a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Before my main point I'll just agree to the obvious that a larger sensor almost always has the advantage for image quality when other factors are equal. I'll also agree that a bigger sensor for an equal focal length leaves more room at the edges for an action shot but this ignores the use of a zoom lens.

But the main point of this response is that for a given focal length (real, optical, not "equivalent") the size of an image for a given target at a given distance will have an equal size in linear terms such as mm or in. But the number of pixels in that image will determine how big you can make it on a screen or a print before running out of pixels. For instance, using 300 dots/pixels per inch on a print, you need 2400 pixels for 8 inches and 3000 pixels for 10 inches.

Now it should be obvious that the smaller sensor is not the issue so much as the pixels per mm or pixel density. Neither a smaller nor a larger field of view directly determines this.

An example of one extreme is the Nikon P900 which has a field/angle of view about the same as a 2000 mm lens on a full frame camera while recording 4608 × 3456 pixels - about 16 MP. But the sensor is only about 6.17 mm across, a pixels per mm of about 747. At the other extreme would be a Sony A7R3 with about 8000 pixels across in a sensor that is 36 mm for a pixels per mm of 222. The Nikon's actual focal length is 357 mm. The Sony's field of view is much larger as is the angle of view if using the same focal length. This makes it complicated for image quality because up to a certain size image, the better, bigger sensor will give a superior image but beyond that size, the extreme pixel density of the P900 will produce a better image just because you can't realistically get good quality that isn't there.

So for action at a distance, whatever your preferred camera, there will be sweet spot beyond which a lower quality setup will give a better result. This may apply more to birds than soccer but the match doesn't care.

TMI?

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

The larger the sensor the better. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26503-1.html

Different sensor types: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-81861-1.html

Visual differences in full frame and crop sensor (large vss small sensor on DSLR): http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-136625-1.html

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Don't know what Nikon DSLR you're using... but they all are either full frame (1.0X) or APS-C (1.5X) sensor format.

The Olympus "micro Four/Thirds" sensor format is a bit smaller than APS-C... with a 2X lens factor. So, in effect that 70-300mm on it would behave "like a 140-600mm" on a full frame camera.

The bridge camera you mention uses a 1" sensor, which is even smaller still. It's actually large for a sensor in a non-interchangeable lens camera... but still not as big as the DSLRs or Oly use. It has a 2.7X lens factor. Bridge and other non-interchangeable lens digital often don't even talk about their actual focal length, but use "35mm film" comparatives. This is now they manage to have some incredible telephoto claims... smaller sensors make modest focal lengths "act" a whole lot "longer". I don't know what they claim about the Sony, but you probably will need to compare to the "140-600mm" mentioned above. In order to have the same angle of view as a 600mm lens on a full frame camera, 400mm on an APS-C, or 300mm lens on an m4/3... a camera with a 1" sensor will need a lens with an actual focal length of about 220mm.

A major difference with smaller sensors is low light/high ISO limitations. There are cameras around 20MP with sensors in all four sensor formats: full frame, APS-C, m4/3 and 1". In full frame, this makes for a very "uncrowded" sensor and the latest of these have pretty incredible high ISO, low light capabilities. Some now have usable ISO ranges at and above 104200. The smaller APS-C format has benefited from this too, though a 20MP sensor in that size is far more crowded. Some recent APS-C models have usable ISO as high as 12800 and even 25600. m4/3 are a little less than that, since their sensors are a bit more crowded. You'll find an even smaller 1" sensor with 20MP resolution will be more limited. I don't have any cameras using m4/3 or 1" format and haven't studied them all that closely, but I'd be surprised if 1" could make images without too much noise much above ISO 1600 or maybe 3200. Even so, that would be a lot better than a few years ago, when smaller sensor digital cameras were limited to about ISO 400 or less, even with lower resolution (and some of the really small sensors still are pretty limited... you might be able to select a higher ISO, but won't like the results).

The other consideration with smaller sensors is control over depth of field. DoF doesn't actually change directly due to sensor size alone. However, because the actual lens focal lengths they use are much shorter, they tend to render deeper DoF. If you are wanting to isolate a subject using a shallow DoF, heavily blurring down the background behind them, it is difficult to do so with the smaller sensor cameras. Olympus (and to an extent their partner in the m4/3 format: Panasonic), offer some lenses that feature a larger than usual aperture in an effort to offset this... say an f/2.0 instead of an f/2.8. But in the even smaller format you won't find this same effort being made. Partly that's because a lens with an extra large aperture needs to be bigger diameter, as well as some other optical considerations. If, on the other hand, you are looking for extra DoF.... images that are sharper from near to far, the smaller sensors can have an advantage.

