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

[Stefan Steib]

I think Christopher is right. And it should not be forgotten that the Canon EF mount is significantly wider in Diameter, which allows for better lensconstruction. And you can bet these over 35 something MPix bodies will need every iota of technical advantage to use these pixels.

Regards
Stefan

 

[tsjanik]

People have to remember it is a photokina year and Canon will respond. That they can we have seen. It just a question when. I would never sell of my Canon gear for a Nikon camera. If I really thought to need the d800 I would sell my 5DII and buy it with 1-2 lenses I would want to have.

I think Christopher is right. And it should not be forgotten that the Canon EF mount is significantly wider in Diameter, which allows for better lensconstruction. And you can bet these over 35 something MPix bodies will need every iota of technical advantage to use these pixels.

Regards
Stefan

I think you are right. Unless one needs the D800 now, it might be a good time to buy Canon lenses

I am very interested to see where Sony will use this sensor.

Tom

 

[Shashin]

And it should not be forgotten that the Canon EF mount is significantly wider in Diameter, which allows for better lensconstruction. And you can bet these over 35 something MPix bodies will need every iota of technical advantage to use these pixels.

Kind of an irrelevant spec. The D800 sensor works out at about 100l/mm which is hardly a monumental target, even in the silver age of photography.

 

[gerald.d]

IIRC, the Canon 7D actually has a higher pixel density than the D800, so looking for decent lens performance at this level is nothing new.

 

[tashley]

Not sure what you've got invested in Canon, but selling it all off just to get the D800 now might be a little short sighted?

If you've got a significant amount invested in Canon - particularly lenses - might it not be worth waiting a while to see how Canon respond?

The cost of replacing many thousands of dollars worth of Canon glass with Nikon would, I assume, not be insignificant. If Canon release something a year down the line that performs as good as the D800, would you be comfortable with the loss you incurred on changing the glass?

You're absolutely right: I have already kicked myself for selling a Nikon 70-200VRII last summer when the D7000 I was trying out failed to impress. I have decided to keep my favourite Canon glass (Leica R adapted, to do service on the D800e too, 35L, 24-105, 100-400) and just sell the stuff that's surplus to requirements. If I can get a half decent price for the 5DII I'll sell it, otherwise it can be a holiday home camera. I really should have learned by now: NEVER EVER EVER sell good glass - it goes up in value faster than inflation! That's why I'm keeping all my Leica M glass even though selling the M9...

 

[Jack]

Coming from the "having neither" camp, I'm looking at this afresh.

Since it may be a year until I can spring for the IQ160, an 800E and Schneider PC lens is looking like a good landscape/architecture kit. If the RAW files can be pushed around without shadow noise or banding in any way resembling the Phase's, I'll give it a go.

--Matt

I was going to share my early impressions this morning Matt, and saw your post and it asks a question that is exactly on point:

First off let me say that the files are excellent, the color is very good and the noise handling is spectacular. I am processing them in ACR and LR and am liking what I'm seeing very much. (I cannot wait to get them in C1.) I will even go so far as to say this is the best DSLR file I have seen to date as relates to color, noise and *captured* dynamic range.

However, the file does NOT have the malleability of the Phase file; you cannot crank shadows way up and hold the quality like you can on the IQ, so what I'd call the output DR is still superior on the IQ file. The other thing you notice immediately is how much less the image "zooms" when you go to 100% as compared to the IQ180 -- very close pixel pitches, so that makes sense.

I need to shoot some people in good outdoor light to comment on how it handles skin. So far from interior shots, it looks pretty darn good, but again, does not appear to full MF caliber.

So, is it an MF replacement? No, I don't think so. To me, the most obvious difference is the MF files still have more elasticity to them, and that is something I use a lot to get my final working file to where i want it. But for a shooter who cannot enter MF, I will step out on that limb and say the D800 appears to be the best thing going to date in the DSLR league.

 

[Stefan Steib]

The main point is uniformity over the used sensor plane. Having a larger lens diameter allows for more "spare" image circle, using the sweet spot of the focal length used. This is what most of the Leica R and also Contax Lenses did and why they were so good (and so expensive).
A peak center performance is ok for film usage where there is no electronic improval applied to the image. On a digital photo it counts to have a whole number of steps of image calculations performed. The killer for this is differing properties over the file.
This was the reason I wanted to use the Hasselblad V lenskits for our Hartbleis on 35mm full format, and it turned out to be working perfectly.
The images do not "fall apart" even if you work heavily on them.

