So, how much difference does 50MP really make with prints...

[keithcooper]

Having recently moved from a Canon 1Ds3 to a 5Ds as my main camera, I've been looking at how the new camera fits into my work.

Although not the biggest part of my business, architectural/landscape print sales do matter, so I was interested to see how I might need to change how I handle the bigger files for print.

Having made steps from 11MP to 21MP to 51MP over the years, I thought a simple print test would show the massive improvements since my 2002 vintage Canon 1Ds (effectively my first DSLR)

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_5ds-print-comparison.html

Sure, the differences are there, but the real surprise came when I asked some non photographers to compare the prints.

If ever there was a reminder that what we sometimes think of as important doesn't matter one jot to (most) people who actually buy stuff, this was it ;-)

Of course, I could take some solace by viewing it as a testament to my upsizing and printing abilities, but that's not fooling anyone for long!

[francois]

Thanks for this interesting, real world, article…

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would say I had a similar experience when comparing 39 MP MF with my 24 MP Sony cameras. No really obvious difference in A2 size prints.

Best regards
Erik

Having recently moved from a Canon 1Ds3 to a 5Ds as my main camera, I've been looking at how the new camera fits into my work.

Although not the biggest part of my business, architectural/landscape print sales do matter, so I was interested to see how I might need to change how I handle the bigger files for print.

Having made steps from 11MP to 21MP to 51MP over the years, I thought a simple print test would show the massive improvements since my 2002 vintage Canon 1Ds (effectively my first DSLR)

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_5ds-print-comparison.html

Sure, the differences are there, but the real surprise came when I asked some non photographers to compare the prints.

If ever there was a reminder that what we sometimes think of as important doesn't matter one jot to (most) people who actually buy stuff, this was it ;-)

Of course, I could take some solace by viewing it as a testament to my upsizing and printing abilities, but that's not fooling anyone for long!

[Hans Kruse]

Consider what print size would equal the PPI of a MacBook Pro 15" retina screen? The MBP 15 " retina screen is 220PPI. A print of 66,6x100cm is 221PPI. So viewing at 1:1 in Lightroom at distance of about 50cm from the MBP screen would be closer than you would view a 100cm wide print. So any detail that cannot be seen in 1:1 view on a retina screen is in fact irrelevant as long as printing is not exceeding that size. This also means (I would postulate that any differences between lenses and RAW converters not seen in 1:1 are irrelevant. The differences between the 5RsR and the 645Z and the difference between the Otus and the Canon 85 f/1.8 are tiny seen in 1:1 view in my view. Yes, I see small differences but I doubt that would see them on a 100cm side print. Just as I did not see any noticeable difference between the Canon 5D III, the D800E and the IQ160 on an A2 print.

I'm no longer zooming in further than 1:1 in Lightroom on my MBP. I'm looking to get a 4K display for my office at a slighly longer distance the MBP typical viewing distance to see things more realistically than the 30" 2560x1600 display. In other words if a picture looks sharp in 1:1 one should be happy and move on I fully realize that there ar details smaller than that, but it would only be seen at a print size significantly larger than 100cm wide.

I guess a lot would disagree with my views here

[keithcooper]

Yes Hans, I'm sure they would ;-)

There certainly are differences, but whether I truly care about them really does depend (to some extent) on the end client and how much I'm being paid ;-)

I've just had to send a crop of a 5Ds image to a client for their printer (big display print) and it was indeed nicer to work on the 5Ds image than one I took earlier in the year on the 1Ds3.  My tests with the 9 prints have reminded me though that the image they selected was based on what it showed, not what camera I used...

[Paul2660]

Where I believe you will see the difference, is in a 30 x 40 at 360dpi (for an Epson), 50MP with a good lens will make a better overall print, with less uprez  (interpolation by either software ((LR or Epson print driver)). 

I have been reworking several images from 11MP, 16MP Canon's all single, attempting to get them to a 30 x 40 at 360 dpi.  With all the tools I know of the images will not quite reach that size IMO.  Sure the average person may not see the difference, but it's very clear.  I also strongly believe in the view at 100% as still the best overall test.  Even the 20MP from my 5D MKII has some trouble getting up to this size. 

