Can digital MF survive the D800?

The difference between 35mm and MF film was obvious, because of the optical properties of enlargement.

When you start talking bits and bytes, the gap is closed considerably. I think the argument is mostly technical and theoretical. MF backs, especially lower megapixel ones, and cameras like the S2 will be marginalized by camera technology like the D800, and the D900 after that. Once the image hits the page, it'll lose lots of fidelity anyway. The difference between 16 bit and 14 bit is gone when printers interpolate...it doesn't matter how much data is there to begin with.

The pixel peepers and technophiles will argue these technical points, but with today's choke point end-game technology, it doesn't really matter. Commercial studios will insist upon expensive equipment and continue to do the sales job to clients that it's the "only" way. But in the end, the image is the image. I've only seen billboards from my car for a fraction of a second, or maybe over Times Square for a moment. When you look at a magazine in your lap, or a book on the table, it really won't matter. It'll all be "technically good," and look acceptable.

Big-picture vs soda-straw view, or course.
 
Ruhayat said:
Actually, it *is* considerably larger. People used to make the same mistake when they used to say 645 film wasn't that much bigger than 35mm, because it was only 60% larger. Same applies in this case: with 645 vs 35mm, the difference is very often visible to the naked eye. I'm betting the same would apply here.
Click to expand...

Let's take the S2 for example: 45x30mm sensor size vs. 36x24mm on the D800, also 37.5MP vs 36MP. 45x30mm is not the 645 MF film format we used to know, i.e. 60x45mm nominal, almost double of the S2 sensor size, whereas the film FF was still 36x24mm size.
 
The 200MB file was stated to be a processed TIFF from a raw converter like Lightroom, CaptureOne, and some others. And it held true, my uncle let me take some pics with this D800 yesterday and the Raw files (on disk) range from 38-52MB and a processed 16bit TIFF from Lightroom 4 was 206MB.

Andy
 
Wait and see :) You just have to wait 18 months at most and see what the sales figures look like. But there will always be a place for the bigger gear, no matter how good the smaller one is. Just like in the film day, Velvia in 35mm has amazing resolution, but Velvia in 4x5 is another world completely ;)
 
We should not assume that the majority of the DMF professionals are using cameras of over 40MP.. The sudden popularity of the 645D is also an indication for the MP size the majority of the professionals feel contented with. The sample I posted measures about 2m on the long side, suffice to satisfy most of the requirements of printed media; just a couple of years ago this was the state-of-art.

What the D800/E has brought into the professional sector has not been provided by any DMF so far; this is the point.. Highest Dynamic Range ever, acceptable IQ even at ISO 6400, live view, enjoying f1.4 apertures, depending on the choice (D800) having not to deal with moire, least cost (ca. $3K) to own, lenses costing a fraction of their DMF brethren (A Summarit 70 alone costs more than a D800E + 85/1.4G), take it out of the studio and use hand-held most of the time like a regular camera, use it with no tripod, use it at night-time, sports, nature, etc., plus HD video too.. It's going to bring a new dimension to the pro-photography... Something they have not even dreamed of before with a studio camera.

Rentals can not be a feasible solution for an active pro; 3 weeks with the least expensive PhaseOne with 40MP costs more than what a D800/E costs to buy.

IMHO, this is a great innovation and also a great contribution for the branch of professionals who earn their living through photography. I believe there are lots of professionals who still are waiting on line to receive their orders in spite of Sendai turning out some 30.000 bodies of D800/E’s per month.

Will the DMF sector live on? Certainly, however as being a further smaller niche market than what it was so far.
 
But how long will it be before Lensbaby makes a gadget that provides all movements? :)

Or just software that adjusts everything? I'm guessing something (hardware or software) will supplant the need for LF for table top work. Say... 5yrs? That's about as long as any pressing photographic problem stays unsolved these days, wouldn't you say?
 
