Canon 5D - largest acceptably sharp print?

[j michael sullivan]

The following table is a good rule of thumb.</br>

 

Keep in mind that certain pictures lend themselves to even greater englargements (think macros of flowers where most of the data is out-of-focus). While other images only look "good" at very high resolutions (and thus smaller print sizes) -- think architecture, interiors, and clothing.

 

<table border="1">

<tr>

<th>megapixels</th>

<th>"normal" resolution for sharp images</th>

<th>"stretched" resolution for soft images</th>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>4 MP</td>

<td>4"x5"</td>

<td>8"x10"</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>8 MP</td>

<td>8"x10"</td>

<td>16"x20"</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>12 MP</td>

<td>12"x15"</td>

<td>23"x30"</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>16 MP</td>

<td>16"x20"</td>

<td>32"x40"</td>

</tr>

</table>

[httpwww.photo.netphoto1664874374]

Thanks Michael. I'm printing some interiors of a tobacco barn as i type. Shot with a friends 6 mp rebel. I'm printing them at 180 dpi (have test 180 vs 240 dpi with the canon 5d sample prints and cannot 'see,' literally, a difference at 3-4 feet viewing distance.) I also have done some test sharpening, and 100% at 1 pixel works well and doesn't stand out. Thise images look pretty darn good too. Meanwhile, I have a 6x7 chrome at the shop to get a flextight scan .. so, we'll see what that looks like. Ulimately, i'm more and more convinced that, for me, digital capture will work for me .. either with the 20d or or the 5d, certainly up to 16x20 (about as big as i can print with the 4000)

 

Thanks for you input !

 

ron wood