The Practical Difference (Part 2) between 20" X 24" (50X60cm) Prints from an Olympus E-M1 and Nikon D800E—None!

Test Image Used; Focus was on the side of the garage; All parts
of the image were identical, even the edges and corners

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post touting that if I wanted ultimate quality, I would always turn to my Nikon D800E.  Well, I think I may have been a bit premature in writing that statement.  I have now tested the Olympus E-M1 against the Nikon D800E in actual large prints versus looking at a computer screen, even at 1:1, and I am amazed!

So you think you can tell quality difference by looking at digital image files on a computer screen?  You may want to rethink your position.

My first test, a few days ago, was highlighted in a post you can read here looking for any practical differences from identical image files from the Olympus E-M1 and Nikon D800E enlarged to 16" X 20" (40 X 50 cm).  The images were printed by MPIX without any corrections or adjustments being made by them.  In closely examining the two enlargements, scrutinizing all parts of the prints under bright sunlight, I could not find a place where there was a visible difference in resolution, sharpness or quality.  The color, saturation and density also matched. Even the finest details and the subtleties of the subject were identical.  Additionally, I spent considerable time looking very closely at the edges and corners of the prints.  Still I couldn't see any differences.  Please read that post to see what equipment and procedures I used to make the identical images.

Last week, I decided to step it up a notch and run another test.  I wanted to see if there was a difference if I ordered bigger prints.  In this second test, I had 20" X 24" (50 X 60 cm) enlargements made by a professional lab with no added corrections applied. In other words, I made the best images I could in Lightroom 5 and they printed my files exactly as I sent them with no adjustments. Bay Photo Lab handled the prints in super manner.  I could not be more pleased with the quality of the prints, the speed and the customer service with Bay Photo or MPIX.  Both had very reasonable prices, too.  I've had MPIX print, mat and frame many "wall art" prints for me in the past.  But this was the first time I had used Bay Photo.  I can highly recommend both companies for your professional level work. (They also offer fully corrected enlargements if you are not editing on a fully calibrated monitor as well as many other services.)

Back to the second, and more demanding test.  I wanted to slightly expand the prior test to add one more factor.  I wanted to be able to compare the 36mp Nikon image file to the 16mp Olympus image file at native size and resolution for the bigger print size.  But I also wanted to find out if upsizing or uprezzing the Olympus image file to the same size as the Nikon image file would make any discernible difference in the enlarged prints.

For this additional aspect of the comparison test, I took the Olympus image, exactly as it was edited for the first test, and exported it out of Lightroom 5 and into Alien Skin Blowup 3, upsized the image to the same pixel measurements as the Nikon file, then imported it back into Lightroom 5.  Blow up 3 added, by default, a bit of edge sharpening to the file. I then exported that file with no additional editing or sharpening as a JPEG to be sent to Bay Photo with the original two image files I had sent to MPIX last week.

To sum it up, three image files were being sent.  The Nikon was the same image file as sent before.  Two Olympus image files were sent.  One was the original as sent before and the other was the same image file, but upsized to the exact same size as the Nikon file.

This test would look at the image files enlarged from 320 inches squared to 480 inches squared, a 150% increase in print area.  I thought that was a statistically significant increment and should show a discernible  difference.

I received the prints Friday, which Bay Photo overnighted by FedEx.  I couldn't wait to open the box to see how much of a difference I would now be able to see in the large prints.

I laid the three prints out on the floor in a room with diffused sunlight coming through several windows so it was very bright.  I looked very closely at all three prints, first at a distance of about 3 ft. and then on my hands and knees from about 12 inches away.  I thought for sure I would easily see a difference between the files, but on close inspection and re-inspection, I could not discern any difference.  They looked identical. There HAD to be a difference somewhere.  I kept looking.

Finally, after examining the prints over and over, I did see a minute difference.  The native Olympus file and the Nikon file still appeared to be identical in the prints—resolution, sharpness, color, contrast, etc. However, in some very fine details in the wood of the old garage, it appeared that the upsized Olympus file had more contrast or, most probably, additional sharpening applied to the extremely fine details.  I believe this to be the result of the edge sharpening of the image file in Alien Skin Blow Up 3.  It did not degrade the image in any way, the tiny fine details in a couple of places looked a bit over sharpened.  I mean I really had to look hard to find any differences.  My conclusion is if you don't like that effect, uncheck the box in Blow Up 3.  Simple as that.

On Saturday, I had two long experienced photographer friends of mine look at the prints.  They agreed that the prints were essentially equal in quality and, looking at them without being told the three were a test from different image files, one would come to the conclusion that all three were printed from the same file.  My analysis was supported by them.

The simple fact is, that if you have to look really hard to find anything, any differences at all, even as large as 20" X 24" (50 X 60 cm) prints, then as far as I'm concerned the test shows all three files equal in color fidelity, resolution, contrast, saturation, sharpness with no apparent noise.  If you look at the those large prints even from 2 ft. away, you can't see the additional sharpening applied to the upsized image file.  That is how identical they are.  Remember, this is not a high ISO or worst case scenario test.  This is one test in one set of conditions.

My hat is off to Olympus for somehow getting incredible quality out of a sensor some say can never produce professional results.  YES IT CAN AND DOES!  Hats off to Alien Skin for producing a program that allows a photographer to increase the size of his or her image files with no noticeable loss in quality.

Again, if there is a flaw in my procedure, please advise where I went wrong.  My goal was to take two different file formats from two cameras with different sized sensors and different resolutions and make two identical enlargements.  So, a bit of comprise is necessary to make them the same overall size.  That meant cropping a bit on the horizontal dimension of the Nikon file (2 X 3 proportion) to match the shape of the Olympus file (4 X 3 proportion). The vertical dimension of both image files were kept uncropped.  The cropping came from the horizontal aspect of the Nikon file only otherwise it would have been a 20" X 30" enlargement instead of a 20" X 24" enlargement.  I believe the tests are valid and the comparison telling in the quality of the Olympus image quality.

My conclusion?  For most photographers and for most purposes, one can use a M4/3 system in lieu of an APS-C or full frame system and be confident that, under most circumstances (probably not racing or sports or the extreme ISO imagery, but the gap is closely with every new camera introduced) your images will meet your expectations and needs.  You can save money to buy additional gear, save your shoulder and back with the reduced weight as well as get everything into your airplane carry-on bag much more easily.

I would welcome your thoughts and comments.

Thanks for looking.  Enjoy!

Dennis Mook

Many of my images can be found at www.dennismook.com.  Please pay it a visit.  I add new images regularly.  Thank you.


All content on this blog is © 2014 Dennis A. Mook.  All Rights Reserved.  Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution.  Permission may be granted for commercial use.  Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.