[northcoastgreg]

will FF & a good WA lens give me so much more detail

FF will give you more detail, but it won't amount to "so much more." I take part in gallery shows with other local photographers. Most shoot with APS-C DSLRs, but a few shoot FF, and a few m4/3. At any given show, it is often impossible to tell which images were shot with which format. The most important factor in distinguishing the quality of images remains the skill, technique, and artistry of the photographer. After that, the most important element is the lens used. And even with lenses, resolution and detail, although important up to a point, are not the most important and are way over-exaggerated by the gearhead crowd. Nowadays, most lenses are sharp enough and most sensors, m4/3 or larger, can record more than enough detail for most purposes. For many types of images, you can't really see the extra resolution of a larger sensor and/or a sharper lens unless you print really large (and look up close) or pixel peep on a monitor. What you do perceive in the final page and which can make a visible difference is the microcontrast and color rendition of the lens. So to sum up: for landscape photography, the most important element is the skill, technique, and artistry of the photographer. After that comes the microcontrast and color rendition of the lens used. Sensor size and lens resolution can also play an important role, but that role tends to be exaggerated. While a 36MP FF sensor will definitely have an advantage over a 3MP APS-C sensor, if we're comparing cameres currently available, the advantage of a larger sensor is not as significant as is often assumed.

[normhead]

^
+1
And 24 MP is just a really nice file size . Overkill, but not too much overkill, IMHO

[tuco]

I take part in gallery shows with other local photographers...

At any given show, it is often impossible to tell which images were shot with which format...

So true and I'd add the following. When your picture is hanging on a wall, no one sees how small, light and convenient your camera was for you to use either.

Back in the film days, I remember a guy who won a local photo contest using one of those disposable cameras that you sent in to get the film removed and developed. He took it apart, put in some BW film and taped it back together. He took a really good and creative image plastic lens and all. Sharpness and resolution were secondary since it wasn't a landscape and related category.

[Barry Pearson]

FF will give you more detail, but it won't amount to "so much more." I take part in gallery shows with other local photographers. Most shoot with APS-C DSLRs, but a few shoot FF, and a few m4/3. At any given show, it is often impossible to tell which images were shot with which format. The most important factor in distinguishing the quality of images remains the skill, technique, and artistry of the photographer. After that, the most important element is the lens used. And even with lenses, resolution and detail, although important up to a point, are not the most important and are way over-exaggerated by the gearhead crowd. Nowadays, most lenses are sharp enough and most sensors, m4/3 or larger, can record more than enough detail for most purposes. For many types of images, you can't really see the extra resolution of a larger sensor and/or a sharper lens unless you print really large (and look up close) or pixel peep on a monitor. What you do perceive in the final page and which can make a visible difference is the microcontrast and color rendition of the lens. So to sum up: for landscape photography, the most important element is the skill, technique, and artistry of the photographer. After that comes the microcontrast and color rendition of the lens used. Sensor size and lens resolution can also play an important role, but that role tends to be exaggerated. While a 36MP FF sensor will definitely have an advantage over a 3MP APS-C sensor, if we're comparing cameres currently available, the advantage of a larger sensor is not as significant as is often assumed.

Yes. Add "post processing" to your list of what distinguishes the quality of images. And sensor quality even at a given size (for example the difference between the K-7 and the K-3).

[Rondec]

Landscape and in-studio portraiture are two areas where there's just not a lot of reason to crop, because you have more time to set up the frame and choose exactly what FL you want.

I was talking more about walkabouts, or street shooting, or family snaps where your FL range may be more limited and/or you may not have time to change lenses. It's especially nice when you like to use primes, when getting the perfect composition otherwise would require human teleportation. In those cases you either forget about the shot, wishing you had brought a longer FL, a longer zoom... or you crop. Cropping is much nicer with 24 or 36MP to work with.

(I actually have a lot of examples of cropping-to-frame, but I don't have many 'before' (uncropped) versions uploaded...)


