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!

D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
:deadhorse:
You are right of course in that going from 24 to 36 is not revolutionary, but I think we still can see on all the MF forums that the 36 megapixel D800E has had a dramatic impact. I think it has broke some sort of psychological limit, we got used to 20-24 megapixels in DSLRs since a few years, but 36 megapixels still has that medium format sound to it.

It is also very close in resolution to the IQ140 and similar products. That little bump in megapixels has made comparison with MF systems much more interesting than before. We may also come to a tipping point where a large part would-be MF users find DSLRs to have high enough resolution. Time will tell, but the D800 could really be a revolutionizing camera... a little bit like when photographers shooting 4x5" film eventually went digital because it reached a tipping point when it became good enough (it was somewhere around P45+ for many it seems, i e similar resolution to the D800), but this time around it is MF digital shooters that may move down to DSLRs.
Exactly . It hit a tipping point that I could actually use it for commerce. This replaced my DF kit in many ways. It is good enough to let me sell that kit drop down from the 160 to 140 and use my tech cam. The crop factor actually gives me a little extra movements as long as I can get back far enough to equal the FF of the 160. Sure in some ways it's a compromise and a little less horsepower but I can stitch too. End of day I got a easier working setup and I always liked the 40 mpx sensor so really no lose except large print size. I'm happy with max 30x40 prints and my printer is 24 inches wide so really to do my own gallery or sell prints it would be 24 x whatever anyway. I made this call before the D800 hit the streets and sold my DF kit a week before the D800 was in my hands. I just guessed right. Is it better than MF no but it's close enough for commerce work. And frankly I'm sort of getting out doing commerce work anyway and working more with my wife's business that we bought in January. All I care about is doing workshops as that gives me the most pleasure and shooting for myself. The commerce work is a means to a end. LOL
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
You are right of course in that going from 24 to 36 is not revolutionary, but I think we still can see on all the MF forums that the 36 megapixel D800E has had a dramatic impact. I think it has broke some sort of psychological limit, we got used to 20-24 megapixels in DSLRs since a few years, but 36 megapixels still has that medium format sound to it.

It is also very close in resolution to the IQ140 and similar products. That little bump in megapixels has made comparison with MF systems much more interesting than before. We may also come to a tipping point where a large part would-be MF users find DSLRs to have high enough resolution. Time will tell, but the D800 could really be a revolutionizing camera... a little bit like when photographers shooting 4x5" film eventually went digital because it reached a tipping point when it became good enough (it was somewhere around P45+ for many it seems, i e similar resolution to the D800), but this time around it is MF digital shooters that may move down to DSLRs.
I agree, but it's funny, a kind of final proof of man's inability to do logic reasoning when it comes to desirable gear. The increase is exactly the same as the increases from 4 to 6 and 8 to 12 megapixels were. If you ask me, those increases were way more important, since they made it possible to print at sizes commonly used by photographers and their clients. But did they bring out the same kind of celebrations? Not at all. Big numbers are big numbers. People want megapixels by the gallon, not in teaspoons.

But of course, more megapixels is a good thing and important for some. I would be more than happy to own one of those beasts (MF DB or D800), but do I need it to take acceptable photos?.
 

jagsiva

Active member
I am trying to get excited about the D800E, but I'm not quite there as most of those here. Don't get me wrong, it is the best 35mm DSLR I have used to date, and I have had 1DSIII, 5DII, 5DIII, M9 etc.

I am looking at files out of the IQ180 w/80LS compared to D800E with 50/1.4G, and the IQ files look better, even on screen. The skin tones, and general tonality have a smoothness that I can only describe as magical.

The D800E is hands down the more convenient tool to use, and I want it to replace the IQ for this reason alone, but I cannot see it doing that just yet.

Perhaps it's the larger format. For now, both are going to be hanging around.

I do see the Nikon replacing my Canon kit. The Nikon flash system, as far as I can tell so far, is superior to Canon as well. But I have so many Canon lenses and accessories that I am not sure this is going to happen either.

For now, I am going to use the D800E with 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 as a convenient landscape kit when I don't feel like lugging the IQ around, or when I'm in locations such as my kayak where I don't want to risk dunking my phase kit. YMMV.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I am trying to get excited about the D800E, but I'm not quite there as most of those here. Don't get me wrong, it is the best 35mm DSLR I have used to date, and I have had 1DSIII, 5DII, 5DIII, M9 etc.

