Why did you go back to full frame DSLR?

[torger]

I think the tech camera use case is still pretty strong. It's not about the backs, but about the camera and lenses.

I use tilt and/or shift in almost all my pictures. Sure I could alter my style to not require it, but it would be a different shooting style and look. I think that perspective control through shift and DoF control through tilt gives a much larger difference in look than the subtle differences you can see in color rendition etc (to me that part is just different, can't say one is better than the other, but then I do landscape not skin tones).

Sure there are tilt-shift lenses for the 135 systems, but the key focal length 35mm is missing (I use the 1.4x teleconverter on the TS-E 24 II a lot when I shoot Canon), and the optical quality except for Canon's new versions are a little lacking, and longer focal lengths (90mm+) are missing too. With tech cameras there are more focal lengths to choose from which I find important. So far I have six lenses with my tech camera, and I use them all quite frequently, and still like to have more .

Despite that I have only a 33 megapixel back (for economical reasons) for my Linhof Techno and I have to struggle more with dynamic range than I would with a D800 I prefer to use this for my landscape photography. And it's not the back that's the attraction, it's the camera and lenses.

However, I think the tech cameras is moving in the wrong direction and I'm a bit worried about that. There is a limit to how precise you can make a camera with movements. Instead of accepting that and say the sweet-spot is f/11 at 60 megapixels (larger apertures and higher resolution may make parallelism issues etc visible to the pixelpeeper), cameras are made more rigid movements are reduced, lens designs are changed to super-corrected retrofocus, so in the end you'll have a camera just as limited as a DSLR tilt-shift lens with the same lens look with the only feature higher resolution. I'm not super-thrilled by focal plane shutters either, it's probably the future as copal is discontinued but I think keeping the tech cam more different from a DSLR is an advantage instead of making it more similar. Because one of the key attractions of using MF is that one is using something different.

 

[fotografz]

IMO, we have to take care in making a laundry list of rationale that panders to one's specific predilections, but presents as an absolute. Reasons to use a particular format need not be funded by a passion to spend tens of thousands ... as if only an indefensible action of a rich idiot.

In fact, it need not be a format question at all using that criteria. Merely look at those easily spending up to $40K on a Leica M digital kit replete with items like a 50/2 @ $7,200 or an $11,000 50/0.95 Noctilux ... to name a few.

The passion is for specificity in imagery and an experiential relationship with a specific tool

... be it an old MF film camera with its' signature look and feel that some feel can't be duplicated, yet others wouldn't want even if it were free ... or a $1K NEX mirrorless that some may feel is almost as good as the $7K Leica M, produces better color rendering and offers AF to boot, allows use of pass-through TTL radio transmitters, takes a myriad of lenses some of which retain that AF, has a better focus peaking system, and an LCD review magnification that can be scrolled, etc., etc. Skewed rationale that makes the act of securing a M system an indefensible act of a rich idiot.

It totally depends on a need for specifics that best aid in producing the imagery one desires.

My S system specifics meets my needs to produce my desired imagery: a laundry list, but one specifically of my own that doesn't negate the choices others may make and paint them the fool.

- Big bright viewfinder no 35mm can ever match.

- Same ratio, but larger sensor size than any 35mm DSLR ... producing a specific MF signature, albeit less of it than the big gun 645 sensors.

- The simplest, fastest, most personally adaptable and easy control layout of any camera I've ever used ... and I've used them all.

- Versatility in meeting my lighting needs that no 35mm DSLR offers, and second only to Phase One with LS lenses for high sync speed (speed-lights don't cut it for most of the work I do, including the Nikon system which I tried and rejected. I'll take Profoto AIR with full AIR sync, AIR levels control at the camera, and on demand lighting power that would require a bushel basket full of speed-lights crammed into one modifier to match ... for my varied applications both outdoors- i.e., overcome the sun ... or in the studio- i.e., stopped down macro work at minimum ISO ).

- A consistent set of ground-up designed focal lengths that do not struggle to keep up with the sensor ... and in fact easily outperform it so as to avoid obsolescence should the resolution increase in future. For me, native AF lenses are the reason to own a system, and I do not want to revert back to manual focus only lenses to get the look I prefer ... which is why I do not own a Nikon.

- A vast pool of other MF optics for creative selection ... fully functional H lenses (including high sync speeds or focal plane, and AF), Fully functional Contax 645 optics, beloved Zeiss CF and FE, Pentax, etc.

