oeyvind said:
thanks, but I already interpolate my images that are gonna be used on a large spread, to 5400x3600!! It can only do so much before even that reaches it's limits.
Alot of clients are specific about getting uninterpolated images, they want natural resolution.
I know with 6.3mp (and even better with 8.3) you can do so much with it, I print A3 regularly and they come out fantastic, i've even done an A2 image that came out great (if you look at it at a reasonable distance at least).. and of course acheivable only through interpolation and resharpening. But there are limits to what it can do. It'll never resolve the real details that didn't exist to begin with in the 6.3mp capture.
I also happen to be one of the only digital shooters for the mags I work with - the rest are using positive transparent slides... but 120 for double trucks. Like yea... the 6.3 mp cropped/interpolated image looks fine, but turn the page to see the other photographers result and the difference is there!
It's like the 1DMKII prints (bigger than A4), they look perfectly sharp, like you can't make it seem like it needs anymore resolution. But it's only when you put it next to a MF/1Ds print that you realise that there is a difference.
I had a really bad experience with a shot that was used, just as an A4 advertisement. A4 really isn't all that big and 6.3 should handle that fine, but it was cropped to 40% of the image (even though it was interpolated). The image did NOT look pixellated (the interpolation fixed that) but the details were just really lacking and lost. There is a difference between actual resolution pixels on the image data, and pixels that actually contain information detail.
The other big factor is wide angle, I want my 17-40 to come alive, and i'm not about to settle for an EF-S 10-16mm to get wider shots. Otherwise I would have had an EASY choice to just get 2x 20D's!
Thanks for your help anyway :thumbsup:
