Especially that was an issue in the movie. If Bryan Peterson did not know about it at the time, it just shows what he did not know. Not that it was not really a problem
There were differences, however. First, we did not have EXIF data, and most people did not keep the notes accurate enough to really know why shot X was a bit sharper than shot Y. Even for those who took notes, they did real tests, you For example, you can take 100 shots of the same subject and vary the camera settings to see what works well and what was not enough work very Few people really tried.
Second, the standards were much lower for most people. In particular, viewing images on a computer monitor does it a lot of It's easier to zoom in on the view so that there are really smaller errors that you would never see in a print of adequate size or by projecting a slide Really large
Third, a psychological effect is involved. If you shoot at f / 22, everything is a little blurry, so you (for example) do not look at it that closely. Most people will never really notice because they tend to look more closely when they realize (mostly unconsciously) that there are no details to see. In contrast, if you record at f / 5.6 the parts of the picture that have exactly the same CoF size as f / 22 appearance out of focus, because you (at least usually) see parts that are much sharper.
Fourth, much depends on the quality of the affected lens. If you're 50 or 60 years old with lenses like 50 years before the game, you can count on them to be pretty dreadful by today's standards when they're wide open. An f / 2 lens may need to be slightly shut down to f / 8 before it is straight quite Good for modern standards. The wide open deviations were so bad enough that in many cases the quality still improved by f / 11 or even f / 16. A great lens and a really bad lens are about the same at f / 22, but at f / 8 the big lens is on amount better.
To get closer to your direct question: Yes, the sensor size has a significant impact. With a larger sensor you need to be closer to the subject to get the same image setting with the same focal length of the lens. This means that a larger sensor will normally reduce the apparent DoF so you can do more by stopping. Secondly, if you are using a larger sensor, you increase the size of the sensor to get the same print size. This prevents the loss of sharpness in a small aperture being almost as obvious.
To give an extreme example, many of the best-known "classic" photographers, including Adams and Weston, belonged to what they called the F / 64 club. Take a 8×10 camera (or even bigger) required a tiny aperture to ever get a DoF, and (obviously enough of the name) considers f / 64 as the ideal aperture. The loss of sharpness did not matter much, for the simple reason that he rarely grew much larger. Starting from a 8×10 negative, even a 24×30 print was only a 3: 1 magnification – slight Fewer Magnification than creating a 3×5 print from a digital full-screen camera.
Edit: First, f / 22 is rarely necessary from DoF's point of view. Consider hyperfocal distances for a 50mm lens at different openings:
f / 8: 41 feet
f / 11: 29 feet
f / 16: 21 feet
f / 22: 15 feet
The nearest point in focus is in any case half that number. So if you go from aperture 16 to aperture 22, you get about 3 feet of foreground in the foreground. There are undoubtedly times that it's almost worth to gain 3 feet something, Let's face it, it's not really common – and in 95% of cases where you can use the f / 22 function, you can use (for example) Focus Stacking to do the same and overall much higher sharpness.
For a typical landscape it is not necessary at all. For example, consider an FF camera with a 50mm lens that is held at eye level (eg, 60 "above the ground), and the near ground is roughly flat and level, for the sake of simplicity we assume that the camera is kept roughly level.
In this case, the nearest foreground is at very The edge of the image is about 250 inches (just under 21 feet) away. F / 8 is small enough for that all Picture falling in the DoF. Someone looks like Really close to the very The edge of the image may be able to tell that it's just a little bit softer than the middle – but what you see is a bit sharper on the edge and a amount Sharper in the middle than if you had taken the shot at f / 22.
However, I feel obliged to add that DoF is not the only reason to use a tiny iris. Sometimes I use a tiny aperture to get a rather soft, low-contrast image. Setting f / 22 (or f / 32 if available) can be a really cost effective alternative to a soft focus object. If you want to have a soft, dreamy look that you expect from a pinhole camera, f / 32 can be an easy replacement task.
Conclusion: It is quite possible to create some really nice pictures by taking photographs with f / 22 or f / 32 – but if / when you use it, you should do so at least on the basis of an idea of what to expect , I want to know the kind of picture you get. Do Not Do it because Bryan Peterson (or anyone else) has assured you that it's the right thing to do, and you should not expect a picture at f / 22 to be as sharp as one on f / 11.
Let me close with a short series of pictures. These were all taken by a tripod with a toughened mirror, all within a few seconds, so that the light has changed very little, etc. First, a complete shot:
Then 100% harvest at f / 11, f / 16, f / 22 and / f32:
Well, it's true that we peep at least some degree here, but it's also true that the quality loss at f / 22 and (especially) f / 32 is pretty obvious. Although most tests show a loss of f / 16 in flat, high-contrast targets, here on a real picture, f / 16 does not show too much of f / 11.
OTOH, at f / 22, is pretty noticeable, and at f / 32, the result is frankly horrible.
Oh, and these are all taken at 200mm. If you believe that a long lens will save you from the effects of diffraction, prepare for some disappointment …