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” — 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.
A photographer and friend asked me for my thoughts on mini medium format, or “miniMF,” camera systems. I told her the answer was complex and that I’d write it up at the blog. Here it is!
I have attempted to include several things in the article: a bit of background regarding formats, some objective facts (“the numbers”) about them and their relationships, pluses and minuses of various options, my own current subjective thoughts on what this means to me, and a few alternative perspectives.
The evolution of digital medium format cameras has been among the most interesting photographic developments over the past few years. High MP backs from companies like Phase One and Leaf became the high-end standard for digital image making, and other companies have recently entered the market. The larger sensors may provide improved image quality in several ways: greater system resolution, greater pixel resolution, improved dynamic range, less noise, and more.
It wasn’t that long ago that digital formats larger than full frame were out of reach for nearly all photographers, with costs that were frequently many tens of thousands of dollars, often for only the digital back, which had to be attached to a medium format body.
However, in the last few years several manufacturers have driven down the cost of camera systems using larger-than-full-frame sensors, and now digital “medium format” (more on that term in a moment) bodies are available for less than $7000. A range of manufacturers are now in this market, including Fujifilm, Pentax, and Hasselblad.
When the costs of larger sensor bodies were in the mid-$20k and up (sometimes very up) range, few photographers using full frame DSLR or mirrorless cameras could realistically consider them as options. But the current $6500-$9000 price isn’t that much higher than the most expensive full frame bodies. At these prices the potential improvements in image quality are enough to make folks take a closer look, especially if they are photographers who produce large and high quality prints on a regular basis.
I began to pay attention when the miniMF Pentax 645d came out some years ago (though I was a bit disappointed to find out that the sensor wasn’t really “645” size), and my interest only increased as Pentax updated to the 645z and then as Fujifilm and Hasselblad brought out competing products. I thought a lot about the possible value of such systems for my photography, and I considered getting one. I haven’t done ao — though I won’t rule it out in the future — but I would like to share some of my musings about the choices. Continue reading Mini Medium Format… or Not?→
Turret Skylight, SFMOMA (San Francisco) – X-E1 with 14mm f/2.8 lens
NOTE: Since I first wrote this article, Fujifilm has released additional X-trans sensor camera bodies and more lenses. Fujifilm has been very aggressive about continuously improving the line as reflected in the release schedule and their frequent firmware updates to add and improve camera functions. From time to time I will add updates to the beginning of this article to incorporate information about the newer equipment. The main original article continues below the “updates.”
If this article helps you make a purchase decision, I would be grateful if you would use the links found here to make your purchase. Doing so help support this website and it does not increase your costs at all. Thanks!
Update Early Summer 2019
As mentioned in an earlier “update” (see below) I now use the Fujifilm X-Pro2 (B&H | Adorama, a 24MP rangefinder style interchangeable lens body with a unique hybrid OVF/EFV design. I also have a few more lenses. While I have not updated all of the information below on Fujifilm bodies (much of which has become out-of-date since originally written in 2013), I have updated lens information to reflect newer lenses I have purchased or otherwise used.
Update Early Summer 2016
I now have the 24MP Fujifilm X-Pro2 (B&H | Adorama, a 24MP rangefinder style interchangeable lens body with a unique hybrid OVF/EFV design. I also now have a copy of the 55-140mm f/2.8 IS zoom (B&H | Adorama).
Update 2/23/14
In addition to the cameras mentioned elsewhere, Fujifilm has now also introduced the XT10 mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. This camera is similar to the XT1 in many ways — for example having the same sensor and the same viewfinder design — but at a lower price point.
Update 2/23/14
During the time that I’ve used a Fujifilm X-trans sensor camera, I’ve wondered about what level of print quality I might get – in particular, I’ve wondered how large I could print and still obtain excellent results. I have made some prints at 12″ x 18″ size, which is my usual size for proof prints, and they look great. A while ago I printed the “Spring Trees, Waterfall Mist” photograph (seen below in this article) at 15″ x 20″ with very good results. This past week I made an 18″ x 24″ print of a busy Manhattan “urban landscape” – and it really looks great! Detail is excellent, tonal quality is beautiful, noise is a non-existent issue, and the 16MP files, carefully post-processed, produce wonderful quality.
