Print limitations for 16mp M4/3

[ijm5012]

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

It depends on your print medium. Are you printing on Canvas, Paper, Metal? Canvas is FAR more forgiving regarding detail. I've printed 30"x20" (762mm x 508mm) before on Canvas with a PPI of 150 and haven't had any issues. I even have one print at 36"x24" (basically 900mm x 600mm), and it looks great.

If you are talking about paper or metal, things change a bit, because of the higher PPI required. If you follow the 300 PPI rule, a 16MP m43 sensor can print images up to ~16" wide (~400mm), but this is before uprezzing. Given the technology out there today, it's very easy to take a file, up-rez it to the necessary size, and still get a great print out of it.

One question I will raise is, if you don't plan to use the 4K feature of the G85, and your primary focus is on shooting landscapes, have you considered an Olympus OMD E-M5 II? The reason I ask is that the Olympus has a mode that will shift the sensor using IBIS, resulting in a 64MP RAW file. Granted, this wont' work in every scenario, but I've successfully used it to shoot landscape images before, and the resulting detail is fascinating. In addition to this, Olympus also has some modes that help with long exposures. Features like Live Time allow you to see the long exposure develop on-screen overtime while also watching the histogram, making it nearly impossible to screw up a long exposure, since you simply choose when to close the shutter once the image is properly exposed.

These features make the E-M5 II a fantastic option for landscape photography IMO. I own one (in addition to an E-M1 II), and still enjoy using the E-M5 II because of its small size and the features it offers.

With all else being equal and on the tripod, how are the E-M5 II Hi-Res shots compared to the E-M1 II? I'm thinking of getting the E-M5 II just for the Hi-Res feature plus the Live Composite and Focus Bracketing. But mainly Hi-Res and I plan to use it for landscape. Is it hard to get sharp Hi-Res images with less artifacts with the E-M5II compared against the E-M1II or is it similar? Are there any samples I can see taken with your E-M5 II?

Thank you!

To be honest, I don't really notice a huge difference. Granted, it depends on the subject your shooting, but my landscape shots, about the only thing that "moves" in the image would be tall grass or tree branches, and I haven't noticed a huge difference there. One thing that is nice about the hi-res is the effect it creates with clouds and water, as it simulates a far longer exposure (because there are 8 of them), resulting in clouds that drag across the sky and silky smooth water. Is the E-M1 II better? Yes. But I don't believe it's ~3-4x better than the E-M5 II.

I must say though, the new ISO 64 paired with the intrinsic noise reduction in hi-res due to image averaging does make for some exceptionally "clean" files. Couple that with the fact that they're 80MP, and the results are pretty spectacular.

If you're interested in the camera, I'd recommend renting one for a weekend and doing some side-by-side shooting to see for yourself whether or not it's worth it.

 

[Albert Valentino]

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

It depends on your print medium. Are you printing on Canvas, Paper, Metal? Canvas is FAR more forgiving regarding detail. I've printed 30"x20" (762mm x 508mm) before on Canvas with a PPI of 150 and haven't had any issues. I even have one print at 36"x24" (basically 900mm x 600mm), and it looks great.

If you are talking about paper or metal, things change a bit, because of the higher PPI required. If you follow the 300 PPI rule, a 16MP m43 sensor can print images up to ~16" wide (~400mm), but this is before uprezzing. Given the technology out there today, it's very easy to take a file, up-rez it to the necessary size, and still get a great print out of it.

One question I will raise is, if you don't plan to use the 4K feature of the G85, and your primary focus is on shooting landscapes, have you considered an Olympus OMD E-M5 II? The reason I ask is that the Olympus has a mode that will shift the sensor using IBIS, resulting in a 64MP RAW file. Granted, this wont' work in every scenario, but I've successfully used it to shoot landscape images before, and the resulting detail is fascinating. In addition to this, Olympus also has some modes that help with long exposures. Features like Live Time allow you to see the long exposure develop on-screen overtime while also watching the histogram, making it nearly impossible to screw up a long exposure, since you simply choose when to close the shutter once the image is properly exposed.

These features make the E-M5 II a fantastic option for landscape photography IMO. I own one (in addition to an E-M1 II), and still enjoy using the E-M5 II because of its small size and the features it offers.

With all else being equal and on the tripod, how are the E-M5 II Hi-Res shots compared to the E-M1 II? I'm thinking of getting the E-M5 II just for the Hi-Res feature plus the Live Composite and Focus Bracketing. But mainly Hi-Res and I plan to use it for landscape. Is it hard to get sharp Hi-Res images with less artifacts with the E-M5II compared against the E-M1II or is it similar? Are there any samples I can see taken with your E-M5 II?

Thank you!

I have not tried it myself since my EM1 does not have this feature. But i do know that the EM1.2, with the more powerful processor, is better for less than ideal conditions - meaning none studio work where something is always moving like leaves...

i would start a new tread to address the differences in these two bodies for landscape

 

[David]

Thank you for the suggestion! I've created a new thread..

 

[Androole]

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

 

[boxerman]

We print large on occasion. On a 16 x 19, you have to get within a few inches to begin to detect pixels. We have a 40 inch print in our living room, and the pixels are simply not detectable. NOBODY has the instinct to go up and "admire" that 40 incher from a foot away.