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!

Looking at D3X and MF....

RomanJohnston

New member
So far looking to upgrade. I have pushed 12MP to a maximum of 40" x 60" for my customers for "fine art" prints. Just landed a VERY large account and the first order should open the door to upgrades. I would like to do my customers right by getting better gear for the print sizes they are asking for.

Entertaining a D3X or a Hassy H4D-40 with the Widest prime and the 35-90 to start. Eventually upgrading to a few more wide primes so I can use the T/S adaptor in the future.

I am seriously entertaining landscapes with night views of the stars (usually about 30 second exposures at higher ISO to keep star trails to a minimum.

Anyone doing that kind of landscape work with some of the newer backs and will ISO's required (800 or so) be way too noisey on the MF units?

Kinda torn...if it is, I still might go MF just as my normal shooting and get the D3X after the fact when the next big order comes in.

I am hate spending money, but hate not having the right tool even more...lol.

Any advice would definitly be appreciated.

Roman
 

vieri

Well-known member
Hey Roman, long time no see since we last spoke on DPR! How are you? :D

I have been in the same spot as you are now, and ended up with a Phase One & P45+, which I updated to a P65+ and that works great (as did the P45+) both with the Phase camera and as a back only with a tech camera - which, if I remember your landscape work correctly, should be a great option for you to consider as well.

Whichever way you'll go, Phase or Hassy, once you start working with these files you are in for a treat, but beware of the forum's motto: "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here."... :ROTFL:

So far looking to upgrade. I have pushed 12MP to a maximum of 40" x 60" for my customers for "fine art" prints. Just landed a VERY large account and the first order should open the door to upgrades. I would like to do my customers right by getting better gear for the print sizes they are asking for.

Entertaining a D3X or a Hassy H4D-40 with the Widest prime and the 35-90 to start. Eventually upgrading to a few more wide primes so I can use the T/S adaptor in the future.

I am seriously entertaining landscapes with night views of the stars (usually about 30 second exposures at higher ISO to keep star trails to a minimum.

Anyone doing that kind of landscape work with some of the newer backs and will ISO's required (800 or so) be way too noisey on the MF units?

Kinda torn...if it is, I still might go MF just as my normal shooting and get the D3X after the fact when the next big order comes in.

I am hate spending money, but hate not having the right tool even more...lol.

Any advice would definitly be appreciated.

Roman
 

RomanJohnston

New member
Hey Vieri!

I have looked at the Phase One gear as well and have quite the lust for a P65+ kit. I do like the T/S the hassy kit has. Have also entertained the Horseman setup too. Hassy though has a pretty healthy kit. (dispite it being a closed system)

I just got notified that I may have the opertunity for a week with a Hassy kit this fall. If those stars come into alignment, I would think that would push me over the edge.

As I think about it I might just go D3X to start, with the 14-24, push things with that hard for the next 6 months and then get a MF kit as my relationship with my new clients matures.

I know the second I start playing with MF files that I have created...that I will as you have pointed never look back....lol.

Dangerous (and expensive) ice I am treading on...I know.

Roman
 

billbunton

Subscriber Member
As someone who recently sold my D3x and 14-24 (and a LOT of other gear) to get a P40+ kit, I'd recommend you either go straight to MF, or don't borrow the Hassy kit. If you get the Nikon gear in the middle, you're just going to regret the money you lost on it :).
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I myself never got into the D3X for doing my landscape work. I bought a H3D39 and 28, 100 and recently the HTS. Love this and will further build up that system.

I actually would rather go for a H4D50 if landscape was my primary work area. Or buy a good used H3D2/39. Because of the larger sensor.

While a D3X can come close, it finally ONLY can come close to any MF solution. For landscape you do usually not need a fast system like Nikon, so H is pretty perfect and it is fast too (for MF relations).

Despite that I love my D700 and Nikon glass for lot of other work I do. Kind of keen to see the successor of the D3X though.
 

RomanJohnston

New member
Hey Bill,

I understand what your saying. I do have to say there are a few points.

1. I have seen some Elizabeth Carmel's comments sayng having both is actually quite a well rounded kit.

2. I do need higher ISO for my low light shooting I intend on exploring. (which hasnt been addressed yet in the post)

3. I can see room for both with my main camera being whatever MF kit I end up with.

4. I have actually learned a lot trying to get the most I can from smaller files. It pushes me to learn and what I learn can be applied to larger files as I can afford to purchase them.

My usual gallery print is 30" x 45" and while I know the MF units will get a lot better detail, I remember an old quote about somone who comments on the sharpness of my picture has told me I have failed in giving them somthing else to talk about...or somthing to that effect.

So not too sure I would "regret" the purchase, but I do get totally what your saying that MF blows away D3X on resolution. I am sure at 16bit I will see better transitions between subtil colors as well.

