The GetDPI Photography 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!

POLL: Will you sell your MFD gear if the D800 holds good on its promise?

Will you sell your MFD gear if the D800 holds on its promise?

  • Never. I don't care about paying 10x as much for 10% more quality.

    Votes: 15 16.9%
  • C'mon, D800 will never match DoF, dynamic range and microcontrast of my Phase One!

    Votes: 32 36.0%
  • I'm into tech cams.Won't give up Rodesntocks & stitching, even if that luxury costs me 40k more!

    Votes: 15 16.9%
  • Damn. I just sold off my Canon/Nikon gear to get into MFD!

    Votes: 8 9.0%
  • If that Zeiss/Leica glass on the D800E performs as I think it should ... EBAY here I come!

    Votes: 5 5.6%
  • I just preordered a D800E. Hell it's cheaper than that MFD lens I'm longing for!

    Votes: 14 15.7%

  • Total voters
    89
  • Poll closed .

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.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
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:

Paul, I did not ask this thread to be removed.

Why would Nikon mention, why would Nikon that....? Nikon isn't everything that is photography. ;)

These are the folks who claimed that a photographer is only as good as the gear he/she uses, recently. So, why would anyone (add your own type/class of photographer here, at your own risk) compromise quality for the sake of money?:shocked:
 

cng

New member
So if everybody here laughs at the D800E ...
No-one here is laughing at the D800. The comedy is in this thread, not to mention your poll questions.

You seem to expect that the vast majority of people will just dump what they currently own at a moment's notice the instant something shiny and new appears on the market. Tad simplistic don't you think?

Gazwas said it best at the start of this thread, although I would expand his comment to: Phase / Hasselblad / Leaf / Leica / Pentax / Canon / Nikon / Sony / Samsung / Ricoh / Olympus / Panasonic / etc / etc / etc ...
 

jonoslack

Active member
Surely this depends entirely on how the IQ of the 800e pans out . . and until there are good RAW files from decent lenses it's going to be hard to tell - perhaps the best way to get handle on it is to look at D7000 files taken with FX lenses and extrapolate to some (softish) corners:p.

So, as far as I can see, Nikon have shown us something which is extremely interesting in concept - but any kind of decision / judgement is currently entirely moot.

I'm not biting . . . because, if I were to buy it then I'd want to use Zeiss and Leica lenses on it . . . and having seen focus peaking I realise I'd be better to wait for the Sony. . . . . . and of course, to see what Leica may come up with at photokina.

I'm not selling my MF gear either . . because I never quite got around to buying it - what I will say though is that the impetus to go out and buy it is no different in the face of the 800 (I really would like that S2).

all the best
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Paul,
saying that one does not believe that the Nikon D800E will deliver the same IQ doesnt mean automatically to rationalize ones equipment. Personally I dont need to rationalize anything. If something does fulfil my requirements equally good for much less money I just sell my old stuff and by the cheaper solution.
I am not married to my gear.

However-IMO the development steps in digital photography were mostly more evolutionary steps than revolutionary, so I am someone who does not expect wonders. And most important I first want to see myself and in reality before I make my conclusion. Datasheets are nice but I dont even care about MTF charts, I prefer to find out if I like what I see.

Regards, Tom

I can honestly say that I believe that most Leica M/R lenses are better than most Nikon lenses. And Leica states and I can see that the Leica S-lenses are even better than the Leica M lenses.
And now we do know that the smaller the sensor the higher quality glass we do need.



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:
 

Paul Spinnler

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.
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.

Don't you agree that the demographic of 50k photographic kit owners is probably a combination of pros and wealthy enthusiasts? Or who else would buy this? Normal people taking on a loan to get an IQ180 for some weekend shooting fun? Starting photographers with no idea if they ever will have enough ROI without having worked and built a client base?

I bet that there's a substantial amount of Phase/Hassy owners who are not working professionals but just have the money and the desire to go for the best camera systems out there and who love photography to justify the investment. And there's nothing negative to that. My mfd dealer in Germany who also sells Leica says that the hottest market right now for Leica is Russia and Asia. They sell more limited editions M9s and Leica S2 down there than anywhere else. There are probably more investment bankers in HK, Singapore or London running around with Phase or Leica systems than one might think. That's in my view the reality of the high-end photographic market and I didn't judge anything about it.

The reaction here reminds me of the reaction people get when they bring um medium format in the large format photography forums. At first there's denial, then there's dismissal and at the end shouts for censorship. But slowly some opinions change and people start to realize that there's possibly something to a Phase IQ180 compared to 8x10.

So please, no insults inteneded, no harm intended, I'm just wondering if the D800 makes someone reevaluete their investment in MFD or at least rethink the entry into MFD.

