There are different sensor sizes in existence. This is common knowledge for most photo enthusiasts, and often it is said a full frame sensor is the professional choice. Let’s see if size makes a difference for your type of photography.
Although the different size photo sensors are something of the digital age, different film sizes already existed in the old days. Large format, medium format, 35mm film, and even smaller APS film and the 110 film cassettes. Of all these different film sizes, the 35mm film became the standard, measuring 24mm x 36mm. It was used in an extensive range of cameras, from the simple consumer compact cameras up to the professional SLR cameras. The much smaller 110 film cassettes were almost foolproof and used for cameras like the Kodak Pocket Instamatic. The APS was introduced as an Advanced Photo System, and could be used for high definition, classic, and panoramic pictures. It never really took off and the 35mm film stayed the standard in film sizes.
Now we have the digital full frame sensor, which has the same size as the 35mm film. It is often considered as the best sensor size available, or perhaps affordable one. Today everything is related to this sensor size. When we talk about focal length, which is a given physical number, it is always converted to full frame equivalent. And often we do the same with depth of field.
It is not wrong to have a standard. That is why we also use a meter, and kilogram, and liter. But it does not mean the standard is always the best option to use. Just like we use a centimeter instead of meter, it may be easier to use smaller sensors for some types of photography. Or larger sensors, of course.
The Different Sensor Sizes
Throughout the digital era we have seen a lot of different sensor sizes hit the market. It all started with small 1/3.5” sensors (3 x 4mm) in point and shoot cameras. Sensors grew up to 1/2” (6.4 mm x 4.8mm) and 1” (12.8mm x 9.6mm), which are still widely used. Larger sizes like the micro 4/3 (17.8mm x 13.4mm) appeared, and the well-known 1.5 and 1.6 crop sensors, about similar in size to the APS from old days. Finally we have the full frame sensors and the even larger medium format sensors.
On the other end we see the minute sensors for smartphone cameras appear, like a 1/5” (2.55mm x 1.91mm) and even 1/7” (1.85 x 1.39mm). Although you would think these sensors cannot produce any decent image, the quality has improved dramatically of the last few years. Photos from these sensors have become usable for a lot of purposes.
So there are a lot of sensor sizes to choose from. It is not realistic to divide these sensor sizes into consumer or professional. I think each of these sensor sizes can coexist, both for professional and amateur, and some of these sensors may even be ideal for a certain purpose. Because sensor sizes are almost always related to a certain type of camera, I will mention the different cameras and for whom I think they’re perfect for.
These have the smaller sensor sizes, often measuring between 1/3.6” up to 1/2". The small size make it possible to keep these cameras small, and easy to carry with you. Because of its small sensor size, the focal length can be very short, thus resulting in a very large depth of field. These sensor sizes are not for the photographer that love a shallow depth of field, or need to use high ISO values, because the sensors will produce a lot of noise with the increase in ISO.
Bridge and Super Zoom Cameras
The 1/2" and 1”sensors are often used in the larger compact and the super zoom cameras. Although these sensors are larger than the regular compacts, they are still very small, making it possible to retrieve large magnifications with short focal lengths. These super zoom cameras can reach focal lengths that are similar to 1000mm or even 2000mm on a full frame, while still having a relative small size.
These cameras are perfect for the photographer who love to use very long focal lengths, but don’t want to carry large cameras and lenses. But just like the compacts, a shallow depth of field is nearly impossible to use.
Micro 4/3 Cameras
Measuring only half the size of a full frame sensor, these micro 4/3 sensors are used in the system cameras with interchangeable lenses. The small size make it possible to retrieve large depth of fields and it makes the focal length twice as long compared to full frame. It is ideal for the wildlife photographer that loves the use of long focal lengths, and a landscape photographer that uses a maximum depth of field. It is not ideal for the portrait photographer, who wants a shallow depth of field.
Because the sensor does not need large and heavy lenses, the camera system is easy to carry with you while still having a large focal length available. Travel photographers can benefit from this.
The well known 1.5 and 1.6 crop sensors, that can be found in the DSLR and mirrorless systems, are the perfect middle ground between small size sensor cameras as mentioned previously, and the larger size sensors. They have the benefit from a focal length multiplication of 1.5x or 1.6x, and make both shallow depth of field as well as large depth of field possible.
The camera size is larger than the cameras with smaller sensors, but not as large or bulky as the full frame versions. I think these cameras are the best choice of the all round photographer. A downside is the increased noise level at high ISO compared to larger sensors.
Full Frame Cameras
Finally we have the full frame sensor, the holy grail for many photographers. Perhaps that is a bit exaggerated, but it is almost always considered the best choice. And indeed, this sensor size is very good to use for portraits concerning depth of field. But I think it is not the best choice for people who need very long focal lengths, or when very large depth of field is needed, like in landscapes.
The balance between the size and amount of pixels make a relatively good high ISO performance considered. The full frame cameras need large and often heavy lenses, making the camera with these sensors not ideal for traveling.
Medium Format Cameras
Larger sensors are called medium format sensors. These often have a crop factor of 0.7, making a huge resolution possible. At the same time these sensors perform very well with dynamic range and high ISO, at least, in the last few years. Medium format cameras have become less expensive, thanks to the mirrorless techniques, and are well within reach of the professional and enthusiastic amateur photographer. Although the lack of a mirror makes these cameras less bulky than previously, the lenses are still large and heavy.
I think these cameras are perfect for studio environments, and situations when high resolution and a smooth depth of field is needed. These cameras seem have an appeal for landscapes, but the large sensor makes it difficult to obtain a really large depth of field.
If you want a camera for a certain kind of photography, it might be good to look beyond the inevitable advice by many to buy a full frame camera. Choose the camera with a sensor size that suits your preferred photography the best. Think of focal length magnification, depth of field, size, and weight, among other things.
Did you choose your camera and sensor size with your type of photography in mind? I would love to read about it in the comments below.
4X5 LF sensor none, MF: 6X9cm none, 6X7cm none, 6X4,5cm -1 made, used in Phase One, Hasselblad $50,000.00 / body. Film it is. Sorry Fuji, Pentax,and some Hassy's, if FF had to equal 36 x24mm. Medium Format has to at least equal 6X4,5 cm.
There is nothing wrong with film. :)
Thanks, its the only way to go for me.
What would you call the formats between 36*24 and 60*45 ?
What they shold have been called in first place Digital larger than Full Frame or Intermediate. That would be a more accurate discription of what they actually are. Because it is smaller. Even Full Frame is technically wrong. Small Format is correct . Full Frame is Printing a negative without cropping that shows the entire negative borders on the print. Small Format is 35mm and below to microfilm.
Full frame is indeed printing the complete picture without cropping. So in that case I can print my APS-C photo also full frame, or my minute sensor in the smartphone.
But why bother about names... it is only a name, nothing more
I know. Somedays. I just feel likr companies sometimes use statements to highlight their products as something they technically are not. In regard to Digital MF, I think part of the problem with DOF being shallow and what not is that the sensor size is not even close to the format. It is extremely cropped . The same problem with DOF occurred when Kodak was gutting F5, F 100 and Canon EOS 1N. They used crop CCD sensors with lenses for 35mm film. Same problem then that is with Digital MF now. Only ones not affected are Phase One and the Hasselblad that use a true 645 sensor at $50,000.00USD. And I think it has to be tethered and its a scanning sensor to boot. Though I could be wrong .
Do the Phase One and Hasselblad H-series have real 645 sensors? I cannot recall they have, but I could be mistaken.
Ah wel... manufacturers just want to sell, and play the consumers very well ;)
Both the Phase One and Hasselblad H series have a true 6X4,5 sensor made I think by Sony. They both use the same sensor. I do believe it is still a scanning sensor. But am not 100% certain. Hence both are around $50,000.00 a piece. Both I believe have to be tethered hence in studio work mainly.
I noticed you went from cheap compact cameras to bridge cameras, ignoring the large segment of compact 1" cameras, like the Sony RX100 and Lumix TZ100. Those cameras are compacts with 3x up to 10x zoom lenses. The Sony has less zoom than the Lumix, and it's brighter, but the Lumix has 5 axis stabilization, so 250mm focal length handheld shots are trivial (but can be soft). The Lumix camera(s) are nearly half the price of the Sonys.
It is not about the camera and its features, but about the sensor size, camera type, or prize, those mentioned are just as an example. There is not a sharp edge between the types, but a gradual course
The 2.75x crop factor does a few interesting things. These cameras have bright lenses but the crop factor gives them tremendous depth of field. For video work they are superb because they are very sharp and have a lot in focus, which means it's hard to screw things up. They also have decent noise performance and very quick shutters. 10fps mechanical shutter with electronic shutter up to 30fps.
Good to know. Thanks for sharing this
1-inch and M4/3 for portability, M4/3, APS-C, and full frame for other.
M4/3, APS-C or FF depending on the type of photography, I presume?
Yes of course. ALL of my street photography is 1-inch and M4/3 now. My astrophotography is primarily M4/3, with some APS-C. My FF camera has for the most part been relegated to my studio.
May I ask why the astrophotography is not FF?
Field of view. Also, many scopes will have significant edge falloff with FF sensors. 1-inch and M4/3 sensors are common astro sensors.
That said, FF isn't necessarily off the table, especially for wide field shots and shots with native lenses.
I did not know that about the scopes. I think that is the reason webcams were used for so many years on scopes, or am I mistaken?
Webcams are popular with planetary imaging. They record video and you make an image stack from a zillion frames and increase resolution in the process. I don't shoot planets tho, I shoot deep sky.
Ah yes. Quite obvious now I read this. Did not realize the difference up to now. :)
I use 3 different formats sometimes on the same job.
Perfect. Why not. But I guess you will choose a certain format for a reason during that shoot, and not at random
Like when I want deep DOF with a small aperture for shooting food/drinks...or shooting video handheld (Olympus)..
Sounds like you choose the best tool for the job
1" sensors suit me fine for now. Rarely print and if I do the sizes I print at are more than adequate. Plus have the bonus of not carrying around extra lenses or cleaning the sensor.
IN that case I think you have chosen the camera that benefits your wishes and needs, and you did not chosen it because of the sensor size?
Good overall view, but I can't agree with a few things you told :
-Keeping FF cameras from landscape : Clearly MFT cameras are lighter to take on a hike, but some people take even medium format to shoot landscape, for the higher overall quality (Resolution, color, bits, noise, etc...), which is not attainable with a mft gear.
-Same for long lens shooting : Take a hide and a good tripod, and you won't bother about the weight of your 600mm f/4 + 1DX, but the beautiful blur will be there.
-IMO, APS-C are the ugly little brother of FF : Taking FF lenses, so, almost as big, and not even 1 stop better than MFT. Fuji made a full system around it, that's the way.
-Shallow depth of field in MFT for portraits : That's a new trend, and few studio portrait photographers actually shoot wide open. I've got more than enough with my 45mm f/1.2 on olympus.
In any case, it's good to have a good understanding of the gear, their good parts, and their downsides.
Resolution is not per definition related to sensor size. The resolution of a 50mp full frame sensor is the same as a 50mp medium format sensor. But I do agree on some of the other things.
But I do not say to keep away FF from landscapes - I use one myself - but the benefits from a smaller sensor can help to achieve certain things much easier than a larger sensor.
About large lenses - not everyone fancies a hide, or want a large tripod. There are lots of people who just want to hike and use a longer focal length.
The article is not about discussing trends but about reasons or preferences that could lead to a choice of camera sensor due to its strenghts and weaknesses. If you love a tiny depth of field in your portraits, and it is your "thing", than a small sensor can make it difficult. No matter if it is a trend or not.
I'm going to say "PHOOEY!" on the statement that one can't get a shallow depth of field with M43. Try the Lumix G9 with the Leica 42.5mm Nocticron lens for portraiture to see what I mean. I think the G9 with the Leica 8-18mm lens is spectacular for real estate, too.
The cheap M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 is already enough for nice portraits with shallow depth.
Most of the time with macro photography (60mm f/2.8) I need to stop down the lens.
The shallow of depth is highly overrated and looks more like marketing BS.
People love to find the extremes, regardless if it has any added value. But there is a market for it, even if it is highly overrated.
True, you can have shallow depth of field with those cameras and lenses, because it is more than aperture alone. Depth of field is also distance and focal length. But still, a larger sensor will make it more easy to acquire, and perhaps make the shallow depth of field even smaller than what you can have on the M43.
But I do agree, often it is not necessary to go even beyond that tiny depth of field.
I love crop sensors because for my work (lots of T&T and architecture) I need the reach and don't need selective focus. So I use my 7D2 most of the time, and my 5DS when I need either more resolution or more selective focus. I regret that Canon's systems don't allow one camera to be both as Nikon's do. On the D850, for example, I could use any lens in crop mode and FF (I think Nikon calls it FX) lenses in FF mode. For me, I have to lug both cameras around to get the same flexibility.
You can always use full frame and crop the image accordingly, That is what crop sensor do, and that is what Nikon does, if I am not mistaken.
You will loose some resolution, but with the 5Ds you still end up with 30mp when you crop 1,6
The only issue is that I love my Tamron 18-400. I landed by chance a very good specimen and it's great for much of my assigned work. Without the interchangability, I have to lug around a 100-400 and keep changing lenses to get the long shot on the 5DS -- and then I have to do the cropping.
But yes, what you articulate is doable and your point is valid and well taken.
Medium format would be best suited to the type of depth of field and image quality I desire in my imagery. However, because I need to shoot with a lot of focal length, I simply could not handle the weight or size of the lenses I would need to frame my shots the way I want to if they were accommodating a medium format sensor.
The classic "full frame" sensor that we see in higher end DSLRs is a suitable compromise. Sure, this sensor size leaves something to be desired when it comes to depth of field (subject : backgrond isolation), and does not provide the level of detail resolution that I would like for nice big prints (like 60" to 96" across). But I can manage to handle an 800mm lens made for this sensor size. A lens that would give me the same angle of view on a medium format sensor would be enormous, and require some kind of cart or dolly system, as it would not be "carryable".
So, like many others, I am forced to compromise, because physics themselves do not permit the use or anything that would really fit all of my needs to the fullest.
I have used a 800mm on a full frame. You say you can manage such a lens, but I found it almost unusable without tripod. Compared to a medium format equivalent, I can imagine it IS managable. ;)
Thanks for your thoughts on this.