What are the advantages of having a smaller sensor in your camera?

Are there any?  Everyone is always talking about getting a full frame sensor.  So are there any reasons why you would want a smaller sensor?  

Set in smaller, cheaper bodies?
I don't see anything else!.

When you are into sport or wildlife photography, you do not need to buy longer, more expensive lenses. 
A 300mm on full frame becomes a 500mm equivalent on a crop sensor.

The crop factor is an AoV divider and NOT a focal length multiplier.
Any given focal length stays what it is on a crop sensor. This was a
sales pitch brought in by those behind counters… and is wrong.

G'day Kate

Within the world of digital photography we have sensors of many differing sizes ... from very small in-the-phone to the so-called Full-Frame and then the oversize (my word) for those very expensive pro-equipment items

I use Superzoom (also called bridge) cameras and they have a sensor of about 6mm x 8mm in size ... much smaller than the dSLR sensors of 18mm x 24mm. Simple maths will tell you that these sensors are 1/9th the area of the dSLR sensor. So two cameras of say, 20mpx will have pixels of a vastly different (but still microscopic) size

In practical terms, the 'very small sensor' cameras also come with smaller bits of glass on the front of the camera, therefore they are usually lighter as well, and make really beaut walk-around cameras.

As with all zoom lenses which alter their Angle-Of-View as they zoom, when one looks at two lenses covering the same angle of view, if one lens is for a Full-Frame - 35mm camera, the other is said as 'equivalent to' something in 35mm / FF terms.

So my Panasonic superzoom camera has a zoom lens whose AOV is stated as "equivalent to 24mm to 600mm" when compared with a 35mm film / Full-Frame digital camera ...... BUT the camera is small and light and yet it offers very sharp, clear images without involving a big heavy camera body plus a huge lens (sometimes jokingly referred to as a 2-litre coca-cola bottle) along with a good tripod to keep it all steady

The other side of the equation - as NS and others will point out - is for commercial photographers the equipment requirements are different from we 'weekender' photographers. A commercial photographer never knows when a customer will request a print of say, 2-metres wide, and for that they will need a large pixel size / large sensor to start with, so that the final print will have maximum clarity. So for that, they will use Full-Frame sensor equipment

For me, as a 'weekender' where 75% of the prints I make for display around the house are 8" x 12" with a few panos of 20" to 28" wide, the smaller sensor and excellent lenses of the Panasonic cameras provides me with more than enough sharpness

Hope this helps
Phil from the great land Downunder
www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/

Smaller sensors can use smaller, lighter, simpler, cheaper lenses, but they are also less capable with regard to image noise and dynamic range.

'Full Frame' sensors are capable of providing the best image quality, but their lenses are big, heavy, complicated and expensive, few of which are capable of delivering on the promise of the sensor.

Aren't smaller sensors supposed to have better stabilization?  

Sandy Smith Photos wrote: Aren't smaller sensors supposed to have better stabilization?  

The mechanism required to physically stabilize an image sensor would be huge in comparison to the sensor itself, which is why most compact cameras and smartphones use what they call digital image stabilization, but in reality simply shortens the shutter speed while proportionally increasing the ISO. While this has the effect of lessening motion blur, it increases image noise, which it already has in abundance.

Nikon Shooter wrote: The crop factor is an AoV divider and NOT a focal length multiplier.
Any given focal length stays what it is on a crop sensor. This was a
sales pitch brought in by those behind counters… and is wrong.

Technically wright or wrong, it still makes sense to me. 

TCav wrote:

Sandy Smith Photos wrote: Aren't smaller sensors supposed to have better stabilization?  

The mechanism required to physically stabilize an image sensor would be huge in comparison to the sensor itself, which is why most compact cameras and smartphones use what they call digital image stabilization, but in reality simply shortens the shutter speed while proportionally increasing the ISO. While this has the effect of lessening motion blur, it increases image noise, which it already has in abundance.

= = = = =
EDIT

---

For Mods here
I have tried about 8-10 times to post this reply with text included - and it all disappears from view
I do not know what is going on but (as with NS in recent times) It does not seem to be correct operation for the site ( I could use stronger language )

I have created a new post in the 'support' thread
Phil
= = = = =

G'day mate

I don't know that this is correct ...
As I use my Panny cameras, I certainly enjoy the benefits of their OIS and it allows me to shoot very-long zoomed images with good clarity, even at (low) shutter speeds unheard of back in film camera days

Phil

Ozzie_Traveller wrote:

TCav wrote:
The mechanism required to physically stabilize an image sensor would be huge in comparison to the sensor itself, which is why most compact cameras and smartphones use what they call digital image stabilization, but in reality simply shortens the shutter speed while proportionally increasing the ISO. While this has the effect of lessening motion blur, it increases image noise, which it already has in abundance.

I don't know that this is correct ...
As I use my Panny cameras, I certainly enjoy the benefits of their OIS and it allows me to shoot very-long zoomed images with good clarity, even at (low) shutter speeds unheard of back in film camera days

I agree. I was talking about MOST compact cameras and smartphones.

Ozzie_Traveller wrote: G'day Kate

Within the world of digital photography we have sensors of many differing sizes ... from very small in-the-phone to the so-called Full-Frame and then the oversize (my word) for those very expensive pro-equipment items

I use Superzoom (also called bridge) cameras and they have a sensor of about 6mm x 8mm in size ... much smaller than the dSLR sensors of 18mm x 24mm. Simple maths will tell you that these sensors are 1/9th the area of the dSLR sensor. So two cameras of say, 20mpx will have pixels of a vastly different (but still microscopic) size

In practical terms, the 'very small sensor' cameras also come with smaller bits of glass on the front of the camera, therefore they are usually lighter as well, and make really beaut walk-around cameras.

As with all zoom lenses which alter their Angle-Of-View as they zoom, when one looks at two lenses covering the same angle of view, if one lens is for a Full-Frame - 35mm camera, the other is said as 'equivalent to' something in 35mm / FF terms.

So my Panasonic superzoom camera has a zoom lens whose AOV is stated as "equivalent to 24mm to 600mm" when compared with a 35mm film / Full-Frame digital camera ...... BUT the camera is small and light and yet it offers very sharp, clear images without involving a big heavy camera body plus a huge lens (sometimes jokingly referred to as a 2-litre coca-cola bottle) along with a good tripod to keep it all steady

The other side of the equation - as NS and others will point out - is for commercial photographers the equipment requirements are different from we 'weekender' photographers. A commercial photographer never knows when a customer will request a print of say, 2-metres wide, and for that they will need a large pixel size / large sensor to start with, so that the final print will have maximum clarity. So for that, they will use Full-Frame sensor equipment

For me, as a 'weekender' where 75% of the prints I make for display around the house are 8" x 12" with a few panos of 20" to 28" wide, the smaller sensor and excellent lenses of the Panasonic cameras provides me with more than enough sharpness

Hope this helps
Phil from the great land Downunder
www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/

   damn good post here.