All things Outdoors – Camping like loons!

How Does Camera Sensor Size Affect Images? – Introduction:

The quick and dirty answer to the big question about sensor size and images is: “quite a lot.” You can spend literally tens of thousands of dollars and get some sweet shots. But here’s a fun fact – Photographers don’t really agree on anything – not even that ice-cream is cold and delicious, or that kittens are warm, fuzzy and adorable.

First things first: Thanks for finding us. We’re happy you’re here. At Lone Loon Song our mission is to be useful to our readers. Here’s the second important thing: We are proudly A.I. free. 100% human.

So it’s quite remarkable the amount of agreement amongst them that by and large, the larger the sensor, the higher the image quality – all other things being equal. The largest size sensor – a medium frame sensor (at 43.8 x 32.9mm) are the largest sensors available – produces the best images. (There is some disagreement – try to contain your shock – whether this quality is attributable to the technology of the sensor (CCD), or the size. We tend to think it’s a little of both, and mighty hard to quantify, in any event. We do have an affinity for the CCD sensors, especially the ones in the APS-C sensor sizes from the late Oughts to the early 20 teens.)

This is because larger image sensors have larger photosites, (not pixels – we have a thing about that – see our article Cameras for Camping: How Digital Sensors Work (CCD and CMOS)) which translates into better low-light performance, reduced noise, the largest available dynamic range, and the ability to catch more light. On the other hand, they can cost a bit. Check out the Hasselblad X1D II 50C 50MP Medium Format Mirrorless Camera Body. (You can check the price at Amazon.) Great camera? Hell yeah. But…

Heck, we might have that in the cushions of the couch. Lemme check. Yeah, no. Nothing like that here.

Paradoxically, the same thing that makes them wonderful for many professional photographers makes them less useful for campers or outdoors people. So yeah, the size of a camera’s sensor dictates the quality of the images it can produce, but surely there exists some kind of Goldilocks compromise that can be had. (We’re huge Goldilocks fans here at Lone Loon Song – “The unrelenting search for Just Right™”.

So we’re going to forget about medium frame cameras and concentrate on five basic sensor sizes from the largest to the smallest. Okay?

• The full-frame DSLR (36x24mm) sensor. (Most of the full-frame DSLR’s from this century use CMOS technology.)
• The crop sensor APS-C (23.5 x 15.6mm – Everyone but Canon – Canon 22.2 x 14.8mm)
• 4:3’s (Four Thirds) or Micro 4:3’s (17.3 × 13.0mm)
• One inch (9 x 12mm)
• Our iPhone 13 (35.2mm²)

We realize you’re probably in a hurry. You’re certainly welcome to stick around, but if you’re looking for something in particular, we’ve got a table of contents for you.

How Digital Camera Sensor Size Affects Image Quality, Table of Contents:

Sensor Size, And Why It Matters: (Pre – Preamble)

If you like taking photographs it’s useful to know the different digital camera sensor sizes, particularly if you think you might be interested in the second hand camera market.

At Lone Loon Song, where we’re all about getting the max greatness for the least layout of cash, so we’re totally there for that. We love used stuff for the arts. We’ve had excellent experiences. (Out of 6 computers, the best ones – other than the hackintosh – which we built new from parts – were used. Musical instruments? Same thing. We have a synthesizer from a film school circa 1993 that’s still happily playing. All four of our acoustic guitars, our bass, mandolin, and half of our electric guitars are gently used. Our harmonicas are all new. We put our foot down on the harmonicas. We’re a little weird like that.)

In any event: Sensor size is one of the most important things you need to consider. While we don’t think that it’s the most important thing; here’s a hint – clean your lens! – it’s up there.

On the other hand, cost is tied to the sensor size. For example, a medium format camera is simply not for us. We’re pretty confident we can find some sort of compromise that works better for us. Medium format cameras are prohibitively expensive, they can be somewhat bulky, and it would simply be reckless to take them camping. YMMV.

People have been taking incredible photographs with film SLR 35 mm cameras since Life Magazine’s photographers got the Leica 35mm film cameras, and later discovered the Japanese Canons and Nikons during the Korean War, and brought ’em back to Chicago. But now it’s 2024, and we have a lot more options. Digital is easier, more convenient, and cheaper in every way.

Therefore, this is our big grin. Still, “image quality” is our pet peeve today. First, everyone seems to think it’s something different. That’s just a reflection of the times we live in. The lion’s share of todays images are going to be viewed on a screen. That means less than 8MP, no matter where they end up. Yeah, printing is very different – and pixels (in the form of dots per inch) are of much more consequence.

All of that being said, there’s some kind of strange alchemy – a ghost in the machine – that comes into play. In any artistic endeavour, this is going to show up. At least in our experience. We’ve recorded the same acoustic guitar, in the same room, with the same mic, to the same recorder and been unable to match one take with another. That’s just how it works. Or it could be that we’re nuts. Which may well be the case. Who among us hasn’t taken two photos, separated by a tick or so of time, and noticed some differences?

We think it’s got to be some kind of weird math from our man Aristotle who gets the credit for saying “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.”

