Quentin_Bargate
Well-known member
Paul, it is insulting to dismiss those who disagree with you as merely "wealthy enthusiasts" and I have seen no one "laughing" at the D800. Such comments have no place on this forum.
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!
It's a very valid question in my view. If you take a look at this video:
Nikon D800 and D800E: Hands On Preview - YouTube
where the Nikon product manager presents the new D800E to the public, you will see that Nikon with the D800E squarely aims at the MF crowd. They mention medium format users many times.
No AA filter and 36 MPX is a clear marketing proposition aimed at people thinking of buying a H4D-40 or IQ140 in my view.
Of course one gets fire when asking these question in a forum dominated by pros and wealthy enthusiasts who can afford a 40-50k imaging system. But it is childish to ask for the removal of the thread - it must be possible to discuss the introduction of consumer-priced 36 MPX systems in a medium format forum without making people angry.
So if everybody here laughs at the D800E ... why would Nikon create an AA-less version in the first place, mention medium format users in press conferences and commission fashion photographers to test out the new camera? I guess it's because they do see potential of getting a piece of that high-end market with that camera.
And it is also clear that people rationalize their investments. If one had spent 30k on an IQ140 system two months ago, having sold off a D3X and all Nikon lenses to fund the purchase, it would only be natural to defend one's purchasing decision staunchly. But in the back of one's head one might say to oneself: "That Nikon D800E wouldn't have been the worst of choices ... Damn."
I'm wondering what the D4X will bring now!
:watch:
No-one here is laughing at the D800. The comedy is in this thread, not to mention your poll questions.So if everybody here laughs at the D800E ...
It's a very valid question in my view. If you take a look at this video:
Nikon D800 and D800E: Hands On Preview - YouTube
where the Nikon product manager presents the new D800E to the public, you will see that Nikon with the D800E squarely aims at the MF crowd. They mention medium format users many times.
No AA filter and 36 MPX is a clear marketing proposition aimed at people thinking of buying a H4D-40 or IQ140 in my view.
Of course one gets fire when asking these question in a forum dominated by pros and wealthy enthusiasts who can afford a 40-50k imaging system. But it is childish to ask for the removal of the thread - it must be possible to discuss the introduction of consumer-priced 36 MPX systems in a medium format forum without making people angry.
So if everybody here laughs at the D800E ... why would Nikon create an AA-less version in the first place, mention medium format users in press conferences and commission fashion photographers to test out the new camera? I guess it's because they do see potential of getting a piece of that high-end market with that camera.
And it is also clear that people rationalize their investments. If one had spent 30k on an IQ140 system two months ago, having sold off a D3X and all Nikon lenses to fund the purchase, it would only be natural to defend one's purchasing decision staunchly. But in the back of one's head one might say to oneself: "That Nikon D800E wouldn't have been the worst of choices ... Damn."
I'm wondering what the D4X will bring now!
:watch:
Quentin, I did not dismiss anyone (and wasn't thinking of you in any way) and don't want to insult anyone. And I didn't state this because someone disagrees with me. It is just my general impression of the mfd demographic, not only here but in general.Paul, it is insulting to dismiss those who disagree with you as merely "wealthy enthusiasts" and I have seen no one "laughing" at the D800. Such comments have no place on this forum.
Paul, I believe it is valid to discuss this, and applaud you for broaching the subject is a direct manner. However, perhaps you are confusing experiential knowledge and conviction with anger?It's a very valid question in my view. If you take a look at this video:
Nikon D800 and D800E: Hands On Preview - YouTube
where the Nikon product manager presents the new D800E to the public, you will see that Nikon with the D800E squarely aims at the MF crowd. They mention medium format users many times.
No AA filter and 36 MPX is a clear marketing proposition aimed at people thinking of buying a H4D-40 or IQ140 in my view.
Of course one gets fire when asking these question in a forum dominated by pros and wealthy enthusiasts who can afford a 40-50k imaging system. But it is childish to ask for the removal of the thread - it must be possible to discuss the introduction of consumer-priced 36 MPX systems in a medium format forum without making people angry.
So if everybody here laughs at the D800E ... why would Nikon create an AA-less version in the first place, mention medium format users in press conferences and commission fashion photographers to test out the new camera? I guess it's because they do see potential of getting a piece of that high-end market with that camera.
And it is also clear that people rationalize their investments. If one had spent 30k on an IQ140 system two months ago, having sold off a D3X and all Nikon lenses to fund the purchase, it would only be natural to defend one's purchasing decision staunchly. But in the back of one's head one might say to oneself: "That Nikon D800E wouldn't have been the worst of choices ... Damn."
