Print limitations for 16mp M4/3

[seoulsurvivor]

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

 

[EarthQuake]

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

As long as you've viewing it from a normal distance, you can print very, very large. When standing at a reasonable distance away from the print - this means further away the larger the print is, generally 1.5-2x the diagonal - you rarely need more than 4MP for a good result. If you want to make an 8 foot tall print and stand 6 inches from it, well, you're gonna see the pixels even with 100MP medium format, but as long as you're being reasonable, you can absolutely print large with a 16MP M43 image.

I've done 24 inches wide with absolutely no problems but haven't had a reason to go bigger than that.

This calculator is pretty good, and has a variable for viewing distance: https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/minimum-resolution-calculator/

 

[OzRay]

'I've done 17"x19" prints on my now defunct IPF5000 from even 5MP images and they have looked fantastic. Everything depends on the nature of the image, how you process the image, how you print it and how you view it.

Unless you want to look at the fine detail in a print with a loupe, which makes no sense, you can print as large as you want fro just about any camera nowadays.

 

[d3xmeister]

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.

 

[seoulsurvivor]

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

As long as you've viewing it from a normal distance, you can print very, very large. When standing at a reasonable distance away from the print - this means further away the larger the print is - you generally don't need more than 8MP for a good result. If you want to make an 8 foot tall print and stand 6 inches from it, well, you're gonna see the pixels even with 100MP medium format, but as long as you're being reasonable, you can absolutely print large with a 16MP M43 image.

I've done 24 inches wide with absolutely no problems but haven't had a reason to go bigger than that.

Thanks for the reply.

My prints are scattered around my living room walls, so they are never really inspected closely by anyone. Just normal viewing from 1-2 mts away. So it sounds like 18 x 12 is never going to be a problem.

Can I ask what camera body you are using for most of your shots?

Cheers

 

[SpinOne]

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?

Yup

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

You can print 16" x 20" at around 200ppi.

You might be able to print larger by upscaling in Photoshop.

 

[seoulsurvivor]

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.

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?

 

[TheEye]

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

You should watch Blow-Up. ;-)

--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
https://australianimage.com.au

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photography-by-thomas/sets/

 

[EarthQuake]

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

As long as you've viewing it from a normal distance, you can print very, very large. When standing at a reasonable distance away from the print - this means further away the larger the print is - you generally don't need more than 8MP for a good result. If you want to make an 8 foot tall print and stand 6 inches from it, well, you're gonna see the pixels even with 100MP medium format, but as long as you're being reasonable, you can absolutely print large with a 16MP M43 image.

I've done 24 inches wide with absolutely no problems but haven't had a reason to go bigger than that.

Thanks for the reply.

My prints are scattered around my living room walls, so they are never really inspected closely by anyone. Just normal viewing from 1-2 mts away. So it sounds like 18 x 12 is never going to be a problem.

Can I ask what camera body you are using for most of your shots?

Cheers

EM1 MK 1, but any 16 MP M43 body is capable of great prints.

 

[JaKing]

I have two A2 size prints on my wall from my 5 MPx E-1. They are on 17x22" fine art paper.

After I print anything critical, I do examine the print with a 4x magnifying glass (and I still have about 20/12 corrected vision). These prints show no artifacts, and excellent detail.

 

[shinndigg]

... my 12mp E-PL1, that was subsequently cropped, printed out at 30" x 40"/ 762mm x 1016mm and it looks great

 

[TheEye]

A 16 MP JPG image is 4608x3456 pixels (E-M1). A RAW is bit bigger.

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).

It follows:

4608:300=15 --> at 300ppi you can get a photographic image quality print that is 15 inches wide.

If you are happy to look at this print from farther than an arm's length, 200ppi will allow a larger print:

4608:200=23 --> at 200 ppi you can get a 23 inch wide print that looks good at a viewing distance that is till closer than normal for this size print.

The above is about image resolution, which is measured in ppi. Not to be confused with dpi, which is used only for print output (unless you use Affinity Photo ;-) ) Print resolution should be at least twice the image resolution. For example, a 300ppi image should be printed at =/> 600 dpi. This is generally no problem, because all modern printers have rather high native dpi capabilty.

 

[d3xmeister]

Dynamic range was never an issue for me, yes it should be greater on the D810 and I'm sure it is, I just never hit that limitation so I cannot say I've seen any advantage.

 

[NowHearThis]

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. I have 16x20's made from just the kit lenses.

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

If you had really great glass on it and the viewing distance is > 2 meters or so then I think you'll be able fine - generally speaking.

Look forward to your replies

Cheers

 

[pocoloco]

I have printed 1200mm by 800mm from a Nikon D200 with jusr 10MP, and that looks excellent!

The current set of m43 cameras have all better DR and more MP, so I would not worry.

Just printed a set of images from my em1 in 700mm by 500mm, and they are on my wall right now. If I put my nose one them, they are still tack sharp, not a pixel too see.

 

[tkbslc]

Test print some shots from your D810 in DX crop mode. That will give you 15.4MP on a crop sensor. M4/3 should be very similar to that, only with maybe a stop less wiggle room for boosting shadows when editing.

 

[Astrotripper]

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.

Do note that while this camera is packed with features, it comes with a sensor that is a little behind the curve even by Micro 4/3 standards. While noise levels are similar to other 16mp 4/3 sensors, tonal range is not. At base ISO (which is 200 for MFT cameras) G85 distinguishes only 270 tones compared to 360 for E-M5 Mark II. For reference, your D810 at ISO 200 captures about 350 tones, but at its base ISO gets a whooping 590.

Similar story with dynamic range, G85 lags behind E-M5 by about half a stop. Your D810 is better by 2 stops, still.

Also G85 is poor at long exposures and its BULB mode is limited to 128 seconds. For me this alone is a deal breaker, don't know about you.

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.

Seems to me you would be better served by Olympus. Olympus E-M5 Mark II for example. Actually, Mark III would probably be the best, but that will only come next year.

If you are a tripod guy, there is a High Res mode that produces pretty impressive images that would not lag behind your D810 in terms of detail or noise level. But it is a quirky feature with lots of limitations. Not sure it would be useful to you.

What I also find cool about it is the modular grip accessory. It's like having three different cameras in one.

Also, stabilization on Olympus is better by about 2 stops.

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?

I've have an A3 print from 8mp crop from the old 12mp E-PL1. Looks perfectly fine from a sane viewing distance. But if I look at it from a distance of about 5cm / 2 inches, I can see the pixels on the sharp dark/light edges.

So yeah, the bigger prints will probably not be as impressive as from D810, but at A4 you will probably not be able to tell the difference.

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

Sure, I see no reason why not. I've seen prints of similar size in galleries, from cameras with less resolution than your D810. They looked pretty darn impressive to me.

 

[d3xmeister]

I own both the E-M5II and the GX85. I also have friends with G85.

I'm guessing you got the data from DxO. Numbers are numbers, I will tell you what my eyes see after ahooting with these cameras for almost a year now

There is no difference in image quality. Not in color, not in DR and not in noise. They produce virtually identical files. The longest exposures I've done with them is 30 seconds, and I can't see any difference in that aspect.

The image stabilization is about on-par with Dual-IS enabled, and around 1 stop less withput it, in the GX85. With the G85 though, I found no difference to my E-M5II and that is with body only IS on the Panasonic.

IS is hard to test, results can vary between users, we all shake differently. Also, the test I've done with the E-M5II vs the G85 was with the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 only. With the Gx85 I've tested multiple lenses.

Anyone under the impression they are getting better image quality from Olympus vs Panasonic, or between the latest 16MP cameras, has probably never used them side by side. I'm talking about raw, joeg is a different story.

P.S. I love the High-Res mode on my E-M5II, when it works, it produces amazing files.

 

[brianric]

I've done 20X30 with an 8 MP crop camera (Canon 20D) with no problem.

 

[Paul De Bra]

We have a large print from our daughter's wedding, taken in 2005 with a 6MP Minolta D7D and it used to look great. (The colors fading due to exposure to daylight was much more an issue than the resolution of the camera.)