Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Emilmedia on September 20, 2012, 10:44:17 AM

Title: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Emilmedia on September 20, 2012, 10:44:17 AM
I was just wondering from reading here. There alot of people cheering for the new Nikons and the other side cheering for MF.

How many of you actually use a MFDB and a D800, and whats the reason have/havent sold your MFDB?
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Dustbak on September 20, 2012, 10:47:25 AM
I use both and I will not sell the MFD since it simply smokes the D800. A DxO graph is one thing and apparently very patient, my eyes tell me something different....
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: jsiva on September 20, 2012, 10:50:48 AM
D800E and IQ180.

D800E is when photography is one of the activities on a trip, the IQ when it is the main activity.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: TMARK on September 20, 2012, 11:30:39 AM
I like my Aptus 75s files with RZ lenses.  I've made maybe 20 photos with it over the last three years.

I reach for a Canon for work because of the tethering and the 1.2 lenses.  I use the D800e when I need the resolution or in uncontrolled lighting.  I could use the Aptus but its heavy and eats batteries, and requires powered repeaters to tether for my new machines.

D800e files need more post for people shots than the Aptus.  I think of the D800e files as, functionally, of the same quality as the Aptus files.  In a direct comparo I liuke the Aptus files more, but the D800e files are really close and only "suffer" when looking at both side by side.  The lens used has more baring on IQ than the sensor, in my opinion. 

In truth, the reason I use a certain camera is based on lens choice and handling requirements.  As an example:  I don't shoot professionaly anymore, just in house stuff for an agency that is for internal use only.  I agreed to shoot a series of photos of coffee paraphanelia for the coffee shop by my office in exchange for $1000 in coffee.  Deliverable were 10 16x20" prints, B&W, creative direction was "stark, soft natural lighting".  She provided some jpegs of lighting and perspective.  She gave me a trunk full of mocha pots, espresso portafilters, you name.  The prints were to dropped off with a framer after she made her selects.  I had three weeks. Fantastic.

I completely forgot about it.  The Sunday before they were to be delivered she called and asked to see some proofs.  End of day, I said.  I looked around my house, no time to go to the office studio.  I set up a charcol muslin under my skylight, started to break out the Aptus but thought better of it:  natural light, I needed a clean 400 or 640.  I had a 5D2 that was charged and ready to go, and a bunch of Hasselblad V lenses and extension tubes and a Photodiox adapter.  I had sketched what I wanted to do, found the sketch, booted C1 and focused the 150 Sonnar with live view, used Capture Pilot to fire and make exposure changes, shot about 70 frames, processed everything out, used Silver EfX for B&W, cropped to 4x5 format, emailed JPEGS, received selects, final post work, uprez for 16x20 at 360, sharpened, printed on the 4880.  Four hours, and now I have all the espresso I can drink, the prints look fantastic.

Not that this could not have been done with MFD, its just an illustration of what is really important to a project, and keeping focused on the goal.  In this case it was a 5D2 with CF lenses.  The old cliche is right, horses for courses.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Graham Mitchell on September 20, 2012, 11:47:52 AM
I just picked up a D800 today. So far I can say that the Hy6 with 80MP back has nothing to worry about. The image quality from medium format is still in a different league. The Rollei lenses give excellent performance from edge to edge and wide open. The Nikon lens I have is only so-so. I'll pick up an 85mm f1.4 next and see if that's any better but I know the Hy6. Of course, if you're mainly shooting for the web then no-one will ever know, but then you be much better off with a cheaper camera anyway.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: TMARK on September 20, 2012, 12:12:51 PM
I shot an above the line campaign for BP with a D2x back in the day.  It was a print campaign.  You don't need an MF back to make prints on your Epson or for magazines.  Any modern digital camera is overkill for the web.

I agree the Rollei lenses are really fantastic.  The Schneider versions are to my eye nicer than the Zeiss.  The Rollei is the only MF camera I'd be interested in buying.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: torger on September 20, 2012, 01:11:20 PM
If you only look rationally at performance and what you need in practice, it will be hard to not see a D800 with the right lenses as good enough. Sure 80 megapixels are more than 36 and there is a slight difference in look, but who will notice?

Note that lens choice with the D800 is important! Nikon makes both good and bad lenses, expensive and cheap, the spread is much larger than in the typical MFD range. It's not fair to compare a poor Nikon lens with the best on MF. I'm no expert on which lenses are good or not but that can probably be found on a Nikon forum.

Those that do prefer MF usually talk about color rendition and how the lens renders the scene, more about that than pure resolution. If one actually sees this is however very personal, some just see that it is slightly different but cannot really say that one is better than the other. I think it's a little bit like it can be in the audiophile community, some claim grand improvements when some piece of gear is changed but many hear no difference at all.

The best way would be to rent a MF system and a D800 system and see for yourself. If you end up with that resolution is really the only thing you see as an advantage then it might not be such a good idea to go MF (unless highest resolution is very important to you, but then there would be no hesitation).

When it comes to handling most think that MFD SLRs are not very impressive compared to a recent DSLRs except for the large viewfinder which some value very highly. Some also value the 4:3 format very highly. If you happen to dislike 3:2 format and small viewfinders a D800 can be really annoying to work with and then it does not matter if the image quality is great. Some actually dislike the high speed and quick handling of a 35mm DSLR, too much of a snapshot camera, and find the slower MF cameras more rythmic to work with. Again, the handling part is a very personal thing, this can be important factors for you, or maybe irrelevant. Oh, some make a big thing about the higher flash sync speed to. In some types of photography this can be relevant.

I have a 33 megapixel MF system, and got that after the D800 was announced. But my system is a tech camera and that's a whole different story...
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: TMARK on September 20, 2012, 01:19:28 PM
Torger I agree with you, but 3:2 is the new standard for commercial work.  I haven't seen a brief with 3:4 portrait in it for a long time.  I dig 4:3, and when I did lots of editorial work for mags I hated 3:2.  But its all on a screen now, the primary media buys are motion (TV, web) and then print. 

And the D800 vf isn't that bad.  D3x is better. Nikon F3 - F5 are best, but of course, they only shoot celuloid. 
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 20, 2012, 01:45:43 PM
I had both MFDB and the D800.

To put it very simply when I saw the dynamic range, the color quality and quality of black and white conversions with the
D800 I ditched medium format digital backs. I was really quite happy to do so.

However I still shoot MF digital.... but indirectly.

Larger formats are important to me and so are the looks that I like to achieve.

That is why I choose LARGER medium format 6x8cm and with lenses with 4x the image circle of MF digital lenses.
I also have tilt shift on all the lenses.

My "many digital backs" are film paired with a scanner.

My capture formats are 6x8cm and 8x10 inch. I even shoot direct to paper.

While in the past I felt that having a 35mm digital SLR needed to be complimented with a MF Digital I find that it is not necessary anymore.
When processed with the same care A d800 delivers as good colors as a MF back, better Dynamic range and nicer bokeh thanks to lenses
that have no equivalent in MFD. 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4, 200mm 2. Shooting wide open is better with both my D800 and my 6x8 medium format camera.
Autofocus with the D800 and high manual with my gx680 and it's array of viewfinder that are huge compared to my ex Phase One DF.
I can even take things a bit further with shallow depth of field with the gx680 by shooting wide open with tilt shift. That is tilt shift on all lenses
from 50mm to 500mm including the worlds only tilt shift zoom 100 to 200mm.

I have not written off MFD for ever. Always open to new things.
But it would take quite a few things to get me back int MFD.

Way better focusing. Both manual and auto, especially towards the edges.
More viewfinder option
Proper live view
More speed
Tilt shift body and full range of lenses
Bigger than 645
Nikon/Canon reliability and stability.
In camera live black and white preview.
 
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 20, 2012, 02:16:56 PM

When processed with the same care A d800 delivers as good colors as a MF back, better Dynamic range and nicer bokeh thanks to lenses
that have no equivalent in MFD. 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4, 200mm 2. Shooting wide open is better with both my D800 and my 6x8 medium format camera.

You are a good photographer, but I'm going to challenge you on the above statements which I believe to be untrue.  It appears your experience with MF files is mostly analog and I wonder how much you've really worked with a MFDB because were you to have used one extensively I'm certain you wouldn't write the above.   I presume you are only basing your statements on DXO values or brief experiences with very old digital backs.    The DXO comparisons between DSLR and MF are misleading for a number of reasons already hashed through.    

And I'm sure you know from your fuji 680 that the roll off of focus with larger formats is much faster and that you can't compare f/stop to f/stop in terms of DOF from format to format.  I witnessed in the studio that shots on the d800 at f/10 had broader DOF than my AFi-ii 12 at f/16.  You can't tell me that the nikon with a f/1.4 lens is getting better blur than my AFi-ii 12 with the 50/2.8, 80/2, 110/2 or 180/2.8.  
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Graham Mitchell on September 20, 2012, 02:46:29 PM
Note that lens choice with the D800 is important! Nikon makes both good and bad lenses, expensive and cheap, the spread is much larger than in the typical MFD range. It's not fair to compare a poor Nikon lens with the best on MF. I'm no expert on which lenses are good or not but that can probably be found on a Nikon forum.

...but that's half the point. Some systems just don't have weak lenses. It isn't fun trying to work out which lenses will work, and then having so much variation that you have to find a good copy. Besides, the lens I just bought was highly praised by Nikon users. It's the 24-70 f2.8 G (apparently the best normal zoom available for the Nikon). Next I'll get the 85mm f1.4 G (apparently the best 85mm you can put on a Nikon). I expect that to be better but still not comparable to the Rollei lenses.

When it comes to handling most think that MFD SLRs are not very impressive compared to a recent DSLRs except for the large viewfinder which some value very highly. Some also value the 4:3 format very highly. If you happen to dislike 3:2 format and small viewfinders a D800 can be really annoying to work with and then it does not matter if the image quality is great.

True, I don't particularly like 3:2 but the worst thing about the D800 is that mini viewfinder. What was Nikon thinking!? Judging any critical focus on that thing is going to be very hit and miss at f1.4, with a 36MP sensor. It's their highest resolution camera ever, and it has a viewfinder magnification of only 0.70x. I'm going to try the DK-17M magnified viewfinder to see if that helps.

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: craigrudlin on September 20, 2012, 02:52:40 PM
I have a leica S2 and a D800E.

(1) The images are not the same.  The Leica produces a different "style" or "character" of image.  It is NOT just
resolution.  It is the "draw".  The colors with the Leica are more natural (skin tones perfect, natural shades of
tone perfect).  The depth of field for a give focal length is much different and hence the "fall off" and the
composition will be different.  The bokeh is different.  There is a three dimensionality of the leica image that
is missing in the Nikon.

(2) That said, I am not saying that the D800E cannot be "as sharp".  Again, resolution is not the issue, or at least
not the sole issue, but the character of the image.  Granted, I do not do studio photography or wedding photography,
but rather "fine art", so what I am looking for may be different.

(3) The nikon lenses that I have (70-200, 24-70, 14-24)  are NOT adequate to the meet the capabilities of the
D800E.  (Note the "E")  The images are not quite "crisp" when you want that, and appear flat.  There is a
sterility or a scientific technical character to the images.  Precision but not feeling.

What I may be experiencing, therefore, is not the sensor capabilities per se, but the character, nature and
quality of the LENSES.

I am now exploring the use of Leica R lenses mounted on the D800E to see if I can capture the same character
as I have with the S2.

For that matter, consider the Zeiss line of lenses for the D800E.  From the samples I have seen (but not yet
tried), they are closer to the medium format "look", which makes me wonder if the D800E IS capable of
delivering MF quality given the proper lenses.

Also, I print my images, LARGE (20x30 is consider a normal size for me).  So, I may be looking for a
different look and feel than someone who is producing images for the web.

Hope this helps.

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: TMARK on September 20, 2012, 03:08:28 PM
Eric,

I don't think the D800's color is better or worse.  LR at defaults had some flat reds, they looked like redish clay tile.  C1 has a better profile.  With experience I find the D800 color really nice.

For my money, the best skin tones without much work come from the Aptus 75s, Sinar 54m, Fuji X100 JPEGS (seriously), and in natural light and all the stars align, Leica M8 files with Zeiss lenses.  The newer lenses handle color differently than the old Leica lenses, and the Zeiss M lenses have a sheen to them that is painterly.   I wish FUJI would make a full frame rangefinder.  I am waiting to see the Lecia M files.

About the lenses, I really like the 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 2, and the blad CF 150 Sonnar.  I like them much, which is why I still have Canon cameras.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: TMARK on September 20, 2012, 03:14:13 PM
I have a leica S2 and a D800E.

(1) The images are not the same.  The Leica produces a different "style" or "character" of image.  It is NOT just
resolution.  It is the "draw".  The colors with the Leica are more natural (skin tones perfect, natural shades of
tone perfect).  The depth of field for a give focal length is much different and hence the "fall off" and the
composition will be different.  The bokeh is different.  There is a three dimensionality of the leica image that
is missing in the Nikon.

(2) That said, I am not saying that the D800E cannot be "as sharp".  Again, resolution is not the issue, or at least
not the sole issue, but the character of the image.  Granted, I do not do studio photography or wedding photography,
but rather "fine art", so what I am looking for may be different.

(3) The nikon lenses that I have (70-200, 24-70, 14-24)  are NOT adequate to the meet the capabilities of the
D800E.  (Note the "E")  The images are not quite "crisp" when you want that, and appear flat.  There is a
sterility or a scientific technical character to the images.  Precision but not feeling.

What I may be experiencing, therefore, is not the sensor capabilities per se, but the character, nature and
quality of the LENSES.

I am now exploring the use of Leica R lenses mounted on the D800E to see if I can capture the same character
as I have with the S2.

For that matter, consider the Zeiss line of lenses for the D800E.  From the samples I have seen (but not yet
tried), they are closer to the medium format "look", which makes me wonder if the D800E IS capable of
delivering MF quality given the proper lenses.

Also, I print my images, LARGE (20x30 is consider a normal size for me).  So, I may be looking for a
different look and feel than someone who is producing images for the web.

Hope this helps.



I believe that it is the lenses.  The Blad CF lenses on the 800e feel organic.  I have the Zeiss 35 2 for the Canons.  Different look entirely from the other Canon lenses I have.  One lens I like on teh D800e, is the 50 1.8.  Yes, it was 90 dollars.  It is a fine lens, lots of contrast, crappy wide open, but I really like it for some things. Even shot it on the Canons.  Much more Zeiss like than Canon or Nikon's lenses.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: torger on September 20, 2012, 03:14:30 PM
True, I don't particularly like 3:2 but the worst thing about the D800 is that mini viewfinder. What was Nikon thinking!? Judging any critical focus on that thing is going to be very hit and miss at f1.4, with a 36MP sensor. It's their highest resolution camera ever, and it has a viewfinder magnification of only 0.70x. I'm going to try the DK-17M magnified viewfinder to see if that helps.

I think they were thinking that you're not really supposed to be able to see critical focus in the viewfinder but trust autofocus or the focus indicator (green dot and direction arrows). Canon has even stronger moved towards dropping viewfinder manual focus capability, with the 5Dmk3 it's not even possible to change focusing screen I've heard.

Those used working with DSLRs have learned to collaborate with the autofocus system, but of course it is a personal thing if you like it or not.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Graham Mitchell on September 20, 2012, 03:23:10 PM
I think they were thinking that you're not really supposed to be able to see critical focus in the viewfinder but trust autofocus or the focus indicator (green dot and direction arrows). Canon has even stronger moved towards dropping viewfinder manual focus capability, with the 5Dmk3 it's not even possible to change focusing screen I've heard.

Those used working with DSLRs have learned to collaborate with the autofocus system, but of course it is a personal thing if you like it or not.

Many of the most valued Niko lenses are manual focus (e.g. 50mm f1.2) which is not really the case with Canon.

And apart from the focus issue, it's really helpful to be able to see a scene more clearly through the lens. But I've been spoiled by that large 6x6 WLF on the Hy6.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: TMARK on September 20, 2012, 03:25:50 PM
I think they were thinking that you're not really supposed to be able to see critical focus in the viewfinder but trust autofocus or the focus indicator (green dot and direction arrows). Canon has even stronger moved towards dropping viewfinder manual focus capability, with the 5Dmk3 it's not even possible to change focusing screen I've heard.

Those used working with DSLRs have learned to collaborate with the autofocus system, but of course it is a personal thing if you like it or not.

Love View is their answer, and on static subjects is great.  The AF on the 800 is good enough, but I for me the VF is the weakest part of all of the 35mm FF cameras.  I can manually focus a Canon with the EG-s screen, even at 1.2, but I use it more to confirm the AF.  I miss the F3-F5 VF, which finders were FAR superior.  The 1ds3 and the D3x had beter finders.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: HarperPhotos on September 20, 2012, 03:27:42 PM
Hello,

Mamiya RZ and Leaf Aptus 75 back in studio only and Nikon D800E in studio and location.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: heinrichvoelkel on September 20, 2012, 05:19:03 PM


I am now exploring the use of Leica R lenses mounted on the D800E to see if I can capture the same character
as I have with the S2.




this will be interesting. please keep us posted
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 20, 2012, 05:38:11 PM
Eric,

I don't think the D800's color is better or worse.  LR at defaults had some flat reds, they looked like redish clay tile.  C1 has a better profile.  With experience I find the D800 color really nice.

For my money, the best skin tones without much work come from the Aptus 75s, Sinar 54m, Fuji X100 JPEGS (seriously), and in natural light and all the stars align, Leica M8 files with Zeiss lenses.  The newer lenses handle color differently than the old Leica lenses, and the Zeiss M lenses have a sheen to them that is painterly.   I wish FUJI would make a full frame rangefinder.  I am waiting to see the Lecia M files.

About the lenses, I really like the 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 2, and the blad CF 150 Sonnar.  I like them much, which is why I still have Canon cameras.

TMARK,
I only have the one studio session as a comparison, but I found the D800E images to have big areas of fairly flat skin color where the AFi-ii 12 (Aptus 12) showed lots of different color shades. The color differences between the two files was probably the biggest surprise actually.   I only compared them in C1 and didn't look at the Nikon software or LR4.  I assumed that the hue could be adjusted in post to one's liking, however what was missing was the color information.  There was very high detail in the D800E file - not as much as the AFi-ii 12 but more than I was expecting.  I guess at 7k pix vs 10k pix on the long side it should be pretty close so that makes sense.  But the information on the D800E seemed like it was all luminosity and not color information.   I have read that some DSLR's use broader overlapping RGB color filters to increase higher ISO response so this may be a contributing factor to the lack of color detail.  To summarize, I felt the lack of this color information took a lot away from the Nikon files.  Definitely L* detail was there.      Model was nude and I don't have a release so I'm loathe to post those comparison images just for the sake of the discussion, but my take is color detail on the D800E is one area where it really fails in comparison to MFDB.     
Eric
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Ed Foster, Jr. on September 20, 2012, 06:11:25 PM
I was just wondering from reading here. There alot of people cheering for the new Nikons and the other side cheering for MF.

