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

[Wayne Fox]

Don,

Having said that - I would not nearly have made all the images with my Hasselblad, let alone a Tech Cam, which I have made in the last 2 months with the D800E.

I find the opposite to be true ... my d800e outfit with 3 zeiss primes and a couple of zooms is only a few pounds lighter than my DF/1Q180 outfit with 3 primes and the 75-150. And everytime I go to a shoot I have both systems in the car, but I can't find a reason to get the Nikon out of the car instead of the Phase.

I've shot side by side with the two systems and while I agree the Nikon is the best sensor ever in a 35mm dSLR and with the Zeiss glass delivers some great qualities, I still struggle with the files getting what I want ... I can get there but it seems to be a lot more work. And sorry, but print a 90" pano and the Nikon just can't handle it as well ... it's a stretch for the IQ180 as well, but there is a difference.

I've shot with MF for so long (since the 70's) that I don't find the dSLR workflow shooting any faster. I never hand hold (I'm strictly a landscape shooter I don't even shoot wildlife) . The only advantage I think I can find with it is with telephoto reach on occasion and for long exposure work (which may be the main reason I end up keeping it)

I'm guessing my Nikon will be for sale in the near future. I wanted to give it a go, but I actually prefer the NEX 7 sensor with the Nikon and Zeiss glass and it holds up just fine to 24x30 and is still pretty good at 30x40. Go to 40x60 and the nikon beats the NEX but at that size it's not holding up against the IQ180.

and of course that's just my 2 cents. as has been said before horses for courses, but the title of this thread seems odd since it's comparing a rather dated and pretty mediocre resolution MFD against the best that a 35mm can offer.

 

[paulraphael]

...but the title of this thread seems odd since it's comparing a rather dated and pretty mediocre resolution MFD against the best that a 35mm can offer.

That's the idea, isn't it? The state of the art small thing isn't going to compete with the state of the art big thing. But it might get into the same room with lower-tier big thing, while still costing a fraction.

 

[Wayne Fox]

That's the idea, isn't it? The state of the art small thing isn't going to compete with the state of the art big thing. But it might get into the same room with lower-tier big thing, while still costing a fraction.

sure, I'll agree with that ... but I wouldn't label it "the end of medium format superiority" ...

 

[torger]

I think the big problem for the MF makers will be to get new customers. Existing are probably satisfied, many come from using MF film or LF film previously and to that it was a real upgrade in flexibility.

However, today beginning photographers start with DSLRs and get used to them, and what has MF to offer to them? Sure there are a few things, more resolution, higher flash sync speed, more flexible movements in tech cams, a subtle difference in look. But also bad long exposure, worse ISO performance, nowadays even worse DR, slower cameras, bad live view and a 5x-10x higher price. I think MF makers will have to try harder if they want to survive another 10 years (or at least avoid shrinking drastically).

I don't think they need to be better at everything, but I think something in the current value proposition need to change.

 

[ptomsu]

I find the opposite to be true ... my d800e outfit with 3 zeiss primes and a couple of zooms is only a few pounds lighter than my DF/1Q180 outfit with 3 primes and the 75-150. And everytime I go to a shoot I have both systems in the car, but I can't find a reason to get the Nikon out of the car instead of the Phase.

I've shot side by side with the two systems and while I agree the Nikon is the best sensor ever in a 35mm dSLR and with the Zeiss glass delivers some great qualities, I still struggle with the files getting what I want ... I can get there but it seems to be a lot more work. And sorry, but print a 90" pano and the Nikon just can't handle it as well ... it's a stretch for the IQ180 as well, but there is a difference.

I've shot with MF for so long (since the 70's) that I don't find the dSLR workflow shooting any faster. I never hand hold (I'm strictly a landscape shooter I don't even shoot wildlife) . The only advantage I think I can find with it is with telephoto reach on occasion and for long exposure work (which may be the main reason I end up keeping it)

I'm guessing my Nikon will be for sale in the near future. I wanted to give it a go, but I actually prefer the NEX 7 sensor with the Nikon and Zeiss glass and it holds up just fine to 24x30 and is still pretty good at 30x40. Go to 40x60 and the nikon beats the NEX but at that size it's not holding up against the IQ180.

and of course that's just my 2 cents. as has been said before horses for courses, but the title of this thread seems odd since it's comparing a rather dated and pretty mediocre resolution MFD against the best that a 35mm can offer.

