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!

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

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Which zooms are you coming from? Frankly, the current latest Nikon zooms are all great! I'd like to hear how they let you down if they are indeed the current zooms.

Thanks
Po
24-70 is the poor man in the bunch for me. You might disagree but it did little for me. 200-400 VR is a great lens on the D3s but struggled to get the best from my D3x and vignettes badly wide open.

The only two I'd put on the front of a D3x or D800 would be the 14-24 or 70-200 VR II unless I needed the reach of the longer 200-400 VR. I'd rather use primes or 200/2 VR with teleconvertors for longer. YMMV but I shot with all of the Nikon D series from the D1 through to the D3x and as the resolution reached 24mp things got tougher for the glass to keep up. Now for reference, I'm comparing the Nikon glass to the best of the Phase One/Schneider DSLR glass or tech camera lenses from SK/Rodie(oh, and Leica M!)
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
I've got to admit when I first read the specs I was wowed by them. We were very sorry to see that Canon didn't release the upgraded 1Ds model we had hoped for and this looked like what we had hoped Canon would have released. So on paper alone it looks very good. As to the sample web images - they are just that - sample web images. I can make my Droid images look good given enough time before posting them on the web so I'm not impressed by what I see on a website. The proof is in the pudding and I'll hold off until someone I know has actual firsthand usage with one.

So who's it going to be? Jack. Guy. Or John?
 

pophoto

New member
24-70 is the poor man in the bunch for me. You might disagree but it did little for me. 200-400 VR is a great lens on the D3s but struggled to get the best from my D3x and vignettes badly wide open.

The only two I'd put on the front of a D3x or D800 would be the 14-24 or 70-200 VR II unless I needed the reach of the longer 200-400 VR. I'd rather use primes or 200/2 VR with teleconvertors for longer. YMMV but I shot with all of the Nikon D series from the D1 through to the D3x and as the resolution reached 24mp things got tougher for the glass to keep up. Now for reference, I'm comparing the Nikon glass to the best of the Phase One/Schneider DSLR glass or tech camera lenses from SK/Rodie(oh, and Leica M!)
Graham, thank you for your reply. I shot my glass on the D700, which was 12MP. I know the D3x really stretched things out, but didn't think the 24-70 would be one of them. I think what your experience is telling how higher MP camera is indeed stretching the glass. At the time when I was personally deciding to upgrade to the D3x, I went with the M9 instead, which made me realize it's not ALL about high MPs and the glass is King!

Anyways back on topic a bit, while in 35mm DSLR world, the Nikon zoom lenses are exactly like what you say. Near the end of me selling my D700 I went with the 5D MarkII and bought only primes: 24LII, 24TS-E II, 50L, 85LII, 100L Macro. The only zoom I purchase was the 70-200L II. I think it feels a whole bar above the Nikon 70-200G II, and this was on 22MP. I think it's telling when you shoot higher MP how well the glass is, and especially in your case and what you were able to reference.

Right now, I'm deciding to get rid of my Nikon glass and cancelling my pre-order on the D800E. I think cancelling AA filter has been high on all our lists. I've decided to go back a bit since I'm not making a living on photography at this time. 22MP seems like a sweet-spot for me right now. :)
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Right now, I'm deciding to get rid of my Nikon glass and cancelling my pre-order on the D800E. I think cancelling AA filter has been high on all our lists. I've decided to go back a bit since I'm not making a living on photography at this time. 22MP seems like a sweet-spot for me right now. :)
Btw, one other consideration with 36mp that won't be a surprise here is that you really have to be on top of your game technique-wise too. That was definitely the case with the D3x which unsurprisingly required the same care and attention to get the full resolution out of it as any MFDB based system. Again, I know that this won't be a surprise to most people here but I'll wager that more than a few DSLR shooters moving up from 12mp or so will be in for a few disappointments to start with. I'm sure that the same thing happened with the Canon users going to the 5D Mk II too.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Wow - folks I only can say WOW!

