Print limitations for 16mp M4/3

avalvo · Jul 25, 2017

I have 16x20 prints from my 16MP E-m1 that look great, even close up. The E-m1 II is even better. Good technique and glass helps. You should be totally fine.

Best,

Anthony

Michael M Fliegel · Jul 25, 2017

I made a 4 shot pano that printed 1 foot tall by 6 1/2 feet long. That good rnough

?

Tommi K1 · Jul 25, 2017

seoulsurvivor said:
I print my keepers in anything from A4 to 18 x 12 and on the rare occasion will do a 900 x 600mm, but that is rare as I said.

You can do very well a 30-35" without problems under ISO 800-1600. Depending your skills to shoot and process files.

grcolts · Jul 25, 2017

avalvo said:
I have 16x20 prints from my 16MP E-m1 that look great, even close up. The E-m1 II is even better. Good technique and glass helps. You should be totally fine.

Best,

Anthony

Ditto. Try to shoot at the lowest ISO you can for making larger prints too. For example, ISO 80 or 100, usually no more than ISO 200.

SpinOne · Jul 25, 2017

TheEye said:
OzRay said:

Unless you want to look at the fine detail in a print with a loupe, which makes no sense,

Click to expand...

You should watch Blow-Up. ;-)

Or High Anxiety

bsas · Jul 25, 2017

seoulsurvivor said:
d3xmeister said:

Depends a lot on the viewing distance. I've done some tests in the past and I started to see a difference between 16mp m43 and 36mm D800 at 16x20 size, but that's on close inspection. And the 16MP file looked great even at 24x30 until compared with the 36MP file.

It was like wow the print looks great ! And then looked at the 36MP and said: yeah, this one lookes looks better.

Having said that, do you know any iconic photo that was ruined by the lack of resolution ?

There were some big prints sold for millions of dollars that were taken with cameras under 10MP.

Click to expand...

What can you tell me about the dynamic range of such a camera? As you know, I can pull up heaps of shadows with my D810, so while something like a G85 won't be as good as a D810, how does it fair generally?

Each tool (camera) is good for a specific job.

For me, I was tired to have my DSLR and big lenses in my neck all day on long trips, and tired of carrying a heavy backpack of lenses and tripod. I love my G85 mainly because it makes me take more pictures since I never leave it at the hotel room...

Just be aware that DR is worse than your full frame. Bokeh is "less" (but that doesn't matter for landscape). It is the nature of it, physics...

But... is the DR terrible? Nope. For me is more than enough (better than a lot of Canons). Is it the DOF terrible? Nope. If I want to take the ultimate blurred background picture, I would rent a medium format just for that critical job. Or rent a f/0.95 lens...

For me the G85 is always on my hand, not killing my back/neck so I can enjoy my trip. That for me is the ultimate value! And my lens bag is tinny!

I switched, cannot be happier, but no camera is perfect. Look at it for what it is and you will not regret. Maybe rent and test one, that is the best way to go.

Jackson Bart · Jul 25, 2017

It was proven long ago by another photography site that no one could tell the difference betwen a 13x19 print made from a photo taken with a tiny sensor 15MP Canon G10 and the same scene taken with digital medium format.

So you are 100% good to go up to that size.

--
My personal blog: https://jacksonbart.wordpress.com/

dmanthree · Jul 25, 2017

With proper post processing, I've enlarged to 3' x 4' and the prints look excellent. Don't kid yourself, m4/3 can print big.

YWG · Jul 25, 2017

18x12 from my EM5 was no problem. I have some hanging around the office at 30" on the long side which look good from normal viewing. I had something around that size extrapolated from an engagement shoot and that was shot on an 8.2MP camera. Looked fine as well.

Martin.au · Jul 25, 2017

That depends on whether you want to print big, and then stand with your nose to the print, or just view prints as a normal person might.

Fortunately if you view prints as a normal person might, then the concept of a limit becomes a bit silly. That is why we were able to print big prior to the current generations of very high megapixel cameras.

GodSpeaks · Jul 25, 2017

seoulsurvivor said:
Hello all

For a few reasons, I'm considering downsizing my kit from a D810 and various FF lenses to a M4/3.

I am impressed by the reviews of the Panasonic G85 and am giving it some serious consideration. I mainly shoot landscapes, never action shots and certainly never video. I know it has 4K, which I will never use, but I like it for its small DSLR form factor.

I print my keepers in anything from A4 to 18 x 12 and on the rare occasion will do a 900 x 600mm, but that is rare as I said.

My question is (and I'm sure it has been asked before) based on quality lenses and proper technique, will the 16mp without the OLPF handle 18 x 12 prints comfortably before falling apart or losing detail?

Yes easily

seoulsurvivor said:
And do you honestly think it could handle the odd 900 x 600, or would that be stretching things a bit?

It can handle it. I have made bigger prints from small MP count sensors.

seoulsurvivor said:
Look forward to your replies

Cheers

timo · Jul 25, 2017

TheEye said:
For a photographic quality print, you need about 300ppi. That means without unassisted average human vision, you can't tell the digital image from an analog image (in terms of resolution and sharpness).

