APS-C or Full Frame?

[pixelpushing]

What I don't agree with is the 'most of us can't make use of the extra capability' point.

How much is 'most' and how do you quantify 'make use'..? I'm not an expert professional photographer but I can see a difference in my photos having come from the NX300, A57 and A6000. Is it a mind-shattering night-day difference in every single image? No. Are there subtle differences in a majority of them? I'd say so. A bit more background separation. Slightly better color. Less noise in shadow. Worry-free ISO-1600. Better micro details and contrast.

Is it always something you can specify? No, but sometimes it is. Does it have to be nailed down with samples and measurements to know it's there? No.

 

[Pepe-Lepue]

What I don't agree with is the 'most of us can't make use of the extra capability' point.

How much is 'most' and how do you quantify 'make use'..? I'm not an expert professional photographer but I can see a difference in my photos having come from the NX300, A57 and A6000. Is it a mind-shattering night-day difference in every single image? No. Are there subtle differences in a majority of them? I'd say so. A bit more background separation. Slightly better color. Less noise in shadow. Worry-free ISO-1600. Better micro details and contrast.

Is it always something you can specify? No, but sometimes it is. Does it have to be nailed down with samples and measurements to know it's there? No.

It's a photography forum. What better way than to demonstrate with samples? And I'm glad you posted that flower. I'm a sucker for flower photos! Flowers are umcontrived subjects with color and interesting detail.
And if you notice the FF difference in practice for you, then your money was well spent.
My cheap slow focusing SEL5018 is my flower lens... Until I see a 85mm 1.2 that is.
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

 

[Sean_Jayhawk]

Here is an iconic picture, no colors, not 100% sharp, so when I go by the way many people here are looking at pictures, it can't be good, but it is one of the best known pictures from WW2. Look at it, it tells a story of struggle, bravery and victory.

I've seen very sharp, nicely colored, noise free pictures here that showed no story at all, that showed no art at all...

So I think that the skills of the man behind the camera is more important the the sensorsize or the other technicall things. Att this point I agree with Zack.

But I do think that in the hands of a capable photographer a larger sensor can make the difference. Unfortunately most of us are not that good that we can realy make the difference...

Iwo Jima

The picture is famous because it captured a super moment in American history (or perhaps a replication of the moment, but that's beside the point). I think if you read back through this thread, you'll find a post (or more) that talk about things that are not sensor dependent (e.g., composition, creativity, seeing the moment and capturing it, etc.). A photo can be terrific with just good composition. I've seen iPhone photos that have impressed me in this regard. However, I do not see iPhone photos that shoot available light in lower light settings. Then again, there's probably a sweet blurry street shot from an iPhone, because that's sort of what is required without much light. But a photographer can still be creative and compose the shot and time it well to produce great results. However, that photographer cannot capture the same shots I am capturing on the same street that night. I think this discussion is more about the nuance of when full frame matters. Not everybody in this discussion encounters those situations, so it makes it hard to have a discussion when we all have different types of photos we shoot and different types of photos we're considering when we make our comments.

--

My recent favorite shots

 

[PVCdroid]

What I don't agree with is the 'most of us can't make use of the extra capability' point.

How much is 'most' and how do you quantify 'make use'..? I'm not an expert professional photographer but I can see a difference in my photos having come from the NX300, A57 and A6000. Is it a mind-shattering night-day difference in every single image? No. Are there subtle differences in a majority of them? I'd say so. A bit more background separation. Slightly better color. Less noise in shadow. Worry-free ISO-1600. Better micro details and contrast.

Is it always something you can specify? No, but sometimes it is. Does it have to be nailed down with samples and measurements to know it's there? No.

It's a photography forum. What better way than to demonstrate with samples? And I'm glad you posted that flower. I'm a sucker for flower photos! Flowers are umcontrived subjects with color and interesting detail.
And if you notice the FF difference in practice for you, then your money was well spent.
My cheap slow focusing SEL5018 is my flower lens... Until I see a 85mm 1.2 that is.
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

I agree that the SEL5018 is a nice flower lens although it has kind of a long minimum focusing distance. Shooting with the SEL5518 on an A7R is an eye opener. There is significant more detail available as well as the ability to crop further when needed. It's just a matter of preference and a quest for more detail, ability to crop further when needed, more dynamic range and a less noise at high ISO. I didn't think I would benefit from full frame but bought a A7R bundle deal from BH in order to get the LA-EA4 adapter and HVL-F60M flash at large discounts. I was very surprised at the how much more detail was present in comparison to my NEX-7 so I ended up keeping the A7R instead of selling it. It has been an expensive journey though with both native FE and Sony/Minolta AF full frame lens purchases. I still shoot the NEX-7 and like it for its smaller size and faster fps. There are trade offs and benefits for both APS-C and FF.

