Can i see your LARGE prints from M43 cameras?

[Ab Latchin]

Im currently shooting full frame Canon 5d Mk2 and do mostly landscapes.

Photos shown are what im looking for examples off from M43 cameras. Are these prints possible and with great detail or would I be shooting myself in the foot trying to achieve this?

I Wouldn't worry at all, the 5Dm2 was a 21mp camera, when I compared the 6D to the EM5 there wasn't a huge amount of difference in detail (I was shooting for a client off a tripod). So the newest 20mp sensors will have better colour and DR than the 5Dm2 and when using equivalent settings should be significantly better than that older camera.

So if you are happy with those results then you should be very happy with these.

It is always very difficult to judge print quality online, I took these pictures to show this forum how far 16mp goes, here is the full shot showing the crop of 16mp I used


As you can see I am using a tiny proportion of the full 16 mp, so I might be printing from about 8mp of detail


This is what 100% of that detail looks like

[ATTACH alt="here is about an 11" x 19" print from that crop hung in the studio"]2106478[/ATTACH]
here is about an 11" x 19" print from that crop hung in the studio


Here is a close up of the print. You can see focus is slightly high on the ruler so better to look at her far eye for detail. YOu can see we are actually losing more detail from the professional inkjet (produced by a fine art printer in the area on Epson premium luster paper). I hope this shows you how much quality is available.

Thats helpful thanks.

I wouldn't be too concerned about 19" personally. I am more concerned with 60".

I understand, however a full print of half a 16mp file at 11" x 20" would be about the same as 20 x 40" using the full frame.

Add to that the additional mp and later sensor of say the PEN F or EM1.2 (my current body) and you will be just fine.

I run an agency in the GTA and we print banners, posters and billboards from m43rds files all the time, and personally I have printed regularly at 30" x 40" on art paper and I have never seen a problem.

 

[s_grins]

Im currently shooting full frame Canon 5d Mk2 and do mostly landscapes.

Photos shown are what im looking for examples off from M43 cameras. Are these prints possible and with great detail or would I be shooting myself in the foot trying to achieve this?

pic for examples only:

Up to 24" x 30". Maybe even larger, but I did not try. Talking about "great detail" is a moot point - sometimes great detail works for images, sometimes does not. Printing on canvas is different from paper. Posting photo on-line does not make any sense. You can order one if you wish - I'll sent you quote.

Order what? What are you talking about?

The post is about large metallic prints that are acceptable for gallery.

Oh, I did not know. Of course metallic. This is better than canvas. Did you mount it on the board by yourself?

--
Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...

 

[Walt Palmer]

16mp should be enough, but it really depends on your lab. You did not give sizes, but someone showed you his 40x60 print of the Milky Way. Everything is a variable. Best to rent one and try it out side-by-side with the 5D2.

 

[Mr PapaBear]

People will stand closer to a 20 inch print than to a 60 inch print. They will stand back to fit the frame in the center of their field of view. Give someone a 5x7 to view and they will hold it close to their face. Give them and 8x10 and they hold it father away. Almost no one will hold their nose up close to a 60 inch print.

I mentioned above even a 4K frame grab (about 8MP) can look very good at 60 inches.

 

[SpinOne]

I understand, however a full print of half a 16mp file at 11" x 20" would be about the same as 20 x 40" using the full frame.

Add to that the additional mp and later sensor of say the PEN F or EM1.2 (my current body) and you will be just fine.

I run an agency in the GTA and we print banners, posters and billboards from m43rds files all the time, and personally I have printed regularly at 30" x 40" on art paper and I have never seen a problem.

So, I'm curious... Have you noticed a particular print size, or range of print sizes, where either MP count, or other sensor qualities (like dynamic range, smoothness of tonal transitions) results in an observable difference?

 

[Ab Latchin]

I understand, however a full print of half a 16mp file at 11" x 20" would be about the same as 20 x 40" using the full frame.

Add to that the additional mp and later sensor of say the PEN F or EM1.2 (my current body) and you will be just fine.

I run an agency in the GTA and we print banners, posters and billboards from m43rds files all the time, and personally I have printed regularly at 30" x 40" on art paper and I have never seen a problem.

So, I'm curious... Have you noticed a particular print size, or range of print sizes, where either MP count, or other sensor qualities (like dynamic range, smoothness of tonal transitions) results in an observable difference?

To speak honestly, one of the main problems with answering that question is that often there isn't a comparable file from another format available on the same production run to see real differences. Add that to that fact that I work commercially producing imagery for use online, in print communication and retail spaces

Most final printing processes leave you with around 7-8 stops of dynamic range, and the dithering of inkjets or screens of other presses combined with ink bleed you have to get pretty large before you are running into file problems with an image grain (some type of noise).