That 300 dpi thingy is certainly an accepted 'truth'. But several years ago I did some tests and concluded that you could get down to 240 dpi or even lower before anyone could tell any real difference, even on close inspection.

My first digital SLR had a 6-MP crop sensor. A3 prints were fine even close-up, assuming a good lens and an OK file in the first place. Whatever DPI that was, it was a lot less than 300.

Incidentally some people have been talking about visible pixellation. I thought printers automatically resampled, so that pixellation is not visible - at the cost of some softness of course, if taken to extremes. Maybe I've misunderstood.

d3xmeister · Jul 25, 2017

timo said:
TheEye said:

For a photographic quality print, you need about 300ppi. That means without unassisted average human vision, you can't tell the digital image from an analog image (in terms of resolution and sharpness).

Click to expand...

That 300 dpi thingy is certainly an accepted 'truth'. But several years ago I did some tests and concluded that you could get down to 240 dpi or even lower before anyone could tell any real difference, even on close inspection.

My first digital SLR had a 6-MP crop sensor. A3 prints were fine even close-up, assuming a good lens and an OK file in the first place. Whatever DPI that was, it was a lot less than 300.

Incidentally some people have been talking about visible pixellation. I thought printers automatically resampled, so that pixellation is not visible - at the cost of some softness of course, if taken to extremes. Maybe I've misunderstood.

TheEye · Jul 25, 2017

timo said:
TheEye said:

For a photographic quality print, you need about 300ppi. That means without unassisted average human vision, you can't tell the digital image from an analog image (in terms of resolution and sharpness).

Click to expand...

That 300 dpi thingy is certainly an accepted 'truth'. But several years ago I did some tests and concluded that you could get down to 240 dpi or even lower before anyone could tell any real difference, even on close inspection.

My first digital SLR had a 6-MP crop sensor. A3 prints were fine even close-up, assuming a good lens and an OK file in the first place. Whatever DPI that was, it was a lot less than 300.

6 MP is around 3008 x 2000. That's enough for a 10" wide print at 300ppi. The dpi was certainly a multiple of 300 to begin with.

timo said:
Incidentally some people have been talking about visible pixellation. I thought printers automatically resampled, so that pixellation is not visible - at the cost of some softness of course, if taken to extremes. Maybe I've misunderstood.

Remember, a pixel is a square, a dot is round. The image is made up of square pixels and the print is made up of round dots. What happens to a pixel's edge when you render it using smaller or larger ink dots? The higher the printer's dpi, the smaller the dots, the crisper the pixels will look.

JosephScha · Jul 25, 2017

So, to get 300 pixels per inch 15.3" x 11.5" approximately. that's about 390 x 290mm. But, don't let that limit you.

I have made several 16" x 20" prints from such an image, so it's considerably less than 300 pixels per inch. They still look wonderful. I think you can get away with almost any size print, because the larger your print the further back people will stand to look at it.

dmanthree · Jul 26, 2017

JosephScha said:
So, to get 300 pixels per inch 15.3" x 11.5" approximately. that's about 390 x 290mm. But, don't let that limit you.

I have made several 16" x 20" prints from such an image, so it's considerably less than 300 pixels per inch. They still look wonderful. I think you can get away with almost any size print, because the larger your print the further back people will stand to look at it.

ijm5012 · Jul 26, 2017

seoulsurvivor said:
Hello all

For a few reasons, I'm considering downsizing my kit from a D810 and various FF lenses to a M4/3.

I am impressed by the reviews of the Panasonic G85 and am giving it some serious consideration. I mainly shoot landscapes, never action shots and certainly never video. I know it has 4K, which I will never use, but I like it for its small DSLR form factor.

I print my keepers in anything from A4 to 18 x 12 and on the rare occasion will do a 900 x 600mm, but that is rare as I said.

My question is (and I'm sure it has been asked before) based on quality lenses and proper technique, will the 16mp without the OLPF handle 18 x 12 prints comfortably before falling apart or losing detail?

And do you honestly think it could handle the odd 900 x 600, or would that be stretching things a bit?

Look forward to your replies

Cheers

It depends on your print medium. Are you printing on Canvas, Paper, Metal? Canvas is FAR more forgiving regarding detail. I've printed 30"x20" (762mm x 508mm) before on Canvas with a PPI of 150 and haven't had any issues. I even have one print at 36"x24" (basically 900mm x 600mm), and it looks great.

If you are talking about paper or metal, things change a bit, because of the higher PPI required. If you follow the 300 PPI rule, a 16MP m43 sensor can print images up to ~16" wide (~400mm), but this is before uprezzing. Given the technology out there today, it's very easy to take a file, up-rez it to the necessary size, and still get a great print out of it.