It's also very image subject matter dependent.  Thus a macro or image without a lot of smaller details, trees, leaves, etc. will show better with less MP.

After reworking many of my old P45+ files 39MP, taken with various Mamiya lenses, I was pleasantly surprised by the output both at 30 x 40 and 40 x 60. 

To me for a large print megapixels do make a difference. 

40 x 60,  24 x 72, 36 x 72, 36 x 96 etc. 

Paul Caldwell

[keithcooper]

Yes Paul - at those sizes I'd expect to see it quite clearly - don't get me wrong MP does make a difference ;-)

However I limited the size in the experiment to ~20"x30" since that's about as high as I go very often with single image prints. For larger ones they tend to be specially commissioned and quite often stitched, so effective MP can be very high.  There are a few 1Ds images that work at 60"x40" but they rely on visual impact and quite a lot of selective processing during the up-rez process.

I would note though that if the average person can't see the difference then that is perhaps a big hint for me to step back and think what I am happy with for the price I'm getting...

I draw a distinction between very big prints that are really going to be looked at carefully and ones that are frankly there for decoration. I find my standards of 'acceptable' already exceed most large scale decorative images I see.  That said I've long believed that old engineering adage that 'Perfection is the enemy of excellence' - particularly in a business context ;-)

[Paul2660]

Yes Paul - at those sizes I'd expect to see it quite clearly - don't get me wrong MP does make a difference ;-)

However I limited the size in the experiment to ~20"x30" since that's about as high as I go very often with single image prints. For larger ones they tend to be specially commissioned and quite often stitched, so effective MP can be very high.  There are a few 1Ds images that work at 60"x40" but they rely on visual impact and quite a lot of selective processing during the up-rez process.

I would note though that if the average person can't see the difference then that is perhaps a big hint for me to step back and think what I am happy with for the price I'm getting...

I draw a distinction between very big prints that are really going to be looked at carefully and ones that are frankly there for decoration. I find my standards of 'acceptable' already exceed most large scale decorative images I see.  That said I've long believed that old engineering adage that 'Perfection is the enemy of excellence' - particularly in a business context ;-)

Hello Keith,

Yes for sure in the 20 x 30, maybe even 24 x 36 size, which are my two most common sold sizes and commercial sizes, I totally agree.  This job came out quick and they pulled many images from my older archives.  I bid it thinking about the 20 x 30 size and how well I was getting those done.  I was a bit surprised when I tried to get to 30 x 40 with some of the file.  The raw conversion is much better using modern software like LR 6 or C1 8, but the trick is still taking a native 13 x 9 @ 300 dpi to 30 x 40.  I had high hopes for size fixer, but they seem to gone away, as their website is not up anymore. 

Nice article, and I am glad to see that the Canon 50MP cameras are getting a good reception as they seem like a major advance in all areas.

Paul

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Where I believe you will see the difference, is in a 30 x 40 at 360dpi (for an Epson), 50MP with a good lens will make a better overall print, with less uprez  (interpolation by either software ((LR or Epson print driver)).

I agree with Paul, that it will be visible, but the differences may be subtle if the output sharpening was less than optimal. The additional real image detail of the 50MP can/should be used for less interpolation guesswork/blur and better sharpening.

One should also use/upsample to 600 PPI on the Canon (720 PPI on Epson) for better large format quality, and even more pixels for sharpening. If known beforehand, one can even optimize for viewing distance. I use Topaz Labs Detail for creative sharpening and either Qimage DFS smartsharpening, or TL Detail, for halo free output sharpening after resampling to the final 600PPI printfile. A tool like Focusmagic can even restore some of the original sharpness from upsampling blur, although it gets slow of large files.

The upsampling quality itself can also make a difference, especially PhotoZoom Pro can create additional resolution on sharp edge detail while remaining realistic on non-edge detail. Lightroom does a decent job of upsampling, but it doesn't add resolution, and its output sharpening is limited to a few fixed settings. IMHO it lacks the amount of control needed to make a real difference.

