Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Didymus on April 02, 2010, 01:17:13 pm
-
I will be making 17" wide prints and I'm trying to decide which camera to buy. The canon 5d mark II has 21mp compared to the nikon d700's 12mp. I know megapixels are not everything but I'm concerned about print size. I'm also aware of the other differences such as points of AF and exposure compensation. Which camera is better for the size of a print that I want, Nikon d700 or Canon 5d mark II?
Thank you
-
If that's the biggest you will ever print, either one will be fine.
-
I will be making 17" wide prints and I'm trying to decide which camera to buy. The canon 5d mark II has 21mp compared to the nikon d700's 12mp. I know megapixels are not everything but I'm concerned about print size. I'm also aware of the other differences such as points of AF and exposure compensation. Which camera is better for the size of a print that I want, Nikon d700 or Canon 5d mark II?
Thank you
Or wait a couple months and see what replaces the D700
-
Yes, I've been checking for a D700 replacement and a replacement for either the epson 3880 or the 4880. Thank you so much for your feedback.
-
I routinely print 16x20 prints that came from my D200. As tokengirl said, if that's as big as you're going to print, either one is more than sufficient.
More important than the camera is the selection of lenses you'll be shooting with. If you don't have an investment in either system, then you're free to choose the one that appeals to you more. But if you already have good lenses for one or the other, stick with the camera that will fit your glass. Good lenses are much more important than a high-MP camera body to get fine prints.
-
Thats another issue I'm wrestling with. Evidently the nikon d700 kit lens (24-120) is not that great. The canon lens is supposedly better but I can still go with the nikon and add other lenses later.
-
Yes, I've been checking for a D700 replacement and a replacement for either the epson 3880 or the 4880. Thank you so much for your feedback.
The 3880 is a relatively new printer ... don't think you will be seeing a replacement any time soon.
-
Will there be a replacement for the 4880?
-
To the original question, 12mp is enough to make a nice 16x20" or 16x24" print - assuming you use good glass and shooting techniques, and don't crop. Of course, if you don't use good glass and shooting technique, a 21mp camera won't really help you. What the higher-resolution camera will give you is a bit of breathing room to crop, or the ability go larger. For highly detailed scenes, the 21mp will give you a better 16x24" print, but that's not to say the 12mp print won't be good.
-
Proper technique is far more important than which camera you use. Unless you have *perfect* technique, you won't see any difference between the 5D2 and the D700 (or the 40D or the D300 or the K7 or the A900 or any other recent DSLR camera.) Even with perfect technique (which is exceptionally rare) you won't see the difference in a 16x24 inch print.
Good technique includes but is not limited to using the proper tripod, mirror lockup, proper focus, exposure, the quality of the lens used, etc. If, for example, you are hand holding your camera, then the camera is *not* the limiting factor in print quality.
EDIT: when I say perfect technique is exceptionally rare, I am talking about all camera users. Photographers who read this site are far more likely to have good technique.
-
Will there be a replacement for the 4880?
That's a good question. I think some folks may be waiting/hoping for a 4900 that has the new inkset and print heads from the 7900, but I'm beginning to wonder if Epson will continue to carry two 17" printers in their lineup. They may feel that if you really want the pro-grade capabilities that are beyond the 3880, you should just go ahead and step up to a 24" printer.
Some might argue that there's has always been a 4x00 to match the 7x00, but that was before the 3800 created a new price point for 17" printers. Also consider, HP's 3100/3200 have been shipping for a few years now, and they haven't felt the need to ship a 17" model. Canon had the 5000/5100, which were popular due to heavy discounting that made them price-competitive with the 3800; but you'll notice there's no 5300 coming out along with the new 6300/8300 (not yet, at least).
-
I've worked with photoshop quite a bit but I mainly have a wet photography background so thanks for the help with the digital stuff.