How many of you actually use a MFDB and a D800, and whats the reason have/havent sold your MFDB?
Emil,
I use a Hasselblad H4D31 with a 100mm f.2.2 and a 28mm f/4 and the D800 (and other Nikons) with a compliment of top Nikon lenses from ultra wide through 400mm 2.8. They are both excellent cameras, yet each one has its use and limitations and I would not dispose of the Nikons or Hasselblad gear. IMHO for portraits, most studio work, architectural and landscape phtography, the MFD provides better overall file quality and is ideal under controlled settings with a lot of light. For fast paced editorial work, I typically use the Nikons.

They are tools and its all about choosing the right tool for the job. They are both fine cameras. However, if I were starting over again today financial discretion would probably dictate a D800 over a Hasselblad.

Ed


Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Jim2 on September 20, 2012, 07:38:43 PM
And I'm sure you know from your fuji 680 that the roll off of focus with larger formats is much faster and that you can't compare f/stop to f/stop in terms of DOF from format to format.  I witnessed in the studio that shots on the d800 at f/10 had broader DOF than my AFi-ii 12 at f/16.  You can't tell me that the nikon with a f/1.4 lens is getting better blur than my AFi-ii 12 with the 50/2.8, 80/2, 110/2 or 180/2.8.  
Does it mean that D800 (35mm in general) will have deeper dof when used for landscape where we want front to infinity focusing?
Will that be compensated enough by using a tilt like in rm3di?
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: gss on September 20, 2012, 07:40:45 PM
I have a D3X, D800, H4D-40 and H1 with a Leaf Aptus 22.  I prefer the files from both backs over both the Nikons.  I like being able to sync at 1/800 sec with the MF; I like being able to shoot quickly with the Nikons.  I'll continue maintaining both 35mm and MF until it is not feasible to maintain MF (price or just simply languishing).
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 20, 2012, 09:15:01 PM
You are a good photographer, but I'm going to challenge you on the above statements which I believe to be untrue.  It appears your experience with MF files is mostly analog and I wonder how much you've really worked with a MFDB because were you to have used one extensively I'm certain you wouldn't write the above.   I presume you are only basing your statements on DXO values or brief experiences with very old digital backs.    The DXO comparisons between DSLR and MF are misleading for a number of reasons already hashed through.    

And I'm sure you know from your fuji 680 that the roll off of focus with larger formats is much faster and that you can't compare f/stop to f/stop in terms of DOF from format to format.  I witnessed in the studio that shots on the d800 at f/10 had broader DOF than my AFi-ii 12 at f/16.  You can't tell me that the nikon with a f/1.4 lens is getting better blur than my AFi-ii 12 with the 50/2.8, 80/2, 110/2 or 180/2.8.  

My experience is based on many years, not only still photography, but also extensive color grading and effects in motion picture and working with color suites that cost $ 1,200 an hour.
Lets avoid the personal attacks ;)

However you do bring up and point that I should have mentioned. Three exceptional MF lenses. The 80/2 Ziess, the 110mm f2 Ziess and the Schneider 180mm 2.8. The three most exceptional lenses in MF 645 or 6x6.
Plus they are also "empowered" by the viewfinder options of the camera they go on. With the Rollie it's much better for working wide open than the Hasselblad and Phase one cameras.
Oh silly me to leave out the best MF digital.

However I think it is safe to say that the bokeh of several Nikon ultra fast lenses is nicer than the 2.8 and slower MF lenses.

Here is an example of the bokeh of the 85mm 1.4 I found on flickr. (not mine, sorry can't post them due to releases and celb subjects) Fell free to post better bokeh from Phase/Schneider lenses or Hasselblad H lenses. Significant problem with them is the 5 blade iris. 9 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=67434.msg533454#msg533454 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=67434.msg533454#msg533454) ) Stop down one stop and it's not nice.

Nikon 85mm 1.4
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8033/7928721770_616687dc77_b.jpg)

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8437/7928718432_dac535c836_b.jpg)

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8317/7928721376_ed41a98672_b.jpg)
by Oleg Shcherbakov

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7197/6923636574_dbb7c07809_b.jpg)

more of his images here: Higher res too. Keep in mind these are very busy backgrounds. Look at how cleanly the foreground and background are rendered.
Also keep in mind that the lighting here is quite soft so there is little depth added by contrasty light and rim light effects

http://www.flickr.com/photos/-451/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-451/)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 20, 2012, 09:31:58 PM
And in MFD there is no lens to match the Nikon 200mm f2G

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8305/7939447270_e9b25a630f_c.jpg)

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8459/7915634284_6c21a9370f_b.jpg)

Also no MF lens with the functionality of the AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D with Defocus Image Control.
Moving the defocus can help produce more of a 3d look. It also helps control foreground elements more.

(http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/135mm-dc/D3R_5214-460.jpg)

(http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/135mm-dc/D3R_5200-outie.jpg)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/135mm-f2-dc.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/135mm-f2-dc.htm)

Here are a couple of examples I found:

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5152/7387840096_86ac18f72d_b.jpg)

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8166/7670385168_1a4c84ef4e_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 20, 2012, 09:55:17 PM
I have a leica S2 and a D800E.

(1) The images are not the same.  The Leica produces a different "style" or "character" of image.  It is NOT just
resolution.  It is the "draw".  The colors with the Leica are more natural (skin tones perfect, natural shades of
tone perfect).  The depth of field for a give focal length is much different and hence the "fall off" and the
composition will be different.  The bokeh is different.  There is a three dimensionality of the leica image that
is missing in the Nikon.

(2) That said, I am not saying that the D800E cannot be "as sharp".  Again, resolution is not the issue, or at least
not the sole issue, but the character of the image.  Granted, I do not do studio photography or wedding photography,
but rather "fine art", so what I am looking for may be different.

(3) The nikon lenses that I have (70-200, 24-70, 14-24)  are NOT adequate to the meet the capabilities of the
D800E.  (Note the "E")  The images are not quite "crisp" when you want that, and appear flat.  There is a
sterility or a scientific technical character to the images.  Precision but not feeling.


What I may be experiencing, therefore, is not the sensor capabilities per se, but the character, nature and
quality of the LENSES.

I am now exploring the use of Leica R lenses mounted on the D800E to see if I can capture the same character
as I have with the S2.

For that matter, consider the Zeiss line of lenses for the D800E.  From the samples I have seen (but not yet
tried), they are closer to the medium format "look", which makes me wonder if the D800E IS capable of
delivering MF quality given the proper lenses.

Also, I print my images, LARGE (20x30 is consider a normal size for me).  So, I may be looking for a
different look and feel than someone who is producing images for the web.

Hope this helps.



You can't make realistic sensor comparisons if one camera system is using zooms and the other primes.

Just look at how much glass the original colors have to go through.

(http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/IMG/Assets/Camera-Lenses/2010/2139-AF-S-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-70-200mm-f-2.8G-IF-ED/Misc/2139-Construction.jpg)
21 elements

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8456/8007880421_d809c2fd2e_b.jpg)
6 elements
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 20, 2012, 09:59:32 PM
TMARK,
I only have the one studio session as a comparison, but I found the D800E images to have big areas of fairly flat skin color where the AFi-ii 12 (Aptus 12) showed lots of different color shades. The color differences between the two files was probably the biggest surprise actually.   I only compared them in C1 and didn't look at the Nikon software or LR4.  I assumed that the hue could be adjusted in post to one's liking, however what was missing was the color information.  There was very high detail in the D800E file - not as much as the AFi-ii 12 but more than I was expecting.  I guess at 7k pix vs 10k pix on the long side it should be pretty close so that makes sense.  But the information on the D800E seemed like it was all luminosity and not color information.   I have read that some DSLR's use broader overlapping RGB color filters to increase higher ISO response so this may be a contributing factor to the lack of color detail.  To summarize, I felt the lack of this color information took a lot away from the Nikon files.  Definitely L* detail was there.      Model was nude and I don't have a release so I'm loathe to post those comparison images just for the sake of the discussion, but my take is color detail on the D800E is one area where it really fails in comparison to MFDB.      
Eric


C1 made by Phase One/Leaf.  AFi-II 12 made by Leaf. Release 2010.

C1 only added Nikon support not long ago and I'm sure it's not mature or developed to the point Phase/Leaf support their own backs.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 20, 2012, 11:11:17 PM
I have a leica S2 and a D800E.
.......

What I may be experiencing, therefore, is not the sensor capabilities per se, but the character, nature and
quality of the LENSES.

.......

For that matter, consider the Zeiss line of lenses for the D800E.  From the samples I have seen (but not yet
tried), they are closer to the medium format "look", which makes me wonder if the D800E IS capable of
delivering MF quality given the proper lenses.

Zeiss is actually making a new series for DSLRs.

Much larger. This leads me to believe they are upto something.

Just look at the size of the 55mm 1.4

(http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/news/3947008726/520/55mmF14.jpg?v=1584)

Look at it compared to the current 50mm 1.4 Ziess:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8438/7952354476_8668fb3755_b.jpg)

Much larger front element. Much longer barrel.

It seems Zeiss is designing the ideal lens without limiting itself with size constraints.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 20, 2012, 11:48:23 PM
Does it mean that D800 (35mm in general) will have deeper dof when used for landscape where we want front to infinity focusing?
Will that be compensated enough by using a tilt like in rm3di?

Yes, in general that is my experience.  DOF is a convention based on a lot of variables - print size or magnification, assumptions about viewer distance and the eyesight of the viewer.  In fact there is only one apex or plane in focus but we accept a range as being sharp enough.   As the recording format size increases the roll off of sharpness from the focal point is more pronounced.  It's one of the reasons larger format captures can really make the subject pop out from the rest of the image. But also why its harder to get foreground to background in focus without tilt.  DOF is a big concern for macro work too. 

Regarding tilt..... Here's a question... how many of the larger format cameras do you see that don't have movements? I'd say the majority of LF cameras have some movement - (while very few 35mm cameras do).     Having tilt can really help!  



Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Wayne Fox on September 20, 2012, 11:53:26 PM
C1 only added Nikon support not long ago and I'm sure it's not mature or developed to the point Phase/Leaf support their own backs.
Just wondering where you get your information? C1 has supported Nikons for quite some time, and adds camera models about as fast as LR. I know version 4 supported the D3x .. i used it for a while (current version is 6 with 7 imminent). I'm pretty sure Nikon support has been there for quite some time before that. There is nothing immature at all about C1's raw processing for Nikon cameras. C1 raw processing for d800 is rated extremely high by those who use it.  

I have an IQ180 and a d800 with zeiss glass.  Personally I find the ziess glass performs better on my NEX 7, while resolution with the d800/zeiss is great  I find it challenging to get what I want out of the d800 files with LR.  I assume it's not about the camera but the profiles in LR.

As far as the thread and its original question, while the d800 is a great camera, especially with top lenses, I still prefer the IQ180 files for most of what I do. The d800 is great for macro work and if I need  a little telephoto reach.  But it isn't enough lighter to justify in that regard.  When I need a light bag, I have the Nikon Zeiss glass on a NEX 7 ... that's a great combo.  In fact, the NEX 7 with Nikon adapter is the perfect backup for a Nikon shooter.  Can't even tell it's in the bag ...
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 20, 2012, 11:54:37 PM
Fred,
Does your posting other people's MFDB imagery confirm my assertion that you have little real MFDB experience to work from in all your posts?
Eric


Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 21, 2012, 12:23:48 AM
We actually shot the d800E with the 200/2 in the studio... its a nice lens but again, Fred, you are wrong about it having no match in MF land.  Since you rely on google and other people's images go search flicker for schneider 300/4 or 180/2.8 or some of the mamiya fast teles.  Actually there are plenty of MF glass out there that you apparently never used and don't know much about.

Here's a shot I took wide open with my Schneider 300mm (about the equivalent of 200mm in 35mm terms with the p20 digital back fitted) at f/4 with my older p20.  Sorry couldn't find anything recent with my AFi and 300.
I'm only posting to show the blur and DOF at f/4 - not a shot I used for work.

First a the full frame and then a crop to show you the actual DOF more closely. At f/4 how many mustard plant stalks can you count that are in the DOF?   Compare this to the Carnival dancer woman you posted where the arm in the foreground and face and body are all in DOF and she's probably closer to the camera as well which would mean less DOF than at further out and don't forget this MFDB shot was taken at f/4 with a 1.5 crop factor p20 back.  The AFi-ii 12 with the same lens and 1.1 crop factor will have significantly less.


Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 21, 2012, 02:27:46 AM
Fred,
Does your posting other people's MFDB imagery confirm my assertion that you have little real MFDB experience to work from in all your posts?
Eric

Hey Sherlock Holmes.... the images I posted are not MFDB images, they are D800 and D700 images with Nikon lenses.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 21, 2012, 02:35:52 AM
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70759.0;attach=66523;image)

I think this image is a good indication of what I am talking about.
Just look at all the texture or blobbyness that is still there in the distance very far behind the area in focus.

I find the background of the images shot with the Nikon and certain lenses to be smoother and there is a more natural focus falloff.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7197/6923636574_dbb7c07809_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 21, 2012, 02:39:15 AM
Yeah Fred, I'm sending Scotland Yard over now to round you up!  :D  
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 21, 2012, 02:43:54 AM
I don't think they have jurisdiction in Malibu, California. ;)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: lowep on September 21, 2012, 05:24:48 AM
Super shots with amazingly shallow dof.
Could not such extreme separation of background/foreground be obtained with blur tool in post?
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 21, 2012, 05:46:47 AM
Generating silky smooth bokeh on short tele lenses is not that challenging, the 85mm f1.4 AF-S is indeed great but so are many MF lenses.

What is more impressive to my eyes is the bokeh of the nikkor 24mm f1.4. That is something I don't believe can be achieved in the MF world.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8301/7999694818_908c845feb.jpg)

I would of course have no problem to be proven wrong.  :)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: torger on September 21, 2012, 05:48:53 AM
In fact I think some 135 lenses have too short DoF, f/1.2 is not really that usable, or the f/0.95 on the Leica... I think it becomes gimmicky rather than useful. On full-body shots it may be useful in some situations, but a headshot with so short DoF that the nose tip becomes visibly out of focus does not look good.

Medium format doesn't allow for as short DoF as the largest aperture 135 lenses. f/2.8 on a 54x41mm sensor translates into ~f/1.8 on 135 full-frame (just divide aperture with the crop factor).

Personally I prefer DoFs which transitions smoothly in-and-out of focus and that you have some definition left in the background, i e not just a total blur.

What may be a medium format advantage is that you can do short DoFs with relatively simple lens designs with not so high correction, leading to better-looking bokeh. That combined with that you avoid the super-short DoFs and thus not needing gazillion of lens elements and super-high correction. However, it seems to me that with the modern 645 digital systems some of this is lost, because the strive for ultra-high resolution (i e 80 megapixels) has caused the need for highly corrected lenses also for medium format. A digital back on a Mamiya RZ or similar may be better. Not sure how much truth that lies within this, but it would be interesting to investigate.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: tsjanik on September 21, 2012, 09:26:11 AM
We actually shot the d800E with the 200/2 in the studio... its a nice lens but again, Fred, you are wrong about it having no match in MF land.  Since you rely on google and other people's images go search flicker for schneider 300/4 or 180/2.8 or some of the mamiya fast teles.  Actually there are plenty of MF glass out there that you apparently never used and don't know much about.

Here's a shot I took wide open with my Schneider 300mm (about the equivalent of 200mm in 35mm terms with the p20 digital back fitted) at f/4 with my older p20.  Sorry couldn't find anything recent with my AFi and 300.
I'm only posting to show the blur and DOF at f/4 - not a shot I used for work.

First a the full frame and then a crop to show you the actual DOF more closely. At f/4 how many mustard plant stalks can you count that are in the DOF?   Compare this to the Carnival dancer woman you posted where the arm in the foreground and face and body are all in DOF and she's probably closer to the camera as well which would mean less DOF than at further out and don't forget this MFDB shot was taken at f/4 with a 1.5 crop factor p20 back.  The AFi-ii 12 with the same lens and 1.1 crop factor will have significantly less.



LOL Eric; I have a series that is very similar.  654D, 200mm FA @ f/6.7 BTW

Tom
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: TMARK on September 21, 2012, 09:47:51 AM
. . .  it seems to me that with the modern 645 digital systems some of this is lost, because the strive for ultra-high resolution (i e 80 megapixels) has caused the need for highly corrected lenses also for medium format. A digital back on a Mamiya RZ or similar may be better. Not sure how much truth that lies within this, but it would be interesting to investigate.

I agree with this completely, and I think it may be true with the new 35mm lenses as well.  
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Isak Bergwall on September 21, 2012, 10:09:57 AM
the top nikon lenses got nothing on my Rodenstock TV-Heligon 50/0.75 in terms of short DOF!  ::)

(http://media.blogg.isakbergwall.se/2011/09/IBF7565.jpg)

(http://media.blogg.isakbergwall.se/2011/09/IBF7650.jpg)

Hedgehog details

(http://media.blogg.isakbergwall.se/2011/06/IBF5430.jpg)

A lazy bumblebee

just sayin..
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: marcmccalmont on September 21, 2012, 10:31:08 AM
I think either just a D800 or a D800 plus a MFDB on a technical camera is the way to go, here is my logic
1. A DSLR is needed as a general purpose camera anyways
2. High Image quality is dependent on excellent lenses
3. The D800E other than resolution has an exceptional sensor
4. Anything you can shoot with a MFDB you can with a DSLR but everything you shoot with a DSLR you cannot with a MFDB
So I separated my landscape kit by field of view; wide MFDB, Narrow D800E (you can't practically shoot narrow FOV with MFDB, weight size etc.)
To optimize the IQ and lenses I chose Leica R's on the D800E (for general purpose and handheld work I ended up with the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 OS and the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII) and Rodenstock HR's on the Tech camera with an IQ180
I can do anything with the D800E and when I want maximum file size or need shifts/swings/tilt I have the MFDB+tech camera.
I no longer use the Mamiya AFD II or Phase one DF as the D800E is more versatile.
I would never sell the IQ180/Rodenstocks in favor of the D800E because the IQ is so good and the shooting style is just more fun.
In summary on a budget the D800E and a Leica R zoom would satisfy most needs. If Ultimate IQ is the goal then go all the way with a MFDB/tech camera/Rodenstock or Schneider digital lenses.
Marc
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: mac_paolo on September 21, 2012, 10:41:07 AM
LOL Eric; I have a series that is very similar.  654D, 200mm FA @ f/6.7 BTW
Honestly Tom, that could be even a good photo but it's not smooth at all.
Depth of field alone is not enough to achieve good smoothness.
I find the bokeh to be very nervous, IMHO.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 21, 2012, 11:11:19 AM
Generating silky smooth bokeh on short tele lenses is not that challenging, the 85mm f1.4 AF-S is indeed great but so are many MF lenses.

