With the current advancement of imaging technology in digital photography, the significance of format has evolved dramatically to a point where it no longer matters as much compared to the early film days. However, due to physical hardware limitations, it is still essential for us as photographers to recognize that the decision on selecting the imaging format should always align with our creative intent to help achieve the desired result.
What Is Format?
First of all, let's address the elephant in the room: What does the term "format" mean? The term "format" in photography typically refers to two aspects: the aspect ratio of the capture area (e.g., 3:2, 1:1, 16:9, 4:5) and the physical size of the recording medium (e.g., 1", M4/3, APS-C, full frame, medium format sensor). These distinctions help define generic terms among photographers like "medium format" and "large format."
That being said, if all factors remain equal, the choice of capture medium is more of a continuum, with significant differences usually only noticeable when doubling the linear resolution, which equates to a fourfold increase in pixel count. This, in practical terms, means you will need to double your sensor size to really see any meaningful difference and justify what you are paying for. For example, going from an APS-C camera to a 44 × 33 mm medium format sensor.
But what impact does this have on image creation? Is bigger always better? Not necessarily. The key lies in understanding how different formats can serve your creative vision and choosing the one that best aligns with your artistic goals.
The Evolution of Technology on Recording Format
As we all know, technological advancements have minimized the importance of format, especially when the majority of the images produced these days are for web viewing. Most digital cameras today produce images sufficient for printing up to A4 size, if not bigger, although large prints are rarely being made these days. Therefore, as the sensor sizes increase, the improvements become less noticeable, often resulting in diminishing returns. In a way, imaging technology progress has democratized photography, allowing photographers to focus more on their creative vision rather than being limited by technical constraints.
However, it's crucial to remember that while technology has reduced some format-related limitations, it hasn't eliminated the unique physical characteristics that different formats bring to the table. Each format still has its strengths and weaknesses, which can be leveraged to enhance your creative expression. For instance, the shallow depth of field and subtle tonal gradation achievable with larger format sensors can be used to create dreamy, ethereal images, while the extended depth of field of smaller format sensors can be perfect for capturing intricate details in landscapes or macro photography.
Aspect Ratio Format Flexibility
The aspect ratio format, which is independent of the recording format, is simpler to manage. Many photographers stick to established ratios like the sensor-native 3:2, square, 4:5, or 16:9 for ease of visualization or client requirements. However, approaching the choice of aspect ratio by respecting the shape of the subject can lead to more effective compositions. For instance, a composition that fits slightly wider than a square should not be forced into a 4:3 frame. The final intended composition should be clear at the time of capture, with no penalties for changing aspect ratios in post-production.
The inherent flexibility in aspect ratio allows photographers to tailor their compositions to their creative vision. Whether you're capturing the sweeping expanse of a landscape, the intimate details of a portrait, or the dynamic action of a sports event, choosing the right aspect ratio can significantly enhance the impact of your image. More often, it's about finding the format that best frames your subject and conveys your intended message, rather than focusing on the physical recording format.
Hardware Formats and Creative Intent
When considering hardware recording formats these days, we can see that sufficiency exists across various sensor sizes, even from sizes as small as 1/2.3" onward. For typical outputs like web viewing and moderate-sized prints, hardware limitations are less likely to be noticeable, provided the photographer is careful with their approach when photographing. When used to its advantage, smaller formats often mean having a more portable system, allowing flexibility in the process of photography at a slightly compromised image quality, while larger formats offer better image quality but at the cost of increased size and weight.
Different photography styles may benefit from specific formats. Street, documentary, and reportage photography often work well with smaller formats due to their favorable trade-offs between size, stealth, and depth of field. Conversely, painterly photography, which seeks everything in focus and a poster-color palette, can work with smaller sensors without requiring extended dynamic range. Cinematic photography, on the other hand, benefits from larger formats for better depth separation.
The key is to align your choice of format with your creative intent. If your vision involves capturing candid moments in bustling city streets, a smaller, more discreet camera might be ideal. If you're aiming to create large, detailed landscape prints, a larger format might better serve your needs. Understanding the strengths and limitations of each format allows you to choose the tool that best supports your artistic vision.
