Sensor Size Doesn't Matter. Unless It Does?

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know about Tangerine, but I'm talking in general: given that most of the media stuff around is just crap (sure, including mega-productions with big bucks in equipment), the ultimate marketing tools for moviemakers is "hey, I just made this with an iPhone".</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Since you don't know it, it might be better not to comment on it. It's not being marketed as a movie made on a phone. And it is getting tremendous reviews for its content, which is far more important, like any still photograph, on what is inside, not what is used to create it.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is a number of movies, ranging from Ingmar Bergman's to Sergio Leone's (just to make two very different, random citations), that couldn't have been made - and couldn't be made today - with an iPhone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Since they are both people who figured out how to say what they wanted with the mediums available, I'm sure they would figure out what to do with a phone too, if they were working now. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is a number of movies, ranging from Ingmar Bergman's to Sergio Leone's (just to make two very different, random citations), that couldn't have been made - and couldn't be made today - with an iPhone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Paging Captain Obvious! i dont think the point was that any movie ever made could have been made with an iPhone.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unless you need to shoot in near darkness or need extremely shallow depth of field, crop sensor cameras can do very, very well these days.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>one could add, 'unless you need massive resolution' to that list, but Lannie has a good point. we've reached a point in camera development where even entry-level offerings are better than anything available 10 years ago.</p>

Marshall McLuhan used to say the "media is the message". I never did actually figure out what he meant. The media I

have used, including crop, full frame, and medium format, all has been useful to me. I once was a professional and I

think the difference in these three formata lay in very thin margins between them in actual practice. I think you all are

arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. As Raylan Givens (my new serialized hero would

say," it don't really amount to much in the long run what y'all use".

<p>actually, mcluhan said, "the medium is the message."</p>

You are absolutely right Mr. Arnold. I stand corrected. I still don't know what he meant. Have a nice day.

<p>I think people who even get involved in these discussions about sensor size are sometimes missing the point that images are made by a system, not a sensor. The system has five components: Image formation (the lens), Image capture (the sensor), Image processing (in camera and out of camera tools), Image rendering (printing, display) and Image visualization (i.e. you, the photographer).<br>

Rather than asking whether this sensor is better than that sensor, perhaps we should be asking what the weakest link in our respective systems is and how best to improve it. Would moving from a m4/3 or a APS-C sensor to a full frame sensor improve *your* photography? That is a question only you can answer.<br>

For my part, while the Sony A7R II (which I covet) would be objectively superior in any way measurable to my A6000. I have to admit it probably would not significantly improve my images... even if I paired it with a Zeiss Batis or Leica WATE lens. At this stage in my development as a photographer, my images are my are more often limited by my abilities than by my gear. Of course, if I happen to win the lottery or cash in big on stock options, I won't let my lack of ability hold me back - I admit, I am a weak minded consumer 8-)<br>

<br />The biggest, newest sensor in the world still produces crap images with lenses that don't perform well. <br />The hot full frame Nikon/Canon/Leica/Sony body with a top of the line lens produces crap images in the hands of a photographer with no vision or imagination.<br />The default settings of image processing engines in even the best cameras produce results which are often dull. <br />Some of the world's greatest images were made were made by visionary photographers using systems that by today's standards rate barely better than a pinhole camera made from a shoebox.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You are absolutely right Mr. Arnold. I stand corrected. I still don't know what he meant. Have a nice day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might try reading his book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, From Wikipedia:<br>

"McLuhan proposed that <a title="Mass media" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media">media</a> themselves, not the content they carry, should be the focus of study—popularly quoted as "the medium is the message". McLuhan's insight was that a medium affects the society in which it plays a role not by the content delivered over the medium, but by the characteristics of the medium itself."</p>

<p>Probably from the same Wikipedia reference as Barry cites: </p>

<p>"The medium is the message" is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived.</p>

<p>Although Dick may not have introduced McLuhan's quote in reference to sensor size as medium related, photography itself and its varied equipment forms are available with different media, like photoelectric sensor or silver halide emulsion based media, or small format versus large format, or iphones versus larger format cameras.</p>

<p>Each of these media also can form a symbiotic relationship with the user. An iphone facilitates the human desire for autoportraiture or selfies, larger format works for the more methodical type of photography, classical 35mm photography allows portability and the physically active photographer or the sports photographer needing long lenses, and so on.</p>

<p>Perhaps the FF sensor is best for limiting the depth of field for those photographers seeking subjects that can pop from the background or artists seeking to obscure certain elements for various reasons. Limited DOF is more difficult to do with smaller format sensors. Medium format digital or film goes that one better than 35mm FF of course.</p>

 

