Best camera to produce poster size pics????

[saskia_martin]

Hello!

I am relatively new to digital SLR and have been looking at the Canon

EOS and Nikon D70 cameras with a view to purchasing. Can anyone tell

me if these cameras are capable of taking pictures on highest

resolution to reproduce images to approx 6' x 4' ?? I am not sure if

6.1 million pixels is enough? Or are there any cameras under ﾣ1,000

that would be more suitable than the aforementioned? Also, I really

want a 180 fisheye lense for dramatic results, however, they can be

VERY expensive... are there any cheap yet effective ones? How about a

fisheye converter, do they actually work?

 

Thank you soooo much for your help. It is much appreciated.

Mwuah!

[pvp]

For a thousand bucks, you can get a used 4x5 camera with at least one decent lens, and maybe even have enough left over for a scanner that will handle the 4x5 film. At 2400 DPI, you'll get around 100 million pixels from scanned 4x5...

 

Sorry, no fisheyes for LF, at least not that I'm aware of...

[Jochen_S]

I doubt a $39000 Hasselblad to do the job properly. You'd have to interpolate several pixels to feed a offsetpress. There's a Large format forum here. I'd suggest at least a 5x7" camera which shouldn't be too expensive, but surely somebody might suggest a ULF camera. Maybe you could use a dirt cheap processcamera from ebay?

 

According to my crude math a single pixel provided by a D70 should have the size of a fingertip / more than 0.5" inch at your desired print size. - Can you live with that resolution?

 

I own a fisheye converter. It doesn't produce good pictures on anything better than the grainieest film. Try maybe the russian lenses for Kiev or Pentacon cameras. Or just give it up.

[douglas_green1]

What you want can't be done with a 6 megapixel Digital Camera. You need to get at least ten times that resolution.

 

Get a 4x5 Brooks Superwide with a Schneider Super Angulon lens. Not fisheye, but as close as you can get in 4x5. Then take your negative to a professional scanning shop that will use a drum scanner to get a scan worthy of a large poster. This is the way to get a professional 4'x6' super wide image.

[dennisprice]

Saskia, either camera can produce a 6 foot by 4 foot print. Problem is that if you view it up close, you will not see any sharp details.

 

But if you step back 50-100 feet or more, the poster would probably look just fine.

 

Imagine the pixels as individual tiles in a mosaic. Up close, you can see each individual piece, but from a distance the pieces blend together. Same goes for a picture in a newspaper or magazine. Look at one under a magnifying glass, and you'll see what I mean. The eye can be tricked pretty easily in some situations.

 

So the answer to your question really depends on what the viewing distance will be for your large poster(s). If it's up close, well, then you will need to use a larger format digital camera back or large format scanned film to get sharp details.

 

Regarding 180 fisheyes, forget converters as they tend to be mediocre quality at best. You could look for used fisheye lenses by Sigma, Tamron, Tokina. They would probably be less expensive than the Nikon or Canon brands.

[jd_rose]

Wow! What a huge, no pun intened, open ended question! The true fisheye can only be had on film. Bronica 645, Mamiya, etc...if you like image quality please forget the converter.

 

Try a modern 6x17 or 6x9 camera with Velvia or Pan F. That will be the answer to your question. Easy to rent and use.

 

Large Format of course, but a touch longer learning curve.

 

 

--- JDR

[john_macpherson]

Saskia - yes you can do this with a 6mp camera.

 

You will need to take multiple 6mp frames of your subject aligning them perfectly edge to edge and then 'stitch' them together in a decent computer.

 

With patience, uniform lighting and careful exposures, and the correct software you can do this size and larger.

 

Takes effort, time, etc but is doable.

 

Personally I wouldn't want to do it too often, but for the occasional attempt it would be ok.

[jim_rais]

PdotN's own Bob Atkins has ever <A HREF="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/fisheye.html" TARGET="_blank">written</A> about relatively cheap Zenitar fisheye. Another links can be found <A HREF="http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/zenitar_m_fisheye_lens.htm" TARGET=_blank">here</A> and <A HREF="http://photonotes.org/reviews/zenitar-fisheye/" TARGET="_blank">here</A>.<P>

 

<LI><A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=332699">Jim

Rais</A></LI><P>

[ben conover]

I am buying a B&J 4x5 press camera with good lens, film loaders, light meter, all for $150. I plan to use slow B+W film.

 

You could eaaliy make poster size enlargements from 4x5.

 

Cheers.

[john schroeder]

The big question is what is your viewing distance going to be. I have printed 24x36 prints from my D70 and at 3 feet they look awesome. If these photos are going to be viewed from 12 feet away then a 6mp DSLR camera will work. Fisheye converters do not work and are a waste of money. If you are trying to do panoramas then look at the Hasablad X-Pan. Again viewing distance will be a factor with using 35mm film. If these images are going to be viewed from less than a few feet then you really need a 4x5 camera. Brook and James(B&J) cameras and Graflex cameras can be picked up for a song from Ebay and will more than do the job you want. The expensive bit will be the lens. 50mm is ultra wide on a 4x5 camera. Most 4x5 cameras will need a recessed lens board and bag bellows to use that short a lens but it is more than worth it.

