As today's B&H news introduces the Sony A7rIV's 61mpx body,
I went looking for an old thread posted I think in the Sunset
Bar(?) some years ago about how 12mpx was enough. I didn't
find that thread, but another one, of this forum, which it might be fun
to re-read and compare with the current camera offerings; then,
focused on how the D800 might affect users of MF gear.
--to wit:
D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison - Page 2
There was then some musing about the future of the
more costly systems in light of what the D800 could
do and in the face of continued technical development.
Clearly, the sky didn't fall, though, and now 7 years
later there've been just two upgrades to the OP camera,
along with various other introductions.
[25th May (ca. June) 2012, fully 7 years ago,
which is longer, *tech*-wise]
To the then D800/e (36mpx) vs. IQ180 (80mpx) ,
what are the corresponding current comparisons?
D850 (46mpx), 5Ds/r (50mpx), A7rIII (42mpx), & SR1 (47mpx)
& newly . . . A7rIV (61mpx)
vs.
IQ3 (100mpx), IQ4 (150mpx), GFX 100, H6D-100C/-400C et al.
which include Shake&Bake multi-shot super-rez mpx sizes
which require scientific notation!
Is it The More Things Change, The More They Remain The Same?!
But one might think that if the cheaper/smaller cameras
are increasingly capable --where capability connotes size of
output along with IQ--,
that the larger systems would only survive were there
(new) needs for much larger output --or that's a simplistic
view based on mpx.
(-;
_______________________________________
COLLECTED SNIPPETS
_______________________________________
I went looking for an old thread posted I think in the Sunset
Bar(?) some years ago about how 12mpx was enough. I didn't
find that thread, but another one, of this forum, which it might be fun
to re-read and compare with the current camera offerings; then,
focused on how the D800 might affect users of MF gear.
--to wit:
D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison - Page 2
There was then some musing about the future of the
more costly systems in light of what the D800 could
do and in the face of continued technical development.
Clearly, the sky didn't fall, though, and now 7 years
later there've been just two upgrades to the OP camera,
along with various other introductions.
[25th May (ca. June) 2012, fully 7 years ago,
which is longer, *tech*-wise]
To the then D800/e (36mpx) vs. IQ180 (80mpx) ,
what are the corresponding current comparisons?
D850 (46mpx), 5Ds/r (50mpx), A7rIII (42mpx), & SR1 (47mpx)
& newly . . . A7rIV (61mpx)
vs.
IQ3 (100mpx), IQ4 (150mpx), GFX 100, H6D-100C/-400C et al.
which include Shake&Bake multi-shot super-rez mpx sizes
which require scientific notation!
Is it The More Things Change, The More They Remain The Same?!
But one might think that if the cheaper/smaller cameras
are increasingly capable --where capability connotes size of
output along with IQ--,
that the larger systems would only survive were there
(new) needs for much larger output --or that's a simplistic
view based on mpx.
(-;
_______________________________________
COLLECTED SNIPPETS
_______________________________________
============== *[OP PeterCoxPhoto about general testing summary]
Hi guys -
Over this weekend, myself and two other photographers
will be doing a field test of these three cameras.
The IQ180 will be used both on an Arca-Swiss Rm3d with a 35mm
Schneider APO-Digitar XL and a 645AF with 35mm Phase One f/3.5 lens.
The D800 and D800E will be tested with the Nikon PC-E 24mm.
We're going to be looking at resolution, dynamic range and general print quality.
/.../ [POST-TEST SUMMARY]
I'll let you know the basic conclusion now, and will provide more details
in a few days when we have the video live and the detailed article written up.
Essentially, at 40x60", the D800E with the 24mm PC-E lens is extremely close
to the IQ180 with the 35mm Schneider on the Arca-Swiss. Close enough that
at a 'normal' viewing distance of 4-5 feet, you can't tell which is which.
At close viewing, less than about 2 feet, the difference becomes apparent.
But it is nowhere close to what you would expect.
