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!

More fuel for the 'D800 as good as MF' fire

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Guy has a good point, no one is trying to replace MFD, sometimes the workflow of a DSLR just works better in a particular situation. Try counting all the MFD cameras in use at at a major sporting event! I shoot MFD, but sometimes I really don't need it for specific shoots. That is determined on final print size. Having both of these formats to choose from, just makes good business without having to indulge.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
One thing for sure. D800 will bring down price of medium format backs, which will be good for all of us.

Cheers!!!
Maybe initially, to unload low end MFD stock ... then I think the opposite may happen.

Hasselblad offered up their 31 meg back on an H4 camera to entice those looking to move up in IQ over a 35mm DSLR ... however, if conventional wisdom prevails, the uninitiated may well select a D800 or (Canon's version when it gets here) over an entry level MFD ... then the MFDs will simply swim upstream ... $$$$$$! 50 or 60meg may be the entry point, and the top dogs will breech 100 meg. They have the sensor size to do that.

-Marc my words ...:ROTFL:
 

Aaron

New member
Uh, the D700 is 24MP, and yes, we're saying that fine of pixel pitch outresolves many of Nikon's lens offerings.

Agreed that a few of the newest primes may well hold up, at least centrally at f5.6, but with 5u pixels, the negative effects of diffraction are a reality after f8.
So you obviously thinking of the D3x which is 24 MP, the D700 is most certainly 12MP.

The negative effects of diffraction apply to medium format just the same as 35mm...

And not to be picky but the original statement was that "Nikons AVAIALBLE lens are outresolved by the D700", it changes the record a little when you now say "MANY of Nikon's lenses" ;) But to be fair, it wasnt your statement- just one you supported.

But seriously, Nikon's current Zoom lenses, let alone the Primes are not outresolved by the D700 and MANY of Nikons Zooms and most of their primes are not outresolved by the D3x.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Maybe initially, to unload low end MFD stock ... then I think the opposite may happen.

Hasselblad offered up their 31 meg back on an H4 camera to entice those looking to move up in IQ over a 35mm DSLR ... however, if conventional wisdom prevails, the uninitiated may well select a D800 or (Canon's version when it gets here) over an entry level MFD ... then the MFDs will simply swim upstream ... $$$$$$! 50 or 60meg may be the entry point, and the top dogs will breech 100 meg. They have the sensor size to do that.

-Marc my words ...:ROTFL:
While I agree that this might very well be the trend, I still cannot see any real use for 100MP or maybe even 120MP, which should be easily achievable with MFD sensor size. Do not want to discuss if lens quality will hold up or anything else, just asking the question who really needs that amount of resolution.

But on the other side, we already had this discussion when top end MFD backs were reaching 39MP :D
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
So you obviously thinking of the D3x which is 24 MP, the D700 is most certainly 12MP.

The negative effects of diffraction apply to medium format just the same as 35mm...

And not to be picky but the original statement was that "Nikons AVAIALBLE lens are outresolved by the D700", it changes the record a little when you now say "MANY of Nikon's lenses" ;) But to be fair, it wasnt your statement- just one you supported.

But seriously, Nikon's current Zoom lenses, let alone the Primes are not outresolved by the D700 and MANY of Nikons Zooms and most of their primes are not outresolved by the D3x.
+1 again!
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Uh, the D700 is 24MP
Wanna check on that, Jack?

If everyone is going to weigh in, I'll just say that the few full-sized samples I've seen are not impressive... web-sized, pretty impressive (but lacking dimension).
 

Shashin

Well-known member
The negative effects of diffraction apply to medium format just the same as 35mm...
Not really. The minimum acceptable aperture is related to the permissible circle of confusion. As the format increases in size, the circle of confusion increases as well. At any give aperture, the larger format will look sharper. Pixel pitch does not determine the permissible circle of confusion.

