Your favorite sensor size?

Your favorite sensor size?

  • S16

    Votes: 4 9.8%

  • 4/3

    Votes: 5 12.2%

  • S35

    Votes: 28 68.3%

  • 135

    Votes: 4 9.8%
  • Total voters
    41
C

combatentropy

Veteran
If you could have a camera with any sensor size, which would you pick? Consider depth of field, pick of lenses, and even how the resultant pixel size would affect light sensitivity, diffraction-limited resolution, etc. I've always leaned to Super 35, since that's what movies are shot with, and I like how they look. But lately I've paid more attention to Super 16 and how shallow its focus can be. It looks like it could meet my needs, because I'm not sure I really want shallow focus except for head-and-shoulder shots anyway. And I want a camera that I can use on a lot of assignments, not just feature films.
 
I'd take S35 over S16, I'd take 135/Vistavision over S35, and I'd take 65mm over Vistavision if I could. Bigger is better for my aesthetic tastes.

That said, some projects are better suited for a small format - and at the end of the day the content should drive the decision of shooting format rather than personal preference IMO.
 
I like the Super 35 sized sensor. The problem, for me, with Super 16 is the availability of lenses, especially in the fast wide range. While, yes, sensor size is a factor in depth of field, so is lens focal length. The "Crop factor" of the smaller sensors kind of negates the depth of field advantage of those sensor, IMO. I would be more inclined to use lighting, camera sensitivity changes, neutral density filters and lens focal length selection to control depth of field. I know that lens selection is dependent very much on the camera specific mount available on any camera but with the wide availability of still lenses for Full Frame still cameras (I am a fan of vintage manual lenses) there are a lot of choices available for Super 35 sized sensor cameras. I have a 20mm f2.8 manual Nikkor lens that is an outstanding wide angle lens on a Super 35 sensor. To get a comparable angle of view on a Super 16 sized sensor you would need a lens (I think, double check my math on this) in the 14mm to 15mm focal length. Fast, wide, distortion free and affordable lenses in that range are not as readily available.
 
I pretty much agree with David G. I like super 35 for all the reasons he mentioned especially being able to use 20s wide. I need that extra FOV. I'm pretty happy with the speed booster on my AF100 now. I have a Zeiss 2.0 25mm that I can use as a wide with it now with no distortion and sharp as a tack. I don't have super 16 experience, or very much FF really, but I do m4/3. S35 is sensor size I like these days. Plus I figure it's the one to work in shooting video as most of the cinema glass is right for it. Oh and the DX glass like the Tokina 11 - 16 covers S35 so it's easy to go crazy wide.

Actually I like the look of all focal lengths at S35 size.
 
If budget is no issue, then S35 is going to be the most popular choice, especially when you factor in all the amazing cine glass that is out there.
 
TheDingo said:
If budget is no issue, then S35 is going to be the most popular choice, especially when you factor in all the amazing cine glass that is out there.
Click to expand...

I would say that budget being an issue would be an argument in favor of using a Super 35 sized sensor. I have looked pretty carefully at some of the Super 16 sized sensor cameras out there. With the BMC Pocket Cinema camera I would go with Panasonic H-HS12035 LUMIX G X VARIO 12-35mm/F2.8 ASPH X Series Lens. That is an $1100.00 lens. I spent a little bit more than that and have a set of manual primes that give me many more options in regards to my FOV for my Super 35 sensor sized camera.
 
combatentropy said:
But lately I've paid more attention to Super 16 and how shallow its focus can be. It looks like it could meet my needs, because I'm not sure I really want shallow focus except for head-and-shoulder shots anyway. And I want a camera that I can use on a lot of assignments, not just feature films.
Click to expand...

Well you don't have to shoot everything ultra shallow. A little twist on the aperture ring to say f5.6 and things look a little different than shooting at f1.4.
 
For a general purpose format for a wide range of uses I still prefer the S16/1" sensor size range as the sweet spot. Plenty of range for creative DOF control and small enough that compact fast wide range zooms are practical if expensive. Of course you only need one though. I hope we see a resurgence of this eminently practical format with the new cameras from BMC and Digital Bolex. The SI2k is still out there, even the nifty self contained Sony RX10 is pretty sweet for its price range. The problem with S35 or larger formats for me is difficulty getting enough depth of field in medium shots. For example keeping two actors in focus when one is upstage of another in a live performance.
 
