Old 12MP 5D or 60D for 16X24 prints

<blockquote>

<p>Based on my experience, I strongly discourage people to print larger than 11x14 from a 5D or lower MP camera (and I have turn down several print requests).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whatever the rights and wrongs of this comparison, this is nonsense. The 18" x 12" I've had made from a 5D are sharp and detailed. How much more there is I don't know since i haven't tried, but my prints don't have the look of something at the limit. Exaggerating the limitations of a camera detracts from the point rather than supporting it. </p>

 

<p>Daniel Lee Taylor,</p>

<p>> BTW, shooting from a tripod at low ISO the 60D is a hair away from the 5D mkII.</p>

<p>What does a hair away from mean?</p>

<p>> You can confirm what I'm saying by simply reviewing the resolution tests and sample images at dpreview and Imaging Resource.<br>

How about providing a link to the resolution tests, I can't find them at all on dpreview or the Imaging Resource.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Dan, It is all relative. We are both probably extremely versed in PS, have almost identical printers and use the same paper. You think the 5D at 16x20 looks great, and I think it looks good but not display quality.<br>

The difference probably is in the standard to judge a print.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You think the 5D at 16x20 looks great, and I think it looks good but not display quality.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the heads up, I did not know some of the images I've used in juried photography competitions that have been accepted and won best of show were not of "display quality".</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>Do you have a sample you want to share with a watermark for me to test print?</p>

<p>For what it's worth, two of my most favorite recent prints are 20x30 shot with a 7D. The 7D's 18 MP is very similar, if not altogether identical, to the 60D. With that said, I selected these images specifically to showcase the sharpness of recent lens acquisitions, one from a 70-200 f/2.8 II, the other from a TS/E 24. They are both achingly sharp in detail, and one was framed still bearing actual nose smudges other than my own from critical close scrutiny. I have no reservations at all recommending a 7D (and thus the 60D by inference) for critical detail work printed large.</p>

<p>However, there would be very little reason to mention them at all if I didn't feel they were extraordinary results. On the contrary. I believe Mr. Littleboy's comments regarding lens quality and extreme enlargement from APS-C to be very relevant.</p>

<p>Thanks everybody. After intently reading all your input I think the following is the most sensible and cost effective approach - I'm favoring the 60D for now, knowing that the 5D MKII will be in the future.<br>

You have all been very helpful and I thank you all once again.<br>

Good shooting, Bob</p>

Look gents I am a former R&D director in aviation related programs. There is no bullshit there as human lives are in the balance. The science has to be good and has to independently tested with great rigor and thoroughness. Research and testing standards have to be met for systems like instrument approach and landing systems for both terrestial and satellite systems. There is nothing like that kind of science in testing equipment we are talking about in this forum. Testing is not research and without industry standardized rigor tests can be highly variable. Research outcomes can be varied by varying assumptions or test parameters i.e. the 50d is just as good as the 5D by adding additional sharpening. That is an example of changing a variable to effect an outcome. It is done all the time even in sophisticated research. The other tactic to improve outcomes is changing initial research assumptions like if I test this one lens it will reflect the entire production run. I suspect that is a bad assumption even with testing three or four as you might find some variability that requires a much larger sample to verify an initial assumption of production run quality. In aviation one has to constantly verify and defend research and devopment conclusions. In photography I see varying and inadequate outside product research and testing and comparisons. Some testers appear to better than others. What I see in this thread, including my own input are conclusions based upon inadequate research, variable research quality, testing that is not well defined by testing standards and quite a bit of commercial influence upon research and testing. My own input here is anecdotal and I have a fifty per cent chance of being wrong. I do have an objection of many statements be presented as fact without citing sources and then I question the veracity some of those sources. I think manufacturer R&D is much better because there is a lot of money behind it at Canon, Nikon and others but it is not independent and is ultimately directed at sales. So I think there is some really good advice in this thread but I really question some of the statements here presented as well justified fact. I will keep giving my opinion but based upon my background but it is just my opinion. I think there are some good testing entities but there are some not so good. How does one differntiate? why do the opinions stated here as fact vary so much from one poster to another? Whose sources are the best? Ulitmately, anecdotally, the difference between my Bronica large darkroom prints and my 5D digital prints don't look that much different from two feet on my wall. Maybe that's just my lack of talent but they look quite sharp to me. So does all this hair splitting make much difference? In putting together landing systems we used split hairs on accuracy but a couple of hundred people sitting in an airplance rely upon that signal. Distorting or mistating the truth can harm people in airplanes. Carelessness with the truth here does not have such consequences but all of you who stated the facts in this thread cannot be right becuase your facts are not in agreement. How does one find truth?

<blockquote>

<p><em>G Dan when you make a 24x30 inch print from a 12 mp file how close can you usually view the print. If view the print from about reading distance to look at the tiny details how well do they hold up and is it possible to see tiny details?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The original post and the context of my replies was 16" x 24" prints from well-made 5D originals. Prints along these lines will show very fine detail under close inspection - comparable to well-made film prints that you might see in a gallery and better than prints made from 35mm film originals printed at this size for sure.</p>

<p>You ask about 24" x 36" prints made from a 5D. Opinions will vary regarding the upper limits of print size from, say, a 12 MP full frame original. Personally, I would hesitate to make a 24" x 36" print from a 5D original in most cases - or if a client really wanted it I would have them look at a section of a test print first to make sure that they would be OK with the quality obtainable. Again noting that these things can be subjective, I would not recommend a 5D to a person who is regularly going to print at 24" x 36" sizes.</p>

<p>A well-shot and skillfully post-processed and printed 24" x 36" print from a 5D2 can look very good and stand up to close inspection.</p>

<p>Also, a later poster asked about sharing a watermarked original file to make a test print. This ignores the fact that the person making the request has already said that he cannot make a print larger than 11 x 14 from a good 5D original. To me this suggests that he would have no better luck making a larger print from my 5D original than from his own. However, if anyone is in the SF Bay area, it may be possible to arrange for you to see prints made at somewhat larger sizes than 11 x 14, and you can judge from the final product.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Thanks G Dan.</p>

<p>Just thought I would point out a comparison between the Canon 7D and Canon 5D MK II regarding fine detail. If one looks at the comparison images found at the link listed below, it is very obvious that the image made with the 5D MK II displays better detail than the 7D does. Since the 60D uses the same sensor as the 7D I would assume the 60D would compare similarly as the 7D does to the 5DMK II. To me this comparison underscores the 5D MKIIs superior performance for image detail. The superior results can be even be seen in images shot at ISO 100 though the discrepancy doesn't appear to be quite as pronounced. Even so the quality difference is observable.</p>

<p>To be fair the review of the 7D's printed output is very favorable up to about ISO 800; excellent 20x30 inch prints are feasible.</p>

<p>So the bottom line for me is the 7D ain't a match for the 5D MK II and by inference neither is a 60D. I don't own a 7D or a 5D MKII, so I can honestly say I don't have a dog in this fight though the truth is I wish I owned both and probably will eventually.<br>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DA.HTM</p>

 

<p>If you could find one in a low shutter count, I would prefer 5D in every situation. At least you would have a reliable body for most of the cases. Your lenses are also very important, stick with L series lenses, -if I were you- with primes.</p>