Timeline for Does sensor size always matter in all situations?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 27, 2017 at 21:06 | answer | added | Tom Dibble | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 11:59 | answer | added | Michael C | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 11:28 | comment | added | Michael C | @fkraiem The shallower DoF (due to the longer focal length for the same view angle from the same shooting position) is almost always nearly exactly offset by the lower magnification ratio between the sensor size and the the display size need for the larger sensor compared to the smaller one. At macro distances that starts to break down, but at medium and longer distances it holds fairly true. | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 11:24 | comment | added | Michael C | @cpx If both are the same resolution, probably yes. In terms of dynamic range/full well capacity. Larger sensors tend to have larger photosites than smaller sensors. | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 11:18 | comment | added | cpx | I guess no straight answer for this question. I might just delete it. | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 10:07 | answer | added | Rafael | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 9:48 | comment | added | user29608 | Of the three points you mention in the question, depth of field is not (directly) related to ambient light, and a shallower DoF (due to the longer focal length for the same view angle) may be seen as an advantage by some people. | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 9:40 | comment | added | cpx | Does a bigger sensor have a noticeable advantage in bright sunny light? | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 6:39 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 7, 2017 at 3:01 | |||||
| Jun 27, 2017 at 6:25 | comment | added | Olivier | Flagged as "too broad". Plenty of questions about sensor size on this website, look for the "sensor-size" tag | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 6:12 | answer | added | Jindra Lacko | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 4:51 | comment | added | user29608 | The problem with "all else being equal" is that it is rarely true; and in photography, never. | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 4:49 | comment | added | user4894 | Sure, in theory. But don't worry about it. There are so many other factors. A good shot's a good shot. Since you've already bought the camera, go out and take pics. Someone always has a camera with a better spec. | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 4:49 | comment | added | user29608 | It is perfectly possible to take blurry, undesirable pictures with a full-frame. | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 4:47 | comment | added | cpx | Better pictures i.e. sharp, crisp, desirable etc. There's no math here. | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 4:46 | comment | added | cpx | Well, by all situations I mean does the image quality gets affected or not. | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 4:46 | comment | added | user29608 | "Does that mean my camera will always produce better pictures?" Define "better pictures"... | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 4:41 | comment | added | user4894 | All situations? No, if you are first on the scene when the space aliens arrive, your point and shoot will do just fine and you'll be published all over the world. "f/8 and be there" is what the photojournalists say. But all things being equal, bigger is better. That's why Ansel Adams shot 8x10. Wouldn't you like an 8x10 digital sensor? Here's one that's 9x11. No price yet, but available soon. largesense.com/products/8x10-large-format-digital-back-ls911 | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 3:42 | history | asked | cpx | CC BY-SA 3.0 |