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!

it will be super interesting to see Nikon D800 VS Leica S2

Agnius

Member
Yeah, I looked at Nikon D800 and D800N samples and I am not overwhelmed. What makes me wonder is how this sensor would perform on, lets say, M style body? Speculations, speculations... I would love to see an updated Epson RD-2 with such a sensor (assuming micro lenses could compensate for wide angle lenses)...
 

jonoslack

Active member
My guess is that in order to fully exploit the D800s 36 MPX one will have to buy exotic, special, expensive glass as the examples posted above. The irony is, that even in the world of 35mm the best optics don't come around cheap.
. . . . and if that's the case, you'd better wait for the Sony equivalent with focus peaking - thus making such lenses a breeze to use.
 

jerome

Member
Having been set that Reichmann challenge of distiguishing between A3+ sized prints from a Phase One P65 back and a Canon G10 and got many completely wrong (like everyone else who has taken the test) I'd wager that the same may well apply for an S2 / D800 comparison.

I've printed out some shots at A2 or so size that were taken with the NEX-7 and they look good enough to me at normal (close) viewing distances to have been taken with a 4x5 film camera (save better DOF for the NEX). I kid you not. That squares with the Michael Reichmann challenge. I use the NEX-7 a lot more than my Hassy H4D. Yes, the Hassy is better in absolute terms, but I don't have the Hassy on me all the time and the differences are primarily in how the two cameras are used. The main reason to get an S2 over a D800 are unlikely therefore to be resolution or sharpness, but handling, lens choice, and pride of ownership. I'd like one, but I have no need for one!

I agree with you. I'll certainly buy the NEX 7 (I've the 5 which is still pretty good) or the new Fuji pro, as I need as small versatile camera. My H4d50 is too heavy and can't be used everywhere

I'll probably buy the Nikon 800E for the same reason if I'm not convinced by the Sony/Fuji viewfinders. A very versatile camera with really high iso capabilities !

And when, I want to take "great pictures", I use my Hassy, because large sensor, perfect lenses, great viewfinder won't be challenged by the Nikon :)
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I have pretty good experience with some Nikon lenses (14-24/ 24/1.4/105/2.0DC/70-200/VRII I would also expect the 85/1.4G to be a nice lens - so maybe it wont be as "bad" on the D800 as some here expect.
 

doc4x5

Member
I am endlessly fascinated by people making these kind of comparison statements, and then, when "blinded" as to the origin, not being able to tell the difference and then having some "explanation," golden ears, golden eyes. It happened with stereo gear (tubes vs transistors) and with wine (two buck chuck beating wines that cost 10 times the price). The idea of a 36MP DSLR at a $3k price point is nothing less than revolutionary! What will the MFDB world do? There will always be those who can and will spend exorbitant amounts for a marginal improvement, perhaps high earning professionals can and will do that. For those of us who are relatively well off amateurs, this is groundbreaking. Could I afford a MFDB? I probably could but would be terrified of dropping it or having it stolen. Not that $3k is trivial, but it's less than $40k. I'm pretty excited about the D800E.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I am endlessly fascinated by people making these kind of comparison statements, and then, when "blinded" as to the origin, not being able to tell the difference and then having some "explanation," golden ears, golden eyes. It happened with stereo gear (tubes vs transistors) and with wine (two buck chuck beating wines that cost 10 times the price). The idea of a 36MP DSLR at a $3k price point is nothing less than revolutionary! What will the MFDB world do? There will always be those who can and will spend exorbitant amounts for a marginal improvement, perhaps high earning professionals can and will do that. For those of us who are relatively well off amateurs, this is groundbreaking. Could I afford a MFDB? I probably could but would be terrified of dropping it or having it stolen. Not that $3k is trivial, but it's less than $40k. I'm pretty excited about the D800E.
I think we are all excited by the D800. It will be a fine camera. I just don't understand the diatribe against those that find a different solution they prefer. I am sorry, but sensor/format size matters. And it is real. I chose my equipment for me in no regard to anyone else. I feel what others use is their business. You should have more confidence in your photography and stop worrying what others think about your gear.
 

peterv

New member
Hi guys, interesting comments, all true in their own right. I very much enjoy this kind of threads and find them thought provoking and fun to read.

I wonder, if the price difference were a lot smaller, say $5000 for the S2. Who, looking for high IQ, would seriously consider the Nikon? (it's all about the bleeping money)

Okay, more fps, higher ISO, focus points, etc. the D800 wins, but for these features there are better camera's like the D3s, D4 (coming up) and the new Canon. Seems to me the D800 is a really nice camera, but accept for MP count on FF, a little bit of an average Jack-of-all-trades. Not really exceptionally high ISO, buffer, etc. A nice, relatively cheap and interesting camera, but for me not special enough. Right now perhaps it looks like a FF high MP bargain, but after Photokina, who knows ...

50-60 MP S3 with NEX 5n (or better) sensor anyone?
 

PeterA

Well-known member
This is another thread about cost benefit analysis - a discussion about relative value and marginal utility curves - a discussion conducted through the fog of personal indifference curves.

So all these modern cameras can make nice prints of pretty much any snap you care to make.

Which camera system do you want to use to make your snaps?

My preference is always for the camera that looks the sexiest and feels the best in my hands. In fact I wont be seen anywhere with an ugly camera. I am a beauty snob as far as gear goes. I refuse to be seen with an ugly camera. Thats why I ditched my H series gear - at the end of the day it was butt ugly stuff.

Now in my analysis of the Nikon versus the S2 I ask myself which one looks sexier?


A no brainer really - wouldn't you agree?
 

doc4x5

Member
Shashin,
I certainly meant no disrespect to those who make comparisons with an open mind and who are willing to take themselves not too seriously. I do like to tweak those who feel they are superior, because of their photo equipment and who deign to disparage the work of those who work with "lesser" gear. I am not implying you are one of those. It's just that these highly technical discussions often seem to ignore what photography is really about, images, be they technically superb or not. All things being equal, I'd certainly love to have a Leica S2.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Shashin,
I certainly meant no disrespect to those who make comparisons with an open mind and who are willing to take themselves not too seriously. I do like to tweak those who feel they are superior, because of their photo equipment and who deign to disparage the work of those who work with "lesser" gear. I am not implying you are one of those. It's just that these highly technical discussions often seem to ignore what photography is really about, images, be they technically superb or not. All things being equal, I'd certainly love to have a Leica S2.
There has always been snobs in the world, but the world would have a little less color without them. I also think we think of "quality" as some sort of absolute scale. I just enjoy photography. The Holga has great image quality and I enjoy good work from it. Same as pinhole photography or Ambrotypes. None are defined by resolving power, but that is also what makes them distinctive, but only in the right hands.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
We think of the sensor as something divorced from the rest of the system (and ignore light actually has a wavelength). Given a specific aperture, diffraction will impact a smaller sensor more than a larger one. Larger sensors don't need to work at such high frequencies and so can take better advantage of optics optimized for contrast. And given the same angle of view with a given aperture, the larger format will also have greater resolution (but less DoF) than a smaller sensor because of a larger entrance pupil.

We like to think of these arguments on the terms of everything being equal. The problem is everything is different. We can try to push and shove some of these criteria around to try to make them equal, but we are just creating greater difference with other factors. Ultimately, it does not matter about the individual technical specifications, but the symphony for factors that goes into the image we perceive.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
What did you pay for your watch? You can buy a working watch for 5$, so why pay more?
You can buy a shirt on ebay for 1$, so why buy a shirt for 50$?

If our life was only determined by economic based decisions it would be sooo boaring.
If everybody was happy with just 95% there would be much less innovations.

