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!

D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
You might be interested that Ming Thien compares the Leica MM with the D800.

The Medium Format / Large Format versus Leica discussion has been going on since the 30's. I don't see why Nikon going from 24 -> 36 MP in a Nikon body radically changes anything to be honest and I think Ming Thiens comparisons raises some interesting questions when you consider he's comparing 18 to 36 MP.
He uses a 45P - Tessar design for the Nikon versus the 50AA....talk about a crippled comparison.

Bob
 
Zeiss Tessar design, super centre sharpness. I think the comparison shows both that at a technical level a $3000 camera can hold its own against $11000 of gear. It also shows that 18 vs 36 MP is not a great difference, and of course 36 vs 80 MP is not a great difference so by logical inference, 18MP is roughly equivalent to 80MP. It's not so ridiculous because a 36MP sensor can print at 60x40, an M8 can look great at 20x30 or even larger.

My point is that roughly the same argument has been going on since the 30's and reaching a fever pitch again, why has a 24 -> 36 MP change caused such a change? I guess Nikon realise Leica's clever marketing through social media and this is a full on assault using the same means. They just need a celebrity, Nikon equivalent of Seal and they're done.

Sorry but clearly it's all hyperbole to sell more cameras in market where many people are giving up entirely, using instigram on iDroid to upload pictures of their cat to facebook or switching to things like the Nex7/XPro1.

It's a shame Nikon failed to put the D4 sensor in the D800. That's a real upgrade I could have used. A D4 will also look pretty respectable at 60x40.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
While I mostly agree with you, there are situations where every pixel counts. I made some very interesting observations during a job for a client recently. This is slightly :OT: but absolutely related, so I post it on this thread:
The client wanted some very large (200-240 cm longest side, that's a round 90") prints of landscapes in Norway (not my photos). They had very specific requirements with regards to locations, colours and style. That, and time as well as budget constraints, limited the selection of useable photos considerably. Most of the photos that were looked at initially (before I became a part of the process) were taken with DSLR cameras between 12 and 18MP.

Since I couldn't dismiss the selected photos without showing why, I made, together with the print shop, samples of how they looked at that kind of enlargements. What I noticed with all of them was that, while it's possible to stretch digital files rather far, when they "fall apart", it seems to happen rather abruptly. This confirms previous experiences with files from all kinds of digital cameras, including MF, but it's the first time that I've had the opportunity to test it out on several photos together with a very qualified printer.

If that is correct, it means that if one really needs those extra 10, 20 or 30 centimeters in a very large format (in this case to fill a certain wall space), 50% extra pixels may be very useful, be it a traditional DSLR or an MF DB. Have anybody else had similar experiences?

As an aside (off off topic):
The client had already bought a 35mm slide (Provia, probably 100 or 100F) for too much money which they insisted on using in a space where 220cm width was needed. I didn't really have much hope succeeding with that one, but the printer was of a different opinion. They scanned it to the required size, 240ppi at 220cm length, and printed it on matt paper. While the result doesn't hold up when studied from up close, it didn't "fall apart" like the digital files, and from 3 meters, which is the closest normal viewing distance for this particular photo, it looks very nice. Not perfect, at least not from a photographer's point of view, but the client is very happy.

Zeiss Tessar design, super centre sharpness. I think the comparison shows both that at a technical level a $3000 camera can hold its own against $11000 of gear. It also shows that 18 vs 36 MP is not a great difference, and of course 36 vs 80 MP is not a great difference so by logical inference, 18MP is roughly equivalent to 80MP. It's not so ridiculous because a 36MP sensor can print at 60x40, an M8 can look great at 20x30 or even larger.

My point is that roughly the same argument has been going on since the 30's and reaching a fever pitch again, why has a 24 -> 36 MP change caused such a change? I guess Nikon realise Leica's clever marketing through social media and this is a full on assault using the same means. They just need a celebrity, Nikon equivalent of Seal and they're done.

Sorry but clearly it's all hyperbole to sell more cameras in market where many people are giving up entirely, using instigram on iDroid to upload pictures of their cat to facebook or switching to things like the Nex7/XPro1.

It's a shame Nikon failed to put the D4 sensor in the D800. That's a real upgrade I could have used. A D4 will also look pretty respectable at 60x40.
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>While the result doesn't hold up when studied from up close, it didn't "fall apart" like the digital files

Interesting. How did you upsample the digital files?
 

FredBGG

Not Available
My guess would be that the PC-E 24 would not hold up 100% to the corners of the D800, and also the Schneider would have some problems on the IQ180 (therefore I suggested rodenstock digaron-w lenses).
Both Canon and Nikon are working on newer versions of their tilt shift lenses.

Canon has already come out with its version II of the 24mm and it is drastically improved.

Here is it's corner performance compared to the Nikon 24mm PC-E.

Nikon 24mm PC-E


Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L Version I


Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L Version II


The progress being made is very significant.

