Sensor Size Doesn't Matter. Unless It Does?

<p>One of the things that has confused me quite a bit during my research of APS-C vs FF cameras has been the debate over whether FF cameras are needed. I literally cannot find a single page or blog post that doesn't say something to the effect of "maybe sensor sizes mattered in the past, they don't now though". On forums, the camps are well-divided: Fuji fans are convinced that their APS-C X-Trans sensor is God's work, and Sony fans scoff at the notion that anything can touch FF. </p>

<p>To make it even more confusing, using the DPreview studio tool, Sony FF cameras *as well as the Sony a6000* clearly outresolve the XT-1 at every ISO level. But the images I see out of Fuji cameras are very good, as good as any Sony. Maybe this doesn't matter too much.</p>

<p>Is there any way for me to know whether FF will make a difference for me, without just buying one and shooting it?</p>

Pictures from my 6 MP Canon 10 D are very good. Why? Because I took them.

 

Apart from that: size matters. A larger sensor and/or larger photosytes are always better. Next question is if this matters

but that's to all of us to decide individually. In the end it largely depends on the use of the pictures. But in general full frame is better than a cropped sensor, Medium format is better than full frame. And to make it a bit more complicated every new generation sensors tend to be better than previous ones. Is today's full frame better than a 5 yr old cropped sensor? Depends largely on the person behind the camera.

<p>OK, but the logical progression of "it's the person behind the camera" is that we're all shooting Instax. Clearly there's a quality line that cameras must cross - is it just a matter of getting the cheapest possible camera that will produce the minimum acceptable image quality?</p>

Hi Evan. The first poster said it well. Basically, the larger the sensor (and individual pixels), the better the light-gathering capability, and

the larger one can enlarge the image before noise (digital "grain") appears in the output.

This is simply physics, and folks can debate this all they want, but I doubt the laws of physics will change as a result. That said however,

exactly how well an image or print addresses one's needs and purposes is rather subjective, and probably the underlying cause of this

debate. But in general, if you know you'll never shoot in extremely low light OR make poster-size prints (30x40 inches and up), then most

modern APS-C or M4/3 system should suffice. For example, the Olympus System with its micro 4/3 sensor (not to mention excellent

lenses), is quite satisfactory for many photographers' needs, Unless you regularly produce very large exhibition prints, or shoot in

exceedingly low "available" light. For those specific purposes, I think it's common knowledge that a FF System (such as Sony a7 Series,

or of course high-end Nikon/Canon) would be better suited to the task. Again, just my "educated" opinion.

<p>The vast majority of people appear to be using DSLRs use a kit lens and shoot with flash when light is low and then post their photos on Facebook and send them around in email. So in those vast majority of cases, sensor size is irrelevant regardless of what one thinks of the technical arguments. </p>

<p>FWIW, I printed some architectural photos at 16x20. The prints all looked similar. When I went to find the original file on one of them, I discovered that it was shot with a crop camera. All the rest were full-frame. I looked carefully but there was no way to tell, even at unreasonable viewing distances. The complete process tends to reduce the effects of individual factors, in my experience.</p>

<p>My take on it doesn't differ from the previous posters in general. There may be other reasons to select one over the other though. If you want to use older lenses designed for FF bodies (film or digital), and utilize the available full angle of capture (sorry I couldn't think of the right word) rather than a crop, there's no choice but to use full frame bodies. I have a treasure chest of these lenses collected over the years, and, for the most part, I don't give a whit about the full wide capture, so I use them on an APS-C or Micro 4/3 body - they're less expensive usually as well. I no longer make poster sized enlargements, so while the larger pixel bodies don'tmean much...I use medium format if I need gigantic enlargements. Weight of gear is also an important consideration for some....especially those who tend to take the kitchen sink with them on vacations or hiking trips...every ounce counts, so APS-C or M4/3 becomes a real consideration. If I was professionally shooting these days, yes I'd probably go full frame...but most of my stuff is for personal enjoyment or to share on the web, so it is pretty irrelevant which I use...although I'd probably love a Leica M9.</p>

