The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Shopping advice: try to look past sensor size and megapixels

bradhusick

Active member
I read a lot online about how strongly people feel about whether cameras are "full frame" or not.

"Full frame" is just an invention of the movie business in the early 1900's. When Leica adopted the film for a travel camera in the 1920's it became what we know as "full frame". There's nothing magical or special about 35mm. As technology progresses there is no reason to believe that other sensor sizes cannot produce excellent results.

What matters most is the size of the individual photo receptors - you need enough area to capture enough photons to overcome the signal-to-noise ratio. At some point there aren't enough photons to give you sufficient information to make a good image. With today's technology that lower limit seems to be about 6 microns square. That's why cramming in lots of megapixels in a small area gives diminishing returns. As an example, some of my nicest images I shot on a Nikon D1 - only 2.74 megapixels! I have 11x14" prints from this camera that are stunning. The D1 has photosensors that are 11.8 microns square.

Today for an APS-C sensor size the sweet spot is about 16-20 megapixels. For 35mm sensors, it's about 20-30 megapixels. Those pixels are useful for two things - cropping or printing large. Anything over about 4 megapixels is wasted on images that you show on a computer. My iMac 27" can only display 3.69 megapixels if the image is shown full-screen. By all means if you print huge prints then go for a huge sensor (in a huge camera).

Keep this in mind when checking out new cameras. If you don't crop a lot or print larger than 11x14 on a regular basis, then the sensor size and number of megapixels should be way down the bottom on your list of criteria to evaluate new cameras.

I hope this helps us keep an open mind. There are a lot of exciting new cameras out there!
 

nostatic

New member
By all means if you print huge prints then go for a huge sensor (in a huge camera).

Keep this in mind when checking out new cameras. If you don't crop a lot or print larger than 11x14 on a regular basis, then the sensor size and number of megapixels should be way down the bottom on your list of criteria to evaluate new cameras.

I hope this helps us keep an open mind. There are a lot of exciting new cameras out there!
Part of the equation was changed by the A7. It is the same size as the EM1. So huge sensor doesn't necessarily mean huge camera any more though certain glass is still an issue.

Agree about the MP war and looking at your needs. The other factors though are the intangibles like ergonomics and whether or not the tool is "fun." Hard to quantify those...
 
Last edited:

Dale Allyn

New member
I agree with you, Brad. Like you, I have some images captured on now-ancient gear and the results are wonderful. I print mostly 16x24 and 16x22 (depending on capture device, 16x22 for MF) and find that "sweet spot" you describe is about right. If one is printing 11x14 or smaller there is lots of wiggle room.

I don't crop much (try my best to compose to avoid it), but I do understand those who need the extra pixels for cropping. Still, I'm looking at a 16x24 print captured on a Canon 20D (8.2MP), a file that was cropped a bit because I couldn't get quite close enough, yet it has tremendous detail and tonality. Sure, not Phase One MF detail and tonality, but it's an image that gets lots of positive remarks (and requests/sales) even while standing close to it.

It's not the pixel count, it's what you do with them. I know that for commercial photographers like Guy, he needs tons of headroom for clients who repurpose files, but for most of us determining our desired output medium and size allows us to select from a huge selection of new sensors within the ranges you describe.

I've yet to print anything from my Fuji X-E2, but closely studying the files as if preparing for print, the 16MP sensor is going to be fine for fairly large prints. It's not my "landscape kit", so I'm not wanting 20x30" prints anyway, probably more like 12x18 or so for the types of things for which I use such a camera. I'm confident I can go larger if desired though because of the quality of the pixels produced.

Good post, Brad.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
How does the camera feel in the hand?
How does the world look through the viewfinder?
Are the controls near where you expect them?
Do they do what you expect?
How effortless is it to raise it to the eye, focus, compose, and shoot?
Are you pleased with the files?
Does it have any bad habits that you despise?
Do you MF much or is AF what you do? How does your preferred mode work for you?
That is sort of my basic checklist.
Note that reasonable folks may evaluate the same set of cameras and come to different choices. That is just fine.
Lenses though are a whole other ballgame and sometimes is more visceral.
-bob
 
M

mjr

Guest
What matters most is the size of the individual photo receptors - you need enough area to capture enough photons to overcome the signal-to-noise ratio. At some point there aren't enough photons to give you sufficient information to make a good image.
Hi

Your title is about looking past sensor size and megapixels but your post is all about sensor size and megapixels!

