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

[D&A]

Dave Have you ever tried your Pentax 645 on any Nikon body?

ACH

Hi ACH,

No, I haven't. I've been tempted, solely for the curiosity on how they would perform. Even when I shot with Pentax SLR's and DSLR's, I never mounted a Pentax 645 lens to them, even though pentax has an adapter specific for that purpose. Thanks.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Antonio Chagin]

Thanks Dave,

I have a few 645 lenses that I would like to try. ACH

 

[FredBGG]

The real problem with digital medium format is the camera bodies.
Primitive stuff compared to 35mm DSLR cameras.

 

[FredBGG]

Worth looking at:

D800 REAL WORLD review and samples - FM Forums

 

[Shashin]

The real problem with digital medium format is the camera bodies.
Primitive stuff compared to 35mm DSLR cameras.

Are you thinking about the Leica S2 or the Pentax 645D?

 

[Stefan Steib]

I would not say primitive, probably the wrong word.
Maybe Fred means "less feature packed and sophisticated", especially when it comes to autofocus, automatic programs (bracketing comes to my mind), and things like personal settings and tweaks. lets not forget Video, Audio and hdmi and other direct Video outs. These alone are a huge advantage.
Neither of the existing MF backs nor integrated solutions offers this whereas even consumergrade APS-C´s have all this.

Regards
Stefan

 

[Paratom]

I would not say primitive, probably the wrong word.
Maybe Fred means "less feature packed and sophisticated", especially when it comes to autofocus, automatic programs (bracketing comes to my mind), and things like personal settings and tweaks. lets not forget Video, Audio and hdmi and other direct Video outs. These alone are a huge advantage.
Neither of the existing MF backs nor integrated solutions offers this whereas even consumergrade APS-C´s have all this.

Regards
Stefan

I can honestly say I prefer the handling of the S2 body over that of my D700. (I also like the d700 but the S2 allmost feels intuitive)
I feel many DSLR are "overloaded" with buttons and features.
And nothing beats a big bright viewfinder.
There are clear differences, advantages and disadvantages depending on what you plan to do with it.

 

[Stefan Steib]

well as always a question of philosophy.
you can look at a glass half empty or half full........

Regards
Stefan

 

[fotografz]

The real problem with digital medium format is the camera bodies.
Primitive stuff compared to 35mm DSLR cameras.

Depends on intended use.

Modular MFD bodies means various viewfinder options (Hasselblad V and H, Contax 645, Mamiya RB/RZ, Rollei/AFI etc.), removable backs to use on full front/back T/S Tech cameras, and most MFD backs offer more sophisticated tethering, and you can select up to 200 meg capture ... plus, no 35mm DSLR production camera offers full level sync speeds to 1/800th, 1/1000th or 1600th.

MFD sprang from studio applications to widen its appeal beyond to add value and versatility, while 35mm DSLRs are making forays into the studio where 1/2 the toys are semi-useless, and you are manually precision focussing through a dim peep-hole instead of a big bright MF viewfinder.

In the studio and on many commercial locations (where the money is), it is the 35mm DSLRs that are primitive IMHO.

Personally, I'm not a tech hound and a 35mm DSLR bristling with buttons and movie modes or what-ever, just makes a good camera bigger and more expensive. A fast focusing high ISO machine that isn't struggling to be a MFD camera or a sudo-video camera is more to my liking. Then it is king of its applications where speed and agility are it's attributes.

-Marc

 

[tsjanik]

I would not say primitive, probably the wrong word.
Maybe Fred means "less feature packed and sophisticated", especially when it comes to autofocus, automatic programs (bracketing comes to my mind), and things like personal settings and tweaks. lets not forget Video, Audio and hdmi and other direct Video outs. These alone are a huge advantage.
Neither of the existing MF backs nor integrated solutions offers this whereas even consumergrade APS-C´s have all this.

Regards
Stefan

Stefan:

The 645D has all that you mention, except video of course; its interface appears to have been adapted from the K 5.

Tom

 

[Jack]

Well one thing has become clear to me -- there is no Nikon lens available that can deliver across all desired characteristics to the D800 sensor. In this regard, we are blessed in MF land with some truly superior optics that do deliver extremely well across the spectrum, even to the full-frame 5u sensors. Of course we do pay for them...

 

[paulraphael]

Well one thing has become clear to me -- there is no Nikon lens available that can deliver across all desired characteristics to the D800 sensor. In this regard, we are blessed in MF land with some truly superior optics that do deliver extremely well across the spectrum, even to the full-frame 5u sensors. Of course we do pay for them...

I've suspected this, and it leaves me wondering why. I don't know if Schneider / Rodenstock are just better at what they do than Canon / Nikon / everyone else, or if the extreme retrofocus requirements (or size, or fine pixel pitch ...) of 35mm poses more difficult challenges than the challenges of coverage with bigger formats.

 

[Stefan Steib]

Tom

I know, the Pentax 645 comes closest to this, whereas the autofocus is still not on par in speed with the newer 35mm bodies. probably a question of the larger lenses and focusing threads too.

Pentax is definitely on the right way to make a medium format camera with a consumer ready approach, giving more comfort and modern features.
What they need and probably all the others too is a cmos to catch up.

