Question Choose Camera Balance of Three Ease of Use, Cost, Quality for Macro

[PatW]

For a 16 x 20 print (inches, mm on request) you need something like 7200 x 5760 (41 MP more or less) to print at 360 DPI native. That being said, all the new software will up-res almost perfectly. For the OM-1 this means about a 30% up resolution.
Bill

I have read up on the number of megapixels needed for enlargements. For small enlargements like 8 by 10 , you might need 320 dpi. But as you go larger, the viewing distance gets farther out. So you can get by with a much lower dpi. 24 megapixels is enough to print any but the largest enlargements according to my reading. I have made big enlargements from the old film days and 35 mm film is effectively around 20 mega pixels, if you believe the sources. You can easily find discussions of this on you tube.

 

[justinthedeeps]

Simple answer to the MP/dpi/ppi question for prints:

A 27" 4K monitor is about 8 megapixels, and 170 dpi/ppi.

Our photos look beautiful on the monitor, at this resolution, right in front of our faces!

So this is plenty of resolution for prints up to 24" wide, or an ~A2 size. Same size as our editing monitor!

Even the TG6/7 is 12 megapixels, higher resolution than a 27" 4K monitor. Go have fun and enjoy your beautiful prints.

Even at only 12 MP, You can print even bigger prints, if the viewing distance is more than 2 feet away.

People saying you need 300+ dpi for prints are confused. 300+ dpi is only required for magazines.

 

[tursiops]

Simple answer to the MP/dpi/ppi question for prints:

A 27" 4K monitor is about 8 megapixels, and 170 dpi/ppi.

Our photos look beautiful on the monitor, at this resolution, right in front of our faces!

So this is plenty of resolution for prints up to 24" wide, or an ~A2 size. Same size as our editing monitor!

Even the TG6/7 is 12 megapixels, higher resolution than a 27" 4K monitor. Go have fun and enjoy your beautiful prints.

Even at only 12 MP, You can print even bigger prints, if the viewing distance is more than 2 feet away.

People saying you need 300+ dpi for prints are confused. 300+ dpi is only required for magazines.

170 dpi might be fine, depending on the image and the print medium and size. If my picture is a high-resolution macro shot (as the OP desires) then I want every whisker on the fireworm to be a straight-line, not jagged due to pixelation, or fuzzy. A print is more demanding than a monitor; the comparison is not compelling. See, for example, https://posterprintshop.com/how-many-dpi-for-large-format-printing/#:~:text=For large format prints, a,distance and the print size.

 

[bvanant]

I have printed (many, many) underwater photos. 170 DPI for some pics is fine, but for things with lots of of detail it simply doesn't look as good (to me) as the same shot printed at 360 DPI. I think the difference between an LED screen and even the most glossy paper is quite large.
Bill

 

[justinthedeeps]

I have printed (many, many) underwater photos. 170 DPI for some pics is fine, but for things with lots of of detail it simply doesn't look as good (to me) as the same shot printed at 360 DPI. I think the difference between an LED screen and even the most glossy paper is quite large.

Fair enough, but what is the target viewing distance?

Of course when we print our own stuff, we get right up to it and want to be satisfied with detail at fairly close range--even for large prints.

Certainly the magazine folks chose 300 or 600dpi because it matters when someone is reading relatively small things at close range.

But at or beyond arm's length, it ceases to matter.

I guess we want to believe our prints will draw people in from afar, and then offer yet even more detail when the viewer gets in very close. Certainly we are likely to do that as macro (micro) fanatics.

But I don't think 200 dpi will ruin many people's appreciation of a good print in typical viewing contexts.

Summarizing, the OP should not really be concerned about a 12MP resolution on a good 'budget' camera. There are other things like subjects, skill and lighting that make more of difference at that level.

 

[bvanant]

For the scuba show in Long Beach/LA the expected viewing distance should be 1.5 x diagonal or 40 inches but no one stands that far away, usually more like 8 inches away. There is a huge literature about DPI and visual acuity and viewing distance, unfortunately most of the people who come to our booth haven't read that literature. A calculation based on a 40 inch viewing distance says 200 DPI says 13 MP might work. In practice with a bunch of picky UW photographers, they like prints done at higher DPI. BUT as I said earlier getting files up-resed from small sensors is pretty trivial right now.

In any case we agree that the OP will need more skills (and gear, he wants to snoot and do fluorescence and likely super macro). I think the TG-6/7 is fine for some of what he might want but overall I have seen it limit many competent photographers. I always want the camera to be better than I am (not hard) so spending a few hundred dollars less to get a limiting camera makes no sense. The limitations of the TG are not the megapixel count but other things like fixed apertures and no real manual modes.


Bill

 

[justinthedeeps]

Yes TGing is nothing like real photography. It is a different kind of magic, you just snap away without having to tune much (maybe just turn down the exposure comp), and get a bunch of popping JPGs that are easy and great beginner/amateur prints. Don't mind the 'real camera' people coming by to find reasons to feel bad about your cool photos

PEN E-PL10 or whatever MFT is affordable for people who want to spend quite a bit more for a 'real camera' with lens and settings and stuff. It's certainly better, but it actually still won't matter that much for casual (non-'competition') prints viewed in a home or something

 

[bvanant]

You are right about that, but I had the impression (perhaps wrong) the OP wanted really big prints. Big prints cost big $. A 36 x 48 inch acrylic print is like $400. A few of those and you could pay for a "better" system. But you do save money. A complete TG7 with strobe snoot tray is like $1600 or so and adding video will add another few hundred for a good video light. The Mozaic package is about $800 (or 2 big prints) more.
We are currently in Anilao on a Backscatter micro trip; there are a couple of TG7s shooting here and so far I will not be getting one. Similarly there are a bunch of Z9/Z8 folks here and I won't be going down that route either.

Cheers (from an OM-1 shooter)

 

[Bubblesong]

@bvanant i am willing to pay for huge prints, so not a problem
My motivation is that i got new prescription bifocal mask and realized how much detail and tiny critters i have been missing out on!
Also, it is true about skills, but without a better camera than a GoPro i can’t get the skills. One might argue that i start with something easier, but i have done “easy” and i don’t have all that many years left to go for great photography.
I am patient and I will stay still in one spot to get the best possible photo of a shrimps eyeball.
This discussion is amazing, and a real jump start on my research.
By the way, i do microscopy sales, and have sold Zeiss Nikon and leica, and flourescence gear with photography, starting back in the film days, to digital days, so i do know related concepts, just not UW camera brands and accessories and related.

 

[tarponchik]

The limitations of the TG are not the megapixel count but other things like fixed apertures and no real manual modes.

I agree. They recommend shooting TGs underwater in A mode but this is a rocket science.

I still believe a6000 or its upgrades like a6300 would be the best option here. There must be a reason this camera was likely the most successful mirrorless in history, and SeaFrog housings for it are dirt cheap. I won't disregard a used one; I had 3, one of them used, and I saw no difference. Folks who sell their a6000s are mostly those who upgraded to full frame and they took good care of their gear.