Sensor Size

Sonnar Brian said:
I have a lot of lenses made for 35mm cameras. Using a sensor with 24x36 size is most compatible with these lenses, same FOV and DOF.
Click to expand...

You get the same DOF with any sensor size. Of course the DOF with FOV combination changes. Since the most common 35mm film lenses are around 50mm, on APS-C you always end up with a portrait FOV lens (~75mm), but with a higher DOF then you might expect.
 
Between my Nikons with 24x36 sensor, and Fujifilms with APS-C, diffraction softening at small stops ---f/11 and f/16--- seems worse on the APS-C. However, my collection of Fuji lenses (14mm and 23mm) is too small to draw a definite conclusion.
 
Having shot film Mamiya 645 since 1997-2011 with only one lens (80/2.8) i got spoiled by large image quality but learned how to get the right deep dof shooting landscapes. I've bought/sold/rented at least 30ish digital cameras since 2011 when stopped using the heavy Mamiya film camera (always on the heavier Bogen tripod). The only digital camera I've used (and now own) that comes close to that 'certain quality' or 'look' that I got used to back then, is the Fuji GFX100s.

It doesn't need a tripod (ibis) in most outdoor light, and has a certain 'clarity' or 'look' that I've not seen until now (just traded my GFX 50s for it). Even the Leica Monochrom while with incredible b&w filmy looks at higher iso's, it doesn't match this GFX 100s imo. But it's a lot easier to carry on 'bad back' days and close enough for me to keep it. And I can see the difference in 16x20 prints. Bill is correct, it takes work to get the most out of larger sensors, but it's mostly sharpening technique now, for me anyhow, since the terrific ibis on this thing mostly negates the need for a tripod during daylight. I almost went back to film recently having gotten a lightweight carbon tripod, but imo GFX100 gives that 'look' that I can print b&w as good as my Mamiya without the scanning. The 63mm gives the same fov as the 80mm (on 645) so it's even easier to get everything in focus even at f/8 let alone f/11-f/22 and can't even notice diffraction until f/22 since the files are so malleable and easily sharpened in LR detail slider. Will be selling all remaining digitals and glass except the Leica and thinning the herd. My goal is to get it down to only 2 cameras. it was so much easier back then when I only had one camera, one lens. But if I had to choose one apsc camera, it would be X-Vario (which I own but rarely use now).
 
My favorite camera is the Fujifilm X-Pro3. It’s perfect, it’s APSC and I prefer to my FF Sony in every way… even IQ. That said, I just added a Fujifilm GFX-50R which is digital medium format, but more because I wanted a tripod camera and something with a different aspect ratio i.e. 4:3 and the ability to do x-pan style panorama. The Sony will be sold.
 
For shooting items to put up on eBay or other classifieds, the cropped sensor does better - but it seems that has more to do with the auto focus and IBIS features missing in my FF digital M. I suppose there are some things a cropped sensor otherwise does better compared to a FF sensor, but I don't know what these would be.

Regardless, when making large prints the FF sensor will win out every time; here there is no comparison.
 
Bill Blackwell said:
For shooting items to put up on eBay or other classifieds, the cropped sensor does better - but it seems that has more to do with the auto focus and IBIS features missing in my FF digital M. I suppose there are some things a cropped sensor otherwise does better compared to a FF sensor, but I don't know what these would be.

Regardless, when making large prints the FF sensor will win out every time; here there is no comparison.
Click to expand...

I have similar thoughts as what Bill has expressed above. I don't have any APS cameras, but I sometimes use M 4/3 cameras with AF and IS or 10x focus assist. Such features are missing on my FF Leica M cameras.
 
They've made billboards using six megapixels, so APS-C is plenty big enough for large prints.

My preference is Fuji, due to Fujinon optics which are unsurpassed. I’ve had full frame Leica, Nikon, Canon, and Sony and no longer want the size, weight, or expense that goes with full frame and top glass. There is no discernable quality difference but the high price of top glass for the larger sensor is quite obvious. :)
 
Bill Pierce said:
So what sensor size do you use and, by far, more important, why?
Click to expand...

I have used the following digital cameras. All have different size sensors.

My two Canon G15 bodies have the smallest sensor. Compact camera size and fixed zoom lens made these great travel cameras.

My Olympus E-p1 and E-P3 bodies have a micro 4/3 sensor. Great lenses and image quality but could not depend on them because the two bodies broke too often.

