Recently Lee published a comparison between the images from several different-sized cameras and there was no apparent difference. What's the point of buying a camera with a larger sensor then?Sensor size matters. Sometimes. You won't have the need for a bigger sensor until you know the technical side of it and find yourself in a lot of situations you would benefit from a camera having such a sensor.
The Sensor In a Nutshell
While there are "by-products" from the size of the light-sensitive chip, in general it's just a rectangular device that reacts to light. The size of the all-in-one captured frame depends on the size of the rectangle. The bigger the rectangular area, the more you will capture from the scene your camera is pointed at. It is like the window of your home. The bigger the window, the more you will see from the outside view. A crop sensor is smaller than a full-frame sensor. That's the main difference.
When You Won't See the Difference
If you photograph mainly in large spaces or outside using enough light, available or strobes, and have a modern camera, you probably won't feel the need to buy one with a big sensor. Big sensors are often less noisy at high ISO, but modern technology provides us with cameras where even micro four-thirds ones give us quite a good quality of image in not-enough-light situations. This is why I said the "window size" is the main difference, not pixel peeping.
Wide-Angle Lenses
Can't we use wider-angle lenses when we have a smaller sensor? Won't we see more? Think of using a wider lens is like squeezing your clothes in a small travel bag. You're getting your stuff in, but you don't want to put any of these clothes on without ironing them first. The same with wide lenses: they will give you more of the environment, but will squeeze the center part of it, because there's no place to fit the rest of the view and thus distorting the reality of distances between the objects in the frame. With a larger sensor you will be able to use a tighter lens, distances will be closer to reality, and you'll still see more than a smaller sensor.
Shallow Depth of Field
Most of you know, but let me say it once again: larger sensors don't give a shallower depth of field. A 50mm lens will give the same optical image regardless of the sensor size. It's the sensor that will "crop" part of the circular picture, given by the lens. All rectangular sensors do. If you have a tight shot on a small sensor and want to have the same with a bigger one, you have to get closer to the subject, because the "window" is bigger and it will show more than you need. This will naturally make the photograph with a shallower depth of field, because of the diminished distance from the camera to the subject.
Can You Simulate a Bigger Sensor?
Absolutely, but not always. If you photograph a tight interior you better not use a wide lens, but create a panorama out of several images. This will do good to the interior designer, to the viewers (who won't be fooled by the distorted perspective of a wide view), and to your portfolio. You can do the same for landscapes and even for portraits. It's a big tricky for the last case, but if you're budget is tight, you can get around that with some tedious post-processing work.
So, When Would You Need a Bigger Sensor?
In my opinion and experience, it's when you're constantly in low-light situations (although not such a strong argument) and in tight spaces and you don't want to use wide-angle lenses, but capture more of the view. If you have experienced more cases where utilizing a larger sensor was an absolute necessity, please tell us in the comments below.
Really curious to see some examples because again what you are saying makes no sense.
Got another quiz for you (still waiting the answer from the other one). What focal lenght do you think this picture was taken with? I don't need the exact millimeters, just a decent estimate.
Seems like something between 35 and 50 on a full frame. It could be an image from a phone, from a crop sensor and so on. The focal length has to be re-calculated for these.
Wrong, it's a 135mm on a fullframe panorama, which has the same exact perspective distortion that would result from a wide angle single shot on that same sensor, because perpsective is independent from the lens.
I see what you want to tell me and I've tried this myself too and it's probably the lens imperfections (not cheap ones), but wide-angle ones always look unnatural to my eye (despite the corrected distortion) than panoramas. I know mathematically this can be proven wrong, but my experience shows that wide-angle always creates an optical defect (at least for still lenses) although the corrected distortion. Or maybe the distortion still exists and it's not perfectly corrected.
I know I'm a little late here, but I think it's unfair for you to write off the mistakes you made in your article as your "personal experience" even as it is in conflict with the actual facts of the matter. I wrote an article here that explains how the focal length is not directly related the expansion or compression of depth in a photograph. You should check it out:
http://www.sheldonwalker.com/posts/2019/5/19/large-format-perspective
Personal experience is valid indeed, because it means the lenses or the distortion correction is not perfect and yet wide-angle lenses (despite what math says) are distorting the reality. Probably my lenses are not good or my software or my skills.
I use a 7D2 for 95% of my work because I don't need shallow DOF and do need reach. I use a 5DS for the other 5% that requires either a shallow DOF or very high resolution, such as wall size photos in institutional hallways.
Buy what you want to buy... there I said it. Sure maybe when you're starting you don't need it but when you do need it you're now having to sell and buy the thing you wanted. Why not just buy it the first time out and save yourself the trouble. Who says that the person who buys the best they can upfront doesn't learn the same things? Or maybe doesn't face the same hurdles so can progress quicker?
It all depends what you do with the photos. If your livelihood depends on it, you should get what is best for the job. If that is a full-frame sensor, that is what you should get.
In the case of amateurs who share their pictures on social media, I doubt if the image sensor size makes much difference except for pixel peeking fanatics.
I don't think this is a useful way to compare systems. People looking at different systems will be looking at different lenses, so the idea the same lens will give you a wider field of view on a larger system doesn't really matter. It also doesn't take into account he limited image circle of lenses. A wide angle lens for a smaller format system just won't cover the sensor when placed on a larger format.
Depth of field and overall all noise will be the same for the same entrance pupil and angle of view, regardless of format. The main advantage of larger formats is they can support larger entrance pupils.
To put it another way, a 25mm f2 photo on micro 4/3 will be indistinguishable from a 50mm 35mm picture from the same generation of technology: Refraction, noise levels & depth of field will all be the same. However, you can't get a 25mm F.9, so if you open that 50mm up to F1.8, it can't be replicated on the smaller format.
Wow. As everyone else has said... please stop repeating this falsehood about perspective distortion having anything at all even remotely to do with sensor size. It is solely the final field of view.
If you stitch together enough shots from an 800mm lens you will eventually have wide angle distortion. It’s been done and it’s visible in any spherical panorama.
If what you said is true you’d be able to see horrible wide angle distortion on cell phone cameras.
What you’ve said is both scientifically and mathematically provably false. Stop repeating this false information.
"As everyone else has said... please stop repeating this falsehood about perspective distortion having anything at all even remotely to do with sensor size. It is solely the final field of view."
More accurately, "field of view at a given subject distance." If I achieve the same field of view by moving farther away, the perspective is not exaggerated.
That part about wide angle is completely false.
Eventually i'll buy a Canon 5Dmk 4 but gentlemen since the canon 70D launched in 2013 I've been OK shooting in low light But what matters to me Is Glass .
I think ya'al need to watch this. This video settles this argument (lengthy, but gotta watch)
https://youtu.be/PaJQpgWV9f0
Only get full frame if you're sure it helps your kind of photography. Lenses are more important than the bodies; that is what many beginners tend to forget. I do shoot full frame since I shoot a lot of landscape (Superior dynamic range, even though only by a little) and indoor architecture; the less noisier sensor definitely helps out a bit
I don't find low light a weak argument at all. I mostly shoot recreationally, but occasionally get hired on to shoot shows and events that 9 out of 10 times wind up in low light venues. For the longest time, I thought there was some secret I wasn't privy to; my images were noisy and disappointing. I felt like a crazy person- like I didn't actually understand photography in the way I thought I did. After years of this, I was out shooting with a buddy and couldn't believe the quality coming out of his 6D with his ISO pushed more than twice the max I would even consider shooting on a crop. I finally picked up a 5DMkIV in November, and without changing anything about my shooting style- apart from utilizing the higher usable ISO- I'm blown away with the quality straight out of the camera.