Hiya

Well I’m finally looking at getting my first DSLR (any SLR for that matter) in a couple of months … everything going well

My question is in relation to prints. I’d like to eventually have some professional looking prints taken (A3 size maybe) either for my own use or perhaps to try to sell. Are there certain things I need to consider when purchasing the camera (or lenses) to get the best results    If so can you tell what they are, what the minimums would be, the best would be and why.

Thanks in advance

Noeline

Ps: If you haven’t already guessed I know absolutely nothing about SLRs, lol. And no I haven't decided on a brand yet, hehe.

What image manipulation program(s) do you use?

With SLR's, Adobe Photoshop is capable of reading the .raw image files and turn it into a photo-negative for correction like you used to be able to do with film.

To get the "best" print you need 300 DPI. So (300 * 11.75) = 3525 pixels x
(16.5 * 300) = 4950 pixels. Which is 3525 * 4950 = 17,448,750 Pixels or
about 17.5 Megapixels.

There is not a digital SLR camera made today that has that much resolution.
That does not mean you can not get a good looking print on A3 paper. It just
means that you print at a lower DPI. Or interpolate the image bigger.

So the best compromise may be something like a Canon 5D Or Nikon D2X

I print my shots on A4 (well 8" x 12") and they look fine... they come from a Canon 30D which means in megapixels a 8.2 MP camera.  My prints are around the 4000 x 2600 mark, including a photoshopped frame and to be quite honest they look stunning (ie doubt anyone could tell they were digitial instead of film) - and i doubt there would be much problem with an A3 print of the shots i have on higest quality - but as always if you invest more you get more. The higher mp you go in the DSLR standings the better your image is going to get in terms of being able to print them and sell them.

In terms of lenses - well, investing in the best lenses out there is going to give you the best images... it all boils down to your budget, because in terms of lenses there is a decreasing return on investment on lenses - ie the increase in performance isnt directly related to the price - you pay say 4x more for a lens that is 2x better than the one below it....  Take that into consideration when choosing your equipment...

The link is to one review of both the D70 Nikon and the D200.  I really don't know about the D80.  I am intimately familiar with the D70 and the D200 so those are the ones in the review.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70.htm

I use both the early model D70 and the much newer D200.   The first is about 6 megapixels in full use and the D200 runs about 10megapixels.    With both cameras, I have quite successful prints of the A4 size.  I have to review the European paper sizes to compare with what we generally have in the USA.  : )   I wish we would standardize with your standards!

A4 is 210 x 297mm (8.3 x 11.7 inches approx) and that correlates well with my 8 x 10 inch prints.  I have done only one print in the larger size and from a very outdated Minolta point and shoot.  My "almost" A4 sizes in prints are just fine with no real indication of "digital".  They simply come out as photos..photos...photos.

With careful resizing up if needed, perhaps in 10% increments, you can get larger than expected from less megapixels.

As for the cameras, if price is an issue(and with DSLR it can become pricy!), the D70 version does a credible job and has no probs with 8 X 10 prints, even without resize upward.

Some has to do with the printer..yours or professionally done.  Farmed out professional prints range from the everyday kiosk sort of work to those who recognize color management and have the best possible result.  That can differ widely from outside printer to printer.  As for in-home printng, I simply do not have enough experience with it or the cash, or the time, to set up a printshop in my home.

I  am certain you will get good advice here.  The place is known for the willingness of othere to share, regardless of your equipment or experience.  I learned that soon after joining 'rosity.

Wishing you well.        TomD'Art.

If I were going to buy right now, I don't think I'd consider the D70s. The D80 or D200 would be my minimum Nikon considerations. The lens choice would be the other important decision. It all depends on how much Santa is willing to spend.

Too broad a question with no real answer....but I agree with Danny's comments (and calculations).  I think it would be best to give us a bit  more information regarding your budget, your image sales plans and an idea of what you will primarily be shooting.

The reason I say that is...with the few criteria you have given us, the DSLR suited for the task will cost you $3000+US for the body alone.  Add to that $1000+US for each lens, $500US for a flash, plus cards, bag, tripod, etc....

I'd hate to recommend that type of expenditure for someone new to DSLR's.

