Will Nikon launch a 52MP D4X?

[fotografz]

No offense felt here either Peter, I simply don't agree with your conclusions, and have seen nothing but words rather than images that make the points. Perhaps convincing to the ear, but totally unconvincing to the eye.

It may be a matter of language ... but the term "not fighting for" implies others are, which is a conclusion solely based on technology, and not enough association with what one's creative objectives may be ... a further indication to me of an odd obsession with technology for the sake of technology.

-Marc

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

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

Mostly just the Leica S2 shooters!

 

[fotografz]

Mostly just the Leica S2 shooters!

Now this is sounding more like a Nikon thread ... :ROTFL:

 

[Godfrey]

I think this notion of a D800 "getting close" to medium format ignores the true difference between MFD and 35mm-derivative digital ... which is the format dynamics themselves.

How well the sensors perform, how many pixels, etc. are all really irrelevant at one point or another. What sets medium format apart from 35mm and from large format is the format itself, which implies a different coupling of field of view to depth of field driven by the dimensions of the format. THAT's why I like to work with the M9 over the M8, or the Pentax 645 over a Pentax K5. Those are the significant dynamics of the imaging, not whether one has more or less pixels than the other.

 

[paulraphael]

How well the sensors perform, how many pixels, etc. are all really irrelevant at one point or another. What sets medium format apart from 35mm and from large format is the format itself, which implies a different coupling of field of view to depth of field driven by the dimensions of the format. THAT's why I like to work with the M9 over the M8, or the Pentax 645 over a Pentax K5. Those are the significant dynamics of the imaging, not whether one has more or less pixels than the other.

That's certainly one point of view, but it's not why everyone chooses a format. I've shot 4x5 longer than anything else, and depth of field issues have only been relevant to my work as an inconvenience. I'm never using selective focus. So theoritically, a smaller format could equal 4x5 for my purposes.

 

[ptomsu]

Well all these format discussions - I think that even more important than the advantages / disadvantages a certain format brings is, how big or how small a camera (system) can be built. We all know that too big is not good (heavy and clumsy and not very easy to use for action), as well as too small (small starts for me where I cannot comfortably operate a camera with my fingers).

And only then comes the format question.

Sure that if one really wants to achieve highest IQ, then nothing will top a tech cam with attached MFDB. But this is a different area of photography as most of us do in their daily job/practice. I also like to work with a tech cam and play around and optimize all before I take the shot, but can you imagine photographing my 9 months old daughter like that? I can't.

So I think that the D800 (or any other camera offering the D800 feature set) just hits the best in many areas, especially combined with high IQ.

 

[ptomsu]

No offense felt here either Peter, I simply don't agree with your conclusions, and have seen nothing but words rather than images that make the points. Perhaps convincing to the ear, but totally unconvincing to the eye.

It may be a matter of language ... but the term "not fighting for" implies others are, which is a conclusion solely based on technology, and not enough association with what one's creative objectives may be ... a further indication to me of an odd obsession with technology for the sake of technology.

-Marc

Marc, should we do a count how many cameras an systems you bought (changed) over the past 2 years? I think you would top me for sure!

I understand your love for the S2 and quite frankly, if I could afford and justify one, I would also go for it. Simply I have no business I can justify it for and am not willing to spend the money to just own it for pure pleasure - there are other pleasures I prefer before that

So the D800 comes just right in here with unbelievable IQ at this high pixels count and this is what I will leverage. This system will bring me close to the S2 IQ, with much higher flexibility (I am talking about 1 or 2 zooms for it) at a much better price point (1/10) of a comparable S2 system.

What would you do in my place?

 

[ptomsu]

Peter -
I am not offended at all - I just dont share your opinion regarding sensors.
Regards, Tom

Tom,

did you have a look to all the not so perfect image samples we have seen till now from the D800? WRT that I only can say that this sensor is superb and only hope that Leica would use the same sensor in an upcoming M10 and the same technology in an upcoming S3. So convinced I am.

Plus of course with an upgraded Maestro processing engine.

Also this sensor easily plays my old H3D39 sensor on the wall. You finally have to accept that the sensor in the S2 is a 5 year old design and 5 years in his area mean a lot! This is nothing bad at all, but finally we have to accept that.

Sure everybody can say that the technology is developed enough and stay with it for some years or forever, but knowing you (from your posts) I rather doubt that you belong to this breed of people. I rather consider myself meanwhile of having become more conservative (whatever that means)

Best

Peter

 

[Paratom]

Mostly just the Leica S2 shooters!

Since you have justified that you did not get the S2 earlier in the thread I justified/comitted that I do like the S2-IQ.

