Why sensor size matters

The scene was very high contrast, so I bracketed for HDR, lessening in this case the dynamic range advantage of full-frame. The common wisdom is that for each jump in sensor size, you gain about a stop of performance in terms of noise and dynamic range. One can go down the rabbit hole of image quality to crazy extremes, but in reality this quest comes with its own issues beyond just the cost of such a camera.

Who wants to carry a large-format view camera anywhere beyond the parking lot? With so many great options in different formats now, the real key as an artist is to weigh your options and decide what attributes are the most important to you.

Is it portability, lens options, absolute image quality, price? For the last 10 years or so, the go-to sensor format for most serious and professional photographers has been full-frame, which closely resembles the size of the 35mm film many of us had been shooting prior to switching to digital. In the early days of digital, most of us were shooting cameras from Canon or Nikon that had cropped APS-C sensors, which were very limited in terms of dynamic range and high ISO ability.

Like many others shooting at the time, when I got my first full-frame camera a Nikon D3 in my case , it blew me away with its ability to produce quality images at high ISOs in light I had never previously even bothered to shoot in. At the time, switching to full-frame sensor size was a game changer that gave us an edge over shooting smaller sensors.

This image of Dusy Basin, Kings Canyon National Park, California, is from the very last time I carried a heavy full-frame kit on a long backcountry adventure. My camera system without the tripod weighed close to 10 pounds. Fast forward plus years, and full-frame is still the primary choice of most professionals like myself. But in these intervening years, camera makers have really been pushing the limits of what smaller sensor cameras can do, allowing for less-expensive and lighter-weight cameras and lenses and sensors that, though smaller, are still capable of professional-level work.

While Canon, Nikon and Sony have been mainly focused on their flagship full-frame camera systems and have relatively limited collections of lenses designed for smaller sensors especially fast primes , companies like Fujifilm, Olympus and Panasonic have gone all-in on smaller sensor systems and have each developed large if not thoroughly comprehensive lens lineups with many options equal to the quality of those available for the larger full-frame systems. The real question becomes, with so many systems from which to choose, which one is best for your needs?

Much of the decision comes down to your planned end use for the images you produce. This sunset image was taken during one of my Alaskan Eagle workshops. I found it to be quite impressive from such a small sensor. Where things start to separate is when you are shooting in less-than-ideal conditions. Larger sensor cameras are going to beat out the smaller sensors when using higher ISOs to compensate for dim light. While the ISO breaking point of each camera is slightly different, if you mainly shoot in good light, this is a non-issue.

Worried about the narrower dynamic range of smaller sensors? Again, if you are shooting landscapes on a tripod, you are likely already bracketing for HDR in high-contrast scenes, making this another non-issue.

My goal, however, was to show camera sensor size explained in a digestible and easy way. Before choosing which is the best for you, make sure you are familiar with the different camera sensor sizes in the market, what are the pros and cons of each sensor size , and try to make a balance between your budget and your photographic goals. Please let me know any questions related to digital camera sensor size on the comments!

Dan Zafra. Dan is a professional nature and landscape photographer, photography educator, and co-founder of Capture the Atlas. His base camp is in Philadelphia, USA, but he spends long periods of time exploring and photographing new locations around the world. Apart from shooting the Milky Way , the Northern Lights , and any landscape that can stir powerful emotions, he enjoys leading photo tours to some of the most remote places on Earth.

You can find more about Dan here. A smaller sensor will have less field of view when the aperture F and lens zoom mm, using 35mm lens scale are the same. But a smaller sensor has a greater depth of view when the lens is zoomed to the same field of view angle and the same aperture.

Please bear in mind that we are considering that the aperture, focal length, and focusing distance is the same. Would you hold the same opinion now with the GFX s and faster lenses in medium format? The full frame area is not necessarily as clearly the defined all around winner now? I mean … the new GFXs with a F1. In terms of low light surely this a good all rounder now? Interested to know your thoughts. I am looking to invest in the best image quality for Architectural images and low light concert shots, going through the minefield of available options is overwhelming now…!

I am on full frame and notice the light capturing is better than APC-S mostly, but surely I would get significant gains on a Medium format slightly cropped with faster lenses and the advantage of smaller camera body. Taking a camera like the Sony A7SIII with just 12 mpx on a Full-frame sensor, will render more quality in low-light since the size of the pixels is much larger. Photos of milkyway for comparison are misleading. As regards the Aurora shots, both are raw files taken with a similar flat color profile.

In the camera sensor size vs. As I mention in the note below the Depth of field infographic, if we consider the same angle of view, then the DoF will be narrower in larger sensors. Search for:. What does camera sensor size mean? Image taken with a Nikon Full-frame sensor.

What is My Camera Sensor Size? Is a Bigger Camera Sensor Better? How is Sensor Size Measured? How Big is a Full-Frame Sensor? What is the Largest Camera Sensor? Share on Pinterest. Share with your friends. The article is called Camera sensor size in photography — Does it really matter? Don't miss out Depth of field in photography explained: The ultimate DOF guide!

