Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I agree it will come down to the printed piece.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
HI Tom,Imaging Resource has D800 images available in case anyone wants to keep this thread going . I did a quick comparison to the 645D - very close but the 645D is clearly better in the fabric swatches IMHO.
Tom
Nikon D800 Camera Samples - First Shots
I did a quick comparison to the 645D - very close but the 645D is clearly better in the fabric swatches IMHO.
Tom
I actually saw the same, mostly in the light color fabrics. ACH
Dave,HI Tom,
..... I did notice that with regards to the right hand side of the image, it was a virtual tie between the two cameras. I'm not sure if this was due to each camera/lens being slightly different in how "square" it was to the image being taken or possibly the lens performance on one of the cameras. I wish whatever differences were observed was uniform across entire field.......
Dave (D&A)
Some day the ISO will reach a point you will no longer have to remove the lens cap.I'm scratching my head with the comparisons , noise and the biggest topic 8 out of 10 times is noise at ISO 6 million. Sorry I just had to get that one off my chest. WTF. Lol
The ISO 100 files from the Pentax look better to my eye, but the differences are subtle. The question this raises for me is the Pentax 25mm worth 5k, since for the same cost you can get the D800 with the 14-24mm?..........The Nikon image is impressive, but it is not the same. How important the differences are is very debatable. ................I think the Nikon is going to be a fine camera and a lot of photographers are going to benefit from it. Now they have something that can finally fill up their hard drives.
Only you can tell. The Nikon is a 3:2 camera and you would then be carrying two systems--to some that is not an issue, to others it is.The ISO 100 files from the Pentax look better to my eye, but the differences are subtle. The question this raises for me is the Pentax 25mm worth 5k, since for the same cost you can get the D800 with the 14-24mm?
Of course, the Pentax is a full frame lens should a 645DII follow.
Tom, that's what I meant when I said it appeared that the 645D might not have been squared to the entire image, giving rise to a sharper left hand side relative to the right side. If that was the case, the level of detail captured with the 645D would be convincingly superior.Dave,
I think the 645D image is out of focus on the right side. The proportional scale is not crisp, but if you look at an object closer to the camera, e.g. the white fabric under the black cup just below the scale, it's razor sharp at the near end and less so at the far.
Tom
Shashin, I already use three systems: a K5 for times the 645D isn't practical and my only fisheye is on a Pentax 67II film camera! The fact that Pentax has continued full frame D FA lenses may indicate they expect to have a full frame 645 in the future and that would be a significant motivation to choose the 25mm. I think Pentax learned a lesson when they changed their 35mm lens line to APS-C and are now stuck with the smaller sensor.Only you can tell. The Nikon is a 3:2 camera and you would then be carrying two systems--to some that is not an issue, to others it is.
Dave:Tom, that's what I meant when I said it appeared that the 645D might not have been squared to the entire image, giving rise to a sharper left hand side relative to the right side. If that was the case, the level of detail captured with the 645D would be convincingly superior.
Dave (D&A)
+1Here's a case study that shows how from one subjective perspective, the d800 "rivals" medium format.
I'm a refugee from large format, with all the attendant baggage and expectations, who has gone small because of cost (I moved to color from b+w, and on my artist's budget, can't afford $5 a click for film) and efficiency (I've fallen in love with the digital work flow. I'd rather get my work done than continue martyring myself for weeks at a time in the darkroom).
MF digital would be the obvious choice for me, and I do seriously lust over a technical camera, a PhaseOne back, and a lockable suitcase packed with state of the art German glass.
Alas, it will be sometime in the next century before I can afford such a setup.
So the question becomes, what solution exists within my means that can give the results I'd like?
I've downloaded and printed several sample images from the d800. I've done them at scales ranging from 13x19 to 4x7 feet. A lot of this was driven just by curiosity; my work will be printed mostly 30 inches and smaller.
The quality of the prints is indeed startling. Is it as good as from a $30,000 PhaseOne back? I haven't had the privilege of comparing, but I think it's safe to say: no way. I have some understanding of the physics and the physiology of vision; I've seen the MTF curves of the Schneider and Rodenstock digital lenses.
But the prints are still way beyond anything I've ever imagined coming off a small sensor or small piece of film. They're at least as good as anything I've seen come off of medium format film. In terms of certain qualities, the results are better than my darkroom prints from 4x5 (but not as good as prints from scanned 4x5 negs).
In other words, it's not quite as good as the best or even the typical MF digital. But it's in the same room now. It opens up options that used to be purely the realm of MF digital, and makes them available at a tenth the cost.
To make up some meaningless numbers, I'd suggest that the d800 gives 75% what high end MF can give, for 7 to 10% the cost. This will be attractive to a lot of people.
Those like me will find this camera a perfect solution for the time being. And those already invested in MF digital might find it a good, lightweight supplement, for about the price they're used to paying for a lens cap.