Re-purposed old 17-35mm EX HSM to Sony

DMillier wrote:

<>

It will also be interesting to compare the SD14 output. I've never had the capability to try it at anything like this size before. Lawrence was always convinced that even the older Foveons could be printed much larger than you think because of the lack of artefacts. I can now test this theory for myself....

Looking forward to the SD14 test. In the EXIF the X,Y native (?) res is given as 180 ppi which would be 3600x2880px i.e. more than the SD14 can do without up-sampling by something.

Still, it says here that:

"To output an image properly it needs to have a certain minimum resolution. The number of pixels depends on the required output quality.

• At 300 ppi (pixels per inch) the image needs to be 4960 x 7016 pixels. This is the required resolution for quality offset printing that will be viewed from a short distance (such as books, brochures, magazines, calendars,…). For photos, it is also the optimum resolution but a somewhat lower pixel count (200 to 220 dpi) is acceptable for great-looking photographs.
• At 150 ppi the image needs to be 2480 x 3508 pixels. This is the minimum resolution for newspapers or posters viewed from a fairly short distance.

A digital camera with decent image quality and a resolution of 16 megapixels or more can be used to print high-quality A2 size pictures. Since such posters are usually viewed from a somewhat larger distance a 12-megapixel camera will still offer excellent quality and 8 megapixels will be considered good by many."

Perhaps you will be one of the "many" ...

... I don't print much but I've always been leery of letting something do unknown re-sampling to my image, like e.g. by a printer driver, preferring instead to re-sample with my editor of choice and sending to the Canon at "native" ppi ...