Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: hasselbladfan on September 28, 2012, 12:16:53 pm

Title: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: hasselbladfan on September 28, 2012, 12:16:53 pm
Another extract from the interview with Stephan Schulz (Leica) :

Do you feel any pressure from cameras like Nikon's D800, which offer comparable pixel counts to the S?

Many people ask me this question, but people who really like to work with medium format don't ask me that.

Because they know medium format is about more than just resolution. There are still a lot of photographers who work with 22 and 31MP digital backs, and they are fine with the resolution, and they would never change to a 35mm [format] because the image characteristics are completely different.

People who ask about cameras like the D800 have never experienced medium format. They just look at the pixels, but the world is not only pixels. You can get small DSC cameras with 14, 16, 20MP but no-one asks 'should I buy that 500 Euro compact camera or a Canon EOS-1D X?'

This question comes only from people who have no experience of medium format at all.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: hasselbladfan on September 28, 2012, 12:23:16 pm
I personally love Leica products (the M and the old R) and I love MF (Hasselblad user since 1988), but I don't like this Leica arrogance.

Underestimating or downgrading competition is a big mistake (in all industries) !!

I remember the old days when Leica claimed that "serious R photographers" don't need AF :).

Yes, they don't need it, but in the meantime they all use it.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: MichaelEzra on September 28, 2012, 12:32:42 pm
Why are we all trapped in this endless debate....

There are apples, and there are oranges - and we are free to buy and use whatever is needed....
Who cares! One is a fruit, another is a citrus, they both are tasty... If allergic - avoid, if not - enjoy.

In photography the content matters at least 95%, the rest is technicalities...
We should be mature enough to realize it and not be manipulated by marketing strategies...

P.S. not targeting this post, but rather the subject matter
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: hasselbladfan on September 28, 2012, 12:55:30 pm
Full article :

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6220714089/photokina-2012-interview-stephan-schulz-of-leica-
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ndevlin on September 28, 2012, 01:02:02 pm
Perhaps more accurate to say that people interested in the prestige of a Leica aren't interested in a D800E. In truth, they are very competitive cameras. The sports shots Leica displayed at Photokina as proud example of the "S" system's capabilities could have been produced to the same standard of quality with an 800E.

MF's margins (over 35mm) lie in particular kinds of work, and are small.  It is inaccurate to suggest otherwise. 

But he is certainly right that a constituency will always exist who want MF, period, and that that's who he is selling to.

- N.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on September 28, 2012, 01:22:25 pm
Why are we all trapped in this endless debate....

There are apples, and there are oranges - and we are free to buy and use whatever is needed....
Who cares! One is a fruit, another is a citrus, they both are tasty... If allergic - avoid, if not - enjoy.

In photography the content matters at least 95%, the rest is technicalities...
We should be mature enough to realize it and not be manipulated by marketing strategies...

P.S. not targeting this post, but rather the subject matter

Yeah, but buying gear is WAY easier than actually shooting something worth while.  If you do a google image search for Leica M9 or S2, you have more pictures of the actual cameras than photos taken with them. 
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Hulyss on September 28, 2012, 01:46:18 pm
My first experience of Medium format was a fuji 6x4.5 and, compared to film, Digital backs are just epic jokes. I sold my S2 because of that. After realising it was just a plastic tool, with a tiny sensor and that a real MF, a good MF film, do far better in global rendering at an artistic level.

The S2 is just a toy for rich in our actual world. The real soul is in film. Leica are just arrogant marketers, nothing more, aiming ppl who drive Hybrid cars and smoke up their a**.

Those are my first MF shoots ever.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Chairman Bill on September 28, 2012, 01:56:47 pm
I used to shoot MF film. When one of my sons managed to get hold of the camera & render it scrap, I had to decide whether I could afford to replace it - I couldn't.

So I've experienced MF, and am interested in the D800. I can't afford MF digital, no longer have access to a darkroom, and besides which, prints from my D700 are more than good enough for me. Plus of course, why I always also shot 35mm film, carrying a MF camera in my bergen over mountains & moorland, was never as nice as my Rollei 35, or indeed a Nikon FM & a couple of lenses. It's also why MF has less attraction than a D800. If I could simply park up, set up my kit, take a photo & then drive on, MF would be fine. A 30 mile yomp across Dartmoor or over Ben MacDui, with a Hassy & two or three lenses, is just more than my aging bones could bear. But with a DSLR, no worries.

So some of us have experienced MF, so Shultz is talking b*****ks
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on September 28, 2012, 02:06:16 pm
My first experience of Medium format was a fuji 6x4.5 and, compared to film, Digital backs are just epic jokes. I sold my S2 because of that. After realising it was just a plastic tool, with a tiny sensor and that a real MF, a good MF film, do far better in global rendering at an artistic level.

The S2 is just a toy for rich in our actual world. The real soul is in film. Leica are just arrogant marketers, nothing more, aiming ppl who drive Hybrid cars and smoke up their a**.

Those are my first MF shoots ever.

I don't think Leica are JUST arrogant marketers.  They do make fine if somewhat over priced cameras and really great lenses.  I've only handled an S2 a few times, so I can only say it felt and looked nice, and the files I shot had that nice CCD look. 

And film, what is there to say?  In so many ways it is king, except for convenience, and the lack of affodable scanners. 

Your DP2m files are pretty nice.  real nice.  Not Portra 160 on a 501cm nice, but really organic if sometimes TOO sharp.  I can't wait to get mine.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: hubell on September 28, 2012, 02:51:48 pm
Why are we all trapped in this endless debate....

There are apples, and there are oranges - and we are free to buy and use whatever is needed....
Who cares! One is a fruit, another is a citrus, they both are tasty... If allergic - avoid, if not - enjoy.

In photography the content matters at least 95%, the rest is technicalities...
We should be mature enough to realize it and not be manipulated by marketing strategies...

P.S. not targeting this post, but rather the subject matter

Sadly, the answer is very clear. Arguing about camera systems is a highly sublimated form of tribal warfare. It's also way easier than making a compelling photograph.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on September 28, 2012, 03:36:29 pm
This type of arrogance is similar to the same arrogance from the other main MF manufacturers... (with the exception of Pentax)
It is part of the snobbery that is part of selling the ultra high end that costs ten times more the the
other high end options and have almost indistinguishable quality differences.

So Leica has 20% of the MF market... a there are no numbers, just other fuzzy claims such as "best year ever".

While reps of MF companies are on these forums all the time, none offer up sales numbers.

Going back to Leica .... it's rather funny how they are so aloof about MF yet the only offering they have is a "crop sensor".
A little detail they forgot to mention on their website:

http://www.s.leica-camera.com/en/System/THE-NEW-LEICA-S#feature_9 (http://www.s.leica-camera.com/en/System/THE-NEW-LEICA-S#feature_9)

30x45mm sensor. Smallert sensor in MF.

That is only 3mm on top and bottom and 4.5mm more on each side.

That said Leica has advantages in having a luxury Super DSLR (More appropriate definition than MF).
Even if sales are low and it does not become a dominant too for pros it will still add prestige to the brand..
a prestige that is already high.

Both Hasselblad and Phase One have nothing else to sell to a broader market so they are fully dependent on
their MF sales. (well maybe Capture One for Phase). We all know that MF sales are in decline. They have been for a long time. They may have leveled
out, but that is not promising in this day and age. Tough future for MF only manufacturers.

No significant new MF sensor performance in a long time is a bad sign. Just very very expensive MP count increase more than a year ago from only one vendor.
60 went to 80MP.

Nikon in one category went from 12 to 36MP with a large increase in dynamic range and for only a small price increase.

I also think that a very significant announcement was that of Zeiss announcing it's new series of for Nikon mount.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.



Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Marlyn on September 28, 2012, 03:41:07 pm
To me, MF Digital is all about the camera, shooting experience and tools, which also product the highest quality result.

For the viewer of the print, the results are all that matters.
For the photographer, the process and tools can be equally as important.  


It is as simple as this. (for me)

Can I shoot with a Technical camera on a Canon or a Nikon.  Answer. No (or not without a great deal of hassle. There are some solutions).
Can I do it on MF Digital,  Yes, and in an easy and failry compact manner with stunning glass.  (Cambo, Arca etc).

I like, and use,  +/- 20mm of shifts,  precision tilting,  etc etc.   I was(and am) a long term user of Canon TS-E lenses, for what I want, the Technical camera is far better for it.

When I want to shoot landscapes, off the tripod etc I pullout the Cambo WRS-AE.
When I want to eagles, wildelife etc.  I use an SLR.

For example,  do I want to sit in front of a computer and focus blend 10 images, or do I just want to do a single shot with tilts.  Assuming that is even possible with water or other movments.

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: JV on September 28, 2012, 03:59:56 pm
Both Hasselblad and Phase One have nothing else to sell to a broader market so they are fully dependent on
their MF sales. (well maybe Capture One for Phase). We all know that MF sales are in decline. They have been for a long time. They may have leveled
out, but that is not promising in this day and age. Tough future for MF only manufacturers.

Fred,

You either go to church every day and celebrate with others in a positive and constructive way.

Or you stay away altogether.

But you don't go to church every day to monotonously repeat multiple times per day that church attendance is in decline.

Just my 2 cents.  You obviously have an agenda.  Please put it on the table.

Thanks, Joris.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: MichaelEzra on September 28, 2012, 04:16:34 pm
Why won't we declare 35mm full frame as a medium format!:)
After all, what is the definition of "medium" in the digital era?! - not too small and smaller than large?
Is MFD a large digital format then ::)! is there really anything much larger?

P.S. just having fun...
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: yaya on September 28, 2012, 04:30:42 pm
...church attendance is in decline.

Is it???
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Chairman Bill on September 28, 2012, 04:54:53 pm
Is it???

It is in rational communities  ;)

Here in Europe, religion is in desperate decline. Parts of the UK have church attendance at 1 - 2%. Those areas with large elderly populations might hit the high teens, but there it's also declining. Much of Europe is just the same.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: EricWHiss on September 28, 2012, 05:34:22 pm
Fred,
Would you mind sourcing your information on MF sales that you seem so sure of?   Don't forget to include the Pentax and Leica offerings in your figures for total MFDB sales.   I'd be surprised if all forms of digital camera sales, compact, DSLR, MFDB were not increasing.   The only thing that seems to be in decline, and I'm sad about it personally because I still use it, is film. 

Eric
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ondebanks on September 28, 2012, 09:11:06 pm
It is in rational communities  ;)

Amen to that! (He said, ironically...)

Yeah, massive slide in religious observation here in what used be called "Holy Catholic Ireland" too, accelerating over the past 25 years.

The Pope visited for the first time ever in 1979 and the place went crazy with devotion. As soon as he got back on the plane to Rome, it all went downhill from there for the Church...and the country's become a much better place as a result.

Ray
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Anders_HK on September 28, 2012, 11:07:34 pm
To me, MF Digital is all about the camera, shooting experience and tools, which also product the highest quality result.

For the viewer of the print, the results are all that matters.
For the photographer, the process and tools can be equally as important.  

+1

Absolute correct. Thus some viewers may prefer a print from a D800 or D50, but MFD lends the photographer an advanced specialized tool for a more qulitative image. Regardless, with the "right" tool it lends to seeing better and to capture better images.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: EricWHiss on September 29, 2012, 12:02:18 am
It is in rational communities  ;)

Here in Europe, religion is in desperate decline. Parts of the UK have church attendance at 1 - 2%. Those areas with large elderly populations might hit the high teens, but there it's also declining. Much of Europe is just the same.

It took me a long time to realize that "separation of church and state" in America really meant the opposite of what I had grown up thinking. 
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on September 29, 2012, 12:50:51 am
Fred,

You either go to church every day and celebrate with others in a positive and constructive way.

Or you stay away altogether.

But you don't go to church every day to monotonously repeat multiple times per day that church attendance is in decline.

Just my 2 cents.  You obviously have an agenda.  Please put it on the table.

Thanks, Joris.



Very simple Joris.

I do have a bit of an agenda... it is about countering MFD hype and marketing exaggerations.
Particularly this type...

Quote
A Hasselblad camera is not a reward for having achieved a successful career. A Hasselblad camera is the tool with which you build your successful career to begin with.
There is never any time like the present to start building for the future. And if you think 35mm is good enough for this stage of your career, then you’d better hope that your clients are also willing to settle for “good enough”. The best clients, however, are almost never willing to settle for “good enough”. And why should they, when there are photographers out there who can provide the best? And providing the best is what Hasselblad and the new H5D are all about.

and the type the OP pointed out.


Also to a lesser extent counter the over enthusiastic praise from some enthusiasts.
Now don't get me wrong on the enthusiasts... I enjoy enthusiasts and am grateful as a professional
for the positive effect of enthusiasts on the price and development of gear. Bigger market to the advantage of
pros and others.

The problem is that I see too many young photographers fall for the marketing BS
and end up spending their money in the wrong place.

Just sharing my knowledge and opinions with who I feel more of an allegiance with...
and that is with my up and coming colleagues...

Simple as that.....

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on September 29, 2012, 12:54:24 am
Fred,

You either go to church every day and celebrate with others in a positive and constructive way.

Or you stay away altogether.



That is exactly the problem..... too much praise, worship and faith based misinformation going on.

This is a forum for discussion.... not a church!  ;)
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Wim van Velzen on September 29, 2012, 02:25:53 am
Enough worshippers and exorcists here to believe otherwise  ;D
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on September 29, 2012, 03:08:05 am
Enough worshippers and exorcists here to believe otherwise  ;D

That's funny..... almost fell off my chair!
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Anders_HK on September 29, 2012, 05:40:56 am
Very simple Joris.

I do have a bit of an agenda... it is about countering MFD hype and marketing exaggerations.
Particularly this type...

and the type the OP pointed out.


Also to a lesser extent counter the over enthusiastic praise from some enthusiasts.
Now don't get me wrong on the enthusiasts... I enjoy enthusiasts and am grateful as a professional
for the positive effect of enthusiasts on the price and development of gear. Bigger market to the advantage of
pros and others.

The problem is that I see too many young photographers fall for the marketing BS
and end up spending their money in the wrong place.

Just sharing my knowledge and opinions with who I feel more of an allegiance with...
and that is with my up and coming colleagues...

Simple as that.....



@ Fred,

Actually, on the very contrary it appears you are giving these young photographers complete lies and marketing BS that DSLR can achieve in same quality. That is not so (though some select shooting DSLR seem to be dreaming so). Thus, in fact you seem to be the one misleading those young photographers, and not at all MFDB industry... who arguably do not do as much marketing advertising as Nikon, Canon and the likes.

MFDB is a specialized tool all about optimum image quality (not a versatile do all tool such as DSLR). If someone want a tool for highest image quality then MFDB is simply a sound choice in digital still photography, unless scanning back. On the other hand when someone goes around constant arguing of DSLR is same level image quality, skin tones or whatever (based on whatever claimed experiences), frankly either you are complete blind, or you have something more hidden on your agenda, perhaps some sour grief that you hold on to. Those do not give a very sound impression on a reader... or credibility when reading between the lines, simply because you do not present the basis for your argument, due an apparent hidden agenda.

It begs to wonder if you had some sour happening with a MFDB product that was not properly settled or helped out. It would be interesting to read your real story of it. I did have one myself, with the Mamiya ZD which had insufficient design and implementation, at least around 2007. I think they never quite fixed it, regrettable since it has same sensor as the stellar Aptus 22. But that did not result in me making a U-turn to DSLR, because even with ZD I could see there was a big step up in image quality over DSLR at the time. At least I informed what was the problem with ZD but did not go around and spread BS that DSLR could achieve same. I do believe I helped some not to step into the problem I encountered and pointed out in a post here on LuLa at time of what was the problem. I continued MFDB and I am now on my second Leaf. If you had any problem then why not spit it out and post it. I would be very interested to read of it.

In my view, comparing to your stellar work of 6x8 film images, your words in these forums of MFDB seem to come across to steep downgrade your stellar film works, at least in my eyes. It begs to wonder who is this guy??? You have not even posted a MFDB image that is comparable quality to your film images, which of course begs to wonder if at all you used a MFDB to its fullest, and if that film work posted is really yours?

Professional vs enthusiast? The only difference is that one makes $ off photography and the other do not, yet has nothing to say of the capability or knowledge of photography.

Above just my take... which may be wrong, or may be right. I would be happy to see you post what is the real issue for your "agenda". I am certain others here would have interest to read it, and also try to help out if you did encounter a problem.

Best regards,
Anders
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 29, 2012, 06:27:17 am
Hi Anders,

I don't disagree with either your view or Fred's. What I would point out are a few things.

The D800E has no OLP filter. This is a characteristic it shares with MF. There can be argument about if that is bad or good. Knowledgeable persons like Tim Parkin finds that the D800 with correct sharpening is preferable to D800E as the D800E introduces artifacts in the image. Michael Reichmann finds that the D800E is preferable.

Marc McCalmont who frequently posts on these forums has both Phase IQ180 and D800E. He uses the D800E with Leica lenses. My understanding is that he no longer uses his Phase One camera but uses either the IQ180 on his Alpa technical camera or the D800E. From his testing (and he was kind to share raw files) he found that the IQ180 had a resolution advantage. Marc is satisfied with DR on his IQ180 while the P45+ he had before was clearly lacking compared to his Pentax K5 (which is an APS-C camera). So Marc's approach is IQ180 for techical camera and the D800E for else.

Dave Segal, who often writes on Luminous Landscape, was enthusiastic about his Pentax 645D but switched to Nikon D800E when it arrived.

There are obvious and less obvious advantages with MFD systems. The larger format sensor collects more photons, thereby reducing shot noise. The lack of OLP filtering requires less aggressive sharpening, that is also a factor reduces shot noise. The area where some DSLRs have an advantage is a better handling of readout noise using massive parallell on chip DA conversion. That technology is mainly coming from Sony. Canon does not have it, nor the Nikon D700 or D4. The readout noise advantage shows an advantage in DR, but that only affects the darks.

MFDBs are frequently have advantage of 16-bit data path, but the data sent to the 16 bit datapath contains something like four bits of noise. So this may be true, but it is essentially marketing BS.

MFDBs may have better CGA (Color Grid Array than some DSLRs), but that has nothing to do with CCD vs. CMOS (as is often stated) but is a design choice of the sensor maker.

MFDBs are often used with proprietary raw developers, that may also give MFDBs a real or perceived advantage.

So my take is that are some real advantages of MFDBs, but there are also perceptions about MFDBs which are not well supported by physics.

Finally I enclose two figures from DxO-mark comparing DR and Tonal Range for the Nikon D800E and Phase One IQ180

The Nikon has a significant advantage in DR and achieves high DR at much higher ISO. In tonal range the size advantage of the IQ180 shows.

The difference between the two is that DR is much about readout noise where the Nikon shines while Tonal Range is more about photon statistics where the larger sensor of the IQ 180 collects more photons, resulting in smoother higlights and midtones.


Best regards
Erik



@ Fred,

Actually, on the very contrary it appears you are giving these young photographers complete lies and marketing BS that DSLR can achieve in same quality. That is not so (though some select shooting DSLR seem to be dreaming so). Thus, in fact you seem to be the one misleading those young photographers, and not at all MFDB industry... who arguably do not do as much marketing advertising as Nikon, Canon and the likes.

MFDB is a specialized tool all about optimum image quality (not a versatile do all tool such as DSLR). If someone want a tool for highest image quality then MFDB is simply a sound choice in digital still photography, unless scanning back. On the other hand when someone goes around constant arguing of DSLR is same level image quality, skin tones or whatever (based on whatever claimed experiences), frankly either you are complete blind, or you have something more hidden on your agenda, perhaps some sour grief that you hold on to. Those do not give a very sound impression on a reader... or credibility when reading between the lines, simply because you do not present the basis for your argument, due an apparent hidden agenda.

It begs to wonder if you had some sour happening with a MFDB product that was not properly settled or helped out. It would be interesting to read your real story of it. I did have one myself, with the Mamiya ZD which had insufficient design and implementation, at least around 2007. I think they never quite fixed it, regrettable since it has same sensor as the stellar Aptus 22. But that did not result in me making a U-turn to DSLR, because even with ZD I could see there was a big step up in image quality over DSLR at the time. At least I informed what was the problem with ZD but did not go around and spread BS that DSLR could achieve same. I do believe I helped some not to step into the problem I encountered and pointed out in a post here on LuLa at time of what was the problem. I continued MFDB and I am now on my second Leaf. If you had any problem then why not spit it out and post it. I would be very interested to read of it.

In my view, comparing to your stellar work of 6x8 film images, your words in these forums of MFDB seem to come across to steep downgrade your stellar film works, at least in my eyes. It begs to wonder who is this guy??? You have not even posted a MFDB image that is comparable quality to your film images, which of course begs to wonder if at all you used a MFDB to its fullest, and if that film work posted is really yours?

Professional vs enthusiast? The only difference is that one makes $ off photography and the other do not, yet has nothing to say of the capability or knowledge of photography.

Above just my take... which may be wrong, or may be right. I would be happy to see you post what is the real issue for your "agenda". I am certain others here would have interest to read it, and also try to help out if you did encounter a problem.

Best regards,
Anders
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: JV on September 29, 2012, 07:01:17 am
I do have a bit of an agenda... it is about countering MFD hype and marketing exaggerations.
Particularly this type...

Just sharing my knowledge and opinions with who I feel more of an allegiance with...
and that is with my up and coming colleagues...

Simple as that.....

Fred, I find it very hard to believe that this is your only motivation.  I would be very surprised if there was not a more personal motif hidden underneath.

And which MFD hype are you talking about?  This year we witnessed a D800 hype and to a lesser extent hypes in smaller cameras like the Olympus OM-D E-M5 hype, the Sony NEX-7 and Fuji X-Pro1.  But a MFD hype?  So I am not sure what you are reacting to...

Also, from your comments it is very clear that you never shot with a more recent model of the Hasselblad like the H4D or the H4X.  Your knowledge is entirely based on older models, Internet platitudes and false information that continues to be repeated in these forums. 

BTW, for what it is worth, I very much like your positive agenda, your obsession with the Fuji GX680, and how you use that tool to its fullest.

Thanks, Joris.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Anders_HK on September 29, 2012, 01:13:19 pm
Hi Anders,

I don't disagree with either your view or Fred's. What I would point out are a few things.

The D800E has no OLP filter. This is a characteristic it shares with MF. There can be argument about if that is bad or good. Knowledgeable persons like Tim Parkin finds that the D800 with correct sharpening is preferable to D800E as the D800E introduces artifacts in the image. Michael Reichmann finds that the D800E is preferable.

Marc McCalmont who frequently posts on these forums has both Phase IQ180 and D800E. He uses the D800E with Leica lenses. My understanding is that he no longer uses his Phase One camera but uses either the IQ180 on his Alpa technical camera or the D800E. From his testing (and he was kind to share raw files) he found that the IQ180 had a resolution advantage. Marc is satisfied with DR on his IQ180 while the P45+ he had before was clearly lacking compared to his Pentax K5 (which is an APS-C camera). So Marc's approach is IQ180 for techical camera and the D800E for else.

Dave Segal, who often writes on Luminous Landscape, was enthusiastic about his Pentax 645D but switched to Nikon D800E when it arrived.

There are obvious and less obvious advantages with MFD systems. The larger format sensor collects more photons, thereby reducing shot noise. The lack of OLP filtering requires less aggressive sharpening, that is also a factor reduces shot noise. The area where some DSLRs have an advantage is a better handling of readout noise using massive parallell on chip DA conversion. That technology is mainly coming from Sony. Canon does not have it, nor the Nikon D700 or D4. The readout noise advantage shows an advantage in DR, but that only affects the darks.

MFDBs are frequently have advantage of 16-bit data path, but the data sent to the 16 bit datapath contains something like four bits of noise. So this may be true, but it is essentially marketing BS.

MFDBs may have better CGA (Color Grid Array than some DSLRs), but that has nothing to do with CCD vs. CMOS (as is often stated) but is a design choice of the sensor maker.

MFDBs are often used with proprietary raw developers, that may also give MFDBs a real or perceived advantage.

So my take is that are some real advantages of MFDBs, but there are also perceptions about MFDBs which are not well supported by physics.

Finally I enclose two figures from DxO-mark comparing DR and Tonal Range for the Nikon D800E and Phase One IQ180

The Nikon has a significant advantage in DR and achieves high DR at much higher ISO. In tonal range the size advantage of the IQ180 shows.

The difference between the two is that DR is much about readout noise where the Nikon shines while Tonal Range is more about photon statistics where the larger sensor of the IQ 180 collects more photons, resulting in smoother higlights and midtones.


Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,

That sounds as a very good summary.  ;D

The obvious is that MFDB is designed for optimum image quality at low ISO and using a larger sensor and technology catering towards this. Including a better calibration in factory of colors etc.

DSLR cameras on other hand aim at a more general use and with an image quality over a broad range of ISO. They are more mass produced and doubtful with the time to calibrate each unit that MFDB fabricators uses.

Hence different tools, for tad different though overlapping uses. If they made a DSLR with as few buttons as Leica S I might eventually pick one up myself, but for now... the Leica X2 seem a good complement to MFDB per my opinion. A working pro may need more... 

For now I am happy with my Hy6, but I respect those who are so with DSLR. They are tools  ;D

Best regards,
Anders
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Martin Ranger on September 29, 2012, 03:00:53 pm
Fred,

You either go to church every day and celebrate with others in a positive and constructive way.

Or you stay away altogether.

But you don't go to church every day to monotonously repeat multiple times per day that church attendance is in decline.

Just my 2 cents.  You obviously have an agenda.  Please put it on the table.

Thanks, Joris.

So, are you saying that people are only allowed to post messages you approve of?

@ Fred,

Actually, on the very contrary it appears you are giving these young photographers complete lies and marketing BS that DSLR can achieve in same quality. That is not so (though some select shooting DSLR seem to be dreaming so). Thus, in fact you seem to be the one misleading those young photographers, and not at all MFDB industry... who arguably do not do as much marketing advertising as Nikon, Canon and the likes.

[...]
 On the other hand when someone goes around constant arguing of DSLR is same level image quality, skin tones or whatever (based on whatever claimed experiences), frankly either you are complete blind, or you have something more hidden on your agenda, perhaps some sour grief that you hold on to. Those do not give a very sound impression on a reader... or credibility when reading between the lines, simply because you do not present the basis for your argument, due an apparent hidden agenda.

Anders_HK, really? Anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is completely blind or has an agenda?

I generally stay away from these discussions (for obvious reasons), but attacking a poster personally, accusing him of "hidden agendas" , being blind and/or telling lies is honestly a bit much. Fred may have is agenda. I do not know and I do not care. The fact is he believes that MFD is over-hyped and sold as the only tool a real professional photographer can use to deliver optimal quality when in fact a D800 or 5D can produce results that are close enough or as good at a fraction of the cost. This might be true or not, but it is definitely an opinion to consider, especially for young professionals who have to make trade-offs in a tight market. It is also a view that seems under-represented on the forums, which makes it doubly welcome.

As for the skin tones, I have yet to see a double-blind test comparing skin-tones. So with respect to that Fred's opinion is as valid as anyones else's.

I have seen many a discussion board become completely useless because of personal attacks, so my plea is to keep personal attacks out of this.

And just to avoid unnecessary discussions, here comes the disclaimer: I know Fred, have had dinner with him, and bought a Fuji GX680 on his recommendation. I did buy version 3, rather than version 1, though  ;)
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Petrus on September 29, 2012, 03:26:17 pm
The fact is he believes that MFD is over-hyped and sold as the only tool a real professional photographer can use to deliver optimal quality when in fact a D800 or 5D can produce results that are close enough or as good at a fraction of the cost. This might be true or not, but it is definitely an opinion to consider, especially for young professionals who have to make trade-offs in a tight market. It is also a view that seems under-represented on the forums, which makes it doubly welcome.

I work for a large magazine publishing company (some 30 magazines + 50 B2B publications), and we have not used anything but FF DSLRs during the last 5 years or so, only exception being when short flash sync speeds are needed outdoors. Which is not often. All studio work (we have 4 large studios) is done with tethered FF DSLRs. 20+ MPix is more than enough for high quality glossy magazine full spreads, nobody is complaining. Cheap, fast, convenient. Why make life more complicated with MFD when nobody is asking for the (largely imagined) added quality ?   
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Anders_HK on September 29, 2012, 04:55:33 pm
Anders_HK, really? Anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is completely blind or has an agenda?

I generally stay away from these discussions (for obvious reasons), but attacking a poster personally, accusing him of "hidden agendas" , being blind and/or telling lies is honestly a bit much. Fred may have is agenda. I do not know and I do not care. The fact is he believes that MFD is over-hyped and sold as the only tool a real professional photographer can use to deliver optimal quality when in fact a D800 or 5D can produce results that are close enough or as good at a fraction of the cost. This might be true or not, but it is definitely an opinion to consider, especially for young professionals who have to make trade-offs in a tight market. It is also a view that seems under-represented on the forums, which makes it doubly welcome.

As for the skin tones, I have yet to see a double-blind test comparing skin-tones. So with respect to that Fred's opinion is as valid as anyones else's.

I have seen many a discussion board become completely useless because of personal attacks, so my plea is to keep personal attacks out of this.

And just to avoid unnecessary discussions, here comes the disclaimer: I know Fred, have had dinner with him, and bought a Fuji GX680 on his recommendation. I did buy version 3, rather than version 1, though  ;)

Sorry, was I perhaps a tad too direct? And yes, people are happy with their VW while other prefer Porsche, both are good quality transportation just like cameras are different tools. That does not mean that anyone should wisely ignore that one is built for a more specialist application and better at it, and keep on saying that my beetle is just as quick as your 911, does it???

Comparison? This was on Getdpi some time ago and posted linked by Fred in another thread http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/
Suggest you note that the gent preferred the image quality of the Hassy, and why.

In frankness I did much of my earlier advancing work with a Nikon F100 and I very much enjoyed that as a tool. An excellent camera for me at the time and primarily using 28-70 AFS. Looking back I have a collection of good images, mostly slides, in 35mm format. Had I been smart and known I would have not gotten the Nikon but would have gone with Mamiya 7. Why? I would have had a collection of 6x7 slides from some lovely travels.  ;D

Now you may argue that todays top of line DSLR provide better image quality than Mamiya 7. Lets not go there. The point I make is MFDB provide a quality that set it apart from DSLR, and allows you to push yourself further and see better. It sure did for me. I read long time back that the minute you pick up and start working with a medium format camera there is an rather immediate improvement in quality of your works. I believe in part because slower and because you see better. I do not particular look back with fondness of my DSLR image collection, though I am very pleased with some. Even processing my ZD files from some 4-5 years back I was very impressed with them over what I could process my same old DSLR files --- because I learnt processing better and tools for processing are now better. There is better data and more data.  :)

I work for a large magazine publishing company (some 30 magazines + 50 B2B publications), and we have not used anything but FF DSLRs during the last 5 years or so, only exception being when short flash sync speeds are needed outdoors. Which is not often. All studio work (we have 4 large studios) is done with tethered FF DSLRs. 20+ MPix is more than enough for high quality glossy magazine full spreads, nobody is complaining. Cheap, fast, convenient. Why make life more complicated with MFD when nobody is asking for the (largely imagined) added quality ?  

Of course. Choice of tools. There is nothing wrong with DSLR, on the indeed very contrary for those who prefer it. Like you say, if that is the only requirement go for it. Yet top image quality can be obtained using MFDB. Does the photographer want it? Does the magazine look at the picture itself? Thus it is up to the photographer to judge what is best to profile him/herself among competition, is it not? However, it is chocking that when picking up most magazines nowadays the image quality is frank not very good. It is usually the more expensive product advertisement that is highest image quality, and many of those read out MFDB. Regrettable, I guess since come down to $$.

My work is personal. My own personal requirement is for very high image quality and because I want to be able make detailed prints and aim at very high image quality.  ;)

Best regards,
Anders
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: David Schneider on September 29, 2012, 05:20:34 pm
I work for a large magazine publishing company (some 30 magazines + 50 B2B publications), and we have not used anything but FF DSLRs during the last 5 years or so, only exception being when short flash sync speeds are needed outdoors. Which is not often. All studio work (we have 4 large studios) is done with tethered FF DSLRs. 20+ MPix is more than enough for high quality glossy magazine full spreads, nobody is complaining. Cheap, fast, convenient. Why make life more complicated with MFD when nobody is asking for the (largely imagined) added quality ?   
I'm now primarily a studio portrait photographer.  The difference in a large print, say 30x40, of a family or group taken with dlsr compared to mfd is noticeable.  I took down my older studio samples of wall portraits taken with dslr because people were asking why the mfd prints look better. 
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Martin Ranger on September 29, 2012, 05:21:49 pm
Anders, you may notice I wasn't arguing anything about image quality, or the different way of working in MF. All I claimed was that Fred provides a different point of view that I find relevant. I am also not a fan of personal attacks.

As for metaphors, a "Rolls Royce" and "Ferrari" might be a better comparison ;)
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Stefan.Steib on September 29, 2012, 08:41:13 pm
To all the contenders in this thread - wouldn´t it be better to make some nice images (with whatever camera ever needed)  instead of spending the time with attacking each other because of agendas and high quality and the urge to use the best tools ?
I think this is totally personal and irrellevant. A perfect image can be shot with an iPhone or an 8/10", a Polaroid or an IQ180. Whatever fits and whatever is at hand.

The only thing that counts is the image. A camera is ony a tool.

And yes - this sentence by Stephan Schulz is stupid. Any colleague I know uses plenty of cameras and this is just like saying painting an image can just be done with a number 3 horsehair brush and certain acrylics because they are better than other paints. If you think about this on a painters view you see how stupid this is.

Luckily still the photographer creates the image - not the camera.

Have fun
Stefan
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 29, 2012, 10:23:47 pm
Hi Anders,

Yes, Alex Koloskov did prefer the H4D40 over the Nikon, but he gave the flexibility to use the back with optical bench cameras was the main reason for that preference. Mr Koloskov's test was well done and worth reading.

This is the conclusion from the first part of his test:

"There is a difference in IQ and very low difference in shadow recovery between both cameras, which was a surprise for me. Knowing the difference in sensor technology I expected to see more advantage of Hasselblad over the Nikon. And if we consider the price difference, the Nikon become a true hero: $3200 (body) and $1000 (lens) against $16900 (body+DB) and $ 5900 (lens) is a huge…
The only thing which stops me from getting Nikon instead of Hasselblad is a freedom to use Medium Format back in technical view cameras like my Cambo Ultima. Yes, there are adapters to mount 35mm DSLR to a view camera rails as well as DIY solution like this one I did myself, but none of them do not allow to use tilt/shift/skew angles possible with MFDB: the sensor is too deep in DSLR camera body."

And this is the conclusion of the second part:

"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!:-)"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is cut and paste from Mr. Koloskovs articles.

I would add that I did some analysis of color reproduction on the color checker samples in Mr. Koloskov's test, using LR4. It may be that the Hasselblad colors were nicer but they had about twice the color error (calculated as DeltaE) compared to the Nikon D800E. To begin with, the colors were significantly oversaturated on both. Reducing the saturation to correct made the Nikon pretty good but the Hassy was still lagging.

Now, it may be possible that Phocus would yield more accurate colors, but my guess is that Hasselblad may be tuned to give more pleasant colors.

The way I see it you can build an excellent system with a combination of the best Nikon and Zeiss lenses using the Nikon D800E, and that will be a good investment for foreseeable future. You can buy an awful lot of fine glass for the cost of a low end digital back. So that is clearly an option. So you can get excellent performance for the cost of a used Toyota.

On the other hand you can also go for a high end back and high end lenses. So you get somewhat better performance for the price of a new Mercedes.

Diglloyd has done some comparisions between the Leica S2 and both Nikon D3X and D800. In my view the Leica S2 was slightly better at the center and the Nikon slightly better in the corners. The Leica was tested with the 120mm f/2.5 APO-Macro-Summarit-S and the Nikon with the  Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar.

Here is a link to Diglloyd's test: http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/NikonD800/compare-LeicaS2-mosaic.html

It is a pay site but if anyone is considering paying say 29 990$ vs 4842$ (Recent prices for camera lens combo at BH Photovideo) the fee att Diglloyd may be a good investment.

I also agree with "bcooter's' and Stefan Steib's comments. But I'm just in the progress of processing the raw files from week of shooting from the Yellowstone and Grand Teton, so I'm not in picture taking mode. The shoot in the US reminds me that it is not only about have good equipment bust also about making best use of it. Sometimes I botched it ;-(


Best regards
Erik



 


Quote
Comparison? This was on Getdpi some time ago and posted linked by Fred in another thread http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/
Suggest you note that the gent preferred the image quality of the Hassy, and why.

[/unquote]
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Anders_HK on September 30, 2012, 01:39:41 am
A perfect image can be shot with an iPhone or an 8/10", a Polaroid or an IQ180. Whatever fits and whatever is at hand.

The only thing that counts is the image. A camera is ony a tool.

Exactly.  ;D

The funny is that with each new DSLR there are always arguement that it produce same as MFDB. Image quality from iphone is not same as 8x10, though a picture from an iphone can be better! That is to the photographer.

@ Erik,

I know exact what he wrote. Is it worth it is a question, also to make ones own comparison. I can tell that upgrading Leaf back from 28 to 80 MP I experienced a significant step in image quality beyond just being more pixels. It has also led me to better pictures because I see the photographic image better by switching to Hy6 camera and enjoy shooting it much more than Mamiya or DSLR. Also because the image quality brings me a similar sensation to my picture that film did (finally). That is  important and about finding what is right tool and NOT latest rage of gear. Someone else may find same in D800 or other DSLR or other camera, that is individual.

It is notably not only about correct colors. With the 80MP Leaf I do find the colors to look more correct, but above all to have a more pleasing rendering which is very important.

In the end it is the picture that is all that matter. Our choice to get there is individual.

Like I said many use VW. They may even get to a place faster than someone in a Porsche... it is about choice, but there is also a clear difference in tools. A Porsche is not a VW, nor is image quality of D800 same as MFDB or even the ZD!

Best regards
Anders

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 30, 2012, 02:18:17 am
Hi Anders,

I have indicated on this thread before that pleasant and correct color are two different things. Velvia, which both you and I used for a long time is a good example for this. I always "hated" Ektachrome, but I would not say it's colors were more real than Velvia, but the colors in Velvia were overemphasized. Great for landscape, less so for portraits and de facto hard to scan. Nevertheless I stayed with Velvia for the detail.

Sometimes, correct color is important, essentially in any case a company logo is involved, or correct reproduction is needed.

One interesting observation that you made is that it took a last generation (or next last?) high end MFDB to give you satisfaction that you never felt with the lesser backs. Many buyers would opt just for those lesser backs, perhaps second hand? So they can still spend like 20000$ (camera, lenses and back) on equipment which may not give them satisfaction if they are as demanding as you are?

Best regards
Erik




@ Erik,

I know exact what he wrote. Is it worth it is a question, also to make ones own comparison. I can tell that upgrading Leaf back from 28 to 80 MP I experienced a significant step in image quality beyond just being more pixels. It has also led me to better pictures because I see the photographic image better by switching to Hy6 camera and enjoy shooting it much more than Mamiya or DSLR. Also because the image quality brings me a similar sensation to my picture that film did (finally). That is  important and about finding what is right tool and NOT latest rage of gear. Someone else may find same in D800 or other DSLR or other camera, that is individual.

It is notably not only about correct colors. With the 80MP Leaf I do find the colors to look more correct, but above all to have a more pleasing rendering which is very important.

In the end it is the picture that is all that matter. Our choice to get there is individual.

Like I said many use VW. They may even get to a place faster than someone in a Porsche... it is about choice, but there is also a clear difference in tools. A Porsche is not a VW, nor is image quality of D800 same as MFDB or even the ZD!

Best regards
Anders


Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: LKaven on September 30, 2012, 02:54:34 am
I'm now primarily a studio portrait photographer.  The difference in a large print, say 30x40, of a family or group taken with dlsr compared to mfd is noticeable.  I took down my older studio samples of wall portraits taken with dslr because people were asking why the mfd prints look better. 
Which DSLR versus which MFD are we talking about?  There are wide variances.  I can only think of two plausible contenders in the DSLR area at base ISO, the D3x and the D800/E.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on September 30, 2012, 02:58:40 am
@ Fred,

Actually, on the very contrary it appears you are giving these young photographers complete lies and marketing BS that DSLR can achieve in same quality.

