Sensor Size Doesn't Matter. Unless It Does?

[aplumpton]

<p>If FF didn't matter the sales of MF digital cameras might be non-existant. </p>

[Alan Johnson]

<p>Is this "better" visible on Facebook where most photos end up?<br>

Absolutely, for portraits the blurriness of the background, whatever you call it, is one of the few things where difference is visible on a computer screen.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

Sensor size equates to lens size and to system size. I cannot speak to the laws of physics but images are almost all good enough for general purpose photography like landscape and portrait. The difference between APS-C and micro four thirds is overstated as well, since it is not like laying tiles in the garage where square footage is the thing. I looked at the overall thing and decided to go with micro four thirds. No legacy Canon EF lenses etc... So far so good. Each model year yields a little more of all the things discussed so far. To some ideal goal I cannot testify from experiece. All seem to have good points and a few tradeoffs. I like light weight and lens choices. Big items.. And good zooms. And nice quality JPEGs. Ergo no fuss over the sensor business at this point. Starting out again, I think I would still go with micro four thirds. And try to not confuse myself too much. Meaning whatever you choose may be just fine for you. No fatal errors possible. Or do you shoot sports or live concerts exclusively? I can handle the shallow DOF thing if I need to do that too...not so hard.

[confindelmundo]

<p>I have digital from the year 2004, first small cameras with small sensors. with them, I made big posters (up to 60 x 120 cm), Made photographic books of high quality, also used with my hands, for more creativity, HD graduated filters or polarizer, or HD filters with these small cameras (no filter threads), between 6 to 10 Megapixels. As some say, the important is who is behind the camera. Later on, I bought full frame cameras (Nikon) with high quality lenses, yes, it helps for more creativity, Low light photography, wildlife, etc. but just lately I bought a mirrorless of Fujifilm and I am sure it will also help for some creativity for new books. You can make high qualith photos with any camera, with any sensor, small or big. It only depends on you behind the camera.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>"blurriness of the background, whatever you call it, is one of the few things where difference is visible on a computer screen" <strong><em>Alan J.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alan and others are on point with this main "Bokeh" benefit in picking the FF format. <br /> It's not just sharpness & clarity that photographers choose a 4x5 over 35mm. <br />It's also the unique "pop" or "3D effect" achieved; mainly due to less DOF in the higher mag "normal" lens. <br /> <br /> 2nd main point, if you're afflicted with G.A.S., then you definitely have many lenses that can be <br /> <strong>fully </strong>resurrected by using the easier to deal with Sony FF cameras.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>An important consideration for me was the depth of field to which I was accustomed. As I had spent decades with 35mm film cameras (not to mention 120 earlier), the depth of field I got from my Olympus digital SLRs was much too great some of the time (although at other times it was welcome). Therefore I used digital for some kinds of work and 35mm film for work where selective focus was necessary or desirable. By a happy coincidence, an affordable Sony A7 became available when I was forced to abandon film because having it processed had become too difficult.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>What really matters, assuming the goal is to produce compelling photographs that speak strongly, is one's eye, imagination, understanding light and composition, etc. Most everything else is relatively and mostly mice-nuts (outside of certain edge conditions).</p>

[DickArnold]

OMG. I would love a new 5Ds 50MP camera because I use a loupe and I love sharpness and I am a sharpness freak. I

have never, ever needed that kind of sharpness in actual practice. I have been photographing seriously since 1997.

Not so seriously for far longer. I have used medium format, full frame, 1.6 and 1.5 crop sensors for landscapes,

weddings, news, sports, portraits, etc. I have a number 18x24s hanging in my house that were taken with Bronica,

645s, Sony, 35mm film, 6.3 crop, 12.8 crop, 18.0 crop and 20-22 Megapixel sensors. I defy you to look at those pictures and tell which is which. I showed a lot with 6.3MP sensor pictures and won a few awards. I have taken one or two decent pictures with

my phone. Equipment is so good these days that I think this is hair splitting at the margins at its best. So if you are a

sharpness freak like me or you are fascinated with bokeh, or make really big pictures, or if a big camera serves your