And last but not least, only a larger diameter will allow highly opened apertures for fast lenses.

regards
Stefan

 

[Shashin]

The main point is uniformity over the used sensor plane. Having a larger lens diameter allows for more "spare" image circle, using the sweet spot of the focal length used. This is what most of the Leica R and also Contax Lenses did and why they were so good (and so expensive).
A peak center performance is ok for film usage where there is no electronic improval applied to the image. On a digital photo it counts to have a whole number of steps of image calculations performed. The killer for this is differing properties over the file.
This was the reason I wanted to use the Hasselblad V lenskits for our Hartbleis on 35mm full format, and it turned out to be working perfectly.
The images do not "fall apart" even if you work heavily on them.

And last but not least, only a larger diameter will allow highly opened apertures for fast lenses.

regards
Stefan

Leica and Contax don't/didn't seem to be handicapped by a smaller lens mount than Canon. The size of the image circle has nothing optically to do with the size of the mount, at least with the mount sizes on DSLRs. I can't think of a focal length or aperture that could not be achieved on a Nikon mount--BTW, Leica has glass with larger apertures and with a smaller mount. There seems to be a confusion between mechanical specifications and optic ones. I'm sorry, I just don't see an issue here.

 

[MGrayson]

While we're on the subject of lenses, I had a look at the applicable T/S lenses. I understood that the Canon 17 and 24 mmT/S lenses were highly regarded, but the examples I can find online with the reasonable amounts of shift looked very soft in the corners, even at f/8-f/11. I know I'm spoiled from using SK lenses on a Cambo, and if the corners just have sky, it's not a problem, but :wtf:?

Are the latest Nikon T/S lenses good when shifted? How about the Schneider PC lens for 35mm cameras?

--Matt

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Guy,

Great points! I'm curious now, about Zeiss primes, especially the 25mm f/2. The D800 is most certainly not going to replace MFD, but reading these comments about comparisons to MFD, and i'm as giddy as a school girl! With the savings over MFD, one can purchase lights, lenses, another camera, cars...

 

[Jack]

I understood that the Canon 17 and 24 mmT/S lenses were highly regarded,

They are.

but the examples I can find online with the reasonable amounts of shift looked very soft in the corners, even at f/8-f/11. I know I'm spoiled from using SK lenses on a Cambo,

Yes, you are.

Are the latest Nikon T/S lenses good when shifted? How about the Schneider PC lens for 35mm cameras?

Nikon 24 is not as highly regarded as Canon's new 24. The 85's are both excellent, 45's very good, and of course Canon has the 17 and it's remarkable given what it's doing. All copies of the Schneider 28PC have been marginal performers, the contemporary 24's from N or C being much better...

 

[MGrayson]

Jack,

Thanks. I'm getting a pretty good idea where things stand. Still, the D800E/24 TS combo looks like an insanely good value. I've printed crops of some of the sample RAW files at 20x30 inch total print size, and they're impressive.

--Matt

 

[OliverM]

At the age of film, "sensors" were identical for both 35mm and MF.
But I never reached with my M6 the magic touch I got with my Contax 645 and its great lenses (especially portraits).

If 35mm sensor technology delivers now or in the future similar performance to MF, we only come back to that age, where both formats lived together well.

On my side, I don't like the colours out of my Canon, and only keep few pictures from it, that are great regarding the content but always flat compared to my Sinar. And for travel photography in low light, for some video, it is necessary to have a dslr.
So if there is now a dslr that delivers MF level file performance, I will be happy to combine rich magic pictures out of the MF and rich good pictures out of the dslr.
I only wish that the sensor would have been a 22 MPix, as 36 might bring more issues (file size & system requirements, focusing accuracy,..) than value.

Thanks for this thread, I am very interested also with the feed-backs on lenses.

 

[tsjanik]

Roger has some interesting observations

LensRentals.com - “D” resolution tests

 

[D&A]

I found a tidbit of one comment he made quite interesting and so I quickly posted a response. This is what I mentioned....

"Excellent comparisons with the time constraints you were under. Interesting comment regarding the Pentax 645D. If I understood your comments correctly, with one or some of it’s better performing lenses. it reaches approx 1500 lp/ih? If so the difference between it and the D800 is roughly 67% the difference found between the D700 and D800. Thats quite astounding since the difference between the D700 and D800 is roughly 3x the actual # of pixels whereby were only talking about a difference of 4MP difference between the D800 and 645D. Of course the comparison takes into account more than this as we’re comparing different formats and different sized sensors. Still thats somewhat of a significant difference. Just a dislaimer…I shoot with both the 645D and Nikon system, so I’m not biased to their relative merits in performance to one another." (end of comment).

