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 .

FredBGG

Not Available
No I'm just interested in people's economical priorities. It is true that the camera per se is not a deciding factor if your output is considered "professional" and I bet a good architectural photographer will create stunning work with a 5D MKII and a TSE 17. But there's that thing of democratization of photography that leads to your uncle doing freelance wedding photography for 300 USD with his newly acquired 5D MKII. 30 Years ago the entry price for wedding photography was much higher. I remember a wedding where the guy had a Hasselblad 500 and at that time I didn't know anything about photography but was impressed by the professional looking camera and I was sure it cost him a lot of money ...
My parents wedding was shot on two Minolta Autocords. Came out beautifully.
No big investment for a couple of AutoCords.
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Dave

I am using a rebuilt Canon 5D MKII with the AA removed as well as the UV/IR Cut. I do very - I mean VERY RARELY see any moiree.
If I do see it on location, I can just move some centimeters backwards or forwards and it´s gone most of the time. If this slips through, I still have Capture One and paint a mask on the moiree, pull one slider and - it´s gone.
Why should this be more of a problem than with the MF backs ?

regards
Stefan
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Dave

I am using a rebuilt Canon 5D MKII with the AA removed as well as the UV/IR Cut. I do very - I mean VERY RARELY see any moiree.
If I do see it on location, I can just move some centimeters backwards or forwards and it´s gone most of the time. If this slips through, I still have Capture One and paint a mask on the moiree, pull one slider and - it´s gone.
Why should this be more of a problem than with the MF backs ?

regards
Stefan
I just wondered why Nikon does not just offer the D800E if its so easy to remove with software.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Dave

I am using a rebuilt Canon 5D MKII with the AA removed as well as the UV/IR Cut. I do very - I mean VERY RARELY see any moiree.
If I do see it on location, I can just move some centimeters backwards or forwards and it´s gone most of the time. If this slips through, I still have Capture One and paint a mask on the moiree, pull one slider and - it´s gone.
Why should this be more of a problem than with the MF backs ?

regards
Stefan
Hi Stefen,

I'm not saying its more of a problem with MF backs. I was wondering if removing an AA on a CMOS sensor causes more of a problem or issues than removing it on CCD...since Nikon apparently went through a lot more trouble that just simply leaving it off on their D800e model. There must be a logical reason why they implimented it in such a way resulting in part for the increase in price over the D800.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

D&A

Well-known member
I just wondered why Nikon does not just offer the D800E if its so easy to remove with software.
I wondered that too but my assumption is with Nikon's relatively large user base (compared to say 645D S2 and MF digital backs users), they would have angered half who had to deal with any moire' in post processing (D800e users) while upsetting others by not allowing the camera to reach full potential (D800 users). This way they satisfy both camps with one basic model and avoid major criticism.

Dave (D&A)
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
I think Nikon's answer to no Anti (A) filter has something to do with the way the light is gathered or scattered, but that there's still a component to the sensor array. Obviously, the less glass or filter results in a cleaner image, much like a prime vs zoom. The Sony A99 will supposedly have no Anti (A) filter either.
 

stephengilbert

Active member
The fun with MF images thread has 8261 posts. You guys are going to have to increase your posting frequency here to catch up.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Hi Stefen,

I'm not saying its more of a problem with MF backs. I was wondering if removing an AA on a CMOS sensor causes more of a problem or issues than removing it on CCD...since Nikon aparntly went through a lot more trouble that just simply leaving it off on their D800e model. There must be a logical reason why they implimented it in such a way resulting in part for the increase in price over the D800.

Dave (D&A)
I think Nikon is leaving it on to create the same optical path length. That appears easier than making a different sensor position for the D800E--both cameras can use the same molds.
 

anGy

Member
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:
Really not fair from you guys to comment a sensor IQ based on this kind of photo.
Look dull ? yes, sure. Surprised with such histo ??... a simple level correction makes the pic look already better.

I'll carefully wait for well taken raw - and for feedback like the one I hope tashley will give us.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I think Nikon is leaving it on to create the same optical path length. That appears easier than making a different sensor position for the D800E--both cameras can use the same molds.
Hi Shashin
I'm sure you're right - it'll be interesting to see whether a double AA filter (do it then undo it) is really exactly the same as no AA filter.
 

Lars

Active member
Posted images are from prerelease D800 cameras and software/firmware. If this thread is about quality at the pixel level then it's three months early to discuss that.

