R6ll and large prints

[biff56]

Considering adding an R6ll to my gear. Have heard wonderful reviews of this camera and Canon has a stellar lens line up. I have grown tired of Nikon not having a z70-200 f4 S series lens yet. The z70-200 f2.8 S is a stellar lens, but heavy and expensive. Canon has the excellent R24-105 f4 L and R70-200 f4 L that are very highly rated + compact and not too heavy. Back to my original question. I occasionally like to print 36x24 prints. Wondering how well the R6ll will perform for this size? Any real world feedback would be appreciated. Greg

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Considering adding an R6ll to my gear. Have heard wonderful reviews of this camera and Canon has a stellar lens line up. I have grown tired of Nikon not having a z70-200 f4 S series lens yet. The z70-200 f2.8 S is a stellar lens, but heavy and expensive. Canon has the excellent R24-105 f4 L and R70-200 f4 L that are very highly rated + compact and not too heavy. Back to my original question. I occasionally like to print 36x24 prints. Wondering how well the R6ll will perform for this size? Any real world feedback would be appreciated. Greg

6000 pixels and 36 inches on the longest side will give you 166 ppi. High quality prints are 200-300 ppi, but this requirement depends on the minimal viewing distance. Some large prints are still viewed close up. Also if you crop, you get even less than 166ppi.

You may also use AI upscaling but in my experience the success is not guaranteed (sometimes it creates visible artefacts).

 

[Duane Burleson]

If you are viewing them from the normal viewing distance I would think you would be very happy with them. If you are pixel peeping, maybe not. A normal viewing distance they say is 1.4x the diagonal of the print, or 44 inches for a 24x36. I tend to view images from about the same as the longest dimension.

I have a 48 inch x 24 inch inkjet print I shot with a Canon 1D in 2004 (that is a 4 megapixel camera) of a grizzly bear in Alaska, that looks great. Many others of various sizes made with a 1Dx and now with my current cameras, the R3 and R6m2. A lot of 13 inch x ?? because that is as wide of a printer I have now. The 24 inch printer quit working some years ago.

--
See my photography at http://www.duaneburleson.com

 

[Quarkcharmed]

If you are viewing them from the normal viewing distance I would think you would be very happy with them. If you are pixel peeping, maybe not. A normal viewing distance they say is 1.4x the diagonal of the print, or 44 inches for a 24x36. I tend to view images from about the same as the longest dimension.

I don't think there's such thing as a universal normal viewing distance. I have a couple of big prints, one of them has a 1.5m diagonal. The guests certainly approach it much closer than 2.1m (82 inches). Some literally poke their noses into the picture - and that's good (even flattering).

 

[blackg]

I think this thread is going to divulge into a back and forth - MP argument. But all I will say is I have 20x30 prints on my walls from my 5D that are fantastic and that was an 11mp camera. I have a R now and an R3 (30 and 24mp respectively) and for many reasons I use the R3 more and never worry about MPs for printing. Honestly IMO you will be very pleased with prints that size from an R6II. Enjoy!

 

[drsnoopy]

I have made several 1 metre (approx 40”) wide prints from cameras with 12-18MP that are sharp and nobody has ever commented negatively. What is more important is good technique - accurate focus, lack of camera movement or a sufficiently high shutter speed for any moving subject, and good processing.

24MP is plenty, the top wildlife camera until only a few years ago was the 1DXiii with 20MP. But the advantage of having more (such as R5, 45MP) is the ability to crop while retaining image quality, though when cropping, good technique becomes even more important.

I doubt you’d be unhappy with an R6ii !!

 

[esheato]

I don't get too in the weeds about the numbers or the informal rules, but I have a 40x60 print that I took with the R6II (and 100-400 lens) and it's just fine. I would have no qualms about printing with 24 megapickles. You'll know what sharpness you're dealing with when you post process it anyway.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

For print resolution, size of print and viewing distance is all-important. Of course, sometimes people will peer up close at a large print, just like sometimes people peer up close at a painting in an art gallery. But for normal viewing purposes, there are some useful guides on the internet. Most people, at least most photographers on forums like this one, vastly overestimate what is needed for a good print that shows good detail, when viewed normally. Here is a pretty good guide:

A rule of thumb for print resolution and viewing distance is that the optimal viewing distance is 1.5 to 2 times the diagonal length of the print. You can then calculate the minimum required PPI (pixels per inch) for sharpness by dividing the constant 3438 by this viewing distance in inches (Minimum PPI = 3438 / Viewing Distance)

When you apply this to a 36" X 24" print, you get the (rough) estimate of a viewing distance of 65" to 86". At the closest of that range, you get minimum required ppi of 54. Even if you peer at a 36 X 24 print from only 20 inches away, you get a minimum ppi of 172. So yes, the R6II has plenty of resolution for large prints.