<p>This is a confusing conclusion. FF is better, apparently, but not better enough to make it worth recommending in nearly any non-professional situation. Would it be the correct conclusion to draw that the vast majority of FF purchasers are deluded, then?</p>

<p>The technique tends to overshadow the gear, IMO. These days just about all cameras have a great output. Anyway, whatever chest beating or $$$$'s one spends on the gear is meaningless....unless it's put to proper use....and the results will be relevant.</p>

<p>One has to tailor the camera to their particular needs. The info is out there.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

Evan, no, I think that for "non-professionals", it simply boils down to a balance between one's photographic "needs",

ergonomics, and wallet size :-). Personally, as a non-pro who occasionally sells work, I shoot Nikon APS-C, which

satisfies for most needs, however, I admittedly have G.A.S., and would love to dabble in the Sony a7 system. Bottom line:

Don't fret too much about gear, and just enjoy your photography! (Most modern systems, from m4/3 to FF and beyond,

are quite good. Only pixel peepers like me are on a constant quest for better image quality. Happy Shooting!

<p>For portraits outdoors, although I have a MFT camera I pick up the 70-200 2,8 on full frame.<br /> Matter of preference whether the better bokeh is worth the extra weight,Here a well known pro goes farthur still with a 300 2.8;<br />

<blockquote>

<p>"Is there any way for me to know whether FF will make a difference for me, without just buying one and shooting it?"</p>

</blockquote>

<ol>

<li>Do you prefer to shoot fast lenses wide open for shallow depth of field to isolate subjects from the surroundings? If yes, full frame may suit you better.<br /><br />Or do you prefer to have more of the photo in reasonably sharp focus? If so, APS or smaller sensors may suit you better. I usually prefer smaller sensor cameras for this reason - I usually want more in focus, not less. Smaller sensor cameras can accomplish this without stopping down as much, which is great for zone focused snapshots.<br /><br /></li>

<li>Do you shoot a lot of handheld low light candid photos or photos of non-stationary subjects/objects? If so, full frame would probably suit you better. If not, there are several APS and a few Micro 4:3 cameras with good low light performance for occasional or less critical use.<br /><br /></li>

<li>Do you shoot a lot of wide angle stuff where edge and corner sharpness without light falloff/vignetting is critical? If yes, full frame may suit you better. But improvements in ultra-wides for APS and Micro 4:3 have narrowed this gap. It's not as big an issue as it was a few years ago.</li>

</ol>

<p>That's about all I can think of.</p>

<p>My main reason for considering full frame would be for the low light, high ISO advantage - I mean at or above ISO 6400, where even the best APS camera performance fades. I can't think of anything else that would matter much.</p>

<p>The nebulous IQ factor isn't much of an issue for me. I get excellent 11x14 prints from a teensy sensor Ricoh GRD4, even up to ISO 800, that rival my 35mm Tri-X prints in that squishy aesthetic we call apparent sharpness.</p>