What is aperture? Understanding aperture in photography. Noise in photography: What It is and how to correct it. How to read a histogram? Understanding histograms in photography. Hope this helps! Hi Alex! Thanks for bringing up this interesting topic! One thing I've been trying to wrap my head around is sensor size as it relates to DOF, not just in portraits like you see here, but the full field of depth you can get in a scene, front to back.

I put this table together to try and make better sense of it. Lee, I would be interested in your thoughts. Basically, a larger sensor means you can get closer to achieve the same field of view. And the closer you get, the shallower the depth of field is.

Hope that answers your question. One downside is that the closer you get, the more distortion you get. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject of 'separation' supposedly provided by various focal length lenses on this selection of sensor sizes.

Basically, the ability to capture the 'perspective' of a scene where the image conveys how an object is closer or further away from the camera. It was something I thought I would see in your sample images but I did not see at all. It is likely related to DOF but it is not exactly the same thing. Having an APS-C camera, there will be times when I crank the lens down to 16mm and still have to take a step or two back to get something in the frame, thus changing the perspective of the image.

Naturally, a 16mm on a full frame camera would get every thing, and probably more , in the image from the original position. Yes, They need to do large prints and poor lighting. Without those two the tests will be lacking.

This proves nothing that hasn't been discussed over and over already. A crop sensor does only one thing : crop the image. A larger sensor means you can get closer to achieve the same field of view.

This test is irrelevant, I don't understand the point - yes you can achieve the same image with all sensors, in terms of depth of field. But the photos are radically different in ALL other aspects: dynamic range, noise, distance to subject, focal length, etc etc. I don't understand this test. You can get closer with a larger sensor and that means you have a less compressed image, however you can always pick an equivalent lens on a smaller sensor camera and that way you can shoot from the same distance to your subject.

You would shoot from the exact same distance to subject for a similar FOV. Depth of field can be shallower on the full frame too because there are no f1. So what's the conclusion in the end. Does it matter or not. From the write up, it looks like it does except the samples that took away the speciality of each sensor and making the poll pointless. Sorry but you have it so terribly wrong.

MF has a look that nothing else has, Its even visible when printed at 3"x2". Where did they hide the winking emjoi? Basically, this test says: "Look, if we take away all the differences, there's no difference. It's physics, not magic. Nobody said the 'medium format look' is some kind of mystical thing that appears out of nowhere when you use MF. That look comes from all the parameters you cancelled in your test. Simple as that. For instance, depth of field and field of view.

With MF, you can get a wider field of view with a shallower depth of field. Of course, you can mimic that with the Brenizer method but it's still part of that MF look. This test doesn't allow to show this. Also, the fact that there's less distortion in MF for a given field of view especially a wide field of view because the "absolute" focal length is longer.

A 15mm lens on a small sensor will have more distortion than an equivalent 30 or 40mm lens in MF. Again, the test doesn't show that because of the lens choice. There's also differences in the transitions from in-focus to out-focus parts of the image. This test doesn't show such transitions, so that's another parameter cancelled. And one more thing for MF cameras with a leaf shutter: the out of focus areas and the transitions are rendered slightly differently, because the aperture varies during the exposure, from closed to full aperture and back to closed, instead of a constant aperture.

The wider field of view with a shallower depth of field is not true. The reasons for this is because you have much wider aperture lenses available for full frame than you do for medium format. For that reason shooting with an equivalent lens will grant you the same results and you can also open up your lenses even wider than equivalent too. Lens distortion has nothing to do with the sensor size; unless of course, you're talking about perspective distortion. Perspective distortion is the same with any lens on any sensor.

It's entirely dependant on your distance to the subject and has nothing to do with the equipment you're shooting with. Also if you're shooting with an equivalent lens on a smaller sensor then you will be shooting from the same distance to your subject thereby negating any differences. Leaf shutters are found in smaller sensor cameras too so that's not a factor of the sensor and the GFX does not have any native leaf shutter lenses.

In focus to out of focus is entirely dependant on the lens and optics so again has very little to do with the sensor. If you're shooting with an equivalent lens then the results you produce will be pretty much identical.

Fstoopers has really gone to the dogs lately with these weak click bait tests and links to other peoples work dominating what used to be a great resource.

Maybe they did, by the nature of the scientific approach, but nevertheless, I found the content useful and entertaining.

It proves that there are no insurmountable differences in certain conditions and it is fun to learn to intuit that differences to have a chance to enhance own craft. Nice work with MF you have. What was your fav image among 4? The "yeah but" comments are the best. BTW, I have read for years, in countless forums and blogs, about the magical quality of "FF" so at any aperture or size it should be noticeable.

That was the point of this test. The "magical" qualities of FF are dynamic range, resolution and shallow dof, all of which they completely eliminated, to the point that they could have smuggled a phone pic in there without anyone noticing.