In 20x30" prints, the difference is also apparent,
but you have to be less than a foot from the print to tell.
I'm gobsmacked, to say the least.
Dynamic range is, as far as I can tell, at least equal between the cameras.
Colour rendition appears to be better on the IQ180.
Bear in mind, the IQ180 we were testing is my own.
We borrowed the D800 and D800E from friends and colleagues.
So I'm giving this result as an IQ180 owner.
Cheers,
Peter
_______________________________________
It's pretty much what I would expect. Sort of how my p45 files compare to my IQ180 files when I start printing large.
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.
_______________________________________
I am looking at files out of the IQ180 w/80LS compared to D800E with 50/1.4G, and the IQ files look better, even on screen. The skin tones, and general tonality have a smoothness that I can only describe as magical.
The D800E is hands down the more convenient tool to use, and I want it to replace the IQ for this reason alone, but I cannot see it doing that just yet.
Perhaps it's the larger format. For now, both are going to be hanging around.
_______________________________________
--a long synopsis from Jack:
First off, some background. I know Peter and we both went to MF, and ultimately to the same back and the same tech cam for the same reasons. I emailed him before his test and told him what I suspected he'd find --- that conversation went something like this:
Me before the test: "I am really looking forward to your conclusions too. I of course did some tests for myself, but honestly wanted some other confirmation before going public with them. The IQ180 is net superior on detail and color, but for most shooters probably not nearly enough of a gain to justify the 7 or 8 times greater investment in gear and the 4x more complex LCC capture and processing routines. The D800 has slightly superior DR also, which is impressive on its own."
Peter after his test: "Yes, we came up with the same results, although from our testing I'd say the two cameras are equivalent on DR. The margin on image quality and colour is very close for all practical considerations."
IMHO Guy hit it on the head when he said the D800 hit a tipping point in resolution that made it a viable MF alternative.
My more generalized answer would currently be something like this:
1) At a 32x43 inch (80x105 CM) print, the IQ180 file can be printed native at 240 PPI. The D800 file needs a marginal (and easily accomplished) 140% linear uprez to print that same size and resolution. Net result is the IQ file is going to have visibly smoother tonality, but -- and this is a big but -- you'll have to have your nose in the print and to see it; viewed from normal viewing distances, they will be surprisingly similar and equally good.
2) If you now go to a 60x80 inch (150x200 CM) print, the IQ will look notably smoother at any viewing distance less than 3 feet (1M), but still probably not all that visibly superior at normal viewing distances.
3) At print sizes 24x32 inches (60x80 CM) or less, you will not see significant differences unless you put a loupe on the prints to compare them.
I will add a few final comments.
DR: I stand by my claim of slightly superior DR out of the D800. I am not talking strict engineering definitions of DR, but practical extractable DR from the files; the D800 is so superior on noise that the shadows can be pumped a *lot* before becoming unusable. To be sure, the IQ180 shadows can be pumped impressively well too, but the D800 goes to the same level with less noise.
Noise: Per the above, the noise characteristics of the D800 are impressive. We've all believed since the beginning of digital history that bigger, fatter pixels will always be superior on noise than smaller, tightly packed sensors can manage -- and that's been mostly true up until now. Here, both the IQ180 and most especially the D800 prove that old belief flat out wrong.
Ease of use: No question, the D800 is a dream for rapid capture and quick, easy processing.
Cropability: No question, the IQ180 has a huge amount of room for after capture cropping to desired composition -- you can crop it 50% and still have a 40MP file to work with.
Color: For those needing exacting color accuracy, like for product imaging or art-reproduction, the IQ180 will win by some margin in most critical applications. This can perhaps be improved for the D800 with better profiles to the point it's irrelevant, but only time will tell.
And there you have it, my simple two-cents worth.
_______________________________________
The real problem with MFDBs as I see it (from a landscape shooter's perspective) is not so much the performance or complexity, it is simply the crazy high cost of the backs themselves. It is just too much for too little. The cameras and lenses are expensive too yes, but not crazy expensive, it is more like "you get what you pay for" feeling there. MFDBs are now very close to be worse at everything except resolution, and still cost many times more. It won't work forever.