Here is an example of a FF shot and a near 200% crop from it that my son wanted for a profile pic.

 

[Jesper Frickmann]

Beautiful shot of that flower! Here is another flower shot:



The funny thing is, this shot is taken at F/8. Because at such a short distance at 70mm, I found that this gave the right DoF. Had I shot with FF at 105mm, then I would have had to stop down to F/12 in order to get the same DoF. So in this particular case, I would have had no advantage of FF at all.

 

[McQuestion]

Mad detail in those petals, those crystalline-looking respiration points, when you look at full resolution. Serious crop mania possibilities for macro and other purposes.

I think the point was that true "image quality" is oftentimes less a matter of micro-contrast and more often a matter of subject and perspective, the mood and moment that are conveyed. It's about a synergy between the image and the technical aspects that are used to communicate the qualities of the image.

Describing details that aren't perceptible and then giving them weight is more about a placebo effect or confidence booster. It's not really image quality in either a strict technical or global sense.

What I don't agree with is the 'most of us can't make use of the extra capability' point.

How much is 'most' and how do you quantify 'make use'..? I'm not an expert professional photographer but I can see a difference in my photos having come from the NX300, A57 and A6000. Is it a mind-shattering night-day difference in every single image? No. Are there subtle differences in a majority of them? I'd say so. A bit more background separation. Slightly better color. Less noise in shadow. Worry-free ISO-1600. Better micro details and contrast.

Is it always something you can specify? No, but sometimes it is. Does it have to be nailed down with samples and measurements to know it's there? No.

 

[Clayton1985]

I enjoyed your post and agree with a lot of what you say and yet I maintain that it is still absurd to ask for images to prove or disprove the benefits of full frame. It isn't your image that tells the story... it is your detailed post and while your post makes a lot of sense it is still the story you wanted to tell as it relates to the image. Many other stories could be told about the exact same image with a completely different conclusion from yours.

Give it a little time and someone will come along and post an amazing image in a similar setting at ISO 6400 and 1/125.... with an APC-S sensor. We will then be right back where we started.

 

[Mel Snyder]

Then there's those of us getting more than a 'little shred of difference' out of our FF cameras.

I always chuckle at people telling me 'this is all the IQ you need'. Really?

Could you post some examples and a fuller explanation of how you're benefiting from the full frame sensor?

It's late, I'm tired - but here are two quick images. Both were shot manual focus with a Canon FDn 85mm f1.2L lens on my A7 - probably f4, my favorite aperture ~2 stops off maximum aperture.

1. Note the ISO - 2000. I could have easily shot ISO 4000 and you would likely not detect the difference.

2. Look at the eyes of both individuals. Despite the ISO, you can see every pore, every fine hair on their skin. You could get that with care on APS-C - but you'd have to be really careful. These are quick grab shots.











Look carefully at this image made with Canon FDn 24mm f2, probably f5.6. Study the detail. Again, no special care - a walk-around shot.






Same 24mm lens, aperture

There is simply a qualitative difference - not always obvious - and it's worth having it.

 

[Pepe-Lepue]

What I don't agree with is the 'most of us can't make use of the extra capability' point.

How much is 'most' and how do you quantify 'make use'..? I'm not an expert professional photographer but I can see a difference in my photos having come from the NX300, A57 and A6000. Is it a mind-shattering night-day difference in every single image? No. Are there subtle differences in a majority of them? I'd say so. A bit more background separation. Slightly better color. Less noise in shadow. Worry-free ISO-1600. Better micro details and contrast.

Is it always something you can specify? No, but sometimes it is. Does it have to be nailed down with samples and measurements to know it's there? No.

Continuing with the flower shots, I have a few recent ones to contribute. Not to compete in any way with your great photograph, but to keep the topic running with what I deem are great examples.

