Surprised at enlargements from m4/3

I was contracted to do some fine art large prints for a new facility that I had done commercial work for.  From about 1998 until 2010 I shot medium and large format landscapes with Velvia and E100, the past few years its been mostly commercial work as I had gotten away from serious landscape work.  I kept a few various Olympus m4/3 cameras in my bag for an occasional hike or bike ride, then a couple of years ago I decided I needed to carry a 5DS with L lenses for best possible quality.  Long story short, I did 27 prints in total, the smallest was 24x36 and some from 4x5, 645, Canon FF, and m4/3 and I was totally taken by surprise that the difference in the formats was.....minimal.  As a matter of fact I had to think about which ones were 5DS and which were m4/3, thinking I may reconsider carrying the larger gear!  Now before anyone says it was maybe poor technique I was using a tripod, lowest ISO, sharpest aperture for the lens, etc.

Well the 5DS uses an older Canon sensor with no better dynamic range than MFT sensors from Sony for quite some time.  It has an anti aliasing filter, which brings its 50Mpix closer in appearance to a 20Mpix sensor without an AA filter.

After that it's down to lenses, subject matter and how large you print.

Modern lenses on the whole are "better" than lenses from 7 years ago, even quite expensive older lenses.

Even if not comparing with other gear, you can print pretty large with MFT if you know what you are doing.  I'm sure you do.

I have compared an OM1 with 40-150/2.8 at 150mm against a Sony A7Riv with 100-400 GM at 300mm.  I don't print.  Until you crop the view on the screen so hard that the sensor resolution starts to make a difference, the images are indistinguishable.  The MFT Pro lens is designed for excellent performance at 150mm and it shows.

Andrew

I have done some of this kind of work before also - though not using m43 gear.

The main thing your post underlines - once things are actually printed, a lot of the dogma that goes back and forth is minimized. People debate so much on their version of the theory. Printing settles a lot of the scores.

Certainly there will be push and pull in all of this. Using tripod hi res mode on the OM-1 could likely have an impact, too, as using a newer Canon body. In my experience with this kind of work, a lot hinges on even lighting, distance to the work (accuracy of centering and leveling), and processing. The camera and lens choice is almost the easiest part.

I am not thar surprised. My first big print was 13” x 19” from my Nikon D70, only 6mp, and that was about 17 years ago. I was impressed then and when I look at that print today, I am still impressed. I have a 40” pano of the NY city skyline at night from my 10mp Nikon D200 hanging in my living room and the detail is incredible.

the moral of the story is this, don’t believe the marketing hype, believe your own eyes 

This reminds me of optical enlargements from 35mm film back in the day. I was never quite content with 35mm prints at or over 11x14 inches. Perhaps it was the quality of the enlargers or the additional duplicating process. My personal rule was not to enlarge beyond 8x of the film (10x under ideal conditions). MF was a breath of fresh air when it came to bigger prints. This doesn't apply to digital as I can go much larger even with MFT images.

Kendunn wrote:

I was contracted to do some fine art large prints for a new facility that I had done commercial work for. From about 1998 until 2010 I shot medium and large format landscapes with Velvia and E100, the past few years its been mostly commercial work as I had gotten away from serious landscape work. I kept a few various Olympus m4/3 cameras in my bag for an occasional hike or bike ride, then a couple of years ago I decided I needed to carry a 5DS with L lenses for best possible quality. Long story short, I did 27 prints in total, the smallest was 24x36 and some from 4x5, 645, Canon FF, and m4/3 and I was totally taken by surprise that the difference in the formats was.....minimal. As a matter of fact I had to think about which ones were 5DS and which were m4/3, thinking I may reconsider carrying the larger gear! Now before anyone says it was maybe poor technique I was using a tripod, lowest ISO, sharpest aperture for the lens, etc.

And you were probably looking at them much closer than normal viewing distance. I have a friend that photographs for a company that makes up to bus sized prints and his stuff looked great back in the 4-8MP days.