- So far, better service response than anything I experienced with Canon or Nikon, who are squeezing out the independent repair places, and are now rejecting warranty work with claims of abuse at a record level (massive complaint thread about this on the Digital Wedding Forum, whom mostly use Canon and Nikon products).


BTW, the luxury car analogy is a non sequitur ... it has nothing to do with functional photography needs, or creative subjectivity.


- Marc

 

[Paratom]

Here is my subjective experience:
When I shoot ff-DSLR: The images do look good on the camera screen, and in most cases do look similary good when I view or print them later on;
I get many many "just fine" images (if we talk about technical IQ, my skills are another question ); Many images look 95% right to me in regards of color/detail/tones; but not often would they blow me away.

When I shoot Leica S: Images look good on camera-display-review, but when I look at them later or print them, they look even better than expected. Sometimes I see details in the images which I have not seen in reality.
I shoot less images of the same subject, get less "good" images, but almost always some which look 99% right to me in regards of IQ. It lo
It seems quite easy to get what I want even with much post processing knowledge;

 

[Shashin]

There are two fundamental criteria in a camera for me:

1. I think it is cool.

2. I can afford it.

Everything else is rather secondary.

 

[jerome]

I use the H4D50 for landscape. I find the results excellent and the large viewfinder helps to compose and big camera slow the process, so images are better to me. File are amazing for post production

I use D800e when I need to react quickly or to be more discreet : street photo. With good lens, result is very good and street photos don't need all those details.

Tilt-shift is a difficult game and my next challenge. Moving to tech cam or to the HTS is the question. It's difficult to focus with the HTS in the field and results have been disappointing for me (not so much keepers, focus error, DOF error).

In fact, the d50 back doesn't seem to fit with tech cams and I don't know what are the plus vs the HTS.

At the end, I really love my H4d50 but I like very much my D800e.

 

[GrahamWelland]

There are two fundamental criteria in a camera for me:

1. I think it is cool.

2. I can afford it.

Everything else is rather secondary.

I may have to change my signature line. :ROTFL:

 

[MaxKißler]

Well, I'm not sure whether this is a contribution to the thoughts that were already expresed here but here's my story anyway. I've recently made the switch from MF to 35mm. I sold my entire RZ67 gear to a friend of mine.
I think she made the right choice as she shoots film a lot and hope she'll be happy with it. It was a tough call but since I had no 35mm camera it was the only reasonable decision to make. If I were photographing solely for the fun of it, I'll probably have kept it, but focussing the RZ with a digital back was permanently eating up my concentration. This was very frustrating especially when I had to focus on more important aspects during a shooting. I'm not saying the RZ was impossible to focus, but with the tolerance levels of digital photography compared to film it was just no fun (especially the short FLs like the 50mm ULD).

So after all I ended up getting a Leica M9 and so far I'm most happy with it. Why didn't I get a D800e you might ask. The reason is very simple: Files!
There are certain kind of files I like working with and some I totally hate working with. This applied to the 5D MkII I once owned and does to the D800 aswell as most other 35mm cameras I tested. I've got the impression that it has something to do with CMOS sensors but I don't claim to know anything for sure. It's just a feeling you know. But whenever adjusting contrast for example, images taken with these CMOS based cameras seem to oversaturate disproportionately high which is a behavior I dislike the most. And skin tones are always off. I'm not talking about a correct WB but about skin tones that almost always need some working on. This is something I find way too time consuming and therefore totally unacceptable.

Of course I still own my Aptus 22 and Mamiya AFD II. This system does almost everything a 35mm DSLR does. By my standard it even exceeds probably 99% of all 35mm cameras. The camera has AF and the back produces files of such great colors and clarity that they often require only little PP. Almost the exact same applies to the M9 files. They seem to be just right, right out of the box.
I'm not even missing the RZ's leaf shutter lenses when shooting with flash outdoors. I simply slap on a ND filter on the Leica and don't bother as I don't have to focus through the lens.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Max: I applaud your choices.

I miss my M9's and doubtless will get another M9P at some point. I sort of loath my DF (soon to be DF+) but it actually does the job and the glass is pretty darned decent really. Compared to the D800/D600 etc I'd rather shoot the M every time. The Leica glass is definitely different to anything Nikon & Canon offer and it is the main difference I think, combined with the Leica superb rendering.

