Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: which camera for 17" wide prints  (Read 7123 times)
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2010, 12:57:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
I don't think that's the question.  Are the 12mp prints unacceptable?

They are not as sharp and detailed for landscapes.  "Unacceptable" is in the eye of the beholder.  For landscapes, I'd far prefer to shoot with a 24MP camera over a 12MP camera.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7630


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2010, 01:32:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Ouch!

Thanks! Fixed!

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
According to my calculations 23.4*16.5*(360^2)/10^6 = 50.038, so A2 @ 360 ppi needs 50 Megapixels.

...and 24 * 18 @ 360 needs 60 Mpx. ( The 60 Mpx chips have just enough pixels on the long side to fill 24")
« Last Edit: April 18, 2010, 01:36:35 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2010, 07:33:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Erik, take the theoretical pixel calculation with a grain of salt

Photoshop, Lightroom, and many others do a fine job of uprezing, and printing 360dpi is usually a considerable overkill

That said, i'd much rather shoot for large prints with a full frame camera like the 5D2.

Acceptability is very much influenced by the subject, viewing distance, etc.
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2010, 05:07:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tommyduarte
I will be making 17" wide prints and I'm trying to decide which camera to buy.  The canon 5d mark II has 21mp compared to the nikon d700's 12mp.  I know megapixels are not everything but I'm concerned about print size.  I'm also aware of the other differences such as points of AF and exposure compensation.  Which camera is better for the size of a print that I want, Nikon d700 or Canon 5d mark II?

Thank you

I have gone upto 24"x36" prints with pictures taken with the Sony A900 (24.6MP Full-frame).....specifically pictures taken with the A900 + Carl Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 and Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 combinations, on a stable tripod.    For larger prints, I like to have a camera with more megapixels and the A900 delivers....without going into larger/less-portable MF equipment.

The 5DII, at 21MP is close enough the A900 and if printing big is the over-riding consideration, then that is what I would pick, among the choices you have presented above.
Logged
Didymus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2010, 07:47:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
I have gone upto 24"x36" prints with pictures taken with the Sony A900 (24.6MP Full-frame).....specifically pictures taken with the A900 + Carl Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 and Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 combinations, on a stable tripod.    For larger prints, I like to have a camera with more megapixels and the A900 delivers....without going into larger/less-portable MF equipment.

The 5DII, at 21MP is close enough the A900 and if printing big is the over-riding consideration, then that is what I would pick, among the choices you have presented above.




Thank you
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #25 on: April 21, 2010, 03:20:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
I have gone upto 24"x36" prints with pictures taken with the Sony A900 (24.6MP Full-frame).....specifically pictures taken with the A900 + Carl Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 and Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 combinations, on a stable tripod.    For larger prints, I like to have a camera with more megapixels and the A900 delivers....without going into larger/less-portable MF equipment.

The 5DII, at 21MP is close enough the A900 and if printing big is the over-riding consideration, then that is what I would pick, among the choices you have presented above.
Most people who try to print large from low-res cameras stick to printing misty sunsets and other scenes with no detail to resolve, but, if you want to resolve detail, you will need enough Megapixels...

For ultimate quality use 360 original camera pixels per print inch to resolve fine detail...
24 * 36  @ 360 pppi requires 112Mpx or two or three 60Mpx images stitched... but for
24 * 36" for most subjects 240 pppi would be adequate, requiring about 50Mpx MF without stitching.

As Bernard would tell you, you can produce high-res pictures with a low res camera by pano-stitching.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 22, 2010, 02:43:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: k bennett
Proper technique is far more important than which camera you use. Unless you have *perfect* technique, you won't see any difference between the 5D2 and the D700 (or the 40D or the D300 or the K7 or the A900 or any other recent DSLR camera.) Even with perfect technique (which is exceptionally rare) you won't see the difference in a 16x24 inch print.

Good technique includes but is not limited to using the proper tripod, mirror lockup, proper focus, exposure, the quality of the lens used, etc. If, for example, you are hand holding your camera, then the camera is *not* the limiting factor in print quality.

