bleirer wrote:
..............
I've read that in enlargement the larger sensor would be better because it would not have to be enlarged as many times as the smaller sensor due to the larger original area, but this doesn't make sense to me if the smaller file has crammed in the same number of megapixels and the full image fills the frame and covers the subject with the same number of pixels. I thought pixels were dimensionless once they were in a raw file.
Exactly as say. Digital files are not film negs, they
have NO physical dimension to "enlarge". Whoever
wrote what you read about enlargement is just an
"Internet Expert".
FWIW I concur with much of the other replies that
in good light at low ISO sensor size is meaningless.
Acoarst this thread also contains the bokeh myth
about sensor size. Bigger sensors have the same
bokeh as small ones at any given aperture size.
Thaz a well tested fact. But aperture size is NOT
f/stop numbers. Equip two camera with lenses of
the same angle of view. One is FF and the other
is m4/3. Set the FF to f/4 and the m4/3 to f/2.
This will result in equal aperture sizes and equal
bokeh. The bokeh myth ignores aperture size and
instead looks only at f/stop numbers.
The smaller the format, the shorter the lens FL at
any angle of view. This results in faster lenses
being available for smaller formats at any given
range of expense and also of physical size.