maximum print size of photos from D700

[lihong]

<p>I understand that a 12MP image can be printed out very nicely at 8x10 inch (around 300 dpi). But are images from a larger sensor like D700 can be printed at a larger size, since the images could be smoother and less noisier?<br>

Right now I own a 12MP 4/3rd format camera, which has a sensor area about 1/4 of the one in D700. I just wonder if D700 will give me better resolution or larger print size. Or should I pick Canon 5D Mark II instead?<br>

Thanks!<br>

Lihong</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>How will the prints be printed, and how will they be viewed (from what distance)? What sort of subject matter is involved, and shot at what sort of ISO settings, and how carefully exposed?<br /><br />All of those things matter. The lenses involved matter. Your care with the exposure matters, and with focusing. <br /><br />If you're doing things right, there's no reason you can't have a lab print very likeable 20 x 30 output from a 12MP camera. Or more. There are so many variables involved that it's pointless to try to specifically talk about one camera body or another. The D700 and the 5D can both be part of making glorious, large prints. But simpler cameras can, too. An 8x10 is the least of your worries with any modern DSLR.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Upsizing any camera's images using a programs like Photoshop and Genuine Fractals can enable a photographer to make huger post sized prints with very little or virtually no loss of IQ even from cameras with significantly less resolution than even the D700 and 5d Mark II.</p>

<p>Viewing distance is probably the biggest factor. As an example, a billboard can be made from a 6mp file and will look great from a distance but horrible from just a few feet away. </p>

[976photo]

<p>I have a very nice professional print of my wife and I hanging on the wall, it was taken at a (glamour) portrait studio just before I started studying photography myself. It's a 20x30 print and it was taken with an 8mp camera.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>My 2 cents, if you are just following one single dimension that is call mega pixels, then a quality digicam like an LX-3 will do. Extending that marketing concept a bit more, a cell phone can do the same, soon (iPhone-4?). I would buy a D3X or 5D2 for other reasons, not just mega pixesl.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>A 12MP sensor on a D700 will not give you any more pixels than the 12MP sensor on your point-and-shoot. What it will give you is much lower noise and better colors.</p>

[976photo]

<p>For comparison sake, a D700 which is a 12.1 MP camera with a FX image sensor will give you an image size 4256 x 2832 (pixels)</p>

<p>A D300s which is a 12.3 MP camera with a smaller DX image sensor will give you an image size 4288 x 2848 (pixels)</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>I agree with all of the previous comments. IMO, all else being equal, more resolution will make better quality huge prints, but all else is rarely equal. It takes a lot it terms of hardware (lenses, tripod, larger memory cards, faster computer, etc.), capture skill (particularly exposure, focus, and depth-of-field), and post-processing skill to take full advantage of the increased resolution of a camera like a 5DII (or a D3x for that matter). Although some do, most folks that shoot them never reach the camera's full potential. That said, more resolution will make better huge prints (like bigger than 20 x 30) <em>if</em> all else is right.</p>

<p>On balance, a camera like a D700 offers other advantages, like better low light / high ISO performance, faster frame rate, more versatile auto-exposure bracketing, and some other features. With current technology, there's a limit to how many mp can be packed on to a sensor before image quality, performance, or usability suffers. That's why we've seen the 'mp wars' become pretty much a 'cease-fire stalemate' in the last couple of years. Camera choice really should boil down to suiting your style of shooting and the subjects you shoot more than anything else, unless you have a compelling need for really large prints on a regular basis. If that were the case, I'd go with a 5DII. I'd also consider shooting medium format or 4 x 5 inch large format film and getting the winners drum scanned.</p>

<p>I agree with the above comments about being able to upsize 12mp files to print large, as well as the notes about viewing distance, etc. (who really looks at a 20" x 30" print from 10 inches away?). How big do you want to print? Back in '04 I found out that 4mp makes a dandy 8 1/2 x 11 inch print when shot right. IMO, using 12mp exclusively to make 8 x 10 inch prints is overkill in terms of camera resolution, memory card and computer resources.</p>

<p>BTW, at 1:1 pixels to dots, printing at 240 dots per inch, the D700's maximum 'native' resolution without upsizing is 17.7 x 11.8 inches.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Sensor size matters: <a href="../equipment/digital/sensorsize/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/</a><br>

That is an old article so that the camera examples are from almost a decade ago, but the physics has not changed, of course.</p>

<p>You can make excellent large prints from 12MP cameras such as the D700. If your image contains a lot of fine details, more pixels will help. But in order to take advantage of more pixels, you need good lenses, close down to something like f5.6, f8, and use a sturdy tripod. Otherwise, a tiny bit of vibration will more than wide out any resolution gain from more pixels. Some subjects inherently have more details and can benefit from more pixels; some don't.</p>

