More fuel for the 'D800 as good as MF' fire

[fotografz]

Bizarre that folk here are making judgements based on small web jpegs.

That is very true, but those files weren't THAT small when you clicked on them, and other examples on other sites allowed a full downloads ... and those also displayed the same look and feel even when much larger.

In a way it is sort of relative ... I think we get pretty good at evaluating like this on a level playing field because we see files from all cameras in that way. Actual sharpness probably can't be evaluated very well, but in my experience, the look and feel of files tends not to change all that much. I found that out with the D3X ... a camera I loved using but hated the files.

But you are dead on that what really counts is seeing the print output.

-Marc

 

[KeithL]

But you are dead on that what really counts is seeing the print output.

Precisely.

It will also be interesting to see how robust the files are in PP.

 

[fotografz]

Well Marc,

one can always be as negative and unimpressed as you are her

Not sure what you are trying to defend? The S System purchase? Or the Hasselblad?

For me this is no competition, but rather that we reached a point in time where we can see decent IQ and high resolution from DSLR which was so far only MFD land - nothing else!

I can understand your feelings, I've gleaned from your previous posts that this camera is what you've been hoping for, and I most certainly can understand why. My opinion as it relates to comparison to MFD should have no bearing on what you feel may work for you. You know what works for you, and after all this time I would hope I do too.

My POV is based on my tastes and specific application requirements, not costs or status. I sold off a huge, very expensive Nikon Pro spec D3/D3X system including all of the available nano-coated optics and every Zeiss lens made in F mount, even the legendary 200/2 VR ... and went with a lowly semi-Pro Sony A900 because I subjectively liked the look of the files straight out of the camera better. End results, nothing less, nothing more.

The S2 was a blatant indulgence ... I didn't need it, I wanted it. Heck, I never even claimed it as a business expense, it was simply a reward to myself for retirement after 40 years of busting a hump in advertising I never "defend" indulgences, they are rationally indefensible :ROTFL:

The D800 isn't anywhere near a 60 meg full frame MFD system in any way known to man, so it really isn't in the equation ... but that system is specifically for meeting some very stringent commercial client demands. If I didn't have those, I wouldn't even have it in the gear box at all, why would I?

-Marc

 

[D&A]

But you are dead on that what really counts is seeing the print output.

-Marc

I too agree with this as well as Keith's comments about how maliable the files will be in post processing. That's why I have reserved some sort of comprehesive judgement on these latest cameras (D800/D800e) from Nikon until which time I can work with the RAW files under conditions I am familar with and print at appropriate sizes. Comparison of these images to similar ones taken with 40MP MF will contribute to the evaluation.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I'm buying one but it is not really a MF replacement it's the fact I have to shoot 35mm for a lot of gigs. What this will hopefully do is give me a file big enough to work with on client stuff. It has nothing to do any of the comparioson to my tech cam or my DF that i recently sold but everything to do with maybe it might be the best 35 file coming out of that camp. With that I maybe able to use the Nikon in some more commercial settings but if a client has a need outside a web image I have my Phase kit. It's not about beating it but more about just getting a little closer to MF. Now no offense about the author of this topic but it is a lot of marketing going on. Right there I hold my judgement and really until I get this thing in my hands than I'll be much more informed on it. Honestly as a tester / reviewer myself it means nothing to me until I get it in my sticky fingers and work with it. That's no reflection on anyone that's just me and my experience with this stuff. I'm testing two tech lenses right now the 28mm and just playing around I see some vast differences between them but for me it may just come down to the look of the file and it maybe not the most technical correct one either. We need to remember we are artist as well and deliver or produce art not science.

 

[fotografz]

I too agree with this as well as Keith's comments about how maliable the files will be in post processing. That's why I have reserved some sort of comprehesive judgement on these latest cameras (D800/D800e) from Nikon until which time I can work with the RAW files under conditions I am familar with and print at appropriate sizes. Comparison of these images to similar ones taken with 40MP MF will contribute to the evaluation.

