Do you aspire to a LARGER or a SMALLER sensor?

To me, the image quality of photography I need and the sensor size is the first basic decision about a system. For me personally, I need the low-light performance of large sensors and value the tonality it gives over small ones at other times. Then again I use systems with all sorts of sizes, but for different reasons not altogether to do with image quality.

I get to meet a number of older people who first started in photography a while ago and don't practice it as often as they think they'd like to now, and cite the weight putting them off carrying a camera more often.

What I'm really getting at with this thread is whether you are looking, even if sidelong, at a different system one day, and if you ASPIRE to a kind of thing you don't have at the moment- perhaps a large sensor with more easily attained shallow depth of field, smooth tonality and higher iso performance, or a dinky system you feel you can take anywhere with less hassle and will maybe make you stand out less. I'm interested in how many are after ultimate IQ, and how many have other priorities.

I realise that there is one prominent way of getting a smaller camera- by going mirrorless. But I would like to know if you are actively willing to sacrifice something to go with a smaller sensor at the same time.

All the reasons are personally valid, even if some of us wouldn't be caught dead with others' choices!

I aspire to a FF or even medium-format digital. Sky-high pricing is the major barrier, while inconvenience is a secondary hurdle.

Considering weight, size, price, availability, flexibility, and performance, I've found my balance with APS-C.

It seems a reasonably sized sensor for my needs. The whole issue has become fetishized. (Look the word up)

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/

Glen Barrington said:

It seems a reasonably sized sensor for my needs. The whole issue has become fetishized. (Look the word up)

Click to expand...

Hey! You think I don't know what a fetish is?

Nothing in the choices for the system I aspire to. I can't wait (and may not live long enough to see) for sensor development to get to where the small p&s size sensors produce the quality of apsc today. Then I want camera with a mirror, optical viewfinder and a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7 size sensor and a 24 to 2500mm (35mm equivalent) lens. And don't say the mirror and optical vf can't be done or I'll have to try and find my Pen F or my Pentax 110 slr.

fishy wishy said:

Glen Barrington said:

It seems a reasonably sized sensor for my needs. The whole issue has become fetishized. (Look the word up)

Click to expand...

Hey! You think I don't know what a fetish is?

Click to expand...

Oh, I knew YOU were familiar with all the meanings! :-D

But I have been taken to task by others for using the word properly! Some people just want words to be used one way.

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/

Glen Barrington said:

The whole issue has become fetishized.

Click to expand...

What a great way to put it.

And the Poll should have a "OMG, not this again for the 1000th time" option.

I already have the cameras I need. All are fixed lens, and two of the three have 1" sensors. I've been doing this for quite a while - I got my first 35 mm camera in 1955. So, by this time I have a pretty good idea of what's good enough for my needs.

However, I kind of resent the tone of your post. First, you assume everyone wants shallow depth of field, and not all of us do; and second, you use terms like "dinky" which has a negative connotation.

Now, is there some camera I'd like that I don't have, even if I don't need it? Yes, a Fuji X100T. I have a thing about the 35 mm focal length in 35 mm or FF: and the X100T has the APS-C equivalent.

I'd like to point out that with the exception of portrait photography, shallow depth of field is a relatively new fad. About 25 years ago, it was referred to as "selective focus". Do you remember, that at that time, Canon SLR's had a Depth program? You could set the near and far in-focus points in the image. But back in the 50's, 60's and 70's, there were a lot more articles about maximizing DOF than there were about minimizing it. If a maximum DOF is what you want, you either need to stop down a lot with a big sensor, or you use a small sensor camera and can have a fast lens and higher shutter speeds, and avoid diffraction issues. This is particularly helpful in macro photography at high magnification - if you want the whole bee in focus.

The other point I'd like to make is that you, and too many others; equate sensor size with image quality. It depends a lot on how large you are going to print. I've got wall hanging pictures taken with 1/2.3" sensors, 1" sensors, APS-C sensors, and 35 mm film. Visual quality at normal viewing distances is the same; but my largest prints are borderless 8.5" x 11", usually with some cropping for composition.

I'm happy using Nikon FX and DX. Neither larger nor smaller sensors are really suited to how I shoot concerts. I guess medium format might be nice for portraiture, but I'm not at a level where it would really be beneficial, and I'm unlikely to ever be able to justify the cost of buying into such a system anyway (I love taking photographs, but I'd hate for it to be my sole profession).

I could see me buying a pocket camera one day, but I was so disgusted with the quality from the last one that I'm in no hurry to buy such a thing.

I'm not interested in changing ILC systems right now--I have two going right now (for heaven's sake, it's perfectly ridiculous) both APS-C. That seems to be a sweet spot for me as far as the intersection of size/weight/cost and image quality.

But I do aspire to a larger sensor, in the form of a fixed lens prime camera for street and walkaround. Think something along the lines of a Sony RX-1 or a Leica Q, full frame or even medium format, with a gorgeous fairly fast 40mm (or equivalent) prime. I might even be tempted to build it myself if a suitable compact body and pancake style prime presents itself. I wouldn't be buying into another whole system, just giving myself a once in a lifetime camera to do my very favorite photographic thing.

I worked my way up from cell phones, P&S, APS-C and now an A7rii Full frame. I guess I aspire to a smaller high density sensor. It's not the physical size of the camera but with a smaller sensor there's shots I can get that just aren't possible with a larger sensor. Sometimes I want everything in focus or a larger DOF for macro and close ups. Of course I love the benefits of FF but my next camera will have a smaller sensor or I'll sell the FF camera and use one camera with a medium sized sensor.

fishy wishy said:

To me, the image quality of photography I need and the sensor size is the first basic decision about a system.

Click to expand...