What is more impressive to my eyes is the bokeh of the nikkor 24mm f1.4. That is something I don't believe can be achieved in the MF world.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8301/7999694818_908c845feb.jpg)

I would of course have no problem to be proven wrong.  :)

Cheers,
Bernard


Bernard,
Nice shot but it's super easy to shoot something directly in the foreground and get background blur. It's almost macro work there.   Try putting that shoe in the middle ground at 3 to 5 meters distance or so and shoot again.  That's what I was showing in my Calistoga mustard grass pic.  Blur in foreground and background.    I'll try to shoot something with my wide lenses over the weekend to see how they compare in the wide end for curiosity.
Eric

ps. I'm adding a shot of my son here that I took last week with the 80/2.8 planar at f/2.8 where he is in the foreground.  The 80 is a normal focal length for the Hy6 with AFi-ii 12.  The zeiss planar is a pretty nice lens, but the schneider is even smoother.  Still see how the back ground blur is easy when you focus in the foreground with a normal lens.  Telephoto is no trick at all. I'll see about wides.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 21, 2012, 11:34:04 AM


LOL Eric; I have a series that is very similar.  654D, 200mm FA @ f/6.7 BTW

Tom

Tom,
It's beautiful out there isn't it!   These I shot just handheld as I was passing through. Here's one where I focused in the foreground wide open at f/4 with the 300.
Eric

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 21, 2012, 12:16:22 PM
We actually shot the d800E with the 200/2 in the studio... its a nice lens but again, Fred, you are wrong about it having no match in MF land.  Since you rely on google and other people's images go search flicker for schneider 300/4 or 180/2.8 or some of the mamiya fast teles.  Actually there are plenty of MF glass out there that you apparently never used and don't know much about.

Actually I have owned several Fast MF lenses.

Seeing you accuse me of lying here are the photo I took of them in order to sell them....

Carl Zeiss Jena 180mm 2.8.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7198/6989127087_c0b728dc07_c.jpg)

Mamiya 200mm 2.8 APO
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7038/6842993130_37f4b18a39_c.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7058/6807603094_ecba907cd6_b.jpg)

Hasselblad 110mm f2
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7208/6842989096_8352403958_c.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7063/6796978766_f778ea01eb_c.jpg)

I also borrowed a Mamiya 300mm 2.8 APO

Rented a few others

Now can you please stop making assumptions and accusations... it's getting boring


Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 21, 2012, 12:24:49 PM
Isak,
Love the lazy bumble bee shot! I've got a pile of those Rodenstock Heligons in the studio and some of the Kowa's too. Problem for me with those is they focus too close even on a dlsr and are quite heavy as you know.  I also use a schneider +9 diopter by itself and a zork close up lens by itself both fitted to a zork MFS tilt. I also use the front element of some older anistigmat lenses.
Eric

attached are some shots with the +9 ...  very soft, lots of blur
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 21, 2012, 12:42:03 PM
Dang Fred,
I'm so sorry! I hoped they had come to pick you up already!   :D

I just wish you'd post more about working with the Fuji 680 + film or shooting celebs for the Kimmel show or something that you really have experience in.  I do think your photowork is great!  And I'm just messing with you, man, not trying to throw you.   Don't worry!  :)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: tsjanik on September 21, 2012, 01:14:02 PM
Isak,
Love the lazy bumble bee shot! I've got a pile of those Rodenstock Heligons in the studio and some of the Kowa's too. Problem for me with those is they focus too close even on a dlsr and are quite heavy as you know.  I also use a schneider +9 diopter by itself and a zork close up lens by itself both fitted to a zork MFS tilt. I also use the front element of some older anistigmat lenses.
Eric

attached are some shots with the +9 ...  very soft, lots of blur

Along the same lines:  Pentax 67 90mm @/2.8 on the 645D
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: tsjanik on September 21, 2012, 01:33:10 PM
Honestly Tom, that could be even a good photo but it's not smooth at all.
Depth of field alone is not enough to achieve good smoothness.
I find the bokeh to be very nervous, IMHO.

Hi:

I didn’t post because I thought it was a great shot; I was disappointed with the whole series – potential, but not achieved.  I posted because of the remarkable similarity with Eric’s and after his last post I think he and I could just swap portfolios.   :D

I understand pleasant and unpleasant bokeh, but I never understood what “nervous bokeh” means.

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 21, 2012, 02:11:55 PM
I think this image is a good indication of what I am talking about.
Just look at all the texture or blobbyness that is still there in the distance very far behind the area in focus.

I find the background of the images shot with the Nikon and certain lenses to be smoother and there is a more natural focus falloff.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7197/6923636574_dbb7c07809_b.jpg)

Fred,
Getting back to the discussion .... The image you used here isn't comparable since the subject is in the foreground. When one focuses close, the background is more blurred naturally.  I'd rather you use your own images than take someone else's, however since you already posted the image with the car, it is probably more suited to a comparison since it has both foreground and background blur.  It looks pretty blobby in both the background and foreground to me. I think the 200/2 is a great lens and the d800 a great DSLR, so what we are really differing on is whether MF can achieve shallower DOF or not.

Besides the issue of rights and permissions when using someone else's images, there's also the question about how much was done in post.   I don't shoot a lot wide open and can't post a lot of what I do shoot but I will look for more examples to share.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: mac_paolo on September 21, 2012, 03:06:23 PM
I understand pleasant and unpleasant bokeh, but I never understood what “nervous bokeh” means.
Bokeh should me smooth, and circular if possible (I know, it depends on the shape of the blades, I'm talking about taste).
That particular photo you posted before showed lots of detail, grunginess if you forgive the term, within the bokeh.
That's what I call nervous bokeh :)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 21, 2012, 05:24:48 PM
Tom,
I like the bokeh in the last shot with the 90.  Very smooth.
E
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: tsjanik on September 21, 2012, 05:53:38 PM
Bokeh should me smooth, and circular if possible (I know, it depends on the shape of the blades, I'm talking about taste).
That particular photo you posted before showed lots of detail, grunginess if you forgive the term, within the bokeh.
That's what I call nervous bokeh :)

I assume the part  you find objectionable is the bokeh around the vines themselves.  You can blame the photographer and not the lens.  I wanted backlight for the mustard, but the light is also striking the shiny vines, making for very bright, irregular splotches.



Tom,
I like the bokeh in the last shot with the 90.  Very smooth.
E
Thanks Eric
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: skimasks on September 22, 2012, 08:09:00 PM
I use a p25+ and  D800. The D800 is a nice addition to the family. I felt like I was doing some of my clients a diservice when I had to use 35mm in the past. They feel more on par now. I'm comfortable showing the files together. The D800 still shows massive amounts of CA with wide lenses...and this is where the p25+, cambo wrs combo really shines. Shooting a serious interior/exterior? Phase One on Cambo WRS. Shooting a plate for a heavy composite shot? D800. Shooting an event? D7000. Shooting something that will need heavy movements like a book lying down or a plate of food? Phase One on Sinar X.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: TMARK on September 22, 2012, 10:57:36 PM
I use a p25+ and  D800. The D800 is a nice addition to the family. I felt like I was doing some of my clients a diservice when I had to use 35mm in the past. They feel more on par now. I'm comfortable showing the files together. The D800 still shows massive amounts of CA with wide lenses...and this is where the p25+, cambo wrs combo really shines. Shooting a serious interior/exterior? Phase One on Cambo WRS. Shooting a plate for a heavy composite shot? D800. Shooting an event? D7000. Shooting something that will need heavy movements like a book lying down or a plate of food? Phase One on Sinar X.


That sums it up well.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: free1000 on September 23, 2012, 06:29:53 AM
I'm using the Aptus 75 on Cambo and Mamiya and the D800E.

So I thought once I bought the D800E I might get rid of the Mamiya equipment.  However,  I'm still finding that the AFD2 with the straight 80 f2.8 (Not even the D version) trumps the D800E with a standard lens. I think the DxO reports are fine on paper, but I see more shadow detail in my Aptus 75 shots at ISO 50. Yes its an old back now, but a good one.

I have a series I am shooting that needs a short tele.  I have tested the Zeiss 100 f2 on the D800E and it is a great lens.  However the shots just don't finally have that MF/LF look I want for this series. So the search continues,  I will be testing the DF+ body and 150 lenses to see if I get what I want.  If I don't I will have to consider the inconvenience of a 150 lens on a tech camera. But I would like the option of going longer, up to a 240, and thats not possible on a tech camera.

I now can't sell the D800E, it is too great a camera. Its my goto portable camera,  with the inexpensive 35 f2,  perfect for street photography and a bit of travel etc. Fantastic look to the images, and far more practical than MF.  Of course, anything in low light,  long exposure it will be D800E all the way.

For the serious stuff I think it will remain tech cam and Mamiya and maybe the expense of newer lenses for the Mamiya.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Hulyss on September 23, 2012, 06:31:31 AM
I read the whole topic and came to the conclusion that most of us never used the whole panel of possibility given by the photo industry. I try myself using all I can use. Leica S2, SIGMA Foveon gears, Nikon FX dslr, pentax things, Zeiss glass ... rented some MF backs ...

Over years, the only device who impressed me (and my clients) is the SIGMA DP2m. I starting to be fanatic about this thing because it let me foresee where SIGMA is going, compared to other brands. Also I sold my S2 because, at comparing the files, the DP2m give me better satisfaction thus better results for big files (and the S2 is plastic panasonic like, not that serious after all).

I hear from here some ppl screaming " This is madness !! "  ;D But I'm not mad... at all. I also sold all my Nikon FX ED zooms and all my autofocus glass. I want to buy gear who last me lifelong, like in the old days (I'm 33 but learned the hard-way of film from 8 to 25). Digital is a wast of money, so better time to trick the marketing pony. So I train myself with my team to be as reactive as AF with manual lenses in every possible situations (children, races, weeding ...). In this case, I went full Zeiss and, if I'm careful with, I'm sure those glass will be in my bag in 10 to 20 years at least because perfect mechanic, no motor, and aperture ring (like real MF, LF lenses at the end ...).

The other problem to solve is the imagery device. I want something who can last a looonnnnnggggg time and give very good results, flexibility, reliability and versatility. Nikon FX dslr are here for that (not the D600 ;) ). So I keep the excellent D700 and will certainly take a D800e next year. Zeiss glass kick the hell out of megapixels even on D800e (mabe the 50 1.4 is a little bit soft but rendering is ok). D700 in studio is excellent, skin tones are excellent (I never understood why ppl say Nikon in salmon) and If I want to freeze action at very high speed ... I only take my beautiful DP2 Merrill ;) If I want perfect architecture shoots I take also my DP2 Merrill, stitch and flatten lines in software. I did and sold works done this way with his ancestor (who have probably 70k actuations), the DP2s.

If I want macro work, Zeiss macro on D700 or D800 give first class imagery. But the DP2 Merrill can be surprising to, even in macro (with accessory) ;) Here is a file I did on the corner of my table, quickly :

www.hulyssbowman.com/DP2m/BIG1.tif

Do I envy what Isak Bergwall showed in his post ?? Hell no !!! ;)

That bring me to the essential : DOF.

MF give superb transitions, creamy bokeh, ethereal softness ... as some lenses can do on 24x36mm digital format !! We even have some shooting techniques where you shoot a frame in focus and stitch other OOF frames around to obtain a superb effect (don't remember the name ...).
MF give superb sharpness and definition of skins and fabrics (!). The D800e too, with good glass, and the Foveon too ... even more !!

For me MFDB's are even more specialised today than in the old days and, if my crystal ball is right, are going to die. The first step in this lethal descent is Nikon with the D800 and the future Zeiss Glass (not here for decorating). The second step in this programmed death is SIGMA (yes you heard right). If SIGMA develop a 24x36 foveon, I think photo industries will have hard times, very very hard times to justifies anything, IQ wise, against a 24x36 foveon file, period (maybe ISO ;) ).

The last and final step is the clients. I come with high (very high) quality files and low prices. I do not have any bills or mortgages or credits to fill, extremely ridiculous ROI and a lot of spare money to be even more creative, without any stress. The client will choose me that's the life.

It is harsh, it sound unreal. But when I see what can produce a 900$ camera ... the reality check is made quickly.

Once Nikon, SIGMA and Zeiss will release there new glass to out-resolve the D800e ...
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 23, 2012, 03:51:28 PM
Hulyss,
That DP2 Merrill does some amazing things for sure and a very good value at that.  I may add one for carry around use.  But compare your table top shot to some shots I took with my AFi-ii 12.  What I saw in the DP2 is great color detail and sharpness.    One advantage the DP2 has is broader DOF for macro shots thanks to the wider FOV lens and the smaller sensor size.  That's one big advantage of the DSLR's over MFDB - broader DOF.

Anyhow check out the full size images (these are big files - 20-30mb jpgs). These were just test shots that I took with my AFi when I got it that I felt were similar to your table set up.

This was part of a lily that got old and fell onto the kitchen counter.  Check out the pollen grains on the staymen top left corner and under the petals. Also see the color changes in the petals and individual cells. This was hand held but with a camera mounted flash. The back was set to take a square image using the sensorflex.
http://www.archive.eh21.com/Forum/L_000517.jpg

Here's a table top set-up I used to compare two copies of a 150mm lens I had and find what f/stop was the best compromise between DOF and sharpness when I bought the AFi-ii 12.
Check out the bottom of the medallion and 'states' in the bill and green beaded coaster.  
http://www.archive.eh21.com/Forum/Tests%200163.jpg
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: hasselbladfan on September 23, 2012, 04:24:46 PM
Zeiss is actually making a new series for DSLRs.

Much larger. This leads me to believe they are upto something.

Just look at the size of the 55mm 1.4

(http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/news/3947008726/520/55mmF14.jpg?v=1584)

Look at it compared to the current 50mm 1.4 Ziess:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8438/7952354476_8668fb3755_b.jpg)

Much larger front element. Much longer barrel.

It seems Zeiss is designing the ideal lens without limiting itself with size constraints.

I talked to the Zeiss designer.

They let their designers loose. No size nor weight limitations, no budget constraints, just make us the best possible 50mm 1.4.

He showed me some 100% crops in the corners. Unbelievable.

And this is the beginning of a new line .........
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Stefan.Steib on September 23, 2012, 05:53:19 PM
Today I had gotten the chance before the official opening of the last day of Photokina to speak to Dr. Nasse of Zeiss and put the new 1,4/55 on my HCam.
It also renders an Aptus 8 with 40Mpix (44x33mm) with very slight vignette in the corners.
The new 2.0/135 is completely free of vignette and will probably render a full 80 Mpix Leaf or Phase.
From my experiences with our Hartblei lenses also on the D800E and MF Backs I can tell you it´s the lenses.
Put a 4/120mm Hartblei , our a 4/40IF or the 2,8/80mm on both systems and the results will be very similar.

Regards
Stefan
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Camdavidson on September 24, 2012, 01:20:14 PM
I use a D800 for my advertising and aerial work.  I also own and use an Alpa TC + 12 Max for personal landscape images shot to an Aptus 75.  I also shoot aerials with the Alpa TC/Aptus 75 combo.

Last weekend I shot an editorial landscape assignment with the Alpa and Aptus.

Both cameras have their place.  The D800 and D4 are fantastic cameras for a wide-range of assignments.  The Alpa, for me, is the perfect camera for landscape work that is quieter and more reflective. 

They both have a place in my kit.

http://www.camerondavidson.com

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Gigi on September 24, 2012, 02:53:57 PM
Eric - great shots. What is the blue line (mid image, running left to right) in the lower image?

Geoff
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 24, 2012, 03:49:01 PM
Geoff,
I looked for lines and didn't see any?  Which image again?   And btw - on the full res images I posted for Hulyss to look at and compare to his DP2m files he posted, the 1st image is actually a square crop, which I set in the back using sensor flex.
E
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: pedro39photo on September 24, 2012, 04:08:08 PM
Hi, i use 35mm Canon 5D mark 2, and Hassy H3D.

One the great advantages of the MFD its realy the small DOF...yes its true we can have a Nikon 24mm 1.4 wide open and have small dof, but what really amaze me its in my Hassy 50-110mm at wide 50mm and a full f8 at 5m ou 7m of the subject i still have small DOF !!!

And every time i tried to explain the "Myth of the magic MFD" its so hard...and the way this CCD sensors capture the light and the color its so different from my canon, for me the 35mm its my work horse, but now its feel me "more digital..."

This picture was made with a H3D, its simple with no great artistic or composition, but after 10 years in 35mm it blow me after i open it in Phocus...the DOF the Colors the way the sensor captures the light in the face...
After i made this picture, i know that i have to get good DMF no mater what 35mm sys i have..

PS: ( and the sky/clouds dont have any editing, masks or degrade ND filters...Just pure high dynamic range capture of the sensor)

 
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 24, 2012, 09:22:00 PM
Hi,

What Marc says makes a lot of sense.

Best regards
Erik

I think either just a D800 or a D800 plus a MFDB on a technical camera is the way to go, here is my logic
1. A DSLR is needed as a general purpose camera anyways
2. High Image quality is dependent on excellent lenses
3. The D800E other than resolution has an exceptional sensor
4. Anything you can shoot with a MFDB you can with a DSLR but everything you shoot with a DSLR you cannot with a MFDB
So I separated my landscape kit by field of view; wide MFDB, Narrow D800E (you can't practically shoot narrow FOV with MFDB, weight size etc.)
To optimize the IQ and lenses I chose Leica R's on the D800E (for general purpose and handheld work I ended up with the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 OS and the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII) and Rodenstock HR's on the Tech camera with an IQ180
I can do anything with the D800E and when I want maximum file size or need shifts/swings/tilt I have the MFDB+tech camera.
I no longer use the Mamiya AFD II or Phase one DF as the D800E is more versatile.
I would never sell the IQ180/Rodenstocks in favor of the D800E because the IQ is so good and the shooting style is just more fun.
In summary on a budget the D800E and a Leica R zoom would satisfy most needs. If Ultimate IQ is the goal then go all the way with a MFDB/tech camera/Rodenstock or Schneider digital lenses.
Marc

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: tsjanik on September 24, 2012, 09:34:37 PM
Hi, i use 35mm Canon 5D mark 2, and Hassy H3D.

