Full-frame vs m4/3 when printing BIG

[Jamie Pillers]

I just came across this recently posted video that compares big prints made with the Canon 5D IV and Olympus E-M1 II cameras. I've been thinking about a switch to m4/3 recently and the video's surprising results help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGn3yPl59ZM

 

[Steve M.]

I saw this many years ago from my short foray into digital with a Nikon D50, a D70, and a small Fuji P&S. Couldn't see a nickel's worth of difference between them at their maximum print sizes with 300 DPI at the printer. The SLR's were capable of shots that you would be hard pressed to get with a P&S, but otherwise it was a wash w/ the prints.

Sensor size just means you can get a bigger print from a bigger sensor, all things being equal. Just like with film you can get a bigger print in the darkroom, or on an inkjet printer from a scanned neg, if you go from 35mm to 120.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I just printed an 11x12 inch image (it was cropped on the edges) from My 20mp Olympus Pen-F for a collector who wanted to buy a print that size of that photo. It is incredibly sharp, better, I think, than similar size prints from the fullframe Canon 5DmkII (also 20mp) that I had before.

I think the lens is part of it. The Olympus Pro 7-14mm f2.8 lens I used for that photo is INCREDIBLY sharp. So is the 12-40mm f2.8 Olympus Pro I use for most of my other work in M4/3. Better than the Canon 24-105mm f4L that I had for the 5DmkII.

I don't regret switching. Image quality is great and I can carry the camera all day without pain. My health problems were making it hard to carry the heavy Canon everywhere (I never leave home without a camera).

The only negative is that there is more noise in high-ISO images. I manage it pretty well in Lightroom, but the Canon does look better at 1600 and 3200 if you pixel peep. In prints, the Olympus looks good.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Thanks, Chris. You are the second person I've 'talked' with recently that's using the Pen-F. Apparently the newer 20mp sensor being used in the so-called flagship m4/3 cameras is producing image quality quite different from that produced by the 16mp sensor in most of the m4/3 cameras. Its got me interested.

I just printed an 11x12 inch image (it was cropped on the edges) from My 20mp Olympus Pen-F for a collector who wanted to buy a print that size of that photo. It is incredibly sharp, better, I think, than similar size prints from the fullframe Canon 5DmkII (also 20mp) that I had before.

I think the lens is part of it. The Olympus Pro 7-14mm f2.8 lens I used for that photo is INCREDIBLY sharp. So is the 12-40mm f2.8 Olympus Pro I use for most of my other work in M4/3. Better than the Canon 24-105mm f4L that I had for the 5DmkII.

I don't regret switching. Image quality is great and I can carry the camera all day without pain. My health problems were making it hard to carry the heavy Canon everywhere (I never leave home without a camera).

The only negative is that there is more noise in high-ISO images. I manage it pretty well in Lightroom, but the Canon does look better at 1600 and 3200 if you pixel peep. In prints, the Olympus looks good.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

BIG to me is the poster size. I printed from Canon 5D once and it was pixelating.

I my naive guess, how 100% crop looks on the large screen should tell you how print might looks if BIG. Canon 5D 12MP sensor was obviously not enough for that print.
True 24MP sensor should provide better print. And here is the catch 22... Not all sensors are with actual MP claimed by manufacturer. Most obvious gauging with MP numbers comes from mobile phone manufacturers. If image is viewed at 100% crop, here is no pixels, but noisy gobbles, image details are smudged. Camera manufacturers made same lies with classic dP&S. Same smudge on 100% crop. MFT are somewhere in the middle.
FF, x1.33, 1.66 and 1.5 are smudge free sensors.

I would not make assumptions about quality of the prints based on youtube video. It has to be prints scans as files to download and view to make it legitimate.

Based on my guess, I recommend to open MFT camera review on dpreview and look at examples files at full size mode. If no smudges it should print fine on the BIG.

Again, 11x16 is big money to print as quality print, but it is not BIG print, IMO. 🙂

 

[Godfrey]

I just came across this recently posted video that compares big prints made with the Canon 5D IV and Olympus E-M1 II cameras. I've been thinking about a switch to m4/3 recently and the video's surprising results help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGn3yPl59ZM

In 2009, two of my 20x27 inch prints were awarded Judge's Choice and Best In Show in a national competition. Both prints were made from Olympus E-1 exposures, a 2003 DSLR that has 5 Mpixel resolution. And spectacularly good lenses (both images were made with the Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 ED lens). The 2013 Olympus E-M1 can produce even better image quality than that. So I never worry about format or resolution. I only worry about getting a very fine photograph and rendering it well.