If it really is true that MFDBs cannot be made cheaper due to large chips and low volumes I think that some of the companies may go out of business the coming years.
_______________________________________
[re above]
So true, so true. I made the decision a long time ago that any money thrown at MF is dead money. If you can't afford to eat the investment you should stay away. Nikon, and soon Canon and Sony, are going to change this landscape forever.
_______________________________________
Newer and newer DSLR is getting better and better. I owned Sony A100,A700, A900 to A77 (APSC which is actually better than the older FF model) and I can see the IQ is improving.
It wont be long before DSLR will reach to a point where you can't justify the price-performance ratio of a DB anymore. Unless DB comes with something new, amazing DR perhaps We also need a new body with great autofocus/image stabilizer for starter.
_______________________________________
However, I respectfully disagree with you 100% on this comment
and stick by my original statement: You need to get your face in
the prints side by side to see the differences. Sorry, and I know
it's going to be an unpopular comment for many MFDB owners,
but I have done the print comparisons myself with both processed
and optimally printed, and found the difference is minor even on
close inspection, advancing to undetectable at normal viewing
distances. I will go further and state for most photographers
printing 40 inches or smaller, the price-performance ratio only
makes sense if you need absolute correct color and then have
a client to bill appropriately for it... One of my oldest and most
basic business axioms is, "Sometimes 'good enough' is."*
_______________________________________
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.
_______________________________________
One thing that is very obvious and we need to keep this in mind when we are at this level of mpx be it the D800 or MF you just simply need great glass in front of these sensors and honestly these Nikons prepare yourself to buy the best there is you will see it. I figured this out before anyone talked about it is search and find the best glass Nikon has and get the most you can off that sensor.
_______________________________________
I think there is an elephant in the room though...these cameras are not at all alike in most aspects. Resolution is not everything, and people are always very quick to brush aside the notion that it might not be the most important thing all the time. It's like choosing a car on top speed or its 0-60 time. There are other important criteria, not least of which is how you like to work! There are also handling, workflow, lens choice (not just a matter of how many are available, but also the availability of the type and quality of lenses you are after), price considerations, and any number of other reasons why someone might prefer 35mm over medium format, or the other way around.
I think it is great that the D800 is such an incredibly capable camera for its price, but in the same way that the IQ180 might match 4x5 film in certain ways, there are still lots of people shooting 4x5 film because they prefer shooting that way, there are likely to be people sticking with medium format simply because it is a different medium than 35mm, with all that entails. Or to put it another way, if 4x5 film came out after the IQ180, would you all switch because it gave comparable resolution and is SO much cheaper?
_______________________________________
Maybe this will interest a few people too:
24x36 @ 36 MP is ~4.8microns pixel size,
requires > 100 lp/mm resolving power to achieve that.
Min aperture is ~f5 not to rob that detail.
Where can it go next? 4 microns, 54MP 125 lp/mm and min aperture of f4.2?
Small format is close to practical usage limits.
A 645 sensor (40x54) @ 4.8 microns would give 94 MP
CMOS is probably on the cards too. So that's all coming, the future of MF looks exciting.
For a 645 sensor @ 36 MP, it only needs to resolve around 64 lp/mm and can go to f8
MF systems being componentised, can go for a 6x7 sensor (which I could mount on my Alpa) @4.8 microns would give 174MP.
For a 6x7 sensor to produce a good 60x40 print (assuming 36MP is sufficient for that print)
would need to resolve only 48 lp/mm and f11 is max
I don't think MF is in any danger.
I think relatively speaking small format DSLRs are in more danger
as their market is shrinking by a larger % than MF will (if MF shrinks at all).
btw, I'm struggling with MF after coming in from 4x5, so I don't particularly
support the MF format. I have said for years that all want is a 40MP 4x5 instantaneous capture sensor.
_______________________________________
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.