I'm wondering what the D4X will bring now!
:watch:
No personal anger at all. I bought a mfd kit fully knowing that 35mm digital will come up with higher MPX counts and better sensors. In the end we're talking about Sony and Canon here who have huge R&D budgets for their sensor progras. Medium format has only Dalsa left and the company that bought kodak's sensor business.Paul, I believe it is valid to discuss this, and applaud you for broaching the subject is a direct manner. However, perhaps you are confusing experiential knowledge and conviction with anger?
Personally I think it is very reasonable to assume there are a lot of photographers that need/want/desire a higher resolution tool, and can't afford a full blown MFD kit. I believed this to be true when cameras like the Canon 5D and Sony A850 delivered FF sensors over 20 meg at a reasonable price point. I also believe it to be more true today than in past because of the economic climate and increasing pressure on the photographic industry in general ...added to the wide-spread myopic view that pixel count is an absolute measure of IQ.
For those that regret getting a MFD kit because of this D800, perhaps they either couldn't afford to do so in the first place, or can't realize the difference it can make in the work they do. In either case, this Nikon may be the better choice.
However, the assumption that 36 meg stuffed into a 35mm film gate will cure all ills is where the choo-choo comes off the tracks. It simply sweeps aside the well documented knowledge that size matters. In this case, it seems to be an omission of convenience for the sake of the POV you want to focus on ... the above mentioned economics.
Your POV is very valid, but it doesn't mean owners of MFD systems don't have an equally valid perspective... and to imply it is a defensive reaction belittles their knowledge/experience base for making informed decisions. When I purchased my S2P, I did so with the full belief that a 30+ meg 35mm DSLR was on the horizon (that prospect has been clear for quite some time). That it has now arrived makes no difference to me at all because I had already taken it into account. My criteria based on direct experience was that size matters, and Leica lenses matter even more.
As for my Hasselblad H4D/60 ... I prefer the True Focus innovation over any focus array in any 35mm camera, and not only does sensor size matter, but the meg count dwarfs the D800 if that has to be the absolute indicator of IQ ... which it is not.
-Marc
I think you make an interesting point here . . . and I guess that the argument COULD relate to lenses as well . . . . Certainly the recent Sony / Zeiss lenses have been pretty good (whether good enough, we won't know until someone tries them on one of these sensors).No personal anger at all. I bought a mfd kit fully knowing that 35mm digital will come up with higher MPX counts and better sensors. In the end we're talking about Sony and Canon here who have huge R&D budgets for their sensor progras. Medium format has only Dalsa left and the company that bought kodak's sensor business.
The D7000 sensor with its dynamic range is a testament to the advancements in CMOS technology. I bought the mfd camera because I could afford it and wanted the best. So my answer is number one. I don't care about 35mm digital because I honestly think it is inferior. But I'm interested in microeconomic choices and whether Nikon will be able to capture market share in the mfd digital world.
Regarding the argument that size matters: Yes it does, but only if all things being equal holds true. Here we have technology power houses such as Sony who might cram 100 megapixels in sensors by 2013 using organic sensor tech. They aggressively push the CMOS technology further and further. On the other hand we have the MFD players who are dependent on the sensor capabilities of smaller, specialized companies such as Dalsa. If sony leverages their sensor tech in their HD cams, cell phones and dslrs they can get a much higher ROI on ther R&D. So actually we have smaller sensors but we have probably a lot more R&D muscle behind that too. So possibly there might be a point where there is a 50MPX sensor from Sony that has higher dynamic range, lower noise, better color representation than the next 90MPX Dalsa.
I'm not an engineer but I wouldn't underestimate the r&d aspect and economies of scale...
I guess I am the one you label as childish... for asking removal of thread... No, your post did not make me angry, I find your post very immature, no offense. It is not only for the constant tiring DSLR vs. MFDB debate but for the choices offered for the poll. And I do believe it would be proper to remove this thread. It does not belong in a mature audience.Of course one gets fire when asking these question in a forum dominated by pros and wealthy enthusiasts who can afford a 40-50k imaging system. But it is childish to ask for the removal of the thread - it must be possible to discuss the introduction of consumer-priced 36 MPX systems in a medium format forum without making people angry.
