adm

I am relatively new to digital photography. I have three digital cameras, a Nikon Coolpix S7000 point and shoot and two Olympus Micro 4/3 mirrorless cameras, both fairly recent models. All three cameras have 16 megapixels but the point and shoot has a sensor just slightly bigger than a smartphone. The point and shoot photos do not look that good on the camera but when I send them to my phone by WiFi, they look almost (but not quite) as good as the larger format photos. Is there any explanation for this? This suggests to me that sensor size may not be as important as some say it is. The Micro 4/3 photos look great also and are a bit better than those from the point and shoot but the difference is not dramatic. This makes me wonder what the advantage would be for going up to full-frame. Maybe, this has to do with the fact that there is still not a very large image size on the smartphone. I have been on UH for three and a half years and have never posted a topic before. So, thank you for your patience.

Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley

A lot of pics will look good on the small screen of a smart phone because they are compressed.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Oops, did not correctly read the OP's question..... Post deleted.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Just another observation, newer smartphones come with 12MP capabilities, so the result is going to be getting better.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

You are correct about the small screen. You can't judge image quality by looking at any photo on a small screen; you would need to print it large or view on a large, high resolution monitor. There are many reasons to use a full frame camera and just as many reasons why you don't need one

A few reasons to consider: price, size, weight, will you be printing - and how large. Do you need special features such as very fast focusing or bursts (example, birds in flight). How important is technical perfection in your pursuit of this hobby?

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

The only way to tell how much resolution you have actually captured is to view the images at 100% resolution on a computer screen, using software like Hornil Photo viewer or any software that will zoom into 100% resolution. Another way is to view a pic on UHH with the download option and press the "+" to see it at 100% resolution. In my experience I do not get a clear resolution at 100% with a bridge camera but do with a camera with a 1" sensor or higher. But unless you are going to crop your images it most likely wouldn't be possible to notice the difference on a cell phone.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

<read: smaller visually>
My phone is an AMOLED screen. Boy do the ones from my regular camera look good on the phone screen!.
The colors pop like there's no tomorrow.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

What differences do you expect to see relative to sensor sizes?

Advantages going up to full-frame? Better noise performance in low light conditions is probably the biggest sensor size dependent difference. The FF cameras are typically higher resolution but for the most part we already have enough so the value there is often muted by overkill. There are DOF differences but the advantage can tip either way in that case (less DOF with the larger sensors).

Here's an image from a point and shoot camera with a tiny sensor that is only 10 megapixels and the image is cropped. It would easily hold up printed to 16 x 20.

Joe

(Download)

drzuvela Loc: Croatia

Your coolpix has 1/2.3 inch sensor and may produce 4608 x 3456 big jpg photo. That is not bad size for many applications.
You should transfer photos from camera or card to PC by wire if you wish to get full size files what camera produced. Wifi transfer to phone usually resize photo quite a lot.
Some parameters may spoil the quality of small sensor more then bigger one. E.g if you are shooting in any auto mode which controls ISO, you may end up with high ISO set by camera and noise would be awful. Or you may set ISO manually result is same.
In general , bigger sensor size is more important for better photo then number of pixels.
But bigger sensor bodies has constructive advantages which are most important with FF size sensor.
Continuing on century old FF format, there is still huge number of equipment designed for FF cameras. Lenses as most important , then macro rings, belies, filters.All that will extend usability of single body. On today mirrorless body you can attach any lens ever produced.
Small compact or bridges doesn't have that options. But your coolpix can slip in any pocket easily.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

There are lots of advantages of using a smart phone as a camera. The drive for extra megapixels in a crowded market-place is just one. Ease of use without worrying about aperture or DOF is another.

The 'downside' is often pointed out as being when images are printed. But then 'how many' get printed and hung on your wall (or others)? You save images on the cloud (where size is costly) you send them via the internet where often they get resized down, or display them with an electronic picture frame. To many size is irrelevant.