Of course comparitive results when comparing any two cameras or systems is dependent on lens choices and what is required to achieve "best" results. With one system, it possibly could be achieved with a large variety of excellent high performance lenses that are readily available while another system might require picking from a smaller handfull of lenses capable of achieving such "high" results along with extraordinary careful shooting techniques.

Dave (D&A)

 

[paulraphael]

...All copies of the Schneider 28PC have been marginal performers, the contemporary 24's from N or C being much better...

You've had several marginal Schneider 28s?

That's curious. I've seen a couple of disappointing reviews of this lens online, but other by people who have used them side by side with the Nikons and Canons report very different results.

By most accounts the newest Canon 24 is remarkable, possibly the best shift TS lens made.

 

[Jack]

You've had several marginal Schneider 28s?

Between Guy and I back in our Canon days we tried at least 5 and maybe 6 -- none of them passed muster for us. Perhaps the folks you know are less demanding or never bothered to actually shift them and test?

 

[Antonio Chagin]

I found a tidbit of one comment he made quite interesting and so I quickly posted a response. This is what I mentioned....

"Excellent comparisons with the time constraints you were under. Interesting comment regarding the Pentax 645D. If I understood your comments correctly, with one or some of it’s better performing lenses. it reaches approx 1500 lp/ih? If so the difference between it and the D800 is roughly 67% the difference found between the D700 and D800. Thats quite astounding since the difference between the D700 and D800 is roughly 3x the actual # of pixels whereby were only talking about a difference of 4MP difference between the D800 and 645D. Of course the comparison takes into account more than this as we’re comparing different formats and different sized sensors. Still thats somewhat of a significant difference. Just a dislaimer…I shoot with both the 645D and Nikon system, so I’m not biased to their relative merits in performance to one another." (end of comment).

Of course comparitive results when comparing any two cameras or systems is dependent on lens choices and what is required to achieve "best" results. With one system, it possibly could be achieved with a large variety of excellent high performance lenses that are readily available while another system might require picking from a smaller handfull of lenses capable of achieving such "high" results along with extraordinary careful shooting techniques.

Dave (D&A)

Dave Have you ever tried your Pentax 645 on any Nikon body?

ACH

 

[paulraphael]

Between Guy and I back in our Canon days we tried at least 5 and maybe 6 -- none of them passed muster for us. Perhaps the folks you know are less demanding or never bothered to actually shift them and test?

Seems unlikely. I've been emailing with a local (NYC) achitectural photographer who replaced his generation 1 Canon TSE with the Schneider. Said the Schneider spanked it in every way.

Now he has the generation 2 Canon and writes the following: "I like the Canons "better" because of the focal lengths mostly. The 24 is lot more useful indoors, and the 17 is just nuts- it always leaves the clients happy. I think both the canons (the new canon's, not the old ones) are great - but are they are equal in terms of quality to the schneider. Also because they don;t have the manual open/close mechanism"

My personal experience with these lenses is limited. I rented a Nikon 24 PC for a job recently, which wasn't especially demanding. Also the light was very crisp and contrasty. The results looked very good.

I've recently picked up a used Schneider and have been testing it as thoroughly as I can, but every time I've been out with it there's been flat light and overcast. So far it seems sharp as anything I've used on axis, and softer (but not in a distracting way) toward the edges of the image circle). Which likewise describes my 210 Schneider Apo Symmar and 120 Super Angulon. I wish I could compare more directly to the Nikkor. I do find that the resolution is present, and sharpens up with great ease in PS. I don't see any distortion, and only the occasional hint of CA.

But my testing is cursory at this point.

 

[paulraphael]

Are the latest Nikon T/S lenses good when shifted? How about the Schneider PC lens for 35mm cameras?

--Matt

Here are some more specific observations on the Schneider, since there are some conflicting reports online, possibly due to sample variation (strange, since their LF lenses seem very consistent).

Unshifted, corner to corner performance is best at f8. It's very sharp, and just has the look of an excellent lens in terms of color and contrast. Minimal distortion and CA.

With moderate shift (5-8mm) best corner to corner sharpness is at f11. Center sharpness declines very, very slightly. Corners are significantly softer than the center, but do not show ugly aberrations like coma or astigmatism / smear. There's a lot of fine resolution recoverable through sharpening. Distortion and CA are still minimal.

With maximum of shift (11mm, or 8mm with a vertical frame) The corners get very soft. This would mostly be acceptable if there were sky or a blank wall up there. Best at f16, unless you're willing to let the far corners go; then it's best at f11.

My findings with CA are still inconclusive, because I haven't had played much in high contrast situtations. And the only FF camera I've been able to use is a borrowed d700.