Practical Considerations and Workflow
In practice, there is no single perfect format or system for all applications in photography. Photographers must balance creative and technical properties, such as depth of field, dynamic range, and system completeness, with practical considerations like cost and portability. Each format has its own set of strengths and weaknesses, making it essential to choose based on specific needs and creative goals.
Smaller sensors, like M4/3, offer benefits in system size, weight, and cost, with extended depth of field and ease of use. However, they lag in image quality and depth of field control. Larger sensors, like 54 mm × 40 mm medium format or full 645, excel in image quality and depth of field control but are hindered by size, weight, efficiency, and cost. Understanding your specific requirements and matching them with the appropriate format is crucial for achieving the best results.
Therefore, it is important to consider your workflow when choosing a format. If you frequently shoot in challenging lighting conditions or need to make large prints, a larger format might be beneficial. If you value mobility and spontaneity in your photography, a smaller format could be more suitable. Your choice of format should always complement your shooting style and post-processing workflow, allowing you to focus on realizing your creative vision rather than wrestling with technical limitations.
The Role of Format in Artistic Expression
While technological advancements have reduced some of the technical differences between formats, the creative possibilities offered by different formats remain distinct. The way a wide angle lens renders space on a medium format camera is different from how it does on a crop sensor. The bokeh characteristics of a medium format system differ from those of a micro four-thirds camera. These differences, while subtle, can significantly impact the mood and feel of your images.
Understanding these little nuances allows you to choose the format that best expresses your artistic vision. For instance, if you're drawn to the dreamy, shallow depth of field look often associated with fashion photography, a full frame or medium format system might be more suitable. If you prefer the everything-in-focus aesthetic often seen in street photography, a smaller sensor format could be ideal.
Adapting to Changing Needs
As your photography evolves, your choice of format needs may change too. What works for you as a beginner might not be the best choice as you develop your style and vision. Be open to experimenting with different formats and understanding how they impact your work. This experimentation can lead to new creative discoveries and help refine your photographic voice.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the importance of format in digital photography has increasingly diminished from a purely technical standpoint, it remains a vital consideration to be aligned with the photographer's creative intent. The format you choose should be a deliberate decision that supports and enhances your artistic vision. Photographers must assess their needs, understand their workflow, and select the format that best suits their artistic and practical requirements.
Remember, the best format is the one that allows you to realize your creative vision with the least amount of technical hindrance. It's not about having the biggest sensor or the most megapixels, but about having the right tool that aligns with your artistic goals and helps you tell your visual stories effectively. All in all, I would like to believe it's entirely up to your shooting style. If medium format provides an advantage for your shooting style, by all means, go ahead. In the end, this also renders all format comparisons pointless, as when performing these comparisons, you are trying to match their results and not shooting to their inherent advantage.
What do you think is the ideal compromise for your photography needs? Do you have the right format, or are you considering a change? As you ponder these questions, remember that the most important aspect is how well your chosen format serves your creative intent. After all, in the world of digital photography, it's not just about the technical specifications—it's about how well your tools allow you to bring your unique vision to life.
I own both full frame and APS-C; a 6D and an R10, even with the R10 being a much newer camera, it still cannot match the 6D’s low light performance with the same lenses attached (with a Canon EF to RF adapter on the R10 of course). You may not see the difference taking photos outside in the day, but when the sun goes down, the difference in performance becomes significant. Does sensor size matter? Yes, it does, you still need light to make an image, and the less of it you have, the more important the area you have to capture it becomes, and technological wizardry will only get you so far.
Agree. on light sensitivity I believe as technology improves, the gap will close further. But I will reserve my comment until that technology exist.
Any improvement that can be applied to APS-C or smaller sensors can also be applied to FF or MF sensors. Larger sensors will always have an advantage over smaller sensors of the same generation of technology in this respect. Perhaps advances in technology will give smaller sensors performance that is "good enough" for use cases where it currently is not good enough. As technology improves and larger sensors also improve, though, what is "good enough" often also becomes more stringent. Smaller sensors will never perform equally with larger sensors of the same generation of technology in terms of how much light they can collect for a given angle of view of the same scene.
