Nikon D800 | Rob Van Petten
Nikon D800 | Rob Van Petten
Last edited by tashley; 24th February 2012 at 12:59.
It is really hard to continue believing in MF after the introduction of the D800. IQ seems to be stunning and wight factor, lens choices and price make up for the rest.
Two words I think are being over-used are 'stunning' and 'amazing'. It's electronic stuff; higher pixel counts are pretty much inevitable sooner or later, I don't see what's stunning or amazing about that.
I'd like to see some direct comparisons before writing off medium format.
Doug Herr http://www.wildlightphoto.com7 Member(s) liked this post
The question is neither if the Nikon is stunning or if it's cheaper. There will probably always be a difference, although it may be subtle. The question is if those making MF sensors and cameras can keep up with the development pace of Sony, Nikon and Canon.
In a few years, when the 35mm sensor approach 100MP with clean ISO beyond what anybody needs, will there still be enough photographers out there willing to pay many times as much for even more megapixels and that subtle difference? Enough to keep several MF sensor and camera manufacturers alive?
To me, Leica looks like the most obvious survivor. They sell a different user experience and a product with unquestionable qualities in several areas. The others will have to fight for the second position, and I doubt that there will be a third place, unless a couple of them team up with the likes of Sony or Canon.
But what do I know? I'm still at 12MP and 35mm film
Well, I am all for waiting to see how the soup tastes but I have ordered a D800 and I must say that DXO rated the D7000 sensor as having a tad more DR than the IQ180. For me (I hate shooting with grad filters) DR is the single most important thing, provided that other parameters 'satisfice'.
I had a D7000 and got rid of it because (nearly) all the DX glass was terrible and there seemed little point in using FX sized glass on a DX body. But the files were just fine. Maybe a little more granular than I'd like but switch to 50% zoom (about the same as the minimum res I'd print to) and that disappeard.
If, as I have read, the D800 files are at least as good as the D7000 but with more resolution and given that I have ordered the E version, I will state that though I am not expecting the system to obviate the need for MF, I am not ruling that possibility out completely. Mostly, but not completely.
ps look at Jim Brandenberg's blog, date 7th Feb 2012, the quote in white italics. This guy has very serious pedigree and his thoughts are clear...
It is not the camera or the sensor that appears to be winner here but a decently priced zoom and despite going past diffraction limits being capable of producing quite a bit detail.
It is Deja Vu all over again. Wasn't there a run on Phase One and Leaf backs when 35mm cameras had 24MP sensors? When Sony released the A77 and Nex 7, wasn't the market flooded with those 24MP 35mm cameras like the A900? And if you have been around for some time, then you know that medium- and large-fomat film took a big hit when Technical Pan was released claiming 35mm could have the same quality as a 4x5.
Naturally, the most important factor in image quality is the resolving power of the media. When the iPhone hits 60MP, we will all be saved and we can also surf the internet to confirm how smart we all are.
I'm not that impressed with any of the images so far -- like Doug, I believe the system is pretty severely handicapped right out of the gate by limitations in worthy available glass. Will the D800 be a great camera? Yes! Will I buy one? Maybe. Will it replace my MF kit? Uh, no.
I've a shot of my dog from a 2004 back which I know the D800 cannot produce.
Everything else the MF back cannot do I've the 1Dx incoming. That's more of a threat than the D800, larger pixels, cleaner ISO. Take the Damn AA filter off it....
1 Member(s) liked this post
How much the extra quality is worth is rarely the decision of the photographer, at least not in a commercial context. If the client can find a photographer who can create results that are of only marginally inferior quality for a considerably lower price, not going with the more cost effective equipment can easily become a threat against the photographer's livelihood.
Look at stock photography, ten years ago the domain of a relatively small group of photographer earning healthy profits. Now, the photos are taken by tens of thousands of photographers, amateurs and pros, who sell photos at a fraction of the price, often taken with a cheap DSLR or even a p&s camera. But if you compare the technical quality of stock photos now and 15 years ago, it has improved dramatically (yes, I do buy stock photos, and most of those older than 10-15 years aren't useable without compromising the quality requirements of the clients).
