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!

POLL: Will you sell your MFD gear if the D800 holds good on its promise?

Will you sell your MFD gear if the D800 holds on its promise?

  • Never. I don't care about paying 10x as much for 10% more quality.

    Votes: 15 16.9%
  • C'mon, D800 will never match DoF, dynamic range and microcontrast of my Phase One!

    Votes: 32 36.0%
  • I'm into tech cams.Won't give up Rodesntocks & stitching, even if that luxury costs me 40k more!

    Votes: 15 16.9%
  • Damn. I just sold off my Canon/Nikon gear to get into MFD!

    Votes: 8 9.0%
  • If that Zeiss/Leica glass on the D800E performs as I think it should ... EBAY here I come!

    Votes: 5 5.6%
  • I just preordered a D800E. Hell it's cheaper than that MFD lens I'm longing for!

    Votes: 14 15.7%

  • Total voters
    89
  • Poll closed .

pophoto

New member
I think this thread is going a little thin, so rather than hear (read) argue, over what can ultimately be rephrased into a more constructive question is, CAN most of you take a Nikon D800E and Nikon's offering of lenses and produce photos for your clients and for them (not you) to be happy and for you to get paid? (satisfying the assignment)
Well can you? :p

I agree with Marc, SIZE matters :)
M9 is lighter, RZII is big and heavy, and P1 IQ180 needs fatter wallets ....
 

fotografz

Well-known member
T-Streng, I accept the answers. It is just that some people were attacking the thread from the start for itself and suggesting other motives by the poster that just aren't there. I answered to those posts in detail but didn't intend to expatiate to this point and degree from the beginning and thus start a contentious discussion about gear envy or whatever.
Come on Paul, did you honestly think the way your poll wording was structured would solicit passive responses? Or that making mind-reading statements of MFD users hidden motivations would go unanswered?

Do you actually believe that MFD users are threatened by yet another foray into "resolution land" by a 35mm DSLR? You don't seem to be, so why would anyone else?

I mean, look at the endless Get Dpi threads advising people to take care when considering MFD. How specialized it is and how one needs to determine real need before stepping into such an expensive decision like this.

In that same spirit of honest sharing of experience, I'd personally advise those that want MFD IQ not to get overly excited about this camera as a cheap equalizer ... it is simply chasing a dream, and the camera maker dearly wants you to believe it to be a dream come true. If however, it does fit your needs, as determined by you and you alone, then Nikon has made it possible. Good for them.

-Marc
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
For example, medium format was dominating wedding photography at one point. Now it's all about D3s, D700s and Canon 5Ds at those weddings.
And now it's wedding shooters who complain about file sizes and how they don't need or want 36MP. Strange bunch those folks. :D
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
To clear things up, I intended to address following mfd user demographics (my segmentation, feel free to change it or give inputs, just my gut feeling of what users there are):

1. Never. I don't care about paying 10x as much for 10% more quality.

These are people that want only the best that technology can offer and don't care if means spending a lot more than a more common professional solution such as a 35mm digital system. Real-world efficacy as a tool is not the prime motivator, and money is no object or of subordinated importance here, no judgement intended. Classic example would be the the wealthy enthusiast who always buys the best of the best in all what he does or just quality-oriented consumers that appreciate the best technology or that want something not everyone has.

2. C'mon, D800 will never match DoF, dynamic range and microcontrast of my Phase One!

The decision to shoot MFD is based on clear-cut perceived/felt advantages and not a per se decision to shoot only the best. This user tried extensively different camera systems went to a dealer etc. and sees the special something only mfd files have.


3. I'm into tech cams.Won't give up Rodesntocks & stitching, even if that luxury costs me 40k more!

Tech cams afford unmatched quality in wide-angle photography, enable stitching for extreme resolutions and make up for a view-camera-like experience in the field. Especially high-end architectural photography benefits from tech-cam photography and there's no subsitute for this in 35mm except the TS lenses. Basically same as 2. but with a focus on the special tech cam experience that just doesn't exist in 35mm.

4. Damn. I just sold off my Canon/Nikon gear to get into MFD!

Anyone moving up to mfd because they want either more resolution or that special something of mfd and that just sold all their beloved CaNikon gear and kind of regrets not having the possibility to shoot all that well-known glass on that new sexy Nikon. It was hard selling that 70-200 2.8 IS that made so many beautiful portraits, wonder how that one would fare in 36 MPX.

