[Wheatfield]

Digging into that, Bill, with respect... Are you saying that more sensor real-estate is always better in every use case, or that different sizes - larger and smaller - have different applications where either (with the associated lenses) can be better?

...

We’ve been down this road often enough that just pointing to another thread should be sufficient. In fact, I’ll just quote the reply from the last time we discussed this:

Not maybe so Mike, so.. More real estate = better picture. Every other criteria is a compromise. You don't want to carry an 8x10 view camera on a 20 mile hike? I get that. I wouldn't even want to try the 20 mile hike. But, taking a smaller camera is a compromise. You are trading quality for convenience and not having a heart attack halfway there. There is nothing wrong with that, life is all about compromise.
I can't afford a 645 or larger camera, so I compromise with the K1
However, I am compromising less with it than I was with my K3.
Don't pretend your Pentax Q is going to give a better image than a larger sensor camera.
It won't. Had you chosen to find some way of not compromising and had taken the bigger camera on your hike, you would have gotten better pictures.

Regarding a reply about wildlife photography

No, it doesn't favour APS-C, better quality favours a longer lens. APS-C is a compromise.

Regarding a post comparing newest generation APS-C sensors to older generation large sensors:

There are large frame sensors that are as new as the newest APS-C, The larger sensor gives better quality.
Every time.
Real estate matters.

Regarding a post about large sensor cameras being bigger than small sensor cameras:

Sure, but the smaller sensor is a compromise. You are compromising quality for portability.

And with that, I'm afraid I have to bow out of this thread, so I won't be able to defend my views further.

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 07-21-2019 at 10:41 AM. Reason: Keeping it friendly and respectful

[BigMackCam]

We’ve been down this road often enough that just pointing to another thread should be sufficient. In fact, I’ll just quote the reply from the last time we discussed this:

Yes, I remember that discussion, Bill. I guess we just fundamentally disagree on certain things (not for the first time ) - specifically, on this subject, what constitutes "compromise" (in every aspect from capture to final reproduction in all its forms) and when it's relevant - or not, as the case may be...

[Wheatfield]

Yes, I remember that discussion, Bill. I guess we just fundamentally disagree on certain things (not for the first time ) - specifically, on this subject, what constitutes "compromise" (in every aspect from capture to final reproduction in all its forms) and when it's relevant - or not, as the case may be...

Hey, as long as you admit that my thoughtful and well laid out debating points give me the win, I’m good.
We get too caught up in the “horses for courses” pap to remember that the entire concept of that is just a set of compromises.
Compromise is something all of us do at some point. We name it by various things, “it takes all kinds”, “different strokes” (which for me has always had a somewhat darker symbolism), and I’m sure there are others.
But, it always comes down to that dirty word “compromise”, a word that too many people see as an undesirable epithet rather than an undeniable reality.

[BigMackCam]

Hey, as long as you admit that my thoughtful and well laid out debating points give me the win, I’m good.

Ha ha I'll go so far as to say your debating points were thoughtful and well laid out... is that good enough?

We get too caught up in the “horses for courses” pap to remember that the entire concept of that is just a set of compromises.
Compromise is something all of us do at some point. We name it by various things, “it takes all kinds”, “different strokes” (which for me has always had a somewhat darker symbolism), and I’m sure there are others.
But, it always comes down to that dirty word “compromise”, a word that too many people see as an undesirable epithet rather than an undeniable reality.