My tech camera is my love. I simply just enjoy using it and that means a digital back, although I do also use film with it.

Ironically, I recently bought a RZ67 Pro II to complement the DF & Alpa because I really like the system although I haven't had the joy of fighting with the 50 ULD or 37mm and I've only been shooting film so far. (My Pro IID & digital adapter arrives in a few days).

 

[ptomsu]

Hello,

I am new to the forum and am considering getting an MFDB. After doing a lot of reading here, it seems that some people have given up MFDB and returned to full frame DSLRs.

Now that it is mid-2013 and the D800(e) is a well-proven machine, and Canon has hints of an even higher MP DSLR for 2014 possibly, it seems the future cost/benefits of MFDB are even murkier.

I am curious... Who here has recently left MFDB for the D800(e), and why did you do it?

Many thanks in advance for your views. They will help me form some of my own future plans.

John

My answer is maybe a bit late but here we go:

I left MFDB (Hasselblad) more than a year ago when I got my D800E. Reasons are simple

1) MF too expensive and not really justifyable difference to D800E if this one is properly used with right lenses - do not listen to comments here where people say they see the differences, I am sure they don't, this is all marketing hype and nothing for real life

2) DSLR is lighter and more convenient

3) much more (excellent) lens choices

4) much much better AF

5) much CHEAPER!!!!

6) could go on like this for a while ......

Recently talked to one of my dealers where I still have a HC 100 for sale and nobody wants to buy it, as currently the market is swamped with MF gear and lenses. One of the worse is Leica S System he said, especially after the new S showed up - well I had suspected this situation already some years ago

SO my good advice - go with DSLR (either D800E or a future Canon or a future D4X etc) and you will be more than happy and still have some money left for whatever other things you enjoy in life.

 

[GrahamWelland]

just make sure that shooting 2:3 suits you. If not, look elsewhere (or crop).

 

[fotografz]

My answer is maybe a bit late but here we go:

I left MFDB (Hasselblad) more than a year ago when I got my D800E. Reasons are simple

1) MF too expensive and not really justifyable difference to D800E if this one is properly used with right lenses - do not listen to comments here where people say they see the differences, I am sure they don't, this is all marketing hype and nothing for real life

2) DSLR is lighter and more convenient

3) much more (excellent) lens choices

4) much much better AF

5) much CHEAPER!!!!

6) could go on like this for a while ......

Recently talked to one of my dealers where I still have a HC 100 for sale and nobody wants to buy it, as currently the market is swamped with MF gear and lenses. One of the worse is Leica S System he said, especially after the new S showed up - well I had suspected this situation already some years ago

SO my good advice - go with DSLR (either D800E or a future Canon or a future D4X etc) and you will be more than happy and still have some money left for whatever other things you enjoy in life.

Well stated opinion ... no beating around the bush with you.

By your reasoning, the smaller mirror-less cameras seem a better choice than what you did, and you should sell your Nikon for one of them.


- 1/3 the price. Much, much less expensive lenses.


- Huge selection of lenses including incomparable Leica M lenses for the optical fanatic.


- Much, much smaller. More convenient, promoting "take with" over any 35mm DSLR.


- Image quality that many think as good as any 35mm DSLR. Do not listen to comments to the contrary, there is no practical difference for 95% of user applications, and there will be no debatable difference when FF Mirrorless soon hits the street. As a preview of things to come, most Leica M users already think their FF files superior to the D800.


- 35mm DSLR sales are down a lot ... the format is a "dead man walking" but just doesn't know it yet. The general consumer will speak, and write the format's epitaph. The era of the brick on shoulder is coming to a close. Without P&S or 35mm DSLR sales to general consumers, there will be no source of funding for the meger amount of higher end 35mm DSLRs ... this info is all over the business pages since the latest sales reports were released.

Flee while you can.


:ROTFL:


- Marc

BTW, I have had numerous offers for my HC100/2.2 and could have sold 5 of them If I was interested in doing so ... which I am not. I hope you are right regarding everyone dumping their S2s for the new S ... it'll keep Leica financially flush, and provide a chance for me to eventually get a second S2 for a song :thumbup:

 

[Swissblad]

By following the above arguments, I can see why I finally settled for an iPhone.... especially now that Sony makes dedicated lens/camera modules:

Those are the Sony DSC-QX10 and DSC-QX100 lens camera modules for smart phones | Photo Rumors

No more lugging a DSLR, mirrorless or what ever for me - hooray!

