FF, APS-C, MFT and 1″ sensors compared – does size matter as much as you think?
Jul 8, 2024
John Aldred
John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.
Share:
Sensor size is a topic that’s discussed daily on social media. In almost every group you’re in, even ones dedicated to cameras of a specific sensor size, scroll far enough down the posts, and you’ll see one. There are a lot of myths around sensor size, but also some important factors.
In this video, photographer Tom Calton looks at four different sensor sizes. Included are full-frame, APS-C, Micro Four Thirds and 1-inch. He illustrates the differences between each from a practical real-world standpoint.
Sensor size matters – except when it doesn’t
For a lot of things that people shoot, particularly things that have a lot of depth of field, the sensor size doesn’t really matter. Assuming you can get enough light for good exposure, they’re all capable of producing similar results. The big issue comes when you want that shallower depth of field.
A shallow depth of field is much easier to achieve with a larger sensor. It’s not impossible to get a shallower depth of field with smaller sensors, but it is challenging. Smaller sensors are more limited in terms of depth of field due to how physics works.
Sometimes, smaller is better
Sometimes, however, this increased depth of field can be an advantage. For example, many prefer Micro Four Thirds for video specifically because of its smaller size. I’m one of them. I bought six Micro Four Thirds Panasonics in 2020 for video, despite using full-frame Nikons for stills. I wanted the smaller sensor.
For things like interviews, events, and many spoken pieces to the camera, having a slightly greater depth of field without having to stop down your aperture and lose light is actually an advantage. Macro photography, too, will often benefit from a smaller sensor. It allows you to get more of your subject in focus, requiring fewer images for focus stacking.
It’s an interesting video, and Tom goes pretty in-depth for almost 18 minutes. It busts a few myths and clarifies a few common misunderstandings. Particularly interesting is the print comparison at the end. The difference isn’t quite as big as many people would think.
John Aldred
John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
19 responses to “FF, APS-C, MFT and 1″ sensors compared – does size matter as much as you think?”
Medium format is King
Chung Dha Lam 8×10 inch is king 😃
Larger is better for photography.
Always.
I shoot Medium format as my clients require it. Shoot whatever small format you want, but realize I’ll take all your paid client work shooting medium format. Your phone images may look good on a phone, but medium format looks good on billboards and the sides of buildings.
Carter Tune “I’ll take all your paid client work” 😂🤣 you need to work on your English, besides this. You’re clearly attacking all photographers. Bet your clients wouldn’t be so happy if they noticed this. Be careful, the prodigies make more money than you & could win your clients anyday☝️😌
Dylan K. Williams let them try. I seriously doubt they have the buisness connections. Oddly, I recommend capable photographers for work I don’t have time for. I think you missed that my previous comments were for those using small sensor cameras (MFT, pico, and phones.) What professional uses less then full-frame for paid work?
Dylan K. Williams
Carter Tune when I was 19 my first documentary film went international & sold out in the Labia Theatre. We used crop sensors & made thousands! You can even Google me so there’s that Mr Full frame professional
Anyways, you’re just a photographer. That’s easy work so trying is not even an option, besides that your English is still bad. You don’t even know the difference between then & than
Dylan K. Williams right. It couldn’t possibly be the phones autocorrect.
It really depends on the photographer, second the lens & third THE CAMERA.
I’ve met people with medium format Hassy cameras that have no idea what they doing, even some with the Nikon Z9 that didn’t even know how to use it during sports. Firstly it depends on the individual behind the camera but if this was a group for filmmakers I’d definitely not argue with Medium format as those are king in that field BUT this is photography so anything bigger than four thirds can be king even though four thirds has global shutter which is really really great for studio!
What question is this ? Indeed it maters.
THE SAME WORLD AND ANGLE WILL BE RECORDED ON A SIZE OF A BUTTON OR SIZE OF YOUR BACK. iT WILL CONTAIN MORE DETAILS BUT REALLY.. just think about it..
Size doesnt mater ifthe lens is made for that size specially with the DRAWN IMAGE CIRCLE MADE FOR THAT , but the quality will dropp insanly and AI will take over Just like your Phone in your hand ( at the moment everywhere ).
SO WTF IS THIS QUESTION?
DID YOU LEARN PHOTOGRAPHY OR JUST SHOOTING BECAUSE THERE AN “A” ON THE MODE SELECTION… jesuschrist …
I own six MFT cameras. Sure, FF and MF may produce images with less noise but in MFT this is overcome with noise reduction software. I can’t remember when I last used a tripod or monopod – MFT can have up to 7 or so stops of IBIS. I regularly shoot at ISO 2000 and more with a FF equivalent focal length of 1000mm, and with Olympus or OMS water resistant gear in the rain too – handheld. A 2014 vintage Olympus 16 megapixel camera takes superb photos. Also, very relevant in this discussion is lens size and cost. Just try MFT.
Larger sensors are generally better unless you want a long focal length lens in which case anything beyond full frame becomes too cumbersome and expensive to make.
I still say my Foveon sensor is king :)
The sensor I want is 36mm x 36mm (1:1) with 3:2, 4:3, 16:10 masks in both portrait and landscape mode. Also with stored masks and focussing points by orientation. Shoot 4:3 in portrait, rotate camera and it changes automatically to 3:2 mask. Sometimes I shoot everything 1:1 and choose landscape or portrait crop post camera but this wastes a lot of pixels in current cameras.
I shoot a lot of athletics and the amount of time I spend cropping 3:2 to 4:3 for portrait shots is painful.
For people that have bought into full frame it matters, a lot. Especially amongst non pros and those that think size compensates for all else.
The usual FF crowd of larger is always better, always seem to start adding caveats if medium format is then brought up, the same caveats smaller more compact system owners are shot down for making as a pro against full frame.
THE reason for full frame has nothing to do with the sensor size. The fact is that marketing departments have determined that FF is no longer the expensive option for pros and birding geeks only, but sits in the middle of the ven diagram of photography status symbol, expensive yet affordable, groupthink, and highly profitable. So that’s where they try to drive the consumer. And where the big camera boys want people to buy is where they will focus the top end of technology and offer the most fomo inducing expensive yet affordable lenses. Which also suckers in the third parties to fill those properly affordable gaps. APSC is still the sweet spot between affordability, high end features and build for less (if it’s Fuji and therefore not trying to push you to FF). Again with Fuji as the main APSC flag waver there’s a lot of quality lens options also. Still not pocketable unless you go for the fixed lens option or lesser pancakes on smaller bodies. Then there’s M4/3 for even more wildlife Tele sweet spot, portability and just a nice not overwhelming lens choice. Still a bit more niche though, like medium format is.
Whether M4/3, APSC, FF or MF, with the right skills, vision, lenses and additional kit appropriate for the situation, you’ll get results you will be able to print big and proud, make clients happy and even win competitions with.
Now back to the larger sensor is always better, try getting that GFX in your back pocket, try not to look nervous going into venues that do not allow “professional” equipment with that FF your mate told you is the best even though his pictures are shiite, or even just comfortably strolling with a messenger and 4 lenses over one shoulder all day.
I’d like to point out again, that micro four thirds is not a sensor size. it is a standard for an overall camera format and lens mount. Four thirds is the sensor size. it existed before micro four thirds as a standard existed. There are still cameras that exist that are four thirds, but are not micro four thirds.
Medium format
FF
APS-C
You don’t “get more depth of field without stopping down and losing light” with 4/3.
The sensor is smaller, you ALREADY lost the light due to the surface area being 1/4 the size…