Canon 5D - largest acceptably sharp print?

Bonjour all,

 

I'm slowly thinking about taking the leap to a full digital work flow.

Currently, i'll shoot 35mm, 645 or 6x7 and scan them with my epons

4870 flat bed scanner. I must confess, i hate scanning ... and am not

an expert at it. I also shoot with a 4mp canon p&s. This seems to

make decent 8x10s. I print with an epson 4000.

 

Lately, as I haul around my 35mm system usually with a bronica 645 or

mamiya 7 in toe .. i wondered how many pounds of equimpent to i need ; ) ?

 

The idea of having 1 system seems nice. Either a 20d or 5d with some

nice glass. I primarily love to shoot landscapes .. and am not really

into wildlife photography .. When i do get a nice shot, I like to

see if it'll stand up to being printed at 16x20 - which i can do at

home.

 

So, for those of you that are 5D owners ... (and i've read that the 5d

math equates to a 12x18 at 240 ppi) can you produce (tripod, etc. etc)

quality 16x20s or, maybe even 20x24 inch prints with a 5D?

 

If the answer is yes .. then I will put my 35mm, bronica 645 and M7 on

the market ..

 

Thanks

 

ron

My 2 cents, rather then looking at ppi directly, you may want to view it from a relative angles. If you are happy with a 4MP p&S at 8 by 10, a 5D at 12x18 has about the same pixel density. Assuming a 5D has better lens and sensor (mostly true) then a 5D setup will do no worst if not better.

There are two answers ... how big you can print depends on how close the viewer is going to be ..... unlike straight photography the computer file goes through a computer and interpolation plays it's part producing pixels to avoid blockiness of a straight enlargement, if not the definition ... I think you will find that the full frame 8Mp+ DSLR is equivalent of the MF camera.

 

But don't sell your film gear until you are personally satisfied you have the answer to your question. You do not have to be a 5D owner to recognise and hold the above views.

Part of the answer involves the software you use in printing digital images and how you use it. I am no expert on this, but many claim that software dedicated to printing - Qimage, for example - does a noticeably better job in making "important" and large prints, from images considerably smaller than 12 megapixels. Many nonprofessionals (and probably some professionals) who do not often push their digital negatives into large prints, may not really know the right answer. Many - myself included - do not understand ink-jet technology, what printer settings to use, and how this relates to our software. And, unlike many aspects of photography, where user taste and aethetic sense plays apart, there does seem to be a "right" way to make an important print. And there is more to it than pressing "print" in Adobe and using your Epson printer driver. For me, this produces an accepatable 8 x 10. But the bottom line is this: be wary of curbside opinions as you make this momentous decision. Borrow the camera for a day or to. Look into Qimage and similar dedicated printing solutions. And carefully test this yourself. Just my 2 cents.

With the right knowledge and software tools, there shouldnt be any problems for prints up to 40". Pro photographers like Jay Maisel have been selling 40" from an 8mp dslr.

 

You should'nt have any problem doing the same with a 12mp with a ff sensor.

I've asked a similar question a few threads down. You might be interested in the responses. I think at least part of the problem is a point of reference. There are those who claim very large and acceptable print sizes from smaller formats (or megapixels). Which may indeed be the case. But if sharpness and resolution are indeed your criteria it is very helpful to have a comparison to a "gold standard". A print with optimum resolution from a larger format (or megapixels). I somewhat trust the studies various folks around the web have done, which say that the 5D should come close to 645 but probably not 6X7. The Luminous Landscape sight provides some pretty convincing evidence of this. But much of this is academic and I really think the best judge is a side-by-side comparison of a few or several prints, especially those with fine detail such as a landscape with forground grasses and leaves. I'm not much of a technical guy, but am actually wondering about the same thing. Not much help, but a few thoughts. I'm not to the point of selling gear I've collected for several years and dropping a few thousand for something I'm not sure about yet, but am sure thinking hard about it.

 

Incidentally, I somewhat agree with one of the comments in my thread that a flatbed scan of 645 is not much better than a dedicated film scan of 35mm. Once I pick a few of my best efforts, which is usually less than 5 or 10 a year, I send them off for a Nikon 9000 or occational drum scan. If a big issue is that you hate scanning, this is a cheaper option than a new camera.

I have images that I produced from a 5 megapixal Olympus E20 that are 10 feet long processed using Qimage printed on an Epson 9600. Viewed at 3 feet or more they are very acceptable. Unless I tell the viewer from what camera these images were made, it is then the observer gets up close to look for pixals. In otherwords, acceptable is in the eye of the beholder. :)

take that $3300 you'd spend on a 5D and get a nikon 9000 or put it towards a imacon

343. you may start to enjoy scanning more. You are doing a large disservice to yourself

scanning 6x7 on an epson flatbed.

Here's what a mere 5mp Oly E20 can do.

The key word is "acceptable" and that's going to be something that only you can decide. Personally, I've blown up images from 6mp to 16x24 and been happy with the print. The detail is not there if I look at the print close up, but at normal distances it looks great.

