I really love the hassy but lets be honest. If all you are getting is "micro contrast" for 7 times your investment then the D800 wins hands down.
Let me be clear, I like shooting with MF for a number of reasons. But, this kind of comparison is like comparing a Ferrari to a Camero and saying the Ferrari wins because it has 3 more layers of clear coat paint.
An H4D-40 body @ $17,995 vs a Nikon D800e @ $3,300 better give a working (business owner) photographer a hell of a lot more than "micro contrast".
Frankly I am concerned for the future of MF market. It seems as MF owners all we keep getting are new fancy touch screens and bells and whistles while the 35mm companies are making dramatic leaps in IQ and better and better ISO performance. With 14 stops of dynamic range and iso 6400 (not at the same time of course) its only another 24-36 months and this micro contrast advantage will be disappear as well.
Okay, I lied.
Probably shouldn't but I will ...
There is more than Micro Contrast. That you can't see the difference, doesn't mean others can't.
I do not equate more meg with Image Qualities ... Image Qualities are a function of an entire imaging chain, not just a higher res. sensor.
Each one of these systems has a signature look and feel to some degree or another. 3rd party lenses, and post work may mitigate that, but you don't suddenly alter the over-all signature in post without an enormous effort that varies form one shooting circumstance to the next. That is one reason I sold my Nikon D3X ... way too much work to reach its potential ... a look I was after that I could get immediately with a Sony A900 sporting the same meg count.
After working with just about every 35mm system out there, at length, for 10s of thousands of shots each, I'm no longer so arrogant as to think I can alter the basic signature with superior post skills, like I once did. Canon looks like Canon, Nikon like Nikon, and so forth.
So, we each select the imaging aesthetic that appeals to our eye ... if someone like Fred likes the aesthetic of the D800 and large format film then that's his path ... and he's willing to pay the price in time and effort to work with LG format film to get it.
So far, I do not like the aesthetic presented by the D800, and see a dramatic difference in image qualities compared to MFD. I can't be definitive about that since I haven't shot with one at any length. However, playing around with large files provided hasn't changed my opinion, and reinforces my learning curve regarding signature look. To be clear, I am not just ambivalent about it, I REALLY do not like the look and feel ... which would dismay me if I rushed to pay $15K+ for the D800 system elements I'd need. Value is not just a function of numbers, it is one of satisfaction in the results. So, buying 6 D800s to 1 H4D/40 is irrelevant.
The often quoted "80% to 90% of MFD" buzz word seems odd to me. First off, I don't buy it because it is an empirical number trying to measure an aesthetic human response. Using the same reckoning and applying my own criteria, I'd place the D800 aesthetic at about 1/2 that of my S2 if even that ... miles apart if compared to my H4D/60 which delivers even more of that over-all MF look and feel than the S2 does.
In short, if someone like Fred finds his creative needs met with his path, nothing anyone says will alter that creative opinion. I'm no different.
It all is what makes photography so intriguing. Personal, human reactions color our preferences as we struggle to express ourselves, and NO ONE ELSE is seeing through my eyes except me. So, I don't care if I'm the last man standing with a MFD camera in hand. I think I'll stipulate that my ashes be interned inside a Leica S2 lens instead of a vase ... :ROTFL:
-Marc