The size of the sensor, and the number and size of the photosites on the sensor – which are obviously related – are only part of the equation. The file type, post-processing, the photographer and perhaps most importantly – the lens all make unequal contributions to that sum.

How about this: “How do I get the best photographs for the least amount of money I can afford to spend on this?” (Which is mighty close to the Lone Loon Song mission statement.) Either way, that’s a question with legs.

Don’t be that guy in the camping chair who says:

“Shit, I wish I had a camera.”

That is a tragedy easily averted, and frankly, you can likely do that right now, without spending a red cent. See our article: How To Get The Best Camping Or Outdoor Photographs On A Budget (of $0.00, Or double your money back.)

Okay, we have some good news! How sensor size affects image quality doesn’t have to be as complicated as it is often made out to be. On the other hand, there is no point in making things overly simple. What good would that do? Right. Not a whole heck of a lot. The quick and dirty answer is “larger is better.” But, full-frame sensors are expensive, and we’re interested in finding that Goldilocks option.

Anyhoo, you can jump around or you can read it straight through, soup to nuts like God intended. Feel free to take either approach; whatever works best for you. We’re just glad you’re here. Tell your friends if it’s useful to you. Tell your friends if it’s not. There’s no such thing as bad publicity, just make sure you spell our name correctly.

The largest sensor we consider is called a full-frame sensor.

So this discussion is limited to Digital full-frame sensors, and their crop sensor brothers. Full-frame sensors are modeled after the size of 35mm film cameras. They measure 36x24mm. They were the first digital camera you could actually take with you.

The other sensor sizes we’re interested in are smaller, on a descending scale. That’s something we’ll explore at length. If you’re anything like we were, you likely have questions like “Which sensor is the best value for which kind of photography?”, “How does sensor size affect image quality?” and “What about price points vs value?”

These are all great questions, and we’ll get to them. First, let us get a few things off our chest:

We’re not going to talk about lenses here, even though they are arguably as important as sensor size to image quality. But they’re beyond the scope of this article. We’re pretty sure nobody wants a “War and Peace” marathon, so we’ll break this all down into several short articles. This one is soup to nuts on digital sensor sizes.

Oh, we’ll talk a little about lenses when we look at crop factor, but it’s not our focus here. (Whooooo – Hoooo! See what we did, there? Focus? Oh my Goodness. Anyway…)

Digital Sensor sizes for cameras are difficult enough to explain. Well, actually, they’re easier than pixels. At least you can measure the rascals. We can look at lenses later. (Hah! See what we did, there? “Look”? OMG, We’re killing it.) In any event, we don’t need to bite off more than we can chew, so to speak. (Mixed metaphor? Anyone? Never mind.)

The good news is, digital sensor sizes aren’t that difficult to understand. Millions of folks do understand them, and you are welcome to join their ranks.

All this is to say: We’re going to explore all of this digital sensor size stuff and explain it both as completely and as simply as we can. If that sounds like something you might be interested in, you’re in the right place. Welcome.

Cameras and Sensor Size: Our Preamble

Let’s get a few terms straight:

The frame size of 35mm film measures 35 mm. When we say a “full-frame sensor” we’re talking about a sensor based on these traditional measurements. It’s larger than the other commercially available sensor sizes, and therefore will capture more light and detail than their smaller “Crop Sensor” brothers. (APS-C, 4:3’s, micro 4:3’s, and the humble smartphone.) Because the full-frames are the largest physically, they will also have a larger field of view. (That’s a thirty-dollar phrase that means “what you can clearly see in the picture.”) A larger sensor allows a larger image. We’ll get into that in more detail – and its implications – later. But suffice it to say that a shot like the one at the top of the page has a large field of view.

With a smaller sensor size, the edges of the image would be cut off, or cropped. Now, with a smaller sensor size, the photographer could have backed up to fit everyone in the frame, but that would be a picture from farther away. That would be a different image.

That’s field of view. As we say, we didn’t take that shot, but we’re pretty sure Ed used a full-frame sensor DSLR with a wide-angle lens. (A DSLR is a camera with a Digital single-lens reflex.) Another kind of camera you will hear us talk about is a mirrorless or a compact camera. Both of these types make use of digital sensors of varying sizes, and as a result, all of what we say about sensor size will apply to both. BTW we’ll have an article that examines both of these types of cameras, the pros and cons, the different kinds of sensors, and how they work, because all of that plays a role in image quality, too.)

Another key thing is that it is a “low-light” situation. In general, larger sensors shine in low-light situations. They just have more dynamic range and produce less noise. Don’t get us wrong, you’d likely have something you could use, or at least pull into a photo editing app like Photoshop or Lightroom, or GIMP and rescue it. But it wouldn’t be nearly as interesting.

Our point is, that cameras are tools, and tools are designed to work best for specific tasks. Take, for example, a hammer. There’s quite a bit of difference between a framer’s hammer and a carpenter’s hammer. This “One Size Fits All” approach is beloved by the guys in sales, but they don’t use hammers enough to suit us.

We know that we’re interested in outdoor photography, and recording our camping adventures. So that makes it a little easier. We also know that we’re not independently wealthy. (If we’re being honest with ourselves, it probably only means that we’re going to buy a lot more stuff second-hand.)

