5mp - 8x10 photo?

[Liz]

I have a friend who wants to get a Panasonic DMC LZ2 or LZ3 camera. She wants to print 8x10 pictures. She is concerned it's not enough MP's to get a really good picture.

I really don't recall since I've had a DSLR for a few years. Thanks for any help.

Liz

[Lionheart]

I have a friend who wants to get a Panasonic DMC LZ2 or LZ3 camera. She wants to print 8x10 pictures. She is concerned it's not enough MP's to get a really good picture.

I really don't recall since I've had a DSLR for a few years. Thanks for any help.

Liz

Has more to do with the quality/size of the sensor pixel and the quality of the lens than the resolution. I've got 20x30 inch prints from my 4 MP EOS-1D that I wouldn't dare try on my 7 MP Canon SD550. However, 8x10 is fair game for just about any digital camera on the market these days. Just my two cents.

[Liz]

Has more to do with the quality/size of the sensor pixel and the quality of the lens than the resolution. I've got 20x30 inch prints from my 4 MP EOS-1D that I wouldn't dare try on my 7 MP Canon SD550. However, 8x10 is fair game for just about any digital camera on the market these days. Just my two cents.

OK - I understand. But I don't know how to interpret that with this camera to the person. She is thinking of paying $100 more for the upgrade - the FZ5 (from the FZ3) because it gives her 6mp vs 5mp.

Thanks Leon.

Liz

[another view]

I've seen decent (not fantastic, but decent) 8x10's from a 2mp camera before. At 5mp, there's nothing to worry about. The quality of even my almost ancient 5mp Coolpix at 8x10 is very good.

I wouldn't pay an extra $100 for 1mp extra resolution, personally - unless there are other upgrades to the camera (new features, better lens, etc).

[jewels]

hi liz, no expert here, but I also have a 5mp panasonic (fz5) and my 8x10 photos have turned out beautiful. I have done 8x10 from my older canon 3.1 mp (a70) that turned out very nice also.

[Sebastian]

I have made excellent prints our of my friend's 2.7mp Canon, the upgrade is nothing more than your friend succumbing to marketing.

[Ronnoco]

I have a friend who wants to get a Panasonic DMC LZ2 or LZ3 camera. She wants to print 8x10 pictures. She is concerned it's not enough MP's to get a really good picture.

I really don't recall since I've had a DSLR for a few years. Thanks for any help.

Liz

According to Popular Photography 5.7 megapixels on a digital camera makes it about equal to a film camera in quality and resolution for an 8 X 10 print. My experience is that a 5 meg. camera produces prints equal to that of most film cameras for 8 X 10 prints in normal use situations, so it pretty well jives with the lab tests.

I therefore find it an acceptable standard.

Ronnoco

[mwfanelli]

My old 3 MP Canon G1 produced 8x10 prints that equaled or bettered 35mm film. My newer 4 MP Canon S400 creates 11x14 vastly superior to film. By the way, I rarely created 11x14 from 35mm film as the grain was almost always too obvious even for low ISO film.

Why not just try making an 8x10 and see what you get? In any case, an extra 1 MP won't even be seen and is definately not worth the extra money.

FWIW, there are no "pixel equivalents" for film. Grain and noise are very different animals and behave much differently. At a 35mm film scan of 2300 dpi, you are down to the grain. You can get much bigger files, but they will not have any more information than the smaller ones.

[Liz]

Thanks everyone. I appreciate all the input - and it all adds up to the same thing - the 5MP is more than good enough.

I did discover that the camera she is looking at (my suggestion) has no VF, and I wouldn't want a camera without one - I just emailed her about that fact and gave her some links to a few Canon P&S cameras - mostly 5mp which are reasonable.

Michael - thanks for the comparison to film. And thanks for the specifics regarding mp & size of prints. She is using film now, but I don't know which camera - and she is looking for something better anyway.

Liz

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=mwfanelli]My old 3 MP Canon G1 produced 8x10 prints that equaled or bettered 35mm film. My newer 4 MP Canon S400 creates 11x14 vastly superior to film. By the way, I rarely created 11x14 from 35mm film as the grain was almost always too obvious even for low ISO film.
QUOTE]

Michael, that is a gross over-generalization that is way out of touch with reality. What do you mean by superior to film? What film were you using? Do you know what film is the best quality in terms of sharpness and resolution in lab tests? Did you actually compare shots with a film camera under the same lighting, focal length, shutter speed, etc. with a digital shot using the same lense etc.? What was your subject? Did you examine the shots with a magnifying glass to look at sharpness?

Frankly film still has richer colour and tones than digital but adjustments and post prossessing are greatly reducing that weakness. In sharpness and resolution under tight comparison conditions, the lab results support what I have found through experience that 8 X 10 prints require 5.7 megapixels to match the sharpness of film.

