Compare digital camera sensor sizes: 1″-Type, 4/3, APS-C, full frame 35mm

The archaic inch-sizing of camera light sensors is clarified in the illustration and table below, showing relative sizes and millimeters. Legacy sizing labels such as 1/2.5″ Type harken back to antiquated 1950s-1980s Vidicon video camera tubes.

CONTENTS ■ Sensor sizes illustrated ■ Most-versatile camera ■ Ideal travel camera ■ Full-frame sensor ■ APS-C ■ Micro Four Thirds
■ 1″-Type sensor ■ Smartphone sensors ■ Comparometer ■ Sensor table ■ Lens quality ■ Raw file format ■ Tradeoffs large & small

For a given year of technological advance, a camera with physically bigger sensor area tends to capture better image quality by gathering more light, but at the cost of larger-diameter, bulkier lenses. Recent digital sensor advances have shrunk cameras and increased optical zoom ranges while preserving image quality. The top smartphone cameras can potentially make good 18-inch prints and share publishable pictures. Clearly, an evocative image can be created with any decent camera in the hands of a skilled or lucky photographer. The best camera is the one you’re willing to carry.

The above illustration compares digital camera sensor sizes: full frame 35mm (which is actually 36mm wide), APS-C, Micro Four Thirds, 1-inch, 1/1.7″ and 1/2.5” Type. ■ For new digital cameras, a bigger sensor area captures better quality, but requires larger-diameter, bulkier lenses. ■ A “Full-frame 35mm” sensor (36 x 24 mm) is a standard for comparison, with a diagonal field-of-view crop factor of 1.0 — in comparison, a pocket camera’s 1/2.5” Type sensor crops the light gathering by 6.0 times smaller diagonally, with a surface area 35 times smaller than full frame… see sensor table below. 

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases through links on my PhotoSeek.com blog. 

Best sensor for a versatile travel camera

As of 2023–2025+ the world’s best travel camera sports a 60-megapixel full-frame-sensor:

• Sony A7CR (2023, 18.2 oz, price at Amazon) mounted with its sharpest travel lens, the 8x optical zoom Tamron 25-200mm F2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 for Sony E-mount (2025, 20.3 oz) — 38.5 ounces total including body, lens, battery, and memory card (or 41 ounces when you add the strap, LCD cover, lens filter, lens cap, and hood). Tom’s field testing in July 2025 confirmed this system (using similar earlier Tamron 28-200mm) to be sharper than his discontinued Sony RX10M4 from 28mm to 450mm equivalent — an impressive 16x equivalent zoom range. Further cropping this 200mm 60-MP A7CR system down to the sharpest central 6.7 MP (one ninth), or 600mm equivalent, resembles 10 MP shot on the Sony RX10M4 — still sufficient for publications.

Read Tom’s latest camera recommendations here.

Previously, from 2016–2022, the 1-inch-Type sensor size best optimized portability of sharp travel cameras, as in the 29-ounce 16x-zoom Panasonic FZ1000 version II (Amazon) and discontinued Sony RX10M4 (read Tom’s review). In comparison, cameras using physically-larger APS-C sensors required 11x to 19x optical zoom lenses which struggled to sharpen the edges of the frame. Full-frame-sensor systems remained relatively bulky and heavy until 2023, when Sony’s new compact 60-MP A7CR camera joined forces with Tamron’s sharp 8x or 7x zooms. With a sensor smaller than APS-C, the Micro Four Thirds systems have lagged behind the competition for sharp images from a generous zoom range in a compact package.

Earlier advances of 2014–16 put the sweet spot for serious travel cameras between 1”-Type and APS-C size sensors.

Sensors smaller than “1-inch” size can support super zoom ranges but worsen image quality, especially in dim light. Smartphones compensate for tiny cameras via computational power and instantly-shareable images, but can still fumble in dim light and telephoto reach.

Read my camera chronicle from 1978 through today: Tom’s gear history for lightweight travel cameras.

What makes an ideal travel camera?