I don't care what gear I have.
Things I sell: http://www.shutterstock.com/sets/413...html?rid=611051 Member(s) liked this post
So for prints up to 40" (versus , say a 24mp camera that would go to, say 33") many photographers might rationally choose to use the D800e instead of the IQ180, as long as ISO performance and DR were, for that shot, more important than colour depth. Then again they might only want to print to 300dpi... horses for photographers.
And so on.
I have (or rather, soon will have) both dogs in this fight and have no agenda other than to find and use the tools that do, for me, each job as best it can be done. One of the dogs hasn't fought in public yet. So I'm in the "don't know yet but never say never camp"... the glass will be the problem: but it is a problem with the 180 too. My Mammy 28 is barely up to the task, my SK35XL is the same (for different reasons)... though clearly there is a certain amount of choice of glass that can handle the challenge.
I'm not convinced that the newer lenses won't do the job. I also owned a D700, and certainly didn't feel it oversampled the better glass. I don't feel that the A900 does either, Even the A77 with it's extra pixel density seems to do well with good glass (of course, I haven't tried it with Nikon glass). By which I mean that I don't think that the response of more pixels to lenses is easy to predict.
Looking at results from the NEX7 with, for instance, a leica 50 'lux, or a 180 Apo R it's hard not to believe in the combination - and that's a denser sensor than the D800.
I think it's a fascinating camera, and I can hardly wait to see the comparisons develop.
all the best
Just this guy you know
3 Member(s) liked this post
Sorry, I was underwhelmed by the IQ of every picture posted on the site.
It isn't just the lenses ... the lens list posted are some of Nikon's finest ... and he even used a tripod with flash.
There is consistently something "off" about them. A tonal flatness or lack of life-like feel compared to what you get from most MFD cameras ... and frankly even from some 35mm DSLRs in the 16 to 24 meg flavors. Frankly, M9 files look better.
IQ isn't just about the file size, it's the over-all look and feel you get from a camera of any meg size. All that the additional resolution does is allow larger sizes of the same look and feel. Price doesn't matter if you do not like the output.
For example, look at the model's eyes in the wild cat shot ... the skin tones in the shot of the girl in gold ... the jewlery itself in the "Jewelry" shot.
This is what everyone wanted to wait and see ... someone that knows what they are doing, using good lenses (mostly), and who has used the camera for some time.
Oh well, IMO, yet another neither fish nor fowl camera. Not quite the performance of a 1DX nor a IQ of a MFD.
Good marketing hype however ... Nikon will sell a boatload of them I'm sure.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Marc, you mean something like this?
Now convenience and overall dslr competency definitely favor the high mp 35mm dslrs. That's where phase, hassy should be worried imho. Any of my nikons trounced my Mamiya/Phase bodies & AF on their best day.
I think MF has the upper hand in this battle because DSLRs have to keep their sensor size within the 35mm frame size. Once they go outside of that, they are playing with the big boys in medium format. Lots of people have said that the best glass in the world right now can't out resolve 5.0 microns so I don't know what the math would be but this puts a limit on the DSLR crew. Eventually, something for them will have to give. Long live MF! No comparison.
Last edited by D&A; 24th February 2012 at 21:32.
What he did confirm is the aggressive update to many key Canon lenses has been driven by trying to have decent glass available for higher rez sensors. so while Nikon for the first time beat canon with a major resolution upgrade, Canon may actually offer the better choice because they have glass that might hold up. Then again they may do something stupid and introduce something like the J/V1, not even mention what they have coming to go up against the new Nikon.
I won't be buying either, I've settled on a NEX7 as my backup kit ... quite a terrific little setup. As soon as I get one I can keep (customers come first) I can decide whether to keep the Leica glass for it, or sell the Leica stuff and pick up a couple of nice Zeiss primes.