How many MF photographers are becoming nervous about the introduction of cameras like the D800/D800E

Was it really the right investment in MFD some time ago ????
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Wow - folks I only can say WOW!

How many MF photographers are becoming nervous about the introduction of cameras like the D800/D800E

Was it really the right investment in MFD some time ago ????
Oh come on, this is really just throwing fuel on the fire isn't it? :rolleyes:

Do you REALLY think that anyone is 'nervous' or questioning their investment to date?

Damn - I fell for it and responded ...
 

Swissblad

Well-known member
Btw, one other consideration with 36mp that won't be a surprise here is that you really have to be on top of your game technique-wise too. That was definitely the case with the D3x which unsurprisingly required the same care and attention to get the full resolution out of it as any MFDB based system. Again, I know that this won't be a surprise to most people here but I'll wager that more than a few DSLR shooters moving up from 12mp or so will be in for a few disappointments to start with. I'm sure that the same thing happened with the Canon users going to the 5D Mk II too.
My feeling as well...... and for that reason I'm waiting for the 1st round of "mint" 2nd hand D800's.....:)
 

vieri

Well-known member
Of course you do ... why wouldn't you? ;)

...

Of course, there are those who may actually need all this stuff, but that isn't the point is it? They are a minority. And, yes, the 35mm DSLRs have expanded their diverse nature ... but that has been true for a long time.

...

-Marc
When you say that A LOT of photographers prefer (fill in the blank) ... is there a quantifiable poll to support this?

Or ...They consider this or that to be (fill in blank) ... who is they?

It sounds to me like you are editorializing about your opinion masked as a majority opinion of a nameless group.

...

-Marc
Marc,

A minority? Seriously? Well, excluding soccer moms and uncle bobs from 35mm sales and excluding as well rich amateurs from the DMF sales, of course, I am pretty sure there is an incomparably larger number of people buying and using the features of D3s, D3x and the Canon equivalents for real, serious work than there are buying and using the S2 (or any DMF for that matter) for the same purpose.

Just one last note - a reminder, to what I said that started the discussion:

To me, the point is not wether
- 35mm will or won't replace DMF -
The point that the D800 (possibly E) and the D3x before it made is:
- 35 mm is now giving IQ and resolution high enough to be considered for some MF application, while offering body/ergonomics/speed of use/lens selection/accessories selection/flash control/size&weight/battery life/etc etc that are INCOMPARABLY better than ANY MF body/camera system out there.

So, if the only reason to use MF is squeezing that last bit of IQ out of one's images, IMHO 35 mm will very likely never make it. However, if one needs any of the above pluses of 35mm over DMF, the last generation of bodies/sensor combination is starting to get very, very appealing even for users used to or aiming to MF IQ.

You turned into a S2-vs-35 mm game, which has nothing to do with what I said :) The new generation of high-MP 35mm DSLR & lenses, wether we want it or not, DO offer people who want to have ALL 35mm features PLUS a higher, close-to-MF IQ a lot of new options.

That said, at the moment I am maintaining:
- Nikon D3 system for low-light concert & stage stuff;
- DMF Leaf Aptus II 12R with Linhof Techno & lenses for architectural & landscapes; the same with Hassy V camera/lenses for studio stuff;
- Leica M( (now sold), & film plus Sony Nex-7 with Leica glass for street & reportage.

I just bought a D3x (very good price, very good conditions), and ordered some Nikon T/S glass and some of the new f1.4 AF-s primes (24, 35, 85) to try and see if I can do without the Hassy in the studio and gain back some of these features I was talking about without loosing too much IQ, and to see if adding a D800E I can do without the Techno (that's a very tall order, but worth trying). This doesn't mean that the IQ will be the same, of course; what counts is, will it be the same for customers and their needs? If so, why wouldn't I leave MF altogether, one system less to maintain...
 

FredBGG

Not Available
Re: More file for the 'D800 as good as MF' fire

Never say never... think back a few years to when MF film fans were screaming and sneering at the chance that ANY sensor would ever rival 4 x 5 film...
And what sensor is that?

