GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
I prefer to be a weapon of mass consumption! Get 'em all!!!
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
Lars
Active member
:ROTFL:
J
jcoffin
Guest
Or more succinctly: "Putt knot trussed inn yore spiel chequer".
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
No fuel for the '24x36mm as good as MF' fantasy
Jack, you are used to handle non-AA filter cameras, so how come you'd choose the standard version of D800 with Anti-Aliasing filter ?
Jack, you are used to handle non-AA filter cameras, so how come you'd choose the standard version of D800 with Anti-Aliasing filter ?
Re: No fuel for the '24x36mm as good as MF' fantasy
My GH2 is a great camera for it's size and price, and, hand-held in low light, it would run rings round my H4D-60 (four times the MPx).
If someone put a high-density, non-AA, 16 bit sensor in an MF digiback bundle so that we could use it on MF tech cams, it might be a great tool for macro?
High pixel density has it's uses... particularly for macro, as DOF decreases with format size.
My GH2 is a great camera for it's size and price, and, hand-held in low light, it would run rings round my H4D-60 (four times the MPx).
If someone put a high-density, non-AA, 16 bit sensor in an MF digiback bundle so that we could use it on MF tech cams, it might be a great tool for macro?
Paul Jameson
New member
I was underwhelmed by the Nikon samples they lack the detail, sharpness and clarity of medium format. They have that Canon/Nikon Haze. They are certainly improved and blown the Canons out of the water but to say they are good as MF is a gross exaggeration and/or wishful thinking.
tashley
Subscriber Member
Paul, I have a pet theory about this which is that we are all used to seeing MF images at 100% on screen and glorying in the AA free crispness of them. However, if you look at the Nikon at 50% zoom instead (which on a 100PPI monitor is a good emulation of a 200dpi print) then they look a whole lot better.
Clearly the things that matter beyond pure resolution are noise characteristics, colour depth and DR. If we accept the DXO work on DR (and some people don't) then the DR of the D7000 sensor is about the same as the IQ180. The D800 sensor is, I hear, 1/2 a stop better than the D7000 in ISO performance and no worse in DR. Quite clearly the ISO performance of the Nikons is better than Phase. So with 36MP I think many people will be hard pressed to tell, at say ISO 100, the difference between the two in a 30" print unless there are particular colour subtleties.
That's what I expect to find when I make the comparison, when my D800e arrives and if I can get my Leica R 50 F2 adapted for the Nikon in time to make the test.
Of course for really subtly lit or coloured subjects, when optimally printed, at low ISO, many a discerning eye likely will see the difference.
I am really looking forward to doing a 'blind tasting' on this and if anyone on the forum is ever in Sussex or London, and wants to volunteer when the time comes, they can just PM me here!
ps The pixel pitch of the D800 is 4.9 and for the IQ180 it's 5.17 so other than the CMOS/CCD difference, it's not like one has very significantly 'fatter' pixels than the other...
Paul Jameson
New member
interesting points Tashley.
While I don't expect them to be as good as MF, i really am interested to see the inevitable tests that will be taking place.
While I don't expect them to be as good as MF, i really am interested to see the inevitable tests that will be taking place.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
I fully back what you say here!
I am still hesitating to say there will be no difference to MFD but once I have my D800E I will do some hard tests with my H3D39 and the D800E. Resolution wise pretty much the same, pixel size a big difference in this case, but I assume that the much more modern CMOS sensor of the D800E will simply outperform the H3D39 CCD (Kodak) in almost all areas.
Wil be interesting to see how big the differences are. And if there is not much difference at all (which I actually secretly hope) then my MF gear simply can go, as I do only have it fro landscape work and absolutely have no need to mount my back on a tech camera - nor do I have any intention to go that way.
Bryan Stephens
Workshop Member
I'm torn as to if I should upgrade my D700 to the D800 or the D800e, and also upping my D3s to the D4. Each has its own separate purpose in my "aresnal" but for landscapes, I will be sticking with my Cambo.
Lars
Active member
Lenses would of course play a huge role in any comparison. So you would have to decide if you are comparing just sensors or whole systems.
