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!

Now, after switching from MF to D800...

One big difference in all of this is raw processing. If you really want the best out of your Nikon it requires more work than processing MF files. Its really that simple, you really have to be very good at it to get to the MF level in processing.
I think this is worth repeating. I'm in the position of looking for my next camera/system. I got to spend a little time in a studio with a D800 and a couple MF cameras last week. I was amazed at the resolution of the D800, but I never really got the colors to look quite right. I would say that the difference between a D800 and 40 mp, 1.3 crop digital back is primarily in color fidelity, sync speed, etc. Going to a full frame sensor has a different look and feel and a D800 can not touch an IQ180 in any way, but that is a pretty silly comparison. Where I would be curious is to see how it stacks up against a Aptus 7 or P45+.

I'm on an interior architecture shoot this week shooting with a Canon and there is one shot we got last night that needed a 25 min exposure, and I don't think there are any MFD backs aside from a P45 that could do that. I was looking at an Aptus 8 and these two recent shoots have me reconsidering.
 

jonoslack

Active member
It is *extremely* difficult to design "nice prime lenses" when the pixels get as small as they are now unless prices go way up -- like to beyond the cost of the body for an optically 'perfect' 50 f1.4.

To my thinking, optical perfection is over-rated and rarely affects overall image quality to the degree we obsess about it, so I for one am learning to accept my lenses for what they can do, and just go make images with them.
To my thinking, camera body perfection is over-rated and rarely affects overall image quality to the degree we obsess about it, so I for one am learning to accept my cameras for what they can do, and just go on making images with my carefully selected lenses :ROTFL:

Horses for courses, maybe: - I'll be fascinated to compare a D800E image with one from a Leica M with a 'perfect' 50 f1.4 (or even a 'perfect' 50 f2 . . . . . . . . . €6000 is it?).

I'm actually tempted by a D800E . . . . but I always come back to realising that the lenses I'll want to use on it are mostly not Nikon lenses . . . which means manual focus . . . and I just don't think it's the perfect solution for MF lenses.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well again this comes down to work and effort. I have 4 Manual focus lenses and maybe going to 5 for the Nikon and I am getting excellent results from that glass but I am also on tripod and using live view. This comes down to technique , manual focus lenses like my Zeiss glass and even my Samyang 14mm are excellent on the Nikon. This is when i care about what i am shooting. When its PR stuff and handheld than I just use a Tammy 24-70 still great results but not like my Ziess and shooting on a tripod and taking my time making real images. Matter of what you are shooting and what purpose are you shooting for will dictate the effort made.

If you just want to go about shooting in a walk about well those are the results you will get , not the best out of the system but still very good. I will wash and repeat here the effort put out will dictate the results. Medium format by itself dictates more effort made simply because its not easy to shoot.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Let me clarify what I meant by my optical perfection comment: sometimes, optical *IM*perfections can ENHANCE an image, other times they may not matter. Take Mandler-esque spherical aberrations for example -- when used to benefit the image, they can create a work of art where a "perfect" lens would render a blah result in comparison.

Ugly optical anomalies are another matter and clearly we all want to avoid them as far as it's possible to do so.

Where we probably differ (now) is in the marginally significant anomalies like resolution falloff in the corners -- some of you obsess, others of us now accept. And yes you can see them in large prints, but my comment here is that in my humble experience, soft corners don't prevent people from buying large prints from me when the image itself is good. In fact, I am surprised by how often a client chooses a technically less-perfect image over the perfect one because they like something else about it -- and I'm not certain they even notice the imperfections to begin with -- but the result is the imperfect one is still "more than good enough" for their needs.

I know these are some near heretical comments to those of you who search out and demand perfection (I used to be one of you), so my flamesuit is now donned :D.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
First, more pixels does not mean softer images--it means you are magnifying your image more at 100%. Second, pixel resolution places no limit on print size.

And to echo Jack, image quality is not a one way scale pointing toward perfection, but the flavor and spice that is added to the image--"more resolution" just means "more resolution," it does not mean "better." Personally, I worry more about what is between my corners rather than the corners themselves.