What I will add, in addition to what Danny has said;

1)Canon 5D is a better choice than the Nikon D2X

2)If you want a better "out of the camera" shot...one that requires less postprocessing...choose Canon over Nikon

3)As printed image sizes increase, the viewing distance also typically increases....so, you can drop the required dpi somewhat...but I agree with the 300dpi for A3 high quality

4)High quality glass generally equates with a high quality image( I don't mean composition!)....High quality glass generally equates with high price....Glass will not depreciate in value as fast as your camera body

NOTE: I'm sure points 1 and 2 may cause some folks to spit out their morning coffee....(Go ahead argue all you want....just my opinion and I'm not even a Canon guy!)  Take a look at the quality of Danny's 5D images...they speak for themselves.

Anyway, give the folks here some more criteria...then they'll be in a better position to help you narrow things down.

Thanks for all the responses. As much as I would love something in the 5D or D2X price bracket … that’s a little bit out of my league L. As gradient mentioned there’s all the other costs associated with a first time DSLR buy.

I’m currently looking at the 30D or the D200. My current Olympus C770UZ is only a 4 mega pixel cam so wasn’t sure whether the D200 would be the better buy over the 30D since it has more mega pixels. I guessed it was the mega pixels and the quality of the lenses that made a good quality print but thought maybe I had overlooked something.

@crytojoe I use Photoshop 7.0 (but not too familiar with it) and I know nothing about Raw files other than that seems to be the way to go. So I guess I’ll be learning all about that later on.

I tend to take a lot of landscape and macro shots with the odd still life thrown in

Hmmmm I think changing my car would be a lot quicker than deciding on a new cam :lol:

Some remarks: (for Danny & Gradient) I don't have a clue why everyone keeps putting the DPI of a printer and the pixels of a camera on an equal level... Who says that you have to multiply the pixel count of the camera with the 'Dots Per Inch' count on a printer to obtain the maximum possible magnification...? Is the human eye capable of reading every single dot of a 300 DPI image..? Then why does a professional printing bureau recommend a 5 megapixel image to obtain a poster size image of 50 x70 cm..? I just want to say that this method to calculate the required megapixel count is far too strict and unrealistic. You can get perfect large format prints with a 6MP camera (not even mentioning the difference between reduced and full frame sensors). Other remark: I get a little tired of hearing everyone talk about Nikon or Canon, when it's perfectly clear that the key for the future of digital cameras is actually held by Olympus, not less in quality and possibilities and even superior because of the Zuiko Digital lenses... If you're serious about photography, at least be wise enough to consider Olympus amongst the choices. Everyone who bought an Olympus, would do it again straight away...

Hi Noelene,

I can tell you one thing for certain   - It is going to cost a lot more than the first purchase.

There are lots of makes out there and I don't want to get into which is best because I believe each of them has their own advantages and if these match your needs then that particular one will be best. Do as much research as you can beforehand is the solution. However no one can deny at the present time Nikon & Canon are the market leaders. 

It definitely is not all about megapixels there are plenty of photographers producing stunning A3 prints from 6Mp cameras. Both of the cameras you have mentioned are capable of producing professional quality A3 size prints. You will need to postwork to size but this is common practise.

It will make a huge difference what lenses you use. Do not economise in lens quality, have less lenses or choose a lower priced body but buy the best lenses you can.

Consider the other cost implications: New stronger tripod ? New software for RAW ?  New top quality filters for landscape work, New batteries, New memory cards, New camera bag, etc etc etc............

I mentioned the D70 along with the D200 since I use both cameras. Certainly, the D200 (or perhaps D80 Nikon with which I am not personally familiar) would be a better choice.  I don't argue brands since I know Canon, Oly, Nikon and a few others make  very capable cameras.

Please keep in mind what Onslow said about the camera being only the first expense!  I have added tripod, monopod, several lenses, flash gun, etc.   You can add on as long as you have just enough cash left to put food on the table! : )    There are real accessories you will need and though generally less expense than the camera(some lenses may be more!) you will need to have those items sometime down the line.                Tom.

Starting off, you can also consider other brands of lenses such as Sigma for the camera, depending on the camera chosen.  The top line lenses from Sigma do a credible job.

"The top line lenses from Sigma do a credible job."

They certainly do - I would go so far as to say class leading performance with some lenses.

