AlanKl
Forum Enthusiast
What's your experience between M43 vs DX vs FF? How large prints etc??
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
M43 print quality vs. DSLR
- Thread starter AlanKl
- Start date
aquaticvid
Forum Enthusiast
I just ordered my first print from my E-PL1, a 15"x20" fotoflot. It's a gift for some friends, I'll be curious to see how well it turns out. Hopefully, well. (It's a diorama, too!)
I'll try to post back in this thread when I see it. It should be here next week.
I'll try to post back in this thread when I see it. It should be here next week.
Pete Berry
Senior Member
Look at this quote of pretty much unqualified praise from the Imaging Resource review of the E-PL1, at:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EPL1/EPL1A.HTM
PRINT QUALITY
"ISO 100 JPEG shots look great printed at 20x30 inches, with enough softness that printing at 16x20 looks a little better; still, 20x30 inches looks fine for wall display, and even better with a little sharpening."
"ISO 200 and 400 shots are also usable at 20x30 inches, but ISO 400 shots tighten up a bit more to what we'd call tack sharp at 16x20."
"ISO 800 shots are still reasonably good at 16x20, with only minor luminance noise. Shadows are a little soft thanks to noise suppression, but most high and low-contrast detail remains strong."
"ISO 1,600 shots are usable at 13x19 inches, great for wall display."
"ISO 3,200 shots look surprisingly good at 11x14, though 8x10 looks a little better. Color fades a bit at this sensitivity as well."
"A very impressive performance from the Olympus E-PL1."
I haven't printed any of my E-PL1 files, because haven't shot seriously yet - can't use th LCD outside - my VF-2 comes Monday! But I have routinely printed up to 17x22 from my GH-1 with results that clearly surpass my previous Canon 10 mpx files. You do have to use RAW processing withthe GH-1 to get best results. The little Pen's JPG's look mighty good, though.
Pete
GodSpeaks
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 15,147
- Solutions
- 13
- Reaction score
- 7,195
Fact is, you can make pretty good sized enlargements from any camera. It will depend much more on the quality of the image than anything else.
I have a number of 20x24 prints that I made from my Canon Powershot D10. Absolutely nothing wrong them.
--
The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
I have a number of 20x24 prints that I made from my Canon Powershot D10. Absolutely nothing wrong them.
--
The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
- Rayna Butler
Peter Zoltan
Well-known member
ISO100 should not look better in print (or on screen) than ISO200.
ISO200 is the base setting and you can't get lower signal-to-noise ratio than that on m43-cameras
ISO200 is the base setting and you can't get lower signal-to-noise ratio than that on m43-cameras
photoSmart42
Senior Member
Assuming you meant that you can't get HIGHER SNR on ISO200 than you can in ISO100, you're wrong. The measured SNR, according to DxO, at ISO100 was higher (36.8dB on the GH1, for example) than that at ISO200 (33.9dB for the GH1). Not sure where you get that the base is ISO200. That holds true for the other MFT cameras as well according to DxO.
Khun_K
Senior Member
If we include Hasselblad H4D60, Phase One 645/60+, Leica S2, the reality is m4/3 can't be compared to those DSLR. But that does not mean m4/3 is useless. I use 60 million pixels digital back on Hasselblad but also use m4/3 GF1 and NEX5 at the same time, in between with 1DsIII and D3X. There is no camera for everything and everyone, if it works for you it is good enough.
Regards, K
http://www.studiosota.com
http://khun-k.blogspot.com/
http://nepal-travelandphotography.blogspot.com/
http://cruising-xinjiang.blogspot.com/
http://shadowlightandbetween.blogspot.com/
--
Regards, K
http://www.studiosota.com
http://khun-k.blogspot.com/
http://nepal-travelandphotography.blogspot.com/
http://cruising-xinjiang.blogspot.com/
http://shadowlightandbetween.blogspot.com/
Jeanadriane
Senior Member
I've seen remarks like this before in this forum, but I think they're only true for Olympus, not for Panasonic!
Jogger
Veteran Member
e.g. how are you going to replicate the look of an 85/1.4 ? you cant, so the point is moot. then there is contrast, dynamic range, colour, etc. you can write a whole essay on print characteristics.
AlanKl
Forum Enthusiast
Has anyone actually printed FF or other formats vs E-PL1 at any dimension for comparison. Real world test would be nice to hear about.
Pete Berry
Senior Member
That's true, but for increased dynamic range only, and goes back to the 4/3 Oly E-620 and E-30. But if you brought up the shadows a bit at ISO 200, objectionable noise was prone to appear, as the shadows had already been boosted in camera for greater DR, with relative underexposure to save highlights. See the DPR review of the E-P1.
The m4/3 Pens, although they have pretty much exactly the same setup for a "base" ISO of 200, have managed to tame the shadow noise issue. ISO 100 remains cleaner, but with less DR, in sizable enlargements.
Pete
Pete Berry
Senior Member
Alan, all you have to do for this is to print out 8x10 sections of, say, 20x30 sized test images in the DPR or other reviews for the cameras you're interested in if you need to experience the differences personally.
As I said above, my large (up to 17x25) prints from the GH-1 are excellent. I've just had my nose in a 16x24 at ISO 400, and it has excellent detail and mimimal noise. But my views and yours may differ.
Pete
As I said above, my large (up to 17x25) prints from the GH-1 are excellent. I've just had my nose in a 16x24 at ISO 400, and it has excellent detail and mimimal noise. But my views and yours may differ.