I wonder how the test would have gone with the D800 with the Canon TS-E 24mm on it. Maybe a match for the IQ180 or at least even closer.

Nikons next releases of TS lenses will most likely be on par with Canons current offerings.

These are test shots with the lenses wide open.
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
>While the result doesn't hold up when studied from up close, it didn't "fall apart" like the digital files

Interesting. How did you upsample the digital files?
I didn't do it myself, since the print shop has much more experience in this than I will ever get, doing this kind of work on a daily basis. I know that they made attempts with at least two different kinds of software of which PS 5.5 was one.

They did predict the outcome in beforehand, for film as well as for digital. They also run the best photolab in Bangkok btw., and do all my film processing. Their work is so good that I don't really consider doing that myself, even if it would save me a fair amount of money.
 

tjv

Active member
As an aside, going from the examples above, the Nikon PC-E seems squarely in between performance wise compared to Canon's MKI and MKII offerings. I wouldn't call it horrible, either, just average...
To keep this relevant to MF, how do those that own the 80MP backs feel about the findings here? Jack?
It'd be amazing to see some scans of the prints at scale too, if you have time, Peter.
 

tjv

Active member
PS:
Does anyone out there use Perfect Resize 7 to upres photos? It used to be called Genuine Fractals, I think. I wonder how using such a program would influence a test like this.
 

torger

Active member
While the result doesn't hold up when studied from up close, it didn't "fall apart" like the digital files
I'm not surprised. I've played around with some velvia slides testing to print large, and film has through the grain a special structure that can be over-enlarged without looking bad. Yes you see all the grain but it has a nice quality to it showing that this is a photograph, somewhat similar to seeing individual brush strokes when looking close at a painting.

Digital files does not have that charm at all, pixel structures are not nice, and I'm not particular fond of the look of fractal upscalers and the like either. Therefore I personally think that with digital the need of high resolution and overall high technical quality is higher than with film.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
The progress being made is very significant.

I wonder how the test would have gone with the D800 with the Canon TS-E 24mm on it. Maybe a match for the IQ180 or at least even closer.

Nikons next releases of TS lenses will most likely be on par with Canons current offerings.
Very enlightening Fred - thanks. Are test chart shots like that available for the tech-cam lenses do you know?

But I think your point raises another, perhaps more general, question.

This is a test of systems, not just of sensors. Was the best available lens actually used on both the D800 and the IQ180?

Personally, I'd love to see a test between the following:

Best c15mm glass possible for the Nikon on the D800.
23HR on a tech cam on the IQ180
24mm Canon TS-E on the HCam on the IQ180.
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
PS:
Does anyone out there use Perfect Resize 7 to upres photos? It used to be called Genuine Fractals, I think. I wonder how using such a program would influence a test like this.
I have used this program for years and consider it one of the best upsampling solutions available. In most cases upsampling has to take place somewhere in the stream. The printer driver is the worst case and PS isn't much better. Lightroom doesn't offer the kind of control I would like so I use Qimage which upsamples on the fly and is extremely flexible. This also eliminates the very large files that result from PR7.

Victor
 
+1 for perfect resize. The most common mistake I see (especially regarding Lightroom) is oversharpening the images before upsizing. I recommend Nik Sharpener. It's adaptive sharpening algos work pretty well.
 

torger

Active member
The resolution advantage going from 24 to 36MP isn't dramatic in any way, but a price drop of 60% is.
You are right of course in that going from 24 to 36 is not revolutionary, but I think we still can see on all the MF forums that the 36 megapixel D800E has had a dramatic impact. I think it has broke some sort of psychological limit, we got used to 20-24 megapixels in DSLRs since a few years, but 36 megapixels still has that medium format sound to it.

It is also very close in resolution to the IQ140 and similar products. That little bump in megapixels has made comparison with MF systems much more interesting than before. We may also come to a tipping point where a large part would-be MF users find DSLRs to have high enough resolution. Time will tell, but the D800 could really be a revolutionizing camera... a little bit like when photographers shooting 4x5" film eventually went digital because it reached a tipping point when it became good enough (it was somewhere around P45+ for many it seems, i e similar resolution to the D800), but this time around it is MF digital shooters that may move down to DSLRs.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Both Canon and Nikon are working on newer versions of their tilt shift lenses.

Canon has already come out with its version II of the 24mm and it is drastically improved.

Here is it's corner performance compared to the Nikon 24mm PC-E.

Nikon 24mm PC-E


Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L Version I


Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L Version II


The progress being made is very significant.

I wonder how the test would have gone with the D800 with the Canon TS-E 24mm on it. Maybe a match for the IQ180 or at least even closer.

Nikons next releases of TS lenses will most likely be on par with Canons current offerings.
I would assume these posted corner performances are from "unshifted lenses"? If so, I'd be interested in seeing 5 degree and full shift comparions with the Nikon and newer Canon.

Dave (D&A)
 
Top