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 .
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
In the end, intention rules the roost... and (in a sense) pays for my gear.

Even though the Nikon ups the ante in megapixels over my lowly 28mp back, the sensor size renders a different look completely... and that larger-sensor rendition, especially as it relates to DoF, is something that can't be replicated on the smallish sensor. As Fred has shown wonderfully in another thread, go to 6x7 film and the rendition changes even more dramatically. Right now, even my smallish 44x33 sensor and the RZ glass have a look that is worlds different than anything I've gotten from 35mm-land (and I've shot Nikon, Canon, and Sony professional bodies for a living)... and this has nothing to do with good/bad, but everything to do with proclivities towards a certain rendering of the image plane and the subsequent falloff of sharpness behind (and in front of) said plane.

So.. due to my intentions to shoot subjects with an eye towards how the larger sensor/lens combos render, the D800 won't fit the bill no matter how it "lives up to its promise".

The sample in this thread looks horrible. I hope others are better... even though I've never seen high-mp nikon camera with a very pleasing rendering on skin.

Oh... I couldn't get into a well performing D800 system (due to lens costs needed to live up to the high MP) for what I got into my RZ/Aptus system... my RZ cost less than 1/2 the d800, lenses are roughly $200-$400, and my aptus was about the cost of a 200/2 VR. I'm well outfitted in MF land for less than most think it costs. So no money bias here.

It's about the image and, yes, SIZE MATTERS.
 

ghoonk

New member
No. Why would I step backward?

Sorry, but no, I'm not interested in the D800 either. I went on a "Hype" diet some time ago.

What I consolidated and got rid of is all the pretender cameras with big hype budgets, and spent the money on lighting which makes more impact than any camera I could buy.

Like it or not, the photo industry has changed dramatically, and "good enough" is the new "excellent." So, it stands to reason that a camera like this will be quite popular. That is the crux of the "numbers" discussion as opposed to the personal art aspect.

IMHO, if someone thinks they can get to the level of even a 31 meg MFD with a high spec 35MM, then they didn't need a MFD in the first place. I was still shooting an "old tech" 16 Meg CFV on a 203FE when I had a Nikon D3X and all of the latest Nano coated optics, and always preferred the 16 meg MFD files to the 24 meg Nikon ones in terms of IQ. I use 35mm DSLRs for functional differences, not IQ.

The real question that hasn't been asked is ... how many shooters will dump their $8K D3X for this higher meg camera? That seems to be what will flood the used market ... or will it?

As to S2 users quaking in their boots ... anyone that says that just doesn't get it. If Leica had launched an 18 to 24 meg 35mm R-10 instead, THAT is what many S2 users would have bought. Leica cameras are a path to their lenses. The S2 is my new 35mm DSLR and the A900 is now relegated to a snapshot camera.

For some odd reason, a few people want the big guys kicked to the curb, and they want to extoll the virtues of their "little camera that could". No matter how hard they wish upon a star, I doesn't change the fact that it's a fairy tale ... in reality, the only way Canon or Nikon will equal MFD IQ, is if they make a MFD camera and all new lenses.

-Marc
Funny thing though - most people who've declared that the D800 is 'as good as' an MFD aren't MFD shooters. I shoot with both, and like many here, it's horses for courses. 35mm has a place in my bag for certain assignments, while MFD has another.

If I were a shooter on a budget with a stable of good 35mm lenses already, the D800 might be a viable alternative to ponying up a huge chunk of change for an MFD system, for pushing the envelope of what 35mm can do, but knowing that it's not an MFD system.

Some people are happy with a heavily juiced 600 bhp 4-banger, but let's face it, at a different plane, it's not quite the same as a 600bhp V12 :p
 

cng

New member
the MF people go to defense mode, the deniers state their everlasting loyalty for MF,...... a lot of fun to read.
Stefan, you consider a dinosaur anyone who is not shooting video or using your own camera system. It's very easy for you to sit on the mountain and continually proclaim "The future is coming and no-one sees it but me!". There is a lot of room in the world for all flavours of photographic/imaging practice. :deadhorse:

P.S. I don't hear any denying going on from MF owners. I hear intelligent people reacting to a thread with inane poll questions. If anything, there is a lot more talk on the internet from the Nikon cultists who are out for blood, wanting (hoping?) to prove that the D800 will kill MF. This old song keeps getting rehashed every few years, whether its film vs digital, 135 vs MF vs LF, E6 vs C41, wet vs pigment prints, Zeiss vs Leica, Canon vs Nikon, etc etc etc.