While there is no question in my mind that prints from full frame cameras can, all else being equal, be successful at larger sizes than those made from cropped sensor originals, there is also no question in my mind that the Fujifilm system can produce prints that are as good or better than those from any other cropped sensor system. (Unfortunately, there is no way to show you an actual print in an article on the web… ;-)
Update 1/28/14
Fujifilm has announced their new X-T1 Mirrorless Camera. (It is available now, but I’ll leave the original wording here.) The rumors regarding this new camera have been rampant for the past few weeks, and here is what we now know:
16.3 MP X-trans 1.5X cropped sensor
ISO 100-51200
8fps continuous shooting
Improved hybrid AF system incorporating contrast- and phase detection methods
Improved manual focus with digital split image and focus peaking
Faster, higher density, and larger electronic viewfinder
1080p HD Video
WiFi
Expanded manual control dials for shutter speed, +/- 3 EV exposure compensation, ISO, aperture (on many lenses), and more.
A number of features get my attention. My Fujifilm X-E1 works well at high ISO values, but this camera appears to take the much farther extending the lowest ISO from 200 to 100 and the highest all the way to 51600. The specifications and early reports on the web suggest that the AF system has been significantly improved, even beyond those improvements on the X-E2. The added manual controls are going to help a lot for the sorts of photography that many of us do with this sort of camera, where we need to change settings quickly and without going through menus. There are lots of other improvements, large and small, too numerous to mention here.
I’m very interested in this camera. My X-E1 is a wonderful little picture-making tool that complements my larger DSLR system – and the X-T1 sounds like it has been designed to significantly improve on this effective concept. (I have since upgraded to the X-Pro-2.)
In October 2013 Fujifilm announced an updated version of the X-E1, the X-E2, with availability scheduled for sometime in the second half of November 2013. (You may pre-order the new camera using links near the end of this page. Update on 11/21/13: Some versions of the camera are now shipping. Check the links for more details.) I have not had a chance to use the new body as of this writing, but here is some information about the new x-E2, along with some thoughts about it relative to the prior X-E1.
There is a perception that some camera manufacturers are slow to incorporate new technologies into their cameras or to make updates to improve the functionality of existing models. Fujifilm, on the other hand, seems to take a very different approach. They have frequently improved and updated the earlier X-series bodies by way of firmware updates that have offered significant improvements and added new features. This seems to carry over into the introduction of new models as well, and the X-E2 appears to incorporate a number of useful and important updates. Much of what follows is, as alluded to above, based on specification sheets and other writing about the camera since I have not used it as of this date.
The camera’s physical design appears to be very similar to that of the X-E1 – a casual observer might not notice the differences. A few control buttons have been moved, and there are now separate AF and AE buttons. The display is a bit wider.
The camera continues to use a 16MP 1.5x cropped format X-trans sensor, which I find to be a fine performer – the marketing material now refers to the “16.3MP APS-C X-Trans CMOS II sensor,” but time will tell whether the fundamental image quality is significantly different. Fujifilm says that image processing has been improved to include a Lens Modulation Optimizer function that compensates for image issues such as diffraction blur at smaller apertures along with other sorts of image aberrations. It will be interesting to see how the diffraction blur reduction software performs, as this becomes more of an issue with cameras with small sensors.
An improved (e.g. faster) “EXR Processor II” is said to improve camera performance in many ways – quicker startup, shorter shutter lag, burst mode shooting, and more.
The video performance has been improved. Video was not a strong point of the X-E1, but the X-E2 supports higher frame rates and more formats including 1080p video.
Fujifilm reports that the AF system has been significantly updated. It is said to use both contrast-detection and phase-detection systems (each of which has advantages in various situations) to improve AF performance – this is said to help with both low light conditions and moving subjects. This is an important area since mirrorless camera AF systems generally do not perform as well with moving subjects.
The camera incorporates a “digital split image” system for manual focus, which seems to recall the old split-image systems of film cameras, along with a focus peaking – both of which can assist with accurate manual focus.
The camera has built-in wifi connectivity. Fujifilm says this will allow connectivity to “Android or iOS mobile device[s]” to browse images remotely and to transfer images. It is unclear whether this works with other devices such as laptops.
The X-E2 uses the same battery as the X-E1, which might be an important issue for anyone considering an upgrade or using the X-E2 along with other X-series cameras.
And now, back to the original article about the X-E1, much of which is still very relevant whether you are looking at X-E2s or one of the newer bodies… especially the extensive discussions of lenses for the X-series system, functional aspects of the smaller camera as a general concept, and more. Enjoy!
People in front of a San Francisco storefront at night
Until recently I have photographed almost exclusively with DSLR gear – full frame for perhaps eight years, cropped sensor before that, and 35mm film back in the prehistoric era – with a varying set of lenses, a large tripod, and others bits and pieces of support gear. This gear works very well for me, but it is not small or light. With the prospect of a three-week overseas trip ahead of me, earlier this year I decided to look at smaller and lighter options that might work for the specific purposes I had in mind. My basic criteria included:
Excellent image quality. While I was willing to consider some of the excellent four thirds systems, I was more inclined to get an APS-C cropped sensor format body. In addition, I needed a system that would provide excellent lens quality across a range of focal lengths.
