Tag Archives: image

Full Frame Or APS-C For Landcape?

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.

Alpine Lake, Morning
“Alpine Lake, Morning” — A solitary sunrise angler stands on shoreline rocks at an alpine Sierra Nevada lake reflecting a nearby peak. (Photographed with a Fujifilm XPro2 and the Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 lens.)

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 | FacebookEmail

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.

Reader Question: 5Ds/5DsR Print Quality

Reader “Tom” writes to ask:

I’ve read your reports on the 5Dsr.  I assume by now you have one?  Maybe you have different thoughts now, but you seem to point to the new body being good for large print/detail, but maybe not so great for fine art print. 

If that’s still the case, what would you opt for if leaning towards fine art prints, large, maybe a heavily cropped slice measuring say 16″ x 72″ or so? Minus a mf body. 

I’m looking to switch bodies and thinking the 5dsr or possibly the Nikon d810.  Just curious what your thoughts might be if you ever had time. Thanks.

Canon EOS 5Ds DSLR
Canon EOS 5Ds DSLR

It has been a while since I’ve written about the Canon 5DS and the 5DsR cameras here, but since you asked I’ll share more based on my extensive use of the 5DsR over the past months. I have used it to photography everything from landscapes to people to wildlife. I think I see several sub-questions here, so let me respond to each of them.

Are the 5DsR and  5DS good for large prints? Continue reading Reader Question: 5Ds/5DsR Print Quality

New Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS Lens Announced

Without a whole lot of fanfare, today Canon announced a new EF 16-35mm f/4L IS wide angle zoom. While actual copies are apparently not yet “in the wild,” judging by reports and information from Canon and elsewhere, it sounds like a lens with some very interesting possibilities.

Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS
Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS

At first blush, one might imagine that it is simply a less expensive version of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens that has been out for some time now. (That is a fine lens for many purposes, notably for full frame shooters doing handheld ultra-wide photography in low light.) It shares the same focal length range, but the maximum aperture is not quite as large. (There is a similar relationship between the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II and the less expensive EF 24-70mm f/4L IS.)

However, the new lens has some distinctive features that set it apart from the f/2.8 16-35, and also from the venerable 17-40mm f/4 L.

  • Unlike either of the two ultra-wide alternatives, this lens is equipped with image-stabilization (IS). Some presume that IS would not be useful in a wide angle lens, but there are a number of situations in which the extra 3-4 stops of low light handheld shooting capability will come in handy. It is also likely to appeal to those shooting DSLR video.
  • The MTF charts (a way of graphically representing lens performance) for the new lens look very good. While the existing 16-35mm and 17-40mm Canon ultra-wide lenses have been very important to many photographers, they are not known for outstanding resolution, especially in the corners. The charts for the new lens indicate that it should be significantly sharper overall, and especially in the corners and at the largest apertures.
  • It may seem like a small thing, but the new lens uses the common 77mm diameter filter threads—the same that are found on a number of other L lenses, including the f/2.8 70-200mm zooms. (The previous f/2.8 16-35mm lens uses a larger 82mm diameter.) For photographers who already have 77mm filters—including some who might consider moving to this lens from an existing 17-40mm lens—this is a factor to consider.
  • The price is actually quite good. The lens is not cheap at a projected list price of $1199. However, by comparison to some similar recent Canon lens releases this is not bad at all, especially when you consider that it is an IS lens.

Who may want this lens? I suspect that quite a few landscape photographers and those shooting similar subjects will like this lens more than the older 17-40mm L lens. I’ve used the 17-40 for a long time and it is a very useful lens, especially for shooting at smaller apertures from the tripod with a full frame camera. However, the new lens seems to improve on its performance in significant ways, particularly in the area of corner performance. In addition, while most of us really think of the 17-40 as pretty much just a landscape lens, the improved wide-open performance and image stabilization will extend the usefulness of this lens in low and for handheld photography.

I’m impressed enough with early reports that I’m giving serious consideration to picking one up myself. The lens is not yet available for purchase, but you can pre-order a copy from B&H. At the moment, I’m “that close” to doing so!

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | FacebookGoogle+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Thoughts About the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS Lens

(This is another post based on something I wrote elsewhere as a response to a question about this lens – I’m re-sharing it here with minor editing.)

I’ve used the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens  a lot – for things as varied as handheld shooting of bicycle races and tripod-based landscape photography. Over time I’ve developed a few thoughts about the performance of this lens and some of the comments that I frequently hear and read about it.

First, especially from my tripod-based work, I have found that the lens is capable of very good performance in terms of image quality – e.g. “resolution.” This is true at all focal lengths, but more so perhaps at some than at others. To give one example, I also own the f/4 IS 70-200mm lens. At one point I tended to always switch to the shorter lens when shooting in the range up to 200mm, concerned about a potential sharpness hit with the 100-400. Over time I figured out that while the 70-200 is probably a very tiny bit sharper here, in most cases the difference in many kinds of shooting is insignificant and invisible in real-world output – and in many cases where I would have switched lenses I now leave the 100-400 on the camera. Continue reading Thoughts About the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS Lens