It is a known phenomenon that we can print larger than we expect in many cases, but that has also to do with the viewing distance, and the fact that we often do not have comparison material at hand to show what we're missing.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I would note though that if the average person can't see the difference then that is perhaps a big hint for me to step back and think what I am happy with for the price I'm getting...

Hi Keith,

Maybe the difference becomes clearer when resampled and printed at, and output sharpened for, 600 PPI for the output size on your Canon printer. For 300PPI output there is just enough resolution for not seeing the differences, but no spare pixels to sharpen better.

I've met/spoken very few people who could not see the difference between 300 and 600 PPI output. Most people do see an improvement, but how much of an improvement depends on several factors (subject/workflow/tools/viewing conditions).

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. My cruel print resolution target can also reveal some alignment/media/viewing distance effects on resolution.

[keithcooper]

Hi Keith,

Maybe the difference becomes clearer when resampled and printed at, and output sharpened for, 600 PPI for the output size on your Canon printer. For 300PPI output there is just enough resolution for not seeing the differences, but no spare pixels to sharpen better.

I've met/spoken very few people who could not see the difference between 300 and 600 PPI output. Most people do see an improvement, but how much of an improvement depends on several factors (subject/workflow/tools).

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. My cruel print resolution target can also reveal some alignment/media/viewing distance effects on resolution.

Thanks - I do sometimes take architectural images with a lot of detail up to 600 on the 8300 - this with the 1Ds3. In general the improvement, whilst (sometimes) visible to me, is not always something anyone else would notice, so does depend to some extent on the effort I want to put in ;-)

I've recently added masked application of Piccure+ to my sharpening tools - Focus magic is still a big part though.

I've not had an image taken with the 5Ds yet that was going to printed for high end display, so this is something I'll be paying more attention to in future, where an image may already be at more than 300 for the size I'm printing.

The important thing for me is to experiment and know what you -can- do if you really want to, and then to decide what you will do.

[Hans Kruse]

I also strongly believe in the view at 100% as still the best overall test. 

I assume this was a response to my post. What I suggested was the 1:1 or 100% view on a 220PPI screen like the MBP is sufficient and the super pixelpeeping is not needed with the 5Ds(R) up to 100cm wide prints. In other words if there are no real differences visible in 1:1 then all is fine. I'm just trying to put things a bit in perspective and suggesting that some very small differences does not really matter and I understood the article as exactly that.

[dchew]

I have an Epson 7900, and have come to a general paper size matrix that also agrees with your findings and Paul's:

Up to 13x19 Sheet: Image size limited to max dimensions of 11x17. All captures in my portfolio are printable up to that size, including Coolscan 5000-scanned 35 slides and images from a 20D (8mp).

Up to 24" Long Dimension: Image size limited to 22" on the long edge. Some 5D images (12.8mp) are successful, but many of the scanned slides fall apart to my eyes. 5DII images are fine (21mp).

Up to 24" Short Dimension: The MFD images (80+mp) are fine as big as I can make them. I've farmed out larger prints up to 40"x60", and the MFD images seem like they will hold up an any size given reasonably-aggressive viewing distances. 5DII images start falling apart once I rotate them on the roll paper to get a long edge larger than 22".  I haven't printed enough of the a7R images to know where they fit in all this, but my guess is that camera matches my printer quite well, meaning I could print as big as I want assuming an un-cropped image (22x33).

This correlates with a 180-240 native ppi limit for "aggressive" viewing distances. All that being said, I have clients that are perfectly happy with 20x30 prints of a scanned slide, and 24x36 prints from a 5D. If someone is interested in a print that goes beyond my above matrix, I caution them that I will give them the option to preview the print before I do any mounting work where my time and variable costs start to rise.

Of course for long viewing distances and for a lot of other artistic styles, anything may work!

Dave

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My impression is that:

- 12 MP is OK up to A2 size, but more is beneficial
- 24 MP is absolute OK up to A2
- 24 MP is probably OK at A1, but weaknesses may show up
- 24 MP is pretty similar to Velvia 67 scanned at 3200PPI when printed at 30"x40" decent but not really good. Can be probably be pushed quite a bit with excellent processing.
- 39 MP on MFD looks like 24 MP in A2 prints. At A1 size the MP advantage starts to be noticable.