What we can do is tell you all about sensor sizes. “The journey will show you the path”. (A cliché? Yup. Useful? Also Yup. Here’s another: “The best camera is the one you have with you“) we love this one. It just has that ring of truth for us.

On the other hand, a night shot of the Milky Way, or a Harvest Moon would be damn sweet. The problem with that is cost. If you’re a pro, you can earn that investment back in one beautiful shot. Get a clear night, with a tripod, a slow shutter speed and the Milky Way with a weathered barn under it. Sell the prints. Bob’s yer mother’s brother. That’s not to say that with the right chops and a quality ASP-C DSLR, a quality tripod, the right lens and a bit of luck you can’t get one, it’s just a bit more of a hike.

On the other hand, perhaps you can’t justify that much money – in which case it’s much more difficult to get that low-light shot with any of the smaller “crop sensors”. We’re told it can be done, but not without a tripod and access to shutter speed. It also takes a degree of skill we can only imagine. And none of it will have been cheap.

In our research, we kept seeing the phrase “A sensor is the heart of the digital camera”. Again with the clichés? Yeah. Ignor them at your peril. You absolutely do “have to play ’em one game at a time.”

We have a sort of love-hate relationship with clichés. In the case of the “heart of the camera” cliché, (like the other cliché mentioned in our article How To Get The Best Camping Or Outdoor Photographs On a Budget (Of $0.00 or double your money back,) there’s a lot of truth in clichés.

That being said, even the best cliché is gonna run outa road. As much truth as “the best camera is the one you have with you” holds, it’s mighty close to impossible to photograph a starry night with anything less than a full-frame sensor camera without a tripod and a slow shutter speed. So our best advice is to take clichés with a grain of salt. On the other hand, “hope springs eternal”, and “it’s better to be lucky than it is to be good.” (Take those with a grain of salt, too. “All things in moderation, especially moderation” – Colin the Loon 2.)

No Cheap Cameras!

Huh? What are you on about now, son?

A small caveat: This only applies to adults. If you have a child and want to drop a little cash – fill your boots. If they’re not serious, no harm done. If they are serious, great. They’ll do their own research and figure out what they want, and their budget. (This holds for everything. My folks bought us a cheap acoustic guitar – to make sure this guitar thing wasn’t a whim. Although it pissed us off at the time, that turned out to be a good decision – it taught us a lesson about responsibility, too. Win win.)

This just in…

Actually, there is a much better alternative we have just discovered which we have an article on. It’s kind of an interesting tale.

You see, from 2006 to 2008, all of the camera manufacturers were making kick-ass DSLRs for the professional – avid hobbyist market. These were the last to use CCD sensors. What happened was the CMOS sensors came along, and suddenly nobody wanted “State-of-The-Art” – 10MPs or so. That was as good as it got. You can pick any one of these up now on the second hand market for pennies on the dollar. Our article : Incredible DSLR Cameras For Pennies on The Dollar explains all of this fully. Seriously. From as low as $50.00 to as high as $150.00. Somebody paid at least 6 or 7 times that. These are serious cameras, which can use serious lenses, for not very much. It’s our new Lone Loon Song Deal of the Century. So just stay your hand for a minute.

If you’re an adult, you’re gonna thank us. If you’re an adult with a child, you’re gonna thank us. Hell, thank us anyway. It’ll do you good.

Get Your Hard-Earned Money’s Worth:

Okay, guilty. We should have said that when we said No Cheap Cameras. Unless you read the preceding paragraph or you…

• Like kicking your own ass, or
• Are independently wealthy…

… dismiss this at your peril. Looka here:

We at Lone Loon Song are all about Getting Out There™, and camping with the most value for our hard-earned cash; and so when we turned our frugal gaze to photography, we applied our philosophy.

One of the first things that we learned is that Cheap cameras aren’t the way to go. Not today. Not for us. (We define Cheap cameras as anything that won’t allow access to the exposure triangle, (ISO, Shutter Speed, and Aperture) and allow you to shoot in RAW files. That’s the cut-off. We’re sure cheap cameras are great for what they do, but if you’ve already got a smartphone and you’ve downloaded Lightroom on it – maybe the best thing is to save your money until you can see your way clear to a larger budget. We don’t say this lightly:

The Lone Loon Song philosophy is “One truly good camera is cheaper than one cheap camera plus one truly good camera.” (Don’t ask us how we know that – it’s too painful to revisit.)

Trust us on this one: your images will be at least as good – quite likely better – and at least you’ll be able to learn some photography basics – like the exposure triangle and the difference between shooting in RAW and JPEG files.(It’s true, the aperture in lightroom is kind of wonky, but it’s fun to play with. The native software in the portrait mode gives a more reasonable access to the depth of view. It’s that stylized f at the top right of the portrait screen. In truth, we like that heaps better.)

A RAW file is a much larger file that contains all of the information the image requires. A JPEG is compressed into a smaller file that contains less information. A DNG file is Adobe’s (Lightroom’s) proprietary RAW file – a Digital NeGative. If you’re shooting in DNG you have to wait a while, but it’s worth it in the end. Never mind all that now. The point is, you can learn a lot while saving your money, and still get a lot of photos – and most importantly – you can do all this while you are Getting Out There™ and getting your serotonin on!)

