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

[Shashin]

How can we make a rational choice for a creative process?

If you want the system that gives the bast bang for the buck, it would be an APS-C system. The quality should be good enough for most applications. It will give great AF, a large system (larger than 35mm), wonderful power use, low cost, and widely available. That would be sufficient.

Somehow, i don't think we are going to get anyone here to jump, though.

I don't think I would be going out on a limb to say the folks here are not looking for something that is sufficient. For the type of work Avedon did, which was just reproduced in magazines, I would think 35mm would have been fine, but he shot 6x6 and 8x10. The format was irrelevant? Did it matter that the camera did not have a huge choice of focal lengths?

35mm is also very practical for most of my work. But it would not replace the documentary work I did with a Horseman SW612. There is no comparison. I have met lots of people who have told me that a 6x12 pano camera cannot be used for handheld documentary work. Just as a 6x17 camera cannot be used for the same kind of work--just don't tell Josef Koudelka.

Now, if you were giving general advice to someone starting in the business, then the D800 would be a great choice. It would be "good enough" for many things. But I think suggesting to photographer with a great deal of experience with different formats and systems that the D800 should be "good enough" for them is going a bit too far simply because it has the same number of pixels.

 

[GrahamWelland]

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?

:thumbs: I'm in this camp. It also explains why many of us have rangefinders too.

 

[Shashin]

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.

I make 144" stitch panos and get away with a lot less. Just saying'.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I have to sharply take exception to the statement that D700 outresolves current Nikon lenses. That's just a complete erroneous statement. Any sub-$100 50/1.8 maxes out even D7000 resolution which has same pixel pitch as D800.
[/url]

The point isn't so much that they get out resolved in the center so much as they can't resolve in to the corners. With the D3x we very quickly found out which of the current crop of Nano coated primes and limited zooms were up to the job. This isn't any new information or proclamation.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

So many? I haven't seen one. Are you confusing "The D800 will not utterly destroy MF" with "The D800 is not a decent and viable choice for photography."

You may want this to see this as elitists defending their expensive gear with appeals to ineffable qualities, but that's not what's going on here at all. For that, you have to go to a Leica/Panasonic equivalent model thread. :ROTFL:

--Matt

My broken rib is hurting from laughing. I think I said I was buying one or was I drunk at 6am. Lol

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I think the subject is a bit misleading... 35mm will never be "as good as" MF - simply because they will never look the same. The lenses have completely different design parameters. Someone obsessed with the look of MFD will never consider 35mm "as good as" whatever MF it is they prefer.

However, there's a different angle: a LOT of excellent photographers actually prefer 35mm over what they might consider characterless, overly bland and too-perfect MF. If MF is a cream puff, then 35mm is a samosa. Sweet vs savory. There are proverbial truckloads of photographers out there who want a "big 35mm image". Instead of shooting MFD and then processing to give it spunk they can dump their MF gear, buy into the D800 at 1/5-1/10 of the proceeds from the sale, and get files that require far less work in post - for their intents. And the D800 is only the beginning; next up is Sony, and I'm sure Pentax and Canon will follow suit.

If I were a in any way involved in the MFD food chain I'd take the D800 very, very seriously...

 

[Paratom]

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 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

Some factors why I use my S2 much, much more often than my D700 even for casual shooting - and resolution is not the main point:
- I like the normal FOV (70mm on the S2/ 50mm on ff) and neither the Nion 50/1.4G nor the Sigma 50/1.4 are anything close to the Leica 70mm.
-simple user interface - its nice to have many functions (like the Nikon) but it can also get confusing sometimes-plus you have to ask yourself which functions you really need/use
-viewfinder (maybe the most important part of a camera besides the sensor?) even though I assume the D800 viewfinder is quite good - mf-viewfinders are even larger
-lens-options - depends a lot on your needs. A wildlife/birding shooter needs long tele-no question. I am coming from 14mm - 400mm in the Nikon system - many zooms etc.; but yo can do soo much with just 3 or 4 primes. I now sometimes even carry just 2 lenses. but I guess it depends on the application.
-for some reason which I can not explain technally I just prefer the images from ccd without AA over cmos. I dont know, but this has also been vali for smaller sensors like the Leica dmr/M8 and also the M9. So its not a sensor size question (not just).

 

[fotografz]

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 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

Of course you do ... why wouldn't you?

