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

[Guy Mancuso]

I agree it will come down to the printed piece.

 

[paulraphael]

Has anyone thought to send PhaseOne raw files to Bill Claff so he can analyze using his algorithms?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

It be nice to have a updated C1 ready to go on delivery of these cams for sure. I'm hoping this is going to happen fast as I hold my breath.

 

[tsjanik]

Imaging Resource has D800 images available in case anyone wants to keep this thread going . I did a quick comparison to the 645D - very close but the 645D is clearly better in the fabric swatches IMHO.

Tom

Nikon D800 Camera Samples - First Shots

 

[D&A]

Imaging Resource has D800 images available in case anyone wants to keep this thread going . I did a quick comparison to the 645D - very close but the 645D is clearly better in the fabric swatches IMHO.

Tom

Nikon D800 Camera Samples - First Shots

HI Tom,

I too made the same comparison and agree that on the left side of the images I compared, detail in fabric was clearly superior with the 645D. With that said, I did notice that with regards to the right hand side of the image, it was a virtual tie between the two cameras. I'm not sure if this was due to each camera/lens being slightly different in how "square" it was to the image being taken or possibly the lens performance on one of the cameras. I wish whatever differences were observed was uniform across entire field.

What I also noticed in certai n parts of the image, was there appeared to be somewhat more dimensionality with regards to the 645 D and more flatness with the D800, but again this wasn't always appreant throughout the image.

Still impressive performance with the D800 and a comparison with the D800e would be interesting.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Antonio Chagin]

I did a quick comparison to the 645D - very close but the 645D is clearly better in the fabric swatches IMHO.

Tom

I actually saw the same, mostly in the light color fabrics. ACH

 

[Shashin]

The other interesting thing about the comparison is the 645D shows moire in one of the bottle labels. I guess the AA filter on the Nikon is working.

It is interesting how the color is different between the two cameras. But being JPEG images it is hard to judge accuracy, but the 645D seems to give more separation and depth to the colors. And the texture goes beyond the fabrics. You can clearly see texture in the oil bottle label in the 645D image.

I did notice the focus or the focus plane may not be the same. The reproduction scale/calculator on the right does not appear as sharp in each image.

The Nikon image is impressive, but it is not the same. How important the differences are is very debatable. What this test does not show is how the images would change with equal angel of view--the test uses 75mm on the Pentax and 70mm on the Nikon would give different angles of view and object distances. Given the same angle of view, same object distance, same aperture, it would be interesting to see the difference as the entrance pupil would be giving an advantage to the 645D, which is something that, for me at least, is an advantage to larger formats.

I think the Nikon is going to be a fine camera and a lot of photographers are going to benefit from it. Now they have something that can finally fill up their hard drives.

 

[tsjanik]

HI Tom,

..... I did notice that with regards to the right hand side of the image, it was a virtual tie between the two cameras. I'm not sure if this was due to each camera/lens being slightly different in how "square" it was to the image being taken or possibly the lens performance on one of the cameras. I wish whatever differences were observed was uniform across entire field.......

Dave (D&A)

Dave,

I think the 645D image is out of focus on the right side. The proportional scale is not crisp, but if you look at an object closer to the camera, e.g. the white fabric under the black cup just below the scale, it's razor sharp at the near end and less so at the far.

Tom

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I actually looked at the new Canon 5d3 jpegs and they where horrible. We all know that will not be the case. After that I gave up comparing anything to it until we get units in hand and same raw processing software to compare against others. The Pentax 645 will hold it's own here for sure. We have to remember we have realistic people and people who have no idea what they are looking at. I read a lot of comments so far and I'm scratching my head with the comparisons , noise and the biggest topic 8 out of 10 times is noise at ISO 6 million. Sorry I just had to get that one off my chest. WTF. Lol

 

[Shashin]

I'm scratching my head with the comparisons , noise and the biggest topic 8 out of 10 times is noise at ISO 6 million. Sorry I just had to get that one off my chest. WTF. Lol

Some day the ISO will reach a point you will no longer have to remove the lens cap.

