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

[KurtKamka]

One of the strengths of the S system is the brilliance of the lenses. Expensive yes, but you get what you pay for ... fantastic image rendering ... especially wide open. I go into each situation knowing that they've been designed with regard to the medium. As a result, I only worry about the limits of hand-holding in situations where I would need to utilize something with very high ISO limits.


Kurt

 

[fotografz]

Doug

as you and I know the camera is not making the image. Unfortunately still several people believe this to be the case. The working Pros are probably mostly immune to that idea because they learn every day that only their craft and imagination makes an image happen.
I think you are right with the definition of a niche market. But also the niche market runs into technical limitations after a while when the niche does not keep its uniqueness. It may well be that this D800E is not the final answer for the people who look for an alternative. But the 5D MK3 may be even closer or the Sony XX may be even better suited for this.
MF with CCD´s is hitting a wall right now, 80 Mpix is probably the border.
With real sensitivities more closer to 200 Asa instead of the proclaimed 800 asa you will need full sunlight to be able to shoot them out of hand reliably without shaking the image. A Nikon D800E will have true 800 or 1600asa usable for out of hand shots, because of the smaller format you can also use shorter focal lenght lenses with wider apertures. It´s all about usability. The image quality is probably catching up later, whereas I think with proper Rawfile treatment the difference is VERY small.
I am speaking to many people who use the actual latest generation of backs. It´s always the same: they like them, but after some talk you will hear the same story again and again: No longterm exposures, lack of sensitivity (only perfect low asa performance) and lack of special lenses, may it be long teles, superwides. This is essential and needs to be solved.

Otherwise it will become more and more difficult.
Of course you are right- if someone wants to buy a camera to impress his friends it doesn´t sound good if this was only 3000 $ instead of 40000 $.
Maybe these are many more potential customers than those who "just" want to photograph. I wish you are right and the market will thrive.

But I fear that´s not the case.

regards
Stefan

Stefan, I won't rehash the "size matters" idea. If you don't get it, or choose to ignore it, more discussion won't help

You keep describing the 35mm experience as the competing aspect verses MFD, as if everyone wanted or needed that experience, and there is no other. This argument is as old as the first Leica from the beginning of the last century.

Personally, I don't go out with a MFD to see how fast I can get over the next horizon like it was some race to fill the CF card faster than the next guy.

Besides, counter to most on this forum, many (if not most) MFDs are used at ISO 50/100 on a studio stand tethered to a pair of large monitors with 10,000w/s+ of highly controllable light to work with.

Yet, MFD has evolved to allow location work with on board card-capture, accurate AF, higher available ISOs, plus continued access to technical cameras and optics that no Nikon/Canon/Sony lens will ever equal.

If 80 meg is the "Wall", then Hasselblad didn't get that news. Maybe a 200 meg RAW file is the wall, since that already exists. Doesn't matter what technology was used to reach that final meg count, or it's limited application ... it is just one of the niche utilizations of MFD available, one that uses technological innovation to solve specific photographic problems or needs. That is what niche means ... to be specific, in marketing it means: "A focused, targetable part of the market" ...not everyone, and his camera toting uncle Bob.

Unfortunately, your points of comparisons are peppered with loaded bias and exaggerations which runs directly counter to experiences of actual users of certain MFD systems. Short changing actual accomplishments on one hand and puffing up others on the other hand, just erodes credibility IMHO.

Fact is, I've shot a H4D/40 available light @ ISO 1600, with a short lens, at very low hand-held shutter speeds. Hasselblad allows this by letting me set a ms mirror delay, and the leaf-shutter lenses virtually eliminates shutter vibration, not to mention how camera mass is at play. 16 bit capture helps keep the color fidelity and subtile separation, as opposed to the color shift and loss of subtlety of many higher meg 35mm cameras when shooting at this ISO level. My H4D/40 was better at this than the D3X I used, and just as good or slightly better than the Sony A900 I now use ... only the H4D file was much larger, required less enlargement to final size, and easier to work on in post. Not to say, I run out and shoot that sort of thing all the time, but I could or can, and that's the point.

See example "proof" below that I've posted before (a simple, walk-about snap-shot while on vacation): H4D/40 and HCD35-90 ... ISO 1600, f/4, 1/25 shutter, handheld @ eye-level, no support, (no wall, post, monopod, tripod). Real life shot, as opposed to web rhetoric and theoretical limitations based on lack of skill and the lowest common denominator.