(not better composition in this case, just showing how there's no fear in cropping a lot of MP)



(50mm, cropped to something like 100 - pretty useful for sports, or wildlife-out-the-car-window .)





.

APS-C does have an advantage when it comes to wildlife and macro photography. When it comes to landscape photography, as mentioned above, photographic technique and post processing are a lot more important than sensor size and megapixels. Good landscape photos are shot (in general) in the f5.6 to f11 range, on a tripod.

As to the much maligned 16-50, it is better than many people think.

[Shanti]

APS-C does have an advantage when it comes to wildlife and macro photography. When it comes to landscape photography, as mentioned above, photographic technique and post processing are a lot more important than sensor size and megapixels. Good landscape photos are shot (in general) in the f5.6 to f11 range, on a tripod.

As to the much maligned 16-50, it is better than many people think.

Agree with most of what's been said, but my question can maybe be answered in the photo you just posted...I would like much more detail in the leaves on the foreground tree and the textures on the grass/field can be clearer--will 36MP FF give me that or is that the realm of 80MP MF ?

[Rondec]

Agree with most of what's been said, but my question can maybe be answered in the photo you just posted...I would like much more detail in the leaves on the foreground tree and the textures on the grass/field can be clearer--will 36MP FF give me that or is that the realm of 80MP MF ?

No. Lack of wind would give you that.

[civiletti]

When it comes to landscape photography, as mentioned above, photographic technique and post processing are a lot more important than sensor size and megapixels.

That is why Ansel Adams used a spotmatic.

[civiletti]

Agree with most of what's been said, but my question can maybe be answered in the photo you just posted...I would like much more detail in the leaves on the foreground tree and the textures on the grass/field can be clearer--will 36MP FF give me that or is that the realm of 80MP MF ?

It's all proportional. There are no magical formats or formats that are just right. For landscape, bigger is better, and bigger yet is better yet.

[Nesster]

Agree with most of what's been said, but my question can maybe be answered in the photo you just posted...I would like much more detail in the leaves on the foreground tree and the textures on the grass/field can be clearer--will 36MP FF give me that or is that the realm of 80MP MF ?

Somewhere else there's a thread on lens diffraction... this would be one practical area where a larger surface sensor has an advantage over a smaller surface one, ie. the lens is stopped way down. Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

[Shanti]

Ok here is an example--24mm FL f6.3 iso 400 K5II..not a good photo but shows what I am looking for...want more detail in the hedges here & the distant trees by the road...lens is kit 18-55 , Will the DA12-24 or Sigma 10-20 3.5 do it for me ?

[Shanti]

That is why Ansel Adams used a spotmatic.

he was my idol in Fine art college...yes I want the detail he got but don't want to carry a 8x10 view camera

[Rondec]

Ok here is an example--24mm FL f6.3 iso 400 K5II..not a good photo but shows what I am looking for...want more detail in the hedges here & the distant trees by the road...lens is kit 18-55 , Will the DA12-24 or Sigma 10-20 3.5 do it for me ?

I would shoot this photo at f8, on a tripod and then use a program like Nik Effects or Topaz to post process it. You would be surprised at the "improvement" you see in both your camera and your lenses.

[Shanti]

Somewhere else there's a thread on lens diffraction... this would be one practical area where a larger surface sensor has an advantage over a smaller surface one, ie. the lens is stopped way down. Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

so according to this 35mm (FF) can use up to F22 & APS 1.5 up to F11 before diffraction sets in...explains why my film shots at F16 or 22 were better than digital at the same..

[tuco]

Ok here is an example--24mm FL f6.3 iso 400

Good glass never hurts in this case. With that much near to far in the frame, stopping the lens down more will get you more DOF and a tripod to ensure a solid shot with base ISO. F6.3 is not enough to cover say 2.5 meters to infinity with a 24mm focal length. But perhaps you can focus stack to get sharper large DOF.