EDIT: when I say perfect technique is exceptionally rare, I am talking about all camera users. Photographers who read this site are far more likely to have good technique.

I wonder sometimes how I ever take a sharp picture, I'm usually in a helicopter or Cessna, so no tripod, yet it mostly looks  pin sharp to me at 100% even with long lenses.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Dan Berg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534



WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2010, 05:25:57 PM »
ReplyReply

12mp is plenty these days with the proper software and printers. I have 2- 12mp Nikon bodies and print 75% of my prints 24" and larger. The smallest I usually print is 17" X 22. My stitched panos average from 250mb  to 1 gb in size
You should see the results printed at 40" X 120",just stunning!  Printers are Epson 7900 and 9900 .  Genuine Fractals 6 makes this so easy.
To answer your question its probably just as important what you do with the images at the back end as what camera they are shot with at the front end.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2010, 05:28:28 PM by Dan Berg » Logged

Didymus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #28 on: April 22, 2010, 07:08:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dan Berg
12mp is plenty these days with the proper software and printers. I have 2- 12mp Nikon bodies and print 75% of my prints 24" and larger. The smallest I usually print is 17" X 22. My stitched panos average from 250mb  to 1 gb in size
You should see the results printed at 40" X 120",just stunning!  Printers are Epson 7900 and 9900 .  Genuine Fractals 6 makes this so easy.
To answer your question its probably just as important what you do with the images at the back end as what camera they are shot with at the front end.


Very nice.  Thank you.
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2010, 07:26:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dan Berg
12mp is plenty these days with the proper software and printers. I have 2- 12mp Nikon bodies and print 75% of my prints 24" and larger. The smallest I usually print is 17" X 22. My stitched panos average from 250mb  to 1 gb in size
You should see the results printed at 40" X 120",just stunning!  Printers are Epson 7900 and 9900 .  Genuine Fractals 6 makes this so easy.
To answer your question its probably just as important what you do with the images at the back end as what camera they are shot with at the front end.

What you are essentially stating is that when a 12MP image is blown up to a size that is well beyond what image data is natively present, the scarce image related data gets spread around, leaving "holes" throughout the image.....something like trying to spread around a handful of sand across the floor of an entire room (not enough grains of sand to cover the entire area of the room !). The software will then make guesses on what kind of "fillers" (fake data since native data is just not there) to fill the "holes" with, so that people watching the image can be fooled into thinking it is a real image than something filled with fake stuff.

Yes, the above will work in lots of situations.  Unfortunately, such tricks will only work in images that do not contain a lot of fine detail.  Once you introduce fine detail into the picture, the "filling the holes with fake stuff to make it look real" will start coming apart right away.  Just a clarification.  
Logged
Didymus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2010, 12:07:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I feel like I stepped into a war zone.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7630


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2010, 12:36:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

My experience is that 12 MP works well with A2-size prints. A2 is the largest I print, because of printer and wall surface limitations.

Keep in mind that there are many variables, image detail and viewing distance to mention a few. Another issue is sharpening. Also, the full sensor resolution can only be utilized and certain apertures. If we assume a 24 MPixel camera, just stopping it down to f/16 would reduce resolution to about 12 MP. So an 12 MP APS/C at f/8 would give similar results to a full frame sensor and 24 MP at f/16.

What I have seen is essentially the following:

1) A2 prints from APS-C, optimally handled, are very good
2) Image files from full frame are much better than uprezzed APS-C images at the same dimensions
3) Most of the resolution advantage is lost in the printing pipeline

Sometimes, A2 prints from APS-C (12.5 MPixels) and full frame (24.5 MPixels) can easily be told apart, sometimes not. There are a lot of parameters involved our vision is sensitive to subtle differences in tonality but not really to megapixels. It is quite probable that you would see a difference between an 12.5 MP and a 24.5 MP camera in print with a loupe but not with the naked eye. Looking with a loupe may show you differences in detail which you may also observe with the naked eye.

