The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

hcubell

Well-known member
....but I did send some stuff out to a very expensive, classy print shop (they print for the Tate, for example, and many serious London galleries) and then compared the results to my own home brew and there was little difference and no clear winner.
In its own way, that assessment is the most extraordinary part of the revolution brought about by digital imaging. That you, a guy with a printer sitting at home who knows what he is doing, can produce 30"x40" color prints that are the equal of the very best print shops in the UK. This would have been inconceivable 10-12 years ago.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I haven't tried Aperture with A7R files but I am in deep correspondence with a chap who has tried every permutation of sharpening and NR in LR, Ap and C1 and the best results he has had so far seem to be from C1, which is a bummer because, err, it's C1… LR clearly isn't doing a good job.
Well. NR and sharpening in Aperture aren't that great anyway, but I like the "hands off" conversions, I never use noise reduction, and I usually only use sharpening when printing - and I like the prints from Aperture.

I've spent a great deal of time using LR because Apple don't see fit to support new cameras (over a year for the MM). But I dislike LR, and I've made a pact with myself to stick to Aperture, certainly I'm not going to change for the A7!
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
In its own way, that assessment is the most extraordinary part of the revolution brought about by digital imaging. That you, a guy with a printer sitting at home who knows what he is doing, can produce 30"x40" color prints that are the equal of the very best print shops in the UK. This would have been inconceivable 10-12 years ago.
I bet I had to throw away a few more than they did while I worked out how to do it :D
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Thanks, Victor. So am I understanding correctly that you're still using the Epson driver and not a 3rd-party RIP?
Yes..... no third party rips. Only the Epson driver. I have dabbled with Qimage which also uses the Epson Driver with some good results but really prefer to use my own upsampling methods as I can 'see' with certain accuracy how the print will turn out ahead of time on my monitor. All of this comes with practice.;)

Victor
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Hi Ron. And Victor. I'm not equips to get involved in this argument. But I dd d a pretty comprehensive comparison between LR and Aperture for printing, and much prefer the results from Aperture (which also seems to do a nice job with the A7r files. )
I have never used Aperture but should try it. However I would never use it to print...... processing up to the print point is another matter. I just get upset over the Apple Fans and the Windows hatters who just don't get it that software is software and its really all about how the end user makes it all work.

Victor
 

Ron Pfister

Member
Nice set of articles, Graham - many thanks! However, they don't touch upon different up-sampling methods. It's a fact that the Epson LF printers operate either at 360 or 720ppi (depending on settings used) and that the drivers up- or down-sample accordingly if they don't receive files at these resolutions.

It is clear that more pixels (in your source file) will deliver better results - until you hit a certain limit, as discussed in the articles you linked to. But our cameras are what they are, and the the discussion here centered around how to get the best prints out of the files we've got. When printing at 36", all of my cameras produce files that are well below 360ppi (assuming I'm not stitching), and I think it will be a good while until we have cameras in our hands that will deliver 450-500ppi @ 36-44"... :)
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Most important is to realize that for Epson printers every inch is going to have 360 pixels. Once beyond the native size of the file those pixels have to be generated from something. I prefer to generate them in PS and send the file to the printer at 360ppi. YMMV

Victor
 

djonesii

Workshop Member
lovely discussion ..... as I generate most of my stuff for 8X10 blurb books it confirms my total lack of need for an A7(r), but when has need ever really played a part in what I buy?

Where did guy get that HELMET?

Dave
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Jono, have you decided yet on the A7 or A7R?
I am leaning towards the A7.
Though still undecided
Steven
I'm thinking about an A7 also to use with my Leica R lenses. Seems like a better fit to me than the A7R, especially since I have never printed on any paper larger than 13x19 inches and my Epson 3880 will only go to 17" wide.

Gary
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, have you decided yet on the A7 or A7R?
I am leaning towards the A7.
Though still undecided
Steven
Hi Steven
No decision yet. But like Gary I'm leaning towards the A7 as well. When Matt was here with his I was looking at the results from the kit zoom, and they looked rather good. He has both cameras, so I'm interested in his verdict.

Gary, I have the 3880 as well, but I do like to crop. On the other hand I can't see many situations when the difference between 24mp and 36mp is gonna make or break a photo.

It's just this thing about accepting "second best".!
 

Ron Pfister

Member
I'm thinking about an A7 also to use with my Leica R lenses. Seems like a better fit to me than the A7R, especially since I have never printed on any paper larger than 13x19 inches and my Epson 3880 will only go to 17" wide.
Gary, your prints would still benefit from the higher resolution files of the A7R (depending on subject matter, of course). At 13x19", you'd be comfortably above 360ppi, which is very nice.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Following much discussion on here (and, believe it or not, info from the super, awesome, hyperbolic Steve Huff) I have purchased the A7 rather than the A7r. I became concerned about the vibration issue, and in the end felt that the pixel differential versus ease of use clearly indicated that for a handholder like me, this camera was the way to go.

The camera is much easier to use compared to my Leica M240 (just take exposure compensation as an example) and the image quality is very similar. I used a 50 Lux ASPH at f8 to take my comparison images.

At 20 x 16 I am completely unable to tell the prints apart (Leica M v A7) at normal viewing distances. Even when magnified I have difficulty - though the M240 shadow detail is just slightly improved; maybe.

I haven't printed any larger prints as I don't have access to a bigger printer - yet.

I paid £5100 for my M240 and £1300 for the A7. I feel like a chump.

Leica - are you listening?

What happened to the A7 now that you are reporting on an A7R? Do you have both?
 

wuffstuff

New member
I took my A7 back to the shop and changed it for the A7r. The images lacked the sharpness I have become used to from the Leica M240. This new camera is supremely sharp.
 
Top