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

fotografz

Well-known member
I'm sort of aware of the unique look of MF SLR lenses, seems to be in the mid-range DOFs where a more subtle 3D-look can be achieved. Have not seen any good side-by-side demonstrations of it though, that would be nice. 35mm digital style is more of either all sharp or extremely short DOF with just an undefined blur in the background, don't know if that is because it have to be that way or because most people just use those apertures.

Overall I think it is much about the lenses and should be about the lenses, but the huge cost of digital backs and their relative lack of flexibility is an obstacle. When the price gap is just too large and the difference too small then suddenly "good enough" is just that.
Understood.

However, that is the POV that accepts it. There are other perspectives.

IMO, to narrow the application of an expensive digital back by relegating it to tech camera use doesn't make any sense. If anything, they should be made more diverse in use. This is how I feel about my S2 ... by allowing fully integrated use of all my Hasselblad HC/HCD lenses with sync speeds to 1/800 and up to 1/4000 with a flip of a switch ... OR, the Leica S lenses with their unmatched look and feel ... I've had less and less use for any 35mm DSLR.

So, "lack of MFD flexibility" is a relative term, and depends heavily on application. The 35mm DSLRs are still as far away from specific MFD applications as they always were ... 36 meg didn't change that. On the other hand, MFD has made the need for 35mm DSLRs less critical for some applications then in past ... and I personally think the MFD makers should be applauded for that. :thumbs:

In the end it is the look and feel, and as you say it may well be the lenses ... except for a few shots made with some adapted manual focus Leica R lenses, I've seen absolutely nothing from the D800, regardless of which Nikon lens, that even remotely approaches some of the beautiful images posted in the MFD and S2 image threads on Get Dpi, let alone other sites. It's like night and day, yet the comparison chatter drones on and on. In fact, I've yet to see any D800 image that can aesthetically equal my A900 and AF Zeiss glass. That a photographer can make a bigger print of a look and feel they don't like at all, doesn't change anything. Big ugly, is still ugly to some eyes. Which is why, even thought I could easily afford it, I'll keep trundling along with the Sonys until something changes my mind

Let's cut to the chase, it is about money. Period.

If I didn't have the money, I might be LOVING the D800 option and justifying it by discounting MFD as not worth it. But I DO have the money, and I DO see a substantial difference and think it is worth it ... I'd seriously hate having to step back after working my way up to the look and feel that finally pleased me.

Like I said, not everyone is convinced ... besides, I hate Kool-Aid :ROTFL:

-Marc
 

torger

Active member
A theory I've heard many times is that DSLR color filters are optimized as a tradeoff between natural color and low light loss to keep good high ISO performance, while MFDB sensor color filters are only optimized for best color reproduction. Not sure if it is true though, and even if it is if it has any meaning in practice. Shall be interesting to see what can be done with color profiling.
 

torger

Active member
It's like night and day, yet the comparison chatter drones on and on.
The problem is that many people, myself included, don't have the ability to see a "night and day" difference, and by some reason it is never really demonstrated in side-by-side tests. Perhaps my eyes are bad, I don't know, that could be the case. I have no prestige in this. It is not only about spotting a difference, it also about thinking that the difference has any significant impact on image quality/look

If it indeed is a night-and-day difference it would be a fantastic opportunity for MF marketing guys to show off this difference in their marketing material or on the web ("if you shoot with a DSLR it looks like this, but if you use our MF system it looks like this, tada see the night-and-day difference!").

The D800 puts some more stress on this though so we're starting to see some interesting side-by-side tests. Perhaps we'll see something concentrated more on lens look further ahead.
 

Nathan W. Lediard

New member
Understood.

However, that is the POV that accepts it. There are other perspectives.

IMO, to narrow the application of an expensive digital back by relegating it to tech camera use doesn't make any sense. If anything, they should be made more diverse in use. This is how I feel about my S2 ... by allowing fully integrated use of all my Hasselblad HC/HCD lenses with sync speeds to 1/800 and up to 1/4000 with a flip of a switch ... OR, the Leica S lenses with their unmatched look and feel ... I've had less and less use for any 35mm DSLR.

So, "lack of MFD flexibility" is a relative term, and depends heavily on application. The 35mm DSLRs are still as far away from specific MFD applications as they always were ... 36 meg didn't change that. On the other hand, MFD has made the need for 35mm DSLRs less critical for some applications then in past ... and I personally think the MFD makers should be applauded for that. :thumbs:

In the end it is the look and feel, and as you say it may well be the lenses ... except for a few shots made with some adapted manual focus Leica R lenses, I've seen absolutely nothing from the D800, regardless of which Nikon lens, that even remotely approaches some of the beautiful images posted in the MFD and S2 image threads on Get Dpi, let alone other sites. It's like night and day, yet the comparison chatter drones on and on. In fact, I've yet to see any D800 image that can aesthetically equal my A900 and AF Zeiss glass. That a photographer can make a bigger print of a look and feel they don't like at all, doesn't change anything. Big ugly, is still ugly to some eyes. Which is why, even thought I could easily afford it, I'll keep trundling along with the Sonys until something changes my mind

Let's cut to the chase, it is about money. Period.

If I didn't have the money, I might be LOVING the D800 option and justifying it by discounting MFD as not worth it. But I DO have the money, and I DO see a substantial difference and think it is worth it ... I'd seriously hate having to step back after working my way up to the look and feel that finally pleased me.


Like I said, not everyone is convinced ... besides, I hate Kool-Aid :ROTFL:

-Marc
Marc, You have a knack of putting into words how I feel about this and I dont seem to be able to come up with the words...
Well said.. Its great to be shooting medium format again after years of 35mm digital, it took me many years to get my business where I can justify it, and to be honest no 35mm camera is going to replace my Hasselblad for sheer quality, look and colour. and I only have the lowly H4D-40.

All this talk of top glass on the nikon bla bla bla... I have owned and still own som eof the best glass canon make, including the 300mm f2.8L and the 200mm f2.0L In my quest for ever better IQ I sold most of my zooms and went all prime some years ago... 24 1.4L 35 1.4L 50 1.2L 85 1.2L 135 f2L 200 f2.0L and th e300 f2.8L and trust me.. none of those lenses come close to the look from my hasselblad, sharp lenses do not medium format make!!! (and yes they are sharp the 200 f2 is just an amazing lens RAZOR sharp at f2.0 and peaking at f2.8) , but the hasselblad is just in another league... no I am rambling now.. basically Fotografz summed up my thoughts for me. in the red text I highlighted above...
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
All this talk of top glass on the nikon bla bla bla... sharp lenses do not medium format make!!!
No, it's about lens characteristic in combo with sensor technology... and there is still a noticeable gap between 35mm and MF in terms of synergy between sensors and lenses. And it is about money to a certain standpoint.

But it's also about application.

I'm not sure my d800 will ever put out files as nice as my RZ/Aptus did (and it was 28mp)... they certainly won't be the same. But that doesn't mean that the D800 doesn't have it's place. I shot a wedding with it this weekend and found the camera performed admirably... definitely better than my previous stint with Canon (including most of the L primes), Sony, and the older Nikons. Color, for Nikon, is still a bit unnatural to my eyes, but with a good profile I think it'll be great. After 1 week with the camera, I'm getting a feel for it. Sony a900 still is the best out of the can, IMO.

Tim has already posted some nice files using R glass that show, IMO, that the camera is capable of some VERY nice things. But, it's not necessarily an MF replacement... i think its a tweener cam for the photographer who knows how to use it smartly as well as a camera for the working pro that needs a single system that can straddle a bunch of markets. That doesn't make it "better" than MF (or anything for that matter).

I find the idea of MF going to bigger sensors appealing... I'll probably be back on low-end MF camera (alongside the Nikon) for my art photography in the future when my financial/work situation can dictate owning multiple systems, but I'd save up and drop some major money on a 6x7 ccd sensor!
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>Let's cut to the chase, it is about money. Period.

Yes and handling. I am a 35mm shooter all my life. So I get with the D800 what I never expected. Shooting with MF is just not for me personally and I can live with any D800, 5D2 and alike.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
BTW just a FYI I just got a BRAND NEW IQ 140 so I am not saying it is a replacement for MF but it is a supplement to it. I would not be stupid enough o go buy a back if I thought the D800 could kick its butt. That would be a serious waste of money. What we all have been saying the folks that OWN them and are testing them AGAINST OUR backs is it is damn close.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Let's cut to the chase, it is about money. Period.

If I didn't have the money, I might be LOVING the D800 option and justifying it by discounting MFD as not worth it. But I DO have the money, and I DO see a substantial difference and think it is worth it ...
Marc,

A bit of semantics: As one who's been in sales my entire life, I can assure you it isn't usually about money itself, it's almost always about the perceived VALUE. And we all have differing sets of values and differing weights we place on said values which form our individual perceptions...

Cheers,
 

torger

Active member
I think landscape photography is not so much about lens look, I want a neutral rendering lens that is damn sharp corner-to-corner and which allows me to tilt and shift. It is almost always about maximizing DOF so out of focus rendering is not that important.

