Your point about zooms (sort of) targeting landscape photographers makes sense, especially since the higher sensor resolution of the 100MP miniMF sensor doesn’t really give you its full potential when you shoot handheld, and many (most?) serious landscape photographers take a great deal of care to ensure camera stability by using tripods.
My sense is that if you are doing handheld photography of the sort that might call for f/2.8 (or even f/2) zooms on full-frame, that you aren’t likely to gain a lot by going to the larger format.
If you were comparing two systems using the same format and aspect ratio, then the pixel pitch would tell you the maximum sensor resolution. (So would the number of pixels overall and, consequently, the pixel dimensions.)
It isn't quite that simple when you are comparing different format sizes. Let's say (for the moment ignoring the complication of differing aspect ratios) that you have "normal" focal length lenses on both systems so that you get the same angle of view. Let's say that one system is a 60MP FF system and the other is a 100MP miniMF system.
A given amount of blur (e.g. width across the frame) will span more pixels on the 100MP miniMF system. That does NOT mean that the miniMF system is "blurrier" — the amount of blur in equal size prints from the two systems would be identical. What id does mean is that in order to take full advantage of the potential resolution advantage of the larger format you need to ensure even greater camera stability than you would on the smaller system. The optimum is likely to be using a tripod* and a remote release, using EFCS, and turning IBIS off. (The last point may or may not make a difference, but it won't hurt.)
There's no sharpness disadvantage to the larger system (assuming that things like shutter "slap" and similar have an equal effect), but you reduce or potentially negate the possible advantage it offers if you don't up your game regarding stability.
(Resolution is not the only potential pus of the larger sensor — for example, the "grain" of the image will be smaller on the 100MP system, potentially giving some advantage with things like the visibility of noise and smooth gradients at very large reproduction sizes, though these pluses are probably pretty small.)
* For some kinds of photography the tripod has advantages beyond just camera stability. By holding the camera in a fixed position it ensures accurate framing. (It is quite difficult to make multiple handheld shots without moving the camera.) It also makes it easier to access and adjust manual camera settings without "losing" the framing. Obviously, for other kinds of photography the tripod is more of a burden than an advantage...
Aug 21, 2025 at 07:02 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Your point about zooms (sort of) targeting landscape photographers makes sense, especially since the higher sensor resolution of the 100MP miniMF sensor doesn’t really give you its full potential when you shoot handheld, and many (most?) serious landscape photographers take a great deal of care to ensure camera stability by using tripods.
My sense is that if you are doing handheld photography of the sort that might call for f/2.8 (or even f/2) zooms on full-frame, that you aren’t likely to gain a lot by going to the larger format.
If you were comparing two systems using the same format and aspect ratio, then the pixel pitch would tell you the maximum sensor resolution. (So would the number of pixels overall and, consequently, the pixel dimensions.)
It isn't quite that simple when you are comparing different format sizes. Let's say (for the moment ignoring the complication of differing aspect ratios) that you have "normal" focal length lenses on both systems so that you get the same angle of view. Let's say that one system is a 60MP FF system and the other is a 100MP miniMF system.
A given amount of blur (e.g. width across the frame) will span more pixels on the 100MP miniMF system. That does NOT mean that the miniMF system is "blurrier" — the amount of blur in equal size prints from the two systems would be identical. What id does mean is that in order to take full advantage of the potential resolution advantage of the larger format you need to ensure even greater camera stability than you would on the smaller system. The optimum is likely to be using a tripod and a remote release, using EFCS, and turning IBIS off. (The last point may or may not make a difference, but it won't hurt.)
There's no sharpness disadvantage to the larger system (assuming that things like shutter "slap" and similar have an equal effect), but you reduce or potentially negate the possible advantage it offers if you don't up your game regarding stability.
(Resolution is not the only potential pus of the larger sensor — for example, the "grain" of the image will be smaller on the 100MP system, potentially giving some advantage with things like the visibility of noise and smooth gradients at very large reproduction sizes, though these pluses are probably pretty small.)