But folks disgusted at noise at really high ISOs are a bit of a mystery. Photography is light dependent, not plagued by it.

 

[tsjanik]

..........The Nikon image is impressive, but it is not the same. How important the differences are is very debatable. ................I think the Nikon is going to be a fine camera and a lot of photographers are going to benefit from it. Now they have something that can finally fill up their hard drives.

The ISO 100 files from the Pentax look better to my eye, but the differences are subtle. The question this raises for me is the Pentax 25mm worth 5k, since for the same cost you can get the D800 with the 14-24mm?
Of course, the Pentax is a full frame lens should a 645DII follow.

 

[Shashin]

The ISO 100 files from the Pentax look better to my eye, but the differences are subtle. The question this raises for me is the Pentax 25mm worth 5k, since for the same cost you can get the D800 with the 14-24mm?
Of course, the Pentax is a full frame lens should a 645DII follow.

Only you can tell. The Nikon is a 3:2 camera and you would then be carrying two systems--to some that is not an issue, to others it is.

 

[D&A]

Dave,

I think the 645D image is out of focus on the right side. The proportional scale is not crisp, but if you look at an object closer to the camera, e.g. the white fabric under the black cup just below the scale, it's razor sharp at the near end and less so at the far.

Tom

Tom, that's what I meant when I said it appeared that the 645D might not have been squared to the entire image, giving rise to a sharper left hand side relative to the right side. If that was the case, the level of detail captured with the 645D would be convincingly superior.

Dave (D&A)

 

[gazwas]

So with all this hype about the D800, am I mad to be considering buying a Canon 5DIII?

22MPix seem like a much more manageable file size for the jobs a 35mm DSLR usually shoots and don't Canon do better video?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Let me ask you a question. I can bet 100 bucks on the answer too. Did you ever return a TV that was too big. ROTFLMAO

I should give credit to our member Joe Ramo's for that one. He is a professional high end audio/video installer.

 

[Shashin]

I would return a TV that was too big. Simply because it was too big.

 

[gazwas]

I don't know, I've got a 1DSIII and for the type of stuff I shoot with it (Product knock outs for web, packaging) I've never needed more resolution than 21MPix but it doesn't shoot video. For the big gun stuff, I just use the Phase.

Additionally, clients have started asking me more and more for (very simple) video as a tag on the the photography and the new Canon seems ideal.

So is it true, Nikon don't do video very well or will this new camera change all that.

 

[tsjanik]

Only you can tell. The Nikon is a 3:2 camera and you would then be carrying two systems--to some that is not an issue, to others it is.

Shashin, I already use three systems: a K5 for times the 645D isn't practical and my only fisheye is on a Pentax 67II film camera! The fact that Pentax has continued full frame D FA lenses may indicate they expect to have a full frame 645 in the future and that would be a significant motivation to choose the 25mm. I think Pentax learned a lesson when they changed their 35mm lens line to APS-C and are now stuck with the smaller sensor.

Tom, that's what I meant when I said it appeared that the 645D might not have been squared to the entire image, giving rise to a sharper left hand side relative to the right side. If that was the case, the level of detail captured with the 645D would be convincingly superior.

Dave (D&A)

Dave:

Yes, I understood. Aligning the sensor to a flat subject is not trivial, although I would think that IR would have it down to a routine. I learned that when I was testing the 645D lenses with images taken of a bookcase; I finally arranged books at various depths to check for focus or alignment issues

Tom

 

[ptomsu]

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.

+1

but I think we only can tell finally once we have access to real RAW files.

 

[tashley]

A fascinating video interview...

A month with the Nikon D800: Exclusive interview with Jim Brandenburg | Video product reviews | What Digital Camera

Jim Brandeburg is pretty clear on what he thinks. He's not the sort of guy who hangs out here (rarely uses MF or 4x5 and never uses a tripod) but it's clear he knows the territory...