Best regards
Erik

I have an Epson 7900, and have come to a general paper size matrix that also agrees with your findings and Paul's:

Up to 13x19 Sheet: Image size limited to max dimensions of 11x17. All captures in my portfolio are printable up to that size, including Coolscan 5000-scanned 35 slides and images from a 20D (8mp).

Up to 24" Long Dimension: Image size limited to 22" on the long edge. Some 5D images (12.8mp) are successful, but many of the scanned slides fall apart to my eyes. 5DII images are fine (21mp).

Up to 24" Short Dimension: The MFD images (80+mp) are fine as big as I can make them. I've farmed out larger prints up to 40"x60", and the MFD images seem like they will hold up an any size given reasonably-aggressive viewing distances. 5DII images start falling apart once I rotate them on the roll paper to get a long edge larger than 22".  I haven't printed enough of the a7R images to know where they fit in all this, but my guess is that camera matches my printer quite well, meaning I could print as big as I want assuming an un-cropped image (22x33).

This correlates with a 180-240 native ppi limit for "aggressive" viewing distances. All that being said, I have clients that are perfectly happy with 20x30 prints of a scanned slide, and 24x36 prints from a 5D. If someone is interested in a print that goes beyond my above matrix, I caution them that I will give them the option to preview the print before I do any mounting work where my time an variable costs start to rise.

Of course for long viewing distances and for a lot of other artistic styles, anything may work!

Dave

[Paul2660]

I assume this was a response to my post. What I suggested was the 1:1 or 100% view on a 220PPI screen like the MBP is sufficient and the super pixelpeeping is not needed with the 5Ds(R) up to 100cm wide prints. In other words if there are no real differences visible in 1:1 then all is fine. I'm just trying to put things a bit in perspective and suggesting that some very small differences does not really matter and I understood the article as exactly that.

Hello Hans,

I totally agree with your statement, I was just trying to put more around it, that's all.  For my work the 1:1 view is very important, for both details and noise that may interfere with the final print.  

A lot of photographers no longer seem to care about the "print' anymore.  It seems all well and good to post on various websites, and be done with it.  The thought that that same image may be out of gamut, or not able to stand up to a 300dpi print from Canon even at 13 x 19, no longer seems to matter very much.  The web is a totally different space and much more forgiving.  


Paul

[disneytoy]

I like to print large on my 9890. I shoot a D810. Am waiting on the new Sony A7rII 42mpx camera.

From first hand experimentation, the megapixels are no longer the limiting factor. It is the lenses, choice of aperture, and shake or vibration.  Perhaps none of Canon's line of lenses could resolve 50 mpx.  I don't trust it but DXO rates lenses, and I've seen some zooms rated at 8-10 mpx on a 24 mpx sensor.  You won't really get a more detailed image @ 50 mpx using that same lens.

At reduced print sizes it may not matter, but larger prints will. Plus, nothing is more exciting than looking up close on a 40x60 print and seeing perfect detail in a cityscape, every window, person on the street.

But seriously, you must compare the highest resolution lens, at its optimal aperture on a tripod. Remember such tightly packed pixels will be effected by the tinniest vibration during an exposure.

Thankfully, the Sony will have 5 axis stabilization.

[keithcooper]

Whilst I agree that good lenses help, I've just been testing my 5Ds with an Olympus 50/1.2 Zuiko, via an adapter. The bits that are sharp at f/1.2 are sharper on the 5Ds than the 1Ds3, so the rising tide really does float all boats.

As to the pixel density and need for super stable tripods etc... Well, the pixel density of my 100D is only a bit less than the 5Ds, and I only put that on a studio stand (with Stackshot) for macro work.

The 5Ds is excellent but I still won't be using a tripod for my daytime landscape photography (I do for my architectural and much commercial work). Nor will I be rushing out to buy new lenses.

