John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

By image quality, I would think it would be defined by pixels per unit length. The larger the pixels per unit lenght the larger the resolution.

BebuLamar

Bigger in general can produce better quality images but is not necessarily better. Sometimes compactness is important and also the lens. If you have a large sensor camera but not any decent lenses for the format then you can get good quality images.

tomad Loc: North Carolina

Full farm gives you more animals, not more pixels...

bodiebill

Why are you so snarky and unwilling to assist with a reasonable answer?

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Of course there is. Compare a cell phone pic to a Phase One pic. Everything else being the same, the larger sensor will provide better IQ. The greater the difference in size, the greater the difference in IQ.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Two points to consider:

1) The better IQ of larger sensor arrays is more visible at low light levels than in daylight conditions. There's still a difference, of course, but you'll see it most obviously in available light.

2) If budget is a consideration (as it is for most of us...), in my opinion you'll see a better return on investment from buying better glass than buying bigger sensors. My wife and I realized we couldn't afford all the kit we wanted in FF size, so we intentionally compromised with Nikon DX systems, in which we both share lenses but have two relatively complete outfits. Sometimes I spend more time in PP "fixing" noise, but it's a compromise we're willing to live with.

Each photographer's needs and priorities are different. What's right for me may not be right for you.

Andy

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

I will try not to be "grumpy," however, this topic has been discussed and disected ad nauseum all over this forum and on the WWW. It almost seems that this is really "troll" material. It would be great if you did some homework on your own and come back with some informed commentary and then ask for dialogue.

Cheers!

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Point 1: I agree completely. My 6D2 still amazes me how well it does in low light.

Point 2: That's why I stated every thing else being the same. That includes good lenses, good technique, good photographers, etc.

bodiebill

Thank all of you who have responded politely and provided knowledge and information related to my question.
I spent over 40 years in my profession and always learned something new everyday.
"Newbie" generally means low level of experience and there is much to learn, and "Mentor" is a person who willingly will aid, guide, lead and instruct.
We all begin as a Newbie, then later have the opportunity to be a Mentor.
Only a few disgruntled misbehave when very basic questions are asked.
My experience with UHH has been helpful and beneficial in learning.
Bodiebill

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Yes, the bigger the better. Just like in the old film days. The question is how good is good enough for you?

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Yes. And those that harp on search must be uninteresting since everything has been said many times before they must never communicate with anyone on anything.

If you sense the poster might ne a newbie one could suggest trying search as well. But like you I have only found it useful to ressurect a thread I knew was out there. And often failed on that.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

While some full frame cameras provide more pixels than smaller sensors many do not. You’ll find 24MP on 1/2.3 sensors up to many excellent full frame. And full frame cameras with 16MP or less.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Bill - here's the order of quality in Sensor Size - going from the smallest to the largest:

Bridge (1/2.3") - 1" (RX10 Mk. IV, et al) MFT (Olympus, Panasonic - equiv. to a 110 neg.) APS-C/DX - all Fujis, most Canons (not 1D, 5D, 6D series) virtually all Nikons (not 610, 750, 810, 850, Df, D5) and all Pentax (other than the FF K-1/K-1 II) and then - MF (Medium Format - Pentax 645Z, Hassys, Phase Ones and the Fuji GFX 50S and 50R (and the soon-to-come GFX 100 with a 100MP sensor.) This last group - has the greatest quality - short of going to sheet film cameras, or those designed for sheet film, to which can be attached Digital Backs - which can be prohibitively expensive. Now, then - you've chosen a quite capable Sony bridge. But, it IS a bridge, with the smallest sensor ever devised for a digital camera. The images from all bridges - can look pretty good on the LCD screen, in PB - but, when you upload them to your computer later, and then magnify any part of the image - you can see how the images are found wanting. You don't even need to print them - just do that. Or, crop them using any editor, and then try and blow them up to the size of your PC monitor. You will find yourself cringing. Some bridges - like Nikon's P900 and P1000 - can attain some stunning images. The former will attain 2000mm (FF equiv.) and the latter will attain 3000mm (FF equiv.) but they are still only 1/2.3" sensors - and the images from them - will not blow up satisfactorily to large sizes - suitable for framing. For that, you need AT LEAST - a 1" sensor camera, or larger - preferably at least Micro Four Thirds (MFT) or APS-C - which provides an area approximately half of the area provided by FF. If you want to wallpaper your walls with images - the ideal sensor is Medium Format. But, if you can't manage the expense, FF (such as the ones listed above) are a good way to go. APS-C is also a reasonable alternative - providing a good compromise between weight and expense issues, and acceptable quality. Many APS-C cameras can be purchased for not much more than you put up to have that Sony bridge sent to you. For instance, a Pentax K-70 - a very good camera, with a host of great features - is around $600 with lens. Canon's T7 is about the same. The SL2 - is even less - but then, it's a smaller camera. Nikon's D5500 - is in the same ballpark. All of these have a Fully-Articulating Screen (not T7) and the Canon and Nikon units also have a Touch-Screen. But, now - these are all DSLRs - and will require lens changes, when you choose to add them. The Sony bridges are fixed lens cameras, so what you buy, initially - you are stuck with … but, hey! … it's a lighter package - right? … Sony also has the a6000 Mirrorless cameras - also have great quality, with an APS-C sensor. And - in a Sony DSLR - the most affordable one is the a68 - in their SLT line - another, you might want to look at. But, coming back to bridges - other than the Panasonic Lumix 1" designs, and the aforementioned RX10 Series - all 1/2.3" bridges are pretty much the same - whether the name on them is Fujifilm Finepix, Nikon Coolpix, Sony Cybershot, Canon Powershot, Olympus Stylus, or Panasonic Lumix. There's so little difference in quality between them all - as to be pretty much insignificant. The main differences are to do with MP, and the range of the built-in zoom lens. When you go to a larger format sensor - you will instantly see the improvement in your images. The larger the sensor you chose to adopt - the better your images will be. But, with each notch up the ladder, you will pay a little more. After buying 10 more bridges than one of my first - the Sony Cybershot HX100V (listed below) a predecessor to the one you just ordered - I finally decided to abandon the design, and stay with APS-C dig cams (all listed below.) Even though some - such as the Nikon D500 - can cost as much as two grand - you will find most of the better ones in the $1200-$1500 ball park. But, most of the beginner models can be gotten around $500-600 - which is not a whole lot more than you just paid for your Sony bridge. Happy Shooting to you!!!

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

If you get upset with some of the questions asked on the forum, why bother opening the thread? When I joined UHH, I asked "dumb" questions, but people were nice and offered suggestions as to how to work around my problem. I long for those days because many people on UHH are just plain inconsiderate. There was a time when Hogs prided themselves on being friendly and helpful.

texashill Loc: Texas Hill Country

The good folks on this forum taught me long ago the importance of shooting RAW. It took me a while to follow the advice but after a couple of years of reading here I got Lightroom, took a photo with bright highlights and dark showdows, slid the sliders in Lightroom and was amazed to see things come out of black shadow. I suppose the same thing can be accomplished by increasing sensor size. It would be interesting to learn something about how much shooting in RAW increases dynamic range as compared to shooting JPEG with a camera with a larger sensor.