Now, pixel peeping is a very common activity. However, it is also a useless activity if you are trying to understand what diffraction has on the final image--100% monitor view is not a real world viewing condition. Yes, in absolute terms based on pixel pitch, diffraction will be the same, but image quality is relative and the larger sensor will always come out ahead.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I agree with this statement, it's absurd and unrealistic to judge a non- production model camera based on web size images. I think many photographers' interest is piqued, not so much by web size images, but by all the comments from those that oppose this new and expected technological upgrade. Why are so many MFD users so quick to dismiss this as perhaps a decent and viable choice for photography?
I haven't seen anyone "dismiss" this as a real possibility for many of today's applications. What I do see is very experienced photographers, who do know MFD just as well as 35mm DSLRs, countering the notion contained in the title of this thread ... every one of us has gone through this drill before ... 16 meg MFD verses 16 meg 35mm, 24 meg DSLRs verses 31 meg backs, now 36 meg DSLRs verses 40 meg MFD ... it'll be the same when 35mm hits 50 meg.

SIZE MATTERS

That principle isn't going to change ... every advancement in sensor design for 35mm will be met by sensor design for MFDs ... only the sensors will be twice as big.

BTW, bigger D800 files are available for down-load ... which you can go ahead and print if you want.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
I don't think the uninitiated will base it on pixels, but instead on investment first, or perhaps what lenses they already own. Driving a wedge between these two market shares is exactly what Nikon, Canon, and Sony like, but Phase, and Hasselblad probably don't. It creates competition and better cameras. The point I think that's important, is that some choose to shoot MFD no matter what, it's an amazing camera system, but now we can have both... how cool is that?
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
I haven't seen anyone "dismiss" this as a real possibility for many of today's applications. What I do see is very experienced photographers, who do know MFD just as well as 35mm DSLRs, countering the notion contained in the title of this thread ... every one of us has gone through this drill before ... 16 meg MFD verses 16 meg 35mm, 24 meg DSLRs verses 31 meg backs, now 36 meg DSLRs verses 40 meg MFD ... it'll be the same when 35mm hits 50 meg.

SIZE MATTERS

That principle isn't going to change ... every advancement in sensor design for 35mm will be met by sensor design for MFDs ... only the sensors will be twice as big.

BTW, bigger D800 files are available for down-load ... which you can go ahead and print if you want.
This is not about comparing the two formats, period. This is simply about a really cool 35mm DSLR, that has 36mp, that I can use with my MFD to enhance my photography in any shooting situation. All this boring tech talk is so pointless, is anyone shooting photographs anymore or has that been eclipsed by MTF charts and pixel pitch?
 
Last edited:

vieri

Well-known member
To me, the point is not wether
- 35mm will or won't replace DMF -
The point that the D800 (possibly E) and the D3x before it made is:
- 35 mm is now giving IQ and resolution high enough to be considered for some MF application, while offering body/ergonomics/speed of use/lens selection/accessories selection/flash control/size&weight/battery life/etc etc that are INCOMPARABLY better than ANY MF body/camera system out there.

So, if the only reason to use MF is squeezing that last bit of IQ out of one's images, IMHO 35 mm will very likely never make it. However, if one needs any of the above pluses of 35mm over DMF, the last generation of bodies/sensor combination is starting to get very, very appealing even for users used to or aiming to MF IQ.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
To me, the point is not wether
- 35mm will or won't replace DMF -
The point that the D800 (possibly E) and the D3x before it made is:
- 35 mm is now giving IQ and resolution high enough to be considered for some MF application, while offering body/ergonomics/speed of use/lens selection/accessories selection/flash control/size&weight/battery life/etc etc that are INCOMPARABLY better than ANY MF body/camera system out there.

So, if the only reason to use MF is squeezing that last bit of IQ out of one's images, IMHO 35 mm will very likely never make it. However, if one needs any of the above pluses of 35mm over DMF, the last generation of bodies/sensor combination is starting to get very, very appealing even for users used to or aiming to MF IQ.


Perfectly stated. Thanks Vieri!
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
SIZE MATTERS

That principle isn't going to change ... every advancement in sensor design for 35mm will be met by sensor design for MFDs ... only the sensors will be twice as big.
You are clearly correct but with respec' I think there's a point being missed: for sure bigger sensors will, ceteris paribus, be better - but ceteris are NOT paribus! To continue going stupidly latin, by reductio ad absurdum you would end up with a sensor the size of a sheet of 10x8 or bigger. The reason you don't is that you'd need vast lenses, huge cameras, tripods like the Pyramid of Cheops and Arca would be churning out Cubes the size of RVs and charging accordingly.

MFD is already a compromise between quality, cost and usability. And if you want to use a DSLR type body on it you have to use a FrankenBody with a shutter like a barn door in the wind, no really sharp wides and no real telephotos because they'd be too huge. Otherwise you go for a technical cam and end up fighting colour casts and using a focus method that hasn't changed much since the 1800s.