The “best” travel camera is the one you want to carry everywhere. For many people, a smartphone is sufficient — so get one with the best telephoto reach, as in the latest Pro, Pro Max, or Ultra models. But for me, the best Light Travel cameras should MINIMIZE bulk and weight while MAXIMIZING sensor dimensions, zoom range, lens diameter, battery life ( ≥ 350 shots), and ISO “sensitivity” (for lower noise in dim light). A sharp optical zoom lens should magnify the field of view by a factor of 7x to 25x to rapidly frame diverse subjects, without the bulk or annoyance of swapping lenses. Lenses should autofocus fast (with hybrid AF minimizing shutter lag ≤ 0.3 second), stabilize images to counteract camera shake, and focus closely (for good macro enlargement). Travel cameras should pop up a built-in flash and also flip out (articulate, hinge, or swivel) a high-resolution display screen to jump-start your creative macro, movie and candid shooting at arm’s length. OLED displays usually outshine LCD. Sunny-day reflections often obscure display-screen visibility − but to save bulk, most pocket cameras sadly lack a viewfinder. A camera with a brilliant electronic viewfinder (preferably EVF with ≥ 1 million dots) gives superior live feedback on the final digital image than a non-digital optical viewfinder. 

Full-frame-sensor cameras

Full-frame-sensor cameras excel at night, indoor, high ISO 6400+, and very-large-print photography. Covering that large sensor area requires more glass, thereby restricting the optimally-lightweight zoom range. (To capture distant wildlife or birds while traveling, see BEST TELEPHOTO ZOOM LENS 300mm+.)

When an image is well-shot in bright outdoor light, the advantages of full-frame cameras may only be noticeable upon close inspection when printed bigger than 3 feet diagonally. Full-frame cameras tempt us with high megapixel counts such as 33 to 60 MP, but can be overkill for most practical publications, since a billboard only needs 3 to 10 megapixels at typical viewing distances.

However, the extra megapixels become important when cropping to increase the reach of sharp digital telephoto. In 2023, a new world’s best travel camera was born — by packing a 60-megapixel full-frame sensor within the compact Sony A7CR body, mounted with Tamron’s sharp 7x zoom lens (upgraded in 2025 to 8x zoom).

A tradeoff exists between absolute image quality, zoom range, system weight, bulk, and other features. The optimum is a personal choice.

APS-C size sensor

A top APS-C-sensor camera (such as Sony A6xxx series) lets you interchange lenses and capture less noise in dim light than smaller sensors at ISO 3200+ sensitivity.

A bulkier DSLR-style camera with APS-C sensor may attract traditionalists wanting a legacy optical viewfinder, improved night photography, and a bounty of lens choices, such as:

• Nikon D3500 (new in 2018) mounted with versatile Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC lens (new in 2014) made a good-value 32-ounce DSLR travel system.

But in 2012, I outgrew optical viewfinders. I prefer the digital live view of an Electronic Viewfinder (EVF), which closer resembles the final image, as featured in mirrorless digital cameras, such as the Sony A6xxx series and earlier Alpha NEX-7, when using APS-C sensors.

But APS-C sensors cameras were antiquated from 2016–2025 by my Sony RX10M4 and RX10M3 travel cameras.

Micro Four Thirds Cameras

Panasonic and OM SYSTEM (formerly called Olympus) make excellent Micro Four Thirds sensor systems, which unfortunately haven’t kept up with rival travel cameras from 2012 through 2023+.

I’ve oft admired the solid quality of recent Micro Four Thirds cameras such as Olympus (rebranded as OM System in 2022) who made my beloved OM-1N film camera back in the 1980s. But Olympus upgrades have come too late for me, such as their sensor improvement from 16 to 20 megapixels (in Olympus M1 Mark II & III in 2016 & 2020, and in M10 Mark IV in 2020). In comparison, the Sony A6xxx camera series is nearly as compact, yet collects more light onto a physically larger 24mp APS-C sensor. Pricing can also be similar comparing APS-C vs 4/3 when shopping for slightly older versions or used gear. And for zoom ranges larger than 8x, the 1″-sensor Sony RX10M4 and RX10M3 cameras (discontinued in March 2025) beat all comers anywhere near their weight class (39 oz), with a surprisingly sharp 25x zoom system.