Now seriously. I think options are allways great so new sensors are great and in the end the only thing that counts is that something works fine for the user/owner for whatever reason. What I DO NOT LIKE is to discuss if something IS better than something else, thats why I sometimes respond to such statements saying I dont believe it is better.

I have tried so many times to compare cameras and systems, and there are so many factors included that it is near impossible for me to do this in a scientific way.
The best thing is for me to shoot a system for some time, look at the real world results and see if I like the images.
This includes also how good a camera works for me when taking the image (for example I feel big viewfinders are good for my compostion and framing).

I know this is a strange unscientific word but for me I like images where I feel they do not look "digital". Images where you look at it and say it looks deep, 3d, natural, powerfull. Sometimes you look at an image and even though you cant find anything wrong technical, it still looks like a (falt, dull) digital image. And there are other images where you look at it and feel you are "in".

And without being able to explain why - this seems to happen more often to ME (I can only talk about me) with images from medium format and also shots from the M9 than with images from DSLRS.
Thats why I use the equipment I use.

 

[Paratom]

Tom,

did you have a look to all the not so perfect image samples we have seen till now from the D800? WRT that I only can say that this sensor is superb and only hope that Leica would use the same sensor in an upcoming M10 and the same technology in an upcoming S3. So convinced I am.

Plus of course with an upgraded Maestro processing engine.

Also this sensor easily plays my old H3D39 sensor on the wall. You finally have to accept that the sensor in the S2 is a 5 year old design and 5 years in his area mean a lot! This is nothing bad at all, but finally we have to accept that.

Sure everybody can say that the technology is developed enough and stay with it for some years or forever, but knowing you (from your posts) I rather doubt that you belong to this breed of people. I rather consider myself meanwhile of having become more conservative (whatever that means)

Best

Peter

Hi Peter,
and if the sensor in the S2 was 20 years old. What counts for me is what I see and if I like it.
I have owned the d2h,d2x,d200,d300,d3,d3x and today the d700. So I have seen several steps from sensor generation to the next.
If I sometimes look on old images I still believe that the "old" d2h and d2x sensors were maybe more to my taste than what followed later on.
I sold the d3x 2 years ago because the images didnt "wow" me as much as the Sinar 22MP back I had and the Leica M9 did. SO I thought too much money for a d3x wich is not used much and I replaced it with a d700 for the occasional actipon shots.

I guess the D800 or the 50MP d4x (if this happens) are a big step forward, but I also dont believe in wonders.
Saying the D800 is great is one thing where I would agree, saying MF sensors are outdated is something else, where I can not agree.

I have to admit however that I recently used the D700 after a longer pause and thought -wow, that fast AF is nice, very nice. Still my favorite image from that day came from the M9.

So see, you better give up to convince me, I am stuburn.

 

[FredBGG]

For a while I too thought that more than 20 or so MP in a 35mm digital camera would be counter productive, but looking at the results of the D800 I have to say that that is not the case. They managed to cram 36 MP in and improve dynamic range. Auto focus, fast and clear as day live view, uncompressed video out, 4 fps and more fps in crop mode... And for half the price of a DF body that doesn't even have a sensor......

Format size does count, but being able to shoot film I think is more empowering from a creative stand point than the modest format gain from FF 35mm DSLR to MF 645 DSLR.

If I really want the look of medium format that really does look significantly different to a top of the line DSLR I'll choose the Mamiya RZ, Fuji gx680 or 4x5. Fuji gx680 being the first choice.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Since you have justified that you did not get the S2 earlier in the thread I justified/comitted that I do like the S2-IQ.

Now seriously. I think options are allways great so new sensors are great and in the end the only thing that counts is that something works fine for the user/owner for whatever reason. What I DO NOT LIKE is to discuss if something IS better than something else, thats why I sometimes respond to such statements saying I dont believe it is better.

I have tried so many times to compare cameras and systems, and there are so many factors included that it is near impossible for me to do this in a scientific way.
The best thing is for me to shoot a system for some time, look at the real world results and see if I like the images.
This includes also how good a camera works for me when taking the image (for example I feel big viewfinders are good for my compostion and framing).

I know this is a strange unscientific word but for me I like images where I feel they do not look "digital". Images where you look at it and say it looks deep, 3d, natural, powerfull. Sometimes you look at an image and even though you cant find anything wrong technical, it still looks like a (falt, dull) digital image. And there are other images where you look at it and feel you are "in".

And without being able to explain why - this seems to happen more often to ME (I can only talk about me) with images from medium format and also shots from the M9 than with images from DSLRS.
Thats why I use the equipment I use.

