When Every Camera Has a Job (Sensor Sizes, Strengths)
- silverlightphotoco
- Oct 17
- 8 min read
Updated: 3 days ago
INTRO:
As I’ve been testing budget camera systems—especially Micro Four Thirds (M4/3) and 1.5x crop sensors—I started looking for a simple, reliable way to set up shots regardless of the "format". I wanted a method I could repeat, whether I was shooting photos or video. So, after lots of testing I’ve found something super easy that’s really streamlined my shot planning: treat the wide, medium, and telephoto shots as separate “jobs,” then assign each job to a lens & sensor combo that does that specific job the best. This has really opened up a new way of thinking about different sensor sizes (see my other article regarding that topic) and now instead of trying to figure out how to make one sensor size do everything (sorry Micro Four Thirds-only groups) I'm now playing to the strengths of each format, separating them into my 3 Simple Shots (that I call a WIDE, TIGHT and TELE).
BTW, this post may contain affiliate links, which means we receive a commission (at no cost to you) if you make a purchase through a link.
Why “Wide, Tight, and Tele?”
Most people use the classic language: wide, medium, and tight shots. I like to say wide, tight, and tele. The reason is that a “tele” shot always uses a telephoto lens, while “tight” and “medium” aren’t always clear about what lens you need to use. And in practice, what matters is both what the shot looks like and how you get there—lens and sensor size together. Hollywood technically names shots by how much of the subject is in the frame (not just the lens), but as someone trying to systematize real-world setups, I think it makes sense to focus on both how the scene appears and the tools we use to get there.
Table of Contents:
The Myth of "Equivalent" Focal Lengths
A lot of advice online says things like, “A 25mm lens on M4/3 is like a 50mm on full frame.” That’s not quite true. Even though the field of view may match, those are totally different designs, and they produce different distortion and subject/background relationships. For example, the “non-distorting” focal length—what looks most like what our eyes see—is about 42.5mm on full frame. Go wider (lower numbers: 35, 28, 24mm), and you start leaning into wide angle optics, which distort to capture more scene in the same physical sensor size. It’s the lens, not the sensor, that’s bending the image. The sensor crop mostly just determines how much of the lens’s image you’re recording (like cropping), but the lens decides how the image looks in terms of distortion. So when you use different sensor sizes—say, 25mm on M4/3 and 50mm on full frame—the images just aren’t the same, even if you’re “covering” the same subject.
Focal Length & Sensor Size:
Focal length affects field of view and the degree of background compression or distortion.
Sensor size determines how much of the lens’s image is captured (the “crop factor”).
Even if the field of view is similar; optical rendering and perspective differ (based on optical characteristics).
The WIDE Shot: Full Frame is King?
Now, for wide shots—the kind that cover a whole room, landscape, or scene—full frame shines. Why? Because full frame sensors let you use more “normal” focal lengths (35mm, for example), which naturally distort less. On M4/3, a 35mm becomes your tight shot; on full frame, it’s a true wide shot with realistic proportions. That realism is why photojournalists historically loved 35mm on film: It was wide, but not crazy. Full frame simply gives you a more honest, un-distorted view for wide shots than any crop sensor or phone (which rely on intense wide-angle distortion to get more in frame).
Why a Full-Frame WIDE Shot is More Realistic:
Full-frame sensors can produce wide shots with less distortion at moderate focal lengths (35mm–42.5mm).
This can result in a more natural, immersive view with accurate proportions.
Historically, 35mm on full-frame has been a standard for photojournalism due to its perspective.
What's Wrong With Wide Angle?
Wide angle lenses stretch the image out at the edges and make subjects in the center look smaller. Classic “fisheye” lenses are an extreme case—think of old peephole door viewers, where the middle is tiny and the edges are curved and stretched. More “rectilinear” wide lenses (the kind that try to keep straight lines straight) didn’t arrive until the late 80s/early 90s, and even those can’t escape every bit of distortion, especially as you shoot wider than 14mm. This distortion is obvious in real estate photography; small rooms look huge, doors look unnaturally wide, and buyers wonder why reality doesn’t match the photos. That’s the lens at work, not a “lie,” but definitely a stretch. I’m currently experimenting with ways to minimize this, including tilt-shift lenses, but the key takeaway is: Sensor size and lens type have a huge effect on how wide shots feel.
Wide Angle Distortion & Architecture:
Ultra-wide lenses are often used to make spaces look bigger, but this can misrepresent reality.
Distortion may cause features like doors and windows to appear stretched or out of proportion.
This effect can be noticeable in real estate photography, where rooms may appear larger and features like doors and windows may look distorted.
Wide-angle lenses (24mm and below) can stretch the edges of the frame, making objects near the edges appear larger and those in the center smaller.
Tilt-shift lenses may help correct perspective and reduce stretching.
Tilt-shift lenses** can help correct perspective distortion, maintaining straight lines and accurate proportions.
Using moderate wide angles and correcting distortion in post-production are also options.