I know of no sensor that can produce the images that 4x5 film can produce.

You cannot directly compare film to digital. First and foremost digital is essentially limited to small formats. 24x36 or 45x60mm is pretty much where it ends for digital. You can come up with all the fancy sensors in those formats, but you are still stuck with shrinking down an image into that small space.

Sharpness is not IMHO the most important thing when it comes to an image.
It's how a lens renders and image to the focal plane and the dimension and depth the image has.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
- 35 mm is now giving IQ and resolution high enough to be considered for some MF application, while offering body/ergonomics/speed of use/lens selection/accessories selection/flash control/size&weight/battery life/etc etc that are INCOMPARABLY better than ANY MF body/camera system out there.
Most people don't need and arsenal of "machine gun" lenses.

I shot 90% of my work with two lenses and two cameras.

Fuji gx680 with a 250mm lens and an 8x10 camera with a 480mm schneider.

I still shoot most of my important jobs on a Fuji gx680 with film.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc,

A minority? Seriously? Well, excluding soccer moms and uncle bobs from 35mm sales and excluding as well rich amateurs from the DMF sales, of course, I am pretty sure there is an incomparably larger number of people buying and using the features of D3s, D3x and the Canon equivalents for real, serious work than there are buying and using the S2 (or any DMF for that matter) for the same purpose.

Just one last note - a reminder, to what I said that started the discussion:

To me, the point is not wether
- 35mm will or won't replace DMF -
The point that the D800 (possibly E) and the D3x before it made is:
- 35 mm is now giving IQ and resolution high enough to be considered for some MF application, while offering body/ergonomics/speed of use/lens selection/accessories selection/flash control/size&weight/battery life/etc etc that are INCOMPARABLY better than ANY MF body/camera system out there.

So, if the only reason to use MF is squeezing that last bit of IQ out of one's images, IMHO 35 mm will very likely never make it. However, if one needs any of the above pluses of 35mm over DMF, the last generation of bodies/sensor combination is starting to get very, very appealing even for users used to or aiming to MF IQ.

You turned into a S2-vs-35 mm game, which has nothing to do with what I said :) The new generation of high-MP 35mm DSLR & lenses, wether we want it or not, DO offer people who want to have ALL 35mm features PLUS a higher, close-to-MF IQ a lot of new options.

That said, at the moment I am maintaining:
- Nikon D3 system for low-light concert & stage stuff;
- DMF Leaf Aptus II 12R with Linhof Techno & lenses for architectural & landscapes; the same with Hassy V camera/lenses for studio stuff;
- Leica M( (now sold), & film plus Sony Nex-7 with Leica glass for street & reportage.

I just bought a D3x (very good price, very good conditions), and ordered some Nikon T/S glass and some of the new f1.4 AF-s primes (24, 35, 85) to try and see if I can do without the Hassy in the studio and gain back some of these features I was talking about without loosing too much IQ, and to see if adding a D800E I can do without the Techno (that's a very tall order, but worth trying). This doesn't mean that the IQ will be the same, of course; what counts is, will it be the same for customers and their needs? If so, why wouldn't I leave MF altogether, one system less to maintain...
A Minority meant those that actually will use or need ALL of the features, vast lens and accessories systems or multiple light CLS techniques of a 35mm DSLR. The subject wasn't just about D3 type cameras which have a nicely defined purpose as does the D4/1DX, nor was it about sales numbers of Pro spec 35mm DSLRs verses a numbingly expensive exotic like the S2. It was about the reality of what people actually do and what they actually use verses the collective catch-all that is used to argued on the internet.

S2 reference was in answer to the blanket superiority statements of 35mm DSLR features over the collective MFD offerings, which in some (not all) cases I either didn't agree with, or felt some of the specific S2 examples you used like no available fish-eye, Long teles, or T/S lenses wasn't accurate.