I am looking at files out of the IQ180 w/80LS compared to D800E with 50/1.4G, and the IQ files look better, even on screen. The skin tones, and general tonality have a smoothness that I can only describe as magical.

The D800E is hands down the more convenient tool to use, and I want it to replace the IQ for this reason alone, but I cannot see it doing that just yet.

Perhaps it's the larger format. For now, both are going to be hanging around.

I do see the Nikon replacing my Canon kit. The Nikon flash system, as far as I can tell so far, is superior to Canon as well. But I have so many Canon lenses and accessories that I am not sure this is going to happen either.

For now, I am going to use the D800E with 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 as a convenient landscape kit when I don't feel like lugging the IQ around, or when I'm in locations such as my kayak where I don't want to risk dunking my phase kit. YMMV.
I agree it's nothing really to get excited about. MF still turns my jets on and why I still want my tech cam . To me it's a slight step down as I still think MF is better but some things are exciting like my 200 f2 lens which I love the look from that thing. I can't get that in MF both in look and speed. For me it's a combination of both and it's also what you want to do. For a hobbyist not sure I would have bought the Nikons myself as I really enjoy shooting a MF back and tech cam as nothing is better than that in many ways. I do like the Nikons for ease of shooting as a Pro but not so sure if I wasn't a Pro that I would have bought in. Probably would buy a M9 and tech cam if this was my hobby. My hobby is golf not photography . LOL

I'm still a strong supporter of MF and the IQ from it. That is just not going to go away. I just have to make business decisions that I really sometimes don't enjoy. I like the Nikon a lot it does the job and it does it well so I'm not throwing fits on this decision as it is fun to shoot and it's doing a very nice job on the IQ level and it's good enough in many ways. I can see people in almost any decision on this as relevant as the Nikons certainly are damn good now.

One big issue that plagues the Nikons that I can't find a way to get around is wide angle and movements. Here the tech cam smokes it but than my again my 200 F2 smokes the tech cam. This makes it not a easy decision for a lot of people on there needs. It's really a personally decision on what's going to work the best for your type of shooting. So I can see a lot of tech and MF shooters buying in to fill in the gaps and vise versa. Not easy decisions folks. I'm here to help if anyone needs it but first I'm off to go play golf. ROTFLMAO

Enjoy the day and Happy Memorial day!!!
 

jagsiva

Active member
My hobby is golf not photography . LOL
Guy, the challenge I have is that it is easier for me to spend money on photo gear with fantasies of taking better pics, than to work on bringing my handicap down :) Having said that, I'm off to the course right now, quite excited as I saw something in Luke Donald's swing last night that I think I can replicate :ROTFL:
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Lol I went and bought new irons yesterday so I'm off to go play a round with my daughter, her Boyfriend and his dad. I realized my clubs where 8 years old no wonder I can't get my handicap down. We talk about the tech here in photography but the tech in golf is amazing as well.

Have fun let me know if Luke's swing technique worked. Lol
 

jagsiva

Active member
Lol I went and bought new irons yesterday so I'm off to go play a round with my daughter, her Boyfriend and his dad. I realized my clubs where 8 years old no wonder I can't get my handicap down. We talk about the tech here in photography but the tech in golf is amazing as well.

Have fun let me know if Luke's swing technique worked. Lol
Guy, don't take the price stickers off the new sticks, they don't work as well once you remove the price tag:cussing:
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I agree with this as well, and I see this as a printer. Digital files have a higher inherent sharpness due to their lack of noise, but the very noise that obscures the fine detail in film is also what makes it pleasant to look at when it is printed large. It hides those little imperfections better...lens softness and aberrations etc, and it does not have the digital artifacts that makes digital more problematic at 100% (or greater) -- the aliasing, bayer miscalculations, more severe chromatic aberrations and color fringing etc. As far I as am concerned, that all else being equal, film is better for really stretching enlargements, but digital usually looks sharper and cleaner at moderate sizes. The fractal enlargement programs will increase the sharpness at larger sizes, but I don't think it results in a better looking enlargement on the paper...quite the opposite, actually. I think a better technique is actually to do something to mask the errors, rather than try to increase the sharpness. I find that I can enlarge the S2 to 1.5m on the long side without a problem (about 120ppi), but if I were going to go bigger, I would probably add a bit of noise...sacrifice that last bit of detail for a more pleasant character.

