Thread 4478830

I'm really lost on how much sensor size matters, because while I read tons of gear stuff here and the most detailed explanations, in reality the photos taken with a small sensor still look good to me because it's about composition, feelings, emotion, subjects and things like that.
So what's the deal with sensor sizes

>>4478830 (OP)
bigger image sensor = better potential technical image quality. That's it. We can't really buy better composition, feelings, emotion, or subjects like we can a bigger sensor which is why we talk about it. Although there are cases where only a bigger sensor will get the job done.

Don't tell me actually go outside and take photos, what are you a faggot lmao
You should be on this board, posting esoteric charts

Tends to mean better resolution at higher megapixels. When you go from crop camera to full-frame camera, you notice the resolution difference. I will never go back to using a crop sensor camera. I would notice the soft edges. The lack of detail. I really want to get a Fuji medium format body next.

>>4478830 (OP)
Sensor size literally doesnt matter now with computational photography and AI tech from phones that have cameras with smaller sensors.

>>4478830 (OP)
Pretend you are using a lens with a FOV of 60° on a 1/2.3”-type sensor, a 1”-type sensor, MFT, APS-C, full frame and medium format. Imagine the pixel pitch is the same on all these sensors. With the same FOV and the same pixel pitch, the difference in sensor size leads to greater capacity to resolve details.

Practically speaking, larger sensors are less noisy at the same ISO than smaller sensors but I haven’t a clue how that works technically speaking.

>>4478830 (OP)

Ask yourself one question, do I upload to Instagram?
If yes it doesn’t matter because you upload at 1 megapixel in which any sensor looks the same.
This makes sense, that app was built for mobile phone photos.
And if you upload your photo anywhere else nobody looks at it so again the resolution or sensor size doesn’t matter.

It is indisputable that increasing sensor size will generally increase image quality and that the newer the sensor, the better it'll be. It's also indisputable that you can make nice looking 12x18" prints using a 10mp crop sensor from 15 years ago.

So yes, sensor size matters but it also actually doesn't because all most people do is look at photos on Instagram @ 1080px wide

>>4478844
This. Just AI generate your photos instead of wasting time taking pictures. Lmao.

>>4478830 (OP)
Larger sensors with larger pixels more accurately capture light and can use less corrected lenses so you’re getting a realer image instead of an estimation of sterile overcorrected snoyslop rendering.

There’s a reason hollywood will pay thousands to RENT a vintage medium format lens.

But if all you do is pixel peep you will never notice or care because everything looks bad pixel peeped.

>>4478857
>This. Just AI generate your photos instead of wasting time taking pictures. Lmao.
Never go full retard kids

>>4478858
using a modern phone is almost equal to ai generating pics rofl

>>4478857
Videographers: its about color gradation and the way focus falloff is rendered even at smaller apertures, mostly. Subtlety is beauty.

Photographers: I NEED MORE MEGAPIXELS OR IT MIGHT AS WELL BE CROP. IS THAT CHROMATIC ABERRATION IN THE FAR CORNER? EW! I NEED A BIGGER G MASTER LENS BECAUSE EQUIVALENCE. FULL FRAME IS POINTLESS SLOWER THAN F2!!! THATS IT I GIVE UP PHONES ARE BETTER. ONLY THE LOWEST IQ INSTAGRAM VIEWERS WITH LOW END ANDROID PHONES EVEN MATTER.

to no ones surprise photography died and video kept on trucking

>>4478859
Meds

>>4478860
That's not photographers it is /p/ gearfags.

>>4478830 (OP)
I can post a bunch of examples of all sorts of different sensor/film sizes of the same subject, but the difference is very subtle when scaled to only 4mb or less.
It really depends on what you're doing and what your end goal is.

For leisurely snapshitting crop medium format and smaller is great. Once you get into real medium format sizes or larger it becomes much more difficult to extract 100% of what the camera can capture quality wise and it ends up limiting what the camera is really good for.