Nothing against the D800 and maybe I will even buy one one day (maybe I might prefer a D4 for my intended use) but what is the sense to compare it to an S2?
How much one wants to pay for a little more quality is a totally personal decission. And if I couldnt afford the S2 I know I would be totally happy with a D800 as well, I would be happy with the D700 too by the way.

The best ROI for a hobby photographer would be to give up the hobby and sell all his gear.
 

coulombic

New member
What did you pay for your watch? You can buy a working watch for 5$, so why pay more?
You can buy a shirt on ebay for 1$, so why buy a shirt for 50$?

If our life was only determined by economic based decisions it would be sooo boaring.
If everybody was happy with just 95% there would be much less innovations.

Nothing against the D800 and maybe I will even buy one one day (maybe I might prefer a D4 for my intended use) but what is the sense to compare it to an S2?
How much one wants to pay for a little more quality is a totally personal decission. And if I couldnt afford the S2 I know I would be totally happy with a D800 as well, I would be happy with the D700 too by the way.

The best ROI for a hobby photographer would be to give up the hobby and sell all his gear.
You make excellent points. If people only purchased things based on economic needs, why would elitist brands and "luxury" items exist? Why would any of us own more than a 5D? Or a Rebel T3i, for that matter? Simply put, the economic model of "need" is an incomplete assessment of the situation. It fails to factor in desire -- the human side of the equation, and in some cases, not saying this applies to anyone in the MF world -- conspicuous consumption.

Regardless of the economic aspects, he camera is not the most important aspect of the puzzle to me, it's just a piece. The prints, at the end of the day, mean the most in my opinion. This is why I purchased a P65+, then later an Aptus-II 12. Printing large, and clearly is my goal.

I'll likely pick up a D800E when it's released and use my TS canon lenses on it via adapters. I've long been considering picking up a P45+ to complement my Aptus-II 12, but they're both rare and fairly expensive, still. If this sensor has even remotely decent long-exposure capabilities, I'm sold. Will I feel less "professional," or somehow "embarrassed" using a DSLR? Not at all. It's a tool; a means to an end.

I'm interested in color handling, and tonal transitions, gradients. Sharpness/resolution is really only part of the equation, naturally. I'm specifically interested to see if it can match/approach the dynamic range of MF. With 14-bit files, I am inclined to believe that the tonal variations will be much more noticeable than the contemporary offerings from Leaf/Hass/Phase, and subtle tones will suffer due to this. I went from shooting Canon 5Ds and 1Ds to shooting the P65+, and the Aptus-II 12, and the gradient/tonal handling is likely what impressed me most, as well as the useful dynamic range.

There are natural FoV/DoF concerns inherent to different formats. It remains to be seen just how much of a role diffraction will play into this sensor's performance, as well. I do speculate quality loss due to diffraction will onset fairly quickly, however, but with the use of TS lenses, it should be possible to see near the real resolution.

At the end of the day, though, the real issue in my eyes is the prints. I'm actually a little surprised this hasn't been mentioned before. . . this is the end-result, right? If it can create the same end result, I see no reason not to buy it. If, however, I see the prints being noticeably inferior, well, at least it's reasonably inexpensive.
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
Gabe, as far as I know you can only use Nikon lenses on Canon bodies via adapters not the other way around ... be aware of that if you want to use your TSEs! :)
 

Aaron

New member
Regarding lenses, I wouldn't overlook the nikon 14-24. It's a zoom so it cant be a good as a prime zeiss for example? Not really true, it's ridiculously good. Try it and see, it was made for a D800e :D
 
Last edited:

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
At the end of the day, though, the real issue in my eyes is the prints. I'm actually a little surprised this hasn't been mentioned before. . . this is the end-result, right? If it can create the same end result, I see no reason not to buy it. If, however, I see the prints being noticeably inferior, well, at least it's reasonably inexpensive.
Well said! For those of us who print, this is the decisive point. I'm fortunate enough to have a Phase system for landscapes and "detail" work, a Sony system for wildlife and M system for "walk around". But for the ultimate print quality, there is no discussion.