These are shot with my A6000 + SEL5018. My goal with these shots was NOT shallow DOF (hence the f3.2 and f5.6 aperture), but instead to just get the bokeh barely out of reach as to distinguish what the background is.













--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

 

[McQuestion]

I enjoyed your post and agree with a lot of what you say and yet I maintain that it is still absurd to ask for images to prove or disprove the benefits of full frame. It isn't your image that tells the story... it is your detailed post and while your post makes a lot of sense it is still the story you wanted to tell as it relates to the image. Many other stories could be told about the exact same image with a completely different conclusion from yours.

Give it a little time and someone will come along and post an amazing image in a similar setting at ISO 6400 and 1/125.... with an APC-S sensor. We will then be right back where we started.

Thanks, Clayton.

The story attached to my photo is my actual story. It's not something I made up. I just got sick of the sniping and went out to take some photos. That's a photo from last night, along with an explanation of where I'm running into some limits. I was on the fence about possibly trading in some gear for the discount on the A7 at B&H, and I would have loved for someone to actually show some photos that demonstrate use.

It's kind of like that ad they used to run for the Ford truck, where they show it pulling a huge load up a hill. It's nice to hear that a truck can haul a big load, but it communicates more to show it.

I'm not asking or expecting someone to post a solitary photo without exposition and expect it to speak for itself. I'm just asking for examples of what people are talking about. If you want to say a full frame has amazing micro contrast, cool. Post a photo and tell us about it. That's what that video was about, guys sitting on the internet extolling the virtues of full frame without any actual photos. That's what's absurd.

A perfect example of what I'm asking for is in this thread. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54109353

Guy uses ISO 25,600 at dawn to take a photo of swimmers getting ready for an iron man competition. Instead of just talking about how fantastic the low light capability is, he tells his story and posts the photo. You could look at the EXIF, but it's nice to have his story. That's what's cool about the forum.

What's not cool is just yammering about specifications.

And, yeah, if someone posts an ISO 6400 APSC photo that is amazingly clean, let me know! It will probably be in the Fuji forum... which is kind where this all started.

 

[McQuestion]

Then there's those of us getting more than a 'little shred of difference' out of our FF cameras.

I always chuckle at people telling me 'this is all the IQ you need'. Really?

Could you post some examples and a fuller explanation of how you're benefiting from the full frame sensor?

Nice! Thanks, Mel! There is some amazing detail there. I can actually see the individual particles of eye shadow. Amazing.

And I love that boat photo. Wow!

Thanks for sharing. I'm really impressed with that sharpness and feedback on the ISO, and I'm encouraged that you were able to get that kind of focus. Very motivating!

It's late, I'm tired - but here are two quick images. Both were shot manual focus with a Canon FDn 85mm f1.2L lens on my A7 - probably f4, my favorite aperture ~2 stops off maximum aperture.

1. Note the ISO - 2000. I could have easily shot ISO 4000 and you would likely not detect the difference.

2. Look at the eyes of both individuals. Despite the ISO, you can see every pore, every fine hair on their skin. You could get that with care on APS-C - but you'd have to be really careful. These are quick grab shots.





Look carefully at this image made with Canon FDn 24mm f2, probably f5.6. Study the detail. Again, no special care - a walk-around shot.




Same 24mm lens, aperture

There is simply a qualitative difference - not always obvious - and it's worth having it.

 

[captura]

Here is an iconic picture, no colors, not 100% sharp, so when I go by the way many people here are looking at pictures, it can't be good, but it is one of the best known pictures from WW2. Look at it, it tells a story of struggle, bravery and victory.

I've seen very sharp, nicely colored, noise free pictures here that showed no story at all, that showed no art at all...

So I think that the skills of the man behind the camera is more important the the sensorsize or the other technicall things. Att this point I agree with Zack.

But I do think that in the hands of a capable photographer a larger sensor can make the difference. Unfortunately most of us are not that good that we can realy make the difference...

Iwo Jima

That picture was faked, or if you like, the product of re-creation. So therefore, very carefully posed. If the photographer had chosen to make it 100% sharp, people might not have believed it.

 

[pixelpushing]

I figured flowers were passe, but why not. I'll throw in some bees, too:

 

[nevercat]

Here is an iconic picture, no colors, not 100% sharp, so when I go by the way many people here are looking at pictures, it can't be good, but it is one of the best known pictures from WW2. Look at it, it tells a story of struggle, bravery and victory.