My walk around camera is MFD. Easy to use and great results.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Where we probably differ (now) is in the marginally significant anomalies like resolution falloff in the corners -- some of you obsess, others of us now accept. And yes you can see them in large prints, but my comment here is that in my humble experience, soft corners don't prevent people from buying large prints from me when the image itself is good.
But Jack - I don't even slightly obsess about image quality - which is why I've never indulged in medium format . . . . but for much of my landscape work soft corners are as bad as soft middles - it depends on your requirements.

But in my experience, and in the current climate where there are so many good cameras, a good lens is more important than a good camera body.


In fact, I am surprised by how often a client chooses a technically less-perfect image over the perfect one because they like something else about it -- and I'm not certain they even notice the imperfections to begin with -- but the result is the imperfect one is still "more than good enough" for their needs.
I couldn't agree more - the picture I've sold most was taken with an E1 in a darkened room with camera shake - go figure.
I know these are some near heretical comments to those of you who search out and demand perfection (I used to be one of you), so my flamesuit is now donned :D.
They aren't heretical, and I agree with everything you say . . . . . except that I think a good lens is more important than a good body :)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Well again this comes down to work and effort. I have 4 Manual focus lenses and maybe going to 5 for the Nikon and I am getting excellent results from that glass but I am also on tripod and using live view. This comes down to technique , manual focus lenses like my Zeiss glass and even my Samyang 14mm are excellent on the Nikon. This is when i care about what i am shooting.
I think that's my problem with the D800e - you really do need a tripod to use manual focus, which is not true with, for instance, a Leica M, without the mirrorslap. Or even an A99 (which I do not have) which has sensor based image stabilisation and focus peaking - and still no mirror slap..

When its PR stuff and handheld than I just use a Tammy 24-70 still great results but not like my Ziess and shooting on a tripod and taking my time making real images. Matter of what you are shooting and what purpose are you shooting for will dictate the effort made.

If you just want to go about shooting in a walk about well those are the results you will get , not the best out of the system but still very good. I will wash and repeat here the effort put out will dictate the results. Medium format by itself dictates more effort made simply because its not easy to shoot.

Well, with the Leica M and lenses you can easily make 6ft prints to be looked at from a foot - hand held - with a decent Leica lens. I agree, you couldn't do that with a manual focus lens on a D800 . . . . . which is exactly my point.

. . . and sometimes you couldn't get that shot without doing that long walk.

There are many ways of making images; I don't think it polarises between tripod/live view/manual focus on the one hand and expensive camera with cheap Tamron lens on the other!

for me a 'walk about' can be an intense photographic experience - carrying xxxkg of kit and a tripod does not assist -

For you, and certainly the conventional wisdom is that making it 'more difficult' (whether with medium format / tripod / whatever) means you concentrate more - and therefore get better pictures. For me (and others as well) making it 'more difficult' is a distraction from a concentration on the image itself and the thought processes behind it . . . and makes the image more anodyne and less interesting.

It takes all types!
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
You kind of missed my point but Im on deadline so maybe later i can explain what i meant better. You can certainly focus a D800 on manual even better than any M camera around even without live view. For people with the most exacting needs than yes a tripod and live view is the better tool but by no means did I say you cant focus a manual lens with a D800 hand held.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I think that's my problem with the D800e - you really do need a tripod to use manual focus, which is not true with, for instance, a Leica M, without the mirrorslap. Or even an A99 (which I do not have) which has sensor based image stabilisation and focus peaking - and still no mirror slap..




Well, with the Leica M and lenses you can easily make 6ft prints to be looked at from a foot - hand held - with a decent Leica lens. I agree, you couldn't do that with a manual focus lens on a D800 . . . . . which is exactly my point.

. . . and sometimes you couldn't get that shot without doing that long walk.

There are many ways of making images; I don't think it polarises between tripod/live view/manual focus on the one hand and expensive camera with cheap Tamron lens on the other!

for me a 'walk about' can be an intense photographic experience - carrying xxxkg of kit and a tripod does not assist -

For you, and certainly the conventional wisdom is that making it 'more difficult' (whether with medium format / tripod / whatever) means you concentrate more - and therefore get better pictures. For me (and others as well) making it 'more difficult' is a distraction from a concentration on the image itself and the thought processes behind it . . . and makes the image more anodyne and less interesting.