One question I will raise is, if you don't plan to use the 4K feature of the G85, and your primary focus is on shooting landscapes, have you considered an Olympus OMD E-M5 II? The reason I ask is that the Olympus has a mode that will shift the sensor using IBIS, resulting in a 64MP RAW file. Granted, this wont' work in every scenario, but I've successfully used it to shoot landscape images before, and the resulting detail is fascinating. In addition to this, Olympus also has some modes that help with long exposures. Features like Live Time allow you to see the long exposure develop on-screen overtime while also watching the histogram, making it nearly impossible to screw up a long exposure, since you simply choose when to close the shutter once the image is properly exposed.

These features make the E-M5 II a fantastic option for landscape photography IMO. I own one (in addition to an E-M1 II), and still enjoy using the E-M5 II because of its small size and the features it offers.

Nathaniel Alpert · Jul 26, 2017

I came from many years of FF digital photography, mostly landscape. My last FF was the Canon 5Dii with L lenses covering 16-400 mm. After using the Oly E-M1.1 with the 12-40 pro zoom, pany 35-100, Oly 9-18 and the pana-Leica f1.4 25 mm lens, I concluded that I was gaining, not losing in IQ. I enjoy better and cheaper lenses, the lighter, more transportable kit, weather proofing, IBIS, and much better focusing capability for landscape photography.

Since then I added the EM-5ii which adds a high resolution mode that is often useful in landscape photography. I make prints with a 17 in printer that are better than those I made with the Canon. I nearly always use a tripod and often shoot multiple images to extend dynamic range. These maneuvers are much easier with the OMD series than with the Canon that offered little support. I have nothing against the Panasonic M43 but you should consider the Oly offerings. The Em5.ii is particularly useful as a landscape camera, given the points mentioned above and it is weather proof. One other point is the focus bracketing feature which is very useful in extended or controlling depth of field.

David · Jul 26, 2017

ijm5012 said:
seoulsurvivor said:

Hello all

For a few reasons, I'm considering downsizing my kit from a D810 and various FF lenses to a M4/3.

I am impressed by the reviews of the Panasonic G85 and am giving it some serious consideration. I mainly shoot landscapes, never action shots and certainly never video. I know it has 4K, which I will never use, but I like it for its small DSLR form factor.

I print my keepers in anything from A4 to 18 x 12 and on the rare occasion will do a 900 x 600mm, but that is rare as I said.

My question is (and I'm sure it has been asked before) based on quality lenses and proper technique, will the 16mp without the OLPF handle 18 x 12 prints comfortably before falling apart or losing detail?

And do you honestly think it could handle the odd 900 x 600, or would that be stretching things a bit?

Look forward to your replies

Cheers

Click to expand...

It depends on your print medium. Are you printing on Canvas, Paper, Metal? Canvas is FAR more forgiving regarding detail. I've printed 30"x20" (762mm x 508mm) before on Canvas with a PPI of 150 and haven't had any issues. I even have one print at 36"x24" (basically 900mm x 600mm), and it looks great.

If you are talking about paper or metal, things change a bit, because of the higher PPI required. If you follow the 300 PPI rule, a 16MP m43 sensor can print images up to ~16" wide (~400mm), but this is before uprezzing. Given the technology out there today, it's very easy to take a file, up-rez it to the necessary size, and still get a great print out of it.

One question I will raise is, if you don't plan to use the 4K feature of the G85, and your primary focus is on shooting landscapes, have you considered an Olympus OMD E-M5 II? The reason I ask is that the Olympus has a mode that will shift the sensor using IBIS, resulting in a 64MP RAW file. Granted, this wont' work in every scenario, but I've successfully used it to shoot landscape images before, and the resulting detail is fascinating. In addition to this, Olympus also has some modes that help with long exposures. Features like Live Time allow you to see the long exposure develop on-screen overtime while also watching the histogram, making it nearly impossible to screw up a long exposure, since you simply choose when to close the shutter once the image is properly exposed.

These features make the E-M5 II a fantastic option for landscape photography IMO. I own one (in addition to an E-M1 II), and still enjoy using the E-M5 II because of its small size and the features it offers.

With all else being equal and on the tripod, how are the E-M5 II Hi-Res shots compared to the E-M1 II? I'm thinking of getting the E-M5 II just for the Hi-Res feature plus the Live Composite and Focus Bracketing. But mainly Hi-Res and I plan to use it for landscape. Is it hard to get sharp Hi-Res images with less artifacts with the E-M5II compared against the E-M1II or is it similar? Are there any samples I can see taken with your E-M5 II?

Thank you!

Jacques Cornell · Jul 26, 2017

Two relevant articles from my blog:

http://www.jacquescornell.photograp...frame-to-micro-four-thirds-mirrorless-cameras

http://www.jacquescornell.photography/blog/2016/12/hiking-with-a-micro-four-thirds-camera

In a nutshell, my 16"x21" prints are as sharp and detailed as you could want. That's the biggest I've printed MFT, so I'll leave commentary on larger sizes to other folks.

--
If you think digital is hard, try slide film.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

Print limitations for 16mp M4/3

Senior Member

Senior Member

Tommi K1

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Well-known member

David

Guest

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts