Reading mode: Light Dark

Do you aspire to a LARGER or a SMALLER sensor?

Do you aspire to a LARGER or a SMALLER sensor?

  • Total voters
    0
Go to last post
I use mostly Aps-c digital and 35mm film. but i do like the 2/3 and 1.8 sensors with a good processor and lens you can get good results like my Canon G11. I would be happy with 4/3rd sensor. at the end of the day its about the over all package. Id rather have a 1.8 sensor with a L lens rather than a full frame with a cheap lens say.
 
I aspire to smaller lenses, in particular smaller zooms, even if this is at the cost of image quality. Lenses have become too sharp and bokeh too smooth these days. I need modern lenses with more character.

I wouldn't change my sensor format, as, for my needs, APS-C looks like the perfect trade-off between dynamic range and camera size.
 
Last edited:
I want a smaller sensor with the same or better image quality. I'd like the depth of field of a phone camera that otherwise performs like the best APS-c
 
Nothing wrong with the small digital camera I got for free when I subscribed to Fortune magazine 15 years ago:



 

Attachments

  • 3576850.jpg
    3576850.jpg
    55.5 KB · Views: 0
I would do smedium format for wide to standard view, and APS-C for tele action work, if I could afford it.
 
I think most people get serious at some point and have multiple bodies for different purposes.
  • I prefer APS-C for landscape, macro and long focal length situations.
  • I prefer FF for portrait/studio/product work.
  • I prefer 1" compact P&S for everyday carry camera
Medium format is price limited currently. I would replace FF with medium format for portrait/studio/product/landscape if there was no cost issue.
 
fishy wishy said:
fishy wishy wrote: I realise that there is one prominent way of getting a smaller camera- by going mirrorless.
Click to expand...
Smaller still, the Canon G9 X II compact camera, the smallest 1" sensor camera on the market.
 
My deluxe compact has an APS-C sensor, and my 28-200 compact zoom has a 1/1.7". I can hike for hours with both of these cameras, without feeling pain in my neck, shoulders or back. Enlargements are good from both, though the APS-C is better in low light. These days even the small sensors in phones are delivering plenty good quality for most people's needs.
 
Last edited:
I am a really old guy that totally does not want to give up my old gear. So I am using Nikon cameras that can meter with my old manual focus lenses. I have both a DX, and a FX body. I am enjoying using both.
 
viperkeeper said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's the reason I still use my 10 years old FZ50. The macro facility and image quality of that camera shows what is possible with a smaller sensor.
 
Last edited:
I understand what you are getting at, but the question is not quite right. Nobody wants a smaller *sensor* - but everybody wants a smaller camera + lens.

Actually, a camera can be too small. Below a certain size, ergonomic complications start to set in, especially if the camera has a lot of physical controls (dials and knobs).

But can a camera be too *light*? (Or a woman too thin, or a man too rich?) I think not.

Some say a smaller, lighter camera feels unbalanced when mounted to a big heavy zoom, but I say the problem is not that the camera is too light, but that the zoom is too heavy.

So, I want what everyone wants - the biggest possible sensor in the lightest possible camera body which is small enough to carry, but not too small to operate. And we will want some lenses to go with that, too - the small lightweight ones, with the enormous maximum apertures, and real metal, too; none of that plastic crap.
 
I own a Coolpix A. It seems to meet most of your criteria, and can now be had for 1/3 the original price.



9c6cf880d6c24694aa230e5d72b0d013.jpg
 
Who needs smaller? There are hundreds and hundreds of photo devices with small and microscopic sensors.

We (I) need bigger sensors at better prices. In time, big sensor cameras will come in price to sensible levels.

You guys who don't need bigger and want more efficient and smaller sensors have been served. Now it is the turn for us who want or need bigger sensors. This post is beyond discussing advantages or cons, so please don't ask why.

ANALOG photography STARTED with very BIG formats only to start decreasing in size as technology advanced. Nevertheless, big format cameras were vastly used for over 150 years. Still are.

DIGITAL photography STARTED with very SMALL sensors. As technology evolves and prices goes down, we'll see bigger and bigger sensors. I can't wait for affordable cameras with a FF 645 sensor or even 6x7.

In the mean time I am enjoying different cameras with formats from phones all the way to FF 35.
 
