Yes, sensor size matters, but not as much as you think

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.