ego, or have a real need or desire then by all means go for a full frame. All the rest is optional and becoming more so every year.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>"Its the photographer, not the camera" must be true. Why else do we see all the best photographers using iPhones?</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Why else do we see all the best photographers using iPhones?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Plenty of them do.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/pro-photographer-iphone-julian-calverley-interview/">Here's a great interview</a> with one of them.</p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>OP said: "Is there any way for me to know whether FF will make a difference for me, without just buying one and shooting it?"<br /> Usually people who ask these questions don't need a full frame camera...why? because if they needed one they would know the reasons and the benefits of getting one. So maybe FF is not your best chance and you be better off with something less pricey, thus having the opportunity to get good glass which will make THE difference. Cheers!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>late to the discussion, but i dont think sensor size impacts the ability to visualize an image, compose and frame it, and capture that image. that said, given a choice between a new Nikon d7200 and a refurbished d610 at roughly the same price, one has to decide whether 50% more reach with telephoto lenses and a better AF system are worth the tradeoff in high-ISO ability, shallower DoF, and no crop-sensor magnifier. it's all pretty subjective. But then, no one buys a sensor alone, you buy a camera with a sensor which is part of a system. So it's impossible to discuss the relative merits of sensors without also discussing how those sensors will be deployed, and with what lenses. </p>

<p>Personally, i own both full-frame and APS-C bodies and a variety of lenses. i see these as tools to help me achieve an objective: capturing the image i see in my mind before the shutter is pressed. When i see the results, what becomes clear is that a clean file is a clean file. if i pay attention to technique, it really doesn't matter what camera i use to obtain that result. That said, there are some technical limitations inherent in APS-C, as well as physical limitations inherent in FF. i dont really use my Fujis for shooting moving things or extreme low-light, but they're great for going light and casual photography. By the same token, i avoid lugging around a FF body and several heavy lenses in situations where that would be overkill. And i enjoy shooting @ 35mm, whether its on an X100 or a D3s. i think it helps me as a photographer to restrict myself to a single focal length at times, and to 'see' in 35mm. To be able to connect with the camera and feel like its an extension of my eye is much more important to me than which camera was used to get that shot. i want my photography to be intuitive and second-nature, and that only comes from shooting <em>a lot</em>.</p>

<p>But to answer the OP's question, i have to agree with Panayotis: if you dont already know why you need FF, you probably dont need FF at all.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>Plenty of them do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Naturally there are exceptions. Some of us go out with one lens and explore its potential. I've shot informal projects with nothing but a cell phone. However anything I can do with a cell phone, including uploading to the web, I can do with a real camera, plus a lot more. It would be foolish to go to a job without a Plan B, and I can't recall when I haven't been surprised by something in the field.</p>

<p>For me, a full frame camera meets current and future needs, Plan A and Plan B. I prefer it mostly because I can use a mixture of film and digital lenses I've accumulated over the years, in the same manner to which I'm accustomed. In particular, I can take wide angle shots without relying on ridiculously tiny or specialized lenses. A FF camera, like a Sony A7, is no larger than its APS-C competitors with similar capability. All else being equal, I can expect more resolution, lower noise, or a compromise thereof than with a smaller sensor. Hardly anything remains equal for long, and the A7Rii promises both more pixels and better ISO capability than most of its competitors.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> "Its the photographer, not the camera" must be true.</p>

<p>I think you're onto something, but imagine that could be confirmed experimentally. </p>

<p>Take a camera, any camera, and first give it to a beginning photographer that knows how to operate a camera, but has not yet learned to see or how to evaluate light. And then give it to an experienced photographer with a body of compelling/strong photographs. After a day's use in the hands of each, in a large city or national park, examine the results from each person.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I prefer it mostly because I can use a mixture of film and digital lenses I've accumulated over the years</p>

</blockquote>

<p>okay, but a beginner with no film-era experience moving up from an iPhone or P&S might have completely different criteria. and if we're getting technical, legacy lenses can be put to good use on many different sensor formats. <br>

<br>

at the end of the day, what sensor format you're using isn't the deciding factor in whether your images are strong/compelling. it's whether you captured a strong/compelling image. i personally like to shoot with different cameras and different formats, depending on what im shooting. reason being, i dont ever want to be bored by photography or feel like it's become rote. if ive been shooting a lot of PJ stuff and fast-paced documentary/events, sometimes i'll force myself to take the opposite approach, and shoot slow, measured landscape pics on a tripod. in that case, methodology is far more important than what particular camera i used.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Naturally there are exceptions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

There are plenty of exceptions. However, when you used the term "all" you denied that. Make up your mind.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can do with a real camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Anything that can take a photo is a "real camera."</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>None of us can speak for all users. One approach is to organize and express our own reasons for making a choice, especially an expensive choice. My own experience is that we soon demand more of our equipment than we expected up front. If the OP has a reasonably clear notion of his needs and goals, then help his decision making process by suggesting parameters for consideration, and their relevance.</p>

