Earlier today I was asked a question about cameras for landscape photography, and since I think the answer may be of interest to others, too, I am sharing the reply here. “Pat” asks:
I have been reading a number of your posts and have to say that I appreciate your balanced pperspective on camera selection….something that is missing in much of these discussions.
I am a landscape photographer that purchased a Sony A7RIIII to complement my A6000. However I have recently become infatuated with the Fuji XT-3. While many Fuji users seem to be more street or travel photographers, I focus mainly on landscape.
I would appreciate your thoughts on the “better” system for landscapes.
This is a pretty common question — whether to hold out for a camera with larger sensor and higher megapixel (MP} resolution or to go with a smaller and lighter APS-C format camera with lower sensor resolution.
You might think the answer is obvious — a system with a larger sensor and high megapixel resolution is capable of producing images with more detail. However, there are some considerations that turn this into a somewhat subjective question with more than one “correct” answer.
The classic understanding holds that, for example, a 50MP full frame sensor can resolve more detail than, say, a 24MP APS-C sensor. In fact, this is true. If you work with care, using a tripod and a remote release and paying careful attention to things like accurate focus, aperture selection, and camera stability, you can produce a larger print from the higher MP full frame image. So the larger, higher MP system can help if you are likely to produce very large prints .
One of my camera systems uses a 24MP Fujifilm APS-C sensor. I’m absolutely confident that I can produce excellent 20″ x 30″ prints from images shot on this system. But my other system uses a Canon 51MP sensor, and it can go even larger, reliably producing 30″ x 45″ and larger print sizes.
Update (1/15/2023): During the past month I acquired a Fujifilm X-T5, a new 40MP APS-C camera. While my main use for the camera is not landscape, I have now made some landscape photographs with it, and I feel like I have a sense of whether the high resolution sensor is useful in this smaller format. In short, it is. Test images that I have made show lenses I regularly use with the camera are “sharp” enough to produce details that benefit from the higher sensor resolution. If you have an older 24MP or 26MP sensor, should you go out and upgrade? Not necessarily. This is not a “night and day” difference, but one you might notice if you make large prints and look closely. But if you are at the point of getting a new APS-C camera and you wonder if 40MP even makes sense in this format… it does.
So, how large will you print? If your realistic answer is, “probably no larger than 16″ x 24″, you can get excellent results from the APS-C camera as long as you use good technique. In all honesty, you could hang 16″ x 24″ prints from the 24MP APS-C system and from the 51MP full frame system side by side… and no one would notice a difference. The odds are that virtually no one would notice at 20″ x 30”. A very experienced photographer carefully comparing side-by-side prints might see a subtle difference.
If you find that APS-C is good enough — and for many photographers is is more than good enough — this smaller format has some other advantages. The cameras tend to be smaller and lighter. The lenses are also smaller and lighter, partly because a given focal length doesn’t have to cover as large of an image circle. In addition, you get the same angle-of-view coverage from a shorter lens. For example, a 50mm focal length on my Fujifilm APS-C system gives me the same angle of view as a 75mm focal length on full frame. And last but quite possibly not least, APS-C sensor systems tend to cost less than full frame equivalents.
So, yes, bigger sensors and higher MP count can be “better…” but perhaps in ways that you’ll never see. So if you won’t print so large (or perhaps you never print at all) and you value a smaller and lighter system and perhaps saving some money… you could be extremely happy with a good APS-C system, as long as you can find all of the lenses you’ll need for it.
NOTES: This article was slightly updated in June of 2021 and again in early 2023.
G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” is available from Heyday Books and Amazon.
Blog | About | Flickr | Facebook | Email
Links to Articles, Sales and Licensing, my Sierra Nevada Fall Color book, Contact Information.
All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others as indicated. Any use requires advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.
To get the best possible results from APS-C and, by today’s standards, as “few” as “16, 20 or 24 Mp, then good technique and post-processing skills are only part of what is needed. it is also important to use a top-quality lens and a post-processor with a demosaicing algorithm that extracts all the available detail from the raw file with very little noise.