And, yes, I own both Nikon and tech cameras. Both systems help me in my professional work, each in the right context.
 
Last edited:

vjbelle

Well-known member
I, for one, am excited about the announcement and have pre-ordered an 800E. No.... I won't be selling any of my MF gear but my Zeiss glass will have a new home. I have three Zeiss lenses that I use on my 5DII.... all with Nikon mounts. I had to pay a little extra for lens adaptors but I wanted to have future options. This will more than likely be the perfect travel camera for me.

Victor
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
@cng

yes this is raising emotions and if anyone should be concerned than it is me, we heavily rely on MF, I would wish the MF industry would raise their pace.
I also have deep sympathy for people who hammer out such milestones of engineering as this D800 will soon be called. This camera will change things - for good and bad, if the actual lenses will not hold up - good - there will be better ones ! Zeiss will sell twice as many primes as before, old Leica-R glass will become even more expensive , Nikon will do a ProLens line and this again will force Canon to raise the bar for their forthcoming Cameras and lenses too.
Good !
And I will not beat a dead horse now - I will NOT ask what the answers from MF are........... :confused:

Regards
Stefan
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I hope so. Go folks and put your MFD gear on the market ;)

But at the moment i can't see the flood of thousands of digital backs in Ebay... what a pity for me :)
Gimme six weeks and I might have an IQ180 for you :)
 

cng

New member
This camera will change things - for good and bad
This is nothing new. EVERY new product has an impact, some more than others. I just don't understand all the angst. Things will settle down once everyone realises the compromises involved with the D800's sensor, similar to what we found with the 80MP backs (diffraction, file sizes etc.).

I would wish the MF industry would raise their pace.
Every company in every industry can always theoretically move faster, be braver. But give the MF companies credit where its due, they have achieved a lot. And in some ways, they have even pushed the consumer-based companies to lift their own game. The proof is in the continual release of new glass from Nikon and Canon, as well as now the D800 with it's high MP and negated AA.

Think for a second what the MF companies HAVE achieved compared to the likes of Canon and Nikon: excellent, constantly updated RAW converters; consistently cutting-edge MFDB's; modular systems able to be paired with amazing lenses; P1's iPad preview tool, etc etc etc. Sure, MF DSLR's could have more functionality, faster focusing lenses, CMOS, video etc., but don't you think that the MF guys know this and are working on it?

Don't forget also that for a long while Nikon and Canon were considered to be moving too slowly in releasing new and better glass for their DSLR's, let alone a (surprise, surprise) high-MP camera with no AA filter.
 

fotografz

Well-known 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:)
Offence, defence ... the retoric here sounds like football descriptions ;)

Frankly, your ideas about "Applications" ... and Shelby's comments regarding "Intent" ... or Bill's lucid notion regarding "Affect on personal style", get more to the crux of the matter IMO.

I believe folks that are using a 12 to 21 meg 35mm DSLR and move to 36 meg are going to be in for a surprise. Unless their technique is flawless, and their lenses the latest, greatest and are shot stopped down, they won't be seeing much of the advantage in the end files over what they have now. Higher resolution isn't a walk in the park, it comes with a hidden penalty no camera maker is going to publish in their hype.

In short, to get anywhere near MFD quality, the shooter will have to employ a MFD approach and technique. That negates the whole advantage of the 35mm form factor. Swift and agile doesn't mix well with mega megs. Not to mention the penalty in shooting speed and high ISO performance people have come to expect of 35mm DSLRs. It is exactly what happened to many 35mm users that moved to the S2 for the similar form factor thinking it was like their 35mm DSLR, but with more res. Surprise! Wrongo!

Despite the fact that Nikon will sell every one of these D800s they can make because people actually buy into the meg hype without considering any penalty, I personally believe this was a mistake on Nikon's part :eek:. The D700 was a great camera ... solid, fast, agile, FF and well suited to 35mm work. If the D800 had followed Canon's excellent example, and moved to 18 meg or so, kept the higher ISO ability, while offering all the new features, it would have retained the spontaneity that is the hallmark of 35mm DSLRs.

I don't specifically need an almost as good substitute for a lower end MFD, that isn't as good for 35mm work in spontaneous situations and lower light. It leaves me in no-man's land. Like mystery meat ... neither fish nor fowl.

I've a dilemma now, I built a Sony A900 system that at the time was my "do all" wedding camera ... it has been fine, but deficient in the higher ISO arena. I've been waiting for a Sony version of a high ISO camera which to date hasn't arrived. I'm now afraid a FF low light camera will never come from them, and face the prospect of a system swap again now that I have a S2 to cover the high res needs.