Select your gear to fit you, keep it long enough to learn how to use it, and get on with making photographs your way, not all the "The sky is falling" technophile's ideas of how to make photographs based on ever more "do it for you" substitutions for human talent, skill, and ... dare I say it ... practice actually making photos, as opposed to talking about making photos.

My advice is ... back to work everyone ... this horse is dead :deadhorse: ... beaten into fertilizer to grow grass that's eaten by more horses who were then beaten to death again ... and so on :deadhorse: ...and so on :deadhorse:

No offense meant to horse lovers :ROTFL:

-Marc

 

[dchew]

I switched to MF last year. My own reaction to the d800 is curious even to myself: Kind of apathetic.

When I was shooting 35mm I was all wrapped up in the new camera craze. 1ds this d3x that 5dII this... Should I switch platforms cuz of this new camera? Will I get better results with that new lens? I notice most of the posts about "death of MF" are from 35mm format shooters. I believe it is because like I used to be, they are wrapped up in the new camera craze.

Not any more. I get more excited about LR4 or C1 upgrades now than a new camera announcement. Perhaps it has to do with the Theory of Constraints. With my current gear I am my own constraint to image quality, both aesthetically and technically; my gear is not the constraint.

That's a very fun place to be actually.

Dave

 

[Guy Mancuso]

HeadIng home today from the workshop. We had 13 of 14 folks shooting MF all week. They loved it. So this death talk is pretty funny to read as this stuff when grown men are calling home to there wives letting them know they are buying there own Valentines present this time. Also maybe 3 folks getting the Nikon too but it is to compliment our MF systems. This either or stuff in reality does not exist. I will have both myself and I added to my MF kit myself. No 35mm on the planet will ever replace the absolute best gear on the planet. People with money or limited amounts want to shoot the best they can get in there hands PERIOD. Nothing is going to change that fact and I am a wittness to it everyday. It's also includes me. What I read comes down to a money debate more than anything. People will buy whatever suites them regardless of the amount, photography is actually a cheap hobby compared to many. I wish these debates would leave the costs out of the equation when folks compare but we all know that's impossible.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Now on the same token MF can't replace 35mm in absolute terms either so we look for the best image machine we can get given our needs and budget. It's the classic I want this can only afford that. That's life folks

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

Stefan, I won't rehash the "size matters" idea. If you don't get it, or choose to ignore it, more discussion won't help

You keep describing the 35mm experience as the competing aspect verses MFD, as if everyone wanted or needed that experience, and there is no other. This argument is as old as the first Leica from the beginning of the last century.

Personally, I don't go out with a MFD to see how fast I can get over the next horizon like it was some race to fill the CF card faster than the next guy.

Besides, counter to most on this forum, many (if not most) MFDs are used at ISO 50/100 on a studio stand tethered to a pair of large monitors with 10,000w/s+ of highly controllable light to work with.

Yet, MFD has evolved to allow location work with on board card-capture, accurate AF, higher available ISOs, plus continued access to technical cameras and optics that no Nikon/Canon/Sony lens will ever equal.

If 80 meg is the "Wall", then Hasselblad didn't get that news. Maybe a 200 meg RAW file is the wall, since that already exists. Doesn't matter what technology was used to reach that final meg count, or it's limited application ... it is just one of the niche utilizations of MFD available, one that uses technological innovation to solve specific photographic problems or needs. That is what niche means ... to be specific, in marketing it means: "A focused, targetable part of the market" ...not everyone, and his camera toting uncle Bob.

Unfortunately, your points of comparisons are peppered with loaded bias and exaggerations which runs directly counter to experiences of actual users of certain MFD systems. Short changing actual accomplishments on one hand and puffing up others on the other hand, just erodes credibility IMHO.

Fact is, I've shot a H4D/40 available light @ ISO 1600, with a short lens, at very low hand-held shutter speeds. Hasselblad allows this by letting me set a ms mirror delay, and the leaf-shutter lenses virtually eliminates shutter vibration, not to mention how camera mass is at play. 16 bit capture helps keep the color fidelity and subtile separation, as opposed to the color shift and loss of subtlety of many higher meg 35mm cameras when shooting at this ISO level. My H4D/40 was better at this than the D3X I used, and just as good or slightly better than the Sony A900 I now use ... only the H4D file was much larger, required less enlargement to final size, and easier to work on in post. Not to say, I run out and shoot that sort of thing all the time, but I could or can, and that's the point.

See example "proof" below that I've posted before (a simple, walk-about snap-shot while on vacation): H4D/40 and HCD35-90 ... ISO 1600, f/4, 1/25 shutter, handheld @ eye-level, no support, (no wall, post, monopod, tripod). Real life shot, as opposed to web rhetoric and theoretical limitations based on lack of skill and the lowest common denominator.