The most basic thing about a system is the aperture available for a given angle of view. In other words, it's the optics, not the electronics.

In 2005 I switched from APS-C to full-frame. I did it for the available lenses (35/1.4, 24-105/4, 15/2.8 fisheye).

In 2015, I switched from full frame to APS-C. I did it for the available lenses (18-35/1.8, 8-15/4 fisheye, 18-135STM).

Because of improved sensor performance, the APS-C system was able to more than replace the full-frame system, and the rest of the system is superior for what I do (built-in flash, 10fps, higher pixel density when focal length limited).

--

Lee Jay

Glen Barrington said:

It seems a reasonably sized sensor for my needs. The whole issue has become fetishized. (Look the word up)

Click to expand...

I'm with you on that... m43 seems like a nice balance between small size and great IQ... not to mention some very well designed cameras a great selection of lenses and with the right camera, great in-body isolation, which helps to close the gap between this format and larger ones.

I like a small camrea, not becuase I'm phyisically incapable of carrying something larger but becuase I know that I'll be more likely to carry the camera and get more shots than if it were something that weighed a lot (annoying swinging from my neck!).





Though, the larer formats are always going to have an edge for shallow depth of field (not so important to me), the IQ difference is going to mean less and less as the sensor techlongy gets better and better. I think that it's already gotten to the point where something like m43 provides evenough IQ for most applications...

I also agree with you that folks debatte this stuff way too much... If you need the ultimate IQ and shallow DOF options, just get the biggest format you can afford and be done with it! If you're almost happy with your cell phone, get something with a 1" sensor... etc.

Couldn't be happier.

Mike

I'm perplexed by the multitudes aspiring to larger sensors, particularly when all available evidence points toward the opposite as the smarter move.

Sony a7 systems are nice. Only problem I'm still with APS-C is I can't afford full frame

I can't afford it, but for the kind of shooting that I do, very little action, I'd like to move to medium format. Even the relatively bargain basement Pentax 645Z is out of the question. Nice to dream, though.

David

I want the largest sensor i can get that also offers the features and glass i need. If sensor was all that matters i might buy an A7 for dirt cheap. But i need more.

Tuloom said:

Glen Barrington said:

The whole issue has become fetishized.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Why yes, yes it has.

Tuloom said:

What a great way to put it.

And the Poll should have a "OMG, not this again for the 1000th time" option.

Click to expand...

And you missed the [semi] subconscious use of derogatory English in the OP's post

Tuloom said:

What I'm really getting at with this thread is whether you are looking, even if sidelong, at a different system one day, and if you ASPIRE to a kind of thing you don't have at the moment- perhaps a large sensor with more easily attained shallow depth of field, smooth tonality and higher iso performance, or a DINKY SYSTEM you feel you can take anywhere with less hassle and will maybe make you stand out less.

Click to expand...

(my additional emphasis added)

"Dinky system". Yeah, not biased at all, are we? Afraid of your manhood being impinged upon there, fishy wishy? They do have treatments for this type of ailment, you know.

It is a camera system. Get over it. Not everyone (apparently) thinks like you do or has the same needs.

If you must know I do not wish for a larger sensor, I wish for a better sensor. Size is irrelevant, it is results that count. i can wish for the next major breakthrough in overall performance which will increase everyone across the board - people will still whine and complain about it not being enough, some people will still use the sensor size as a fetishized item to separate and judge the individuals who choose them, but the improvement will be welcome anyway.

fishy wishy said:

To me, the image quality of photography I need and the sensor size is the first basic decision about a system. For me personally, I need the low-light performance of large sensors and value the tonality it gives over small ones at other times. Then again I use systems with all sorts of sizes, but for different reasons not altogether to do with image quality.

I get to meet a number of older people who first started in photography a while ago and don't practice it as often as they think they'd like to now, and cite the weight putting them off carrying a camera more often.

What I'm really getting at with this thread is whether you are looking, even if sidelong, at a different system one day, and if you ASPIRE to a kind of thing you don't have at the moment- perhaps a large sensor with more easily attained shallow depth of field, smooth tonality and higher iso performance, or a dinky system you feel you can take anywhere with less hassle and will maybe make you stand out less. I'm interested in how many are after ultimate IQ, and how many have other priorities.

I realise that there is one prominent way of getting a smaller camera- by going mirrorless. But I would like to know if you are actively willing to sacrifice something to go with a smaller sensor at the same time.

All the reasons are personally valid, even if some of us wouldn't be caught dead with others' choices!

Click to expand...

I didn't choose Micro Four Thirds because I can't handle the size and weight of a larger system. I chose it because I actually get better results. And this has everything to do with its size.

When you're doing street photography, which camera would you rather carry?



The choice, to me, is clear. The goal of this type of photography is to go unnoticed, not to announce your presence to everyone and everything, like you would with the Canon. Your goal is not to change your environment, like you would with the Canon. Simply put, one blends, the other doesn't.

The GM5 with pancake lens actually gives me better results than the Canon would. As to the IQ differences, whatever. There comes a point where I don't care anymore.

Or how about when you want to enter a venue that either doesn't allow large lenses or professional looking gear. This is very common now. Which camera would you rather attempt entry with?



The size constraints in many venues are so common now that I don't really have much of a choice but to go with a smaller system. If you can't get the larger system in, then the smaller system performs better by default. And it almost always performs perfectly well in those scenarios.

And I'll also add that I have no disability or infirmity, so I can carry larger gear if I wanted. But, if you do, the choice of gear becomes even more obvious.

I'll also add that if you want to shoot video, the smaller, mirrorless system almost always perform much better, Fuji being the exception. I shoot a lot of video, and I use Micro Four Thirds, not because it's smaller, but because the results are actually, technically better than I can get with a DSLR.