1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

EM-10 17mm 1.8 IQ

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by bigal1000, Dec 26, 2014.

  1. bigal1000

    bigal1000 Mu-43 Veteran

    337
    Sep 10, 2010
    New Hampshire
    Is it me or can't this combo go any higher than an 8.5x11 enlargement, iso 200 and a 7.1 aperture printed with a Canon Pixma Pro 8720 I can't believe the noise in the shadows in this print. Never had any problems like this with APS-C cameras. It looks ok on the computer, but not with prints.
     
  2. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Normally prints look better than on a computer. I've made 16x20 prints from my E - M5 and it's the same sensor on the E - M10, so I think you must be doing something wrong. Can you post an example - ideally the raw with full EXIF?
     
  3. bigal1000

    bigal1000 Mu-43 Veteran

    337
    Sep 10, 2010
    New Hampshire
    Thanks, you have done 16x20 I guess I'll give it a retry, I'm no newbe I started back in 1969.. I'll post if things don't get better.
     
  4. fortwodriver

    fortwodriver Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Nov 15, 2013
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Frank
    It sounds like you've got a blocked nozzle or something. A blocked nozzle or two (or 10 or 20) can do that on Canon printers. I've never been a fan of them, but there are lots of people who don't like Epson, so who am I to say.

    I regularly do large prints on my Epson with my E-M1 and that lens and at ISO1000 see virtually no noise.

    You could try having it printed at a local minilab to see if the grain shows up when they do it.

    ...but I suspect the printer, or printer drivers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. bigal1000

    bigal1000 Mu-43 Veteran

    337
    Sep 10, 2010
    New Hampshire
    That's what I'm beginning to think,I'm going to clean the nozzles and try again.
     
  6. bigal1000

    bigal1000 Mu-43 Veteran

    337
    Sep 10, 2010
    New Hampshire
    I ran a clean cycle and tried another photo looks much better, must have been the printer, I'll do some further investigating...That did not seem right to me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. lrlebron

    lrlebron Mu-43 Veteran

    398
    Apr 8, 2013
    Huntsville, AL
    Luis R. Lebron
    I've also done some beautiful 16 x 20 prints with that same combination.
     
  8. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    no...it's defiantly you !

    Happy new year

    K
     
  9. bigal1000

    bigal1000 Mu-43 Veteran

    337
    Sep 10, 2010
    New Hampshire
    I'm thinking your right,sir. Happy New Year to you also.
     
  10. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    You may want to order a cheap print from a convenience store, just as a reference point. Could be a useful, sanity check.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    bigal1000

    you could have probably have composed your post title a little better

    You do realise that IQ in relation to cameras has absolutely no actual definable meaning?.

    IQ in humans is a little more defined, but not much

    High IQ can lead to great things.. but its not guaranteed, most of the the great stuff in life can't be measured n IQ

    K
     
  12. fortwodriver

    fortwodriver Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Nov 15, 2013
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Frank
    I dunno Kevin,

    I knew what he meant and frankly he's been printing for years - so he knows what he was saying...

    An image can lack "quality" in an objective sense. In this case it seems like it was a technical issue.

    It made sense to me.

    Happy New year folks, all the best, and keep printing your work, I say!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. bigal1000

    bigal1000 Mu-43 Veteran

    337
    Sep 10, 2010
    New Hampshire
    Thanks Kevin could not have said it better,regards.