I guess if I was shooting a p25, I might have to look at the d800, but my IQ180 is quite safe.
Ctein at TOP some interesting thoughts, he's a pretty smart guy (physicist by profession).
Wonder how those camera phones do so well .. my 8mp iPhone is pretty decent, and that's gotta be down to less than a couple of microns.
It's rather funny how an increase from 24.5 MP to 36 MP has kicked up such a storm of proclamations. There really isn't much difference at all between 24.5 and 36 MP.
I also find it rather funny what Nikon claims MF quality with this camera.
There is a lot more to different formats than the amount of pixels.
How ever many pixels you pack into 24x36mm you can't get around diffraction.
Apart from that I don't find anything particularly special about the sample images put out by Nikon for the D800. Shadows don't look anywhere near what can be achieved with MF backs. Color depth isn't there either.
personally I find that the Canon 1D X samples show better quality, as do the samples and the results I've seen with the previous top of the line Nikon cameras.
Bizarre that folk here are making judgements based on small web jpegs.
one can always be as negative and unimpressed as you are her
Not sure what you are trying to defend? The S System purchase? Or the Hasselblad?
For me this is no competition, but rather that we reached a point in time where we can see decent IQ and high resolution from DSLR which was so far only MFD land - nothing else!
Life is an ever changing journey
https://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_...tography/sets/1 Member(s) liked this post
In a way it is sort of relative ... I think we get pretty good at evaluating like this on a level playing field because we see files from all cameras in that way. Actual sharpness probably can't be evaluated very well, but in my experience, the look and feel of files tends not to change all that much. I found that out with the D3X ... a camera I loved using but hated the files.
But you are dead on that what really counts is seeing the print output.
My POV is based on my tastes and specific application requirements, not costs or status. I sold off a huge, very expensive Nikon Pro spec D3/D3X system including all of the available nano-coated optics and every Zeiss lens made in F mount, even the legendary 200/2 VR ... and went with a lowly semi-Pro Sony A900 because I subjectively liked the look of the files straight out of the camera better. End results, nothing less, nothing more.
The S2 was a blatant indulgence ... I didn't need it, I wanted it. Heck, I never even claimed it as a business expense, it was simply a reward to myself for retirement after 40 years of busting a hump in advertising I never "defend" indulgences, they are rationally indefensible
The D800 isn't anywhere near a 60 meg full frame MFD system in any way known to man, so it really isn't in the equation ... but that system is specifically for meeting some very stringent commercial client demands. If I didn't have those, I wouldn't even have it in the gear box at all, why would I?
I'm buying one but it is not really a MF replacement it's the fact I have to shoot 35mm for a lot of gigs. What this will hopefully do is give me a file big enough to work with on client stuff. It has nothing to do any of the comparioson to my tech cam or my DF that i recently sold but everything to do with maybe it might be the best 35 file coming out of that camp. With that I maybe able to use the Nikon in some more commercial settings but if a client has a need outside a web image I have my Phase kit. It's not about beating it but more about just getting a little closer to MF. Now no offense about the author of this topic but it is a lot of marketing going on. Right there I hold my judgement and really until I get this thing in my hands than I'll be much more informed on it. Honestly as a tester / reviewer myself it means nothing to me until I get it in my sticky fingers and work with it. That's no reflection on anyone that's just me and my experience with this stuff. I'm testing two tech lenses right now the 28mm and just playing around I see some vast differences between them but for me it may just come down to the look of the file and it maybe not the most technical correct one either. We need to remember we are artist as well and deliver or produce art not science.
Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.
As Guy mentions, it isn't just about the science and spec's, it's what lights your artistic torch.
IMO, that is a growing concern in the photographic world ... science and specifications as the criteria, with physicist, engineers, marketing folks and computer geeks telling me what is supposed to look good ... and when you balk at that notion you're "defensive" or a "luddite".
1 Member(s) liked this post
Agreed that a few of the newest primes may well hold up, at least centrally at f5.6, but with 5u pixels, the negative effects of diffraction are a reality after f8.