Yes, sensor size matters, but not as much as you think
Oct 19, 2018
Dunja Đuđić
Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, concerts, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.
Share:
Should you switch from APS-C to full-frame? Or perhaps shoot large format? Does it matter? What will it change? Ah, so many questions. In this video, Jay P. Morgan and Kenneth Meryl have decided to test four sensor sizes side by side and give you the answers. They shot with a large format, a full-frame, an APS-C and a micro 4/3 camera. Here you can compare the images side-by-side and see for yourself how much of a difference there is.
Jay and Kenneth tested the cameras in terms of depth of field, image quality and grain structure in low-light situations. These are the cameras and lenses they used:
- Large format: HasselBlad X1D paired with Hasselblad XCD 90mm f/3.2 lens
- Full frame: Sony A7rIII paired with Canon 50mm f/1.2 lens
- APS-C: Canon EOS 7D Mark II paired with Tamron 35mm f /1.8 lens
- Micro 4/3: Panasonic GH5 paired with Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 lens
Focus and depth of field
When Jay and Kenneth shot at f/3.5 or f/4, the difference between the Hasselblad and Canon 7D seems pretty dramatic. However, the Canon 7D compared to the Sony doesn’t show so much difference.
With the Hasselblad, you can shoot at f/5.6, have a sharp subject and still a considerably shallow depth of field. In order to achieve a similar depth-of-field using the different cameras, you are looking a range of 4 stops. That’s quite significant.
Shallow depth of field compared when the lenses were as wide open as they can go
The guys tested all four cameras with their lenses opened as wide as they can go. An interesting thing they noticed is that, even at f/3.2, the Hasselblad’s depth of field is not as shallow as the Sony’s on f/1.2. Kenneth concludes that Sony gives you “more on each end,” and you can achieve both very shallow and very deep depths of field.
Sensor size
The Sony A7RIII is a 42MP camera, while the Hasselblad is 50MP. The Sony has less resolution than the Hasselblad, although the difference isn’t that large. Still, it still has a large sensor compared to the GH5 and Canon 7D. Kenneth and Jay conclude that a large format camera definitely gives you the most flexibility, considering the image size and quality.
Low-light noise structure
To test out the noise structure, Kenneth and Jay shot a landscape photo and a portrait in low-light, when the sun was already down. They noticed that a smaller sensor like the GH5’s produces gritty and grainy shots, and has less detail. The Canon 7D did okay, while the Sony and the Hasselblad look almost the same in terms of the noise structure.
At ISO 1600, photos from the Canon 7D look worse than the GH5. The Hasselblad produced pretty good and smooth shots while the Sony doesn’t perform all that well.
So, in the end, does sensor size matter? Yes, to some extent it does, and it all depends on your needs. Kenneth and Jay conclude that full frame is “the sweet spot” to have everything you want in focus and out of focus and to get sufficiently high-quality and large images. But then again – it’s ultimately up to you what you’ll choose.
[Sensor Size Comparison for Photography | Jay P Morgan]
Filed Under:
Tagged With:
- Camera
- |
- camera sensor
- |
- Canon
- |
- full frame
- |
- Hasselblad
- |
- large format
- |
- micro four thirds
- |
- panasonic
- |
- Sony
Dunja Đuđić
Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, concerts, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
6 responses to “Yes, sensor size matters, but not as much as you think”
Nice to see this comparison thanks. One problem however you picked the top mitts advanced cameras in each category, with the exception of APSC. In this category it should be the Fuji X-T3, as you observed in it was problematic.
This comparison is a waste of time with different lenses at the same apertures. Sensor size has nothing to do with DOF. Of course there’s going to be a difference comparing a Hassy 90mm at f/4 to the other lenses. A 100mm lens at f/8 is going to have the same DOF as a 50mm at f/4 (although the angle of view will be different).