 

[biff56]

Thanks for all the comments here. Yes you look back not that many years ago and the top tier cameras were less than 20 megapixels. So many are all about the highest megapixel cameras as being the only way to go for landscape, but I think proper technique is most important. Greg

 

[R2D2]

Thanks for all the comments here. Yes you look back not that many years ago and the top tier cameras were less than 20 megapixels. So many are all about the highest megapixel cameras as being the only way to go for landscape, but I think proper technique is most important. Greg

Yeah, I have some big prints at 100 ppi that look gorgeous!

R2

 

[Quarkcharmed]

For print resolution, size of print and viewing distance is all-important. Of course, sometimes people will peer up close at a large print, just like sometimes people peer up close at a painting in an art gallery. But for normal viewing purposes, there are some useful guides on the internet. Most people, at least most photographers on forums like this one, vastly overestimate what is needed for a good print that shows good detail, when viewed normally. Here is a pretty good guide:

A rule of thumb for print resolution and viewing distance is that the optimal viewing distance is 1.5 to 2 times the diagonal length of the print.

Yes this notion of an 'optimal' viewing distance is circulating on the web, but the viewers will only view your image at the 'optimal' distance by accident. Very few people are going to deliberately step back by 3 metres to view a picture with a 1.5m diagonal length.

Just watch the people in art and photo galleries.

You can then calculate the minimum required PPI (pixels per inch) for sharpness by dividing the constant 3438 by this viewing distance in inches (Minimum PPI = 3438 / Viewing Distance)

When you apply this to a 36" X 24" print, you get the (rough) estimate of a viewing distance of 65" to 86". At the closest of that range, you get minimum required ppi of 54.

The quality at 54 ppi will be subpar for a 36x24" print - unless the viewers are physically prevented from approaching the frame.

Even if you peer at a 36 X 24 print from only 20 inches away, you get a minimum ppi of 172. So yes, the R6II has plenty of resolution for large prints.

A 12Mp camera also has plenty of resolution - but "plenty" depends on your own requirements and satisfaction from printing. I have printed a very large (2x1m) canvas from a 12Mp done camera- it looks great but it's physically impossible to come too close to it.

Yes you can print large images from a 24Mp camera but the less resolution your camera has and the larger you print, the higher the chances you won't be satisfied with the results.

 

[Vikingod]

People have been doing large prints on pictures with a lot less resolution than the R6II have for decades. We can debate dpi and viewing distance for days, but it's silly pixel peeping nonsense. Of course the R6II if fine for large prints.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

People have been doing large prints on pictures with a lot less resolution than the R6II have for decades. We can debate dpi and viewing distance for days, but it's silly pixel peeping nonsense. Of course the R6II if fine for large prints.

Also people have been *not* doing large prints from low-res images. You just don't see the low-res images that were not printed large. See also: survivorship bias.

 

[Robin Dr42]

In the "old" days a print was viewed at the least at a distance equal to its diagonal dimension, so even if your sensor's direct resolution to you print size is 150ppi, that will be more than sufficient at about 4 feet viewing distance. Further, Photoshop from years ago (2011) could upscale to higher pixel counts at least 50%, not sure if AI is any better (sometime "smart" algorithms make mistakes where all you are looking for is minor upscaling). Alternately if you are the owner of the printer or can talk to the people printing your pictures you will find that the printer itself is often good at upscaling to some degree. I had an experience with a cropped picture from a Canon 5D (12 MP) blown up to 51 inches on canvas. Admittedly canvas back then was probably 50-75 ppi but still the print looked good (at 5 feet or even less). After all the pontification your best bet may be to take a particularly sharp picture and order one print, and you make the call as to whether it is sharp when viewed hung on the wall (no peeping with a magnifying glass).

 

[biff56]

Thanks for all the responses here. Of course the R6ll should work just fine. Although there is a lot of chatter about the R6lll coming soon... Greg

 

[Vikingod]

If it was me I'd wait a few days and see what comes out. Sounds like Canon has a few annnouncements up their sleeves.

 

[smilerliu]

Considering adding an R6ll to my gear. Have heard wonderful reviews of this camera and Canon has a stellar lens line up. I have grown tired of Nikon not having a z70-200 f4 S series lens yet. The z70-200 f2.8 S is a stellar lens, but heavy and expensive. Canon has the excellent R24-105 f4 L and R70-200 f4 L that are very highly rated + compact and not too heavy. Back to my original question. I occasionally like to print 36x24 prints. Wondering how well the R6ll will perform for this size? Any real world feedback would be appreciated. Greg

I find it interesting that one would switch from Nikon to Canon because of lenses... Nikon Z 24-120 is in general considered superior to RF 24-105, and there is Z 70-180 f2.8 that is almost as light as RF 70-200 f4 (795g vs 695g) and one stop faster. I'm wanting those two Z lenses for my R5...

