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
- Thread starter tashley
- Start date
symbolphoto
New member
I just stumbled into this thread and i'll let an image speak instead of my words... the day a D800 or a 5DMKIII can do this level of detail, then i will switch:
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
Cause we all want to see how much hair we have on our noses? 
etrump
Well-known member
Yet!
As long as MF continues to improve there will always be a gap between 35mm and MF. In terms of tonality, color and dynamic range, the D800 (and in it's class the D4) are better than any 35mm that has been on the market.
There's still a huge gap between the D800 and IQ180 - of course!
symbolphoto
New member
Or the screws in your Mola Euro.Cause we all want to see how much hair we have on our noses?
Love the haunting facial expression.I just stumbled into this thread and i'll let an image speak instead of my words... the day a D800 or a 5DMKIII can do this level of detail, then i will switch:
"As the space ship enters into the new solar system ......... "
It would make up for an unearthly story.
Years ago, I was in the mainframe computer business (on the engineering side)
The argument was at the time, that as individual one chip cpus got faster and faster, then the mainframe would surely die.
Well it didn't actually, although its architecture came close to it, but today we see vast arrays of machines acting to provide the performance that the highest-end of the market demands.
Granted, as the dslr gets better and better, then perhaps the number of highest-end users may decrease, on the other hand, it may simply whet the appetites of those who want the best that can be had.
Time will tell, and for those who may need some of the aspects of a dslr for some jobs, I am sure that they may cross-over for those suitable purposes to cameras such as the D800. But the highest-end? Those that strive to differentiate their work by quality will surely seek what they think are the best tools for the purpose.
-bob
The argument was at the time, that as individual one chip cpus got faster and faster, then the mainframe would surely die.
Well it didn't actually, although its architecture came close to it, but today we see vast arrays of machines acting to provide the performance that the highest-end of the market demands.
Granted, as the dslr gets better and better, then perhaps the number of highest-end users may decrease, on the other hand, it may simply whet the appetites of those who want the best that can be had.
Time will tell, and for those who may need some of the aspects of a dslr for some jobs, I am sure that they may cross-over for those suitable purposes to cameras such as the D800. But the highest-end? Those that strive to differentiate their work by quality will surely seek what they think are the best tools for the purpose.
-bob
Lars
Active member
Interesting but not quite relevant, I would say. Mainframe and cluster computing performance is all about the numbers. Performance and revenue/time has a direct relationship for those requiring the highest performance. Faster, bigger is better, it's as simple as that.
In photography as discussed in this thread it's increasingly about quality. You can throw more resolution on any smaller-format camera but a larger sensor system seems to have a clear advantage WRT image quality. That doesn't necessarily mean that a top-end setup will be more profitable or save you time - it could very well be the opposite.
Accordingly we see wealthy demanding amateurs as well as professionals investing in MF equipment that, if you just look at numbers and specs, can be seen as a waste of money.
Swissblad
Well-known member
Thanks for posting this - I really was starting to feel that my H3D31 was redundant and that only those with an IQ180 would survive!I just stumbled into this thread and i'll let an image speak instead of my words... the day a D800 or a 5DMKIII can do this level of detail, then i will switch:
:thumbs:
bensonga
Well-known member
Frankly, I think Guy's picture of the boy with the color checker shows as much or more detail in the face, skin (including freckles), facial and eyebrow hair etc than this MFDB example does. Check it out in the "D800 at first blush" thread in the Nikon sub-forum.I just stumbled into this thread and i'll let an image speak instead of my words... the day a D800 or a 5DMKIII can do this level of detail, then i will switch:
Gary
I have followed that thread and downloaded all NEF's I could find and played around with them. so I'd like to bring up something I think has not been mentioned yet , but which for me is very fundamental for judging the IQ of a camera…
please don't get me wrong, the IQ of this camera is superb and to my eye has a little bit overcome some of it's "nikon color habit" of the past and now has a better and very pleasing look to it.
but what I see is that it lacks massively of realness/texture in the pictures. it popped right into my eye when I saw the first official jpeg's and now that I can go into the RAW's of realworld files there is still a similar impression. I'm looking at different pictures at 100% and it's allways the same feel. the best word to describe it may be "transparency", lightness, lack of density or what ever you like to call it. realness of texture is not there… sharpening helps but the impression remains. It looks somehow artificial.. same for color and tonality compared to MFD (like Jack and Ed allready mentioned)
it is like ihe camera interprets the picture in its own way and presents it in a candy pleasing look…
anyone else seeing this ? or is it just me ?
