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!

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

Shashin

Well-known member
The more things change, the more they remain the same. From Luminous Landscape by MR:

It's not uncommon to read people online who say that medium format is dead. That full-frame 35mm DSLRs like the Canon 1Ds MKII sound their death knell.

Nonsense.
This of course was a field review of the Phase P25 back and a comment of the release of that new Canon camera. Apparently, MFD is going through a rather long and drawn out death with no end in sight as this was written in the winter of 2004/05. Oddly enough, it came five years after predictions that film would only be around for five more years--I wonder how that panned out?

I know I am deluded in even thinking that the size of my sensor actually makes a difference, but I am happy to cling to that delusion. And in the end, I only have to please myself.
 
Last edited:

torger

Active member
"Medium format death" is unlikely. Doing like Sinar does, making tethered-only backs from standard sensors (very same sensors used for medical and scientific applications) you can do with relatively low development costs, and selling them for $40K you don't need to sell many of them.

If the MF market also in the future will be large enough to develop more complex and innovative products is a different manner.
 

D&A

Well-known member
The more things change, the more they remain the same. From Luminous Landscape by MR:



This of course was a field review of the Phase P25 back and a comment of the release of that new Canon camera. Apparently, MFD is going through a rather long and drawn out death with no end in sight as this was written in the winter of 2004/05. Oddly enough, it came five years after predictions that film would only be around for five more years--I wonder how that panned out?

I know I am deluded in even thinking that the size of my sensor actually makes a difference, but I am happy to cling to that delusion. And in the end, I only have to please myself.
I think though it comes down to so many personal factors, so that no matter how long this comparison is dissected, the answer will lie for the end user in terms of what their expectations are and how much they are willing to work at achieving them. In other words, how high they set the bar and to what lengths they are willing to both spend and then technically master their equipment. These and other factors will go a long way in determining whether cameras like the D800/e are both good and close enough to MFD, or whether the fators that attract those to MFD are worth persuing.

Dave (D&A)
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Dave, I will go one step further and say the comparison does not even matter. You get the camera you think is right for you--all the other cameras in the world don't make any difference at that point. I don't buy a camera/format because it is like another camera/format I would rather have.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
The casual reader is certainly a discerning market, but these comparisons are not between 35mm dslr's, but if fact, how close you can get now when comparing the D800 to MFD. It's a great price point with fantastic image quality, it's not going to replace MFD. In certain situations, you can sometimes make more money with the D800, when compared to rolling the cost into the invoice for each camera. There are certain applications when MF is a must, certain DOF or mood, but for that i almost always shoot film!
While we have had out disagreements I'd tend to agree with this ... except the film part since my clients will not wait, nor pay for scans.

I've been a bit off-putting in some cases because I'm currently using an H4D/60 and a S2 ... which can, and does come off as elitist .... which isn't the intent. I worked my rear off and walked my way there over many years.

So, please bear with me ...

The good fortune I experienced was to be getting into MFD at a time when commercial work was transitioning from film to digital, and the economy was still booming. I didn't pay a red cent for my first MFD kits, from a Contax 645 with a Kodak Proback onward ... clients did. Made possible because everyone did the same thing then.

Every invoice carried a digital capture/rental fee that paid for everything with-in 2 years or so ... fees clients paid because it was a LOT cheaper than film/processing/scanning costs, and expensive reshoots virtually disappeared. Then I upgraded, and the fees stayed. Very few of these jobs could be done with 35mm as it was then, trust me I tried.

Basically, I could keep upgrading bodies and the optics were paid for already. So I've never paid 10X as much to shoot MFD ... ever. In fact, for a few years, the MFD fees generated additional profit.

In contrast, my wedding work was/is mostly 35mm DSLRs and there's no way to amortize that cost with the general public. You have to bake it into the fee, and that whole competitive aspect makes it hard to keep upgrading, since someone with a lesser camera can underbid you ... all things being equal in the eyes of that specific consuming audience. I can win as much business with a paid for A900 as I can with a D800.

Along the way, I became accustomed to all of the qualities of MFD which are different than those of 35mm ... in the same way that my good old Proback or 16 meg CFV delivered more to my eye than a 16 meg DSLR, or my H2D/22 did compared to a 22 meg DSLR. It is those difference that I still see, still want in my work, and see nothing challenging that proclivity.

HOWEVER, were I starting, out or fighting it out in this insanely competitive environment where some will under-bid you no matter what the heck you do, or clients are willing to settle for "almost" out of penny pinching bean counter mentality ... the Nikon D800 makes a whole load of sense. Excellent quality without high exposure to costs at a time when you often can't bake in those costs.

Fortunately, I'm in a place in my life that I'm not having to make those decisions ... but I understand those that do.

-Marc
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
I think though it comes down to so many personal factors, so that no matter how long this comparison is dissected, the answer will lie for the end user in terms of what their expectations are and how much they are willing to work at achieving them. In other words, how high they set the bar and to what lengths they are willing to both spend and then technically master their equipment. These and other factors will go a long way in determining whether cameras like the D800/e are both good and close enough to MFD, or whether the fators that attract those to MFD are worth persuing.

Dave (D&A)
Dave, I will go one step further and say the comparison does not even matter. You get the camera you think is right for you--all the other cameras in the world don't make any difference at that point. I don't buy a camera/format because it is like another camera/format I would rather have.
Also don't even think of buying a camera just because someone else has it and you think it'll make you a better photographer.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
"Medium format death" is unlikely. Doing like Sinar does, making tethered-only backs from standard sensors (very same sensors used for medical and scientific applications) you can do with relatively low development costs, and selling them for $40K you don't need to sell many of them.
But you do have to sell them. Price is a balance.

If the MF market also in the future will be large enough to develop more complex and innovative products is a different manner.
I was just pointing out we keep having this debate that one format is just like another and so the larger one will fail, and yet the larger one keeps going. This conversation keeps returning because whatever the single spec used to justify the comparison ultimately fails as a photographic system does not rest on one specification (usually the number of dots in the picture). The annoying fact that you cannot optimize resolution and contrast at the same time is usually where format equivalency will fail. Also, and I may be the only one here that thinks this, the number of pixels a sensor has is not the primary determining factor on how pleasing an image looks.

So here we are again talking about the same stuff we talked about before and it will end up the same way of realizing it is not true until the next time a similar situation occurs that will start the whole debate off one more time. :argue:
 

Paratom

Well-known member
The issue here is the hobbyist and if your planning on 40k outlay and you can get it in 10 percent of that and be close than hell they may get a second hobby. You need to realize people drop hobbys like water. The Pro has no choice they have to buy something but as a hobbyist I can save 30k and be close enough well that 30 I can turn to another hobby or buy a new car. Simply not forced into buying at the top rate. There fickle and well do things different.

Obviously exceptions here but even you guys are a minority . They make 30k D800 a month.
But arent the bohhyist are the guys who pay 100k for a car, or 20+k for speakers, etc. because they dont have to base the decision based mainly on economic factors?
 

Paratom

Well-known member
A lot of things are almost as good as things that costs a little more or even double. It's a different calculus when something is almost as good as something that costs 10 times as much.
I just believe life is not just about cost-ratio optimization.

Otherwise we would probably all have to buy used gear from the previous generation cameras.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
But arent the bohhyist are the guys who pay 100k for a car, or 20+k for speakers, etc. because they dont have to base the decision based mainly on economic factors?
The problem is that percent of high end money for hobby is still in a minority. Also they can and will sell out on a whim very fast. People hear are very much a minority on high end gear compared to the percent of product being produced. Honestly your just slightly above us maybe 1 or 2 percent of Pros who don't even make a mark in the industry. Numbers like 30k per month for just one name,model is just scary.Most hobbyist don't even read, pay attention too or even care. They walk into a Best Buy and buy on price, feature set that some kid is going to sell them. The market is maybe 97 percent soccer moms, if you know what I mean.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
BTw folks nice discussion and I know any and every make and model in the industry has claimed to be close to MF in the past . Frankly I think that was all BS in years past. This one is actually pretty close. I'm a huge MF fan too but this one picked my nose up off the turf. LOL
 

torger

Active member
So here we are again talking about the same stuff we talked about before and it will end up the same way of realizing it is not true until the next time a similar situation occurs that will start the whole debate off one more time. :argue:
Yes indeed :)

Maybe this is not the time. We'll see. Maybe the gap haven't really become smaller than previous rounds, but rather that the absolute quality level is now considerably higher. The higher it gets the more say "good enough".