During the past decade, the 16-megapixel sensor and performance of the early models of Olympus M1 (Mark I, introduced in 2013) and M10 (I-III) paled in comparison to the 24-megapixel sensor APS-C systems that I used from 2012-2016 (on Sony A6300 and predecessor NEX-7, using Sony 18-200mm lens, 11x). Consider a Micro Four Thirds system with interchangeable lenses such as the Panasonic GX80 (2016). For the GX80’s weight and expense class, the Sony A6400 or A6300 cameras provide more for the money — 45% larger light-gathering sensor (APS-C), generally better quality images (24 MP vs 16 MP), better viewfinder, excellent hybrid focus system, and longer battery life (400 versus 290 shots per charge), at a similar weight.

After test trials in 2016, I switched from APS-C to the 20MP 1-inch-sensor Sony RX10M3, which more than doubled my optical zoom to 25x, while equaling or improving overall image quality from edge-to-edge. Upgrading to Sony RX10M4 in 2018 strengthened the deal by speeding autofocus. This sharp 24-600mm f/2.4-4 zoom camera system weighing just 39 ounces was a game-changer for hiking and general travel photography through 2022. Caveat: although it’s one of the most versatile cameras ever invented, Sony RX10M4 isn’t necessarily the best for night photography, wedding photography, or certain other specialties that don’t require a large zoom range.

To emulate the Sony RX10M4’s 25x zoom range with Micro 4/3 lenses is a heavier and pricier proposition, debatably without a commensurate gain in image quality. For example, consider the following high-quality 69+ ounce system with two lenses covering 24-800mm equivalent zoom range mounted on a Micro Four Thirds sensor:

• Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100-400mm f/4-6.3 Power OIS lens (2016, 35 oz, 72mm filter size, 3.3 x 6.8″), mounted on Panasonic DMC-GX9 mirrorless camera (2018, 14 oz body, 20mp, 260 shots per battery charge CIPA), both weather-sealed.
• Add 20+ ounces for one or more zoom lenses to cover 24-200mm equivalent.
• That totals 69 ounces for an impressive 24-800mm equivalent system (14 oz body + 35 oz + 20 oz) using two lenses spanning a 33x zoom range. Although overly hefty for hiking, this system might attract a vehicle-based photographer who considers incremental image quality gains to be more important than the extra system cost, bulk, weight, or inconvenience of swapping lenses.

1″-Type sensor size optimizes portable travel cameras

In 2018, the best & brightest pocketable zoom camera was the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VI (at Amazon) (11 oz, 8x zoom 24–200mm f/2.8-4.5) — my favorite backpacking camera. Upgrading to Sony RX100 VII (2019) focuses even faster and remains the world’s best pocketable travel camera as of 2025. Read my RX100M6 review.

• Cheaper alternative: Panasonic LUMIX ZS100 camera (Amazon) (2016, 11oz, 10x zoom, 25-250mm equivalent, 20 MP). The pocketable ZS100 (read my review) is not as sharp as the 3x-zoom Sony RX100 V, IV or III cameras, but captures close macro at more zoom settings and enormously extends optical telephoto reach 70-250mm, which clearly beats digitally cropping those 3x-zoom rivals.

Since the release of Panasonic ZS100 in 2016 and Sony RX100 VI in 2018, publishable image quality can now come from pocketsize cameras having versatile 10x or 8x zooms. Capturing 20 high-quality megapixels, both the Panasonic ZS100 and superior Sony RX100 version VI rival the daylight image quality of all of my camera systems used over 34 years until 2012 — beating my cameras up to 4 times heavier, up to 11x zoom range, up to 12 megapixels, shot at base ISO 100.

From 2018 to June 2025, Tom’s main camera was the versatile Sony RX10 version IV (39 oz, 25x zoom, 1″-Type sensor), which was discontinued in March 2025 — read my RX10 IV review.

Smartphone sensors

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, but poor for capturing dim light or for enlarging prints bigger than 12-18 inches.

