Lansdscape photography question

Happy to post my first photography question on DPRevived! I prefer smaller size cameras that I can carry in a large pocket or around my neck when hiking. I would rather not carry a tripod. My cameras so far have had image stabilization. I would like to take my landscape photography to the next level with the purchase of a higher resolution (> 30MP) camera. One I am considering is the Sigma fp L which is small and has excellent image quality. Will the lack of image stabilization in this camera diminish the image quality using it hand held with a wide angle lens (<20mm) in daylight for landscapes?

So, firstly the more simple answer is that, your image quality will not be diminished by using a non image stabilised camera with a wide angle lens in daylight for landscapes, unless you opted for a very narrow aperture and/or the light was still incredibly poor - in which case you could potentially have issues, as you would with any camera. The same rules of photography apply in that you would need to choose settings which ensured a fast enough shutter speed to successfully hand hold the camera while taking the shot. Having said that, the high resolution full frame sensor should ensure that you have the ability to use higher ISOs in such an environment when required, to mitigate the lack of image stabilisation.

However, the thing I’m wondering here is why you feel that you would be ‘taking your landscape photography to the next level’ by option for a > 30mp camera? Yes, you will have higher resolution image files, but there are many other factors which determine the success of a landscape image, which have very little to do with resolution! Maybe worry less about the extra mp and more about refining things like compositional skills, ability to deal with low light situations and overall landscape photography techniques, with whatever camera you currently have. And on that note, it would help to know what issues you are having with your current camera that you feel a >30mp one would resolve? From your user name I’m thinking you’re most likely using an MFT sensor currently, so if that is the case, then moving to a full frame sensor of any type would be a significant leap anyway, even if less than 30mp! Hope that helps a little 😊

Like Gill and Allan, I too am wondering why you feel you need the extra MP.

I shoot a lot of landscapes as well and 3 years ago upgraded from my Canon 600D (T3i) (~20MP) to the 90D (32MP). But to be honest in good light the difference in image quality is not that much more in the 90D. In low light the 90D is streets ahead of the 600D as you would expect with ~10 year gap in technology developments.

The extra MPs in the 90D is not the main reason I chose it for my upgrade. It has other features I liked/needed as well.

I also do a lot of my own printing of landscapes and panoramas and the extra MPs on the 90D certainly help in outputting slightly better large prints but unless you do a lot of large printing I am interested in why you feel the need for more MPs, especially ~61MP you preferred camera has.

One thing to be wary of when going to much higher MP cameras. Just about the first thing I noticed going from my 600D to my 90D is that I needed about 1 stop faster shutter speed, even though all my lenses have IS, to avoid camera shake when hand-holding because of the much smaller pixel pitch on the 90D. The 600D was much more forgiving of camera shake than the 90D is.

After some practice with and concentrating more on my hand holding technique my hand holding shutter speeds have come back to near enough to what they were with my 600D.

The OP's concerns brings up a couple of issues.

First camera shake can be an issue for handheld shooting. There can be a large variation between different photographers. To achieve optimum results it is necessary to hold the camera steady and also avoid jamming the shutter release.

Next camera shake is related to focal length. With a wide angle lens camera shake is minimal. With a high focal length lens camera shake can be much more of a concern.

Thirdly, when selecting a high resolution camera and considering degradation due to camera shake, it is important to consider how the images will be displayed. I am always amazed at the gearheads who want the optimum image quality and then only display their images online. Images posted online are equivalent to a total of 2 mpix or less. It is also easy to be way over gunned when making prints. I have a 17" printer so unless I send out printing, my max print size is typically 16x24. At that size anything beyond 18 mpix is overkill with no visible improvement in print quality. I do have some 20x30 prints made from an 18 mpix camera. The results were entirely satisfactory. Your expectations might be different. Do you want to be able to make large prints and have the viewer stand very close and count pinecones on the trees in the distant background?

Ok, that is obviously your experience with your printer but it's not my experience.

