[Aristophanes]

A pig is a pig, no matter how much lipstick you smear on it.

Unless it is bacon.

Mmmmmmm..........bacon.

[mysticcowboy]

It is all about print size. I get great prints at 11x14 with my Canon S90. Above that, the smaller sensor shows. I've been able to push my K-5 to 20x30, though the limits of the sensor start to become apparent at that size. Since that's as big I plan on printing, the APS sensor is adequate. And the other wonderful qualities of the sensor are very appealing. I've seen 30x40 prints from a Sony A900 that show similar IQ at 30x40, so the sensor size does make a difference.

The flip side of a larger sensor is larger cameras, read heavy as well as the larger cost of both the body and the lenses. It's all a matter of finding a personal sweet spot.

[Philoslothical]

Many of us would prefer big sensors with fat juicy pixels.
Such have implications for noise, DOF, diffraction limit, viewfinders, etc.

This is really key, isn't it? Sensor size to megapickle ratio, larger pixels on a large sensor giving at least a marginally better IQ, all else being equal. In theory a 12 MP sensor should have better pixel size and overlap than a 24 MP sensor of the same physical dimensions. There are probably exceptions to this rule, but this is one of the reasons I cringe when people shop by megapixels, ignoring sensor size.

[falconeye]

this is one of the reasons I cringe when people shop by megapixels, ignoring sensor size.

You are misled by a common myth.
As soon as pixels are bigger than ~2-3µm, more pixels actually improve the image quality. Even when considering noise.

[jsherman999]

Apparently they have some pretty good drugs now for many psychological problems.

What did your doc suggest?

.

[jsherman999]

...

It seems from reading these forums that people care about the size of the sensor, but if the K-5 were putting out the same images it does with a mobile phone sensor, would you care? Or would you think "well, if it's that good with a sensor that size, imagine what it'd be like with the same technology on a bigger sensor"?

.


Of course it wouldn't matter what size the sensor was if it delivered:

1) The Noise performance equivalent of current/new aps-c bodies
2) An affordable DOF/FOV equivalence capability with an available lens of, say, a 35 f/2 on aps-c (or better yet, 50 1.7 on FF)
3) The Dynamic range of the newer aps-c bodies

If a tiny, cheap sensor could provide these things, then no, it's size wouldn't matter nearly as much.

Until it does, you have to shoot with lowered personal standards if you want to use one.


.

[Wheatfield]

.
Until it does, you have to shoot with lowered personal standards if you want to use one.
.

Consider that probably 98% of people do exactly that.
And they don't care a whit.

[jsherman999]

Consider that probably 98% of people do exactly that.
And they don't care a whit.

The members of this forum and DSLR shooters in general are who (I'm assuming) the OP was addressing, not the folks who shoot P&S's and camera phones only.

(For them, the question is actually meaningless.)


.

[mysticcowboy]

You are misled by a common myth.
As soon as pixels are bigger than ~2-3µm, more pixels actually improve the image quality. Even when considering noise.

That's all things being equal, but they aren't, are they? Newer sensors with smaller pixel size can offer better image quality because the technology is better. My 16 MP K-5 produces much better files than my 14 MP K20D, even though the pixels are noticeably smaller. Don't even think of comparing the K-5 with a K10D, which was made with fewer pixels still. My 10 MP Canon S90 produces better files with its tiny sensor than the original Canon Digital Rebel which had an APS sensor of 6MP. And so on and so on.

We'll have to wait on the tests to see how the new Samsung 20 MP and the Sony 24 MP APS sensors perform. My guess is that they'll be better than most older and less dense sensors.

[Just1MoreDave]

Right now, a bigger sensor means a 645D or switching brands. Some people have already gone that way, so they do care, enough to spend some money. That's too much money for me. At a certain price and camera size/weight, I'd care, but Pentax won't make any money at my price.

[hcarvalhoalves]

3 reasons sensor size matters:

- DoF
- Cheap wide primes usable again
- Decent viewfinder

If Pentax released a DSLR with nothing (no AF, no IS - heck, even no LCD screen) but a full-frame sensor and big viewfinder, I would still buy it. Current APS-C DSLRs have amazing image quality - no doubt about that - but the actual experience of shooting sucks compared to 35mm, and it's all related to the sensor size.

[simico]

What I've noticed over the years is that only measurebator (armchair-)photographers care about noise and sharpness. Normal (i.e. non-measurbator, non-photographer) people don't care about these at all. Every time I put a technically perfect (excellent sharpness, perfect focus, no visible noise, no motion blur, etc) picture with less emotion and a technically imperfect (noisy, focus slightly off, slight motion blur, etc) picture showing lots of emotions on the table, guess which one gets selected by everyone? People care about the subject of the photo and if it shows or creates emotions, not about technical perfectness.

[Stone G.]

Forget for a moment "advances in technology" and take a look at the fundamental laws of physics which tell us

• large pixels are more sensitive than small
• large pixels are less noisy than small
• optics with large apertures (physical size - not f-number) have higher reolution than small

This is not a matter of "technology". It is a matter of quantum mechanics, statistics and classical optics.



Now, combine this with the trivial fact that

• more pixels in any sensor of a given size will shown more fine detail

and it is quite obvious that larger sensors with many larger pixels on large sensors will inevitably produce better pictures IF you remember to take the optical requirements (larger focal lengths and larger physical apertures) into the equation as well.

Much can be done by improvements in sensor manufacturing technology, but the above mentioned constraints and limitations are real. More can be done in electronics + software together, boosting sensitivity while reducing noise software wise. And you will indeed get "nice pictures" even with smaller sensors+pixels+optics that will serve for most purposes.

But for "true" / "scientific" photography such as macro photography or astrophotography you do not want software to manipulate your image data outside and beyond your own control.

There is a good reason that the Hubble, Keck and similar telescopes have the combined optical + sensor sizes that they have........

[Nass]

But, technology and software don't just evolve for small sensors. Therefore, given that small and large will have the same technology advances, ultimately the differentiator becomes just the sensor size. And all else being equal, a larger sensor gives you certain things compared to a smaller, because of physics. Ie I don't think the software advances or technology advances is all that relevant as an APSC argument.

Me, I'd just like the bigger viewfinder. Kind of bored of being sold on the idea that a 400 is a 600, when actually to me it's just an inadequate 400

[falconeye]

What I've noticed over the years is that only measurebator (armchair-)photographers care about noise and sharpness. Normal (i.e. non-measurbator, non-photographer) people don't care about these at all.

IMHO, that's a silly and pointless statement (no pun intended).

It's like a sculptor who doesn't care about what tools he uses. Because the "normal people" only care about the sculpture as such. Of course, and trivially so.

But the sculptor is not "normal", he's a sculptor. He does care about the tools and materials he uses. Very much so. And without the proper tool, he would fail to achieve what he has in mind.

Likewise, we (in this forum) aren't normal. We're photographers. And as such, we do care about sensor size. Very much so.

And your attitude to classify those who do as "measurebator (armchair-)photographers" is not easy to tolerate. Because every photographer does (to some extend). Otherwise, he's "normal", not a photographer. Artists care about the tools they use.

It started in stone age for cave paintings actually. In some sense, art is nothing but the toolmakers artifacts. Toolmaker as in human, the toolmaker.