Well Wayne,

if this is the case, you are probably not the right user for the D800E and I would really consider selling this "bad" camera and further enjoy you tech cam.

A final word to print sizes - I cannot get any longer impressed by these numbers being thrown around when it comes to how big you can print, since I have seen stunning results from 10MP cameras printed 3x2m (how much is that in inch?).

And WRT to comparing - it is 40MP against 36MP, so it is not so odd as comparing 80MP to 36MP - right?

 

[gerald.d]

sure, I'll agree with that ... but I wouldn't label it "the end of medium format superiority" ...

I think this is one of the main problems with both the title of this thread, and the article in question.

The conclusion of the article itself quite clearly says "no".

The author of the article says he'll stay with the MF kit.

Personally, I have a real issue with this kind of trolling for hits, because that's precisely what it is. Trolling.

"Extensive testing shows that H4D40 is superior to D800E" wouldn't have generated quite so much interest, would it?

In fact, the conclusions of each test, one by one:

First test, a child portrait:
There is difference, Hasselblad produced slightly more details and color was more balanced to a girl skin tone.
...
Second test, Underexposure and Shadows recovery:
Both cameras did a great job recovering very dark areas of the image, with slight advantage on Hasselblad’s side: Phocus software were able to handle noise better than Nikon’s ViewNX and ACR, and delivered less contrast (which is good) and more detailed image.
...
Third test, Overexposure and highlights recovery:
Basically the situation is the same: there is a visible advantage of Hasselblad over Nikon in resolution and details.
...
Last test, The Colors:
As expected, Hasselblad delivered better color accuracy

 

[GrahamWelland]

if this is the case, you are probably not the right user for the D800E and I would really consider selling this "bad" camera and further enjoy you tech cam.?

No ****. We love shooting MF and really don't need convincing otherwise. Really.

Gerald: :thumbs:

 

[ptomsu]

No ****. We love shooting MF and really don't need convincing otherwise. Really.

Gerald: :thumbs:

Exactly!

So why bother with the D800E? It cannot deliver what MFD can deliver. Right?

It is soooo easy, just continue enjoying MFD and tech cam

 

[fotografz]

No ****. We love shooting MF and really don't need convincing otherwise. Really.

Gerald: :thumbs:

This is the crux of the matter isn't it?

The same holds true for those who need the 35mm format. While I'm not much of a fan of 35mm (except when it is in the unique form of a Leica Rangefinder), I have to use a 35mm DSLR for some work I do. In that sense it is a valuable tool in the gear box, and will remain so until I stop doing that type of work.

What I do not need is something who's top level performance is near the bottom rung of the MFD format. A 35mm camera that requires the same shooting discipline as MFD to realize that performance is less valuable in terms of my 35mm application than one than does not. If I am going to all that trouble, I might as well use something that is at the top rung of MFD.

I think the D800 is a great innovation, as will be the even more pixel packed 35mm DSLRs sure to follow. It should relieve the MFD makers from filling the previous resolution gap between 35mm and MFD, and get on with swimming upstream with either bigger-better specialty, and/or more innovative larger sensor cameras that exploit the MFD size aspects while jettisoning all the film legacy stuff that has held back both FF 35mm DSLRs and MFD systems.

If the rumors are true, Hasselblad may have figured this out sooner rather than later ... we'll see soon enough.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

snip ... A final word to print sizes - I cannot get any longer impressed by these numbers being thrown around when it comes to how big you can print, since I have seen stunning results from 10MP cameras printed 3x2m (how much is that in inch?) ... snip.

If that's true, then why do you need a 36 meg 35mm DSLR?