>>4478830 (OP)
>sensor size doesn't matter
>it's all about feelings
>my snapshits look good to me
ok

>>4478867
>photography is science, not art!!!
ok

Sensor size matters, but not in these insignificant steps from 1/2.8" to 1/2.5" or from 1" to M43 for example. Sensor technology and SNR are normally more important than going from a smartphone to a 1" point and shoot. I will argue there are two things looked over things that make sensor size important though:
>Pixel density
Smaller sensors will have higher pixel density and lower aperture size, which means less light and more pixels to fill with light = a rough time for anything but good lighting conditions. However, this means you can get the same "zoom" with a smaller lens. This is why smartphone lenses are tiny but LARP as 24/28mm or even 50mm lenses. Extrapolate that to more aggressive focal lengths like 400mm and suddenly it's way cheaper and lighter and smaller to get a decent photo with APS-C versus a Full Frame kit.
>Lens pupil entrance size (aka aperture size not f/stop)
Bigger apertures let in more light. When photography is literally the capture of light, that makes aperture important. Now the fucked thing is, marketing for anything but full frame systems will cheat and slap "f/2.5" or something on their lenses or phones because obviously the lower the ratio the better! True, but overall diameter is still what actually matters.
An f/2 phone lens is about 2mm of aperture diameter. An f/2 FF lens is 25mm. But it's sexier to slap f/2 on the marketing page than "2mm wide aperture".
Anyway, think of it like a funnel. A bigger funnel lets in more water just like a bigger aperture lets in more light. The end result is a cleaner signal (to noise ratio, aka SNR).

Basically, if you have to rely on cropping AT ALL it's normally more effective to drop down a sensor size and get a smaller pixel pitch. It's why birders use APS-C and M43 cameras and not medium format or whatever.
But, if you can fill the frame the way you want it without cropping, and are willing to carry the gear and spend the money, bigger sensors produce better quality photos.

What I'm having reconciling is what you guys say matters about photography, the sensor sizes, the gear, all that stuff, with the reality of at least amateur photography where it's about memories, the journey and improving

>>4478876
Correct. But nobody on 4chan has feelings outside of rape fantasies and improving requires you to not be a failure at life.
Actual photography takes place outside this board.

>>4478876
It only matters if you need it to achieve your intended goal. 98% of all photographs posted on /p/ would be just as good shot on a 5d classic.
Arguing about 2% differences between noise at 12 million iso and the likes is just a way nerds avoid improving their photography.

>>4478879
People like you are the real "gear fags". You approach everything like an engineering problem. "How many nuts and bolts do we need to attach this and use it for xyz?"

>>4478876
It’s about feel and vibe. Ignore that engineering major brain. Just because using a leica is overshooting technical requirements doesn’t mean it doesn’t make a difference.

>>4478878
Uh, most decent artists are fueled by drugs and rape fantasies and are failures at life

>>4478878
Why does the average /p/cel project so hard?

>>4478880
Your reading comprehension needs work and probably your photography too lol

Just be normal

Use an a7c and a 35mm f2.8

>>4478884
>>4478880
Samefag

>>4478883
>uh this photo isnt important and instagram is only so and so and so to get enough resolution for sharpness at the pixels you only need a 5d classic
Virgin shit

You have never owned a nice camera and despise the idea of it because all you people do is hate yourselves and project your self hating, i-deserve-nothing incelism onto everyone else so you pretend it doesnt make a difference

Those of us who ball can tell out d200 4x6s from our leicas and have lives outside of instagram and /p/. DWI.

>>4478879
>just a way nerds avoid improving their photography.
I'd dispute this; this IS their way of improving their photography because abstract thought and communication of internal experience is completely a non-factor for them.

>>4478889
Projecting nerd

>uhm no thought only specs
>also according to my calculations you only need so and so
Fucking hypocrites. You dont understand feel and vibe. you don’t understand swag. you dont understand drip. you read this shit and you gag. go back to to the library, kid. you aint sailin, you missed the ship.

>>4478886
>My camera is my personality! This nice camera I have means I am a good photographer and everytime I press button I make incredible photos because camera is expensive. Don't you know how expensive my camera is? That makes the pictures better!!!

Lmao. You are an absolute joke. I have nicer and more expensive cameras than most of this board. I'm just being real with bro while you project your gay little insecurities all over my post.

>>4478892
Projecting your self hatred and trying to flex at once

Yeah my dad’s donald trump what now

Fuck off to /o/ and go tell everyone with nicer wheels their dick’s too small. I read you like a book. You’ll have more fun because no one gives a shit about cameras. You leica or you loosa.