<p>As others said, the larger the photosites, the better S/N ratio, and it's a matter of physics. Now, most of us don't need the best single piece of technology on the market. A Large Format sensor would definitely provide the best S/N quality for my photos, but 1) costs too much and 2) makes equipment too large and heavy. That's why APS-C is the good trade off for me, also because in the past few years APS-C sensors reached a very very good S/N ratio. I can say APS-C reached the sufficiency level for me, at the point that other factors - such as weight - are more relevant.<br /> For what concerns Fuji. I'm a Sony owner, but I'm not a fanboy. I evaluated Fuji a couple of years ago, in the end I picked Sony for a number of subjective reasons - or, better, objective reasons weighted by subjective priorities. But I think Fuji stuff is excellent. I suspect DPreview ratings are biased because their software for demosaicing the files produced by the Fuji Trans sensor is not good enough. Probably even older versions of Lightroom were not good enough. There's clearly plenty of excellent photos around taken with Fuji, that would be ok for me.<br /> There's anyway an issue that wasn't commented before (*): DoF and bokeh. The smaller the sensor, the deeper the DoF is, given the same ƒ number (and "equivalent" focal length). A 100mm µ43 ƒ/2.8 lens produces roughly the same DoF of a 200mm FF ƒ/5.6 lens (framing the same subject), thus the out-of-focus areas are less blurred. In fact, lens manufacturers for the µ43 systems make also lenses with very large apertures - e.g. ƒ/0.95, for people for which bokeh is fundamental. Unfortunately, they tend to be expensive and jeopardise the ligthweight factor. In general, the more you are interested in photos with large out-of-focus areas and isolated subjects (e.g. portraits or some kind of wildlife shots), the more chances FF fits better your needs ... _for this particular feature_; clearly also in this case there are other features to evaluate. I do also wildlife stuff where I like to isolate the subject, but - again - FF is too expensive and too heavy for me. So I live with APS-C. µ43 would probably be not good for me.<br /> BTW, this bokeh thing is the most relevant limitation of photos taken with smartphones, since their sensors are even smaller. OTOH, for the typical casual photo made with smartphones (i.e. selfies), this is not a problem; it even makes focusing less critical and sharper.<br /> You can find a fresh review of a long lens for µ43, also dealing with the bokeh topic, at PhotoZone:<br /> http://www.photozone.de/m43/945_olympus40150f28pro<br /> In particular there are some wildlife sample photos that explain the problem. As the review author shows, you can still render excellent bokeh with a µ43 system, but you need a stronger physical separation of the subject from the background.</p>

<p>(*) Well, at least at the moment I started to write my comment. I see that others in the meantime pointed out the bokeh thing.</p>

<p>If as myself you are not bothered about that dreadful 'B' word and simply put areas of my photos out of focus in editing as required I ignore comments earlier BUT seeing the work on another forum of somebody who recently changed from a 15Mp bridge camera to a 20Mp APS-C I would suggest that the difference is there and it is the size of the pixel which is making the difference that 'bigger is better' ... if assuming that is what you look for in a photos opposed to what the photo is saying.<br /> I changed bridge to MFT a couple of years ago and immediately noted the improvement though some of that was 12<16Mp though now I believe without checking it is pixel size.</p>

Lex, you've made some excellent points regarding the merits of FF v. APS-C/m4/3. I think that if we knew more about the

OP's subject and output media/size preferences, we could give more specific advice as well. Like you, I too, prefer more

in focus than less, particularly in my landscape and product shots.

If I may comment on your preference for smaller formats when "wanting more of the photo in reasonably sharp focus", I

might add that if one uses a FF system, and makes use of the hyperfocal distance when focusing, then one can maximize

depth of field for a given aperture, meaning that you wouldn't necessarily need to stop down to f/16 (thus minimizing

sharpness-robbing effects of diffraction) to achieve "reasonable sharpness" in your image. That technique, plus using

wider angle lenses or moving farther back from your subject, will serve to obtain greater overall image sharpness.

<p>Awhile back dpreview listed a system of comparing sensor size to number of pixels and in it the DSLR came out tops and bridge cameras worst ... though some conservative bridge cameras were 'not too bad'. Funnilly I had a Canon P&S which rated with the DSLRs ... it was only 3.3Mp but given everything equal turned out excellent exhibition images [ A3 ] ... mind you back then DSLR's were only 5Mp anyway :-)</p>

<p>Regarding my preference for greater DOF, I'm thinking mostly in terms of available light candids of people. I prefer a busy milieu. Some folks don't.</p>

<p>With a teensy sensor P&S digicam with 6mm lens (28mm equivalent) usually f/4 or even f/2.8 in a pinch is stopped down enough for adequate DOF. In tricky scenarios such as late day city candids -- bright periphery but lots of deep shade -- the light is usually around EV 11.</p>