-
I will be making 17" wide prints and I'm trying to decide which camera to buy. The canon 5d mark II has 21mp compared to the nikon d700's 12mp. I know megapixels are not everything but I'm concerned about print size. I'm also aware of the other differences such as points of AF and exposure compensation. Which camera is better for the size of a print that I want, Nikon d700 or Canon 5d mark II?
Thank you
I've used the Epson 3800 for the past 3 years. I routinely made 10" x 15" prints from my Sony a700 (same 12MP sensor as Nikon D300). Anything larger, I used AS Blowup to interpolate to 16".
I now shoot with the Sony a850 (lower fps Sony a900). There's no comparison in quality at A2 size between 12MP and 24MP. Obviously, less detailed scenes, or prints made on textured media are more forgiving interpolated. If you have a quality, detailed image, the higher native MP image will print better every time.
Graham
-
I can easily tell the difference between 12MP and 20+MP landscapes at 11x14. At 17 inches, it's a piece of cake.
-
I can easily tell the difference between 12MP and 20+MP landscapes at 11x14. At 17 inches, it's a piece of cake.
I don't think that's the question. Are the 12mp prints unacceptable?
-
I will be making 17" wide prints and I'm trying to decide which camera to buy. The canon 5d mark II has 21mp compared to the nikon d700's 12mp. I know megapixels are not everything but I'm concerned about print size. I'm also aware of the other differences such as points of AF and exposure compensation. Which camera is better for the size of a print that I want, Nikon d700 or Canon 5d mark II?
Thank you
For ultimate quality...
Do not use anything with an Anti-Aliasing filter.
Use an Epson printer @ 360 original camera pixels per print inch.
I expect you could buy a used MFB that would give you 360 original camera pixels per print inch on a 17 inch wide printer... but would this cost more than a new 24 Mpx DSLR? ... If you are contemplating Canon or Nikon, I presume that you do not hope to upgrade you camera without buying a set of lenses?
I think you would need about 30Mpx for 12 * 17 inches @ 360pppi, but if your budget would not run to that, you could use a lower res back and print at 240 pppi. You could print close to 17 inches at 360 pppi with a 24 Mpx camera, and it would be interesting to see 17 in wide prints
24Mpx pixel to pixel DSLR 9 (with border) along side
21Mpx scaled DSLR and
30Mpx MF pixel to pixel pictures.
For 18 * 24 print I will use a Hasselblad H4D-60 and an Epson 7900 (with ColorBurst RIP), or 24 * 36 @ 240pppi... this kit is an order of magnitude or two more expensive, and I hope it will produce much better prints.
For panoramic 24" * 40 or more inches I hope to shift-and-stitch, and print @ 360 pppi.
-
Hi,
You may checks this: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...xels-do-we-need (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/24-how-many-megapixels-do-we-need)
And perhaps also this:
http://www.pbase.com/ekr/image/107619976 (http://www.pbase.com/ekr/image/107619976)
http://www.pbase.com/ekr/image/107823207 (http://www.pbase.com/ekr/image/107823207)
My experience is that 12 MP APS-C is good enough for A2-size prints. Going to 24 MP "full frame" produces much better files but the difference in print may be less overwhelming.
A2 is 16.5x23.4 inches.
Best regards
Erik
I will be making 17" wide prints and I'm trying to decide which camera to buy. The canon 5d mark II has 21mp compared to the nikon d700's 12mp. I know megapixels are not everything but I'm concerned about print size. I'm also aware of the other differences such as points of AF and exposure compensation. Which camera is better for the size of a print that I want, Nikon d700 or Canon 5d mark II?
Thank you
-
Hi,
You may checks this: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...xels-do-we-need (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/24-how-many-megapixels-do-we-need)
A2 is 16.5x23.4 inches.
Best regards
Erik
According to my calculations 23.4*16.5*(360^2)/10^6 = 50.038, so A2 @ 360 ppi needs 50 Megapixels.
