elliott937 Loc: St. Louis

I have some strong feelings based on experience in (a) less than full frame, and (b) using full frame. But I have a counter question I'd like to pose, tangent to this introductory question, and I'd like to read your thoughts. Is there a "point of diminishing returns"?

berasner

Just curious and unrelated to this post. I have a sr and just sold my Mark 3 and will buy a Mark4 this week. What applications and subject matter are you using your two for and what factors into choosing the one or the other when you shoot?
Thanks Bruce

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

It already doesn't matter for the majority of people who use smaller formats and smart phones, and even some pros. As advances in hardware and software proliferate it will matter even less. Yes, sensor size will still be important to a select few, just as large formats were in the film era.

ThreeCee Loc: Washington, DC

The camera manufacturers are trying to make money. They have constructed the argument that full frame cameras are better and charge more. They will never make the crop sensor cameras as good as full frame for this reason. The larger pixel count has forced the pixel pitch and pixel density of the full frame is now the same as in crop cameras. The technology is there but they will lose money if they make the crop sensor cameras as good as full frame. Pros will always buy full frame because lenses choice and perspective but their are great crop sensor cameras on the market now.

ThreeCee Loc: Washington, DC

There definitely is. If you are doing large prints and magazine work the quality is most important. Medium format is the camera of choice. If it is only for viewing on a cell phone or social media, cell phone pix will do. Prints under 24” will Look Good from crop sensor cameras. Most people would get better results by getting better lenses and technique Than a more expensive camera.

ELNikkor

They'll have to invent 12x12 inch pockets first : )

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I think I understood the sensor pixel thing and then I saw this yesterday.

NEW! LUMIX G9 Mirrorless Camera Body, 20.3 Megapixels plus 80 Megapixel High-Resolution Mode, 5-Axis Dual I.S2 - DC-G9KBODY

It used to be in advertising we had film 35mm which were used for annual reports etc. 2 1/4 a larger format for products, color & detail.
4x5 and 8x10 sheet film. It seemed to make sense. I now have 1" sensor in my pro PXW X70 Sony camcorder and it makes a great image.
I have Sony a6300 cropped sensor with some good lens and the Sony FF a7s II with a 12 megapixel very suited for video. All of these camera's
can make sharp images. I realize that for large image print reproduction I assume a larger quality image is needed.

Added to this the camera manufacturers are creating software which I think affects the look and quality of the image. If they sharpen more,
Canon is warmer I think, Sony is less warmer etc. So where do we stand. Are these images creations of code writers.
Ken Rockwell says often you don't need huge megapixels. And what is your final use of the images etc.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

You'll get no argument from me. So-called "full-frame" is only called that for the benefit of us formerly 35mm shooters. Real full-frame for me would be 4x5 like my old Toyo View or my almost as old Linhof. APS-C allows me to regularly print 16x24 and 20x30. I try to crop mostly before I push the button, but if I do crop heavily in PP then yes 35mm does give a better result.

Smaller sensors will probably pass away as they carry the liabilities of cellphone size sensors.

The sensors will get better. APS-C will not go away. It is just much easier on the back, shoulder and bank account and the quality is good as attested by my invitations to shows and occasional unsolicited sales.

leftj Loc: Texas

There are more than 2 sensor sizes.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

I think the point of diminishing returns for enthusiasts was reached long ago... unfortunately we humans have this desire to always have the biggest and the best; just human nature. The well heeled will continue buying and the rest of us will continue salivating.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

This graph represents the ISO capability and DR of the two cameras I own. The MkIII is 10.1 mp APS-H (1.3) crop and the MkII is 20.2 mp FF.
You can see that in less than 9 years the ISO capability has dramatically increased, Dynamic Range has improved at all ISO levels, MP nearly doubled and FPS gone from 10 to 14. Technology marches forward and will likely continue to do so.

I recall having a conversation or two 25 years ago with my friend who was a sales rep for HP. We were talking about the physical limitations that computer chip design was coming up against. Well, I guess they got past all those limitations as we now have cell phones many times more capable than the Engineering Workstations we were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for back then. I remember in the late 80s paying $1000 per mb for memory. We had workstations that had a quarter million dollars memory in them. Cameras being largely computer systems with lenses and sensors will continue to develop. The question becomes who needs or wants the improved capability.

My son's drag race car has a few computers, over 20 sensors and collects tens of thousands of pieces of data during a 4 second run. Same deal...technology marches forward and you get more for relatively less money.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

(Download)

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Well said... I think that FF will be the the new APS-C of the future; everything moves 1 step up the escalator.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

There are actually 3 sensor size categories, Crop, Full Frame, and Medium Format. The qualities of each have already been mentioned, most likely, by posts previous to mine. There are numerous articles stating that more sensels per the same area is not necessarily a good path to take. Noise becomes an issue, dynamic range becomes an issue, etc.

In a very non technical discussion I was having with a friend of mine a little while back, he equated the current sensor size selection today was equivalent to the format sizes available 50 years ago. 50 years ago we had 35mm, 120, and 4x5. Those equate to crop, full frame, and medium format today. In some ways, he's correct.
--Bob

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Some full frame digital cameras can resolve more than 35mm film. Some can resolve more than most current lenses are capable of resolving!

If, by “staying power,” you mean presence in the marketplace for imaging technology, I can’t see digital going away any time soon. If you mean “image longevity,” it’s reasonably safe. All media deteriorate. Film and prints fade. But as long as you have one working copy of a digital image, you can make identical copies indefinitely.

mrussell

Yes, sensor size matters, sometimes. My daily camera is a Canon 80D with a 24MP cropped sensor. It makes great images. When I take large urban landscapes, I use either a 50MP or 100MP Hasselblad back on a Cambo RD 1600. The difference is clear to anyone who compares the images. However, the difference between a 24MP and a 26MP is probably not noticeable with the naked eye.