Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Jonathan Cross on March 31, 2009, 11:04:51 am
-
I have a Canon 40D and 3 Canon L lenses, and am very happy... BUT ! I have been printing on an A4 printer and am now longing for an A3+ pigment printer. The RAW images on the 40D are 3888x2592, and at 300dpi will print at 33 x 22 cm. A3+ is, I understand 48.3 x 32.9 cm. At this size my 40D images will print at 204 x 200 dpi.
My dilemma is what to do when I get my A3+ printer. Do I upres my images in Photoshop to say 250 or 300 dpi at A3+ or do I go the whole hog and buy a 5Dmk2? The movie facility on the 5DMK2 does not yet excite me nearly as much as the 21MP. The cost implication of change does need justification, though!!!
Anyone got any advice?
Jonathan
-
I have a Canon 40D and 3 Canon L lenses, and am very happy... BUT ! I have been printing on an A4 printer and am now longing for an A3+ pigment printer. The RAW images on the 40D are 3888x2592, and at 300dpi will print at 33 x 22 cm. A3+ is, I understand 48.3 x 32.9 cm. At this size my 40D images will print at 204 x 200 dpi.
My dilemma is what to do when I get my A3+ printer. Do I upres my images in Photoshop to say 250 or 300 dpi at A3+ or do I go the whole hog and buy a 5Dmk2? The movie facility on the 5DMK2 does not yet excite me nearly as much as the 21MP. The cost implication of change does need justification, though!!!
Anyone got any advice?
Jonathan
Dust reduction, liveview etc
Marc
-
Being an American and therefore metrically impaired, I think you are talking about 13x19-inch paper.
My 40D makes spectacular prints on 13x19 inch paper. And on 16x24 inch paper, too. I just make sure that the image has a final ppi of 180, 240, or 360, which I understand makes a difference with an Epson printer (i.e., don't make it 300ppi.)
Unless one is examining large prints with a loupe, I suspect that most photographers reach their skill limit before they reach the limits of their equipment. (Assuming one isn't shooting landscapes with a p+s. Oh, wait, Michael already did that story (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml).) Sure, a 5D Mark II would be great -- but if it were me, I would buy the larger printer first, and then see how my prints looked before buying a new camera.
On that subject, I would also recommend looking at a 17-inch printer (A-2 size). The Epson 3800 uses much larger ink carts, making the ink much less expensive in the long run. Also, I expect you'll want to print larger once you see some larger prints, if that makes any sense.
EDIT: Marc, the 40D has both live view and dust reduction.
-
Being an American and therefore metrically impaired, I think you are talking about 13x19-inch paper.
My 40D makes spectacular prints on 13x19 inch paper. And on 16x24 inch paper, too. I just make sure that the image has a final ppi of 180, 240, or 360, which I understand makes a difference with an Epson printer (i.e., don't make it 300ppi.)
Unless one is examining large prints with a loupe, I suspect that most photographers reach their skill limit before they reach the limits of their equipment. (Assuming one isn't shooting landscapes with a p+s. Oh, wait, Michael already did that story (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml).) Sure, a 5D Mark II would be great -- but if it were me, I would buy the larger printer first, and then see how my prints looked before buying a new camera.
On that subject, I would also recommend looking at a 17-inch printer (A-2 size). The Epson 3800 uses much larger ink carts, making the ink much less expensive in the long run. Also, I expect you'll want to print larger once you see some larger prints, if that makes any sense.
EDIT: Marc, the 40D has both live view and dust reduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size)
-
with the year-end rebate i got on the 3800 combined with the amount of ink that ships with the printer, a calculated that it was the same price as a smaller printer and that the reduced ink cost would make it noticeably cheaper in the long term even for a relatively small number of prints. although it has no roll feed, it will print to about 38 inches long which i think will be adequate for my panorama needs
only problem is that i like the quality so well and it's so easy to print from Lightroom that i'm printing more
-
Being an American and therefore metrically impaired, I think you are talking about 13x19-inch paper.
My 40D makes spectacular prints on 13x19 inch paper. And on 16x24 inch paper, too. I just make sure that the image has a final ppi of 180, 240, or 360, which I understand makes a difference with an Epson printer (i.e., don't make it 300ppi.)