These points about how film looks so much different that digital are sliding through our hands into history as we speak. Since there are no technical barriers to making digital files look like anything you want, its just a matter of time until our treasured beliefs/needs are transformed into button pushing and slider sliding. :-o
 
Just to add a little meat to my earlier post, and let me quickly add I am not a camera tester not anywhere near as knowledgable about the technicalities as a lot of you here, but quite honestly sometimes you need to try things out for yourself to get a good idea of the pros and cons.
As I posted earlier, comparing the 5d markII with a 50 1.4 against the S2 with an 80 2.5. Both cameras shot at 640iso, but the Leica with at wider apertures to keep the shutter speed up, with basic post work in LR. Point being no amount of post would have brought the Canon files close to the Leica files. No doubt the Nikon will be an improvement over the 5d, but I would be very surprised if it were to bridge this gap. Again this is probably a very flawed way to show images, but these are screen shots of 100% view of the Canon files but only 66% views of the Leica, basically this brings them up to a similar size on screen which I find easier than compering different size images.

First off look how much flatter the flagpoles look on the Canon.


flag5d by fatbobbyrab, on Flickr

Leica


flagS2 by fatbobbyrab, on Flickr

harshness of skin tones

Canon


chris5d by fatbobbyrab, on Flickr

Leica


chrisS2 by fatbobbyrab, on Flickr

and finally some Vespa detail

Canon


Vespa5d by fatbobbyrab, on Flickr

Leica


vespaS2 by fatbobbyrab, on Flickr
 
BobYIL said:
We should not assume that the majority of the DMF professionals are using cameras of over 40MP.. The sudden popularity of the 645D is also an indication for the MP size the majority of the professionals feel contented with. The sample I posted measures about 2m on the long side, suffice to satisfy most of the requirements of printed media; just a couple of years ago this was the state-of-art.

What the D800/E has brought into the professional sector has not been provided by any DMF so far; this is the point.. Highest Dynamic Range ever, acceptable IQ even at ISO 6400, live view, enjoying f1.4 apertures, depending on the choice (D800) having not to deal with moire, least cost (ca. $3K) to own, lenses costing a fraction of their DMF brethren (A Summarit 70 alone costs more than a D800E + 85/1.4G), take it out of the studio and use hand-held most of the time like a regular camera, use it with no tripod, use it at night-time, sports, nature, etc., plus HD video too.. It's going to bring a new dimension to the pro-photography... Something they have not even dreamed of before with a studio camera.

Rentals can not be a feasible solution for an active pro; 3 weeks with the least expensive PhaseOne with 40MP costs more than what a D800/E costs to buy.

IMHO, this is a great innovation and also a great contribution for the branch of professionals who earn their living through photography. I believe there are lots of professionals who still are waiting on line to receive their orders in spite of Sendai turning out some 30.000 bodies of D800/E’s per month.

Will the DMF sector live on? Certainly, however as being a further smaller niche market than what it was so far.
Click to expand...

What professionals exactly are you talking about? I don't know any or of any professional who uses a 645D. Mind you, I'm not saying that there are none but I'm just suspicious when speak of it's popularity amongst pros. Of course that's just my personal impression. A Phase One back on either a Hasselblad H2, tech cam or view cam seems to be the most popoular option these days.
But maybe the problem is that it's just not clear what we're talking about when we talk about 'the professional sector'. That's a very broad term which includes just about any person who makes money producing photographs so it is very hard to make general statements about what 'professionals' require. And it doesn't just depend on what segment of the professional market you're in, it also depends on the style of the photographer.

You say rentals aren't really a feasible solution for an active pro? How come? Actually, the most successful photographers usually rely heavily on rental gear for most of their jobs. The reason is simple. They do mostly high end high production value jobs so they don't pay for the rental fees anyways. And for a photographer it's much more convenient to have the rental place deliver lights and cameras to the location (or rental studio) instead of having to bring them there by oneself. And there's no need to have a studio to store all this equipment. (Remember, these photographers live in cities like NYC or London where having a studio can incur significant overhead.)

