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...

Paratom

Well-known member
...what do you think?

For those who came from MF and now have used the D800 for some time-what did you gain, what do you miss?
Has the content changed in your images? Do you shoot more(successfull) dynamic subjects?
How do you like the IQ overall. Are you happy with the switch?
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
1) MF still reigns supreme for ultimate IQ. Period.
2) But the gap has narrowed significantly with the D800/E.


Ergo, the largest hurdle is now justifying the cost differentials for the gains. MF manufacturers are going to need to (significantly) reduce the pricepoint on the 40MP MF backs if they expect to sell any. Nikon has ushered in an entirely new era for high-end digital imaging.

That said, if you need fast strobe synch speeds, want the ultimate in color integrity or regularly make 60-inch prints, then the 50-80MP MF platforms still reign king.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
1) MF still reigns supreme for ultimate IQ. Period.
2) But the gap has narrowed significantly with the D800/E.


Ergo, the largest hurdle is now justifying the cost differentials for the gains. MF manufacturers are going to need to (significantly) reduce the pricepoint on the 40MP MF backs if they expect to sell any. Nikon has ushered in an entirely new era for high-end digital imaging.

That said, if you need fast strobe synch speeds, want the ultimate in color integrity or regularly make 60-inch prints, then the 50-80MP MF platforms still reign king.
In agreement. One additional feature the Nikon is easier to shoot
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
and...
Mostly I like the LS lenses better than most I have on the D800, and there is NO comparison with the tech camera lenses at all.
OTOH it is a whole lot easier to carry a three lens kit around town in a shoulder bag with the D800.
-bob
 

Shashin

Well-known member
As an owner of a D800E and Pentax 645D, I am not getting rid of the Pentax. They are both easy to shoot with--they are both simply DSLRs after all. Ergonomics goes to the 645D hands down. Image quality is a little harder, but I feel just get a wee bit more out of the Pentax (the D800 is rather new to me and I am still find out about how it renders).

I think it might come down to lens choice; medium-format just does not have variety. If you need ultra wides or super telephotos or 20X zooms or f/1.2 apertures, the Nikon is your boy. Although I have heard more D800 owners stress over corner sharpness than the MFD folks, but that just might be hearsay and could be down to more folks shooting FF than MFD or just 35mm lenses having larger maximum apertures.

BTW, I am very happy with the D800E. I will not be getting rid of that either...
 

Paratom

Well-known member
What I really con not understand that Nikon is so slow to present some new nice prime lenses. Ok -there is a great 24, 35 and 85mm lens but still no high quality 50mm lens for example. I find it a bit strange to have an ultrafast AF in the camera and then have to use manual focus lenses for certain focal lengths.
Both Canon and Nikon present all those f4.0 medium quality zoom lenses with IS instead.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
What I really con not understand that Nikon is so slow to present some new nice prime lenses. Ok -there is a great 24, 35 and 85mm lens but still no high quality 50mm lens for example. I find it a bit strange to have an ultrafast AF in the camera and then have to use manual focus lenses for certain focal lengths.
Both Canon and Nikon present all those f4.0 medium quality zoom lenses with IS instead.
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.
 

Alon

Not Available
There is no big difference with the advent of the D800/E vs MF.

MF has always been, so far, in the studio realm.

It was not an outdoor type of equipment (I am talking commercial photography for our needs and not as a blanket statement for all photography).

Our use of MF outdoor was rather limited and it is even more so today with the D800/E.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
New Zeiss 55mm 1.4 coming next year is supposed to be really good. Will see, but better save your penny's now.
 

Alon

Not Available
Let's wait and see what the 55/1.4 will bring vs the Noct58 and the LeicaR 50/1.4 E60.

I am not queuing up to buy the 55/1.4.

The 135, is another story and very interesting.

Same for the 15.
 

D&A

Well-known member
As an owner of a D800E and Pentax 645D, I am not getting rid of the Pentax. They are both easy to shoot with--they are both simply DSLRs after all. Ergonomics goes to the 645D hands down. Image quality is a little harder, but I feel just get a wee bit more out of the Pentax (the D800 is rather new to me and I am still find out about how it renders).

I think it might come down to lens choice; medium-format just does not have variety. If you need ultra wides or super telephotos or 20X zooms or f/1.2 apertures, the Nikon is your boy. Although I have heard more D800 owners stress over corner sharpness than the MFD folks, but that just might be hearsay and could be down to more folks shooting FF than MFD or just 35mm lenses having larger maximum apertures.

BTW, I am very happy with the D800E. I will not be getting rid of that either...
I don't disagree with most of the opinions stated so far in this thread, but I have a slightly different take on what Shashin expressed with regards to the Pentax 645D vs. D800....especially with respect that their resolution is quite similar. When the D800E was first released, I shot many subjects with both cameras simultaniously. Of course lenses on each were different and looking back now, I wish I had also used the adapter I currently have which allows Pentax 645 lenses to be mounted and used on Nikon SLR's...for a more equitable comparison.

