How important is sensor size really? I've been thinking of getting a camera that is both good at video and photo and want to avoid full frame due to its high pricing and big size. A lot of people seem to love the GH series from Lumix but I hear tons of backlash in this board making fun of how mft is obsolete and has " phone tier' image quality . Is the mft that big of an issue when the gh7 has dual iso or should I just go with aps c . I am willing to spend around 800-1300 usd.
>>4518013It matters a lot more if you can afford modern dual gain sensor full frame or something more special like real medium format. That is, a modern aps-c can actually eclipse an older full frame camera like a d750 or a 5DIII in some situations. Maybe not on dpreview’s test charts, but in real life. Better sensors have a deeper, richer look especially if you have the skill to keep the ISO down because the larger pixels of the same or better quality can measure light better. APS-C generally packs in more features (especially video features) for the price to make up for noisier, subtly flatter and less realistic images with weirder colorsMicro four thirds is just totally pointless… its last decades tech, and yes it is similar to a phone without absurd effort maxxing and paying to use desktop AI enhancements. Get a canon R7 if you would want micro four thirds for the zoom factor. Get a sony a7c if you just want a snapper that’s the size of an old film camera with lenses 20mm-90mm.
>>4518013350 on a 4x5 camera, 150 on a tripod, rest of budget on film.Boom you're taking higher quality images than all digital cameras.
it’s not the size that matters it’s how you use it
>>4518013>How important is sensor size really?it sets the maximum that you can raise ISO before noise trashes the image.1" = 400 ISO4/3 = 800 ISOAPS-C = 1600 ISOFF = 3200 ISO"Trashes" is subjective since some people are okay with a greater level of noise and noise reduction than above limits..
>>4518076Thats a very basic approachIt also improves highlight recovery, not just shadow noise/background noise, and the variety of color/shadingHigh mp sensors additonally reduce aliasing and moireAnd a larger sensor can take a sharp photo with a less over-engineered lens. MF gets sharp shit from basic 7 element primes, mft requires small engineering wonders (olympus makes microscopes). Simpler lenses reflect less light and can have nicer bokeh and focus falloff.
>>4518034I'm just thinking of buying my first camera and been seeing this talking point everywhere>you can make great photos with anything!! buy an old shit camera first, it'll be great!I'm starting to think this is just cope from>people who post to instagram so their image quality goes to shit anyway>professionals with easily impressed clients like for weddings>people with bad eyesightbut maybe I'm in the minority if I care about fine details of how a photo looks and how sharp it is when magnified
>>4520053Shoot large format on 25 speed film. You don't want to deal with film? Get an IQ4 ($50,000) and Rodenstock and Schneider lenses (~$8,000) each. GFX100 or Hasselblad ($10,000) and Rodenstock Digaron ($6,000) is ok if you are okay with only using a tripod. Don't bother with anything less for a photographer who really cares about fine details.
>>4520053You could probably find a phaseone 645df kit or a hassy h3d with a decent back and an 80mm prime for less than 3k
>>4520094You'll spend around 3k on just the digital back that will produce IQ worth the fuss of using the system. The P45/P65 is about as old as you want to go, really. The cameras are bulky, slow, and cumbersome to use in most situations.If you just want to screw around wiyh medium format for cheaper the leaf aptus digital backs still take really nice pics and you could pair it with an adapted mamiya 645.
>>4520094You can get a 645df but an IQ3 back is still $5k minimum and is going to look blurry compared to a GFX100 using pixel shift. The Fuji 80mm has less contrast, more chromatic aberration, and lower corner sharpness than the Rodenstock. You do care about detail, don't you?
>>4520053its also because we want you to get used to the workflow of a separate camera, having to open the raws on a computer to edit them filters out most of the general population who are comfortable using their phones or shooting jpeg a old shit camera is $100 and worst case its a toy you throw it at someone when they get mad at you for taking their photo trying to do street photography
>>4520097Even a 30mp mfdb with the old cheap schneider primes has superior tonality to any 66mp foolframe even once equivalence is reached. As a bonus, they offer the joy of reflex and the light of the scene.
>>4520116Dont forget the bigger sensor doesnt have to stretch the colors as much so it has superior depth rendition as well
>>4520116>>4520097e-waste. Even aps-c has more resolution than a 30mp mfdb. FF has more than the P45 and P65. Resolving lines on test charts is the most important thing in photography.
>>4520120Enjoy your stretched colors, flattened tonality, and lens vampirism from having to correct every aberration for tiny 3.2um pickles
>>4520121I guess you don't really care about fine details and how sharp it is when magnified. It's ok to have bad eyesight. Maybe I really am in the minority.
>>4520124You just don’t have your priorities straight, ergo, you’re gay.
>>4520126You have bad eyesight or are an instagrammer or worse, a wedding photographer.
>>4520116Yeah the colors and tonality really are a lot better even on those old 30MP dalsa CCD sensors, but only with a LOT of light and once you move up from their base iso of 50/100 the IQ degrades significantly.
>>4520120If your camera isn't shooting in at least 16 bit color it is absolutely e-waste and takes inferior pictures. Sorry bro.
>>4518013In 2026, there's very little reason not to go for FF
>>4520133that's why >>4520090 is the only way. No obsolete low res junk backs or puny sensors.
>>4520147>i need more than ISO 50NGMILook up what ISO most kodachrome was
>>4520164People who cared about detail used kodachrome 25, chud. Who cares what most people used, they probably had bad eyesight.
>>4518013Micro four thirds is the ideal sensor size. Anything below is too little and anything more is just redundant.
>>4521477>Hey anon why do these look like the photos you text me from your phone>Because I always use this ca->No I mean I thought you used your phone
>>4521479That's your mom texting me btw.
Why is no one mentioning the most important thing? Lens length. Smaller sensors have smaller lenses. If you are a supertelephoto lens user, MFT is the way to go.
>>4522309Does size really matter if you're planning to take the absolute best picture you can? Usually the size of camera is just for convenience.
>>4518013Get what you can afford, like to shoot with, and works for the kinds of things you like to shoot. Don’t listen to gearfags who never actually use their cameras and instead jerk off over specs and pixel peep to justify spending thousands and thousands of dollars to larp being a real photographer.
>>4522333I thought most of them don't even own cameras.