So in my experience he is around the edge where if he leans right into a perfect shot between a 36mp FF file and a 20mp m43rds file and looks at the leaves, tree bark, grass etc. he might see some differences, but he wouldn't have to pull back 3 feet for them to disappear, just pull back slightly.

Having said that, we don't know what lenses he is using, is he on a tripod when shooting, his processing technique, if he is sharpening for print etc. All of these would have about the same impact as the differences I mentioned above.

I think most people enjoy the idea of quality more than see the reality

 

[Kiwisnap]

No. Never made a print of any size from M43.

 

[MtnView]

Given the expense of a purchase, have you considered renting an EM1.M2 and 7-14 f2.8 to see if it meets your needs? It would be a better than relying on opinions from the group.

 

[Tommi K1]

Im currently shooting full frame Canon 5d Mk2 and do mostly landscapes.

Photos shown are what im looking for examples off from M43 cameras. Are these prints possible and with great detail or would I be shooting myself in the foot trying to achieve this?

Yes. You can even compare against Sony A7r II 42Mpix with 16Mpix 4/3" without really difference.

There was again one more about printing large against Canon etc.







If you know how to handle the camera, you get same quality from all of them really for larger than common prints and subjects.

The technology has long time ago already passed what humans physical limitations and living conditions as usage for photos are...

So many has difficulties to comprehend and understand that because they do not do the large prints and compare them in real world conditions, that they still argue about theories or knowledge they have from 10-15 years back.

 

[Tommi K1]

To speak honestly, one of the main problems with answering that question is that often there isn't a comparable file from another format available on the same production run to see real differences. Add that to that fact that I work commercially producing imagery for use online, in print communication and retail spaces

Only way to really do that is to get the cameras you want to compare, get out with them and shoot them side by side on same scene with identical settings, process all the files as well as you can, print as well you can etc and then do the comparison blindly.

So in my experience he is around the edge where if he leans right into a perfect shot between a 36mp FF file and a 20mp m43rds file and looks at the leaves, tree bark, grass etc. he might see some differences, but he wouldn't have to pull back 3 feet for them to disappear, just pull back slightly.

It requires almost more than that, to really know what minute detail to compare and to then judge the whole photo by that 0.5% difference and do it by overlaying the images etc. Already placing the print on opposite sides of the room makes all the differences go away as you forget them when you walk couple meters next to other print.

Make the real review, what is actually without comparison but taking ie. X scenes and randomly pick prints from different formats and then try to guess what was used to make the print. When you have ie. 10 prints on the wall and 5 formats/brands were used to take them, it is basically impossible to get them correctly named and it is just lucky guessing.

Ie. https://www.thewanderinglensman.com/2014/02/the-practical-difference-part-2-between.html

That was when the Nikon had released their D800 beast and even those are larger than common prints.

Having said that, we don't know what lenses he is using, is he on a tripod when shooting, his processing technique, if he is sharpening for print etc. All of these would have about the same impact as the differences I mentioned above.

Exactly. The context is still missing, even now if we know the final print size and the material, as it is still question about the photos whole workflow.

I think most people enjoy the idea of quality more than see the reality

That is so! The idea, or believe (lack of knowledge) that you are getting "better quality" is such a illusion that is poisoning the peoples minds.

This forum should be about place to discuss about gear, without comparisons to other formats. Like discuss the different reason to buy a 7-14mm f/4 over 8-18mm f/2.8-4. The reason to go for 20Mpix over 16Mpix or is there reason to get a E-PL5 today.. Instead the common theme is around "I want to get best IQ, how I do that?" and it without context.

The modern sensors in ILC are least of the cause for IQ difference or bad photo. The reason really is the person holding the camera and handle the whole workflow.

And it is almost a disease that gets spread to peoples mind about this "better IQ".

 

[Tommi K1]

People will stand closer to a 20 inch print than to a 60 inch print. They will stand back to fit the frame in the center of their field of view. Give someone a 5x7 to view and they will hold it close to their face. Give them and 8x10 and they hold it father away. Almost no one will hold their nose up close to a 60 inch print.

The 8x10" print viewed from the 12" distance is about the closest distance the person will view the print. Why it was chosen to be the standard for the IQ measurement.

The 8x10" photo paper is as well the most common one, being a such good size that you can fit the print easily on the common interior designs, as adding a passepartout and then frames that fits to the photo, the picture becomes easily too big. It is easier to sell a A4 and A3 size prints than it is to sell a A2 and A0 size prints because even when the person likes the photo, they have no place to hang it.

A4 is great size as you can easily store such photo books, albums etc.

Oh, I do hold my nose up to close on a 60" prints, when I am hanging them.... It is difficult to hold them further when someone else is attaching the line.