The assumption that the only reason to use a MFD is to squeeze every last ounce of IQ, is just that, an assumption. Ask Shelby Lewis why he moved to MFD for example. Some or perhaps even most MFD users like the more studied way of making photographs. I prefer it for large bright viewfinders, how MFDs operate on a tripod verses little 35mm DSLRs, the way I can put my H back on a studio tech camera for full movements and absolute control of the final image ... whether it be a 16 meg or 60 meg back ... using lenses that have no equal in 35mm or MFD DSLR systems, I also prefer it creatively for the different look, feel and perspective it affords me, and take umbrage to the descriptions such as sterile etc. which are refuted by work of people like our own Derek Jecxz who's very personal and sensitive work is published in Victor magazine this issue, or any number of MFD shooters producing unique styles.

I am not arguing the benefits of a 35mm system at all ... I am questioning it as a replacement for MFD. I have a nice 35mm system myself ... primarily it is used for wedding photography, other than that it isn't used at all except as back-up to the S2 when necessary.

I also am not arguing against the fact that for many, the D800 will allow 35mm DSLR users to reach up and cover more needs as defined by today's photographic demands. A D4 and D800 would make for a killer systems set-up to meet most shooters needs ...but do not agree that it replaces MFD ... IF, big IF, a MFD user chose that format for the right reasons.

-Marc
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Re: More file for the 'D800 as good as MF' fire

And what sensor is that?

I know of no sensor that can produce the images that 4x5 film can produce.

You cannot directly compare film to digital. First and foremost digital is essentially limited to small formats. 24x36 or 45x60mm is pretty much where it ends for digital. You can come up with all the fancy sensors in those formats, but you are still stuck with shrinking down an image into that small space.

Sharpness is not IMHO the most important thing when it comes to an image.
It's how a lens renders and image to the focal plane and the dimension and depth the image has.
I used the word 'rival' and not 'match' precisely because you can't directly compare apples to oranges. However, having said that, it's more like comparing satsumas to tangerines really. MFD and 4x5 or 8x10 are all ways of capturing images that can later be turned into prints, often large prints and in that sense they can and should be compared. Of course they both have strengths and weaknesses but there are plenty of serious photographers out there who think that a 40mp DB rivals a 4x5 and an 80mp rivals a 10x8.

What you, or indeed I, happen to think is irrelevant really: just one of a number of informed and experienced data points and only likely to affect us and our clients. The fact is, you can't make categorical statements like "I know of no sensor that can produce the images that 4x5 film can produce"... because of course you know what the sensors are, you just don't agree with the validity of comparison or the possibly the conclusions drawn from it. Many, no doubt equally qualified and experienced people see it differently.
 

Dustbak

Member
Geeez.. I just finished reading the entire thread (a lot of reading :)). What is most striking, some have already said this, it is a repeat of steps we have had over the years. Basically everytime a new DSLR came out.

Having said that, I was thinking about the days I started with photography in the early 80's. Even than, there was a constant commotion of the next film being able to provide MF quality. Even at that time there was a constant search for the 35mm setup to put MF out of business by reaching the same quality.

I have been in that 'race' until about 2005, 20 odd years or so of straining myself to get close to results that MF provided. At that time I simply gave up and switched to MF to never look back.

My point?

If the MF look/quality or whatever is what you are after it is far less straining (maybe even cheaper) to just take the step and go for it. Why waste valuable time trying to make a surrogate look like it?

At this stage in time I use both. I have a D800e on order (but I still might swap it for a D4 since I use DSLR not so much for pure resolution) and use HB. I pick whatever I feel is appropriate for the task ahead. For many things I prefer the MF rig, not only for the quality if provides but also the way I can work with it.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Geeez.. I just finished reading the entire thread (a lot of reading :)). What is most striking, some have already said this, it is a repeat of steps we have had over the years. Basically everytime a new DSLR came out.

Having said that, I was thinking about the days I started with photography in the early 80's. Even than, there was a constant commotion of the next film being able to provide MF quality. Even at that time there was a constant search for the 35mm setup to put MF out of business by reaching the same quality.

