• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

On sensor sizes

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
"Inches count"
– famed mantra of auto engine enthusiasts.​

Klaus Schmidt has suggested, in another thread, if I interpret his terminology correctly, that the most important choice today in digital camera sensor sizes (my paraphrasing of his wording) is between the 15 mm high format (APS-C) (sometimes 15.7 mm high) and the 24-mm high format ("full-frame 35-mm", more often just "full frame").

Klaus actually said "APS" and so, assuming he doesn't mean sensors the size of the APS taken frame (16.7 mm high), perhaps he means to include in the "candidates" the 19 mm high format ("APS-H").​

That suggests that the 13 mm high format (Four-Thirds system, Micro Four-Thirds system) is not being seriously considered for any "serious" photographic work.

We however continue to read in this forum of those who have adopted the Micro Four-Thirds system for their basic photographic work.

There was even one guy who announced that he was adopting a camera with a 8.8 mm high format ("one inch") for what passes for his serious photographic work. But that move was abortive, as he determined that he would not be doing any "serious photographic work" in the near future.

At the same time we see new and very attractive cameras introduced using the 24 mm high format, thus further solidifying the role of that format size, and various of the members seem to be adopting some of those.

So what do we see as the actual trend today with regard to sensor size? And why?

Best regards,

Doug
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
I have the same dilemma here at home, Doug.
Christine sees my 'sensor' as a necessary component of the hardware but finds the size inadequate for her purposes., in spite of them being non-commercial but nevertheless serious in her approach.
"You're not working with that minuscule thing, are you? " she enquires, curiously, with an amount of discuss that renders me feeling inadequate.
"This size is trending at the moment" I reply urgently. Every second counts at my age when the shot is in range.
" my first husband had a full frame"
"That's old hat now. Inches don't count. We're all gone metric now. its all in performance"
"Then make it quick. I just washed my hair"
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
"Inches count"
– famed mantra of auto engine enthusiasts.​

Klaus Schmidt has suggested, in another thread, if I interpret his terminology correctly, that the most important choice today in digital camera sensor sizes (my paraphrasing of his wording) is between the 15 mm high format (APS-C) (sometimes 15.7 mm high) and the 24-mm high format ("full-frame 35-mm", more often just "full frame").

Klaus actually said "APS" and so, assuming he doesn't mean sensors the size of the APS taken frame (16.7 mm high), perhaps he means to include in the "candidates" the 19 mm high format ("APS-H").​

That suggests that the 13 mm high format (Four-Thirds system, Micro Four-Thirds system) is not being seriously considered for any "serious" photographic work.

We however continue to read in this forum of those who have adopted the Micro Four-Thirds system for their basic photographic work.

There was even one guy who announced that he was adopting a camera with a 8.8 mm high format ("one inch") for what passes for his serious photographic work. But that move was abortive, as he determined that he would not be doing any "serious photographic work" in the near future.

At the same time we see new and very attractive cameras introduced using the 24 mm high format, thus further solidifying the role of that format size, and various of the members seem to be adopting some of those.

So what do we see as the actual trend today with regard to sensor size? And why?

Best regards,

Doug

In practical terms, "serious" means fast autofocus and long lenses for sports and birding and so we have the DSLR full frame diehards, as mirrorless cameras don't have the native reach of the mature DSLR's Pros use. This would also include most wedding photographers, except there's a leakage to "full frame", (24mm high), Sony cameras and even micro 4/3 Olympus and Panasonic as they have accomplished long telephoto zooms. They have easily enough detail for 11" x 14" prints and doubtless larger especially on canvas!

I don't include MF cameras as the user-owner base is often via rental houses and limited.

Still, with the built in stabilization of the Sony A7R and compact size as well as no need to adjust AF plane for the growing body of lenses, this compact camera may well be the trailblazing game-changer. The price is lower than the established DSLR "serious" photographers use and the quality is unmatched. If the focus speed, tracking and accuracy matches the leading DSLRs, then the latter will become the new MF and be used by an ever-shrinking niche of older professionals!

Asher
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Asher,

Thanks for your observations.

Still, with the built in stabilization of the Sony A7R and compact size as well as no need to adjust AF plane for the growing body of lenses, this compact camera may well be the trailblazing game-changer. The price is lower than the established DSLR "serious" photographers use and the quality is unmatched. If the focus speed, tracking and accuracy matches the leading DSLRs, then the latter will become the new MF and be used by an ever-shrinking niche of older professionals!

You seem to be saying that the seismic shift brought by the Sony A5R (II) is its mirrorless organization (just like my G16!) with a 24 mm high sensor, and thus it is the DLSR configuration, not the 24 mm high sensor size, that will become "the new MF".

Thus, just as it begun in the 1930s for film, the 24 mm high format will continue to be the "real deal", the largest frame size before we find ourselves in another world of dramatically larger and more costly cameras.

Kleinbild über alle!

Best regards,

Doug
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Tom,

I have the same dilemma here at home, Doug.
Christine sees my 'sensor' as a necessary component of the hardware but finds the size inadequate for her purposes., in spite of them being non-commercial but nevertheless serious in her approach.
"You're not working with that minuscule thing, are you? " she enquires, curiously, with an amount of discuss that renders me feeling inadequate.
"This size is trending at the moment" I reply urgently. Every second counts at my age when the shot is in range.
" my first husband had a full frame"
"That's old hat now. Inches don't count. We're all gone metric now. its all in performance"
"Then make it quick. I just washed my hair"

A wondrous story.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
So what do we see as the actual trend today with regard to sensor size? And why?

