Best DSLR for large prints - Landscapes

[sharon_schieber]

<p >Thank you for the many replies, it’s been a very interesting learning experience reading the many points of view on this—photo.net is a wonderful resource. As I mentioned earlier I’m probably looking for a “Honda Solution” to this question of making larger prints. I realize for top-quality I’d need MF or LF film but it’s not an area I’m ready to jump into. On the other hand stitching seems to offer an interesting solution, but I can see it being a bit more cumbersome in shooting and post process, Dave, I think you made some good points there, getting just the right shot can be complicated enough let alone needing to take multiple pictures for the stitch and the processing time afterwards. I can see it as a good solution occasionally but not the route I'd want to go on a regular basis.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think my choice at this point is the Sony or the Canon—while they may not be the absolute “perfect choice” for “perfectly” enlarged prints—again it’s kind of that back to the Honda analogy—it may not be the best or most professional option, but at normal viewing distances I think I’ll be pretty happy with the results. I have an enlarged photo on my office wall from my 10MP Canon point-n-shoot that receives a lot of compliments—though I suppose a professional eye might see it differently. : ) </p>

<p > </p>

<p >So my question now is which way to go—Canon or Sony? I like the price of the Sony as well as the lens suggestions and I find myself leaning in that direction. But again, I've read a few negative comments regarding noise with the Sony (even at 200 ISO) which concerns me in regard to large prints. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Any opinions between these two camera options for this purpose? Would the noise issue steer you toward the Canon? Any suggestions for a couple of lenses for the Canon (high quality but without breaking the bank)? Thanks again for your thoughts everyone!</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

[dcstep]

<p>You'd likely be happy with either the Canon or Sony. Most of us hear have either a Canon, Sony or Nikon. Have you looked at the in-depth reviews of each at <a href="http://www.dpreview.com">www.dpreview.com</a>? I find their reviews very useful, particularly the test images, noise comparisons, etc.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[les_lammers]

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/alpha-850.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/alpha-850.shtml</a><br>

Here is a Sony review. *I* think that is what I'd get for FF on a budget.</p>

[dcstep]

<p><a href="http://www.dxomark.com">www.dxomark.com</a> provides an objective comparison of all elements of IQ. The Canon and Sony are neck and neck in almost every regard, except that the Canon is superior in high ISO performance (will you be shooting a lot and dawn and dusk?), so the decision really comes down to price, brand loyalty (if any), lens availability and other factors.<br>

Actually, who makes the sensor is less important than the software driving it. Hence, you see cameras with the same sensor having different performance. Look at actual performance, not who made the sensor.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>Sharon, you'll be happy with the SONY or the Canon. Even the cropped sensor Canons will do a fine job if you stitch. A six frame (3x2) stitch with a Canon XSi will net you about a 130 meg file (8 bits) or double that 16 bits. The advantage of stitching in PS3 or 4 is the ability to stitch at 16 bits or even RAW files.<br /> I have used the a900, 5dmkII and an XSi on various trips and all can deliver great results. I display a 38" x 60" print of a sunrise in Torres del Paine that I shot using a SONY a900, a Zeiss 24-70mm 2.8 lens, with three vertical frames overlapped and stitched. The netted 16 bit file was just over 300 megs and more than rivals work that I've done with 6x9 MF or 4x5LF. <a href="http://www.earthlightgallery.com/patagonia/content/bin/images/large/Torres_Paine_Sunrise.jpg">Torres_Paine_Sunrise.jpg</a><br /> <a href="http://www.earthlightgallery.com/patagonia/content/bin/images/large/Torres_Paine_Sunrise.jpg"></a>Stitching is a great solution with a good tripod and head. You can get 3-6 frames off very quickly, within a very few seconds, once you get the hang of it. The more critical things to remember with stitching are: don't use a polarizer, set focus to manual once focus is set, set exposure manually for the brightest frame in the group and don't change it.<br /> It's quite possible to shoot multiple frames for HDR processing and then stitch the resultant files but it takes a bit of practice with workflow and time.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Noise is much less of an issue when printing than when pixel peeping. In <a ref="http://www.photo.net/photo/293580&size=lg">this portfolio picture</a> you can easily see film grain from Agfa 400, but in the 8x12 inkjet print I gave the cat's owner (or ownee, if you are a PETA member), the grain is invisible.

[james souza]

<p>Check "ladislav Kamarad" site out, in particular : <a href="http://www.horolezec.cz/blog-engl/index.php?action=item&itemid=5">http://www.horolezec.cz/blog-engl/index.php?action=item&itemid=5</a><br>

Very interesting stuff. Flat Film = Amazing Prints. In the cam as well as in the scan.<br>

Enjoy</p>

[james souza]

<p>Check "ladislav Kamarad" site out, in particular : <a href="http://www.horolezec.cz/blog-engl/index.php?action=item&itemid=5">http://www.horolezec.cz/blog-engl/index.php?action=item&itemid=5</a><br>

Very interesting stuff. Flat Film = Amazing Prints. In the cam as well as in the scan.<br>

Enjoy</p>