Bob,
Thanks for posting this link. I had just seen it myself and thought the same thing ("let the games begin").
Maybe I am a bit slower on the uptake or something, but the data directly from the sensors that DxOMark uses surely seems to suggest the high cost MF sensors are not delivering more....at least in the parameters that are posted. Personally, I still have a hard time resolving some of this. It finally starts to hit home when one really looks at the 35mm DSLR units in their own comparison. Then it becomes clear that there are some measurable differences, with the D3X coming out on top. I still am having a hard time translating those differences to what one sees in many images, so this MF data is just going to add more twist to the knots.
My personal take on this is that the data suggests MF is only producing a much larger image, which alone can be very important. The other point that seems to come back is that the glass really must be doing a lot in MF, and we know it trumps 35mm DSLR stuff already. From all of this, one could conclude that IF the 35mm DSLR folks could start fielding better optics, they would be matching or maybe even beating MF for all but overall image size. Trust me, I find it hard for me to even type that, hence my somewhat veiled concern over just what the DxOMark stuff really means by itself, and then just how much "system" stuff goes into the mix after that.
I know this sounds all over the map (need another espresso or something today), but on the surface, it does not bode well for MF, except for maybe the very highest end new stuff (P65+ and others), which have not been tested. From other shots and discussions here, it suggests the newer, bigger sensors may have added a bit, but one has to start asking just how much extra is there and at what costs? For a handful of folks it surely will be important, but these data are suggesting that for most things, one will not see vastly superior image files from MF over DSLR....with the exception of size and maybe overall resolution with better glass.
Am I the only one starting to have that sinking feeling?
LJ
Bob,
I just spent 1 week vacation and brought a M8, D3x and Hy6 with Sinar back.
Even though I dont really want to post comparison images, because there were small "faults" like changing light, slight missfocus, differences in converters etc. my overall opinion however is the following:
1) Compared to the D3x the MF back seemed to show smoother tonal transitions, the images looks "deeper", clearer, more "3d" to me. If you pixel peep at 100% there might also be a small detail advantage, but not that much IMO. Its more the overall look of the MF image, and I believe that no AA filter and 16bit are still an advantage, however my personal feeling was that the differences are not as clear as shown in some other comparison threads. Maybe since I used high quality primes on the d3x like the 24PCE.
I also think that there is a difference in the transition between sharp and unsharp areas of the image caused by the sensor size-which leads to a smoother transition for the bigger sensor.
I am not sure about the dynamic range yet, there were some images were I though the DR from the d3x could even be a bit better than that from the SInar back-but I am really not sure at all here.
2) A slight missfocus and the detail advantage of MF seems to be gone. Besides the fast and good AF the D3x has a very good metering, a nice AWB, great high ISO etc etc. There were some situations where I took images with the d3x which would have been very difficult if not impossible to take with the MF-camera. We went into a hole of the glacier, with dim light - not much room and time and light - the d3x worked great.
3) My conclusion would be that:
MF-digital: Image quality: 99% (if you get everything right), flexibility: 40%
D3x: Image quality: 90%, flexibility 99%
For landscape and slow pace I prefer the MF, not only the IQ but also the handling, the viewfinder, the feel of the camera and lenses.
On the other side it is really hard to not nail focus, exposure etc with the d3x, in each and every situation and if you dont nail it, you can see on the display that you didnt nail it (in comparison to the display of the SInar back- they could have made it B&W and it wouldnt be much worse)
4) Regarding price of the D3x: I see that it is expensive but if you allready own good Nikon glass and see that you can get more out of your glass I think it is
5) If you dont have to print big I am stil surprized again and again by the IQ I get from the M8 - besides somewhat interesting colors sometimes.