Never said that. What I have said and am saying is that the images quality difference is very small while the price difference is huge.
What I am also saying is that in the real world of most commercial photography that difference is not readily visible and I am not referring to web, I am referring to print.

My other important point is that the better functionality of a high end 35mm DSLR are more likely to make a significant difference to the final result when working under pressure and long hours. At the end of a 8 hour fashion shoot shooting wide open for that shallow depth of field look the accuracy of the focusing of a 35mm DSLR will mean you get close to 100% keepers. When the model is starting to fade you cannot afford to lose any shot due to focus hit rate. Shooting with wind you need a faster frame rate.

Now there was a time when you had to make a significant quality compromise to have agility and speed. Today you only have to make a very small compromise, one that will be virtually invisible on publication. Even large format publication.

As I have stated before you really have to print on state of the art printers like the IPF8100 that I use or better, print to 60x40 inches to see that difference.
And even then you have to approach the image and observe it close up. And there are times when this is the case... such as a large landscape image where the viewer wants to step close and observe parts of the image... explore corner to corner. Doesn't need to be a photography nerd either ;)
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: MrSmith on September 30, 2012, 06:06:56 am
I see 10x8 mentioned a few times in this thread, I'm not wondering how many d800 fans have used MFD, I'm wondering how many have used 10x8 transparency and Polaroid?  ;D

Phoning the lab and asking if they had any more of the same batch/cut of EPP that only needed .5cc cyan to look neutral.  Halcyon days ::)
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 30, 2012, 07:44:13 am
Like I said many use VW. They may even get to a place faster than someone in a Porsche... it is about choice, but there is also a clear difference in tools. A Porsche is not a VW, nor is image quality of D800 same as MFDB or even the ZD!

The analogy would much closer to the truth performance and usability wise if you associated the D800E to a BMW M3 and the back to a Ferrari 458, but whatever makes you feel good Anders.  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: LKaven on September 30, 2012, 08:19:57 am
The analogy would much closer to the truth performance and usability wise if you associated the D800E to a BMW M3 and the back to a Ferrari 458, but whatever makes you feel good Anders.  ;D

I always thought of the Nikon more like the Subaru WRX.  Tons of real-world traction at speed, and reliability at a reasonable price point.  If we have to shoehorn the car metaphor again, that is. 
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: yaya on September 30, 2012, 08:47:35 am
I always thought of the Nikon more like the Subaru WRX.  Tons of real-world traction at speed, and reliability at a reasonable price point.  If we have to shoehorn the car metaphor again, that is. 

To each their own I guess but as a Nikon user I see it more like a Ford Mondeo 2.0 diesel automatic: plenty of space and comfort, plenty of power, great handling and economy.

Both the M3 and the WRX have something which the Ford & Nikon lack, IMO...
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: MrSmith on September 30, 2012, 10:06:17 am
car analogies are great, like cameras they have the same level of measurable performance qualities as well as the less quantifiable justification of irrational vanity purchases, perceived value and acceptance by your peers for owning middle class baubles.

now wheres my H-blad keyring?
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 30, 2012, 10:26:13 am
To each their own I guess but as a Nikon user I see it more like a Ford Mondeo 2.0 diesel automatic: plenty of space and comfort, plenty of power, great handling and economy.

I guess you look at the backs as being Ford Scorpios then? Bigger engine, slightly dated technology but still a lot of sympathy among elderly users. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ndevlin on September 30, 2012, 11:08:51 am
Dave Segal, who often writes on Luminous Landscape, was enthusiastic about his Pentax 645D but switched to Nikon D800E when it arrived.

Erik, I think it's me your were thinking of.  And yes, I love the feel and form of MF, and would own one again if money were no object, but my eyes and my prints tell me that the technological advances in the D800E make it the equal of the 645D (and by implication the other 40MP chips). And it is a much better camera, qua camera.

Perhaps ironically, I would be more inclined to own a 22MP MF back - there was something magic about those 9 micro pixels - than a 40.  The only functional advantage at the 40MP threshold is the more useful frame-shape of 645.   

The challenge now is lenses.  The forthcoming Zeiss optics, which are basically MF lenses with 35mm mounts, will show what 35mm can really do. 

The real reason MF will stick around is that people just like working with the form.  Either the cameras themselves, the huge and yummy viewfinder, the fact the files are really nice, the fact it is a badge of 'professionalism', whatever.   For these reasons it will remain. 

But today there is virtually no one who could not run a world-leading photography career with nothing but a D800 (or a D4 if they shoot sports/news). 

- N.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: uaiomex on September 30, 2012, 11:26:35 am
Many know by fact that MF glass renders less detail by square centimeter than 35mm glass. Large format glass lose even more detail. I doubt Zeiss is just recycling MF lenses. Just like that, they would not do any better than standard 35mm lenses, though they could be better in all other departments like color rendering, distortion and CA control. But the main goal I believe is sharpness and detail to match dense sensors without sacrificing the other. If they are indeed MF lenses, they better be HEAVILY modified for 24X36.
Eduardo

 
The challenge now is lenses.  The forthcoming Zeiss optics, which are basically MF lenses with 35mm mounts, will show what 35mm can really do.  

T
- N.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Rob C on September 30, 2012, 12:44:25 pm
Many know by fact that MF glass renders less detail by square centimeter than 35mm glass. Large format glass lose even more detail. I doubt Zeiss is just recycling MF lenses. Just like that, they would not do any better than standard 35mm lenses, though they could be better in all other departments like color rendering, distortion and CA control. But the main goal I believe is sharpness and detail to match dense sensors without sacrificing the other. If they are indeed MF lenses, they better be HEAVILY modified for 24X36.
Eduardo



And even more don't believe it unless they personally run tests with the best available examples. Years ago, I did just that with Haselblad 500 Series and Nikon, and cm for cm the Nikon was unbeatable by the Zeiss glass.

Where the diffence lay, of course, was in the magnification factor when you filled both formats with the same image, in which case the 'blad was the better tool.

But convincing people is a different matter, almost religious.

Rob C
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Anders_HK on September 30, 2012, 02:07:43 pm
One interesting observation that you made is that it took a last generation (or next last?) high end MFDB to give you satisfaction that you never felt with the lesser backs. Many buyers would opt just for those lesser backs, perhaps second hand? So they can still spend like 20000$ (camera, lenses and back) on equipment which may not give them satisfaction if they are as demanding as you are?

Nope, that was not quite correct. I spoke compared to the satisfaction I got from Velvia 50. I liked the colors and rendering from Velvia 50.

The 28MP Leaf Aptus back I had was really stellar and superb for portraits. For landscapes I did not find the colors nor rendering towards transition of highlights as pleasing as Velvia 50. Those were the two main reasons I kept on shooting Velvia I guess...

I would recommend an Aptus 65 back to anyone, because I found it really great. In particular for portrait works. The AFi-II is simply one big step forward in colors, fine gradation of colors, better DR (same sensor as IQ180 and Credo 80). I am not talking mere of the more pixels to stare at, but the more pixels are great because I now crop frequent :)... but it needs very steady hand holding.

Never said that. What I have said and am saying is that the images quality difference is very small while the price difference is huge.
What I am also saying is that in the real world of most commercial photography that difference is not readily visible and I am not referring to web, I am referring to print.

My other important point is that the better functionality of a high end 35mm DSLR are more likely to make a significant difference to the final result when working under pressure and long hours. At the end of a 8 hour fashion shoot shooting wide open for that shallow depth of field look the accuracy of the focusing of a 35mm DSLR will mean you get close to 100% keepers. When the model is starting to fade you cannot afford to lose any shot due to focus hit rate. Shooting with wind you need a faster frame rate.

Now there was a time when you had to make a significant quality compromise to have agility and speed. Today you only have to make a very small compromise, one that will be virtually invisible on publication. Even large format publication.

As I have stated before you really have to print on state of the art printers like the IPF8100 that I use or better, print to 60x40 inches to see that difference.
And even then you have to approach the image and observe it close up. And there are times when this is the case... such as a large landscape image where the viewer wants to step close and observe parts of the image... explore corner to corner. Doesn't need to be a photography nerd either ;)


Now you are more like talking  ;D. As you say there is an advantage to MFDB at a price, and I assume you mean of similar pixel count as D800. Yet even ZD (same sensor as Aptus 22) under the narrow condition it delivered well was capable of a certain characteristic rendering that was plain lovely. If we speak of latest sensors in MFDB, there is a much larger difference.

Different tools for different purposes,... a number of folks seem to use both D800 and MFDB here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70759.0

Top of line pro fashion and advertising seem to nevertheless shoot MFDB. Right?

The analogy would much closer to the truth performance and usability wise if you associated the D800E to a BMW M3 and the back to a Ferrari 458, but whatever makes you feel good Anders.  ;D

Happy to take that M3 from your hands, but not your D800. Talk of difference between the two in user friendliness, no zillion buttons to operate an M3... just plain raw and quality performance, made in Germany, not Japan ;D

Many know by fact that MF glass renders less detail by square centimeter than 35mm glass. Large format glass lose even more detail.

Highly doubtful comment, and there is much variation in DSLR glass. If you speak of Rolleiflex Schneider PQ glass, even more doubtful statement.

Large format? Depends on lens. Schneider 72mm SA XL was at least as sharp as my Mamiya modern glass, except the 45mm D.

645 / 35mm sensor = 2.5x and about same as   80MP / 36MP = 2.2x

...


Why Schneider and Zeiss announced to make sharp glass for DSLR? For MFDB there already are Schneider and Zeiss glass that can resolve very high, and over larger sensors than 35mm.

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 30, 2012, 03:13:33 pm
Hi,

Not all lenses are created equal. Some lenses are stellar and some less so.

In the 90-es Photodo tested several hundred lenses using Hasselblads MTF test rig (and personnel). Photodo also had a grading system, going from 0 to 5.0, with 5.0 being theoretical maximum. The Hasselblad lenses tested came in at 3.1, 3.9, 3.7, 3.6, 2.7, 3.6,3.7 and 3.1.

Mamiya 7 lenses came in at 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.3, 3.8, 3.5 and 4.1, so they were better on average the Hasselblad.

Some Canon lenses came in at 3.9, 4, 3.9, 4.4, 4.4, 4.6, 4.1, 4.2, 3.9, 4.5, 3.9 and 4.8, with the last being the 200/1.8L USM.

A lens that is know to be stellar is the Zeiss 21/2.8 but the Zeiss 25/2.8 was not a very sharp lens.

The Leica lenses for the Leica S2 are said to be the best lenses there are, but when "Diglloyd" tested them on the S2 versus a Nikon D800 with a Zeiss Macro Planar 100/2 the Nikon/Zeiss came out on top.

On the other hand Schneider and Rodenstock (now called Linos) build specially designed lenses for MFDBs with a small image circle but very high resolution. At least the MTF curves in the brochures look impressive, specially if you note that the lines go up to 60 lp/mm, instead the normal maximum of 30 or 40 lp/mm.

What I would say that you need to look at individual lenses and individual samples. Then comes the other issue of bringing that MTF to sensor. Many cameras that don't have live view are not very easy to focus exactly.

Alpa builds a couple of technical cameras with very exact helical focusing and select Schneider and Rodenstock lenses.

In general, a lens that gets diffraction limited at a larger aperture is always better than one that needs to be stopped down more. So, if a lens needs to be stopped down to f/11 for optimum sharpness that lens will be much less sharp than a lens that needs to be stopped down to f/5.6. Why? Because the optimum aperture is where the lens is limited by diffraction.

And yeah, if you stop down a lot, all decent lenses will be similar as MTF and resolution will be limited by diffraction!

Best regards
Erik



Many know by fact that MF glass renders less detail by square centimeter than 35mm glass. Large format glass lose even more detail. I doubt Zeiss is just recycling MF lenses. Just like that, they would not do any better than standard 35mm lenses, though they could be better in all other departments like color rendering, distortion and CA control. But the main goal I believe is sharpness and detail to match dense sensors without sacrificing the other. If they are indeed MF lenses, they better be HEAVILY modified for 24X36.
Eduardo

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on September 30, 2012, 03:31:25 pm

The challenge now is lenses.  The forthcoming Zeiss optics, which are basically MF lenses with 35mm mounts, will show what 35mm can really do. 


Don't believe Yair's ramblings on the new Zeiss lenses for 35mm DSLRs.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70406.msg557481#msg557481 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70406.msg557481#msg557481)

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: EricWHiss on September 30, 2012, 04:15:27 pm
Don't believe Yair's ramblings on the new Zeiss lenses for 35mm DSLRs.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70406.msg557481#msg557481 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70406.msg557481#msg557481)



Fred,
Yair doesn't ramble and in general he knows his stuff.  And definitely the saying, "when in glass houses don't throw stones"  applies here to you. 
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Hulyss on September 30, 2012, 05:46:59 pm
car analogies are great, like cameras they have the same level of measurable performance qualities as well as the less quantifiable justification of irrational vanity purchases, perceived value and acceptance by your peers for owning middle class baubles.

now wheres my H-blad keyring?

 ;) Here is the car analogy for the SIGMA dslr and compact line  ;D
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: kers on October 01, 2012, 07:47:38 am
If i read many of these posts I think for a 100 asa shooter one of the finest outcomes for quality would be;

a fullframe foveon sensor with the coming 2013 Zeiss optics
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Guy Mancuso on October 01, 2012, 09:28:15 am
Erik, I think it's me your were thinking of.  And yes, I love the feel and form of MF, and would own one again if money were no object, but my eyes and my prints tell me that the technological advances in the D800E make it the equal of the 645D (and by implication the other 40MP chips). And it is a much better camera, qua camera.

