I've been taking lots of photos with the D800 and am very impressed with the detail and dynamic range. I was wondering what the results have been from various larger format printers out there. I'm using a Epson 7800 and R1800. I also print larger format photos from 6x17 negative scans as well. Does any particular printer seem to work better with the D800. It's getting close to time to upgrade the 7800 and was looking for suggestions. Thanks in advance.
I have the 9900 Epson and for me has been trouble free. The files from this camera almost beg for a 44" printer. Am presently shooting with the D800E and Nex 7 and already have several gallery wraps hanging 36" x 56"
Only way you can go wrong with an Epson printer & ink is to use cheap paper or to not use it often enough. I've had my Pro 4000 sit over a month and then had to use extensive cleaning cycles.
It is most important (as with any camera) to get a very sharp image. But, the D800's higher resolution shows user error mo beta. I have cropped and recropped and then printed 17x22 with stunning results.
My guess is that 64" roll paper is not too wide for a D8000 print.
> >>But, the D800's higher resolution shows user error mo >beta. > >Haha!! Roger I love your "king's English." >Especially coming from a guy wearing a 10 gallon hat!
Betcha didn't know that I live in "PruneTucky". When I first moved here, I had to haul in two wrecked cars before the neighbors would even talk to me. Times have changed though and the Yuppies are moving in, so I guess I will have to bulldoze the weeds and haul out those rusted hulks. I had to license my Hog n Dog and the county will not even allow you move into an old bent up single wide anymore either.
Given that the D800 has incredible resolution and uses Nikon's latest and greatest image sensor I think the Epson line of HDR printers is your best choice. I am anxious to get my D800e and make some really BIG prints with my Epson 9900.
Ernesto Santos esartprints.comErnesto Santos Photography Get my new e-Book "Churches of Texas"
A 7800 prints at about the same resolution as the 7900, but with different color abilities. A 9800 or 9900 (or even 11800, I don't think there is an 11900) has more physical area to print upon.
I don't have a D800 so presumably I am not qualified to comment - except that I do have very large format scans, from 4x5, 5x7 and a few 8x10 negatives, which result in ridiculously huge 170, 200 and 350 megapixel scans. I also have some even bigger files, scanned from larger originals, which are as big as 770 megapixels (gasp, not a typo, that's seven hundred and seventy megapixels). These make the 36mp files from the D800 look positively tiny by comparison...
I think that it really boils down to how big you want to print the files. We scan at high resolution on good scanners because at the end of the day we're in the business of historical archiving and we are in effect converting from physical prints and negatives to digital archiving. And we have extremely limited manpower, so scanning once and never touching the original again is an attractive proposition. It's hard to conceive of why one would take a 400mp file and need to downsize it to print it at "only" 11x14 or so, in other circumstances.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!