Yes. And no. :-)
In my experience, it is probably more about one’s technique in the post-processing stage than it is about the particular post-processing tools used. Another way of saying that is that any of the good post-processing software environments can produce excellent results in the hands of a photographer who knows how to use them.
I’ll give you one example. I have read for years that Adobe software supposedly has problems with Fujifilm x-trans files, and that these can lead to the so-called “worms” issue. That’s sort of half true. In fact, if you aren’t careful about the settings you use with these files in the Adobe raw conversion software (I use ACR, but the same holds true for Lightroom) there are situations where you can encounter the problem. But the solution doesn’t require buying new software — mostly it requires lowering the “details” slider in ACR or Lightroom and compensating with other sharpening settings.
The noise issue is also over-rated. This issue is probably too complex to fully address in a comment, but here are a few thoughts. First, in the “landscape photography” context of this post, one is likely to be using a relatively low ISO, where noise is no more of an issue that with other formats. Second, in rare cases where it might be an issue with this kind of photography (say with extreme recovering of dark shadow areas), typical NR processes can take care of it. (Masking the dark areas and selectively applying the NR where needed is a great start.) Third, there is a misconception that a photograph with any noise is a problem photograph. That’s not true. A great photograph can have a small amount of noise (much less obvious than the grain we dealt with using film) without creating any real problem. There’s even an argument that some small amount of noise increases the subjective impression of sharpness in a print… but that’s perhaps a subject for another post.
As to lenses, I agree that if your plan is to make extremely large prints from APS-C then it is useful to pay attention to all factors that contribute to sharp, detailed images: use a tripod, use a remote release, time the exposure to avoid the effects of wind, pay careful attention to focus, think carefully about aperture choice, use good lenses. On the other hand, it certainly is not necessary to spend a ton of money on specialty lenses, especially for (remember, this is our context here) landscape photography, which typically won’t require the largest apertures. From my own experience with Fujifilm APS-C lenses, I have found that there are a lot of inexpensive lenses that are actually quite sharp.
Thanks for commenting!
Dan
Thomas, while there are reasons to consider larger formats in some cases, people often underestimate the quality that is obtainable able using the smaller formats such as APS-C. The MP resolution of the smaller systems is sufficient for the vast majority of uses. (And overkill for web sharing and similar output.) The gear can be exceptionally good. And there are certainly cases where the smaller and lighter gear is better for “getting the shot” than the big stuff.
Dan
I really enjoyed this discussion and article. I’m a fairly new photographer in the dslr world. I’ve been so focused on how I need a full frame camera to be able to feel ok with selling my prints and even printing at a larger scale. I’ve now come to the conclusion that I do not need an expensive camera to be able to print stunning art for someone to hang. Thanks everyone for their comments.
After many years of photography packing untold systems, and formats my thoughts are now about portability and weight. I’ve got plenty of mega pixels. Just want a dynamic range and camera that produces what we actually see with our eyes. For some reason we continue to knock ourselves out with editing with today’s most advanced cameras and the newest and latest greatest sensor – there’s gotta be a better way!
Few people will actually print out a physical print larger than a16x20 to display from their latest vacation or photo tour, so portability and ease of use become the issue to record the memories and scene. Why do some folks have both a pro level full frame and then purchase a smaller lighter more compact camera? – It Just gets to be to heavy and bulky with too many lenses!
Alan,
You make some interesting points. It is certainly true that there are some really excellent APS-C systems these days, and that folks who aren’t making quite large prints are unlikely to see much or any advantage from larger full frame systems with higher resolutions sensors.
I do use two systems — more on my reasons in a moment. My APS-C system is built around a 24MP Fujifilm camera. I am utterly confident in the excellent quality of 20″ x 30″ prints from this system when I work carefully. (I can go larger than that with some images.) Most people will never make a print that large and their monitors don’t even approach that size. They will be very happy with the output of these smaller, lighter, and less expensive systems.
For some of us there are advantages to systems with larger sensors that make the extra weight, bulk, and cost worth it or even a necessity. For example, if you regularly print larger than 20″ x 30″ and you want the best quality images, then larger, higher resolution systems will produce images that are objectively better. So I carry a high MP full frame system for my landscape photography and some other work.
