Bill, the "quality" of a very large printed image is a function mainly of two things, the size of the pixels is one but equally important is viewing distance. Obviously the further away, the larger the pixels can be. That also explains why lighted bus stop signs often look better driving by than sitting waiting for the bus. Other factors play a role, crispness of the image, color saturation and and image contrast are others, but the eye and the brain do a lot of fill-in in most cases. I could routinely print 30x40 images from a 6 megapixel file (and a lot of help from Genuine Fractals) that would be acceptable from 4 to 5 feet away but would never satisfy a "pixel peeper". Likewise, that same image could be printed 11x14 to be viewed at reading distance without a problem. With no write-offs available, a $10K camera with a couple of $3-5K lenses is way out of my ballpark but an equal expense might be the computer processing and storage upgrades that would be required to properly process the images - unless you're blessed with tremendous patience. What an absolutely delicious problem to have.
donphotog wrote:
. I couldn't detect (now) $6000 worth of difference in the IQ between them - at least not on a 21 inch computer screen. ....
Not surprising as a 4k monitor is still 4k no matter how many MPX the image file has. Even with a mere X-E3 (and E2) there is remarkably more detail than seen on a monitor when you print. I print regularly 12x18 and sometimes 30x40 — it is interesting to see how much more there is in the printed picture compared to the monitor
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.