Wholeheartedly agree. As I pointed out in my previous response, I think where you and I differ (in this matter) is our opinions on what constitutes benefits and compromises, and where these present as such or cease to matter. But it's all good... It would be a boring world indeed if everyone's opinions were the same

[Wheatfield]

Ha ha I'll go so far as to say your debating points were thoughtful and well laid out... is that good enough? :lol

No, that isn’t good enough. You must submit to the boot heel of my superior talking points

Wholeheartedly agree. As I pointed out in my previous response, I think where you and I differ (in this matter) is our opinions on what constitutes benefits and compromises, and where these present as such or cease to matter. But it's all good... It would be a boring world indeed if everyone's opinions were the same

I expect we agree more than you think. In my much younger days, I had no problem humping a 25lb 4x5 kit and a 15lb tripod on rather strenuous hikes. Now I carry a small format DSLR and a few lenses. Further compromising this is that my dog is the one doing most of the carrying.
The other compromise I could make is to just say “I can’t carry my 4x5 that far so I just won’t go”.
I would rather load my dog up with a few lenses, a camera body and some snacks and water and go for a walk, even knowing that the results would be better if I took the Tachihara and all the stuff that goes along with it. I also know that I would get about halfway or less to my destination before having to turn back.

Heck, I’m even seriously considering buying a 28-105 zoom lens as a compromise to carrying 5 lenses.

Physical ability, or lack of same, is one of the better reasons to compromise on the size of equipment. Lack of unlimited finances is another.
We just have to be willing to admit that we are making a compromise. By recognizing this fact early on, we can make more informed decisions regarding where and when compromise is strategic, and where it is a cop out.

But this is all a side track. The thread is about comparing a sensor the size of a dust mote to an APS-C sensor. The result is nothing more than realizing that size matters, that the larger sensor, even as old as it is, is still a better imaging tool than the very small sensor in the cell phone.
What the thread isn’t about is how far one can carry the larger sensor camera vs the cell phone, as both were quite obviously carried to the same location.

[BigMackCam]

No, that isn’t good enough. You must submit to the boot heel of my superior talking points

This is why we clash occasionally. We have such similar regard for our own superiority

I expect we agree more than you think.

I suspect we do, Bill... Internet forums are a poor compromise (there's that word again) for discussion and debate. Sat in a bar with a cold one, I imagine we'd see eye to eye on many things, resolve other things we seem to disagree on but actually don't, and reach amicable conclusion on the matters where we actually - and validly - disagree

In my much younger days, I had no problem humping a 25lb 4x5 kit and a 15lb tripod on rather strenuous hikes. Now I carry a small format DSLR and a few lenses. Further compromising this is that my dog is the one doing most of the carrying.
The other compromise I could make is to just say “I can’t carry my 4x5 that far so I just won’t go”.
I would rather load my dog up with a few lenses, a camera body and some snacks and water and go for a walk, even knowing that the results would be better if I took the Tachihara and all the stuff that goes along with it. I also know that I would get about halfway or less to my destination before having to turn back.

Heck, I’m even seriously considering buying a 28-105 zoom lens as a compromise to carrying 5 lenses.

Physical ability, or lack of same, is one of the better reasons to compromise on the size of equipment. Lack of unlimited finances is another.
We just have to be willing to admit that we are making a compromise. By recognizing this fact early on, we can make more informed decisions regarding where and when compromise is strategic, and where it is a cop out.

But this is all a side track. The thread is about comparing a sensor the size of a dust mote to an APS-C sensor. The result is nothing more than realizing that size matters, that the larger sensor, even as old as it is, is still a better imaging tool than the very small sensor in the cell phone.
What the thread isn’t about is how far one can carry the larger sensor camera vs the cell phone, as both were quite obviously carried to the same location.

There's probably much in this that we do actually agree on.

But, purely for fun - not trying to argue here (I promise)...

If someone is photographing a vacation scene in broad, sunny daylight, with the sole intent of sharing that image on, say, Instagram, does the tiny sensor compromise matter? If yes, how - in any meaningful way?

If it doesn't matter... same shooting conditions, but different reproduction targets... say, a 4x6" print? 5x7"? 8x10"? Much, much larger prints? Posters? Bill-boards? Or, sharing the image for display on a friend's (or forum member's) 10" tablet... 13" laptop... 15.6" or 17" laptop... 24" inch desktop monitor? 36", 42" etc. ?? There are definitely some of these where images from the tiny sensor would be obviously inferior... mid-to-large print sizes, or display on larger screens, to state the obvious. But does the advantage of the larger sensor (which I acknowledge exists) matter in all these examples? If so, how - in any meaningful way?