Ronnoco

[freygr]

I have a friend who wants to get a Panasonic DMC LZ2 or LZ3 camera. She wants to print 8x10 pictures. She is concerned it's not enough MP's to get a really good picture.

I really don't recall since I've had a DSLR for a few years. Thanks for any help.

Liz

If the photo out of the 5mp camera is in FOCUS, Correctly Expossed, and Composed, you can print very good 8 by 10s, infact you can even print 11 by 14s. I have regularly printed many 8 by 10 from my Olympus C-3030 a 3.2 mega pixel camera and alot of them were sold.

[greghalliday]

By the way, I rarely created 11x14 from 35mm film as the grain was almost always too obvious even for low ISO film.

I like this point because neither did I. It is funny because I have just been debating with myself the best way to get a 13x19 image out of my 20D and still have it look decent. I never would have made a 13x19 with 35mm film, why should I care if I can make one with digital?

Here's another question I have not yet heard answered: At what point do the megapixel capacities of modern DSLRs outstrip the capability of the lens attached to the front?

The new Mamiya ZD is 22MP. But it also uses a larger image sensor than 35. So can we go much higher than is currently available (16.7MP) with the existing optical equipment. Has anyone an opinion on the upper limit of what we may expect?

[SmartWombat]

I have just been debating with myself the best way to get a 13x19 image out of my 20D and still have it look decent.

I was printing 12x18 from 20D after enlarging in Photoshop keeping 300dpi and changing the image size measured in inches.
They look great when viewed at a proper distance. After all, you don't usua;;y look at prints this size form 6 inches away

I was surprised that they survived a single step enlargement like that, when I do single step reduction I get jagged lines and it works much better in several 75% resizes.

[another view]

Here's another question I have not yet heard answered: At what point do the megapixel capacities of modern DSLRs outstrip the capability of the lens attached to the front?

I guess it depends on the particular sensor and the lens, really. Also, the center of the lens is usually sharper than the edges so there's a consideration of how you measure it, etc.

To me, the bottom line isn't about numbers - it's about how the print looks at the distance you'll view it. Looking at a 40"x60" print from just inches away to see the technical flaws (come on, we've all done it!) isn't what I'm talking about - like Paul says, you'd probably stand back about 4' or so to comfortably view a print this big when it's hanging on a wall. How does it look from where you're standing?

[dmm96452]

I like this point because neither did I. It is funny because I have just been debating with myself the best way to get a 13x19 image out of my 20D and still have it look decent. ...

I have 16x24s on my wall from my 20D that could not be better.

[Chunk]

I have a friend who wants to get a Panasonic DMC LZ2 or LZ3 camera. She wants to print 8x10 pictures. She is concerned it's not enough MP's to get a really good picture.

I really don't recall since I've had a DSLR for a few years. Thanks for any help.

Liz

What kind of photography does she do Liz? I have a 5MP Panasonic P&S although it is the FZ20. I could send you some files that you could give to her so she can see how they look.
I find the low light shots the toughest and require noise reduction software for preparing them for printing. I shoot only at ISO 80 because of the noise.
PM your email to me if you want some files.

[Ronnoco]

The new Mamiya ZD is 22MP. But it also uses a larger image sensor than 35. So can we go much higher than is currently available (16.7MP) with the existing optical equipment. Has anyone an opinion on the upper limit of what we may expect?

Well, things are runing pretty close to the upper limit. The tech problem is that the photos are becoming super-sized in terms of megabytes which means that it takes longer for them to record to the camera introducing perhaps larger camera buffers to hold one photo while the next one is being taken and then when photos are not being taken...the recording from the buffer to camera memory takes place. This however requires more electronics in the camera and more electronics creates a size problem as well as generating more heat which contributes to camera noise. Of course if you also put more memory in the camera buffer, the camera is also going to cost more too.

This also means that flash cards need to be bigger to hold photos that take up more space. Can you imagine 50 gig flash cards, and the related initial cost?

Then of course the process of downloading them to the computer takes longer and you may need a faster computer and a vastly improved Photoshop to make the editing process speedy and effective.

So the electronics, more than the lens becomes the complicated determining factor.

Ronnoco

[mwfanelli]

Michael, that is a gross over-generalization that is way out of touch with reality. What do you mean by superior to film? What film were you using?

Long before digital was around, I spent LOTS of time with 35mm film. My own opinion, and those of many "experts" was the same: that tiny sliver of 35mm film just can't be magnified enough to do much above 11x14 if that. I did everything right, using the then popular Kodachrome 25, heavy tripod, cable release, etc. but couln't get the large images I wanted. That was when I moved on to 6x7 cameras using Velvia. I bet I've been using cameras before you were even born.

