|
|
|
|
|
|
by jamesg
2817 days ago
|
|
|
> If you try to print big (let's say A3+) you'll rapidly find the limits of the m43 system I’ve printed a good number of images shot on m43 at about that size, and that’s not been my experience. The specifics definitely matter, but I’ve found Olympus’s M.Zuiko 75/1.8 to be competitive with a 70-200/2.8 in terms of sharpness, distortion, etc, for instance (dxomark seem to broadly agree: https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Olympus/Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITA... vs https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-VR-Zoom-Nikkor-70-...). You do have a larger minimum DoF, but 150/3.6 equivalent is not that far off. I would like a bit more resolution, but that’s also true of my Nikon D4S (also 16MP). Clearly FF and m43 have different strengths, and you’ll get the best results by playing to the strengths of each. I concede that all else being equal, larger sensors do afford you more flexibility (lower light performance, for instance). On the other hand, traveling with my Nikon FF kit is a huge PITA (mostly due to the lenses; the body is a constant cost I can mostly deal with). I’d love to hear more about the limitations you’ve hit with larger prints on m43. |
|
|
I do my printing at 720 ppi on Pictorico OHP transparency stock, which I then use to contact print cyanotypes or pt/pd (I'm really dedicated to useless stuff). You can see how the resolution requirements for anything bigger than a postcard are stringent.
In practice I use either a Sony A7r (36mp, with very sharp primes) a Sigma with a foveon sensor (which holds up very well to the Sony at ISO 100, and it's not like I use the Sony at more than ISO 100) or high-resolution scans from Adox CMS20 II microfilm stock (ISO 20, there is a special low contrast developer for pictorial contrast) shoot on a Leica or Contax with their respective very highly resolving primes.