I have been in that 'race' until about 2005, 20 odd years or so of straining myself to get close to results that MF provided. At that time I simply gave up and switched to MF to never look back.

My point?

If the MF look/quality or whatever is what you are after it is far less straining (maybe even cheaper) to just take the step and go for it. Why waste valuable time trying to make a surrogate look like it?

At this stage in time I use both. I have a D800e on order (but I still might swap it for a D4 since I use DSLR not so much for pure resolution) and use HB. I pick whatever I feel is appropriate for the task ahead. For many things I prefer the MF rig, not only for the quality if provides but also the way I can work with it.
My experiences exactly over just about the same time period ... I even remember shooting super low ASA 35mm transparency films and having then duped up to 4"X5" to try and look more professional :ROTFL:

But let's not confuse the issue with experience, logic and reason. :rolleyes:

-Marc
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Geeez.. I just finished reading the entire thread (a lot of reading :)). What is most striking, some have already said this, it is a repeat of steps we have had over the years. Basically everytime a new DSLR came out.

Having said that, I was thinking about the days I started with photography in the early 80's. Even than, there was a constant commotion of the next film being able to provide MF quality. Even at that time there was a constant search for the 35mm setup to put MF out of business by reaching the same quality.

I have been in that 'race' until about 2005, 20 odd years or so of straining myself to get close to results that MF provided. At that time I simply gave up and switched to MF to never look back.

My point?

If the MF look/quality or whatever is what you are after it is far less straining (maybe even cheaper) to just take the step and go for it. Why waste valuable time trying to make a surrogate look like it?

At this stage in time I use both. I have a D800e on order (but I still might swap it for a D4 since I use DSLR not so much for pure resolution) and use HB. I pick whatever I feel is appropriate for the task ahead. For many things I prefer the MF rig, not only for the quality if provides but also the way I can work with it.
Totally agree just get it over with and go MF. My issue is I still need 35 but not to beat my MF kit far from it. It's totally a use thing so I'm not even trying but getting close does help and I think this Nikon closes the gap a little more and that is all it does. Will see how that works out but this struggle here of thinking it eliminates the big boys is just silly, I look at my Phase files off my tech cam and there is nothing on this planet that will beat them nor do I want to try. At some point we need to stop chasing clouds. I'm done with that, I want the best MF kit I can have for ME and that I have. After that it's just getting work done.

But it is nice having a 35mm cam that can produce a great file, I hope this one is the one. I'm betting on it will work for me.
 

pophoto

New member
Btw, one other consideration with 36mp that won't be a surprise here is that you really have to be on top of your game technique-wise too. That was definitely the case with the D3x which unsurprisingly required the same care and attention to get the full resolution out of it as any MFDB based system. Again, I know that this won't be a surprise to most people here but I'll wager that more than a few DSLR shooters moving up from 12mp or so will be in for a few disappointments to start with. I'm sure that the same thing happened with the Canon users going to the 5D Mk II too.
Well, as someone who tries hard to care about technique for whatever it is that I do with a camera, I enjoyed what I was getting from higher MPs and even thought about going DMF, the closest thing I own is the RZ Pro II, so I'm not going to be chasing models or pictures of my son with that thing :p

Although, what DSLRs offer are a great AF system, although clearly not from my 5D Mark II. I also shoot often with my 50mm lens at f1.2, and freeze things with a flash and modifier, only the small one though, but with very satisfying results (to me). I definitely feel why going big will bring a lot technique considerations, I also feel anyone who clearly knows what they are buying will have a lot of consideration for it as well, not refuting your points, I'm just adding to it :p

Definitely to those, who are going FF on a DSLR for the first time may feel the disappointment to begin with. However, I felt I needed to learn from my M9 too, it was both humbling and confidence building for anyone who cares about technique. I think the D800 is bringing photographers in a converging way, whether or not we decide to buy into it!
 
Top