Do you know what film is the best quality in terms of sharpness and resolution in lab tests? Did you actually compare shots with a film camera under the same lighting, focal length, shutter speed, etc. with a digital shot using the same lense etc.? What was your subject? Did you examine the shots with a magnifying glass to look at sharpness?

Obviously I used lots of film, both 35mm and 120/220 roll film. Obviously I used an 8x magnifier on a color corrected light table. So what? When custom printed, Cibachromes at the time, I liked what I got at 8x10 from 35mm and larger prints from 6x7. So what? That was the best that was available at the time.

My first encounter with digital was the Olympus 1.3 MP camera my friend had. The images she was taking and blowing up to 5x7 and 8x10 turned my world around. At that time, I also had the very silly notion that film had some magical properties and some huge "pixel equivalent. I argued that on this very web site so many years ago. Those small digital images showed me that my notions about film were not correct. You are still in the denial stage just as I was.

Frankly film still has richer colour and tones than digital but adjustments and post prossessing are greatly reducing that weakness.

Oh come on now! Certainly you were laughing when you wrote that. Digital is all films in one package. I can get the circus-like colors of Velvia or the natural colors of plain old Ektachrome. I make those choices, not some tech at the photo shop. Digital images falls in-between slide film and print film when it comes to dynamic range. If you shoot print film, your arguement really falls apart as the film and you have no say in what you get!

In sharpness and resolution under tight comparison conditions, the lab results support what I have found through experience that 8 X 10 prints require 5.7 megapixels to match the sharpness of film.

OK, lets turn it around. You demanded proof from me, I'm now demanding proof from you. "In your experience" says absolutely nothing. Who made the prints? If it wasn't you, you more than likely have all digital prints anyway that were scanned at a lot less dpi than even a cheap 3 MP digital. What process of printing did you use? Were they LightJets or inkjet or darkroom? What calibrartion process did you use? By the way, I've researched and posted the numbers twice before, I not doing it again: the resolution and S/N of film, even Velvia, is much lower than digital. Do your homework and look it up. Like it or not, 2300 dpi gives you grain. End of the line, there is no more information past grain.

[Erik Stiegler]

I did discover that the camera she is looking at (my suggestion) has no VF, and I wouldn't want a camera without one - I just emailed her about that fact and gave her some links to a few Canon P&S cameras - mostly 5mp which are reasonable.

IMO, the tiny optical viewfinders in compact digital cameras like the LZ3 and LZ5 are really overrated. I never use them. They're nothing like the viewfinder in a DSLR. They're small, inaccurate, and provide no information.

There may be other good reasons to go with a Canon over the Panasonic, but the lack of a viewfinder would be really low on my list of reasons.

[Ronnoco]

Long before digital was around, I spent LOTS of time with 35mm film. My own opinion, and those of many "experts" was the same: that tiny sliver of 35mm film just can't be magnified enough to do much above 11x14 if that. I did everything right, using the then popular Kodachrome 25, heavy tripod, cable release, etc. but couln't get the large images I wanted. That was when I moved on to 6x7 cameras using Velvia. I bet I've been using cameras before you were even born..

I did hand held 1/8 of a second and then blew up to 16" X 20" successfully but not to my satisfaction. You still could not go super close to examine details, but all things considered it worked out quite well. Nevertheless I still agree with you that Kodachrome 25 and 64 may have provided good colour but blow-ups that were not as sharp as digital.

Obviously I used lots of film, both 35mm and 120/220 roll film. Obviously I used an 8x magnifier on a color corrected light table. So what? When custom printed, Cibachromes at the time, I liked what I got at 8x10 from 35mm and larger prints from 6x7. So what? That was the best that was available at the time. ..

Cibachromes were an apparent improvement in colour and contrast and blacks but I found the sharpness was more apparent than real. Nevertheless in 35mm film: Kodak Gold print film tests out better than any other..including professional films in terms of resolution and sharpness. Velvia which you mentioned has fewer colours but they are brighter and more vivid than some other films.

My first encounter with digital was the Olympus 1.3 MP camera my friend had. The images she was taking and blowing up to 5x7 and 8x10 turned my world around. At that time, I also had the very silly notion that film had some magical properties and some huge "pixel equivalent. I argued that on this very web site so many years ago. Those small digital images showed me that my notions about film were not correct. You are still in the denial stage just as I was. ..

My first encounter was with the Canon Xap Shot at 320 X 200 pixels. It compared to an old video camera with still frame capability. Photos were saved to what looked like a modified floppy disk. Any blow-up at all was next to impossible, but it was great for playing with computer animation and mixing drawing with "photos". At that time my notions about film being better were quite correct. When I started into buying better equipment and shooting digital at an event where another pro was shooting film, I was able to make more precise comparisons especially when viewing prints of similar scenes.