 

[fotografz]

By following the above arguments, I can see why I finally settled for an iPhone.... especially now that Sony makes dedicated lens/camera modules:

Those are the Sony DSC-QX10 and DSC-QX100 lens camera modules for smart phones | Photo Rumors

No more lugging a DSLR, mirrorless or what ever for me - hooray!

Hee, hee, ahead of the curve already!

Check out the Schneider iPro lens series for the iPhone 4/4S and 5. The Series 2 Trio kit with 2X tele, Super-Wide, and Macro! ...plus even a handle. Freaking Schneider no less!

iPro Lens System

It is conceivable that the next round or two of smart phones will further drive a stake into the hearts of most traditional camera company's offerings unless they get much larger sensors into much smaller cameras fast, and learn how to market the advantages of a larger sensor. Perhaps this is what Canon has realized if the rumors are true?

Here is a chilling POV on why camera sales are down by 43% in N. America. Not that I agree with it all, but there are some interesting points being made that seem to be reflected in real life numbers ... like such a huge decline in such a short amount of time.

The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Has the bubble burst? Is that why camera sales in N. America are down by 43%?

I think it is possible that the photo world will become polarized into two basic camps ... smart phone type devices with ever increasing capabilities, flexibility, software solutions, creative choices, increased convenience, sharing connectivity and a ubiquitous presence at all times, everywhere on Earth, (the latter already being true).

Or specialty devices with huge sensors, much larger than 35mm with endless abilities to customize without flushing thousand$ down the toilet to get a new feature ... and touted as the artistic and contemplative choice ... like large format was with film, and MFD 645 ... only easier to carry and use. The issue with the latter is who is going to make it if sustaining revenue from consumer camera sales dry up?

The other real possibility is game changing technology that disintegrates all existing photo capturing devices ... which the phone folks will simply adopt since they are necessary devices for many other reasons ... while dedicated camera companies will evaporate along with their products.

Grab your arses everyone ... we are about to go on an interesting ride.


- Marc

 

[proenca]

Well, I ditched my Leica S system recently.

Didnt go for DSLR but "back to my roots", ie my M system.

I had SLR for years and years , then switched to DSLR and their infite variations ( started with Nikon D80, D100, D1x, changed to Fuji S2, S3, S5 then back to Nikon D2h, D2x then jumped to Canon 1Ds, 1Ds II ) and then "landed" on Leica M7.

Yap, traded all that digital stuff for a analog camera and loved it so much, that I bought a Leica MP when my M7 was stolen.

When the M8 appeared, I jumped on it and used it for ages ( skip the M8.2 ) and when the M9 was launched, bought of the first ones that arrived in Portugal.

After a few thousand clicks, went to Leica S2.

Files were gigantic, its really a big Leica M sensor with a magnificient viewfinder, great AF and weather seal.

It's a perfect camera ( or close ) but...

Its big. Its a dwarf in MF land but vs RF its big. vs a DSLR its pretty much a tad less bulkier than a 1DS and handles much better but.. for everyday usage, family pictures and my own amusement, its a bit overkill.

So sold it and my wife said "dont buy another camera. your face lights up when you take pictures with the Leica M. If you buy another M, buy the newer after the M9, dont go nuts and crazy with a SLR. You seem to enjoy so much taking pictures with it, something I've never seen even with the big Leica ( S2 ) ".

So there you go, I've come back to my trusty old M9 ( never sold it ) and I'm a happy camper.

The slow, mechanical, "must think before doing" process is something i enjoy a lot and I love the RF experience.

MF is really king of the hill and in terms of absolute image quality, simply, there is no substituite. Nothing even comes close.

D800E and the likes are very very good but they are miles apart.

For me, and for me only, Leica M9/M240 is a experience that cannot be matched.

Its a dying breed in the world of smartphones with huge cameras and stabilizations, gimmicks and son on, but a iPhone with Instagram cannot ever replace the joy of shooting with a Leica - at least for me.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I was with a client yesterday which sells art to corporate clients and what I found disturbing for someone that works in our industry she knew nothing about MF capture. Asked me several times can my images go big which most images are MF and I tried to explain my files are the best in the industry (size wise) that is. I also let her know I actually teach photography and she still looked at me puzzled, dazed and confused about it. Could not get the concept that I can print as big as a house with them. No excuse she sells art and she should be telling me her needs. I was dumbfounded to say the least. How damn far do we have to educate this industry.

