Sensor vs glass quality vs MP

[Rick58]

In digital photography, which is most important regarding image quality, sensor size or the lens? I know very little about digital but I've been reading a lot about sensor sizes. It seems more fuss is made over that then the lens hanging on the front of the camera. In the world of film, it's all about the lens. Does the sensor size only become an issue with larger print sizes and, like film, the glass is most important at all print sizes?
Before I began reading up on the subject I, like I'm sure a lot of folks, thought it was all about the MP. The more MP's, the better. This is probably due to the mfg's pushing those numbers more then anything. Now, after reading, I understand the higher MP's can actually reduce image quality in smaller prints. Do I have that right?

EDIT: Lets throw something else in the pot of questions concerning RAW. Are camera's that don't have the ability to shot RAW even seriously considered? Like I said... digital noobie here.

 

[MLeeK]

The sensor size might become an issue in high ISO and noise-larger sensor=less noise.
As for print size? There isn't a whole lot of the time that the larger MP becomes an issue. You aren't viewing a printed billboard with a microscope or at point blank range. To a small extent it might matter if you are printing extreme macro to the size of a house and viewing close. But then top notch glass AND an amazing sensor will be crucial. If the glass is crap and the sensor is good you will still have crap results. Just in more pixels.

 

[Rick58]

The sensor size might become an issue in high ISO and noise-larger sensor=less noise.
As for print size? There isn't a whole lot of the time that the larger MP becomes an issue. You aren't viewing a printed billboard with a microscope or at point blank range. To a small extent it might matter if you are printing extreme macro to the size of a house and viewing close. But then top notch glass AND an amazing sensor will be crucial. If the glass is crap and the sensor is good you will still have crap results. Just in more pixels.

Ok, so you wouldn't say the sensor size is the equivalent to format size in film? That seemed logical to me, but I guess I was mistaken.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

bigger the sensor size, the better the depth of field (and about everything else too!)

 

[Rick58]

bigger the sensor size, the better the depth of field (and about everything else too!)

Ok, now that's really confusing. DOF isn't strictly the aperture and distance in digital?

 

[cgipson1]

bigger the sensor size, the better the depth of field (and about everything else too!)

You didn't define that very well.. what you meant to say is the bigger the Sensor, the smaller or more shallow the DOF.... correct?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

bigger the sensor size, the better the depth of field (and about everything else too!)

You didn't define that very well.. what you meant to say is the bigger the Sensor, the smaller or more shallow the DOF.... correct?

Yes indeed thanks, more shallow = better performance =)

OP - this may help you understand

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

 

[amolitor]

In a perfectly designed system, the sensor will run out of megapixels at exactly the same time the lens runs out of resolving power. With the newest generation of cameras this is getting pretty close to true even for quite good lenses.

The thing to keep in mind is: Sources of unsharpness are not distinct, they add up. Softness from the lens adds to the several sources of softness the sensor provides. So the answer really is: they both matter.

It sounds like a cop-out, but it's not. The great thing is that even if you don't have very many megapixels, you get some benefit from a better lens (maybe not very MUCH benefit, but some). If you have a soft lens, upgrading your body will improve the images. It feels like a cop-out, but what it really is is this: upgrading any part of your system will improve your results (at least infinitesimally).

 

[cgipson1]

bigger the sensor size, the better the depth of field (and about everything else too!)

Ok, now that's really confusing. DOF isn't strictly the aperture and distance in digital?

Smaller sensors (ie: APS-C "Crop" sensors) have larger DOF than a full size sensor, just as a Full size sensor has a larger DOF than a medium format sensor (at any given aperture)

Check out Online Depth of Field Calculator and play with various sensor sizes.. you will see a difference! Aperture is the other variable there... but at any given aperture, the smaller sensors will have a greater DOF than the larger ones (sometimes minimal, but still measureable)

 

[cgipson1]

bigger the sensor size, the better the depth of field (and about everything else too!)

You didn't define that very well.. what you meant to say is the bigger the Sensor, the smaller or more shallow the DOF.... correct?

Yes indeed thanks, more shallow = better performance =)

Better performance for Portraiture or similar, but worse performance for Macro shooters. So no... not better performance, just more or less DOF!

 

[prodigy2k7]

Yes indeed thanks, more shallow = better performance =)

OP - this may help you understand

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

"As sensor size increases, the depth of field will decrease for a given aperture (when filling the frame with a subject of the same size and distance)."

 

[CanonJim]

The way I look at it, the finished image is no better than the weakest link in the chain. The 'hard' stuff like lens, sensor, onboard image processing, etc and the 'soft' stuff like composition, post processing, etc all play a part. You can't isolate one particular component and say "This is the most important part", any more than you can disassemble a Ferrari in your living room and point to one particular part and say , "This is a Ferrari".

It's often said that "It's never the camera, dummy!", and to an extent that's true - a good photographer can get a good image out of almost any combination of hardware. The 'new and improved' hardware only makes it possible for the talented artist to create across a wider range of situations. For example, Michaelangelo or DaVinci could probably paint a decent picture with an eight-color palette. But give them 65 or 128 or a thousand and they can make an even BETTER picture. Same would go for a photographer. A Karsh or Adams or Steichen could probably do wonders with a 1DX or a top notch Nikon or Leica or whatever. But they also did pretty damn good with the relatively 'ancient' hardware they did use.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

You didn't define that very well.. what you meant to say is the bigger the Sensor, the smaller or more shallow the DOF.... correct?

Yes indeed thanks, more shallow = better performance =)

Better performance for Portraiture or similar, but worse performance for Macro shooters. So no... not better performance, just more or less DOF!

ahhhhh yes sir! But i shoot people....such as my assistant =)

 

[Rick58]

So, what I'm gathering here is, for "general" photography, with "typical" lighting and "normal" print sizes, the sensor size plays a small role, and the glass remains the primary concern, just as in film?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

So, what I'm gathering here is, for "general" photography, with "typical" lighting and "normal" print sizes, the sensor size plays a small role, and the glass remains the primary concern, just as in film?

Not really true. ISO performance quality is typically better with full frame too. And a host of other differences for the bigger sensors. Look at that link I posted for you