>listening to specfags with no photos
That's like listening to some fatty sitting down about proper running technique

>>4478889
Yeah I guess you're correct in a way, but I still maintain that it is an avoidance strategy to real improvement. Just because a picture looks better(than your photos) does not mean it is a better photograph. A pro with a barbiecam would btfo most of this board.

>>4478894
Uhm according to my calculations your cameras spec is too nice for how little i like your photos! Everyone is autistic but me! *white person noises*

>>4478895
>how dare your photo look better than mine. I don’t even like it. It’s just your girlfriend. Ew. Gross. Boobs. Nyeh.

>>4478891
What?

>>4478895
Yeah, fair enough

>>4478897
...What?

>>4478893
>look at my fancy camera! It makes me a really really good photographer! I am SO cool because I bought this expensive camera! So many vibes from Leica! Don't you know the price of a Leica?
>*snaps back of stranger's head*
>Yeah this is real Leica branded art!

LOL.

>>4478901
That is called the Leica vibe.

>>4478896
Is that autism or jealousy?

>>4478899
you may seethe but our homie here has a point

people like him have sex with your mother, aunt, sister, and wife because women are attracted to wealth. it doesn't matter if "its a bad investment decision", women like it. have bling get pussy is the oldest trick in the book.
people like him get into galleries easy because having a nice camera gets you closer to the mark before you have enough connections.

people like you have sex with your dogs while philosophizing about how bestiality laws aren't ethically consistent and wealth and women are jewish schemes to force you to be a wagie.
people like you never get into galleries because galleries totally refuse to acknowledge the deep meaning in your photos of lint and definitely aren't ready to accept that photography is about creative intent. (that's sarcasm btw).

next time you go to a gallery (you won't) everyone but the token quirky street photographer you talk to will be using a leica, a hasseblad, LF film, or a high end japanese camera. and you will think their photos are absolute shit and it's not fair that they got to be exhibited, and probably a jewish plot. not shit enough to stop them from being more successful than you tho.

You people need to calm the fuck down. You whinge like toddlers. OP wanted to know about sensor size differences, he already knew gear doesn't matter. Read the last half of the first sentence.

>>4478830 (OP)

more area better quality more size more weight

>>4478907
You sound autistic. I'm laughing at the guy that pretends a fancy looking camera makes him a better photographer. Maybe he can enlighten us with some of his pictures so we can see what the leica vibe is all about.(He won't)

>>4478911
If you have to ask to see the Leica vibe or any photos I've taken with my Leica then you simply don't get it

>>4478915
>I don't actually have a Leica.

Thanks for proving me right. :)

>>4478894
In a thread like this, whoever posts their photos first will be torn apart by all sides.
Both the gearfags and aurtists, (which is a word I just made up to describe those who dismiss technically well-made photos as non-artistic) will gank on them. Subconsciously everyone knows this, so nobody want to be the guy.
Only thumbnails with pretty much nothing on them >>4478910 are safe.
Or are they.

>>4478836
If that's the all of it, what is there to talk about then? Why don't we talk about composition/light/feelings when it's so much deeper and something we can fix today for $0 instead of in a week for $6000? This is a gearfag board and you are a gearfag.

>>4478923
Dangling the factual supremacy of a real camera in front of you is hilarious. We know and you know you could make the small amount of money needed to get it if you weren't such a lazy retard. Hence your hyperbole and whine thread.

Trying to teach you composition on the other hand is frustrating for both parties because you are wholly unable. Both at the photo thing and the travel that is required to do it. I mean, you can't even break minimum wage, you don't have the IQ score to take a decent photo. If you did you wouldn't be whining about how everyone made fun of your micro fool turds.

>>4478923
>Why don't we talk about composition/light/feelings when it's so much deeper and something we can fix today for $0
It's not something we can fix today. In theory the photo critique threads are supposed to help but those are always a mess.

>>4478924
That's quite a bit of projection. Did I perchance strike a chord? I noticed you have no photo as well. Very curious.