Dave (D&A)

I'll totally reserve judgement ... but it will have to overcome my previous experience with the D3X ... where I bought the big file, studio-camera hype, and then spent well over a year struggling with the images to make them look the way I wanted before giving up. My point is that the look and feel of the D800 images vividly remind me of that D3X escapade.

As Guy mentions, it isn't just about the science and spec's, it's what lights your artistic torch.

IMO, that is a growing concern in the photographic world ... science and specifications as the criteria, with physicist, engineers, marketing folks and computer geeks telling me what is supposed to look good ... and when you balk at that notion you're "defensive" or a "luddite".

-Marc

 

[Shashin]

For me this is no competition, but rather that we reached a point in time where we can see decent IQ and high resolution from DSLR which was so far only MFD land - nothing else!

So what is new--there are plenty of 35mm DSLRs that have the resolution of a P25+ back. That seems like DLSRs have been in MFD land for some time. MFD got to 16MP before DSLRs as well. Yet, no one is claiming a Sony A900 has MFD quality? Why not?

 

[David Schneider]

Why not?

Not 16 bit maybe.

 

[Shashin]

Not 16 bit maybe.

No matter what camera companies claim, there are no 16-bit sensors--just because the file has room for the numbers, does not mean the sensor actually provides the information. And then that difference would only become obvious when scene contrast hits the DR.

 

[Jack]

Seriously? What glass did you have 'available'?



Are you really saying you believe 12mpx outresolves Nikons 'available' lenses?

And of course Zeiss is available too. But Nikons recent lens designs are some of the best glass out there.

Uh, the D700 is 24MP, and yes, we're saying that fine of pixel pitch outresolves many of Nikon's lens offerings.

Agreed that a few of the newest primes may well hold up, at least centrally at f5.6, but with 5u pixels, the negative effects of diffraction are a reality after f8.

 

[Shashin]

Uh, the D700 is 24MP,

Since when? The specs state it is 12MP.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25444/D700.html

 

[subrata1965]

One thing for sure. D800 will bring down price of medium format backs, which will be good for all of us.

Cheers!!!

 

[Jack]

As Guy mentions, it isn't just about the science and spec's, it's what lights your artistic torch.

Exactly Marc,

And for many of us that is NOT only about resolution, but more about adequate resolution along with excellent color (especially skintones), tonal smoothness, hue smoothness, and a few esoteric qualities that make it "beautiful" to our eyes.

There is also perceived DR. I say perceived because engineering labs that test that sort of thing have I believe done the digital photographic industry a disservice by adhering to an absolute engineering definition of DR involving S/N ratio and noise floor. Especially when superior conversion software effectively removes a lot of that noise floor that limits the engineering DR values. What I'm saying is I can push the crap out of my MF files and they hold together amazingly well, and I have yet to see ANY DSLR file that can take half, let alone the same level of abuse (M9 withstanding, it's behaves impressively similar to an MF file).

/rants

 

[Shashin]

One thing for sure. D800 will bring down price of medium format backs, which will be good for all of us.

Cheers!!!

You are confident about that? None of the other high-resolution 35mm sensors did when they hit MFD resolutions.

 

[Jack]

PS: Wayne, interesting to hear about C... I will need a DSLR for a project later this summer, so am holding off a bit to see what happens. Right now the regular D800 with AA and a handful of Nikon primes is on my radar. I could probably use my DF kit, but most of what I need to do will be handheld and require me to carry all my gear around for the entire day. An M4/3rds would also probably cut it, but the D800 looks like a sweet-spot compromise between weight and file possibilties...

 

[Shashin]

Exactly Marc,

And for many of us that is NOT only about resolution, but more about adequate resolution along with excellent color (especially skintones), tonal smoothness, hue smoothness, and a few esoteric qualities that make it "beautiful" to our eyes.

There is also perceived DR. I say perceived because engineering labs that test that sort of thing have I believe done the digital photographic industry a disservice by adhering to an absolute engineering definition of DR involving S/N ratio and noise floor. Especially when superior conversion software effectively removes a lot of that noise floor that limits the engineering DR values. What I'm saying is I can push the crap out of my MF files and they hold together amazingly well, and I have yet to see ANY DSLR file that can take half, let alone the same level of abuse (M9 withstanding, it's behaves impressively similar to an MF file).

