JudyTee23 Loc: Eastern U. S.

Jerry, I do not mean to be disputatious, but, I believe you are engaging in oversimplification. The issue is more complex than that. The sensor is only one component of a complete system. How can we measure sensor performance unless we can isolate it from the system?

Sensor quality and performance have increased markedly in just the last few years. I have no firm data, but I strongly suspect that an APS-C sensor of today will likely outperform an FX sensor of only five years ago.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

I tend to agree. I tested the Nikon D7000 (2010) against the somewhat older Nikon D700 (2008) last year and at high ISO, using the same 24-70 lens at equivalent focal lengths, the image quality was pretty much the same. Of course the same technology in a DX sensor is usually available in a full-frame sensor, so the potential for technically better images is there.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Good point.
For the target consumer, the casual point 'n' shooter, a "1/2.3-inch sensor" - a little detail found on the specs page of the manual - sounds rather technical and unassuming. What is being marketed is megapixels and zoom, often printed boldly right on the camera and box.

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

Jerry,

Getting back to the more important topic of this post, and your last post on that topic, It might help to show you a bit of kit I always had in the inventory of my shop when restoring British cars.

http://www3.telus.net/bc_triumph_registry/smoke.htm

And Holy Krike, don't these people on this board ever talk about anything except cameras. What a narrow focus to base a life on???

wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

You have a point JudyTee. I think maybe the sensor size thing has come from the old film size thing. And of course the ever present bigger is better. But all things being the same a bigger sensor does give a better image yet, not to be disputatious (I love that word!) I too think today's DX is better that the FX of 5 yrs. ago.

Mousie M Loc: Coventry, UK

My Grandad had one in black, had been used as an ambulance in London in the war, and was converted back again afterwards. Drove all over Wales in it during his retirement, at a steady 25 miler per hour. He would not have dreamed of calling it anything other than "The Rolls". Great fun, but freezing cold in the rain (which is most of the time in Wales).

Mousie M Loc: Coventry, UK

I forgot to ask the question relevant to the thread! Which of those sensor sizes do the Nikon bridge cameras have, eg my Coolpix L110 and the 850 (I think)which my wife has, and takes very sharp photos if you don't blow them up too much?

craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

Mousie M - can't find a Nikon 850, but here's the quick info, including sensor size, of the L110 - http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/compacts/nikon_cpl110

Look under cameras at dp review once you know the exact model name/number and you'll find your answer.

craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

Judy - as I mentioned earlier in the thread sensor techy stuff is not my cup of tea. But your word "disputatious" stopped me, a keen student of my own language, in my tracks - never seen it before ! Indeed I thought you'd made up a new word, which I like, by the way ! But, before issuing a challenge, I checked in my dictionary ...... and there it is, meaning "argumentative".

So thanks for the introduction to a new word ..... which I shall certainly use !

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

[JudyTee23: Paraphrasing her statement: The {sensor size vs quality} issue is complex. The sensor is only one component of a complete system. Sensor quality and performance have increased markedly in just the last few years.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed Judy, right-on, the quality and the brain behind the sensor has increased like Moor's Law of computing. Part of what impedes progress is the consumers lust for large sensors and the misplaced passion for more and more pixels.

We only have to consider the CPU and the fact that the powerful ones now are smaller and less wattage than those of the 1980... for sure! If you were to follow the Jerry-Law then looking at a 200Watt Large CPU and the small 65Watt ones of today then the old-slow one is the better... we know it is not. Again, I am amazed at the quality and performance of my Panasonic ZS20 ... with some post tweaking its (practical*) quality is outstanding.

*As seen by the unaided eye and in print form. Not as seen under the micro inspection to prove differences when comparing to DSLRs.
------------------------------------------------
Let us not forget cell phones: " It is largely due to a jump in sensor performance in the past 2 or 3 years (largely thanks to Sony sensors). " A very good read and supports Judy's statement...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras2.shtml

Mousie M Loc: Coventry, UK

OK got it, thanks

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I get a daily email from A Word A Day - interesting.

http://www.wordsmith.org

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

I'm from the 50s, wonder if I could get over $100,000 for me. Wife says not worth much, but she will keep me anyway. Hate to think what would happen if she thought she could get $100,00. Does the word SOLD come to mind.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

you might get a kick out of this.

http://www.ehow.co.uk/slideshow_12263117_thoughts-make-undeniably-british.html#pg=2

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

Judy:

Holy smokes - another new word for my wife to use along with stubborn, pig headed, you get the idea. :roll: I think you are right on, the sensor is only one component of a complex and rapidly improving system. I still argue that the format most threatened by all the latest technological advances is DX. Caught in the middle between FX and the smaller sensors. Additionally, that's where the money is. Imagine all DX owners having to replace their "stuff" in order to keep up with the latest and greatest improvements. Does film to digital ring a bell.