Killing the DMF system for the D800 (experiences)

[torger]

Only future will tell if the D800 was revolutionary or not. I think there is a risk that the MF market will shrink to an impossible size if too many professionals start thinking that D800-like quality is good enough and stop buying new MF gear.

I'm under the impression that we see more people step down from MF to D800 now than when the 5Dmk2 came out, simply because image quality has now reached some sort of tipping point.

I recently got my first MF system so I surely hope this will not happen, but I cannot say I feel that my investment is safe in any way. The coming 3 - 5 year period will be very exciting.

 

[Shashin]

I recently got my first MF system so I surely hope this will not happen, but I cannot say I feel that my investment is safe in any way.

???? Cameras are not an investment strategy. Try stocks and bonds. I would not buy any photographic equipment as a way to invest, unless it was an investment in my skills and photographs. Don't buy gear if you are afraid to lose money.

 

[torger]

Any gear that cost a large amount of money I call "investment", maybe a poor use of word. Don't worry, I don't intend to sell it at higher prices than I bought it . Still I would prefer that MF manufacturers stay in business a few more years though and manage to make competitive products at reasonable prices. Maybe D800 is not the tipping point, but I think they will haveto respond in some way, lower prices or more capable sensors, something. The CCD for $30,000 era is not forever.

(I have tried stock by the way, I lost all the money...)

 

[Stefan Steib]

Nobody probably will suspect I´m a film supporter still, but guys do you remember the days when a used Schneider or Rodenstock lens was about 60-75 % of a new one ? When I was a young photographer I bought used Rodenstocks, one after the other, after 3 years when the taxes where deducted I sold them and got the same I paid and from the taxes I saved I could buy new ones ? Same with view cameras and all kind of pro equipment ?

Damn I knew digital has some disadvantages, but sometimes it really hurts. So I can as well understand if someone looks upon a 20k investment as something to care for !

regards
Stefan

 

[SergeiR]

well.. buy yourself old 4x5 for couple hundreds, buy yourself some b&w film, buy yourself lens or two, and scanner.. It will keep you on path of shooting slow and patiently And save some money on the way...

Unless of course 5 grand do burn your pocket. In that case feel free to donate them to someone or just put them in bank for some long term savings

 

[padams]

Here are two decision points that I use to decide which system to take along on a shoot:

1. Do I need to shoot at ISO 800 or above. I get great quality out of the D800e up to ISO ~2000 versus my IQ140 which struggles past ISO 400.

2. Do I need to shoot moving subjects? If so, the autofocus options on the D800 are far superior to what you can do with the DF body.

Hope this helps,

-P-

--
Peter Adams Photography
Read my new ebook: WordPress for Photographers!

 

[PeterL]

Peter,

There are marketing folks and dealers all over the country sticking needles in to a wax effigy of you right now for stating such heresy!!!! :bugeyes:

We all know that as soon as something faster, bigger, cheaper comes along that all existing gear is only so much junk and worthy only for the scrap heap. Didn't you get the memo? :ROTFL:

Yeah - I could feel the voodoo last night....:ROTFL: .

Cheers, -Peter

 

[Pics2]

Hello, i am DMF user ( Hasselblad H3D 22MP).

I have 5000 USD and i feel myself in a LIMBO !!! after 2 weeks of peep pixel in D800 samples !!! what to do? a used H3D 39MP or D800 ?

Looking for personal experiences from users, that totally leave the DMF system for the D800. Its true? there is really photographers killing your DMF system for the D800 ???

- 1 - What they love in D800, and what they miss from the old DMF ?

- 2 - What are the old medium format systems that its not a good option to buy now, because they are totally killed by the D800 quality/price ratio.

- 3 - The real impact in used prices for the old generation backs/DMF systems (22-39MP) because of the D800

Thanks, and sorry my English

Pedro

Pedro, I've been using D800E with Carl Zeiss 100mm f2 ZF2 macro lens for a month now. I do studio still life. I can post you few original files of food and products if that helps.

 

[fotografz]

Nobody probably will suspect I´m a film supporter still, but guys do you remember the days when a used Schneider or Rodenstock lens was about 60-75 % of a new one ? When I was a young photographer I bought used Rodenstocks, one after the other, after 3 years when the taxes where deducted I sold them and got the same I paid and from the taxes I saved I could buy new ones ? Same with view cameras and all kind of pro equipment ?

Damn I knew digital has some disadvantages, but sometimes it really hurts. So I can as well understand if someone looks upon a 20k investment as something to care for !

regards
Stefan

I think this is very true, IF one bought gear that was (or is) inadequate to the tasks or style of a specific photographer.

Using the financial perspective, I haven't lost any money on any Leica M gear despite the digital bodies depreciating more than the film bodies ever did ... the tax write offs and appreciation of lens pricing easily made up the difference. For example, I made good money off the Nocti 50/0.95 ... meanwhile I had used it for two years to make images that in turn made money. I can thank Leica's inflated pricing strategy for that.

However, I have never bought any Leica M gear for the above reasons.

Never bought any MFD gear for those reasons either. I bought into the H system almost 10 years ago for specific aesthetic and commercial reasons. Commercial "digital capture fees" and tax write-offs literally paid for the whole initial venture with-in a few years, and upgrades for years after that (different financial environment then).

The Hasselblad lenses and accessories stayed a constant and are still with me as I kept upgrading the bodies/backs as needed to meet changing performance, aesthetic and commercial reasons. The constant unchanging aspect of this system was, and remains, that it is all leaf-shutter based and provides a high sync speed that no 35mm DSLR can equal. Even if Nikon came out with a D900 @ 60 meg, it would be inadequate to the tasks I need accomplished unless the 1/250 sync speed threshold is breeched with new technologies ... which may well be possible with a shutterless camera. Even then, why change if something only equals what I already have and is doing the job? THAT is how you lose your A$$ financially.

The ONLY gear I have lost money on in past has been 35mm DSLR equipment ... which was my fault for jumping around so much in that category, and how fast it gets out-dated.

-Marc

 

[torger]

4x5" view cameras have unique features in movements rarely replicated in modern tech cameras. Some of the modern tech cameras don't even have tilt! But I see that many today don't use movements much, one gets used with the reduced feature-set, adapts the photographic style, or maybe even haven't tried a traditional view camera so they know what's missing.

I think the same can happen with the flash sync speed advantage. The new generation of photographers are used to DSLRs and what they can do. The question of the near future will be why change from a DSLR to MF when my DSLR does the work? The MF makers have a challenge there. In the past it was about how much easier to work with than MF/large format film, in recent years how much better image quality it was than DSLR, but now that argument is also about to fall apart. Sure it is better, but subtle to most.

 

[fotografz]

4x5" view cameras have unique features in movements rarely replicated in modern tech cameras. Some of the modern tech cameras don't even have tilt! But I see that many today don't use movements much, one gets used with the reduced feature-set, adapts the photographic style, or maybe even haven't tried a traditional view camera so they know what's missing.

I think the same can happen with the flash sync speed advantage. The new generation of photographers are used to DSLRs and what they can do. The question of the near future will be why change from a DSLR to MF when my DSLR does the work? The MF makers have a challenge there. In the past it was about how much easier to work with than MF/large format film, in recent years how much better image quality it was than DSLR, but now that argument is also about to fall apart. Sure it is better, but subtle to most.

Sounds like compromise thinking to me.

All the more reason to adopt tools that separate one from the pack. This has always been the draw for those that seek to accomplish what others can't ... and do it quickly to meet certain commercial or personal creative demands.

For example, showing a client focus stacking on set to get the needed DOF for a product shot, as opposed to full movements with my Rollie Xact-II and Rodenstock digital optics which takes seconds, are two totally different exercises ... one is a no-no, and the other is a no-brainer

If the DOF demand isn't that great, then I can slap on the HTS/1.5 for tilt, and use any focal length from 28 to 100 depending on the subject and lens draw I may want.

High sync speed isn't a frivolous option as you seem to indicate ... it's a creative tool to express certain look you may want to accomplish, and those without that option are adapting to the tool, as opposed to the tools adopting to the need.

Horses for courses is still in effect.

-Marc

 

[torger]

Horses for courses is still in effect.

I see your point and I do hope you are right. I myself after all chose a digital view camera with "only" 33 megapixels when the D800E was already available simply because I think DSLR tilt-shift options are too limited for my photographic style.

I'm just a bit pessimistic, I'm afraid that too few will see the value of those various features.

 

[fotografz]

I see your point and I do hope you are right. I myself after all chose a digital view camera with "only" 33 megapixels when the D800E was already available simply because I think DSLR tilt-shift options are too limited for my photographic style.

