Nikon D800E v.s Hasselblad H4D40: the end of medium format superiority?

[paulraphael]

Im not sure any Nikon owner is saying hey MF we can kick your *** on any given day even on Sunday.

What I'm saying: "how cool that I can now afford a camera that gives decent results, rather than saving up for another half a lifetime for tech camera and a phase back."

That's about it. I studied many comparisons between d800 and phase, especially yours with the 160. I never thought for a minute the Nikon equalled the MF. But if you had told me that picture A was produced by a $3000 camera and asked me to guess the price of the camera that produced picture B, I might have said $6000, taking into account diminishing returns. I would not have guessed $50,000. A lot would have to be different, not the least of which is my financial situation (I'm an artist for god's sake) to bring a technical camera into the realm of possibility.

Meanwhile, the Nikon has tempted me into projects I never anticipated. I'm doing work handheld on the NYC subway ... just spontaneously started happening when I figured out how well the new toy handles low light. I never did this kind of thing when I was lugging bigger formats.

I would still LOVE a tech cam and phase back. But realistically it's not going to happen any time soon, and I have work to do.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Great comment but the best part that caught my eye was you can now do something you have not dreamed about before. That's priceless.

 

[Professional]

hope I don't see more of those threads in the future comparing new upcoming 35mm DSLRs vs. new MFD, i am sure some will come here or there to compare 50mp 35mmDSLR with 50mp MFD and will say that DSLRs are closer or beating or better or whatever, sure for price those 35mm DSLRs will be the winners, but if some people like here have deep pocket/budget they will always go with MFD + DSLRs, i started in 2005 and i never thought once i will have DSLRs, in 2008 i ended up with about 7 DSLRs inaddition to Nikon point and shoot, in 2009 i got MFD, so it was a big surprise for me to go that far so quick, not that, but also added film gear by 2009 and large format in 2010, so i started with DSLRs and ended with larger format and never look back, for sports and travel i will be use DSLRs most, but for many studio and portraits work or even still life then MF is my choice always over 35mm DSLRs, i was lucky to have budget to get MF but not lucky yet to have even higher MF gear than what i have already now.

I come to those comparisons threads to see and read the opinions and i never worry about the conclusions, because each prove its pros and cons and i can't make one camera to be the GOD ultimate tool over another camera, and because of that i went with 35mm DSLR and MF[digital and film] and even LF, i will use them all to what i need or want, i don't look at one factor as colors or ISO or even large print only.

 

[GrahamWelland]

To be honest these threads are just zzzz to me. I have MF, 35 DSLR and smaller format cameras and the look of the MFDB is still pretty safe IMHO - resolution be damned (frankly I don't find this to be the important factor for MFDBs either). When it comes to colour and tonality I still don't see any of the non-MFDBs matching or improving upon what medium format digital can offer. Sure it's close and if you don't already have MFDB gear it certainly does make taking the financial jump much harder to justify.

Sure - for the money there is no doubt that the latest 35mm DSLRs are superb value for money. However, qualitatively there's still a difference. Luckily for most of us the cost of the MF gear is already sunk and paid for so the financial benefits of the smaller systems are kind of moot. (Btw selling up and taking a bath to buy cheaper gear is high on my list of 'dumb' decisions to be honest - sorry).

 

[KeithL]

Luckily for most of us the cost of the MF gear is already sunk and paid for so the financial benefits of the smaller systems are kind of moot.

Agreed, but this doesn't bode well for the future of MFD. Will existing owners re-invest in MFD? Will enough new users invest in MFD?

 

[fotografz]

Agreed, but this doesn't bode well for the future of MFD. Will existing owners re-invest in MFD? Will enough new users invest in MFD?

Keith, doesn't that entirely depend on what the MFD makers do in future?

For example, if the Hasselblad rumors are true, Photokina will bring a mirrorless CMOS based smaller camera that still sports a larger than 35mm MFD sensor. (Of course it had better use an H mount, or ability to use H lenses including the HTS and 1.7X even if new lenses are introduced).

As a confirmed believer the MF aesthetic, they have my attention and money over most anything else ... with-in reason.

The "with-in reason" part is what will be a determining factor. I'm mighty pleased with my H4D/60, so it'll have to rock my world and present an obvious value to the work I do. Otherwise the "Photokina War Chest" capital I've been squirreling away will be earmarked for lighting and studio improvements, and a Leica M10

-Marc

 

[KeithL]

Keith, doesn't that entirely depend on what the MFD makers do in future?

Marc, absolutely.

The problem is with fewer investing in MFD will the makers have the resources to invest in the future?

Time will tell.

 

[fotografz]

Marc, absolutely.

The problem is with fewer investing in MFD will the makers have the resources to invest in the future?

Time will tell.

