Nikon D800E v.s Hasselblad H4D40: the end of medium format superiority?

[adaml]

here's a file I shot with a friend's D800, 50mm f/1.4 G @ f/8, ISO100, 1/125. Two Einstein beauty dishes with socks, one key, one fill. it was really just a test shot to help him with his new lighting setup, but i was astounded with the clarity, shadow and highlight detail. the color is way off - too red, but somewhat easily corrected in post. this image is not edited, or color corrected - just Lightroom exported JPEG from RAW.


D800 by Adam Lerner, on Flickr

--
Adam Lerner | Photography | 718.219.3006

 

[Bill_Green]

Yes the 85 1.4 is the lens to use for comparison. I was shooting with my D800e and my 85 1.4g yesterday and it gives wonderful microcontrast. I also have the Phase P65+ with Hassy glass so will have to do a comparison too. Eleanor

I'd love to see that!

 

[Jack]

Jack, can you summarise some of those advantages you speak of. From someone who is in the process of getting into MF for professional work, it would be great to get your thoughts. From my relatively inexperienced viewpoint, I consider the biggest advantages to MF over D800 are:

- FAR higher sync speed with LF lenses
- Greater resolution - more noticeable on larger prints
- Tilt shift lenses
- Professional support, i.e. Phase One (my local rep is awesome)!

Thanks.

You've hit on most. My top 3 would be: higher synch speeds with LS lenses; better color fidelity including the fact that dedicated raw converters usually have a selection of camera profiles based on actual lighting conditions; then ability to use the back on more than one body, tech cam or SLR or even view camera so a wider range of available (excellent quality) glass and compound movements. If you absolutely have to have one or more of those features on a regular basis, you need MF. However if you don't absolutely have to have them, then a D800 kit may suffice in many areas for far less expenditure -- and IMHO this is really where the decision pivot point rests for each individual...

 

[eleanorbrown]

I think an interesting test would be to put my 85 1.4G on the 800e and the Hassy 80 on my P65+ and shoot same scene, then crop the Phase file to approx. 35mm size (approx.) and see a pixel for pixel comparison. I don't think anyone has done anything like this. Eleanor

I'd love to see that!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I did these tests with my 160 back. Old thread in Nikon forum called First blush.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I did these with a tech cam though. Even better. Lol

 

[eleanorbrown]

Ohhhh ok...actually think these are the RAWs I downloaded from that forum... Shot with the IQ160...Eleanor

I did these tests with my 160 back. Old thread in Nikon forum called First blush.

 

[Dustbak]

Adobe standard profile is waayyy off for my D800e in Lightroom 4. I always use camera standard or camera portrait which helps a lot. Eleanor

Thanks Eleanor, I do use the camera standard profile but still something is wrong with the color. Some deep inherent bias towards something green that is not easily gotten rid off. I also find the contrast odd in cases (very flat)

I am tempted to get C1 just to see if it gets better colors.

Sofar color is my main gripe, I am sure I will grow into it eventually but this is something that has always been great to me with any MFD I ever owned (Leaf, Sinar, Jenoptik or HB/Imacon).

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Thanks Eleanor, I do use the camera standard profile but still something is wrong with the color. Some deep inherent bias towards something green that is not easily gotten rid off. I also find the contrast odd in cases (very flat)

I am tempted to get C1 just to see if it gets better colors.

Sofar color is my main gripe, I am sure I will grow into it eventually but this is something that has always been great to me with any MFD I ever owned (Leaf, Sinar, Jenoptik or HB/Imacon).

Trust me it gets a lot better. I did not like anything in ACR or NX2.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I trust my IQ 160 in C1 to be deadly accurate. Pretty damn close with Nikon

If anything the Nikon has a touch more saturation which is a easy correction

 

[fotografz]

I think an interesting test would be to put my 85 1.4G on the 800e and the Hassy 80 on my P65+ and shoot same scene, then crop the Phase file to approx. 35mm size (approx.) and see a pixel for pixel comparison. I don't think anyone has done anything like this. Eleanor

The correct Hasselblad lens for that comparison would be the HC100/2.2, not the HC80/2.8.

What would be the point of cropping the Phase file to 35mm size? It is a 645 sensor. That would be like cropping a D800 file to match a Sony A77 APSC sensor ... which I'd like to see : -)

A more telling test would be to blow up the Nikon D800 file to equal the P65+ file and see what happens.

-Marc

 

[dougpeterson]

Jack, can you summarise some of those advantages you speak of. From someone who is in the process of getting into MF for professional work, it would be great to get your thoughts. From my relatively inexperienced viewpoint, I consider the biggest advantages to MF over D800 are:

- FAR higher sync speed with LF lenses
- Greater resolution - more noticeable on larger prints
- Tilt shift lenses
- Professional support, i.e. Phase One (my local rep is awesome)!