>>4478925
It is though. You can always get a little better at these things. You don't have to take the best photo every day, the secret is to focus on taking as good of a photo given the circumstances. The other side is seeing new opportunities for good photos. The rpt and other photo theads give me new ideas now and then.
Anyway, my point is just that trying to argue with nophotos about sensor sizes is an insane waste of time that does nothing for anyone. I have a feeling we most likely agree on this.

>>4478922
When I get home I shall post a real genuine pic I took and enjoyed

>>4478926
Composition is something we can work on today but not "fix" today was what I was getting at and I think we're in agreement there. For myself, I look at my bad photos and think about how I could have done it better and most of the time it's a compositional or skill issue. Most of the time I have the "skill" part down as to setting the correct shutter, aperture, flash settings although I still mess that up sometimes but it's the composition that I struggle with even after many years. Sure, sometimes the problem is gear and I don't think anyone has a problem with someone who is looking for an equipment based solution for a specific problem as long as the problem is real. But too often it's just chasing better specifications for the sake of better specifications and the voices of those people seem to be the loudest.

Gearfags are barely even human.

They obsess over gear because they claim it makes their phktis so much better and guess what?

They never post any LMAO

>>4478932
This isnt Reddit, kid

>>4478923
>what is there to talk about then?
Laughing at people who buy crop sensors.

The problem with art is that there's really not much you can talk about. If someone posts a photo you can tell them how they fucked it up as on objective third party, which is a great way to learn, but a lot of people are retarded and hate critique, they just want to take artsy pictures of stop signs for fun. You can't explain artistic sensibilities to someone, just look at how much AI slop there is around these days. There are a large number of people who are completely incapable of perception.

Beyond the basics of composition, there's nothing to teach. If it looks good, it is good. If it looks bad, it is bad. Can you take good photos on a meme format like m43 or APS-C? Sure, but why cripple yourself? If you want to make things harder, go back to film. Meme formats are delusion, it's the idea of spending less money (you aren't), for a product with more bullshit handholding, and weaker photos. Just use your phone.

>>4478922
As promised, here's a photo I took recently I really enjoyed

>>4478901
This is their top post of all time, truly amazing

>>4478830 (OP)
It's because most people take photos and display them, show them to others for one reason or another. If two photos from two different people have comparable composition feeling etc, then your photo taken with small sensor will automatically lose out. Another thing to consider is that there is no point in putting a small sensor in a normal sized dslr or mirrorless body.

>>4478948
>Top post
>7.8k updoots
>a generic for the time leather case with the word leica stenciled on the front
Huehuehuehuehuehuehue. Fucking miserable circlejerk of a subreddit.

>>4478942
>but a lot of people are retarded and hate critique
The ratio of actual critique to aimless shitting on otb is insane. Maybe a 1:15 ratio of posts that will point out ways to improve versus "shit photo faggot" but phrased differently depending on what gear you said you took it with.
If this board gave actual critique I would have a thread up of my shots every week, but the last time I did that most anons just fagged on about cope sensor or gave vague insults. So instead I post in rpt once or twice with the things I like and don't respond to anyone who replies to them.

>>4478966
People are calling your photos shit because they're probably shit, even if they can't explain why they're shit. If someone cared enough to reply, it's probably really garbage, unless all they're doing is whining about your sensor (which is probably also shit).

It sounds like you're looking for an audience rather than critique, so mistaking the occasional "I like this photo" for a fanbase is your real issue.

>>4478968
Nope. Don't want a fanbase, and I hate the "nice photo" comments just as much. Your reasoning is retarded because you're assuming the average /p/ poster is here to actually engage. I want feedback to improve and sadly most other places online are happy comfy circlejerks where people won't actually risk being mean to you for fear of being flagged for hatespeech.

You're just as much as fault too. You took this chance to whine about the sensor in my camera without even thinking about it. You are brainrotted and you deserve the gear board for what it is.

>>4478942
There's more to talk about with art than there is with gear. What the fuck are you on?

>>4478971
I mean, if you're saying you get ragged on for your sensor, it's probably some cropped junk.

>>4478973
Gear is objective, art is subjective. The problem is that after a point the diminishing returns with gear are absurd, and you're paying 10x the price for a 5% improvement, and the guys who pay 10x are very invested in justifying that.

>>4478975
>Gear is objective, art is subjective
Yeah, so there's more to talk about with art