You also mentioned the importance of lenses earlier, and I think that is something that gets mentioned a lot, but cannot be overstated. The higher the resolutions get, the more important it is for the lenses to outdo the sensors. That 36-40mp+ will reveal ever little problem with your lenses all the more clearly. If you are going to see a real advantage from it you need a lens that will max out your sensor.

A quick note on the 2m panoramas, however...I think 35mm would be quite a stretch for that! I just did a bunch of 2.5m panoramas (also for a Norwegian!), but they were scanned from 6x17...they hold up extremely well, but 35mm for a 2m enlargement...well, it might have an interesting look, but it would be essentially all fuzzy grain clouds...at least until you were about 5 feet away.

I'm not surprised. I've played around with some velvia slides testing to print large, and film has through the grain a special structure that can be over-enlarged without looking bad. Yes you see all the grain but it has a nice quality to it showing that this is a photograph, somewhat similar to seeing individual brush strokes when looking close at a painting.

Digital files does not have that charm at all, pixel structures are not nice, and I'm not particular fond of the look of fractal upscalers and the like either. Therefore I personally think that with digital the need of high resolution and overall high technical quality is higher than with film.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
I agree it's nothing really to get excited about. MF still turns my jets on and why I still want my tech cam . To me it's a slight step down as I still think MF is better but some things are exciting like my 200 f2 lens which I love the look from that thing. I can't get that in MF both in look and speed.
Guy - when you refer to speed here, do you mean optical speed, or speed of use/AF?

I would have thought the Mamiya 300/2.8 would give a similar look to the Nikon. It and the Nikon 200/2 have very similar physical aperture sizes and fields of view on their respective sensors.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I've quoted these previous bits:

going from 24 to 36 is not revolutionary, but I think we still can see on all the MF forums that the 36 megapixel D800E has had a dramatic impact.
Exactly . It hit a tipping point that I could actually use it for commerce. This replaced my DF kit in many ways. It is good enough to let me sell that kit drop down from the 160 to 140 and use my tech cam.
to help answer this one:

To keep this relevant to MF, how do those that own the 80MP backs feel about the findings here? Jack?
tjv,

First off, some background. I know Peter and we both went to MF, and ultimately to the same back and the same tech cam for the same reasons. I emailed him before his test and told him what I suspected he'd find --- that conversation went something like this:

Me before the test: "I am really looking forward to your conclusions too. I of course did some tests for myself, but honestly wanted some other confirmation before going public with them. The IQ180 is net superior on detail and color, but for most shooters probably not nearly enough of a gain to justify the 7 or 8 times greater investment in gear and the 4x more complex LCC capture and processing routines. The D800 has slightly superior DR also, which is impressive on its own."

Peter after his test: "Yes, we came up with the same results, although from our testing I'd say the two cameras are equivalent on DR. The margin on image quality and colour is very close for all practical considerations."

IMHO Guy hit it on the head when he said the D800 hit a tipping point in resolution that made it a viable MF alternative.

My more generalized answer would currently be something like this:

1) At a 32x43 inch (80x105 CM) print, the IQ180 file can be printed native at 240 PPI. The D800 file needs a marginal (and easily accomplished) 140% linear uprez to print that same size and resolution. Net result is the IQ file is going to have visibly smoother tonality, but -- and this is a big but -- you'll have to have your nose in the print and to see it; viewed from normal viewing distances, they will be surprisingly similar and equally good.

2) If you now go to a 60x80 inch (150x200 CM) print, the IQ will look notably smoother at any viewing distance less than 3 feet (1M), but still probably not all that visibly superior at normal viewing distances.

3) At print sizes 24x32 inches (60x80 CM) or less, you will not see significant differences unless you put a loupe on the prints to compare them.

I will add a few final comments.

DR: I stand by my claim of slightly superior DR out of the D800. I am not talking strict engineering definitions of DR, but practical extractable DR from the files; the D800 is so superior on noise that the shadows can be pumped a *lot* before becoming unusable. To be sure, the IQ180 shadows can be pumped impressively well too, but the D800 goes to the same level with less noise.

Noise: Per the above, the noise characteristics of the D800 are impressive. We've all believed since the beginning of digital history that bigger, fatter pixels will always be superior on noise than smaller, tightly packed sensors can manage -- and that's been mostly true up until now. Here, both the IQ180 and most especially the D800 prove that old belief flat out wrong.

Ease of use: No question, the D800 is a dream for rapid capture and quick, easy processing.

Cropability: No question, the IQ180 has a huge amount of room for after capture cropping to desired composition -- you can crop it 50% and still have a 40MP file to work with.

Color: For those needing exacting color accuracy, like for product imaging or art-reproduction, the IQ180 will win by some margin in most critical applications. This can perhaps be improved for the D800 with better profiles to the point it's irrelevant, but only time will tell.

And there you have it, my simple two-cents worth.
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
I've quoted these previous bits:

1) At a 40x53 inch (100x135 CM) print, the IQ180 file can be printed native at 240 PPI. The D800 file needs a marginal (and easily accomplished) 140% linear uprez to print that same size and resolution. Net result is the IQ file is going to have visibly smoother tonality, but -- and this is a big but -- you'll have to have your nose in the print to see it; viewed from normal viewing distances, they will be surprisingly similar and equally good.
Jack,

54 inches is actually 'only' 194ppi. That, to me, is the outer limit. 240ppi, which is equivalent to a 43 inch print, produces a stunning print which cannot be matched by a 36MP file..... although at normal viewing distances they will be similar.
 

torger

Active member
The IQ180 is net superior on detail and color, but for most shooters probably not nearly enough of a gain to justify the 7 or 8 times greater investment in gear and the 4x more complex LCC capture and processing routines. The D800 has slightly superior DR also, which is impressive on its own."
Some defense of the MF :)

I've done some DR testing on my own, and my conclusion there is that the MF backs are good enough - the extra DR gain you get from D800 and other sony exmor sensors are into more or less irrelevant shadows where photon shot noise is a bit high anyway. What one would want now is higher full well capacity, that is increase dynamic range into the highlights so we can start dropping gradient filters / HDR for real.

If you're for example a fine art landscape shooter I don't find the tech cam be much more complex than my Canon system. What makes things complex is making fine compositions and capturing them in high resolution. Maybe I'm a bit slow to decide about the composition but I find that the LCC adds about 10 seconds to a 20 minute workflow, and gives you the added bonus of dust removal. In really bad conditions like very hard wind or poor tripod footing or shooting above my head or very low light I prefer the Canon though.

The real problem with MFDBs as I see it (from a landscape shooter's perspective) is not so much the performance or complexity, it is simply the crazy high cost of the backs themselves. It is just too much for too little. The cameras and lenses are expensive too yes, but not crazy expensive, it is more like "you get what you pay for" feeling there. MFDBs are now very close to be worse at everything except resolution, and still cost many times more. It won't work forever.

If it really is true that MFDBs cannot be made cheaper due to large chips and low volumes I think that some of the companies may go out of business the coming years.
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Some defense of the MF :)

The real problem with MFDBs as I see it (from a landscape shooter's perspective) is not so much the performance or complexity, it is simply the crazy high cost of the backs themselves. It is just too much for too little.

If it really is true that MFDBs cannot be made cheaper due to large chips and low volumes I think that some of the companies may go out of business the coming years.
So true, so true. I made the decision a long time ago that any money thrown at MF is dead money. If you can't afford to eat the investment you should stay away. Nikon, and soon Canon and Sony, are going to change this landscape forever.

Victor
 

Dan Santoso

New member
Newer and newer DSLR is getting better and better. I owned Sony A100,A700, A900 to A77 (APSC which is actually better than the older FF model) and I can see the IQ is improving.

It wont be long before DSLR will reach to a point where you can't justify the price-performance ratio of a DB anymore. Unless DB comes with something new, amazing DR perhaps :) We also need a new body with great autofocus/image stabilizer for starter.

I hope the comparison will give us input on DR, clarity, details, color, 3D and depth, file latitude, etc.