Pretty easy to compare systems, sensors are now so good on both systems so it basically boils down to a resolution test and how much you think you need for a specific print size. (To me, the tilt-shift choices on D800 is a bit too poor/inflexible to be an attractive landscape camera when comparing to a tech cam with similar resolution.)

In short DOF photography though, then lens look comes very much into play and it seems to me it is here the "MF magic" may be. I'd love to see some demonstrations of this.

This fine portfolio of Marko Repse if I've guessed correctly is made much with RZ and Aptus 22, and to me there are many pictures in there that could be example of the special MF format look Marko Rep?e especially those images with quite well-defined but at the same time out of focus backgrounds. I don't know how these would look if made with a 35mm digital system though.

MFDB had the best dynamic range until compared side-by-side with DSLRs with Sony Exmor sensors so I don't really dare to make any conclusions without side-by-side comparisons...

I would be very happy if I can learn to see and appriciate the night and day difference that some people say exist. I may then actually get a minimal H system to my H back, and perhaps I do not have to be as worried about MFDB manufacturer's future like I am currently...
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
The P65+ @ 19K is about where it was last December. That was a used back, not sure if that promo is a new one.

Paul
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
I was shopping around for a P65+ at the beginning of this year. I found two available (one in UK, one in US) for between $18K and $19K. Can't recall the image counts.

The UK one was with an authorized dealer. Can't remember where the US one was.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
The problem is that many people, myself included, don't have the ability to see a "night and day" difference, and by some reason it is never really demonstrated in side-by-side tests. Perhaps my eyes are bad, I don't know, that could be the case. I have no prestige in this. It is not only about spotting a difference, it also about thinking that the difference has any significant impact on image quality/look

If it indeed is a night-and-day difference it would be a fantastic opportunity for MF marketing guys to show off this difference in their marketing material or on the web ("if you shoot with a DSLR it looks like this, but if you use our MF system it looks like this, tada see the night-and-day difference!").

The D800 puts some more stress on this though so we're starting to see some interesting side-by-side tests. Perhaps we'll see something concentrated more on lens look further ahead.
The reason why you don't see this in MF manufacturers marketing is because there is no significant difference. There was a big difference in 35mm vs medium format in the film days. This is because medium format included capture sizes that were vastly bigger than 24x36. One of the biggest limitations of MF digital is that it it limited to below 60x45mm

With the rapid increase in 35mm DSLR quality the subtle difference between MF and 35mm DSLR has pretty much vanished. As sensor quality has improved enormously Nikon and Canon have followed up with significant lens improvements. Also the fact that they have multiple versions of most focal lengths means that the faster lenses are designed for a certain look while the slower ones for another.

The Nikon 85mm 1.4G is a perfect example. It's an internal focusing system and the iris moves with the focusing group. This produces much nicer bokeh, fast focusing (due to internal focusing). Sealed lens design (keeps quality far longer). This is an expensive design, but is viable for Nikon because they have an alternative with the far less expensive 85mm 1.8G.

The Nikon 85mm 1.4G has a look that isn't matched by MF offerings. The closest being the Hasselblad Fuji 100mm 2.2.


Going back to the claimed special look of MF digital lenses..... if the difference were noticeable enough the medium format manufacturers would be publishing side by side comparisons. The reason they don't is because it's just not there anymore.

I've said it before, but IMHO you are more empowered look wise with a combination of 35mm DSLR and a large MF film camera. Get yourself a d800E and a GX680 6x8 film camera or a 4x5 film camera and you will really have two significantly different looks. The larger capture areas combined with the look of film are something MF just can't do while the d800 can pretty much do what a MF digital can do but far more efficiently.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Honestly I shot these type of images for years and my Phase DF with a 110 mm LS would look exactly the same. Now given I worked on this a little harder in my raw processing with color editor , the net result would have been almost identical. I just posted this on the Nikon forum.

This is for a friend of ours for a commercial portrait that she needs for her website so pretty corporate looking. But just wanted to show you the 200mm F2 lens at F7.1 and the fall off. Its heavily airbrushed as that is what she wanted. I'm still working it too. LOL

 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc,

A bit of semantics: As one who's been in sales my entire life, I can assure you it isn't usually about money itself, it's almost always about the perceived VALUE. And we all have differing sets of values and differing weights we place on said values which form our individual perceptions...

Cheers,
No disagreement here Jack. I do grasp the notion of value, and understand the attraction of the D800. I am just pointing out that for some the look and feel of any given system may produce the perception of value ... as in "it is very valuable" if it fits with your personal vision or working requirements ... if it doesn't, then it has no value.