Thanks though for your input!!! Well recieved.

Roman
 

vieri

Well-known member
Hey Bill,

I understand what your saying. I do have to say there are a few points.

1. I have seen some Elizabeth Carmel's comments sayng having both is actually quite a well rounded kit.

2. I do need higher ISO for my low light shooting I intend on exploring. (which hasnt been addressed yet in the post)

3. I can see room for both with my main camera being whatever MF kit I end up with.

4. I have actually learned a lot trying to get the most I can from smaller files. It pushes me to learn and what I learn can be applied to larger files as I can afford to purchase them.

My usual gallery print is 30" x 45" and while I know the MF units will get a lot better detail, I remember an old quote about somone who comments on the sharpness of my picture has told me I have failed in giving them somthing else to talk about...or somthing to that effect.

So not too sure I would "regret" the purchase, but I do get totally what your saying that MF blows away D3X on resolution. I am sure at 16bit I will see better transitions between subtil colors as well.

Thanks though for your input!!! Well recieved.

Roman
Roman, just a quick add-on to what has already been said: if you get the P65+ or P40+, you'll have Sensor Plus for high ISO; on the P65+ it's still 15 MP (more res than a D3), and usable up to ISO 1600 - caveat is, if you also need the speed of AF, the lens range of the Nikon zooms etc, then you are out of luck. Maybe, get a MF kit and a D3 kit (not X), best of both worlds :D

There is a good point made re: getting the D3x now, selling it in a short time, loosing money in the process...

I still have and use my D3 + 4/5 Nikkors for concerts, low light stuff, etc, while MF is for studio stuff, landscape, product, etc.
 

billbunton

Subscriber Member
2. I do need higher ISO for my low light shooting I intend on exploring. (which hasnt been addressed yet in the post)

...

So not too sure I would "regret" the purchase, but I do get totally what your saying that MF blows away D3X on resolution. I am sure at 16bit I will see better transitions between subtil colors as well.

Roman
I snipped quite a bit out of the quote :). If you're going to need higher ISO, do NOT count on the D3x. It's a great camera, but a high-ISO camera it isn't. Get a D3s for that. I suspect a Phase back in sensor+ mode is going to be cleaner than the D3x would be at ISO800; I wasn't willing to use mine at 400 if I had the D3 along. Before I decided to go MF I was thinking about selling my D3 for another D3x. I didn't really need any more than the 5 fps the D3x provided. The one thing that stopped me was the occasional need for higher ISOs.

I was being somewhat tongue in cheek on my "regret" comment. There's really no comparison, but the D3x does pretty much blow away anything else in its class. And the 14-24 is simply an amazing lens. I also had an amazing copy of the 24-70. But the reality is, if you buy the D3x and lens(es) new now, by selling in six months you're going to have lost literally thousands of dollars. Of course, if you're going to keep the Nikon gear along with MF then that's not a concern.
 

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Roman, without getting into the endless DSLR vs. MFDB discussion (i currently shoot a D3X and have to deal on a regular basis with MFDB files), there's one too often overlooked aspect that you might want to put some thoughts into: file handling and processing in your workflow.

While most modern computers relatively easily handle the ~12Mb (RAW) files from 12Mp sensors, it's already a different story with the ~25Mb files from 20-to-24 Mp bodies, whatever their technology. But in most cases it's still ok.
Dealing with the min ~50Mb files output by backs such as H4Dd-40 / P40+ can turn into a real PITA if you don't have a powerhouse to compute them. Basic operations such as handling the RAW files and cataloguing is of course slower, but if your workflow includes say, PS with layers and/or actions and/or filters it can become frustrating and time consuming.

(note: figures above are for lossless compression settings)

The reason i mention this is that apparently your upgrade path is associated with signing a "very large account". Don't know the details, but upon reading this, the red light for "large batches" and "deadlines" went flashing :)

Not saying it's a deal breaker: maybe you already have a super computer with arrays of RAIDS etc., or you will upgrade at the same time. Maybe your workflow (and/or limited number of files) allows you to spend the extra time time on each shot.
Simply: don't underestimate it. ;)


That said, re the Nikon side, just a small addition to Vieri's point about the D3 (Vieri i know you did not exactly say this, but there's room for interpretation): if it's true that the D3 and D700 deliver exactly the same results (with more fps and double card slots for the former), the D3X is not only about more pixels. DR in particular is significantly improved, with better in camera HL handling (resulting in smoother operation and exposure). If the new Nikon body would only be used occasionnaly for "speed of AF, the lens range of the Nikon zooms etc", not forgetting about the low light stuff, then i'd recommend the D3S. For the main body, i'd definitely go (and actually did) for the D3X -pixel count, DR. When you already have most lenses and are accustomed to operating a Nikon body, it's a no brainer.

