If one’s issue is being able to say that “I have the most detailed image files” or “my files still look pretty good when I inspect them at 500% magnification,” then get a miniMF body, the best lenses you can afford, focus manually, always use a tripod, and develop high level post-processing skills. And enjoy those really excellent 500% magnification images on your monitor and being able to say that “my images show a lot of detail when I magnify them a lot on my screen in Lightroom.”
If the the issue is what you photographs look like in the real world display formats that you actually use, the issue is more nuanced and complex.
I’d wager that the vast majority of photographers, including excellent photographers who know what they are doing (especially advanced photographers who know what they are doing) will get very good real world results form an excellent APS-C system with good lenses, shot and post-processed skillfully.
Again, if you are a typical user who rarely if ever prints larger than 13” x 19”, there will be virtually no visible difference between MFT, AFS-C, FF, and miniMF in the vast majority of situations. If you don’t print and you only view on screens and share on social media and perhaps in the FM display forums, you’ll be fine with APS-C.
Sep 24, 2025 at 09:36 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16896571 « Fuji for landscape »