It is different for each of us. There is the theory of a system, and there is the reality ... what we actually need and actually use verse what the marketers and internet discussions tell us we need ... then we in turn use to argue our points ... but would rarely use most of what is argued for as being essential.

Of course, there are those who may actually need all this stuff, but that isn't the point is it? They are a minority. And, yes, the 35mm DSLRs have expanded their diverse nature ... but that has been true for a long time.

As to the S2 beyond IQ, in fact I mentioned the superior S2 ergonomics, the simple fast operational interface as well as the battery life (which is much longer than my D3 ever was BTW). The tether speed is just fine, I use it all the time.

Since the S2 is focal plane camera, you can adapt a lot of lenses to it ... including a MF fisheye that'll beat the snot out of any 35mm version, Schneider T/S, 500mm Zeiss lens, and so on ... in fact a Leica R long tele has been adapted ... plus great lenses like the Zeiss 110/2FE ... Leica even makes the adapter for V lenses. (all of which I have no use except maybe the Schneider T/S).

As to use of lighting, the S2 has a dedicated speed-light that features HSS for snaps and fill, it's just as good as the SB900s I used. I have extensively used the Nikon CLS and IMO, most of the time it was sending a boy to do a man's job. All this use of wimpy speed-lights has been heavily promoted by the companies and highly skilled spokespersons. I'm also immune to that sales pitch now, no matter what brand. IMO, if you want to light something ... light it!

Again, nothing against any of this ... people are going to do what they want no matter what.

My perspective is different than trying to do everything with one thing ... I judge a camera for what it does well, not just what it can't do. Works for me.

-Marc

 

[glenerrolrd]

Marc ...Please I bought your D3X and most of the zeiss glass . I was pretty happy until now. My perspective is based on surely a different cut regarding what elements of performance are most important . Just for accuracy ...the new nano coated Nikon G primes came out after I purchased the D3X from you . I find them materially better than the prior versions of the 24,35,85 1.4 lenses . Most notably they don t have that yellowish tint of the older Nikon glass. I do agree with many of your comments just not the overall evaluation of the D3X .

My experience with the D3x color and post processing is not unlike what has been reported . It can be difficult and in some situations I found it almost impossible to get the greens where I wanted them. I have generally chalked this up to not spending the time to use NX2 or to develop the calibration and presets for Lightroom . BUT... Most of the time I am quite happy with the results . The files themselves have a smoothness that reminds me of film . Color saturation is pretty great and DR at low ISO is superb.

OK compared to what ? I have shot almost side by side comparisons of the area around the Juno Beach Pier with the S2 . On a tripod mirror up at f5.6 into scenes that have tons of fine deal and at the same time smooth tonal transitions in the sky and water . The S2 is in a different league altogether and you can see it in a minute (any size display) its that obvious . Yet The D3X file with Zeiss glass looks fantastic and I am sure a photographer that has great post processing skills could put me to shame . The S2 is better and for many applications would be my first choice . But I shot the US Open Tennis with both the S2 and the D3x ....no contest ..the D3X has excellent AF,AE handles a ton better etc etc.

Then I have D7000 that Carolyn uses for event photography . When I got it I shot similar stuff with the zeiss glass. This is similar sensor technology to the new D800 . The ability to resolve fine detail ..apparent at 100% was really excellent . What I can t see easily is how the larger file and the new camera processor affect the results with the D800 . The point here is that this sensor is better than the D700 or the D3 .

The new Nikon glass is a real step up . If you have never shot the new 70-200 VR2 then you don t know . The old version would be unacceptable in the context of this discussion but the new version holds up well to both the Zeiss and Leica R glass. Since I can shoot the new Nikon glass,the zeiss zf glass and some of the Leica R glass on a D3x I am in a position to know the differences . No question some of the Nikon glass begins to disappoint even on the D3X . But the glass is getting better from both Zeiss and Nikon . For example the Zeiss 21/2.8 Zf.2 is already considered by many the best performing wide angle on a 35mm format (see diglloyd). Most people would be happy with the 105/2.8 micro AF and the fast primes give you F1.4 . Couple that with decent ISO1600 and there will be situations where the D800 could perform better .

I do agree 100% that the D800 even the nifty E version will not rival the the IQ from MF but it makes up a lot of ground in extending the range of subjects it could cover . Good glass is important you could easily see that when the M8 went to the M9 ...the older glass still had its character but the new glass performed even better. You could see flaws at 18MP that were not apparent at 10MP. I expect the same with the new Nikon s .