I think most people are hoping the AA-less D800E will be a kind of "magic bullet". I am certainly one of these people, although the right side of my brain determines It'll leave me wanting... The proof of the pudding really will be in the final prints and if detail and printed colour fidelity using Lambda or LED printing technologies is the main concern, I doubt 40mpx MF would offer any significant performance difference up to 20 x 30". The aesthetics of how the lenses etc draw in relation to the larger format will be a different story. Personally, I love how MF renders depth and would find it hard going down from 6x7cm film to 35mm digital, let alone to 645, but considering I'd crop the 35mm frame to 645 dimensions I'd much prefer the DMF experience I think. If only the cost of entry weren't so high!
Just look back a few years...
When the 24.5 MP sensors came out... did they replace medium format?
Sure people decided to shoot with those 24.5 MP cameras, but they did not take over medium fornat and many photographers continued to get better results with 22 MP MF cameras and the 24.5 MP 35mm DSLR cameras did not take their place.
Why would a 36MP 35mm DSLR all of the sudden change everythings.
Medium format is not just about linear resolution. It's about what happens when an image is crammed down into a small space and then blown up twice as much, regardless of the capture medium.
I shoot portraits, beauty and fashion. larger formats just look better. They have more depth and a more sculpted look. Hair is totally different. It just has more body.
Then you have the highlights and shadows. While some smaller sensors have overall dynamic range they just do not have the same shadows and highlights of MF.
You only have to push the curves around in photoshop to see how MF files at 16 bit are so much better. But even if you convert to 8 bit.... surprise surprise the MF files still have more robust shadows.
When the 24.5 MP sensors came out... did they replace medium format?
Sure people decided to shoot with those 24.5 MP cameras, but they did not take over medium fornat and many photographers continued to get better results with 22 MP MF cameras and the 24.5 MP 35mm DSLR cameras did not take their place.
Why would a 36MP 35mm DSLR all of the sudden change everythings.
Medium format is not just about linear resolution. It's about what happens when an image is crammed down into a small space and then blown up twice as much, regardless of the capture medium.
I shoot portraits, beauty and fashion. larger formats just look better. They have more depth and a more sculpted look. Hair is totally different. It just has more body.
Then you have the highlights and shadows. While some smaller sensors have overall dynamic range they just do not have the same shadows and highlights of MF.
You only have to push the curves around in photoshop to see how MF files at 16 bit are so much better. But even if you convert to 8 bit.... surprise surprise the MF files still have more robust shadows.
paulraphael
Member
Here's a case study that shows how from one subjective perspective, the d800 "rivals" medium format.
I'm a refugee from large format, with all the attendant baggage and expectations, who has gone small because of cost (I moved to color from b+w, and on my artist's budget, can't afford $5 a click for film) and efficiency (I've fallen in love with the digital work flow. I'd rather get my work done than continue martyring myself for weeks at a time in the darkroom).
MF digital would be the obvious choice for me, and I do seriously lust over a technical camera, a PhaseOne back, and a lockable suitcase packed with state of the art German glass.
Alas, it will be sometime in the next century before I can afford such a setup.
So the question becomes, what solution exists within my means that can give the results I'd like?
I've downloaded and printed several sample images from the d800. I've done them at scales ranging from 13x19 to 4x7 feet. A lot of this was driven just by curiosity; my work will be printed mostly 30 inches and smaller.
The quality of the prints is indeed startling. Is it as good as from a $30,000 PhaseOne back? I haven't had the privilege of comparing, but I think it's safe to say: no way. I have some understanding of the physics and the physiology of vision; I've seen the MTF curves of the Schneider and Rodenstock digital lenses.
But the prints are still way beyond anything I've ever imagined coming off a small sensor or small piece of film. They're at least as good as anything I've seen come off of medium format film. In terms of certain qualities, the results are better than my darkroom prints from 4x5 (but not as good as prints from scanned 4x5 negs).
In other words, it's not quite as good as the best or even the typical MF digital. But it's in the same room now. It opens up options that used to be purely the realm of MF digital, and makes them available at a tenth the cost.
To make up some meaningless numbers, I'd suggest that the d800 gives 75% what high end MF can give, for 7 to 10% the cost. This will be attractive to a lot of people.
Those like me will find this camera a perfect solution for the time being. And those already invested in MF digital might find it a good, lightweight supplement, for about the price they're used to paying for a lens cap.