On a related note: I just read through all the looooong D800 treads on the Pro Digital Wedding Forum (DWF) I belong to. The target that Nikon claims this camera is aimed at isn't exactly thrilled. Many had hoped for a D4 lite ... 18 meg FF that is excellent for lower light, higher ISO performance in a smaller easier to carry package that doesn't max out computer processing and storage when dealing with 500 to 1500 images at a crack for off-line up-loads. The D4 is too big and too expensive for the average wedding shooter, and the D800 can't do what they need. So far, Nikon has left us nothing that fits our needs.

-Marc
 

cng

New member
Higher resolution isn't a walk in the park, it comes with a hidden penalty no camera maker is going to publish in their hype.

In short, to get anywhere near MFD quality, the shooter will have to employ a MFD approach and technique. That negates the whole advantage of the 35mm form factor. Swift and agile doesn't mix well with mega megs.
My thinking exactly, that's why I'm hanging on to my D700. But damn if I'm not tempted by the D800E though. Will be very interested to see reports on suitable lenses and diffraction in the coming weeks/months. I have had my eye on upgrading to the new AF-S 24/35/85 f1.4 lenses for a little while now.

Personally, my D700 produces nice, film-like files. I have my IQ and tech cam for big files (medium files if using Sensor+). D700 for faster work, tech cam for slower work.

The D4 is too big and too expensive for the average wedding shooter, and the D800 can't do what they need. So far, Nikon has left us nothing that fits our needs.
Nikon is reportedly continuing to produce the D700 (but for how long?). It may even prove to be a sweeter deal if the rumours of a price drop are true.
 

Anders_HK

Member
One look at the Nikon D800 samples was all I needed to see that Nikon is barking up the wrong tree. It is very sharp, but the tonal resolution and punch in the blacks can't even match a P25+. I prefer the shadows from the D7000

It seems people are getting over exited by the big numbers and claims of medium format quality.

Here is a sample from the Nikon D800 at iso 100:



http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_04_l.jpg

This is a good lighting situation to test a camera. Just one light. No fancy lighting to spruce things up.
Looks dull and rather flat. Eyeballs are greyish and skin does not have a tonal rendition that makes skin luminous or rich.

On the other hand the Canon 1D X sample files look very very good. Impressive improvement in the overall image quality. may not have the hyper resolution of a 60MP or 80MP but the overall image is terrific. Great blacks and very nice luminous skin tones.

Personally I think that Canon has made the better choice. 18 MP is the sweet spot.
At ISO 100 I always preferred my Canon 1ds files to my Canon 5D Mark II

I am hoping to a little brother to the Canon 1D X running at 5/6 frames per second (or even less) but with stellar focusing and the same 18MP sensor.

Canon is also developing a 50ish to 100ish f2 zoom with IS. IF it's the same quality of the 70 to 200 2.8L II it will be a lens I'd like for sure.
It is interesting to scan through the further replies. Above is one who has the intelligence to view the samples and to SEE what it actually appear to be. I agree. I do not think it looks up to the 20MP backs in image quality at low ISO. The samples all look tad plastic and like DSLR. Difference of size of sensors yes, but also a design of sensor for broad range of ISO for general use (indeed appear to apply also for E version). :salute:
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
In short, to get anywhere near MFD quality, the shooter will have to employ a MFD approach and technique. That negates the whole advantage of the 35mm form factor. Swift and agile doesn't mix well with mega megs. Not to mention the penalty in shooting speed and high ISO performance people have come to expect of 35mm DSLRs.
Well said. We have a lot of MF shooters in Death Valley right now and to a one, we've all seen the significant added gains of moving our backs to a tech camera (and the latest tech lenses) from our main main MF SLR system, and this includes Phase, Hassy and Rollei/Leaf camera system users.

Just as the tech cam cannot compete with the 35 DSLR for speed and agility, the 35 DSLR cannot compete with the tech cam on ultimate imaging quality and image adjustment controls. So while the D800 certainly looks interesting and I am probably going to buy one, it will definitely NOT be replacing my MF tech kit.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
@cng

yes this is raising emotions and if anyone should be concerned than it is me, we heavily rely on MF, I would wish the MF industry would raise their pace.
I also have deep sympathy for people who hammer out such milestones of engineering as this D800 will soon be called. This camera will change things - for good and bad, if the actual lenses will not hold up - good - there will be better ones ! Zeiss will sell twice as many primes as before, old Leica-R glass will become even more expensive , Nikon will do a ProLens line and this again will force Canon to raise the bar for their forthcoming Cameras and lenses too.
Good !
And I will not beat a dead horse now - I will NOT ask what the answers from MF are........... :confused:

Regards
Stefan
What emotions? Do you mean experiential conviction, clearly stated?

