very often there are discussions on the net about the different sensor sizes and how much bigger is sensor x vs. sensor y. I remember an article/video from Zack Arias about sensor sizes and what in his opinion is really big. I liked this kind of perspective. If I find that video again, I will link it here.
So I got the idea to make a graphic sensor size comparison. I find it always easier to look at it this way, if you do not have the possibility to compare final prints next to each other. So here it is (you need to be logged in to see the image bigger):
What I find interesting is that looking at this graphic, the step from MFT sensor of Olympus and Panasonic cameras to APS-C sensor size (Nikon DX, Fujifilm X etc.) does not seem as big as the step from APS-C to fullframe (Nikon FX).
Also the step from 1 inch sensors to MFT is not as big as I expected it to be.
But the 2/3 inch sensors of the latest smartphones (i.e. Nokia Lumia 1020, but the sensor in the iphone is a lot smaller) are not that much smaller than the 1 inch sensors in the Sony RX100, RX10 or the Nikon 1 system.
And it is impressive how much bigger the sensor of the Hasselblad H6D-100C is. Even compared to the "smaller" Medium Format of the Hasselblad H1D and Fujifilm GFX.
Maybe 1 inch sensor cameras have a limited future, since it is too close to 2/3" and MFT?
But if that would be the case, what about MFT vs. APS-C? Are those APS-C lenses small enough and the better image quality of the APS-C sensor large enough to justify the bigger costs over MFT?
Fujifilm states that the reason why they do not offer fullframe cameras is, that the gap between APS-C sensor size and fullframe (35mm) is in their view not big enough in image quality to be worth it. That is why they offer the "small" Medium Format with its GFX system.
But the same could be said for the comparison MFT vs. APS-C, or in other words MicroFourThirds vs. Fuji X? This gap seems to me even smaller than the gap between APS-C and fullframe