Is bigger better?

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
12:20 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
Richard Butler has written an article on DPReview that cuts through the confusion and lack of clarity that surrounds sensor size and pixel count. For anyone choosing which digital camera to buy, it’s one of the best short, to-the-point articles I have read. It’s in 3 segments. I would enjoy hearing what you think about what he says. I say “hooray.” But there are those that may disagree.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5559775087/choosing-a-camera-should-i-worry-about-pixel-size

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2708462822/choosing-a-camera-is-a-bigger-sensor-better

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2214722710/choosing-a-camera-the-trade-offs-of-sensor-size
 
Condensed version of the three articles.

‘Everything in photography is a trade off’
True of many aspects of life in general.
But, that said, he laid it out fairly succinctly.
 
Ha, its a lot to unpack from such a succinct series. But I mostly agree; puts to rest a lot of the FF vs crop technical arguments.
It's been interesting over the years watching APS-C DSLRs go mainstream and a whole industry of smaller-format lenses develop, only for full-frame to take the crown and trickle downmarket, then small-sensor and mirrorless catch up in performance, and now those going full-frame and bigger. I pity those jumping into a new camera system from scratch with all the choices out there.

If I only shot digital, I'd probably be just as happy with a small format like the Fuji X system, and very nearly dumped everything for it a few years ago. It's miles away better than the old D2x and D3 I used to use. But I do shoot just as much film, and am happy to have moved to FF with Leica, where my lenses behave the same no matter what they're attached to.
 
This no different then the old days of film and different film format sizes.

35mm vs 6x6 cm vs 4x5 inch etc.

It all depends on what you got at hand, what you require and what you prefer.
 
The take away is that all formats have their advantages and disadvantages. Pick your poison. As shown in the comments to the articles, a lot of people get lost in the weeds (FPS, MP, DOF). Step back and take a big picture approach.
 
Of course, he did leave out ‘bragging rights’ as a potential reason for getting the biggest or most expensive sensor/cameras. Although the perceived adulation is 99.9% only in the persons imagination.
Companies do the same thing, to the detriment of easily swayed consumers.
“Oh no! I just got my 50mm f1 seven months ago and now they brought out a 50mm f.95!
Oh the humanity! How will I ever survive.l
 
As of now we could have both. FF sensor in small body already exist. It is Canon EOS RP.
Here is small Sony with FF and fixed lens for years as well.

I don't need to read three articles about something very obvious to me.
I like FF sensors and I like small pixel counts on them. Canon 5D, Leica M-E.
Obviously if you want to work in macro, pixels will help. Or blow it on the canvas.
But if all you want is many pictures of your family, nobody needs more than 10MP pixels for it. Absolute majority takes pictures with flea sized sensors on mobile phones. And next to none of them cares for pixels and sensor size.

BTW, I not considering DPr as something worth to read after they refused to deal with hateful and racist comments on lomography products.
 
All good stuff in the articles.

But misses the point that smaller formats will facilitate other advantages: Ultra fast lenses, image stabilization. Important Ming Thein essay... Consider a shot in low light, which will produce a better file:
- M4/3, 1/8 sec at f/1.2 ISO 200 or 1/15th ISO 400
- Full Frame, 1/30 sec at f/1.8 ISO 1600
- Digital Medium Format, 1/60 sec at f/3.5 ISO 12800


Ming Thein's Feb 2019 essay on this.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
I don't need to read three articles about something very obvious to me.
I like FF sensors and I like small pixel counts on them. Canon 5D, Leica M-E.
Obviously if you want to work in macro, pixels will help. Or blow it on the canvas.
.
Click to expand...
Probably a lot of people know these things. But not everyone seeking to buy a camera does. So, for the neophyte such information may save them some money.
 
Tripod adds another disadvantage.

You can go on into infinity on the merits of one format over another. It always comes down to what you prefer or what you need or what you have available.
 
An interesting and IMO useful comment in the first part of the article...
For those with the same area, “sensors have the opportunity to capture the same amount of light per-whole-image, regardless of how many pixels they have.”
 
It doesn’t matter what sensor (digital, film)/ camera you shoot with, but it's how to use a camera to capture the light. IMO.
 
Sensor surface area counts. Nothing beats more recording more total signal. With regard to signal, lens surface area counts just as much. So bigger is better when recording as much information as possible is a priority. While this is true, it is incomplete.

Photography's Not Just About Maximizing The Signal

Making photographs involves much more than simply recording the highest amount of light possible.
  • Some people prefer the convenience of zoom lenses. These have less surface area than fast prime lenses.
  • Some people prefer the convenience if using smaller and lighter systems and these typically offer smaller surface areas.
  • Some people prefer the aesthetics of prime lenses with smaller surface areas.
  • Some activities require using apertures that negate the advantage of lens high surface areas
  • People who enjoy lenses they already own want to continue using those lenses
  • Camera and lens costs typically increase as sensor and lens areas increase.
This list is unfinished which just shows how many variables come into play when choosing cameras and lenses. This implies using multiple systems is not always driven by GAS.

Sensor Area Alone Means Nothing

Roger Cicala wrote a blog post "Why Sensor Size Matters". He points out pixel size (pixel pitch) is an important consideration as well. Here's a summary and his conclusions about the relationship between pixel pitch and sensor area.

  • "Noise and high ISO performance: Smaller pixels are worse. Sensor size doesn’t matter.
  • Dynamic Range: Very small pixels (point and shoot size) suffer at higher ISO, sensor size doesn’t matter.
  • Depth of field: Is larger for smaller size sensors for an image framed the same way as on a larger sensor. Pixel size doesn’t matter.
  • Diffraction effects: Occur at wider apertures for both smaller sensors and for smaller pixels."
"Smaller sensors do offer some advantages, though, and for many types of photography their downside isn’t very important."

In general, newer cameras use more efficient sensor technologies. Increases in quantum efficiency and dual-conversion gain photodiode are just two examples of how newer cameras with smaller sensors can outperform older cameras with larger sensors.

If your options are not bound by lenses you already own and enjoy – if and you ego can take it, choose a sensor area that is compatible with all the aspects of your photography.

When affordable, use different systems for different purposes. Don't assume owing systems with different attributes simply represents a lack of self-control.
 
+1.
Why don't we throw our iPhones into the bin? With these minuscule sensors.....
The series is true generally. But sensor technics improves. One cannot compare a 10 Mp of 10 years ago with one of 40Mp of today. Larger pixels vs. smaller pixels.
Jan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom