How noticeable is the image quality difference between Micro Four Thirds and APS-C for a beginner?
Asked 1/21/2018
2 views
2 answers
0
I'm deciding between a Nikon D3400 (APS-C DSLR) and an Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II (Micro Four Thirds). I prefer the Olympus because it's much smaller and easier to carry, but I'm worried the smaller sensor might noticeably reduce image quality. For a beginner, how visible is the real-world difference between Micro Four Thirds and APS-C, and when does sensor size matter most?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
8y ago
2 Answers
20
A great deal here depends on when you (generally) take pictures.
In particular, with bright light, a smaller sensor makes little or no difference in quality. As the light level drops, however, a large sensor (generally) gains a greater advantage.
So, if you're mostly taking pictures of the view from a mountain top in broad daylight, chances are that the Olympus will work beautifully (and even the much smaller sensors in most cell phones will also work quite nicely).
On the other hand, if you were to take some pictures at night by the light of a camp-fire (to give only one obvious example) the differences due to sensor size will be much more noticeable--quite possibly to the point that you want to think hard about the larger sensor.
If it were up to me, I'd think hard about a mirrorless camera with an APS-C sensor. For one example, the Sony A6300 has an APS-C sensor, but is still very close to the size and weight of the Olympus (12.7 ounces vs. 12.4 ounces for the Olympus).
As a disclaimer: no, I'm not really trying to push Sony in particular--as it happens I own a Sony camera, so I'm a little more familiar with what they offer than the other brands. Canon and Nikon (for the two most obvious possibilities) offer mirrorless cameras as well. I believe the Canons use an APS-C sensor (though Canon's version of APS-C is a bit smaller than everybody else's) and the Nikons use one that's substantially smaller (even smaller than four thirds).
That does translate to smaller size and weight though--for example, the Nikon 1 series bodies are around 11 ounces apiece. If you shoot (at least primarily) in situations where a smaller sensor will work well (and given that size and weight are at an extreme premium for you), it might be worth considering something even smaller than four thirds.
Originally by user603. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user603
8y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
For most beginners, the image-quality difference is usually small in real-world use. In good light, Micro Four Thirds and APS-C can both produce excellent photos, and technique, lens choice, and having the camera with you often matter more than sensor size.
Where APS-C tends to show a clearer advantage is in lower light. As light levels drop, the larger sensor generally handles noise better and can give you more flexibility for night scenes, dim interiors, or other challenging conditions.
So the practical trade-off is:
- Mostly daylight/travel/everyday shooting: Micro Four Thirds is likely to be more than good enough.
- Frequent low-light shooting: APS-C may be noticeably better.
Also consider the whole system, not just the sensor. Size and weight affect whether you actually carry the camera, and lenses can make as much or more difference than the sensor itself.
If portability strongly matters to you, the Olympus is a very reasonable choice. If low-light performance is a top priority, the Nikon’s APS-C sensor has the edge.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI8y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Should sensor size be the deciding factor between the Sony A6000 and Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II?
Does adapting a full-frame or APS-C fisheye to Micro Four Thirds reduce the fisheye effect?
Will the same lens perform better on Micro Four Thirds because it only uses the center of the image circle?
How does the Sony RX100 compare to a Micro Four Thirds camera like the Olympus E-PL2 if I don't care about interchangeable lenses?
Does Micro Four Thirds have a low-light advantage when you account for aperture and depth of field?