OTOH if this discussion is about sensor size, glass, and camera system then such a discussion makes much more sense.
 

doug

Well-known member
I just wondered why Nikon does not just offer the D800E if its so easy to remove with software.
I'm guessing it's because the DSLR market is driven by high-volume shooters who don't have the time to examine each image at the detail level required to find and remove moire when it shows up.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
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.
I completely agree with you here - and I think it's because like me you do a lot of travel photography. Planes, buses, trains, moto rickshaws, by foot. I'm happy to put the camera on a tripod, take distance measurements (using AF no less) and carefully manage DoF. But I'm not willing to carry a MFD kit - that's just not going to happen. And when I got the carefully set up shot over with I pop the camera off the tripod and hand hold it. Maybe put a 70-200 VR on and set it to ISO 1600. Sure the tripod work will be technically better, I don't think that ought to surprise anyone, but the latter isn't going to be worse than any other 35mm camera, and with VR, good f/2.8 performance and high ISO it's going to run circles around anything MF handheld in low light.

Unlike you though I really want the broad range of Nikon glass, from T/S to fisheyes, to a 500/4. I want an underwater housing for it. Again, I want versatility that no MF system can offer. And I'm not waiting for the A99, because Sony is so short in the optical department, short on third-party L brackets and QR plates, short on third-party accessories (like UW housings), uses silly memory sticks, and I'm concerned they'll go all-EVF. Though I could live with all that, the fact that Nikon is making the D800E without the AA filter seriously convinced me. Sony has traditionally better color response (to my taste), but everything else about the A99 is a big fat unknown... can I get it w/o an AA filter? With OVF? Will I get a decent L bracket for it? So in the D800E I see win-win-win-meh, in the A99 I see win-maybe-maybe-maybe. A little too much pig in the sack at this point for me...

I know every lens isn't going to push the technical limits of the D800E - and that's fine. I just won't use those lenses to those ends, like a 105/2.5. Just like I shoot with a Summarit 5cm f2 on my M9; it has qualities that make it attractive for reasons other than resolving power. And packing a lens for some particular type of shot is pretty easy. Secondary gear like this I often just wrap in a shirt and toss in the suitcase.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Sony has traditionally better color response (to my taste), but everything else about the A99 is a big fat unknown... can I get it w/o an AA filter? With OVF? Will I get a decent L bracket for it? So in the D800E I see win-win-win-meh, in the A99 I see win-maybe-maybe-maybe. A little too much pig in the sack at this point for me...
Hi Jan
I think you're right - I can see lots of advantages in the D800e . . the reason I'm not leaping down Nikon's throat is:

1. although I prefer an optical finder, I can live with an EVF, and I want to use Leica R lenses . . . and as far as I'm concerned that means an EVF

2. I'm not in so much of a hurry - this is the first iteration of this sensor, but history suggests that there will be other implementations . . . and it's always possible that Leica will come up with the perfect solution. Right now the A900, A77, NEX7 and of course my lovely M9 are producing the results.

3. I've moved to Nikon before . . . and out again 3 times now, and it's always the colour which has sent me away (yes yes - my problem, not Nikon's!)

4. It means a complete system switch, and although I could do it . . it would mean swapping those nice Zeiss lenses for Nikon . . and I'm not ready to go there yet .

We have two trips planned, but they're both lightweight trips, so it'll be the M9s - another reason not to make a decision yet.

all the best
 

PeterA

Well-known member
SLR hand held shooters don't need MF - in fact MF it is a dumbing and sub optimal exercise in futility for that style of work.

ANY 35mm SLR is better than ANY MF camera for that style of shooting or work.


Pete
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
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.
I agree with one exception ... they aren't going to be able to shoot stopped down anymore. A customer today that ordered both a d800 and d800E was puzzled that all of the sample files he's seen so far have been shot at f/4 or f/5.6. Good chance this camera may show diffraction at f/8. Those that like to shoot a f/11 or f/16 might find they don't get much more out of it than the did a D3x or a 5Dmark2.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
Samples I have seen from the Canon 1D X look very nice. The perfect complement to a MF digital amd a large MF film camera.

Super fast and very advanced auto focus in a package with a realistic MP count for a FF 35mm sensor.

18 million really good pixels will beat 36 crammed into a small space.
 
Top