I use my smaller APS-C system for travel and street photography mostly. It is ideal for this work since the system can be quite small and portable, which has obvious advantages for both travel and street photography. On a few occasions I have used this gear for landscape photography, too — for example on a light and fast backpack trip in the Sierra — and the results were quite decent.
I’m not on the same page with you about wanting a camera that just “produces what we see with our eyes.” The camera and our eyes “see” in very different ways, and a the experience of looking directly at a thing is quite different from that of making or looking at a print. In fact, if I want to produce a print that convinces you that it looks like what you remember… that is likely to involve some careful and practiced post-processing work. So for me — and this was true for film photographers, too — the process goes beyond the capture phase and the totality of creating photographs includes capture, post-processing, and printing.
Thanks for writing.
Dan
Yes, that’s pretty much my feeling, too. If you know what you are looking for and you look closely, especially if you can compare side-by-side, you can spot some subtle differences. But in the end, those old 10MP files can be very good at this size.
I have some older 20″ x 30″ prints hanging on client’s walls that were shot with a 10 MP Nikon D200 that actually look great. Of course I was very careful with technique, solid tripod, mirror up etc. Also, I use DXO modules which helps the IQ.
As an addendum, I went back to a spot where I shot one of those old images and re-shot it with a Nikon d800e. Side by side at 20″ x 30″, yeah I do see a difference. But not nearly as much as you would think. Putting them in opposite walls and looking at one then walking over and looking at the other the difference is not startling.
I’ve seen this kind of discussion before, so here are my two cents worth on it. I now have cameras of 12, 16, 24 all APSc Canons, megapixels, a 12 megapixel Dji Mavic 2 Zoom and a 50 megapixel APS Canon. The 12 Megapixel cameras produce beautiful images which I have printed to 13×19, nice. But when I went from 16 to 24 megapixels my images became visibly sharper and more detailed on the computer screen. The 50 megapixel 5Ds is shaper and more detailed still, I can see it on the computer screen and in prints. In fact the detail is astonishing. You do need to be more careful to get the camera focused and steady, but you can do it hand held.
So while I love what I can do with my Mavic 2, and still use my T6s for some things, the 5Ds is in another realm.
There is no question that higher MP sensors (plus larger sensors, MP being equal) can potentially render more detail than lower MP sensors.
But it is reasonable to ask whether this extra potential has meaning for everyone, which was perhaps my main point in the post. I had a 12MP Canon 5D for my first full frame camera. There’s no question that my 50MP+ 5DsR can record more detail nor that it can hold up better in a larger print. But even that 12MP 5D can produce a really fine 20″ x 30″ print… which is larger than what all but a few people will ever produce. And today’s excellent 24MP (and now higher) APS-C sensors can do as well or better when it comes to resolution.
I and friends of mine have done some interesting “blind” comparison tests of prints from files that camera from cameras with different sensor formats and pixel dimensions, and we’ve been somewhat surprised to see how small the differences are at super large print sizes (say 30″ x 40″) and how invisible they are at smaller sizes!
I agree with you. Excellent 20″ x 30″ prints are well within the range of what can be done with APS-C and larger prints are possible. The portability advantages of the smaller system often turn out to be more important than the potential IQ differences of full frame systems. I definitely feel this way about my street and travel photography, both of which I almost always do with an APS-C system.
As to locking yourself out of a print market, I don’t think so. Most buyers don’t ask (or care) whether a beautiful photograph comes from full frame or APS-C.
Dan
For what it’s worth, I still shoot landscapes APS-C (Nikon D7200 and D7000). I can’t quite say I’ve never missed the higher resolution, but it’s been very seldom, and I’ve printed from both those cameras a fair amount at 20×30, plus sold a couple images for even larger uses, i.e. covering small office walls. It’s gear I can actually afford and carry (I almost always shoot off pavement, often off trail). It probably locks me out of the real luxury print market, but I can’t see that ever being my niche in any case. I’d say most photographers should give themselves permission to feel fine about APS-C if that’s the gear that makes sense unless they have well-defined reasons to need more.