peter
please don't get me wrong, the IQ of this camera is superb and to my eye has a little bit overcome some of it's "nikon color habit" of the past and now has a better and very pleasing look to it.
but what I see is that it lacks massively of realness/texture in the pictures. it popped right into my eye when I saw the first official jpeg's and now that I can go into the RAW's of realworld files there is still a similar impression. I'm looking at different pictures at 100% and it's allways the same feel. the best word to describe it may be "transparency", lightness, lack of density or what ever you like to call it. realness of texture is not there… sharpening helps but the impression remains. It looks somehow artificial.. same for color and tonality compared to MFD (like Jack and Ed allready mentioned)
it is like ihe camera interprets the picture in its own way and presents it in a candy pleasing look…
anyone else seeing this ? or is it just me ?
peter
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Yes it really comes down to smoothness of tone. MF while very sharp and detailed it just spreads the color tone out better and smoother looking. This maybe due to bigger sensor and really i think that is the bottom line without getting into the science of it all. The Nikon now that i have shot it a lot is extremely good and been working on the files it still looks like the color is compressed a little like all 35mm is. Just not as smooth but a couple things i have noticed too and you have to be careful with processing it in ACR the blacks come in at 5 which right there it sandwiches the tone down a lot . I just set my default at 2 which opens it up more and another little trick is use a little fill as well to open up the mid tones some. What your trying to do with the Nikon in comparison to the MF backs is try to open it up more and don't accept whats coming in off the camera. This helps it a great deal . Part of this also is how Nikon sets up there cameras and honestly all 35mm manufactures do the same darn thing. They are not counting on the users to be as experts on raw processing and working the files so many of them make the files ready to go in their own algorithms and give them contrast and saturation out of the gate for strong pleasing colors out of the gate. Here you have to be careful as a Raw shooters that has some experience and works the files you have to get away from what they are giving you and work it till your style or look you want to see. This way you do get closer to the MF look, not going to get there 100 percent but you can get closer by fine tuning the processing better. I worked on my quick shot of my son this morning to get the sharpening a little better and not going to go over the edge and look to brittle . Also he is in heavy shade and with a little work its is actually looking pretty good and this is crap light. Get this in the studio with control and its a different animal.
One other thing almost all of us are doing as well as this hit the market is probably taking the processing to the extreme just to see when it breaks downs, when we all settle in on just making a good file without the comparison in mind files will start getting better looking. So part of it is probably us right now. i know for myself that was exactly what i was doing when I got it 2 weeks ago. Now i am settling down and making nice clean looking files. I think this is natural when a new cam hits the streets.
One other thing almost all of us are doing as well as this hit the market is probably taking the processing to the extreme just to see when it breaks downs, when we all settle in on just making a good file without the comparison in mind files will start getting better looking. So part of it is probably us right now. i know for myself that was exactly what i was doing when I got it 2 weeks ago. Now i am settling down and making nice clean looking files. I think this is natural when a new cam hits the streets.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Given it is harsh morning sun NOT airbrushed its pretty good.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Shot with a Nikon 85mm 1.4 G lens at F5 ISO 100. Now if i could lose the earrings it would make this dad happy. LOL
Now i have room to go on sharpening but keeping it at this level it seems a little smoother. Sharpening is going to play a important role with this cam. You can easily overdo it and than it looks brittle.
Now i have room to go on sharpening but keeping it at this level it seems a little smoother. Sharpening is going to play a important role with this cam. You can easily overdo it and than it looks brittle.
Lars
Active member
My first impression (compared to symbolphoto's portrait above) is that specular highlights are not handled as well. But as you point out, this is harsh sunlight rather than controlled lighting, so you get specular reflections that are many stops above the rest of the image. A studio-lit portrait would be interesting to see.Given it is harsh morning sun NOT airbrushed its pretty good.
Also, unless symbolphoto used a 12 Mpx camera his closeup isn't 100% actual pixels so of course it looks good.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Yes one of my next things to do is get this under controlled lighting.
Stefan Steib
Active member
Wow Guy/s - discussing this quality on a 35mm is mindbogling. Imagine someone telling you, you would get this stuff from a 35mm 1-2 years ago, you would have called him totally crazy.
And - sorry to point to it (probably my perfectionist part from my former life as a color consultant) - the target with the shadow on it is totally useless like this.
Greetings from Lindenberg
Stefan
- discussing this quality on a 35mm is mindbogling. Imagine someone telling you, you would get this stuff from a 35mm 1-2 years ago, you would have called him totally crazy.And - sorry to point to it (probably my perfectionist part from my former life as a color consultant) - the target with the shadow on it is totally useless like this.
Greetings from Lindenberg
Stefan