...and 24 * 18 @ 360 needs 60 Mpx. ( The 60 Mpx chips have just enough pixels on the long side to fill 24")
-
According to my calculations 23.4*16.5*(360^2)/10^6 = 50.038, so A2 @ 360 ppi needs 50 Megapixels.
...and 24 * 18 @ 360 needs 60 Mpx. ( The 60 Mpx chips have just enough pixels on the long side to fill 24")
I have NO trouble printing excellent quality 16 x 24 prints from my 10mp Leica M8.
-
Thats another issue I'm wrestling with. Evidently the nikon d700 kit lens (24-120) is not that great. The canon lens is supposedly better but I can still go with the nikon and add other lenses later.
Easy - don't buy the kit lens. If budget is an issue get the 35-70/2,8 if not then get the best you can. Or just get a few primes, sigma primes can be excellent and are cheap.
-
I don't think that's the question. Are the 12mp prints unacceptable?
They are not as sharp and detailed for landscapes. "Unacceptable" is in the eye of the beholder. For landscapes, I'd far prefer to shoot with a 24MP camera over a 12MP camera.
-
Ouch!
Thanks! Fixed!
Best regards
Erik
According to my calculations 23.4*16.5*(360^2)/10^6 = 50.038, so A2 @ 360 ppi needs 50 Megapixels.
...and 24 * 18 @ 360 needs 60 Mpx. ( The 60 Mpx chips have just enough pixels on the long side to fill 24")
-
Erik, take the theoretical pixel calculation with a grain of salt
Photoshop, Lightroom, and many others do a fine job of uprezing, and printing 360dpi is usually a considerable overkill
That said, i'd much rather shoot for large prints with a full frame camera like the 5D2.
Acceptability is very much influenced by the subject, viewing distance, etc.
-
I will be making 17" wide prints and I'm trying to decide which camera to buy. The canon 5d mark II has 21mp compared to the nikon d700's 12mp. I know megapixels are not everything but I'm concerned about print size. I'm also aware of the other differences such as points of AF and exposure compensation. Which camera is better for the size of a print that I want, Nikon d700 or Canon 5d mark II?
Thank you
I have gone upto 24"x36" prints with pictures taken with the Sony A900 (24.6MP Full-frame).....specifically pictures taken with the A900 + Carl Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 and Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 combinations, on a stable tripod. For larger prints, I like to have a camera with more megapixels and the A900 delivers....without going into larger/less-portable MF equipment.
The 5DII, at 21MP is close enough the A900 and if printing big is the over-riding consideration, then that is what I would pick, among the choices you have presented above.
-
I have gone upto 24"x36" prints with pictures taken with the Sony A900 (24.6MP Full-frame).....specifically pictures taken with the A900 + Carl Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 and Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 combinations, on a stable tripod. For larger prints, I like to have a camera with more megapixels and the A900 delivers....without going into larger/less-portable MF equipment.
The 5DII, at 21MP is close enough the A900 and if printing big is the over-riding consideration, then that is what I would pick, among the choices you have presented above.
Thank you
-
I have gone upto 24"x36" prints with pictures taken with the Sony A900 (24.6MP Full-frame).....specifically pictures taken with the A900 + Carl Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 and Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 combinations, on a stable tripod. For larger prints, I like to have a camera with more megapixels and the A900 delivers....without going into larger/less-portable MF equipment.
The 5DII, at 21MP is close enough the A900 and if printing big is the over-riding consideration, then that is what I would pick, among the choices you have presented above.
Most people who try to print large from low-res cameras stick to printing misty sunsets and other scenes with no detail to resolve, but, if you want to resolve detail, you will need enough Megapixels...
For ultimate quality use 360 original camera pixels per print inch to resolve fine detail...
24 * 36 @ 360 pppi requires 112Mpx or two or three 60Mpx images stitched... but for
24 * 36" for most subjects 240 pppi would be adequate, requiring about 50Mpx MF without stitching.
As Bernard would tell you, you can produce high-res pictures with a low res camera by pano-stitching.