Perhaps ironically, I would be more inclined to own a 22MP MF back - there was something magic about those 9 micro pixels - than a 40.  The only functional advantage at the 40MP threshold is the more useful frame-shape of 645.   

The challenge now is lenses.  The forthcoming Zeiss optics, which are basically MF lenses with 35mm mounts, will show what 35mm can really do. 

The real reason MF will stick around is that people just like working with the form.  Either the cameras themselves, the huge and yummy viewfinder, the fact the files are really nice, the fact it is a badge of 'professionalism', whatever.   For these reasons it will remain. 

But today there is virtually no one who could not run a world-leading photography career with nothing but a D800 (or a D4 if they shoot sports/news). 

- N.

Agree . MF still has a better file so I will always give it that advantage. It's just smoother looking and we still can't get around the tech cams as being the best there is both in its abilities for T/S and the great lenses from SK and Rodie. But with the new Zeiss glass coming the gap will close even further and that's a good thing. If I was able to maintain the MF gear financially. I would have never sold it as the tech cam was killer good. But being a Pro in business we just have to watch our money outlay so I feel I took a small step backwards but also a step forward in usability .really end of day sometimes the usability will win the day. Not sure why so many stress over this stuff, it is what it is just go shoot some great art.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Kagetsu on October 01, 2012, 10:30:56 am
I've always been the seat of my pants type photographer (oh hello, I'm weighing in), and short of 'mucking about' with a D800E at a trade show, I haven't compared the files directly (I'd like to, might make an effort in the near future).

I think it's been touched on, but there isn't really just one reason. I'm invested in the PhaseOne system (IQ160) as well as Canon (though currently in between Canon camera's, last camera's were 1Ds3 and 5D2). But when I think of the initial decision to go with MFD over 35mmD, came down to a few little things, some less substantial then others.
But there are benefits that we simply only get on medium or large format. My major technical reason (short of the remarkable files when compared to my old 5D2 and 1Ds3 files) is the leaf shutter/central shutters. If they were suddenly available for the 35MM format, I'd seriously consider reverting back, but they almost certainly never will.

On a more personal note, I love the mechanical sound of the system, the feel in hand. It's a personal thing.

I think when I try my camera vs say the D800 and hopefully the 645D (not on resolution, but just quality wise) I'll reserve final judgement. What I will say though is in the history of my digital life since the 20D, each jump when shooting raw between the generations has been significantly less then what has been suggested or reviewed. Sure better etc, but it's never been more then a baby step over the last generation.

Though to add, I find it humorous people are getting so emotional over really something that's personal. And generally speaking, most of the technical latitude we see in these camera's usually doesn't result in a huge improvement in photography capacity. The best camera there is, is the one you have on you.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Guy Mancuso on October 01, 2012, 11:53:23 am
Also agree. A lot will just come down to feel and what you like to shoot with. I loved all my MF gear actually scary but I had 5 phase backs DFs , tech cams and the whole lot. They are awesome systems and loved the quality from them and I have some great images from it.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 01, 2012, 12:41:16 pm
Hi Nick,

Sorry of mixing up the names.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 01, 2012, 12:51:42 pm
Nick,

I hope that the new Zeiss lenses will not be redesigns of old MF lenses. The reason is mainly that at least according to MTF data from Hasselblad and also tests done by Photodo (made at Hasselblad) were not very good. Far from as good as leading lenses from Canon, for instance.

I'm much aware that this contradicts some experience, like our friend Stefan Steib of Hartblei fame. But the simlpy truth may be that some Canon and Nikon lenses are really good.

Lens rentals have tested a lot of lenses on the Nikon and found that the Zeiss 21/2.8 was the best performer of all. Lensrentals test all incoming at outgoing lenses so they have a very wide foundation of measurement data.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, I think it's me your were thinking of.  And yes, I love the feel and form of MF, and would own one again if money were no object, but my eyes and my prints tell me that the technological advances in the D800E make it the equal of the 645D (and by implication the other 40MP chips). And it is a much better camera, qua camera.

Perhaps ironically, I would be more inclined to own a 22MP MF back - there was something magic about those 9 micro pixels - than a 40.  The only functional advantage at the 40MP threshold is the more useful frame-shape of 645.    

The challenge now is lenses.  The forthcoming Zeiss optics, which are basically MF lenses with 35mm mounts, will show what 35mm can really do.  

The real reason MF will stick around is that people just like working with the form.  Either the cameras themselves, the huge and yummy viewfinder, the fact the files are really nice, the fact it is a badge of 'professionalism', whatever.   For these reasons it will remain.  

But today there is virtually no one who could not run a world-leading photography career with nothing but a D800 (or a D4 if they shoot sports/news).  

- N.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: torger on October 01, 2012, 01:36:16 pm
Not sure why so many stress over this stuff, it is what it is just go shoot some great art.

I have my personal reasons :-). I want MF to become cheaper. I want it to be possible for more people to shoot with a tech camera, and I want it to be possible for myself to continue do it also in the future. As I see it it is the MFDB cost that is the big obstacle here, not the cameras and lenses themselves. The Schneider Digitars is really quite good bang for the buck, especially if one like me go the view camera way so the lens mount is cheap.

Therefore I think it's great with the pressure coming from DSLRs, and great to show how small the difference is, and great that people start to question how much one can really charge for these systems. However, the effect may become exactly opposite, maybe it really is impossible to make cheaper products, or maybe the companies are just too financially weak to take risks with a broader product or just unwilling, and then MF will turn even more niched and even more expensive. Maybe the future of MF is to be in an extremely narrow niche like scanning backs have today. That woud be sad, because I like diversity.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ndevlin on October 01, 2012, 02:55:08 pm

I'm not sure where the idea of these being 'old' designs comes from, but I'm positive these are new lenses. Their size, and the design brief, clearly suggest that their image circle is much larger than traditional 35mm.

These will be very interesting. Schnieder's new lenses, on the other hand, seem to be much more traditional 35mm glass, and I'm not at all sure they will be worth their price. Time will tell.

- N.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Petrus on October 01, 2012, 03:19:09 pm
Their size, and the design brief, clearly suggest that their image circle is much larger than traditional 35mm.

That is not good, as the extra image circle is just going to cause more reflections inside the camera. The optimum image circle just barely covers the sensor/frame without vignetting.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 01, 2012, 03:28:38 pm
Nick,

Sorry I thought that you meant these would be rebadged MF lenses of old designs.

Another point is that whatever stellar lens we have, we still need to get MTF to the sensor. That means correct focus and optimum aperture. Adding to that, we need any vibration, due camera shake, wind, mirror movement or shutter vibration.

Best regards
Erik


I'm not sure where the idea of these being 'old' designs comes from, but I'm positive these are new lenses. Their size, and the design brief, clearly suggest that their image circle is much larger than traditional 35mm.

These will be very interesting. Schnieder's new lenses, on the other hand, seem to be much more traditional 35mm glass, and I'm not at all sure they will be worth their price. Time will tell.

- N.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 01, 2012, 04:27:40 pm
To each their own I guess but as a Nikon user I see it more like a Ford Mondeo 2.0 diesel automatic: plenty of space and comfort, plenty of power, great handling and economy.

Both the M3 and the WRX have something which the Ford & Nikon lack, IMO...

But when they need to photograph an M3 or WRX racing they use either a Nikon or Canon at 10 fps and lenses MF don't come close to having.
If  one makes a sports car analogy I would say that sport performance wise Nikon and Canon smoke anything offered in MF formats.
Canon 216 MP/s
Phase One not quite 56 MP/s (80 x 0.7)

 
Title: oversized image circles: vignetting vs flare
Post by: BJL on October 01, 2012, 05:13:10 pm
Nick Devlin said
Their size, and the design brief, clearly suggest that their image circle is much larger than traditional 35mm.
to which Petrus replied
That is not good, as the extra image circle is just going to cause more reflections inside the camera. The optimum image circle just barely covers the sensor/frame without vignetting.
I think that the truth is somewhere in between. It is not possible for the image delivered by the lens elements themselves to have a "brick-wall" at the edge of the image circle, with no significant fall-off of illumination inside and no light transmitted outside. There has to be a "shoulder", and so it is probably best for the total image circle to extend somewhat beyond the frame. But additional flare is then a problem, with the worst case scenario being photographing a scene with a bright light source just out of the frame, but within the over-sized image circle. So it is good to add flae-control baffles so that light from outside the desired image region is blocked as early as possible. Ideally, the baffles cut the image down to the desired rectangle, not just to the smallest circle containing that rectangle.

By the way, this risk of additional flare is one reason why I disagree with idea of some forum participants that the best lenses for a format like DX or EF-S are ones designed for the larger 35mm format. Another problem with over-sized image circles is that aberration control in lens design can involve trade-offs of center vs edge/corner performance, so that the design choices needed to get good IQ out to beyond the corners of the frame can involve sacrifices in IQ closer to the center, within the frame.

All-in-all, a competent optical designer (working with given constraints on cost, size,and weight) will do the best job by optimizing for the actual usage (frame size), not by designing for a different, larger frame size. People who argue otherwise seem to assume that lens designers are so stupid that they are unaware of problems like light fall-off near the edge of the image circle and so design lenses with image circle that fading to black immediately beyond the corners of the frame --- and so need to be tricked into avoiding this mistake by being lied to about the image format for which the lens will be used.

But as I said, that optimal design might well include the combination of (a) lens elements that would on their own deliver an over-sized image circle with (b) baffles and such that cut the image down to the size and shape needed.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 01, 2012, 05:23:58 pm
Agree . MF still has a better file so I will always give it that advantage. It's just smoother looking and we still can't get around the tech cams as being the best there is both in its abilities for T/S and the great lenses from SK and Rodie. But with the new Zeiss glass coming the gap will close even further and that's a good thing. If I was able to maintain the MF gear financially. I would have never sold it as the tech cam was killer good. But being a Pro in business we just have to watch our money outlay so I feel I took a small step backwards but also a step forward in usability .really end of day sometimes the usability will win the day. Not sure why so many stress over this stuff, it is what it is just go shoot some great art.

You touch on several interesting points.

I think you are right in saying that the usability sometimes wins the day.
I would add that IMO usability very often has an effect on quality.
While going from top of the lines MFD is as far as ultimate quality a small step back one has to consider the effect of usability on quality.
IMO with the accuracy of both manual focusing with better live view and far more advanced autofocusing, image stabilization and many other functions
one is getting the very best out of a 35mm DSLR with more consistency and higher hit rate than with MFD.

Now that said MFD small quality edge has it's place and is worth it to some, but it's really not that strikingly different from today's top of the line DSLRs.

What is also important to point out is that Nikon with the D800  has really put a very high quality level into the hands of photographers that need it
and have done so at a very very good price really providing for the pro that has to primarily make money and watch the bottom line.
Lower camera costs also let you spend the clients budget in more creative ways... can make a large difference on jobs with smaller budgets.
Any realistic business has to factor in the ownership and service costs of gear unless one's day rate is such to make it irrelevant.
Even just having two extra production assistants on set to pamper the client make a difference that will be remembered by the client more than what camera you used.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Guy Mancuso on October 01, 2012, 06:00:42 pm
The one hiccup in all this and I have done the tests is the tech cam 40 mpx just smokes the Nikon in micro detail. Now that is with a 6k lens SK 60mm against a Nikon but with these new Zeiss lenses that difference may get even smaller. End of the day it's the glass. Bigger sensors don't hurt either but that will always be the case but this all goes back to what you shoot. For some MF is the answer for them , for more mobile needs than Nikons will be. End of day nothing has changed at all from our glorious film days with a Hassy in one hand and a Nikon in the other. 20 years later and it's still the same argument . Bigger is better but given the technology smaller has gotten much better. Looking back at the last 20 years of shooting digital only finally Nikon stood up over the bed of roses. The D800 is very good, I shoot the E and we can all give it credit for finally giving us a real file. I'm not saying its MF but MF needs to change as well and get inline to its price versus output.

 I really like both systems but only after Nikon hit us with the D800 before that I was forced more to shoot 35mm than actually like it. The D800 has actually helped me in that regards.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: LKaven on October 01, 2012, 06:37:37 pm
...in the history of my digital life since the 20D, each jump when shooting raw between the generations has been significantly less then what has been suggested or reviewed. Sure better etc, but it's never been more then a baby step over the last generation.

This is true of Canon especially.  The newer Exmor designs have increased dynamic range at base ISO by 2 stops, and the D4 sensor increases about 1 stop over the D3s, while the Canon sensors are still yielding about the same as the last generation.  Only in the 1DX did they improve the pattern noise.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 01, 2012, 10:52:14 pm
Hi,

That depends on Sony (and obviously to lesser extent Nikon) developing noise free readout. The Canon sensor itself is said to be pretty good, having a DR of about 14 steps, but Canon cannot get a clean signal out of the sensor into and trough the ADC. That is the reason they are that good at high ISO. With high ISO they preamplify the signal going into the ADC, so they loose little DR going up ISO bud DR is bad to start with.

Best regards
Erik


This is true of Canon especially.  The newer Exmor designs have increased dynamic range at base ISO by 2 stops, and the D4 sensor increases about 1 stop over the D3s, while the Canon sensors are still yielding about the same as the last generation.  Only in the 1DX did they improve the pattern noise.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 02, 2012, 01:07:51 am
The one hiccup in all this and I have done the tests is the tech cam 40 mpx just smokes the Nikon in micro detail. Now that is with a 6k lens SK 60mm against a Nikon but with these new Zeiss lenses that difference may get even smaller.....