Aug 21, 2025 at 07:00 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Your point about zooms (sort of) targeting landscape photographers makes sense, especially since the higher sensor resolution of the 100MP miniMF sensor doesn’t really give you its full potential when you shoot handheld, and many (most?) serious landscape photographers take a great deal of care to ensure camera stability by using tripods.
My sense is that if you are doing handheld photography of the sort that might call for f/2.8 (or even f/2) zooms on full-frame, that you aren’t likely to gain a lot by going to the larger format.
If you were comparing two systems using the same format and aspect ratio, then the pixel pitch would tell you the maximum sensor resolution. (So would the number of pixels overall and, consequently, the pixel dimensions.)
It isn't quite that simple when you are comparing different format sizes. Let's say (for the moment ignoring the complication of differing aspect ratios) that you have "normal" focal length lenses on both systems so that you get the same angle of view. Let's say that one system is a 60MP FF system and the other is a 100MP miniMF system.
A given amount of blur (e.g. width across the frame) will span more pixels on the 100MP miniMF system. That does NOT mean that the miniMF system is "blurrier" — the amount of blur in equal size prints from the two systems would be identical. What id does mean is that in order to take full advantage of the potential resolution advantage of the larger format you need to ensure even greater camera stability than you would on the smaller system. The optimum is likely to be using a tripod and a remote release, using EFCS, and turning IBIS off.
There's no sharpness disadvantage to the larger system (assuming that things like shutter "slap" and similar have an equal effect), but you reduce or potentially negate the possible advantage it offers if you don't up your game regarding stability.
(Resolution is not the only potential pus of the larger sensor — for example, the "grain" of the image will be smaller on the 100MP system, potentially giving some advantage with things like the visibility of noise and smooth gradients at very large reproduction sizes, though these pluses are probably pretty small.)
Aug 21, 2025 at 06:59 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Your point about zooms (sort of) targeting landscape photographers makes sense, especially since the higher sensor resolution of the 100MP miniMF sensor doesn’t really give you its full potential when you shoot handheld, and many (most?) serious landscape photographers take a great deal of care to ensure camera stability by using tripods.
My sense is that if you are doing handheld photography of the sort that might call for f/2.8 (or even f/2) zooms on full-frame, that you aren’t likely to gain a lot by going to the larger format.
If you were comparing two systems using the same format and aspect ratio, then the pixel pitch would tell you the maximum sensor resolution. (So would the number of pixels overall and, consequently, the pixel dimensions.)
It isn't quite that simple when you are comparing different format sizes. Let's say (for the moment ignoring the complication of differing aspect ratios) that you have "normal" focal length lenses on both systems so that you get the same angle of view. Let's say that one system is a 60MP FF system and the other is a 100MP miniMF system.
A given amount of blur (e.g. width across the frame) will span more pixels on the 100MP miniMF system. That does NOT mean that the miniMF system is "blurrier" — the amount of blur in equal size prints from the two systems would be identical. What id does mean is that in order to take full advantage of the potential resolution advantage of the larger format you need to ensure even greater camera stability than you would on the smaller system.
There's no sharpness disadvantage to the larger system (assuming that things like shutter "slap" and similar have an equal effect), but you reduce or potentially negate the possible advantage it offers if you don't up your game regarding stability.
(Resolution is not the only potential pus of the larger sensor — for example, the "grain" of the image will be smaller on the 100MP system, potentially giving some advantage with things like the visibility of noise and smooth gradients at very large reproduction sizes, though these pluses are probably pretty small.)
Aug 21, 2025 at 06:57 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Your point about zooms (sort of) targeting landscape photographers makes sense, especially since the higher sensor resolution of the 100MP miniMF sensor doesn’t really give you its full potential when you shoot handheld, and many (most?) serious landscape photographers take a great deal of care to ensure camera stability by using tripods.
My sense is that if you are doing handheld photography of the sort that might call for f/2.8 (or even f/2) zooms on full-frame, that you aren’t likely to gain a lot by going to the larger format.
