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

[Shashin]

The D800 has 6 times the number of pixels...

That sounds impressive, but it is only a 2.5X increase in resolving power and right now that is only 100 lines per mm for the D800. Not really a challenging limit considering many films could exceed that--not interested in a film/digital thing or which is better, but just to point out we have not really pushed the technology in what has been achieved in the past.

...If the development continues at the same speed, we'll have a 60MP Nikon 1 and a 220MP Nikon D900 in 2022...

You know, there is nothing we can do to change that fact light is a wave. To extrapolate in a linear fashion assumes that pixel size can be reduced to an unlimited extent without any effect is not possible. Optics will never be able to keep up either--technology cannot change this because of the physical limitation to light. While I don't mind optics-limited systems except for the inefficient use of file size, pixel peepers are going to be driven nuts.

Digital is new and growing. But sooner or later it will reach a wall.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

That sounds impressive, but it is only a 2.5X increase in resolving power and right now that is only 100 lines per mm for the D800. Not really a challenging limit considering many films could exceed that--not interested in a film/digital thing or which is better, but just to point out we have not really pushed the technology in what has been achieved in the past.

I know, but still people on this forum are discussing the D800/E as if it were the "Second Coming".

You know, there is nothing we can do to change that fact light is a wave. To extrapolate in a linear fashion assumes that pixel size can be reduced to an unlimited extent without any effect is not possible. Optics will never be able to keep up either--technology cannot change this because of the physical limitation to light. While I don't mind optics-limited systems except for the inefficient use of file size, pixel peepers are going to be driven nuts.

Digital is new and growing. But sooner or later it will reach a wall.

They said that about flying also.

 

[Shashin]

They said that about flying also.

Well, flying is possible and has known to be possible before the invention of aircraft--Leonardo De Vinci even theorized about it. And there are limit to altitude and speed in flight. And it gets harder and harder to reach those limits. I really am unsure of your point.

Now, I do a lot of optical microscopy. There is a definite limit to what you can image under an optical microscope--which is the reason we also have atomic force microscopes and electron microscopes. There is a type of optical microscopy that is looking into nano-imaging. This is the field that is trying to push the boundaries of the limits of optical microscopy, however, the results as far from what you would expect from the photography that folks think of here. Those are also closed system that would be impossible to scale up as the phase properties of light cannot be used in a simple camera.

You may think that you can have an infinitely small pixel, but then what records the light? No photon strike, no information.

You also may think the optics can have unlimited resolution, but how do you get away from the effects of diffraction? The problem of eliminating diffraction from a camera lens is that without diffraction, you cannot get an image (images are diffraction patterns).

While it is great to see enthusiasm for technology, it is also important to realize we live in a physical universe that has definite limits. Especially with basic things as light--light has been one of the most studied phenomena and it will take more than a camera company to figure out how to change it. While advances in some very specialized imaging such as recording the motion of light or turning apparently opaque surfaces into clear or reflective surfaces seem revolutionary, and they are stunning, they are hardly changing our view of how light works. Rather we are simply getting better tools to solve these problems.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Well, flying is possible and has known to be possible before the invention of aircraft--Leonardo De Vinci even theorized about it. And there are limit to altitude and speed in flight. And it gets harder and harder to reach those limits. I really am unsure of your point.

Now, I do a lot of optical microscopy. There is a definite limit to what you can image under an optical microscope--which is the reason we also have atomic force microscopes and electron microscopes. There is a type of optical microscopy that is looking into nano-imaging. This is the field that is trying to push the boundaries of the limits of optical microscopy, however, the results as far from what you would expect from the photography that folks think of here. Those are also closed system that would be impossible to scale up as the phase properties of light cannot be used in a simple camera.

You may think that you can have an infinitely small pixel, but then what records the light? No photon strike, no information.

You also may think the optics can have unlimited resolution, but how do you get away from the effects of diffraction? The problem of eliminating diffraction from a camera lens is that without diffraction, you cannot get an image (images are diffraction patterns).