<p>Legacy lenses may be a way to start, as well as extend your photographic journey. Used SLR lenses are plentiful and often inexpensive, and can work well enough to get by. For example, 21-24 mm lenses are a lot easier to find and cheaper than 14-16 mm lenses you need to get the same angle of view on an APS-C sensor. A used $250 Nikkor wide-angle may actually work better on a Sony A7 than a Leica lens costing three or four (or 20) times as much.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>One of the top-rated (by critics) movies in theaters right now is Tangerine. It was shot on a phone. </p>

<p>There are people who think photography is about equipment and people who think it's about what it says. Nobody's equipment gets hung up on walls after they die, no matter how good it is. Photographs that say something, on the other hand, do.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Legacy lenses may be a way to start, as well as extend your photographic journey. Used SLR lenses are plentiful and often inexpensive, and can work well enough to get by. For example, 21-24 mm lenses are a lot easier to find and cheaper than 14-16 mm lenses you need to get the same angle of view on an APS-C sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i don't necessarily agree with this. One huge problem is that film era lenses work erratically and inconsistently on modern digital cameras and must be evaluated individually. this is especially true of today's high-MP sensors. as Thom Hogan <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses-2.html">wrote</a> last week in an article about recommended Nikon lenses for FX,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"So what am I not recommending? <strong>14mm f/2.8, 16mm f/2.8, 17-35mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 24-85mm f/2.8-4,</strong> <strong>24mm f/2.8</strong>, 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6, 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.2, 50mm f/1.4 or 1.8 (except for the 16mp cameras), 70-300mm f/4-5.6, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6, 80-200mm f/2.8, 105mm f/2, 135mm f/2, 180mm f/2.8, 200-400mm f/4. Note that I would certainly recommend a few of these lenses for DX users (the 200-400mm f/4 comes to mind). Many of these lenses were designed before digital and are showing their age, some were designed in the digital age but just don’t resonate with the high megapixel count cameras, and a few have other liabilities "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So it's hard to take such general and non-specific advice at face value when it doesnt reflect the actual user experience in most cases. granted, if you're using a D700 or Df and not a D610 or D800, lens flaws wont be as exposed, but the lack of modern coatings makes these lenses much more prone to flare. all things considered, the best lenses for modern digital cameras are the ones specifically designed for them.</p>

<p>the other point, about a scarcity of wide angle primes for APS-C, only really holds true for specific camera makers, like Nikon. Fuji, for instance, has a 14/2.8 and a 16/1.4. it's true an old Nikon 20 or 24mm will be cheaper, but also slower and not as sharp at open apertures. and even on a FF camera, a Nikon 20/1.8 G is going to be a better choice than any older Nikon 20mm. if we're including wide-angle zooms, the picture gets even better for APS-C shooters and even m4/3 users, with a variety of OEM and 3rd-party lenses which start at 14/15 or 18mm equivalents-- most of which can also be had for less $$ than their full-frame equivalents.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A used $250 Nikkor wide-angle may actually work better on a Sony A7 than a Leica lens costing three or four (or 20) times as much.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, if you look at <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54922684">this thread</a>, Nikkor wide-angles don't have a stellar reputation on the A7. And really, this comment is so general and vague as to be utterly meaningless, since there's no analysis to support that speculative claim.</p>

<p>So i think there's a bit of disingenuousness in projecting one's personal tastes as a truism for every shooter out there which isn't acknowledged by contradicting yourself ("<em>My own experience is that <strong>we</strong></em>..."). legacy lenses can work well with mirrorless cameras, or not so well. it depends on a number of factors, including implementation of focus peaking (since AF will often be unavailable), and the optical design of the lens itself. also, anytime you are using an adapter, you are introducing another variable into the equation. you might be delighted, or you may be disappointed with the results; there's simply no one size fits all rule here.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>just getting back to the OP's original question--XT1 or A7 series--it's not that simple. with the XT1, you have a solid 16mp APS-C body which punches above its weight. But more importantly, you have a more complete lens lineup of both primes and zooms for everything except maybe extreme low-light work (above ISO 5000) and sports.</p>