Given that a majority of images are viewed on a computer screen, I wonder what the difference looks like when the original files are reduced to something like 2000 x 1200 or similar screen size. Now, if the files are printed and hung on the wall, then that is probably a different case.
if the files are printed the difference is even less LOL!!…your average printer at the local drug store or whole sale store is going to print between 180 to 240… so even an 8 megapixel camera will look stunning!… I’ve been always on the school of … Lens and light… anything above 8 megapixels is more than enough for both print AND screen.
That gives you an idea of how overpowered most of the cameras today are… example? your super duper 4k 60″ flat screen in your home cant discern any image over 3 megapixels… 3… so that means that if you push a 5k image ( good luck with your cable company) or you use it to display from your computer… that 80 meg file that you are displaying will have the effective viewer experience as a 3 to 5 megapixel file… go figure.
In the film days, I would use 645 for portraits and 35mm for everything else. (Typically, I shot with 2 old Canon F1 bodies, one with color and the other with BW.) In those days, large bridal or couple portrait prints (often on canvas and backboard) were quite common, and the larger film size made an observable difference.
I replaced the 35mm cameras with the original Nikon D1 around 2000. Later, Canon’s 3MP D30 was used for candids while the 6PM 60D was used for portraits. The sensors were the same size, but the larger 6MP files initially choked my computer. (The raw software at the time was quite miserable, offering only the same basic adjustments as were in-camera. Photoshop was still necessary for adjusting something as simple as exposure.)
Circa 2001, we knew that the D30 and D60 bodies didn’t represent any sort of “end game” for digital photography. That is, they were early tools, relatively crude by today’s standards; we were basically waiting for the technology to mature. I passed on the first generation of 1D bodies knowing that, as good as they were, the second generation would truly justify the premium pricetag. And the Mark II series did.
I shot for years with the 16MP full-frame 1Ds II for portraits and the 8MP 1D II for everything else. This was a fabulous combination, easily besting the quality I had gotten from the film days. The 16MP files taxed my computer, but it didn’t take long for PC technology to surpass what was necessary to work with them.
I considered 6MP to be a “sweet spot” for deliverable wedding client files. That meant I finally had enough data for generous cropping where needed. Even my old 3MP files could produce beautiful 11×14 prints, but the 16MP 1DsII meant that even large group portraits would have plenty of detail.
Today, I shoot weddings primarily with the 30MP 5DIV and the 20MP APS-C 7DII. I do NOT, however, think of them as 30 and 20 megapixel output cameras, however. Rather, everything is resized to 10MP during editing, more than enough for the album and prints. I’ve never once had a client ask for more. Additionally, because even 10MP is far too big for, say, posting on Facebook, I provide wedding clients with TWO different image libraries: the fullsize versions are part of the “Print Edition” while 2000×1000 (FullHD) version is labeled as the “Digital Media Edition”, and is touted as the ideal format for sharing and viewing on PCs, tablets, and smartphones.
Yes, cameras today are “overpowered”, as you put it, for many practical applications. I have said for years that I don’t need even 6MP for my cake-cutting shots, much less the monster 30MP files the 5DIV produces. Having said that, I do try and exploit some of that digital real estate by producing more panoramas, shooting a bit more loosely and cropping in post, and resizing for final images that appear sharper and cleaner at 100% viewing.
Over the past 10 years, I have noted a change in the consumption of images. Few clients now want prints. They are not only viewing photos on digital devices, but they are also relying upon their small screen cellphones that were not even an option a decade ago. (I cringe whenever I hear a bride tell me that she just viewed her video presentation on her iPhone.) In 2000, we early adopters of digital photography longed for more pixels more than anything else. But honestly, a decade after my 1DII series bodies were retired, I still have virtually no need for anything more than the 16 and 8 megapixels that provided.
I do portraiture, events and food photography as my main work… the truth is that it has been very difficult for me to justify jumping from my Nikon D7200 and calibrated Sigma 18-35 combo… my latest is a Tamron SP 85mm 1.8 Di VC. Those 2 lenses give me any performance increase that I would want from full frame. Plus you can get the high performance D7200 now for a VERY affordable price and the body rocks.
And yes… 99% of my work is artificially lit and post processed.