Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well you can work that out for yourself quite easily. A3 is ~ 12" x 17". If you are willing to use 200dpi you will need to have an image that is 2400 X 3400 or ~8MP, so that's only a 20% crop from 10MP 1D III. I printed A3+ which is ~13" x 19" from my 8MP 1D II and it looked fine, so it must have been around 150dpi or so. If you can live with 150dpi you can get away with 1800 x 2550, which is around 4.6MP or over 50% crop.
I think that what is needed to make a print of a particular size is pretty subjective, and it depends on a number of factors, including viewing distance, how much detail there is in the subject of the photograph, and how high one's expectations are.
But I also think that, for me anyway, my expectations have changed over time. I have 13x19 prints from the 1D Mark III that I owned, and the files were probably cropped down to about 6 MP. At the time, I thought that they looked great and showed an excellent amount of feather or fur detail in wildlife photos. Now, 5 years or so later, I still think that they look good, but compared to similar sized prints that I've made that took advantage of the larger pixel counts of my 1D Mark IV and 7D, they don't hold up as well in comparison. From a distance, they still look fine, but the superiority that the extra pixels from the newer cameras bring is easily seen upon closer inspection.
MMM ok, guessing Im gonna have to get closer to the subject then. Mostly I only print A4 size but it would be nice to be able to print larger. So the DPI number plays a big part, I usually print 300 dpi
aladyforty wrote:
MMM ok, guessing Im gonna have to get closer to the subject then. Mostly I only print A4 size but it would be nice to be able to print larger. So the DPI number plays a big part, I usually print 300 dpi
You can get very nice results in uprezzing, using either Photoshop or something like Genuine Fractals. 1D III will get very nice A3 prints but you will have to stick to around 240dpi at the full 10MP. Another option is to use Qimage, an excellent printing software that has very interpolation and sharpening algorithms. I'll guarantee you can get excellent looking A3 prints.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
You can get very nice results in uprezzing, using either Photoshop or something like Genuine Fractals. 1D III will get very nice A3 prints but you will have to stick to around 240dpi at the full 10MP. Another option is to use Qimage, an excellent printing software that has very interpolation and sharpening algorithms. I'll guarantee you can get excellent looking A3 prints.
so does printing at 300 DPI make the photo better than 240 DPI?
I was faced with this challenge recently. I bought a 1D3. I loathe the 7D IQ - there's something nasty about it. The 7D was, IMHO, a camera that promised so much, yet had an achilles heel; an unforgivable level of noise, though both cameras suck in low light.
The 1D3 compliments my 5D3. It is, in many ways, my P&S - I throw it on may back and ride around with it on the motorcycle.
Plus, it's nice to own a 1D series body.
I may buy a 7D2 if tests prove conclusively that the 'noise issue' has been resolved.
Paul Mo wrote:
I was faced with this challenge recently. I bought a 1D3. I loathe the 7D IQ - there's something nasty about it. The 7D was, IMHO, a camera that promised so much, yet had an achilles heel; an unforgivable level of noise, though both cameras suck in low light.
The 1D3 compliments my 5D3. It is, in many ways, my P&S - I throw it on may back and ride around with it on the motorcycle.
Plus, it's nice to own a 1D series body.
I may buy a 7D2 if tests prove conclusively that the 'noise issue' has been resolved.
The 1D3 sensor is fine if you can use all of it, as soon as you start to crop you run out of pixels very quickly, plus I simply hated the 1.3 crop, neither one thing nor the other.
I have the 18 meg sensor in a 7D and a T2i and while it's not as good as full frame it works very well for me with LR4.
Canon think enough of it to put it in the 550D, 600D, 650D, 7D and 60D so they wouldn't agree either.
Paul Mo wrote:
I bought a 1D3. I loathe the 7D IQ - there's something nasty about it. The 7D was, IMHO, a camera that promised so much, yet had an achilles heel; an unforgivable level of noise, though both cameras suck in low light.
One of the phenomenons of the internet is that, once something gets said enough times on the internet, it becomes fact in the minds of people regardless of whether that alleged "fact" has anything in common with reality.