My conclusion is a safe one ..it depends on what you plan to shoot and how you plan to go about it.

 

[jlm]

i think these comparisons get off track; they really should boil down to:
there is no question that a larger sensor and better firmware will produce better results.
there is no question that the best optics will produce better results.
some optical viewfinder/mirror cameras just work better than others; IQ, sensor size notwithstanding
some camera systems have more options than others

 

[fotografz]

Marc ...Please I bought your D3X and most of the zeiss glass . I was pretty happy until now. My perspective is based on surely a different cut regarding what elements of performance are most important . Just for accuracy ...the new nano coated Nikon G primes came out after I purchased the D3X from you . I find them materially better than the prior versions of the 24,35,85 1.4 lenses . Most notably they don t have that yellowish tint of the older Nikon glass. I do agree with many of your comments just not the overall evaluation of the D3X .

My experience with the D3x color and post processing is not unlike what has been reported . It can be difficult and in some situations I found it almost impossible to get the greens where I wanted them. I have generally chalked this up to not spending the time to use NX2 or to develop the calibration and presets for Lightroom . BUT... Most of the time I am quite happy with the results . The files themselves have a smoothness that reminds me of film . Color saturation is pretty great and DR at low ISO is superb.

OK compared to what ? I have shot almost side by side comparisons of the area around the Juno Beach Pier with the S2 . On a tripod mirror up at f5.6 into scenes that have tons of fine deal and at the same time smooth tonal transitions in the sky and water . The S2 is in a different league altogether and you can see it in a minute (any size display) its that obvious . Yet The D3X file with Zeiss glass looks fantastic and I am sure a photographer that has great post processing skills could put me to shame . The S2 is better and for many applications would be my first choice . But I shot the US Open Tennis with both the S2 and the D3x ....no contest ..the D3X has excellent AF,AE handles a ton better etc etc.

Then I have D7000 that Carolyn uses for event photography . When I got it I shot similar stuff with the zeiss glass. This is similar sensor technology to the new D800 . The ability to resolve fine detail ..apparent at 100% was really excellent . What I can t see easily is how the larger file and the new camera processor affect the results with the D800 . The point here is that this sensor is better than the D700 or the D3 .

The new Nikon glass is a real step up . If you have never shot the new 70-200 VR2 then you don t know . The old version would be unacceptable in the context of this discussion but the new version holds up well to both the Zeiss and Leica R glass. Since I can shoot the new Nikon glass,the zeiss zf glass and some of the Leica R glass on a D3x I am in a position to know the differences . No question some of the Nikon glass begins to disappoint even on the D3X . But the glass is getting better from both Zeiss and Nikon . For example the Zeiss 21/2.8 Zf.2 is already considered by many the best performing wide angle on a 35mm format (see diglloyd). Most people would be happy with the 105/2.8 micro AF and the fast primes give you F1.4 . Couple that with decent ISO1600 and there will be situations where the D800 could perform better .

I do agree 100% that the D800 even the nifty E version will not rival the the IQ from MF but it makes up a lot of ground in extending the range of subjects it could cover . Good glass is important you could easily see that when the M8 went to the M9 ...the older glass still had its character but the new glass performed even better. You could see flaws at 18MP that were not apparent at 10MP. I expect the same with the new Nikon s .

My conclusion is a safe one ..it depends on what you plan to shoot and how you plan to go about it.

Sorry

Now to be fair we have to keep this in context ... my comparison you're responding to was at the time verses what MFD I had at that time ... the 35mm comparison was based on difficulty post processing a LOT of work where babying files is a real PITA. Fact is, the Sony immediately solved all that ... but before I let go of the D3X, I shot it side-by-side with a A900 for a whole wedding season until I was satisfied with the robustness of the Sony for wedding work ... robustness was never a question with the Nikon. The lenses were the usual wedding duo of nano coated lenses ... 14-24, 24-70 ... and a 70-200 (which I rarely ever used, preferring the 200/2 VR for longer work). The Zeiss ZF optics were nice, but not practical for my application of a 35mm DSLR. In fact, I'm done with manual focus except the M.

I have no doubt that shooting tennis is 35mm DSLR territory ... stuff like that is why I maintain a 35mm system ... but most that stuff isn't 36 meg territory either. I think it is a shame that a true D700 successor wasn't developed ... a smaller bodied FF 18 meg 16 bit robust camera with high ISO and speed as its middle name. BTW, a zillion other wedding shooters wish the same thing.