5. If that Zeiss/Leica glass on the D800E performs as I think it should ... EBAY here I come!

The practical guys. Those who know that only the end result counts and not the highlight recovery slider in Capture One. In the end, printing that MFD file out in normal sizes (35mm digital such as a Leica M9 can go 40 inch easily) on that Epson or downrezzing that wedding portrait for the client's dvd is a great equaliser. Basically, if the D800E satisfies the client, no need for fancy mfd, and all the small headaches it can entail such as expensive upgrade paths (massive devaluation) or gear insurance. Great handling, speed, cheap costs of entry for great end results. Live view. This user doesn't compromise on quality, that's why he got into medium format digital in the first place. But it was a long road and money is an issue. They know that great glass is great glass and a Leica 100 Elmarit-R with that profoto Acute pack makes a new Nikon sing and interesting all over again and all of a sudden the idea of selling off that Hassy before Photokina arrives and especially before the newly announced systems devalue the secondary market price of one's gear by incredible amounts seems a lot more tempting. And hey, 4fps is great in comparison to 1fps. Love that snappyness in conjunction with the peace of mind that even being robbed of one's gear at the next outdoor shooting isn't going to cost one's arm and leng.

6. I just preordered a D800E. Hell it's cheaper than that MFD lens I'm longing for!

As a matter of fact the D800E costs less than say a new leaf shutter lens on a Phase. That's chump change for those accustomed to medium format prices. Even upgrading a P65+ to finally get a decent screen (and a little more bells and whistles I know) to an IQ160 ... costs multiple times as much as that Nikon. So for those people the saying holds true: horses for courses or outright: double system, here I come! because actually the D800 is so cheap that it's not a question of alternative systems but more of fancy. In the end, what Nikon has done here IS something special. Now we have the resolution-champ of the 35mm camp not coming in at 10k like it was the case in the past (D3x and 1 Ds MKIII) but at a mere 3k. That is the traditional price point of enthusiast camera gear or midrange pro-cams such as the venerable D700, or the 5D lineage from Canon. By introducing 36 MPX at 3k, Nikon is coming in so cheap that it's also tempting and so easy to hit that pre-order button on Amazon. For those accustomed to the PhaMiyaBlad price list this price is really easy. Leica users can smile even more because their lenses cost more than twice that little nikon camera or for one Leica-S lens they can get a whole new system with lenses.
 
Last edited:

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Thank you for doing the thinking for me. Apparently, I am incapable of reasonable and rational decisions based on cost verses reward. I guess I need an arbitrator to be my guide. :confused:

For a person that has a bug up his bum about MFD business models, etc., you sure have bought a lot of them :D Could it be that you bought more camera than you could afford or needed ? No, wait, I take that back ... I don't want to tell you how to think either.

-Marc
Actually, I still own the Hasselblad, I did almost purchase the S2 though, but couldn't justify a slightly bigger sensor than 35mm. My comment was meant to be humorous, but thank you for making my point. MFD does 80% of what I need, but a 36mp with no AA filter and only $3000, that's just good business.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
It's fairly common for weddings to be multi media events now. With this Nikon, you can shoot 36 mp pics and switch to cinematic HD without switching cameras! The versatility of this Nikon is welcomed and perhaps RAW images will be available to compare. I'm sure MFD is safe...for now, but this will inevitability create competition which is good for the industry.
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Actually the most interesting part in this thread is which emotions it´s raising ! The camera is not even out, only few samples to be seen and the MF people go to defense mode, the deniers state their everlasting loyalty for MF,...... a lot of fun to read.

This march the thing will be in the shops and then people will start shooting it. This discussion now is a bit like talking about to teach a tuareg in the middle of the sahara how to swim.....

One thing- I think I would not buy it ..... because I think the red plastic application on the grip is extremely cheap looking, this was fashionable 30 years ago when colani designed the F3, but hey time has changed............:D

regards
Stefan
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I don't think any MF user posting in this thread has been 'defensive'. In fact I think that the responses from people have been thoughtful and considered.

The simple fact of the matter is that 35mm CMOS technology allows for a bunch of things to happen in terms of on camera gizmos that CD tech does not. If you want the 'advantages' of CMOS you buy one of these tools and use it. If you want the advantages of CCD - you do likewise.

The whole notion of selling this to buy that - leaves aside the fact that people can buy both and use them for their purposes.

I just don't get the either or argument implicit in the questions and arguments.

As for "silly rich people". You know apart from reality TV shows in the US which depict the frightfully awful housewives of this or that city - I haven't met too many silly rich people in my life - typically they are a bit smarter in their decision making than not.

The statement is in fact just as offensive as the statement - "silly poor people" and just as irrelevant to the issue of photographic tools.