One the great advantages of the MFD its realy the small DOF...yes its true we can have a Nikon 24mm 1.4 wide open and have small dof, but what really amaze me its in my Hassy 50-110mm at wide 50mm and a full f8 at 5m ou 7m of the subject i still have small DOF !!!

And every time i tried to explain the "Myth of the magic MFD" its so hard...and the way this CCD sensors capture the light and the color its so different from my canon, for me the 35mm its my work horse, but now its feel me "more digital..."

This picture was made with a H3D, its simple with no great artistic or composition, but after 10 years in 35mm it blow me after i open it in Phocus...the DOF the Colors the way the sensor captures the light in the face...
After i made this picture, i know that i have to get good DMF no mater what 35mm sys i have..

PS: ( and the sky/clouds dont have any editing, masks or degrade ND filters...Just pure high dynamic range capture of the sensor)

 

That's really a lovely photo, both in content and rendering.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 24, 2012, 10:17:06 PM
I talked to the Zeiss designer.

They let their designers loose. No size nor weight limitations, no budget constraints, just make us the best possible 50mm 1.4.

He showed me some 100% crops in the corners. Unbelievable.

And this is the beginning of a new line .........

Seems my guesses were right.

I think this is going to be a very successful move. I can see many photographers taking the route of
these lenses on a 36MP dslr  instead of a MFD system. These lenses IMO will blur the lines between the formats.

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 24, 2012, 11:06:45 PM
These lenses IMO will blur the lines between the formats.

The good news is it looks like it won't be that long before we find out.  I'm curious to see how the 46mp canon will perform too with lenses like this, however we already know a bit about the very good 17 and 24mm TSE lenses being used with the IQ180 with Stefan's HB1.   Probably these new lenses will be on priced about the same as what MF costs. 

 My guess is the color will still be an issue and for sheer detail the MFDB's will still have the edge. There is no substitute for CC's, or in this case square mm's of sensor.    Where DSLR's are winning out is multipoint AF (if you use it), high ISO performance, and all the flash gear.  How great it is to control a bunch of small flash all of which are doing ettl with the camera. 

  It's a great time to be a photographer with all these options! 
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 25, 2012, 12:01:22 AM
The good news is it looks like it won't be that long before we find out.  I'm curious to see how the 46mp canon will perform too with lenses like this, however we already know a bit about the very good 17 and 24mm TSE lenses being used with the IQ180 with Stefan's HB1.   Probably these new lenses will be on priced about the same as what MF costs. 

 My guess is the color will still be an issue and for sheer detail the MFDB's will still have the edge. There is no substitute for CC's, or in this case square mm's of sensor.    Where DSLR's are winning out is multipoint AF (if you use it), high ISO performance, and all the flash gear.  How great it is to control a bunch of small flash all of which are doing ettl with the camera. 

  It's a great time to be a photographer with all these options! 

Less than a year ago everyone was saying the 35mm FF sensors will not be able to reach the dynamic range of CCD sensors.
We know today that the D800 has higher dynamic range.

Regarding color depth MFD with the IQ180 MF is still a bit better.
However if you look at the color depth improvements with the last Nikon generation d700 to d800 the improvement is a bigger step up than the
equivalent improvements made by MF manufacturers.

I think it is safe to say that the next generation will catch up with the IQ180 as far as color depth goes.

Add this to the ergonomics and it's hard to see anything but a fast shrinking niche for MFD.

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 25, 2012, 01:24:36 AM
Fred,
I'm still saying the Aptus 12 has more dynamic range than the D800E. You can pull whatever chart you want from DXO but you won't convince me until you can show me side by side images you took yourself or tests you did yourself under a scientific regimen.       The D800e is a remarkable camera but then so is  the AFi-ii 12.      Maybe your point of view is that for advertising or celebrity portrait you don't need anything more since the images are just used for web, magazines and small print, but don't forget there are a lot of people out there shooting art reproduction, fine art, and other jobs that require much higher IQ.  And then there's just the different look MF cameras have compared to DSLRs.  Did you read the comments left by users who had both? They were not saying the D800 was better, maybe more convenient or sufficient, but not better.

Last year it was the Nikon d3x that everyone who didn't know better was saying how it had surpassed the MFDB.  It's just silly... every year both formats improve.  When the next generation of DSLR's come out there will also be new MFDB backs that have improved too.     I happen to think my AFi has better ergonomics than any of the DSLR's I've used plus a way better viewfinder.  You should try one.  Next time you are in SF I'll give you a test drive.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 25, 2012, 02:37:34 AM
When the next generation of DSLR's come out there will also be new MFDB backs that have improved too.

The point that I was making is that 35mm is improving at a faster pace. Looking at past improvements
of MF and 35mm it is likely that 35mm will catch up in all areas other than sensor area.

If this were not the case. WHY DON'T THE MF manufacturers that are losing market share not post
side by side comparisons, both online and downloadable.
 
WHY don't they encourage the magazines where they advertise to do these tests?

The reason is quite simple. The difference is very subtle.... and may soon be gone all together.

You quote people that have both. (I had both and used both).... well here is an interesting test done
by the owner of an IQ180:

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/ (http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/)

Quote
At 30×20 inches, you can see subtle but clear differences between the IQ180 and the D800E. Not all of them weighted in favour of the medium format camera, though. For instance, the D800E produced much more pleasing shadow areas on the prints of the photographs produced to test dynamic range.

Both lab tests and field tests seem to confirm the same thing.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 25, 2012, 02:51:52 AM
Maybe your point of view is that for advertising or celebrity portrait you don't need anything more since the images are just used for web, magazines and small print, but don't forget there are a lot of people out there shooting art reproduction, fine art, and other jobs that require much higher IQ.

I can assure you that dynamic range is far more important when shooting fashion and portrait on location compared to art reproduction in controlled lighting.

My wife is a fine artist. She paints both oils as well as miniature paintings done with tiny brushes (some with only 2 or 4 hairs) and magnifying glasses.
I use a spot meter as well as a print calibration tools to determine exposures.
I can assure you that there is a much higher lighting ratio when shooting a black actor in a bright white dress under the sun in California
than reproducing a painting.

That said the higher tonal range of an IQ180 will reproduce color in paintings better.... but not by leaps and bounds.

If dynamic range were so important in art repro people would be taking multiple close exposures and doing HDR.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 25, 2012, 03:04:50 AM


PS: ( and the sky/clouds dont have any editing, masks or degrade ND filters...Just pure high dynamic range capture of the sensor)

 

(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70759.0;attach=66727;image)

It is very clear from this photo that it is exposed more in favor of the highlights. Just look at the total lack of detail in the ladies black pants.

Pure high dynamic range would produce more detail in the shadows and blacks.

Also the clouds are not particularly bright, and not the brightest parts of the scene, so easily within normal dynamic range performance.
If you look closely the woman's tops have areas that are brighter. So the clouds are not "pure dynamic range"...
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 25, 2012, 03:16:47 AM
Hi, i use 35mm Canon 5D mark 2, and Hassy H3D.

......And every time i tried to explain the "Myth of the magic MFD" its so hard...and the way this CCD sensors capture the light and the color its so different from my canon, for me the 35mm its my work horse, but now its feel me "more digital..." .......

The Canon 5D mark 2 is and was hardly a high IQ camera. Of all the cameras I have owned the 5D mark II was the least I ever used.
I ended up using it more for video. I preferred the skin tones at base ISO from my 1Ds. The 5D mark II was problematic with hot lights
if I did not use an IR UV block filter. There is also more junk in the blue channel with the 5D II as well as the 5d mark III.

Look at this comparison of the blue channel between the d800 and 5D III

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7093/6894073932_f73b068186_o.gif)

Look at almost twice the junk in the blue channel isolated here.

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 25, 2012, 03:44:09 AM
Fred,
"there is a much higher lighting ratio when shooting a black actor in a bright white dress under the sun in California"
That's probably true but the color tonality and accuracy are way more important in art repro.  The DSLR's just don't pick up the subtle things that MFDB get. 

Just out of curiosity which digital backs have you used extensively?  I'm still struggling to understand how you can have such a different idea.  I mean the internet is a wonderful tool for self validation - if you go look for proof you will find it whatever you wanted to prove. That's why I test myself.   I take all your information on the fuji or shooting people without argument because I know it comes from your own experience, however I wonder if you are basing your ideas on these cameras on some older digital back like the phase p25+ or something?  How many generations old are those?    I currently shoot with an Aptus-ii 12R (AFi mount) and also a hasselblad CF 528 multishot / microstep back.  The CF 528 is an older back probably from 2006 or something but it still can produce a file that is very impressive in multishot mode.   I think the DR of the 528 at base ISO is 1-2 stops more than anything else I have ever seen.    I also have an RZ ii which I can use either back on and a bunch of LF film cameras.

I think the MFDB makes will keep innovating and what I think might wipe them out is not DSLR's but maybe stuff like the RED or Black Magic more because that's the way the industry is going than from image quality.  We'll probably see CMOS MFDB's at some point and have video and live view.

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 25, 2012, 03:59:03 AM
@ Fred,

Your are a very fine photographer and I very much admire your work. However it seems in somewhat repeat your posts contain incorrect information, works by others, and argue of dslr over mfdb. It begs to puzzle...

The point that I was making is that 35mm is improving at a faster pace. Looking at past improvements
of MF and 35mm it is likely that 35mm will catch up in all areas other than sensor area.

Above is very incorrect to say the least. Here;

Aug 1998 LEAF showed their 6MP Volare
Jun 1999 NIKON announced their 2.7MP D1

What has changed?
D800E was announced same long after Aptus-II 12 ???
Leaf; 36x24 sensor -> 645 80MP
Nikon; 24x17 sensor -> 36x24 36MP

Interesting to note from above is
D1/Volare = 2.7/6 = 45%
D800E/Aptus-II 12 = 36/80 = 45%

= NO CHANGE

Life goes on...

You quote people that have both. (I had both and used both).... well here is an interesting test done
by the owner of an IQ180:

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/ (http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/)

Both lab tests and field tests seem to confirm the same thing.

In frankness I did not bother to read that article because the costant debate is tiring. The images in the article however bear already witness of what seems two gents having done the test and not taken time to wait out a photogrphic light, and much worse appear to not have processed the images to get the very most out of the files. The images mere have a look of having been opened at defaults... Thus I fail to comprehend what solid conclusions they could draw and I fail to see that the comparison has any value. Result is that they seem to miss what extra MFDB brings and are simply better off with a DSLR. Then what is that comparison compared to the posts above by folks who use both D800 and MFDBs for making real imagery and assumably to push the files to get there??

I believe it is simple, a D800 and MFDB are tools. For someone who find need and/or can make use of MFDB then it is worthwhile, else it is not. In that respect it seems nothing has changed since film days...

All respect.

Best regards,
Anders
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Isak Bergwall on September 25, 2012, 04:01:05 AM
People talk a lot of ergonomics and handling and how great it is on the D800..But nobody seem to mention that those parts have gotten worse compared to the D700. The hand grip is much smaller on the D800 than the D700 and if you have slightly bigger hands or just like to hold your camera firmly it feels really uncomfortable with that deep small grip that you can't rest your hand easily on like you could on the D700. Also the viewfinder is a joke as it is with most Dslr's. And that is important if you do not use live view for all your shots.. This is of course a personal opinion..

I do not understand why the cameras are getting smaller and smaller for every new iteration.. is portability more important that ergonomics these days?
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Isak Bergwall on September 25, 2012, 04:06:07 AM
And another thing..

When it comes to evolution of products and that DSLRs are so much better..

Just look at the interfaces and displays on a D800, and a high end MFDB with touchscreen that are on pair with the Nikon Retina display and good menus and handling in opposite to d800 with 20 small buttons and rooted menus that goes deeper than the dwarf caves of LOTR..

On that level MFDS of today is so much more advanced than the current DSLR..

Also cleaning of a MFDB sensor seems much easier than cleaning a DSLR sensor, and that is a big plus for one that is out in the field and doing their work.. (The dust removal function on the D700 was a joke).
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 25, 2012, 04:08:18 AM
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70759.0;attach=66727;image)

It is very clear from this photo that it is exposed more in favor of the highlights. Just look at the total lack of detail in the ladies black pants.

Pure high dynamic range would produce more detail in the shadows and blacks.

Also the clouds are not particularly bright, and not the brightest parts of the scene, so easily within normal dynamic range performance.
If you look closely the woman's tops have areas that are brighter. So the clouds are not "pure dynamic range"...

Sorry, how can you judge DR based om a jpg ???

As I know a jpg is the print and does not contain all info captured in the negative... unless it is processed to bring it out...
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Hulyss on September 25, 2012, 07:54:30 AM
And another thing..

When it comes to evolution of products and that DSLRs are so much better..

Just look at the interfaces and displays on a D800, and a high end MFDB with touchscreen that are on pair with the Nikon Retina display and good menus and handling in opposite to d800 with 20 small buttons and rooted menus that goes deeper than the dwarf caves of LOTR..

On that level MFDS of today is so much more advanced than the current DSLR..

Also cleaning of a MFDB sensor seems much easier than cleaning a DSLR sensor, and that is a big plus for one that is out in the field and doing their work.. (The dust removal function on the D700 was a joke).

 ;D ;D
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: ondebanks on September 25, 2012, 10:52:34 AM
Fred,
I'm still saying the Aptus 12 has more dynamic range than the D800E. You can pull whatever chart you want from DXO but you won't convince me until you can show me side by side images you took yourself or tests you did yourself under a scientific regimen.

Eric,

I think your reasoning is backwards here. You're calling on Fred to prove what is already proven (in one methodology) by DxO. What you should really be doing is calling on yourself to disprove it. Why don't you provide your own side by side images to do so? I'm not saying that it cannot be disproven, but I am highly skeptical...and the ball is in your court, not Fred's.

"I'm still saying" is not an adequate defence of your point.

Ray
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: ondebanks on September 25, 2012, 11:27:34 AM
And to address the original question...never used a D800, but I use a 5DII and an old square Kodak MFDB on a Mamiya 645AFD.

I mostly use the same medium format lenses on both, which could either be seen as levelling the playing field, or perhaps as skewing the playing field against the Canon - it might perform better with its own 35mm-format glass. But my MF lenses are no slouches either.

In good light, or with flash, I prefer the DB. Nicer colours; bigger sensor with bigger pixels and no AA filter, so crisper at the pixel level. And I do prefer square or 4:3 to the 3:2 format. I like that fewer things are button-LCD driven on the Mamiya; it uses more real switches. The viewfinders are pretty much a tie.

But in high ISO or long exposures or both, it's game set and match to the Canon.

I took the shot below the other night, with the 5DII. I don't think you can replicate it with any MFD system, past or present. A P30+ (with obligatory dark frame), 645D, or H4D-40 would come closest, if a suitably wide lens were available (18mm!). But this wasn't even pushing the Canon's abilities at all.

2 minutes, ISO 1600, Samyang 14/2.8 at f/4, AstroTrac.
No dark frame subtraction.
No high-ISO noise reduction.
In-camera jpeg with nothing more added than some contrast adjustment. I could process the RAW for better results.

Ray
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: [email protected] on September 25, 2012, 11:31:03 AM
Maybe what I'll say will sound quite silly but ok, whatever:
I think that the D800 has more extreme dynamic range when the IQ180 (f.i.) has more range inside the extremes.
I see that like it is a staircase.
The D800 staircase is longer, starts from lower level and lead you to higher elevation.
The IQ180 dynamic range is like a smaller staircase but with more steps than the one of the D800.

When comparing both systems one a same scene taken at the same moment, I can see slightly more open shadow in the D800 files (without more blown highlihts).
But in that sort shots I also see less local contrast, flatter aspect in the zoommed picture of the D800.

Difference are weak and difficult to show on the net. They can easily be objectioned with appropriate raw convertion.
Generally, I find more easy to open up dark areas of the IQ files than bring the same pop / 3D effect/ natural local contrast of the IQ files to the D800.
But maybe I'm making a mess between dynamic range and local contrast although I believe there is an interaction between those 2 players.

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 25, 2012, 11:34:33 AM

"I'm still saying" is not an adequate defence of your point.

Ray

Ray,
Well that's fair enough - give me a few days and I will re-run imatest with the stouffer transmission step wedge shots and post the results.  But I'm betting many people will still argue that d800 has better DR.     Actually there are a lot of people still arguing that Global warming is a hoax too.  :o
Eric
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 25, 2012, 12:39:05 PM
Sorry, how can you judge DR based om a jpg ???

As I know a jpg is the print and does not contain all info captured in the negative... unless it is processed to bring it out...

Anders

Actually a jpeg is in some ways a good way to see image quality. When a jpeg is created from a very nice clean file the jpeg algorithm
has a far higher original quantization to chose from. Also the jpeg compression set you high quality will not crush blacks in the manner that is clear in this image.
Jpeg compression will take out subtleties from an image, in particular from the data heavy color data, much less from luminance data. So there may have been more
color data in the black pants, but the jpeg is a good representation of the original file as far as dynamic range goes.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 25, 2012, 12:56:55 PM
And another thing..

When it comes to evolution of products and that DSLRs are so much better..

Just look at the interfaces and displays on a D800, and a high end MFDB with touchscreen that are on pair with the Nikon Retina display and good menus and handling in opposite to d800 with 20 small buttons and rooted menus that goes deeper than the dwarf caves of LOTR..

On that level MFDS of today is so much more advanced than the current DSLR..

Also cleaning of a MFDB sensor seems much easier than cleaning a DSLR sensor, and that is a big plus for one that is out in the field and doing their work.. (The dust removal function on the D700 was a joke).

Hmmmm lets see.

So with the dinky little D600 not only do you have full controls on the camera, but access to the lot over an inexpensive wireless connection allowing you to
use laptops, iPhones and tablets to control the camera, menues and review files. Really useful in the field if you have the camera in hash sunlight and can't see the screen and do not want to take the camera off the stand or a jib.