Where I want really high res, I'll still be stitching.  The limits of the Canon iPF driver give me a maximum print length (at 300 ppi) of around 17 feet (~61k pixels - limit found by expensive experiment ) to print.

For a truly sharp 60x40 I'd want to have 300ppi of real resolution or 18k x 12k pixels - this is what I mainly have a gigapan for, not panoramas.

The 5Ds means I could easily take this to 600ppi of real resolution, which I know from the 9 test prints would make a difference - mind you, a difference that I'd likely need to leave a box of magnifying glasses near the print for anyone viewing to actually notice ;-)

[Ernst Dinkla]

I like to print large on my 9890. I shoot a D810. Am waiting on the new Sony A7rII 42mpx camera.

From first hand experimentation, the megapixels are no longer the limiting factor. It is the lenses, choice of aperture, and shake or vibration.  Perhaps none of Canon's line of lenses could resolve 50 mpx.  I don't trust it but DXO rates lenses, and I've seen some zooms rated at 8-10 mpx on a 24 mpx sensor.  You won't really get a more detailed image @ 50 mpx using that same lens.

At reduced print sizes it may not matter, but larger prints will. Plus, nothing is more exciting than looking up close on a 40x60 print and seeing perfect detail in a cityscape, every window, person on the street.

But seriously, you must compare the highest resolution lens, at its optimal aperture on a tripod. Remember such tightly packed pixels will be effected by the tinniest vibration during an exposure.

Thankfully, the Sony will have 5 axis stabilization.

Lenses are improving too. Not just OEM but Zeiss and Sigma lenses as well. New companies competing at lower image quality market segments.

For reproduction work the sensors with image stabilization get the ability to shift the sensor one pixel 4x or 8x times. The Olympus OMD E-M5 II and a Pentax model have that already, the Sony FF versions likely candidates. It demands less of the lens resolution compared to sensors with 4x the resolution and dampen the color artefacts in neutral subjects to a high degree compared to Bayer sensor single exposures.

The increasing resolution route without revolutions in sensor or camera technology is still the strategy of Canon. Samsung and Sony show the real improvements with back illuminated sensors that have better low light and dynamic range properties. Not that interesting for reproduction work but as important as resolution in almost any photography job including work for large prints. The Sony A7R II is the one I aim for too, if pixelshift is introduced on that model it will be hard to beat that camera with any high resolution sensor on any photographic job. A lot of Canon lens owners change route now, Metabones adapter offers AF on this A7R II body for several Canon mount lenses.

I wonder whether Canon's own wafer stepper machines are still used to make Canon FF and APS-C sensors while Samsung and Sony probably have switched to the ASML equipment for their sensors, they have ASML wafer steppers for more than a decade now including the latest technology. Both Canon and Nikon lost their market share in wafer steppers to ASML that now has 80% of that market. Zeiss delivers the very special optics in the wafer steppers of ASML. Nikon has been more pragmatic in the use of third party made sensors than Canon. Next to innovating new camera/sensor designs, Canon may be forced to switch to third party suppliers for its FF and APS-C sensors like they already did for compact camera sensors.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[disneytoy]

I understand how sensor shift works. What I don't understand is how "super sampling" say a 1980's era lens will get higher resolution, actual detail from the lens. To me the maximum resolution is still limited by the optics.

On a side note, I don't always care about sharpness. I've used some very cheap lenses for floral photography and they render beautiful soft gradations.

So, with sensor shift, can you really ernd up with a much sharpewr image from say an old Nikor 28mm f 2.8 lens?

[keithcooper]

Since system resolution is (essentially) a combination of sensor and optics, improve one and the total is improved. Of course, the fact that system resolution is improved doesn't actually mean it's a useful improvement ;-)

In another experiment this afternoon I put my 1958 Tamron 135/4.5 (the 'Duo') onto the 5Ds (with an AF confirm M42 adapter).

Yes indeed, there is more detail in the sharp bits, but to be honest - so what?  I've tried out lenses like this in the past and whilst it's fun, I can't think what I'd actually do with them.

The only old lenses I do sometimes make use of are some M645 ones that I use with a shift adapter.