My Epson printer's native printer resolution is 360 PPI so every image I send to it will be resampled by the printer driver to that resolution for the paper size. For a 16in x 24 in print that works out to the printer driver resampling any image I send to it for that size to (16 x 360) x (24 x 360) = ~50MP.

On my printer, if I send it only an 18MP image to be printed on 16 x 24in there will be a noticeable difference in print quality after the printer driver upsizes the image from 18MP to 50MP compared to say sending the printer a 40MP+ image. Now whether that difference is acceptable or not will depend on the contents of the image.

Wow, only 2MP. Looks beautiful and sharp - especially the mountains in the background.

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful reply. You are correct that I am using an MFT sensor camera (Lumix LX100-ll). My photography skill level is intermediate at best, so your advice is very helpful to me. My composition and landscape techniques would certainly benefit from some training and a lot more experience. When I take a photo of a beautiful landscape, it is often not as detailed as what I see with my eyes and through the viewfinder. My favorite outdoor scene so far is one I took in Kauai, Hawaii (below). It was originally 17MP, but to insert it into this message I was forced to downsize it to 2MP. I would like the grass and the leaves on all the vegetation to be sharper, but maybe I am expecting too much. I haven't tried to edit any photos in post yet either. Otherwise I am happy with the camera. (My wife uses a G9). Do you think this photo could be any sharper with a higher resolution camera?

Thank you for sharing your experience and insight. I actually do not do large prints, at least so far. I just felt that from my own eyes that the sharpness looking through the viewfinder was higher than looking at the photo through the viewfinder immediately after I took the photo, and that the resolution of my landscape photos in general look duller than reality. I also have been influenced by DPReview in many aspects of photography, including their article "Best Cameras for Landscape Photography" in which all but one of the cameras recommended are 36-61 MP. My current camera is 17MP MFT. I find enlightening your observation about smaller pixel pitch being more likely to expose camera shake, which I will consider when choosing a camera. But you have provided ways to mitigate that through 1 stop faster shutter speed and improved hand holding technique. I appreciate your recommendations. So glad to be part of DPRevived now.

Thanks for bringing up some important concerns. Since I don't want to carry a tripod hiking. it would be useful for me to do some study and practice on the best technique for hand held shooting. As with precision sports like bowling, billiards, golf, and archery, a skill can be learned and improved with some effort. I don't have any experience with large prints, just small ones and viewing images on my computer monitor, so I can't say for certain whether a certain megapixel will be better than what I am doing now. I just have this feeling that a better sensor may get my images closer to the level of detail that I would like. I guess I have to try it to find out, because as you say, it is partly personal preference. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" as the saying goes. But your advice will be helpful to me.

You could boost your IQ noticeably while retaining IBIS, yet without going completely into the stratosphere mp-and-specs-wise. You might consider a 24mp full-frame Nikon Z5, acquirable when on sale for a grand, or a used Z6, plus one of their lower-priced "S" line (premium-line) lenses such as the 24-75 F4 S, or even just the 50mm f1.8 S. That camera has IBIS and a full-frame sensor that will give you a discernible IQ boost without going into the stratosphere on mps and all the rest of it.

For this type of scene I would prefer a panoramic aspect ratio.

Without knowing the shutter speed you used and since you posted a lowres image it's really hard to say.

But for a scene like this, an appropriate shutter speed and good hand holding techniques should give you a nice sharp image with anything 20MP+.

From various posts, I surmise that the OP wants something small and light for landscape photos when hiking. He is currently using a Panasonic LX100ii, an almost-pocketable compact camera with a 17 MP four thirds sensor and integrated zoom lens. He would like something somewhat similarly compact with higher resolution so he can see leaves and blades of grass in his landscape photos. He doesn't want to carry a tripod. One camera he is considering is the Sigma fP L, a diminutive FF camera, but he is wondering if the lack of IS will be a problem. His wife uses a Panasonic G9 and they enjoy taking photos of eagles.

