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

FredBGG

Not Available
Disclaimer/notes:

1. I paid for my model with Gummie Worms
2. Not meant to be scientific
3. WB on greycard
4. C1 defaults, Crop, resize
5. IQ180 w/150LS, D800E w/70-200VRII
6. Both base ISO, 1/250 and whatever the meter gave me for A.
Hmm that Nikon Zoom holds up well up against the $4,990.00 Phase One Schneider.

Now lets see how a Nikon prime looks compared to the Nikon Zoom...

Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II


Nikon 85mm 1.4G


Hmmmmm I wonder how a direct comparison between the Schneider LS 150 vs the Nikon 85mm 1.4G would have been....

Add on top of that the minimum focusing distance:

150cm for the Phase One Schneider 150mm
85cm for the Nikon 85mm

And than there is the look of the two lenses. The Nikon is hard to beat, wide open ....
 
Last edited:

torger

Active member
Hmm that Nikon Zoom holds up well up against the $4,990.00 Phase One Schneider.
Then look at the Canon 70-200/2.8 II, and Canon 300/2.8, 24 TS-E II etc. Nikon has some nice focal lengths, but really I think Canon has the better lenses overall and the newly produced lenses show the lead more. Just had to say as a Canon fanboy :)

Now they just have to learn how to make sensors...
 

torger

Active member
It would be interesting to see a system comparison, what lenses do you pick if you chose D800 to replace a tech camera system?

I guess we have the PC-E 24, PC-E 45 and PC-E 85, hartblei 40, 80, 120, and Schneider PC TS 50 and 90 to choose from.

I suspect that as a tech camera system the D800 impresses less than when compared to an MF SLR type of camera. The problem I see with the PC-E lenses is inflexible movements and possibly not that good performance edge to edge. Digital correction evens that out somewhat though (reduces chromatic aberration, distortion).

The problem I got when I was to choose between D800 and MF tech camera was that I felt that the tech camera was better matching the way I want to make pictures, but when the price difference is what it is one can start to make some compromises. I was prepared to buy second hand though which made the MF tech camera system feasible so I ended up with that and I'm happy so far :).

5 years ago a tech camera system felt like a long term investment which would hold its value well, but now I feel that the future of MFDB makers is so uncertain that my investment does not at all feel as safe. Digital tech cameras may very well go the 4x5" film way... suddenly most people stop using it and the second-hand market is overflowed with systems.
 
Last edited:

torger

Active member
I would hope that MF manufacturers realize their situation is tenuous at best now, and act before they do become extinct. But this infers there is such significant margins in MF that the prices could be cut by 50% immediately and still allow the companies a "reasonable" profit --- and I suspect that is not the case.
I think a price cut is possible. Back in the days Kodak actually published sensor prices they were like $3,500 for a 36x48mm sensor to the manufacturers, which ended up in $20,000 backs.

They would probably need some attractive entry level product that can sell in higher volumes than they do today. Remains to be seen if they can pull that off...
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
I guess what puzzles me about all the discussion regarding the d800 being good enough is most of those same arguments could have been made about the p45 (or hassle equivalent) when the p65 (or hassle equivalent) came out. I see so many now "happy enough" with the d800, yet have been willing to payout about $30k to upgrade to the p65 then the IQ180 because they wanted the very best.

Heck, a 30" print from a 5d Mark2 would be hard to tell from an IQ180 file "at normal viewing distance" (which I still do not think can really be defined and is completely theoretical). We didn't need the d800 to get to that point. I"ve seen a lot of 40" prints from the 5D mark 2 which looked pretty dang good. the new 24mp Sony's are pretty impressive as well - i've printed several 20x30's from my NEX 7 and I was surprised at how they held up - no problem going a little larger for some files.

Not knocking the d800, I intend on buying one, but mostly because I want some reach with telephotos. I don't see it replacing my MFDB gear on many shoots, it may travel along when I've got room, but it'll probably be in the car most of the time while the Phase is on the tripod.

Of course, I understand many of you do different kind of work, but that's what made me mention my original question. I guess it's mostly a rhetorical questions, as everyone has made very good points here in this thread and I"m not criticizing anyone for their point of view. If everyone had felt this way 3 or 4 years ago, Phase would have probably gone under then since hardly anyone would have upgraded ...
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I think a price cut is possible. Back in the days Kodak actually published sensor prices they were like $3,500 for a 36x48mm sensor to the manufacturers, which ended up in $20,000 backs.

