rehess wrote:
There are two ways of measuring a sensor - by pixels or by millimeters.
A "FF" sensor is approximately 36mm x 24mm
An APS-C sensor is roughly 24mm x 16mm
For historical reasons, the very small sensors are measured by diagonal of the sensor. In order to get superzoom that acts like a very long 35mm lens, physics points us to very small sensors; in this case they tend to use the very smallest, the so-called 1/2.3" sensor, which is approximately 6.2mmx4.6mm, less than 1/3-rd the linear dimensions of an APS-C sensor in each direction.
Undisputed is the fact that a larger sensor will naturally provide lower noise and greater color depth.
Sometimes you will see heated discussions here discussing the relative merits of FF and APS-C cameras; the ratio of FF to APS-C is 1.5; the ration of super-zoom to APS-C is twice that, so anything said about comparing FF to APS-C, especially in poor light, is even more true when comparing super-zoom to the larger sensors.
There are two ways of measuring a sensor - by pixe... (
show quote)
First of all thank you for this information. If you were in my position and wanted to purchase a Superzoom what would you select? Since they all have the same size sensor shouldn't the Image Quality all come out the same. When it comes to superzoom, I don't need something that will zoom to the moon. I take most of my photos around the neighborhood and from my backyard of birds. I don't want the heaviness of a DSLR nor expense. I am in my 70's and getting up to where I just can't carry lenses very far. I do like the Nikon P900, but don't like the bulkiness of it. Sony has a couple of cameras with 1" sensors. Will this create better Image quality? To be candid, I enjoy photography, but do not understand the physics of photography. Greg