Select your gear to fit you, keep it long enough to learn how to use it, and get on with making photographs your way, not all the "The sky is falling" technophile's ideas of how to make photographs based on ever more "do it for you" substitutions for human talent, skill, and ... dare I say it ... practice actually making photos, as opposed to talking about making photos.

My advice is ... back to work everyone ... this horse is dead :deadhorse: ... beaten into fertilizer to grow grass that's eaten by more horses who were then beaten to death again ... and so on :deadhorse: ...and so on :deadhorse:

No offense meant to horse lovers :ROTFL:

-Marc

Great shot there, Marc

Quentin

 

[David Duffin]

..... I get more excited about LR4 or C1 upgrades now than a new camera announcement. Perhaps it has to do with the Theory of Constraints. With my current gear I am my own constraint to image quality, both aesthetically and technically; my gear is not the constraint.

That's a very fun place to be actually.

Dave

Good food for thought, David. And I couldn't have said it better. With great equipment like you and I both have there's a wonderful feeling of confidence in the gear being able to deliver the goods. New DSLR announcements become interesting but personally irrelevant, whereas processing upgrades become a more important key to pushing the envelope.

 

[Stefan Steib]

Hi Marc

I think you are right- this discussion doesn´t make any sense. And Doug is probably right, if all the people argue like this, the market for Medium Format will grow.
I really wish it would be like this.

Greetings from Lindenberg
Stefan

 

[Shashin]

Shashin

I am talking about the IQ180. Leafs Aptus 12 seems to do better (albeit the same chip !). But the 5.2 micron pixel are bleeding edge and need compromising. And I haven´t even spoken about image stabilization.
There are very good ones for DSLR´s but there are none for MF. The best implementations of it gain 4 stops. So all the predictions of the D800E to have the same shaking problems as MF are nonsense, at least when you use stabilized lenses.

Regards
Stefan

There are already larger chips being developed for scientific imaging, so I don't see any limit.

I have handheld cameras all my life all the way up to 4x5, there is no reason you cannot handhold an IQ180. You do not need image stabilization. There is no reason MF cannot use IS--development in these cameras has not stopped. The fact that I can handhold a Pentax 645D shows you can hold a D800 stabilized lenses or not.

This is how these argument goes. Someone chooses one camera model and than makes blanket statement for the whole class. Someone said why do you want to us MF when you only have one or three AF areas; my camera has 11. But high-end camera for the most part, and there are exceptions, have been simpler to those pitched to the enthusiast. There are only three things you need to control on a camera, exposure, focus, and framing. With all the advances in technology, there really has been no change in the fact that very skilled photographers will do better with less--I am not really sad Pentax did not include scene selection exposure modes on the 645D and I have done most of my photography with manual cameras.

Photography as we use it here is an aesthetic discipline. There are really only two criteria that are important: what qualities are a particular system going to impart and what compromises or limitations is that going to have. Format size matters to both of those.

BTW, does the D800 have pixel shifting technology, binning, or tracking AF on a specified object? All technologies in MFD.

 

[Lars]

BTW, does the D800 have pixel shifting technology, binning, or tracking AF on a specified object? All technologies in MFD.

My old F5 from 1996 has focus tracking - that's not exactly something new.

 

[Shashin]

My old F5 from 1996 has focus tracking - that's not exactly something new.

None of it is new. But I believe that Hasselblad's focus system is simply not focus tracking within a specific AF area (z), but follows the object laterally as well (x, y). My point was that MFD is not exactly in the dark ages, but has applied technology in the cameras that is not really widely used in smaller DSLRs.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

whereas processing upgrades become a more important key to pushing the envelope.

For me personally never has a truer word been said!

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

The argument about the D800e has evolved, but it still remains to be seen what the final production model will shoot like. For those who shoot both formats, this gives us more options with more soon to come in the Sony A99. MFD can't do it all, and 35mm can't either, but with those two cameras a lot can be accomplished. Pixel binning in MFD, is something I wouldn't use either, but many find it useful. Just choose your camera and shoot! Fotografz once said in a post the Sony A900 is a game changer...for 35mm, so why can't we have the same ideas as it relates to the D800e? Many 4x5 photographers would never use free transform to fix key-stoning or convergence effects in their photographs, just because they can, so why are MFD users (me included) having this argument about a 36MP 35mm FF camera?
Could it be the investment?

 

[Shashin]

Why but a MFD camera for that kind of $, only to have it shoot in the MP range of a 35mm FF?