You want MF to raise the pace, I don't! In fact, antidotally, very few people I know actually want that (unless it is free). At one time yes, the pace needed to move along ... but now, we are way past what most people can even realize out of these systems. Very few shooters have a MFD kit long enough to actually learn all it can do, then think in those terms, then exploit it ... before they are onto yet another iteration, and start the cycle all over again.

For crying out loud, let me catch my breath and get good with this one, before you cram another newer, shiner, one in my face with a bunch of hype attached to it.

-Marc
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Marc
Despite the fact that Nikon will sell every one of these D800s they can make because people actually buy into the meg hype without considering any penalty, I personally believe this was a mistake on Nikon's part :eek:. The D700 was a great camera ... solid, fast, agile, FF and well suited to 35mm work. If the D800 had followed Canon's excellent example, and moved to 18 meg or so, kept the higher ISO ability, while offering all the new features, it would have retained the spontaneity that is the hallmark of 35mm DSLRs.
Whilst I understand what you're saying, I don't agree - at least personally. I don't want to go to MF - but I do want to be able to get good full sized prints from my Epson 3880 - the A900 just about cuts it (as does the M9) - the D700 certainly didn't. 36mp would be enough.

So - I think there really is a market for high MP 35mm bodies - not to suggest for a second that it's a substitute for MF -. I take you're point about shooting it like an MF camera - but even if you don't, you don't get bad images, just don't maximise

I don't specifically need an almost as good substitute for a lower end MFD, that isn't as good for 35mm work in spontaneous situations and lower light. It leaves me in no-man's land. Like mystery meat ... neither fish nor fowl.
No - but lots of us do need that - or at least want it.
I've a dilemma now, I built a Sony A900 system that at the time was my "do all" wedding camera ... it has been fine, but deficient in the higher ISO arena. I've been waiting for a Sony version of a high ISO camera which to date hasn't arrived. I'm now afraid a FF low light camera will never come from them, and face the prospect of a system swap again now that I have a S2 to cover the high res needs.
all the rumour sites seem to suggest that the next FF camera from Sony will be 24mp and that the 36mp version won't come until next year. One would assume that a new 24mp FF sensor from Sony would be really good in the high ISO arena . . . really REALLY good!

I would expect the 800 to be pretty good at high ISO as well - the pixel pitch suggests a jumped up version of the sensor in the D7000 and the Pentax K5 - both of which do well. I think 3200 is enough for most wedding work . . . and all of these cameras will surely do this.


On a related note: I just read through all the looooong D800 treads on the Pro Digital Wedding Forum (DWF) I belong to. The target that Nikon claims this camera is aimed at isn't exactly thrilled. Many had hoped for a D4 lite ... 18 meg FF that is excellent for lower light, higher ISO performance in a smaller easier to carry package that doesn't max out computer processing and storage when dealing with 500 to 1500 images at a crack for off-line up-loads. The D4 is too big and too expensive for the average wedding shooter, and the D800 can't do what they need. So far, Nikon has left us nothing that fits our needs.

-Marc
But wedding photographers always whinge :ROTFL: (I know - because I do it myself)

The reason I don't want a D800 is because I've discovered the joys of focus peaking with Leica R lenses . . . and of course, that won't be available, so I'll need to wait for the Sony equivalent. . . . . but I would like the 36mp for at least some of my work.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I have not really run into moiree problems with the S2 and the M9 - if Nikon offers both a D800 and a D800E - is there a reason to believe the D800E would show more often moiree-problems than the M9 or the S2?
The fact that Nikon offers both versions would make me thinking if Ihad to decide between the 2.

I dont shoot fashion but often take images of kids and they also wear fabrics.
Recently I had few images wihc showed some miree on the camera display but it all disappeared in Lightroom.

Do others share my experience?
 

D&A

Well-known member
I have not really run into moiree problems with the S2 and the M9 - if Nikon offers both a D800 and a D800E - is there a reason to believe the D800E would show more often moiree-problems than the M9 or the S2?
The fact that Nikon offers both versions would make me thinking if Ihad to decide between the 2.

I dont shoot fashion but often take images of kids and they also wear fabrics.
Recently I had few images wihc showed some miree on the camera display but it all disappeared in Lightroom.