I'm a refugee from large format, with all the attendant baggage and expectations, who has gone small because of cost (I moved to color from b+w, and on my artist's budget, can't afford $5 a click for film) and efficiency (I've fallen in love with the digital work flow. I'd rather get my work done than continue martyring myself for weeks at a time in the darkroom).
MF digital would be the obvious choice for me, and I do seriously lust over a technical camera, a PhaseOne back, and a lockable suitcase packed with state of the art German glass.
Alas, it will be sometime in the next century before I can afford such a setup.
So the question becomes, what solution exists within my means that can give the results I'd like?
I've downloaded and printed several sample images from the d800. I've done them at scales ranging from 13x19 to 4x7 feet. A lot of this was driven just by curiosity; my work will be printed mostly 30 inches and smaller.
The quality of the prints is indeed startling. Is it as good as from a $30,000 PhaseOne back? I haven't had the privilege of comparing, but I think it's safe to say: no way. I have some understanding of the physics and the physiology of vision; I've seen the MTF curves of the Schneider and Rodenstock digital lenses.
But the prints are still way beyond anything I've ever imagined coming off a small sensor or small piece of film. They're at least as good as anything I've seen come off of medium format film. In terms of certain qualities, the results are better than my darkroom prints from 4x5 (but not as good as prints from scanned 4x5 negs).
In other words, it's not quite as good as the best or even the typical MF digital. But it's in the same room now. It opens up options that used to be purely the realm of MF digital, and makes them available at a tenth the cost.
To make up some meaningless numbers, I'd suggest that the d800 gives 75% what high end MF can give, for 7 to 10% the cost. This will be attractive to a lot of people.
Those like me will find this camera a perfect solution for the time being. And those already invested in MF digital might find it a good, lightweight supplement, for about the price they're used to paying for a lens cap.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I set myself up recently to have both. Tech cam with 60mpx back 3 outstanding lenses yes I am choking on what they cost. Than I will have a pretty good Nikon setup . Now the only hope I have is the Nikon will pass for most client work not all but a decent chunk of it. The rest is my tech cam. I went from supporting three systems to two. Let's hope this works but all I wanted was to get somewhat close and reason why I jumped back in was the 36mpx at least I can deliver big. But I know my Phase will smoke it at any given minute. I don't have any false hopes just needs to fill and best costs to get there. It's not MF it never will be but if it can deliver better than any 35 system out there than we win. It's pretty simple logic.
I'm betting on Nikon to pull this off. It's a risk but a least costly one and a easy oh **** it is not working and sell it back off. The word hedging comes to mind. Lol
I'm betting on Nikon to pull this off. It's a risk but a least costly one and a easy oh **** it is not working and sell it back off. The word hedging comes to mind. Lol
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
The HUGE plus for Nikon is we can rent dirt cheap and easily
paulraphael
Member
I would be very interested in seeing a comparison of moderate sized prints, like 13x19 to 20x24, side by side from a d800 and a high end MF. Both made with equal skill and care.
I think that would be very interesting. Huge prints, not so interesting ... we can probably predict those results easily enough.
But I'd like to address some of the comments of the "there's more to MF than resolution" variety. I think it's those areas where small cameras are making the biggest gains. Take a look at the DXOmark scores for the PhaseOne IQ180, P45Plus, and the Nikon D3X. The D3X leads in everything but resolution (last place) and color depth (2nd place by 7%).
It's remarkable that the D3X is the dynamic range champion of all tested digital sensors Especially considering that unofficial tests show the d800 besting it by over half a stop. I'll be curious to see the real world results.
I think that would be very interesting. Huge prints, not so interesting ... we can probably predict those results easily enough.
But I'd like to address some of the comments of the "there's more to MF than resolution" variety. I think it's those areas where small cameras are making the biggest gains. Take a look at the DXOmark scores for the PhaseOne IQ180, P45Plus, and the Nikon D3X. The D3X leads in everything but resolution (last place) and color depth (2nd place by 7%).
It's remarkable that the D3X is the dynamic range champion of all tested digital sensors Especially considering that unofficial tests show the d800 besting it by over half a stop. I'll be curious to see the real world results.
Last edited:
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Well my issue with DXO and always has been reason I think it is not great data it takes nothing in account for the raw processing and what theses programs can dig out of the raw data. To me it is incomplete data. I know for Phase for instance so much is coming out of the software for its own files that how can we truly say DXO ratings are a real world numbers.