Post processing is probably less used by cell phone photographers (other than the in-phone options) So in a sense they are comparable to SOOC that so many judge as 'best' work practice. Plus they are 'always to hand' another work practice often quoted.

What you may not have to wade through is the minutia that is attached to DLSR's.....no lens choice Prime or otherwise. No aperture ratio to decide, little choice as to flash attachments or extra 'goodies'. In a world full of cell phones - no approbation over the biggest lens or the most costly camera (unless you are an I-phone addict). Possibly why 'tablets' seem to have been a passing phase. Bigger is not best!

But I wanted to learn 'photography' not necessarily take hundreds of thousands of photo's. I like the history of the camera. I love experimenting and pushing boundaries. But most of all...I like to take long walks at interesting places and produce an image that CAN be enlarged to fit on a wall. I do like hanging my pictures up at home (and changing them). I am also in my 60's so not that tech attached.

I can see that there is a great deal of interest in taking 'smaller' images using smaller cameras. What I cannot see is the ending of the harping about 'what is better'. Go back thirty years and 'everything' has changed.....Better ceases to be the objective of the exercise - merely being 'the latest' is.

In a photography forum - we should care less about 'the camera' and more about the image and why one thinks it is iconic....fantastic.....exciting or any other adjective you want to supply.

Photography is about 'an image'.....not the size it is or could have been....Polaroid knew this. It isn't about the 'kit used'.....that can be seen as obvious....to another photographer. It is about How and Why you chose to take it in that way (From ignorance to artistic license can be discussed constructively then).

We are moving into an era of Gender Homogeny....Time to stop stuffing handkerchiefs into our clothing and strutting like peacocks!

Have fun ....with whatever you do

MW

As long as you are only going to view the pics on your mobile device or send them others who will
only see them on their mobile devices there is little advantage using a P&S or anything other than the MD to take them.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I just want to reiterate what Linda said. Cellphones are great and almost any image looks great on the cellphone screen. Where the differences occur are when the image becomes 20X24 or 30X40. My S9+ will produce as good an image as my E-M1mkII at 5X7 or 8X10 print size. But my 13mp S9+ will fall apart compared to the 20mp E-M1mkII at 20X24 or 30X40. Above 30X40, even my 20mp E-M1mkII falls apart compared to full frame and medium format. And under poor lightning conditions, even more differences that will show up.

Sensor size does matter, but it is mostly in the size, weight, and cost department for the system. For most common print sizes, a 24mp full frame or APS-C will be almost the same number of pixels as a 20mp 4/3rds sensor due to sensor ratio versus print ratio. Sensor size will affect ISO, dynamic range, and depth of field. But for most of us smaller sensor shooters, the differences are not worth the extra size, weight, and cost. Even for you, you did not bring up the differences in ISO, dynamic range, and depth of field between your cellphone, P&S, and Olympus system even though there are differences between them all.

Each camera has it's proper use: cellphone is the camera at hand, P&S is an "easier to travel with" better camera, and the system camera is the most versatile for all types of shooting. You have a great set of cameras at your disposal to shoot whatever. Most of the time, the images will be nearly identical in the quality needed and wanted.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

Professor Bose made his first millions by making small (cheap) speakers sound like larger, more expensive speakers by using software. Likewise, software can correct many flaws of photos taken with a small lens and sensor - but not all. Newer mirrorless cameras, in fact, are now including applications first introduced in cellphones. Most of us do not make posters for the wall. So... we shall see what the future of small cameras brings.

Canisdirus

The camera/phone body part of the image equation is digital.
The lens part of the equation is .... analog.
Which means the optics are still driven by the same set of physics.
You can push one thing (zoom capability)...but you have to give up f stops and DOF (as an example).

To wrap it up..... inferior optics are never going to replace superior optics ... as long as lenses are analog.

Someday....the 100% digital lens may be invented....and may be able to bend/upend the optic rules.
But not today .... not in the near future.

ELNikkor

The cell phone images will be plenty fine for the "documenting your life" type photos. You will probably never need more than those Olympus cameras for your more serious photography.