None of your above statement makes any sense to me, signal to noise, photo receptors, I personally couldn't care less! None of those things to me make a good image, it's all about subject, light, moment.

I also think that people make a big deal about what others choose to buy or shoot with, it doesn't matter one bit! You can use what you like as long as you are happy using it. What you shoot doesn't matter to me and what I shoot shouldn't make any difference to you. I actually think a forum just for great shots would be good, just the image, none of the faff. I've been blown away by shots from an iphone and seen some total rubbish from an Phase 280, I have also seen it the other way round too, having kit doesn't make good pictures, good photographers do.

We're all very lucky to have access to some amazing pieces of equipment, buy whatever you want or can afford, there's no other justification needed!

Mat
 

Dale Allyn

New member
I'm a big fan of Bob's checklist approach. It's a common sense, non-marketing-influenced (or should be) approach.

The other factor for me is "what is my desired output"? I suggest one define the output and work backwards. Not exclusively, but consider the print, if that's what you do with the files, and choose equipment appropriate for such output.
 

bradhusick

Active member
Hi

Your title is about looking past sensor size and megapixels but your post is all about sensor size and megapixels!

None of your above statement makes any sense to me, signal to noise, photo receptors, I personally couldn't care less! None of those things to me make a good image, it's all about subject, light, moment.

I also think that people make a big deal about what others choose to buy or shoot with, it doesn't matter one bit! You can use what you like as long as you are happy using it. What you shoot doesn't matter to me and what I shoot shouldn't make any difference to you. I actually think a forum just for great shots would be good, just the image, none of the faff. I've been blown away by shots from an iphone and seen some total rubbish from an Phase 280, I have also seen it the other way round too, having kit doesn't make good pictures, good photographers do.

We're all very lucky to have access to some amazing pieces of equipment, buy whatever you want or can afford, there's no other justification needed!

Mat
I think you're absolutely right. My post shows my astrophysics degree creeping through. :)

I just love capturing great images and sharing them. My intent was to help people move beyond the specs.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
"Full frame" is an invention of amateur photographers as a way to elevate the status of a camera. Every format, regardless of its size, is full frame. The term comes from the photographic method of not cropping your images from the format. And full-frame negative carriers were made by have a slightly larger aperture so you could print to the edge of the image area. Naturally, camera manufacturers jumped on the amateur distinction of digital full frame as it got them to sell more cameras.

"Crop-frame" is just a pejorative. It is a silly term.

The pixel resolution is not a limiter to print size. This is a fuzzy bit of reasoning that the manufacturers got into to sell the latest camera.

Buy your camera because you like it. Everything else will take care of itself.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
really just a semantic issue, but when the larger classic categories of 35mm, medium format, etc start to get blurred by shifts in sensor size, or even new categories (S2), i see some value in the crop sensor nomenclature

for example, it is a lot easier for a casual comparison to think of M8 and M9 that way, rather than some other metric
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I was not really referring to FoV comparisons. I was really commenting on "crop sensor" as a pejorative meaning a camera was somehow inferior.
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
Crop frame is/was a reasonably accurate term of reference because it was based on existing film format lens systems and their coverage. Thus the terms 1.1X, 1.3X, 1.5X, 1.6X. Due to the then current technical limitations, the Leica M8 WAS accurately termed "crop frame" because all the Leica M lenses were, and still are, made to cover the traditional full 135 frame. If Leica had made lenses for the now discontinued M8, they would not cover the M9 or M240 sensor today.

The advent of dedicated lenses to new sizes of digital sensors has only been a relatively recent development compared to the history of photography.

Smaller sensors were basically an effect of technological limits and cost to produce during the teething stages of digital photography. A paradigm shift happened when Canon and Nikon made lenses dedicated to the smaller sensors … a move that people bought into out of perceived need … (to the delight of Canon and Nikon's financial executives I'm sure).

The relationship of lens system to sensor DOES have an esthetic impact, and is not just technical mumbo-jumbo. The esthetics of MFD are different from 135 FF, and is different between 135 and APSc, and is different between APSc and other smaller sensors. Even without cropping, a modest 11 X14 print from each respective format looks and feels different. Since esthetics are evaluated subjectively, which format suits you is a personal creative decision.