 

[Tommi K1]

You don't just have a "tacky " copy you have a magic copy I think the 7-14mm is by far the most disappointing pro lens. Were i looking for such a focal length in m43 I would be going with an adapted FT 7-14mm

Then I have as well two of those "magical" copies. Sharp corner to corner without any smudging etc wide open etc. Better than any Canon or Nikon for same field of view.

And totally I wouldn't touch at all to FT 7-14mm f/4 as those are softer (even when very highly praised).

People talk trash about digital correction affecting IQ, and yet that is what makes better results in the end. It doesn't matter how you get it, when you get it.

 

[Henry Richardson]

This is not a direct answer to your question, but the subject of large prints may make this reply of some interest.

National Geographic photo gallery

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61682138

Recently I was at a National Geographic photo gallery. I have been in there about a dozen times over the last 7 months since I walk by it almost everyday. 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.

https://www.natgeofineart.com/

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 overblown.

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.

When I was at the gallery there were no prices displayed. They had a couple of sales consultants there that would take you to a small, private room for discussion of prices, framing, etc. I think they also used either a nice catalog or their Macbooks to display other photos available as prints. The gallery had a bunch of huge prints on display, but, of course, not the full range that they show on their website. I didn't ask about prices, but you can just tell from the quality of the prints and the nice gallery that they are not cheap.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[Brian Wadie]

You can see the individual dinghy sailors, reflections in the water and even a brick build tower in the far distance across the bay (approx. 3 miles away)



Sold many copies of this one and the only problem with it is transporting it in the back of my car to its new homes



--
So much to learn, so little time left to do it!

 

[XVOYAGERX]

Where/and who do i post my printed pictures to?

 

[XVOYAGERX]

Just had this one done, 40inch x 30inch OMD Em5.2, 12-40mm. Hahnemuhle Canvas. Yes some high ISO there too.



And this is the biggest I've done yet. 120cm x 80cm same canvas, original Em5 and the 12-40mm pro.

These are totally superb!!

--
Allan. :-D

 

[XVOYAGERX]

Im currently shooting full frame Canon 5d Mk2 and do mostly landscapes.

Photos shown are what im looking for examples off from M43 cameras. Are these prints possible and with great detail or would I be shooting myself in the foot trying to achieve this?

I don't think a forum thread can really answer that for you.

The best move is to rent a high-end M43 body and high-quality lens, shoot with it for a weekend, try some multi-shot high resolution, and make some prints. That really is the only way to know whether it will work for you. Not just in terms of image quality, but also handling, ergonomics, portability, depth of field, viewfinder and so on.

I agree. Honestly it's all about dynamic range IMO. I think many current cameras are going to best my MK2 in this regard. I just don't know if things such as 16mp are going to make the size prints I need for sale.

No-size limit generally, using `Genuine Fractals` or any other well established and excellent image re-sizing software, results can be astonishing!!

 

[Cheshire-Chris]

In some landscape scenarios where there is no movement you would be able to get better results using the pixel shift feature of a number of m43 cameras.

Is that what they are calling the High Rez mode?

It is, yes. It basically takes 8 shots, shifting the sensor half a pixel between each shot, then combines them into a single high-resolution image. Only works with static subjects, and requires a tripod.

Chris

 

[mrkrw]

I've had many prints made from M43, my previous workhorses were Canon 7D and Canon 1 Dx, both 18Mpix and I made large prints from those as well, so I was not worried about pixel counts, but did have some concerns about other "quality" measurements before I actually made large M43 prints.



Here are three 30 x 40 inch canvas prints currently on my walls.

The one above the piano is from an EM1M2, the other two are from the EM5m2













Canvas can be forgiving for noise and grain, but even so the detail is superb - obviously the small snaps here cannot be used for any sort of assessment.

I have no concerns about printing large at all.

 

[Cheshire-Chris]

Im currently shooting full frame Canon 5d Mk2 and do mostly landscapes.

Photos shown are what im looking for examples off from M43 cameras. Are these prints possible and with great detail or would I be shooting myself in the foot trying to achieve this?

I don't think a forum thread can really answer that for you.

The best move is to rent a high-end M43 body and high-quality lens, shoot with it for a weekend, try some multi-shot high resolution, and make some prints. That really is the only way to know whether it will work for you. Not just in terms of image quality, but also handling, ergonomics, portability, depth of field, viewfinder and so on.

I agree. Honestly it's all about dynamic range IMO. I think many current cameras are going to best my MK2 in this regard. I just don't know if things such as 16mp are going to make the size prints I need for sale.

The thing to bear in mind is that as the size of your print goes up, so does the distance from which it’ll generally be viewed, hence the dpi can fall. A 16 Mp image can be printed at A0 size (84.1 x 118.9 cm, or 33.11 x 46.81 inch) at 100dpi, and will look great.

Chris