D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

[tashley]

As an amateur, if shooting a DSLR means that I have to cary a tripod, use manual focus prime lenses and rely on live view (because I can't focus manually with a tiny viewfinder), then I'm loosing the benefits of shooting a DSLR

That's my opinion, YMMV...

Yair

Well, you'll be pleased to hear that it doesn't mean that at all. Not in the slightest. I very rarely use a tripod with my d800/e and manual focus has so far not let me down as often as AF does on a Phase DF body.

Glad I could calm your fears by relaying my experience!

Tim

 

[yaya]

Well, you'll be pleased to hear that it doesn't mean that at all. Not in the slightest. I very rarely use a tripod with my d800/e and manual focus has so far not let me down as often as AF does on a Phase DF body.

Glad I could calm your fears by relaying my experience!

Tim

Personally I struggle with manual focus on my Nikon and other Nikons I've used in the past and I've yet to find a zoom that is good across the focal length range and at all apertures....hence why I don't bother with full frame and stick to a low-ish res chip...

 

[subrata1965]

As an amateur, I shoot A DSLR because it gives me good AF and zoom lenses so I can have more freedom in the way I compose and I can leave the tripod in the car. I also don't need to worry about cleaning the sensor because I never take the lens off...

In fact Nikon just announced a new super-zoom DX lens, the 18-300/3.5-5.6 and I bet you that it is just as bad as my 18-200...(I might still buy one because it has a lock button to stop the barrel from dropping when the camera in hanging off you shoulder)

Yesterday I saw some D800 test files that were shot on a repro setup with a Schneider 90mm Macro T/S lens. They were very good but not as good as 33MP, 4 yr old MFDB files shot with a similar lens.

As an amateur, if shooting a DSLR means that I have to cary a tripod, use manual focus prime lenses and rely on live view (because I can't focus manually with a tiny viewfinder), then I'm loosing the benefits of shooting a DSLR

That's my opinion, YMMV...

Yair

Not necessarily DSLR meas no tripod, and AF only. That is an added advantage, depends on application. As a landscape photographer, in my Canon 1Ds days also I was using TS-E lenses, 24mm & 90mm.

After moving to MFDB, I don't have TS-E lenses with my AFD-II & DF.

There is only one SK 120 only for Phase DF mount. Otherwise you have to use HB Zeiss lenses with 3rd party tilt shift adopters.

Ultimate solution is MFDB & technical camera. Could be another $15K for body and 3 lenses, in addition to MFDB.

I also have D800, and I will be using it same way I use my DF & IQ160 for landscape photography. For candid shoots, yes handheld and AF will be plus.

If money is limited, D800 is a good compromise. For ultimate quality, MFDB with technical camera is for landscape photographers.

Every photographer can buy the camera system based on their budget. As of today overall quality will be better in MFDB.

Every individual photographer have to decide how much they want to pay and what quality they want to get.

However kudos to Nikon for what they have delivered within $3000. We are now dare to compare it with MFDB.

Subrata

 

[subrata1965]

Personally I struggle with manual focus on my Nikon and other Nikons I've used in the past and I've yet to find a zoom that is good across the focal length range and at all apertures....hence why I don't bother with full frame and stick to a low-ish res chip...

I also struggle with manual focus on my DF.

What I like now is "Focus Mask" in IQ DB. Now I know in the field, what I'm doing and I can do focus bracketing, if required.

Subrata

 

[subrata1965]

As an amateur, I shoot A DSLR because it gives me good AF and zoom lenses so I can have more freedom in the way I compose and I can leave the tripod in the car. I also don't need to worry about cleaning the sensor because I never take the lens off...

In fact Nikon just announced a new super-zoom DX lens, the 18-300/3.5-5.6 and I bet you that it is just as bad as my 18-200...(I might still buy one because it has a lock button to stop the barrel from dropping when the camera in hanging off you shoulder)

Yesterday I saw some D800 test files that were shot on a repro setup with a Schneider 90mm Macro T/S lens. They were very good but not as good as 33MP, 4 yr old MFDB files shot with a similar lens.

As an amateur, if shooting a DSLR means that I have to cary a tripod, use manual focus prime lenses and rely on live view (because I can't focus manually with a tiny viewfinder), then I'm loosing the benefits of shooting a DSLR

That's my opinion, YMMV...

Yair

Not necessarily DSLR meas no tripod, and AF only. That is an added advantage, depends on application. As a landscape photographer, in my Canon 1Ds days also I was using TS-E lenses, 24mm & 90mm.

After moving to MFDB, I don't have TS-E lenses with my AFD-II & DF.

There is only one SK 120 only for Phase DF mount. Otherwise you have to use HB Zeiss lenses with 3rd party tilt shift adopters.