-Marc

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

I took photographs of my favorite scene with my H4D/40, and my D800, using prime lenses. The original (h4d) image has been published many times and is my best selling scenic, so far. I didn't do an exact set-up, as this was just a whim out of curiosity, but the aesthetic and detail of the D800 is close...very close. Close enough, that i'm pretty sure the casual reader would never know the difference, and this is the point of all these discussions. I also shoot many portraits with strobes, and while sync speed and LS lenses favor the H4D (i prefer LS lenses for portraits), the D800 really shines in this area. You might have to play more to get the D800 colors/contrast just right, (but that could be a firmware update), but it competes nicely for the investment, and I really think this is the crux of the issue.

I would like to know more about the D800 against the S2, as their sensors are closer in size.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

That is the crux of the issue. If it was not close the threads here and everywhere would not continue as they do. This is really the bottom line there damn close and with that a lot of folks are scratching there heads over it. Honestly you can't blame them. My Iq 140 on a tech cam with a amazing 28mm beat the D800 in the detail dept. but it was not a stomper either. It was a tight race. More the issue with the D800 is getting everything else correct , forget the resolution that really is not something to sweat over but extra post and getting things under control and more importantly getting the Nikon to emulate MF capture is really where the work is. The Nikons need a firmware update and/or better profiling needs to be done. This will come in time just like the S2 took a little time. I view this as very normal progression in development .

 

[fotografz]

I seriously doubt that the "casual reader" could tell the difference between a 22 meg 5D-III and a D800 either. Or even my 4 year old Sony A900. Probably not even a D700 either. If casual reader is the criteria, then all bets are off and almost anything above 12 to 18 meg is a waste of money, and we all could have stuck with cameras from 2 generations ago and saved a boat load of money and a lot of time discussing all this ... unless we actually see the difference in creative look and feel ourselves, and shoot to that criteria.

As to the S2, IMO the reason that camera exists is as a box to put the Leica S lenses on for that specific look and feel. As a dual shutter camera it is a very flexible tool that allows high speed sync one shot and focal plane to 1/4000th the next with a flip of the switch. I like that for portrait work with the H lenses on the S2 where I can be selective as to which optic ... usually the 100/2.2. It is a nice camera, I like it ... a little bit 35mm and a little bit MFD.

The S2 sensor performs pretty close to the H4D/40 if just evaluating the sensor alone ... at least it did when I tested the two in a controlled environment. Leica has since improved profiles and is now a snap to get right in post. Unfortunately, I no longer have a H4D/40 ... now that I have the H to S adapter, I could have tested both cameras with the same lenses just to look at some narrow criteria regarding the sensors, and how Leica's secret sauce compared to Hasselblad's out of the camera. That would've been interesting.

For the MFD look and feel, the H4D/60 has more of it than the S2 ... but those darned S lenses are hard to beat when that's the look you want.

To each his own. :thumbs:

-Marc

 

[Paratom]

All I know is that if I browse through my images of the last 2 years, that there is a much higher percentage of good rated images coming from my S2 system, then is coming from other cameras I own-for my personal taste.

I guess it is not just about how good IQ a system can thaoretically produce, it is also how good a photographer gets along with a certain system (viewfinder, user interface, focus, lens options, haptics).

What I find confusing is this "allmost as good as" comparisons.
Where the LX7 is allmost as good as the RX100 as the OMD as the Nex7 as the X-Pro1 as the D800 as the S2 as the IQ180.
And the Nikon glass is allmost as good as the Zeiss which is nearly as good as the Leica(or was it the other way around?).

 

[paulraphael]

sure, I'll agree with that ... but I wouldn't label it "the end of medium format superiority" ...

Nor would I. More like the end of the huge gulf between the two.

 

[paulraphael]

I think the big problem for the MF makers will be to get new customers. Existing are probably satisfied, many come from using MF film or LF film previously and to that it was a real upgrade in flexibility.

This is actually what worries me. I don't have a medium format tech cam, but I would like to see them continue to improve and come down in price. I believe they're are the ideal tool for much of the work that I do.

But the medium format world suffers from terrible economies of scale. $40,000 for a camera back? Really? Take a step back from that, reminding yourself that it's not for a NASA launch, and things seem a little off-kilter. There's nothing like that it I can think of in the whole history of the medium, save for very, very specialized equipment.