 

Since what's acceptable is subjective, I suggest you download some of the 5d files and actually make a print at the size you want. This will be a relatively inexpensive experiment and is the only way to know for sure.

I recently sold a 6cm x 9cm baby view camera with all modern multicoated German optics

(Rodenstock and Schneider) and purchased a 5D. I was scanning my 6cm x 9cm slides on

an Imacon at 3200 dpi. The Canon 5D images shot with a tripod and a very good lens at

low ASA are virtually indistinguishable from the 6cm x 9cm in sharpness up to about 16" x

20". I think you can print them up to 20" x 30" if you know your way around Photoshop

and other software and get excellent prints. I've looked at 5D files on screen, processed

and rezzed up to print at 20" x 30", and they look as good as or better than all but the

best of the 6cm x 9cm scanned slides. . . . I agree with you that scanning's a pain, and

that a DSLR is the only way to go.

Howard I accept your observation as you knowledgeable findings. One question I and others have is the vineitting in the corners and sharpness there compared to you film cameras in large print comparison.

 

A lot of folks have observed that FF sensors have not shown good corner performance with ff digital as with DX dslr like the D2x. This is not a brand issue I am getting at but objective viewing of some samples.

I'm trying to answer the same question myself. I have a 5D, and I'm trying to figure out which printer to get (I currently use a letter-sized 7960, which isn't large enough to enjoy the full quality of 5D pictures).

 

My background: I'm been printing 10D pictures on letter paper for the last 2 years. Those are 240 dpi prints when using the largest possible crop, which typically seem to have more than enough detail for my eyes. Experiments have shown that I felt happy with the quality down to about 210 dpi on letter paper.

 

From a 5D frame, 210 dpi is almost 14x21. Since I don't expect to view those larger prints as closely as I would view letter-sized prints, believe that I could actually print larger than that, and the idea of a 13x19 printer almost feels limiting. I'm seriously considering getting an 18x24 printer, for which the 5D would be able to produce 160 dpi (cropped to 18x24) or 180 dpi (no crop, 16x24). I've done a test print of a crop of a highly detailed frame (shot with a 50/1.4 at its sweet spot) at 160 dpi, set the print against an 18x24 frame, and at a normal viewing distance for that frame size there didn't seem to be any problems with the picture. FWIW I had let the printer driver upsample the picture, not using any software like Genuine Fractals or even Photoshop to up-size the picture before printing.

 

So, from my point of view, the answer is a definite yes, a 5D can produce quality prints at 16x20, 16x24 and 18x24.

 

Certainly with the cameras you're looking at, the 5D has the added advantage that you can use excellent lenses like the 35/1.4, 50/1.4 or 24-70/2.8 for normal-to-wide shooting, whereas on a 20D those superb performers aren't wide at all. Using a DSLR will also open the doors of very good telephotos, which can also be used to produce stunning landscapes (one of my favorite lanscapes, which is currently hanging on my wall, was shot in Arches NP at 200mm on a 10D, and I like it so much that I'm considering returning there with my 5D and my newly acquired 300mm to take the exact same shot).

Harvey Edelstein asked the following: "Howard I accept your observation as you knowledgeable findings. One question I and others have is the vineitting in the corners and sharpness there compared to you film cameras in large print comparison."

 

My answer: At this point, the only wide angle I've tried on the 5D is the very inexpensive 28 mm f2.8 canon EF lens. Vignetting is not an issue; it may be there, but I haven't noticed it yet. Corner softness is a slight issue, but not significant, IMHO. Here is a detailed discussion of corner softness and my evaluative thoughts at the end: This lens, the 28mm f2.8, is very soft at f2.8 and f4, but by f5.6 and f8 it is reasonably sharp in the corners. The softness is only in the very extremes of the corners, so you could crop it ever so slightly and get rid of the corner softness, probably making it the equivalent of a 29mm or 30mm lens. It's really only in the very extremes of the corners that softness is noticeable at any f stop. I find full frame corner softness acceptable by f8, if not f5.6, for all images, including architectural and landscape images. I don't think anyone not examining a print with their nose touching it would notice it; 95%+ of people wouldn't even notice corner softness at f2.8. What is remarkable about this lens and camera combination is that other than the softness in the extreme corners, the lens is sharp (perhaps not extraordinarily sharp, but nonethelss sharp) edge to edge even at f2.8. I'm at the point in my relationship with photography (been a serious amateur photographer and award winning film-maker for about 20+ years now; at this point I only do photography as relatively "serious" hobby) where I accept that all lens/camera systems have compromises. The easiest compromise, IMHO, to accept is price -- that's simply a function of how much you're willing to pay. The others are much more difficult to address: best f-stops for each lens; using a sturdy support/tripod/or simulated support (IS); weight; bulk; safety (big, white lenses attract a lot of unwanted attention), etc. The Canon 5D and 28mm f2.8 and also the 85mm f1.8 (the only two lenses I have at this point) get me as close to photographic bliss as I've ever been. On a Horseman 6cm x 9cm system (I had very much customized it to be quick, lightweight, and not too bulky; in particular, I had an incredible monoreflex viewfinder system with 3 interchangeable Maxwell fresnel lenses, etc.), I had to deal with all sorts of compromises all the time. At one point, I spent months searching high and low to get the best Horseman lenses available (only the last few years of production of them were multi-coated; I found multicoated versions of every lens I wanted), only to realize that at 16" x 20" and larger the defects in the optics were apparent. I'm not saying the 28mm f2.8 Canon lens gives me better results than the Horseman OEM lenses did on 16" x 20" -- it may, I just don't know the answer to that question, don't have the Horseman equipment anymore to make valid comparisons, and don't care. What I can tell you is that the least expensive Canon wide angle prime -- the 28 mm f2.8 -- has very good, if not excellent optics, overall, and has so many other advantages that it's a pure joy to use. You can get higher quality prints with all sorts of camera systems other than a Canon 5D and Canon optics (e.g., there's a cottage industry of people using Leica and Zeiss optics on the Canon DSLRs, but that's another topic), but nonetheless the print quality is tremendous with a Canon 5D and Canon optics. BTW most of my prints are on an Epson 2200 using custom profiles on Epson semigloss paper, and for larger prints I have them done on a Lightjet.