Regarding cleaning.... well there are a few things to consider. First of all when I shoot in the desert for example I have several cameras and their lenses stay on each of them for the whole shoot. No feasable with MF if you need several lenses for the shoot.

Also every time you remove the back from most MF cameras the body's rear focal plane shutter or curtain opens up letting dust into the body.
Then when you shoot the mirror blows this dust around and it gets on the sensor.

However you forgot one important fact. When comparing the dust issue with MF and 35mm dslr the size of the MF sensor is and advantage in some ways. While you have a larger area to clean the same piece of dust on a 35mm sensor will appear twice as big in the final image.

Another advantage MF has is that if damage is done during cleaning it is quicker and easier to change the glass surface infront of the lens. However that advantage is nullified by the exorbitant costs charged for service by at least Phase One.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 25, 2012, 01:08:37 PM
Ray,
Well that's fair enough - give me a few days and I will re-run imatest with the stouffer transmission step wedge shots and post the results.  But I'm betting many people will still argue that d800 has better DR.     Actually there are a lot of people still arguing that Global warming is a hoax too.  :o
Eric


IF the dynamic range is better.. WHY DON'T MF manufacturers state so on their websites and demonstrate it.

Their sales are down, their budgets are drying up. If they had better dynamic range demonstrating this would
be good for sales, especially in scientific and research markets that have deep pockets.

Hasselblad used to have a direct comparison, but they don't do it anymore. There is just the old one buried deep on their site.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 25, 2012, 01:43:18 PM
@ Fred,

Frankly, above three posts appear to indicate you do not at all understand MFD.

I have been shooting medium format digital since 2007; 20, 28 and now 80MP. As example, you want to make us believe you can read WHAT from a posted jpg of the raw file????????????

Both DSLR and MFDB are tools and there have been some frank interesting posts of other folks in above that actually have shot both.

Just my make of it...
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: TMARK on September 25, 2012, 02:10:33 PM
@ Fred,

Frankly, above three posts appear to indicate you do not at all understand MFD.

I have been shooting medium format digital since 2007; 20, 28 and now 80MP. As example, you want to make us believe you can read WHAT from a posted jpg of the raw file????????????

Both DSLR and MFDB are tools and there have been some frank interesting posts of other folks in above that actually have shot both.

Just my make of it...

Fred has shot and owned both.

Regards,

TM
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 25, 2012, 02:37:58 PM
@ Fred,

Frankly, above three posts appear to indicate you do not at all understand MFD.

I have been shooting medium format digital since 2007; 20, 28 and now 80MP. As example, you want to make us believe you can read WHAT from a posted jpg of the raw file????????????

Both DSLR and MFDB are tools and there have been some frank interesting posts of other folks in above that actually have shot both.

Just my make of it...

I have been working with digital compression long before still photography even became digital. As well as photography I work with motion picture also as a visual effects supervisor. In visual effects access to data beyond what is readily visible in files is used very often.

I find it funny how when anyone brings up the limitations of MFD they are accused of not owning it, having used it and then personal attacks are made.

To tell you the truth I do not care that much what use of my posts are made by owners and die hard fans of MF make. For me it's more about
informing those considering what cameras to buy and sharing my experience that spans 30 years, most formats from film to digital. I have been working with very high end digital from the early days when a high end still digital suit like the scitex systems was $1,000 and hour. Clients include L'Oreal, Wella, Monteil, Revlon... clients where color is a very big deal and where budgets are not tight.

Anyway... while more and more tests show a closing gap the very MF manufacturers do not publish comparisons to back up their marketing claims.

While many here have a knee jerk reaction to DXO Marks results discrediting them and finding them even laughable
it is interesting to note that Phase One.. the maker of the best MFDB proudly posted the results of DXO Mark's testing of the IQ180
where it was awarded best sensor. Phase One did not question any of the results, yet fan boys do.... ;)

I have also stated repeatedly that there are still situations where MFD will produce a better result.
It is when reproduction of the image is with very high end inkjet printing to very large sizes and exhibited in a manner that
allows the viewer to view portions of the image very close up. Like landscape where the print is 5 foot across and you go up to it to view
portions of the image. Now i'm not disparaging this or trying to lower it to the level of pixel peeping. This is a very legitimate use..

As for fine art reproduction... if it is not a moving subject and 4x5 scanning digital back will produce better results, massive files even with oversampling.... though it will
be serious overkill for most uses.

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 25, 2012, 03:00:44 PM
Fred has shot and owned both.

Regards,

TM

Yes, but that sure makes some of his posts even more strange. It seems he does not know or understand it, have not used it extensive, or at least not found use of it himself. Others do.

Same as he I believe it is fair to advise others and that seems is what others have done who shoot both. There are differnt uses, they are plain diffent tools. The big problem seems some folks seem to argue the blue for DSLR over MFDB which is plain nonsense.

It would be interesting to see some good MFDB shots of Fred, but so far I seen nada. Only film and claims.

As for MFDB marketing, I for one prefer how they market MFDB because DSLR seem to market new products very frequent and ask people pay full price to replace what they have. Leaf and others offer upgrade paths, and DHW even offer upgrade to bodies. My Leaf agent even answer phone on Sundays if I have question and need help. Yet, dslr or mfdb is about choice and different tools. It also depend on what we shoot.

The interesting read to someone like me who shoot only MFDB nowadays has been the posts of those who complement with D800 and how it and DSLR complement mfdb in their photography. Simple, different tools.

Best regaqrds,
Anders
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 25, 2012, 03:54:57 PM
Sorry, how can you judge DR based om a jpg ???

As I know a jpg is the print and does not contain all info captured in the negative... unless it is processed to bring it out...

No Anders, you can accurately tell everything about the underlying raw file from a web-res JPG created from the default settings of a raw processor you may or may not be deeply familiar with.

It should be clear from the JPG below that I shot this with a black and white camera with 3-4 stops of total dynamic range. Look at the completely black shadows. I should really do these shoots with a camera with better dynamic range don't you think?
(http://www.doug-peterson.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Faustian-Wadepool.jpg)

In addition since the default rendering choices of all raw processors are identical, the specific placement and rendering of deep shadows at default settings are a good and broadly reference-able way to judge the underlying quality and aesthetics of a camera system.

(taking my sarcastic hat off; doesn't look good on me)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 25, 2012, 03:55:35 PM
Fred,
Do you have any data on MFDB sales? I would have thought the opposite was the case.  I think I read that Phase had one of its best years last year and the S2 and Pentax are recent newcomers to the MFDB field and have had pretty good sales.    I think the only manufacturer that may have seen declines is Sinar.  But its only a guess.  

DSLR's have to look out for MFT cameras stealing their market share.  It's an interesting market.   It seems a silly argument to think that because MF makers don't publicize tests the DSLR DR must be superior.  They do list the DR in the data sheets but I guess that alone is not enough for you?   Its only the DLSR owners without MF (digital) cameras that seem to care at all about what is better.  There are many reasons to have both types of cameras.

Eric
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 25, 2012, 03:58:39 PM
In good light, or with flash, I prefer the DB. Nicer colours; bigger sensor with bigger pixels and no AA filter, so crisper at the pixel level. And I do prefer square or 4:3 to the 3:2 format. I like that fewer things are button-LCD driven on the Mamiya; it uses more real switches. The viewfinders are pretty much a tie.

Ray you aren't listening!

There are CHARTS that show how good the color is from each camera. You should not waste your time looking at actual images and judging the color for yourself. Just use the charts!

CHARTS!
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: eronald on September 25, 2012, 04:02:49 PM
Doug,

 Nice shot, thank you for posting it. I think you could quit your day job ;)

Edmund


It should be clear from the JPG below that I shot this with a black and white camera with 3-4 stops of total dynamic range. Look at the completely black shadows. I should really do these shoots with a camera with better dynamic range don't you think?
(http://www.doug-peterson.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Faustian-Wadepool.jpg)

In addition since the default rendering choices of all raw processors are identical, the specific placement and rendering of deep shadows at default settings are a good and broadly reference-able way to judge the underlying quality and aesthetics of a camera system.

(taking my sarcastic hat off; doesn't look good on me)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 25, 2012, 04:03:00 PM
Fred has shot and owned both.

Regards,

TM

The only thing is clear is he has a great body of excellent work, probably better than most people here including myself.    It appears from his comments and pictures of his own that he shares that his experience with MF is mostly limited to film and not digital.  He undoubtedly has a lot to share however maybe better in other topics?
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: torger on September 25, 2012, 04:24:19 PM
I think one can conclude that the difference in image quality is small enough that it comes down to if you like the gear and workflow or not. If you like DSLR-style of shooting there's probably never any need to go MFD, to sacrifice the way of work for some slightly better image quality. But it can also be the other way around, that one would prefer the MFD way of work. Or you are some sort of connaisseur of subtile lens / image qualities which causes you to personally prefer one system over another and is prepared to pay up a lot of money for it even if you know that its only for yourself you are doing it.

But I certainly don't like MFD marketing FUD like Hasselblad is doing, claiming vast superiority over DSLR (=D800 these days) and implying clients would care.

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 25, 2012, 04:41:20 PM
No Anders, you can accurately tell everything about the underlying raw file from a web-res JPG created from the default settings of a raw processor you may or may not be deeply familiar with.

It should be clear from the JPG below that I shot this with a black and white camera with 3-4 stops of total dynamic range. Look at the completely black shadows. I should really do these shoots with a camera with better dynamic range don't you think?
(http://www.doug-peterson.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Faustian-Wadepool.jpg)

In addition since the default rendering choices of all raw processors are identical, the specific placement and rendering of deep shadows at default settings are a good and broadly reference-able way to judge the underlying quality and aesthetics of a camera system.

(taking my sarcastic hat off; doesn't look good on me)

Doug,

Really really truly awesome image!!! Any more???  ;D

I do not follow how you can tell the DR from a jpg, because you do not know what adjustments have been made to the RAW file. In a studio shot you also do not know what the DR of the scene was. In the posted image of the lady with black trousers you can guesstimate the actual DR of the scene, but... you cannot really know what adjustments using curves, black & white point and recovery was made to the RAW file.

Or what am I missing???

Best regards,
Anders
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 25, 2012, 05:08:17 PM
Really really truly awesome image!!! Any more???  ;D

Thank you Anders! Coming from you and your incredible work that means an enormous amount to me. It's part of a series I've shot for many years. I've included a few below and you can see more (technically many are NSFW) at my website (http://www.doug-peterson.com/category/nudes/). My idea is to treat the body with the same aesthetics, techniques, and compositions as a landscape, while trying to avoid the over-literal (IMO) nature of Allan Teger (http://bodyscapes.com/) whose work first inspired me (along with, after the fact, many early nude shooters).

(http://www.doug-peterson.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Bodyscapes-Jan-15-2011-7077-1.jpg)

(http://www.doug-peterson.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Patellar-Valley.jpg)

(http://www.doug-peterson.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Leans-Residuals.jpg)

(http://www.doug-peterson.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Leftward-Distortion.jpg)

I do not follow how you can tell the DR from a jpg, because you do not know what adjustments have been made to the RAW file. In a studio shot you also do not know what the DR of the scene was. In the posted image of the lady with black trousers you can guesstimate the actual DR of the scene, but... you cannot really know what adjustments using curves, black & white point and recovery was made to the RAW file.

Or what am I missing???

The only thing you missed was I was joking. The internet is a hard place to show sarcasm.

We agree completely. Very little of the DR of a raw file can be told from a JPG. In this case the shooter posted the screen grab of Phocus' settings, but as you well know each software renders images different at defaults and Phocus, with that back, does have a tendency to render a file with a flatter toe (less use of reserve shadow dynamic range).

In fact probably the worst way to judge a raw files dynamic range is a JPG using the default setting in software. If the software's default settings included all available detail it would show a very flat image. Instead LR, C1, Phocus et al render an image according to their own in-house aesthetics with some eye towards historical standards (i.e. film) and industry defacto standards (e.g. the in-camera JPG rendering of popular Canon/Nikon).
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 25, 2012, 05:17:03 PM
Nice shot, thank you for posting it. I think you could quit your day job ;)

Thanks! But I love my day job :-).
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 25, 2012, 05:29:59 PM
Or what am I missing???

Sense of humor?  ;D

And a bit of logic as well... since you first use a jpg to demonstrate the supposed superior DR of your 80mp back then comment 2 posts later than a jpg cannot be used to demonstrate DR... ;)

The restaurant image is in fact also not that impressive a DR scene. Very soft typical eastern China light resulting from fog and acting as natural difuser, decision to keep inside of room pretty dark,...

So, assuming that the 2 examples you selected to show DR are among the most extreme you have shot recently, it would seem that the images you shoot/the kind of rendering you like does in fact not need that much DR. Nothing wrong with that, but this means that most recent DSLRs would suit your needs well from a DR standpoint.

There are of course many other good reasons to prefer shooting with a back, but why focusing on DR as one when all evidence shows it is not that relevant for your needs?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 25, 2012, 06:05:27 PM
Thanks! But I love my day job :-).

Nice body scapes. Dough.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 25, 2012, 06:18:41 PM
Thank you Anders! Coming from you and your incredible work that means an enormous amount to me.

...

My idea is to treat the body with the same aesthetics, techniques, and compositions as a landscape, while trying to avoid the over-literal (IMO) nature of Allan Teger (http://bodyscapes.com/) whose work first inspired me (along with, after the fact, many early nude shooters).

Doug, My own photographic work is humble and for my own personal satisfaction. It is an essence to my life, a passion.

Allan Teger, interesting!! When in Shanghai earlier this year I found his work through a search on the web and I was keen to try out bodyscapes like landscape imagery myself. With difficult getting a good model for naked I compromised... It was fun, but I find your work far superior  ;D.

I include also a shot from another shoot. That one was arranged through Poco.cn who arranges amateur shoots in Shanghai and some other places in China. Most gents and girls show up with DSLRs. Perhaps I know more how to process files than most at such events, but my images humbly also tend to have characters that set them apart because I shoot MFDB. That shows even at tiny jpgs  ;D. That time a gent had a D800.  Here are my images from that shoot;
http://my.poco.cn/lastphoto_v2-htx-id-3083223-user_id-64555183-p-0.xhtml
http://my.poco.cn/lastphoto_v2-htx-id-3083200-user_id-64555183-p-0.xhtml
and his;
http://my.poco.cn/lastphoto_v2-htx-id-3075707-user_id-43172128-p-0.xhtml
and a 5DmkII;
http://my.poco.cn/lastphoto_v2.htx&id=3072421&user_id=58480991&p=0

Now tell from the images which has the better DR??  :P, or simply judge who interpreted the scene better in post if you rather will...
In the end who captured the best photographs? Nah, for that the camera does not matter as much. You can make good images with any camera, the choice is mere a choice of tool. Yet what I shoot brings me personally what I enjoy, towards and in the image. A Hy6 is also more discrete than a Nikon or Canon because most people do not realize what you are shooting with... until someone in those groups do and start asking price of it... sigh... And I aint rich, mere passion for photography and the image.

In China people do know the Rolleiflex brand... perhaps I should change my WLF to a Leaf one???  ;)

Best regards,
Anders
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 25, 2012, 06:38:13 PM
The restaurant image is in fact also not that impressive a DR scene. Very soft typical eastern China light resulting from fog and acting as natural difuser, decision to keep inside of room pretty dark,...

@ Bernard,

Are you referring to the dumpling restaurant I posted in another thread??? Seems you do not know Shanghai. That morning was very strong and high contrast light indeed. While I do not recall precise the DR of scene, it was maximum within the latitude of the sensor.

Attaching image...

Best regards,
Anders
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 25, 2012, 06:52:20 PM
Interesting D800 vs H4D 50 test.

http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/ (http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/)

It's particularly interesting how damn close you have to get to see the differences.

Also keep in mind that the Nikon lens used is not one of the best...

I tested the 105 macro and decided against it due to the chromatic distortion. Quite mild, but quite spread.
I did not test it at macro distances as that was not the use I was interested in.

Also a 105mm on 35mm is not comparable to 120mm on 645 when shooting this close.
A bit closer price wise too.... ;)

85mm to 120mm would have been better and the Hassy lens was set to it's best aperture while the Nikon was at it's most shut down aperture.

Due to the subtle differences in the test d800 vs H4D I think it is useful to see the difference
between the 105mm and the more advanced 85mm


(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8037/8024794047_e7a236d972_o.gif)

The 85mm has much better micro contrast. and better chromatic performance.

The results of the H4D 50 vs D800 would have been even closer than this!

Original:
(http://www.photigy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Nikon-d800e-test-review-sample-image.jpg)

Crops

(http://photigy.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Hasselblad-h4d40-vs-face-crop-2.jpg)

(http://photigy.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NikonD800-face-crop1.jpg)

These two images are NOT CHARTS. Both charts and images have their place in today's reality.

These images are pretty clear about what is going on.

So are these numbers:

Hassy kit in the test $ 28,100
Nikon kit in the test  $  4,200

Things will get even more interesting when we throw this into the mix
and Canon's rumored 46MP camera... ;)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: ondebanks on September 25, 2012, 07:12:08 PM
Ray you aren't listening!

There are CHARTS that show how good the color is from each camera. You should not waste your time looking at actual images and judging the color for yourself. Just use the charts!

CHARTS!

Heh heh, very good Doug. :D

But you know, as a scientist I also have a healthy respect for charts, once they are based on data of good provenance and sound analysis, or realistic models. I see no reason (yet) not to place DxO results in the former category.

I will never understand the knee-jerk rejection of such results by some people. There's a tendency for a reaction like "that's not what I see with my eyes, so I refuse to believe it". Should we always "trust our eyes"? Well, my eyes tell me that clearly the world is flat and that the stars are in orbit around it. But science has shown such conclusions to be fallacies, not reality.

It's important also to remember that there are things that DxO doesn't test and does not claim to address. Colour bit depth is one thing; spectral response curves are entirely different, and they, I think more than anything else, determine our impression of colour quality.

I'd also love to see long exposure dark noise being tested and rated. If that were to happen, we would not be long in seeing the majority of the MFD sensors losing serious ground in the overall DxO ratings.

Now for the DR debate. I think that some of the controversy may be explained by the way that DxO presents DR as a single number at each ISO (a single number is of course how DR is defined). This encapsulates the range between min and max signals, but says nothing about the signal-to-noise in between, all the way along the range and up to the max. A camera with a low readout noise (modern Sony CMOS) will have the edge at the dark end, while a camera with a large pixel well depth (a characteristic of many Dalsa MF CCDs) will have the edge in the middle and at the bright end.