Oh come on now! Certainly you were laughing when you wrote that. Digital is all films in one package. I can get the circus-like colors of Velvia or the natural colors of plain old Ektachrome. I make those choices, not some tech at the photo shop. Digital images falls in-between slide film and print film when it comes to dynamic range. If you shoot print film, your arguement really falls apart as the film and you have no say in what you get!
..

Actually, I shoot a lot of slide film and some print film for particular purposes such as public relations, weddings, advertising or publication. Nevertheless to speak from straight technology, digital processes 8 or at most 16bit colour and that relates to the number of colours and levels of gradation from one to another. Film has 42 bit colour which means more than twice the number of colours of digital. I have seen the difference in jungle shots that I took in Mexico on film. I scanned them at 42 bit and saw the colour difference with similar digital shots even on a monitor.

OK, lets turn it around. You demanded proof from me, I'm now demanding proof from you. "In your experience" says absolutely nothing. Who made the prints? If it wasn't you, you more than likely have all digital prints anyway that were scanned at a lot less dpi than even a cheap 3 MP digital. What process of printing did you use? Were they LightJets or inkjet or darkroom? What calibrartion process did you use? By the way, I've researched and posted the numbers twice before, I not doing it again: the resolution and S/N of film, even Velvia, is much lower than digital. Do your homework and look it up. Like it or not, 2300 dpi gives you grain. End of the line, there is no more information past grain.

Now it is off sharpness and into grain or camera noise and S/N well to quote April edition of Popular Photography p.11 "A roll of drugstore film often gives you better low-light images than most popular DSLRs and virtually all compacts and electronic viewfinder cameras." It seems that they disagree with you that the signal/noise ratio of film is poorer than digital.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Nevertheless to speak from straight technology, digital processes 8 or at most 16bit colour and that relates to the number of colours and levels of gradation from one to another. Film has 42 bit colour which means more than twice the number of colours of digital. Ronnoco

Excuse my lousy math. We are talking 2 to the 8th or 16th power versus 2 to the 42nd power which is considerable more than twice the number of colours.

Ronnoco

[Liz]

Thank you, Chunk!

However, my friend just ordered the DMC LZ5 - she got a great deal on it. So she is happy - and she got her 6MP - for whatever that may be worth with the extra mp.

Thank you for your generosity.

Liz

What kind of photography does she do Liz? I have a 5MP Panasonic P&S although it is the FZ20. I could send you some files that you could give to her so she can see how they look.
I find the low light shots the toughest and require noise reduction software for preparing them for printing. I shoot only at ISO 80 because of the noise.
PM your email to me if you want some files.

[mwfanelli]

Excuse my lousy math. We are talking 2 to the 8th or 16th power versus 2 to the 42nd power which is considerable more than twice the number of colours.

Ronnoco

Good grief. I promised myself I would not continue this discussion but... Film, being an analog color process, doesn't have a color depth! That's a digital term that comes from DIGITALLY SCANNING film. Yes, you can overscan to get as much color depth as you want from film but that does not mean that you have any extra information. Understand the difference between good data and useless, redundant, and/or bad data.

Besides, just what would you do with a color depth of 42 bits? You can't reliably display 42 bit, you can't print 42 bit, you can't edit 42 bit... Do you spend all of your time staring at slides on a light table using a magnifier?

Look, if you love 35mm film, fine. But you should really learn what the real differences are between 35mm film and digital. Don't try to artificially pump up 35mm film to more than its ever been. I used film, both 35mm and 6x7 for over 25 years, digital in the last 5. I learned what film is capable of and what it's not through decades of experience. Like it or not, the age of film is over, it became a niche much faster than anyone could have imagined. Enjoy it for what it is, not what you desparately want it to be.

This time, I am definately out of this discussion!

[Erik Stiegler]

Nevertheless to speak from straight technology, digital processes 8 or at most 16bit colour and that relates to the number of colours and levels of gradation from one to another. Film has 42 bit colour which means more than twice the number of colours of digital.

This appears to be a mixing of uses of the term bit depth.

8 or 16 bit color in this context refers to bits per RGB channel. 42 bit color refers to the total of all three channels.

[Ronnoco]

This time, I am definately out of this discussion!

Would you and Jared, please spell "DEFINITELY" correctly? Avoiding basic spelling mistakes builds some confidence in what you are saying.;)

If you read all the magazines, lab reports, books, Adobe materials etc., they will all tell you that film is still better than digital in terms of overall quality, sharpness, dynamic colour range, forgiveness of as large as 3 fstops in exposure, low light capability, etc. etc.

Nevertheless digital is in the process of closing the gaps and has other advantages such as those related to control, workflow and editing which push it over the top. To correct a wrong assumption by the way, I am not enamoured of film. I prefer digital but I still recognize the advantages that film has, at the moment anyway.

Ronnoco