Enough About Sensor Size Already!

You can't directly compare digital sensors and film. It's apples and oranges really. I worked with film in my own darkroom many years ago, and as an analog process, the negative image on the film is "enlarged" by projecting light through it onto the photosensitive paper. Both film and paper have a grain, and the image had to be recorded to film through a camera lens with all its imperfections and then projected though the film, with its grain, via an enlarger lens with all of its imperfections. The smaller the image on film, the greater the imperfections and grain appeared once enlarged.

Digital is a little different. We aren't talking about "grain" but about detail. A digital value can be recorded on a tiny pixel or a big pixel, it can then be translated by a printer onto paper or displayed on a computer screen. The pixel's value is numeric and will remain the same no matter how big or small it was. Also, sensor performance is such that we are getting to the point, at least at "normal ISOs," where frankly, you would be hard pressed, if not entirely stymied, in any attempt to tell the difference in image quality between a 1" sensor and a full frame sensor. This bigger versus smaller sensor argument is getting really old to the point where it is more of a marketing tool for purveyors of so-called "full-frame" formats than an indication of any sort of noticeable quality differential.

For the vast majority of photographers, a more practical consideration might be system weight, cost, and/or size. At some point people will probably begin to look at photographers with full-frame dslrs the same way we would now look at someone carrying a VHS video camera instead of an digital 8 type of device. Remember all those giant video cameras people would take on their cross country trips? Who would do that now?

I put my Canon gear on the shelf a year ago and switched to Olympus M43s. The only differences in output quality worth mentioning are related to the age of the equipment rather than the size of the sensors. The slightly newer Olympus gear gives me better dynamic range and better low light performance. Otherwise, both systems offer great image quality. The real benefit, for me, to the m43s gear is its much smaller footprint and much lighter weight. The Canon body was big and heavy, and its lenses offered an even more substantial size and weight penalty. As for prices, well, take a look at “L” glass and decide for yourself.

Frankly, beyond all of the hype, buying the most expensive camera in the world won't make you a better photographer. If you want to take good pictures, stop looking at gear and practice taking photos with whatever you happen to have at hand. Also, consider this, beyond the attributes that people identify tin their efforts to define image quality, different cameras, formats, brands, and etc., will create files with different looks. Consider this a good thing as it will offer you a way to make something a little different from what the next guy is making – not necessarily better, or worse, but uniquely your own.