/rants

So, Jack, how do you measure the scene contrast so you can determine whether the numbers don't match what you perceive? Sorry, but the science that creates these products is very capable to evaluate them as well.

I think what is happening is folks don't know how the numbers translate into what we photograph. The quality we see can be easily explained by the fact the larger image area does not need the optics to work at such high frequency therefore the contrast is simply higher (the amplitude of the MTF increase as frequency decreases). Also with a given angle of view and aperture, the larger format will have a greater object-plane resolution because the entrance pupil is larger even as the object plane resolving power is the same. This also allows the lens designers for larger formats to emphasize contrast over resolving power in their design--having high resolution optics result in flatter images.

I think the science/"real world" dichotomy is a false one.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Bizarre that folk here are making judgements based on small web jpegs.

I agree with this statement, it's absurd and unrealistic to judge a non- production model camera based on web size images. I think many photographers' interest is piqued, not so much by web size images, but by all the comments from those that oppose this new and expected technological upgrade. Why are so many MFD users so quick to dismiss this as perhaps a decent and viable choice for photography?

 

[ptomsu]

I can understand your feelings, I've gleaned from your previous posts that this camera is what you've been hoping for, and I most certainly can understand why. My opinion as it relates to comparison to MFD should have no bearing on what you feel may work for you. You know what works for you, and after all this time I would hope I do too.

My POV is based on my tastes and specific application requirements, not costs or status. I sold off a huge, very expensive Nikon Pro spec D3/D3X system including all of the available nano-coated optics and every Zeiss lens made in F mount, even the legendary 200/2 VR ... and went with a lowly semi-Pro Sony A900 because I subjectively liked the look of the files straight out of the camera better. End results, nothing less, nothing more.

The S2 was a blatant indulgence ... I didn't need it, I wanted it. Heck, I never even claimed it as a business expense, it was simply a reward to myself for retirement after 40 years of busting a hump in advertising I never "defend" indulgences, they are rationally indefensible :ROTFL:

The D800 isn't anywhere near a 60 meg full frame MFD system in any way known to man, so it really isn't in the equation ... but that system is specifically for meeting some very stringent commercial client demands. If I didn't have those, I wouldn't even have it in the gear box at all, why would I?

-Marc

I do fully understand your motivation for the S System!

I am also far away from thinking, that the D800E or what else will come from Sony or Canon will be able to replace MFD, especially not >50MP. But I do assume it will come pretty close to any 40MP MFD solution. Why I think this is because the lack (or inversion) of the AA filter will bring a huge step forward in IQ, not only the sheer pixel count. I have experienced that fact with the Olympus E5 and this beast was really close to the D3X WRT IQ but having just 12MP, because of much more details being rendered. So the combination of high end Nikon glass (or Zeiss glass) together with the latest generation of sensors, the lack of AA filter and the high MP count make me really hope!

Will I sell my H System? Thought about it a short moment, but decided to keep it and upgrade to a higher MP count camera (than my H3D39) whenever CPO H4D50 or H4D60 will become available for a decent price.

Interesting times though ....

 

[MGrayson]

Why are so many MFD users so quick to dismiss this as perhaps a decent and viable choice for photography?

So many? I haven't seen one. Are you confusing "The D800 will not utterly destroy MF" with "The D800 is not a decent and viable choice for photography."

You may want this to see this as elitists defending their expensive gear with appeals to ineffable qualities, but that's not what's going on here at all. For that, you have to go to a Leica/Panasonic equivalent model thread. :ROTFL:

--Matt

 

[Lars]

What I'm saying is I can push the crap out of my MF files and they hold together amazingly well, and I have yet to see ANY DSLR file that can take half, let alone the same level of abuse (M9 withstanding, it's behaves impressively similar to an MF file).

/rants

M9 like MF is CCD, right? So we're talking about CCD vs CMOS, is it that simple?

BTW I don't think Nikon ever stated that D800 will produce MF quality images. They have been very careful in wording.