-
Proper technique is far more important than which camera you use. Unless you have *perfect* technique, you won't see any difference between the 5D2 and the D700 (or the 40D or the D300 or the K7 or the A900 or any other recent DSLR camera.) Even with perfect technique (which is exceptionally rare) you won't see the difference in a 16x24 inch print.
Good technique includes but is not limited to using the proper tripod, mirror lockup, proper focus, exposure, the quality of the lens used, etc. If, for example, you are hand holding your camera, then the camera is *not* the limiting factor in print quality.
EDIT: when I say perfect technique is exceptionally rare, I am talking about all camera users. Photographers who read this site are far more likely to have good technique.
I wonder sometimes how I ever take a sharp picture, I'm usually in a helicopter or Cessna, so no tripod, yet it mostly looks pin sharp to me at 100% even with long lenses.
Kevin.
-
12mp is plenty these days with the proper software and printers. I have 2- 12mp Nikon bodies and print 75% of my prints 24" and larger. The smallest I usually print is 17" X 22. My stitched panos average from 250mb to 1 gb in size
You should see the results printed at 40" X 120",just stunning! Printers are Epson 7900 and 9900 . Genuine Fractals 6 makes this so easy.
To answer your question its probably just as important what you do with the images at the back end as what camera they are shot with at the front end.
-
12mp is plenty these days with the proper software and printers. I have 2- 12mp Nikon bodies and print 75% of my prints 24" and larger. The smallest I usually print is 17" X 22. My stitched panos average from 250mb to 1 gb in size
You should see the results printed at 40" X 120",just stunning! Printers are Epson 7900 and 9900 . Genuine Fractals 6 makes this so easy.
To answer your question its probably just as important what you do with the images at the back end as what camera they are shot with at the front end.
Very nice. Thank you.
-
12mp is plenty these days with the proper software and printers. I have 2- 12mp Nikon bodies and print 75% of my prints 24" and larger. The smallest I usually print is 17" X 22. My stitched panos average from 250mb to 1 gb in size
You should see the results printed at 40" X 120",just stunning! Printers are Epson 7900 and 9900 . Genuine Fractals 6 makes this so easy.
To answer your question its probably just as important what you do with the images at the back end as what camera they are shot with at the front end.
What you are essentially stating is that when a 12MP image is blown up to a size that is well beyond what image data is natively present, the scarce image related data gets spread around, leaving "holes" throughout the image.....something like trying to spread around a handful of sand across the floor of an entire room (not enough grains of sand to cover the entire area of the room !). The software will then make guesses on what kind of "fillers" (fake data since native data is just not there) to fill the "holes" with, so that people watching the image can be fooled into thinking it is a real image than something filled with fake stuff.
Yes, the above will work in lots of situations. Unfortunately, such tricks will only work in images that do not contain a lot of fine detail. Once you introduce fine detail into the picture, the "filling the holes with fake stuff to make it look real" will start coming apart right away. Just a clarification.
-
I feel like I stepped into a war zone.
-
Hi,
My experience is that 12 MP works well with A2-size prints. A2 is the largest I print, because of printer and wall surface limitations.
Keep in mind that there are many variables, image detail and viewing distance to mention a few. Another issue is sharpening. Also, the full sensor resolution can only be utilized and certain apertures. If we assume a 24 MPixel camera, just stopping it down to f/16 would reduce resolution to about 12 MP. So an 12 MP APS/C at f/8 would give similar results to a full frame sensor and 24 MP at f/16.
What I have seen is essentially the following:
1) A2 prints from APS-C, optimally handled, are very good
2) Image files from full frame are much better than uprezzed APS-C images at the same dimensions
3) Most of the resolution advantage is lost in the printing pipeline
Sometimes, A2 prints from APS-C (12.5 MPixels) and full frame (24.5 MPixels) can easily be told apart, sometimes not. There are a lot of parameters involved our vision is sensitive to subtle differences in tonality but not really to megapixels. It is quite probable that you would see a difference between an 12.5 MP and a 24.5 MP camera in print with a loupe but not with the naked eye. Looking with a loupe may show you differences in detail which you may also observe with the naked eye.