Thanks.

I'm not Jack but I posted a partial list a few months ago on LL copied below.

- large and bright viewfinder***
- touch screen interface (some bodies); hard to find a system you can check 100% focus on faster on a specific part of the image than an IQ or Credo
- tools like auto-horizon and auto-keystone which correct the level and pitch of the image in software based on the electronic levels in the back, making every horizon straight and every vertical parallel without manual tweaking
- Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th)
- More tactile lens response when manually focusing (large focus barrel, actual lens gearing*)
- aspect ratio (some prefer 4:3 or 1:1, especially for verticals)
- waist level viewfinder (some bodies)
- ability to shoot vertical without rotating camera (some backs)
- low ISO without ND filters (useful for dragging shutter in some styles)
- ability to shoot film with same system as digital (some bodies)
- ability to turn sensor on/off independent of the shutter/flash firing (allows to build up exposure with strobes without excessive ambient light, even in bright conditions e.g. interiors)
- ability to crop a vertical and horizontal from the same frame (even 36mp in 3:2 is not enough for many applications when cropped to a vertical)
- ability to use on specific legacy cameras (some folks just plain love Contax, Hassy 500)
- ability to use on speciality equipment like Aerial, industrial, art-repro systems (obviously a niche)
- ability to use on tech cameras
---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens (if IC allows)
---- fully mechanical/traditional shooting
---- absolute best glass, period
---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)
- compatibility with view cameras
---- close focus possible with many lenses, not just select macros
---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens, not just select TS lenses
---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)
- less frequent updates required (we still have many happy studio shooters using H25 backs users, don't know many happy Canon 1D shooters)**
- longer software support (original Phase One Lightphase from 1998 is still fully supported tethered in OSX 10.7 and Capture One 6, while the Canon 5D from 2006 isn't even officially supported tethered in LR4 or EOS Utility in OSX 10.7, nor 1Ds II in Windows 7 64 bit)
- consistent shooting speed; an IQ or Credo can maintain it's frame-rate indefinitely with a fast CF card, any Canon/Nikon can shoot much faster but unless you restrain yourself you can easily hit a buffer and the camera won't fire when you think it should. The IQ or Credo will be slower (around 1.2fps for the 40mp model) but it is reliably consistent - you know when you can shoot next and can develop a rhythm.
- larger bodies (for some this will be a big negative, but for others their hands are simply too large to comfortably use a camera like the D800, even with the optional vertical grip)


*As opposed to e.g. the Canon 85/1.2 with fly-by-wire focusing and a dinky focus barrel
**This is not just a question of cost since of course the 1D owner could have updated to a 1DsII and a 1DsIII and spent about the same; some photographers just dislike the hassle of switching cameras - new batteries, new chargers, new cables, new settings, new button locations, new software, new look (forcing them in some cases to expend time/energy getting the new camera to produce the look of the old camera). Some photographers love getting new gear, some despise it.
***I never understood why this isn't mentioned/discussed more often; you have to look through the viewfinder for nearly every frame you take - it's your portal to the world you are capturing.

 

[edouard]

When you increase the camera format size, for the same captured scene, all “analogical” optical details will be larger. Lens resolve larger detail better (in term of transmitted contrast c.f. MTF): the same image capture will have better micro-contrast = better “dimensionality”, even examined at a ~low resolution! That's the law of optics, nothing can change that even wishful thinking. Larger format will always have an advantage IQ wise, not because of the sensor but because of the use of lenses in a better zone of their MTF!

For life-like-ness / “high-fidelity”: large format > medium format > small format.
This is especially visible in scenes rich in details the brain is “trained” to process: e.g. a group of people, a person + detailed surroundings. Much less in portrait close up (where few details are needed to process one face), macro photography ("unfamiliar" details) etc…

So why do people keep comparing camera formats by pixel peeping on "flat" scenes?
When you pixel peep such high resolution images, you only look at very high spatial frequencies, that are anyway not well resolved (in term of transmitted contrast c.f. MTF). The transmitted contrast start to level off / flatten at such high spatial frequencies, so there is not much differential between full frame and 645 (although even in those not so meaningful conditions the D800 looks very low res. in the cameralabs.com Nikon_D800_vs_Phase_One test)
It’s the transmission of MEDIUM SPATIAL FREQUENCIES that is important for the punch/dimensionality of an image! Take some elevation from the pixels! and use pictures with many brain "processable" details e.g. a group of people in an urban environment.

Medium format is not just better for large enlargements, it gives more life-like images, this is visible even on ~1000px wide web images! provided the scene as some relief to begin with!
E.g. search for Medium Format on 500px.com. Some images instead of being just mere "pictures" look like a window to a moment frozen in time.

 

[eleanorbrown]

Of course my P65+has the size advantage..no question about that. I want to do a crop of the Phase sensor to equal 35mm size shoot at same focal length as my D800e and make prints, say at 16x24 or 20x30 and compare the two. Eleanor

W

The correct Hasselblad lens for that comparison would be the HC100/2.2, not the HC80/2.8.

What would be the point of cropping the Phase file to 35mm size? It is a 645 sensor. That would be like cropping a D800 file to match a Sony A77 APSC sensor ... which I'd like to see : -)

A more telling test would be to blow up the Nikon D800 file to equal the P65+ file and see what happens.

-Marc

 

[David Schneider]

So why do people keep comparing camera formats by pixel peeping on "flat" scenes?
When you pixel peep such high resolution images, you only look at very high spatial frequencies, that are anyway not well resolved (in term of transmitted contrast c.f. MTF). The transmitted contrast start to level off / flatten at such high spatial frequencies, so there is not much differential between full frame and 645 (although even in those not so meaningful conditions the D800 looks very low res. in the cameralabs.com Nikon_D800_vs_Phase_One test)
It’s the transmission of MEDIUM SPATIAL FREQUENCIES that is important for the punch/dimensionality of an image! Take some elevation from the pixels! and use pictures with many brain "processable" details e.g. a group of people in an urban environment.

Medium format is not just better for large enlargements, it gives more life-like images, this is visible even on ~1000px wide web images! provided the scene as some relief to begin with!
E.g. search for Medium Format on 500px.com. Some images instead of being just mere "pictures" look like a window to a moment frozen in time.

Not to take the thread off subject, but I just have had a hard time looking at examples of this camera vs. that camera via web on a computer monitor. I've not always able to see these differences as well as those who post comments about those differences. There's always differences in processing to complicate the test. And then some of those images are converted to BW.

I certainly noticed the more life-like images when I added a Hasselblad to my studio. I would add that those mfd files are easier to retouch due to so much more information present.

 

[etrump]

The d800e is a wonderful camera that blows away any other 35mm currently available but it's files still have a 35mm look to them. I don't understand the math as well as others on this thread but the difference in print and even on screen is obvious. Just as MF film had a unique look, so does MFD IMHO. When MFD fits and is competently executed it blows away the ambiance of any 35mm system.

That said, when you take the cost and functionality the d800e provides it is a welcome addition to the toolkit. For certain subjects it is an invaluable tool. With the higher resolution and image quality you can produce stunning prints that you couldn't before.

D800e, 200-400mm, ISO 1100, 1/800. It looks great in a 40x60 print even with a 10-20% crop:

 

[CBronicki]

The d800e is a wonderful camera that blows away any other 35mm currently available but it's files still have a 35mm look to them. I don't understand the math as well as others on this thread but the difference in print and even on screen is obvious. Just as MF film had a unique look, so does MFD IMHO. When MFD fits and is competently executed it blows away the ambiance of any 35mm system.

That said, when you take the cost and functionality the d800e provides it is a welcome addition to the toolkit. For certain subjects it is an invaluable tool. With the higher resolution and image quality you can produce stunning prints that you couldn't before.

D800e, 200-400mm, ISO 1100, 1/800. It looks great in a 40x60 print even with a 10-20% crop:

Before I got to the end of your post and looked at the photo I thought it was MFDB, i.e. IQ160/180...awesome quality! It reminds me of this wildlife photographer who uses an 80mp Leaf Aptus:

Nikolai Zinoviev:

 

[fotografz]

Before I got to the end of your post and looked at the photo I thought it was MFDB, i.e. IQ160/180...awesome quality! It reminds me of this wildlife photographer who uses an 80mp Leaf Aptus:

Nikolai Zinoviev:

All wonderful shots to be sure ... but what etrump and others have described in their posts is evident in the pictorial differences ... IMO.

-Marc

 

[ptomsu]

All wonderful shots to be sure ... but what etrump and others have described in their posts is evident in the pictorial differences ... IMO.

-Marc

Why not just enjoy the really stunning quality of the D800 / D800E with proper lenses and leave all that MFDB comparisons alone?

I could not be happier with my D800E and some selected lenses as I am now! I have not touched the Hassi since I have the D800E as this one is so much more fun and easiness to shoot and deliver. This does not mean that the Hassi could not produce better, but for my usage in 98% the D800E delivers.

And I bet not many people could tell the difference between a shot taken with D800 / D800E or any MFDB out there

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

In these comparisons, it's never mentioned that the D800 shoots broadcast quality video! What's to compare? The D800 is a game changer for many photographers, and the only thing to compare is the entry price of MFD. I also agree that the D800 gets you very close to MFD, and with certain technique, the perceived DOF too.