My morning rant sorry for going off topic but clients are clueless sometimes. Oh and than I heard of the shrinking market and everyone with a iPhone is a photographer. So prices are peanuts compared to yesteryear. Hello tell me something I don't live daily. I'm going to go flip burgers for a living. LOL

 

[Swissblad]

Thanks for the last 3 contributions Marc, Proenca and Guy - all very different - but all very insightful.

I do believe we are entering a world where everybody with an iPhone is a photographer - akin to anybody who can type with 2 fingers using MS word is a peer of Steinbeck or Hemingway - while those of us who love the craft and the special tools (M9, MF etc) are an archaic dying breed.

Sadly, it is not restricted to photography but the arts as a whole.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

There are two fundamental criteria in a camera for me:

1. I think it is cool.

2. I can afford it.

Everything else is rather secondary.

Eventually, we'll agree on something, but my criteria is:

1. It serves my purpose

2. It's reliable

 

[Steen]

But don't you ask that question in the m4/3 forum? The folks that sold off their DSLR would most likely not be in the DSLR forum anymore and would be in the m4/3 forum. It is illogical to go to a group and ask people why they are no longer members of that group. :loco: (...)

Of course your point is logical, Shashin, but as there is no such thing as a non brand-specific 24x36 format board it is actually ok with me to discuss it on the other format board which I'm sure is followed with great interest even by those who (temporarily) have left the format for another format.
Still, personally I think the only place I would ever dare start a format discussion is the Sunset Bar, late night, starting with placing a bottle of single malt in the middle of the large, round table

On a serious note, for me a larger sensor area will always mean room for larger photosites, i.e. larger wells gathering more light (all else equal).
I believe the general rule still counts that "the larger the photosites, the better the image quality" (all else equal).
And that goes for the entire range of digital formats:
Tiny sensors >> 1" >> Four-Thirds >> APS-C >> 35mm >> Medium Format >> and maybe even larger formats in some distant future

So in general: the larger the better, in my opinion.
From there I just pick the Price to Quality Ratio that I regard as the sweet spot. For me that is.
Shortly put: at the end it's all about bang for the buck. Which in my opinion basically ought to make the subject completely harmless instead of being so taboo.
For some odd reason some people quickly start making fun of others instead of just sharing their personal experiences, views and illustrations with the rest of us.
We do not need to agree on everything.

Personally I'd love to own and shoot a 645D, it's just that Medium Format is still too expensive for my taste since the average life cycle of digital cameras is so scary short.
But someday I'll get there. Sooner or later.
Maybe sooner if one of the big players with the necessary R&D weight steps into the format and make a modern Digital Medium Format camera at a more competitive price than what we have seen so far.
Imagine a new beast with electronic shutter, light metering and focusing directly on the sensor, no mirror, no slap, etc. etc.

 

[Steen]

Sorry to hear about that Steen - which DX system are you considering?
The FX D600 has pretty good IQ at a good price.

Thanks, Swiss, actually right now I'm so frustrated and angry that I don't quite know where to go from here.
I feel a bit like expressed on the poster over the girls left shoulder, see the below snapshot crop. Not good for my karma

So for a while I think I'm just going back to my six year old APS-C D300 and a couple of old F3 film cameras.
I've just bought a couple of film rolls and hope they can make me relax and think a bit more clearly.
Soon you may hear me say that APS-C is every bit as good as full-frame .-)

After all it's only gear, and Guy, I'm with you, there are far more important things in life !

©lick for a bit larger size


© • Nikon D800E • AF-S Nikkor 1.8/28mm G • 1/90 sec. at f/5.6 ISO 800 • heavily cropped in Lightroom 4.4​

 

[Steen]

Sorry for the slight digressions above, just felt I ought to answer those couple of questions.
Now back on topic.
To the OP:

Guy Mancuso showed some comparison pictures between the two formats in this (very long) thread http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/35804-nikon-d800-first-blush.html

And Tim Ashley also showed some comparison illustrations in this thread http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/36838-someone-had-do.html

The threads also contain some downloadable RAW files to process after your own taste.
I'm all in for illustrations to back up claims.