Because there is more to image quality than pixels--size matters. That is why I shot 400 speed film in medium-format cameras for documentary work. That is why I went to MFD for documentary work. If I could bin the 645D sensor, there are situations where I would do it.

I don't think this topic has evolved at all as all people can do is count pixels.

On the other hand, I doubt anyone is saying anything but the D800 is going to be a fine camera. But Tech Pan did not turn 35mm film cameras into 4x5s. A 12MP 35mm camera is not an Olympus E-P1.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Size does matter... mostly in end use results, and that's the beauty of this new D800e. The investment is so little many can do both! So to answer the original question...no, I won't sell my MFD, but i'll consider the D800e or Sony A99, to add to the creative tools selection in my camera palette to increase my range and variety. The S2 is going to have to wait.

 

[bensonga]

No, I won't sell my humble HB 503CWD with the CFV-16II back to buy a Nikon D800 (not even the E version)....that's an apples vs carrots comparison, in my mind.

I have been tempted to sell off much of my photo gear and buy a Leica S2 or HB H4D-40....but sell off anything to buy a D800?....not me.

Gary

 

[Lars]

None of it is new. But I believe that Hasselblad's focus system is simply not focus tracking within a specific AF area (z), but follows the object laterally as well (x, y). My point was that MFD is not exactly in the dark ages, but has applied technology in the cameras that is not really widely used in smaller DSLRs.

Yep D2x did that. D700 does that. I think F5 had object tracking too. This video is of focus tracking a bullet train using a D4. D800 is similar.

CP+ 2012 NIKON D4 3D Tracking! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Nobody said Hasselblad is in the dark ages (although they certainly were until the merge with Imacon - A good friend of mine was a board member back then and has some interesting stories about the complete lack of forward thinking in the company some ten years ago) but when it comes to focus tracking, Nikon and Canon have been ahead for a long time.

 

[Shashin]

Yep D2x did that. D700 does that. I think F5 had object tracking too. This video is of focus tracking a bullet train using a D4. D800 is similar.

CP+ 2012 NIKON D4 3D Tracking! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Nobody said Hasselblad is in the dark ages (although they certainly were until the merge with Imacon - A good friend of mine was a board member back then and has some interesting stories about the complete lack of forward thinking in the company some ten years ago) but when it comes to focus tracking, Nikon and Canon have been ahead for a long time.

Lars, I was really replying to Stephan's comment that somehow MFD is not really pushing technology beyond simply having lots of pixels and being big. Tracking has been around for some time. Perhaps I should have said it can even be found in MFD.

Personally, I think these internet conversation could be a lot clearer if the posters would submit an abstract a month in advance before leaving a detailed post with a works cited section. Unfortunately, we have to leave these short posts where some of the information is implied in relation to a context in another post. :angel:

 

[Giorgio]

Meet Shirley

This is Shirley, Kodak's test target from the 70's.

As to the topic at hand, as a requirement I find that I need two systems to do my work in digital, DSLR and MFD. I need and use them both.

To do my work with film I also needed a large format sheet film 4x5 camera from time to time in addition to 35mm SLR and Medium format film cameras.

I actually have less gear now, it's all good.

 

[djonesii]

I was at the workshop that Guy mentioned.

There were indeed MANY backs there, and this was their niche .... fine art landscape with an IQ180 is simply stunning. Due the the physics of wide angle lenses and DOF/DOV, I really don't understand how a D800 or even a D900 with twice the mega pixels would influence my decision about the lust for a technical camera to shoot in that niche.

At the same time, I shoot sports, as did some other folks at that work shop, and many, if not most had some variety of canikon sitting at home in the closet with some very nice pro level glass. Simple the wrong horse for this course.

That said, one day, a B2 and it's escort passed over head. While most were marveling looking up, I was rushing to my camera bag, pulling out a lowly G3 with a 100-300 and then getting the photo. As near as I know, I was the only one at the workshop to get that shot. So in this very limited niche, the Pany G3 smoked the IQ180 ..... does that mean I should give up on MFDB?
( will post the image soon )

No matter how you slice it, a generalist will never beat a specialist when looking at a specialty! You may get close, and be willing to make compromises, but in their niche, MFDB rules. Surly challenged, and defiantly the laws of diminishing marginal returns hold, but to get the absolute best fine art images, ( assuming the muse is equal for all ) MFDB will still be required.

I say that with a certainty that ignores some truly disruptive technology yet to be invented. A new 3D live-viewing immersion display will sway me, but as long as we are putting 3D images on 2D displays, MFDB is my choice for fine art work, landscape or studio.

Dave