[loreneidahl]

I will agree on 4x5 camera. I own the best digitals and while people tell me how wonderfull they can print large prints on a 6mp digital camera. They dont compare to my 4"x5" or my 5"x7" negatives when enlarged.

 

Compare the amount of information stored on sensor the size of a postage stamp to the amount of information stored on a sensor that is 4"x5" and you'll get a better idea of what Large Format can do from a overall iamge qulaity standpoint.

[saskia_martin]

Golly gosh! Thank you all soooooo much for the responses, brilliant!

With photography i just click and go (so to speak) so am unfamiliar with the technical jargon. What exactly is a 4x5 camera? Is it a film slr? I already have a nikon f65 film slr would that work? Or do i need to get a 4x5 camera? So would film be better than digital to produce poster size prints? What i want to do is print the photo onto a large canvas. Thanks again for all your knowledge, time and much needed and deeply appreciated help.

Cheers!

[ilkka_nissila]

A 4x5 camera is a view camera, not an SLR. It's not something you use casually, but produces phenomenal image quality.

 

There is also a 10.5 mm fisheye for the Nikon DX cameras so that could be used on digital, including the D70.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<h3>Since there is no mention of viewing distance, there is really NO answer to your question.</h3><BR><BR><BR>Here I have 36 and 54inch wide printers, and have made giant posters that size from lowly 110, 35mm, 120 sizes, 4x5, 5x7 films in color. With black and white I have made 4x6 ft prints from our old process camera's 24x36" negative size. This is a 2x enlargement! <BR><BR>Typically a straight digital capture will look better than the math would equate. A D70 can be overkill for a 12x36 foot wide Billboard, since the viewing distance is very large. For precision mapping, a 5x7 negative is too dinky, one gets one nose right up close to the print.<BR><BR>When the 3008 x 2000 D70 output is mapped to the 6x4ft (72x48 inch ) size; the ppi then is about 3008/72 =41.78 or 2000/48=41.67 pixels per inch. With a tad of cropping you image might be 35 pixels per inch. A billboard only requires about 5 pixels per inch.<BR><BR>With a d70 input of 4x6 feet at 35 ppi, our shop would probbaly run a few samples at 35 ppi, 70 ppi, and 105ppi, to see if it really makes any noticeable improvement, <b>on the print</b>. <BR><BR>At 35ppi, the poster will appear sharp at say XX inches. Make 1/35 inch be 1 minute of arc angle. 1 arc minute = 1/60 * 57.3 = 0.000 29 radian. XX= 1/35 inch / 0.000 29 radian = 98.5 inches , if you are a pilot with 20/20 vision. Make it 100 inches just for talking here. ALOT of older folks and kids that need glasses :) :) will say the 35ppi image is great when viewed at 50 inches. <BR><BR>For printing giant super detailed wall maps, our firm prints some at 400 ppi, so the dinky street names are readable. These are looked at a few inches away, and have dinky tiny type. <BR><BR>In practice; many of us printers would love to have the quality of a d70 image for a giant poster. Folks bring in a myraid of inputs, sometimes they upsize blured images from 120. garbage in garbage out. Folks seem to dwell on resolution alot, and little on impact, or the quality of the image.<BR><BR>A large 4x5 negative will give one a radically better tonality than a smaller input such as 35mm.

[ben conover]

Saskia, sounds interesting to print onto a canvas. I have seen some very large panoramic oil paintings hanging in an art gallery that look as though they were painted over a printed canvas, not my cup o T but worth a mention.

 

Cheers.

[ecarter]

I bet you're glad you asked this question now, aren't you? :-)

 

Kelly is right with her answer - the camera can take a photo and you can make a print from it that would appear sharp - provided that the people who are viewing the image are standing a reasonable distance away. Up close, though, the image will break down.

 

As a practical matter, I regularly print 13"x19" (Super-B) prints from my D70 which look pretty good from a few (say 3) feet away. At a guess, your viewers would need to be at least 10'-15' away from a print of the size you're looking for to keep a sharp appearance. As far as I'm concerned, this is not unreasonable, but if you want a larger print that can be viewed closer, you need higher resolution. Film is probably the way to go for very large prints of the sort you're looking at - either medium format or a view camera, as has already been suggested.

[ola_solvang1]

The perception of a postersize photograph depends very much on your chosen subject. By defining the subject, you will also get better answers to what kind of equipment you need to get the job done. In general landscapes will require high resolutions to give good results alas portraits and pictures along the documantary line can work well, originating from a small format negative. Landscapes require more detail because the viewer tend to pay more attention to details when looking at theese pictures.

 

For postersize landscapes the minimum should be the 6x7 cm. format. It might be hard to get a camera with a good lens for lees then 1000usd. A good lens, fine grain film and a supersturdy tripod is the clue to good quality.

 

I have had some of my 6/7 negs scanned for postersize reproduction.I think the filesize for a 1,2 x 1,5 meter display was around 700 mb.

 

If you are planning to use a digital SLR - wich will not work good for landscapes in this size - you should not concider anything below 10 megapixels.

 

Good luck