<p>with the Sonys, you have four full-frame sensor sizes--12mp, 24mp, 36mp, and 42mp--which will impact your <a href="http://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/">lens choices</a>. And those lens choices: a so-so kit lens which is unremarkable for a full frame sensor, a better but pricey Zeiss-branded standard zoom which only goes to f/4, a 70-200 which only goes to f/4, and an incomplete series of primes. if you're doing low-light work, you give back much of the sensor's advantage with the slower lenses, although the Sony 55/1.8 and just-released 28/2 and 35/1.4 mitigate this somewhat. the bottom line is that a complete Sony system is probably gonna be considerably more expensive -- you're paying a bigger premium for that full frame glass. for example, the Sony 35/1.4 is $1600; the Fuji 23/1.4 is $900. the Sony 16-35 is $1350; the Fuji 10-24 is $1000. Also, the best Sony camera for low-light, the A7s, is "only" 12mp, so if you were planning on cropping and/or huge enlargements, that might not be the best choice. also have to consider that only the 24mp A7II and 42mp A7RII have in-body stabilization. Overall, the Fuji XT1 offers a slightly better price to performance ratio and a more complete lens selection than Sony, but the Sony's are better for video and offer mega-resolution, which you may or may not need. if you're just posting images on Flickr and social media, it might be overkill. if you're making prints for gallery exhibition and have deep pockets, the Sony offers medium format-quality in a smaller package. of course, you could save money and just shoot medium format film. ;)</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I have a Nikon 20/2.8, 24/2, and 24/2.8 wide angle primes, which perform reasonably well on a Sony A7ii. In particular they are sharper in the corners than my Leica Summaron 35/2.8, Summicron 50/2, Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8 and Biogon 35/2.8. The long back focus length (~ 50 mm) of Nikon lenses produces a telecentric effect, so that the angle of incidence at the sensor is much less than with a Biogon 28 or 35, which approaches within about 6 mm.</p>

<p>The Leica and Zeiss ZM lenses perform much better in the center than any Nikon SLR lens, but the overall performance is not as good. I published a comparison of 50 mm lenses on pnet a short time ago (http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00dMNG). The photos are in my portfolio in a folder by that name.</p>

<p>The Sony A7ii and Zeiss lenses is very close to medium format performance, but perhaps not quite there yet. The 42 MP A7Rii will probably tip the scales. The in-body image stabilization of the m2 version is good enough I am nearly divorced from my tripod.</p>

<p>For the best corner to corner performance, you would want a Sony/Zeiss or Zeiss lens designed for the A7 with the 2 mm cover glass in mind.</p>

[User_2000406]

<p>The discussion of legacy lenses reminds me of the film-era Nikkor Series E 75-150mm f/3.5 lenses I tested a few years ago. This lens had been highly rated and recommended by some in the past despite being a Series E lens.</p>

<p>I have two copies and I decided to see how well they did on my D7000 with 16MP. Both lenses were carefully focused in live view on a fence about 2400 feet (~730m) away in a neighborhood of trees and houses viewed from a higher vantage point.</p>

<p>Both copies were wonderfully sharp and clear in the center, but their sharpness severely deteriorated out towards the edges even though they were being used on a crop-sensor camera. I searched in vain for evidence of field curvature, but could not find any distance where the lenses were sharp at a pixel level towards the edges. They just were not sharp away from the center at that degree of magnification. The lenses would probably have done fine on 35mm film enlarged to 8" x 12" (~20cm x 30cm), but could not hack it on a sensor that's low resolution by today's standards.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>using Leicas on Sony cameras is a known issue, <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2426755,00.asp">sometimes resulting in color shift</a>. but their uneven performance doesnt mean older Nikons are any better on those bodies. legacy lenses dont have modern flare coatings and werent designed for digital cameras, so weird things can happen. </p>

[fabriziogiudici]

<blockquote>

<p>One of the top-rated (by critics) movies in theaters right now is Tangerine. It was shot on a phone.<br>

There are people who think photography is about equipment and people who think it's about what it says. Nobody's equipment gets hung up on walls after they die, no matter how good it is. Photographs that say something, on the other hand, do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While I'm perfectly aware than a smartphone is a very good photographic tool for _certain_ kind of photos, the citation is totally inappropriate. 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". Which totally contradicts the second paragraph, that people and ideas should be more important than equipment.<br>

The relationship between technology and creativity is well known: visual arts need technology for make their products. Sometimes they need a very broad range of possibilities, sometimes they need only very simple things. The fact that there are indeed masterpieces made with a black pencil and white paper doesn't mean that Raffaello and Michelangelo didn't need a very sophisticated palette of colours for their masterpieces. Another example in painting is that the French Impressionists couldn't have created a new visual style without a new array of technologies (most notably, thin brushes, portable canvas facilities - no <em>en plein air</em> otherwise - and new colours).<br>

Bringing it back to our topic: the OP asked whether FF is needed. The answer has been given: there are certain kinds of shots that are harder, or even impossible to do, with smaller sensor. Maybe one wants them, so he needs FF. Maybe one doesn't want, so he doesn't need FF. It's clear that every photo or movie done with an iPhone can't make use of shallow DoF. 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>

[Landrum Kelly]

<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>

<p>I have two big Nikons, but I just got back from shooting a Nikon D5200 ($309 new on eBay) with a used Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS lens, and I have to say that I am<a href="/photo/18060608&size=md"><em><strong> in love</strong></em></a>.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>