Just to explain a potential ambiguity in my last post. For most of the 5 years or so I had my Horseman system, I used only the latest Rodenstock and Schneider optics. (I became a believer in the "extra dimension" effect of the best German optics, but I can't explain it.) My discussion of the Horseman optics was simply to illustrate the compromises involved in all photographic systems. Many people claimed that the Horseman optics are excellent in all respects. They offered a tremendous advantage in being compact and very light. So I chased them down because of the compactness and light weight. I found the optical compromises to be too much for my desires. If I was going to all the trouble of having a view camera, the advantage of lightweight and compactness of those lenses was outweighed by their optical compromises. The point is that every photographic system has a lot of compromises, and that complaining about them seems besides the point to me. Understanding the compromises, making choices, and then using the photographic system is what it's about.

Howard, thanks for taking the time to explain some of these things. It was helpful to me!

Very interesting Howard, I would love to get a FF digital and hope it will perform well with an 18mm or 21mm lens without what I have seen on the Canon WA in this focal range. I have heard some pros using adapters and like you said Leica R and Zeiss WA lenses because Canon has dark and soft corners. I will have to wait and see what they say and see their results, I think you are right that this may be lens dependant.

 

I have Nikon 21-35mm zoom, a good lens on film but somehow show more CA effects on digital. I was thinking of either getting a medium format WA for my Pentax 67 or maybe get a digital Pentax 645 and a 35mm lens which is like a 21mm on a 35mm format. I could then use my 55mm and 150mm P 6x7 lenses on a digital format. Of course the only problem would be I don't know how much the crop factor will turn the wide angle into a normal lens perspective. Its too bad Nikon seems to sticking to DX format dslr and this means that all present focal lengths are 50% longer. If the wider DX zoom were fixed f2.8 like my 21-35mm zoom I would have no complaints.

Harvey, if you shoot RAW CA is a problem of the past.

So now what do they have a CA filter for raw files?

Yeah, at least in Adobe Camera Raw. It can be fixed completely.

 

One should expect some CA from complicated zoom lenses.

I second what Brady suggested. I scan Mamiya 7 film on a Nikon 9000 and the differences between those pictures and my D70 can be seen by my 10 year old. I have a 9950f flatbed and the results are just not worth it. If I did not have the nikon 9000, I would just use the D70. The 6 by 7 film is in a totally different class when it is scanned on a decent film scanner. Details with the 6 or 9 MP cameras are just not there.

At PhotoExpo two weeks ago, at the Canon booth, I watched 5D shots go wirelessly from the camera to a laptop and then to a wide carriage printer to produce posters at least 24x36. No post processiong and in camera sharpening set to plus one. The results were very impressive. Admittedly I was sitting probably eight feet away when I looked at the shots, but I could, for instance, clearly see the makeup covering a blemish on the model's nose. I wouldn't worry about how big can you go with the 5D.

You can download a full size file here: <b>http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/

eos5d_sample-e.html</b><p>

Note: only the "Macro" image is the full 35Mb file. You'll be downloading a 12Mb jpeg. I

printed the Macro image at 16 x 24 and it is impressive. Then I printed a section at the

equivalent of 24 x36. Not MF quality, but "acceptable," I think.<p>

I have used a Mamiya RZ for landscape work for years. I am also considering the 5D. For

me, the advantages are: <li>size and weight<li>no need to scan film<li>instant

feedback<p> Plus the prices for MF equipment are plunging rapidly. I think I would rather

get the 5D, then upgrade as the technology improves. Who knows what the RZ will be

worth in a year or two? Not much, I'm afraid.<p>

Tim

Based on what I'm seeing printing out these sample files, I would say the analogy to 645 is

appropriate. But, hey, stitch two 645's together and you have a 6x9! hmmmm.....

Thanks for all of the responses! I am printing the sample from Canon's website via my epson 4000 as I type ... doing a 240 dpi vs 180 dpi .. This should give me a good idea .. as the shot was taken with nice (nicer than i have for my canon 35mm) glass as well.

 

tks

 

ron