This may have more to do with how the MFD companies position themselves, what business model they adopt, how well they promote the format ... and/or how much or little they cater to the more mass competitive market.

We all think that the amateur/enthusiasts is critical to their survival, which may be true to a good extent as it stands today. Yet, more and more, both the major players seem to be applying their technologies to very special applications in sectors where price/value competitiveness is less of an issue, and specificity is of paramount importance.

If the MFD companies do want to remain competitive in the more general photographic market whether enthusiasts or professional, they had best get to it and both deliver obvious value and some sense of longevity, as well as promote :Why MFD?" more strongly. They cannot live off the past, real or perceived, very long (unless they are Leica ).

-Marc

 

[CBronicki]

As someone mentioned somewhere else, I think what is happening with the recent advances in 35mm technology/quality, is that many people who were on the fence of making the switch, i.e. wealthy weekend warriors, semi-pros and some pros, will be inclined to hold-back from investing in MFD for a while. The D800 has definitely thrown a cat amongst the pigeons. I am not saying that the D800 is a true competitor to MFD because MFD still has superior colour, resolution and can cater for very specific needs, but bang-for-buck the D800 covers most photographers out there.

I personally fall into the semi-pro turning pro category (in terms of earning a living) and am still on the fence. That is, not sure the step up to MFD is worth the $$ at this stage. This will change in the future once I secure clients who have specific demands, i.e. large prints/best quality. At this point there would be a reasonable return on investment.

p.s.
I heard a rumour that Sony are in the process of making organic 100mp sensors. These are interesting times indeed.

 

[Uaiomex]

Keith, Marc & CBronicki: I think that at many points,you all are correct in their assumptions. The only reason for me at this point to think about a DMF back is that I still own a V system, otherwise, MFD would be completely out of consideration. Look at me, at this point of my life I can afford a fine used DMF back, but it is not 2005 anymore. Nikon now and soon some others will stand on the megapixel body plateau. Right now, I'm holding any big purchase till Fotokina. There are also rumors about Canon and Nikon going bigger than 24X36. If true, the immediate ones affected will be the "tweener" cameras and backs, I'm 100% sure. If Hasselblad brings a cmos sensor. I'm affraid it will be in the tweener section. Not enough for me to leave the convenience of the EOS system. The same happened to me with the Pentax 645, not big enough sensor. If nothing really important happens at Kina, I may decide to invest my money on bricks and mortar or perhaps a awd SUV. After all, landscape photography is 90% about location.
Eduardo

 

[Anders_HK]

Oh dear... now discussion has turned into sustainability of MF makers vs. DSLRs... :facesmack:

History lesson folks!

Aug 1998 LEAF showed their 6MP Volare
Jun 1999 NIKON announced their 2.7MP D1

What has changed?
D800E was announced same long after Aptus-II 12 ???
Leaf; 36x24 sensor -> 645 80MP
Nikon; 24x17 sensor -> 36x24 36MP

Interesting to note from above is
D1/Volare = 2.7/6 = 45%
D800E/Aptus-II 12 = 36/80 = 45%

= No change. :deadhorse: Life goes on... :watch:

but I bet... back in 1999 the Volare was killer image quality compared to the D1.... and discussion in above is :loco:

I go to sleep :OT:

 

[Mike M]

The current digital environment is too big to make sense of unless appealing to certain concepts. The way to think of the changes in photography is to try and sort through the information according to generalizations in the way that a search engine operates. For example, "size" has definitive boundaries that can be measured and that leads us to consider it concrete and objective. Meanwhile, "format" is defined by it's relationships which makes it abstract and subjective. It's possible to objectively discern the size of a camera sensor because it can be measured. However, the format of a particular sensor can only be determined by it's relationship to other sensors. This means that our definitions of format are ultimately subjective. The promising or uncertain future of all digital formats will most likely be determined socially.

The reason for bringing this up is to try and put an end to the debates about what constitutes a "professional" format in photography. Yes, size is objective but format is not and this leads to all kinds of contention. Of course, we're all familiar with the 35mm FF vs DMF debates. Which one is professional etc? Or maybe...which one is more professional? If by professional we really mean "standard" (or the basis of comparison) then the way to arrive at an answer as to which format constitutes the professional format is to determine what sensor size all systems are compared. DMF is generally considered a larger format because of it's comparison to 35mm FF and aps-c etc are generally considered "cropped" for the same reason. Therefore, it's possible to consider 35mm FF the standard by which all others are compared and to accept it as the socially determined professional/standard format.

Is the D800 the end of MF superiority? I ain't touchin' that with a ten foot pole LOL However, I can comfortably assert that the 35mm FF format is the social standard by which all other systems are now compared so it's safe to assume that it's identity and place within photography is more secure than any of the currently available DMF systems.

 

[fotografz]

Hasn't the social standard become the cell phone?

