Choosing the right camera for landscape photography often comes down to balancing image quality, portability, and usability. Full frame and Micro Four Thirds systems both have their strengths, but how do they hold up in real-world shooting conditions? This comparison puts two Panasonic cameras—a 47-megapixel S1R and a 20-megapixel GX9—through their paces to see how they fare.
Coming to you from Jason Friend Photography, this detailed video compares full frame and Micro Four Thirds cameras in a practical landscape setting. Friend tests the Panasonic S1R and GX9 side by side in various scenarios, starting with a waterfall at Cauldron Falls. Using rocks as foreground interest and a centered composition, the goal was to emphasize the waterfall with a long exposure. Despite the S1R’s ability to shoot at higher f-numbers without diffraction issues, the GX9 held its own, especially considering the resolution limitations of social media where most photos are shared.
Another key test took place at Winskill Stones, a striking limestone area with a single photogenic tree. With flat lighting and gray skies, Friend opted for black-and-white compositions, simplifying the scene with square crops. While the S1R offered better usability with its larger viewfinder and more robust grip, the GX9’s compact size proved advantageous for portability. The comparison highlighted how both cameras excel in specific ways, depending on what you prioritize—image quality or ease of use.
Friend also tackled the weight and handling of the two systems during his hike to Twistleton Scars. While the S1R’s durability and ergonomics made it a reliable choice, its hefty weight posed challenges on longer treks. The GX9, despite a small mishap involving a tripod fall, demonstrated impressive durability. Its lightweight build made it a strong contender for photographers looking to travel light without sacrificing too much image quality.
The video emphasizes that both systems have unique advantages. Full frame cameras like the S1R offer higher resolution and better low-light performance, making them ideal for serious landscape work. Micro Four Thirds systems, on the other hand, shine in portability and convenience, particularly for casual outings or when weight is a concern. Friend’s tests reveal that neither system is inherently superior; the right choice depends on your needs and shooting style. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Friend.
The actual advantage of one sensor size over the other is mostly realized in the final output, or final usage, of the images taken. If all you're going to do is to share on social media and have your photos viewed on laptop, tablet, and phone screens, then the little sensor will be better because of less expense, size, and weight. If you want to have your images look their very best when printed at sizes of 60" by 40" and larger, then the full frame will provide better image quality, especially when the huge prints are viewed at very close range, as they actually often are (despite what misguided people say about viewing distance being relative to print size).
Actually, from m43 I have 50Mpix high quality photographs of landscapes, printed on large formats :)
I don't think he said you can't print m43 files large. Just that there's a noticeable difference between the two formats when prints get big enough.
Echoing the comments of the 2 prior responses, I shoot M43 (OM, Olympus), landscapes, portraits and street work. I make both ink jet prints and analog, platinum/palladium prints. Most of my work is shot at 20mp and printed at its native,1:1 resolution (roughly 13”x17”) or smaller. However, I’ve enlarged 20mp images to 30x40 with excellent results. I’ve made prints from 50mp files at the same size, it’s really hard for 98% of viewers to tell the difference. I used to shoot 8x10, 11x14, 12x20. I personally think the images I can make with M43 are superior.
With tools like DXO PureRaw, and AI Denoise now built into Lightroom, low-light performance issues of smaller sensors are largely mitigated.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like the 12-bit output on most m4/3 sensors would be more limiting for landscape photography than the resolution or sensor size...
For many of us, color depth isn't important at all. To my eye, 12 bit and 16 bit look the same. I have nowhere near the visual acuity to ever be able to see any difference, even at enormous output sizes.
Conversely, detail resolution and dynamic range and noise grain are things that my eye picks out immediately.