Sensor Format Size and Image Quality

😊

When I talk about f-stops, I try avoid "larger" and "smaller" as descriptors, since, unless explicitly stated, because if I say "larger", it's not obvious whether I'm talking about a bigger number or a bigger opening.

Similarly, when I talk about pixel pitches, I use "finer" and "coarser".

That's the way I was using the term.

My bad. I'll ask Zach to fix that.

Here's the first time I mentioned FWC: "Full well capacities are the same in all formats compared."

I'll ask Zach to make it "Full well capacities (FWC) are the same in all formats compared."

Better?

Can I ask why you chose their platform to publish your thoughts?

Jim - thanks! A great article that I very much enjoyed reading. 👍

My mistake - I missed the italicized bit (didn't even read it, tsk) but now I see that "about a three-to-one difference in resolution" is referring to spatial resolution, albeit somewhat obliquely.

I've been working with Roger for a long time, and I like him. He asked me to do this.

That's an interesting article. My own thoughts are, buy the right tool for the job. If I were printing, or supplying images for billboard sized prints, MF all the way.
If I were shooting mainly low light action/sports, any of the later 135 format bodies & larger aperture lenses would be the way to go.
APS-C, a little bit of a lost sheep to my thinking. m4/3, now we're talking, as far as a more than good enough product for travel, & general photography.
But to me, the most important detail of all, is enjoy what you're shooting with. No sense having the greatest gear in the universe, if you don't enjoy using it, or never take it anywhere.

D'accord.

I understand that's high on lots of people's priority lists, but not on mine. I go by whatever gear does the best job with the project at hand. With one noticeable exception, a 4x5 Sinar F used in the field for landscapes (I was so happy when I swapped that for a Master Technika), I've not owned a camera that I couldn't eventually master and get the most out of it for the project I was working on.

That's where you and I obviously differ. And that's a great thing. Otherwise, there would not be the broad selection of gear that's currently available on the market, at quite astonishing pricing given the potential image quality, to choose from. My criteria is far far from need, it's want, for the purpose of enjoyment. Relaxation. A hobby.
With the current shrinking market, I see a change in that (availability) so I'm pretty damn happy to have been around during the absolute explosion of reasonably priced, good quality, yet constantly advancing product. In the smaller formats anyway.

I would like a lumix tz220 but have you seen the price ,they are like gold bars $1200aud 😪 i thought camera house would have had a sale this week ,but they left out the TZ220 😌

Keep your eye out for a G100. I've bought myself two brand new ones now, one for $475, the other $510. Delivered to my door. Hardly any bigger than my LX7. Yeah, they don't have the zoom range for sure, but there are some fabulous little zoom lenses you can pop in your wife's handbag, to save you carrying them as you wander around. I'm quite fond of the tiny little 12-32, & my PZ 45-175. That's if I don't take my tiny little primes with me ie PL9mm, PL15 or Lumix 14mm, Lumix 20 pancake or PL25mm

I probably should expand a little on that. It's not just the smaller formats, take what Fujifilm has done with Medium Format for example. Nothing short of astounding as far as bang for buck with the various GFX bodies & lenses they've released. At astonishing pricing. Right down to the more "entry level" 50 r & s models, including the kit lenses, smallish primes, up to the 100 series. Amazing times we're living in.

Nice article, thanks for sharing. I would have loved a deeper dive into what "image quality" might mean concretely, but then it was an article about sensor size, and there is always your personal blog for more detail.

Just a small nit-pick: now that smartphones regularly sport 1-inch sensors and 200 MP, a 150 MP MFT sensor is no longer far fetched at all, or economically infeasible. To be clear, it wouldn't be useful, for all the reasons you outlined. But it weakens your argument in that paragraph that it would clearly be possible, and probably non too expensive, either.

I wince a bit every time I use it this way, but the term seems to be ingrained when you're trying to say "the number of electrons corresponding to full scale at base ISO."