Do Larger Sensors Produce Different Looking Images?

Sign up for the expo at PHOTOPLUS for free using code: PFSTOP

Gear and Workflow Recommendations:

Our Favorite Gear -

Music

Software

Support Fstoppers by shopping at:

[Miketz]

Anybody who claims they can tell the difference between low res images from different sized sensors shot at f8 and cropped to look similar is on the wrong end of the Dunning-Kruger curve.

[retropixer]

You should also do a test to see whether it takes the same amount of time for a Porsche 911 and a Ford 150 to travel from A to B, when both vehicles are traveling at 60mph.

[TomRipley]

The sensor size and results are irrelevant. Everyone knows photography is obsessing about the specs of the latest gear, pulling the trigger, taking it out a few times and then leaving it to gather dust in a drawer while we use our phones. Thought we were all clear on this.

[davidwendelrobinson]

As a photographer for more than 50 years, 12+ of those working professionally in military, industrial, biodmedical and security industries plus a little commercial work, I got a great laugh out of this. So glad you did it and subscribed so I don't miss your next test. When I shoot, my thoughts are on what will be my final or primary medium for sharing. If it is for social media, any decent cell phone camera is good enough. If it is for larger print or or news publication display, even a small 1" sensor can produce amazing results in decent light. Good photographers shoot for their primary outcome for expression. Not for pixel peeping. And the truth is that in normal situations, almost any camera with a decent lens and proper exposure and photographic vision can be a great shot. Sensor and lens don't really matter that much. It is when you push the extremes, that you begin to see the difference, and even there, it is not as extreme as many people think. Of course I grew up with photography when there was no auto-focus, no auto exposure, no affordable fast lenses (F3.5 was considered fast). I also shot with everything from 8X10 inch sheet film to 35mm but mostly medium format. It seems that in today's world it is about 'extreme' bragging rights more than actual quality, usability or output. I can't imagine being a sports photographer today and have to sit down and screen literally thousands of perfectly exposed and perfectly in focus images, none of which stand out. I'm retired now. I shoot for the joy of it and my own personal satisfaction. I probably get more interesting photos with my camera phone, simply because that is the camera I always have with me. Yet when I do have my good gear and get out with it, I am shooting not for social media or bragging rights but for something that is special or extraordinary to me. Something for print. We live in a world of social media gear heads, and very few "real" photographers. Then again, the real photographers are probably out with their cameras creating a few great images, not sitting at a computer most of the time arguing gear. In my pro years, my greatest photo accomplishment was as a Navy photographer on the weekend on-call duty. A recon aircraft was inbound with shots of a new Russian ship. Shots were taken from a bad angle, at sunset using a 5 inch film nose camera. By the time the film arrived, I and the intel mate had 4 hours to process, the film and deliver 50 sets of finished photos. He selected a series of 5 shots from one angle that would be made into a composite image. Each Frame was unevenly exposed so in printing I had to hand dodge and burn every image for every frame and we had to produce 50 copies of each frame, or a total of 250 prints, each hand dodged and burned, all in under 4 hours (and that included film processing time.). We did it. We got an award for it. No one outside of military intel or command would ever see it, but it was an amazing feat of skill to do it. I closed the lab at 5:30 AM. The intel guy still had 30 minutes to make 50 copies of his analysis to package with the prints and a plane was waiting to take it all to the "big guys" in Washington and all the relative units around the world. I left a message for the lab chief and told him I had been up all night and needed some sleep so couldn't make it in at 8 AM. He sent me a message back and said that was fine. To report at Noon instead. Real photography is about getting the job done, no matter the job or the conditions. Gear does not matter. Only final results matter relative to the end use for the images. I worked in technical fields as a military, industrial, biomedical and security photographer for more than 12 years. The only argument about gear was "can it get the job done". And yes, even in those fields there is a need for "creative" photography. Have never had any paying client ask me what gear I used. They only care about final results. The argument about gear is really more about the final use and outcome. Not about pixels, format or brand.

[JPEG_music]

Should you throw in a decent mobile phone's camera in the mix?

[rpgroome]

This is the first YouTube channel that I have seen that told people to unsubscribe. I like it, it’s ballsy.

[half-decentphotography]

The reaction you're getting to this is highly predictable. The same thing happens when you confront heavily invested hi-fi snobs with the evidence of well-designed double-blind tests comparing a system that costs, say $5, 000 with one that costs $50, 000... and no-one can tell them apart. Obviously, you've done the test wrong!

[darrenlim]

This video should never be hated, it saves clueless photographers from spending the extra to upgrade their already great gears that arent really unnecessary just to satisfy their GAS cravings. We should be thanking the author for the all effort he put in this vid to educate us, allowing us to make a more rational decision in investing in any equipment.

[crown_resident]

can you make a video on the the difference between Nikon camera straps and Canon camera straps?

[xodius]

bro plz i can clearly see the mans soul on the medium format camera.

[dadoleyna]

I don't know whether to be sad or impressed that this video is not titled "Does (sensor) Size Matter?"

[tommytorres]

Not angry here... 😂 Good test, thanks! This is on a fully lit scene. I'd love to run the same test on a low light scene.

[juliog]

Mate! you definitely have to read out some of your favourite and most heated comments on your next video. That would be gold.
Also looking forward to the results, probably will not change my mind on the cameras I use, but it will make me more informed on the advise I give.

[Tmrynr]

It's almost as if the photographer's art, the composition, the lighting and the concept of the photo are more important than the canera that records the final image... this is heresy. Premium-quality WUM, I approve

[HAFhotandfluffy]

The “special look” of medium format exists because you get the FOV of a wider lens while retaining the compression/perspective of a larger focal length. It’s exactly what the “Brenizer Method” is based on.

[Jason-xmov]

In your future videos be sure to test ISO on darker photos when comparing size of sensors. This will make a really good video.... I can already tell a difference on the guys shirt with grain showing worse on one and not the full frame.... This is how you can tell in major way which camera made which pic...

[maheshg]

@5:39 did you do a video about the dynamic range? For me that matters the most for the look of a photo than bokeh etc.

[GaryGough]

Why wouldn’t you shoot a Portrait at F8? Not every Portrait suits a ridiculous shallow depth of field. So many haters!

[GeraldBertramPhotography]

I got my popcorn. Can't wait for the show to start in the comments!

[tallicarule]

Where is the follow up video to this..? I’m interested to see what you found out