Personally, I've never been lured into a 3/4 "system" or APSc "system" for personal esthetic reasons despite the then advantage of reduced size. Sure enough, we now have FF 135 format sensors in a tiny package, and more to come to be sure.

Likewise, pixel density is a function of advancements in pixel technology. 16 meg of past isn't the same as 16 meg today. 30+ meg DOES have a function beyond printing large or cropping. A most any print size from 8X10 on up, the depth of detail has a comparitive visual impact on any image in the same way that the dot patterns on the Sunday funnies differs from fine art lithography (to exaggerate the point). Not saying interesting images can't be made with 3 meg cameras, just saying they are different from those made with 30+ megs of resolution … where the meg limit is, is anyone's guess as technology repeatedly surprises us with new solutions.

Lastly, I think the whole "camera to fit you" is only partially true.

If prevailing relationships to existing tools were the criteria for further invention, the Leica UR camera would never have been produced, and the TLR would not have existed. Both substantially altered handling and prevailing approaches to photography, but required some effort of mastery on the part of the photographer.

The difference with digital is that it has changed at a ferocious rate during its climb to dominance. One hardly has time to master one tool, like craftsmen did in past, before something new is in hand and you start all over.

However, I do think that is slowing down now as digital has matured, and many choices can be lived with much longer than in past … letting us master the tool better and get on with making images that express our view of the world, and our personal esthetic vision.

- Marc
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
Those of us who grew up with 'full frame' cameras in the film and prime lens age got to know the (rough) coverage of a focal length. Not so necessary with a zoom lens today; but I did find it confusing trying to mentally convert the coverage on full frame to that on, say, APS.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I grew up in the film age. Which format are we taking about? 35mm, half frame, 16mm, 126, 110, Disc, APS, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12, 6x17, 6x24, 4x5, 4x10, 5x7, 8x10, 8x20, 11x14, 20x24? The photographers I knew that shot more than 35mm had no problem understanding that focal length by itself did not describe field of view. Expect for the time when someone was buying into a new format, equivalency was not used--and the equivalency could be from any format: if a 4x5 shooter was moving to medium-format, it was the relationship between those, not 35mm. Actually, digital has limited our choices to 3:2 and 4:3. Even the 1:1 sensor disappeared.

The crop idea in the digital age was a marketing device for 35mm shooters--manufacturers used to give angular FoV in their spec sheets, not crop factor. For people that did not understand photography or had experience with it, it is meaningless. And now there are whole generations of photographers that never used 35mm. For a comparison to sell a format, it is a useful shorthand if you understand it, but I would stop the conversion once you start using the format. The geometric relationship between focal length and format is easy (all you need is the format diagonal) and so using 35mm as some kind of standard is not very useful. And the whole equivalency thing breaks down with aspect ratio.

Actually, the equivalency thing has really added confusion. I have often seen folks ask if this also impacts the aperture in terms of exposure. And then folks get all kinds of confused about DoF.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
One particularly good example that the traditional formats aren't very interesting is the Fuji X-series. With reasonably priced 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2, great low light performance and generally impeccable image quality, there's no reason whatsoever for Fuji to go to 35mm. It would mostly mean larger and more expensive lenses, particularly at the long end. M4/3? My perfect Zuiko 150mm eqv. (75mm f/1.8) weighs 300 grams and fits in a large pocket. Try that with a high quality 150mm for 35mm.
 

nostatic

New member
One particularly good example that the traditional formats aren't very interesting is the Fuji X-series. With reasonably priced 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2, great low light performance and generally impeccable image quality, there's no reason whatsoever for Fuji to go to 35mm. It would mostly mean larger and more expensive lenses, particularly at the long end. M4/3? My perfect Zuiko 150mm eqv. (75mm f/1.8) weighs 300 grams and fits in a large pocket. Try that with a high quality 150mm for 35mm.
To me this is the biggest functional issue. I fell hook like and sinker for the A7 files and it has given me a kick in the pants wrt shooting. Once the 24-70/4 shows up I'll have a great kit along with the 35 and 55. *except* at the long end. Yes, I could buy an adapter and use some Canon glass (always loved the 70-200/4 and 135/2) but then I'm paying a pretty significant penalty. At that point the GH3 with 35-100/2.8 is starting to look ideal for that type of shooting.

Horses for courses…but in the end for those of us that don't get our main paycheck from photos, it should be fun. And that is a hard thing to quantify.
 