If you were comparing two systems using the same format and aspect ratio, then the pixel pitch would tell you the maximum sensor resolution. (So would the number of pixels overall and, consequently, the pixel dimensions.)
It isn't quite that simple when you are comparing different format sizes. Let's say (for the moment ignoring the complication of differing aspect ratios) that you have "normal" focal length lenses on both systems so that you get the same angle of view. Let's say that one system is a 60MP FF system and the other is a 100MP miniMF system.
A given amount of blur (e.g. width across the frame) will span more pixels on the 100MP miniMF system. That does NOT mean that the miniMF system is "blurrier" — the amount of blur in equal size prints from the two systems would be identical. What id does mean is that in order to take full advantage of the potential resolution advantage of the larger format you need to ensure even greater camera stability than you would on the smaller system.
There's no sharpness disadvantage to the larger system (assuming that things like shutter "slap" and similar have an equal effect), but you reduce or potentially negate the possible advantage it offers if you don't up your game regarding stability.
(Resolution is not the only potential pus of the larger sensor — for example, the "grain" of the image will be smaller on the 100MP system, potentially giving some advantage with things like the visibility of noise and smooth gradients at very large reproduction sizes, though these pluses are probably pretty small.)
Aug 21, 2025 at 06:57 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Your point about zooms (sort of) targeting landscape photographers makes sense, especially since the higher sensor resolution of the 100MP miniMF sensor doesn’t really give you its full potential when you shoot handheld, and many (most?) serious landscape photographers take a great deal of care to ensure camera stability by using tripods.
My sense is that if you are doing handheld photography of the sort that might call for f/2.8 (or even f/2) zooms on full-frame, that you aren’t likely to gain a lot by going to the larger format.
Wouldn't the effect from camera shake from shooting handheld depend on the pixel pitch? In which case the GFX would be easier to shoot handheld than a X-T5, and about the same as a Sony A7rv. Or am I missing something here?
The point here isn't that there is more or less blur with a 100MP sensor system. In fact (if you think about how digital imaging works) there's no more or less blur from a given degree of instability.
The point is that the potential resolution advantage of the higher MP sensor is not as likely to be realized when shooting handheld, and that if you are most shooting that way (with some arguable exceptions) that FF body would probably produce results that are essentially as good.
Also, the issue in this case would not be pixel pitch. it would be the number of pixels across a given area (or height/width) of the sensor. If you put lenses on the FF and miniMF systems that had the same angle of view (tricky to calculate with different aspect ratios, but bear with me) and apples a given amount of camera instability, the resulting blur would cover a wider pixel range on the larger, high MP system.
Aug 21, 2025 at 06:56 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Your point about zooms (sort of) targeting landscape photographers makes sense, especially since the higher sensor resolution of the 100MP miniMF sensor doesn’t really give you its full potential when you shoot handheld, and many (most?) serious landscape photographers take a great deal of care to ensure camera stability by using tripods.
My sense is that if you are doing handheld photography of the sort that might call for f/2.8 (or even f/2) zooms on full-frame, that you aren’t likely to gain a lot by going to the larger format.
Wouldn't the effect from camera shake from shooting handheld depend on the pixel pitch? In which case the GFX would be easier to shoot handheld than a X-T5, and about the same as a Sony A7rv. Or am I missing something here?
The point here isn't that there is more or less blur with a 100MP sensor system. In fact (if you think about how digital imaging works) there's no more or less blur from a given degree of instability.
The point is that the potential resolution advantage of the higher MP sensor is not as likely to be realized when shooting handheld, and that if you are most shooting that way (with some arguable exceptions) that FF body would probably produce results that are essentially as good.
Also, the issue in this case would not be pixel pitch. it would be the number of pixels across a given area (or height/width) of the sensor. If you put lenses on the FF and miniMF systems that had the same angle of view (tricky to calculate with different aspect ratios, but bear with me) and apples a given amount of camera instability, the resulting blur would cover a wider pixel range on the larger, high MP system.
Aug 21, 2025 at 06:27 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16874868 « What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see? »