Past smartphones have included even tinier camera sensors, such as 1/3.0″ Type (4.8 mm x 3.6 mm) in Apple iPhone versions 5S through 8.

Read a fascinating perspective on how far image quality has progressed from early DSLR to 2014 smartphone cameras.

Remarkably, top smartphone cameras have improved miniature sensors to the point where citizen journalists can capture newsworthy photos with image quality good enough for fast sharing and quick international publication. The latest Google Pixel, Samsung Galaxy, and Apple iPhones include great cameras, especially the pro models.

The iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max use a 48MP main camera sensor of 1/1.28″ Type, a significant upgrade from previous models, capturing better low-light performance and more detail.

My Samsung Note5 smartphone (new in 2015; same camera as in S6 & S7, with 1/2.6″ sensor) captured sunny 16-megapixel images sufficient to make a sharp 18-inch print, virtually indistinguishable from that taken by a larger camera. Since then, the main camera in the Ultra models of Samsung Galaxy S23 and S24 boast a superior 200MP sensor of 1/1.3″-Type.

Smartphone tips: A 2x power tele on a smartphone resembles the field of view of a 50mm-equivalent lens, 3x resembles 75mm, 5x resembles 130mm, and 10x resembles 260mm equivalent. Tiny subjects can be enlarged biggest at close focus using the telephoto lens (like a macro lens), such as for conveniently copying color film slides. To better isolate subjects at a distance, update your model with a bigger telephoto camera, such as on the latest iPhone Pro Max or Pro models. Night Mode has also greatly improved in the latest premium models. Samsung Ultra models of Galaxy S22 and S23 include an impressive 10x optical zoom, which works great, Tom can attest! Upgrading to the S24 Ultra’s 5x telephoto camera with 50MP sensor actually improves cropping and digital zoom up to 10x.

How to compare cameras

Instead of wading through this article discussing sensors, you can save time by going directly to Tom’s CAMERAS article for the latest camera recommendations.

How can we judge image sharpness from different cameras?

• If possible, compare cameras shot side-by-side under a variety of field conditions. I like to “pixel-peep” a side-by-side comparison of two different cameras capturing the same subject under same lighting conditions. Be sure to mentally or digitally normalize any two given shots to compare their fine detail as if printed with equal overall image size. I like to confirm the quality of the new replacement camera before selling the older camera.
• Judge image quality and resolution at 100% pixel enlargement at the authoritative dpreview.com (owned by Amazon since 2007) and handy Comparometer at imaging-resource.com, using standardized studio test views for many cameras.
• Side-by-side comparisons of the longest end of telephoto lenses between diverse camera systems (such as 1″-Type vs APS-C vs full-frame) are often unavailable online, so I compare the likeliest candidates myself after purchase.

Table of camera sensor size, area, and diagonal crop factor relative to 35mm full-frame

The fractional-inch sensor sizing labels such as 1/2.5-inch Type and 1/1.7″ Type aren’t standardized — they confusingly refer to antiquated 1950s-1980s Vidicon video camera 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:

(Turn your mobile device sideways to see the full width of the following table.)

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	7.6
1/3.0″ (Apple iPhone 8, 7, 6, 5S smartphone)	6.00	4.80	3.60	17.30	50	7.2
1/2.6″ Type (Samsung Galaxy S9, Note9, S8, S7, S6, Note5)	6.86	5.5	4.1	22.55	38	6.3
1/2.5″ Type	7.18	5.76	4.29	24.70	35	6.0
1/2.3″ Type (Canon PowerShot SX280HS, Olympus Tough TG-2)	7.66	6.17	4.56	28.07	31	5.6
1/1.7″ (Canon PowerShot S95, S100, S110, S120)	9.30	7.44	5.58	41.51	21	4.7
1/1.7″ (Pentax Q7)	9.50	7.60	5.70	43.30	20	4.6
2/3″ (Nokia Lumia 1020 smartphone with 41 MP camera; Fujifilm X-S1, X20, XF1)	11.00	8.80	6.60	58.10	15	3.9
Standard 16mm Film Frame	12.7	10.26	7.49	76.85	11	3.4
1” Type (Sony RX100 & RX10, Nikon CX, Panasonic ZS100, ZS200, FZ1000)	15.86	13.20	8.80	116	7.4	2.7
Micro Four Thirds, 4/3	21.60	17.30	13	225	3.8	2.0
APS-C: Canon EF-S	26.70	22.20	14.80	329	2.6	1.6
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 or focal length multiplier: A “full frame 35mm” sensor or 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 term crop factor comes from 35mm-film users wanting to understand how much the angle of view of their existing full-frame lenses would narrow (or multiply in telephoto power) when mounted on digital SLR (DSLR) cameras which had smaller sensor sizes. 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. For my publishing needs, improvements in APS-C-size sensors easily surpassed my scanning of 35mm film by 2009.

