Is 5d3 pixel count enough to print large size prints?

[shemeck]

Hello,

I am considering to to buy 5d3 but there is one thing that I am not sure of. Is 5d3 pixel count good enough to print large size prints? When I say large size i mean something along the size of 4 by 2 feet. As you probably guessed i am between d800 and 5d3.
I am not sure what else comes to play when printing large size prints but I believe ISO has to do with it. Can somebody give me some guidelines when it comes to that.

Thanks!

Thank you!

[RJSY]

hello,

I'm in photo printing business using Noritsu  Mini labs. THese are RA4 process printers.

YES, both the 5DmkIII and d800 are capable of giving you quality prints at 4x2 feet sizes. I have made prints as big as 2x8 feet coming from "lesser" cameras and they still came out great. If you're worried about pixelated pictures I would suggest you shoot RAW and have your RAW converter resize the output the jpeg to your desired print size as close as possible to you desired print size. if the resized output allowed by the raw converter is too far from the desired you can also have the raw converter bump up the resolution that way you have as much detail when enlarging.

hope this helps...

[Epphoto]

hello,

I'm in photo printing business using Noritsu  Mini labs. THese are RA4 process printers.

YES, both the 5DmkIII and d800 are capable of giving you quality prints at 4x2 feet sizes. I have made prints as big as 2x8 feet coming from "lesser" cameras and they still came out great. If you're worried about pixelated pictures I would suggest you shoot RAW and have your RAW converter resize the output the jpeg to your desired print size as close as possible to you desired print size. if the resized output allowed by the raw converter is too far from the desired you can also have the raw converter bump up the resolution that way you have as much detail when enlarging.

hope this helps...

Nice to know
Thanks !!!

[Drizzt321]

It also depends the distance from the print that you expect people to view it from. A large print that is meant to be viewed from a foot or two from it needs to be printed at a higher DPI than once that you'll look at from 5-6 feet back.

[PhilDrinkwater]

The d800 has 25% more resolution - nothing more. So, if you can print 3 feet wide at 100dpi with the 5d3, you can print around 4 feet wide at 100dpi with the d800. That might sound like a lot, but to be honest it isn't.

Unless you have a need for critical resolution and cropping, most large prints are done at relatively low DPI so any camera over about 15mp would do a decent job.

Certainly, in order to make the most of the resolution with either camera your shooting style will have to be pretty effective (avoiding camera shake for example) and you'll need good lenses. Lenses in particular will make more of a difference than the body.

[torger]

How will your photos be displayed?

From my experience what gains the most from high resolution is not necessarily the largest prints, but those that are watched most critically.

Say a spread in a large high quality photo book, or a large fine art print hanging on the wall. It also makes a huge difference if the photo is a portrait, or if it is a scenic view of a detailed landscape. If it is a portrait people generally wants to see it from a distance, but if it is a detailed landscape people can step close to look at a subsection of the picture just to look at all amazing details.

For a high quality photo book it is best to keep at around 300 ppi. For a large fine art print 200 ppi is about the lowest you want to go if it should look reasonably sharp up close.

For very large prints you obviously have to compromise, and if you have to compromise 22 or 36 megapixels won't make that much of a difference, heck you might say like Ken Rockwell that 6 megapixels is enough for anything ;-)

[hyles]

i used my old 8.2mp 20D to print 80x150 cm and even a big 3x6m sign.
Diego

[TrumpetPower!]

You're kidding, right?

I mean, that's the whole point of a mucho-megapickle camera.

Have a look at any of those 100% crops you see wherever. No, not the underexposed unfocussed high-ISO macro shots of the inside of a lens cap that were pushed by ten stops in post-processing -- I mean real shots made with good glass and good technique. Preferably after a competent artist has done all the requisite post-processing needed with any image to really make it shine.

Notice just how amazingly good that 100% crop looks?

Well, it represents an actual-sized crop from a print even larger than what you're asking about.