I'm not trying to take away from the fact that, in absolute terms, where different sized sensor and lens combinations can produce the same fundamental image characteristics (field of view, depth of field etc.), the larger sensor is generally going to produce a better result. My point for this specific example is, does it always matter? Is that benefit always realised? If not (in at least one of the examples I've given), how is it still a benefit, and how is the smaller sensor a compromise? Could the P20 Pro (or even a lowlier camera) with its tiny sensor be just as well-suited, perhaps even better suited, than a medium format monster in this use case?

I guess I'm trying to present just one of my debating points here (in this example, based on reproduction medium and size) rather than seriously asking "how and why", though I'd always appreciate your (thoughtful and well laid out ) response And if we continue to disagree, that's just fine... Or maybe I'll even change my view

[Apologies to the OP for the thread de-rail - I feel it's relevant, but I'm happy to move this to another thread if you'd prefer ]

[swanlefitte]

You two have inspired me to invent a satirical story.
I got fired once because I didn't know my work schedule. I couldn't afford to buy a camera yet that I felt would accurately reproduce the schedule and my drawing skills are lacking. If only I could have just remembered it. I couldn't take notes in school either.😀

[BigMackCam]

You two have inspired me to invent a satirical story.
I got fired once because I didn't know my work schedule. I couldn't afford to buy a camera yet that I felt would accurately reproduce the schedule and my drawing skills are lacking. If only I could have just remembered it. I couldn't take notes in school either.😀

LOL

You could probably have afforded a used compact camera with a tiny 1/2.33" sensor that would have taken a perfectly decent photo for printing on letter sized paper, or better still a wallet-sized card. The depth of field for the sensor and lens combination would be quite forgiving if the camera wasn't absolutely parallel to the printed schedule (a benefit for the smaller sensor?). Or, you could have taken out finance to buy a full frame DSLR to take the same photo and produced the same prints. Of course, you'd need to stop down a lot if you wanted remotely similar latitude on having the camera parallel to the subject (a compromise for the larger sensor?). That aside, assuming perfect alignment, would you have been able to see the difference in the photos, in this use case? Would the undoubtedly superior image quality of the full frame camera have mattered (i.e. would it have been visible) - in this use case? Maybe it would... I don't know... I just have my opinions

I think I ought to start a dedicated thread on this subject. Bill and I have sparred on it several times, and in those sessions, there's clearly been a range of opinions...

[Wheatfield]

This is why we clash occasionally. We have such similar regard for our own superiority



I suspect we do, Bill... Internet forums are a poor compromise (there's that word again) for discussion and debate. Sat in a bar with a cold one, I imagine we'd see eye to eye on many things, resolve other things we seem to disagree on but actually don't, and reach amicable conclusion on the matters where we actually - and validly - disagree



There's probably much in this that we do actually agree on.

But, purely for fun - not trying to argue here (I promise)...

If someone is photographing a vacation scene in broad, sunny daylight, with the sole intent of sharing that image on, say, Instagram, does the tiny sensor compromise matter? If yes, how - in any meaningful way?

No. The person has already made the decision to compromise quality by using instagram as his or her medium. At that point, a wet turd with a 15 year old P&S sensor will do the job just fine.

Where the compromise may matter is if they get home and decide they want a decent sized print for their wall and can’t get the print quality they want.

Cell phone and small display screens are the great equalizers, bringing everything down to the same level of junk.

