At 30x40 the 5D only gives you 97 pixels/inch. That's about the same as
your monitor showing a 1:1 image. I'm sure it looks good from several
feet away and especially if well interplated... except for Moose who
would spot the individual pixels from that distance. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Ken Norton wrote:
>> I've not personally used the 5D for anything larger than a couple of
>> 16x24s. Both were landscape type images with lots of detail and came
>> out fine. I have also seen several 30x40 images from a friend's 5D.
>> They also looked fine but were family portraits where detail was not so
>> important. A 30x40 detailed landscape image might be fine as well since
>> we don't stand so close to large images. But I've not tried it since I
>> have no place to hang such a large print.
>
> This is too funny. Prior to the 5Dmk2, people raved about how the 5D
> was able to produce prints of any size... It was the best out there.
> Now the 5D is only capable of 8x10 and 11x14 prints if you really
> stretch it.
>
> If you can't get a decent 30x40 landscape print out of a 5D, it's not
> the imager, it's either your lenses or your technique.
>
> But what do I know? My E-1 and A1 won't do prints larger than a wallet print.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|