Peter, do you really believe this is the case? I dont.
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!
Will Nikon launch a 52MP D4X?
- Thread starter Swissblad
- Start date
The industry has been in decline since the invention of quick-load sheet film (nearly 100 years ago) ...and (as always) the way to get a premium for professional work is to be able to do things that amateurs cannot do with amateur equipment.
The instant feed-back of digital means that anyone can be assured that their settings were near enough before they put the camera down.
johnnygoesdigital
New member
Dick-
Agreed, the learning curve is greatly reduced with digital, so as you say "anyone" really, can be a photographer, and that's where you separate the artists from the shooters; it's mostly apparent in their portfolios.
Marc- My experience with MFD, wasn't about whether the camera could keep up with the the bells and whistles or high ISO, of a 35mm DSLR. It was that fact that the mechanics of the cameras or DB itself would not function. Shutters mostly, but enough to render the MFD a boat anchor. I purchased MFD because I wanted the best and figured that these cameras must be worth it...they are not. You once complained about your first S2, but you were able to find one that did function correctly. Every MFD camera I owned, except the H3DII, had shutter malfunctions or DB glitches. In fairness, the DF, I briefly owned did not malfunction, but I hated the design. Also, the S2 did not have enough lenses at the time to justify the expense, and was too close to 35mmDSLR, for the price...imo. I never said my experience was indicative of everyones, but it's my experience. I just want a useable camera that works. Price to performance disparity is not new, but the Nikon D800 has changed that! Gauging something to be better than another starts with a camera that functions, to at least have a reference.
Agreed, the learning curve is greatly reduced with digital, so as you say "anyone" really, can be a photographer, and that's where you separate the artists from the shooters; it's mostly apparent in their portfolios.
Marc- My experience with MFD, wasn't about whether the camera could keep up with the the bells and whistles or high ISO, of a 35mm DSLR. It was that fact that the mechanics of the cameras or DB itself would not function. Shutters mostly, but enough to render the MFD a boat anchor. I purchased MFD because I wanted the best and figured that these cameras must be worth it...they are not. You once complained about your first S2, but you were able to find one that did function correctly. Every MFD camera I owned, except the H3DII, had shutter malfunctions or DB glitches. In fairness, the DF, I briefly owned did not malfunction, but I hated the design. Also, the S2 did not have enough lenses at the time to justify the expense, and was too close to 35mmDSLR, for the price...imo. I never said my experience was indicative of everyones, but it's my experience. I just want a useable camera that works. Price to performance disparity is not new, but the Nikon D800 has changed that! Gauging something to be better than another starts with a camera that functions, to at least have a reference.
Last edited:
johnnygoesdigital
New member
You've kinda made my point. Although, your analogy is confusing.
Everyone knows that Alpa and Arca Swiss are outstanding cameras, and yes, you need to add components to exploit the full potential. Yes, there expensive, but you most certainly get what you paid for! That I don't mind. I'm not sure of any photographers who would not be offended by paying these prices for MFD and expecting the gear to actually function, if it doesn't.
What I want from MFD, is for them to make a good camera that's worth what they charge. It's really pretty simple. Then I'll be a loyal customer.
Last edited:
paulraphael
Member
The closest parallel I see to the small format / medium format relationship is the relationship between personal computers and high end workstations. This is a fundamentally imperfect comparison (I'll get to that) but I think it's a useful one.
Twenty or thirty years ago, there were distinct classes of computers, with the workstations costing roughly ten times as much as the PCs, and being specialized, complex, lumbering tools for professionals who needed power that wasn't available elsewhere. Over the next couple of decades, the march of technology narrowed the performance gap more and more, while economies of scale kept the price gap very large.
This meant that the line between "I must have a workstation to do this" and "I can do this on a PC" kept shifting, year after year.
I see this same phenomenon happening in photography. It pre-dates digital, in fact, but I'm sticking to digital because it's the sphere where the types of technology and the pace of change are most comparable. There are important differences between computers and cameras: the price of large sensors does not fall the way the price of small sensors with more densely-packed circuits does. This is a physical-world limitation concerning manufacture of big pieces of silicon. Likewise the price/quality of optics doesn't fall like the price/quality of electronics.
So there are very real limitations that are keeping small formats from sweeping in and obsoleting bigger ones. They will, however, continue to narrow the gap. And every year there will be more photographers who for the first time will say "I can do this with that cheap little camera instead of that big expensive one."
This is a GOOD thing. I just hope that its effect on the MF digital industry is positive (by increasing competition and innovation) and not a destructive way (by pushing them farther to the margins, and making their economy of scale situation even worse).
Twenty or thirty years ago, there were distinct classes of computers, with the workstations costing roughly ten times as much as the PCs, and being specialized, complex, lumbering tools for professionals who needed power that wasn't available elsewhere. Over the next couple of decades, the march of technology narrowed the performance gap more and more, while economies of scale kept the price gap very large.
This meant that the line between "I must have a workstation to do this" and "I can do this on a PC" kept shifting, year after year.