If it doesn't matter... same shooting conditions, but different reproduction targets... say, a 4x6" print? 5x7"? 8x10"? Much, much larger prints? Posters? Bill-boards? Or, sharing the image for display on a friend's (or forum member's) 10" tablet... 13" laptop... 15.6" or 17" laptop... 24" inch desktop monitor? 36", 42" etc. ?? There are definitely some of these where images from the tiny sensor would be obviously inferior... mid-to-large print sizes, or display on larger screens, to state the obvious. But does the advantage of the larger sensor (which I acknowledge exists) matter in all these examples? If so, how - in any meaningful way?

It depends on the level of compromise the person is willing to make. I haven’t made the comparison, but I would expect that by a 5x7 print size, a reasonably discerning eye will see the difference between a cell phone and a DSLR.
There is also the not knowing how bad what you are looking at is syndrome at play.
If all you’ve seen is cell phone images, then you don’t know what you are missing and probably don’t care.

When I was a kid, I took up the trumpet as a musical instrument. I thought I was pretty good I sounded almost as good as Herb Alpert. and then I heard Al Hirt and Lois Armstrong.
That was the moment I decided to devote more time to photography.

My reference bar had just been raised (a lot) and I realized I would never be as good on the trumpet as I wanted to be.

I'm not trying to take away from the fact that, in absolute terms, where different sized sensor and lens combinations can produce the same fundamental image characteristics (field of view, depth of field etc.), the larger sensor is generally going to produce a better result. My point for this specific example is, does it always matter? Is that benefit always realised? If not (in at least one of the examples I've given), how is it still a benefit, and how is the smaller sensor a compromise? Could the P20 Pro (or even a lowlier camera) with its tiny sensor be just as well-suited, perhaps even better suited, than a medium format monster in this use case?

I guess I'm trying to present just one of my debating points here (in this example, based on reproduction medium and size) rather than seriously asking "how and why", though I'd always appreciate your (thoughtful and well laid out ) response And if we continue to disagree, that's just fine... Or maybe I'll even change my view

[Apologies to the OP for the thread de-rail - I feel it's relevant, but I'm happy to move this to another thread if you'd prefer ]

The point is, in the context of this thread, which is comparing an older APS-C sensor camera to a fairly modern cell phone camera, the APS-C camera image looks better.
The reason for this is more real estate, plain and simple.
This isn’t a thread derail, this is just answering the OP regarding why one looks better than the other.
I wasn’t discussing anything outside of this thread with my original answer. I was just stating a fact regarding why one picture looks better.
More real estate the point of capture will give a better picture. All else is a compromise.

---------- Post added Jul 21st, 2019 at 04:22 PM ----------

LOL

You could probably have afforded a used compact camera with a tiny 1/2.33" sensor that would have taken a perfectly decent photo for printing on letter sized paper, or better still a wallet-sized card. The depth of field for the sensor and lens combination would be quite forgiving if the camera wasn't absolutely parallel to the printed schedule (a benefit for the smaller sensor?). Or, you could have taken out finance to buy a full frame DSLR to take the same photo and produced the same prints. Of course, you'd need to stop down a lot if you wanted remotely similar latitude on having the camera parallel to the subject (a compromise for the larger sensor?). That aside, assuming perfect alignment, would you have been able to see the difference in the photos, in this use case? Would the undoubtedly superior image quality of the full frame camera have mattered (i.e. would it have been visible) - in this use case? Maybe it would... I don't know... I just have my opinions

I think I ought to start a dedicated thread on this subject. Bill and I have sparred on it several times, and in those sessions, there's clearly been a range of opinions...

I really don’t have anything new to say on the subject. At this point we are just chasing each other around the Mulberry Bush.

[BigMackCam]

No. The person has already made the decision to compromise quality by using instagram as his or her medium. At that point, a wet turd with a 15 year old P&S sensor will do the job just fine.

Sure... agreed! So there's at least one situation where sensor real estate doesn't matter - and the wet turd will do just fine.

