In the endless search for perfect image quality, many of us feel it's a given that we need more megapixels from our camera sensors. So when you make large printouts from a full-frame camera and a Micro Four Thirds camera, do the results tell the same story?
In this comparison video from Marc Newton, he walks around Southend-on-Sea in England and takes some documentary images to be used in an exhibition. First he takes some shots with a full-frame Canon 5D Mark IV, and then he takes some shots with a Micro Four Thirds Olympus OMD EM-1. If you're not sure what a Micro Four Thirds camera is, it's a smaller, mirrorless camera that first came about in 2008 and has a crop factor of 2x in relation to full-frame sensors (APS-C format cameras generally have a crop-factor of 1.5x).
He takes the shots he likes to his regular printer and gets two printouts from the full-frame Canon and two printouts from the Micro Four Thirds Olympus, each at 100 centimeters on its longest edge. Both Newton and the printer then survey the prints and try to establish if there's a difference in quality across the four prints.
What are your thoughts on the matter? Firstly, do extra megapixels in a sensor really matter that much in terms of image quality? And secondly, if the Micro Four Thirds Olympus can produce large prints equal to that of a full-frame sensor at half the price, is there really any need to spend more than $2,000 on a body?