<p>Most people view large prints from a few meters away. The is a limitation on human vision that most of us simply cannot see the fine details from such distances.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I've printed 20x30 inches from my D300 and the image looks wonderful. I do not think the D700 images contain any more information when shot at ISO 200. I hope the replacement for the D700 will have 24mp. 12mp is getting a little long in the tooth these days.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I have a D70s with 6.1 APS-C sensor. I print 13x19 regularly on a Canon i9900 8 color printer, down-resing the image to 180 dpi, and they come out great. 300 dpi is not necessary for most prints. I even had a Nikon 995 (3.3 mpx, small sensor) 180 dpi image printed to a 20x30 poster years ago that came out much better than I expected. </p>

[peteraitch]

<p>I have printed cropped images from the D700 at A3 (11.7" x 16.5") size without any resolution issues. In my experience, such as it is, for a detailed subject:</p>

<ul>

<li>FX always gives a better IQ than DX (other things being equal)</li>

<li>lens choice is crucial (I favour the Nikkor AF-S 50G but YMMV)</li>

<li>a good tripod (and careful technique in general) always improves things</li>

</ul>

<p>I can't comment on the Canon, but then I only "pixel-peep" if I think there is a potential problem which needs investigating. With prints, I still try to stay around 300 dpi for the finished product, even if this involves resizing with software (with consequent interpolation and huge file sizes)</p>

[photo5]

<p>Peter, I've done detailed examinations of D700 images and D300 images and there is no more fine detail present in the D700 image. They are both 12mp images. The D700 does render finer detail at high ISOs, but not at ISO 200, than the D300.</p>

[dan_south]

I once saw a very nice 72 inch print from a D3. It looked amazing from four feet away. If I had stood any closer I couldn't

have seen the whole image. I didn't pull out a magnifying glass and look for detail in the subject's eyelashes, but I would

say that the print was completely effective. No grain, no noise, no pixelation. Print as large as you wish.

[peteraitch]

<blockquote>

<p>Peter, I've done detailed examinations of D700 images and D300 images and there is no more fine detail present in the D700 image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dave, agreed, the "look" to which I was alluding is really more perceptual than objectively measurable. Since I've only done A/B comparisons with borrowed DX-sensor cameras, there are probably too many variables for this first bullet point to stand, at least in this specific context. Withdrawn.</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>At the local lab where I have my enlargements made the gentleman that owns it told me that from a 12 mp camera he can go up to 24x36 for something that would hang on your wall. He said with look of longing in his eye that if he had a 5d Mark ll he could go much larger. I guess he would know. I assume that any larger and you may be seeing pixels. I know you can go as large as you want depending on viewing distance. I have a 24x36 landscape on my living room wall from a Canon Eos xsi and it looks great.</p>

[bnelson]

<p>I have a D70s and D90. I have consistently had prints enlarged to 16x20 and 16x24 with no problem. Of course, the camera is always nailed down with a tripod and the lens is stopped down to no more than f16. I don 't see what the big deal is. Try it! You'll like it!</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Printed 1 x 1.5 m gallery exhibits from D3 (12 MPix) and they were great. From my D3X files, a client printed 4 x 4 m. Since he paid the invoice I assume he was satisfied :)</p>

[lihong]

<p>Thank you guys! Now it's a relief to know that I don't have to spend money on a canon 5DII.<br>

Lihong</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>But what size print can you make from a D700 at resolution 300 dpi, which is common standard in lightjet, lamda, etc?</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>I already stated that: 1 x 1.5m should be within reach, provided you have a good workflow and technique.</p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>I have gotten excellent 16x20 prints from Kodak Gallery starting with a RAW image from a D80, which is about 10 mp. <br>

Careful technique is important. Tripod, mirror lockup, f8, using a remote or self-timer to trigger the camera, appropriate shutter speed.<br>

I know someone who has been making excellent money producing 40x60 portrait prints from a D300 using Genuine Fractals.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>A Blackberry's image or a VGA image from a digital from 1994 is a total overkill for a 12x48 foot billboard on Interstate I-10 in the middle of Texas.</p>

<p>You need to consider what *PURPOSE* the print is for; and the VIEWING DISTANCES too.</p>

<p> This same question has been asked every week on photo.net.</p>

<p>They are like asking |"how long should a piece of string do I need to tie a box"; as my 4th grade teacher said over 50 years ago.</p>

<p>In actual commerical printing folks consider the viewing distance. Thus here with printing hockey dasher boards that are 3x12 feet' a VGA image is all that is required; a 1.3 megapixel image is overkill.</p>

<p>In pro work there is an actual client; thus a target viewing distance.</p>

<p>In amateur work the answer is fuzzy; folks do not have any defined goals.</p>

<p>Unless one has some defined viewing distances; there are no answers to this question' which is asked several thousand times already.</p>