It takes all types!
I dont think medium format necessarly means more difficult.
For example autofocusing with the S2 (if we can consider it MF) and framing is easier and more accurate compared to using the M (Carrying 4 lenses is not easier ;) ) I do however agree that I find focusing anything 50mm and less easier with the M than with my D700.

The reason why I get interest in a DSLR again is for 2 reasons: 1-fast AF for dynamic situations 2-if there is not much light
 

jonoslack

Active member
You kind of missed my point but Im on deadline so maybe later i can explain what i meant better. You can certainly focus a D800 on manual even better than any M camera around even without live view.
Hi Guy
I didn't miss your point - no need for a better explanation - I was just pointing out that there were more than two ways to make an image.

. . but focusing a D800 on manual better than any M camera around, even without live view . . . . you mean . . .
. . . better an M with focus peaking, focus assist . . . I don't think so!
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
I think each of us has an aesthetic in mind when making photographs, and select the tools that get us as close as possible to our personal ideal. There are so many different choices now that one should be able to get a tool that satisfies our personal notions aesthetically and functionally.

Plus, depending on the task, how much work is required to get there can play a role: either carrying the gear, how fast/accurate the tool may be, or how much post work is required after the fact. Those factors can vary widely in importance from person to person.

Personally, no matter how hard I tried and practiced, or changed screens or added mags, I have never been able to manually focus any 35mm SLR/DSLR nearly as well as a Leica M. That Guy feels differently, doesn't alter my reality. Besides, a rangefinder represents a totally different approach to photography for me, so even if they were equal, it would be moot point.

Since getting the S2, I've become quite attached to it. :thumbs: At first I worried about optical "character", but post improvements and practice makes perfect, and it has come to consistently meet my aesthetic desires with a look and feel I see as uniquely fitting what I want ... plus it is a dual shutter camera that meets far more of my needs than any 35mm DSLR can.

My Hasselblad is now relegated back to the studio ... where it started years ago. It produces the color fidelity I have to have for the studio work I do. I should have got a Multi-Shot rather than a single shot for that very reason ... but hindsight is always 20/20 :rolleyes:

I think the D800 is a fab camera, but no 35mm DSLR holds any interest for me what-so-ever anymore. I was informed that a A99 was available ... and as good as it seems, I passed on it. My objective is to limit or eliminate 35mm DSLRs, not add to them.

-Marc
 

jonoslack

Active member
I think each of us has an aesthetic in mind when making photographs, and select the tools that get us as close as possible to our personal ideal. There are so many different choices now that one should be able to get a tool that satisfies our personal notions aesthetically and functionally.
HI Marc
you put it so eloquently - I actually agree with most of the rest of your post, but this is certainly the nub.

.. . . . . . i don't seem to have a 35mm dSLR anymore either!
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I also find the idea of being a slave to our equipment odd. The idea the only way to get the "most out of" the D800 is to weld it to a tripod, use laser sightings to get focus, and set the aperture to f/8 is a little silly. It isn't any harder to focus or hold than any other 35mm SLR. When did photography just become an exercise in maximizing MTF?
 

DennisHHH

New member
I surely love the D800e files. The best shots ever were from an 8X10 welded to a tripod, use massive loops to get focus, and set the aperture to f/22. The answer to your question, "When did photography just become an exercise in maximizing MTF" is about a hundred years ago.
 

JimCollum

Member
For me, using lenses with character over lenses with optical perfection has boosted the overall impact in my images. I stopped looking for corner to corner sharpness years ago, and looked for lenses that exhibit a unique 'feel' that I can use to add an emotional edge to the image.

This isn't something new though.. I spent decades with friends with the latest 4x5 gear, with the highest resolution lenses, and able to print perfect cibachrome or dye transfer prints.

The result were the most perfect.. boring.. prints you can imagine.

Guy or Jack can teach you 99.9999% of all you need to know about the technical aspects of photography in a single workshop (can probably be done in a weekend workshop).

It isn't whether the files from an 800 are 'better' than MF.. it's knowing how to use the tools you happen to have to produce work that says 'something' (unless what you're trying to say are technically perfect, high resolution, lifeless print.. then all that matters is the gear)

(btw.. it's an added benefit that Guy/Jack can start to convey the emotional aspect of photography in addition to the technical... and i have no affiliation to their business)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
For me, using lenses with character over lenses with optical perfection has boosted the overall impact in my images. I stopped looking for corner to corner sharpness years ago, and looked for lenses that exhibit a unique 'feel' that I can use to add an emotional edge to the image.