They would probably need some attractive entry level product that can sell in higher volumes than they do today. Remains to be seen if they can pull that off...
That's a classic dilemma. If a price reduction works, and the volume increases dramatically, they'll stay in business. If they aren't able to regain lost ground, they're out as a result of the lower profits. To make matters worse, they will have to increase sales to a level not previously seen to make up for that lower profit. Then the question will be if a market of that size is there at all.

Another problematic side of this is that most MF sensors are too close in size to 35mm. Only very few are anything near 60 x 45 mm, not to speak about 60 x 60 or larger, which I believe is one of the reasons why the D800 can take parts of this market relatively easily.

A different approach would be to become more advanced and more expensive, to make a 60 x 60 or 60 x 70 sensor, one that would fit in RB, RZ, Rolleiflex, Hy6 and GX680. Development costs and reduced yield would make it expensive, but it would distance medium format from 35mm with a large margin, even if the sensor doesn't have more resolution than 60-80MP.

Apart from the technical and economical challenges, there's little or no money in this for other than the manufacturer of the back though, at least initially, since there's an enormous quantity of cameras and lenses available already for very modest prices. So I can't really see this happen. It sure would have been nice though :)
 

torger

Active member
Another possibility is that MFDB makers pull out of the SLR business, reduce drastically in size and concentrate on doing backs for tech cameras like Arca-Swiss, ALPA, Linhof. As long as "standard" CCDs are being used I think you don't need huge development resources, i e you could be as small as the scanning back companies.

From my point of view the tech cameras with rodenstock and schneider "large format digital" lenses are attractive and provide something unique, while the digital MF SLRs are becoming too easy to replace with a 135 DSLR.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
I think a price cut is possible. Back in the days Kodak actually published sensor prices they were like $3,500 for a 36x48mm sensor to the manufacturers, which ended up in $20,000 backs.

They would probably need some attractive entry level product that can sell in higher volumes than they do today. Remains to be seen if they can pull that off...
It's going to take more than that. Nikon has changed the game. It managed to substantially catch up with MFDB quality while maintaining or even improving on ergonomics, functionality and uncompressed video, not to mention reliability .
 

FredBGG

Not Available
Another possibility is that MFDB makers pull out of the SLR business, reduce drastically in size and concentrate on doing backs for tech cameras like Arca-Swiss, ALPA, Linhof. As long as "standard" CCDs are being used I think you don't need huge development resources, i e you could be as small as the scanning back companies.

From my point of view the tech cameras with rodenstock and schneider "large format digital" lenses are attractive and provide something unique, while the digital MF SLRs are becoming too easy to replace with a 135 DSLR.
If Fuji were to scale up it's sensor in the X-Pro 1 to make a digital back with live view and maybe even a cropped video output It could take over the tech camera back market.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
Then look at the Canon 70-200/2.8 II, and Canon 300/2.8, 24 TS-E II etc. Nikon has some nice focal lengths, but really I think Canon has the better lenses overall and the newly produced lenses show the lead more. Just had to say as a Canon fanboy :)

Now they just have to learn how to make sensors...
Both Nikon and Canon have their stand out lenses.

You are right about the three you mentioned, but Nikon has a few unmatched gems of it's own.

50mm 1.4G, 85mm 1.4G, 200mm f2
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
If Fuji were to scale up it's sensor in the X-Pro 1 to make a digital back with live view and maybe even a cropped video output It could take over the tech camera back market.
That would be something. Sized somewhere around 60 x 80mm? That would be roughly 200MP. Yes, please :D
 

torger

Active member
I don't think tech cameras need video, but live view would be nice of course. It seems like a decent live view would require CMOS though, and that may be troublesome due to the very very large investments required to manufacture one - it seems like CMOS require a high volume to be feasible.

Having studied my Linhof ground glass quite extensively I have come to the conclusion that tech camera manufacturers don't seem to understand that making the best possible ground glass is important, and if they did the need of live view would not feel as urgent.

Ground glass grain is already today actually fine enough to support 30x magnification which would make critical focusing (almost) as easy as experienced on a modern live view. But what do the manufacturers provide? 3x lupes, and at best 10x from third parties which may need to be patched to work (I had to cut off the skirt to be able to focus through fresnel down to the grain). Make a 30x pen microscope adapted for ground glass focusing!