In the above table, “Full frame sensor area is x times bigger” is is helpful for comparing the light-gathering capabilities of different cameras.

• In comparison to full a frame sensor, a pocket camera’s 1/2.5-inch Type sensor crops the light gathering surface 6.0 times smaller diagonally, or 35 times smaller in area.
• An APS-C size sensor gathers about 15 times more light (area) than a 1/2.5” Type sensor and 2.4 times less than full frame.
  • APS-C sensors in Nikon DX, Pentax, and Sony E have 1.5x diagonal field of view crop factor.
  • APS-C sensors in Canon EF-S DSLRs have 1.6x diagonal field of view crop factor.
• 1 stop is a doubling or halving of the amount of gathered light. Doubling a sensor’s area theoretically gathers one stop more light, but depends upon lens design.

Lens quality & diameter also affect image quality

For improving image quality, the quality and diameter of the lens can rival the importance of having a physically larger sensor area. Prime (non-zoom) lenses usually are sharpest for larger prints, but zoom lenses are more versatile and recommended for travelers.

A small sensor can beat larger with newer design (BSI) plus faster optics:

In my side-by-side field tests, the sharp, bright 25x zoom of a 20-MP Sony RX10 III (read my version IV review) resoundingly beats the resolution of 11x SEL18200 lens on a 24-MP APS-C Sony A6300 at 90+ mm equivalent telephoto, even as high as ISO 6400. (Wider angle zoom settings show little quality difference.) Apparently RX10’s faster f/2.4-4 lens plus backside illumination (BSI) technology magically compensate for the sensor size difference, 1″-Type versus APS-C. Like most APS-C-sensor cameras in 2016, A6300 lacks BSI. Surprisingly little noise affects RX10’s image quality at high ISO 6400 in dim light. Its larger lens diameter gathering more light also helps in this comparison (72mm filter size of RX10 III versus 67mm SEL18200 on A6300).

Larger lens diameter can help dim light photography:

In my field tests, the sharpness of Sony’s high-quality SEL1670Z 3x zoom f/4 lens on A6300 is only about 5% better than Sony RX10 III f/2.4-4 in bright light in the wider half of its 24-105mm equivalent range, but no better in dim light. I expect that RX10’s catch-up in quality under dim light is due to superior light sensitivity of BSI sensor plus larger lens diameter gathering more light, 72mm versus 55mm.

Using sweet spot of full-frame lenses on APS-C may not improve quality:

In principle, you might expect a slightly sharper image on an APS-C sensor when using the sweet spot of a lens designed for a full frame (which has a larger imaging circle), but results actually vary, especially when using older film-optimized lenses. In fact, a lens which is designed and optimized specially “for digital, for APS-C” can equal or exceed the quality of an equivalent full-frame lens on the same sensor, while also reducing bulk and weight (as in the Sony E-mount example further below).

