Prezzie ideas for brother's 60th birthday

[BR14]

Is that like a second coming?

yes, only twice as good.

[WTFH]

Superbly explained thanks.

And now we go on to sensor size.

Sensor size is like engine size - generally bigger is better, but with caveats.
And when I say "size" I mean dimensions, not the number of pixels.

Let's deal with the caveats first: in good conditions, a smaller sensor lets you get in closer - both for macro (close in small things) and telephoto (far away things) work. And in good conditions, a smaller sensor is perfectly adequate.
In the car analogy, that's the same as saying a 1 litre engine is perfectly capable of getting most cars up to the speed limit, and that's all anyone really needs.

So why would anyone want a bigger sensor (since they are a lot more expensive to make)?
Simple - a bigger sensor can capture more light. It can capture more detail. It can cope better with sub-optimal conditions.
a 2.9l V6 will get you up to the speed limit a lot faster than a 1l. And the bigger engine won't be anywhere near its limit when it gets there. A 5l will barely be ticking over.

And now we look at number of pixels. This is the power of the engine.
A pixel in a camera sensor is a photosensitive element. The bigger the element, the more light it can capture, and the more accurately it can capture that light.
Now, you can take a 1l engine and slap a couple of turbos on it to get the power up. And it will do the job, although it might not have the torque to pull a fully loaded car. Or you can have a bigger engine which can have more power easily, and more torque.
What's better - 200bhp from a 1l engine or 200bhp from a 2l engine?

[clearedforlanding]

And now we go on to sensor size.

Sensor size is like engine size - generally bigger is better, but with caveats.
And when I say "size" I mean dimensions, not the number of pixels.

Let's deal with the caveats first: in good conditions, a smaller sensor lets you get in closer - both for macro (close in small things) and telephoto (far away things) work. And in good conditions, a smaller sensor is perfectly adequate.
In the car analogy, that's the same as saying a 1 litre engine is perfectly capable of getting most cars up to the speed limit, and that's all anyone really needs.

So why would anyone want a bigger sensor (since they are a lot more expensive to make)?
Simple - a bigger sensor can capture more light. It can capture more detail. It can cope better with sub-optimal conditions.
a 2.9l V6 will get you up to the speed limit a lot faster than a 1l. And the bigger engine won't be anywhere near its limit when it gets there. A 5l will barely be ticking over.

And now we look at number of pixels. This is the power of the engine.
A pixel in a camera sensor is a photosensitive element. The bigger the element, the more light it can capture, and the more accurately it can capture that light.
Now, you can take a 1l engine and slap a couple of turbos on it to get the power up. And it will do the job, although it might not have the torque to pull a fully loaded car. Or you can have a bigger engine which can have more power easily, and more torque.
What's better - 200bhp from a 1l engine or 200bhp from a 2l engine?

Again some wonderful analogies.

Why is the smaller sensor better for Macro and Telephoto? I don't understand that bit.

[WTFH]

Again some wonderful analogies.

Why is the smaller sensor better for Macro and Telephoto? I don't understand that bit.

Thanks... I’m not sure I can do an analogy for macro.

OK, so the reason why smaller can be better for macro and telephoto is because of the crop factor.
If you have the same number of pixels on a smaller sensor as on a big one, then the resultant image using the same lens will be “zoomed in” on the smaller sensor.
So a 100mm lens on a full frame camera (e.g. Canon 5D) will produce an image of size X.
If you put the same lens on a smaller sensor camera (e.g. Canon 7D which has a crop factor of 1.6), the image will be 1.6X bigger.
The lens will be acting like a 160mm one.
You appear to get in closer.

[Paddy]

Thanks... I’m not sure I can do an analogy for macro.

OK, so the reason why smaller can be better for macro and telephoto is because of the crop factor.
If you have the same number of pixels on a smaller sensor as on a big one, then the resultant image using the same lens will be “zoomed in” on the smaller sensor.
So a 100mm lens on a full frame camera (e.g. Canon 5D) will produce an image of size X.
If you put the same lens on a smaller sensor camera (e.g. Canon 7D which has a crop factor of 1.6), the image will be 1.6X bigger.
The lens will be acting like a 160mm one.
You appear to get in closer.

There is also the depth of field factor, basically the larger the format then the less depth of field but more depth of focus.
the smaller the format then the greater depth of field but less depth of focus hence better suited to macro.

Depth of field vs depth of focus Depth of focus - Wikipedia