YMMV, but for us, in this year of our Lord 2024, there are simply too many great cameras for just a few dollars more. It’s a no-brainer. If you take nothing else from this article, take that away. Yeah, we feel strongly about this.

(The one caveat we have to that is, your money will go a lot farther in the secondhand market – just make sure you do your research. We’ve done quite a lot of that for you. See our posts page. But always, trust, but verify.)

On the other hand, if you decide that you want to get something, then you need to figure out how much money you’re prepared to part with for it to truly be worth your while. We can’t answer that for you, but we can help you to figure it out for yourself.

If you have some idea of what you want to photograph, any idea at all of what you’d like to photograph, you’ll save yourself a lot of time and trouble. If this is you, Congratulations! You’re way ahead of where we were. (Are – we reluctantly admit.)

Full Disclosure: We’re not going to be much help with that, because – God Help Us – we are pretty much interested in everything. We’re not kidding. Nature, rock and roll videos, vlogging, portraits of people we love, pets, other people’s pets, surfers, camping trips, sunsets, sunrises, fog, mist, seabirds, ikebana still lifes, food, interesting trees, fawns – it’s a long list. So we’re going to look at all of our options and see what’s what at the end of the day. Stick around. It’ll be fun, and we’ll learn something useful, with any luck at all. Join us, won’t you?

Be all that as it may; If we fail to help you figure out what you need, we sure hope that you find something here that will entertain you, enlighten you, or at a minimum – inspire you to Get Out There™ Camping and recording your adventures! (Don’t forget to bring along whatever camera(s) you have! Also, remember that a camera or phone with no power is nothing but a weight. Make sure to take a Portable Solar Panel or a Portable Power Station so you’ll never get caught unprepared for that killer photo!) You’ll thank us.

Camera Sensors Overview:

A camera sensor of any size converts optical images (light) into digital signals. As we’ve noted, it fills the role of photographic film in traditional film cameras. But – where film is passive, digital sensors have a much more active role. Inside the camera.

Traditionally, the size of the film itself made a large difference in the resulting images. Probably it’s more accurate to say the size of the negative. But that happened outside the camera – in the dark room.

“Good Photographs”, in the 1950’s through to the ’70’s, were shot on 35mm Leicas. During the Korean War, Life photographers bought up a bunch of Nikon and Canon cameras and brought ’em back to the U.S. There’s a great article on this period of Life Magazine Cameras and Life, where Kelly McCormick relates a fascinating tale.

“Fun” photographs, or somewhat dismissively “Snapshots”, were taken with other cameras using smaller film sizes. This is still true today. (An obvious oversimplification – of course, good photographers can do good work with anything – See Kathy Ryan’s stunning work “Office Romance” which was shot entirely on a smartphone.)

It’s important to understand that both film and digital cameras, are only as good as the lens the light comes through. There is no way around that. There are several different factors that contribute to image quality, and we’ll touch on them as needed, but the focus (get it?) of this article is gonna be sensor size. (By the way, lenses are often referred to as “Glass”, in the shutterbug vernacular, so if you hear someone talking about “glass”, they mean lenses. Just a FYI.)

Could you get good photographs with 110 mm film? Yeah. You could. Well, possibly you could. We have some doubts that we could. But with a lot of luck, who knows? You remember those little cameras, right? I suppose it’s possible you don’t. You couldn’t fit a lens on them to save your life. People bought them because they were cheap, easy, largely disposable, and fun. They still are, apparently – perhaps not cheap anymore – but today they’re largely for aficionados or hobbyists. In any event, we have some lovely snapshots, mementos, and travel shots and we’re sure you do too. Here’s one of ’em:

Are we glad to see it? Well, sure. Is it a good photo? Not really. Did we get some “likes” on Facebook? Yeah, we did. Well, our sister did. Would it have been better if Dad had had a 35mm camera? Probably not. Skilled photographers can get good shots with anything. That was true then, and it’s true now.

Our parents had a boatload of skills and accomplishments, but sadly, they could not count photography among them.

Never mind that now.

Our point is that film sizes affect the quality and kind of images produced. This is even more true for sensor sizes because they play such an outsized role in the processing of the image within the camera. That’s a huge difference from the film world. That and the cost differential. Almost everything is cheaper and easier with digital photography. The role of sensors is only going to grow in importance in the future as technology progresses. (That’s our bold prediction.)

And yet, because we’re toying with the idea of getting a new camera, and we know for a fact that the size of the sensor definitely will affect the resulting images, we wanted to find out exactly how much sensor size is going to matter. (Sensor size is certainly a big part of how much we’re going to pay, so since we were going to cost/benefit this whole thing out anyway, we thought, “Hell, our Lone Loon Song readers might find some value in this.”)

Standard Image Sensor Sizes Only:

We’re only going to talk about sensor sizes we can reasonably afford.