:)
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I took a look at the bridal shot on the nikon site. It looks unexceptional until you factor in that

1) It's a pre-prod
2) it's shot with a (admittedly very good) zoom
3) it's the version with AA filtering
4) it's 36mp at ISO 640

When you factor those things in, and when you remind yourself that according to DXO the sensor in the D7000 (apparently almost the same sensor as in the 800) has MORE dynamic range than the IQ180 and MUCH better high ISO performance, you are left realising that the colour depth of the IQ series sensors are their fighting USP.

Other than that, and the higher resolution of the IQ160 and 180, there is a lot to recommend the 800. As I stated higher up the thread, I have ordered one and look forward to seeing what the pudding tastes like in order to see whether, for me, it proves itself to be a viable way of consolidating MF and SLR systems into one.

I am open minded, and I think that is only sensible.

Tim
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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:
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
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
For me it would replace my A77 Sony as nice as the files are and how nice it did in LA on a big gig for me the EVF was and is just not my cup of tea. Shame because I really liked my results for what what use I have for it. Now I have not seen or read one major thing on the Nikon yet since I'm busy in Death Valley but it sounds promising for my uses. But it is not even a thought to replace my Phase and tech cam. I may switch gears slightly but nothing will touch MF and that is just the way it is. There is no evolutionary tech being done here just a rehash and finally someone like Nikon to step to the plate and lose the AA filter. Which I think is a good move. If it proves to be good than Yes I will order one to take over my 35 gearing. But no way am I giving up my 60 mpx sensor
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
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
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...
:)
 

jonoslack

Active member
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 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).

However - back to your microeconomics argument - assuming that there is a desire/market for higher resolution I would have thought that the D800 would be good for the MF market - for every person who ditches their MF gear to get a D800 I would imagine there will be several who get a taste for higher resolution by using the D800 - and then realise that MF offers more. Certainly my perception of those who used the 5d/d3x/A900 suggests that to be the case.
 

Anders_HK

Member
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. :)
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.

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.
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...


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."
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! :D

Best regards,
Anders
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
But don't you guys believe that there's an invisible Megapixel barrier where demand for high-end MFD will subside?
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 :)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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, 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.

Will there be new advanced technology in future as you indicate ... of course. Whether it is essential technology one needs to turn ideas into photographs is another matter altogether. The notion of directly connecting tech advancements to creativity, and application of ones tools to express that creativity, is the elephant in the room few care to acknowledge. It's much easier to play engineer and equate the tools directly to results.

Will Nikon capture MFD market share? Perhaps a little. I do think they will get the user that dreams of MFD, can't afford it or can't rationalize it from a purely practical POV ... so were never really prospects anyway. I do think it will cannibalize their own category. Possible users of the flagship units will seriously re-consider if they need or would use all the speedy features @ $6, 7 or 8K, when this is there with respectable features at 1/2 the cost or less.

-Marc
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Something justpped into my mind:

The D800 is Nikons strategy to sell many expensive new lenses.
On the D4 and d700 and d3s all the old glass works fine.
Now they sell the D800 for a low price, and after some weeks people will start to buy expensive new lenses which can deliver the resolution of the D800 sensor. Clever move.
 
R

richard.L

Guest
As I recall, that Dalsa purchase was for around 300Million.
those of you in the FD can estimate the annual volume of chips.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
One look at the Nikon D800 samples was all I needed to see that Nikon is barking up the wrong tree. It is very sharp, but the tonal resolution and punch in the blacks can't even match a P25+. I prefer the shadows from the D7000

It seems people are getting over exited by the big numbers and claims of medium format quality.

Here is a sample from the Nikon D800 at iso 100:



http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_04_l.jpg

This is a good lighting situation to test a camera. Just one light. No fancy lighting to spruce things up.
Looks dull and rather flat. Eyeballs are greyish and skin does not have a tonal rendition that makes skin luminous or rich.

On the other hand the Canon 1D X sample files look very very good. Impressive improvement in the overall image quality. may not have the hyper resolution of a 60MP or 80MP but the overall image is terrific. Great blacks and very nice luminous skin tones.

Personally I think that Canon has made the better choice. 18 MP is the sweet spot.
At ISO 100 I always preferred my Canon 1ds files to my Canon 5D Mark II

I am hoping to a little brother to the Canon 1D X running at 5/6 frames per second (or even less) but with stellar focusing and the same 18MP sensor.

Canon is also developing a 50ish to 100ish f2 zoom with IS. IF it's the same quality of the 70 to 200 2.8L II it will be a lens I'd like for sure.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Regarding the argument that size matters: Yes it does, but only if all things being equal holds true.
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.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
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 :)
2x better tonality and color in the mid tones and about 80X better quality in the deep shadows and and blacks.

As far as lenses go I'd say the same applies to 80 MP sensors on MF. About the same dot pitch of the Nikon D800 sensor. However you have twice the real estate with the MF 80MP sensor... but in my opinion the photosites are too small. 80MP really needs to be a 6x7 or 6x8 sensor.
 
Top