I’ve Discovered It Really Doesn’t Make A Difference

House in the Barrio Historico, Tucson, AZ.  (click to enlarge)
Nikon D700 (12mp); 24-70mm f/2.8 lens @ 36mm; 1/2500th sec. @ f/8; ISO 400

I currently regularly use three different camera systems from three different manufacturers which utilize three different sensor sizes which have three different resolutions.  (...and I've been trying to simplify my life.  Ha!)  I use Nikon Z8 and ZF cameras with full frame sensors. They have 47mp and 24mp respectively.  Also, I shoot with a Fujifilm X–T5, which has a 40mp APS–C size sensor.  Finally, I shoot with OM-1 and OM-1 Mark II cameras. These two cameras have 4/3 size sensors each having 20mp.  

The reason I bring this up is that after using cameras with these three different sized sensors consistently since 2012 (since 2004 for APS-C, 2008 for full frame and 2012 for M4/3), I’ve come to the conclusion that the images I make from these cameras are virtually indistinguishable from one another.  True.  Unless I examine identical images at a very high magnification,  I can almost never find a difference among them.  Only when I compare two images, side-by-side, at a very high magnification I might find a difference.  When looking at any individual image, I cannot tell from which camera it came.  However, I am certain someone could find minute differences but if you have to look that closely, what does it matter anyway?  What is the point of examining an image at 200%, 300% or more?  Is that how you want your images to  be viewed?  I don't.  In the end, I think much of any difference to be found is due to the quality of the lens used versus the sensor's size and number of pixels.  

As a disclaimer, my opinion applies to the kinds of photography genres I practice and the kind of photographs I make. Your mileage may vary (YMMV).  I know there are differences that may be found in images made in extreme circumstances or when doing highly specialized photography.  But for the vast majority of us, any small differences really don’t matter much anymore.  

Fujifilm X-T2 (24mp); 16-55mm f/2.8 lens @ 22mm;
1/900 sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 200

A popularly cited difference when comparing sensor sizes is in depth of field.  Small sensor cameras have too much depth of field, it is said.  But be careful what you with for.  For example, a portrait photographer’s desired extremely shallow depth of field is a landscape photographer’s ruination.  Another is size and substantial build.  An example of that is a sports photographer’s big, heavy substantial integrated gripped camera with battery life that will allow thousands of photos is a disaster for a travel photographer who desires to go as small and light as possible.  Trade-offs.  All trade-offs.  The point being that almost all cameras made today are excellent and are capable of making excellent images in almost all conditions.  If a camera doesn't have features that you need or can't do what you want it to do, that doesn't mean the camera is bad, it means that camera isn't right for you.  So, don't buy it.  You get to choose what is right for you.  But they are all good today.

That said, how do I choose which camera I take out when I go out to photograph?  It has to do mainly with what I am planning on photographing, which camera has which features that I anticipate I will need to employ, how much gear I think I will need (or want to carry), and which of my kits has the lenses that will serve me best for any particular outing.  I never consider sensor size or sensor resolution any longer.  It really doesn't make a difference to me.

For example, if I want to go very small and light, I’ll choose the OM camera and 12-100mm lens.  If I’m planning on photographing wildlife, I may choose the Z8 and 180-600mm lens or I may choose the OM with the 150-600mm lens if small birds are the subject.  If I want to shoot all prime lenses, I’ll choose the Nikon Zf and three to four prime lenses.  If I want easy and straightforward maybe shooting JPEGs and film simulations for general photography, I’ll choose the X-T5.  That said, when I return home, no matter which camera I have chosen, the images all look the same—sharp, highly resolved, beautiful color, etc.  virtually no differences.

Olympus E-M1 Mark II (20mp) ; 12-100mm f/4 Pro
 lens; @ 29mm; 1/60th sec. @ f/8; ISO 200

I suspect its time to put away the arguments about which formats are best as each has its pros and cons depending upon an individual’s needs but they all are capable of producing professional grade photographs.  Figure out which features you need, which camera feels best in your hands, whether or not the buttons and dials are located where your fingers naturally fall, how the menus meld with your brain and buy that one.  Don't worry about pixel counts or sensor sizes.  I just don't think it makes much of a difference anymore.  Just my humble opinion.

Join me over at my website, https://www.dennismook.com.  

Thanks for looking. Enjoy!  

Dennis A. Mook  

All content on this blog is © 2013-2025 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.