Unless one is examining large prints with a loupe, I suspect that most photographers reach their skill limit before they reach the limits of their equipment. (Assuming one isn't shooting landscapes with a p+s. Oh, wait, Michael already did that story (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml).) Sure, a 5D Mark II would be great -- but if it were me, I would buy the larger printer first, and then see how my prints looked before buying a new camera.
On that subject, I would also recommend looking at a 17-inch printer (A-2 size). The Epson 3800 uses much larger ink carts, making the ink much less expensive in the long run. Also, I expect you'll want to print larger once you see some larger prints, if that makes any sense.
EDIT: Marc, the 40D has both live view and dust reduction.
I believe your notion that images sent to an Epson have to 180, 240, or 360 is an "old photographer's tale." Perhaps it was true in the past, but not with current drivers. In From Camera to Print, the advice is that as long as your image resolution, at the print size, is at least 180/inch, you'll be fine. There's no reason to up-sample because the printer driver will do the best possible job of adjusting the image resolution to the printer resolution. In my experience with an Epson 4880 this is good advice.
Peter
-
Why does your camera upgrade have to be to the 5D MkII?
A more comparable (and less expensive) upgrade would be from the 40D to the 50D, which raw images are 4752 x 3168.
And with the extra money you'd save not buying the 5D, you could get your printer. In other words, have your cake and eat it too ...
.
-
A larger format printer doesn't require you to print full-sized all the time. I find that only a small subset of my images have the quality necessary to print larger (at lower DPI). You may increase your chances with the 5DMKII, but still many of your 5DMKII images will not look good at 13x19. If your original capture was spot-on focused and well exposed with reasonable dynamic range, it will upscale reasonably well and print well. Otherwise, whether you have a 5DMKII or a 40D, the image upscaled will look bad.
Get the bigger printer for reduced printing costs and greater flexibility, then do some experiments to see if you think you need more pixels.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size)
Thanks, DP, I did look at that site before posting. I'm actually pretty good with the metric system for most things; I just haven't had the exposure to paper sizes.
Peter, I appreciate the feedback on ppi settings for Epson printers.
--Ken
-
I have an A3+ printer (HP9180) and frankly struggle to tell the difference between printed pictures from a Canon 20D, Leica M8, Canon 5D or 1Ds Mark 3 at A3 size if I have taken care with Aperture and/or PhotoShop to get to the print. There is a theoretical difference and I'm sure if inspected with a magnifying glass differences would be more obvious. But I do not look at prints on display with a glass.
When going to A2 or larger the difference becomes more obvious without having to use a magnifying glass - there's more detail in the detail. I would suggest you print a few pictures from your 40D at a large size, have a good look and the ask yourself the question again.
However, a great advantage of the 21Mpixel count of the 5D Mk2 is the ability to crop quite significantly - and still have the potential to print at large size.
-
I have to say that the software and printer are the major factor here and not the camera.
Think about the work-flow for a second:
- RAW is converted.
- Image is cleaned up
- Image is tweaked for color to match the printer's output.
- Image is re-sized and re-sampled and sent to the printer.
- Image is printed by the printer.
- The ink blurs and bleeds between the dots.
The real weak link in the entire chain has always been the printers. They just have lagged behind by a massive amount, though they are finally getting good enough to approach a good photo lab. 200DPI on a good printer is fine, really. On a cheap printer, yes, it looks cheap.
-
Thanks, DP, I did look at that site before posting. I'm actually pretty good with the metric system for most things; I just haven't had the exposure to paper sizes.
Peter, I appreciate the feedback on ppi settings for Epson printers.
--Ken
I reference that page all the time. Very useful. I've no idea why paper sizes resist being committed to my memory/
-
Why does your camera upgrade have to be to the 5D MkII?
