But somehow I don't think that was what you meant ...
I too look at the images and think ... is that all there is?
The detail is impressive, the price is amazing, the smaller size is nice, and the extra ISO with larger files is something I dream about. But, in the end, the images still look like 35mm images. If you love the look of 35mm or need the versatility of a 35mm system, it's a killer camera.
But there is a dimensionality and clarity that is missing from what I've seen in medium format digital. I know some folks want to talk about lens and sensor theory until the cows come home ... but in the end, the images speak for themselves.
I'll just leave this here
LensRentals.com - Hammerforum.com
6 Member(s) liked this post
I doubt that it will take over MF!
MF gives much better dynamic range especially at the adverse condition (harsh light) and a nicely distributed shape in the histogram. Color is again superb.
"Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
A bit overdone, but good for a chuckle:
Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800 - YouTube
Cause we all want to see how much hair we have on our noses?
I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz
Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com1 Member(s) liked this post
I think it can compete with other 30-40MP solutions on detail assuming the best glass, but where it falls down is tonality and color rendition; it cannot match that skin-tone hue range or the smoothness of rendering it.
"Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."1 Member(s) liked this post
As long as MF continues to improve there will always be a gap between 35mm and MF. In terms of tonality, color and dynamic range, the D800 (and in it's class the D4) are better than any 35mm that has been on the market.
There's still a huge gap between the D800 and IQ180 - of course!
Years ago, I was in the mainframe computer business (on the engineering side)
The argument was at the time, that as individual one chip cpus got faster and faster, then the mainframe would surely die.
Well it didn't actually, although its architecture came close to it, but today we see vast arrays of machines acting to provide the performance that the highest-end of the market demands.
Granted, as the dslr gets better and better, then perhaps the number of highest-end users may decrease, on the other hand, it may simply whet the appetites of those who want the best that can be had.
Time will tell, and for those who may need some of the aspects of a dslr for some jobs, I am sure that they may cross-over for those suitable purposes to cameras such as the D800. But the highest-end? Those that strive to differentiate their work by quality will surely seek what they think are the best tools for the purpose.
4 Member(s) liked this post
With regard to the D800's ability to render subtle tonal separations etc compared to MF, I remember seeing tests somewhere (by Nikon?) revealing the D800E having quite clearly more accurate pixel level colour separation and hue? Maybe the E will be a more fair comparison?
In photography as discussed in this thread it's increasingly about quality. You can throw more resolution on any smaller-format camera but a larger sensor system seems to have a clear advantage WRT image quality. That doesn't necessarily mean that a top-end setup will be more profitable or save you time - it could very well be the opposite.
Accordingly we see wealthy demanding amateurs as well as professionals investing in MF equipment that, if you just look at numbers and specs, can be seen as a waste of money.
I have followed that thread and downloaded all NEF's I could find and played around with them. so I'd like to bring up something I think has not been mentioned yet , but which for me is very fundamental for judging the IQ of a camera…
please don't get me wrong, the IQ of this camera is superb and to my eye has a little bit overcome some of it's "nikon color habit" of the past and now has a better and very pleasing look to it.
but what I see is that it lacks massively of realness/texture in the pictures. it popped right into my eye when I saw the first official jpeg's and now that I can go into the RAW's of realworld files there is still a similar impression. I'm looking at different pictures at 100% and it's allways the same feel. the best word to describe it may be "transparency", lightness, lack of density or what ever you like to call it. realness of texture is not there… sharpening helps but the impression remains. It looks somehow artificial.. same for color and tonality compared to MFD (like Jack and Ed allready mentioned)
it is like ihe camera interprets the picture in its own way and presents it in a candy pleasing look…
anyone else seeing this ? or is it just me ?
Yes it really comes down to smoothness of tone. MF while very sharp and detailed it just spreads the color tone out better and smoother looking. This maybe due to bigger sensor and really i think that is the bottom line without getting into the science of it all. The Nikon now that i have shot it a lot is extremely good and been working on the files it still looks like the color is compressed a little like all 35mm is. Just not as smooth but a couple things i have noticed too and you have to be careful with processing it in ACR the blacks come in at 5 which right there it sandwiches the tone down a lot . I just set my default at 2 which opens it up more and another little trick is use a little fill as well to open up the mid tones some. What your trying to do with the Nikon in comparison to the MF backs is try to open it up more and don't accept whats coming in off the camera. This helps it a great deal . Part of this also is how Nikon sets up there cameras and honestly all 35mm manufactures do the same darn thing. They are not counting on the users to be as experts on raw processing and working the files so many of them make the files ready to go in their own algorithms and give them contrast and saturation out of the gate for strong pleasing colors out of the gate. Here you have to be careful as a Raw shooters that has some experience and works the files you have to get away from what they are giving you and work it till your style or look you want to see. This way you do get closer to the MF look, not going to get there 100 percent but you can get closer by fine tuning the processing better. I worked on my quick shot of my son this morning to get the sharpening a little better and not going to go over the edge and look to brittle . Also he is in heavy shade and with a little work its is actually looking pretty good and this is crap light. Get this in the studio with control and its a different animal.
