Does Sensor Size Matter? The Test Results Are In

Do cameras with larger sensors have a specific look? Last week I posted images taken with four different sensor sizes and let you decide. Spoiler Alert: Nobody could tell the difference. 

The Test

Proponents of full frame and medium format cameras have always said that images taken with a larger sensor look different. Yes, they typically have shallower depth of field, but most photographers say that it goes beyond just that. They say that larger sensors produce "better looking images" but they are usually unable to elaborate. I decided to put this to the test. 

This is not a resolution test, we will do that in another video. This test is strictly to determine if images are inherently different coming from different sized sensors and manufacturers. 

I stood in one spot and shot my buddy Keith Bradshaw with 4 different cameras with 4 different sized sensors. To keep the field of view the same, I used a 50mm "equivalent" lens on each camera. To keep the depth of field the same, I changed the aperture as well. My cameras and settings are below. 

FujiFilm GFX 50R/ x 32.9mm sensor/ 64mm lens f/8

Canon 6D/ 35mm ff sensor/ 50mm f5.6

FujiFilm XT-3/ 23.6mm x 15.6mm sensor/ 35mm f4

Panasonic GH5/ Micro 4/3 sensor/ 25mm f2.8

I shot each of the images below in raw, I changed only the white balance, and stacked the images on top of each other. I cropped in on all of the images to hide the 4/3 aspect ratio of the GFX and GH5 and shrunk them to 1920 pixels in width. 

The Results

Image 1: Panasonic GH5

Image 2: FujiFilm XT-3

Image 3: FujiFilm GFX 50S

Image 4: Canon 6D

The results of our polls were all over the map. With each option being chosen right around 25% of the time, it's obvious that the images are almost identical.  Any noticeable differences like color or density could easily be tweaked further to make these four images look even more similar. 

So what does this prove? Larger sensors do not produce different looking images on their own. Some of you knew that, most of you probably didn't. 

But, shooting at the same F-stop will produce a shallower depth of field on a larger sensor. This is because F-stop is a unit of exposure and works on any sized sensor. A medium format camera lens' aperture shooting at F4 will be physically larger in size compared to a smaller lens' designed for a smaller aperture, and this physically larger aperture will produce a shallower depth of field. 

This may lead you to believe that it's easier to shoot shallower images on a medium format system, but that isn't necessarily true. Most lenses that FujiFilm makes for this system are f/4 which will look like f/3.16 on a full frame camera. Of course, most "pro" 35mm lenses are f/2.8 which will produce a shallower depth of field than f/3.16. So, at least at this time, shooting with a shallower depth of field may actually be easier on a 35mm camera. 

This test/post is not meant to discredit larger sensors. There are certainly many perks to large sensor cameras that will produce an overall better image like resolution, color accuracy, bit depth, lens sharpness, ISO performance, and dynamic range. We haven't tested any of that yet... But we will. 

Log in or register to post comments


Jordan McChesney's picture

(“Well actually...” intensifies)

Great video, I’m looking forward to the other tests.

Tests are fine but how about more tips and tricks content, preferably written?

Did you read my article? Did you watch the video? Perhaps you knew that image quality out of 4 completely different cameras and sensors would be almost identical, but I, as well as most people didn't. I certainly expected there to be a huge difference in color, contrast and dynamic range at the very least and there wasn't. That's and interesting result, especially for those photographers who believe that medium format cameras produce totally different looking images.

I plan do to another test, and really get into the details. What exactly should I test so that they next one isn't also meaningless?


I thought it was a cool test.

Mike Kelley's picture

I enjoy the personally attacked version of Lee Morris very much!

Terry Wright's picture

I enjoy seeing the two of you troll each other

Will Murray's picture

You honestly expected a significant difference? Go figure.

I knew they would be almost identical and stated why in your previous article. As I wrote then, the differences between formats are entirely based on the lenses' and apertures' used as a result of the sensor size, just as in film it's based on the film size. The only other differences are based on the sensor technology or, in the case of film, the properties of the film.

Regarding cameras using varying sized sensors, everyone knows the differences and reasons. It's science...not magic.

Toby Seb's picture

The metadata in the 4 uploaded example photos say there where all shot with canon 6 d 50mm. Did you upload the wrong photos Lee, or did you change the metadata ?

photo number 2 looks sharper than number 1 though.