I've seen very sharp, nicely colored, noise free pictures here that showed no story at all, that showed no art at all...

So I think that the skills of the man behind the camera is more important the the sensorsize or the other technicall things. Att this point I agree with Zack.

But I do think that in the hands of a capable photographer a larger sensor can make the difference. Unfortunately most of us are not that good that we can realy make the difference...

Iwo Jima

I don't want to take away from your well worded post. But I don't feel all photos have to tell a story. Some photos simply convey beauty or feeling. Good architecture doesn't tell a story. But can motivate and inspire.

Absolutely and 100% right! (that is where the "art" in my post come in, maybe I should have stated that more clearly.).

But I highly concur with your message otherwise. And can appreciate photographs that do indeed tell a story.
--

Thanks for the kind remark.

 

[nevercat]

What I don't agree with is the 'most of us can't make use of the extra capability' point.

I think that many people who buy into a FF system do this as they think the IQ will be better. I've read a lot of posts from people telling that their P&S with tine sensor made better pictures then their expensive FF camera. What is the reason? On the P&S pictures everything was in focus, on the FF pictures only the subject was infocus.

An other thing is that many people think they need the same (type of) camera as a professional use to get the same quality of pictures, but in fact they need the same education and experience as the professional does.

How much is 'most' and how do you quantify 'make use'..? I'm not an expert professional photographer but I can see a difference in my photos having come from the NX300, A57 and A6000. Is it a mind-shattering night-day difference in every single image? No. Are there subtle differences in a majority of them? I'd say so. A bit more background separation. Slightly better color. Less noise in shadow. Worry-free ISO-1600. Better micro details and contrast.

It is hard to quantify "most" but remember most of the people on this forum do not use FF. Many are here with questions how to use their cameras. Those people, who knows little about apperture, light etc will not make real use of an expensivee FF camera compared with an APS camera as they do not understand the differences between the two.

Is it always something you can specify? No, but sometimes it is. Does it have to be nailed down with samples and measurements to know it's there? No.

I 100% agree with this. and your picture showes that you are a very capable photogrpher. It is a beaytiful sharp picture of a flower, nice background bokeh, nice light etc. So it looks like you are one of the good photographers, who maybe can make the difference.

 

[nevercat]

Here is an iconic picture, no colors, not 100% sharp, so when I go by the way many people here are looking at pictures, it can't be good, but it is one of the best known pictures from WW2. Look at it, it tells a story of struggle, bravery and victory.

I've seen very sharp, nicely colored, noise free pictures here that showed no story at all, that showed no art at all...

So I think that the skills of the man behind the camera is more important the the sensorsize or the other technicall things. Att this point I agree with Zack.

But I do think that in the hands of a capable photographer a larger sensor can make the difference. Unfortunately most of us are not that good that we can realy make the difference...

Iwo Jima

The picture is famous because it captured a super moment in American history (or perhaps a replication of the moment, but that's beside the point).

Abslutely true, but the same photographer took more pictures at this place and time, none of them made it to the history books (or it must be the photographical books to show the difference between an iconic picture and an picture)

I think if you read back through this thread, you'll find a post (or more) that talk about things that are not sensor dependent (e.g., composition, creativity, seeing the moment and capturing it, etc.). A photo can be terrific with just good composition. I've seen iPhone photos that have impressed me in this regard. However, I do not see iPhone photos that shoot available light in lower light settings.

The main part of this discussion is about the difference between APS and FF. The differences between those formats are often smaller then many people think. Lets take a look at the Sony A6000 (APS, 24 MP) and the A7 (FF 24 MP) how much is the difference in low light? according to DXO less then a stop! (ISO 1347 vs ISO 2248). Yes the A7 is better, but not by that much.

Then again, there's probably a sweet blurry street shot from an iPhone, because that's sort of what is required without much light. But a photographer can still be creative and compose the shot and time it well to produce great results. However, that photographer cannot capture the same shots I am capturing on the same street that night.

Give two very capable photographers with the same equiptment the same assignment and they will come home with different pictures, both have their own ideas what a picture must look like.