Theoretically, new full-frame lenses “designed for digital” (using image-space telecentric design) may perform better on a digital sensor than would older lenses designed for film:

• Unlike film, digital sensors receive light best when struck squarely rather than at a grazing angle.
• Digital cameras perform best with lenses optimized specially “for digital”, using image-space telecentric designs, in which all the rays land squarely on the sensor (as opposed to having incoming rays emerge at the same angle as they entered, as in a pinhole camera). The light buckets (sensels or photosites) on digital sensors require light rays to be more parallel than with film (to enter at close to a 90 degree angle to the sensor).
• Film can record light at more grazing angles than a digital sensor. Because older film-optimized lenses bend light to hit the sensor at more of a glancing angle, they reduce light-gathering efficiency and cause more vignetting around the edges (which is somewhat mitigated by the image circle being cropped by the APS-C sensor, which uses just the center part of the full-frame lens).

Use lenses “designed for APS-C” on APS-C cameras, instead of full-frame lenses

Compare the following two Sony E-mount zoom lenses, full-frame versus APS-C:

1. 2015 full-frame “Sony E-mount FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS” lens (27.5 oz, 36-360mm equivalent).
2. 2010 APS-C “Sony E-mount 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS (silver SEL-18200)” lens (18.5 oz, 27-300mm equivalent).

Both lenses are optimized for digital, yet the APS-C lens is much lighter weight and performs equal to or better than the full-frame lens. Side-by-side comparisons and also DxOMark tests on a Sony A6000 camera show that while they are about equally sharp, the Sony 24-240 has more distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration than the 18-200mm. For use on APS-C cameras, look for lenses “designed for APS-C.”

Raw file format

Cameras rarely capture pictures the way we perceive. Think of all those shots where the sky is too bright or the foreground is too dark, losing crucial detail — irrecoverably in a lossy JPEG file. Reshooting to adjust the exposure is often helpful, but usually isn’t enough to properly portray the range of light from dark to bright. We must compensate through editing to restore images to what our eyes saw in the field.

For tonal editing, camera raw file format allows 16 times more leeway than default JPEG files. Tom highly recommends recording and editing images using your advanced camera’s raw file format (except in smartphones, where the default HDR-generated JPEG files often make raw irrelevant). Editing raw format can magically recover several stops of highlight and shadow detail which would be lost (truncated) in JPEG file format (if overexposed or underexposed).

Despite advanced circuitry, cameras are not smart enough to know which subjects are supposed to be white, black, or midtone in brightness. By default, all cameras underexpose scenes where white tones (such as snow) predominate, and overexpose highlights in scenes where black tones predominate. IMPORTANT TIP: To correctly expose for all tones, you need to lock exposure upon a perceived midtone (such as a gray card; or on a line halfway between light and shadow) in the same light as your framed subject.

For greatest editing flexibility, rather than shooting JPEG format, serious photographers should record and edit images in raw format, which is supported in advanced cameras (but often not in small-sensor devices). Editing raw format fully recovers badly-exposed images − allowing you to “point and shoot” more freely than with JPEG. Even so, I carefully shoot to expose each histogram to the far right while avoiding truncation of highlights, in order to capture the highest signal-to-noise ratio in each scene. Try to stay close to base ISO 100 or 200. I typically first shoot a test shot on automatic Aperture-preferred priority, inspect the histogram, check any blinking highlight warnings, then compensate subsequent shots using Manual Exposure (or temporary Exposure Lock grabbed from the scene). Tonal editing of JPEGs can quickly truncate color channels or accumulate round-off errors, often making the image appear pasty, pixelated, or posterized. White Balance (Color Balance) is easily adjustable after shooting raw files, but tonal editing often skews colors oddly in JPEG. 12-bit Raw format has 16 times the tonal editing headroom and color accuracy compared to JPEG (which has only 8 bits per pixel per red, green, or blue color channel). In their favor, automatic point-and-shoot JPEG camera exposure modes get smarter every year, making advanced larger cameras less necessary for many people.

For a given year of technological advance, cameras with larger sensors typically capture a wider dynamic range of brightness values from bright to dark per image than smaller sensors, with less noise. In 2016, Sony’s 1″-Type backside illumination (BSI) sensors capture sufficient dynamic range for my publishing needs.