The TIGHT Shot: Any Sensor Works (1x, 1.5x, 2x)
For basic tight shots—think from the waist or chest up, or showing half a room—M4/3 and APS-C (1.5/1.6x crop sensors) are where it’s at. They give you a wide choice of affordable 25–50mm lenses (vintage or modern), and you can control working distance easily. Full frame cameras lag here: The lenses cost more, and you have less reach for a given size and price. Unless your full frame camera can crop into APS-C mode on demand, I’d give this job to crop sensors (with a slight edge to M4/3 for value and no recording limits on many Panasonic bodies).
About Medium (Tight) Shots:
Focal lengths of 25mm–50mm on micro 4/3 (50mm = 100mm equivalent) are commonly used.
Full-frame cameras may have limitations such as shorter recording times or overheating.
Micro 4/3 cameras may offer longer recording times and good value for this purpose.
The TELE Shot: Micro Four Thirds!
For tight and telephoto shots, especially things like distant details, you need a lot of “reach.” On full frame, getting a true 600mm-equivalent telephoto is both outrageously expensive and really heavy. But put a 300mm vintage autofocus lens (from the bargain bins!) on a Micro 4/3 body, and you get the same field of view for $30–$50, and a lot less weight. Another bonus: In-body image stabilization (in cameras like the Panasonic G85 or G95) is really effective with those older, non-stabilized telephoto lenses. With M4/3, keeping your subject in focus is actually easier at high “equivalent” focal lengths, since they don’t have razor-thin depth of field like 600mm on full frame. M4/3 simply does telephoto and tight shots best for cost, handling, and results.
Why Micro Four Thirds Works for Telephoto Shots:
Micro 4/3 sensors can provide a 600mm equivalent field of view with a 300mm lens.
Lenses for micro 4/3 are often lighter and more affordable.
In-body image stabilization (IBIS) on certain Panasonic models can be helpful with older, non-stabilized lenses.
Some vintage 70-300 lenses (the Tamron, Promaster, Quantaray 1:2 MACRO version) are a really good value.
The Importance of Working Distance
Another crucial factor is how far you need to be from your subject to get the shot. For portraits, you hear the advice: use 85mm or 100mm, not 50mm (for full frame). Why? Because on a 50mm, you need to get closer for a head-and-shoulders crop. Closer means faces start to look distorted—noses grow, features warp a little—even with “normal” lenses. Working distance matters for macro/close-ups, too. With a short lens, you have to get close, which blocks light, startles insects, and creates practical issues. So, the right lens/sensor combo isn’t just about field of view, but how you physically work.
How Sensor Size Influences Working Distance:
Micro 4/3: A 50mm lens may require standing 7–10 feet from the subject for a tight shot.
Full-frame: Getting a tight shot with a 50mm requires getting closer (sometimes results in big noses)
Portraits: Lenses such as 85mm or 135mm on full-frame are often chosen to avoid distortion and provide flattering compression.
Using Multiple Cameras
One of the things I try to avoid at all costs, are "jump cuts". Jump cuts are abrupt changes in framing that occur when a person only used a single camera for a talking head shot, and edits things out of the footage. This can be very distracting in interviews or narrative work...and the solution is to "Always shoot with (at least) two cameras". Using two or more cameras allows for simultaneous capture of WIDE, TIGHT, and TELE shots. This can provide more flexibility in editing and help create a more dynamic final product.
Extra Tips:
TIP 1 MATCH CAMERA (SENSOR) TO SHOT TYPE
Telephoto: Micro 4/3 for reach, stabilization, and affordability.
Medium/Tight: Micro 4/3 for flexibility and longer recording.
Wide: Full-frame for minimal distortion and natural perspective.
TIP 2 SELECT APPROPRIATE LENSES
Vintage lenses can be useful for telephoto work on micro 4/3.
Tilt-shift or moderate wide-angle lenses may be helpful for architectural photography.
Fast, sharp primes are often chosen for tight shots.
TIP 3 UTILIZE IN-BODY IMAGE STABILIZATION
Panasonic micro 4/3 bodies are noted for effective stabilization, especially with manual lenses.
TIP 4 PLAN FOR MULTI-CAMERA SHOOTS
Using at least two cameras can be beneficial for interviews or dynamic scenes.
Consistent color and exposure settings across cameras can simplify editing.
TIP 5 DON'T BE EXCLUSIVE TO ONE SENSOR SIZE
Each sensor size and camera system has its own strengths and limitations.
Assigning each task to the most suitable tool may be more effective than relying on a single system.
CONCLUSION:
When you stop trying to make one camera do everything, everything else gets simpler. Give each sensor size the job it does best. You’ll spend less, your shots will look better, and you won’t be wrestling with the limitations of any one system. Breaking down the workflow down this way—by matching the right tool for each shot type—has taken away a lot of pointless complication. Instead of worrying which focal length “matches what on another sensor,” I just ask: Which setup does THIS job best, at a practical price? It’s made things faster, easier, and more consistent, and freed me up to focus on the creative work (while keeping the image looking REAL). So, next time you plan your shoot—whether it’s corporate interviews, documentaries, interiors, or anything else—consider splitting the load: WIDE, TIGHT, and TELE... and let each camera and lens do what it does best.
Comments