1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
By dirk on Oct 10, 2017 at 9:36 AM
  1. dirk

    dirk CI-Founder

    Top Poster Of Month

    May 15, 2002
    Likes Received:
    Camera brand:
    many/ see my profile
    City/ Country:

    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 ;)
    #1 dirk, Oct 10, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017


Discussion in 'General buying advise - The first steps' started by dirk, Oct 10, 2017.

    1. highdetail

      highdetail New Member

      Oct 7, 2012
      Likes Received:
      It's only my opinion, but we live in a conflicting world.
      With millions of phone users shooting stills and video clips via a tiny phone chip, that is where the future lies for most people.
      Your conversation concerns those who can afford using the smart capabilities of modern digital cameras, ranging MFT to APSC with facial recognition and now follow-focus-video when the subject crosses the field of view. Amateur videomakers would like in-built zebra or slow speed optical zoom but that would detract from sales of video cameras.

      I therefore submit that the world now offers these options

      1. Smarter consumer phones masquerading as cameras.
      2. Smarter cameras fighting in a divided market of hi-tech sensor designs.
      3. Expensive prosumer camcorders where the design labs sensor capabilities are driven by makers to eventually target consumer cameras and ultimately affecting the technology in consumer phones.

      and 4. (Compare your own current camera to) the Fujifim GFX 50s as an example of a computerised 50Mpixel medium format lens and sensor with a user price tag of $8000
      versus (your own camera with) an add-on digital back like a Leaf Aptus.

      My Sony VX1000 is positively stone age with its DV tapes.

Share This Page