The 5DIII can easily do 36" x 54" prints -- assuming, of course, good technique at all steps. If you know what you're doing, 44" x 66" prints shouldn't be a problem, but the assumption there should be that viewers won't be getting much closer than arm's length. Stick your nose in the print and it'll be a bit on the soft side, but not objectionably so. Bigger than that and you're no longer talking about prints; you're now in mural / billboard territory, and even the original Digital Rebel (300D) is capable of cutting the mustard.

Unless you're cropping, there's really no real-world practical need for more resolution in a 135-format camera than what you get in the 5DIII. If you actually need more -- and damned few people do, no matter how they blather on on Internet forums -- then no 135-format camera will ever be adequate; at a minimum, you need medium format. And, if that's what you need, you can easily afford it.

After all, if you really are selling 4' x 6' stick-your-nose-in-it landscape prints, you're selling each print for at least as much as a 5DIII body, if not more.

Cheers,

b&

[awinphoto]

You're kidding, right?

I mean, that's the whole point of a mucho-megapickle camera.

Have a look at any of those 100% crops you see wherever. No, not the underexposed unfocussed high-ISO macro shots of the inside of a lens cap that were pushed by ten stops in post-processing -- I mean real shots made with good glass and good technique. Preferably after a competent artist has done all the requisite post-processing needed with any image to really make it shine.

Notice just how amazingly good that 100% crop looks?

Well, it represents an actual-sized crop from a print even larger than what you're asking about.

The 5DIII can easily do 36" x 54" prints -- assuming, of course, good technique at all steps. If you know what you're doing, 44" x 66" prints shouldn't be a problem, but the assumption there should be that viewers won't be getting much closer than arm's length. Stick your nose in the print and it'll be a bit on the soft side, but not objectionably so. Bigger than that and you're no longer talking about prints; you're now in mural / billboard territory, and even the original Digital Rebel (300D) is capable of cutting the mustard.

Unless you're cropping, there's really no real-world practical need for more resolution in a 135-format camera than what you get in the 5DIII. If you actually need more -- and damned few people do, no matter how they blather on on Internet forums -- then no 135-format camera will ever be adequate; at a minimum, you need medium format. And, if that's what you need, you can easily afford it.

After all, if you really are selling 4' x 6' stick-your-nose-in-it landscape prints, you're selling each print for at least as much as a 5DIII body, if not more.

Cheers,

b&

For the love of god, at those sizes are you lowering DPI or enlarging in raw processing/photoshop?  I worked at a pro lab during the sunset years of the film industry in the late 90's...  The 135 format barely was used for anything bigger than 11x14 and even with that, at ISO 50, you were risking grain.  Bigger than that you needed medium format...  It still is astonishing to me we could get prints now with the 135 that would have been impossible with film.  Even 645 for a 30x40 print, back then, would be pushing it in which 67 or 4x5 would be needed...  There's a lot of comparisons of the D800 and medium format, but to me, 135 cameras were pushing medium format with the intro of the 5d2.   

[michi]

I have a 20x30" print which was done from a original Digital Rebel (6.3MP) and it is fantastic.  You have to go REALLY close to see pixels.  I agree with the others, a 5DIII will be sufficient.

[TrumpetPower!]

For the love of god, at those sizes are you lowering DPI or enlarging in raw processing/photoshop?

The 5DIII native size is 3840 px x 5760 px. A typical monitor is 100 ppi. If you're happy with what you see on your monitor at 100 ppi, a 38.4" x 57.6" print will look every bit as good. Even without interpolation, you're probably not going to see pixellation -- and any decent printer driver made in the past decade or so will silently do a better job at final interpolation than Photoshop.

The Canon iPF8100 sitting ten feet away from me can print at up to 44" wide (though 42" rolls are easier to find than 44" rolls). That means the largest I can print a single non-stitched frame is 44" x 66", which works out to 87 ppi from the 5DIII. That's borderless, of course, which the printer will do. That'll be a bit on the soft side, but only at closer-than-arm's length viewing distances. Whether or not you could get away with that would depend on the subject matter and the intended use. And, yes, you'll need to know what you're doing in post-processing to get the most out of it.

But, yeah. If you're only printing 11 x 14, then there's absolutely no point whatsoever in a modern high-resolution 135-format DSLR. Might as well use a view camera to make wallet snaps.