When you say smokes the Nikon what sort of enlargement of magnification are you comparing? I would imaging that with $ 6,000 SK technical lens you will get better results, but is it a difference that is apparent
in most commercial work?
Out of curiosity what Nikon lens did you use in the comparison?
Did you try using the SK 60 on the Nikon? That would be interesting to see. Some SK lenses are exceptional. I have the 8x10 480mm and it's just marvelous.

Not to doubt your test, but these fellows were stunned by how close the D800 was to the IQ180 that has twice the MP count of the IQ140. They actually found
some characteristics to be better with the D800.

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

Like you I am eager to see what the new Zeiss lenses bring to the game.

I think that another very interesting development is Fuji's intention to make a FF interchangable lens mirror-less system.
Scaling up the X1-pro for full frame will be very interesting. One aspect of this is how the body could be used in a new technical camera setup.
Due to the shallow design of the body, with the sensor not deep in the body behind a mirror box, the body would in effect be quite similar to a digital back.
I could see cambo or Fuji themselves making a mini tech camera for this body. A scaled up x1-pro sensor would be 33 MP without changing the pixel pitch.
Would be a little gem for long landscape hikes ;)
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Guy Mancuso on October 02, 2012, 08:19:06 am
The SK 60 is arguable the best tech lens around . I owned the lens they shot with the 35xl and its a good lens but on a 180 maybe not the best since it is of a older design for bigger micron sensors. Anyway at 100 percent it was pretty evident but still damn close and in print maybe never really see it with the naked eye. I used a Nikon 35 1.4 and I did have a very good copy of it. I m not doubting there tests its just these tech lenses are extremely good especially that 60mm. Best one I shot and I tried a bunch of them. In the end it don't matter since they are radically diffrent cams for completely diffrent types of shooting. If I had things my way I would have a tech cam and the Nikons which would cover just about everything I do. Bottom line the Nikon is great and it is great to shoot with and very good on many levels. But I still know MF is better in some regards for some gigs. Shooting interiors for instance you just can't touch a tech cam. Best tool for the job. We all know everything in photography is a compromise on some level, just need to pick the least amount of poison to work with and go from there. LOL
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Anders_HK on October 02, 2012, 05:55:32 pm
But when they need to photograph an M3 or WRX racing they use either a Nikon or Canon at 10 fps and lenses MF don't come close to having.
If  one makes a sports car analogy I would say that sport performance wise Nikon and Canon smoke anything offered in MF formats.
Canon 216 MP/s
Phase One not quite 56 MP/s (80 x 0.7)

? ? ?

Zagato is close enough to M3 ?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2TeNsxqScM  ;D


IMO with the accuracy of both manual focusing with better live view and far more advanced autofocusing, image stabilization and many other functions
one is getting the very best out of a 35mm DSLR with more consistency and higher hit rate than with MFD.

Hy6; one focus point and very very precise, dslr so many with complexity to know quite what is focused... (auto focus on nearest... but eye is not nearest, nose is)

Hit rate? MFDB slows you down, yielding higher hit rate and better images...

Now that said MFD small quality edge has it's place and is worth it to some, but it's really not that strikingly different from today's top of the line DSLRs.

Ehh... are we repeating???

Sounds those who really shoot both in repeat repeat say suffice significant difference. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70759.0

Any chance you could post us some of your good images with MFDB ? I believe I and others asked before...

===================================================

Disclaimer: These sort of threads are tiring when get into incorrect of difference between dslr and mfdb.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 02, 2012, 06:32:35 pm
Hi,

I sort of think of MFDB as Hummer, not the H2 but the original drab green colored stuff ;-)

Regarding focusing, the best way to focus is probably by contrast sensing AF, or manual focusing at actual pixels in Live View, it's my understanding that it corresponds to perhaps 30x magnifier on ground glass, except that you are using the sensor itself. So, there are no registration problems between ground glass and sensor. So Live View is an ideal solution that cannot really be improved on. And you can focus exactly at any point, without camera motion. Great isn't it?

Hasselblad has something nifty called "True Focus" accelerometers and gyros detect camera motion and compensate focus. It may even work!

Alpa has a real invention with calibrated precision helical focusing. You measure distance with a laser distance meter (usually accurate within 2 mm) and use scale focusing. You can shim the back to 0.01 mm tolerance, thats within thermal expansion limits a sunny day :-)

I'm not sure MFD slows down. The way I shoot when using a tripod is that I use MF, and activate central AF point for distance measurement. Often I unmount the camera from tripod when measuring distance, so I don't change composition. Can I use Live View AF it will be used. The technique doesn't work with things that move. I also use MLU and 2s delay. Often I have another camera around for handheld shooting. Camera can shoot ten frames a second but I seldom use it.

Would I work slower with an MFDB? I don't think so. Would I work slower with a view camera? Certainly.

Once I shot 1 full roll of 120 film on a single subject in a single setting? Why, light was changing so fast. I used a spotmeter to evaluate halv a dozen points, and in the 30 seconds it took light has changed. So did I get the perfect exposure? Yes, ten times. Did I get the perfect picture, nay, subject was not that good ;-)

Regarding focusing, I know that Michael Reichmann uses a laser distance meter on the IQ180, while Mark Dubovoy uses live view, although LV on the IQ180 often needs a dark ND filter. So you need ND filter to help you focus, odd.

What I see for the future is using either a retina display (or similar) instead of ground glass or an electronic viewfinder.

Best regards
Erik

? ? ?

Zagato is close enough to M3 ?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2TeNsxqScM  ;D


Hy6; one focus point and very very precise, dslr so many with complexity to know quite what is focused... (auto focus on nearest... but eye is not nearest, nose is)

Hit rate? MFDB slows you down, yielding higher hit rate and better images...

Ehh... are we repeating???

Sounds those who really shoot both in repeat repeat say suffice significant difference. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70759.0

Did you make any very good images with MFDB ? Perhaps you can show us???
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 02, 2012, 06:45:53 pm

Hy6; one focus point and very very precise, dslr so many with complexity to know quite what is focused... (auto focus on nearest... but eye is not nearest, nose is)

.......

Disclaimer: These sort of threads are tiring when get into incorrect of difference between dslr and mfdb.


With a a 35mm DSLR (D800) for example you can choose a single focus point and choose anyone out of all the focus points.
Very handy when your subject isn't bang in the center of the frame. In live view you can move your focus point to anywhere on the screen.
When using automatic focus point selection the camera indicated which points are used.
When using a single point the camera can also track the feature you initiated focus on and follow it.

That said manual focusing on the Hy6 is the best of all MFD SLRs. Nice waist level finder with good magnification. Vertical and horizontal back rotation so you can use the waist level finder
for both. It really is the nicest MFD camera, not to mention film support. I would like to see it return to solid distribution in the US.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 02, 2012, 06:57:47 pm

Hit rate? MFDB slows you down, yielding higher hit rate and better images...


I was responding to a sports car analogy and shooting motor sports

Having a camera that slows you down does not really help when photographing high speed cars.

Also this whole thing about MF slowing one down so that one gets better images is a concept that does not hold water.
One can easily slow down with a faster camera.

While one is somewhat forced to slow down a bit more with MFD it does not mean that one cannot slow down with everything else.

 
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 02, 2012, 11:01:01 pm
complexity

Hey Anders,

I see you write a lot recently about complexity, confusion,... when speaking about cameras that tens of millions of photographers use on a daily basis without any issue.

Assuming that you are too smart to mention those things simply out of a childish refusal to acknowledge the value of cameras differing from the one you like, perhaps you need to do real simple. Have you considered shooting with a pin hole camera?  ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Dustbak on October 03, 2012, 02:48:27 am
Hasselblad has something nifty called "True Focus" accelerometers and gyros detect camera motion and compensate focus. It may even work!

I can assure you it really works, when you get the hang of it you can actually have the focus anywhere you want in the frame. Even wide open. I prefer it often over the AF of my Nikon (have you ever felt none of the AF brackets is at the place where you actually want it??)

To get back at the topic of the thread. I don't know about that. I just work with all sorts of formats and prefer using MF when I can. Sure great quality but most of all I just like working with it. It is already hard work to make a living from photography but can I at least use what I like? ;)
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 03, 2012, 05:27:32 am
I can assure you it really works, when you get the hang of it you can actually have the focus anywhere you want in the frame. Even wide open. I prefer it often over the AF of my Nikon (have you ever felt none of the AF brackets is at the place where you actually want it??)

To get back at the topic of the thread. I don't know about that. I just work with all sorts of formats and prefer using MF when I can. Sure great quality but most of all I just like working with it. It is already hard work to make a living from photography but can I at least use what I like? ;)

Live view on the D800 lets you focus right upto the instant you shoot, right off the sensor and anywhere in the frame.

While True Focus does have it's merits it has it's limitations too. It requires focus and recompose... that alone can be annoying and distracting for the subject and a real pain when on a tripod.

Also true focus DOES NOT account for any camera movements other than the angle of the lens. It cannot detect if the camera moves forward or backwards. Recomposing hand held with a heavy camera will almost always result in camera movement other than lens angle.

On a tripod unless you have a lens centered panoramic head there will always be some forward or backwards movement due to the point of rotation of the head.

The description of true focus with the catch phrase "absolute position lock" is a bit misleading.

All of this is covered in a white paper by Hasselblad:

For example with the 80mm at 1m from the subject they say this:

Quote
When the camera is tilted for composition, the point of maximum
sharpness falls just behind the eyes. However, the DOF
is almost large enough to render the eye sharp making the
difference hard to see. A camera movement closer or further
away from the camera even as small as 1 cm will change the
result and True Focus might not fully correct the focus.

The gist of the article is that True Focus is effective with wider angle lenses and marginal with normal lenses.
With longer than normal lenses it's of little or no help at all.
Totally unusable with tilt shift.

Here is the link to the full article:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf)

I have shot all formats including beauty campaigns with 8x10 and at wide apertures. I have learned that to keep thing in focus there are all sorts of tricks, with 8x10 for example it is important to pose the model very still and to both focus and shoot at the same point of the models breathing cycle.

Being that I like shooting wide open I was enthusiastic about true focus, but found it was not all it was made out to be by marketing and some of the "fanbase".
I tested it for a good few hours in a row but found it not as effective as I was lead to believe it was.
Very unfortunate because I loved the look of the 100mm 2.2
Obviously the marketing brochures were not written by the same guys at Hasselblad that wrote the article "WHEN TRUE FOCUS MAKES A DIFFERENCE".

I do not shoot much with wide angles, mainly normal to twice normal focal length.

In those ranges I found the GX680 with the moving loup high magnification finder and manual focusing gave me better results with both film and digital.
Same goes for 35mm DSLR with live view or regular focus. With regular focus even composition that are off center still place focus points close enough.
With live view focus no problems at all.

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Anders_HK on October 03, 2012, 05:36:07 am
I can assure you it really works, when you get the hang of it you can actually have the focus anywhere you want in the frame. Even wide open. I prefer it often over the AF of my Nikon (have you ever felt none of the AF brackets is at the place where you actually want it??)

To get back at the topic of the thread. I don't know about that. I just work with all sorts of formats and prefer using MF when I can. Sure great quality but most of all I just like working with it. It is already hard work to make a living from photography but can I at least use what I like? ;)

+888 same as I feel as not making money on photography.

I settled on mfdb for that I find image quality superior and because fit as best tool for my shooting. The tool also influence the image. True focus sounds great, but even without it is so simple with mere one focus point and recompose.
 ;)

@ Bernard, pinhole? I would grab that fussy idea if I was looking for a fussy image!
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Anders_HK on October 03, 2012, 05:44:22 am
Live view on the D800 lets you focus right upto the instant you shoot, right off the sensor and anywhere in the frame.

While True Focus does have it's merits it has it's limitations too. It requires focus and recompose... that alone can be annoying and distracting for the subject and a real pain when on a tripod.

Also true focus DOES NOT account for any camera movements other than the angle of the lens. It cannot detect if the camera moves forward or backwards. Recomposing hand held with a heavy camera will almost always result in camera movement other than lens angle.

On a tripod unless you have a lens centered panoramic head there will always be some forward or backwards movement due to the point of rotation of the head.

The description of true focus with the catch phrase "absolute position lock" is a bit misleading.

All of this is covered in a white paper by Hasselblad:

For example with the 80mm at 1m from the subject they say this:

The gist of the article is that True Focus is effective with wider angle lenses and marginal with normal lenses.
With longer than normal lenses it's of little or no help at all.
Totally unusable with tilt shift.

Here is the link to the full article:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf)

I have shot all formats including beauty campaigns with 8x10 and at wide apertures. I have learned that to keep thing in focus there are all sorts of tricks, with 8x10 for example it is important to pose the model very still and to both focus and shoot at the same point of the models breathing cycle.

Being that I like shooting wide open I was enthusiastic about true focus, but found it was not all it was made out to be by marketing and some of the "fanbase".
I tested it for a good few hours in a row but found it not as effective as I was lead to believe it was.
Very unfortunate because I loved the look of the 100mm 2.2
Obviously the marketing brochures were not written by the same guys at Hasselblad that wrote the article "WHEN TRUE FOCUS MAKES A DIFFERENCE".

I do not shoot much with wide angles, mainly normal to twice normal focal length.

In those ranges I found the GX680 with the moving loup high magnification finder and manual focusing gave me better results with both film and digital.
Same goes for 35mm DSLR with live view or regular focus. With regular focus even composition that are off center still place focus points close enough.
With live view focus no problems at all.



