- Travel Articles
- Camera Articles
- Site map
- Hide menu
To optimize the portability of a serious travel camera, consider APS-C sensor size or as small as 1-inch Type sensor (recommended here: BUY>CAMERAS). The archaic inch-sizing of sensors is clarified in the illustration and table below with relative sizes and millimeters.
Recent digital sensor improvements have shrunk cameras and increased zoom ranges while preserving image quality. These days, evocative images can clearly be captured with most any decent camera, even as small as a good iPhone or Nokia Lumia smartphone. But if you ever want large prints, get a bigger camera. For a given year of technological advance, a camera with physically bigger sensor area should tend to capture better image quality (by gathering more light), but at the cost of larger-diameter, bulkier lenses than a smaller-sensor camera system.
In the illustration below, compare digital camera sensor sizes: full frame 35mm, APS-C, Micro Four Thirds, 1-inch, 1/1.7″ and 1/2.5” Type.
For me, the best two-pound 11x zoom travel system of 2013-14 was a mirrorless Sony NEX-7 or NEX-6 camera with 18-200mm lens with APS-C sensor (23.5 x 15.6 mm) and electronic viewfinder (EVF). Improving its quality across the same zoom range would require a heavier set of prime (non-zoom) lenses or a larger-sensor camera requiring bulkier lenses, such as the full-frame-sensor Sony Alpha A7 Mirrorless. (Click here for my latest camera recommendations.)
I also carry a pocket-sized Sony DSC-RX100 camera, which justifies its price premium by ingeniously packing a 1-inch Type sensor (13.2 x 8.8 mm) with a light-gathering area 2.7 to 4 times bigger than its peers! The revolutionary 20-megapixel Sony RX100 captures not only great wide-angle close-focus shots (macro) but also landscape photo quality beating my 3-times-bulkier camera of 2009:
Paradigms are shifting fast. In 2014, new technology slashes camera size and weight (compared to DSLR systems) for serious 810mm-equivalent-lens photography of sports, birds, and wildlife:
Most cheaper compact cameras have smaller but noisier sensors such as 1/2.3″ Type (6.17 x 4.56 mm) — tiny enough to miniaturize a superzoom lens (above 15x zoom range), but poor for capturing dim light or for enlarging prints beyond A4 or letter size. Smartphones have even tinier sensors such as 1/3.0″ Type (4.8 mm x 3.6 mm) in iPhone 5S. That being said, the “best” travel camera is the one that you are willing to carry everywhere.
Top smartphone cameras (as in the Nokia Lumia 1020 and Apple iPhone 5S of 2013 in the table below) have improved their miniature sensors to the point where citizen journalists can capture newsworthy photos with image quality (debatably) good enough for fast sharing and quick international publication. Click here for a great perspective on how far image quality has progressed from early DSLR to 2014 smartphone cameras. While I don’t use a smartphone camera myself, evocative images can clearly be captured with most any decent camera. But tiny-sensor cameras have considerable limitations compared to physically larger cameras in terms of print enlargement, autofocus speed, performance in dim or indoor light, and so forth.
The non-standardized fractional-inch sensor sizing labels such as 1/2.5-inch Type and 1/1/7″ Type confusingly refer to antiquated 1950s-1980s vacuum tubes. When you see those archaic “inch” size labels, instead look up the actual length and width in millimeters reported in the specifications for each camera:
|Sensor Type||Diagonal (mm)||Width (mm)||Height (mm)||Sensor Area (in square millimeters)||Full frame sensor area is x times bigger||Diagonal crop factor* versus full frame|
|1/3.2″ (Apple iPhone 5 smartphone 2012)||5.68||4.54||3.42||15.50||55||7.61|
|1/3.0″ (Apple iPhone 5S smartphone 2013)||6.00||4.80||3.60||17.30||50||7.2|
|1/2.3″ Type (Canon PowerShot SX280HS, Olympus Tough TG-2)||7.66||6.17||4.56||28.07||31||5.64|
|1/1.7″ (Canon PowerShot S95, S100, S110, S120)||9.30||7.44||5.58||41.51||21||4.65|
|1/1.7″ (Pentax Q7)||9.50||7.60||5.70||43.30||20||4.55|
|2/3″ (Nokia Lumia 1020 smartphone with 41mp camera, Fujifilm X-S1, X20, XF1)||11.00||8.80||6.60||58.10||15||3.93|
|Standard 16mm Film Frame||12.7||10.26||7.49||76.85||11||3.41|
|1” Type (Sony RX100 & RX10, Nikon CX, Panasonic FZ1000)||15.86||13.20||8.80||116||7.4||2.72|
|Micro Four Thirds, 4/3||21.60||17.30||13||225||3.8||2.00|
|APS-C: Canon EF-S||26.70||22.20||14.80||329||2.6||1.62|
|APS-C: Nikon DX, Sony NEX/Alpha DT, Pentax K||28.2 – 28.4||23.6 – 23.7||15.60||368 – 370||2.3||1.52 – 1.54|
|35mm full-frame (Nikon FX, Sony Alpha/Alpha FE, Canon EF)||43.2 – 43.3||36||23.9 – 24.3||860 – 864||1.0||1.0|
|Kodak KAF 39000 CCD Medium Format||61.30||49||36.80||1803||0.48||0.71|
|Hasselblad H5D-60 Medium Format||67.08||53.7||40.2||2159||0.40||0.65|
|Phase One P 65+, IQ160, IQ180||67.40||53.90||40.40||2178||0.39||0.64|
|IMAX Film Frame||87.91||70.41||52.63||3706||0.23||0.49|
* Crop Factor: Note that a “full frame 35mm” sensor/film size (about 36 x 24 mm) is a common standard for comparison, having a diagonal field of view crop factor of 1.0. The debatable term crop factor comes from an attempt by 35mm-film users to understand how much the angle of view of their existing full-frame lenses would narrow (increase in telephoto power) when mounted on digital SLR (DSLR) cameras which had sensor sizes (APS-C) smaller than 35mm. (With early DSLR cameras, many photographers were concerned about the loss of image quality or resolution by using a digital sensor with a light-gathering area smaller than 35mm film, but for my photography, APS-C sensor improvements easily surpassed my scanning of 35mm film by 2009.)
An interesting number for comparing cameras is “Full frame sensor area is x times bigger” in the above table.
— last edited by Tom Dempsey, December 18, 2014