Maybe in a few years I have to sell my IQ :)

-Dan Santoso
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack,
54 inches is actually 'only' 194ppi. That, to me, is the outer limit.
You are correct, an early morning pre-coffee brain twist -- I meant 32x43 and have edited accordingly...

240ppi, which is equivalent to a 43 inch print, produces a stunning print which cannot be matched by a 36MP file..... although at normal viewing distances they will be similar.
However, I respectfully disagree with you 100% on this comment and stick by my original statement: You need to get your face in the prints side by side to see the differences. Sorry, and I know it's going to be an unpopular comment for many MFDB owners, but I have done the print comparisons myself with both processed and optimally printed, and found the difference is minor even on close inspection, advancing to undetectable at normal viewing distances. I will go further and state for most photographers printing 40 inches or smaller, the price-performance ratio only makes sense if you need absolute correct color and then have a client to bill appropriately for it... One of my oldest and most basic business axioms is, "Sometimes 'good enough' is."

Cheers,
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Some defense of the MF :)

I've done some DR testing on my own, and my conclusion there is that the MF backs are good enough - the extra DR gain you get from D800 and other sony exmor sensors are into more or less irrelevant shadows where photon shot noise is a bit high anyway.
And I would agree with you up until the D800 -- I suggest you download one of the many D800 raws posted and pump the shadows and look for yourself. Or even easier, wait for Lloyd to get his next blog entry online about noise in the latest Nikons -- even he was gobsmacked at his result... David has Goliath teetering.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
And I would agree with you up until the D800 -- I suggest you download one of the many D800 raws posted and pump the shadows and look for yourself. Or even easier, wait for Lloyd to get his next blog entry online about noise in the latest Nikons -- even he was gobsmacked at his result... David has Goliath teetering.

I totally agree with Jack. Just because it sounds incredible, doesn't mean its not true!
 

FredBGG

Not Available
Guy - when you refer to speed here, do you mean optical speed, or speed of use/AF?

I would have thought the Mamiya 300/2.8 would give a similar look to the Nikon. It and the Nikon 200/2 have very similar physical aperture sizes and fields of view on their respective sensors.
Not even remotely close. Mamiya phase has nothing that comes close to the look of either the Nikon 85mm1.4 or the 200mm f2.
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
However, I respectfully disagree with you 100% on this comment and stick by my original statement: You need to get your face in the prints side by side to see the differences. Sorry, and I know it's going to be an unpopular comment for many MFDB owners, but I have done the print comparisons myself with both processed and optimally printed, and found the difference is minor even on close inspection, advancing to undetectable at normal viewing distances. I will go further and state for most photographers printing 40 inches or smaller, the price-performance ratio only makes sense if you need absolute correct color and then have a client to bill appropriately for it... One of my oldest and most basic business axioms is, "Sometimes 'good enough' is."

Cheers,
Yes Jack,

I agree almost 100% with you. Mind you that my comparisons were done with downsampled IQ180 files and then printed to 40 inches and compared to the original 80MP file. I'm looking at high frequency city-scape stuff that shows a difference but not until you are very close to the print..... but I'm real, real picky.:D So, I can only apply my standards to me and certainly not anyone else. Certainly there is never going to be a price-performance ratio that makes any sense..... I believe the MFDB model is completely broken and the beast is destined for extinction.

Victor
 
Last edited:

torger

Active member
I've done tests on the D7000 in terms of noise which per pixel is almost exactly the same as the D800, my results here:

An image sensor noise test

Did not have an IQ180 to compare with though, just my old Aptus 75... yes I have looked at RAW files and done very careful comparisons with exact exposures, and yes the exmor sensor is noticably less noisy.

*But* to make any real difference it must be so much less noisy that the extra dynamic range actually changes something in the workflow, and if you used gradient filters in backlit scenes on your MFDB before you will most likely not stop doing it with the D800. It is not that much better. Getting rid of almost all read noise is great, but shot noise is still there. the only way to improve that further is to get better full well capacity - i e allowing for longer shutter speeds without clipping.

To truly make gradient filters / HDR obsolete for us landscape photographers I would say that you need the noise performance of the D800 pixels plus two more stops up to saturation, so you can push with less photon shot noise.
 
Top