Well the question was which is best for A3 prints not A4  and talking from my own experiences I own a 10D as well as my 5D and have L glass lenses and thus on printing on my Canon 9100  A3 you can see the obvious benefit of the 5D over the 10D i  have no particular reason to exclude some of the other fine DSLR from the likes of Olympus and yes the range of lens from them are up there amongst the best.... However Canon do have the edge at present as regards to noise and if you are going to sell work and printing it far removed from the work seen here on Rosity at 72 dpi where images can be oversharpened  

You need to take account of the DPI pixel count to have some idea of the best possible print as interpolation will take place clearly on the 10D there  will be 3 times more so despite some prints from the 10D being stunning and good enough to sell when compared to the 5D .. They look less professional As do most digital cameras when compared to large or medium format Film prints..

I cant see how the future of DSLR lies in the hands of any one maker more it lies in the competition that may arise as a result of the improved technology in production to keep up...

If you finances are going to preclude the choice of the best you will not go far wrong with any of the current crop of superb cameras and lens on offer... Find a good dealer and makea comparison of the prints on an A3 printer not the ones they have got to show off the printer, you may see the difference then for yourself..

The bottom line is that most DSLRs will enable you to get a great print. How great that print will be depends on so many factors: the actual photo (how well it was taken), the printing process/printer, the camera lens, the postwork...that it makes it almost impossible to give you definitive answer as to any one right way. In fact, there probably in no one right way. Rather there are many different ways to achieve the results you want. I was happy to see Geert throw the Oly name into the mix. I am a member of an Oly group and the following message was posted the other day. I will post the original message and two of the responses, since I think they apply here somewhat: 1. I've Defected " Well, the amazing has happened, and I've defected to the Canon camp. I'm a long time Olympus fan, mostly for the fact they are willing to go out on a limb and take some risks to make some very real changes to the "way things are done". Dust cleaning, live preview etc, all of these have made me proud to be an Olympus user. However, I was feeling the need for a faster lens for portrait work which lead me to consider getting a canon, for it's 50mm 1.8, a cheap fast lens with good quality glass. I was never willing to consider this before, but now that Canon has finally caught up with Olympus and got dust cleaning built in, I was willing to consider using a 400d. In any case, with some trepidation, I picked up a 400d and a 50mm, and tried it out. I was in for a shock. The 400d was just fantastic to use compared to my experience with the Olympus. The 9 autofocus points are magic, the dial is in a much more convenient place, the LCD is bigger than me E-300, and all in all, it's a much nicer camera to use. I was utterly not prepared for that. I was only using the canon because of the 1.8 lens, which I expected to be of use in only a limited number of situations. Whilst I was right on the latter, I've so preferred using my 400d, that I no longer find any joy in the E-300, in spite of the fact I've got a much wider range of lenses for it. So, given that my only direct experience with Olympus dSLRs is my faithful e-300, I've got to ask how the newer models have progressed comparatively. Do they all still only have 3 focus points? Is the adjustment dial in the same place? In spite of the fact I'm effectively now a traitor to the cause, I find this very sad, as Olympus really have and continue to set the trends of the future when it comes to dSLRs. Without them, I don't know that we'd ever find a manufacturer willing to try something so new as live view LCDs on dSLRs for example, and that is something I don't want to see gone from the industry. Yet at the same time, the hard to find lenses, the complete lack of 3rd party lenses in my country (Australia) and the limitations of the only model I'm familiar are problems that are hard to ignore for purely idealistic reasons... Is this purely a matter of taste on my behalf, or do other people feel that Olympus is a bit "behind" in these areas, in spite of being ahead in other areas?" 2. re: sponse " Hello, based on the reasons you just have given us to give up Olympus and go to Canon I can say you are completely wrong. Instead of going to 50/1,8 Canon because it is so cheap, wait for a while, gather some money and buy Oympus Zuiko Digital 50/2,0. That's now the best portrait and macro lens on the world market, also the best of all the Canons and Nikons counterparts. If you don'tlike E-300, try E-1 and I am sure after that you'll appreciate it's the best ergonomics you've ever got in your hands. As for E-1 autofocus with 14-54, I can say it's faultless all the time and one of the fastest on the market. In spring, next year we will have another "toy" - the new Olympus series E body, I think with 10 milions pixels, immediate start and without noises at higher sensitivities." 2. re: sponses 2 " Hi XXX, I'll put my little 2c worth in.... Firstly, the E330 craps on the E300 for a number of reasons which are important to me - I think the E300 was rushed to market prematurely. The E330 vs Canon 400 is a more difficult proposition and depends on what you feel is important: - to me, the live preview is great fun when using manual lenses which I get very cheapy on Ebay and will focus MUCH better than the Canon with these. - I love using spot metering and I believe the Canon still doesn't have this. - I do miss the low noise at high ISO for certain situations but this is partly offset by the high quality fast aperture AF lenses that Olympus make. The Oly is useless above 800 ISO, but you can't have everything. - as for the 9 point AF, I can only see an advantage with action shots such as pets or kids crawling towards you. In the E330, even though it has 3 points, I NEVER use them as I always only use the centre one so I know what is being focussed on. Activating the other points only makes life more difficult for you for most image taking. - the Olympus digital lenses in general are much better than the Canons, especially the kit lenses. - number of pixels in each is irrelevant here. Looking into the near future, when your budget is limited as mine is, a sensor-type image stabiliser which Olympus will introduce next year is the way to go, this will, combined with the cheaper, faster aperture, lighter, better built Olympus lenses will in my opinion make the Olympus a far better proposition than cropped Canons with their expensive IS lenses in the medium term (next 5 yrs). After 5yrs it will be: - Olympus winning the light, compact dSLR niche market (Canon & Nikon won't be able to compete here except on their name) - full frame SLRs for higher end use as the price of full frame sensors comes down (so that there is not much point having cropped sensors apart from being light & small ) See this webpage for a costing on a Canon kit vs an Olympus kit and the corresponding weights. http://www.ayton.id.au/gary/photo/Dig_SLRs.htm But no camera or system is suited to all needs, so it depends on what you find important. Don't get me wrong, the Canon is a good camera and you will get a couple of years of great use from it and for action shots and low light shots with its better ISO, it currently wins. I might be looking for some Oly lenses :)" -------- So you see, the debates rage on, but the sentence I highlighted above says it all. Get a camera that feels the best to you and then save your money for a good lens(es).