-Marc

 

[Lars]

The point isn't so much that they get out resolved in the center so much as they can't resolve in to the corners. With the D3x we very quickly found out which of the current crop of Nano coated primes and limited zooms were up to the job. This isn't any new information or proclamation.

Still - why let the sensor be the bottleneck for your best lenses because some of your lenses have poor corners? Not a very persuasive argument if you ask me.

 

[jonoslack]

m.

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..

as I remember, the LL comparison was between MF and a humble Canon 14mp point and shoot (G10?)

But it's not just about MF users jumping ship; it's also about the many many serious 35 FF shooters teetering on the brink of the MF precipice who are going to take a step back and think again.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

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?

Or the D4. It will be interesting to see which of them holds up the best in print, particularly with "difficult" subject matter (DR, colour tones etc.). The winner isn't necessarily given in beforehand, even when printing large.

 

[fotografz]

I think the subject is a bit misleading... 35mm will never be "as good as" MF - simply because they will never look the same. The lenses have completely different design parameters. Someone obsessed with the look of MFD will never consider 35mm "as good as" whatever MF it is they prefer.

However, there's a different angle: a LOT of excellent photographers actually prefer 35mm over what they might consider characterless, overly bland and too-perfect MF. If MF is a cream puff, then 35mm is a samosa. Sweet vs savory. There are proverbial truckloads of photographers out there who want a "big 35mm image". Instead of shooting MFD and then processing to give it spunk they can dump their MF gear, buy into the D800 at 1/5-1/10 of the proceeds from the sale, and get files that require far less work in post - for their intents. And the D800 is only the beginning; next up is Sony, and I'm sure Pentax and Canon will follow suit.

If I were a in any way involved in the MFD food chain I'd take the D800 very, very seriously...

When you say that A LOT of photographers prefer (fill in the blank) ... is there a quantifiable poll to support this?

Or ...They consider this or that to be (fill in blank) ... who is they?

It sounds to me like you are editorializing about your opinion masked as a majority opinion of a nameless group.

"If I were in any way involved in the MFD food chain ..." clearly says that you aren't. So it stands to reason those that are involved have some applications that require the MFD gear they use, and you apparently do not. Fact is, most MFD users also use 35mm DSLRs, It isn't an either/or situation ... they use what is appropriate.

Personally, I DO take the D800 seriously ... as a 35mm DSLR, not a substitute for my MFD system which I have for a reason. When the reason goes away, so will the MFD ... but so would the need for a 36 meg DSLR as an "almost can" substitute.

-Marc

 

[GrahamWelland]

Still - why let the sensor be the bottleneck for your best lenses because some of your lenses have poor corners? Not a very persuasive argument if you ask me.

Hey what do I know? I ordered a D800E like everyone else

This time again it'll be a choice selection of Zeiss, new G primes and PC-E lenses only. With the exception of the 14-24 which is frankly an absurdly good lens, no zooms this time.

The DF remains, as does the Alpa and the MFDBs. I see no reason for an either/or situation. I prefer the AND choice for now. I suspect that my new camera will probably arrive in July/August given the mad rush of pre-orders ahead of me.

 

[Vincent Goetz]

I will use both and be happy to have the opportunity to do so...

 

[GrahamWelland]

Or the D4. It will be interesting to see which of them holds up the best in print, particularly with "difficult" subject matter (DR, colour tones etc.). The winner isn't necessarily given in beforehand, even when printing large.

I'll wager that there will be some pretty ecstatic D4 shooters out there. I'd rather have the flexibility of the D4 for this type of stuff. My D3s was literally a go anywhere, shoot anything in any condition camera. Tough to beat that.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Btw, I foresee a prime Nikon glass drought ahead. Anyone realistic about the D800's capabilities is probably wise to snap up the good G primes, 45 & 85 PC-E and Zeiss glass now. Ditto the 14-24 & 70-200 VR II.

 

[pophoto]

This time again it'll be a choice selection of Zeiss, new G primes and PC-E lenses only. With the exception of the 14-24 which is frankly an absurdly good lens, no zooms this time.

Which zooms are you coming from? Frankly, the current latest Nikon zooms are all great! I'd like to hear how they let you down if they are indeed the current zooms.

Thanks
Po