There are so many variables to consider but as a general observation, I felt both color purity/accuracy and to a degree the dimensionality of the image was superior with the Pentax. This was especially noticable in large format prints. I also felt it was generally easier to acheieve edge to edge sharpness in the wide angle range with the Pentax too. I simply felt for far less of a lens investment in terms of $$, one could achieve quite exceptional performance with the Pentax that easily matched that of the Nikon, assuming one was willing to use lenses stopped down on average 2 stops from their max aperture. Of course use of the Pentax in inclement weather (with a Pentax WR lens), was a natural for the Pentax.

With all this said, the image quality of the Nikon was superb and as Shashin mentioned, lens choices are abundent with the Nikon as well the ability to use many of these optics at more open apertures. The investment in $$ though in order to achieve optical quality approaching the Pentax with the Nikon, required significantly more financial outlay (with the Nikon) than with the Pentax.

Each system has its strengths and weaknesses and I could make a conviencing case for both. I still feel than many 40MP MFD cameras/systems can often still outperform their 35mm DSLR counterparts when it comes to using their output for large format printing, but to achieve this superiority often requires careful attention to detail with regards to both photographic technique as well as thoughtful selection in the choice of lenses.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

tsjanik

Well-known member
Interesting comments from Shashin and Dave. Although many excellent Pentax lenses are available at inexpensive prices, I struggle with the thought of spending 5k to get the 25mm for the 645D; for the same amount, I can get a Zeiss ultra wide and a D800. Not an easy choice. I really prefer the 4:3 ratio however. Last of fall color, 120mm:
Tom

 

tashley

Subscriber Member
For me, the IQ on the D800E is such a knockout and DR so great that as far as I am concerned, sensor wise, unless you want really huge prints (over 40") or extreme colour fidelity (as Jack points out) then the D800 is a no-brainer at the price when compared to the backs. It is easier to use and more flexible too.

BUT as Dave has said, getting edge to edge sharpness is harder. The lenses on offer are much wider in variety and character, a bit lighter. on average a little cheaper (though that will change) but none of them can do what a great Schneider or Rodie can do. As Jack points out, that may not matter but if, to you, it really does, then MF still has an advantage.

My IQ180 is still on sale at my dealer and there isn't a week that doesn't pass when I consider retrieving it. The rub is, that it is only on a tech cam that the results are so clearly superior that there's a real difference in prints under 40" and my favoured tech lens, the Schneider 35XL, doesn't play well with the IQ180 so I would have to shell out $,000s for a Rodie that does. Which money I would rather conserve for D800 glass. I would add that my recent addition of the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 and the Samyang 14mm f2.8 have really swung me back in favour of the D800. On both, there are apertures and focus distances that can get everything in focus and at lovely resolution and micro contrast.

Having said all that I still sometimes, rarely, have the urge to print to 1.5 metres and in that regard, the IQ180 is the only game in town if you want the highest quality...
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
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. The D800E can get very very close to my IQ backs but it takes real dedication to working your files and you really need to pay attention to your shooting technique and unfortunately 35mm being easy to shoot many folks get sloppy. In all honesty it will come down to user in many cases. Sure MF is better on certain counts as we all know but if your really good at shooting the Nikon and on your game with processing than the results are very good. Sorry if that offends someone but it also needs to be said. This is work and to get to the levels of MF you need to invest in really good glass. Remember the body means nothing its all about the glass and the sensor.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I dont own a D800 but just a D700 which is probably far behind the D800 not only in resolution.
But if I compare the D700 to my S2 I totally I agree about the comment regarding post processing.
I am spcially interested in skin tones of the D800. Have you guys mastered the processing of D800 in a way that you get skin tones the way you want?
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member

print it BIG :thumbup:

click for actual pixels size (8.8 Mb)


Nikon D800E • Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/100mm ZF • 0.7 sec at f/5.6 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4.2
 

Bryan Stephens

Workshop Member
Differences to me are:

D800.... easier to carry around, and image quality is excellent.

Tech cam.... Image quality and dynamic range are still king, although the D800 has closed the gap.

With regards to the comment about Nikon not having a good 50mm lens, I like the 50 1.4G a lot, and it doesnt break the bank at $475. The Zeiss 50 1.4 is supposedly a fantastic lens as well. That being said, the lenses still dont measure up to my Rodenstock tech cam lenses.
 

Paratom

Well-known 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.
For some part I agre and I am not one of those who checks all corners at 100%.
But I believe the difference in IQ and look of an image is more influenced by the lens used than lets say the difference between 1 generation of cameras.
 
Top