I'm just a bit pessimistic, I'm afraid that too few will see the value of those various features.

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much. There are plenty of shooters banging away every day with their MFD systems that aren't here touting why or defending anything ... they are busy shooting.

My pal has a studio that does a ton of product work for a German based food retailer that is picky as hell about the quality of the work, and also wants that quality for ease of retouching. He won the account based on precision and getting the shot close right out of the camera. 2 full movement 6X9 view cameras, 2 big Fuji's with tilts, and nine Hasselblad H cameras going day and night. His shooters have to be able to set the movements in minutes and light a set very fast. That is the challenge and reality of some commercial shooters.

I just did a portrait session at a time and place that had me shooting high speed sync with the H camera using 4,000 w/s of lighting to get the balance I wanted for the look I pre visualized. 1/250 or HSS and 50 speed-lights, or NDs on a 35mm DSLR lens would not have cut it. It would not have been the same image I had in mind.

I have another major shoot coming up where I'll be putting 4,800 w/s on the subject and another 2400w/s split up elsewhere ... basically lighting a forest area ... and do it no matter what the ambient may be up to that day. These jobs happen on the day planned, not when conditions are ideal.

Check out this Pro shooting with the Leica S2 and new CS leaf shutter lenses wide open that sync to 1/1000 dealing with subject movement in daylight ... masterful results IMO. Control no matter when or where is the point made.

Markus Tedeskino on the Leica Central Shutter S-Lenses in St. Peter Ording, Germany on Vimeo

-Marc

 

[tashley]

If I had a Hasselblad H3D-22 - which I have - and if I had 5000 USD - which I have - I'd spend the money on making images rather than changing cameras.

I see you got a lot of Likes for that - and I see why - but it makes me cheekily want to ask what camera you had before the one you've got now, and why did you change? I assume that your point is that there's not enough difference between the Hassy and a D800 to make the change worthwhile given the opportunity cost of the use of funds, but I'm interested in this issue of at what point is a change rational, rather than just an expression of our insecurities and/or gear sluttishness (if that's a word?!)

 

[KeithL]

Hi Tim

I’d say I’m the opposite of a gear slut. I can count the cameras I’ve owned in the last fifteen years on the fingers of one hand and have two fingers to spare. I guess it comes down to what I want to be known for, a portfolio of cameras or a portfolio of images.

My last change was from Hasselblad V series film to H series digital; fundamental stuff. I can rationalise change if it allows me to fundamentally change the way I make images. Having said that, I can visualise a change - or an addition - in the near future that hopefully will allow me to do just that.

Keith

 

[Shashin]

I assume that your point is that there's not enough difference between the Hassy and a D800 to make the change worthwhile...

I would like to jump in here.

Why is everyone always looking for the next camera? (I am really curious about the divorce rate at GetDPI.) There is nothing wanting in what I have. It makes the images I want to make and does it really well. I find the deficiency in my work is not a result of the gear, but my skill. A D800 is not going to fix that. More DR is not going to fix that. Neither is higher ISOs.

I learnt long ago, it was not the choices that made me a better photographer, but the limitations. 90 percent of my work is done with a single focal length. Sure a 35mm camera would give me more choice in lenses, but is it real choice? The DR of slide film is not great, but using that limitation can make for powerful imagery--I don't get the fear of shadows and highlights. The limitations make me work harder and focus more. The results, however, are not limited. My work is never defined by the number of pixels.

Sure, the camera is important. If you are a cab driver, you want a comfortable car. But the smaller viewfinder and 3:2 aspect ratio is no plus for me.

As far as insecurities, if I still wear my Bay City Rollers T-shirt, the camera is isn't going to cause me to blush.

 

[Wayne Fox]

I would like to jump in here.

Why is everyone always looking for the next camera?

It's not debatable that technology can provide quality improvements in some areas to images. It is a valid point that many people reach what is sufficient technology for what they do, yet still crave something better. Others find ways around the technology (such as stitching) to overcome it's weaknesses. Certainly technology doesn't make anyone a better photographer ... if your work isn't very good buying a better camera won't offer much. But buying a better camera/lens can certainly improve the final quality of that work.

The Nikon d800 situation is the most unique one in the history of digital photography, and there is little chance of it ever happening again. The pent up demand for an affordable decent resolution full frame Nikon is the result of Nikons lack of presence in that market. In the beginning of digital, Nikon blew off full frame. They were extremely late to the party, and even the D3x, as awesome as it was, remained out of the budget of most photographers.