Yes you are right. And I stand by the fact that we’ve reached sufficiency in imaging technology since years back even for smaller sensor cameras. Anything beyond this point is just providing more latitude for recovery
Not everything done in post that can't be done in camera is "recovery". Sometimes you intentionally expose one way or the other because you have an idea what you're going to do with it in post and you plan to use the additional capability that is there. It's not much different than Adams and his zone system when he would "overexpose" his film, then pull the development time to decrease contrast. Or underexpose and then push development to increase contrast. The main difference is that with film we exposed for the shadows and then developed for the highlights while with digital we expose for the highlights and then post-process for the shadows.
There's also the fact that post processing apps allow much finer gradations than most all cameras do. In camera I can only set CT in 100K increments. It's either 4200K or 4300K. In post I can refine that to 4270K, or 4230K, or anything between 2000K and 10000K in 10K increments. Instead of being limited to 5 mired intervals in WB correction, as in camera, I can select 0.5 mired intervals in post. Instead of 0.3333 stop intervals in camera, I can adjust exposure in 0.01 stop intervals in post. I can draw light curves in post to separate very close tones than I can't do in camera. This is especially helpful when doing monochrome work. Rather than only 0% or 100% peripheral illumination correction I can choose anywhere between 0-100% in 1% increments.
well described. perhaps I did not express myself properly but you clearly did said everything I wanted to say in the back of my head! Thanks Michael
The 6D is also unique in that it has noise characteristics of more modern sensors but does not have DPAF pixels. Canon’s sensors with rows of DPAF pixels produce banding which is visible in dark parts of the frame.
hmmm I didn't realise that maybe I should look harder!
It really doesn't matter. Just use what you feel good with because in the real world, nobody's going to look at an image and immediately tell that it was shot on Micro 4/3rds or a Phase One so long as the photographer is half-decent.
The only place where bigger formats make sense, is if you're in a situation where you need something like 150MP, you're shooting in exceptionally dark environments, or you need exceptionally shallow depth of field.
Otherwise it's just pixels.
An OMD at 25mm and f/1.4 is going to look pretty darn similar to an R1 at 50mm and f/2.8.
Also depends on the medium you use to show your work, gallery print or instagram. On instagram you can shoot with a potato, just looks as crap as anything else
Yes, your creative intent in the final output will dictate which tool you should be using to achieve the utmost potential
Contradicting to what you may believe, medium format 150MP actually doesn't do well in low light dark environments. Every system has its own set of limitation so I can only say use the right tool for the right application.
I am surprised how well the GFX100s ii megapixel does in low light very little noise. Noise only becomes present at about 800 ISO... And for my landscape photography and portraits, I never really get near that.
yes, this is where technology is taking the front seat. Signal to Noise ratio have been drastically improving throughout the years. The gap in resolving details between small sensors and large sensor will also close down further. So i think going forward, its more of a physical comparison (inherent physical properties coming from sensor size themselves) rather than technical specs.
The OM-D at 25mm f1.4 will take half the exposure time and be much easier to shoot handheld in low light, but will have more noise, much more distortion and will be softer off-axis if the lenses and sensor are of similar quality.
yes, smaller formats are always going to be more nimble for faster shooting pace. When using medium format, I tend to slow down a lot to a point sometimes I get frustrated at myself not being efficient enough
Where small sensor cameras suffer is at wider field of view. The wider the lens, the higher the incident angle of the incoming light at the periphery of the image, the smaller the sensor the higher the incident angle is for the same field of view. The higher the incident angle of incoming light, the lower the sensitivity of the photo diode. Before BSI sensors this was a major problem due to the hight of the the edges of the photo diodes due to wiring. This is corrected in software, however this will have effects on dynamic range.
Larger sensors have larger pixels and gather more light for the same resolution, so the physics are more on the side of bigger sensor, but you end up with a bigger camera.
Software and improvements in sensors mean for most work for most people the smaller sensor cameras perform very well.
well explained.. this is something that I could not word out. And yes the improvements in technology is benefiting a lot of small format users making it convenient
There are people who photograph with a Samsung and like it.
Slowly but surely, most people have come to like such pictures. Samsung is always going the extra mile.
I prefer the least processed photo possible, coming from raw.
if using a smartphone matches your creative intent then its totally fine. There is nothing wrong with using smartphone to shoot images as its really convenient. However, smartphone images are one of those images that are highly "processed" aka computational photography to make them look good. So they are no where near being raw. Even the raw mode does have some form of processing in them.
