How feasible is 16x20 with uFT system?

[shawngibson]

<p>Hey guys, I just bought an Epson 3880, aiming for 16" prints. Well ok if I keep the original aspect it's closer to 15.75x21" lol. That equates, at 240dpi, to a 25% increase in original file size. My 5D wasn't much different, but I'm dealing with a smaller sensor of course. I can say with the 5D at that size, on a well-exposed, well-focused shot with ISO 100, it looked astounding. Can I expect similar results with the E-P2? I have for lenses right now the 50/2 macro and my 20/1.7 Panny is on it's way (have to tell you, it was very hard for me not to buy the 25/1.4...for once I was practical).</p>

<p>So, the E-P2 is nominal ISO 200, and from what I've read that's like shooting ISO 800 (light gathering ability, new to me???) on a 34x26 setup, is that true?</p>

<p>If so, I'll have to shoot everything in BW and say I'm being creative:(</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>So, the E-P2 is nominal ISO 200, and from what I've read that's like shooting ISO 800 (light gathering ability, new to me???) on a 34x26 setup, is that true?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Almost. It's like shooting on a 36x24mm sensor, not 34x26, at ISO 800, provided the technology is equal in both cameras. I'd actually put the Canon a little ahead technology wise, so the gap might be a little bigger. There's no real way to get the clean look of Canon ISO 200 out of a four-thirds camera.</p>

<p>Frequent 16x20 work sounds like it's pushing things, to me. I've printed 17x22 Epson prints from Oly cameras before. The customer thought they were acceptable, but I though "barely adequate" and "astounding" never crossed my mind.</p>

[shawngibson]

<p>Thanks Joseph. I mean 24x36 obviously, typo.<br>

"Barely adequate" sounds a bit scary. I'll have to experiment and maybe not go so big, ie 14" approx. prints with a border, would be fine in most cases.<br>

Hopefully certain shots (on a tripod w/release and my macro lens) will lessen the gulf and allow for 16x20-ish occasionally.</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>Wouldn't it be closer to ISO400? The pixel pitch with similar/the same overall number of pixels is about 1/4th that in a 4/3rds sensor as a full frame sensor (2 stops)?</p>

[shawngibson]

Yes I believe you're correct, but the native speed on this Olympus is iso 200,

and I believe 100 would just be a pulled image. In other words, if the oly was

iso 100 your statement about iso would be correct.

 

My reading is it's 200 percent for everything - focal length, aperture, and iso

because of light-collecting ability.

[matthew_newton]

<p>At native ISO then that is probably correct. It is probably not quite apples to apples though as the sensor design is likely somewhat different, so really we'd need to know what the actual signal to noise ratio is.</p>

[shawngibson]

<p>I'm familiar with StN with audio, but not at all with imaging hardware...a little too exotic for me LOL. I'm still waiting for my iMac to show up, will definitely be testing this printer+sensor combination to it's fullest ASAP. I'll let you know my results...</p>