I also grasp that the concept can work both ways ... some may not value what MFD provides, at least not at the price-point ... which is what I meant regarding "money".

My original answer was simply lamenting the poster's notion of relegating digital backs to tech camera use, which IMO de-values the systems approach that makes MFD a viable cross application tool. If I could only use my H4D/60 back on a view camera, its value to me would be substantially reduced to the point that, quite frankly, I wouldn't buy one.

So, I vote for the opposite ... the MFD systems must become even more diverse in application. For example, I'd love a smaller Hasselblad camera with dual shutter ability with an H AF mount , maybe a CMOS based smaller sensor ... which would further increase the system value.

-Marc
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Echoing Marc's points, I'd also wager that had Phase One got a DSLR body that only even matched, let alone surpassed the abilities of ANY of the current crop of full frame 35mm DSLRs then perhaps the eagerness to change to something like the D800 would be a lot less. That's where I think that Hasselblad and Phase One in particular really need to get their act together to keep the appeal of their whole systems vs the 'good enough' perceived advantages of the D800 and whatever follows shortly no doubt from everyone else next year.
 

Nathan W. Lediard

New member
Actually hasselblad published a side by side comparison back when the 1DsmkIII came out... In their Victor magazine.... Of course this was 21 vs 31 megapixels.... So one manufacturer of mf has published a direct comparison.... Whether they will do it again remains to be seen...

No doubt you get mucho bang for the buck with the d800, but no medium format camera it is...
Back when I had one series as main body, I had (and still have) a 5DII as back up... It s just not the same as a one series, just as my one series is not the same as my blad... And here I am talking about using it... Holding it... Working with it. And hanging a 200 f2 off the front of the 5D was no fun, it was good on the 1 series though...
Talking of the 200, I sold mine to finance the hassy... Don't regret that move one little bit. even if Canon were to announce a 30plus megapixel camera...
Oh and one other little point... When charging clients goody portions of wonga for a days work, I hate it when a board member pokes through my bag and noticing the 5D back up... "Oh, I got two of those" or "I bought one of those for my wife" ... Yes i have heard both! in Norway the 5Dmkiii and the d800, and even the 1Dx and the equivalent nikon are not out of reach for most enthusiasts.... Now not saying I splashed out on the hassy because of this, but it sure is nice to stop that kind of conversation dead in its tracks :D
I really enjoy medium format, Film and digital, clients today expect digital, and it's great to be able to supply digital, but work the way I want to... With medium format...
I am rambling again, lol so I will shut up... What I am trying to say I think, is its more to do with feelings than tech specs for me....
Or, why do so many cab drivers here drive Mercedes? Sure a ford will do the job, but driver comfort s everything when sitting behind the wheel all day....
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Let's cut to the chase, it is about money. Period.

-Marc
Not at all. Not for me at least, and I suspect not for plenty of other folk.

For me it's about focus. I have a have a cabinet groaningly full of stuff. IQ180, Phase DF, glass, Cambo, glass, M9, glass, 5DII, glass, GH2, glass, Nex7, glass, Fuji X100, Ricoh, somewhere in another home an entire Pentax DSLR system, blah blah blah.

The IQ gear is so I can get the best quality for things that really matter. The M9 is so I can get ballpark similar but with less pixels and more portability. The 5DII is for longer lenses and action. The GH2 and Nex are part of the search for great image quality in a travel or casual walkaround kit. The Fuji is for silent and very unobtrusive but still with good IQ. And the truth is, I know how to use all of it and none of it.

That much gear is simply too much stuff to be master of. How each lens works on each body at each aperture and focal length. What the files are like in PP and how best to shoot accordingly. You get the picture. And this is not even going near the stuff I've owned and sold, such as the S2.

What the D800 means is, sell it all apart from the Nex and the Fuji. Then really concentrate on getting the finest glass for the Nikon and learning every last detail of the camera and its glass.

So it's about purity of purpose. About having far less stuff that covers pretty much all the same bases, and learning that stuff in great depth.

It's not about money. It's about results. I have tested the D800 in all the territory, indoors and out, flash and natural, tilt and shift, long and short, that I've used the Canon and Phase gear for. It covers all the bases, with, to all practical intents the same (sometimes nearly as good, often much better) results.

It is a no brainer, for me, totally irrespective of cost.
 
Last edited:

Shashin

Well-known member
Echoing Marc's points, I'd also wager that had Phase One got a DSLR body that only even matched, let alone surpassed the abilities of ANY of the current crop of full frame 35mm DSLRs then perhaps the eagerness to change to something like the D800 would be a lot less.
You mean like a Pentax 645D?
 
Top