My point - this specific point (of several) at least - is that the intended output medium and size is an intrinsic part of the overall use case... an extreme and somewhat exaggerated one, admittedly, but for good reason - i.e. to make the point that in certain use cases, the compromise of a smaller sensor ceases to actually be a compromise - especially if the photographer has no intention of printing or displaying at larger dimensions. As such, the way I personally see it, a larger sensor camera won't always give a better result in every situation - because those situations include the final intended reproduction and use of the image.

I'll start a new thread tomorrow on this, and I'd be delighted if you'd contribute to it, Bill - but if you'd rather not, no problem. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong - only that we have different views, and probably from different angles

[Wheatfield]

Sure... agreed! So there's at least one situation where sensor real estate doesn't matter - and the wet turd will do just fine.

Just as long as we also agree that by leaving out the part of my post that explained why this compromise might come back to bit them you have compromised the integrity of the debate.

I have no problems with a person’s willingness to accept junk results. In your example, deciding to use a cell phone screen as the output device is where the compromise happened.
Using a better quality capture device, such as a full frame DSLR, will still result in a better quality picture, the fact that this quality would be wasted on a 1000 pixel wide image is not really germane to the thread.

My point (this specific point - of several - at least) is that the intended output medium and size is an intrinsic part of the overall use case... an extreme and somewhat exaggerated one, admittedly, but for good reason - i.e. to make the point that in certain use cases, the compromise of a smaller sensor ceases to actually be a compromise - especially if the photographer has no intention of printing or displaying at larger dimensions. As such, the way I personally see it, a larger sensor camera won't always give a better result in every situation - because those situations include the final intended reproduction and use of the image.

I'll start a new thread tomorrow on this, and I'd be delighted if you'd contribute to it, Bill - but if you'd rather not, no problem. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong - only that we have different views, and probably from different angles

[BigMackCam]

Just as long as we also agree that by leaving out the part of my post that explained why this compromise might come back to bit them you have compromised the integrity of the debate.

My apologies, Bill - since your entire post was directly above my reply, I thought the short quote I provided was sufficient. I'm not trying to "pull a fast one", if that's what you thought If you wish, let me know which part I should have included and I'll gladly edit my post. I have no wish to compromise the integrity of the debate. Is it the part about folks at some point deciding they might want a larger print?

I have no problems with a person’s willingness to accept junk results. In your example, deciding to use a cell phone screen as the output device is where the compromise happened. Using a better quality capture device, such as a full frame DSLR, will still result in a better quality picture, the fact that this quality would be wasted on a 1000 pixel wide image is not really germane to the thread.

Is there a point at which a desired output channel, medium and size passes from being "junk" to respectable, in your assessment? And are any of those channels, media and sizes less valid than the others in context of their intended purposes, in your assessment? I think that's very important in the debate, and the reason I say so is, many folks will only ever view their own and/or other folks' photos online... Most would probably agree that Instagram reproduction is (for want of a kinder and more constructive phrase in recognition of the better content that undoubtedly exists) "junk", but still they'll most likely view photos on a phone, perhaps a tablet, most likely a laptop or desktop PC... less often these days, a print, and less often still, a large print on a wall. The vast majority of folks will, I suggest, only view an image via relatively-limited reproduction media. Most of the photos I look at are viewed on 10", 15.6", 17" or 24" monitors, or very occasionally different print sizes and different viewing distances at art galleries (but that's quite rare for me). Perhaps I'm unusual in that respect, but I suspect I'm representative of the majority. I totally agree that if someone intends to produce large prints for reasonably close viewing, a larger sensor is going to win every time (if you'd said "sensor real estate matters if you're printing large enough", we'd be in violent agreement ). I wonder, though, how many amateur photographers intend (or will ever intend) to reproduce their images at larger dimensions. For those that won't, it doesn't mean their output is junk... only that the intended channels and media are different to large prints. And for them, does the sensor real estate argument hold water? Maybe it does... Personally, I suspect not. To be discussed in my new thread, should you choose to join in