That is, for the Nikon option. H4D-40 sounds absolutely great and might very well approach a form of ideal in terms of IQ, in certain conditions. With the few caveats like cost (esp for the whole system if you don't own any lens -> :eek:), associated equipement (computer etc.) and accessories, versatility, fps, high ISO and long exposures.

But after all, isn't all this part of the beauty, and fun, of MFDB? :)

(i know, said i wouldn't go there... just a wink :angel: :p)
 

RomanJohnston

New member
Corlan,

Excellent point and I already have that covered. I am in computer technology as my day job for now. Landcape photography is starting to really take off, but need it to make more than I do now including my insurance etc before I can let go of the safety net of a day job.

New computer. Quadcore with 8GB of ram, Windows 7 Ultimate and have a nice Drobo attached to it. Have about 8TB of storage available. Nice Raptor doing scratch disk duty. CS5....all the trimmings.

Roman
 

tjv

Active member
I've looked into the D3X as a replacement for MF film kit and my D700. In the end, I've decided I want / need a MF digital to get the file quality and editing headroom I require to be happy about spending so much money. I know the Hassey is more expensive, but for what you describe the H4D-40 sounds like the best overall longterm investment. I haven't personally used the H4D system, but many friends have sent me files that are truly amazing. I also really like what I have seen from the P30+ and P40+ PhaseOne backs, and I'm sure the rest in the plus line is amazing too. The DF body also sounds like a big improvement over the AFDIII. The dynamic range of MF files is a big step up from what I'm used to with the D700 and even drum scanned neg film. Like you, I'm usually of the philosophy that image content and composition should outweigh (a lack of) absolute resolution / sharpness or perfect technique, but I always like knowing that if my skills improve, or if a job requires absolute precision, my tools are up to the task if I am. This is all just a long winded way of saying that, in my experience, it is usually makes long term business sense to buy the best you can afford so you have room to grow into a system and avoid having to upgrade, again, at a later date. Just my 2c.
 

aldo

New member
I just move to the H4D-40 plataform from D700 and D3x (sold the d3x and kept the d700) . Everytime I see the H4D files I know I made the right move... I don't do landscape but I do portraits, and I love to be able to go to 35mm and have the same angle of view as a 21mm or 28mm (depends on the crop) on 35mm but without the distorted lines and faces. I think that's a big plus on the MFD specially for landscape, also the lens corrections tool in phocus is really awesome.

There's a great promotion on the H4D-40 + 35-90mm kit for $19,995, so basically you have a $7,205.00 lens (a little overpriced lens in my opinion) for just $2,000 (you can re-sell it and gain $5,000 dollars instantly :LOL: ).

Beside the price tag of the H4D-40 I have notice the MFD camera bill rapidly increases with other add-ons. For example:...

- The extended warranty for the 35-90mm lens is $419 for 1 year and $630 for 2 years, the H4D-40 body + back warranty is $1495 for 1 year and $2,990 for 2 years.... thats $1,914 - $3,620 on extended warranty.

- The H battery grip is another $224.99 (you'll probably need at least 2 more)

- A 16 GB card just holds aprox. 240 images, so you probably need a 32 GB sandisk extreme pro (really recomended and I think it's a must for MFD). Thats another $389.99.

- As Corlan F. said, with MFDB files you stop seeing iMac's as an option, but you have that point covered (well you'll probably need more than 8 GB of ram).

- Of course you'll need a theft insurance for peace of mind, an insurance of a $19,995 gear is no cheap, at least where I live (Mexico) it's around $750 dollars for a year.

- The LCD is not useless but near useless. Comming from Nikon when I preview my images on the H4D screen I think I'm doing something wrong or I have the doubt if I have the focus where it should be, but everytime I see the images on my monitor they blow me away! So I'm learning to live with that. What I'm trying to say it's that you might need to carry a laptop with you too.
 

baxter

New member
I'm not trying to spend your money, but have recently made a switch to MF digital. My main system was an Ebony 4x5 film camera.

I have presently kept my D700 with 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200mm lenses and discounted a considerably cheaper move to the D3X, having seen MF digital files from both Hasselblad and Phase backs. Have you tried downloading and looking at some of the web RAW files and fiddling with C1Pro/Phocus to see what they look like?

I have yet to decide whether to retain, some or all of Nikon stuff. Low light and yachting are scenarios where it will be preferable to the MF. The Leica M8 doesn't present such a strong case to keep!

I note Vieri's comment about camera movements possibly being desirable for you. Having moved from 4x5 Ebony to a Phase 645DF with P45+, there are times when I struggle to frame and control focus as I would wish. Helicon Focus software helps with static subjects, easy to use, but not as elegant as a touch of tilt! That said it enables tricky 3D scenes to be shot that wouldn't be possible on 4x5. I planned from the outset to add a Linhof Techno at a later stage, when funds allow, to re-enable me to work with movements. These have been an integral part of my pictures for the last 9 years. A Phase back is far easier to use with a tech camera than Hasselblad.