Do others share my experience?
In relationship to and as an addition to your question, are all the current cameras that have no AA, use a CCD sensor or are there any cameras out there with no AA and CMOS? The reason I ask is why did Nikon go though their apparently elaborate set-up of canceling glass/filter array to achieve the effect of no AA as opposed to how most others do it? Maybe it's due to how the CMOS without AA captures an image vs a CCD without AA (and what the two respective images look like with respect to moire') and that's why Nikon had to employ their scheme? Maybe I'm missing something or not seeing the obvious?

Dave (D&A)
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Fotografz- "I believe folks that are using a 12 to 21 meg 35mm DSLR and move to 36 meg are going to be in for a surprise. Unless their technique is flawless, and their lenses the latest, greatest and are shot stopped down, they won't be seeing much of the advantage in the end files over what they have now. Higher resolution isn't a walk in the park, it comes with a hidden penalty no camera maker is going to publish in their hype."

Ah, but what if their technique is just that...flawless? The idea is to pull in this market share of pros/semi-pros and rank amateurs who want to shoot in this realm of MP's, and because the initial investment is so little compared to MFD, they can do just that. Higher resolution isn't rocket science either!

These generic assumptions that the new D800 owners won't be able to master technique is flawed because most likely, this camera will fill a void and compliment a MFD users camera bag and not replace it. The ones that step right into purchasing D800 as their only camera could also be the ones that want to improve their camera technique and thus, figure it out. The learning curve with photography has been greatly reduced with digital!

Fotografz-" Very few shooters have a MFD kit long enough to actually learn all it can do, then think in those terms, then exploit it ... before they are onto yet another iteration, and start the cycle all over again.
For crying out loud, let me catch my breath and get good with this one, before you cram another newer, shiner, one in my face with a bunch of hype attached to it."


Marc, this is the same point I made in my first comment about business models in MFD that I got trounced for. I wouldn't assume that MFD shooters aren't exploiting there camera before switching, but the nature of planned obsolescence in this industry creates "pixel envy" and now you have to justify that to your ego...or your spouse!

Nobody expects these cameras to replace MFD, but in fact, enhance the experience. Sony will soon introduce the A99 with it's translucent mirror, that won't even move during 10 FPS capture! Now why can't a $40,000 MFD camera do that?
 

jonoslack

Active member
Nobody expects these cameras to replace MFD, but in fact, enhance the experience. Sony will soon introduce the A99 with it's translucent mirror, that won't even move during 10 FPS capture! Now why can't a $40,000 MFD camera do that?
I quite agree with you - I wonder if it won't actually increase demand for MF when people understand the distinction and lust after more . . .
As for the A99 - bring it on!
 
V

Vivek

Guest
In relationship to and as an addition to your question, are all the current cameras that have no AA, use a CCD sensor or are there any cameras out there with no AA and CMOS? The reason I ask is why did Nikon go though their apparently elaborate set-up of canceling glass/filter array to achieve the effect of no AA as opposed to how most others do it? Maybe it's due to how the CMOS without AA captures an image vs a CCD without AA (and what the two respective images look like with respect to moire') and that's why Nikon had to employ their scheme? Maybe I'm missing something or not seeing the obvious?

Dave (D&A)
The only CMOS sensored cameras without an AA (direct from factory) are the Ricoh A12 M mount and the upcoming Fuji X-Pro 1.

It isn't clear to me why Nikon have implemented such a filter in the D800E.:confused: Apparently, the AA filter requirement for the analog CCD sensors are much simpler than the ones for the digital CMOS sensors.

Having said that, I have been using NMOS sensors (a variant of CMOS) without the AA filter stack and just plain glass with high transmission with no ill effects in any region from 300nm to 1100nm!
 

D&A

Well-known member
The only CMOS sensored cameras without an AA (direct from factory) are the Ricoh A12 M mount and the upcoming Fuji X-Pro 1.

It isn't clear to me why Nikon have implemented such a filter in the D800E.:confused: Apparently, the AA filter requirement for the analog CCD sensors are much simpler than the ones for the digital CMOS sensors.

Having said that, I have been using NMOS sensors (a variant of CMOS) without the AA filter stack and just plain glass with high transmission with no ill effects in any region from 300nm to 1100nm!
Interesting info, thanks! None of those CMOS cameras you mentioned lacking AA, are full frame. Its possible that the incidence, frequency and/or kind of moire seen with a CMOS without AA (where the AA is simply removed like done with the M9, S2 and MF back CCD's) would be too problematic and thats why Nikon had implement it in the way that they have in the D800e. I doubt they would go through all that trouble for nothing.

Dave (D&A)
 
Top