Small size and light weight. Because our intention was to limit ourselves to carry-on luggage, weight and size of body, lenses, and associated gear were an issue. My goal was to be able to carry my entire kit in a small messenger bag with room left over for other equipment such as a small laptop, a small hard drive, chargers and adapters, and other gear.
Good functionality and reliability. The camera and lenses needed to be of high quality and to cover the range of needs that I might have in terms of focal lengths and apertures. Interchangeable lenses would be necessary. The gear needed to be reliable and relatively quick and easy to use. Since I would be shooting almost exclusively handheld, something with the responsiveness and simplicity of a street photography camera would make sense.
The options
Fortunately, we seem to be at a point in the development of digital photography equipment where the manufacturers are starting to move beyond the two primary choices of either DSLR or point and shoot (albeit “glorified” point and shoot in some cases). Recently quite a number of small and high quality digital cameras have become available from a variety of manufacturers. They range from so-called mirror-less systems with electronic viewfinders (EVF) to small DSLR-style cameras, with a bunch of interesting variations in between. Some use the smaller four thirds sensors, some use the APS-C “cropped sensor” system, and we are starting to see some (very expensive!) with full frame sensors.
(Some might wonder why I didn’t just look at the smallest Canon – since that’s the DSLR brand I use – APS-C DSLR cameras such as the t-series bodies or the newer Canon EOS Rebel SL1. These could be fine options, but they are still larger than the mirrorless options, and they would require me to use my rather large DSLR lenses. Even the smaller DSLRs plus their larger lenses are heavier and bulkier than the alternatives.)
In the end, I probably looked most seriously at systems from Olympus, Sony, and Fujifilm. To make a set of broad generalizations – the Olympus system may have initially been the best designed (I held an OMD and was very impressed with the feel of the thing), Sony may the most innovative, and Fujifilm seems to take a sort of “retro” approach that ties more closely to the old-school film rangefinder cameras. Any of the three could have been fine options, I think. In the end, I decided against the Olympus because I prefer the larger APS-C sensor, and against the Sony because I wasn’t as comfortable with the quality of the then-available lenses, and for the Fujifilm system on account of the larger sensor, the high quality lenses, and the comfortable old-school design.
The choice
This meant that my remaining choice was between the Fujifilm X-Pro1 and the X-E1. (There is also a fixed-focal-lenght X100s, but that wasn’t on my list since I want to use interchangeable lenses. Fujifilm has now also released the smaller X-M1, a camera targeting the “consumer” market and selling at a lower price.) The “X” in the names of these cameras refers to the so-called “X-trans” sensor design. While most sensors on current digital cameras use a repeating matrix of four photo sites (in groups containing one blue, one red, and two green sensors), the X-trans sensors use a different layout that covers a large area before repeating. Although it is been erroneously said to be “random” and more like “film grain,” this isn’t really the case, though it is true that the inevitable repeating photo site pattern has a more complex pattern. Continue reading Taking Stock OF Fujifilm Mirrorless Cameras→
I’m taking the opportunity to use the photograph I posted earlier today to illustrate a couple of technical points about equipment and technique. Here is a 100% magnification 400 x 400 pixel crop from the far upper corner of the photograph.
Not much to look at, but that isn’t the point. At this resolution, you are looking at what would be a small section from a print that is four or five feet wide. Before I explain why I think this is important, some technical information about the image: Canon 5D, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, 2.5 second exposure, f/16, focus point was on the foreground tree seen in the full image (e.g. – perhaps 50 feet closer than the subject of this test image), IS disabled, tripod, mirror lockup, remote release.
Some doubt the ability of this particular lens to produce sharp images. This sample challenges lens performance in a number of ways: it is a very low contrast image, the crop is from the far corner of the frame, the crop is not in the focus plane of the photograph, at f/16 the effects of diffraction blur should be just visible at this magnification.
With all of that context in mind, this cropped sample represents quite good performance. This section of the image would be very sharp, indeed, in a print at 16″ x 24″.
This photograph is not in the public domain. It may not be used on websites, blogs, or in any other media without explicit advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.
![Adorama](http://<a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/238021/29622/1036?aadid=IFJ50140XF&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adorama.com%2FIFJ50140XF.html"><img src="http://www.adorama.com/Images/Product/IFJ50140XF.JPG" border="0" alt=""/></a>){kind=link}