OMG, it is about learning and working within the limitations of the gear. If not one type works for you, then move on, stop fussing and enjoy working with the tool you prefer to use. Simply many others may find e.g. True focus or one focus point on medium format cams much more prefferred.

Is this the behind of this personal "hidden agenda crusade against all mfdb" ?? :)
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Dustbak on October 03, 2012, 05:47:42 am
Live view on the D800 lets you focus right upto the instant you shoot, right off the sensor and anywhere in the frame.

While True Focus does have it's merits it has it's limitations too. It requires focus and recompose... that alone can be annoying and distracting for the subject and a real pain when on a tripod.

Also true focus DOES NOT account for any camera movements other than the angle of the lens. It cannot detect if the camera moves forward or backwards. Recomposing hand held with a heavy camera will almost always result in camera movement other than lens angle.


I actually work almost daily with the HB and know about what it cannot do. Using the focus on live view on my D800 (which I also use) I personally find a pain in the ass certainly when working handheld.

I can tell you from first hand experience that using TF with for instance a heavy lens like the 50-110 while hand holding the camera works like a charm. Naturally this applies when you know how to use it and know what its weaknesses are but doesn't that apply for everything? Recomposing is no problem as long as you keep in mind how to do it and really when you use it a lot it becomes more natural and easier. For me up to a point I often prefer it over the Nikon AF and don't get me started about live view which is nice on a tripod but useless handheld.

All IMO naturally.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 03, 2012, 01:37:16 pm
I can tell you from first hand experience that using TF with for instance a heavy lens like the 50-110 while hand holding the camera works like a charm. Naturally this applies when you know how to use it and know what its weaknesses are but doesn't that apply for everything?

The 50-110mm at 4.5 has 4 times the depth of field of the 100mm 2.2. This will make True Focus performance less critical and will most likely get you close enough.

With the zoom at 50mm you are in the more useful focal length range where focus and recompose will work better.

True Focus could be much better. A few more focusing points would reduce the correction required and reduce the wiggling infront of the model for focusing.
Forward and backwards movement needs to be added to it, but it was not added in the H5D update.

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 03, 2012, 01:49:36 pm
OMG, it is about learning and working within the limitations of the gear. If not one type works for you, then move on, stop fussing and enjoy working with the tool you prefer to use. Simply many others may find e.g. True focus or one focus point on medium format cams much more prefferred.

Is this the behind of this personal "hidden agenda crusade against all mfdb" ?? :)

Why do you get your pants in a twist if I simply point out the limitations of True Focus AS DOCUMENTED BY HASSELBLAD THEMSELVES
I think that pointing this out is useful for anyone either thinking of renting or buying a Hasselblad.

I also think it's relevant that if someone prefers a single focus point one can set a 35mm DSLR to single point too.

More modern focusing systems like that in the Pentax 645D offer both multiple and single focus points.

Quote
it is about learning and working within the limitations of the gear.
Exactly why I point out the limitations.
For many it is also about knowing all the pros and cons and then deciding what to work with. The more one knows the better.

I also happen to use cameras with no autofocus, but I choose to do so with cameras that have high magnification viewfinders.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: JV on October 03, 2012, 02:26:52 pm
Exactly why I point out the limitations.

Fred, no matter what the circumstances may be, luckily we can always count on you to point out the limitations of Hasselblad,
an average of 5 times a day, 7 days a week...
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Nick-T on October 03, 2012, 02:41:45 pm
I use true focus on the 100 2.2 all the time and can state with absolute certainty that it works. I was also one of the original beta testers for the feature and had to test and document my findings. Of course this is only my opinion based on what I have seen over the past  three years.

I can only assume that Fred has a great deal more experience with true focus than I....
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Dustbak on October 03, 2012, 02:44:17 pm
The 50-110mm at 4.5 has 4 times the depth of field of the 100mm 2.2. This will make True Focus performance less critical and will most likely get you close enough.

With the zoom at 50mm you are in the more useful focal length range where focus and recompose will work better.

True Focus could be much better. A few more focusing points would reduce the correction required and reduce the wiggling infront of the model for focusing.
Forward and backwards movement needs to be added to it, but it was not added in the H5D update.



Geez.... Fred. I gave the example of the zoom because it was YOU that mentioned TF would be difficult with a heavy setup... Now, as for the 100/2.2. This lens is almost glued to my body (camerabody that is) and yes wide-open it works too.

Now, what other example would you like to mention now? It seems you are determined to convince me TF does not work which makes me wonder why? I use TF almost daily for the last 2 years and it has made focussing a non-issue for me. I get focus where I want at whatever aperture and it works with every H lens I use.

No, I would most certainly not want more focusing points! It would mean I have to select points and mean a system that is now working very well would become more complicated to use. I like TF as it is, I just wish it would acquire a little bit faster. Oh wait! That is added in the H5!....
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 03, 2012, 03:39:28 pm
Fred, no matter what the circumstances may be, luckily we can always count on you to point out the limitations of Hasselblad,
an average of 5 times a day, 7 days a week...

Interesting that you attack me for pointing out the limitations of True focus as documented by Hasselblad:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf)

I also find it interesting that users here claim it is better than Hasselblad claims in their own article.

You are right that I point out the limitations... many actually appreciate it especially when it is documented by the manufacturers themselves.

As far as I know a discussion forum is not supposed to be "a place of worship".
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: HarperPhotos on October 03, 2012, 03:39:55 pm
Hello,

I would just like to say that the you Hasselblad guys have made me convinced that True Focus does what it was designed to do and do well and I don’t even own a Hasselblad. Our friend Fred seems the sort of person who will not concede when he is miss informed and should respectfully back off. Alas I don’t think that is going to happen.

Well I’m off to my studio to make images.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 03, 2012, 03:44:31 pm
Hello,

I would just like to say that the you Hasselblad guys have made me convinced that True Focus does what it was designed to do and do well and I don’t even own a Hasselblad. Our friend Fred seems the sort of person who will not concede when he is miss informed and should respectfully back off. Alas I don’t think that is going to happen.

Well I’m off to my studio to make images.

Cheers

Simon

Simon... I'm not inventing or making up anything here... and if you say I am miss informed... well I guess I was miss informed by Hasselblad then

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf)
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 03, 2012, 03:50:05 pm
Hi,

For what it is worth, Diglloyd has tested the Hasselblad H4D50 and was not complaining about AF accuracy, but he complained a lot about both Leica S2 and Pentax 645D regarding AF. On the other hand he found both lenses he tested on the blad pretty bad.

In his limited test the Nikon D800 with Zeiss Macro Planar 100/2 outperformed the Leica S2 with Summicron 120/2.2. Nikon was focused using live view and Leica S2 with focus bracketing. The area the Leica lost out was corner performance. The advantage the Nikon/Zeiss combo had was very visible in actual pixel crops.


Best regards
Erik




Hello,

I would just like to say that the you Hasselblad guys have made me convinced that True Focus does what it was designed to do and do well and I don’t even own a Hasselblad. Our friend Fred seems the sort of person who will not concede when he is miss informed and should respectfully back off. Alas I don’t think that is going to happen.

Well I’m off to my studio to make images.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Nick-T on October 03, 2012, 04:10:23 pm
I'm not inventing or making up anything here...

Fred I'm not suggesting that. You are clearly a talented photographer but perhaps not one who has used Hasselblad digital extensively..
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Dustbak on October 03, 2012, 04:15:23 pm
Interesting that you attack me for pointing out the limitations of True focus as documented by Hasselblad:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf)

I also find it interesting that users here claim it is better than Hasselblad claims in their own article.

You are right that I point out the limitations... many actually appreciate it especially when it is documented by the manufacturers themselves.

As far as I know a discussion forum is not supposed to be "a place of worship".

Sure, I don't mind discussion but what am I discussing with you? You quote a document selectively and make it appear whether that is the absolute truth. Yes, TF does make a difference in that example but it does so in other examples too, like with the 100 or 150 wide open. I can only state what I have seen in 2 years of usage. TF works and works well if you know how to use it. No, it does not like lateral movement of either you or the model and no it does not work well on a tripod. It is great hand-held if you know how to work with your wrists. No mentioning of it working better than HB mentions, count to think of it HB doesn't give qualifications on how well it works so there is not much to compare with.

I kind of resent the remark about 'place of worship', I do not worship HB. It is a tool that does what I need it to do in most cases and there is a number of things that I would like to have improved.

I also resent that you only point out the limitations and easily dismiss the possibilities or even ignore them. I think this is the part people 'attack' you on. I actually use the stuff and completely agree on the limitations of that system but despite its shortcomings I find it extremely useful. BTW, I don't particularly feel I am attacking you. I simply feel that you are showing a severe form of tunnel vision for whatever reason.


Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 03, 2012, 04:24:05 pm
You quote a document selectively and make it appear whether that is the absolute truth.

I quoted a part that is relevant to the discussion AND LINKED TO THE WHOLE ARTICLE.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Anders_HK on October 03, 2012, 04:38:11 pm
Fred, no matter what the circumstances may be, luckily we can always count on you to point out the limitations of Hasselblad,
an average of 5 times a day, 7 days a week...


Exact, not only Hassy, it is like attack all on medium format digital wize. Whats up with such an agenda?? And no posts of any good images shot even though asked to. Seems the gent is on revenge rampage on industry or something...

Reading, sure makes me want TF for my Hy6 as well. I sure do not need more focus points. At least with DHW my contact is with CEO. Now how is that compared for support? Perhaps they can at for the Mod 3 upgrade... ;)
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Dustbak on October 03, 2012, 04:39:35 pm
Quote from the article:

"The effect of focus shift as a function of camera movement is more apparent with short focal length lenses at close distances. E.g. a HCD28 used at 1m will show a much larger focus shift than a HC150 used at 15m."

and

"When the camera is tilted for composition, the point of maxi- mum sharpness falls just behind the eyes. However, the DOF is almost large enough to render the eye sharp making the difference hard to see. A camera movement closer or further away from the camera even as small as 1 cm will change the result and True Focus might not fully correct the focus.
"

Which is something different from:

For example with the 80mm at 1m from the subject they say this:
The gist of the article is that True Focus is effective with wider angle lenses and marginal with normal lenses.
With longer than normal lenses it's of little or no help at all.
Totally unusable with tilt shift.

The comment on the 80mm from 1mtr basically says, do not move forward or backward and neither should your model. This is a shortcoming that you do need to learn to work with. I did...

The gist of the article is that the effect most noticable at wider angles which does not mean it does not work with longer focal lengths. It actually works well, again. It does not say anywhere that it is of no help at all with longer focal lengths than normal. Maybe you should have put a little more effort in learning how to use it than just a couple of hours! I have seen people start using TF but it took them a bit longer to learn how to most effectively use it. A couple of hours might not have been enough. Sure it might be the case that TF is simply not for you. Nobody is saying it is an end-all solution.

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ripgriffith on October 03, 2012, 04:45:28 pm
My first experience of Medium format was a fuji 6x4.5 and, compared to film, Digital backs are just epic jokes. I sold my S2 because of that. After realising it was just a plastic tool, with a tiny sensor and that a real MF, a good MF film, do far better in global rendering at an artistic level.

The S2 is just a toy for rich in our actual world. The real soul is in film. Leica are just arrogant marketers, nothing more, aiming ppl who drive Hybrid cars and smoke up their a**.

Those are my first MF shoots ever.
The real soul is in the photographer, not in the medium, not in the tools.  If you want to see real arrogance, take a look in the mirror.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 03, 2012, 05:12:51 pm
Hi,

As a general comment to the whole discussion I would say that:

The best cameras today are probably good enough if you put a decent lens on the body, use tripod, minimum ISO, mirror lockup, cable release  or self timer and focus using live view or a 30X loupe on ground glass shimmed into alignment with the sensor. If you don't do that, why care?

If you do all of the above you may find the best lenses. You can buy a Nikon D800E and a bunch of Zeiss lenses for 6-7000$ and feel assured you have about the best of stuff in the DSLR market.

You can choose to spend 3-5 times the amount on MFD equipment and achieve some real or perceived benefits. Obviously there are couple of benefits of a larger sensor. It will probably collect more photons, unless the vendor of the smaller sensor makes some magic with full well capacity (FWC). A larger format makes also less demand on the lens.

Now, Nikon and Sony developers do some magic with FWC. Check http://www.sensorgen.info/

Nikon D4: FWC=117813
Nikon D800: FWC=44972
Hasselblad H3DII50: FWC=38463
PhaseOne P65Plus: FWC=53019

So although the Nikon D800 has small pixels, FWC is similar to some relatively recent digital back. This may mean, if sensorgen information is correct, that the latest generation of Nikons are very good at collecting photons.

But any way,it is your money, and as long you are happy with the results you have, it is just fine.

Best regards
Erik






Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Kagetsu on October 04, 2012, 01:18:23 am
So pretty much what everybody is saying so far, is it comes down to the lens, and the camera itself is smallest part of the equation.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: EricWHiss on October 04, 2012, 01:29:07 am
So pretty much what everybody is saying so far, is it comes down to the lens, and the camera itself is smallest part of the equation.

Not me!   I'm saying I prefer the big bright viewfinder of my Rollei AFi, the higher flash sync speed, the leaf shutter lenses which allow me to shoot hand held at lower shutter speeds and well a whole lot of other things.   I've tested the d800 side by side and the MF glass produces a different look and the digital backs have superior color.  I prefer the MF crop over the 3::2 ratio of DSLR's as well.   I just find composing much more fluid with the better finders.    Lenses - the way I look at is this - since you can find great lenses for either platform in a way the lenses don't matter, what's left is the usability. Usability depends a lot on the individual and what they are shooting.   btw - I have a nikon F4 camera that I would prefer to the DSLR's they make today because of the viewfinder and viewfinder options.  It's too bad Nikon didn't bring some of that back.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 04, 2012, 02:01:37 am
Hi,

Yes you definitively have a point. Leaf shutters have advantages and good viewfinder are nicer than bad ones. I guess that one of the reasons that Nikon D has not as good viewfinder as the old F4 may be that they want to display more information in the viewfinder, I guess that there may be an LCD panel over the screen. That technology was used in the Minolta Dynax 9Xi, i liked that camera.