I see this same phenomenon happening in photography. It pre-dates digital, in fact, but I'm sticking to digital because it's the sphere where the types of technology and the pace of change are most comparable. There are important differences between computers and cameras: the price of large sensors does not fall the way the price of small sensors with more densely-packed circuits does. This is a physical-world limitation concerning manufacture of big pieces of silicon. Likewise the price/quality of optics doesn't fall like the price/quality of electronics.
So there are very real limitations that are keeping small formats from sweeping in and obsoleting bigger ones. They will, however, continue to narrow the gap. And every year there will be more photographers who for the first time will say "I can do this with that cheap little camera instead of that big expensive one."
This is a GOOD thing. I just hope that its effect on the MF digital industry is positive (by increasing competition and innovation) and not a destructive way (by pushing them farther to the margins, and making their economy of scale situation even worse).
I'm truly sorry your experience soured you on a great image making format. In contrast, I've had eight HD cameras, and only the very first one (H2D/22) had issues because they tried to implement direct capture of DNG before its time. Hasselblad replaced the camera with a brand new non-DNG one over-night.
By sticking with the H, I can now play it like an instrument, and do not find it lacking in any way for what and how I shoot ... which covers a pretty diverse array of applications.
Oh, and I've had to have one HC lens repaired for AF .... the very first HC lens I bought years ago, and most heavily used ...
The S2 did have issues at first ... but to Leica's credit they provided A1 pro service and overnighted a loaner until mine was repaired. No issues since.
The S2 is indeed close to a 35mm DSLR ... and had it been a 35mm R10 I still would have bought it ... because of the Leica lenses.
All the best,
-Marc
Last edited:
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Sensor wise I believe! Not WRT all components - like lenses etc.
But system wise (choice of lenses etc) it will be also true.
johnnygoesdigital
New member
Marc- your experiences with MFD, are the norm for the most part. My H2 is awesome, I should add, but mostly used with film. Indeed, played like an instrument, it becomes an extension of your creativity. I'm glad that Nikon and Sony have kinda changed the game a little because if you read this and other threads, on other forums, many are jumping the MFD ship. I'm a perfectionist who strives for the best in my photography, I'm still learning technique and theory, but the last thing that I need or want to consider, is whether the camera is up to the task.
When I testran the S2 I hoped to find something to not work or not like, for example I had some doubts the AF would be up to the task.
But in the end I couldnt find anything negative in this regard (of course AF-spped is slower than a dslr).
But I guess it is really something which has to try and to find out how good a camera works for someone.
And while DSLRs might-overall-be more "sophisticated" they are not perfect either. I have found AF inconsistencies with many, like the K5 and also the 7d when using fast lenses for example-so much that I sold those cameras even though I liked the rest of the package. (Nikon AF has allways worked fine for me by the way)
Hi Peter,
I dont have a D800 only a D700, si I cant judge from own experience, but I frankly couldnt imagine in which regard the Nikon sensor should be better than the S2 sensor...except noise at images over 640ISO.
System wise/Choice of lenses Nikon offers much more for sure if choice means the quantity to choose from.
If someone needs very wide, or very long glass, or zooms in a reasonable size I guess Canon and Nikon offer much more.
But on the other side there is no 50mm Nikon lens which offers the same quality like the 70mm/2.5 S lens (I like 50mm fov a lot),
there is not short tele lens from Nikon like the S-120/2.5 which works so well as a macro but also as a portrait lens.
So I guess it really depends a lot which range of lenses one really needs (which I am sure is very different depending on the photographer).
For my personal use I still own the Nikon for times when I would want to use fast continous AF, or longer Tele. Thats why I keep it but over the last 2 years I didnt really use the Nikon much. It might change when my kids start to do more sports.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Tom,
I am not fighting the S2 or the D800 or .... etc.
My simple comment is that the D800 has a MUCH MORE advanced sensor and processing engine like the S2 (or the H3D39, or ....). I do not like DXO tests, but just have a look and compare the D800 and H3D39 or even IQ140 or IQ180. Will not be possible for the S2 because they did not test it due to some reasons I don't know. And after having compared, then it becomes obvious where the sensor of the D800 is and where all the other sensors are.
So my point is not that the D800 is better than ...... NO, but the sensor is better and in combination with Expeed3 it is a real competition to also and even an S2.
Still waiting for my D800E, but I know already I will be very happy with it. And I also do not have all these issues with lenses, I think most of the modern nano coated lenses are pretty much up to the sensor.
WRT a light tele which can do macro - 2.8/105 VR is the answer, maybe not as stellar as the Leica 120, but I would argue not too far way.
Why do we have this discussion, just go and get a D800, you still have all your Nikon glass, and try it out yourself. And I am almost sure you will be a very happy camper.
Peter
BTW - time for Leica to bring the S3 I think in order to clearly differentiate again and also complete finally their lens lineup. Man how long is this S-lens story already going - sigh!
IMO, this is an example of the relentless reliance on constant technical changes and so called essential upgrades that have little to no impact on one's creative photographic journey.