My Fuji X-Pro1 and X-Pro 2 have an APS-C size sensor. Great lenses, great image quality, and very dependable.

My two Leica M10 have a "full-size" sensor. Great lenses and great image quality. However, the two expensive bodies broke too often and were very expensive to repair.
 
I am sure there are types of photographs that are demanding a big sensor.
My photography doesn´t.
In my opinion the whole sensor discussion is mostly overrated.

The tiny sensor in my china cellphone from 2020 just tops most of my older Cam Sensors.
I have to improve my photographic performance to keep on par with this rapid technologic evolution.
 
splitimageview said:
They've made billboards using six megapixels, so APS-C is plenty big enough for large prints....
Click to expand...

There is a factor of actual sensor size, not just megapixel count. There are cell phones with more megapixels than many APS-C and even "ff" sensors, but they are still tiny sensors. I am not sure it is as clear with digital sensors if the difference in actual sensor size is as significant as it is with film or not (e.g., size of final prints/enlarging), but there are still effects/implications (e.g., DOF with a +/-20 deg. field of view lens...).
 
For DSLR I prefer FF because I can use my older wide angle lenses. But it is big so for convenience I keep my APS-C mirrorless. I can't see a quality difference between the two.
 
markjwyatt said:
There is a factor of actual sensor size, not just megapixel count. There are cell phones with more megapixels than many APS-C and even "ff" sensors, but they are still tiny sensors. I am not sure it is as clear with digital sensors if the difference in actual sensor size is as significant as it is with film or not (e.g., size of final prints/enlarging), but there are still effects/implications (e.g., DOF with a +/-20 deg. field of view lens...).
Click to expand...

Sure. I should have been clearer: billboards from 6mp APS-C.

Personally I find 24mp to be the ideal, for cropping purposes.
 
The only digital camera that looks interesting to me is the Fujifilm GFX and I don't particularly care for sharpness or high iso capabilities
 
Using a Canon nFD 35/2.8 on a GFX-50R. Amazingly sharp for the 50MP and good coverage. Figuring out which lenses cover the 44x33 mm sensor is great fun. Suddenly you're busy going all over your collection and eyeing for more.

The 50R is a great camera if you ditch the AF - very high performing sensor. I personally enjoy the 4:3 form factor a lot too since the 645 days.
 
If I were to buy a digital camera today (I don't currently have one other than the phone), I'd strongly consider FF mirrorless simply because I could use legacy lenses (especially wide-angles) at their intended angle of view, rather than buying quite expensive newer APS-C wide-angles (or using slower, larger, more expensive wider lenses made for full frame).
 
I own 4 digital (Sony) camera's, 2 FF (Rx1Rm2 and A7R3) and 2 with an 1 inch sensor; the RX10 and RX100, all for different purposes.
1) the RX100 as a carry allways camera, also for city trips (icw the RX1)
2) the RX10 (with 24-600 mm eq lens) for hiking and daytrips
- I don't print often so the 1 inch sensors are fine for web and other internet purposes.
- both sensors are OK during daytime, but are inadequate for the higher ISO's.
3) The A7R3 with both prims and zoom lenses for portrait, event and other serious photography where I don't need to carry the bag a long time / long distance
4) The RX1Rm2 as carry along when I have special photographic interests. Also good as an unobtrusive street- and social camera.

With this selection I have all my needs covered and that suits me fine.
 
charjohncarter said:
For DSLR I prefer FF because I can use my older wide angle lenses. But it is big so for convenience I keep my APS-C mirrorless. I can't see a quality difference between the two.
Click to expand...


Me too. If I were starting out, it would be different, but my old Nikon 20mm and 24mm lenses are good enough for me on my D700. It's a trifle heavy though.
 
I am a big fan of m43, it does all I need and since getting an E-P1 not long after release have become firmly embedded in the system. There were flirtations with a FF Sony A7 but did not enjoy it as much as the PAnasonic GX bodies. Other than that I have a couple of APS Nikons for times when I fancy a DSLR and again I enjoy using them. No doubt that a good FF will give different and technically better results but found I don't need them.
 
I have a number of FF lenses and an APS-c camera. I like wide angles and there is a problem. All lenses have an equivalent focal length of 1.5 times.
I work with lens boosters (of Metabone), one for Leica R and one for Canon EF.
The results are very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top