That´s the neaked truth and this will stay until finally someone cracks this
trap of hen and egg.

And no - I really do not want to make a new "but CCD´s are so much better" discussion. Please - don´t........:angel:

Stefan

 

[tsjanik]

Worth looking at:

D800 REAL WORLD review and samples - FM Forums

At the risk of being contrary, I am the only one who isn't overwhelmed by the images in that thread? Many look flat and some of the crops are not very sharp. Maybe I have spent too much time on the MFDB forum looking at shots like those that Wayne recently posted of Monument Valley.

Tom

 

[Jack]

Tom,

Simply stated, the MF backs mounted behind quality MF lenses are not even remotely in any jeopardy . I will even go so far as to say NONE of the Nikon glass i have seen is as good across all criteria as any one of the SK LS lenses are...

 

[Shashin]

I am not sure it is even the glass. A larger chip with the same pixel count would be recording the same detail at a lower frequency--lines per mm. MTF usually improves at lower frequencies.

The funny thing is, back in the days of silver, a 35mm camera would be a 35mm no matter how fine a grain film was inside it. The chip/format size adds qualities to an image. I think the best way to look at this is the D800 is a 35mm camera will a finer sensor, not a bigger one.

Some folks will like the benefits to a smaller sensor. Some will not. Some won't care. But I don't think a 50 ft yacht is a 100 ft yacht just because it has the same number of berths.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Tom,

Simply stated, the MF backs mounted behind quality MF lenses are not even remotely in any jeopardy . I will even go so far as to say NONE of the Nikon glass i have seen is as good across all criteria as any one of the SK LS lenses are...

Well being doing some testing with the 80mm LS today on an Aptus II-8 for copy work, the corners and edges don't begin to sharpen up till f11 including with the software correction switched on in C1. Even then they're not particularly spectacular. Really not impressed.

 

[Stefan Steib]

I think we should not forget that the actual Nikon lenses that are on sale for the D800 now were never made for this amount of data.
Same applies to many of the older MF lenses. You will definitely need either the best of the former (Zeiss V and also not all of them) or the newer specially constructed for 60 and up Mpix lenses to match the large sensors with their -btw nearly same size as on an IQ180 (so I think all this frequency and other talk is nonsense) - pixels.

and lets also not forget that these lenses are a bout factor 2x or even 3-4x more expensive than the average Nikon 35mm lens today !
You should also take into account that Nikon is a world class large and medium format lens maker (anyone remembers their T-ED large format lenses as well as many of the bronica stuff was done by them) which only happened to take a break as the market for volume simply was not there anymore.
I predict Nikon will do exactly the same as Canon with their Cine Prime versions. They will watch how large demand will be, the users will cry for it and besides the volume that will be taken away by Zeiss Compact prime and wide angle offerings (I saw the 2,8/15mm........WOW !) they will sell these in the according price range and make the hell of a business out of it. And you can bet these lenses will AT LEAST fill 36Mpix with valuable data.

Rockefeller actually did the same: give the chinese oil lamps for free and then sell the oil expensive. See the analogy ?

regards
Stefan

 

[Paratom]

At the risk of being contrary, I am the only one who isn't overwhelmed by the images in that thread? Many look flat and some of the crops are not very sharp. Maybe I have spent too much time on the MFDB forum looking at shots like those that Wayne recently posted of Monument Valley.

Tom

It is not only you, and I find the same to be true if I go to the D800 thread at getdpi, and then go to the Fun with MF or to the S2 or to the M9-images thread.
I cant say what is better or worse, but I know what I do like better.
And this is just websize.

 

[Shashin]

I think we should not forget that the actual Nikon lenses that are on sale for the D800 now were never made for this amount of data.
Same applies to many of the older MF lenses. You will definitely need either the best of the former (Zeiss V and also not all of them) or the newer specially constructed for 60 and up Mpix lenses to match the large sensors with their -btw nearly same size as on an IQ180 (so I think all this frequency and other talk is nonsense) - pixels.

and lets also not forget that these lenses are a bout factor 2x or even 3-4x more expensive than the average Nikon 35mm lens today !
You should also take into account that Nikon is a world class large and medium format lens maker (anyone remembers their T-ED large format lenses as well as many of the bronica stuff was done by them) which only happened to take a break as the market for volume simply was not there anymore.
I predict Nikon will do exactly the same as Canon with their Cine Prime versions. They will watch how large demand will be, the users will cry for it and besides the volume that will be taken away by Zeiss Compact prime and wide angle offerings (I saw the 2,8/15mm........WOW !) they will sell these in the according price range and make the hell of a business out of it. And you can bet these lenses will AT LEAST fill 36Mpix with valuable data.

Rockefeller actually did the same: give the chinese oil lamps for free and then sell the oil expensive. See the analogy ?

regards
Stefan

Sorry, Stefan, I don't buy the argument. The D800 sensor is effectively 100 line per mm. Not a really high bar. I use film lenses on my 645D and the images show the lenses out resolve the sensor. And even if the lenses don't out resolve the sensor, whether the image is good is not a pixel pitch problem--dividing an image into more pixels does not make the image softer nor less detailed.

I think the "film lenses do not perform on digital cameras" idea is a myth. Some lenses may not, but you are using a really broad brush to paint all optics.