 

[Alastair Norcross]

For print resolution, size of print and viewing distance is all-important. Of course, sometimes people will peer up close at a large print, just like sometimes people peer up close at a painting in an art gallery. But for normal viewing purposes, there are some useful guides on the internet. Most people, at least most photographers on forums like this one, vastly overestimate what is needed for a good print that shows good detail, when viewed normally. Here is a pretty good guide:

A rule of thumb for print resolution and viewing distance is that the optimal viewing distance is 1.5 to 2 times the diagonal length of the print.

Yes this notion of an 'optimal' viewing distance is circulating on the web,

As is the notion that you need 200 - 300 ppi for any print, which has far less going for it.

but the viewers will only view your image at the 'optimal' distance by accident.

No

Very few people are going to deliberately step back by 3 metres to view a picture with a 1.5m diagonal length.

The OP asked about 36" X 24" prints. That's a diagonal of just under 1.1 metres. The guide I mentioned suggested an optimal distance of 1.5 to 2 times the diagonal. 1.5 times 1.1 is 1.65. How many people are going to view a 36" X 24" print from 1.65 metres (the 65 inches I calculated below)? Probably the vast majority, and by choice, not accident

Just watch the people in art and photo galleries.

I have done. Very few of them peer up close, and those that do then usually step back to appreciate the picture.

You can then calculate the minimum required PPI (pixels per inch) for sharpness by dividing the constant 3438 by this viewing distance in inches (Minimum PPI = 3438 / Viewing Distance)

When you apply this to a 36" X 24" print, you get the (rough) estimate of a viewing distance of 65" to 86". At the closest of that range, you get minimum required ppi of 54.

The quality at 54 ppi will be subpar for a 36x24" print

Maybe. I don't know, because I have never printed an image at 54 ppi. Have you? Was that the resolution of the print you refer to below? I do know that 100 ppi is plenty for a 30" X 20" print, because I have several of those from my 6MP EOS 300D, which produced images that were 3000 X 2000 (so 100 ppi for a 30" X 20" print).

- unless the viewers are physically prevented from approaching the frame.

Even if you peer at a 36 X 24 print from only 20 inches away, you get a minimum ppi of 172. So yes, the R6II has plenty of resolution for large prints.

A 12Mp camera also has plenty of resolution - but "plenty" depends on your own requirements and satisfaction from printing. I have printed a very large (2x1m) canvas from a 12Mp done camera- it looks great but it's physically impossible to come too close to it.

I don't think you mean that. Or if you do, that supports my claim. Given that it's physically possible to have one's nose touching any print, you would be saying that even nose touching distance isn't too close. I think what you really mean is that you don't want to get very close to that canvas. Or do you mean that you have that print displayed somewhere where you have made it very difficult to get very close to it? I presume, again, that "physically impossible" would be an exaggeration here.

Yes you can print large images from a 24Mp camera but the less resolution your camera has and the larger you print, the higher the chances you won't be satisfied with the results.

The OP asked about 36" X 24" prints from a 24MP camera. That works out to 167 ppi. Even if 54 ppi would be inadequate (and I have no idea whether that's true), that's completely irrelevant to the OP's question. Given my experience with prints at 100 ppi, I can say that 167 ppi is plenty.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

Considering adding an R6ll to my gear. Have heard wonderful reviews of this camera and Canon has a stellar lens line up. I have grown tired of Nikon not having a z70-200 f4 S series lens yet. The z70-200 f2.8 S is a stellar lens, but heavy and expensive. Canon has the excellent R24-105 f4 L and R70-200 f4 L that are very highly rated + compact and not too heavy. Back to my original question. I occasionally like to print 36x24 prints. Wondering how well the R6ll will perform for this size? Any real world feedback would be appreciated. Greg

I find it interesting that one would switch from Nikon to Canon because of lenses... Nikon Z 24-120 is in general considered superior to RF 24-105,

Really? By whom? Who is this "in general" of which you speak? This is the first time I've read anyone saying that.

and there is Z 70-180 f2.8 that is almost as light as RF 70-200 f4 (795g vs 695g) and one stop faster.

And 20mm less reach, and slower focusing, and optically inferior. Everything's a compromise.

I'm wanting those two Z lenses for my R5...

I have zero interest in those two lenses, given that I have the RF 70-200 F2.8 and RF 24-105 F4.

 

[biff56]

I never stated I was “switching “ from Nikon. I just find my z8 large and heavy for hiking and often leave at home and thus may miss a shot (the z8 is excellent otherwise). Just looking for a little smaller, lighter combo that covers the range I would be shooting at while hiking… Greg