But then there are also the 'mid-level' photographers. Fairly successful ones who have a good reputation and work often but they're not necessarily big names. Because they also do a fair amount of small editorials it makes more sense for them to own most of the equipment they often use. Afterall they do not want to lower the quality of their work just because there's no budget. But even for them a digital back can be a feasible solution. Because when they do get a big job every now and then they can charge the client a rental fee for their mf back. Sure, a D800 is cheaper to buy but then you're also charging D800 fees for equipment. A photographer I know says he actually almost makes more money through rental fees he charges for his jobs than he does from the actual creative fee.

The photographers for whom it probably makes the least sense buying a digital mf camera are those who most often work on a flat fee. If you're getting paid the same for a job whether you're using a Canon or a Phase One it probably makes sense to go for the Canon.
 
boomguy57 said:
With resolution like this, a far smaller size, and at a fraction of the price, can digital medium format survive the D800 (and the others that are surely to follow)?

I have been eyeing a digital back for my 501CM, but...at that price it's hard to justify, D800 or no D800.

Furthermore, does Hasselblad--and other MF makers--have a raison d'etre anymore?

Finally, can this be true--files that are 200+MB:

http://weblog.robvanpetten.com/archive/nikon-d800
Click to expand...

MF digital will survive. The D800 just provides an entry point at a lover price for folks that need or want a high MP count and those that need speed and handling that MF doesn't provide. I use both MF and FF 35mm digital in my work. My preference is my hasselblad digital over my Canon FF any day of the week. There's much more to the story than pixel count. While the files from my Canon are besutiful and satisfy my commercial clients the difference in color depth between my Hasslelbad and the Canon is amazing (raw files). 14 vs 16 bit capture makes quite a difference. I'm old school having shot film for over thirty years in my work and switching to digital in the past twelve years. I still love the operation of a MF manual camera. I wet the route you're thinking of and bought a new Hasselblad CFV39 to go on my 501CM and other V cameras in January last year. The majority of my glass is the latest Zeiss and all of my Canon are L lenses including a set of primes from 15mm (non L) to 400mm, 2 TSE lenses and 3 L zooms. The Canon glass is excellent but the Zeiss smokes it in every respect except speed. Optically there's no comparison. This all translated to producing a superior product.

The reason I don't always use the Hasselblad is simple that it just doesn't fir every jobs requirements. We're now getting out of the one camera does all mode and swinging back to having a choice for different needs. My hasselblad works for some jobs and the Canon for others just like I shot MF film for some and 8x0 for other jobs in the old days.

No question the new D800 will open up new possibilities just like 35mm did vs MF film. In the end even 35mm Tech Pan didn't replace MF film much less 4x5.
 
One thing a couple of things folks buying any high MP camera find out qickly are how good a technician they are and how good their glass is. High res cameras show even the slightest missed focus and the least bit of camera vibration. The quality of a lens critical at these MP counts. Chromatic aberations, vignetting and resolution are very obvious when enlarged to this degree. D800 owners are going to have to lock their cameras on a sturdy tripod, use a calble release and select the best samples of the best lenses or they're not going to be very happy. As good as Canon glass is I don't think they have too many leses that would stand up to this kind of resolution and my guess is Nikon is in the same boat.
 
PKR said:
for table top work you need all the moves provided by a monorail camera. That's how Phase One has made their money. Phase + Sinar 4x5 or other monorail + quality lens is common in a digital studio. A DSLR with a rise - tilt lens doesn't cut it. Fine for architectural work or minor correction, but it doesn't replace a view camera with a digital back and a teathered workstation.
Click to expand...

I agree totally. I use my CFV39 back on both my Hasselblad V system and on my 2x3 Linhof Technikardan. I have a 24 and 90 TSE or my Canons and while they're great they aren't up to the task like my Apo digital enses for the linhof.
 
bobbyrab said:
... Point being no amount of post would have brought the Canon files close to the Leica files. No doubt the Nikon will be an improvement over the 5d, but I would be very surprised if it were to bridge this gap....
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting sample comparison pictures. First off, it's unfair to put the 5DII against the S2, not only from the resolution point of view as it has to do with only half of MP of the S2 but also with an inferior DR too.