Think of FF as commuting alone to work every day in a huge SUV

The difference in image quality between M43 and FF is undeniable, the significance of that difference is however debatable. The pro FF camp argument comes down to a few things:

• more cropping room (to compensate for poor framing or too short a reach)
• shallow DoF (as if you couldn't get shallow DoF on M43 with the proper lens)
• more DR (because AE Bracketing is so difficult)
• less noise (which is not an issue with modern NR algorithms, and never was in print)
• better prints (when you admire your images with a 10x magnifying glass from 1cm away looking for details you wouldn't even see with the naked eye)

Bassam Guy wrote:

I have a friend that photographs for a company that makes up to bus sized prints and his stuff looked great back in the 4-8MP days.

Think of FF as commuting alone to work every day in a huge SUV

Love it 👍

12mp with a light AA filter (regardless of sensor size) has about the same resolution as medium format film from the 1980's.   I have 16" x 20" prints on my wall from a 12mp  1/1.7" sensor and they look fine from a resolution standpoint with the subject matter I had (cemetery statuary and landscapes).  Where I can see a difference is in lens quality, chromatic aberrations, etc.  M4/3 has decent lenses for the most part, and some excellent lenses.  Difference in dynamic range between formats is overrated.  It is a non-issue in most scenes because the scene is within the DR of either sensor, or outside of the DR of either.

I have said this many times: the only reason to choose among formats is DOF profile.  We passed good enough resolution a long time ago if you frame your subject properly.

I like the DOF profile of f/1.7 lenses on the 4/3 sensor.  It looks a lot like f/2.8 on full frame which I always found appealing. 16mp is more than enough resolution to print any size especially with the efficient 4:3 format.

TEdolph

WileEC_ID wrote:

I have done some of this kind of work before also - though not using m43 gear.

The main thing your post underlines - once things are actually printed, a lot of the dogma that goes back and forth is minimized. People debate so much on their version of the theory. Printing settles a lot of the scores.

Certainly there will be push and pull in all of this. Using tripod hi res mode on the OM-1 could likely have an impact, too, as using a newer Canon body. In my experience with this kind of work, a lot hinges on even lighting, distance to the work (accuracy of centering and leveling), and processing. The camera and lens choice is almost the easiest part.

Interestingly, I got some small 4x6 and 5x7 prints back this weekend--some used my Nikon Z6 camera and some were with my wife's iphone 13. Even at the 4x6 size I can tell the difference between them; although, the iphone prints did smooth my face out and make me look 7 years younger!

NikonBiologist wrote:

WileEC_ID wrote:

I have done some of this kind of work before also - though not using m43 gear.

The main thing your post underlines - once things are actually printed, a lot of the dogma that goes back and forth is minimized. People debate so much on their version of the theory. Printing settles a lot of the scores.

Certainly there will be push and pull in all of this. Using tripod hi res mode on the OM-1 could likely have an impact, too, as using a newer Canon body. In my experience with this kind of work, a lot hinges on even lighting, distance to the work (accuracy of centering and leveling), and processing. The camera and lens choice is almost the easiest part.

Interestingly, I got some small 4x6 and 5x7 prints back this weekend--some used my Nikon Z6 camera and some were with my wife's iphone 13. Even at the 4x6 size I can tell the difference between them; although, the iphone prints did smooth my face out and make me look 7 years younger!

As you suggest, you are largely looking at the results of default processing by the iPhone.

Tedolph

...as I myself have a 30"x40" print... From a 12mp EPL1, cropped down to around 9mp. It's an absolutely wonderful print.

NikonBiologist wrote:

WileEC_ID wrote:

I have done some of this kind of work before also - though not using m43 gear.

The main thing your post underlines - once things are actually printed, a lot of the dogma that goes back and forth is minimized. People debate so much on their version of the theory. Printing settles a lot of the scores.

Certainly there will be push and pull in all of this. Using tripod hi res mode on the OM-1 could likely have an impact, too, as using a newer Canon body. In my experience with this kind of work, a lot hinges on even lighting, distance to the work (accuracy of centering and leveling), and processing. The camera and lens choice is almost the easiest part.