A more comparable (and less expensive) upgrade would be from the 40D to the 50D, which raw images are 4752 x 3168.
being a 30d user, there is no way i would even upgrade to a 50D instead of a 5dmkII. the 30d is killing me on the image size at this point (3504 x 2336), but if I'm going to spend another chunk of cash on a body, i would rather put it into something that i can seriously grow into....
the improvements from going to a 5d over a 50d just seems far larger, even though the cost is significant ($1200(cad) vs. $3000(cad)). One prosumer camera for another vs. a prosumer to jumping into a semi-pro camera.
mind you, you have to qualify what being a prosumer vs. semi-pro means in this case, but i'm lazy and it is late.
side note, a 50d vs. 5dmkII comparison review would be cool, anyone seen on on the 'net?
-
Thanks to all who have replied so quickly. The message I am picking up is get the printer and suck it and see before going to more pxels in the camera body. I will be interested to see what the Canon 9500 MK2 wil be like when it comes out in a month or two. The spec looks good.
Jonathan
-
Sorry to crash the Canon party but I am shooting Nikons D2Xs and D300 both 12mp bodies. I print with the Epson 3800 and the new Epson 7900. Since I print quite a bit of canvas I purchased Genuine Fractals 6 for the uprezing and the gallery wrap option. My opinion is save the camera money and buy the software. The output is supurb. I wanted a D3x for the 20+ mp. Instead I bought Genuine Fractals and saved about $7700.00
Dan Berg
Bergs Canvas Gallery
-
Unless you intend on reshooting your entire portfolio after buying a new camera, you WILL be printing 40D images on bigger paper. IMHO, your dollars would be better spent on better glass. I have a Nikon D200 and D300 (10 and 12 MP respectively), and I just completed an exhibition that included two prints shot at 10 MP that were cropped severely (to about 1/3 the original file size) and printed at 16x20 inches. Maybe detail would've been sharper with a 20+ MP body, but 10 MP on an APS sensor body was enough for a jury to accept my work. And I personally was satisfied with the sharpness of minute details. Go for pro glass and wait for the 20+ MP cameras to drop in price. We all know it's coming...
-
First of all, how big are you going to print the images? I made a test using a D3 and a D3x, one is 12 mg and 24 mg pix. Everything was the same, same lens, same f stop, same images the only thing is different is the shutter speed and camera body. It was printed 16x20 and I cannot tell the difference. Even looking at the fine detail area. Now, I just used the D3. I only used the D3x if I going to make a very large prints. Try it before upgrade.
-
I am in a similar position of wanting a new camera. I am shooting with a 30D, and have been thinking about moving to a 5D MkII for shooting weddings, portraaits and some landscapes. The problem is I need 2 of them, and I don't have the money at present. I would also want more lenses.
My solution as of today is to continue using my 30D for personal photos, and hire 2 camera bodies when required for paid jobs. The cost will be absorbed into my fees (it will eat into profits a bit). Instead of buying bodies, I will build my lens collection, and then when I can afford to, I will buy the best 2 bodies for my needs that are available - probably in about 18 months.
I prefer prime lenses, however at present I only have one, the 50 1.4 along with 17-40 f4L and 70-200 f2.8L IS zooms.
My plan is to eventually collect all canon L primes from 24 to 135mm as well as 100 f2.8 macro and zeiss 21 f2 and 28 f2.
When I have the zeiss 21, and the canon 35, 85 and 135 L's and 100macro, then I will buy bodies. The other lenses will come later.
-
The real weak link in the entire chain has always been the printers. They just have lagged behind by a massive amount, though they are finally getting good enough to approach a good photo lab. 200DPI on a good printer is fine, really. On a cheap printer, yes, it looks cheap.
This is why some crazy guys have been predicting that prints will soon be overcome by high resolution screen for fine art display.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I own both the 40D and 50D and have done careful image quality comparisons. Resolution differences are only visible on very large prints. The 40D is perfectly adequate for A3+ size prints.
However, there is the issue of cropping, which has so far been overlooked in this thread. On occasions when you need to heavily crop an image, to say 1/4 of its original size, then the 50D would probably produce the better result on an A3+ size print.
The advantage of the larger sensor 5D2 with A3+ prints will be noise. Using the appropriate lenses for the scene, the 5D2 will produce less noise when noise is an issue, at high ISO. However, when your longest telephoto lens is not long enough, the 50D will be a better option.