The obvious reason is same as seemingly the whole camera industry and media: to push sales and convince people to spend money. And why should they not want to win more customers over, more lens sales and other equipment. Now hang on, do we believe what they claim? Do they shoot their best equipment adds with DSLRs or medium format gear? Per what I recall reading somewhere Nikon uses Phase One for those... On other hand, if I was a pro, I would perhaps grab the D800, perhaps quicker to get job done and clients do not ask for more pixels...It's a very valid question in my view. If you take a look at this video:
Nikon D800 and D800E: Hands On Preview - YouTube
where the Nikon product manager presents the new D800E to the public, you will see that Nikon with the D800E squarely aims at the MF crowd. They mention medium format users many times.
Actually I do not belong to pro or rich amateurs, and I sure could have used the $ in the bank at current. I simply enjoy and value image quality for my passionate hobby. I financed my AFi-II 12 and Hy6 system with sale of five camera systems, knowing that somewhere in 30s MP DSLRs would be announced, and safely and content at doing so knowing they would not measure up to my medium format gear. Am I surprised of the D800/E? No image quality looks substandard to also my prior 28MP Aptus 65. I am happy with Leaf, not trying rationalize. Why, if I wanted to I could sell my new gear and put $ in bank, no way. My current system offers me a wonderful system to use and image quality that surpass my expectations. It made me prematurely drop 4x5 film. Not only that, getting rid of so much gear makes me focus more on what I enjoy: photography, and no more upgrade, upgrade. The 80MP will last me for many years still... I am a very happy camper!And it is also clear that people rationalize their investments. If one had spent 30k on an IQ140 system two months ago, having sold off a D3X and all Nikon lenses to fund the purchase, it would only be natural to defend one's purchasing decision staunchly. But in the back of one's head one might say to oneself: "That Nikon D800E wouldn't have been the worst of choices ... Damn."
No. Issue is ability of glass to utilize small pixel pitch. Right now there are maybe 2 Nikon lenses that will fully utilize the D800 pitch at optimal aperture that will likely be f5.6. After f8 you won't need the AA filter version to ameliorate moire as the lens limitations will do it for you.But don't you guys believe that there's an invisible Megapixel barrier where demand for high-end MFD will subside?
Paul, I think it you who is under-estimating Teledyne Dalsa. Their R&D isn't dependent on consumer level imaging, it's funded by little enterprises like NASA, major Satellite Corporations, Medical applications, and various deep-pockets Industrial/Military complexes world-wide. I'd bet what we get to see in our MFDs is old tech to them by the time it trickles down to us. Remember years ago when Seitz wanted a 160 meg sensor for their 6 X 17 pano camera? It was Dalsa they went to. BTW, Dalsa also is a leader in CMOS technology.No personal anger at all. I bought a mfd kit fully knowing that 35mm digital will come up with higher MPX counts and better sensors. In the end we're talking about Sony and Canon here who have huge R&D budgets for their sensor progras. Medium format has only Dalsa left and the company that bought kodak's sensor business.
The D7000 sensor with its dynamic range is a testament to the advancements in CMOS technology. I bought the mfd camera because I could afford it and wanted the best. So my answer is number one. I don't care about 35mm digital because I honestly think it is inferior. But I'm interested in microeconomic choices and whether Nikon will be able to capture market share in the mfd digital world.
Regarding the argument that size matters: Yes it does, but only if all things being equal holds true. Here we have technology power houses such as Sony who might cram 100 megapixels in sensors by 2013 using organic sensor tech. They aggressively push the CMOS technology further and further. On the other hand we have the MFD players who are dependent on the sensor capabilities of smaller, specialized companies such as Dalsa. If sony leverages their sensor tech in their HD cams, cell phones and dslrs they can get a much higher ROI on ther R&D. So actually we have smaller sensors but we have probably a lot more R&D muscle behind that too. So possibly there might be a point where there is a 50MPX sensor from Sony that has higher dynamic range, lower noise, better color representation than the next 90MPX Dalsa.
I'm not an engineer but I wouldn't underestimate the r&d aspect and economies of scale...
Paul, technology is not a silver bullet. Light still has a wavelength. Photography is still light dependent. It is impossible to maintain the same image and object space between two formats. Size matters because things are not equal.Regarding the argument that size matters: Yes it does, but only if all things being equal holds true.
2x better tonality and color in the mid tones and about 80X better quality in the deep shadows and and blacks.No. Issue is ability of glass to utilize small pixel pitch. Right now there are maybe 2 Nikon lenses that will fully utilize the D800 pitch at optimal aperture that will likely be f5.6. After f8 you won't need the AA filter version to ameliorate moire as the lens limitations will do it for you.
Second, your poll suggests MF users pay 10x for 10% more IQ -- not true. We pay more like 5x more for 2x more resolution and 2x better color and tonality; so IMHO your personal paradigm is skewed...
Thank you all for keeping this civil