Does Sensor Size Matter? Camera Sensor Size Comparison

Thanks! Share it with your friends!


We compare 4 sensor sizes to see how they compare in print image quality: Hasselblad X1D II 50C, Sony a7R IV, Sony a6600 and Panasonic GH5. See how much difference there is in the Medium, Full-frame, APS-C and Micro 4/3 Sensors. Special thanks to our friends at LensProToGo and Datacolor for helping us make this comparison possible.

15% Discount on rental gear at LensProToGo: SLANTEDLENS15


Enter the GIVEAWAY:

Check out our gear for sale:

Hasselblad X1D II 50C

Hasselblad XCD 45mm

Sony a7R IV

Sony a6600

Sony 35mm f1.8

Sony 50mm 1.4

Panasonic GH5

Sigma Prime 32mm

Panasonic Pancake Prime 40mm

Follow The Slanted Lens-


Canon C200

Canon 24-70 2.8

Sony A7 RIII

Canon EOS R

Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 G2

Tamron 28-75 2.8

Tamron 17-28 2.8

KLM audio module

Vanguard VEO 2 Pro 263CPV


Spyder X Studio
Support The Slanted Lens by shopping our affiliate links:
Weekly Photography Deals & More:

Subscribe to The Slanted Lens and get new videos every Thursday

Visit the webpage:

Visit our SPONSORS
Tamron Lenses:
Luminar by Skylum:
Triple Scoop Music:
Morgan Photo Retouch:
TSL Store:

Jay P. Morgan has been working as a Commercial Photographer and Film Director in the Los Angeles area for more than 20 years developing an impressive list of clients from Paramount to McDonald’s. Jay P.’s experience with elaborate set design and extensive lighting are key to the success of his illustrative work.

Support The Slanted Lens by shopping our affiliate links:
Weekly Photography Deals & More:


Soul Simulation says:

NIKON left the chat😂😂😂😂

Tim Vogel says:

I really like the tripods you are using.

Bertje Tops says:

why did you not take the Olympus E-M1 III thats camera is alot better than the Panasonic

Relentless0neFPS says:

Well if the Hasselblad is that good. I guess I'll go get two of them.

Hifibloke says:

take off this stupid masks !!! You will make yourself sick !

JP dJ says:

Print calibration, profiling. For me, a couple years ago, the choice between Datacolor and X-rite was arbitrary, except. X-rite had the DNA of trusted brands from the film calibration days like MacBeth and others. And the "ColorChecker Passport". My choice was not better motivated than that. I have no complaints and they have been great at supporting me as a tiny user.
Now I see how you click on each square in the profile print, running the densitometer through a slot in a guide. I saw you do that, Jay P, and thought, "really?"
I print, set the software, run the device as a handheld scanner over lanes of squares (no clicking, no pausing) – very smooth operation. If i had to really click all those squares like that, the first time scanning would be the last time for me.
i1Studio – monitors, printer-ink-paper, projectors. Create profiles with the camera/lens/light-type with the passport and everything falls into place – color and tone. They have an app to create a "mixed profile" where you had two types of light alternating between shots, like an indoor event with outdoor light through windows. I can do about the same with the naked eye, but it takes much more time and attention.
Sharpening, contrast, dodge/burn, …, crop, keystone, …, artistic choices, …, client desires, …, retouch, … – lots to do still and if we can reduce work elsewhere. Still remember retouching negatives.

FTropper says:

I would be have been great if you also included a 24 MP FF camera into the mix. The results are actually not that surprising. But the question is: if the increase of quality justified by the increase of price. Probably a question everybody has to answer for him or herself.

JP dJ says:

I feel sorry for the slanted remarks of fanboys that are so emotionally invested in their us & them game. As an old pro with very good awareness of what is going on in gearland, if a lens has diffraction issues at f/8 – no matter the size – it's release is a serious error of the company producing it and the company selling it should shame themselves.
I have been mildly critical of comparisons in the past and feel this one has great pragmatic value. The larger sensor results in a larger color space, better gradation (the sensor is analog and the bits are invented in the electronics stage called analog-to-digital conversion. 16 bits AD conversion is impossible with the newest sensors that offer integrated AD conversion to the camera as these max out at 14 bits – 4 times less), and the Hassy has less noise at this lower light. The Hassy doing better is just a matter of its firmware doing a better job converting raw raw sensor data into pixels (the resulting raw file is extremely cooked: beyond well done).
Also note that smaller lenses, in order to give the same resolution per degree of angle of view, must be manufactured more precisely with purer materials. So if a Hasselblad lens is manufactured with the same precision as the lenses for the GH5, then you will notice that. Also note the Hasselblad lenses are not very fast and this means less optical errors have to be corrected.
I have three notes. (1) Looking at any image larger than 100% size, considering the DPI, the 24" wide print is seriously larger, you MUST look at how your software scales up. I have experimented with PS and Topaz Gigapixel AI and was disappointed by PS (newest version, best of two built-in algorithms). The TGPAI app did miracles. I was not impressed by stability though and though it was too expensive for occasional use. And I felt that PS should already give me that quality for the money I pay the "Mud Brick that washes away in water" company. At 300 DPI, a 24" wide print is only 7,200 pixels, but the prints will have been printed at 1,200 DPI at the printer head level and that means you need 28,000 pixels – and my point is, "who creates the higher resolution, where? The printer, the printer driver? The operating system? The application?" When I scaled a print file up in TGPAI to precisely the pixels needed to print my Epson at 1,440 DPI, I got better results than printing straight from Photoshop. (23.4" x 16.5" – DIN A2 – requires 585.5 megapixels at 1,200 DPI.)
(2) I also would want to see how these images compare when you open them as 32-bit in PS. This opens up the highlights in 14-bit shots and sort-of straightens the compressed shoulders of the bit-value as function of light energy curve applied to the bit curve in the camera or in the AD conversion. In easier words: gradation details in the highlights and low lights become apparent.
(3) I have a hard time to understand how sharpening and a couple other parameters in LR & PS enforce each other, or counteract. There is no simple heuristic in my brain that makes me chose a setting upon first seeing an image. It will relate to size, upscaling and DPI and here my brain gives this cognitive dissonance where I expect my software to do things automatically that, turns out, I must do manually. Computers are supposed to make my life easier. Instead they present me with puzzles that may frustrate me and in the longer run can give me pride of accomplishment. But that was not what I bought and it will never make me happy. To conclude this rant – how did you sharpen? And, I might want to alter for artistic reasons. Or, how have these images been sharpened? All the same? My experience is you need less with higher MP cameras …
so how do you approach this in the comparison?