Thanks for your opinion. It is most certainly valid as it pertains to your experience. Nobody is saying the S2 can't compete, it's just for the price to quality ratio, the D800 is close, very close. The free thinking ideas don't always mesh here because the "old boys," circle the wagons when their brands are painted in the most un-flattering way. Forums are great places to exchanges ideas, critiques, and in some cases, vent! I'm glad you enjoy the S2, it is a great camera, just not for me.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

For a while I too thought that more than 20 or so MP in a 35mm digital camera would be counter productive, but looking at the results of the D800 I have to say that that is not the case. They managed to cram 36 MP in and improve dynamic range. Auto focus, fast and clear as day live view, uncompressed video out, 4 fps and more fps in crop mode... And for half the price of a DF body that doesn't even have a sensor......

Format size does count, but being able to shoot film I think is more empowering from a creative stand point than the modest format gain from FF 35mm DSLR to MF 645 DSLR.

If I really want the look of medium format that really does look significantly different to a top of the line DSLR I'll choose the Mamiya RZ, Fuji gx680 or 4x5. Fuji gx680 being the first choice.

Nicely stated Fred!

Perhaps, you could post more images soon of lower MP cameras and film too. Your photography and ideas seem to resonate with me and I think its refreshing to have both sides of an issue represented.

 

[fotografz]

Thanks for your opinion. It is most certainly valid as it pertains to your experience. Nobody is saying the S2 can't compete, it's just for the price to quality ratio, the D800 is close, very close. The free thinking ideas don't always mesh here because the "old boys," circle the wagons when their brands are painted in the most un-flattering way. Forums are great places to exchanges ideas, critiques, and in some cases, vent! I'm glad you enjoy the S2, it is a great camera, just not for me.

It is "close" to your way of thinking and in your opinion ... which is fine, for you ... glad it is.

For others, it is not "close", and especially not "very close" ... but each of us can only speak to what and how we see, just as you do. For me, the difference between Leica optics and how they render aesthetically compared to Nikon's offerings is like from Earth to Pluto, not Earth to the moon However, I've always held that opinion and nothing I currently see or have used from Nikon has altered that opinion.

Also note that I have extensively used a Nikon D3X with each of the best optics they had at the time including many lenses that are still current and recommended for the D800 ... 14-24, 24-70 and the 200/2 VR. I see nothing so far that changes how the lenses make images by adding 12 meg to the D3X, even if it is newer sensor technology ... I have always preferred the concept of micro-contrast for acuity of image such as employed by Leica, Schneider and Zeiss compared to other optical philosophies (which is why for 35mm work, I dumped all Nikon gear and got a A900 with all Zeiss designed AF optics). If you do not buy into that concept there's nothing that can be said to alter that, and frankly I don't care if you do or not.

"Free thinking ideas are not welcome" and "old boys circling the wagons" feels very dismissive of other opinions that are contrary to yours. All each of us are trying to do is select the tools that best help us express our aesthetic sensibilities or even biases ... after all it is our work, not someone else's.

The price disparity is nothing new (especially regarding Leica), and harping on it means nothing to those who have chosen, could afford to choose as they like, and got what they wanted. I feel the exact same way about lighting gear BTW ... where the same type of debates rage daily. Folks are free to select PCB lighting, and I'll stick with Profoto for the same reasons I select certain camera's and lenses.

All the best to what ever you select ... let's make images!

-Marc

 

[paulraphael]

I'm very happy that over the last couple of decades, as my work has matured, the finer distinctions between one piece of gear and another have become increasingly unimportant. I put more energy into the question "does this serve the vision?" and less into "is this the very best techincal quality that's theoretically possible?"

To put it in perspective, German MTF charts used to be a hobby of mine, and I spent 18 months formulating my own black and white film developer. That kind of energy now goes into looking, studying ideas, and producing work (ok ... I'm not completely over it all. This last month has involved way too much geeking out over threads like this).

The short of it is, I'm relieved to be finding a camera like the d800 "good enough," becuse it will allow me to do more work, and to spend more time thinking about issues of consequence, than my 4x5 ever did. Not that I'm getting rid of that camera, or that the d800 will be an appropriate substitute all the time. But at the very least, it has earned itself a chair at the debate table, and for much of my serious work, it will go beyond "very close."

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

It is "close" to your way of thinking and in your opinion ... which is fine, for you ... glad it is.

For others, it is not "close", and especially not "very close" ... but each of us can only speak to what and how we see, just as you do. For me, the difference between Leica optics and how they render aesthetically compared to Nikon's offerings is like from Earth to Pluto, not Earth to the moon However, I've always held that opinion and nothing I currently see or have used from Nikon has altered that opinion.