Pete
it depends if you are pixel peeping our just view the pictures from a normal viewing distance. I don't stick my nose into photos on my wall like people in a museum do...
crazydrummer
Member
I made prints in Super B sheet size ( images taken with the Olympus EP-1 and Zuiko 11-22 and Zuiko 40-150 lenses ) and they are far better than my Super B prints of images taken with my Nikon gear (APS: Nikon D70 and Nikon D40 with micro Nikkor 105, 50 mm f 1.8, Tokina 12-24 and other lenses).
No experience with FF.
No experience with FF.
After reading the OP's post, I was really curious, too. Unless I missed one, your's is the first to actual talk about experience, rather than theory, etc.
I had to look up SuperB size, though -- it's 13"X19" for us English system types. Thanks for sharing!
Anyone else have experience with larger sizes?
I refuse to wed myself to any of these vendors. I'm just having fun taking pictures,
and watching the technology develop.
I had to look up SuperB size, though -- it's 13"X19" for us English system types. Thanks for sharing!
Anyone else have experience with larger sizes?
--
I refuse to wed myself to any of these vendors. I'm just having fun taking pictures,
and watching the technology develop.
SirSeth
Veteran Member
I've printed as large as 20" high with my E-1. (same sensor size as Micro4/3rds). They look very good and I haven't had occasion to go larger yet.
So many people think that zooming past pixel level on their screens is akin to anything like printing and it's not because when you blow up to 250% on your 20" LCD, the actual edges of the picture are like 4 feet to your left and right and your looking at the belly button of the picture from a distance of 24 inches. Think of inspecting a 20" rectangle of skin on a rhinoceros or something that large from 2 feet away. First of all, not smart. Second, people who do so with photos... not realistic imo. 4/3rds, APS-C, FF... all print very nice large prints from todays cameras if the shot is a good one. My advice is do something most people don't and start actually printing some of your best shots. Hang them on the wall. If it's a good shot, people are not going to say, "Oh, too bad this print wasn't better. Must have been from a Micro4/3rds camera."
Just saying...
Cheers,
Seth
--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com
So many people think that zooming past pixel level on their screens is akin to anything like printing and it's not because when you blow up to 250% on your 20" LCD, the actual edges of the picture are like 4 feet to your left and right and your looking at the belly button of the picture from a distance of 24 inches. Think of inspecting a 20" rectangle of skin on a rhinoceros or something that large from 2 feet away. First of all, not smart. Second, people who do so with photos... not realistic imo. 4/3rds, APS-C, FF... all print very nice large prints from todays cameras if the shot is a good one. My advice is do something most people don't and start actually printing some of your best shots. Hang them on the wall. If it's a good shot, people are not going to say, "Oh, too bad this print wasn't better. Must have been from a Micro4/3rds camera."
Just saying...
Cheers,
Seth
--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com
PhillipA
Veteran Member
.. the current "crops" ( 2:1, 1.6:1, 1.3:1 and full-frame) on my 17" Epson 4000Pro printer.
..Our camera club judges competition prints at up to 20"x16" and I regularly print 40" x 16" panoramas.
I have to say that I like to stay at no more than 16"x12" prints from my GH1 or G1 as the fine detail starts to get lost (especially at 400ISO images - I won't use higher than that on my M4/3 cameras). It's not just a matter of resolution either, as I have some nice, highly detailed city shots at 24"x16" from my 10Mp Canon 20D and 10Mp Canon 1DIII. I doubt that I would be able to achieve the same with the 12Mp Panasonics.
When I prepared this image at 16"x12" for a photoclub print, I had to clone in a "reversed" sky and fiddle with it, as the dark water in the forground had turned to "mud" and held no detail at all.
Hope this helps a little.
Panasonic G1, Oly 4/3 9-18 with adapter 1/400s f/11.0 at 9.0mm iso200
--
Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '
AlanKl
Forum Enthusiast
Did the judge really say that? What a creep. Reminds me of when my ex-wife told me that when she was in her shool's glee club, the instructor told her she was a listener!
As usual it depends on the image, the lens, sensor, developer, post processing, and the printer.
With that said, today was a print day, and I printed 13x19's to 20x30's from EP-1 and G1 files.
--
Charles
My family images are at http://www.stakeman.smugmug.com
Be sure of your subject.
Never, force the shot.
With that said, today was a print day, and I printed 13x19's to 20x30's from EP-1 and G1 files.
--
Charles
My family images are at http://www.stakeman.smugmug.com
Be sure of your subject.
Never, force the shot.
My largest prints have been in A4 size using 360DPI (max for my printer) really good quality, same output quality as FF or my friends Hasselblad (Which reasons to the printer output being the limiting factor, not the camera 
)
For close inspection (competitions etc.) I would not recomend more than A4 for output size for µ4/3, where a 5D2 can easily output to A3 and the Hasselblad can probably print 300DPI full up on a space shuttle...
Also these imply good light when you took the image... I would not do this with pictures taken with higher than ISO 1250 as too few details remain... The lower the better
above 200
)For close inspection (competitions etc.) I would not recomend more than A4 for output size for µ4/3, where a 5D2 can easily output to A3 and the Hasselblad can probably print 300DPI full up on a space shuttle...
Also these imply good light when you took the image... I would not do this with pictures taken with higher than ISO 1250 as too few details remain... The lower the better
above 200 Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum