USA see the light I wonder?

So DoF wise, the AX100 will let you more easily separate your talent from a background, than a 2/3" ENG cam, given the same aperture and focal length...?

If you mean that a bigger sensor has a smaller DOF, all other things equal, then yes. The bigger the sensor, the more shallow your DOF. You should try using an 8x10 large format still camera. Negative the size of an A4 sheet of paper, and DOF about the thickness of said sheet of paper -- easy to focus on just one eye in a portrait and throw the rest of the face way out of focus.

 

[Spartacus]

@Bruce
Thanks for clearing this up

So: AX100, bigger chip than a HVX style camera and even bigger than traditional ENG.
Maybe I´m just so not used to even consider handy cams in the past, that I just could´t believe the technical specs they have gotten in the meantime.
Before, if it didn´t have XLR input, I wouldn't take it serious. DSLRs changed that, but only to some extend.

The more I think about it: The 1" sensor size cameras offer a lot of bang for the buck.
Why isn´t there more talk about these cams?
Or is there and I just don't notice?

 

[Duke M.]

Sensors are measured diagonally and 1" equals 25.4mm. In comparsion the Sony F5 (S35) sensor is 24 x 12.7mm with a diagonal of 27.1mm (which is approximately the same as DSLR sensors.) The Nikon DX is about 24mm x 16.

The trick with most sensor dimensions is that the sensor is relatively square but the video recorded is rectangular (1.85 aspect ratio or 16:9). That means when you are shooting video only part of the sensor is being used and the rest is masked off. (I've been told that more recently Sony has been using the masked off part to create noise reduction patterns, which enables modern camers to have much less video noise.)

The net result is that not all sensor dimensions are directly comparable, but the AX100 will have much better DOF control than a 2/3" video camera, but not quite as much as a dedicated S35 video camera. Close enough to be workable, but not quite as much. For noobies they won't notice the difference.

 

[Bruce Watson]

...if it didn't have XLR input, I wouldn't take it seriously.

I'm still there. Which is why I don't have a DSLR for video. Although I'm told my wife's Nikon D5300 does excellent video. It's a stills camera; it doesn't have XLR inputs, so I can't take it seriously.

 

[Duke M.]

Sony sells an XLR adapter but its expensive. Instead a couple hundred dollars for a Beachtek unit and you have XLR jacks with separate gain controls, quiet pre-amps, phantom power etc.

I'm still there. Which is why I don't have a DSLR for video. Although I'm told my wife's Nikon D5300 does excellent video. It's a stills camera; it doesn't have XLR inputs, so I can't take it seriously.

 

[Duke M.]

The more I think about it: The 1" sensor size cameras offer a lot of bang for the buck.
Why isn´t there more talk about these cams?
Or is there and I just don't notice?

The AX100 is quietly making a name for itself as a crash cam, guerilla cam, nature cam, etc. It's portability and stealth make it unique.

 

[Run&Gun]

When referring to 2/3" chips in a broadcast camera, it's a throw back to the old tube camera days. There's nothing 2/3" about the chips. The diagonal of a ' 2/3" ' chip is 11mm.

Also, technically speaking, sensor size doesn't have anything to do with depth of field. DoF is controlled by focal length (and to an extent aperture). The reason that most people think that large sensor cameras "give you a shallower Dof" is because for any given field of view you're going to have to use a longer focal length lens on a larger sensor cam vs. a camera with a smaller sensor.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Sony sells an XLR adapter but its expensive. Instead a couple hundred dollars for a Beachtek unit and you have XLR jacks...

Not into the camera you wouldn't. You're still exposed between your interface and the camera. I've picked up RF crap (traced it to lamp balasts) on a little 9" unbalanced cable (a high quality custom cable no less) running from a MixPre-D into a DSLR. And spent days in post cleaning up that mistake.

If it's not a balanced XLR input into the camera itself, I'm not even going to consider it. There's too much RF junk around to worry with unbalanced audio.

 

[Duke M.]

When referring to 2/3" chips in a broadcast camera, it's a throw back to the old tube camera days. There's nothing 2/3" about the chips. The diagonal of a ' 2/3" ' chip is 11mm.

Also, technically speaking, sensor size doesn't have anything to do with depth of field. DoF is controlled by focal length (and to an extent aperture). The reason that most people think that large sensor cameras "give you a shallower Dof" is because for any given field of view you're going to have to use a longer focal length lens on a larger sensor cam vs. a camera with a smaller sensor.

I did mention that the measurements of chip sizes are not directly comparable. Also, almost all of those are 3 chip cameras instead of the current crop of one chip cameras. There are differences.

DOF is entirely the lens, true, but as you say the practical effect is that to focus on a larger sensor the physics of the lens to cover it creates a shallower DOF. Potato, patatoh. Same practical effect.

 

[Duke M.]

Not into the camera you wouldn't. You're still exposed between your interface and the camera. I've picked up RF crap (traced it to lamp balasts) on a little 9" unbalanced cable (a high quality custom cable no less) running from a MixPre-D into a DSLR. And spent days in post cleaning up that mistake.

If it's not a balanced XLR input into the camera itself, I'm not even going to consider it. There's too much RF junk around to worry with unbalanced audio.

Certainly that can happen. Someone should always be monitoring your sound when shooting. Even when running a wireless lav into the camera I have my sound guy monitor it because I'm concentrating on other things. (Besides young ears hear better.)

I might remind you that even when using expensive wireless mics then often have one short section of cable with a 1/8" phone plug. Both my Sennheiser G2 and G3 wireless setups have it and wireless lav cables aren't XLR balanced. Just sayin'.