Interestingly, I got some small 4x6 and 5x7 prints back this weekend--some used my Nikon Z6 camera and some were with my wife's iphone 13. Even at the 4x6 size I can tell the difference between them; although, the iphone prints did smooth my face out and make me look 7 years younger!

Not having taken the shots, nor processed them - nor knowing anything about lighting or shooting technique - I'm really surprised you see a difference, especially that small.

I have the Nikon Z6 II and an iPhone 13 Pro - and on many things, especially for quickness, I opt for the phone - and without shooting RAW (on the phone) or running it through ACR, etc. If it were a big poster, I certainly would opt for the an ILC.

That said, I've gotten some really great stuff from this iPhone, shooting RAW in low light action stuff. Could I get better with an ILC - with some work, certainly - there is a ton of processing happening inside the phone, relative to what is happening inside our cameras.

Not trying to open a can of worms. I'm just amazed at the job a TINY sensor does.

tedolf wrote:

NikonBiologist wrote:

WileEC_ID wrote:

I have done some of this kind of work before also - though not using m43 gear.

The main thing your post underlines - once things are actually printed, a lot of the dogma that goes back and forth is minimized. People debate so much on their version of the theory. Printing settles a lot of the scores.

Certainly there will be push and pull in all of this. Using tripod hi res mode on the OM-1 could likely have an impact, too, as using a newer Canon body. In my experience with this kind of work, a lot hinges on even lighting, distance to the work (accuracy of centering and leveling), and processing. The camera and lens choice is almost the easiest part.

Interestingly, I got some small 4x6 and 5x7 prints back this weekend--some used my Nikon Z6 camera and some were with my wife's iphone 13. Even at the 4x6 size I can tell the difference between them; although, the iphone prints did smooth my face out and make me look 7 years younger!

As you suggest, you are largely looking at the results of default processing by the iPhone.

Tedolph

I'd say the default processing + the small sensor contribute to that.

WileEC_ID wrote:

NikonBiologist wrote:

WileEC_ID wrote:

I have done some of this kind of work before also - though not using m43 gear.

The main thing your post underlines - once things are actually printed, a lot of the dogma that goes back and forth is minimized. People debate so much on their version of the theory. Printing settles a lot of the scores.

Certainly there will be push and pull in all of this. Using tripod hi res mode on the OM-1 could likely have an impact, too, as using a newer Canon body. In my experience with this kind of work, a lot hinges on even lighting, distance to the work (accuracy of centering and leveling), and processing. The camera and lens choice is almost the easiest part.

Interestingly, I got some small 4x6 and 5x7 prints back this weekend--some used my Nikon Z6 camera and some were with my wife's iphone 13. Even at the 4x6 size I can tell the difference between them; although, the iphone prints did smooth my face out and make me look 7 years younger!

Not having taken the shots, nor processed them - nor knowing anything about lighting or shooting technique - I'm really surprised you see a difference, especially that small.

I have the Nikon Z6 II and an iPhone 13 Pro - and on many things, especially for quickness, I opt for the phone - and without shooting RAW (on the phone) or running it through ACR, etc. If it were a big poster, I certainly would opt for the an ILC.

That said, I've gotten some really great stuff from this iPhone, shooting RAW in low light action stuff. Could I get better with an ILC - with some work, certainly - there is a ton of processing happening inside the phone, relative to what is happening inside our cameras.

Not trying to open a can of worms. I'm just amazed at the job a TINY sensor does.

The shooting technique was my wife pointing and shooting

It was an indoor photo, and I can't say what the ISO was without looking at the phone, but it was just natural light through the window with an overhead light on, so not good light. I agree, iphone photos do well enough outside, but indoors, and with in-phone processing, they struggle compared to my m43 and ff set up. I have the iphone 14 pro and can't see much difference in quality with that and the iphone 13. In fact, I'd say the phone pro is heavier handed, negatively, on the processing than the previous generation. In fact, I think Marques Brownlee had a good video about this a few months ago.