Originally Posted by Ko.Fe.
What this comparison has to do with photography?
Need you family portraits at the best; use MF.
Want to try to get decent shot on the street, use Leica.
Photography wise Leica will do portraits and street.
Hasselblad with digital back is not street savvy.
I have seen Fuji RF style dMF street pictures. Nice, feels like LF.
If you would have money for it, I’ll get one. Easier for family and street.
I think it is 50mp as well.
Clearly a large medium-medium format camera and a small, agile rangefinder have different uses. You seem to think that everything is about street photography!
Presumably Raid was just wondering if sensor size really does make a visible difference to image quality as physics says, or whether advances in camera technology have now made sensor size unimportant - given other things affecting image quality are the same such as megapixels and lens sharpness.
And the answer is yes, you can still see a difference in image quality - best viewed in prints, not surprisingly becoming clearer the larger the print. I think this difference is more visible when prints are traditional silver-based C-type rather than inkjet prints, though it's hard to say why. (Interestingly, it's cheaper to get C-type prints professionally printed by an agency than inkjet ones!)
As KM-25 says, given two cameras are identical except for sensor dimensions, the larger sensor will have better colour and tonal range, which is seen as more-subtle changes in colour and tone. One example is that the larger sensor handles transitions to bright highlights and deep shadow more gently.