And, yes. My mind is similarly blown. I mean, Ansel Adams prints are very soft compared to modern DSLR prints. There's no comparison, really.

So, again, for the peanut gallery: if the 5DIII isn't adequate, then the D800 won't be either, for reasons that should be obvious by now.

Cheers,

b&

[awinphoto]

For the love of god, at those sizes are you lowering DPI or enlarging in raw processing/photoshop?

The 5DIII native size is 3840 px x 5760 px. A typical monitor is 100 ppi. If you're happy with what you see on your monitor at 100 ppi, a 38.4" x 57.6" print will look every bit as good. Even without interpolation, you're probably not going to see pixellation -- and any decent printer driver made in the past decade or so will silently do a better job at final interpolation than Photoshop.

The Canon iPF8100 sitting ten feet away from me can print at up to 44" wide (though 42" rolls are easier to find than 44" rolls). That means the largest I can print a single non-stitched frame is 44" x 66", which works out to 87 ppi from the 5DIII. That's borderless, of course, which the printer will do. That'll be a bit on the soft side, but only at closer-than-arm's length viewing distances. Whether or not you could get away with that would depend on the subject matter and the intended use. And, yes, you'll need to know what you're doing in post-processing to get the most out of it.

But, yeah. If you're only printing 11 x 14, then there's absolutely no point whatsoever in a modern high-resolution 135-format DSLR. Might as well use a view camera to make wallet snaps.

And, yes. My mind is similarly blown. I mean, Ansel Adams prints are very soft compared to modern DSLR prints. There's no comparison, really.

So, again, for the peanut gallery: if the 5DIII isn't adequate, then the D800 won't be either, for reasons that should be obvious by now.

Cheers,

b&

Just for clarification, I was always taught that 100% will show you the level of detail a printer will print full size at it's native resolution... So when you're enlarging, are you looking at 200%-400% to see what a print at 100 DPI would print?  Just curious how other people soft proof their enlargements before printing as big prints, especially rolls and inks, aren't cheap. 

[shemeck]

So, again, for the peanut gallery: if the 5DIII isn't adequate, then the D800 won't be either, for reasons that should be obvious by now.

Cheers,

b&

Thanks for all of your responses. I will be printing landscape prints in that size. I haven't printed anything that big in the past so thats why I was asking. Most of it will be shoot with tripod and at low ISO.
In the past Ive been shooting with Canon 60D, Sigma 30MM 1.4 and 580 EX2.  I sold everything few months ago with anticipation of the two new cameras (5d3 and D800) for the upgrade.
I think the key is the sentence that I've quoted that the larger resolution of D800 wont make that big of a difference when it comes to "medium" print size, unless I will crop it a lot.

Can I conclude that unless I plan to print billboard size prints 5d3 will be sufficient? But then again if I plan to print billboard size prints D800 wont be enough anyway so it doesn't really matter, right?

Thanks again!

[wockawocka]

It's more about viewing distance than image size.
Those billboards we all drive by are printed at 7dpi

[awinphoto]

So, again, for the peanut gallery: if the 5DIII isn't adequate, then the D800 won't be either, for reasons that should be obvious by now.

Cheers,

b&

Thanks for all of your responses. I will be printing landscape prints in that size. I haven't printed anything that big in the past so thats why I was asking. Most of it will be shoot with tripod and at low ISO.
In the past Ive been shooting with Canon 60D, Sigma 30MM 1.4 and 580 EX2.  I sold everything few months ago with anticipation of the two new cameras (5d3 and D800) for the upgrade.
I think the key is the sentence that I've quoted that the larger resolution of D800 wont make that big of a difference when it comes to "medium" print size, unless I will crop it a lot.

Can I conclude that unless I plan to print billboard size prints 5d3 will be sufficient? But then again if I plan to print billboard size prints D800 wont be enough anyway so it doesn't really matter, right?

Thanks again!

Also dont forget billboards last i saw print at 72-150 DPI and typically are viewed at 50-100 feet away, so with that expectations, the an 8MP 20D can pull that off... =)