Last edited:
runswithsizzers said:
But can a camera be too *light*? (Or a woman too thin, or a man too rich?) I think not.
Click to expand...
Actually yes, a camera can be too light. I like a bit of weight to help stabilize the system. I also think that women can be too thin. All else being equal, I way prefer curves on a lady.
runswithsizzers said:
Some say a smaller, lighter camera feels unbalanced when mounted to a big heavy zoom, but I say the problem is not that the camera is too light, but that the zoom is too heavy.
Click to expand...
One part is the balance between the two, but the other part is stability in your hand. I like a bit of weight. In fact, I don't feel as though my regular concert set up is too heavy and I'm carrying two DSLR bodies, a 15-30mm f/2.8, a 70-200mm f/2.8 and either a 24-70mm f/2.8 or a 50mm f/1.8 in a belt pack for three hours. I get joint and muscle pain from day to day life, but never feel in more pain after a gig.
 
runswithsizzers said:
I understand what you are getting at, but the question is not quite right. Nobody wants a smaller *sensor* - but everybody wants a smaller camera + lens.
Click to expand...
You are oh so wrong. I definitely don't want a camera that forces me to close a fast lens down for wider DOF. I don't want more than µFT. Indeed, I even had regarded Nikon 1 as a serious option if they hadn't started neglecting the system
runswithsizzers said:
Actually, a camera can be too small. Below a certain size, ergonomic complications start to set in, especially if the camera has a lot of physical controls (dials and knobs).

But can a camera be too *light*? (Or a woman too thin, or a man too rich?) I think not.
Click to expand...
Yes, a woman can be too thin. There are countless models that are far too thin. it#sd unhealthy, we don't want that.
runswithsizzers said:
Some say a smaller, lighter camera feels unbalanced when mounted to a big heavy zoom, but I say the problem is not that the camera is too light, but that the zoom is too heavy.
Click to expand...
Haha
runswithsizzers said:
So, I want what everyone wants - the biggest possible sensor in the lightest possible camera body which is small enough to carry, but not too small to operate. And we will want some lenses to go with that, too - the small lightweight ones, with the enormous maximum apertures, and real metal, too; none of that plastic crap.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what everynone wants. In 2009, after quite a while of gathering ingformation, I opted for FT and nebern looked back and why should I? I was happy with the system amd its IQ in 2009 and since than, it was massively imprived in every area. it#s the perfect compromise and I definitely don't want a bigger sensor. Shallow DOF was a ciurse some decades ago and only turned into a feature as avoiding it was/is difficult and people accustomed to it. In the film industry in the middle of the last century, for instance, they made huge efforts to get the entire frame in focus.

And talking about plastic crap: You know that most of the top-class racing cars such as in F1 are mainly made of carbon-fibre, do you? Metal is so yesteray-ish.
 
Edymagno said:
Who needs smaller? There are hundreds and hundreds of photo devices with small and microscopic sensors.

We (I) need bigger sensors at better prices. In time, big sensor cameras will come in price to sensible levels.

You guys who don't need bigger and want more efficient and smaller sensors have been served. Now it is the turn for us who want or need bigger sensors. This post is beyond discussing advantages or cons, so please don't ask why.

ANALOG photography STARTED with very BIG formats only to start decreasing in size as technology advanced. Nevertheless, big format cameras were vastly used for over 150 years. Still are.

DIGITAL photography STARTED with very SMALL sensors. As technology evolves and prices goes down, we'll see bigger and bigger sensors. I can't wait for affordable cameras with a FF 645 sensor or even 6x7.
Click to expand...
Wishful thinking.
Edymagno said:
In the mean time I am enjoying different cameras with formats from phones all the way to FF 35.
Click to expand...
 
I feel the same way about shallow DOF. I almost never prefer it unless I'm doing a portrait, which is rare. I think some of the current fascination with it came from the early days of small sensor digital when large sensors were unobtainable for most for quite a while. Then when they finally acquired them for large sums of money, they started vigorously defending all the properties that came with the format. My hope is that now with the dominance of phone cameras more people will become used to all-in-focus as a standard. Yes, I use a DSLR and prefer it over a phone, but it's because of the other IQ properties, NOT depth of field, which tends to be an annoyance.

DonParrot said:
You are oh so wrong. I definitely don't want a camera that forces me to close a fast lens down for wider DOF....

Shallow DOF was a ciurse some decades ago and only turned into a feature as avoiding it was/is difficult and people accustomed to it. In the film industry in the middle of the last century, for instance, they made huge efforts to get the entire frame in focus.
Click to expand...
 
I've bounced around too much, tried out basically every sensor size smaller than MF. I have come to the conclusion that "Full-Frame" 35mm is the all-around best sensor size for me.

Pricing on a FF DSLR is pretty reasonable these days. Size doesn't bother me as much as I used to think because I've become more of a prime shooter. My Nikon DF gets me personally acceptable results even at ISO 51200, so short of shooting in some kind of dark cave where I probably wouldn't have any business doing photography, there's more than enough low light performance.
 
Where's the option "If my current gear is not adapted to some thing I want to do I want a sensor / system size adapted, whether it is bigger or smaller or same size" ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top