Btw i use a metadata add on on my browser so i see all metadata in photos that have them. its called Exif qucikview.

A good use of the scientific method. Eliminating variables to test a hypothesis. I would take it one step further and use a studio set up with a still life subject to see the difference, especially in print. Similar with what you did for the ISO testing.

EL PIC's picture

Good example of test to support the manufacturer that pays the most ..
Make the images 16 x 24 or it’s more meaningless test.

Colin Robertson's picture

Aww yeah... NAILED IT! I could tell by the differences in color. #4 had the more magenta skin tones I am familiar with on Canon, while 2 & 3 had nearly identical color—so they were obviously the fuji's. By process of elimination #1 was the GH5. I figured the GFX was #3 because that image has slightly better color fidelity and was slightly sharper (look in the beard area) than #2. Looking forward to the other tests.

Colin Robertson's picture

One thing I've been trying to wrap my head around is sensor size as it relates to DOF, not just in portraits like you see here, but the full field of depth you can get in a scene, front to back.

Since moving to a full frame (EOS R) sensor I've felt like I have better *control* over DOF than I did with my 7D (APS-C). I also assist a photographer who uses the GFX system and was surprised at first when I saw that f/11 didn't result in infinity focus at common focus ranges like it did on my 7D.

I put this table together to try and make better sense of it. Lee, I would be interested in your thoughts.

Sacha Martin's picture

Basically, a larger sensor means you can get closer to achieve the same field of view.
And the closer you get, the shallower the depth of field is.
Hope that answers your question.
One downside is that the closer you get, the more distortion you get.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject of 'separation' supposedly provided by various focal length lenses on this selection of sensor sizes. Basically, the ability to capture the 'perspective' of a scene where the image conveys how an object is closer or further away from the camera. It was something I thought I would see in your sample images but I did not see at all. It is likely related to DOF but it is not exactly the same thing.

Having an APS-C camera, there will be times when I crank the lens down to 16mm and still have to take a step or two back to get something in the frame, thus changing the perspective of the image. Naturally, a 16mm on a full frame camera would get every thing, (and probably more), in the image from the original position.

Maybe it is just a matter of technique or lighting that I am missing.

Thank you.

Kirk Darling's picture

So what are the results of comparing 24x30 prints from each sensor? Because that's what I sell.

Yes, They need to do large prints and poor lighting. Without those two the tests will be lacking.

Francisco B's picture

The higher megapixel medium format camera will have the best prints, no question.

Sacha Martin's picture

This proves nothing that hasn't been discussed over and over already.
A crop sensor does only one thing : crop the image.
A larger sensor means you can get closer to achieve the same field of view.
This test is irrelevant, I don't understand the point - yes you can achieve the same image with all sensors, in terms of depth of field. But the photos are radically different in ALL other aspects: dynamic range, noise, distance to subject, focal length, etc etc.
I don't understand this test.

Usman Dawood's picture

You can get closer with a larger sensor and that means you have a less compressed image, however you can always pick an equivalent lens on a smaller sensor camera and that way you can shoot from the same distance to your subject.

80mm on large medium format camera vs 50mm on full frame. You would shoot from the exact same distance to subject for a similar FOV.

Depth of field can be shallower on the full frame too because there are no f1.2 equivalents for medium format.


So what's the conclusion in the end. Does it matter or not. From the write up, it looks like it does except the samples that took away the speciality of each sensor and making the poll pointless.

Usman Dawood's picture

Apologies Rhonald.

Michael Jin's picture

They weren't his claims. That was a quote from the article.

Usman Dawood's picture

My bad I didn't actually read the article lol. I only watched the video.

I hang my head in shame. Thank you for clarifying Michael. Much appreciated.

Michael Jin's picture

It happens to all of us.

Sorry but you have it so terribly wrong. MF has a look that nothing else has, Its even visible when printed at 3"x2".
Just go over to the DPR MF forum, They will educate you.
Where did they hide the winking emjoi ?

Michael Jin's picture

Oh dear... without that winking emoji now you're likely to get people taking you seriously.

David Ha's picture

And where's the proof?

Can you show the math for this one? I'm not following...

More comments