I didn't mean to say that any one brand is the best, but not considering an equally good offer would be a little short-sighted. I had saved months before being able to buy my first digital SLR, and at the time I made my choice, I chose the best possible offer for the best possible price... by not focusing only on the two so-called market leaders. And I would advise anyone to do the same anytime... although the choice may ultimately differ at any given time. Just plain common farmer's sense here :o)) And in that respect, the highlighted sentence above in Kort's reply says it all, indeed...

My opinions of advantages of some the more common makes:

Canon: Great upgrade path to bigger sensor sizes later. The best noise reduction in shadow areas.

Nikon: Commited to C size sensors (they can't use a full frame one). Great range of high quality lenses. Colour matrix metering.

Olympus: Leaders in innovation and the only sensor cleaning system that actually works. High quality lenses. Very light to travel with or carry because of their small sensor size. 

Sony: High quality sensor. Good range of past Minolta lenses that are compatible.

Pentax: The widest range of lenses of all - compatible with all Pentax K mount lenses.

Sigma: Outstanding colour reproduction for true colour with no interpolation.

Samsung: Bargain entry level price.

My choice was Canon,  purely due to their own CMOS sensor and optics!..simple as that!...apart from the 'printing', have no complaints with the 5D, even at A3 Plus size (19inches  x 13 inches (483mm x 329mm)....apart from that, I'm very happy so I dont worry about other makes!...gets in the way of ones own mindset.

Sure we are agreed on that point that  it makes sense to investigate what will best meet ones needs, and costs,  and there is a lot to take into consideration.... As is the longer term considerations like resale value and companies going out of business even some of the best like Minolta which in my view were amongst the most creative innovators in the business The sensor stabilisers for example now being copied by others... Some companies may invest too much in certain aspects, or come to the market too late to make the impact they could have done,  which in the long run you may end of with a product that is no longer going to get the same service as you should expect and a loss of your hard earned cash.. Dont think the Minolta SLR owners would feel to happy about them going out of business.. Fortunately Sony have stepped in, so at least there is some good news there... One reason I  chose Canon or would go with Nikon is if these guys went bust then the whole business would be in a serious mess..

Sigma also made a very innovative Camera which sad to say did not take off ...The fact this company makes great lenses that can be used on other brands probably saved them from going bust..

