white faced monkey headshots from today

[Gato Moteado]

11. yeah there are a whole host of 4:3 aspect ratio sensor sizes.....

the micro 4/3 sensor is called 4/3, not because it has a 4:3 aspect ratio (it does, but so do all of the smaller sensors), but because 4/3 of an inch (1 and a third inches) is the diameter of a 1950s vidicon tube that would be needed to surround the sensor. if you're confused as to why they would use that system to name a sensor, join the club. here's a little bit about that:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4159871805/making-sensor-sizes-less-misleading

here is a graphic showing the common sized sensors next to each other so you can compare them visually:



and, yes, you are correct...the nikon bridge cameras (P950, P1000, etc) have the tiny 1/2.3 sensors....with such a huge crop factor, this is what allows them to zoom to ridiculously long full frame telephoto focal length equivalents. i think the sony bridge cameras use the 1" (remember, that means that you'd need a 1 inch vidicon tube to surround it) which is only a bit smaller than a 4/3.

a lot of people (generally knuckleheads parroting what they hear other people say) in the online photography forums will claim you need a full frame camera because all crop sensors are practically useless. while there are clear advantages to full frame cameras, there are also advantages to crop sensors, and 4/3 is a sweet spot, IMHO, for certain things like macro and close-up photography. a 20MP M4/3 sensor has higher resolution than even my nikon Z8....what i mean is that it has a tighter pixel density. remember, you're jamming 20 million pixels into a sensor not much more than 25% of the size of a full frame sensor....that would be the equivalent resolution of a full frame sensor with almost 80MP. so, when photographing at 1:1 or greater magnification, you're getting a lot more resolution on your subject on a 20MP M43 sensor than any high resolution full frame sensor nikon, canon or sony makes. additionally, because the sensor is about a quarter of the size of a full frame sensor, when you're doing close up photography (not macro) of subjects like small animals (like frogs, for instance) you can really back off, even with something like a 60mm macro lens, in order to fill the frame. now in this case, you're sacrificing resolution when compared to a full frame camera with a macro lens, which could fill a 46MP frame with something like a small frog, but you're going to get way more depth of field at sweet spot apertures, like f/7.1, for example. also, when photographing frogs and other small animals at night (where you need a speedlight, modeling light and diffuser) in-situ, your rig is lighter and way more agile than a full frame set up.