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
- Thread starter tashley
- Start date
KeithL
Well-known member
Perhaps, for now, at least until the 50MP Canon is announced
ptomsu
Workshop Member
I think "we" will be neve done
I am done, as I already said, I am keeping my HB, just because I love it and have a D800E on order because I was just waiting for this type of flexible DSLR (in combo with top Nikon glass).
An I might get a M10 if this one meets my demands I already had for the M9, but did not get.
Don Libby
Well-known member
There are some things that MF can't do as well as 35mm and that's the sole reason we'll continue to have one. As good as 35mm has gotten it still hasn't reached the level of MF. I've got the same feelings toward film vs digital only I feel digital has surpassed film in many ways.
Don
(I was going to cherry-pick Guy's quote but decided to leave it as is)
:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:But let's not confuse the issue with experience, logic and reason.
-Marc
:clap:
johnnygoesdigital
New member
I wouldn't actually call that a perfect summation, but your smiley faces are much more to the point!
stephengilbert
Active member
"Are we done yet?" Some will never be done, as the title of this thread suggests; they think it's fun to fight on the internet, to add fuel to the fire.
As for the others -- including me -- we'll only be done when we stop responding.
I'm done.
As for the others -- including me -- we'll only be done when we stop responding.
I'm done.
tashley
Subscriber Member
Well... I started the thread because I read about a clearly competent professional photographer who has used the D800 and and is mighty impressed by it and has made his own judgement about it in relation to MF. I certainly don't think it's 'fun to fight on the Internet' but I do think that not sharing interesting information for fear it will offend those who would rather others didn't discuss it would be a strange way to go through life.
There is a fire, whether you like it or not: a fire caused by the friction between those who want and don't want this whole 'D800 is as good as/rivals/will obviate the need for MFD' thing to be true and those who, like me, would quite like it to be but think that if it is, it will only be to a limited extent.
Fires can warm people as well as burn them. They can also clear scrub and let new forests grow.
Tim
One thing that is interesting to me is that I've found most people who claim DSLR's will Kill MF have actually never shot or played with a MF file.
There is a lot more to it than just resolution.
Now I shoot both MF and DSLR, just as I had multiple formats in the film days.
A week ago I did a 4 day shoot on the littlest Phase that could; The P21+ (Rental)
It's ONLY 18 megapixels, but at ISO 100, I just couldn't help loving the files, There is just something to them and I know we use words like Depth and roll-off, 3d and....., but I just can't make up the word to explain it.
It just had a feel that I have never been able to achieve with the best of the DSLRs and ZF-ZE glass.
Now am I going to shoot everything MF, No way man.... right tool for the right job...
why is this such a hard concept???
There is a lot more to it than just resolution.
Now I shoot both MF and DSLR, just as I had multiple formats in the film days.
A week ago I did a 4 day shoot on the littlest Phase that could; The P21+ (Rental)
It's ONLY 18 megapixels, but at ISO 100, I just couldn't help loving the files, There is just something to them and I know we use words like Depth and roll-off, 3d and....., but I just can't make up the word to explain it.
It just had a feel that I have never been able to achieve with the best of the DSLRs and ZF-ZE glass.
Now am I going to shoot everything MF, No way man.... right tool for the right job...
why is this such a hard concept???
Landscapelover
Senior Subscriber Member
I really enjoy the thread like this. Compared to the place like "FM forums", this thread is very educational and peaceful.
To me, the benefits of having Nikon D800 are having a great back up, low light and easy-to-use camera and decreasing the price of medium format. It's just win-win situation.
Just use the camera you can afford and have fun!
Pramote
To me, the benefits of having Nikon D800 are having a great back up, low light and easy-to-use camera and decreasing the price of medium format. It's just win-win situation.
Just use the camera you can afford and have fun!
Pramote
Shashin
Well-known member
I have done a lot of research and it is important to see where the information comes from. This photographer does a lot of promotion work for Nikon and was asked by Nikon to put this together. I looked at his site and can find no evidence that he actually has shot MFD.
His review is very good. But having read a lot of promotional material from camera companies, I do take it with a grain of salt. I will not quite believe Fuji's claim the the X-Pro1 has the same resolution as a 35mm sensor nor did I believe the claim from sigma that the SD-1 was equivalent to a 40MP sensor.
Now it true every time a company release a product folks get excited like Christmas is coming and Santa will bring them a magic present. I really do not have that much interest in the next product--the promise never meets the reality. I have found physics does not not suddenly change on the claims of marketing. Since this is not the first 35mm to make the claim of being as good as MFD and the previous contenders did not actually live up to this claim, a claim based solely on the number of pixels, what has changed now?
Properly, this thread should be in the Nikon forum. It has nothing to do with MFD.
+1 "Just use the camera you can afford and have fun!"
Could not agree more, perhaps not the part about the decreasing price of MF
tashley
Subscriber Member
Yup, it is very clear (he even states that he worked with the advertising company on the casting and concepts for the shoot) that he is a Nikon guy. He makes no bones about it. As for whether he has ever shot MF, I have no idea, maybe not. But I do remember when the M8 was released and Leica used a portfolio of shots I took in Venice to show people what the camera could do. Plenty of people accused me by email of being their patsy - which was 100% untrue. So I have some sympathy for this Nikon guy and am naturally inclined to believe that he's not so far in Nikon's pocket that his opinions are compromised beyond usefulness.
I wouldn't mind at all if it were moved and no doubt a moderator will do so if that's appropriate. But it very clearly does have something to do with MFD because as is very clear from the responses on this thread, a number of people are hoping that the D800 will be able to take on some of the duties of their MF systems. I'm not seeing anyone who currently believes that it will replace their MF, but we all like to use the right tools for the right jobs and it may be that the D800 penetrates into some areas currently best handled by MF.
It is also pretty clear that a lot of people are finding the discussion interesting and possibly useful. There's no war here, just hopes and opinions and a pleasure in sharing and analysing the few scant data points we so far have.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
I would say that this thread is exactly where it should be - as it is what it intends to discuss - that DSLRs are coming into MFD territory.
Wether one likes to believe or not - it is a fact. Moving it away from here would mean to put our head int the sand and ignoring what is coming and where the technology is evolving.
I can only reiterate that I do not find anything wrong about this. While I still like and prefer MFD for certain applications, the truth is that DSLRs are entering former MFD proprietary area. Which has a number of advantages like being able to use these cameras where one would not have used MFD, just because of weight, bulkiness, choice of lenses, possibilities of high ISO etc. etc.
I am really traveling very much and I also do take MFD with me as I did with MF film. But it happens more often that I wish I would have a - say it carefully - close to MFD capable DSLR with me. Especially with airline restrictions even in business class. And BTW, US airlines, especially inside US, can be the worst in that area!!!! So I do prefer a lighter and smaller kit. Also for landscape, where I normally need some hiking to be able to take my shots, I really prefer less weight and smaller form factor. NOT EVERYTHING is shot in easily accessible locations or studio. And exactly for this work a D800 or D800E will bring a huge advantage!
SO why not stop this silly "DSLRs can never reach the IQ of MFD" and just accept that as technology advances we will just get more nice options which we only could have dreamed some years ago.
PS1: guess what will be possible inn 5 or in 10 years from now - iPhone with today's MFD resolution and close to today's MFD quality?
Wether one likes to believe or not - it is a fact. Moving it away from here would mean to put our head int the sand and ignoring what is coming and where the technology is evolving.
I can only reiterate that I do not find anything wrong about this. While I still like and prefer MFD for certain applications, the truth is that DSLRs are entering former MFD proprietary area. Which has a number of advantages like being able to use these cameras where one would not have used MFD, just because of weight, bulkiness, choice of lenses, possibilities of high ISO etc. etc.
I am really traveling very much and I also do take MFD with me as I did with MF film. But it happens more often that I wish I would have a - say it carefully - close to MFD capable DSLR with me. Especially with airline restrictions even in business class. And BTW, US airlines, especially inside US, can be the worst in that area!!!! So I do prefer a lighter and smaller kit. Also for landscape, where I normally need some hiking to be able to take my shots, I really prefer less weight and smaller form factor. NOT EVERYTHING is shot in easily accessible locations or studio. And exactly for this work a D800 or D800E will bring a huge advantage!
SO why not stop this silly "DSLRs can never reach the IQ of MFD" and just accept that as technology advances we will just get more nice options which we only could have dreamed some years ago.
PS1: guess what will be possible inn 5 or in 10 years from now - iPhone with today's MFD resolution and close to today's MFD quality?
Within the limitations of the laws of physics of course. Those pesky things keep getting in the way.
-bob
Charles Wood
New member
Quite a lot of truth in that statement. I've met owners of high meg FF DSLRs who shoot JPGS, have not a clue what RAW is all about much less how critical post processing is to the quality of the final image and who seem content to use Photoshop Elements or Google Picasa for any post work. Then the files are sent to Costco or Walmart for prints.Yeah totally silly, but it looks like they are having so much fun!
Anyone want to buy a point and shoot with 36MP? Anyone?
A slight bit of sarcasm here but I suspect there will 800s on the market within the year, sold by owners who could not tell the difference between the 800 and 700. It all reminds me of the neurotic world of high end audio.
Re: More file for the 'D800 as good as MF' fire
IF you put a 45x60mm sensor behind a 4x5 lens you are only capturing a fraction of the image.
Then there's the whole black and white thing to consider.
While digital improves capture on small formats it still cannot "look at" what large format lenses project.
Actually my statement is based on a simple fact. Lenses of larger formats have a look that cannot be matched in smaller formats. Perspective, depth, falloff and dimentional image rendering.
IF you put a 45x60mm sensor behind a 4x5 lens you are only capturing a fraction of the image.
Then there's the whole black and white thing to consider.
While digital improves capture on small formats it still cannot "look at" what large format lenses project.
J
jcoffin
Guest
At least so far, I've found much (most?) of this thread a bit amusing.