<p>With my APS sensor cameras and 18mm lens, that usually works out to 1/500th @ f/8 for adequate DOF and minimizing motion blur (including my own camera shake) for quick snaps, which requires an ISO around 1600. Not bad with my Fuji X-A1, but ISO 1600 is getting into terrible territory with my ancient Nikon D2H which is very noisy above 800.</p>

<p>With a teensy sensor digicam like the Ricoh GRD4, the same hyperfocal setting is f/4 at ISO 400; maybe even f/2.8 at ISO 200 (shutter speed still at 1/500th). Very workable for most teensy sensor digicams, including many smartphone cams made during the past couple of years.</p>

<p>Just depends on the photographer's preferences for subjects, situations and shooting styles. For landscapes it'd be a whole nuther set of priorities. Ditto for street photographers who prefer shallow DOF to isolate subjects against a busy background - whole different situation, in which the full frame camera would shine.</p>

<p>My choice of Sony A7II was simple. With this new toy, my collection of Leica, Hasselblad and Contarex lenses becomes alive again. I used them with m43 cameras years ago but with a cropping factor to which I didn't prefer. I am comfortable with manual focus as I shoot 4x5 and 8x10 formats for 25 years.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Would it be the correct conclusion to draw that the vast majority of FF purchasers are deluded, then?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A lot of them probably yes actually; I certainly hear a lot of people who tell me they want to "upgrade to FF because then I won't have this noise problem anymore" like FF can shoot a black cat in a dark room, and APS-C is only good in daylight. Yes, larger sensors have an advantage there, but let's not overdo it. Latest generations APS-C sensors are already spectacularly good in low light, it's not all that limiting anymore. Certainly for me personally, the reasons to shoot a full frame camera have nothing to do with high ISO.<br>

DoF indeed. All of my lenses render nicer, smoother on the larger sensor. Being manual focus on a system with mirror they're easier to focus too - so, the point is: I chose the system to match my lenses best and get the best from those. And with a preference for wide-ish fast lenses, full frame offers a lot more choice than APS-C systems tend to do. In fact, only Fuji manages to cater for that (18mm f/2, 23mm f/1.4 etc.).</p>

<p>Studio scenes and test shots for resolution aren't all that relevant, even the (relatively) miniscule differences between the fuji X-Trans or the Sony Exmor sensor don't matter all that much. If you've got the really seriously good lenses that have their distinct rendering, and you know their tricks and manage to use them right (*): magic starts to happen. That's why most that replied in this thread probably have far more money tied up in lenses than they have in bodies.<br>

So, given that all mirrorless systems can be adapted quite easily to use a wide array of lenses, including high quality magic stuff, I'd get the body that fits my hands, logic and budget best, and start investigating lenses instead.</p>

<p>___<br>

(*) Yes, the photographer still matters most - even if gear has to match a certain quality level, it's still also about learning how to get the best out of it. </p>

<p>Size does matter in sensors. its just that there are trade-offs and that's where you have to choose. Technology closes some of the gaps in IQ amongst sensor sizes, but all things being equal, the larger the sensor/photosytes/ per resolution does matter. MF digital cameras even better.</p>

<p>I think sensor size will always matter. Just like cars, there is no replacement for displacement. Larger sensors produce better images. Go to Imaging Resource's Comparometer and compare two cameras with different sensor sizes but the same resolution: the 7D MKII vs the 6D. At all ISOs the image quality from the 6D is noticeably better than the 7D. </p>

<p>Sensor size matters only for the clearness and crispness of the image.<br>

It does not matter at all for the message that's behind the picture and the story you want to bring across.</p>

<p>Just my humble opinion.</p>

<p>True Monika.</p>

For many interesting opinions (facts?) on this question google "photosite size". Also Erwin Puts has an

article on Leica's take on this topic and the number of pixels on a ff sensor for maximum quality.

<p>The eternal question: Does size matter? ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just like cars, there is no replacement for displacement. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Sure there is. It's called Tesla.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Larger sensors produce better images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Better in what way? Is this "better" visible on Facebook where most photos end up?</p>