Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Print sizes from a MFT body  (Read 1202 times)

Box Brownie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
    • Engram Photography
Print sizes from a MFT body
« on: August 20, 2018, 06:33:08 PM »

A question please to those using MFT, especially the Olympus E-M1 mk2 with its 20MP sensor.

Just how big are you printing in either the 4:3 original ratio or if you are cropping for compositional reasons to a 3:2 ratio?

TIA for your thoughts and insights :)
Logged
A collection of mine here http://500px.c

BradSmith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: Print sizes from a MFT body
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2018, 12:02:21 AM »

Oly OM-D1....17" wide Epson.  I print about half my images on 17x22" paper or from 17" rolls.  The other half on 13x19 or smaller.  I have never limited my print size because of image quality.  I crop to whatever ratio is best for the image and print to the size that will best fit my wall space or frame size(s) I happen to have or that a purchaser wants.  The pixel count of my final image never enters my mind in this process. 
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3447
Re: Print sizes from a MFT body
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2018, 02:44:57 PM »

I use a Panasonic GX8, also 20mp. 15x20" is as big as I can print or have any interest in printing. More typical sizes are 9x12" and 12x16". If I crop for printing with this camera it tends to be square, 15" or smaller.

-Dave-
Logged

Box Brownie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
    • Engram Photography
Re: Print sizes from a MFT body
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2018, 07:57:59 PM »

Thank you both for replies and insights, much appreciated  :)
Logged
A collection of mine here http://500px.c

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11169
    • Echophoto
Re: Print sizes from a MFT body
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2018, 03:06:25 PM »

Hi,

I don't have experience from MFT...

But, I would think that you can make great 16"x23" prints from MFT using base ISO and very good lenses. I have never used MFT myself, so that is an extrapolation.

But, I think that Ctein mentioned on LuLa that 4/3 is good enough for A2 prints, and that is about 16"x23".

Also, I did make at least one APS-C print at 16MP that I preferred to a full frame 24MP print, both printed at 16"x23".

As i said, it is a bit of extrapolation, but I would think that MFT can be quite OK for 16"x23", but you may need to use it optimally.

Best regards
Erik
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1722
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com
Re: Print sizes from a MFT body
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2018, 04:17:27 PM »

I have a really great 16x20 inch print from the original Panasonic GF1, which was I think ten megapixels -- and it is a vertical image cropped from a horizontal original, so it's only half of the original data. Now, it's not too challenging a print -- it's a portrait of my niece on the porch, shot with the 20mm f/1.7 at about f/2, so there is plenty of detail in her eyes and hair but the background goes nicely soft. In other words, it's not a landscape. But still, there is plenty of sharp detail where needed and the print is lovely. You'll have to take my word for it, of course, since I can't show you the print, but in general I'm very picky about my printing.

So, in general I don't worry much about print sizes from modern cameras.
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses. Ima

TonyVentourisPhotography

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 304
    • Unlocking Olympus
Re: Print sizes from a MFT body
« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2018, 07:26:05 AM »

Iíve got over a dozen 20 - 24Ē prints hanging on one clients wall.  I have a local government client that just printed a cropped 3200 iso file of an event to 30Ē for their wall and itís clean and crisp.  Iíve got 30Ē prints from the 16mp sensor e-m1 that are 6400 iso and look great. 

It all depends on prep, printing method, and how good the file was to begin with.  Remember, you probably donít stand nose distance from a 30-48Ē print when itís hanging. 

Iíve had no problems printing from the latest gen sensor in the e-m1 mk2 at any size I want.  Itís honestly an afterthought.  I shoot commercially and all my clients have been very satisfied when they print as well.  They keep coming back too.
Logged
Tony
Unlockingolympus.com (ebooks & blog on getting the most from your OMD & Pen)
tonyventourisphotography.com (Commercial Photography)

BradSmith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: Print sizes from a MFT body
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2018, 02:12:47 AM »

In Kevin's recent "On the Rocks" video with/about Olympus, they discuss print size and Kevin says he prints 17x22 all the time with his Oly files and they look great.  One of the other people from Roberts Camera said in his experience, you can easily go larger.  And the man from Olympus said that in their most recent photo show booths, they are displaying six foot by eight foot images.
Logged

langier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 991
    • Celebrating Rural America, the Balkans and beyond
Re: Print sizes from a MFT body
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2018, 10:02:05 AM »

I'm sort of a generation behind still loving my Oly 5 D-II...just 16 MP. In high-res mode (sensor-shift, 64 MP raw files), very good 30x40 prints and larger quite easily, at least as good as my Nikon D800 and its 36 MP, maybe better. However, the largest image on my wall is from a GX-7 16 MP and is 30x40. From less than 2-3 feet away, it's reasonable... from across the room, it's got impact.

With good craft starting with the capture with the better lenses and tripod through good post processing, these little cameras can create quite large prints rivaling the images from larger formats with every bit of similar quality. I would not hesitate running the best files large! However, YRMV.

A lot of my current work requires shooting at nose-bleed speeds, ranging from a low of 1600-3200 and many times pegged to the limit in "hail Mary" lighting (candles in a dark church) and hand-held. I could probably get a little bit better files using a current full-frame and premium lenses, but size, weight and more importantly silence/stealth is key to my work and allows me continued access. Seldom am I afraid to print these as 11x14 or even larger images. In my case, the moment and gesture is more important than the absolute pixel quality. These are neither fine-art nor landscape so totally appropriate to the final image. 
Logged
Larry Angier
ASMP, ACT, & many more! 
https://angier-fox.photoshelter.com

HSakols

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
    • Hugh Sakols Photography
Re: Print sizes from a MFT body
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2018, 09:18:50 AM »

Mike Johnson (the online photographer) posted this video comparing mico 4/3 to full frame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGn3yPl59ZM
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 882
Re: Print sizes from a MFT body
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2018, 09:45:33 AM »

I have a print from a Pana G2 on my wall at something like 40" wide. Up close you can see the lack of detail and blown-out snow highlights, but nobody has ever remarked on that, and it's never worried me.
Logged

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
Re: Print sizes from a MFT body
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2018, 12:00:48 PM »

It depends on what you're doing with it... I have one image from an original E-M5 (16 MP) that goes 24x30 or larger no problem - it's a dreamy scene in fog with about 4 stops of dynamic range and no fine details. It would probably go 12x18 or larger even if I'd used an iPhone. At the opposite extreme, a very high dynamic range scene (a landscape with sunlit water and deep shadows, for example) with craggy Sierra granite all over the place might not be printable at all (due to blown highlights or black shadows unless you used a multiple exposure HDR merge), and you'd start losing important detail you'd taken for granite by 16x24...

For an average landscape, I'd say I'm completely comfortable with Micro 4/3 through a 16" long edge (12x16") except in very high dynamic range scenes. I can get away with 16x20" or similar sizes without much trouble for the majority of scenes. I don't like to push it above that except with lower-detail subjects.

If you're doing something where lighting is controlled and finest detail isn't the goal, you may never hit the limit.

I should say that my Micro 4/3 experience is all with 16 MP sensors from the last generation - the latest 20 mp sensor has marginally more resolution and a significant (2/3 stop) improvement in dynamic range.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up