It's not the meat, it's the motion. 😀

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Thanks, Chris. You are the second person I've 'talked' with recently that's using the Pen-F. Apparently the newer 20mp sensor being used in the so-called flagship m4/3 cameras is producing image quality quite different from that produced by the 16mp sensor in most of the m4/3 cameras. Its got me interested.

Jamie,

Here's an example that just blew me away. I shot this photo in my front yard this morning.

This is the full image. Note how small the bee is.

This is a crop from the image! You can count the hairs on the bee!

This was shot with the Pen-F at ISO-200 with the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens. I think I had it zoomed out to 40mm, and I shot it at f8. This was HANDHELD, too! The IBIS in the Pen-F is a lot better than the IS in the Canon lenses I have used!

This was shot RAW and processed in Lightroom CC Classic. I never, EVER shoot JPEGs. They always look so plasticy and have no fine detail resolution.

 

[Contarama]

I saw this many years ago from my short foray into digital with a Nikon D50, a D70, and a small Fuji P&S. Couldn't see a nickel's worth of difference between them at their maximum print sizes with 300 DPI at the printer. The SLR's were capable of shots that you would be hard pressed to get with a P&S, but otherwise it was a wash w/ the prints.

Sensor size just means you can get a bigger print from a bigger sensor, all things being equal. Just like with film you can get a bigger print in the darkroom, or on an inkjet printer from a scanned neg, if you go from 35mm to 120.

Thank you. 🙂

 

[benlees]

Jamie,

Here's an example that just blew me away. I shot this photo in my front yard this morning.

This is the full image. Note how small the bee is.

This is a crop from the image! You can count the hairs on the bee!

This was shot with the Pen-F at ISO-200 with the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens. I think I had it zoomed out to 40mm, and I shot it at f8. This was HANDHELD, too! The IBIS in the Pen-F is a lot better than the IS in the Canon lenses I have used!

This was shot RAW and processed in Lightroom CC Classic. I never, EVER shoot JPEGs. They always look so plasticy and have no fine detail resolution.

That is quite impressive. And that is a happy looking bee.

 

[Eric T]

I agree the detail from the 20 Mp sensors on the Panasonic GX8, GH5 and G9 are wonderful.
I still use full frame occasionally but it is only needed for very low light and for extreme cropping. But with the 100-400 PanaLeica zoom, I rarely need to crop significantly.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

In 2009, two of my 20x27 inch prints were awarded Judge's Choice and Best In Show in a national competition. Both prints were made from Olympus E-1 exposures, a 2003 DSLR that has 5 Mpixel resolution. And spectacularly good lenses (both images were made with the Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 ED lens). The 2013 Olympus E-M1 can produce even better image quality than that. So I never worry about format or resolution. I only worry about getting a very fine photograph and rendering it well.

It's not the meat, it's the motion. 😀

It seems that the holy grail in digital is finding the ‘sweet spot’ lens/body combinations. So if there are other favorite m4/3 combinations people have, put them up here. Thanks.

 

[vytasn]

Big is a relative term. I consider anything over 20x30 inches as big, and if you want to print 30x40 then a large sensor is a definite advantage for highly detailed prints. However, for my Epson P800 which takes up to 17x22 inch paper, M 4/3s cameras are perfect. I wrote an article last year comparing 16x20 prints from a Panasonic gx85 and a Pentax 645D digital medium format camera where I could not tell the difference. Print is a great equalizer. Here is the article with some examples:

http://www.superinfocus.com/from-medium-format-digital-to-micro-43/

 

[aizan]

i understand how the cost of printing limits these tests to a handful of shots, but it would be so much more helpful for a wider range of photographers if they did more extensive print comparisons.

how does the dynamic range and exposure latitude compare in various high contrast lighting situations?

what is the character of the noise in low light, handheld shots?

how "robust" are the files when post-processing them to achieve various kinds of "looks"?

camera reviewers need to keep in mind the range of different shooting requirements that different photographers have. we don't all do the same thing, much less do what they did in the test.