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
104 polled so far. Half the respondents dropped by to declare they weren't interested in changing system. A quarter wanted a larger sensor system accepting a size increase. The other quarter left prioritised a smaller system, but were very split- half of these would have liked a smaller system with a larger sensor if they could get it. The other half of this last quarter were split down the middle again, between the half that would accept a smaller system with a smaller sensor, and the other half that would not accept a reduction in the size of the sensor.

Poll results after 5 days and 104 responses
Poll results after 5 days and 104 responses

So my answer to my question in general of whether forum readers find a larger sensor an aspirational item was rather yes, at least to 2/3 of those interested in changing system (26 + 12 votes of 51) Despite the vocal reasoning of m4/3 users, the number prepared to accept a smaller sensor in a system change was only ~12% of those open to changing systems, about a sixth of the number looking for a larger sensor in a system move. Since APS-C is the dominant standard in ILC, that isn't very welcome news for Olympus and Panasonic.
 
Last edited:
GeraldW said:
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.
Click to expand...
What I actually wrote:
GeraldW said:
fishy wishy wrote: What I'm really getting at with this thread is whether you are looking said:
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.
Click to expand...
Prints are not the dominant way of viewing images now. It's electronic. This view is old-fashioned.
dinoSnake said:
Tuloom said:
GeraldW said:
Glen Barrington, post: 58961713, member: 175967"]
The whole issue has become fetishized.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why yes, yes it has.
What a great way to put it. And the Poll should have a "OMG 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.
Click to expand...
Whilst it's been proved larger sensors are broadly an aspirational item, it's clear there is an amount of defensiveness from posts like these.
glowingshutter, post: 58961713, member: 175967"]
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.
Click to expand...
Worthy points. Panasonic has a good reputation for video, Olympus not so much.

I'm getting the impression that from a simple post asking if larger sensors were an aspirational item, some of the m4/3 users are bordering on developing a persecution complex. I did not mention Olympus or Panasonic in the original poll.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I use FF but I aspire to MF :)

I did rent a couple of MF digital backs so I know the difference and I do not care if the MF bodies are quite behind the gizmos curve compared to 35mm (FF or APS crop) bodies
 
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 use multiple systems. I use FF when I need to maximize IQ and control (at the expense of portability), and I have a tiny m43 for when I need portability (at the expense of IQ).
 
DonParrot said:
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
DonParrot 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.
DonParrot 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
DonParrot 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.
Click to expand...
 
DonParrot said:
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...
DonParrot said:
In the mean time I am enjoying different cameras with formats from phones all the way to FF 35.
Click to expand...
--
I wish I was an OLYgarch
Click to expand...
👍 Lol
 
Last edited:
runswithsizzers said:
DonParrot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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'd say in response to sensor size, you have to ask your self about work flow. Is it important to your image size or shooting ablitiy? I shoot with DSLR Nikon 14 mega pixel D2S , but I know the subject is alwaya in the mind of the old school 35 mm full frame.

The question you have to ask is; is my work as good for blow ups in DX mode or full frame mode? Both have their place in solving certain problems. Lens size, take a 80mm 1.8 and look at subject matter. Now its brighter than a 15 element zoom hung on the front of a full frame Nikon or Canon. If you are shooting faces close up for wedding work, then use a full frame. But if you are shooting sports shoots, a DX cropped frame

solves lens length. Such as a common 500 F/4 or 400mm EDIF 2.8. But the instant you choose to do one or the other. You must know good gear and a mono pod or even tripod will improve you shooting needs. Not size of one sensor or the other. The key is know when and how the sensor will fit the best job needed. Such asking whether or not Medium format sensors are better? Well ask your self can you afford the gear?

Best look at your wallet and job needs. If you are a pro and on assignment then see is your equipment needs are best met by full frame or DX 25 mega pixel or better.

Its all in how your grain is in the end and blow up needs to ratio factors. Oldest saying I think fits some of these hard asked questions. Is bigger better? Is more pixels better than less. Well check with your MFG and see how your choices in lens verses sensor size works our. If you like mirror less cameras and your budget fits full frame then I'd say sensor size only matters to the issue at hand. One is seldom better than the rest. Its mostly your ability to get the shot! Good Luck. Ed B
 
Smaller sensors are appealing, but not yet because of the thickness of sensors and how it works out with wide angle lenses. For me, it's not an option at this time and I'm ok with the larger sensor size. It's nice that camera makers make them with 35mm film sized sensors and bringing all those old lenses back to usefulness.
 
In fantasy land you would aspire to get the very best camera there is for what you want to do.

( a large format camera may not be the best for your next safari shots, so it isn't always about having a larger sensor...)

In the real world that camera could be far too big or expensive so we need to compromise.

Now, what is the best compromise you can come up with for your want or need ?
 
techjedi said:
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.
Click to expand...
I use my Pentax for still photo because it's better at it.

I use my Canon M for video because it's way better than Pentax.

I prefer my every day camera to be the Canon M because it can do decent stills AND video (and is tiny too), but I like to put my Pentax glass on it for the better image qualities. :)
 
Last edited:
I have an APS-C right now and I'm happy with it, and that's lucky as I could not afford any other one but if budget was no longer an issue, I would not buy an other camera with the same kind of sensor, I would not replace the good old one but second it,

In winter, I have the tendency to stay inside, so when I want to take pictures, it would be peoples, close up, my current gear can do that up to a point, I feel that larger sensor would help.

From spring to autumn, I'm outside, in the bright light and move around, I'm no longer that close to the peoples and takes a lot more landscapes, or longer focal length pictures like wild life, my current gear can do that up to a point, I feel that a smaller box would help.

Still not able to give a clear cut answer to this poll... may be, when I get the budget, it will be easier to chose.
 
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