The main factor for me was the fact I had invested a lot in my collection of lenses and assessories for the Canon System, much as I have for my PC and software  Windows based.. I  would also look at Apple systems if I had to start again.. I would if need be Jump ship if there was anything better If money was no object I would go for a digital medium format.. Until then I will stick with what I chose in some sure knowledge my investment is fairly safe...

Very good points Danny from someone taking the long view of things. Fortunately (or unfortunately if you consider the tough decision) for Noeline, she can start from scratch without any major investment in any one brand. If she already had a bunch of lenses for one cam, then I'm sure this wouldn't even be an issue. Thanks for your comparo there Sir Richard. I had never seen it put that way and to me that is the kind of brand comparison I like to see. I am one of those with no investment in any one brand (though I have some old SLR lenses for my Nikon & Pentax I suppose, but nothing worth mentioning) so I can start from scratch. It will be a tough choice when the time comes. I'll be looking for a camera with the sensor quality and sensitivty of a Canon, the lens range of the Pentax, a live preview effective and dust cleaning system of an Olympus, in the price range of a Samsung. ;']

ROLFLMAO!...... it looks like almost everyone took my bait!

I knew when I made my brand comments that some coffee would be spilled!

Please consider KiwiMiss's original request again....

"Are there certain things I need to consider when purchasing the camera (or lenses) to get the best results    If so can you tell what they are, what the minimums would be, the best would be and why."

It was not "which make should I buy?"....

So, now that we have some more information....let's get back to helping KiwiMiss.

@KiwiMiss....the 8-10 MP cams you have identified will give you fine A3 prints.

Remember, it's not all about Megapixels...some sensors are larger than others, generally, the larger the sensor the less noise in the resulting image. Not all sensors are the same....some are CCD, some are CMOS...many arguments here pro and con, but I think most will agree that CMOS sensors produce slightly less noise.

Do you want the sensor cleaning option?....if so, it narrows your choices.

Do you want Image stabilization in camera?....if so, it narrows your choices.

Remember that even with the type of cam you have identified you will be looking at about $1700US Body plus $400 to $1000US for each of the macro and wide angle lenses...plus all the extras..flash, cards, tripod, filters, bag and software.

As in Kort's post.."***But no camera or system is suited to all needs, so it depends on what you
find important."      *** 

@Girsempa...If you re-reread my point #3....you will note that I do not state that 300 dpi is necessary.....Do you think billboards are printed at 300 dpi...of course not.  However, for close viewing of most prints (4X6, 5X7) the accepted norm is 300 dpi. A wallposter for example is not intended to be viewed from the same distance as the 4X6 so, the print dpi can be reduced.  So, in your 5MP example....yes....a 20 inch by 27inch print is likely viewed from a far greater distance...so, your print is at 100 dpi. Will it produce a good result....sure, when viewed from it's intended distance.

Also for your information, several of the "stock" photo agencies (Alamy for example) are now requesting that the MINIMUM image sizes for uploads be 48MP (using "upresing" techniques)....that may give you an indication of what print needs clients have on the commercial side of things...

Ok, everyone refill your coffee cups....lol!

I'll be looking for a camera with the sensor quality and sensitivty of a Canon, the lens range of the Pentax, a live preview effective and dust cleaning system of an Olympus, in the price range of a Samsung.

No doubt you will want a  10 - 1000 F2 Nikon lens with that as a kit option !

You think?!?!?!? :b_unbelievable:

300 dpi....is because the human brain/eye is all that it can cope with....even at 600dpi, the eye will still see it as 300dpi!

Actually, it is more along the lines of what gradient said. It is how close you get to something that matters. Put me within 8 inches of a 300 and 600 dpi print and I'll tell you which is which. But yes, at normal viewing/reading distances, 300dpi is about all our poor little brains can handle.

:ohmy:  Think I need my morning coffee NOW!

Didn’t want to start a debate over brands … glad you’re taking the rap for that Gradient :biggrin:

I will look at the Olys again (I’m very happy with the one I own). Definitely doing my research which was the reason for my question re prints to narrow or broaden my choice. You have no idea how long it took me to buy my C770UZ … and its not SLR! Actually I think I want the same cam as Kort, :lol:

I now know anything over 6 but preferably 8MP is fine. Looks like I need to do some research into types and sizes of sensor tho :sad:

Tom: These top line lenses from Sigma which brands do they fit?