<p>To pick up obliquely on the McLuhan references, it seems clear that at least the <em>question</em> of sensor size does matter, if the number of responses in this thread is anything to go by.</p>

<p>Of course size does matter; most other things do too. For example, the guy behind the camera does matter. The focal length of the lenses matters too. Even among the same size, we also have many sensors very different from each other.</p>

<p>But personal preference matters too; i.e we cant say which size is the best. Personally, for my own uses, I prefer a size about APS-C sensor. However, I also believe that manufacturers are not (currently) trying hard to make great cameras and lenses for APS-C size. Well, and this fact does matter too.</p>

<p>I know the OP question was about sensor size, but how about the size of the 'box' getting the sensor to where you want it to be to snap the picture? I've had Canon FF, Canon APSC, Fuji APSC and Ricoh APSC. Pixel Peeping on a computer screen the Canon FF was better resolution-wise and noise-wise, but when comparing all of them something struck me: for <em>my </em>needs, when I made prints in the real world, the differences were simply non-existent. So, I joyfully dumped the Canon FF (and FF lenses!) and consolidated to the Fuji system. Now, I carry a camera with me far more often then before, which means I take pictures in places now that i wouldn't have with FF. So, in that sense, for me, clearly the APS-C Fuji is better--because the Canon FF wouldn't have even been there. <br>

Of course, others needs vary, so what I'm willing to haul around for what purpose will be different from what others are willing to haul around. </p>

<p>Good point about camera and lens size.</p>

<p>And one reason why small mirrorless full frame cameras and optics (especially small and relatively fast primes) have a lot going for them. </p>

<p>I've got four cameras, a Nikon D3, a Leica M9, a Panasonic GX7 and aan Olympus OMD EM5 mk. II. First off, megapixels don't seem to make a big difference between, 12, 16 and 18. I've taken shots with the D3 up to 17x25 and they looked just as good as the others. If you're not shooting in extremely low light, I don't think there will be a noticeable difference unless you're looking at individual pixels on your computer. If you're doing that, get a life.</p>

<p>One valuable benefit when I started using a FF Sony a7ii, which I didn't really think about, was greater flexibility in cropping the image and still retaining a pixel/resolution needed for printing. Just a thought.</p>

<p>There is a common misconception that sensor size matters because a bigger sensor gathers more light. It is utterly false, and a misleading simplification. Every sensor gathers just the amount of light its lens forwards onto it. If you take a given lens and put an FF sensor behind it, it will gather the exact same amount of light and produce the exact same quality as if you put a tiny sensor behind it (assuming that you put the sensors in the focal distance in both cases). In the latter case, light will be just condensed to a smaller area, thus the image screened to the sensor will be brighter - again, just in a smaller area. <strong>The net amount of light will be the same.</strong><br>

But size still matters. How? First, it might matter because the net pixel area ratio on a bigger sensor might be bigger. In other words, technical separation of photodiodes on the sensor takes less space relative to the base area. But this is almost negligable.<br>

The real difference which a bigger sensor results in is that it's more capable of bokeh - because of the greater focal length. Nothing else really matters.</p>

I'm replying to a really old thread here, but for posterity, I don't want to let that last one sit unanswered. That comment is

completely wrong. If you put a lens in front of a sensor with an area of one square inch, it will gather four times the light of

the same lens in front of a sensor with an area of 1/4 inch. No lens I can think of has the function of changing its optics to

concentrate light onto a small sensor. The total "amount" of light hitting the sensor is a function of the brightness of the

image coming through the lens times the surface area of the sensor.

<p>Lens DO concentrate light. That's their primary function. That's why you can burn ants with magnifiers. Given that you screen the _same_ image (not a bigger or smaller one) to a bigger and a smaller area, that area will receive the same amount of light. That's why you see the image coming from a projector lighter when you put the screen closer.<br /><br />Now, obviously, this is a bit of a hypothetical statement, as for the same lens you can't simply change the focal length keeping the view angle, so you can't screen the same image to a different sensor (maybe with an adapter). But for the sake of the main question, namely that how much sensor size matters in light gathering capacity in general - well, not too much. Apart from the fact that the sensor logic has a more-or-less fixed cost in space, and apart from another factor, namely that you can use wider apertures for bigger sensors, it doesn't matter at all.<br>

Sensors receive what comes from the lens (and the aperture), so the only thing what matters is how much light comes through them - which is a function of the size of the lens' outer area, the view angle (how much of the rays are relevant) and the aperture of course.<br>

This is the reason why you see tests on youtube claiming that the Sony a7r ii in crop mode has roughly the same low light capability as the Sony a7s ii.<br>

<em>"The total "amount" of light hitting the sensor is a function of the brightness of the image coming through the lens times the surface area of the sensor."</em><br>

This is just not true.</p>