So I think what those who are most interested in these high pixel count 35mm size sensor DSLRs are saying is: "I want smaller, lighter, cheaper, cameras and lenses that offer Live View, quiet, slap-free shutters, high frame rates, clean high ISO but I also want resolution that allows a 40" print. Maybe Video too. I want all this without making significant sacrifices to noise, DR, perceived acuity and colour depth."

The weasel word here is significant. It is up to the individual photographer to judge what (s)he is losing and gaining in all these trade offs according to how they interpret that word. If in a variety of 40" prints I can't see a substantive difference between the D800e and the IQ180 of course I will sell my IQ180. Without question! Provided of course I am happy that I have an equivalent selection of glass and we all know that might be the problem.

I have read the LL report where various luminaries couldn't tell prints from MFD and a variety of smaller form factors and whilst I would like to flatter myself into thinking that I would be able to, I'm not delusional: if they couldn't, I probably couldn't. It's not enough to have shivers of joy when looking at a file 100% on screen - that is nice but it is a solitary pleasure.

So at some point a number of MFDB users will certainly jump ship. That point will be when a DSLR 'gets there' for them and that day is clearly getting closer, whether or not the D800 is its harbinger.

I had an S2 for a while, the first one in the UK. Great camera. I got rid of it because it fell between the stools, for me. I am not price sensitive, I just want the right balance of usability and quality and I feel that balance shifting in my favour.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
What is an MFD application? I can use any camera for any application. There really is no 35mm sensor that is limited by print size. So if you can make any size print from today's 35mm camera, then what is the comparison?

So everything is good enough.

The conversation implies an idea there is an objective IQ definition where an IQ level can be determined to be sufficient. If that were the case then we would have stopped improving photographic technology long ago.

This is not about whether the D800 is going to be a fine camera, it will be. This is a hypothesis on whether one imaging system is equivalent to another solely on the fact that it has the same number of pixels. If you think that, I can save you a lot of money as the Sony DSC-TX200 series compact camera has the same number of pixels as Canon's new flagship 35mm DSLR.

A better topic would be to compare this camera to other 35mm sensors. An analogy between this new crop of 35mm digital cameras would be comparing film 35mm cameras with different resolution films. A fine grain film never turned a smaller camera into a bigger one.

As far as Nikon lenses go, dividing an image into more pixels does not make an image less sharp. If your lens gives you sharp images on your current 35mm DSLR, putting it on a D800 will not change that.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
To me, the point is not wether
- 35mm will or won't replace DMF -
The point that the D800 (possibly E) and the D3x before it made is:
- 35 mm is now giving IQ and resolution high enough to be considered for some MF application, while offering body/ergonomics/speed of use/lens selection/accessories selection/flash control/size&weight/battery life/etc etc that are INCOMPARABLY better than ANY MF body/camera system out there.

So, if the only reason to use MF is squeezing that last bit of IQ out of one's images, IMHO 35 mm will very likely never make it. However, if one needs any of the above pluses of 35mm over DMF, the last generation of bodies/sensor combination is starting to get very, very appealing even for users used to or aiming to MF IQ.
In theory, but not necessarily in practice. Plus, it depends on how you define 'IQ".

I seriously thought the same thing when I was shooting a 31meg H3D-II and got the D3X ... Remember, at the time those were the relative comparisons. Yes faster AF which was expected, but it wasn't just the file size, it was the look and feel that couldn't be matched, post was harder with the D3X, and retouching was easier with the H3D-II/31 ... and so on.

If you read the Nikon technical bulletin on the D800, as well as the blog post linked to here, it becomes clear that as the resolution moves upward into this realm, this 35mm camera leaves behind the traditional 35mm DSLR performance strengths ... you have to slow down to realize that resolution.

The 35mm aspects you mention are indeed strengths, but not exclusive. Almost all of my 35mm DSLR duties have been taken over by the S2. The ergos and simplicity of operation are better than any 35mm DSLR I've used, the battery life murders all of them, the lenses are better, and the sensor bigger. The only thing I need a 35mm DSLR for is stuff the D800 can't do. I'm more of a candidate for a 1DX or hopefully a high ISO FF Sony.

What I DO think is happening, it that the photography business is in a ww depression ... and actual standards and demand have declined. IMO, that is the strongest argument as to why this relatively inexpensive, but high performance camera will succeed.

There is always this sort of chomping at the bit and rush to buy with anything relativity unique when announced ... witness the 24 meg Sony NEX7 touted as the M9 killer ... then it was a nice M9 supplement ... then it started showing up in the F/S listings. The reality never seems to match the hype.

Having been a very slow learner, it has taken me forever and a lot of cash to immunize myself from this.

-Marc

BTW, personally, I am far more interested to see how the D800 stacks up against other 35mm DSLRs than verses MFD. How will it do for what most people use a 35mm DSLR for? What is the real world difference between this and my 24 meg Sony A900? Against the 1DX in normal shooting conditions?
 

vieri

Well-known member
...

The 35mm aspects you mention are indeed strengths, but not exclusive. Almost all of my 35mm DSLR duties have been taken over by the S2. The ergos and simplicity of operation are better than any 35mm DSLR I've used, the battery life murders all of them, the lenses are better, and the sensor bigger. The only thing I need a 35mm DSLR for is stuff the D800 can't do. I'm more of a candidate for a 1DX or hopefully a high ISO FF Sony.

...
Marc, you basically mention IQ reasons to support your S2 claims, they only one non-IQ related is battery life, and I seriously doubt that the S2 battery lasts as long as the D3's, but I happily give you that :D Besides that, AF speed, write speed, tethering speed, flash control (Speedlights are unrivaled for what they do, both in Nikon and - though to a lesser extent - in Canon camps), FP flash sync, number of lenses and not just their quality (do you need a Fisheye? A focal longer than 180? A zoom? A T/S? A Macro? Etc), accessories, do you want or need to shoot video?, live view, high ISO, last but not least price, etc etc. Again, I am not talking about what ME or YOU need specifically, I am talking in general - and in general, there are so many strengths in 35 mm that are unrivaled by MF and that appeals to a wide users base (much wider than MF, and for a reason!), that adding high res to the mix is - or can be, for some - just one more reason to forego MF. Of course you need to be more careful with support, focus, etc etc the higher the MP count; but then again you can shoot the D800 or the D3x at lower res, or in DX mode, etc etc.

I stand by my previous point :D
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
It's rather funny how an increase from 24.5 MP to 36 MP has kicked up such a storm of proclamations.
yep ... happened with every new dSLR since the 1Ds was introduced.

There really isn't much difference at all between 24.5 and 36 MP.
Possibly. A couple of points, for Nikon shooters this isn't about going from 24mp to 36, it's about going from 12mp to 36. those that needed/wanted more resolution switched to 5D Mark 2's (my store has a lot of them). Nikon never really moved that many D3x cameras in relation to other models. So for Nikon this is important to win back some of their loyal base who were forced to switch because they refused to put their 24mp sensor in a less expensive body. For Nikon shooters this Is a big difference, but even for those with 5D mark 2',he difference is a 31% increase in linear resolution ... pretty significant.

I also find it rather funny what Nikon claims MF quality with this camera.

There is a lot more to different formats than the amount of pixels.
Yep. because they've gotten close to what hey regard as MF (40mp) they make the claim, but there's a lot more to it.

The only real test is if someone shoots real world images with a d700, d800, 5D mark2, 5Dx (if it shows up), and an S2, IQ140, 160, and 180 or Hassie equivalents. Shoot some stopped down for depth of field, at optimum settings for minimal diffraction, and work with them to get the best 40x60 print you can, hang em on a wall and take a look (none this "appropriate" viewing distance stuff, if you go there my iPhone would probably be fine).

Bottom line, the better the resolution, the bigger you can print with stitching, or the more you can crop. But for some of us, we're not even happy with the IQ180, and stitch it frequently. Sorry, but a 80" pano needs a lot of resolution.

The perfect sensor will be the one like a retina display, pixel pitch so fine no lens can be created to out resolve it. (assuming lenses made of glass, there are other technologies which use the electromagnetic properties to control and focus the light much better than optical glass does but they aren't currently practical for what we do).then the resolution will be lens based ... as you sharpen to dial out diffraction, you get the same thing you would have had with a lower resolution sensor. The lens sets the resolution limits, not the sensor (we're talking 100mp on a dSLR, maybe 3 times that on a MF).
 
Top