David G. Smith said:
I have a 20mm f2.8 manual Nikkor lens that is an outstanding wide angle lens on a Super 35 sensor. To get a comparable angle of view on a Super 16 sized sensor you would need a lens (I think, double check my math on this) in the 14mm to 15mm focal length. Fast, wide, distortion free and affordable lenses in that range are not as readily available.
Click to expand...

S35mm is 2x the size (4x surface area) of S16mm. In fact the 'crop factor' (hate that term) between the two is 2.1x. If you have a 20mm lens on S35mm you'd need a 9.6mm lens for the same FoV on S16mm.

Usually, I would answer with a rounded '10mm' reply, but there is a great vintage Kinoptik Paris 9.8mm F/1.8 lens that can be adapted to PL mount from it's common arri standard mount. Of course it's soft as #$%@ until you get to F/4+ and has a good helping of distortion on the edges.

Here is a quick shot I took in my room. Don't judge me :)
This was on a camera with a sensor the size of APS-C or S35mm... I can't remember exactly which camera I was using. Both formats are relatively close in size though.

DSC03637.jpg
 
Last edited:
I accidentally edited 'The Dingo's post above trying to reply to it. Not sure, but as a Mod, I clicked the wrong button. Looks like I didn't successfully erase over it. Please let me know if I messed up anybody's post.

Sorry!
 
I voted 135 (FF, vistavision), but only because my lens set (vintage Leitz for the Leica-R mount, from the 60s and 70s) is designed for that sensor size. If I could afford those three lovely fujinon cabrio zooms, I would vote for S35. But, as it stands, it's much cheaper to get a great lens set for FF than it is for S35.
 
Samuel H said:
I voted 135 (FF, vistavision), but only because my lens set (vintage Leitz for the Leica-R mount, from the 60s and 70s) is designed for that sensor size. If I could afford those three lovely fujinon cabrio zooms, I would vote for S35. But, as it stands, it's much cheaper to get a great lens set for FF than it is for S35.
Click to expand...

Why not use your lenses on S35mm sensor? If anything you'd be getting much better edge to edge performance than on FF/vista/135.

Most lenses for FF suffer very heavily on the edges unless stopped down. Using more of the center versus the edges would be beneficial, would it not?
 
* I would be missing out on the wide end. I have a set of 24+35+50+90+135+180. Perfect for FF, not so much for S35. And it's not an easy problem to solve: vintage UWAs are not only very expensive, but also usually pretty soft (my 24mm is right on the limit, and clearly the softest lens in the set, together with the 180). The alternative would be to get something like the Tokina 11-16, but that's a completely different look.

* I've already checked them and they are sharper on FF than on APS-C. The edges are softer than the center but for the same DoF I get to close my aperture by one stop (increasing ISO, which is usualy one stop better on FF), and I don't blow-up all the glass defects. The result depends on lens, but usually the bigger format will be sharper. Here.

I think this makes it even clearer that this is a very personal choice: the glass I got determines the sensor I want.
Of course, I've shot with other cameras, and we brought the glass for them too. I'm talking about the glass and camera that I want to own (and can afford).
 
Last edited:
Fullyframe/135/Vista vision.

Simply because of the legacy bargain stills glass available, and also in the long term you have more space to cram your pixels.

The format only has too little DOF if you shoot everything at 2.0,

FF glass at 4 performs very very well..

--

MFT would be a great size for RNG if anyone made a grown up zoom for the format. Grown up zooms for S35/135 are too big for manual handling!

S
 
Ultimately S35 is probably the sweet spot for most things, but I voted for S16.

There's some very valid strengths to the S16 format. Depth of field is more manageable, especially with a small crew/fast shooting. It feels like there is a lot less fighting with focus in less controlled environments. It's also possible to get gorgeous optics for a lot less money than S35.

I think one thing that hurts the impression of S16, at least in the BMPCC world, is people's desire to do things as cheap and small as possible. The quest for low-cost c mount lenses from ebay leads to all kinds of soft, vignetted footage.

Consider this though - searching for top quality pl mount cinema lenses for S16 is still very affordable. I was daydreaming of having a cinema zoom with the range of Fujinon's 19-90 cabrio, which is a $40k lens. Well I managed to find an Angenieux 7-81 HR pl zoom and built a small rig with a BMPCC and cage, all for under $6k. This combo gives me a focal range equivalent to 14-160 in S35. That's very wide to moderate telephoto. It's super sharp, with great contrast, and real cinema mechanics. The whole rig weighs around 8lbs and is just over a foot long. Yes, that's huge for a typical pocket rig, but it's tiny for such a capable cinema setup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top