This isn't something new though.. I spent decades with friends with the latest 4x5 gear, with the highest resolution lenses, and able to print perfect cibachrome or dye transfer prints.

The result were the most perfect.. boring.. prints you can imagine.

Guy or Jack can teach you 99.9999% of all you need to know about the technical aspects of photography in a single workshop (can probably be done in a weekend workshop).

It isn't whether the files from an 800 are 'better' than MF.. it's knowing how to use the tools you happen to have to produce work that says 'something' (unless what you're trying to say are technically perfect, high resolution, lifeless print.. then all that matters is the gear)

(btw.. it's an added benefit that Guy/Jack can start to convey the emotional aspect of photography in addition to the technical... and i have no affiliation to their business)
Excellent post Jim. Love your work, always have ... precisely for that emotional component reason.

However, we have to remember that photography encompasses a wide range of objectives ... not just landscapes.

I think there is a time and place for all types of emphasis. When shooting products in studio, especially precision oriented subjects, my view camera, 60 meg back and Rodenstock optics render exactly what is needed. In this case "clinical" is highly desirable, even mandatory. At that point these tools have no other purpose what-so-ever because most of my work is about people and the human condition.

I also think that such rapidly advancing technology has swung the photo-focus far to much to the science side and content has suffered for it. I often wonder why we jump from lilly pad to lilly pad before we actually master a tool to the point that the technology disappears into the background, and all our efforts then become dedicated to making a meaningful image with interesting content presented in an emotive manner.

IMO, no matter how technically astute one may be, struggling with each new tool and the challenges they present robs one of the emotional energy and focus need to dig down deep and make images of deeper meaning and engagement.

I was struck by this when Canon Ambassador Jeff Ascough introduced living legend Don McCullin to digital capture ... who was somewhat clueless about the technology ... love his take on "chimping" the LCD.

Canon Professional Network - Don McCullin Feature

While I would probably be classified as a gear head, in reality I haven't altered my tools all that much ... been using the H camera now for many years, the M camera for most of my adult life, and the S2 is simply an extension of my long used R system to my way of thinking ... at least now that I have mastered the aesthetic aspects that bring the imagery in very tightly to the M9 look and feel. 35mm DSLRs have been an anomaly to that, but only because of wedding work ... I almost never use them for any other type of photography.

The day I eliminate 35mm DSLRs from my tool box is the day I throw liberation confetti in the air ... odd words from a gear head. :)

- Marc
 

Stan ROX

Member
Hey,

I sold my 1Ds Mk III after I upgraded to Hasselblad H4D-40 this year. Bought a X-Pro1 instead.

After a few months:

- I sold my X-Pro1
(it's just a nice camera, but not usable for my kind of studio work)

- I bought a Nikon D600
(intention was: a smaller FF, not "the same" as my big iron)

After a few weeks, I can clearly say, that in terms of Picture Quality, Dimensionality etc etc. the Hasselblad is by far better than the Nikon. MOre pixels will not bring more 3D into a FF-Sensor.

I had the same finding with my old H3D-22, although the same pixels as my 1Ds Mk III, total different IQ - and oh, the Bokeh!

Lenses are Key. And I don't want to spend a $ 3k for a Zeiss Premium Lens that still has no AF ... wtf ?

I only own a 50mm 1.4 and the 24-70 2.8 for my Nikon - the results are wonderful, not only in terms of sharpness but also in color, usability, High-Iso (Night-Shots from a roof for example) and all the other things you get with a small camera that has a state-of-the-art sensor.

Would I sell my Hasselblad? Never! Just put up the 50mm on the Nikon and the 80mm on the H4D - both are almost the same FOV, but at 1.4, the Nikon is a soft piece, whereas the HC 80 @ 2.8 is totally sharp - corner to corner.

Next thing is: The files. As already mentioned, you can do things to a Hasselblad RAW that is simply not possible with a NEF-File.

S.
stanROX.com
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Daguerre and Niepce were always striving for better quality and faster lenses, less field curvature, etc. The quantitative data standards of MTF, might not have been established, but its steeped in early photographic history.
 
Top