Another difference is that they will achieve these performances at different sensitivities. The MF CCD needs lots of light to fill that pixel well, so it will be say ISO 50 while the Sony CMOS will be around ISO 100-200 - it needs 1-2 stops less light or else it saturates. Personally, if DR was a tie, and neglecting for a moment all other factors but DR, I'd much rather have the camera which achieves it at a higher ISO.

I see very, very little discussion of signal-to-noise in these debates. Probably because it's harder to quantify (one must work with individual colour channels in the un-interpolated RAW file) and naturally most photographers can't be bothered. But it determines the "quality of the DR" (not quantity). It's like, one guy says he can fit 20 people into a Mini. I'm impressed, but he comes back with 20 5-year-olds. Hmmm. Another guy says he can also fit 20 people into the Mini (see, again 20 people...same DR!). He comes back with 20 prop-forwards. Now I'm seriously impressed!

Ray

PS love your B&W series...some are reminiscent of Ansel Adams' Oregon Dunes...you definitely succeeded in your "body as landscape" goal.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 25, 2012, 07:30:40 PM
@ Bernard,

Are you referring to the dumpling restaurant I posted in another thread??? Seems you do not know Shanghai. That morning was very strong and high contrast light indeed. While I do not recall precise the DR of scene, it was maximum within the latitude of the sensor.

I have never lived in Shanghai but have been there many times. Last time in March and I plan to be there again in October.

Frankly, these are pretty forgiving conditions. Come to Tokyo on a clear day and tell me about contrast.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 25, 2012, 11:14:14 PM
Fred,
In the case where you decided to post someone else's test and pictures (everyone please check the source pictures since they are different)  please do us all a favor and don't leave out the author's conclusion:

"Conclusion
There is difference, Hasselblad produced slightly more details and color was more balanced to a girl skin tone. On a first sight the difference in image details seems to be so minimal that it will be hard to notice it.  However, more I look at these images, more I see the difference in fine details: look at hair, areas under her eyes, etc. Twice as big 16 bit Hasselblad sensor delivers more texture and colors over 14 bit Nikon sensor. It is simply a matter of physics: 6 micron v.s 4.7 micron of a pixel size, and  much larger sensor area along with additional color information (16 bit v.s 14 bit) makes a difference."   

and after round two:

"My personal decision is to stay with Hasselblad and replace H1 P25+ with H3D39 or similar MF camera. Like I’ve mentioned before, I need digital back to be deatachable and mountable on any other rig such as technical camera. Plus, I hate to clean 35mm DSLR sensors, and every time I swipe dust off from my P25+ Phase One digital back i smile: it is so easy!:-)"




And Fred I still don't understand what on earth is making you go through all the work to try and sell these Nikons .... I don't get it.  Don't you have a book to work on?   ;)   I sure do, but I hate to see misinformation being spread.  Come on, 'fess up! Are you on the Nikon payroll or what? Did they give you a camera?
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: TMARK on September 25, 2012, 11:24:58 PM

"Conclusion
. . . However, more I look at these images, more I see the difference in fine details: look at hair, areas under her eyes, etc. Twice as big 16 bit Hasselblad sensor delivers more texture and colors over 14 bit Nikon sensor. It is simply a matter of physics: 6 micron v.s 4.7 micron of a pixel size, and  much larger sensor area along with additional color information (16 bit v.s 14 bit) makes a difference."


I agree with the conclusion in as much as he sees finer details and more natural skin.  I'm not sure he knows why there is an advantage.   As discussed, its not 14 versus 16 bit, it may or may not be due to sensor size.  No one seems to know the cause of the advantage.  Can anyone give a reasoned, not overly technical explanation? 
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: uaiomex on September 25, 2012, 11:43:44 PM
Both pictures are pure poetry!
Eduardo

Doug, My own photographic work is humble and for my own personal satisfaction. It is an essence to my life, a passion.

Allan Teger, interesting!! When in Shanghai earlier this year I found his work through a search on the web and I was keen to try out bodyscapes like landscape imagery myself. With difficult getting a good model for naked I compromised... It was fun, but I find your work far superior  ;D.

I include also a shot from another shoot. That one was arranged through Poco.cn who arranges amateur shoots in Shanghai and some other places in China. Most gents and girls show up with DSLRs. Perhaps I know more how to process files than most at such events, but my images humbly also tend to have characters that set them apart because I shoot MFDB. That shows even at tiny jpgs  ;D. That time a gent had a D800.  Here are my images from that shoot;
http://my.poco.cn/lastphoto_v2-htx-id-3083223-user_id-64555183-p-0.xhtml
http://my.poco.cn/lastphoto_v2-htx-id-3083200-user_id-64555183-p-0.xhtml
and his;
http://my.poco.cn/lastphoto_v2-htx-id-3075707-user_id-43172128-p-0.xhtml
and a 5DmkII;
http://my.poco.cn/lastphoto_v2.htx&id=3072421&user_id=58480991&p=0

Now tell from the images which has the better DR??  :P, or simply judge who interpreted the scene better in post if you rather will...
In the end who captured the best photographs? Nah, for that the camera does not matter as much. You can make good images with any camera, the choice is mere a choice of tool. Yet what I shoot brings me personally what I enjoy, towards and in the image. A Hy6 is also more discrete than a Nikon or Canon because most people do not realize what you are shooting with... until someone in those groups do and start asking price of it... sigh... And I aint rich, mere passion for photography and the image.

In China people do know the Rolleiflex brand... perhaps I should change my WLF to a Leaf one???  ;)

Best regards,
Anders

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 25, 2012, 11:47:58 PM
Different choice of color filters over the sensor.  If you want high ISO you need lots of overlap between the colors to bring down the noise but this reduces color fidelity.  DSLR's fit in to that but you don't notice this difference very much with big patches since there where the color is even over a larger number of sensor pixels the color is more accurately reproduced.  This is why DXO has high color sensitivity figures.  But actually a real object can vary a lot in color over a small distance.   Sensors with color filters selected for color fidelity instead of less chroma noise, can reproduce these color changes over smaller areas better.   Again DXO isn't going to show this, nor Imatest really.  I'll have to ask Norman Koren if there is a way to measure this with his Imatest software.  

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 25, 2012, 11:54:05 PM
Fred,
In the case where you decided to post someone else's test and pictures (everyone please check the source pictures since they are different)  please do us all a favor and don't leave out the author's conclusion:

"Conclusion
There is difference, Hasselblad produced slightly more details and color was more balanced to a girl skin tone. On a first sight the difference in image details seems to be so minimal that it will be hard to notice it.  However, more I look at these images, more I see the difference in fine details: look at hair, areas under her eyes, etc. Twice as big 16 bit Hasselblad sensor delivers more texture and colors over 14 bit Nikon sensor. It is simply a matter of physics: 6 micron v.s 4.7 micron of a pixel size, and  much larger sensor area along with additional color information (16 bit v.s 14 bit) makes a difference."  

and after round two:

"My personal decision is to stay with Hasselblad and replace H1 P25+ with H3D39 or similar MF camera. Like I’ve mentioned before, I need digital back to be deatachable and mountable on any other rig such as technical camera. Plus, I hate to clean 35mm DSLR sensors, and every time I swipe dust off from my P25+ Phase One digital back i smile: it is so easy!:-)"




And Fred I still don't understand what on earth is making you go through all the work to try and sell these Nikons .... I don't get it.  Don't you have a book to work on?   ;)   I sure do, but I hate to see misinformation being spread.  Come on, 'fess up! Are you on the Nikon payroll or what? Did they give you a camera?


I could not care less about selling Nikons. I am not affiliated with Nikon in anyway and I'm not interested in that.

I did not leave out the conclusion... for God's sake.... I linked to the article for everytone to read.

What I did add though is the lens issue. Just look at the difference between the Nikon 85mm and the 105 marcro. That explains the detail difference that we are seeing between the D800/105 and H4d/120mm
Angle of view of the 120 is 33 degrees. The angle of the 105mm is 23. That is a 36% difference. That puts the camera one third closer with the Hasselblad. That will change the specular part of the light coming off the face.
Does the Hassy look very slightly more dimensional... yeah... its three feet closer ;)

Other slight difference... the Nikon 105 macro lens has 14 elements while the Hasselblad 120 has 9. That is 10 more air to glass transitions to go through.

Quote
  (everyone please check the source pictures since they are different)

What do you mean by this?????? How can I have changed the pictures if all I did was link to them. IF you want to play Sherlock Holms just right click and look at the links  ::) ::) ::)

Anyone that wants to have a better look can download the original high res images from their website. All you have to do is sign up for their newsletter.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 25, 2012, 11:57:34 PM
Here's an image with subtle color change .... and a 100% crop (please make sure to view image at 100% in a separate window) showing how much color change there can be in a small space.     I don't have the D800 right now but if any of you with one wants to snap a few images of something similar....




Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 26, 2012, 12:13:15 AM
Screen grab from AFi-ii 12 vs D800E  to show color differences.  White bal on backdrop on both - obviously both in Capture one.   Minimal makeup in this test so you can see some real skin. These were shot in my studio months ago.  One light, a Mola Demi - same position and close to similar framing as possible.    You can see in the film strip below the framing - She is more zoomed in on the nikon shot but the AFi has enough pixels that she is still bigger at 100%.  

Note: I'm not positive I would use the white balances selected for either image but I wanted to standardize so I clicked on the same spot in the background. I'm sure this isn't perfect. No adjustments made to the images in terms of exposure, etc. 

Things to notice - highlights on shoulder - shadows on face.  Lips and skin color differences. 
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 26, 2012, 01:26:52 AM
Hmmm.

How come the background of the leaf file is dark at the top and light at the bottom.

Also it looks pretty clear to me that there are more problems with the highlights of the leaf image. Just look at the ear the highlights on the temple and cheekbone.

Also the shadows on the leaf image are filled in by spill off her raised forearms so the colors on her right side of her face are different in both images.

IF the lighting is the same it's quite clear that the D800 has more range. Despite a brighter background rendering the highlights on the model
are less harsh.

I'm viewing on a monitor calibrated Monday with the Spyder Pro
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 26, 2012, 02:26:43 AM
Skin tones from one of my 35mm cameras...

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8462/8025748286_58e3b53c93_b.jpg)

Skin tomes from one of my MFD cameras

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7063/6796978766_f778ea01eb_b.jpg)

Both are capable of excellent skin tones.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 26, 2012, 02:42:24 AM
@ Fred,

It really appears you not at all comprehend MFDB, yet you go through all this effort to argue DSLR is better. It is fine to prefer one or the other, but begs if you have sour grapes of an experience or something? Perhapse you can share of it?

The only problem I encountered with Medium format digital was with lack of design and implementation of ZD, but even that one under certain conditions brought me image quality that made my jaws drop, something I not see with DSLR. Come on, Leaf through a good dealer is stellar. I have not trief calling my gent at night yet but I have a feeling he would answer. Look at their project manager Yair who is all over net and providing email and other support to all users, and dealers like Capture Integration, Digital Transitions etc who are online here and even helping customers outside their market. Support and sales for DSLR are compkete junk in comparison.

My dealer in Hong Kong even gives help outside warranty, and helped narrow and test focus problem with Mamiya sytem I did not even purchade from them. Want to figure out why I upgraded??

And no I am not trying justify the $£ I spent, rather important for me in spending that much of my private hard earned cash was I knew Leaf would deliver quality for my passion photography, thanks to Gavin in HK and his team, and Yair. I have not regretted it, though I sure could use thst $ at very current. I am thrilled of what my system is capable to deliver.

Perhaps you would share your real story, because your writing in no way seem correspond to others experiences with medium format digital, nor to your stellar work with film. Or do you have some of similar to your film work stellar work with MFDB for us to see???

In all respect.

Best regards,
Anders
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 26, 2012, 02:54:07 AM
Skin tones from one of my 35mm cameras...

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8462/8025748286_58e3b53c93_b.jpg)

Those 35mm skin tones look complete crap compared to a Leaf!!!! What camera is that???

Attaching a 4.7 MP crop from my Leaf AFi-II 12 80MP back.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 26, 2012, 03:10:50 AM
Those 35mm skin tones look complete crap compared to a Leaf!!!! What camera is that???

Be careful, I think he switched the 2 images on purpose to confuse the discussion.  ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: eronald on September 26, 2012, 03:17:04 AM
Thread readers:

 Which 35mm and which MF are we comparing?
 I've seen both crappy and good cameras in both groups.
 
 A lot of the performance quality depends on the CFAs (Color filter array composing the Bayer Matrix)and it looks like every generation of 35mm cams has different CFAs.
 An then there are sensor IR and UV sensitivity issues, which interact with the lens being used ... I've seen cameras which can look through the skin, just about.

Edmund
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: torger on September 26, 2012, 03:34:14 AM
Those 35mm skin tones look complete crap compared to a Leaf!!!! What camera is that???

Oh, complete crap? Really?

I think it's interesting when I see "A is slightly different from B, which could be due to difference in actual skin tone (if different models) makeup, lighting, white balance, color management or camera or a combination of those factors" some see "A is absolutely great and B is complete crap". :)

I think the description in photigy.com review is what I see -- you get 10% better image quality for 5x the price. I don't know how MFD is going to survive on that in the long term. Either quality must up (which may not be enough when a "good enough for any use" level has been reached by high end DSLRs) or price down so it becomes easier to appreciate subtle advantages.

Or maybe CMOS and more DSLR-like behavior would save the day. The thing today is that "well, I need a DSLR system anyway for the flexibility" so the photographer gets that in addition to the MFD and then after the D800 quality level many end up using the DSLR all the time because it happens to provide great output. If MFD could do what DSLRs can do (high ISO, live view, high speed) maybe one would not need to have that DSLR system on the side and then it would be easier to motivate spending the funds.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: torger on September 26, 2012, 03:47:59 AM
Thread readers:

 Which 35mm and which MF are we comparing?
 I've seen both crappy and good cameras in both groups.
 
 A lot of the performance quality depends on the CFAs (Color filter array composing the Bayer Matrix)and it looks like every generation of 35mm cams has different CFAs.
 An then there are sensor IR and UV sensitivity issues, which interact with the lens being used ... I've seen cameras which can look through the skin, just about.

Edmund

If one wants the best color DSLRs can provide Sony A900 is a good camera, and I guess the new Sony SLT alpha 99 may be the new king in that area, but I haven't seen any reviews yet. While sharing the same sensor technology as Nikon, Sony seems to focus more on color fidelity than high ISO performance than Nikon does when it comes to the color filter array.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: lowep on September 26, 2012, 04:17:46 AM
well, I need a DSLR system anyway for the flexibility" so the photographer gets that in addition to the MFD

According to Wikipedia: Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the purchase of goods and services in ever-greater amounts. The term is often associated with criticisms of consumption starting with Thorstein Veblen. Veblen's subject of examination, the newly emergent middle class arising at the turn of the twentieth century, comes to full fruition by the end of the twentieth century through the process of globalization.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 26, 2012, 04:23:02 AM
According to Wikipedia: Consumerism is a social and economic dis-order that encourages the purchase of goods and services in ever-greater amounts.

@ Peter,

Correction per my humble mind in red above. They seem to say "throw away old camera, buy this new magic dslr, now have achieved more pixels"  ;D


Be careful, I think he switched the 2 images on purpose to confuse the discussion.  ;)

@ Bernard,

Thanks and well noted. Though I did not say I liked the other one either...  ;)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 26, 2012, 04:28:12 AM
@ Peter,

Correction per my humble mind in red above. They seem to say "throw away old camera, buy this new magic dslr, now have achieved more pixels"  ;D

This of course is not applicable at all to MFDBs... :)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 26, 2012, 04:43:09 AM
This of course is not applicable at all to MFDBs... :)

Cheers,
Bernard


Of course not! They make offer us upgrade. Hy6 also offer upgrade our bodies.  ;D

(cycles are also longer, due more $ invest waisted)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 26, 2012, 05:04:18 AM
Hi,

Skin tone is probably more about pleasantness than correctness.

A while ago, Alex Koskolov presented an interesting comparison between D800E and Hasselblad H4D40. He also included color checker shots. I have analyzed those color checker shots using Imatest.

According to Imatest the colors were significantly more correct on the D800E:

Hasselblad:

 DeltaE (mean) 9.8
 DeltaE (max) 22.4

Nikon:
 DeltaE (mean) 5.0
 DeltaE (max)   9.49

I noticed that in both cases the colors were oversaturated (Hasselblad 122.5% and Nikon 107%).

So I reduced saturation in raw conversion and gotten better results:

Hasselblad:

DeltaE (mean) 6.27
DeltaE (max) 17.1


Nikon:

DeltaE (mean) 4.16
DeltaE (max) 7.43

Reservations: This comparison was done using Lightroom. That is what I use.

Best regards
Erik



Thread readers:

 Which 35mm and which MF are we comparing?
 I've seen both crappy and good cameras in both groups.
 
 A lot of the performance quality depends on the CFAs (Color filter array composing the Bayer Matrix)and it looks like every generation of 35mm cams has different CFAs.
 An then there are sensor IR and UV sensitivity issues, which interact with the lens being used ... I've seen cameras which can look through the skin, just about.

Edmund
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: pedro39photo on September 26, 2012, 05:04:31 AM
Those 35mm skin tones look complete crap compared to a Leaf!!!! What camera is that???

Attaching a 4.7 MP crop from my Leaf AFi-II 12 80MP back.

Anders your Portrait Leaf pic have a very bad lighting, its a bad example to show " a good skin tone from a DMFB"...
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: pedro39photo on September 26, 2012, 05:15:52 AM
Here is a good example of my Hassy 39MP supreme color tones !!!...Look at the beautiful skin tones in the nose of the model !!! the details of light of the hair !!!
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 26, 2012, 05:47:15 AM
Here is a good example of my Hassy 39MP supreme color tones !!!...Look at the beautiful skin tones in the nose of the model !!! the details of light of the hair !!!


Talk about lighting, and the amateur shoots I have attended in Shanghai cost me a full 100 RMB each (~15 usd). I simply tried make the best out of the crappy situations...  ::)

 ;D
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Emilmedia on September 26, 2012, 05:50:28 AM
Honestly this whole skin tones discussion is more of a personal preference thing, as well as format. I think this discussion turned in to something else then people explaining why they still have or dont have their medium format camera in their bag. I dont mind, but i think people are kind of missing the point.