While, when comparing 7D and 1D Mark III images at the pixel level, the 1D Mark III wins, comparing at the pixel level is a completely meaningless comparison. The only meaningful comparison is at the image level, and, at the image level, 7D and 1D Mark III images are very comparable with regard to noise. And, if you need to crop that 1D Mark III image to match the field of view of an uncropped 7D image and then upscale the cropped 1D Mark III image to match the resolution of the uncropped 7D image, the 7D actually pulls ahead of the 1D Mark III with regard to noise. If you are shooting in focal length-limited situations and if cropping is going to be a necessity, not only will the uncropped 7D image show markedly more detail, but it will also have less noise than the cropped 1D Mark III image.
RogerC11 wrote:
The 18 mp sensor is fabulous. Processing is key to get the most out of it.
One of the things that I often see that people who are unhappy with the noise in their 7D images have in common is that they try to compensate for other deficiencies in their images by over-sharpening them. I know that lots of things related to processing are matters of personal taste, but, for me, when an image is over-sharpened, it creates a very unnatural look, and it also ends up enhancing any noise that is in the image. Further, with most images, there is absolutely no need (or benefit) to sharpening the entire image. Instead, it is very simple to sharpen only the portion of the image to which you want the eye to be drawn, and one of the benefits of doing so is that it avoids emphasizing noise in areas of an image like a blue sky.
uz2work wrote:
One of the things that I often see that people who are unhappy with the noise in their 7D images have in common is that they try to compensate for other deficiencies in their images by over-sharpening them. I know that lots of things related to processing are matters of personal taste, but, for me, when an image is over-sharpened, it creates a very unnatural look, and it also ends up enhancing any noise that is in the image. Further, with most images, there is absolutely no need (or benefit) to sharpening the entire image. Instead, it is very simple to sharpen only the portion of the image to which you want the eye to be drawn, and one of the benefits of doing so is that it avoids emphasizing noise in areas of an image like a blue sky.
uz2work wrote:
One of the phenomenons of the internet is that, once something gets said enough times on the internet, it becomes fact in the minds of people regardless of whether that alleged "fact" has anything in common with reality.
Les
Perception is everything. I don't like the 7D's files. And I really don't like the way at high ISO's it turns blacks to grey due to noise.
Processing involves many steps one if which is sharpening.
I am not a fan of 7D files either. However, after playing with the recent C7 release, I may rent a 7D for further evaluation. Noise reductions appears to have been greatly improved.
dhphoto wrote:
Your post referred only to sharpening, his did not
But I was agreeing with him and using sharpening as an example of what he was talking about. If you have a need to argue about something, there are other things that I've said that are more worthy of quibbling about than is this.
uz2work wrote:
But I was agreeing with him and using sharpening as an example of what he was talking about. If you have a need to argue about something, there are other things that I've said that are more worthy of quibbling about than is this.
Les
You responded to a post about file processing with a lesson on how over-sharpening can ruin an image. The first comment wasn't about sharpening, it was about file processing generally.
It's perfectly reasonable to point out that you either misquoted or misinterpreted the first post
I don't think theres a perception about the noise issue for the 7D, its there. I did also work with some files from it as well. There is a noise issue, even with files at low ISO's. There not horrible, but they are there, and yes its probably only pixel peeping that you can see them.
Its sort of like a small scratch on your car, everyone else goes what a great finish, yet you know where that scratch is and it bugs you everytime you see it.
Plus its a compromise of sorts, its kept a lot of people not even bothering with the camera at all.
The 1D series have there own, there a bit heavy, and there expensive. The Mark III has whats today considered as a low pixel sensor. But the quality of that sensor and the files it has are really fantastic.
The 1D files are just easier to work with, and really look great right out of the box, so to speak.
It is you that has misinterpreted Les's post. Clearly Les agreed and was drilling down on one aspect of processing - sharpening- and it happens to be pertinent to the discussion because sharpening and noise go hand in hand, particularly on the 7D. That is why the new C7 release is of interest to me because I see that noise is handled much better when files are sharpened.
For those reading this post, and that don't want to argue pointlessly, the new C7 maybe worth a quick look with how 7D files are handled.