Nikon should have introduced an affordable 20+MP body 2 or 3 years ago. I'm assuming their deal with Sony made the 24mp sensor cost prohibitive to put into a d700 body (which doesn't make sense). But kudos to them, as they sort made up for their puzzling lack of interest in FF bodies because they focused on making sure when they finally did bring a decent higher resolution FF sensor to the market, they blew things wide open by wrapping up the best 35mm sensor ever made into a very reasonably priced body. It's no wonder they are selling like they are - there are so many Nikon users stuck at the 12mp world. We will never see pent up demand like this again. Even when Canon introduces their +30mp (or perhaps +40mp) sensor later this year, the demand isn't nearly as high, because at 22mp the current Canons provide excellent results and are more than adequate for many, and I'm guessing it will be a higher ticket item so not as affordable as a d800.

 

[tashley]

Hi Tim

I guess it comes down to what I want to be known for, a portfolio of cameras or a portfolio of images.


Keith

These things are so personal. I'd like to think that your quote above is a false opposition - was reading today about Burtynsky's switch from 4x5 film to Phase digital on Hassy body and how much he feels it has improved his ability to make great images - but I have found that constantly changing gear so as to always 'have the best' has the downside of relentless gear testing because of today's poor QC standards. And the time spent on learning the new gear is not insignificant. This is why I'm currently ditching most everything for a pair of D800s and carefully vetted stable of glass, so I can learn it inside out and work with it in depth. But I have also often found new gear creatively challenging, and have learned a lot through getting to grips with different systems and formats.

 

[fotografz]

These things are so personal. I'd like to think that your quote above is a false opposition - was reading today about Burtynsky's switch from 4x5 film to Phase digital on Hassy body and how much he feels it has improved his ability to make great images - but I have found that constantly changing gear so as to always 'have the best' has the downside of relentless gear testing because of today's poor QC standards. And the time spent on learning the new gear is not insignificant. This is why I'm currently ditching most everything for a pair of D800s and carefully vetted stable of glass, so I can learn it inside out and work with it in depth. But I have also often found new gear creatively challenging, and have learned a lot through getting to grips with different systems and formats.

This presupposes that one is dissatisfied with their current gear. The OP never answered that key question ... the bent of his question seems more to do with "investment" fears than whether a move to something else will advance his work ... or as Keith puts it, his "Portfolio."

The notion that new gear will challenge you is of course true ... it forces involvement, even excitement about mastering the new tool. IMO, that's a logical and mechanical endeavor and is not to be confused with inspiring you ... which I think many count on, then keep changing tools looking for the "good, better, best" magic bullet that never comes, at least not for that reason.

Inspiration is about vision, seeing light, thinking, ideas and creativity ... and the tool either does your bidding or it doesn't ... a pure function of selecting the right tool for the applications and ideas you created, bringing us right back to "horses for courses".

Like Keith, I went from a V system to the H system and have been there ever since. The H tool is well known to me, is second nature, and basically gets out of the way for the work I do. The S2 is almost there as an invisible partner in making images ... and patience has paid off because it also can do what no 35mm DSLR can do ... meaning: do the ideas I want to do ... use light the way I want to ... complete the image I want to create.

All the best in your new venture with new tools and may they fit you and what you want to do. I'm pretty satisfied with the tools I've finally assembled. Maybe others are also?

-Marc

 

[David Klepacki]

Looking for personal experiences from users, that totally leave the DMF system for the D800.

Indeed, you should be seeking out personal experiences from people who have actually printed images from both the D800 and DMF system, instead of just some opinions that lack any direct evidence to support them.

love the DMF, but i am trying to understand this madness, its the D800 that good??

There is no question that the D800 is receiving extremely high praise from some of the best photographers in the world. For example, with regard to large print size, the conventional wisdom has been that prints exceeding about 30 inches absolutely require medium format capture, but this myth has been proved wrong with the D800E, at least for some kinds of images. Recently, Peter Cox was involved in a direct comparison of 40x60 inch prints taken with both the D800E and a high end DMF back. Peter is a well known and respected landscape photographer. You can contact him through his website at Peter Cox Photography, Ireland for comments on his comparison. A brief summary and preview of this comparison can be heard on this podcast:
Audioboo / Nikon D800E v Phase One IQ180 comparison - 60x40 inch print comparison yields SHOCK result