We acknowledge that there are a bunch of Sensor Sizes that are either out of production, or obsolete. We’re not going to deal with them, here, either. No shade. Some of them are remarkable. (We’re looking at you, Canon EOS-1D Mark III (28.1 x 18.7mm) – a whale of a sensor – the APS-H (28.1 x 18.7mm) in a camera body that is oddly out of production. If you find one, for a good price – get it.) We found a couple of them. This one is fairly representative in terms of price, though it’s “body only” which means you have to spring for a lens – always a better idea than some kit lens in any event. (Get a “nifty-fifty” second-hand somewhere, and Bob’s yer mother’s brother. For some weird reason, people sell those, and then kick themselves in the ass and say “Why did I sell that thing?” I know a guy like that with 8-track audio reel-to-reel recorders. Every time we have a beer or two too many, our buddy brings that up. When researching Nikon D40s while considering our purchase, we consistently saw comments like that! “Oh, I loved that camera! I wish I’d never sold mine!” One of the reasons we bought it.)

A lot of folks invest serious money in their lenses and just want to upgrade their camera body and keep their lenses. That’s great for us at Lone Loon Song. (You can read our entire journey – research to purchase to after-purchase to images in our autobiographical article The Lone Loons Go Shopping For Cheap, Old, Wonderful, CCD Sensor DSLR Cameras) Buying a “body only” camera is not a bad way to go. Actually, it’s a great way to go. It makes no sense to pay for a cheap lens (a “kit lens”) that you’ll end up replacing anyway. Get a gently used body and a good workmanlike “nifty fifty” (50mm lens) and you’re good to go. Save a few pennies and buy that place on the shore you’ve been looking at. That’s for another article, though.

If you happen to own a camera that is “obsolete” or out of production and you’re curious about it – or you’re thinking about picking one up second-hand, (and we’re all here for that – provided you do your due diligence – because there are some serious bargains out there! – You can find out all about uncommon sensors at Wikipedia. They have a mighty comprehensive list.)

(As a matter of fact, we’re thinking about embarking on a search for a used DSLR body or one with an APS-C or a full-frame sensor and a lens and reporting on our second-hand experience in an article. Rest assured that we’re gonna spend some quality time over on Wikipedia before we post that sucker. Stay tuned!)

At the end of the day, in all honesty after we threw out all of the dental/medical imaging and space technology stuff, (here we’re talking about the NASA, satellite stuff – not to be confused with the Astrophotography, or photographs of stars and celestial bodies,) there’s still plenty of stuff left over to talk about.

Bet you’re glad we have the table of contents, arencha?

Sensor Size: From The Largest To The Smallest:

Full-frame:

We talked about this, but a little more won’t kill you: It’s impossible to explain this without a little history. When digital first became a thing, camera manufacturers had been doing great work with film cameras. They had no burning desire to throw everything out and bet the farm on this new digital stuff. So they hedged their bets.

Therefore, while they kept all of the film stuff, they also slowly introduced the new-fangled digital stuff. There were the usual growing pains. They basically just took everything they could carry from their classic 35mm SLR film cameras and ported it all over to a digital sensor-based DSLR camera. (Digital Single Lens Reflex.)

Mostly these were Nikons and Canon bodies modified to accept the new fangled sensors.

These sensors themselves (based on the size of the existing “35mm” film SLRs) are called “full-frame” because they were produced at the “full-frame” size – 36x24mm – to mimic the original 35mm film as closely as possible. (BTW – with images, it’s always width x height.) Today, as a practical matter, they are the largest sensors commercially available to most photographers – professional or otherwise. (Notwithstanding the out-of-reach medium format sensor cameras.)

Camera manufacturers realized that many photography-curious potential customers could be motivated by lower price points and began to introduce smaller sensor sizes. When these other, smaller sensor sizes were developed, they were naturally compared to the existing “full-frame” cameras. To differentiate, they mapped these back against the full-frame cameras.

Because the larger field of view image available to the full-frame sensor wouldn’t fit on the smaller sensors, the full image ended up cut off, or “cropped”, to fit that smaller area. (So what we ended up with is the “full-frame” 35mm and the smaller “crop sensor” sizes. Yeah, that could have been handled better. Wouldn’t it have been easier to just measure the damn things and refer to ’em that way? Ya think? Don’t shoot the messenger.)

Prized by pros for their superior image quality, dynamic range (the ability to capture the range between the lightest lights and the darkest darks), and low light performance, for quite some time the DSLR full-frame cameras were the undisputed heavyweight champs.

On the other hand, they were expensive in every way, fragile, and bulky. Even the lenses and tripods. The camera bags. Don’t forget your cheque-book, Thelma.

They’re no longer “undisputed” today. The unrelenting march of time, and so on. “Father Time is undefeated.” Oooooooooh. There’s a contender of a cliché. (See what we did there? Contender? Undefeated? “Instead of bums. Which is what we are.”)

Anyway, since we’re spit-ballin’ – We kind of thought that any sensor smaller than a full-frame sensor should be known as a “crop size” camera – obviously, a smaller sensor size means some of the image has to be cut, or cropped, off, right? Right. But no.

Only APS-C, 4:3’s and micro 4:3’s sensors are referred to as “crop size”, for reasons that we don’t care enough about to chase down. Too old and cranky. The Hell with it. Feel free to email us and let us know at Colinloon2@loneloonsong.com. Maybe we’ll care, and maybe we won’t. Next!