It's just a question of the right tool for the job. I have a high regard for Nikon, though I've never owned one, but if it can give me a 30 by 40 inch print of IQ180 quality, then sure, I'll switch.

But I doubt that that will be the case...

Bill
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I sometimes browse through the "fun with...." threads, for example the LF, the Leica M, the MF, the Pentax and the Nikon as well as the m4/3.
My feeling: Even in websized images one can often see a difference (maybe this difference could be compensated by a certain post processing).
Same if I see how many of my own images I have rated good/very good the percentage of the S2 shors is higher than that of the M9 is higher than that of my Nikon shots, even though I have some Nikon shots which are of great IQ as well.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
......

Regardless of the economic aspects, he camera is not the most important aspect of the puzzle to me, it's just a piece. The prints, at the end of the day, mean the most in my opinion. This is why I purchased a P65+, then later an Aptus-II 12. Printing large, and clearly is my goal.

.......


There are natural FoV/DoF concerns inherent to different formats. It remains to be seen just how much of a role diffraction will play into this sensor's performance, as well. I do speculate quality loss due to diffraction will onset fairly quickly, however, but with the use of TS lenses, it should be possible to see near the real resolution.

.....At the end of the day, though, the real issue in my eyes is the prints. I'm actually a little surprised this hasn't been mentioned before. . . this is the end-result, right? If it can create the same end result, I see no reason not to buy it. If, however, I see the prints being noticeably inferior, well, at least it's reasonably inexpensive.

I Agree with this view completely. For this reason I urge people who do take their photography seriously to get the best file they can - with the best tool that they can afford - because one thing is for certain....technology means that the quality of prints and display options will only improve over time...however this means that in order to maximise the potential of the photos one makes today - for the long term...use the best tool that produces the best archival file one can afford for the subject matter..

I have some photos I am particularly proud of - which were shot with the Canon 10D - my first digital camera...its 6 megapixels are today quite limiting in terms of the size of print I can get ..as well as teh quality of file one gets from modern cameras...

I say - remember that you are shooting for long term possibility and potential as well as today..

Pete
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Another D800 comparison thread to re-hash everything over, and over and over based on pure speculation ... but I guess no news, and no controversy is boring ... even if you learn absolutely nothing from it. ;)

However, personally I have learned from past errors in judgement. When the FF 24 meg Nikon D3X came out and touted as the "studio" Nikon, I stupidly bought the hype again, (just like I fell for the Canon 1DsMK-II hype with the "s" standing for "Studio"). I got the D3X, along with every nano coated optic available then ... including the amazing 14-24 zoom.

Imagine my disappointment when my buddy's much less expensive Contax 645 and 22 meg Phase One back produced better files and prints (damned those fat pixels!). In addition, the NEF RAW files were the hardest to process of any I had ever encountered to date ... and trust me I know how to post process.

It was no match in any measure of IQ against my Leaf Aptus7s 33 meg back with it's wonderful Dalsa skin rendering.

For a frame of reference, the S2 exhibits higher over-all IQ than all the above MFD cameras (partly because of those incomparably delicious S lenses)

I've said this on other D800 threads ... this camera will require a change in shooting technique to realize the extra resolution. People will have to adopt MFD techniques to see it in a final print. Plus, this camera is not a higher ISO machine like the D4 ... so two key features that separate 35mm DSLRs from other formats are compromised ... spontaneity and low ambient light shooting ... all in the cause of "almost as good as" the low end of MFD ... which is exactly the lesson I learned with the D3X and Leaf Aptus7s comparisons.

Nothing against this fine camera from Nikon ... it'll have a place in many a tool box. But delusional wishes and dreams won't make it a MFD.

-Marc
 

lowep

Member
Maybe it is better to evaluate the merits of the D800 as a DSLR-like MFDB rather than as a MFDB-like DSLR?
 
Top