Hasselblad option is to use the HTS, which is not cheap, but is good. With 28mm lens, HTS and H4D it's a big chunk of kit yielding a 42mm lens equivalent which is as wide as you can go. This might be a limitation for you.
 
S

SCHWARZZEIT

Guest
I am seriously entertaining landscapes with night views of the stars (usually about 30 second exposures at higher ISO to keep star trails to a minimum.

Anyone doing that kind of landscape work with some of the newer backs and will ISO's required (800 or so) be way too noisey on the MF units?
Roman,

I haven't seen any files from any MFDB that would work for this kind of task. The Phase One P+ backs with Kodak sensors have the best reputation for handling long exposures but the latest 6 micron sensor generation have better high ISO capabilities. Jeff reported that the H4D-40 manages to give acceptable files at exposure times up to 4 minutes at base ISO. Maybe 30 seconds at ISO 800 would still be great with this camera.

One thing to keep in mind is that excellent 35mm lenses can be used at faster f-stops than comparable MF glass. You would probably need at least one stop higher ISO if you want to keep using the same shutter speed. But with the gain in resolution using the same shutter speed the star trails will be more visible on MF because for the same angle of view you're using a longer focal length on smaller pixels. If your stars traveled over two or three 8.4-micron pixels on your Nikon it's going to be maybe five or six 6-micron-pixels on MFD. What was a slight blur before becomes rather obvious with the added resolution.

The dynamic range of MF files is a big step up from what I'm used to with the D700 and even drum scanned neg film.
From what I've seen MFDBs have an excellent dynamic range but I've yet to see a file that compares to what is possible with some of the modern color neg stocks when properly drum scanned.

-Dominique
 

RomanJohnston

New member
Hummm...thanks for all the info!!!

I think I have jelled on a plan. I will get the D3X for now (in a month or two) and later (in the next year or so) work on getting a MF setup. I think I will need more than I can truly budget for if I go MF this soon. All the extras get kinda spendy. I also don't want to make a decision on what I can JUST afford, but would rather make a decision on a true kit I can grow with like the Phase One P65+ kit and not feel like I am cheaping out just to get into the MF club.

I do believe that ultimatly I will be served best by having both kits in the end.

Thanks again for ALL your feedback.

Roman
 

markowich

New member
roman,
since i have both systems (D3x and P65+), i feel compelled to comment---)))
well 30" x 45" is possible with the D3x (and the best nikkor lenses) but it is nevertheless threshold. in direct comparism to MF prints you will most definitely see the difference in resolution and color transition, on its own the nikon print will look good.
hard decision.
peter


Hey Bill,

I understand what your saying. I do have to say there are a few points.

1. I have seen some Elizabeth Carmel's comments sayng having both is actually quite a well rounded kit.

2. I do need higher ISO for my low light shooting I intend on exploring. (which hasnt been addressed yet in the post)

3. I can see room for both with my main camera being whatever MF kit I end up with.

4. I have actually learned a lot trying to get the most I can from smaller files. It pushes me to learn and what I learn can be applied to larger files as I can afford to purchase them.

My usual gallery print is 30" x 45" and while I know the MF units will get a lot better detail, I remember an old quote about somone who comments on the sharpness of my picture has told me I have failed in giving them somthing else to talk about...or somthing to that effect.

So not too sure I would "regret" the purchase, but I do get totally what your saying that MF blows away D3X on resolution. I am sure at 16bit I will see better transitions between subtil colors as well.

Thanks though for your input!!! Well recieved.

Roman
 

RomanJohnston

New member
Hey thanks Peter! I push my files pretty darned hard and sucessfully. My clients seem to like my work and buy it up to 40" x 60" and thats just from my 12MP camera.

I see a slow growth plan as my move forward. D3X next, my shot and printing diciplines seem to serve me fairly well. I know MF is the end game for me....but I also know the path to that will be selling more work to afford it properly and not some discount or limited package.

I am sure the D3X will give me better prints in the interum, better DR, and better color as I inch forward.

Thanks to everyone who has answered as all the information helped me decide the path that is in my best interest.

Slow and steady will seem to win my race. :)

Roman
 

tjv

Active member
Roman,

Idynamic range but I've yet to see a file that compares to what is possible with some of the modern color neg stocks when properly drum scanned.

-Dominique
I take your point. Of course you are right; modern neg film does have an amazing latitude. The problem with it (for me) is getting in scanned. I'm always disappointed in the results I get from the labs I am able to send my film to for drum scanning. I think if I had a setup myself I could learn to make the most of film and get the files exactly as I want, but as it stands now I have to rely on other people. This is where digital comes into its own.

Anyway, Good luck with the D3X. I'm sure it will work well for you!
 
Top