I am embarking on a project to create landscape images for printing to 40" and larger. My available cameras are: • 5DMkII w/17-40 f/4 L lens • Ricoh GR • GX7/EM5/EP5/EPL5 bodies with many m4/3 lenses I wanted to do a small (but exceptionally challenging to the gear) test to see just how much difference there would be in capturing fine details between these cameras. This is not a test of dynamic range, nor of high ISO noise, nor a comparison of size, nor weight of gear, but simply a test of the ability to clearly render exceptionally fine image detail. Of course, it should be expected that the FF sensor would produce finer small detail than the APS-C or m4/3 cameras. But there is much talk by some that the differences are so minor as to be insignificant, these days. I would agree that for many applications, the differences in image detail are insignificant. And for some others, the difference is still significant. Certainly, for reproduction at small print sizes such as 11x14 and smaller and for use on the internet... there is little reason to go with a FF sensor if one is simply seeking greater detail. The detail is plenty good enough with m4/3 for these applications. But when printing images such as landscapes (or a bar of liquor bottles with all of the fine details on the labels) - which are exceptionally demanding subjects due to the incredible amount of very fine detail (in foliage, for example) - small differences in fine detail can make a nice difference in a large wall print (such as 40" and larger) that will be viewed at relatively close differences, such as in one's home environment. Of course, if you back away far enough from a wall print, such additional detail is somewhat less noticeable, however in one's home, walking up to a print is something easy to do and many people will do it to see the finer details in an image (if such details are there to see!). To give myself a better idea of the differences between these formats, I selected the 5DMkII, GR, EP5, and my newly acquired GX7 to do a little test. All cameras were used on a tripod that didn't move. All captures were RAW and converted in Lightroom to achieve the most pleasing results. The lenses were all set to closely match the 28mm equivalent focal length of the Ricoh GR. The m4/3 lens apertures were set to f/5.6, the GR to f/8, and the 5DMkII to f/11. I had no agenda with this exercise other than to observe what the visible differences would be. Here is the full image (as created with the 5DMkII). I've changed my hosting, so I can present images better than previously with Photobucket. View attachment 316286 And here are 100% crops of the lower right quadrant of the images: GX7 w/14mm f/2.5 lens @ f/5.6 (base ISO of 200) View attachment 316288 GX7 w/12-35mm f/2.8 lens @ f/5.6 (base ISO of 200) View attachment 316290 EP5 w/12-35mm f/2.8 lens @ f/5.6 (base ISO of 200) View attachment 316292 Ricoh GR @ f/8 (base ISO of 100) View attachment 316294 Canon 5DMkII w/ 17-40 f/4 L lens @ f/11 (base ISO of 100) View attachment 316296 Differences are most noticeable when looking at the word "Harmonie" on the Cointreau label, the fine print on the Chateauneufdupape label, the fine print on the round label on the Six Grapes bottle, fine print on the Tequilla Corralejo label, as well as some of the other labels. Some folks don't like to view or compare images at 100% and I've never understood that, as 100% view enables one to most accurately evaluate sharpness and IQ - if that is what one would like to evaluate. Some are just not very interested in evaluating fine points of sharpness and IQ, and that's certainly fine for their needs. I like doing so, as it helps me evaluate how well an image is likely to hold up when printed at large print sizes. My take away from this exercise (when viewed 100% in LR) essentially confirms what most would expect to find. And that is that the fine details are most crisply and clearly captured with the FF sensor. The APS-C camera came in a close second. Followed by the EP5 and very close to that, the GX7 entries. It would come as no surprise, of course, that the larger format camera would render finer details more distinctly. But it's clear that m4/3, as a format, definitely punches above its weight, given that it's sensor is only about 1/4 the size of the FF sensor! None of the example cameras would be a bad choice for typical/smaller print sizes as the results are quite close except at 100% examination in LR. As has so often been said in automotive circles, "there's no replacement for displacement." Not to imply, however, that everyone needs "large displacement" for their everyday needs in driving nor in image making. Each level of camera used here has good suitability to particular applications and none is perfect for all. The bottom line here is that it's nice to have different options for different applications, when one wants them.