However, with really small apertures comes another problem: diffraction. This is an optical effect that robs images of some of their fine detail, the smaller the aperture the greater the loss of image quality. Due to the scaled down size of the non-interchangeable lens cameras with their smaller sensors and shorter actual focal lengths, a truly small aperture can be a problem. Part of this has to do with how much enlargement is required, to make any given size of print from an image with the different sensor formats. For example, to make an 8x12" print from a full frame camera with a relatively uncropped image means approx. 8X magnification. The same print from an APS-C camera is roughly 13X magnification. As a result, full frame "tolerates" about one stop smaller apertures than APS-C before diffraction becomes a problem, since the FF image is less enlarged. I haven't done the math, but I'd anticipate that a still smaller m4/3 will be roughly another stop "limited", and an even smaller 1" sensor will around two stops. For example, around 20MP an 8x12" print just barely starts to show some effect from diffraction at f/11, while an APS-C it's around f/8. An m4/3 like Oly uses might be around f/5.6 and a 1" sensor such as is in that Sony you mention, f/4. Now, at these settings diffraction is minor... just getting started.... but as you decrease the size of the apertures even farther, you'll seen increased diffraction with each smaller f-stop. I try to not use smaller than f/16 or... maybe... f/22 with full frame, f/11 or f/16 with APS-C. There's some effect from diffraction, but it's still fairly minimal. I avoid f/22 with APS-C cameras and f/32 or smaller with full frame. I don't have any m4/3 or 1" sensor cameras, but if I did I'd probably limit them to around f/11 and f/8, respectively, avoiding f/16 or smaller with m4/3 and f/11 and smaller with 1". It might not be quite that much, since the step from APS-C to m4/3 isn't all that large.... but I'm rounding things off in full stops for purpose of discussion here.

Taken all together, this means that the smaller the sensor format, the less "flexible" your range of available apertures... As you can see from the above, there are some limitations at both extremes: large apertures to make for shallow DoF effects, and small apertures to render things sharp from near to far. And that translates into less control over how DoF is rendered.

Those are some of the things you need to weigh, when comparing the different formats.

Deanie1113

I think my PP skills are quite good. I have LR and PS and know my way around.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Go with the em1ii then.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

The Zeiss 24-600mm zoom on the RX10 III & IV makes the camera! Great lens for wildlife, landscapes and everything between.

As for low light performance, the RX10's may not be as good as my full frame Sony A7S or A7R II but I've shot wildlife at up to ISO 6400 with quite acceptable results. Much easier to clean up noise than remove motion blur! And the RX10's are a whole lot easier to carry around than a full frame 150-600mm zoom!!

bwa

Kuzano

Biggest deal maker for me, aside from the vast superiority of the Em1 MkII (HUGE!!!) over the Sony you mention, is the 80 Mp Sensor Shift High Resolution image file. The only other MFR using Sensor or Pixel Shift is PENTAX. Faster AF and IBIS. Lens interchangeability is a large factor for me, because if I want to shoot MF primes, There are tons of older, great lenses out there.

Sorry, but except for low light, the Olympus walks away from the Sony, not to mention the longer 35mm EQ for the Oly 4:3 sensor (2X) over any Sony APSc or Full Frame lens on interchangeable lenses.

The "1 inch" sensor is an "also ran" in the Sony bridge. The pixels themselves are substantially bigger on the Olympus.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

The M4/3 sensor is larger

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

I do believe the new Panasonic G9 is the fastest focusing camera in da whole wide world! Not positive tho

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Just a little update the new Panasonic G9 has has a 80 pixel shift as well😀

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

The number of pixels you need for a given print size is based on viewing distance. You would never set the resolution for 40"x60" at 300 ppi. That would be a ridiculous file size - 12,000 x 18.000 or 210 mp.

You might want to rethink your advice after you read this:

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

And remember those wonderfully sharp and clear images taken with iPhones plastered onto billboards - from an 8 mp image.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Sony is also doing some type of sensor shift in the A7rIII.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

In 4/3rds world, both Olympus and Panasonic can hold there own or surpass the big dogs under a majority of conditions (Olympus may still focus fast than Panasonic, but does it really matter at those speeds?). At 18fps to 60fps, they have to focus fast. But there are conditions that the 4/3rds focusses are slower than FF and APS-C due to the smaller sensor size and sensitivity. Also, it is easier to increase one's successful shots of BIF using the Olympus EE-1 eyesight. That tends to help keep an accurate focus point while handholding the Olympus E-M1 mII.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Biggest difference is that Panasonic AF is DFD where as the em1ii had pdaf and cdaf. You won’t be able to use the older, yet high quality 4/3 glass in anything other than manual focus on the G9. My older 4/3 glass works great (with an adaptor) on the em1ii

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I like amfoto1's information because, for the most part, it is detailed and accurate. His estimates for the 4/3rds diffraction are only off by a little. Rather than f5.6, it usually raises it's ugly head between f8 and f11. I agree with him at limiting the f-stop to f11and if possible f8. My opinion is diffraction actually robs smaller sensors of sharpness faster than larger sensors at larger f-stops. The best source that I know for lens diffraction information for the 75-300 you are looking at is Imaging Resource. Give the site a lookover.

The only other item is ISO. Every review I have read about the E-M1 mrII indicates the ISO starts falling apart after 6400. Personally, I would limit it to 3200 to be on the safe side. I have never had to limit the ISO because Olympus does that for me in Program mode. In Program mode and ISO Auto, the camera limits the ISO to 1600 until one runs out of aperture and/or shutter speed. Then it will start changing the ISO again. The native ISO is 200 and it tries to stay there if possible in ISO Auto. And I am fairly certain that other modes operate in a similar fashion.