Also note that I have extensively used a Nikon D3X with each of the best optics they had at the time including many lenses that are still current and recommended for the D800 ... 14-24, 24-70 and the 200/2 VR. I see nothing so far that changes how the lenses make images by adding 12 meg to the D3X, even if it is newer sensor technology ... I have always preferred the concept of micro-contrast for acuity of image such as employed by Leica, Schneider and Zeiss compared to other optical philosophies (which is why for 35mm work, I dumped all Nikon gear and got a A900 with all Zeiss designed AF optics). If you do not buy into that concept there's nothing that can be said to alter that, and frankly I don't care if you do or not.

"Free thinking ideas are not welcome" and "old boys circling the wagons" feels very dismissive of other opinions that are contrary to yours. All each of us are trying to do is select the tools that best help us express our aesthetic sensibilities or even biases ... after all it is our work, not someone else's.

The price disparity is nothing new (especially regarding Leica), and harping on it means nothing to those who have chosen, could afford to choose as they like, and got what they wanted. I feel the exact same way about lighting gear BTW ... where the same type of debates rage daily. Folks are free to select PCB lighting, and I'll stick with Profoto for the same reasons I select certain camera's and lenses.

All the best to what ever you select ... let's make images!

-Marc

Marc-

You make excellent points, Whenever I, or others disagree, most believe it's because we have an ax to grind, which is usually not the case. I've even mentioned before, that I was PM'd, by a member, suggesting I should not disagree with too much here and follow the flow... hmm, not likely. Opinions are not necessarily based on fact, but a large number of inputs here, suggest a majority of people think they do. I keep my posts civil, and based on my experience only. I would encourage others to not be so offended if someone disagrees, but expensive camera purchases get personal, and i'll try to keep that in mind too.

With that in mind... For the D800, I'll shoot usually with Zeiss primes only, although the 60mm nikkor- micro 2.8 is a decent contender!. Lenses are most certainly the weak link in any sensor combo, and to your credit, Leica is the best.

 

[fotografz]

Marc-

You make excellent points, Whenever I, or others disagree, most believe it's because we have an ax to grind, which is usually not the case. I've even mentioned before, that I was PM'd, by a member, suggesting I should not disagree with too much here and follow the flow... hmm, not likely. Opinions are not necessarily based on fact, but a large number of inputs here, suggest a majority of people think they do. I keep my posts civil, and based on my experience only. I would encourage others to not be so offended if someone disagrees, but expensive camera purchases get personal, and i'll try to keep that in mind too.

With that in mind... For the D800, I'll shoot usually with Zeiss primes only, although the 60mm nikkor- micro 2.8 is a decent contender!. Lenses are most certainly the weak link in any sensor combo, and to your credit, Leica is the best.

Actually, we have some agreement here ... when I shot the D3X (and D3, and F6 for B&W film), I had a whole set of the Zeiss ZF optics and DID prefer them as many others do. The 50/2 specifically was stellar in its rendering ... alas, my eyes couldn't manually perform up to the lenses even with a new split diagonal bright focusing screen and large excellent magnifier. Thus the move to AF Zeiss lenses for the Sony.

Prior to all this, I always shot with Contax cameras including the ill fated FF 6 meg ND, and then adapted many Zeiss lenses to a Canon FF camera ... CY like the 21/2.8, 28/2, 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 ... but again my eyes eventually manually failed the lenses

When I sprung for the S2 it was a retirement gift to myself, yet I took over a year before committing to it because the drive was for the lenses and there weren't enough of them available. I fully expected much higher meg 35mm DSLRs to be coming and wasn't surprised by the D800 at all, and fully expect Sony to follow ... didn't matter, I was after the Leica lenses and the look they produce. IF the S2 had been manual focus, I wouldn't have even given it a second thought.

-Marc

 

[Godfrey]

I'm very happy that over the last couple of decades, as my work has matured, the finer distinctions between one piece of gear and another have become increasingly unimportant. I put more energy into the question "does this serve the vision?" ...

I have to +1 this bit.

My old photo mentor often used to say there were only three important things to great photography:

- where to stand
- what to point the camera at
- when to press the shutter button

 

[Paratom]

I have to +1 this bit.

My old photo mentor often used to say there were only three important things to great photography:

- where to stand
- what to point the camera at
- when to press the shutter button

and thats why you guys read and post in a thread called "52MP D4X"? :deadhorse:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I have to +1 this bit.

My old photo mentor often used to say there were only three important things to great photography:

- where to stand
- what to point the camera at
- when to press the shutter button

You missed one . Get Lucky. LOL