Using HDR (High Dynamic Range) imaging lets any size of sensor greatly increase an image’s dynamic range by combining multiple exposures — as done in modern smartphones, camera firmware, or PC imaging apps. On cameras larger than smartphones, HDR techniques are usually unnecessary due to the great dynamic range of a single raw file from 1″-Type BSI or APS-C sensors, or larger.

When using camera raw file format, to maximize dynamic range of brightness values from bright to dark, use base ISO (around ISO 100 or 200 in most digital still cameras), rather than higher ISO settings, which amplify noise (blotchiness at the pixel level, most-visibly in shadows). However, using the latest full-frame sensors at high ISO values 6400+ can capture unprecedentedly low noise and open new possibilities for dim-light action photography at hand-held shutter speeds, indoors or at night.

Without the help of a flash on nearby subjects, night and dim indoor photography is best with a full-frame sensor to gather more light with less noise. Low-noise night photography is usually best shot on a tripod at slow shutter speeds in raw format between ISO 100 and 800 (or as high as 1600-3200 on the latest large sensors). The latest top smartphones have made impressive leaps in automatic night modes.

Large sensors versus small

For a given field of view, cameras with larger sensors can achieve a shallower depth of field than smaller sensors, allowing movie makers and portrait photographers to blur the background (at brightest aperture setting, smallest F number value) to draw more attention to the focused subject. Conversely, smaller-sensor cameras like the Sony RX10 and RX100 series tend to be better at capturing close-focus (macro) shots with great depth of field (especially at wide angle), at ISO up to 800. But the macro advantages of small-sensor cameras can diminish in dim light or when shooting at ISO higher than 800.

Landscape photographers often prefer to capture a deep depth of field, which can be achieved with both small and large sensor cameras. Optimal edge-to-edge sharpness usually occurs when stopping down the aperture once or twice from brightest opening, such as between f/4 to f/5.6 on 1-inch Type sensor, or between f/5.6 to f/8 on APS-C or full-frame, which also helps diminish chromatic aberrations. Stopping down further with f/numbers larger than this increases depth of field, but worsens diffraction through the smaller pupil opening (such as at f/11-f/16 on 1″ sensor or f/22 on APS-C), noticeably softening detail. Fast, high-quality lenses on full-frame sensors may be sharpest at two to three stops down from brightest aperture — check your lens on review charts. Avoid f/16, f/22, and f/32 on most cameras, unless you don’t mind the extra fuzziness.

Detailed full-frame comparison of low-light Sony A7S 12MP versus A7R 36 MP

How can we distinguish the image quality captured by different cameras? Images are best compared at a normalized pixel level (with fine detail examined on a monitor as if printed with equal overall image size) after shooting side-by-side in the field with comparable lens and shutter speed settings. Consider two sibling full-frame-sensor cameras:

1. Sony Alpha A7S (12 MP of large-bucket photosites optimized for high ISO, low light, and videography plus stills, new in 2015) versus
2. Sony Alpha A7R (36 megapixels of smaller-bucket photosites optimized for high resolution, new in 2014)

Despite its tinier but denser photosite buckets (also called sensels or pixel wells for catching light photons), the 36 MP Sony Alpha A7R beats the dynamic range of 12MP Sony Alpha A7S in a normalized comparison of raw files (see dpreview article). While both cameras spread their photosites across the same surface area of a full-frame sensor, the 36 MP A7R trumps the 12 MP A7S for exposure latitude flexibility in raw post-processing at ISO 100 through 6400. Overall image quality of the 12 MP A7S doesn’t beat the A7R until ISO 12,800 and higher (but only in the shadows through midtones under low-light conditions). Sony A7S is better for low-light videographers, whereas A7R is better for low-light landscape photographers who value high resolution and dynamic range.

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. To support my work, buy any products here: Amazon.com 

• Destinations of a Lifetime: 225 of the World’s Most Amazing Places Hardcover – Illustrated, 2015
• 100 Hikes of a Lifetime: The World’s Ultimate Scenic Trails Hardcover – Illustrated, 2020
• Lonely Planet’s Ultimate Travel List 2: The Best Places on the Planet …Ranked Hardcover – Illustrated, 2020