APS-C: (Active Pixel Sensor – Classic) This next size down is a little confusing. (We’re trying to imagine your surprise.) It turns out that there are two closely related sizes that share the same name and width x height ratio, but slightly different widths and heights. Because of course they do.

That’s because there is almost everyone else, and there’s Canon. Let us do our best to explain:

Most camera brands (like Nikon, Pentax, Sony, and Fujifilm among others) use sensors that measure 370mm² (or 23.5 x 15.6mm.- and have a “crop factor” of 1.5x. (Crop factor is important – put a pin in that.)

Canon‘s version of it’s APS-C sensor comes in at a slightly smaller size; measuring 330 mm² (or 22.2 x 14.8mm). Therefore, they have a larger crop factor of 1.6x.

Keep your fork, Duke, there’s pie:

Check this out:

Confusingly, there is a film negative size of almost the same size – but slightly larger than both APS-C’s at 25.1 x 16.7mm called Advanced Photo System – we know, right? Really? The same damn letters for a completely different acronym? It didn’t occur to them that that might be confusing?

At the end of the day, the APS-C sensors are at a more reasonable price point than the full-frames, and stand up pretty well to the larger sensors. Except for Astrophotography – night skies – and other super low light situations, not that much less camera. Many avid amateurs have found the APS-C to be a very practical price-point vs performance compromise. It does tick a lot of boxes. (You can also often keep your expensive lenses. Get ready for a big “butt”.)

In any event, full-frame and both APS-C sizes share this 3:2 ratio. (That’s 3 parts horizontal to 2 parts vertical.) (You just do the math. So for example, if your image is 600 pixels wide, it’s gonna need to be 400 pixels tall. (300 w? 200 h.) This will be important when we get to Four Thirds.)

Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds: These sensors get their name from their aspect ratio – 4:3. (This may seem inconsequential. You might be excused for thinking 3:2, and 4:3 – That’s not all that much, right? Well, it truly looks different – and aspect ratio is a big thing depending on how you’re gonna serve up your media. BTW – Is anyone else annoyed by the portrait smartphone T.V. video footage showing two blurry columns on the left and the right sides? I mean, I understand it’s disaster footage, and you can’t be too choosy – see the Bermuda shot, above – but Jeeze.)

They measure 18mm × 13.5mm, with an imaging area of 17.3mm × 13.0mm. We got a charge out of this size because it’s so similar to the frame size of the 110mm film – of the Bermuda Shot fame! Olympus and Panasonic in 2008 set out to specifically develop a sensor size for mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, (MILs), camcorders and their accompanying lenses. Smaller though they are, they have wowed a lot of skeptics with their image quality. (Including us.) A lot of folks who do travel photography love these because their size is such that they’ll pretty much go in a pocket. Street photographers love ’em because they’re pretty inconspicuous. Bear in mind that the smaller size means that these have a crop factor of 2x. (A double-edged sword when you get interested in lenses.)

One inch (9 x 12mm): As we noted: not technically a “crop sensor”, these are high-end compact cameras with a 2.7x crop factor. This is a larger sensor than most compact cameras. As a result, it is able to produce photos with better image quality than cameras of comparable size. This sensor can produce 4K video – a higher specification currently not needed (or used) by everyone. (Still, a lot of folks are betting on this for the future. We’ve even heard a vlogger claim that the ability to shoot video at 4k would “future-proof” their investment. Ahhhhhhhh hhaaaaaaaa haaaaaa ha. Oh. <Wipes eyes> Oh, Child, there is no “future-proofing” your investment. “The Steam Engine is the Future!” and “150 megabytes ought to be enough for anyone.”)

Still, 4k looks great and a lot of vloggers legitimately love these for good reason.

There are two in particular that we like: The Panasonic LUMIX ZS100 4K Digital Camera, and the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-RX10 IV.

However, most of these vloggers or Youtubers often feel the need to add an inexpensive (or expensive) shotgun microphone, as the on-board audio is nothing to write home about.

(Just a general heads-up, and not just because we’re audio guys first: People will watch sub-par video with acceptable sound longer than they will watch excellent video with sub-par audio. Fact-check: True. Keep that in mind. On the other hand, we’ve seen some pretty impressive results on YouTube of these kinds of setups souped up with nothing but a $50.00 mic. Here’s one: Movo VXR10-PRO External Video Microphone for Camera)

Smartphones. These run the gamut from our 35.2mm² (1/1.9″) iPhone 13 Wide to 12.2mm²(1/3.4″) iPhone 13/12 Ultra Wide. We find the audio a little disappointing if we’re getting video, but we’re audio people first. We can fix that with a hand clap on both the video and the microphone track, and just sync up to that.

(We honestly hadn’t considered external lenses, but apparently, some are available for certain smartphones – if this is you your crop factor is said to be about 6x. Full disclosure: we have to do more research on that.)

(We reluctantly wade into the mess that is Crop Factor below.) Bet you’re glad we have the table of contents, arencha?