I'm really not that interested in charts, just your personal experiences :)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 26, 2012, 08:28:05 AM
I agree with the conclusion in as much as he sees finer details and more natural skin.  I'm not sure he knows why there is an advantage.   As discussed, its not 14 versus 16 bit, it may or may not be due to sensor size.  No one seems to know the cause of the advantage.  Can anyone give a reasoned, not overly technical explanation? 

The non technical explanation can be found in the priorities of design and the market for each camera. Like any company they each ask themselves "what can we do to sell more into the market we are targeting?" and then apply their resources accordingly.

For instance the skilled engineers at Nikon/Canon responsible for the sensor and related systems are given a list of priorities for the next camera it might look like this (referencing their previous camera):
 - Increased IQ at High ISO
 - Higher pixel count
 - Faster framerate
 - Lower cost to build
 - Increased IQ
 - New features (e.g. 60fps 1080p video)
 - Better/Smoother Live View

While the skilled engineers at Phase/Leaf/Hassy are given a list of priorities for their next system
 - Increase IQ at Low ISO
 - Higher pixel count
 - Better color nuance

Now of course just because it's not a priority doesn't mean it won't be improved. The D800 is an improvement in low-ISO performance even though I really doubt it was in their top few items of development priority (of course I do not sit on the board at Nikon so I'm only speculating).

But engineering is full of compromises so for instance you might have to trade [color] for [high-ISO performance] (technically referred to as CFA sensitivity range). Or you may have to trade [framerate] for [noise] (related to sensor read out speeds and ADC convertor selection).

One need only think of who the average buyer is for each camera (not necessarily a 1:1 match with this forum's members) to understand what their priorities will likely be. As one classic example Canon still does not have an easy (relative to other systems) way to lock the mirror up, yet they have a direct print button. This indicates to me they believe they have more users in the event instant portrait market and not-tech-savvy consumer customers than serious landscape shooters. On the opposite end Team Phase One has put a lot of design effort to insure compatibility with tech cameras - a platform which lacks autofocus, easy composition, or even an electronic shutter release. This doesn't mean canon cannot be used for landscape, just that the needs of a landscape photographer may not be high on the priority list when designing the system.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: TMARK on September 26, 2012, 09:43:35 AM
Different choice of color filters over the sensor.  If you want high ISO you need lots of overlap between the colors to bring down the noise but this reduces color fidelity.  DSLR's fit in to that but you don't notice this difference very much with big patches since there where the color is even over a larger number of sensor pixels the color is more accurately reproduced.  This is why DXO has high color sensitivity figures.  But actually a real object can vary a lot in color over a small distance.   Sensors with color filters selected for color fidelity instead of less chroma noise, can reproduce these color changes over smaller areas better.   Again DXO isn't going to show this, nor Imatest really.  I'll have to ask Norman Koren if there is a way to measure this with his Imatest software.  



Thanks Eric.  Makes sense, especially is you extrapolate down to the M8.  The M8 with certain Leica lenses, and low contrast lighting, and put through LR4, has some of the nicest skin tones I've ever seen.  On par or better than the Aptus 22/75.  The M9 was good, but not as good as the M8.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 26, 2012, 10:04:07 AM
No one comments on the fruit images?    The thing about skin is that a lot of times we want to see it smooth and uniform, so maybe dslr's help?   
Fred your images look flat to me.  Top image in particular.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: TMARK on September 26, 2012, 10:38:44 AM
Those 35mm skin tones look complete crap compared to a Leaf!!!! What camera is that???

Attaching a 4.7 MP crop from my Leaf AFi-II 12 80MP back.

I like Fred's better.  But Fred is a professional portrait shooter, so his post work is excellent.  I mean that, truly excellent.  This is more a comparison of post work, which is an art.  I think all of these comparisons are not great, because any modern camera, and many "ancient" cameras like the 1ds, 1ds2, 1ds3, D2x, 5D, 5D2, all the old Phase backs, the Sinar backs, are capable of great skin.  Its more in the lens and lighting and most importantly, post.  The CCD cameras (including the M8) can have excellent skin out of the box.  The CMOS cameras need a little more work in post, but are capable of excellent, publishable results good enough for any client (almost).  With this comment I'm out, its too exhausting.

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 26, 2012, 10:40:44 AM
No one comments on the fruit images?    The thing about skin is that a lot of times we want to see it smooth and uniform, so maybe dslr's help?    

I agree with at least half of that.

"good skin tone" is a combination of many technical factors. Rolloff, color accuracy/placement, color uniformity, and tonal transitions are all very important in the final look of skin.

These factors were played with in the chemistry of portrait-oriented films for decades and are played with no in a combination of sensor (CFA, IR filter, and inherent spectral response), profiles, demosaicing algorithms, and software tools/sliders.

The rolloff into highlights is very important as, regardless of lighting, many people find skintone more pleasing if the shoulder of reds in the skintone range are more gradual. This is a large component in the Leaf Portrait profiles, which I've found nigh impossible to recreate with any other camera using any profiling software (the color engineers at Leaf are clearly lightyears ahead of my novice level of color profiling and profile manipulation).

The color, and consistency of color is another factor. What the ideal skin color is for any given model/shot and how aggressively surrounding colors are moved toward that color are personal choices and a matter of personal/cultural/business aesthetics. It helps if the underlying system is capable of seeing the difference in a large variety of subtle colors so that if/when you want to smooth those colors out it can do so with better smoothness (color range feathering) and with less artifacts (e.g. cross over colors in shadows or bands of poor color in shadows). Both Phase One and Leaf provide a variety of very well made portrait profiles that provide for a certain amount of this color uniformity in skintones (reducing the difference between good skin and a blemish or path of overly-olive or overly-magenta skin) but importantly Capture One provides a tool in the Color Editor which (while not very intuitive) provides for a very nuanced control over this effect (usually you'd do this for a few images to your own tastes/needs and then save presets or ICC profiles which you would then use during/after shoots).

The tonal gradations also matter a LOT especially as the contrast of the light goes up. For instance a lower quality imaging chain may produce a "hard break" in skintone transitions from highlight to shadow. Software is part of that chain and in my (biased) opinion Capture One does by far the best job of making the best of those transitions for any given camera system. If the transitions are abrupt, fall on a visible line rather than along dithered and stochastic area, show color non-linearity (e.g. a shift from red to green in the shadows) then the overall effect of the skintone will be greatly harmed.

None of these factors can be effectively discussed in isolation, nor can software be discounted as each software package handles all of the above a little differently (in the case of Leaf Portrait Profiles in Capture One - a LOT differently). The skintone of an imaging system (lens+camera+lighting+software) is a complex thing and a good deal of it is subjective. But the inherent complexity is one reason to use a system that produces the results you find most pleasing with the least post-processing or tweaking - otherwise you'll be fighting to isolate and control the many underlying variables rather than simply enjoying good skintone.

And all the more reason you should test a camera system you plan on buying into in situations and manners which are relevant to your actual intended usage.

edit: I didn't even mention lens, but yes that absolutely matters too. The way detail is rendered (high frequency), transitions are rendered (low frequency), bokeh (out of focus areas), and color rendition are all influenced by the lens and any filters used in front of it.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: TMARK on September 26, 2012, 10:48:10 AM
I agree with at least half of that.

"good skin tone" is a combination of many technical factors. Rolloff, color accuracy/placement, color uniformity, and tonal transitions are all very important in the final look of skin.

These factors were played with in the chemistry of portrait-oriented films for decades and are played with no in a combination of sensor (CFA, IR filter, and inherent spectral response), profiles, demosaicing algorithms, and software tools/sliders.

The rolloff into highlights is very important as, regardless of lighting, many people find skintone more pleasing if the shoulder of reds in the skintone range are more gradual. This is a large component in the Leaf Portrait profiles, which I've found nigh impossible to recreate with any other camera using any profiling software (the color engineers at Leaf are clearly lightyears ahead of my novice level of color profiling and profile manipulation).

The color, and consistency of color is another factor. What the ideal skin color is for any given model/shot and how aggressively surrounding colors are moved toward that color are personal choices and a matter of personal/cultural/business aesthetics. It helps if the underlying system is capable of seeing the difference in a large variety of subtle colors so that if/when you want to smooth those colors out it can do so with better smoothness (color range feathering) and with less artifacts (e.g. cross over colors in shadows or bands of poor color in shadows). Both Phase One and Leaf provide a variety of very well made portrait profiles that provide for a certain amount of this color uniformity in skintones (reducing the difference between good skin and a blemish or path of overly-olive or overly-magenta skin) but importantly Capture One provides a tool in the Color Editor which (while not very intuitive) provides for a very nuanced control over this effect (usually you'd do this for a few images to your own tastes/needs and then save presets or ICC profiles which you would then use during/after shoots).

The tonal gradations also matter a LOT especially as the contrast of the light goes up. For instance a lower quality imaging chain may produce a "hard break" in skintone transitions from highlight to shadow. Software is part of that chain and in my (biased) opinion Capture One does by far the best job of making the best of those transitions for any given camera system. If the transitions are abrupt, fall on a visible line rather than along dithered and stochastic area, show color non-linearity (e.g. a shift from red to green in the shadows) then the overall effect of the skintone will be greatly harmed.

None of these factors can be effectively discussed in isolation, nor can software be discounted as each software package handles all of the above a little differently (in the case of Leaf Portrait Profiles in Capture One - a LOT differently). The skintone of an imaging system (lens+camera+lighting+software) is a complex thing and a good deal of it is subjective. But the inherent complexity is one reason to use a system that produces the results you find most pleasing with the least post-processing or tweaking - otherwise you'll be fighting to isolate and control the many underlying variables rather than simply enjoying good skintone.

And all the more reason you should test a camera system you plan on buying into in situations and manners which are relevant to your actual intended usage.

edit: I didn't even mention lens, but yes that absolutely matters too. The way detail is rendered (high frequency), transitions are rendered (low frequency), bokeh (out of focus areas), and color rendition are all influenced by the lens and any filters used in front of it.

Thanks Doug. 
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: MrSmith on September 26, 2012, 11:14:16 AM
Quote
Canon still does not have an easy (relative to other systems) way to lock the mirror up, yet they have a direct print button

The live view button. It's right there on the back of the camera. No idea where it is on phase but the H's have it in a stupid place next to the depth of field preview round the front.
One is easier to use the other is badly designed. Unless they moved it when they released the 'new and improved' H5
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 26, 2012, 11:39:10 AM
Fred,
Got any un-retouched images taken with the d800? I would really like to see what you are talking about.
Eric

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: lowep on September 26, 2012, 11:54:54 AM
I think this discussion turned in to something else then people explaining why they still have or dont have their medium format camera in their bag. I dont mind, but i think people are kind of missing the point.

hey emilmedia looks like your thread has gone viral  :o
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 26, 2012, 12:07:24 PM
The live view button. It's right there on the back of the camera.

A good work around, for many people probably it works perfectly for this purpose. But some shooters (specifically me personally) don't want the LCD lighting up in order to access MUP.

An example, when in a dark church for a wedding, if I'm line of sight of a guest I prefer not to use flash and I prefer not to have the LCD come on (either to select the MUP option or to use live view for this function). I feel the same way when I'm shooting a morning landscape image and trying to find my zen - the LCD popping on is kind of a mood killer. That of course is highly personal. Remember I prefer landscape shooting with a camera that has zero electronics and which you have to recock the shutter after each shot, so clearly my personal preferences are not going to be universal. I'm sure the requirement of the LCD coming on in order to access MUP is of no concern to the majority of users.

Best modern MF MUP implementation (based on my personal preferences) of the current cameras is the Hassy H (whether with Phase, Leaf, or Hassy back). It's a dedicated hard button with no other function/side-effect which is in reach of a usable finger when held in a normal comfortable position. Second best implementation I'd give to the DF (it's a drive mode like on nikon) since MUP+self-timer means you only have to push the shutter release (no special button required) once and the camera will put the mirror up and take the picture after the selected delay (which is nearly always why I am using MUP anyway).

I don't remember the Hy6 implementation.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 26, 2012, 12:20:06 PM

I don't remember the Hy6 implementation.

The Hy6 has a dedicated mirror up button on the grip, reachable by your thumb.  Quite convenient, and the best implementation I have ever seen.  One press and it stays up for as many frames as you like then one more press and it goes down.  Because the Hy6 mirror is so well damped, I don't use it much.  And that's another reason why although I have both DSLR and MFDB, I prefer to use my AFi-ii 12.

They also have an ultra quick release set-up in conjunction with the mirror up that allows for very quick reactions that's great for certain work.  I think its 2 milliseconds.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Hulyss on September 26, 2012, 03:12:20 PM
I think this discussion turned in to something else then people explaining why they still have or dont have their medium format camera in their bag. I dont mind, but i think people are kind of missing the point.

hey emilmedia looks like your thread has gone viral  :o

If it stay not too viral, it's ok ;)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: MrSmith on September 26, 2012, 04:39:23 PM


Best modern MF MUP implementation (based on my personal preferences) of the current cameras is the Hassy H (whether with Phase, Leaf, or Hassy back). It's a dedicated hard button with no other function/side-effect which is in reach of a usable finger when held in a normal comfortable position.

Dont think I have ever handheld a camera and used mirror up, that's time to reach for the tripod.
 you obviously have steadier hands than me.

But as you say everyone's different
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 26, 2012, 06:52:01 PM
Dont think I have ever handheld a camera and used mirror up, that's time to reach for the tripod.
 you obviously have steadier hands than me.

But as you say everyone's different

Walk up the isle during a wedding
Crouch with butt on ground and one knee up
balance camera on knee - gains several stops (not as much as tripod, but more than a monopod)
focus/compose
MUP
capture
Walk back down the isle

Obviously depends on the wedding if this is appropriate/viable (or even useful - there has to be an interesting angle and lighting for it).

The goal idea is NOT to be (overly) disruptive to the viewing experience of the guests so if the church is especially dim having your bright LCD pop on and show a real time video feed is definitely (IMO) counter to that goal. As would be a tripod. As would be flash.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: MrSmith on September 26, 2012, 07:00:39 PM
I tend to leave the cameras at home for weddings, I can't hold a glass in one hand, a bottle in the other and work a camera ;D
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 27, 2012, 12:11:13 AM
Those 35mm skin tones look complete crap compared to a Leaf!!!! What camera is that???

Attaching a 4.7 MP crop from my Leaf AFi-II 12 80MP back.

"look like complete crap"... how diplomatic of you... not to mention rather rude...

Rather than just bark back like that... how about explaining why you think the skin tones in your image form the Leaf 80MP is better.

Here is my opinion and I'll keep it more pleasant..

35mm
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8462/8025748286_58e3b53c93_b.jpg)

Leaf 80MP
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70759.0;attach=66837;image)

IMO there is more detail and gradations in the skin in the 35mm image I posted. I also find the skin looks more natural and has more depth

The leaf 80MP image you posted has areas with much detail and color tone loss especially parts of the fingers. There is an ashy look at the sides of the mouth.
The transition between the darker area under the eyes and the skin between the cheekbones and nose is harsh.

That said the IQ180 produces state of the art skin tones and I'm guessing the Leaf back is just as good.

There is a great example here:

http://www.phaseone.com/en/Downloads/Sample-Images/Sample-images.aspx (http://www.phaseone.com/en/Downloads/Sample-Images/Sample-images.aspx)

There is a very nice straight forward portrait of a young girl. It shows what the IQ180 can do.

If someone is looking for wonderful skin tones both high end MFD and high end 35mm digital.. namely the D800 and D600 (with the Canon 1d x right behind them but lower res) are just what you need.


 
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 27, 2012, 11:15:00 AM
Purpose with the small crop was not to display the skin tones, or I would (obvious) better have made the crop of a piece of skin instead... Rather it was to show that - per my impression - in such tiny crop the image after processing is humongos different to those from dslr.. It really stands out pleasingly (sorry my preference is cute asian look compared to freckles).

Sorry, not meant to be rude, but I am being honest and do think the skin tones in your post look like crap in comparison to what I get from MFDB. There is lack in gradation of tones. There is lack of details. Yet that could very naturally also be your processing. As is obvious per your readout of mine... I processed it that way because was pleased with the look of the picture.

Look at the eyes in mine, and it is mere a tiny crop...  ;)

Now... your film images are super good. Any similar level of photos from you using MFDB ???



Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 27, 2012, 11:17:56 AM
@ Fred,

It really appears you not at all comprehend MFDB, yet you go through all this effort to argue DSLR is better. It is fine to prefer one or the other, but begs if you have sour grapes of an experience or something? Perhapse you can share of it?

The only problem I encountered with Medium format digital was with lack of design and implementation of ZD, but even that one under certain conditions brought me image quality that made my jaws drop, something I not see with DSLR. Come on, Leaf through a good dealer is stellar. I have not trief calling my gent at night yet but I have a feeling he would answer. Look at their project manager Yair who is all over net and providing email and other support to all users, and dealers like Capture Integration, Digital Transitions etc who are online here and even helping customers outside their market. Support and sales for DSLR are compkete junk in comparison.

My dealer in Hong Kong even gives help outside warranty, and helped narrow and test focus problem with Mamiya sytem I did not even purchade from them. Want to figure out why I upgraded??

And no I am not trying justify the $£ I spent, rather important for me in spending that much of my private hard earned cash was I knew Leaf would deliver quality for my passion photography, thanks to Gavin in HK and his team, and Yair. I have not regretted it, though I sure could use thst $ at very current. I am thrilled of what my system is capable to deliver.

Perhaps you would share your real story, because your writing in no way seem correspond to others experiences with medium format digital, nor to your stellar work with film. Or do you have some of similar to your film work stellar work with MFDB for us to see???

In all respect.

Best regards,
Anders
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 27, 2012, 11:24:59 AM
The file I posted is a 100% magnification too.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 27, 2012, 11:32:42 AM
If someone is looking for wonderful skin tones both high end MFD and high end 35mm digital.. namely the D800 and D600 (with the Canon 1d x right behind them but lower res) are just what you need.

I thought we read that this gent you linked concluded different ???

http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/

He upgraded his Hassy instead of going with D800 E
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 27, 2012, 02:42:16 PM
Hi,

The actaul conclusion is:
"Conclusion
I was pleased to see the performance of Nikon D800E. Despite the huge difference in a price, D800E was able to deliver the quality comparable to 5+ times more expensive Hasselblad. Great shadow and highlight recovery was actually a big surprise for me, considering 14 Bit small sensor vs 16 bit in Hassy (more bit depth means more colors and wider dynamic range).

