Going back to APSC?

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
Old Timer63
Old Timer63 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,786
Re: Large prints

Henry Richardson wrote:

Old Timer63 wrote:

I will say that at my age I don`t do large prints ( the walls are full up anyway) so can`t compare how APC would stack up against M4/3rds on large prints but I am amazed at the crop ability of the images.

I have a 20mp body and 16mp bodies. Personally, I do not care much which ones I use based on megapixel count. See this thread from 2018:

National Geographic photo gallery big prints


Yesterday I was at a National Geographic photo gallery. It is very similar to the Peter Lik galleries with dim lighting, black walls, and big, beautiful, glossy, very well lit photos. Of course, they are trying to sell them so the presentation is very nice. The info for each photo was a short caption, location, year, name of photographer, and the size in meters (longest dimension) of the print. The smallest prints were 1 meter and the largest prints were 3 meters, but most were 1.5 and 2 meters. Most of the photos were taken 2004-2015, but I saw one that was in 1999 and another in 2002. A few of the photos were landscapes, but mostly animals in Africa and elsewhere. A few photos included people, but not many. I guess it is harder to sell people photos. Of course, they all looked wonderful and I think the prices are pretty high.

No mention of the camera gear used, but I suspect most of them were taken with DSLRs since the bulk of the photos were 2004-2015 of animals, often in Africa. National Geographic galleries believe they have enough megapixels to print 2 and 3 meter prints from DSLRs made even 14-15 years ago.


I think all the worry by some about whether a 20mp or 16mp (or even 12mp) m4/3 file is sufficient for fairly large prints is rather ridiculous.

Actually, most of the worry I see sometimes here about print size is asking about making something like 24x30 or 30x40 inch prints -- that is 0.762 meter or 1.016 meter prints. Just a very small number of the National Geographic prints were 1 meter. Almost all were 1.5 and 2 meters, but several were 3 meters. So, above where I say 'fairly large' that is not really correct. Most people asking and worrying about print sizes here are talking about the smallest or even smaller prints than what they have at the National Geographic photo gallery.

If you don't remember what were the common, high end Nikon and Canon DSLRs back in 2003, 2004, 2005 era that were probably used for many of the photos from 2004, 2005, and 2006 then look back and see. Nikon was selling only APS-C models, but Canon had FF, APS-H, and APS-C. And the megapixel counts would seem modest compared to current m4/3.

Later I received an email advertisement from the National Geographic Fine Art Galleries. In it there was a mention that their prints start at $4600. This 2010 one is $4900:


This 2007 one is $6750:


I think you missed my main point really Henry , I was saying basically use what you feel more comfortable with and has the feature set you like.


-- hide signature --
 Old Timer63's gear list:Old Timer63's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Fujifilm X-T10 +17 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow