dnathan

All other factors being equal, if I am comparing image quality, will a camera with a 1" square sensor vs a 1/4" square sensor - if the 1" sensor takes a picture at 50mm and the 1/4" sensor takes the same picture at 200mm will the image quality be the same if the 1" sensor image is cropped in photoshop to the same final image size as the 200mm view? I have only dslrs & want to purchase a pocket size walk around camera. There are many to choose from & the 200mm zoom would, I think, be better for me but I don't want to lose image quality. I print 8x10; 11x14 & 16x20 and usually do a lot of PP. Thanks.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

On paper it might look like and equation but reality may be different.

If it were only that simple. Sensors of different sizes are never proportionally equal. Same for lenses and software to covert raw data into an image.

The 1" sensor would certainly have some advantages.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

While I'm no expert,your first statement is the problem. Other thing are rarely equal

BebuLamar

I think you meant that both cameras were used with a 50mm lens although the one with the smaller sensor looks like it has a 200mm lens.

TucsonCoyote Loc: Tucson AZ

I'll second that.....just like last week ....and the week before! :XD:

dnathan

I get it. thanks.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

No. Fine detail "smearing" and "clumping" will be a limitation. You'd have to compare specific models to see if any will fit your needs.

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

NO the image quality will NOT be the same. The factors that will determine your IQ are: # of megapixels (for resolution), size of those megapixel photo-sites to process available light (to minimize noise), degree of cropping relative to the final image print size. Ideally, you should get the largest, highest megapixel sensor you can get in a compact camera since you print 11x14 and 16x20 (and as always, pay close attention to your light). :-) The 1" sensor will most likely yield the better-looking print, all other variables being equal.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

And the physical size of fine detail vs the size of the sensor sites.

Psergel Loc: New Mexico

If the answer to your question were yes.....I doubt that anyone would buy FF cameras.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Exactly. Like an engine in a car, the sensor is only part of the equation. There's so much going on when the shutter button is pushed.

zigipha Loc: north nj

smaller camera usually is less expensive usually means lower cost components (coatings on glass, glass itself, coating on sensor, quality of the sensor, alignment of the glass plane to the sensor plane, and sensor site size.

If all those WERE the same the answer is...No. Reason is that you would have 1/4 number of pixels to reproduce your image, so large prints would be worse. but smaller prints would be the same.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

GAAAAA! Too much math. Is this an SAT test?

Seriously, the answer is, IT DEPENDS:

on the type and design of the sensor
on the electronics connected to the sensor
on the camera firmware
on the applied image processing
on the ISO
on the quality, character, and amount of available light...

Without getting into the whole sensor size argument, all other things being equal (and they are NEVER, EVER equal!), larger sensors generally provide cleaner images in lower light levels.

It's when you get into comparing apples with oranges (one size and brand and age of equipment with another size and brand and age...) that it gets complicated.

In the end, a camera is a tool — a tool you live with to make images. Does it offer the controls you need? Is it a convenient size? Does the lens reach far and wide enough? Is the output suitable for the end use? Only you can determine the answers, which differ for each of us.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

You will loose image quality. In fact, quite a lot of image quality. In one test I did, I took a shot of a bridge with a full frame and with a Canon SX50. I made sure that the image as seen in the camera was exactly the same size. To the right of the bridge was a warning sign advising not to jump into the water below the bridge. With the full frame, I could easily blow up the picture large enough to read the sign. With the tiny sensor Canon SX50, the sign was just a blur.

But I could zoom in on just the sign, and then it was clear.

But fact is that the sensor size does matter, and it matters quite a lot. You are not going to be happy blowing up images to 16 x 20 from a tiny sensor camera. And also, I can shoot in RAW with that Canon SX50, but I just don't have as good of material to work with.

The tiny sensor bridge camera does have a place. It is small and has a tremendous zoom. You can take it places that taking a larger camera and lenses would be impractical. When I go on business trip to Asia, I don't take along the good camera and lenses. I just take the bridge camera.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

A I understand, they are never the same. Physically bigger sensors are superior to smaller sensors. I have not found any article to say differently. I am not talking about image quality but low light abilities, general performance etc.