As I thought about his posts, the OM-1 came to mind. FWIW, DPReviews listed it as one of the best cameras for landscapes. He can share lenses with his wife. While the OM-1, like the G9, is on the large side for M4/3, the wide range of excellent lenses from Panasonic/Leica and Olympus/OMS will be smaller and lighter in general than any other ILC lenses at equivalent view angles. It has outstanding IBIS. It can do HHHR to produce 50 MP or 80 MP images. For bird photography, its AI-based bird recognition and tracking is very good. It can shoot bursts blazingly fast, up to 120 frames/second. It has a variety of computational tricks like Live ND and others that are useful for landscapes as well as special night modes. I'd recommend pairing it with something like the 12-45mm f/4 zoom for a one-lens landscape/hiking solution.

The OM-5 is a smaller, lighter alternative that also can do HHHR but lacks the subject recognition capabilities and some of the other useful features of the OM-1. I'd go for the OM-1.

You are expecting a lot from handheld photography. I can get away with it with a 50 MP FF camera under full midday light but for sunrise/early morning and sunset/late afternoon a tripod is essential. High ISO has improved greatly but nothing is better than shooting at your camera's base ISO. So keeping ISO as low as possible is still very important.

I have never relied on IBIS or IS/VR so I have no idea how effectively it performs but if you are not willing to use a tripod then either or both may be required. Perhaps IS/VR is enough without IBIS. Perhaps you can isolate the two with your current system to see.

Of course the other huge factor in creating sharp images are the lenses used. Once you have the effective camera that fits your needs you may need to start making improvements in your lenses as well. The best new lenses with IS/VR are as capable as their non-stabilized versions, with respect to resolution.

Just to remind you. The camera body is the least important part when it comes to taking landscape images. Light, composition, technique, processing and lenses will all have a greater impact than the camera body. For the vast majority of times anything better than a mid range micro 4/3rds or larger will produce images that are almost indistinguishable from each other. However when the light is difficult, a high end full frame camera will get results where others struggle. A high Mp camera will highlight problems in your technique and limitations in your lenses and you may not get the best out of it but the results will be no worse than if you had shot with a 24Mp or 16Mp camera. If you are just posting on social media then save some money and buy a good but lower Mp camera. I am still asked for prints produced by my Olympus E-410 a first generation 10Mp 4/3rds camera but in the end to produce good images I had to exposure blend all of my images. Similarly in difficult light my Fuji XE1 had to be exposure blended or the shadow noise would intrude and exposure blended panorama stitches became my norm but they are a pain. Now my Sony A7R4 produces good images without all the faff and I never think "I wish that I had fewer pixels". Buy the best, if you can afford it, and you will never be left thinking "if only I had the .........." Ken

The multi-aspect 17MP and pocketable LX100ii is more than good enough for handheld landscape, even in low light thanks to its ultra bright lens and IS. Larger camera could be more difficult to keep steady due the increased size and weight. Don't waste your money unless you need weather sealing. Better technique will make more difference than a "better" camera.

I will speak to you as someone who also prefers a lightweight camera and I seldom use my tripod. (I use a small m43 ILC with good IBIS and an assortment of lightweight lenses.) I honestly think you might gain more from working on technique than jumping into a purchase that might not yield the result you're seeking. Looking at the image you posted, it appears to have been shot on quite a windy day. If your shutter speed and handholding technique did not account for that variable, you may have lost sharpness from those factors. I'd suggest you experiment more, making note of your settings, and submit some photos in either your camera forum section, or in the overall critique forum section or both, including your camera settings and lens info, and get some guidance about ways to help you reach your goals with the camera you now own, before you buy another. And before you buy, go to the camera store and hold one if possible, or rent one and see how you like it. Some cameras seem to be our dream camera on paper or on screen but when we handle them, they don't fit our hands or way of shooting. I'd also suggest you explore the gains to be made from editing your images to shape them into what you imagined they'd look like when you shot them.