While it is great to see enthusiasm for technology, it is also important to realize we live in a physical universe that has definite limits. Especially with basic things as light--light has been one of the most studied phenomena and it will take more than a camera company to figure out how to change it. While advances in some very specialized imaging such as recording the motion of light or turning apparently opaque surfaces into clear or reflective surfaces seem revolutionary, and they are stunning, they are hardly changing our view of how light works. Rather we are simply getting better tools to solve these problems.

This is all correct, but through history, humans have always found ways around physical barriers if the need or greed is sufficient, hence atomic force and electron microscopes. Many of the things we take for granted, and use routinely today, didn't even exist in science fiction 50 years ago. Somehow, the fantasy of most humans seems to be inferior to what is achievable in the real world.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Great discussion (really, it has been)... but it makes my decision to shoot film for a few months all the more comforting.

 

[Wayne Fox]

Well Wayne,

if this is the case, you are probably not the right user for the D800E and I would really consider selling this "bad" camera and further enjoy you tech cam.

A final word to print sizes - I cannot get any longer impressed by these numbers being thrown around when it comes to how big you can print, since I have seen stunning results from 10MP cameras printed 3x2m (how much is that in inch?).

And WRT to comparing - it is 40MP against 36MP, so it is not so odd as comparing 80MP to 36MP - right?

lets not read things into that are not intended, and were not stated. I only offered a different perspective ... I assume you might agree not everyone is like you? Your post basically stated that something about the d800 gave you more opportunities to create more images, and I stated I didn't find that to be true in my case.

I certainly understand their are many shooting styles and end goals when creating images, and for many a dSLR fits them much better. But that doesn't mean everyone should fit that mold, does it? So I simply offered a different point of view coming from a long time MF shooter ... both film and digital since the first 16mp Kodak DCS back.

I never said the d800 was a "bad" camera. I just stated I struggle getting what I want out of the files (I'm not alone in that) and I haven't found any opportunities as of yet to choose using it in place of the DF/IQ180 (and that's not a tech camera, tried that and until they get good LiveView I won't try it again). That doesn't make it bad ... but if both are ready to go, then the reason I would take the Nikon is it offered me something that I needed and couldn't get out of the MF. There are many circumstances I can think of (ISO, telephoto reach, macro, Live view focusing, exposures over 45 seconds are a few reasons the Nikon would be prefered). Shooting more images isn't a reason, since I"ll probably create about the same number of images no matter which system I'm using. The Nikon isn't "faster" for me to use.

If I find myself only rarely doing so it doesn't make much sense to keep the system. In those circumstances the NEX delivers pretty dang good results and actually accomplishes a goal the Nikon really doesn't although ... small and light. As I said my Nikon bag is only 3 lbs lighter than my PhaseOne DF bag. My NEX bag however, even with the Zeiss primes is substantially lighter.

As far as your statement that you saw "one" large print that managed to look "OK" from a 10 mp camera so printing large isn't worth putting in the discussion ... I'm not really sure what to say to that. I print hundreds of images each month through my store and I have seen hundreds of customers try to stretch their poor resolution images to well past the breaking point. (I also have hundreds of images from lower res cameras myself). A rare image can really go a long way .. usually because it has no real detail to speak of. But the difference between a 40x60 from a d800 and a 60 or 80mp digital back is readily apparent in a vast majority of images. That doesn't make the d800 prints bad, they just aren't as clean. Go to 90" and even the IQ180 images struggle to look "clean" and not digital.

 

[Wayne Fox]

Great discussion (really, it has been)... but it makes my decision to shoot film for a few months all the more comforting.

I'm thinking of buying a Fuji617 system and shoot some film as well ... I'd like to experience something unique like that.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I'm thinking of buying a Fuji617 system and shoot some film as well ... I'd like to experience something unique like that.

Wayne - that's so ironic. I actually bought a Fuji G617 yesterday myself!

 

[jerome]

Hi !

Here my 2 euro cents !

I've received my D800E, just have to say that the lenses I had are useless : Nikkor D , was nice lenses, but for D800E, so bad. I bought the 85 1.8 G. Not so bad, but, the photos from my old H3D31 are far better (IQ speaking). You can't compare a H4D50 with a D800E.