Useful Photography Terms Defined Simply:

Disclaimer: As simply as we can.

• Full-Frame: (We talked about this before.) A digital sensor based on the size of a traditional 35mm film camera. All smaller sensor sizes are compared against these. (36mm x 24mm – width by height. Width always goes first. Because, that’s why.)
• Depth of Field: The area that is in sharp focus. A shallow depth of field refers to a small area in focus. Still lifes, portraits and the like often have the subject in focus, and the background is blurred. A deep depth of field is used for team, group shots, sea or landscapes where a larger area is sharp and clear.
• Field of View: All that is visible in the frame of the sensor. Backing up a step or two will increase what is visible in the frame. That’s your field of view. A full-frame sensor will be able to “see” more, smaller sensors cut off, or crop some of the image.
• Crop Sensor: In practical terms, this is the APS-C sizes and the Four Thirds/Micro Four Thirds sensors. (To us, it makes sense that any digital photographic sensor smaller than the full-frame 35mm should be included. Being smaller, the image is cut off, or “cropped”. Are we wrong? In any event, the one-inch and smartphones are not technically “crop sensors”.) See also Why Can’t Anyone Explain “Crop Factor” Simply?
• Dynamic Range: The range of light from the darkest to the lightest areas. (Measured numerically where a larger number is “better”.) Greater dynamic range affords more detail in both the brightest brights and the darkest shadows. (It’s also often remarkable what you can salvage if you shoot high dynamic RAW files and edit them on your PC, or sometimes on your smartphone, especially with Lightroom.)
• ISO Sensitivity: An international standard representing sensitivity to light as a numerical value. A higher number is more sensitive and can capture more light. The other side of the coin is that a high ISO value will add a kind of light distortion called noise. Full-frame sensors are prized because they can capture low-light images at lower ISO values – meaning less noise in your image.
• Noise: Some cameras with smaller sensors struggle to “see” in low light. Sometimes you can mediate this by turning up the ISO – which will allow the photographer to “see” better in low light – but, it will introduce a kind of visual distortion, manifesting as grainy specks of light. (We first saw this phenomenon in night vision goggles scenes in the movies.) You will sometimes get the advice “shoot at the lowest ISO”, to which we would add the modification “possible to get the best shot for the conditions.”

Why Can’t Anyone Explain “Crop Factor” Simply?

Crop factor is easy to see, but difficult to explain. We sure as hell didn’t want to get into it here, because it has to do more with lenses than sensor size, but it can’t be helped. For some reason, some people like to argue about this. We’re damned if we can figure out why. We don’t. (Like arguing about it.)

If you are new to external lenses, you’re excused. It won’t make any sense to you. Buy a lens, put it on your camera, and play with it. When you like what you see, press the button. Repeat. Move to the left. Move to the right. Stand up sit down, fight, fight, fight.

But don’t read this. It’ll just confuse you. Save yourself some grief. Shit. Still here? All right, then. Hold our beer: <Deep breath>

Before digital cameras, photographic lenses behaved in a predictable manner. For any given lens, you could expect a predictable result. A “nifty-fifty” would act like a 50mm lens on this 35mm camera, or that one. 100mm? No problem. Exactly what you’d expect. No surprises.

That was (and apparently is still the case if you’re a film buff) because all Single Lens-Reflex 35mm cameras used (use) 35mm film. External lenses are precision pieces of equipment. They ain’t cheap. For the most part, only the most avid amateurs or pros used 35mm SLR cameras fitted with special lenses. These cameras used the exact same size of film. Each frame measured 36x24mm. (Of that, only 35mm was useable for photographs, hence the name.) Although the image from the lens is circular, the film frame is rectangular. This isn’t difficult: Shine a flashlight on a square box. You just see a bright square, right? Round light, square box. The overflow light is just wasted, and flows past. Same thing here.

Therefore, the parts of the (larger) circular image that do not completely fit in the rectangle of film get cut off (or “cropped”). Because the size of the film was a consistent size, the lenses, no matter the size or type, just worked as expected. So it was easy to shop for lenses. Life was good.

But, digital sensors began to be available in different sizes. Larger sensors are more expensive. That stands to reason, more surface area, more material, higher costs. Large pizzas cost more than small pizzas. (…This just in…)

Manufacturers found that they could produce smaller sensors for less cost and at only a small “performance price”. Consumers liked the option. They could spend a little less on their sensor and still have pretty great image quality.

But Noooooooo! (As the late, great John Belushi would say.)

Everything was tickety-boo until photographers decided that they wanted to use the expensive lenses they had already purchased for their 35mm film cameras with their smaller -“Crop Sized” sensors. What they found was that the smaller rectangle of their sensor made their lenses look different. The lenses hadn’t changed, but the way the image looked in the smaller surface of the sensor sure did. (Again, a simplification.) The subject looked closer. Proportionately, it took up more of the rectangle. If you’ve ever zoomed into something with a piece of software, you’ve seen this phenomenon. Think of when you use Google Maps. You have a long drive. You want to see the whole route.

The size of the window of your phone is fixed. In order to see the whole route, you zoom out. But, when you zoom out, everything is smaller, it appears farther away and the details are lost. Zoom in, everything is closer, and in finer detail. However – You can’t see as much of the map. Your field of view has changed. The map hasn’t changed, or the size of the window – but because the proportion within the window has changed, it looks very different. The effective focal length has changed in your view. (Remember – the lens hasn’t changed. Nor has it been changed. You’re gonna hear people say that. Don’t be fooled. Take this simple test – take the lens off and put it back on your 35mm film SLR and you’ll see it’s exactly the same.)

That’s “crop factor”. It makes it less difficult to make a decision when you’re shopping for a particular lens. It helps a prospective customer to predict what you’re gonna see with a given lens. That’s it. <wipes forehead> Give us the damn beer back.

Here’s a practical example:

Let’s take a “nifty-fifty” 50mm lens. It’s a pretty common lens you’re likely to encounter. We multiply that by the camera’s (sensor’s, really, if you care about accuracy) crop factor. (let’s say for example – A non-Canon APS-C with a 1.5x crop factor – If you multiply a lens’s focal length (50mm) by the camera’s crop factor (1.5), you get the “equivalent focal length”, (75mm) (sometimes called “effective” focal length – but it’s the same thing) which is the focal length you expected to see on a 35mm camera with a 75mm lens. Sometimes this is referred to as the “focal length multiplier”. (FLM) The right hand entry in the table below is either the effective focal length, or the equivalent focal length.

By the way, this crop factor can make your telephoto lens dollar stretch out into the distance. (Hah! Ahem.) Seriously, if you need more “reach” and you have a Four Thirds or a Micro Four Thirds you can really extend your range. (Here’s another cliché: “It’s a terrible wind that doesn’t blow somebody some good.”)

Luckily, manufacturers list the crop factor of their sensor size in the specifications of their cameras. Check your manual, but here’s a handy little table:

Sensor Size	Crop Factor (Example : 50mm lens)
Full Frame	None (50mm)
Non-Canon APS-C	1.5x (1.5 x 50mm = 75mm)
Canon APS-C	1.6x (1.6 x 50mm = 80mm)
Four Thirds/ Micro Four Thirds	2x (2 x 50mm = 100mm)
One Inch	2.7x (2.7 x 50mm = 135mm)
Smartphone	6x (Not applicable, as far as we know.)

Cameras We Like:

We aren’t making recommendations. We are simply putting these cameras out there as examples of great options at great prices in each of the following sensor sizes: Caveats: Remember – Don’t buy a “lens kit”. Buying a quality body first, and then a great lens is absolutely a great way to go. (BTW: “Body” or “camera only” is a fantastic option. Get an all around great lens that fits your body, and off you go. Here’s a great one for all EOS Canon bodies: Canon RF50mm F1.8 STM Lens, (A Fixed Focal Length Prime Lens, Compatible with EOS R Series Mirrorless Cameras, Black.) (Just search for 50mm ‘brand name’ lens.) These are all worth a look. Consider used bodies, too. (Be sure to ask them to check the actuation, though. If they don’t know, send ’em to Check the Actuation. (Most bodies are good for about 200,000, so use that to haggle.)

• Full Frame DSLR or Mirrorless
• APS-C
• Four Thirds (Micro Four Thirds)
• One inch

Full Frame DSLR/Mirrorless	APS-C	Four Thirds/Micro Four Thirds	One Inch
Canon EOS R8 (Body only) Canon EOS R6 Mark II Mirrorless Camera (Body Only)	Canon EOS R100 Body only option – Be sure to check the refurbished deal!	OM SYSTEM Olympus OM-5 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV Body only! Pick up a sweet lens!	Canon Cameras US PowerShot SX720 HS Black Canon PowerShot ELPH 350 HS (Black)

In Conclusion:

We sure hope that we were able to clear up some things for you. Of course sensor size matters, but you know what matters more? Getting out there and getting some photographs with what you have. Any of the above options would be a remarkable camera to call your own, but a camera needs to be used.

We’re in the process of finishing an article on DSLR vs Mirrorless cameras, and one on how the CCD and CMOS sensor types work, and differ in practical terms. We also intend to produce a much more this-is-what-we-like-and-why-we-like-it article.

Lone Loon Song is Now, and Always Will Be An A.I. Free Zone

This article has been a labour of love, and we’re mighty happy to share it with you. Was this helpful? Tell your friends.

Did we get something wrong? Let us know. If there is something that you’d like to see us write about, give us a shout. Most importantly, enjoy the rest of your day, and if it is at all possible: Get Out There™!

It’s a beautiful day in late September in Miyazaki. It’s gonna be cold, but we’re getting in the river. Perhaps we can get lots of shots. A typhoon just left, the car is packed, we have exactly two days and everything that needs to be charged is charged. We’re roughing it this time. We didn’t really have any time to plan. No table, no tarp.

On the other hand, we don’t need that much. A quality tent, a comfy chair, and there’s plenty of firewood. It’s a little damp, but we know how to start a fire when everything is damp. We have a glass slide, a guitar, a flashlight (batteries checked, seem like they’ll be okay), gas in the car, some money in the wallet. We think we’re good to go. Damn! Nearly forgot the lighter again!

See you out there!