_______________________________________
In the end it is the look and feel, and as you say it may well be the lenses ... except for a few shots made with some adapted manual focus Leica R lenses, I've seen absolutely nothing from the D800, regardless of which Nikon lens, that even remotely approaches some of the beautiful images posted in the MFD and S2 image threads on Get Dpi, let alone other sites. It's like night and day, yet the comparison chatter drones on and on. In fact, I've yet to see any D800 image that can aesthetically equal my A900 and AF Zeiss glass. That a photographer can make a bigger print of a look and feel they don't like at all, doesn't change anything. Big ugly, is still ugly to some eyes. Which is why, even thought I could easily afford it, I'll keep trundling along with the Sonys until something changes my mind
_______________________________________
The problem is that many people, myself included, don't have the ability to see a "night and day" difference, and by some reason it is never really demonstrated in side-by-side tests. Perhaps my eyes are bad, I don't know, that could be the case. I have no prestige in this. It is not only about spotting a difference, it also about thinking that the difference has any significant impact on image quality/look
_______________________________________
Its great to be shooting medium format again after years of 35mm digital, it took me many years to get my business where I can justify it, and to be honest no 35mm camera is going to replace my Hasselblad for sheer quality, look and colour. and I only have the lowly H4D-40.
_______________________________________
The reason why you don't see this in MF manufacturers marketing is because there is no significant difference. There was a big difference in 35mm vs medium format in the film days. This is because medium format included capture sizes that were vastly bigger than 24x36. One of the biggest limitations of MF digital is that it it limited to below 60x45mm
With the rapid increase in 35mm DSLR quality the subtle difference between MF and 35mm DSLR has pretty much vanished. As sensor quality has improved enormously Nikon and Canon have followed up with significant lens improvements. Also the fact that they have multiple versions of most focal lengths means that the faster lenses are designed for a certain look while the slower ones for another.
The Nikon 85mm 1.4G is a perfect example. It's an internal focusing system and the iris moves with the focusing group. This produces much nicer bokeh, fast focusing (due to internal focusing). Sealed lens design (keeps quality far longer). This is an expensive design, but is viable for Nikon because they have an alternative with the far less expensive 85mm 1.8G.
The Nikon 85mm 1.4G has a look that isn't matched by MF offerings. The closest being the Hasselblad Fuji 100mm 2.2.
Going back to the claimed special look of MF digital lenses..... if the difference were noticeable enough the medium format manufacturers would be publishing side by side comparisons. The reason they don't is because it's just not there anymore.
_______________________________________
It's not about money. It's about results. I have tested the D800 in all the territory, indoors and out, flash and natural, tilt and shift, long and short, that I've used the Canon and Phase gear for. It covers all the bases, with, to all practical intents the same (sometimes nearly as good, often much better) results.
It is a no brainer, for me, totally irrespective of cost.
_______________________________________
There is a new camera. People are saying it is great. We want to buy it.
Maybe we buy too many and too often.. for some reasons.
_______________________________________
Well, I had to find out what all the fuss about the D800 was so a couple of weeks ago I went up to Warehouse Express and compared a D800e with my 5dII and Cambo DS with P45+ back.
This was a quick and dirty interior test so didn't reveal as much as shooting a landscape might. I used the 17-40 on the 5DII (as I said, quick and dirty), 14-24 and 24-70 on the D800e, and Schneider 24XL and 35XL on the Cambo.
Quick summary of results:
D800 has great dynamic range, pretty much up there with the P45+. Resolution, even with the D800e and 14-24 is noticeably less than P45+/Schneiders but still significantly higher than the 5DII, as you would expect. The 14-24 is a beautiful lens - big and heavy though.
Biggest surprise was just how inaccurate the colours of both the Canon and the D800 were - they simply didn't accurately reproduce what I saw. I'm looking back at the last 10 years of shooting with Canon digital gear, and slightly weeping at the thought of how the colours were never quite right, despite a lot of struggles in post. And even stitching to 100+MP using the 50 1.2L, the images aren't as crisp as the Cambo.
_______________________________________