I will repeat it once more that no 35 mm camera can replace the hi-end DMF however it has been possible to provide a less costly alternative to an IQ level which has been supplied only by the DMF so far. Will it "bridge this gap"? Judge for yourself:

http://pcfoto.biz/images/testovi/Nikon_D800E_preview/048_T10p_galerija_n70-200_f2-8gVRII_jpg.jpg
 
thats cause the canon isnt even resolving enough detail to generate moire ... look at the straps ...

anyway these arguments are kind of pointless.
pros hire iq180- this year next year whatever is best.
last round was p65+
next year i'm pretty sure it wont be d800
 
I have no idea why this discussion always appears whenever there is a new model camera comes into the market. I personally think there's always a reason for MF camera to exist. The same thing why bicycles are still around despite motorcycle prices are very affordable. The same goes for manual transmission cars against automatic transmission. More explicitly, film against digital.

While in the light of price discussion, I'm sure there are details that will be involved. How large are you going to print, what kind of audience are you expecting, what kind of detail are you expecting, how often will you shoot it.

If you are doing murals every other week, and you have audiences that appreciate that sizes of photography, then yes, I think no matter the price, justifies it. It goes back the same to a Leica M9/P. Is it BETTER than a D700? Not necessarily, but its DIFFERENT. And I paid more than triple the price of a D700 for an M9 because I WANT that difference. I don't justify the difference being reasonable or not, because you will have a discussion for days on end.

Not trying to be rude, but, no one can discuss this better than you and yourself. :) Each and every one of us has a different reason and purpose for each cameras. If you ask me? I won't ever touch a medium format camera no matter how cheap it goes. Why? I have no reason to use it (yet).
 
ianstamatic said:
thats cause the canon isnt even resolving enough detail to generate moire ... look at the straps ...

anyway these arguments are kind of pointless.
pros hire iq180- this year next year whatever is best.
last round was p65+
next year i'm pretty sure it wont be d800
Click to expand...


You're right, the Canon isn't sharp enough to create moire. This is intentional and why an anti aliasing filter is used. I have mixed feelings about anti aliasing filters. My Canons have it and my Hasselblad back doesn't. Only a couple of times that I've seen moire with the Canon but have to constantly watch for it with my Hasselblad. I do however love the images from the Hasselblad.

Regarding the IQ180, I've only had two or thee occasions since taking the studio digital twelve years ago that I needed files that size. The back didnt exist then so I fell back to film. If I needed a file of that resolution tomorrow I might still shoot on film depending on the job.

99.9% of what I shoot with the Hasselblad is overkill but the images are so beautiful and the additional file data is available if the client needs it.

I know a couple of people with IQ180 backs. Both are amateurs doing landscape photos. I'm sure some pros own these backs but my guess is most are owned by wealthy amateurs. Go on line and look through Victor Magazine by Hasselblad. I think its a good representation of the pro world. The majority of work featured in Victor was shot on 31-40 MP backs. Rarely do you see 50-60MP backs used. For those of us that make our living with photography were more interested in making money with our gear not collecting ultra expensive gear. This is why I didn't update from my Canon 1DSII to the III. The difference in image quality was minimal and didn't justify $8K. The money was better spent tword a new Hasselblad back with distinctly better images.
 
BobYIL said:
Let's take the S2 for example: 45x30mm sensor size vs. 36x24mm on the D800, also 37.5MP vs 36MP. 45x30mm is not the 645 MF film format we used to know, i.e. 60x45mm nominal, almost double of the S2 sensor size, whereas the film FF was still 36x24mm size.
Click to expand...

Bob, it doesn't matter. As long as the capture area size is bigger, you will be able to see a difference. A non-photographer of mine once remarked that my images looked different* and wondered why. I didn't do anything different - it's just that I had just changed from shooting a Canon 40D to a Canon 5D.

The resolution difference between the two was not that big - 10MP vs 12MP. But the difference due to the increase in sensor size was obvious even to him because of the extra details captured on the tree branches behind the model (we had been shooting at a forest reserve).

My logic may be off here, though, so please feel free to correct me.

EDIT: he said they looked "somehow clearer" (he meant, sharper) and had more detail because he could see individual leaves in some of the shots
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom