Photzy

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS

Quick Guide
Written by Chuck Haacker

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 1

 When I began researching for this guide, I was Key Lesson: Working in film, larger
somewhat conflicted. My career started long ago negatives permitted greater enlargements with
with “BIG” cameras and worked downward. less or no visible grain, plus bigger negatives
allowed for more cropping than smaller ones.
I went to school for commercial photography in the
When you think of sensor size, can you see the
early 1970s. For our first two semesters we were
correlation?
required to shoot all assignments with bigger-than-
your-head six-pound 4x5” “press” cameras, and to
turn in our negatives to prove we hadn’t cheated with The rationale was that the relatively huge 4x5”
any “miniature” camera, what our instructors termed (10.1cm x 12.7cm) negative, with its area of 20” sq.
anything smaller than 4x5”. (~128cm), allowed for cropping quite small sections
out of the big negative. Size mattered. The area of
Despite our whining, they insisted that there were a full-frame 35mm negative is 8.64cm sq., or only
excellent reasons why the big cameras were the about 1.34” sq. A 4x5” negative has FIFTEEN TIMES
industry standard for more than half a century: the area of a full-frame 35mm negative.
resolution and flexibility in cropping and
enlarging. When I had my studio, I used many different cameras
in all sizes. My smallest were full-frame SLRs (film, of
course) and got bigger from there.

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 2

 The camera in my hand is a 35mm Nikon
F2AS, a top-of-the-line professional
camera for the time. The camera on the
floor (sitting on the camera case) is my
4x5” Pacemaker Speed Graphic that I
used all through school. The camera over
my right shoulder is an 8x10” Burke and
James. You get the idea. BIG!

All black and white portraits were made

in 4x5”, so I could hand-retouch them
directly on the negatives.

All color portraits were made, at

minimum, with 6x6cm (2-¼” x 2-¼”)
cameras on roll film.

My 35mm cameras were used mostly for

events, like conventions and meetings
where it was unlikely that we’d need
to enlarge greater than 8x10”. I was
thoroughly indoctrinated: bigger = better.
And in film, that was mostly true.

Key Lesson: Digital has turned

the old conventional wisdom on its
head. The industry was now
Photograph by Charles Haacker
thinking smaller is better… at first.
My camera room ca. 1978.

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 3

 I entered the fray after the close of the press camera Here is what we will discuss:
era. The man that I bought my studio from had shot
hundreds of weddings in black and white with 4x5” ·· How do we define “large” in a digital sensor?
press cameras. He had recently “downsized” to 3-¼” ·· Is “bigger” better?
x 4-¼” and had even transitioned to roll film and ·· Resolution
color. ·· Low light
·· Greater dynamic range (latitude)
I shot all my weddings with 6x6cm cameras. ·· Less visible noise (digital “grain”)
It horrified the previous owner; it would have ·· Tolerating more cropping
horrified my mentors, but at least I didn’t do ·· Handling higher ISOs with less loss of resolution
what some contemporaries were doing: shooting and less noise
weddings with (oh the humanity!) 35mm film. ·· Does “bigger” have any drawbacks?
Subminiature! Omigosh, we cried; you can’t make ·· Physical size and weight
big enlargements! ·· Depth of field
·· Easier bokeh (blur), and harder to control
But time marched on. ·· You need a full-frame sensor camera, right?
When I went digital (2007), I was so abysmally Recommended Reading: Want a step-by-
ignorant that I did not even know the sensor size of step guide on photography skills with your
my first tiny camera (it was 1/2.5), but I felt that the DSLR? Grab a copy of our best-selling guide:
quality was so good – especially the sharpness – that The DSLR Crash Course.
it did not matter to me.

So, does size still matter in this miraculous digital

age? Researching this piece was an eye-opener for
me. I learned that bigger is still generally better, and
why, and I hope I can help you see it too.

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 4

 DEFINING ‘LARGE’ IN
A DIGITAL SENSOR

Generally, sensors from 1” up are

considered large, while from 1” down are
considered small. One inch is the break
point, which is odd since it isn’t even an
inch. Paraphrasing Ken Rockwell, “There
is no such thing as a 1” digital image
sensor. What are marketed as 1” sensors
are actually only about 9 x 12mm (0.35”
x 0.47”) — nowhere near 1”. They have
about a 3x crop factor. Fifty years ago,
video cameras used vacuum tubes as
their image sensors. They were described
by the outside diameter of their overall
glass tube, like 1” or 2/3” tubes. The
active image sensing areas were always
Photograph by Charles Haacker much smaller than the tube’s outside
Madison, Wisconsin skyline, hand-held, Sony RX10, 1” sensor. diameters, but engineers all understood;
it was jargon.”

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 5

 For reasons not well understood, camera
manufacturers glommed onto this, apparently
for no other reason than to make their sensors
sound bigger than they actually are. Rockwell
thinks it’s fraudulent, but I think we can all read
the charts. One inch is either the largest of
the small sensors, or the smallest of the large.
I’ve used a 1” Sony RX10 and was absolutely
thrilled with it.

The entire tech industry advances by

leapfrogging itself. For most photographers,
today’s benchmark default is the 36x24mm
so-called “full frame” of the 35mm, created by
Oskar Barnack in 1913 (Leica). Today there are
even larger sensors available, medium format
and even adapters for big view cameras, but
for you and me the full frame is classified as
“large,” and downsizes from there.

Key Lesson: Where once a full-frame

35mm negative was considered
“miniature” owing to it showing more
grain and lower resolution, the exact
opposite is true of the digital full-frame
sensor.

Subsequently reworked extensively by user: Moxfyre for correct, exact sensor

size dimensions and accurate captions. Image: SensorSizes.png, Public
Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3163749

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 6

 IS BIG BETTER?

That’s the $64 question. If you’re fairly

new to digital, especially if you have been
shooting with a smartphone or pocket
point and shoot, you have probably been
astounded by the apparent quality of
the output. I sure was when I got my first
digital in 2007. I still am, actually.

At the time, I thought this JPEG, from a

polo-shirt-pocket camera, was every bit as
good as I could have made in film with a
35mm camera. It appears sharp and richly
detailed. What’s not to like? Eventually I
understood that tiny cameras meant tiny
sensors needing only very short focal
lengths. Given that the output was so
incredibly amazing, for quite a while I did
not care. I was getting what I thought
were great results. Who cared what size
the sensor was?

Key Lesson: Modern digital

sensors are so good that we can be
Photograph by Charles Haacker
fooled into thinking that size is
This JPEG at Jackson Lake in the Grand Tetons was made
with a Nikon L12 in 2007, a tiny point and shoot with
irrelevant; it isn’t.
a 1/2.5” sensor barely bigger than a cell phone’s.

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 7

 RESOLUTION

A sensor with more surface area includes

more pixels. Assuming pixels of equal
size, a digital sensor that is 50% larger
means that there can be 50% more pixels.
That translates to higher resolution, which
in turn means more detail so you can
enlarge with no discernible loss of quality.
We are getting back to the old principle:
size matters, and bigger is demonstrably
better.

I enlarged an approximate 100% section

out of the Jackson Lake picture to show
how, at high magnification, it begins to
fall apart – goes to mush. You can see
artifacts, haloing, and increased noise.
In its defense, the original is a JPEG,
plus I have no identical picture made
with a larger format for true comparison.
Moreover, that was a 2007 CCD sensor,
nowhere near as good as what was
already in the pipeline.

Photograph by Charles Haacker

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 8

 Key Lesson: In good light,
small sensors deliver excellent
results.

Photograph by Charles Haacker

Existing-light interior, un-cropped JPEG made with that same

1/2.5” Nikon L12 of the Montana State Capitol at Helena.

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 9

 NOISE!

But what about not-so-good light? Maybe

you’re forced to boost the ISO. This
shot was made with a 2007 Nikon P5000
1/1.7-in CCD sensor inside a greenhouse.
This JPEG-only camera was capable of
ISO 1600. The shot was made at ISO 800.
Un-cropped it doesn’t look bad.

Photograph by Charles Haacker 

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 10

 But what if we wanted to crop and
enlarge? Might we expect a little noise in
a JPEG from a tiny (admittedly obsolete)
sensor, even if it was twice the size of the
L12s?

Key Lesson: Small sensors in

low light will show more noise
(grain) and lower resolution than a
larger sensor under the same
conditions.

For comparison I found something shot

under similar conditions of light and ISO,
but with a Sony A6300 with its APS-C
“half frame” or “crop” sensor.

Photograph by Charles Haacker

Whoa! Pretty ugly!

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 11

 Photograph by Charles Haacker 

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 12

 Photograph by Charles Haacker 

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 13

 It’s not a fair comparison owing not just
to it being a bigger sensor, but also to
the nine-year gap in sensor technology.
I chose the picture because it was also
made at an ISO of 800, like the one made
with the 1/1.7” Nikon P5000. The APS-C
sensor has nearly nine times the area of
the 1/1.7”, and that’s easily seen in the
relative increase in sharpness plus lack of
discernible noise (grain).

Even reverting to a small 1/1.7” Nikon – a

P7800 – you can see the tech galloping
onward. In good light the tiny sensors
seem to do excellently.

Recommended Reading: Want a

step-by-step guide on photography
skills with your DSLR? Grab a copy of
our best-selling guide: The DSLR
Crash Course.

Photograph by Charles Haacker 

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 14

 Photograph by Charles Haacker 

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 15

 SMALL SENSOR
PERFORMANCE IN LOW
OR POOR LIGHT

I have never hesitated to make any

camera do things far outside its design
parameters. This is inside Carlsbad
Cavern (NM) by the “available dark” with
that 1/1.7” Nikon Coolpix P7800, wide
open at ƒ/2.0, 6.0 mm, 1/8-second @ ISO
1600. The original is a JPEG because I
was still not shooting raw (for shame). It
was reprocessed in Lightroom because I
never show anything unprocessed.

The conventional wisdom is that this can’t

be done. So? I’m unconventional.

Photograph by Charles Haacker

Inside Carlsbad Cavern by the existing light alone

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 16

 But even if it looks pretty good un-
cropped, what happens if I enlarge a
section around 100%? Bear in mind that
this is a 2013 1/1.7” sensor, JPEG. Here
is the roughly 100% enlargement of a
section of this picture. It looks like French
Impressionism.

Photograph by Charles Haacker

The cropped section is a dead giveaway that this was a small sensor in poor light.

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 17

 GREATER DYNAMIC BIGGER CAN TOLERATE
RANGE (LATITUDE) MORE CROPPING

I think raw vs. JPEG figures more into this than sensor At some stage available-dark freaks must face
size, but everything I read implies that bigger sensors reality: bigger sensors just better handle worsening
have more latitude than smaller ones. I don’t have a conditions. A good simile for any sensor is that it’s
way to test it, but I am skeptical; I absolutely know like a bucket; a larger sensor (larger bucket) can
raw beats JPEG irrespective of sensor size. collect more light (more rain) than a smaller sensor
in the same circumstances. I remain very impressed
with what smartphones can do with near-microscopic
sensors, but bigger sensors collect more light, such
as at a mostly candlelit birthday.

Key Lesson: Digital sensors are analogous

to buckets catching rainwater; the bigger the
bucket, the more volume it can hold.

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 18

 BIGGER SENSOR CAN
HANDLE HIGHER ISOS WITH
LESS DISCERNIBLE NOISE

These were made with my “big” APS-C

“half frame” Sony A6300, 1/125 @ f/4,
ISO 5000. Yes—ISO five thousand.

The top image on the left is un-cropped.

What happens if we enlarge sections out
of it? Keep your eye on her eyes (bottom
image).

Photographs by Charles Haacker

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 19

 In the last one we can discern some
noise, but it would be easily mitigated
in any good post-processing app, and I
don’t feel it’s that objectionable anyway.
(We maybe could have wiped off the
chocolate first but...)

Photograph by Charles Haacker

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 20

 Over time I have made thousands of
pictures in low light with cameras never
intended for that purpose, but I also knew
I was pushing boundaries off the edge
of the cliff. I just didn’t want to schlep
around BIG cameras and BIG bags full of
gear.

Key Lesson: The larger the

sensor, the greater the overall
quality under any conditions, good
light to bad. Any increase in area
over a smaller sensor results in a
discernible increase in image
quality (IQ). Greater sensitivity,
with little to no visible noise.
Photograph by Charles Haacker

Un-cropped, shot with hardly any available “light,” gelled, ISO 12,800.
The relatively big APS-C sensor performed like a champ.

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 21

 ARE THERE DRAWBACKS DEPTH OF FIELD (AND BOKEH)
TO BIGGER SENSORS?
Bokeh (blur, especially background) is easier to
Probably the biggest drawback (if it is one) is that achieve and control with bigger sensors, but the
bigger sensors generally require physically bigger physical size or format has nothing to do with it. I
bodies and bigger lenses, usually meaning more hear someone in the back saying, “Yeah, it’s about
weight, especially if they are DSLRs. At the time of focal length, right?!” Pretty much.
writing, Canon and Nikon are competing head to
Simply stated, the shorter the focal length of the
head with Sony’s full-frame, pro-grade mirrorless
lens, the deeper the apparent depth of field at
Alpha series. Mirrorless cameras are roughly a quarter
any given f/stop. We say “apparent” because it is
to a third smaller and lighter than the equivalent
actually an illusion. Depth of field is defined as the
DSLRs, full or crop frame.
area before and behind the plane of critical focus
My Sony A6XXXs bodies are actually physically just – the subject focused upon. “DOF” is influenced
a hair smaller than the Nikon A900 hi-end point and by several things starting with the focal length, the
shoot. Nikon has reverted to a microscopic 1/2.5” distance focused upon, and the aperture (f/number).
sensor; at least it’s a CMOS, but it won’t deliver raw.
You’ve heard of “normal” lenses. The focal length
The sensors in my Sony cameras are 15 times the
of any lens is defined as the distance from the lens
area of the Nikon A900, yet the bodies are the same
to the image sensor when focused at infinity, usually
size. (Weight is another matter. I have one lens that
stated in millimeters (e.g., 28mm, 50mm, or 100mm).
weighs two pounds on a one-pound body.)
The accepted focal length of a “normal” lens is
about equal to the diagonal of the frame. Full frame
35mm has a diagonal of ~43mm, so its “normal”
focal length is around 40 to 50mm (i.e., “Nifty Fifty”).

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 22

 A 1/2.5” sensor (cell phone) has a
diagonal of ~7mm. Most cell phones have
lenses in the 4 to 6mm range, slightly
wide angle. A sensor that tiny, with a
focal length that short, has a perceived
depth of field that seems to go from zero
to infinity. That’s why it’s so hard to get
anything like bokeh with them, or any
camera with a small sensor.

A common complaint about compacts

is the near impossibility of getting blur.
Compacts’ small sensors mean short focal
lengths, which means greater apparent
depth of field, especially at normal
distances. Depending on what you are
after, this can be either a feature, or a
bug.

I made the left image with my P5000

point and shoot with its 1/1.7” sensor and
(ahem) wasn’t watching the background.
Had I made the picture with one of my
Photographs by Charles Haacker APS-C cameras I could have gotten the
bokeh I craved in the camera instead of in
Photoshop (right image).

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 23

 The exposure was 1/125 @ f/4, “wide open.” The The reverse of the coin, however, is that it can be
focal length was zoomed to 16mm, which on my challenging to get enough DOF with a bigger sensor,
half-frames is a wide angle, but the normal for owing their requiring longer focal lengths. Here’s an
the 1/1.7” format is only 8mm. 16mm was double extreme example, made with a 30mm macro lens
normal, equivalent to about 100mm on a full frame, on my APS-C “half frame” sensor. A 30mm lens on
a mild telephoto and common portrait focal length. a crop sensor is equivalent to 45mm on a full frame;
Yet, despite being wide open and zoomed out, the it’s a normal lens, but it’s still nearly 4x as long as an
background is almost as sharp as the subjects. It’s 8mm normal on a tiny sensor. There is very little DOF,
frustrating for compact-camera enthusiasts. even stopped down when focused this close (just
inches away).

Recommended Reading: Want a step-by-

step guide on photography skills with your
DSLR? Grab a copy of our best-selling guide:
The DSLR Crash Course.

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 24

 DOF is not only affected by f/stop
and focal length; it is also affected by
magnification. When in very close, your
DOF becomes very thin even at small
apertures. The top picture is focused
on the edges of the front hole in the
bowl. The bottom picture is focused on
the object seen through the holes. The
aperture used was f/16, but when this
close, it doesn’t help much at all.

Photographs by Charles Haacker

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 25

 The picture I wanted could only be made
with “focus stacking,” using several
planes of critical focus and virtually
stacking them in Photoshop. Had I made
the picture with my old P7800 with its
1/1.7” sensor (9mm diagonal), I could
have gotten it much sharper within just
a single frame. But I’d still much rather
work around the limitations of the bigger
sensors; I sold my runty-sensor cameras
because I would never use them again.

Photograph by Charles Haacker

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 26

 But if it’s bokeh you want, larger
sensors deliver. This amaryllis was
made at f/8 with that same 30-macro,
focused critically on the anthers, allowing
everything else to fall well out of focus
(bokeh). It’s easy to do with a big sensor,
but if I wanted to keep everything sharp, I
would need either to focus-stack or use a
much shorter focal length. Stopping down
would help, but not as much this close.
Sometimes smaller sensors seem to have
an advantage, sometimes bigger ones
do.

Photograph by Charles Haacker

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 27

 SO, YOU NEED
A FULL-FRAME, RIGHT?

Not at all. My first “large sensor” was a 1”

Sony RX10, still considered to be in the
“compact” class. That camera and I were
inseparable for most of two years. I made
these with it.

Photograph by Charles Haacker

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 28

 Photograph by Charles Haacker

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 29

 I see no need for a full frame in my own
work. I think professionals need full-
frame pro bodies, and if I was working
for money I would think hard about it,
but I keep my hand in shooting events
for nonprofits and am very pleased with
the sterling performance of my APS-C
Sony cameras. My benchmark is my stock
question: Would I shoot a wedding with
it? Yes. Absolutely. I would.

Photograph by Charles Haacker

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 30

 CONCLUSION

I am satisfied that bigger sensors make

the most sense overall. The bigger the
sensor, the higher the overall resolution,
superior low-light performance, greater
dynamic range (especially if you shoot
raw), lower discernible noise, and the
files can tolerate more cropping under
all conditions, much like the big 4x5
negatives I started with. You don’t need
a full frame. I don’t have one. I almost
didn’t have the half-frames as I was
content with the 1” Sony RX10 (killed by
lens fungus, RIP). It’s a journey for all of
us. I am not sorry I got into MILCs, but I
could have happily continued as I was.

But doing this project convinced me that

absolutely, bigger is, on balance, better.

If I didn’t know it before, I do now.

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 31

 Self-Check Quiz: Assignment:

1) Explain to someone using a tiny If you have access to a larger format digital
compact why a larger sensor will deliver camera, defined as anything over 1”, and you
better quality. have a smaller format (your phone is fine), then
try taking some identical pictures with each
2) True or False: You can crop a little so you can compare. Try good light and low
section out of a small-sensor picture light. Try enlarging both. See if you can see a
without visible loss of quality. difference.
3) True or False: On balance, digital
sensors of all sizes seem to produce
superior quality to film.

4) True or False: In very low light, larger

sensors always outperform smaller ones.

5) True or False: In excellent light, larger

sensors always outperform smaller ones.

6) True or False: In film, we could make

equally sharp, low-grain enlargements
with any size negative.

7) If you take the same scene with a 35mm

film camera and an equal digital full-
frame camera and make identical prints,
will you be able to tell the difference?

FACTS REGARDING LARGE CAMERA SENSORS // © PHOTZY.COM 32

 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Congratulations! You’ve completed
this Photzy guide!

If you liked this photography tutorial, check

Charles Haacker graduated Summa out our step-by-step guide on discovering
cum Laude from Laney College photography skills using your DSLR and start
in Oakland, California. He holds a creating amazing images: DSLR Crash Course.
degree, “Associate of Science in
Commercial Photography”. He worked
as a professional photographer
specializing in weddings, children,
family, and business portraiture from
1968 until 1994. He also handled
assignments in the corporate and
industrial arenas. After retiring from
his studio, he stays busy by donating
his talents to pro bono work for
charities that cannot afford the rates
of a professional photographer. He
is a proud member of the Lincoln,
Nebraska Camera Club.

You can reach him on Quora or view his work at:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsjoEW9oR. IF YOU’D LIKE TO CONTINUE
LEARNING AND IMPROVING
YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY PLEASE
VISIT PHOTZY.COM

33