Ultimate solution is MFDB & technical camera. Could be another $15K for body and 3 lenses, in addition to MFDB.

I also have D800, and I will be using it same way I use my DF & IQ160 for landscape photography. For candid shoots, yes handheld and AF will be plus.

If money is limited, D800 is a good compromise. For ultimate quality, MFDB with technical camera is for landscape photographers.

Every photographer can buy the camera system based on their budget. As of today overall quality will be better in MFDB.

Every individual photographer have to decide how much they want to pay and what quality they want to get.

However kudos to Nikon for what they have delivered within $3000. We are now dare to compare it with MFDB.

Subrata

 

[EH21]

Well, you'll be pleased to hear that it doesn't mean that at all. Not in the slightest. I very rarely use a tripod with my d800/e and manual focus has so far not let me down as often as AF does on a Phase DF body.

Glad I could calm your fears by relaying my experience!

Tim

I thought this of the DF body too. The brief period I had one I was getting lots of missed focus shots using the AF which really surprised me. I never understood why Phase could have such nice backs and push the DF body. It's not anywhere close to the H4 or Hy6, or even older stuff like the Contax.

But in general, the big viewfinder of the MF cameras really is a treat compared to the DSLR's.

 

[subrata1965]

I thought this of the DF body too. The brief period I had one I was getting lots of missed focus shots using the AF which really surprised me. I never understood why Phase could have such nice backs and push the DF body. It's not anywhere close to the H4 or Hy6, or even older stuff like the Contax.

But in general, the big viewfinder of the MF cameras really is a treat compared to the DSLR's.

For DF, Phase didn't start from the scratch. It is an improvement from Mamiya AFD II/III, probably done by Mamiya with Phase One logo. Auto focus is faster than Mamiya AFD.

I hope new DF body in next year will be better.

Subrata

 

[EH21]

For DF, Phase didn't start from the scratch. It is an improvement from Mamiya AFD II/III, probably done by Mamiya with Phase One logo. Auto focus is faster than Mamiya AFD.

I hope new DF body in next year will be better.

Subrata

If it was an improvement then the AFD III really must be a dog. Hard to believe that's the best they can do after 4 design versions.

 

[archivue]

for now i'm sticking with my Aptus II 3 33mp... the only benefit i can see for the nikon is hight iso performance... but, in my job i'm using the tripod all the time !

cons for the D800 ( in my opinion... ):
no 17 PCe
a 24 PCe not so good
no 35 or similar PCe (the 45 is too long)
no AF "pancake" 35 or 40
i've test a D800 hand held and wasn't able to get really good results in Manual...
so if i have to use a tripod and live view, the i stick with my MF
impossible to adjust the focus confirmation with zeiss lenses
and from a business perspective... it doesn't impress the client... compare to a technical camera... sometimes it's important... stupid but important !


pros
small
cheap body compare to MF
good battery life
live view
video
some good lens are really cheap
hight iso performance... it means less power needed for strobes... economy !
long exposure capabilities... grgrgrggrr !


so for my use, i'm sticking with my back

 

[torger]

for now i'm sticking with my Aptus II 3 33mp... the only benefit i can see for the nikon is hight iso performance... but, in my job i'm using the tripod all the time !

cons for the D800 ( in my opinion... ):
no 17 PCe
a 24 PCe not so good
no 35 or similar PCe (the 45 is too long)
no AF "pancake" 35 or 40
i've test a D800 hand held and wasn't able to get really good results in Manual...
so if i have to use a tripod and live view, the i stick with my MF
impossible to adjust the focus confirmation with zeiss lenses
and from a business perspective... it doesn't impress the client... compare to a technical camera... sometimes it's important... stupid but important !


pros
small
cheap body compare to MF
good battery life
live view
video
some good lens are really cheap
hight iso performance... it means less power needed for strobes... economy !
long exposure capabilities... grgrgrggrr !


so for my use, i'm sticking with my back

almost exactly my conclusion. There are not enough of high quality and flexible tilt-shift lenses, and my shooting style works well with a tech camera, only rarely I face situations I wish it was more like a dslr. The tech camera usually gives me a very enjoyable shooting experience with a solid workmanship feel to it.

As an amateur I have no customers to impress though. I try to impress my friends but they just think it is some strange vintage film camera, and when they hear its digital and realize what it costs despite its limited flexibility they think I am an idiot .

 

[dchew]

As an amateur I have no customers to impress though. I try to impress my friends but they just think it is some strange vintage film camera, and when they hear its digital and realize what it costs despite its limited flexibility they think I am an idiot .

Ha! Yes! One of my favorite things about shooting a tech camera, especially an Alpa, is at shows when people ask me what camera I use. You can see in their eyes they want to hear Canon or Nikon so they can launch into a camera discussion. I say, "Alpa" and I get this blank, lost stare. End of discussion

Dave

 

[Shashin]

I say, "Alpa" and I get this blank, lost stare. End of discussion

Dave

You just know their first thought is "the dog food company?"

