Originally posted by Shanti 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.