That being said, it is still easier to shoot an image that looks better without zero post edit with a smartphone compared to using a camera where you have to go into the processing software to somewhat lift up the shadows or recover the highlights
you seem to have skipped the lens issue? the bigger lenses have hetter quaility and resolving power than smaller ones generally . so 50mpx on a fullframe vs 50mpx on a medium tornat you can easily see differences in quality..
I believe the discussion on the lenses will open up another topic for discussions which will end up being too lengthy. One of them is highlighted well by Andrew in the comment above.
On lens resolving power I would think lenses created for smaller formats have a higher resolving power. Assuming all lenses made for full frame and APS-C are created in equal image circle size, meaning technically you could resolve the same amount of resolution regardless of sensor size. Therefore if the lens designed for a full frame body is used on an APS-C body, you might risk losing the additional resolution that it resolves out of its image circle. Which is why I think lens designed for an APS-C sized sensor should be able to resolve more resolution given the small image circle.
In your case, I think its more towards the subtle tonal gradation that you are seeing that makes the difference and of course a higher quality resolving glasses that is available to medium format only.
But who am I to make this conclusion. I am no scientist and shall leave it for the experts to make their appropriate sharing
It's pretty simple. To view at the same size, images from smaller sensors must be enlarged by a greater factor. Blur that is too small to detect with the naked eye at a small enlargement ratio may not be too small to detect with our eyes at a larger enlargement ratio. Enlarging any image also enlarges the blur in that image by the same amount.
That's why we use 0.03mm for FF, 0.018mm for APS-C, and 0.015mm for Micro Four-Thirds as the largest acceptable blur at the sensor level before enlargement when display size will be 8x10 or 8x12 inches viewed from a distance of 10 inches/25cm. If we're going to display at 16x24, we must use 0.06mm for FF, 0.036mm for APS-C, and 0.03mm for Micro Four-Thirds for our acceptable circle of confusion.
Interesting knowledge thanks for sharing Michael
I have found a much better explanation on the differences you are seeing comparing medium format to a full frame of smaller sized sensor.
Generally the larger the sensor, the larger the individual photosites. This in turn results in a much better signal-to-noise ratio, and higher individual pixel quality which is perceived as edge definition and ‘sharpness’.
It's all about enlargement ratios. The same lens with the same resolution will look sharper at a lower enlargement ratio that at a higher enlargement ratio. When you magnify an image more, you magnify the blur in that image by the same increased amount.
I’m curious , Does this affect the prints only? Or in digital screen as well?
Display size is display size. Enlargement is enlargement. Assuming the pixel pitch on your screen isn't to the point that you can see individual pixels/subpixels, or that you can't see individual dots in a print, then there's no difference between prints & screen.
understood
Also on bigger lens that have better quality and resolving power compared to smaller ones generally might not be true because lenses designed for smaller format lenses must have higher resolving power to deal with the much smaller pixel pitch compared to lenses that are designed for larger format.
The author, Zhen Siang Yang, asked,
"What do you think is the ideal compromise for your photography needs? Do you have the right format, or are you considering a change?"
The best format for what I shoot is the APS-H sensor, used in conjunction with "full frame" lenses. Why? Because the slight crop factor means that I will not be using the outer portions of the image circle that the lens produces. The outer portions of the image circle are usually darker and softer than the center, and I absolutely HATE vignette. I want my deep corners to be just as bright and clear as the very center of the photo.
Sadly, the APS-H sensor format was discontinued years ago, and they never made that size sensor with a high pixel density. If a manufacturer would make an APS-H sensor with 30 megapixels or more, that would be a godsend for me.
Sadly, with streamline production.. things are only to get standardized to cut down cost and increase efficiency in production. Those parts that are less in demand will be cut off giving way to the parts which are much common and in high demand.
But I do agree with you on the APS-H sized sensor in your case of application. If anything you could also try using a tilt-shift lens or a medium format lens which are designed with a much bigger image circle on full frame body. However the latter do rely a lot on adapters which might potentially introduced another set of issue of misalignment, autofocus compatibility, operational stability, weather-sealing, etc etc
You get the central part of a full frame lens benefit on any APS-C sensor camera.