Point & shoots are being eaten alive by cell phones, and in a similar way I think the future of anything beyond that will be smaller sensor (APSc?) cameras with something like a 100 meg organic sensor if Sony has anything to say about it.

Then the debate will swing to comparisons between high meg 35mm DSLRs and these little powerhouses ... where points made about MFD differences in look and feel compared to 35mm format, will be used by the 35mm users compared to smaller sensor high meg cameras.

It's the wild west folks, rules and boundaries are evaporating at an exponentially increasing rate of speed.

Which is why I'm an advocate of the MFD makers swimming up-stream with more MFD format characteristics, not less. :thumbup:

-Marc

 

[GrahamWelland]

Which is why I'm an advocate of the MFD makers swimming up-stream with more MFD format characteristics, not less. :thumbup:

-Marc

Speaking of swimming up stream, the more I hear about how great a leveler the current crop of 35mm DSLRs are (well, the D800), the more I want to shoot with something ELSE. I totally understand the counter-culture of film shooters.

 

[Don Libby]

Warning - I'm in a grumpy mood....

It's getting very tiring reading about how this camera is better than that one and the entire world as we know it is just about done.

This happens each and every time any camera manufacture releases its' newest and best camera. Saw it when the 1Ds was introduced, then again with the 1DsII and yet again with the 1DsIII (I use Canon as I really don't have any experience with Nikon). How 'bout when Phase introduced the P65+? People went nuts over it saying how medium format would never be the same and how the P65 was such a game changer. That is until the IQ backs were introduced.

Reminds me of the early days of personal computers where a new improved model was being introduced at a rate of several every 6-months.

Then there's the small sensor and 4/3's cameras.

Why do we have this compulsion to comparing different camera sensors? A 35mm camera is just that, 35mm. A full size 35mm sensor is 36x24mm. A medium format sensor is 53.9x40.4mm. At this point I really couldn't care less that there's a 35mm camera that offers 36 megapixels because no matter how you slice it, it remains what it is - 35mm and I choose not to use 35mm.

I'm not trying to bash 35mm. I'm very pleased to see that Nikon has developed a 36 megapixel 35mm camera and hope Canon will soon follow. I'm of the opinion that what Nikon has done is change the face of 35mm photography as we now know it; however, no matter the megapixel the sensor remains that of 35mm. It's very close to saying you can make a silk purse out of a pigs ear.

Again the grumpy warning...

If you feel that a high megapixel 35mm camera is "the end of medium format superiority" then you're misinformed as to what medium format brings to the table. This is close to saying medium format is superior to large format. While medium format has closed the gap that gap like the one between 35mm and medium format will always be there.

Still grumpy but at least I have it off my chest.

Don

 

[Mike M]

Hasn't the social standard become the cell phone?

I'm not sure if that's happened yet, but it definitely could occur. Of course, I was referring to the social standard of comparison which is different from popularity in sales or numbers of items owned. Basically, the main point I'm trying to make about digital is that social media means "social" in every sense of the word. The future of digital camera systems will mostly be determined by social facts (in the Emile Durkheim sense) rather than objective facts (the nerdy engineer with his pocket protector)

Speaking of swimming up stream, the more I hear about how great a leveler the current crop of 35mm DSLRs are (well, the D800), the more I want to shoot with something ELSE. I totally understand the counter-culture of film shooters.

Me too, that's why I'm completely finished with digital.

 

[paulraphael]

Speaking of swimming up stream, the more I hear about how great a leveler the current crop of 35mm DSLRs are (well, the D800), the more I want to shoot with something ELSE. I totally understand the counter-culture of film shooters.

I don't know. It was nice for my ego to walk around with a 4x5 on a crucifix-sized wood tripod, knowing that no one else would mistake me for one of them.

But seriously, in the end I'd rather distinguish myself with the work, not the camera. There's actually something rewarding about being able to do something distinctive even though you've got the same kind of tool as everyone else. The d800 (or insert equivalent here) has a kind of anonymity that takes the attention off the tool, and off the photographer even. I go a step farther and cover the logos on mine with black tape. Now it's a generic camera. I think less about it and more about what I'm doing. And I plan to use it for very un-generic work

 

[GrahamWelland]

I have a D800 and some great glass for it. It allows me to shoot a genre of images that my medium format gear can't shoot. Beyond that I have no love for it. I do enjoy using my MF gear ... Ultimately it's as simple as that.

 

[Shashin]

I don't know. It was nice for my ego to walk around with a 4x5 on a crucifix-sized wood tripod, knowing that no one else would mistake me for one of them.

I think the big DSLR impresses folks more, especially with a big lens. When I have an unusual camera type, I am more often that not mistaken for a surveyor.

 

[stephengilbert]

I am more often that not mistaken for a surveyor.

Especially when you wear your yellow hardhat.