Sensor size: I have been told that the physical size (not the Mega Pixels) of the sensor has a lot to do with picture quality. In particular a sensor the size of 35mm film is the...

blissjensen

I have been told that the physical size (not the Mega Pixels) of the sensor has a lot to do with picture quality. In particular a sensor the size of 35mm film is the biggest sensor available on DSLR cameras and that size results in the best quality with other things being equal. Is this true?
If so why do I not see sensor size listed when I review the specs on a camera?

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

blissjensen wrote:

I have been told that the physical size (not the Mega Pixels) of the sensor has a lot to do with picture quality. In particular a sensor the size of 35mm film is the biggest sensor available on DSLR cameras and that size results in the best quality with other things being equal. Is this true?
If so why do I not see sensor size listed when I review the specs on a camera?

Not true as there are medium format digital cameras with larger sensers.

A good article on sensors is: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

blissjensen wrote:

why do I not see sensor size listed when I review the specs on a camera?

Most specs list sensor size by common names, such as DX (approximately 24-mm x 16-mm) or FX (36-mm x 20-mm = 135 film format).

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

blissjensen wrote:

If so why do I not see sensor size listed when I review the specs on a camera?

You do see it, just not the way you think. Nikon calls their sizes DX and FX. Canon uses "Full Frame" and "APS-C" or "APS-H". Others use such meaningless, purposely confusing terms as "4/3", 1/2.3" and so on. If you look at the Wikipedia entry for "DSLR SENSORS", they have a comparison chart with all the common sizes, even down to P&S cameras.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_-_updated.svg

blissjensen

Great information. Thanks for the help.

johnr9999 Loc: Carlton, OR

blissjensen wrote:

I have been told that the physical size (not the Mega Pixels) of the sensor has a lot to do with picture quality. In particular a sensor the size of 35mm film is the biggest sensor available on DSLR cameras and that size results in the best quality with other things being equal. Is this true?
If so why do I not see sensor size listed when I review the specs on a camera?

The advantage to larger sensors is that it allows larger megapixel, the larger size making them more sensitive. The nonsense about megapixels is that the more pixels you crowd onto a small sensor the smaller they make their pixels and thus more susceptible to overloading. I've heard it said that it's better to have a larger sensor with fewer megapixels which I find to be logically specious. If you reduce it to absurdity you could conceivably have a 4x5" sensor with one pixel. Wouldn't be worth much.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

johnr9999 wrote:

The advantage to larger sensors is that it allows larger megapixel, the larger size making them more sensitive. I've heard it said that it's better to have a larger sensor with fewer megapixels which I find to be logically specious.

It's not that the larger sensors have larger pixels which makes them more sensitive. The advantage to the larger sensor size is that the pixels grid is not as noise-prone as both the physical pixel size and the spaces between the pixels is larger. That last fact is the key - the spacing cuts down on (cross-pixel electromagnetic) noise, which in turn increases the potential for sharpness and clarity. So in the long run, it's really NOT the pixels that matter, it's the space between them.

BCStreet Loc: Longwood, FL

blissjensen wrote:

Great information. Thanks for the help.

I di-do that. Is a P&S 14 mp camera better than a 12mp DSLR ?

eplahna Loc: Sheboygan, Wisconsin

Hmm... so, johnr9999 feels the argument is "logically specious" and JimH is going with logically "spacious". heh heh... sorry...

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

eplahna wrote:

Hmm... so, johnr9999 feels the argument is "logically specious" and JimH is going with logically "spacious". heh heh... sorry...

Jeeze that's pretty bad.. You are hereby sentenced to 24 hours solitary confinement with Sinatraman.

eplahna Loc: Sheboygan, Wisconsin

DOH! Not that! I'd rather slide down a 10 foot razor blade into a pool of acid...

Seriously, it really does take a qualified sensei to make sense of this sensor nonsense. I had a Sony H5 with 7 MP that outdid most 10 and 12 MP sensors I tried after that until I got my Nikon D5100... must have something to do with the engine and lens as well when talking about bridge cameras. So there, you have my 2 cents (sense) worth, and now I don't feel so much like a hijacker.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

a sensor can be overcrowed with pixels. The fujifilm HS 10 has 10 megapixels, the newer version, the HS 20 has 16 megapixels. Photo quality is a lot better in the older HS 10. It's not so much the size of the sensor, it's the amount of pixels the manufacturs try to cram in it to make people think more is better. That's not always the case.

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

The new Canon Flagship, the 1Dx is 18 MP full frame.
Canon gets it that cramming megapixels doesn't make a great sensor.

BCStreet Loc: Longwood, FL

Thanks for the Cambridge website. Looks really informative.

johnr9999 Loc: Carlton, OR

JimH wrote:

quote=johnr9999 The advantage to larger sensors i... (show quote)

exactly right, jimh. what I referred to as overloading. But an additional factor is pixel size. The larger the pixels the more light sensitive they are and the more rgb info they can send to either the in-camera processor or a raw file.