Landscape Photography 4/3 sensor vs APSC

[stapo49]

Hi All, this is probably a hard question to answer due to various factors but if you gave the same photographer shooting the same landscape a 4/3 sensor camera vs a APSC camera would you consistently end up with a better image. Also let's say lenses would be the same or as close as possible.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[stapo49]

Hi All, this is probably a hard question to answer due to various factors but if you gave the same photographer shooting the same landscape a 4/3 sensor camera vs a APSC camera would you consistently end up with a better image. Also let's say lenses would be the same or as close as possible.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Should read "using a"

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

I'm not a big fan of the blocky 4:3 aspect ratio of m4/3 cameras, compared to the 3:2 aspect ratio of APS-C sensors. To me the "size" of the sensor is not really the issue between those two, but the aspect ratio of the un-cropped formats...4:3 is very "blocky"...not a fan of the 4:3 aspect ratio format for horizontals.

 

[stapo49]

I'm not a big fan of the blocky 4:3 aspect ratio of m4/3 cameras, compared to the 3:2 aspect ratio of APS-C sensors. To me the "size" of the sensor is not really the issue between those two, but the aspect ratio of the un-cropped formats...4:3 is very "blocky"...not a fan of the 4:4 aspect ratio format for horizontals.

Thanks for the response. Something I didn't consider in the scenario.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[ac12]

I would say it depends, but likely very little difference.

• On what the resolution of the sensors are.
  • m43 current max is 20MP, but most are 16MP.
    
  • APS-C current max is about 24MP (I think).
• On what size the final image/print will be.
  • If the image is 8x10, m43 should be just fine.

It is the same question as APS-C vs. FF.
For most of the stuff that I shoot, at the size I view, essentially no difference.

Now if you compare m43 to FF, then the difference may become more apparent.
But the size of the final image/print is still a major constraint. If you don't go much beyond 8x10, you will probably see little difference.

Actually for me, the lighter camera may do better, cuz I am not tired from hauling a heavy camera around.
Fatigue affect image quality, even with IS, because your brain is not functioning as well.

 

[Jeff1547 47]

On my Lumix G9 I could if needed go to 40MP.

 

[stapo49]

Thanks guys. Would shooting in the "golden hour" and/or "blue hour" change anything in this scenario?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[ac12]

Thanks guys. Would shooting in the "golden hour" and/or "blue hour" change anything in this scenario?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

No
The time of the day is simply going to give you a different coloration, and the image gets darker.
I would not try to make a dim light picture bright as a day shot. The beauty is in how the shadows get darker.

 

[stapo49]

Thanks guys. Would shooting in the "golden hour" and/or "blue hour" change anything in this scenario?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

I would not try to make a dim light picture bright as a day shot. The beauty is in how the shadows get darker.

Thanks for the response and yes totally agree.