Richard: Are you saying that Nikon doesn’t do spot metering? And what type of Raw software do I need?

Thanks for all your replies …now its time for another coffee …

@KiwiMiss...no problem...LOL!

Sigma makes lenses that have mounts for most brands.

The Nikons allow you to choose from 3 types of metering, 1) Matrix, 2)Center weighted, 3) Spot.  They also have the ability to customize the size of the center weighted area in the menus.  Please check the specific model that you are interested in as features may vary from model to model.

Many types of RAW software are available...some makers bundle them with the camera, some don't.  Some are available for free on the net...some not...some are bundled as plug-ins to image editing programs. RAW software is something you don't need to use at the outset...You can always get it later...you may want to get comfortable with the camera first...shoot HQ JPG's...many folks never go to the RAW stage by choice.

Just having a coffee here myself right now.....have fun in your camera quest!

Attached Link: dpreview

(Just noticed: Gradient's post passed mine in cyberspace. So, some repeat here..)

Nikon does a fine job of spot metering. In fact, the spot is much smaller than offered by other brands and lends to an accurate spot read.  It is easy to move from spot to matrix metering  (sort of an averaged read of the frame) as you wish.    As far as I can tell, the Nikon spot metering is the most accurate when judged by the size of the spot read, allowing a dedicated read of an area uncluttered with brights and lows.  

 I don't think Richard said that. He mentioned color matrix metering which works pretty well. That is a plus and likely why mentioned.  You certainly have other metering options including spot which works quite well (once you learn to read where to meter!).  : )

(Of course, with a zoom lens you simply zoom in on the place you intend to measure and take the reading.  A button will lock the exposure if desired.  Then recompose and shoot.   You will soon know how well you read middle gray in real life color...or how to up or down an ev to make up for it.)

Sigma make mounts for most popular DSLR cams.    I have had no reason to check on Oly and really do not know.       

I almost bought Oly but got Nikon since at the time  Oly appeared being "locked" into a system with little known by me at the time how well that system performed.  And money was (is) an issue.   And, my other cams were Nikon and a Pentax(film) with a more recent but now very outdated Minolta digital.           TomDart

Thx Gradient and TomDart you have answered as I would if I were here. 

Nikon does have spot metering. I consider their matrix metering to be very good compared with others which is why I put it as an advantage. The list of advantages was not exhaustive just to illustrate a point that all cameras do have their advantages it depends if these are of benifit to the buyer if they are useful or not.

RAW software is a whole new choice but as Gradient has said you can shoot high quality Jpegs while you get used to the camera and these will of a very high quality and print large from the types of camera you are considering.

I wouldn't put too much weight on the sensor size issues, again there are advantages to all sizes and types.  

Kiwi, 

Quite honestly, I really cannot recommend a camera based on printing needs.  As stated in previoius postings, there is much more to getting a fine print than the camera used for the original image.   

My one summarized recommendation is to see what your direction might be, while being aware that may very well change.  Choose a camera suited to what you really want to accomplish and know that camera is quite capable of going other directions "with you".   Stay within a budget fitting what you actually can spend with some for unforseen needs, such as another lens, etc., beyond the basics of tripod, extra battteries and memory cards.  You might want software upgrades, for instance, which are  not always inexpensive even if less than a new lens might be.

I see most of the newer DSLRs quite capable of doing what you want to do, with room for other attentions as those enter your growth in this field.    I am changing in my directions, not knowing a specific direction in the first place beyond wanting to "be better at the first shot".   My camera will do the job when I get better and better.   Best wishes again on your quest.             Tom.

One thing Nikon is bad about is not including it's Raw image editing software with the camera. It usually ships with a lite version. To get the full version you have to fork over another hundred or so bucks.

Not really sure if the D200 ships with it or not. The D70 didn't, and the D80 doesn't.

I use Photoshop CS2 and it's Raw plugin, but I've heard the Nikon software works really well.

@FuzzyShadows.....AGREED...it is one of my beefs with Nikon as well!  The bundled software that comes with the cams is pretty much crap.

I guess it's one way of squeezing another hundred bucks out of us...as if the already overpriced cam didn't contain enough margin.....