Yes you’re right. Same goes to using a larger format lens on a normal full frame lens. As long as the image circle of the lens is bigger than the sensor size you’re using it for
But then you must enlarge by a higher factor to get to the same display size, so any blur is also enlarged by the increased factor.
I've got Full Frame, APS-C, and Type 1". For my usecases only:
1. Full frame is just a better performer and cost for interchangeable systems at the equivalent. Nice DR. Nice low light. Work horse, that's great with wides.
2. APS-C is the best balance between size and quality — particularly with fixed lens cameras. I personally wouldn't really bother with the Q or interchangeable APS-C. My secret favourite, Great at mid range.
3. 1" compact has the best features, and makes a lot of sense for both video and telephoto shots. Nice deep depth of field. Great stabilisation, super compact, excellent optical zoom range, built in ND, the list goes on. Will save you in a pinch, great for long tele.
I'd love to try micro four-thirds, but if I had to choose a perfect set up it would be a high mp FF for photo ± 28mm and 85mm, and a super zoom 1" compact for video. With a Ricoh GRIII for fun. 😎
We do somewhat have the similar thoughts! However, after going through a full circle. I would skip 1" just because phones are getting better and more convenient. Since I will be bringing out a camera, an APSC sized camera wouldn't bother me that much for my style of shooting. Of course I will be missing the zoom range of the 1" but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make.
As for the Ricoh GR.. I do have a mix feeling on it after using it for a decade or so.. while it is a perfect everyday carry the build quality says otherwise. which is sad.
Understandable. I think if it works for your needs the phone is a great choice. Phones are finally catching up to the 1" camera in quality, but I still love the optical zoom, physical controls, custom modes, flip screen so you can use the best lens and see yourself for holiday selfies, etc. Also you're not tied to that western tech industry standard of 1 year update cycles, where they slow down your phone with mandatory firmware. So I feel like it runs as new for longer for those people who want something that will last a good few years.
I've babied my GR so I haven't seen any issues yet. I've heard people struggle though, so wish me luck. 🙏
Honestly phone isn't working perfectly that well and there are obvious compromises but those are the tradeoffs we need to deal with for convenience.
Maybe the one I got is just a badly build unit after all.. it literally just deteriorates and that never happen to any of the cameras I owned so far
It does matter when it comes to high resolution fine art reproduction. There isn't a full frame camera (yet) that has a high enough resolving power to compete with Fujifilm's 100mp or 400mp when pixel shift is activated.
Yes the format you are using needs to match your intended output. That is when it really matters the most because you can never overcome physics limitation with softwares
Agreed, I love my camera, but wouldn't hesitate to use a smartphone for a host of different situations.
The right tool for the right situation, regardless what it is as long as it delivers
I love my medium format cameras that I own and I do love the 4 to 3 aspect ratio. I also shoot a lot of 16 -9 and 66-24 also
i love the 4x3 aspect ratio too especially for vertical image. I always struggle with how the native full frame 3x2 ratio works on vertical image
I have a medium format camera and an APC camera both Fuji.... And they both serve very different purposes if I'm going out to shoot an event or some landscapes I take the GFX but if I'm just going to shoot something casual and then not for a client or a customer then often I take my crop sensor camera it really is good having two different cameras that are very different I make a decent amount of money out of Photography now but have kept my day job so I can afford a medium format system. And the one thing I do love about medium format is what you can do with the files. It's just an open canvas and that doesn't mean that I butcher my files either. In fact I probably edit GFX files less than any other camera I've ever owned the photos straight out of the camera are so good.
I do that too having a fun camera for everyday stuffs and a serious camera just for work. After years of trying to find that one camera that fits every needs I gave up. It just simply doesnt work that way.
I also think when you use a different camera for your fun work, it actually takes you out of the workspace.... And when you have the Work camera in your hands, you are thinking about everything to get it right so it kinda goes with the mental space that you need to get into. I do like having the same brand of camera Fujifilm as I can obtain similar looks.
Good point! but i do it to the extreme end unintentionally that I no longer care how it looks that 8 out of 10 shots are garbage
Yeah, ever since I jumped over to medium format I'm a bit of a pixel peeper and you just can't help it. It's pixel peep because you just admire the detail..... It's like you have to have a second and third look