I mostly use a Sony Alpha 900 (24.5 MP full frame). I have not made "art prints" larger than A2 (17x26") from that camera, but I expect that I'm able to do A1 with good quality and it gives me some room for cropping.
To put things a little bit in perspective:
I have two 70x100 cm (27x40") prints on my wall, one is taken with 6x7 on Velvia and scanned using an MF scanner, the other is shot with a 10 MP APS-C. You don't put your nose against the APS-C print and say "Gee, this is sharp!" but it's certainly good enough at normal viewing distances. I actually tried to reshoot the 10 MP image on my 24.5 MP camera but failed to get optimal images because of wind (and lens issues). The subject was autumn leaves so I need to wait 5 months until next time.
Best regards
Erik
What you are essentially stating is that when a 12MP image is blown up to a size that is well beyond what image data is natively present, the scarce image related data gets spread around, leaving "holes" throughout the image.....something like trying to spread around a handful of sand across the floor of an entire room (not enough grains of sand to cover the entire area of the room !). The software will then make guesses on what kind of "fillers" (fake data since native data is just not there) to fill the "holes" with, so that people watching the image can be fooled into thinking it is a real image than something filled with fake stuff.
Yes, the above will work in lots of situations. Unfortunately, such tricks will only work in images that do not contain a lot of fine detail. Once you introduce fine detail into the picture, the "filling the holes with fake stuff to make it look real" will start coming apart right away. Just a clarification.
-
I feel like I stepped into a war zone.
Photography is where science and art come together, producing a vast range of opinions and experiences with every subject! So I will wade in and add to the debate. My normal camera is only 10 Mp and my printer is an A2. For the vast majority of my work, prints look excellent. However, for some detailed shots, I cannot print at full size (even A3 is stretching it) because the camera has not recorded enough detail. I would love more resolution for these photos (typically a "busy" landscape with lots of detail). I should stress that we are talking about a LOT of detail as 10 Mp is still impressive with modest detail (I often get comments about how detailed my prints are).
Perhaps the best way to illustrate is a late summer photo with a lot of yellow grass stalks - the higher resolution capture will differentiate these from close to camera right up to where they blur out with focus, whereas the low resolution capture will show an intermediate area of confusion in some cases. The same can be seen with brick buildings in the middle distance. The effect is there but not often a problem in practice.
What I have noticed, through working with files from cameras like the Canon 5DII and Sony A900, is that the final print reflects the lens far more than the sensor. I use very sharp lenses on my 10Mp body and even on an 8 x 10 print can see the difference between that and some of the lenses my friends have used on their 20+Mp bodies (unless they are shooting at optimum apertures etc.). Those basic Canon/Nikon/Minolta zooms just aren't good enough - you have to cough up for the better offerings if you want that quality. Lens quality makes MUCH more difference than Mp in the final print in most cases. Cheaper lenses will not resolve those grass stalks or bricks well enough for the sensor to do its work properly.
Bottom line - the Canon is capable of a better print out of the two cameras you name but only if matched to excellent lenses (not their "kit" lens). And you will only see the difference with certain subjects, taken in ideal conditions.
-
Photography is where science and art come together, producing a vast range of opinions and experiences with every subject! So I will wade in and add to the debate. My normal camera is only 10 Mp and my printer is an A2. For the vast majority of my work, prints look excellent. However, for some detailed shots, I cannot print at full size (even A3 is stretching it) because the camera has not recorded enough detail. I would love more resolution for these photos (typically a "busy" landscape with lots of detail). I should stress that we are talking about a LOT of detail as 10 Mp is still impressive with modest detail (I often get comments about how detailed my prints are).