One other thing almost all of us are doing as well as this hit the market is probably taking the processing to the extreme just to see when it breaks downs, when we all settle in on just making a good file without the comparison in mind files will start getting better looking. So part of it is probably us right now. i know for myself that was exactly what i was doing when I got it 2 weeks ago. Now i am settling down and making nice clean looking files. I think this is natural when a new cam hits the streets.
Given it is harsh morning sun NOT airbrushed its pretty good.
Shot with a Nikon 85mm 1.4 G lens at F5 ISO 100. Now if i could lose the earrings it would make this dad happy. LOL
Now i have room to go on sharpening but keeping it at this level it seems a little smoother. Sharpening is going to play a important role with this cam. You can easily overdo it and than it looks brittle.
Also, unless symbolphoto used a 12 Mpx camera his closeup isn't 100% actual pixels so of course it looks good.
Yes one of my next things to do is get this under controlled lighting.
Wow Guy/s - discussing this quality on a 35mm is mindbogling. Imagine someone telling you, you would get this stuff from a 35mm 1-2 years ago, you would have called him totally crazy.
And - sorry to point to it (probably my perfectionist part from my former life as a color consultant) - the target with the shadow on it is totally useless like this.
Greetings from Lindenberg
I did not use that side same target on left second white patch down
I just found this review today and decided to share it with you guys. Although the comparison is between the Canon 5D MK III and Nikon D800, he has also compare them with his Phase One P45+!
Canon 5D Mark III versus Nikon D800 - A First*Look! - Home/ Blog - Bulb Exposures - The Blog about Long Exposure Photography!
Although I no longer have any DSLR and shoot exclusively with medium format (film and digital), these results are so tempting!
Selecting photographers and cinematographers WAS and to some extent, STILL IS my profession. The criteria is not, and never was, technical quality ... that is a given and is an expectation of any professional for a vast majority of paid assignments.
To cut to the chase, I AM the client, and IMO you are wrong. The criteria is first and foremost the vision, the ability to communicate salient points or strategy with a unique vision and visual ideas. Content, uniquely presented.
While I may have to work with-in some budget parameters, I have sold more expensive alternatives to major corporations based on better ideas and emotionally connective solutions that can make the difference between success or failure in the marketplace. A perfect example of this is how the ads for Target saved that company and matched their new marketing platform ... NOW, that same creative group is at work trying to save J C Penny ... look at the vision and style being portrayed ... do we care what the technical aspects are? The craft is a given, the vision is not.
We are not talking about financially directly dealing with the public at large who is relatively uneducated about differences in expressive qualities and what is needed to make that a reality verses cost. They just react to them in a commercial context, where they suddenly become remarkably tuned in. Nor run of the mill stock photography used by those that are bankrupted of stand-out ideas for their brand, service or product.
I agree that the technical quality of stock has improved over 15 years ago, however, not just because cameras got better, but because some decent photographers have turned to it as a supplement to waning income as the economy and print industry changed., and they are often better at lighting than in past. Again this is a dependance on craft as opposed to a salient and unique vision and idea generation with a camera.
Photographers that don't get this are doomed to profit by attrition, struggle and/or fail. Dozens of commercial studios in my area have gone under because they failed to grasp this fundamental fact. In contrast, a friend of mine got it, and is thriving .... not only locally, but has landed national and international accounts that were never here. I asked what his secret was, and he replied better ideas and visual solutions produced with unquestionable quality ... his brilliant vision supplemented by nine photo stations all running high res MFD including 3 Muti-Shot product cameras.
End of too long rant.
3 Member(s) liked this post
My perspective is the art world, and that's a place where Marc's observations hold true as well. Over the last 15 years, showing work to I don't know how many curators and dealers, I could count the number of comments on technical quality on one hand. And most of these comments were questions, like about why I made a certain choice relative to the vision behind the work.