Pete
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Paul,

I think your intention was admirable, and thought provoking, and last I checked the heading at the top says, "GetDPI - digital imaging workshops", nothing indicates it's MFD only, but look at your poll questions. The number 1 answer so far, is indicative of the responses you've got. Most here have a passion for photography, regardless of equipment or budget. Some are more humble and modest than others, but what is certain, is that you've stirred the pot! This is good because it creates debate which always leads to ideas and individual thought, and thus, choice. Keep up the good work!
 

jonoslack

Active member
To me it looks more like some (few) people want to justify why they do not use digital MF systems and balk at people who do use MF.
Oh,oh ... someone has finally said what many are thinking. :ROTFL:
+2 . . . . certainly seems like that to me . . and I don't use MF, and I haven't got a Nikon; so I don't have a position to defend!

One thing- I think I would not buy it ..... because I think the red plastic application on the grip is extremely cheap looking, this was fashionable 30 years ago when colani designed the F3, but hey time has changed............:D
Ah Stefan - the crux of the matter!

Paul . . .Like Johnny I think your intentions were honourable . . . however, when you're in a hole . . . stop digging :)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I don't think any MF user posting in this thread has been 'defensive'. In fact I think that the responses from people have been thoughtful and considered.

The simple fact of the matter is that 35mm CMOS technology allows for a bunch of things to happen in terms of on camera gizmos that CD tech does not. If you want the 'advantages' of CMOS you buy one of these tools and use it. If you want the advantages of CCD - you do likewise.

The whole notion of selling this to buy that - leaves aside the fact that people can buy both and use them for their purposes.

I just don't get the either or argument implicit in the questions and arguments.

As for "silly rich people". You know apart from reality TV shows in the US which depict the frightfully awful housewives of this or that city - I haven't met too many silly rich people in my life - typically they are a bit smarter in their decision making than not.

The statement is in fact just as offensive as the statement - "silly poor people" and just as irrelevant to the issue of photographic tools.

Pete
So any POV other than the OPs is defensive according to Mr. Inflammatory Rhetoric. :eek:

Your response was right on Peter. Just because I have a MFD, doesn't mean a 35mm isn't the better choice from time to time. I use my M9 more than MFD ... but make way more money with the latter than the former. Frankly, the 35mm gear is harder to justify than the MFD stuff ... even $3K along with a bundle for decent lenses is not easily justified from a financial perspective.

-Marc
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Agreed Marc.

For me an amateur - I stopped at 40 megapixels in MF land and cant see any benefit for more than 16-20 in 35mm land. I want to learn to get the most out of my gear in a proper studio environment now -and that means all the cash I wish to spend goes into lighting and construction..


lighting - now that is a scary investment trip and another world of its own.:eek:

Pete
 
I think that one has to be very firm on one's decisions. If I, after more than 20 years of photography, need a MF or a Nikon D800, is my absolute decision and don't need to declare to no body or hesitate about it.
Right now, after year and half of savings, I'm going for a MF camera and I'm not looking sideways with the new Dslrs. I'm glad that there is a new Nikon 36mp because it'll push competition among camera brands and technologies for them, but I'm firm on my decision because I know the differences and I know my clients need that quality and size for billboards. ACH
 
J

jeffacme

Guest
If you remove ego from the equation and base the purchasing decision on sound business principles then the question answers itself.

If the D800 delivers the goods at a fraction of the cost it would be bad business to not head for the MF exit. Those are two mighty big ifs though and as I always say "it's the poetry not the tool"
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
To me a "system" is so much more than megapixels, lenses, even print quality. It can simply be a function of how any individual best creates images.

For example, my rate of keepers is much higher when I'm using (a) a tripod (b) a high megapixel back that requires extreme care in focussing (c) the very best lens for the job and (d) a relaxed contemplative attitude. For me, a large and often cumbersome apparatus brings out my best (IMHO) work, irrespective of image resolution, tonality and ultimate print quality.

Do I do as well with a dslr? In a word, no - it's not the gear, it's just me. Sure, I use a dslr for active wildlife because it's better suited to that task, but for landscapes I just don't produce as many winners. Is it the gear? No - it's my approach. If I took all the same pains with a top quality dslr as I do with mf, would I like the results as much? No - because I'm afraid that if I HAD used the mf, the results would have been just a tad better. And I always want the very best I can get even if it isn't that good by other people's standards. (And it's often not!)

The point I'm trying to make is that photographers' styles and personality often lead them to do better work with one sort of system as opposed to another - regardless of pixel count and print quality.

You can't separate the tool from the character of the user. Ansel Adams and a Leica? Cartier Bresson and an 8 by 10?

There's a psychology at work here that supersedes equipment minutiae. At least, for me.