Perhaps the best way to illustrate is a late summer photo with a lot of yellow grass stalks - the higher resolution capture will differentiate these from close to camera right up to where they blur out with focus, whereas the low resolution capture will show an intermediate area of confusion in some cases. The same can be seen with brick buildings in the middle distance. The effect is there but not often a problem in practice.
What I have noticed, through working with files from cameras like the Canon 5DII and Sony A900, is that the final print reflects the lens far more than the sensor. I use very sharp lenses on my 10Mp body and even on an 8 x 10 print can see the difference between that and some of the lenses my friends have used on their 20+Mp bodies (unless they are shooting at optimum apertures etc.). Those basic Canon/Nikon/Minolta zooms just aren't good enough - you have to cough up for the better offerings if you want that quality. Lens quality makes MUCH more difference than Mp in the final print in most cases. Cheaper lenses will not resolve those grass stalks or bricks well enough for the sensor to do its work properly.
Bottom line - the Canon is capable of a better print out of the two cameras you name but only if matched to excellent lenses (not their "kit" lens). And you will only see the difference with certain subjects, taken in ideal conditions.
I understand that there are many variables to consider such as sensor size, lenses, printing, and fundamentals in the exposure process. What I meant by "stepping into a war zone" was, the megapixel debate seems to be a little hot. It's very interesting and insightful to me because I'm trying to gather information before buying a camera.
-
Balanced logic at last!
...However, for some detailed shots, I cannot print at full size (even A3 is stretching it) because the camera has not recorded enough detail.
.. the higher resolution capture will differentiate ... can be seen with brick buildings in the middle distance. The effect is there but not often a problem in practice.
Bricks, leaf texture, or power cables at 500m ...or 1Km are useful for sharpness assessment.
Cheaper lenses will not resolve those grass stalks or bricks well enough for the sensor to do its work properly.
I had thought that my "basic" 50-110 zoom would not have been adequate for landscapes, but it was £2.5K (or would have been if they had not thrown it in as discount) and it seems OK, but I look forward to seeing how much better the Schneider Apo-Digitars are.Bottom line - the Canon is capable of a better print out of the two cameras you name but only if matched to excellent lenses (not their "kit" lens). And you will only see the difference with certain subjects, taken in ideal conditions.
When I upgrade (when they start marketing the camera) the pixel pitch will be the same, and the zoom has the image circle to cover it, so it should still be adequate, even if the MTF drops off a bit in the corners.
-
Actually on the Sony, some of the best lenses are some of the old, inexpensive used Minolta lenses like the 28-135/4-4.5 and the 50/1.4. The Minolta lens has better sharpness across the frame than the $1500 Carl Zeiss 24-70/2.8.
For landscape, you don't need to spend the big $$$ on expensive fast lenses to then shoot at f/9-f/13. The only expensive lenses where you are getting value for the dollar / weight in landscape photography is the T/S offerings.
-
Actually on the Sony, some of the best lenses are some of the old, inexpensive used Minolta lenses like the 28-135/4-4.5 and the 50/1.4. The Minolta lens has better sharpness across the frame than the $1500 Carl Zeiss 24-70/2.8.
For landscape, you don't need to spend the big $$$ on expensive fast lenses to then shoot at f/9-f/13. The only expensive lenses where you are getting value for the dollar / weight in landscape photography is the T/S offerings.
I guess we are getting a little off topic here but it does all relate to getting the most off those big sensors for absolute print quality.
It's true that many lenses have a sweet spot (focal length/aperture at which the lens is very sharp). Depending on what you photograph, a cheaper old lens may work very well, as will various kit lenses. So, if one of those cheaper lenses meets your requirements (not that either lens you mention was particularly cheap when new!) at that sweet spot, there is no need to spend a lot of money. If you like to shoot wide, or with a large aperture, the choice gets limited very quickly or all those pixels are going to go to waste, particularly with the "kit" lens I am trying not to name....
Don