I mostly use a Sony Alpha 900 (24.5 MP full frame). I have not made "art prints" larger than A2 (17x26") from that camera, but I expect that I'm able to do A1 with good quality and it gives me some room for cropping.

To put things a little bit in perspective:

I have two 70x100 cm (27x40")  prints on my wall, one is taken with 6x7 on Velvia and scanned using an MF scanner, the other is shot with a 10 MP APS-C. You don't put your nose against the APS-C print and say "Gee, this is sharp!" but it's certainly good enough at normal viewing distances. I actually tried to reshoot the 10 MP image on my 24.5 MP camera but failed to get optimal images because of wind (and lens issues). The subject was autumn leaves so I need to wait 5 months until next time.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: aaykay
What you are essentially stating is that when a 12MP image is blown up to a size that is well beyond what image data is natively present, the scarce image related data gets spread around, leaving "holes" throughout the image.....something like trying to spread around a handful of sand across the floor of an entire room (not enough grains of sand to cover the entire area of the room !). The software will then make guesses on what kind of "fillers" (fake data since native data is just not there) to fill the "holes" with, so that people watching the image can be fooled into thinking it is a real image than something filled with fake stuff.

Yes, the above will work in lots of situations.  Unfortunately, such tricks will only work in images that do not contain a lot of fine detail.  Once you introduce fine detail into the picture, the "filling the holes with fake stuff to make it look real" will start coming apart right away.  Just a clarification.  
Logged

Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2010, 05:37:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tommyduarte
I feel like I stepped into a war zone.
Photography is where science and art come together, producing a vast range of opinions and experiences with every subject!  So I will wade in and add to the debate.  My normal camera is only 10 Mp and my printer is an A2.  For the vast majority of my work, prints look excellent.  However, for some detailed shots, I cannot print at full size (even A3 is stretching it) because the camera has not recorded enough detail.  I would love more resolution for these photos (typically a "busy" landscape with lots of detail).  I should stress that we are talking about a LOT of detail as 10 Mp is still impressive with modest detail (I often get comments about how detailed my prints are).  

Perhaps the best way to illustrate is a late summer photo with a lot of yellow grass stalks - the higher resolution capture will differentiate these from close to camera right up to where they blur out with focus, whereas the low resolution capture will show an intermediate area of confusion in some cases.  The same can be seen with brick buildings in the middle distance.  The effect is there but not often a problem in practice.

What I have noticed, through working with files from cameras like the Canon 5DII and Sony A900, is that the final print reflects the lens far more than the sensor.  I use very sharp lenses on my 10Mp body and even on an 8 x 10 print can see the difference between that and some of the lenses my friends have used on their 20+Mp bodies (unless they are shooting at optimum apertures etc.).  Those basic Canon/Nikon/Minolta zooms just aren't good enough - you have to cough up for the better offerings if you want that quality.  Lens quality makes MUCH more difference than Mp in the final print in most cases.  Cheaper lenses will not resolve those grass stalks or bricks well enough for the sensor to do its work properly.

Bottom line - the Canon is capable of a better print out of the two cameras you name but only if matched to excellent lenses (not their "kit" lens).  And you will only see the difference with certain subjects, taken in ideal conditions.
Logged

Don
Didymus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2010, 11:54:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Deep
Photography is where science and art come together, producing a vast range of opinions and experiences with every subject!  So I will wade in and add to the debate.  My normal camera is only 10 Mp and my printer is an A2.  For the vast majority of my work, prints look excellent.  However, for some detailed shots, I cannot print at full size (even A3 is stretching it) because the camera has not recorded enough detail.  I would love more resolution for these photos (typically a "busy" landscape with lots of detail).  I should stress that we are talking about a LOT of detail as 10 Mp is still impressive with modest detail (I often get comments about how detailed my prints are).  

Perhaps the best way to illustrate is a late summer photo with a lot of yellow grass stalks - the higher resolution capture will differentiate these from close to camera right up to where they blur out with focus, whereas the low resolution capture will show an intermediate area of confusion in some cases.  The same can be seen with brick buildings in the middle distance.  The effect is there but not often a problem in practice.