Why? For the often forgotten reason that cameras are used to take pictures.

The sentence above looks like a joke, but there is a truth to it: when one reads about cameras and sensor size on photo forums, the discussion often revolves about whether a smaller sensor will have the same sharpness, dynamic range, etc... Which it will have, for the majority of subjects people are interested to photograph, and which it will not have for the specially subjects or print sizes chosen by Internet "experts" to demonstrate their chosen big tools are necessary.

But when people actually take pictures, they will immediately recognise the different results linked to format size: namely that, in practical use with real lenses, certain combinations of perspective and depth of field are more pleasing than other. And the reason that they are more pleasing is that our collective taste has been formed by the past body of photographic work, especially past press and magazine photographs, most of which were shot on 35mm film.

This is the only reason for the popularity of the 24x36mm format: it makes certain combinations of perspective and depth of field practical.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Why? For the often forgotten reason that cameras are used to take pictures.

..........

This is the only reason for the popularity of the 24x36mm format: it makes certain combinations of perspective and depth of field practical.

Well put, Jerome!

A point to remember is that perspective is only dependent on the distance to the subject of interest. Some folk seem to forget that. All the lenses to is widen or narrow the field of view!

.......and we must admit, that for 99.99% of all photographs that will only be seen on a small screen, a cell phone camera is often adequate!

If one is never going to print, then a cell phone with a zoom should satisfy almost everyone!

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
.......and we must admit, that for 99.99% of all photographs that will only be seen on a small screen, a cell phone camera is often adequate!

Unless one wants a particular combination of perspective and depth of field not attainable by a cell phone sensor and available lenses. This has little to do with print size, iconic photographs of the 70s or 80s were seen in newspapers or magazines at print sizes comparable to today's screens, especially tablet screens.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Unless one wants a particular combination of perspective and depth of field not attainable by a cell phone sensor and available lenses. This has little to do with print size, iconic photographs of the 70s or 80s were seen in newspapers or magazines at print sizes comparable to today's screens, especially tablet screens.

So the missing factor then would be just DOF?

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
So the missing factor then would be just DOF?

Mainly, yes. Most smartphone lenses are designed to be 35mm "equivalent", but they cannot be fast enough to allow subject isolation, while the 35mm (real) f/1.4 was the standard lens of the news photographer in the 70s. The perspective and dof of a 35mm lens open at f/1.4 or f/2.0 on a 24x36 film was a good compromise for environmental portraits: wide-angle enough to give context but dof thin enough to indicate what was the subject and what was the context, yet not too thin to render manual focus impossible.

With a cell phone, everything appears in focus and many users are frustrated to see background elements intrude in their pictures, even if they say what they want is "sharp" pictures. The truth is: nobody really likes "sharp" pictures, they want the subject to appear sharp and they only want the subject. Yet, what they get is more like:

I only wanted Uncle Vernon standing by his own car (a Hudson) on a clear day, I got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary’s laundry and Beau Jack, the dog, peeing on the fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and 78 trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It’s a generous medium, photography.

(quote attributed to Lee Friedlander)
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Jerome,

Why? For the often forgotten reason that cameras are used to take pictures.

The sentence above looks like a joke, but there is a truth to it: when one reads about cameras and sensor size on photo forums, the discussion often revolves about whether a smaller sensor will have the same sharpness, dynamic range, etc... Which it will have, for the majority of subjects people are interested to photograph, and which it will not have for the specially subjects or print sizes chosen by Internet "experts" to demonstrate their chosen big tools are necessary.

But when people actually take pictures, they will immediately recognise the different results linked to format size: namely that, in practical use with real lenses, certain combinations of perspective and depth of field are more pleasing than other. And the reason that they are more pleasing is that our collective taste has been formed by the past body of photographic work, especially past press and magazine photographs, most of which were shot on 35mm film.

This is the only reason for the popularity of the 24x36mm format: it makes certain combinations of perspective and depth of field practical.

Well said.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Just that perspective has nothing to do with lense choice just the position of the camera in reference to the subject.

To sum up the differences between formats we can say just that we get decreased isolation, as Jerome pointed out, with smaller sensors. The choice of "wide angle" or "telephoto" has no bearing on perspective, unless one changes one's shooting position in consequence to altering focal length.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Just that perspective has nothing to do with lens choice just the position of the camera in reference to the subject.

To sum up the differences between formats we can say just that we get decreased isolation, as Jerome pointed out, with smaller sensors. The choice of "wide angle" or "telephoto" has no bearing on perspective, unless one changes one's shooting position in consequence to altering focal length.

Perspective only depends on the respective positions of camera and subject, that is true. Nevertheless, photographers use selected combinations of focal length and subject distance to get common framings and perspective, for example a 85mm for a head shot or 35mm for an environmental portrait on 35mm film. The availability of wide apertures for these particular focal lengths on 35mm film has shaped our perception of desirable depth of field for the particular perspectives commonly used with these focal lengths.

You don't necessarily get decreased isolation with smaller sensors, BTW. Or, conversely, you don't necessarily get increased isolation with larger sensors: you only get it if you also have fast lens, which is not true for medium format for example. Medium format lenses being generally slower than lenses designed for 24x36, you will get less subject isolation with a MF camera. Conversely, the availability of very fast lenses or focal reducers for digital sensors has made reduced depth of field possible for these sensor sizes, at the cost of higher (and noticeable) optical aberrations.

We have had a similar discussion on that subject, BTW.
 
Top