GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
I prefer to be a weapon of mass consumption! Get 'em all!!!
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!
:ROTFL:2. Get a Nokia 808 and duct tape it to my Hy6.
(...) I will need a DSLR for a project later this summer, so am holding off a bit to see what happens. Right now the regular D800 with AA and a handful of Nikon primes is on my radar (...)
High pixel density has it's uses... particularly for macro, as DOF decreases with format size.
Jack, you are used to handle non-AA filter cameras, so how come you'd choose the standard version of D800 with Anti-Aliasing filter ?
I was underwhelmed by the Nikon samples they lack the detail, sharpness and clarity of medium format. They have that Canon/Nikon Haze. They are certainly improved and blown the Canons out of the water but to say they are good as MF is a gross exaggeration and/or wishful thinking.
I fully back what you say here!Paul, I have a pet theory about this which is that we are all used to seeing MF images at 100% on screen and glorying in the AA free crispness of them. However, if you look at the Nikon at 50% zoom instead (which on a 100PPI monitor is a good emulation of a 200dpi print) then they look a whole lot better.
Clearly the things that matter beyond pure resolution are noise characteristics, colour depth and DR. If we accept the DXO work on DR (and some people don't) then the DR of the D7000 sensor is about the same as the IQ180. The D800 sensor is, I hear, 1/2 a stop better than the D7000 in ISO performance and no worse in DR. Quite clearly the ISO performance of the Nikons is better than Phase. So with 36MP I think many people will be hard pressed to tell, at say ISO 100, the difference between the two in a 30" print unless there are particular colour subtleties.
That's what I expect to find when I make the comparison, when my D800e arrives and if I can get my Leica R 50 F2 adapted for the Nikon in time to make the test.
Of course for really subtly lit or coloured subjects, when optimally printed, at low ISO, many a discerning eye likely will see the difference.
I am really looking forward to doing a 'blind tasting' on this and if anyone on the forum is ever in Sussex or London, and wants to volunteer when the time comes, they can just PM me here!
ps The pixel pitch of the D800 is 4.9 and for the IQ180 it's 5.17 so other than the CMOS/CCD difference, it's not like one has very significantly 'fatter' pixels than the other...
Lenses would of course play a huge role in any comparison. So you would have to decide if you are comparing just sensors or whole systems.IWil be interesting to see how big the differences are. And if there is not much difference at all (which I actually secretly hope) then my MF gear simply can go, as I do only have it fro landscape work and absolutely have no need to mount my back on a tech camera - nor do I have any intention to go that way.