Bill
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Marc,

My tone and intent while writing these comments was droll at best, and nothing more than that. But it's also one of honest opinion and experience. The saying, "you get what you paid for", isn't always true in MFD, at least for me. Without even capturing 100 images, my MFD was on the fritz, just like the other two MFD cameras that followed. My Canon 1Ds however, never once had issues in 10,000 captures, and I sold it for a logical upgrade to MFD. Although, I think I finally have a great H model, each has its rightful place in my business. I certainly won't bring a MFD to cover the Superbowl, that's the Nikon's territory.
Soon the D800e will be available for me to shoot, and i'll post some RAW images here with no manipulation or adjustments. As I mentioned before MFD has its purpose. Recently I was contacted by a producer from ABC Television, who wanted to purchase one of my photographs they saw in a magazine. One of the prints made from that photo was over 4x3 feet (1.2 x 1 meters). Of all the photographs they could have chosen, it was the MFD image. I'm grateful because i'm not sure my current 35mm FF would have held up to that increase in dimensions. But now Nikon might make that possible at a fraction of the investment - I'd like to at least try.
Certain photography will always benefit from MFD over any 35mm, in a particular situation, but the slight promise of both formats getting ever so closer, is tantalizing, and exciting for digital photography as a whole.
Perhaps I should have put a smiley face next to my first comment, so people won't be so offended. Come 'on it's just photography:)
 

D&A

Well-known member
Yes, the 40 meg cameras could be made to be more competitive ... they could return to their roots and put a 35mm sized sensor in their cameras :ROTFL:

However, the fact still remains ... SIZE MATTERS!

All the Fairy Dust wishes and Unicorn Dreams spread across this thread and others like it won't alter the laws of physics. Wish they did, I'd be driving a $20K 700hp Porche that got 100 miles to a gallon and could haul all my lighting gear ... instead of a 7 year old Volvo SUV ;)

-Marc

(BTW, any print shoot out has to be done by Jack and Guy ... Jack's prints are breathtaking, so I know he can get the best out of any camera).

Agree Marc...size matters and I'm not referring to MP but sensor size. Law of physics cannot be changed and those that are well versed in medium format digital should certainly see the obvious differences between a MF 40MP back/camera with a superb performing lens vs. the 36MP D800 with an equally good lens, especially with regards to large format printing. Obviously improved electronics and advances in chip design has certainly gone a long way in making a camera like the D800 possible with what will most certainly will be notable performance.

I think what surprises me at this early stage is most know that the D3x required not only the best possible lenses and exacting technique to extract the performance the camera was capable of, but many lenses tried on the D3x performed sub par. With the higher resolution of the D800, I hear less of these concerns than ever before, as though miraculously, Nikon has somehow circumvented the need to address these concerns to a great extent. Some I feel will be so elated with increased file size that they will overlook the obvious....namely how much they are missing (image quality wise) by not heeding to what's needed in order to bring out the best from this body. Time will tell as the saying goes.

Dave (D&A)
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
This is the silliest set of almost unrelated leading questions I have ever read on this forum.
I am tempted just to delete the whole damn thing and certainly won't answer the poll to add to the silliness.

Honestly I buy a lot of tools from cameras to planer knives, so I really don't get what all the fuss is all about.

Ya get what ya want because it fills a need.

Or ya get what ya want need or no need just because ya want it.

I understand both points of view.

Jeez, it is just a freaking 35mm format dslr with the same lenses today as they sold yesterday.

-bob

of course I ordered a couple, but as I said I DO buy a lot of tools.
 
I will answer as someone who doesn't have a horse in the race. I have neither MF gear or Nikon gear. Right now I have a Sony A900 with Leica glass and my partner shoots Canon. We have two very different markets that we shoot for, one of which we are trying to get in that is split between bottom feeders with Photoshop skills and one or two high end offerings. We will always have DSLR gear for video production, though to be honest right now I would rather ditch that for dedicated video cameras.

We tend to shoot in very high contrast situations. Sometimes the lighting can be controlled with strobes, other times not. While resolution is nice, dynamic range, tonality, accurate colors and files that work up well in post processing are more important. We were discussing the D800e today and decided that we will be adding a tech camera of some sort -- partly for image quality, partly for market differentiation -- but a D800 or Sony A99 may well take the place of Phamia body and lenses.

We all know that megapixels only tell part of the story. To get the best images you need the best lenses, and the cost of high end 35 mm glass is getting pretty high, really it is approaching parity with Mamiya D glass. Where DSLR still wins, at least in my opinion, is when you need to move fast but when quality still matters, and that is why I am excited about this next generation of cameras.
 
Top