Now, I don't regret my purchase, because, those two cameras are complementary : Hassy is wonderful for High IQ photos, landscape and every time I need to focus only on photos.

But D800E is fast, light and allows to take more natural photos.

But, I'm very interested to know what lenses I need to buy to get better results with my D800E.

 

[Paratom]

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.

I think there are more people tha we believe - however just a minority posting in the internet about this. Look how few S2 owners post over here and we know that there were several thousands sold.

Besides the rich hobby-guys I think there are some photographer who do not want to compete in the low/medium price battle of photographers and which do have a very high quality approach. Of course it is all about skills, but if gear helps to additionally impress customers than it is welcome.
If those people spend 25k for upgrading to a newer digital back which they can use for 24-36 months (the lenses even longer) than I would think the additional cost might not be the problem.

 

[yaya]

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.

To follow this theory and to put things into perspective....in the same 10 years we went from tethered-only (no LCD) 11MP to fully portable 80MP which is also more than twice the physical size so if we stick to your prediction in 10 years we'll have 560MP which probably won't be more expensive than the current 80MP and will have features that even we cannot dream about today...

Just sayin'...oke:

 

[Pingang]

The biggest problem is not the camera and sensor or the photographer, the limitation is the entire printing industries can't deliver all the pixels we produce or the resolution of screen - even the retina display, has met what human eyes can best resolve and barely able to show the full image.
In this case, the continue development of course will not stop, because the flexibility to allow creative crop will increase, but then the dependence of high-end gear will eventually reduce because the media at the consumer end has more and more, and more options.
I love shooting stills and over the years have enjoying shooting with all the fun gears but I am also not optimized that the traditional capture will last forever as main stream production, they will probably never be totally replaced as LP, but shooting 5-8K 60-120fps day will come - in a handheld package perhaps with 5-stops IS and produce beautiful ISO 6400 files, cost not much more than 1DX or the H4D40.
All that does not mean the definition of quality changed, the old file I made with my P25 still look very good today, and I am certain the file from my P65+ and IQ180 will still be regarded very good 10 years later, but we are not in a world of only photographers, we are in a world of consumer that absolute best does not always matter, state of the art matters more.

BR,
Pingang

 

[torger]

I think there is a limit to how much resolution people care to have, and that we are close to that now. The problem for MF is that it may turn out that 135 DSLRs also can reach that limit. Is the D800 there? I don't know.

Full RGB pixels, non-linear response to drastically increase full-well capacity, less color cast issues I think is much more attractive features that increasing past 80 megapixels. It is harder to achieve though.

If we do start to see sensors with non-linear response (I have some vague memory that I've seen a sony patent) it may be possible to gather lots of photons in very small pixels, which means that we can get much higher image quality out of smaller sensors. Then it is about optics, I don't know how sharp optics can be made, but my feeling is that we are already pushing the limits of current lens manufacturing technology. Even if sensors develop we may be forced to stay with larger systems if optics cannot be made sharp enough for smaller sizes.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

To follow this theory and to put things into perspective....in the same 10 years we went from tethered-only (no LCD) 11MP to fully portable 80MP which is also more than twice the physical size so if we stick to your prediction in 10 years we'll have 560MP which probably won't be more expensive than the current 80MP and will have features that even we cannot dream about today...

Just sayin'...oke:

In both cases, the potential resolution will be more than almost any photographer will find useful. So to stay competitive, MF manufacturers need to find other improvement areas.