Also, we need to keep in mind that it was not a true sensor-to-sensor performance test, as the glass was playing a big part of the resolution and details quality of the shots. Nikon had cheap, and most likely it would deliver even better sharpness and details if I’d use Carl Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar (or similar older Zeiss) lens for Nikon. 
Also, I was using F16 and F11, which is quite  tough for the lens, especially for Nikon’s. Yes, it would give me a better resolution at F6 or F8, but I rarely use such wide open aperture in my studio work, and this is why I’ve used F16 in the test: to see the real-life performance, not the best possible.

Well done Nikon! Cameras like D800 will shake medium format market, and I hope it will drop their pricing even more.

And what about Hasselblad? It is still a choice of hi-end professionals who can spend 5x more time more money to get that last 10% of quality for their images. Ferrari is in business, as well as Subaru, and both are pretty fast and enjoyable cars to drive, isn’t it? 
My personal decision is to stay with Hasselblad and replace H1 P25+ with H3D39 or similar MF camera. Like I’ve mentioned before, I need digital back to be deatachable and mountable on any other rig such as technical camera. Plus, I hate to clean 35mm DSLR sensors, and every time I swipe dust off from my P25+ Phase One digital back i smile: it is so easy!:-)

Hi-res original TIFF and JPEG files (in case you decide to play with them  yourself) are available for download absolutely free, you just need to sign-up for our newsletter.  To sign-up, use the top form on the right sidebar, and link to our special downloads page will be sent to you."

I thought we read that this gent you linked concluded different ???

http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/

He upgraded his Hassy instead of going with D800 E
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Hulyss on September 27, 2012, 03:03:36 PM
Pardon my trolliness  ;D

SIGMA POWER !!

(http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=163082.0;attach=554391;image)

(http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=163082.0;attach=554392;image)

(http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=163082.0;attach=554393;image)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 27, 2012, 07:22:10 PM
Hulyss,
No intrusion at all. This thread has been all over the place anyhow! I do think the DP2M is a neat little camera with a great lens.  I may pick one up.

Here's a shot I had with fingers in it, that I took when I had the phase DF and aptus 12.   Lenses on my current camera AFi-ii 12 seem to be a bit sharper, but have a look.

Eric
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 28, 2012, 12:15:15 AM
Here's a shot I had with fingers in it, that I took when I had the phase DF and aptus 12.   Lenses on my current camera AFi-ii 12 seem to be a bit sharper, but have a look.

The Sigma seems sharper on a pixel basis.  ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 28, 2012, 01:31:44 AM
Pardon my trolliness  ;D

SIGMA POWER !!

(http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=163082.0;attach=554391;image)

(http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=163082.0;attach=554392;image)

(http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=163082.0;attach=554393;image)

Are those crops from the same shot?

Looks quite amazingly natural in the crops.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: yaya on September 28, 2012, 02:09:05 AM
Always fun going back to some old posts...

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256248-post36.html (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256248-post36.html)

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256429-post43.html (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256429-post43.html)

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256512-post45.html (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256512-post45.html)

(sorry for not posting comparison shots...couldn't find any...)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 28, 2012, 02:20:14 AM
The Sigma seems sharper on a pixel basis.  ;)

Cheers,
Bernard


That's a possibility, but probably only cause the mamiya DF body and mirror shake issues or the 80mm lens. Oh yeah and the diffraction at f/16 - not sure if you can see the EXIF, but clearly the Sigma was shot at a wider aperture.  The aptus 12 is sharpest at f/8.   Wait until I post something with AFi and Rollei schneider 90mm. I just wanted to post something with finger prints  ;)     Still I think the detail the Aptus 12 can capture is incredible!  
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: HarperPhotos on September 28, 2012, 02:39:42 AM
Hello,

That Sigma is pretty sharp for a $999.00 camera.

That's want I call a lot of bang for your buck.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 28, 2012, 02:46:37 AM

I think the Sigma is pretty amazing too for the price.
Dang!
Maybe we should change the title of the thread?
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Hulyss on September 28, 2012, 02:50:56 AM
Are those crops from the same shot?

Yes Fred, it is. I have far more impressive examples though. I can't wait the Full Frame 24x36 Foveon Sensor... what a terrible sensor it will be !! Usability is the Key. The DP is less "versatile" than a D800 but more usable than a MFDB, on field.

The key will be the futures DP. If they go FF they really need to do more than 3 lens focal. Fixed lens is mandatory but we lack something really designed for portrait, more luminous, like a 90 mm f 1.4/1.8 on a FF foveon. 
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: FredBGG on September 28, 2012, 02:55:26 AM
That's a possibility, but probably only cause the mamiya DF body and mirror shake issues or the 80mm lens. Oh yeah and the diffraction at f/16 - not sure if you can see the EXIF, but clearly the Sigma was shot at a wider aperture.  The aptus 12 is sharpest at f/8.   Wait until I post something with AFi and Rollei schneider 90mm. I just wanted to post something with finger prints  ;)     Still I think the detail the Aptus 12 can capture is incredible!  


It might just have something to do with each photosite being RBG and no bayer array.... ;)
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Hulyss on September 28, 2012, 02:58:54 AM
Always fun going back to some old posts...

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256248-post36.html (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256248-post36.html)

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256429-post43.html (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256429-post43.html)

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256512-post45.html (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256512-post45.html)

(sorry for not posting comparison shots...couldn't find any...)

yaya fear the foveon power and came saving Mamiya products and reputation  ;D
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 28, 2012, 03:19:13 AM
It might just have something to do with each photosite being RBG and no bayer array.... ;)

Yeah well the diffraction and that. Nothing is ever that easy!  But the dp2 file looks a lot like a multishot back file to me which makes sense since they are similar, but the foveon color doesn't seem to be as good.  Maybe Hulyss or someone with a camera can talk about that?

If foveon could put a bigger sensor together, they might really have something.

Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Hulyss on September 28, 2012, 03:24:32 AM
Yeah well the diffraction and that. Nothing is ever that easy!  But the dp2 file looks a lot like a multishot back file to me which makes sense since they are similar, but the foveon color doesn't seem to be as good.  Maybe Hulyss or someone with a camera can talk about that?

If foveon could put a bigger sensor together, they might really have something.


The colours are good ... when you find it in your RAW. The capture is very accurate in landscapes and all. But when shooting humans you need some PP to balance all the colours.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 28, 2012, 06:15:24 AM
I think the Sigma is pretty amazing too for the price.
Dang!
Maybe we should change the title of the thread?

The DP2M really seem capable of high image quality, though in a quirky package. I had the DP1 some years back but gave it up because I did not like the colors or camera. They really should put the sensor and lens from DP2M into a much better camera.

Leica X2 also seem really sweet and capable of high image quality. X2 may complement a MFDB better, on pair with DSLR in mini format and without multitude of buttons to confuse... Has to do with lens and correctness/pleasing colors???

Always fun going back to some old posts...

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256248-post36.html (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256248-post36.html)

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256429-post43.html (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256429-post43.html)

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256512-post45.html (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256512-post45.html)

(sorry for not posting comparison shots...couldn't find any...)

Yair, what took you so long???  ;D
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: TMARK on September 29, 2012, 12:27:06 PM
Always fun going back to some old posts...

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256248-post36.html (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256248-post36.html)

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256429-post43.html (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256429-post43.html)

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256512-post45.html (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256512-post45.html)

(sorry for not posting comparison shots...couldn't find any...)

These frames show very nice un-retouched skin, including the texture of the makeup.  Very viceral feel, chaulky almost, like TMax with a 70's era Leica M lens.  Detail is sharp but natural.  This is down to the lenses combined with the high resolving power of the back.  It has a smoothness to it that the DP2m lacks, but then again, the Leaf set up is a bit more costly than the Sigma.  The Leaf frames show what a talented photographer can do with a high quality tool, which is why the back makers should have more samples like this.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: bcooter on September 29, 2012, 05:32:40 PM

Yair, what took you so long???  ;D


This silly conversation goes on every time some company introduces something new.

The dealers/reps go nuts trying to prove their medium format backs are worth the money, the naysayers that just bought a Nikon or Canon or Sony go nuts trying to prove they perform as good.

It doesn't matter.

Personally, I don't and never will believe it's a one camera world.   I also don't believe that it matters what another photographer uses.   Guy Bourdin used old nikons and the lens rattled, but he shot like God's own and he'd never have this conversation.

I do think that Guy would probably choke is someone told him the film holder of a still camera costs $30,000, or in his case 150,000 francs.

Then again somebody that must have a trillion pixels of detail will swear they need it.

Any photographer that's looking for a deal with a camera maker will swear that brand is the best.  It's all personal or has personal reasons.

As far as skin tones, detail, look, I find as much in post processing as I do in actual sensor capture whether it's film or digital.

What isn't ever addressed is why some people use some cameras and most of the answer today is . . . because they like them.

I like most of the cameras I own and if I didn't work with a room full of clients I'd probably never think about tethering, Ipad transfer, high  iso, articulating lcd's or any of that other stuff that has very little to do with a beautiful photograph.

That's really the issue in most of these discussions . . . price and what do you can afford to use.

There is no one answer to any available product.

If there was we'd all be driving Toyotas and all living in the same cinder blocked houses, wearing the same grey jumpsuits.

People should buy what they want, buy what makes them happy and not worry about it because there is more to life than ultimate efficiency. 

There is also fun.

IMO

BC


Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: MichaelEzra on September 29, 2012, 06:53:47 PM
+1,000,000!!!!:)!
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: BartvanderWolf on September 29, 2012, 07:40:56 PM
Yes Fred, it is. I have far more impressive examples though. I can't wait the Full Frame 24x36 Foveon Sensor... what a terrible sensor it will be !! Usability is the Key. The DP is less "versatile" than a D800 but more usable than a MFDB, on field.

The key will be the futures DP. If they go FF they really need to do more than 3 lens focal. Fixed lens is mandatory but we lack something really designed for portrait, more luminous, like a 90 mm f 1.4/1.8 on a FF foveon. 

Hi,

Since the Foveon sensor depends on penetration depth to separate colors, that will become an issue on larger sensor arrays, because the more oblique corner rays behave quite different (longer travel distance through silicon and structures). In addition to that, it would produce a massive amount of data, 3x as much as a Bayer CFA camera with the same pixel count would, for only a better resolution in Red and Blue (which are of lesser importance for luminance resolution, chroma resolution is relatively low spatial frequency info, just check the a and b channels in Lab colorspace).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 30, 2012, 01:03:13 AM

This silly conversation goes on every time some company introduces something new.

The dealers/reps go nuts trying to prove their medium format backs are worth the money, the naysayers that just bought a Nikon or Canon or Sony go nuts trying to prove they perform as good.

It doesn't matter.

Personally, I don't and never will believe it's a one camera world.   I also don't believe that it matters what another photographer uses.   Guy Bourdin used old nikons and the lens rattled, but he shot like God's own and he'd never have this conversation.

I do think that Guy would probably choke is someone told him the film holder of a still camera costs $30,000, or in his case 150,000 francs.

Then again somebody that must have a trillion pixels of detail will swear they need it.

Any photographer that's looking for a deal with a camera maker will swear that brand is the best.  It's all personal or has personal reasons.

As far as skin tones, detail, look, I find as much in post processing as I do in actual sensor capture whether it's film or digital.

What isn't ever addressed is why some people use some cameras and most of the answer today is . . . because they like them.

I like most of the cameras I own and if I didn't work with a room full of clients I'd probably never think about tethering, Ipad transfer, high  iso, articulating lcd's or any of that other stuff that has very little to do with a beautiful photograph.

That's really the issue in most of these discussions . . . price and what do you can afford to use.

There is no one answer to any available product.

If there was we'd all be driving Toyotas and all living in the same cinder blocked houses, wearing the same grey jumpsuits.

People should buy what they want, buy what makes them happy and not worry about it because there is more to life than ultimate efficiency.  

There is also fun.

IMO

BC




Really good post. Exact and 500%.

Though correct is that this conversation go on each time a new DSLR is on market. Somehow it seems many are sold on that an image is not more than number of pixels.

The regrettable with digital is that we need to say good bye to a larger money for a product in order to achieve our goal in photography. For a pro who shoots high number of frames that may not be an issue. For advanced amatures it is an issue. Going digital certainly has been very significant more costly than if I would have stayed film.

Best regards,
Anders
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 30, 2012, 01:55:02 AM
Hi Anders,

Just thinking about film. I invested about 80000 SEK in two generation of CCD scanners and also a 6x7 slide projector from Götschman. To that came the Pentax 67 with five or six lenses, but I bought those at low US-prices.

Now, as yourself has pointed out, you really need to drum scan to get the best results. I have for my tests scanned two frames at Highend Scans in Germany. I paid little, as this was a test and the owner was interested in the results, but the commercial price would be about 168€ per frame, see their price list: http://www.high-end-scans.de/pdf/high-end-scans_prices.pdf

I recently made a travel to Yellowstone and Grand Teton NP, and came home with about 2400 frames, but most of that is nothing I would hang on the wall. Let's say that a photographer like you would produce just for four first class exposures each day, making 28 pictures worth scanning. The cost would thus be 4700€.

I presume that you have found a much more affordable scanning solution or even possibly bought an own drum scanner? Or you worked with an Imacon (or Hasselblad) CCD scanner?

I found that the drum scans from Highend Scans did have an edge over my CCD scanner. Now, if the difference was worth the price is something that can be discussed. Absolutely for one picture of a lifetime but probably not for 28 pictures shot under one week, in my humble opinion.

Best regards
Erik

Ps. Just noted that James Russell (bcooter) wrote that he will shoot film again, and that handling the digital images has a horrendous price tag. Interesting... Of course, the way I see it, the final image is still a scanned digital image, so processing and storage still apply.


...
The regrettable with digital is that we need to say good bye to a larger money for a product in order to achieve our goal in photography. For a pro who shoots high number of frames that may not be an issue. For advanced amatures it is an issue. Going digital certainly has been very significant more costly than if I would have stayed film.

Best regards,
Anders
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: bcooter on September 30, 2012, 04:44:25 AM
.......snip........ For a pro who shoots high number of frames that may not be an issue. For advanced amatures it is an issue. Going digital certainly has been very significant more costly than if I would have stayed film.

Best regards,
Anders


For the working advertising and editorial photographer, there is no savings in film vs. digital.

I've told this story before but the only thing an assistant ever said to me that really made sense was early on with digital capture as he stood in front of his desk with two pucks around his neck, trying to calibrate two different monitors to match, he held up a roll of film and said "someday we're going to look at a single frame and say "I remember when it only cost 2 bucks to shoot this frame and process it.  

When we started digital capture, learning how to profile, dam systems, work the various tethering and processing software, plus the added element of photoshop for look, retouching and effects was monumental, though every year the requirements go up, not down.

Beyond the cost of drives and all the mentioned above, (not including cameras) you have the time suck of being the asset manager, contact sheet / web gallery master, retoucher or retouch supervisor, colorist, and pre press house.

Maybe for the guys/girls that shoot retail and toss over the raws there is a savings, but for us, it grows every day and for every shoot day we have at least 3 work days of post.  (at minimum).  Add in motion capture and multiply that by 5.

This year alone we have about 40 terabytes shot and stored (double that with backups) and it's not just the photographers or production companies with more workload, this weekend I've had conversations and e-mails back and forth with three different clients.

Prior to the great recession, I rarely spoke to a client on a weekend and now they're pulling the same hours as us, so it's not just digital, it's the world.

Now recently we pulled our film cameras out of storage and it may be a novelty, it may be for some projects we will shoot film, which is still cost effective given the cameras last forever and labs like the Icon will batch scan for nominal fees for galleries and high rez drum scans are not that expensive given that film already has 1/2 the look baked in.  With digital it's a roll your own world.

I know we won't shoot film on a multi city/country tour because I can't imagine trying to transport a large trunk of film through security anymore.  It's just too much to worry about.  I also don't worry about the cameras the way I use to.  We carry so many, especially with the RED's and lens cases that they have to be checked.  I'm not doing the trick of putting digital backs in briefcases, and splitting up equipment for every crew member before we board a plane.  

Anyway, things are what they are and at least for me digital has hit a plateau where every new generation really doesn't change anything that much.  I might buy a still camera this year (I doubt it), but even if I changed everything I own for the newest available, it wouldn't change the look of what I shot 10% . . . if that.

IMO

BC
P.S.  Tax savings are negligible.   Unless you lease from an approved financial institution which has much higher rates, you have to amortize the purchase over a number of years.

For a lot of us, living on a coastal City, adding in state income tax, 10% sales tax, it takes a huge purchase to see it on your tax statement.
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Rob C on September 30, 2012, 10:10:18 AM
Cooter, underneath all the youth and contemporary style, you are still a romantic at heart. Thank goodness! I wish you well.


Rob C
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 30, 2012, 02:35:04 PM
168€ per frame

came home with about 2400 frames

168€ per frame - sounds insane! Per memory, in Hong Kong / Shanghai is ALOT cheaper, I mean ALOT... but... I am all digital now. Pricing and availability are some issue that makes film use difficult in many places, regrettably. Also finding a quality lab and that Fuji announced to drop Velvia 50 in 4x5 completely.

2400 frames. The advantage of MFDB is that it encourages a slower and more deliberate shooting.  ;) - Seriously, that is one thing I do very much like with MFDB, also because I have less to review and process after a shoot!

 
This year alone we have about 40 terabytes shot and stored (double that with backups)

Oh my...  :o
Title: Re: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 01, 2012, 12:57:09 PM
Hi Anders,

Yes 168€ according to price list (at 6096 PPI).

The 2400 frames include a lot of video. Mostly I shot from tripod taking just one or two exposure of each composition, but in Yellowstone there is a lot of animal life where you take many shots. A few times I even engaged motor drive.

Another factor was that I shot moving water with variable ND, rotational panoramas and that I was shooting from early morning until late evening, all day.

Best regards
Erik

168€ per frame - sounds insane! Per memory, in Hong Kong / Shanghai is ALOT cheaper, I mean ALOT... but... I am all digital now. Pricing and availability are some issue that makes film use difficult in many places, regrettably. Also finding a quality lab and that Fuji announced to drop Velvia 50 in 4x5 completely.

2400 frames. The advantage of MFDB is that it encourages a slower and more deliberate shooting.  ;) - Seriously, that is one thing I do very much like with MFDB, also because I have less to review and process after a shoot!

 
Oh my...  :o