 

[MGrayson]

With me, no one has gotten further than ":wtf: is that? A camera?" :ROTFL:

--Matt

 

[stephengilbert]

Walked through a local park yesterday with my ALPA Max on a tripod over my shoulder, with an iPhone on it, and a landscape workers said "Cool camera."

 

[Richard Osbourne]

Well, I had to find out what all the fuss about the D800 was so a couple of weeks ago I went up to Warehouse Express and compared a D800e with my 5dII and Cambo DS with P45+ back.

This was a quick and dirty interior test so didn't reveal as much as shooting a landscape might. I used the 17-40 on the 5DII (as I said, quick and dirty), 14-24 and 24-70 on the D800e, and Schneider 24XL and 35XL on the Cambo.

Quick summary of results:

D800 has great dynamic range, pretty much up there with the P45+. Resolution, even with the D800e and 14-24 is noticeably less than P45+/Schneiders but still significantly higher than the 5DII, as you would expect. The 14-24 is a beautiful lens - big and heavy though.
Biggest surprise was just how inaccurate the colours of both the Canon and the D800 were - they simply didn't accurately reproduce what I saw. I'm looking back at the last 10 years of shooting with Canon digital gear, and slightly weeping at the thought of how the colours were never quite right, despite a lot of struggles in post. And even stitching to 100+MP using the 50 1.2L, the images aren't as crisp as the Cambo.

Here is a link to download full res JPEG12s of the 3 files.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10489236/D800 TEST.zip

Points to note:
My 24XL has a problem on the right hand side which Cambo should be sorting for me soon.
Note the colour of the floor - it's only right on the P45 file. Also, look at the 'blue' hanging signs, rendered as purplish on the Canikons.
All processing done with my regular settings in C1 - sharpening of 130/1.3/1 and I've just equalised exposure (imperfectly) between the 3 files.

Hope these are useful to some of you. I won't be getting a D800, simply because of the colours. Perhaps they could be improved with profiling but I'm waiting for Canon's (hoped for / expected) big MP whopper - if the colours are one step up from the D800. The convenience and high ISO performance of 35mm still has its place in my work.

 

[archivue]

it looks like people having trouble with long exposure with their D800... a deal breaker for me !

 

[GrahamWelland]

it looks like people having trouble with long exposure with their D800... a deal breaker for me !

I'm not in a love fest with my D800 but long exposure performance definitely seems pretty decent to me. I bought mine specifically for this use and so far I haven't had any issues other than the live view at night being inferior to Canon's offering. Noise levels are low and I can shoot multi-minute exposures at low ISOs without really even needing LENR.

What are you hearing or seeing?

 

[yaya]

Well, I had to find out what all the fuss about the D800 was so a couple of weeks ago I went up to Warehouse Express and compared a D800e with my 5dII and Cambo DS with P45+ back.

This was a quick and dirty interior test so didn't reveal as much as shooting a landscape might. I used the 17-40 on the 5DII (as I said, quick and dirty), 14-24 and 24-70 on the D800e, and Schneider 24XL and 35XL on the Cambo.

Quick summary of results:

D800 has great dynamic range, pretty much up there with the P45+. Resolution, even with the D800e and 14-24 is noticeably less than P45+/Schneiders but still significantly higher than the 5DII, as you would expect. The 14-24 is a beautiful lens - big and heavy though.
Biggest surprise was just how inaccurate the colours of both the Canon and the D800 were - they simply didn't accurately reproduce what I saw. I'm looking back at the last 10 years of shooting with Canon digital gear, and slightly weeping at the thought of how the colours were never quite right, despite a lot of struggles in post. And even stitching to 100+MP using the 50 1.2L, the images aren't as crisp as the Cambo.

Here is a link to download full res JPEG12s of the 3 files.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10489236/D800 TEST.zip

Points to note:
My 24XL has a problem on the right hand side which Cambo should be sorting for me soon.
Note the colour of the floor - it's only right on the P45 file. Also, look at the 'blue' hanging signs, rendered as purplish on the Canikons.
All processing done with my regular settings in C1 - sharpening of 130/1.3/1 and I've just equalised exposure (imperfectly) between the 3 files.

Hope these are useful to some of you. I won't be getting a D800, simply because of the colours. Perhaps they could be improved with profiling but I'm waiting for Canon's (hoped for / expected) big MP whopper - if the colours are one step up from the D800. The convenience and high ISO performance of 35mm still has its place in my work.

Richard now let's see if you're brave enough to post this on LuLa :salute:

 

[Geoff]

yes he was! Let the games begin.

 

[Richard Osbourne]

Oh dear, what have I done....