What I have noticed, through working with files from cameras like the Canon 5DII and Sony A900, is that the final print reflects the lens far more than the sensor.  I use very sharp lenses on my 10Mp body and even on an 8 x 10 print can see the difference between that and some of the lenses my friends have used on their 20+Mp bodies (unless they are shooting at optimum apertures etc.).  Those basic Canon/Nikon/Minolta zooms just aren't good enough - you have to cough up for the better offerings if you want that quality.  Lens quality makes MUCH more difference than Mp in the final print in most cases.  Cheaper lenses will not resolve those grass stalks or bricks well enough for the sensor to do its work properly.

Bottom line - the Canon is capable of a better print out of the two cameras you name but only if matched to excellent lenses (not their "kit" lens).  And you will only see the difference with certain subjects, taken in ideal conditions.

I understand that there are many variables to consider such as sensor size, lenses, printing, and fundamentals in the exposure process.  What I meant by "stepping into a war zone" was,  the megapixel debate seems to be a little hot.  It's very interesting and insightful to me because I'm trying to gather information before buying a camera.
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #34 on: April 25, 2010, 05:41:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Balanced logic at last!
Quote from: Deep
...However, for some detailed shots, I cannot print at full size (even A3 is stretching it) because the camera has not recorded enough detail.  
.. the higher resolution capture will differentiate ... can be seen with brick buildings in the middle distance.  The effect is there but not often a problem in practice.
Bricks, leaf texture, or power cables at 500m ...or 1Km are useful for sharpness assessment.
Quote
Cheaper lenses will not resolve those grass stalks or bricks well enough for the sensor to do its work properly.
I had thought that my "basic" 50-110 zoom would not have been adequate for landscapes, but it was 2.5K (or would have been if they had not thrown it in as discount) and it seems OK, but I look forward to seeing how much better the Schneider Apo-Digitars are.
Quote
Bottom line - the Canon is capable of a better print out of the two cameras you name but only if matched to excellent lenses (not their "kit" lens).  And you will only see the difference with certain subjects, taken in ideal conditions.
When I upgrade (when they start marketing the camera) the pixel pitch will be the same, and the zoom has the image circle to cover it, so it should still be adequate, even if the MTF drops off a bit in the corners.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #35 on: April 26, 2010, 02:22:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually on the Sony, some of the best lenses are some of the old, inexpensive used Minolta lenses like the 28-135/4-4.5 and the 50/1.4.  The Minolta lens has better sharpness across the frame than the $1500 Carl Zeiss 24-70/2.8.

For landscape, you don't need to spend the big $$$ on expensive fast lenses to then shoot at f/9-f/13.  The only expensive  lenses where you are getting value for the dollar / weight in landscape photography is the T/S offerings.
Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #36 on: April 26, 2010, 03:47:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MatthewCromer
Actually on the Sony, some of the best lenses are some of the old, inexpensive used Minolta lenses like the 28-135/4-4.5 and the 50/1.4.  The Minolta lens has better sharpness across the frame than the $1500 Carl Zeiss 24-70/2.8.

For landscape, you don't need to spend the big $$$ on expensive fast lenses to then shoot at f/9-f/13.  The only expensive  lenses where you are getting value for the dollar / weight in landscape photography is the T/S offerings.
I guess we are getting a little off topic here but it does all relate to getting the most off those big sensors for absolute print quality.

It's true that many lenses have a sweet spot (focal length/aperture at which the lens is very sharp).  Depending on what you photograph, a cheaper old lens may work very well, as will various kit lenses.  So, if one of those cheaper lenses meets your requirements (not that either lens you mention was particularly cheap when new!) at that sweet spot, there is no need to spend a lot of money.  If you like to shoot wide, or with a large aperture, the choice gets limited very quickly or all those pixels are going to go to waste, particularly with the "kit" lens I am trying not to name....

Don
Logged

Don
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad