Is larger always better?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Both sensors are same size. The dicussion here is more about sizes of sensors than number of pixels.

Best regards
Erik

Nikon D4 16MP and Canon 1D X 18MP, sometimes bigger isn't better.

Cheers,

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I think DR is a bit overrated. Why? Because of lens flare.

In my humble opinion the advantage of larger sizes is that we get less shot noise. Also I think that larger sizes are advantageous regarding resolution/edge contrast/MTF. Smaller sizes will probably always have an economical advantage.

Best regards
Erik

My sense and experience tell me that "all other factors being equal" (at leat theoretically) bigger will be better.  At least until the level of resolution and dynamic range for a given sensor / display medium size exceeds human vision.  Once that limit it reached then one could speculate "at what sensor size" has it been reached. Improvements from that point forward could drive sensor size downward.

None of my speculation takes into account the other differences in image characteristics that derive from relative sensor size, however. 

[marcsitkin]

I always thought so, and for many years was on a trajectory of larger cameras, enlargers and print sizes. What I've begun to realize is that it's getting increasingly difficult to justify the expense of the equipment, the weight of the gear, and the size of the facility geared towards making really large images. Getting profit out of the process of photography in the 21st century seems to be very hard compared to only 20 years ago. People seem to spend more time looking at images on monitors, much commercial work is now for web, not print, and except for the very wealthy few, wall space for large prints is at a premium.

I recently added an Olympus OMD EM-5 kit to my gear (which at this point is Canon DSLR). The Oly kit has the body, 17mm, 45mm and 75mm f1/8 prime lenses, and in a Domke messenger back weighs just over 5 lbs.

I'm extremely happy with the results of this combination, both in print and on screen. It's a lot more fun to carry around this kit for a day, and it's allowing me to shoot more freely than the DSLR does. It's a really well thought out camera system that delivers pleasure during use, and amazing results.

Are there tradeoffs, yes. But no camera is perfect, and I'm happy I reevaluated my gear.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Very valid points, thank you very much!

Best regards
Erik

I always thought so, and for many years was on a trajectory of larger cameras, enlargers and print sizes. What I've begun to realize is that it's getting increasingly difficult to justify the expense of the equipment, the weight of the gear, and the size of the facility geared towards making really large images. Getting profit out of the process of photography in the 21st century seems to be very hard compared to only 20 years ago. People seem to spend more time looking at images on monitors, much commercial work is now for web, not print, and except for the very wealthy few, wall space for large prints is at a premium.

I recently added an Olympus OMD EM-5 kit to my gear (which at this point is Canon DSLR). The Oly kit has the body, 17mm, 45mm and 75mm f1/8 prime lenses, and in a Domke messenger back weighs just over 5 lbs.

I'm extremely happy with the results of this combination, both in print and on screen. It's a lot more fun to carry around this kit for a day, and it's allowing me to shoot more freely than the DSLR does. It's a really well thought out camera system that delivers pleasure during use, and amazing results.

Are there tradeoffs, yes. But no camera is perfect, and I'm happy I reevaluated my gear.