I think this discussion is more about the nuance of when full frame matters. Not everybody in this discussion encounters those situations, so it makes it hard to have a discussion when we all have different types of photos we shoot and different types of photos we're considering when we make our comments.

The differences between APS pictures and FF pictures are in reality small (about 1 stop better in low light, about 1 stop in DOF, yes this can make the difference but not like night and day, A picture with the right composition, light, color, etc. in short when the photographer is capable of taking great pictures the camera or format he takes them with is less important, his skills makes the difference. Give that photographer the best camera and he makes his beautifull pictures even better.

--

My recent favorite shots

 

[captura]

Here is an iconic picture, no colors, not 100% sharp, so when I go by the way many people here are looking at pictures, it can't be good, but it is one of the best known pictures from WW2. Look at it, it tells a story of struggle, bravery and victory.

I've seen very sharp, nicely colored, noise free pictures here that showed no story at all, that showed no art at all...

So I think that the skills of the man behind the camera is more important the the sensorsize or the other technicall things. Att this point I agree with Zack.

But I do think that in the hands of a capable photographer a larger sensor can make the difference. Unfortunately most of us are not that good that we can realy make the difference...

Iwo Jima

That picture was faked, or if you like, the product of re-creation. So therefore, very carefully posed. If the photographer had chosen to make it 100% sharp, people might not have believed it.

And that is exactly the point I tried to make, it is the photographer not the camera who takes the picture. It does not matter if it is a re-creation or not, this is a beautifull picture, nobody asked what camera or lens was used, nobody cares it is not sharp nobody cares that the highlights are blown, or the darker parts miss details. This is an iconic picture.

Personaly I think that if the photographer had overthought every aspect of this picture, like the lack of sharpness, then it makes him even a better photographer, as he understands what is needed to make a great picture. When it was not overthought it was a very lucky guy!

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3115153

 

[Clayton1985]

I enjoyed your post and agree with a lot of what you say and yet I maintain that it is still absurd to ask for images to prove or disprove the benefits of full frame. It isn't your image that tells the story... it is your detailed post and while your post makes a lot of sense it is still the story you wanted to tell as it relates to the image. Many other stories could be told about the exact same image with a completely different conclusion from yours.

Give it a little time and someone will come along and post an amazing image in a similar setting at ISO 6400 and 1/125.... with an APC-S sensor. We will then be right back where we started.

Thanks, Clayton.

The story attached to my photo is my actual story. It's not something I made up. I just got sick of the sniping and went out to take some photos. That's a photo from last night, along with an explanation of where I'm running into some limits. I was on the fence about possibly trading in some gear for the discount on the A7 at B&H, and I would have loved for someone to actually show some photos that demonstrate use.

It's kind of like that ad they used to run for the Ford truck, where they show it pulling a huge load up a hill. It's nice to hear that a truck can haul a big load, but it communicates more to show it.

I'm not asking or expecting someone to post a solitary photo without exposition and expect it to speak for itself. I'm just asking for examples of what people are talking about. If you want to say a full frame has amazing micro contrast, cool. Post a photo and tell us about it. That's what that video was about, guys sitting on the internet extolling the virtues of full frame without any actual photos. That's what's absurd.

A perfect example of what I'm asking for is in this thread. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54109353

Guy uses ISO 25,600 at dawn to take a photo of swimmers getting ready for an iron man competition. Instead of just talking about how fantastic the low light capability is, he tells his story and posts the photo. You could look at the EXIF, but it's nice to have his story. That's what's cool about the forum.

What's not cool is just yammering about specifications.

And, yeah, if someone posts an ISO 6400 APSC photo that is amazingly clean, let me know! It will probably be in the Fuji forum... which is kind where this all started.

I'm not saying at all that images aren't helpful when discussing different aspects of photography and they even can be when discussing the differences in sensors, etc but thinking there is a way to post images that prove that you are benefiting (or not) from a specific sensor size is next to impossible. I'll take your latest example to make the point.... if that image is supposed to show how full frame allowed the photographer to do something that you can't do with APS-C then we need someone to post an image taken with an APS-C camera with all other variables eliminated... ok, so we need an equiv lens, aperture, shutter speed, latest low resolution sensor optimized for high iso, etc.... wait, to my knowledge there isn't a recent 12mp APS-C sensor optimized for high iso. So, I can't post an image to disprove anything so I suppose in the world of "put up or shut" image requests I would lose. In reality the optimization of the sensor plays a huge role in the outcome - not just the sensor size. But a reasonable discussion about the subject without any images would probably be much more accurate in terms of understanding the potential differences. And that is just one variable..... when in reality there are many.

 

[Sean_Jayhawk]

I think this discussion is more about the nuance of when full frame matters. Not everybody in this discussion encounters those situations, so it makes it hard to have a discussion when we all have different types of photos we shoot and different types of photos we're considering when we make our comments.

The differences between APS pictures and FF pictures are in reality small (about 1 stop better in low light, about 1 stop in DOF, yes this can make the difference but not like night and day, A picture with the right composition, light, color, etc. in short when the photographer is capable of taking great pictures the camera or format he takes them with is less important, his skills makes the difference. Give that photographer the best camera and he makes his beautifull pictures even better.

I had the Zeiss 24 on my 5N at the same time I had the Sigma 35/1.4 on my Canon 6D. I did considerable testing and concluded that the stop in DOF mattered to me. Bunches. I also had the RX1 and also tested it against the 5N combo and reached the same conclusion. I could see the out of focus areas and the differences. I also tested my Nikon D610 and a 50 lens against my 5N and a 35 (Voigtlander 35/1.4) and reached the same conclusion. I said this discussion is about the nuance of when FF matters and you seem to be saying the same thing, but applying it to people who are not going to realize that nuance (or not realize it much). I suspect those same people could drop back to micro 4/3 and also not realize much of a difference. And so on. When the nuance starts to reveal itself to the individual then the photographer has found a sensor size match, perhaps. :-|

(obviously camera handling, lenses available, AF, and all those factors go into choosing a system as well)

 

[nevercat]

I think this discussion is more about the nuance of when full frame matters. Not everybody in this discussion encounters those situations, so it makes it hard to have a discussion when we all have different types of photos we shoot and different types of photos we're considering when we make our comments.

The differences between APS pictures and FF pictures are in reality small (about 1 stop better in low light, about 1 stop in DOF, yes this can make the difference but not like night and day, A picture with the right composition, light, color, etc. in short when the photographer is capable of taking great pictures the camera or format he takes them with is less important, his skills makes the difference. Give that photographer the best camera and he makes his beautifull pictures even better.

I had the Zeiss 24 on my 5N at the same time I had the Sigma 35/1.4 on my Canon 6D. I did considerable testing and concluded that the stop in DOF mattered to me. Bunches. I also had the RX1 and also tested it against the 5N combo and reached the same conclusion. I could see the out of focus areas and the differences. I also tested my Nikon D610 and a 50 lens against my 5N and a 35 (Voigtlander 35/1.4) and reached the same conclusion. I said this discussion is about the nuance of when FF matters and you seem to be saying the same thing,

In a way I am! Full frame has it's advantages over APS, APS has its advantages over N43, M43 has its advantages over 1" etc. But When I see what some people do with their beautifull FF cameras I do think: ÿou had better invested in a few lessons in photography then in an expensive new camera. Yes you will get better low light pictures, yes you will get les DOF, better bokeh, but with all that, your pictures are still boring. Then I see a picture taken with an PS camera in the hands of a good photographer, who knows what he is doing and I think WOW! Would that person benefits from a FF camera? In some shots: YES absolutely, in other shots NO! It all depends on the subject in the shot (do you want great DOF or shallow? Do you want more tele teach or not. etc.

but applying it to people who are not going to realize that nuance (or not realize it much). I suspect those same people could drop back to micro 4/3 and also not realize much of a difference. And so on. When the nuance starts to reveal itself to the individual then the photographer has found a sensor size match, perhaps. :-|

Konowing what you want in the end and getting that is what it is all about. Not ewverybody wants portraits, som want nature, with everything sharp from corner to corner. As long as he finds a camera and lens combination that offers that he can use it, small sensorsize can be a benefit for him. A portait shooter dont give a thing to corner to corner sharpness as the corners will be blurry in the end, thanks to shallow DOF.

(obviously camera handling, lenses available, AF, and all those factors go into choosing a system as well)

Oh yes, but the most important thing many people will benefit from the most is a good instruction in using their camera in a way that it makes the best pictures for them, the size of the sensor is just second in place (or maybe third or so I don't know...