 

[fotografz]

The biggest problem is not the camera and sensor or the photographer, the limitation is the entire printing industries can't deliver all the pixels we produce or the resolution of screen - even the retina display, has met what human eyes can best resolve and barely able to show the full image.
In this case, the continue development of course will not stop, because the flexibility to allow creative crop will increase, but then the dependence of high-end gear will eventually reduce because the media at the consumer end has more and more, and more options.
I love shooting stills and over the years have enjoying shooting with all the fun gears but I am also not optimized that the traditional capture will last forever as main stream production, they will probably never be totally replaced as LP, but shooting 5-8K 60-120fps day will come - in a handheld package perhaps with 5-stops IS and produce beautiful ISO 6400 files, cost not much more than 1DX or the H4D40.
All that does not mean the definition of quality changed, the old file I made with my P25 still look very good today, and I am certain the file from my P65+ and IQ180 will still be regarded very good 10 years later, but we are not in a world of only photographers, we are in a world of consumer that absolute best does not always matter, state of the art matters more.

BR,
Pingang

Yep, we live in a technocratic society that will only get more involved with the most recent specs of gadgets as opposed to their actual application, and an appreciation of those who master them to actually say something.

However, technology never seems to be a replacement for human creativity and sensitivity. 12fps has just never quite replaced the well seen, well timed still shot. Neither has 30 fps. The human psyche still has the capacity to be moved by the well seen, and well timed image. Shooting an amazing sunset at 120fps doesn't mitigate the act of choosing the one frame that says it all ... it just increases the burden of choice. In fact, it endangers the ability to select by pounding the senses into oatmeal.

The more practical aspects of "common" photographic capture may be under assault by encroaching auto-tecno-revolutions, yet there still exists many applications that benefit from lesser known existing technologies that require craftsmanship ... craftsmanship that affect the masses of viewers without them even knowing. They may subscribe it to technology because they want to believe anything is possible by anyone ... but it isn't, and never has been.

-Marc

 

[torger]

In both cases, the potential resolution will be more than almost any photographer will find useful. So to stay competitive, MF manufacturers need to find other improvement areas.

Make it the price please

I think MF lenses and body prices are quite understandable, but I have never figured out why the digital backs must be so super-expensive. I know the sensors are expensive due to their large size, but a $4000 sensor makes it into a $40K digital back? Why must the rest cost $36K? It seems to me that the margin on backs is much much higher than margin on other MF gear.

 

[fotografz]

Make it the price please

I think MF lenses and body prices are quite understandable, but I have never figured out why the digital backs must be so super-expensive. I know the sensors are expensive due to their large size, but a $4000 sensor makes it into a $40K digital back? Why must the rest cost $36K? It seems to me that the margin on backs is much much higher than margin on other MF gear.

True, back prices seem crazy.

But so does the persistent quote of $40,000. I wonder how many have actually paid that much? I'm sure some have to be on the cusp for a few months or a year, and maybe so do institutions ... but really, $40K is the benchmark price?

A Hasselblad H4D starts at $12K for camera and back BEFORE working a deal with a reseller, $15K with a 35-90 before dealing. The CFV/50 is now $14K and prices for V camera gear is shamefully low. The biggest baddest Hasselblad specialty back on the planet including the camera body, the H4D/200 is $35K before any wrangling ... and LOT less if you have some decrepit old DB to trade in which can be had on e-bay for $2500.

Not to mention $10K for a Pentax 645.

Now, if you do not subscribe to the difference in the look and feel of MFD at any resolution, then it is all outrageous.

-Marc

BTW, I'm all for low prices and as low as they can go while still allowing the companies to stay in business.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Reality is more like 30k or less as maybe a good average. Really only 1 or 2 backs that would cost more at check writing time. No one pays list.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Bottom line is you wont see radical cost changes this Photokinia is my call nor will we see anything announced in that 10k range new with some bite to it. My prediction.


Side bar. First time in 36 years a package from B&H is lost in the UPS black hole system. Still stuck in NY and not in my hands. I requested a reissue of my order to be overnighted to me. Let's see how they respond to this one. LOL

Zeiss 25 f2

 

[MGrayson]

Reality is more like 30k or less as maybe a good average. Really only 1 or 2 backs that would cost more at check writing time. No one pays list.

And if having a DB for a tech camera is the most important criterion, rather than, say, MP or sensor size, then you can get in for significantly less and stay newest generation.

Nevertheless, I would love for MFDB prices to drop, even if I took a beating on my initial "investment". Camera equipment (at least the electronics bits) is not an investment.