TomV Loc: Annapolis, Maryland

Wrong.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

He is correct in the sense that larger sensors tend to produce better images. Look at DxOMark data.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I’d just add that one of the key advantages to FF vs crop is high ISO low noise performance. And before I’m labeled a FF DSLR bigot, I just bought a mirrorless crop Fuji for my wife. Looking forward to seeing how far she can push the ISO in low light before the noise intrudes. It surely is seductively light in weight.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Crowding more pixels into the same area increase the amount of electronic noise, so there is a point of diminishing returns on pixel density imposed by noise, but also a physical limit, imposed by the size of light waves and molecules. Technology can conceivably carry us close to those limits, but there it stops.

On the sensor size parameter, the limitations are the size and weight people are willing to carry around to take photographs. Professionals who can hire a Sherpa or two to tote their gear will never have a problem. But the average person will not be willing to tote much more than what the FF sensor size imposes. As soon as you get into the medium format arena, the glass required gets quite gigantic and weighty, and so will never have more than a scanty following. Perhaps there will be some lens technology that can eliminate some of the bulk and weight. Who knows?

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

I wonder how long it will take before you start "borrowing" her Fuji!

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Nikon has been fairly consistent with their 24 megapixels crop sensor cameras in the 3000 and 5000 series cameras. The D7100/7200 also have 24 megapixels. The D500 and D7500 both have 20.9 megapixels. A reduction of 3 megapixels. Nikon's D810 has 36 megapixels. 10 megapixels less than the D850. That was a big jump upwards. The D850 has 46 megapixels.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Start testing around ISO 1200. That should be extremely usable on most APS-C cameras. Some will be cleaner than others. Noise won't be terrible until you get somewhere above 6400. Exactly how far you can go is partly a factor of your skill at using noise reduction techniques in post-processing raw files, and the tools you have to reduce noise.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

That small increase was the reason I had little interest in going from my D800e to the D850. Not much gain for a lot of money paid.
--Bob

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I don't think more pixels for larger prints means much any more. I mad 24"X36' with a old "C" size camera. I hope they work on quality, better noise control.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Not at all, it has nothing to do with value?!
It's because of increased detail.
You can never have too much detail, the question becomes, do you personally need that detail???
SS

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

There are *many* sensor sizes. The most common size in *serious* cameras is APS-C. Then there is "full frame" (same size as 35mm full frame perforated film). Then comes Micro 4/3, followed by medium format. There are many smaller sizes used in point-and-shoot cameras, smart phones, video cameras, etc.

All other things being equal (which NEVER happens), A medium format sensor should beat a full frame sensor should beat an APS-C sensor, should beat a Micro 4/3 sensor, should beat all the smaller stuff... for sheer technical image quality. What makes comparisons difficult is the sensor technology in use, the amplifier used to process the analog signal into raw digital data, the processor in the camera, and the algorithms used to convert the raw data to a JPEG or TIFF or DNG or PSD... whether in camera as a JPEG or one of those other formats in post-processing. If you had the same company make the same 20.1 MP sensor count, just in four different physical sizes, using the same exact technology all the way to the saving of files, you could follow the subtleties and see pretty clear differences among the devices. Bigger sensor sites suck in more photons, creating better signal-to-noise ratio, better color depth, better low light performance...

However, if you were to maintain the same sensor site density from sensor size to sensor size, increasing the MP count with every step up in size, then you would have a different story! Noise and dynamic range and color depth would be about the same at the pixel level. But the largest format sensor would still look best, because of a "masking" effect. Having MORE tiny sensor sites on the larger "chip" would record more detail (up to a point where the lens isn't capable of resolving as much as the sensor). But — assuming lenses are matched across formats to provide the same field of view — the need to enlarge less to make the same size print from the larger sensor would hide the noise, up to a point.

There IS a trade-off between sensor site size and dynamic range, noise, signal-to-noise ratio, low light ISO performance, and color depth. Fewer pixels generated from larger sensors are cleaner.

The REAL question we must all ask ourselves is, "Does this matter one iota in the grand scheme of my own photography?" It could... but it may not.

If all you do is post images made in good light on the Internet, for viewing on screens (smartphones, tablets, PCs, Macs, TV monitors, video projectors...), it doesn't matter that much.

If you are a photojournalist, you have to weigh the advantages of size vs. discretion vs. travel constraints vs. budget vs. output media vs. agency ignorance vs. speed vs. ruggedness vs. wide angle needs vs. telephoto needs vs. what's in your lens locker... The three smaller formats (Micro 4/3, APS-C, Full Frame) are all viable contenders for your decision. I know pros using each, and a couple using all three.

If you are an aerial cartographer, you want the biggest, baddest sensor on the planet, behind the best lens on the planet! That's because your images will be enlarged a tremendous amount, and you want to maximize detail resolution.

Any time you will print large and view very closely, a larger format is preferable to a smaller one. But at normal, one to 1.5 times the diagonal dimension of the print viewing distances, images made in good light will look fine no matter how large you go. A billboard made from a 6MP camera looks just as good *from the highway* as it would from a 100MP digital back on a 'blad. But a 16x20 of a group of 300 people made on the same 6MP camera will look fuzzy... With 300 faces, each face gets represented by a small number of pixels.

Low MP count full frame and medium format cameras are great low light performers, so if you regularly work in very dim lighting, need medium high to high shutter speeds to stop action, or medium apertures for depth of field, those would be candidates for your attention.

So, the point I'm making here is that sensor size certainly can matter, for a very wide range of reasons. For a pretty wide range of conditions, you can use almost anything. It's at the margins of environment or light level or enlargement that you may want to be at one end of the size and pixel density scale, or at the other. One size does NOT fit all, but some compromises are better than others. That compromise is a personal choice. And when you CAN'T compromise, there are always rental companies!

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Cropping. The greater the resolution the more you can crop. You may just want an 8x10 print of a small bird that crops down to a couple of MB's.

jcboy3

Using a telephoto lens on a panoramic head. Gigapixel resolution is possible, just slow.

I often take 200mp or more stitched images.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

I somehow think you are absolutely right! As a layman I can't understand what the mfgs. are trying to do except to sell more cameras and the number and varieties of such is mind boggling. I can't compare cameras like you can with automobiles; we can see the differences in autos but as for cameras, I don't see much change, only more confusion of the general public and this trend can't continue forever. Or can such a trend continue --.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

"Will Full Frame eventually be operating the same as a Crop senors because (say) 50, 60 or 70 or more MPs are jammed into the sensor?"

In a sense. FF achieve less noise because they have "larger' pixels or at least have had say up to 55 MP. Do note, historically that the FF format came first emulating the 35mm film format of 24x36mm. To lower costs manufacturers switched to CMOS from CCD (noisy at high ISO or in dim light) cells they switched to the smaller APS-C format. So pixel density-wise as you surmise between (Nikon) DX & FX formats become similar at 24MP DX vs 55MP FX. That is 24 (1.52)(1.52)= 55. Remember pixel density is related the the area of the sensor, not the crop factor per se. The down side of the pixel chase which is why I think it is silly, as pixel densities get higher and the physical size of pixels gets smaller, diffraction increases. So as you Stop Down more from say f/4 to f/11 the circle of confusion gets larger and your images actually looks softer. Diffraction is a quantum mechanical effect do to the tiny sizes of the pixels and their relation to the size of the iris. So you had a fair feel for this to begin with.