M

mjr

Guest
I think looking through the viewfinder is all you need, the sensor is irrelevant at that point, the view finder shows you what you are getting. I don't care what the sensor size is, I have many different cameras and find the best thing is just to look, if I want to get closer I either move or fit a longer lens, neither are a big deal.

I think it's also important not to discount the "want factor" I can't think of a better term. The world is full of companies and people earning a living and paying taxes whilst providing goods or services that nobody really needs but that lots of people want, we'd be screwed if we only ever made do with what we needed.

Long live choice, long live the desire to want more or better and long live the freedom to buy and use whatever you choose.

Mat
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
Bob's list could have been my list. I would only add:
"is the package aesthetically pleasing" and
"does anything snag when I pull it out of my Crumpler bag quickly?"

The X-E1 with the excellent 27/2.8 pancake ticks both of these boxes too, and all of Bob's list. The CV 12/5.6 and a CV 58/1.4 complete the trio.

Those factors in combination are much more important to me than the sensor size.
 

Tim

Active member
Sensor size, either digital or film has a relationship to DOF for any given focal length. So choice of sensor size is to me only a function of what you are trying to achieve, with camera functionality and personality thrown in to confuse us all. Personally I find a bit smaller than "35mm" easier to work with for what I photograph. Right now I use a GR, DP2M and a EM5 with a handful of lenses.

With today's technology that lower limit seems to be about 6 microns square. The D1 has photosensors that are 11.8 microns square.
I read on this forum an interesting thread about certain Hasselblad backs that were considered "fat pixel backs". Does this related to smaller sensor with low pixel counts as well? What other cameras are "fat pixel"?

Even with all this sensor talk I am a firm believer that the lens is #1 and should be paramount, within your budget, no matter what sensor you chose. Remember the good ol Leica Digilux 2, 5 megapixels of goodness, the reason for its great IQ was the lens connected to that sensor.

Right now I wish the Mpixel race would stop and they (the manufacturers) would fight over and wow us with better dynamic range.


Lastly, I think the whole "camera to fit you" is only partially true.

If prevailing relationships to existing tools were the criteria for further invention, the Leica UR camera would never have been produced, and the TLR would not have existed. Both substantially altered handling and prevailing approaches to photography, but required some effort of mastery on the part of the photographer.
I agree with this, with all tools you have to make an effort to work within its design. Recognize the limitations and work within it and with it.
My DP2M is a good example. It chews through batteries, so I carry a spares and am more careful using the power I have, it in turn yields wonderful images.
Sure, things will evolve but to anyone who bitterly complains, I say you go out and do a better job then. Occasionally they will and do.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Sensor size, either digital or film has a relationship to DOF for any given focal length. So choice of sensor size is to me only a function of what you are trying to achieve, with camera functionality and personality thrown in to confuse us all. Personally I find a bit smaller than "35mm" easier to work with for what I photograph. Right now I use a GR, DP2M and a EM5 with a handful of lenses.
Sensor size is just one factor to DoF. The idea you go to larger format for narrow DoF is just not supported by what photographers do. A whole host of 4x5 and 8x10 shooters make images with large DoFs. They never went the other way.

I agree, the format will limit your options, just as what apertures are available to photographers--large-format and medium-format photographers never had f/0.95 lenses available to them--but to generalize about DoF to format is hard to do given the images produced. I would say sensor size is an important factor for many things including DoF, but it is one variable among many that influence the final result.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
The relationship of lens system to sensor DOES have an esthetic impact, and is not just technical mumbo-jumbo. The esthetics of MFD are different from 135 FF, and is different between 135 and APSc, and is different between APSc and other smaller sensors. Even without cropping, a modest 11 X14 print from each respective format looks and feels different. Since esthetics are evaluated subjectively, which format suits you is a personal creative decision.

Personally, I've never been lured into a 3/4 "system" or APSc "system" for personal esthetic reasons despite the then advantage of reduced size. Sure enough, we now have FF 135 format sensors in a tiny package, and more to come to be sure.
I agree with Brad's sentiment in general, but have to triple plus agree with Marc's comment here -- sensor size does matter when it comes to image aesthetics. If you shoot at f8 all day long, then you won't see it very much. But as you open up from there you definitely do, and here -- at least for my money -- full frame 35 is at the lower limit of the threshold for achieving that look. It's a central component for me on Bob's check list item "are you pleased with the files."
 
Top