Fresnel adapted for wide angles would improve things too. Oh, Linhof thinks it is ok with light leaks onto the ground glass and fresnel greatly reducing contrast, so I had to patch with tape. Such design errors feels almost arrogant.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Another possibility is that MFDB makers pull out of the SLR business, reduce drastically in size and concentrate on doing backs for tech cameras like Arca-Swiss, ALPA, Linhof. As long as "standard" CCDs are being used I think you don't need huge development resources, i e you could be as small as the scanning back companies.

From my point of view the tech cameras with rodenstock and schneider "large format digital" lenses are attractive and provide something unique, while the digital MF SLRs are becoming too easy to replace with a 135 DSLR.
Now that would be a crying shame for those who do see a major difference between the 35mm DSLRs files (including the D800), and even the smaller MFD backs on a MF DSLR camera body, let alone a big meg back.

While Phase One most certainly has to address their camera base, I truly hate to see the company take such a beating after so many innovations and new ideas to further the image quality for photographers that appreciate it. Note: I don't own a Phase One.

-Marc
 

torger

Active member
Now that would be a crying shame for those who do see a major difference between the 35mm DSLRs files (including the D800), and even the smaller MFD backs on a MF DSLR camera body, let alone a big meg back.
I'm sort of aware of the unique look of MF SLR lenses, seems to be in the mid-range DOFs where a more subtle 3D-look can be achieved. Have not seen any good side-by-side demonstrations of it though, that would be nice. 35mm digital style is more of either all sharp or extremely short DOF with just an undefined blur in the background, don't know if that is because it have to be that way or because most people just use those apertures.

Overall I think it is much about the lenses and should be about the lenses, but the huge cost of digital backs and their relative lack of flexibility is an obstacle. When the price gap is just too large and the difference too small then suddenly "good enough" is just that.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
When I was a kid, it was very common in Norway to eat Kefir Milk with "Sukkerkavring", a dried, sweet bun that was crushed over the fermented milk. The best sukkerkavring came in yellow paper bags and were made by a factory in Buskerud in the eastern part of Norway. As years went by, the Swedish crisp bread manufacturer Wasa, a rather sizable company, found that they wanted to compete in the same market. Their sukkerkavring wasn't as sweet or as airy as the Norwegian variety, and they came in large plastic bags instead of the nice yellow paper ones.

But they were good enough for most and they were cheaper, but most of all, they had a sales force and marketing that made it easy for them to get better placement in the supermarket shelves, and after a few years, the yellow paper bags were gone forever, at least around where I lived. I guess I can live with that... just :cry:
 
S

ssanacore

Guest
180 bottom image and the loss of the gummie bears was well worth it. Lol

she's a doll.
I wish I could see that difference as quickly as you can Guy. I see differences but can't quantify which looks better to me. But I really don't think using an IQ back is for the web :)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Blue shirt was a dead giveaway. Phase is more neutral in color and this is where we need the Nikon to be. I can also see a little more detail in the Phase. What I'm trying to figure out though is why the Nikon shot looks darker at the bottom. Looks like vignetting in post
 

darr

Well-known member
Blue shirt was a dead giveaway. Phase is more neutral in color and this is where we need the Nikon to be. I can also see a little more detail in the Phase. What I'm trying to figure out though is why the Nikon shot looks darker at the bottom. Looks like vignetting in post
I noticed the vignetting as well, but also in the Phase file, her hair has a tint of a red henna in areas where the Nikon does not. Details, details ....
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The thing is though in real world we are not comparing to another camera so whatever looks good we are pretty happy with. This is something we don't do is compare. We shoot process to the best of our abilities and enjoy the outcome. I'm seriously going to look into camera profiling today as right now I think it would benefit the Nikon. What I want to do is go shoot my IQ 140 and D800 and see in processing how close I can get to the 140. Than in C1 I can make a style and use that on import. I think Jack and I need a road trip to work on this together. Any excuse for a road trip works for me. LOL

But seriously I really like to work on this. I think we could make the Nikon better.
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
But seriously I really like to work on this. I think we could make the Nikon better.
I agree... other than the glass having less character (IMO) than my previous MF set-up, color in the nikon is nice, but far less natural. Definitely better than the older bodies, but still "nikon-esque" so far for me.

For me, making the Nikon really sing is going to be a situation where a good import profile can be used in combination with carefully selected glass. As it is, it's really good, but it ain't RZ as far as look. But, dang, it's close. Having to intensively process eery file individually just to get to a good starting place won't cut it... so far that's not happening, but there is some initial work needed.
 
Top