I don't think Phase and Leaf are ripping anyone off, I think they're forced to distribute their R&D costs among a very small user base.

My d800 was subsidized by thousands of hobbyists and compulsive spenders. Thank you, goofballs of the photo world! But this group probably wasn't much help to you MFDB users. You guys have had to shoulder it on your own.

I worry about new dslrs like the d800 cutting into that user base and making the situation worse. How many backs does Phase sell in a year? My guess is losing a few hundred sales could have an impact on their price and their r&d budget.

I want to see the new dslrs do well because of their advancements, not because their higher competition succumbs to market pressures.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

The casual reader is certainly a discerning market, but these comparisons are not between 35mm dslr's, but if fact, how close you can get now when comparing the D800 to MFD. It's a great price point with fantastic image quality, it's not going to replace MFD. In certain situations, you can sometimes make more money with the D800, when compared to rolling the cost into the invoice for each camera. There are certain applications when MF is a must, certain DOF or mood, but for that i almost always shoot film!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

.005 but we still love ya. Lol

All I know is that if I browse through my images of the last 2 years, that there is a much higher percentage of good rated images coming from my S2 system, then is coming from other cameras I own-for my personal taste.

I guess it is not just about how good IQ a system can thaoretically produce, it is also how good a photographer gets along with a certain system (viewfinder, user interface, focus, lens options, haptics).

What I find confusing is this "allmost as good as" comparisons.
Where the LX7 is allmost as good as the RX100 as the OMD as the Nex7 as the X-Pro1 as the D800 as the S2 as the IQ180.
And the Nikon glass is allmost as good as the Zeiss which is nearly as good as the Leica(or was it the other way around?).

The issue here is the hobbyist and if your planning on 40k outlay and you can get it in 10 percent of that and be close than hell they may get a second hobby. You need to realize people drop hobbys like water. The Pro has no choice they have to buy something but as a hobbyist I can save 30k and be close enough well that 30 I can turn to another hobby or buy a new car. Simply not forced into buying at the top rate. There fickle and well do things different.

Obviously exceptions here but even you guys are a minority . They make 30k D800 a month.

 

[D&A]

That is the crux of the issue. If it was not close the threads here and everywhere would not continue as they do. This is really the bottom line there damn close and with that a lot of folks are scratching there heads over it. Honestly you can't blame them. My Iq 140 on a tech cam with a amazing 28mm beat the D800 in the detail dept. but it was not a stomper either. It was a tight race. More the issue with the D800 is getting everything else correct , forget the resolution that really is not something to sweat over but extra post and getting things under control and more importantly getting the Nikon to emulate MF capture is really where the work is. The Nikons need a firmware update and/or better profiling needs to be done. This will come in time just like the S2 took a little time. I view this as very normal progression in development .

Guy's thoughts expresssed (in the above paragraph) in my opinion is very much the crux of the matter when considering just how close the D800/e comes to emulating MFD, especially at 40MP. In many aspects, one can come awful close but it takes considerably more work, time and thought into the whole process when working with the D800/e, not to mention extremely careful choice of optics. The MFD can get you there, often times with considerably more room to spare along with a bit more leeway and if you push it properly and with careful consideration in ones choice of optics, it will then generally show "its chops" and provide one with an image that will often times distiguish itself as a whole when compared to a similar image taken with the D800/e.

Many times though how much of a difference will be observed, will very much depend on the image and subject matter. All great tools and most certainly there is overlap where results from each will be close and therefore comparison becomes much more difficult. With that said, there are though areas of relative of strength that both cameras posess, and therefore often times use of one camera over the other can be justified.

Dave (D&A)

 

[paulraphael]

What I find confusing is this "allmost as good as" comparisons.
Where the LX7 is allmost as good as the RX100 as the OMD as the Nex7 as the X-Pro1 as the D800 as the S2 as the IQ180.
And the Nikon glass is allmost as good as the Zeiss which is nearly as good as the Leica(or was it the other way around?).

A lot of things are almost as good as things that costs a little more or even double. It's a different calculus when something is almost as good as something that costs 10 times as much.