sta kand says:

Are you stupid guys?? Why u wear a mask?!

Anders Burlin says:

Yeah, facemasks = thumbs down..

Nick Schulman says:

You get the same critiques on every comparison video related to your complete lack of respect for making the test even close to as scientific as it could be. you often acknowledge these comments, and yet you always do the same mistakes on future comparisons. Bunch of nut jobs who need to get a real job if you’re not gonna do it right.

LexTNeville says:

As a couple of esteemed pros who no doubt back up your files, could you spare a couple hundred megabytes and share the raw files of the city landscape?

Peter Lewis says:

Would have loved to see a sigma foveon sensor in there as well.

Guarrafet says:

I have no doubt medium format has better IQ than MFT… but shooting MFT at f/8.0? Who would do that? It's gross, really.

Ivan GRANID says:

Almost no Difference

cdmoza says:

i stopped watching when i saw the face masks

ZombieSpaceChicken says:

Why is the comments section of these types of videos always filled with angry rants about camera specs…calm down people, its photography, not neurosurgery. This video hurts nobody. And guess what dorks…you watched their video and they got ad revenue…HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Grant King says:

Don't know about the masks, I can't catch what you may have through my monitor.

FranklinProductions57 says:

this just tells us that full frame is superior to crop censor . i love my 5dmark4

Rudolf Abelin says:

I am no expert. But if it comes to low light shooting with Micro Four Thirds, please let Robin Wong do the tech.
PS. The lenses you use for the GH5 is (are) a joke.

Stephen Bingham says:

Wouldn’t this comparison make more sense if you had tried to take the same image with each camera – with the same depth of field? This would involve setting the m4/3 camera to f4, the apc camera to f5.6, the ff camera to f8 and the medium format camera to f11 (say). Diffraction softening would also be avoided and it would give a much more relevant “low light” comparison.

bdfrankmeow says:

Interesting video even if very debatable on many aspects . Mostly, the Hasselblad lens is way above the others wich would be still relevant if they were the main pro choice for the subjects but i doubt they would be . It also shows how much better a 'specialty' tool does over a jack of all trade one . I mean that when you shoot a still subject using a tripod , of course the Blad should win big time .
As for post, a top noise-reduction software is a must for crop sensors. I also find a sophisticated interpolation software like OnOne Perfect resize a must have for large prints from 24mp or less sensors. My point is : when you adapt your workflow to your file, you close part of the gap in the final result. It might not still be enough for pro use but it works fine for many of us.

Chad Cohoon says:

Outstanding comparison, Thanks! Would have enjoyed seeing the Fuji XT-3 or 4 for the ASPC comparison… different company, Bayer sensor. Very informative!

Bruno Wurzelsepp says:

5:49… Nice you are having so much fun laughing on µFT.
Yes technically you shouldn't use F8 on µFT when heading for best Image quality,
especially for big prints. Amazingly Olympus printed µFT camera output in far
bigger print size on the EM-1X lauch event and nobody had to complain.
6:37 … you are not sure why you get this rising amount of fuzzyness on smaler sensors…
folks: This is diffraction effect and the reason smaler format requires smaler F-Stop-numbers!
You are demonstration you are having no clue about optics in this Video.
But I hope you are getting good honors from photo manufacturer for telling all
people more expensive equipment yields better results… well, well
this might hold true for people not knowing how to use gear propperly.
Used with more knowledge differences between the formats shrink way more.

lboymusic says:

Thumbs down for wearing a stupid fake pandemic covid hoax, BGates's MASK…

Screen Fiends says:

Didn't take into account the fact that you have to also times the aperture by 2 on micro four third sensor. Epic

Write a comment


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.