Even if we ignore all factors other than resolution, the D800 (not available yet) is slightly (but only slightly) ahead of the P30, which I believe came out in 2007. It's still not yet caught up with the P40+, which came out in 2009 though. Interpolating between those, just in terms of spatial resolution, 135 format is running about 4 years behind MF.
Most of the other factors remain to be seen, but I think it's fair to guess that the spatial resolution is probably the highlight of the D800. It almost certainly will not beat those 4 year-old MF backs in other respects -- and on quite a few it will still almost certainly lag behind them. So, what we have is at least a 4 year "lag" between a given level of image quality in MF, and something that (at best) might start to approach the same level in 135.
Looking at things from the other direction for a moment, I'm a bit reminded of arguments I heard between proponents of various kinds of computer systems 10-20 years ago. Users of workstation from Sun, Silicon Graphics, Apollo, HP, etc., would happily point out that there was no comparison. Their workstations were not just faster, but much more sophisticated, dependable, etc., than those slow, cheap, unreliable Windows and Mac boxes with their cheap mass-production processors.
That argument's pretty much over though. Though there's still a niche for high-end servers with other processors, Intel boxes have pretty much taken over the workstation market and most of the server market too -- Windows machines and Macs both run Intel processors now, and the RISC workstation market is purely historic. Oracle, HP, and IBM still sell high-end servers with other processors, but it at least seems like the market share shrinks a bit every year.
It's also true that in the process some sophistication has been lost. A current Windows or Mac machine still doesn't do networking quite as nicely as an Apollo workstation did 20+ years ago. It uses a lot of brute force to even come close to matching an Amiga for around the same time. Nonetheless, Apollos and Amigas are long gone and mostly forgotten. Some of that is undoubtedly due to management problems, but a lot more is due to the simple fact that the low-end "garbage" they once barely even bothered to sneer at, got enough better at their specialty (while remaining cheaper and easier for most people to use) that almost nobody was willing to pay enough extra for their strengths to support the companies.
To summarize: I don't think it's anywhere close to given that Nikon (or 135 in general) is set to catch up with MF in general -- but at the same time, if I were Phase, Hasselblad, etc., I might not be exactly nervous, but I'd definitely be working hard at ensuring that I kept that 4 year gap open. I'd also be working really hard to matching the features of 135 like ease of use and convenience as much as possible to make it as easy as possible for the high-end 135 models to act as a "gateway drug" for MF, rather than the other way around. In the long term, inexpensive beats sophisticated nearly every time.
Even if we ignore all factors other than resolution, the D800 (not available yet) is slightly (but only slightly) ahead of the P30, which I believe came out in 2007. It's still not yet caught up with the P40+, which came out in 2009 though. Interpolating between those, just in terms of spatial resolution, 135 format is running about 4 years behind MF.
Most of the other factors remain to be seen, but I think it's fair to guess that the spatial resolution is probably the highlight of the D800. It almost certainly will not beat those 4 year-old MF backs in other respects -- and on quite a few it will still almost certainly lag behind them. So, what we have is at least a 4 year "lag" between a given level of image quality in MF, and something that (at best) might start to approach the same level in 135.
Looking at things from the other direction for a moment, I'm a bit reminded of arguments I heard between proponents of various kinds of computer systems 10-20 years ago. Users of workstation from Sun, Silicon Graphics, Apollo, HP, etc., would happily point out that there was no comparison. Their workstations were not just faster, but much more sophisticated, dependable, etc., than those slow, cheap, unreliable Windows and Mac boxes with their cheap mass-production processors.
That argument's pretty much over though. Though there's still a niche for high-end servers with other processors, Intel boxes have pretty much taken over the workstation market and most of the server market too -- Windows machines and Macs both run Intel processors now, and the RISC workstation market is purely historic. Oracle, HP, and IBM still sell high-end servers with other processors, but it at least seems like the market share shrinks a bit every year.
It's also true that in the process some sophistication has been lost. A current Windows or Mac machine still doesn't do networking quite as nicely as an Apollo workstation did 20+ years ago. It uses a lot of brute force to even come close to matching an Amiga for around the same time. Nonetheless, Apollos and Amigas are long gone and mostly forgotten. Some of that is undoubtedly due to management problems, but a lot more is due to the simple fact that the low-end "garbage" they once barely even bothered to sneer at, got enough better at their specialty (while remaining cheaper and easier for most people to use) that almost nobody was willing to pay enough extra for their strengths to support the companies.
To summarize: I don't think it's anywhere close to given that Nikon (or 135 in general) is set to catch up with MF in general -- but at the same time, if I were Phase, Hasselblad, etc., I might not be exactly nervous, but I'd definitely be working hard at ensuring that I kept that 4 year gap open. I'd also be working really hard to matching the features of 135 like ease of use and convenience as much as possible to make it as easy as possible for the high-end 135 models to act as a "gateway drug" for MF, rather than the other way around. In the long term, inexpensive beats sophisticated nearly every time.