Most of us with the S2 haven't even scratched the surface of what the camera and lenses are capable of ... let alone worry about what might be next, or next after that. Some folks seem so distracted with the science of photography, they've forgotten to keep pace with their own art of photography ... or don't have the time because they're busy touting the latest greatest instead of using it. BTW, I've been asked to write a blog entry, and this is the very subject I'm writing about.
Frankly, in my profession I review a LOT of portfolios ... and there are simply very few cases where the photographer's ideas, and execution outstrips the camera they are using. It is usually the opposite, the camera is better than they are.
My considered POV now is to live with a camera and extract every once of capability from it that I can while trying to advance my ideas and creativity ... in that pursuit, I haven't run into a "full buffer" with anything I own ... and the S2 is still better than I am able to use it.
Lens spread in the S2 is a non-issue for me and apparently others. I don't use long lenses that much so the 180 is long enough, and the S24mm is next from Leica ... which is the equivalent of a 19 or 21mm or something like that in 35mm terms ... more than wide enough for my use. To date there has been nothing I could not shoot with the 4 lenses I have, and the 70 & 120 are by far the most used of the 4. I knew what was available going in, and it is just fine for me and is exactly what I need, no more or no less.
YMMV.
-Marc
Godfrey
Well-known member
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Amazingly, these two statements are NOT inconsistent:
"This camera system is better than I am."
"A better camera system would help me."
It does not have to be one or the other. Indeed, you can throw in "I like this camera system more than that one", and STILL have no contradictions.
--Matt
"This camera system is better than I am."
"A better camera system would help me."
It does not have to be one or the other. Indeed, you can throw in "I like this camera system more than that one", and STILL have no contradictions.
--Matt
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Folks,
a classical example of reading in a post what one wants to read! Read carefully what I said and then think about and do not just start defending what you have so far.
I reiterate - I neither fight for the S2 (which obviously some continue to do) nor the D800, nor the 5D3 etc. I just said that DSLRs are coming IQ wise into the range of MFD and this at a much lower price with much more options and possibilities.
Interesting how much many feel offended - although meanwhile we are in a 35mm instead of a MFD thread
a classical example of reading in a post what one wants to read! Read carefully what I said and then think about and do not just start defending what you have so far.
I reiterate - I neither fight for the S2 (which obviously some continue to do) nor the D800, nor the 5D3 etc. I just said that DSLRs are coming IQ wise into the range of MFD and this at a much lower price with much more options and possibilities.
Interesting how much many feel offended - although meanwhile we are in a 35mm instead of a MFD thread
I would have to concur to a point that the D800 is 'getting close', not at the sensor level but as an overall instrument.
As good as my H4D is, if the D800 gets on par with the older backs, or performs to 80% of modern MFDs, given the additional flexibility I get from much faster AF, ability to shoot at ISO3200 or higher without too much image degradation, and the D800/D4 being more rugged / weather-resistant to my H4D, and if most of my clients can't tell the difference, it might actually be an interesting (and more portable) alternative / option to my H4D in some cases.
As good as my H4D is, if the D800 gets on par with the older backs, or performs to 80% of modern MFDs, given the additional flexibility I get from much faster AF, ability to shoot at ISO3200 or higher without too much image degradation, and the D800/D4 being more rugged / weather-resistant to my H4D, and if most of my clients can't tell the difference, it might actually be an interesting (and more portable) alternative / option to my H4D in some cases.
This makes zero sense to me. The medium format market is a very specialized niche. Even if Canon or Nikon were to take over the entire MFD market (highly unlikely), they'd still sell fewer medium format systems in a year than they do top-end DSLRs in a month. Significantly fewer.
The investment to produce such a new system meanwhile would be very large - lenses, accessories, and most of all sensors.
Much more likely that we see newer sensor designs and better processing. Losing the Bayer array could substantially increase detail without requiring any increase in pixel density and the loss of the mirror and mechanical shutter would majorly increase quality as well.
DH
Peter -Folks,
a classical example of reading in a post what one wants to read! Read carefully what I said and then think about and do not just start defending what you have so far.
I reiterate - I neither fight for the S2 (which obviously some continue to do) nor the D800, nor the 5D3 etc. I just said that DSLRs are coming IQ wise into the range of MFD and this at a much lower price with much more options and possibilities.
Interesting how much many feel offended - although meanwhile we are in a 35mm instead of a MFD thread
I am not offended at all - I just dont share your opinion regarding sensors.
Regards, Tom
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
I for one think it depends on the price.
And I cannot imagine that it will necessarily continue to be so expensive to manufacture e.g. a 33 x 44 mm sensor, I guess it also depends on the amount you can sell (which again depends on the price).
The manufacturers may be able to find a more competitive price to volume ratio. After all we are talking about electronics where prices tend to decrease over time.
I just think it may at some point be a more logical step to enlarge the sensor area rather than keeping cramming more and more and smaller and smaller pixels into the same sensor size.
But I'm sure you are right that sensor technology will go on improving.