Jump to content

Does Sensor Size Matter? Camera Sensor Size Comparison


Recommended Posts

slanted lens checked out medium format vs full frame vs aps-c vs m43 for a few different scenes inside and out...who doesn't want medium format :D

 

colour tonality, detail, dynamic range.... even where printing what i dont think are that outrageous sized print....but certainly visible even on screen

 

note they did use same settings on cameras, also made sure screens were calibrated, also calibrated for print and things adjusted in post for any colour balance differences that can get between brands.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Al, I enjoyed the video.

 

One of the reasons I use various formats and not expecting one to be “A jack of all trades”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Spearmint said:

Thank you Al, I enjoyed the video.

 

One of the reasons I use various formats and not expecting one to be “A jack of all trades”

same here spearmint, horses for courses. i too have a little 1", a couple of aps-c and also a full frame..... something for everything :D 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Little emphasis was placed on lens quality in the comparison(?) video, were all the lenses used "manufacturer primes" for example?

It is possible that may have changed the outcome somewhat.  Unlikely?

 

I use various different lenses of various quality/size/type, in combination with different cameras of various sensor quality/size/type, for my attempts at capturing interesting and satisfying photographs, even so I am not always successful!

 

No one camera/lens combination can do it all for me either.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, soundbyte said:

Little emphasis was placed on lens quality in the comparison(?) video, were all the lenses used "manufacturer primes" for example?

It is possible that may have changed the outcome somewhat.  Unlikely?

am sure because they wanted to really see what sensors do... but yeah no doubt the medium format lens used would be $$$ !  as is the camera ... i was intrigued the difference made with neon signs and trim on the building that the hasselblad picked and others really didn't that well. the noise in the shadows is down to sensor too I am not sure lenses do anything about that. the star field effects are definitely down to lens (aperture and aperture  blades).

 

22 minutes ago, soundbyte said:

I use various different lenses of various quality/size/type, in combination with different cameras of various sensor quality/size/type, for my attempts at capturing interesting and satisfying photographs, even so I am not always successful!

definitely its the pull of interchangeable lens cameras... and we are fortunate with the variety out there available. I currently run 4 brands of camera,   with using sensors from 2 makers and 3 sensor sizes. I also like do like the fun of fixed lens cameras as well though  :D and also something can pocket especially if on the move.... so hence the combination... 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you the size of the lens and what lens to shoot what scene will also improve image quality....    if you go from a standard consumer lens and then to a professional grade with a F2.8 or 1.8 usually improves detail in  and contrast ...  Can also be proved with a old school film camera...

 

Notice they said one pro would use a 50mm and not a 24mm when shooting landscape,  it’s obvious he shoot with a wide 24 and then he shoots with a 50mm and stitch it with 3 images..... well that’s what my son does with landscape, a known technique  to use a lens that produces the result you’re happy with and then stitched the image together in Lightroom.  
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The mini-MF format of the Hasselblad is only 0.7 stops 'bigger' than the full frame, which is a puny difference IMO.

 

And even that small advantage is only delivered if you force the same ƒ-number -- which they did in this comparison, ƒ/8. OTOH if you put a 1 stop faster lens on the FF and shoot 1 stop wider, it gathers more light than the Hasselblad and outperforms the small MF.

 

Now look at the lenses available for the two, and it is clear that the FF equivalent lenses are usually 1 stop faster than the small MF format..... or more.

 

Regards,

Grant

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

For this type of work the Hasselblad is superb and beautiful to see - head and shoulders above the others. Its an interesting experiment in what is achievable but the results are completely predictable.

I wonder if back in the day anyone would have bothered to do a similar comparison between, say, a medium format film camera like a Hasselblad 500 6x6 or a Mamiya 67 and a 35 mm Nikon FM or F3. The results would have been just as predictable and probably too blindingly obvious to spend time thinking about. 
It’s horses for courses - always. Would we have those wonderful Cartier Bresson street images or Tim Page’s immersive war photography if they’d been lugging round medium format cameras rather than little Leicas or Nikons. 

Edited by buddyev
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, buddyev said:

For this type of work the Hasselblad is superb and beautiful to see - head and shoulders above the others. Its an interesting experiment in what is achievable but the results are completely predictable.

I wonder if back in the day anyone would have bothered to do a similar comparison between, say, a medium format film camera like a Hasselblad 500 6x6 or a Mamiya 67 and a 35 mm Nikon FM or F3. The results would have been just as predictable and probably too blindingly obvious to spend time thinking about.

Hello Russ,

 

the Mamiya 67 gathers 2.5 stops more light than the Nikon FM.

The Hasselblad gathers 0.7 stops more light than the Sony A7R.

 

As you can see, the film cameras are hugely different and the digital cameras are almost the same.

 

Therefore, the result for film is, indeed, blindingly obvious, but the same cannot be said for the digital.

 

Not everyone realizes how small these digital 'MF' sensors really are. Like you say, the results are completely predictable. Especially when one puts a 1-stop faster lens on the A7R than the Hasselblad, then the Sony can gather more light than the Hasselblad in low light conditions for any required shutter speed. The result, again, is completely predictable.

 

cheers,

Grant

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/06/2020 at 1:43 PM, buddyev said:

For this type of work the Hasselblad is superb and beautiful to see - head and shoulders above the others. Its an interesting experiment in what is achievable but the results are completely predictable.

I wonder if back in the day anyone would have bothered to do a similar comparison between, say, a medium format film camera like a Hasselblad 500 6x6 or a Mamiya 67 and a 35 mm Nikon FM or F3. The results would have been just as predictable and probably too blindingly obvious to spend time thinking about. 
It’s horses for courses - always. Would we have those wonderful Cartier Bresson street images or Tim Page’s immersive war photography if they’d been lugging round medium format cameras rather than little Leicas or Nikons. 

Having seen photography of tasmania by peter dombrowski with LARGE format and from decades ago. And seeing this first hand in stunning large prints the size of walls I have no question size matters :D

 

but am also of the horses for courses cause ... it does take all types ... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, betty boop said:

Having seen photography of tasmania by peter dombrowski with LARGE format and from decades ago. And seeing this first hand in stunning large prints the size of walls I have no question size matters :D

 

but am also of the horses for courses cause ... it does take all types ... 

Yep,  Can’t beat realestate in film negatives. 
It would have been interesting if the Olympus hi res mode had been added to that list. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, buddyev said:

Yep,  Can’t beat realestate in film negatives.

And for digital there's image stitching.

 

As many mpix as you want and no doubt a decent pixel pitch as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...