What I personally hope will happen is that the MF manufacturers are put under some pressure so they are forced to come up with a way to sell MFDBs at lower costs. I rather see that than a 54x41mm CMOS sensor (although that would be cool too). I'm not sure if it is possible though, but I do think that we could have a pretty large tech camera hobbyist group doing landscape if it is. If MF was only 2x more expensive it would be much easier to justify subtle arguments like "I like 4:3 better than 3:2", and "mechanical copal shutters are kind of cool" :)
 

David Schneider

New member
BTw folks nice discussion and I know any and every make and model in the industry has claimed to be close to MF in the past . Frankly I think that was all BS in years past. This one is actually pretty close. I'm a huge MF fan too but this one picked my nose up off the turf. LOL
It's close IF MF makers do not come up with a newer model or fail to utilize some of the new technology that's out there (and I'm thinking the kind of senor used in Fuji X-Pro1). If things go as they have in years past, then there will be an improvement in MF. If there isn't, then the economics of the marketplace will probably finish MF.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Not sure about finishing it as many institutions outside of the Pro and Hobbyist exist like libraries and government are a big part of the MF market too which we need to understand but again they do need to reinvent themseleves as well. Its not just the costs either its the whole dynamics of it. I can tell you what someone said to me in the industry directly and he is dead on. Nothing is made in the 10K range that he could not fill a zillion orders on.
Everyones wants MF or the quality of MF that is not the issue its the cost of entry that puts a Nikon smack in the middle of the fence as a tipping point. The last line is from me. i think that is truly the crux of the matter.
 

Pingang

New member
Not that this kind of comparison is not useful, but it becomes matterless when the camera/image quality segment has grown much faster than the media that requires them, so we are talking about existing prosumer tools already capable of making quality of pro tools just a few years ago, so many professional are in fact residing on what works for them rather than continue to ride on the best.
Sure, there are always need of better tools and it won't stop and probably the medium format digital will always be better but then the margin over FF DLSR is smaller and smaller, to a point it really demands capable hands to make meaningful difference.
In fact, we are in a time with tools (even some of the prosumer ones) with quality far beyond the masters of the past have or even dream.
Photographic artwork collected by museums seldom just focus on absolute sharpness or demand the very best lens to product such art - says we do have a breathe of room doing whatever we have today.
But then, photography is not just the file, it is also the process making it, so the tool does matter, just that if the best tool and best work are related? Not really.
The reality is D800E could probably do 90% of the photography jobs in the world while H4D40 could do only 15% - and some of the best pay jobs are done by FF DLSR. I know only very few photographers who only shoot medium format, most of the pros have a Canon or Nikon besides them.
They are different. It is a threat from FF DLSR to medium format digital camera, not the other way around.

BR,
Pingang
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I just think the 35mm shooters are relieved. With Sony making 24MP APS sensors rivaling 35mm cameras, the 35mm crowd had to increase resolution by 25% and go to 37MP just to stay relevant. With the new crop of APS cameras with their pixel resolution and price, it is getting hard to justify the cost of 35mm.


:poke:

;)
 
Last edited:

Uaiomex

Member
If so, in less than 10 years time, smart-phones will be everything in photography for amateurs and P&S's will be used for all kind of professional assignments, including fine-art and hi-roller fashion and product.
Eduardo

I just think the 35mm shooters are relieved. With Sony making 24MP APS sensors rivaling 35mm cameras, the 35mm crowd had to increase resolution by 25% and go to 37MP just to stay relevant. With the new crop of APS cameras with their pixel resolution and price, it is getting hard to justify the cost of 35mm.


:poke:

;)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
If so, in less than 10 years time, smart-phones will be everything in photography for amateurs and P&S's will be used for all kind of professional assignments, including fine-art and hi-roller fashion and product.
Eduardo
My camera straps will be hung up if that comes to play
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
If so, in less than 10 years time, smart-phones will be everything in photography for amateurs and P&S's will be used for all kind of professional assignments, including fine-art and hi-roller fashion and product.
Eduardo
If we look at the development the last 10 years, I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon 1 will be Nikon's main system in another 10, while 35mm and similarly sized formats will take the role that MF has had until now.

It's now 10 years since the firs 35mm DSLR, the Contax N Digital, became available with 6MP. The D800 has 6 times the number of pixels and is in another universe when it comes to high ISO, frame rates, general usability etc. If the development continues at the same speed, we'll have a 60MP Nikon 1 and a 220MP Nikon D900 in 2022, and they'll probably not be more expensive than the current 10 and 36MP models. Obviously, they will have features that we can't even dream about today.

Hasselblad, Phase1 etc. will have to do something far more radical than increasing the number of pixels and general image quality to survive that trend.
 
Top