On the other hand, not all MF is alike. The Pentax 67 I have has one of the worst viewfinders I have seen and I was never impressed by the older viewfinders on Hasselblad V. Hasselblad later introduced better viewfinder and a microacute screen made by Minolta, that may have been better. But I have mostly seen old stuff.

Good tools are a pleasure to work with.

Best regards
Erik




Not me!   I'm saying I prefer the big bright viewfinder of my Rollei AFi, the higher flash sync speed, the leaf shutter lenses which allow me to shoot hand held at lower shutter speeds and well a whole lot of other things.   I've tested the d800 side by side and the MF glass produces a different look and the digital backs have superior color.  I prefer the MF crop over the 3::2 ratio of DSLR's as well.   I just find composing much more fluid with the better finders.    Lenses - the way I look at is this - since you can find great lenses for either platform in a way the lenses don't matter, what's left is the usability. Usability depends a lot on the individual and what they are shooting.   btw - I have a nikon F4 camera that I would prefer to the DSLR's they make today because of the viewfinder and viewfinder options.  It's too bad Nikon didn't bring some of that back.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Anders_HK on October 04, 2012, 05:07:52 am
Good tools are a pleasure to work with.

+888

And it is not mere the lens or viewfinder, it is all aspect of the chain towards the image. And in end it is the image itself.  ;D
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 04, 2012, 05:34:08 am
Good tools are a pleasure to work with.

Yes, but there is not guarantee that a "good tool" is the best option to reach a certain goal in imaging, among which the best possible image quality.

Either enjoy shooting as an activity or enjoy creating images as an output.

Sometimes both overlap or match, but that is not mandatory nor is it guaranteed. Some photographers feel like they cannot take good images if the camera is not comfortable to their hand, while others could shoot with a boiling iron leaking sulfuric acid if it were to help get 5% additional sharpness.

For example, I find focusing in a camera viewfinder a more pleasing experience than focusing using live view, but the latter is the winning proposition when detail matters. So I use live view when I need to be 100% sure to get sharp images.

The same is true with outdoor gear. Some like the ultra light gear that will enable them to save 10% in energy, even if their back is very uncomfortable, while others cannot even imaging walking 1 km with a pack that is not super comfortable. Horse for courses.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: EricWHiss on October 04, 2012, 10:59:11 am
Yes, if you shoot a lot of different things, its likely one camera won't be enough.  I'll bet most people that have MFDB systems also have a DSLR or other small camera.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 04, 2012, 01:09:39 pm
Hi,

A good tool is one that is appropriate for the job. Sometimes you need a hammer and sometimes a screwdriver. An excellent hammer is of little help when you need a 3.5 mm hex key to remove your Arca QR.

When I have the camera on tripod I more often than not use the LCD. So in that case a good LCD may be more important than a good viewfinder. If I shoot at ground level, I really want an articulated LCD.

On the other hand, when aiming a long telephoto, I really need a viewfinder.  Having an electronic level in the viewfinder is sometimes better than three bubbles in the hot shoe.

Live view is the way to focus anything that doesn't move. If the subject moves, I don't know. In my view peaking is not good enough for stills.

In a single day I used everything between 12mm on full frame and 800 mm on APS-C., and pretty much everything in between, shooting in the Grand Teton NP. The 800 came handy for shooting and filming an Osprey in it's nest and the 12 mm was nice to emphasize sagebush against the Tetons.

Best regards
Erik

Yes, but there is not guarantee that a "good tool" is the best option to reach a certain goal in imaging, among which the best possible image quality.

Either enjoy shooting as an activity or enjoy creating images as an output.

Sometimes both overlap or match, but that is not mandatory nor is it guaranteed. Some photographers feel like they cannot take good images if the camera is not comfortable to their hand, while others could shoot with a boiling iron leaking sulfuric acid if it were to help get 5% additional sharpness.

For example, I find focusing in a camera viewfinder a more pleasing experience than focusing using live view, but the latter is the winning proposition when detail matters. So I use live view when I need to be 100% sure to get sharp images.

The same is true with outdoor gear. Some like the ultra light gear that will enable them to save 10% in energy, even if their back is very uncomfortable, while others cannot even imaging walking 1 km with a pack that is not super comfortable. Horse for courses.

Cheers,
Bernard

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: marcmccalmont on October 04, 2012, 01:37:12 pm
The best tool is the one between your ears!
Marc
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 04, 2012, 06:21:04 pm
Hi,

A good tool is one that is appropriate for the job. Sometimes you need a hammer and sometimes a screwdriver. An excellent hammer is of little help when you need a 3.5 mm hex key to remove your Arca QR.

Exactly, which means that not all good tools are a pleasure to work with.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 04, 2012, 08:16:51 pm
Hi Bernard,

Just a small example.

I used a Gitzo GT3541LS but now upgraded to a much nicer RRS Versa 3S. Earlier I used  ball heads, but I had a few problems with those. I try to compose exactly, and a ballhead does not lock exactly, also there is always a mechanical flex in the camera itself. So it is hard to ompose exactly with a long lens. You lock the head and there will be a significant shift when you take your hand from the camera.

In addition, my main lens is a 24-70/2.8 lens. And the camera I have is also quite heavy. So after a couple days of shooting I had pain in my hands.

A year ago I invested in an Arca D4 head that I am quite happy with. But I replaced the quick release with an RRS one, as I felt that the original one was to flimsy. Finally I added a balancing bowl from RRS. That combo works as I want a tripod to work. it's functional and a pleasure to work with. Total investment is close to a D600 in cost.

Cheers,
Erik
Exactly, which means that not all good tools are a pleasure to work with.

Cheers,
Bernard

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 04, 2012, 08:18:34 pm
Hi Marc,

Hopefully so.

Erik
The best tool is the one between your ears!
Marc
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: rainer_v on October 06, 2012, 11:42:35 pm
i think the d800e with the right lenses simply is amazing.
i work since 2005 with mf backs 22/33/56 mp from sinar and leaf with the best rodenstock, sinar/zeiss and contax/zeiss lenses available, so i think i have seen much in respect of "best" mf image quality.
the dynamic range and color reproduction of my new d800e together with good lenses
(i just have a few ones for the nikon,  the 24PC ( i wrote before 28PC - thats wrong  ), the voigtländer 20+40mm, the nikon 1,8/85 and a nikon 80-400mm ) is simply stunning.
still i prefer for my usual architecture the artek with the leaf aptus10 back, but its more for the convenience to work and for the wider setup of lenses and for the higher resolution of ustitched images, than for a miss or lack of the pure image quality on side of the nikon.
at contrary: i just had to shoot a very difficult opera house in bayreuth, which just became to the world heritage list. very, very difficult to shoot, light only from many bulb lamps at the walls, together with thousands of  baroque details and colors.
the linos wide angles ( esp. the 23 +28) have its difficulties with flare and light which lits direct in the lens and the dynamic range of the scenes was extremely huge ...
so contrary to all other posters here i took the nikon esp. for the difficulty of the job, where everybody here seems to do the opposite, means to use the nikon for "easier" jobs.
i took the nikon, using mostly the 24PC  and stitching the max. image circle together to reach enough wide angle. the result became very good, the dynamic range at base iso is simply spectacular and the color reproduction for these kind of stuff very good and natural.
btw. the d800e is not a camera anymore for handheld shooting. to get it really 100% sharp needs quite fast times - or a tripod.  but at all ... this camera is an amazing step. i really wait the 17TS, which i hope they will bring out in 2013.

in the meantime i go on for architecture with my artek/leaf combo and the canon 5dsmk2 for long lens and sometimes even handheld stuff ( and as backup system ), the nikon is too picky for this
and there are not enough wa shift lenses ( esp. the miss of a 17 ) to replace the canon system as backup system.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: HarperPhotos on October 07, 2012, 02:00:15 am
Hello Rainer,

By putting your name to the Nikon D800E you have made it respectable.

IMO

Regards

Simon
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 07, 2012, 03:29:39 am
Hello Rainer,

By putting your name to the Nikon D800E you have made it respectable.

On behalf of all the non respectable D800 users who have been praising this camera since we started using it, thank you! :)

Inertia is a scary thing when you realize that the D3x had many of the qualities of the D800... almost 4 years ago.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: heinrichvoelkel on October 07, 2012, 04:23:57 am
i think the d800e with the right lenses simply is amazing.
...
the 28PC ,
...
and there are not enough wa shift lenses ( esp. the miss of a 17 ) to replace the canon system as backup system.


rainer, did you try and tested the Nikon 24 PC? curious
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 07, 2012, 04:47:53 am
The best tool is the one between your ears!
Marc
Yup.. it's the one you use to choose the right camera too  ;)
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 07, 2012, 05:17:21 am
i think the d800e with the right lenses simply is amazing.
i work since 2005 with mf backs 22/33/56 mp from sinar and leaf with the best rodenstock, sinar/zeiss and contax/zeiss lenses available, so i think i have seen much in respect of "best" mf image quality.
the dynamic range and color reproduction of my new d800e together with good lenses
(i just have a few ones for the nikon,  the 28PC , the voigtländer 20+40mm, the nikon 1,8/85 and a nikon 80-400mm ) is simply stunning.
still i prefer for my usual architecture the artek with the leaf aptus10 back, but its more for the convenience to work and for the wider setup of lenses and for the higher resolution of ustitched images, than for a miss or lack of the pure image quality on side of the nikon.
at contrary: i just had to shoot a very difficult opera house in bayreuth, which just became to the world heritage list. very, very difficult to shoot, light only from many bulb lamps at the walls, together with thousands of  baroque details and colors.
the linos wide angles ( esp. the 23 +28) have its difficulties with flare and light which lits direct in the lens and the dynamic range of the scenes was extremely huge ...
so contrary to all other posters here i took the nikon esp. for the difficulty of the job, where everybody here seems to do the opposite, means to use the nikon for "easier" jobs.
i took the nikon, using mostly the 28PC  and stitching the max. image circle together to reach enough wide angle. the result became very good, the dynamic range at base iso is simply spectacular and the color reproduction for these kind of stuff very good and natural.
btw. the d800e is not a camera anymore for handheld shooting. to get it really 100% sharp needs quite fast times - or a tripod.  but at all ... this camera is an amazing step. i really wait the 17TS, which i hope they will bring out in 2013.

in the meantime i go on for architecture with my artek/leaf combo and the canon 5dsmk2 for long lens and sometimes even handheld stuff ( and as backup system ), the nikon is too picky for this
and there are not enough wa shift lenses ( esp. the miss of a 17 ) to replace the canon system as backup system.


It's good to hear from a fine colleague like you that you see what I see in the D800 and D800E. It also confirms what was clearly seen in
some of the lab tests. Some people here like to put down the DXO labs tests and other lab tests.

Your architectural work is very clean and precise... in a sense "precision laboratory work" in beautifully designed "labs"
and with the eye of a fine designer.

Quote
... this camera is an amazing step.

Exactly what I thought when I saw the first files a friend sent me. Nuns dressed some in black and some in white in front of the Fontana Di Trevi
at hi noon on a crisp sunny day.

When I first put the together the 85mm 1.4 and the D800 I could not help chuckling about how much could come out of such a small little package.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 07, 2012, 05:22:53 am
i really wait the 17TS, which i hope they will bring out in 2013.

It will be very interesting to see the new "XXL" lenses for 35mm DSLRs from Zeiss and what they will do with their wide angle offerings in this new new lens series.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: rainer_v on October 07, 2012, 07:31:01 am
rainer, did you try and tested the Nikon 24 PC? curious

yes , this is the lens i was working. optically very good, nearly as good than the canon counterpart, but not reaching it complete.
at f8-11 very sharp till the corners even when fully shifted.
if shifted in 45 degree angle to its limit it vignettes a bit the corner, the eff. image circle is about , i would say 55 - 60mm.
a tiny bit of CA, but really tiny.
good distortion, a bit worse than the  canon 24tse II.
mechanically somehow crappy,- i had the older version and it was from the calumet rental and  was already very used.
the new 24PC i bought afterwards is better damped if the shift is locked.
but overall its a very good lens which is sharp enough to resolve the 800e to its limit.

i hardly doubt that any unsymmetric mf wide angle lens will do better, with or without red dot.
at least my sinar/zeiss M 40mm and my contax 35mm lenses are not better
( although not worse- both might perform similar in terms of sharpness and CA than the 24PC ).
i dont know about and even i dont know if there is a leica S counterpart.
mamya 645 35mm and pentax 645 35mm lenses are less good.
and all of these lenses above are not shiftable.
the rodenstocks 28 & 35 HR are somehow sharper and have  less/none CA.
distortion might be similar, but sensitive to flare they render with backlight  much worse, at least the 28HR.

btw.:
about new zeiss WA i have not so high expectations,  i will see if they will change my mind.
i tested all 35mm zeiss wa glass and i think the only good one in their line up is the fat 21mm, which shows at the same time a lot of moustache. best fixed focal wide i could find is the voigtländer 3,5/20, but i had to try several samples till i had a real sharp one. as well as the vl 40mm ( but longer than 35mm lenses are many good ones ). both resolve with the nikon very crispy, if stopped down to f8.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 07, 2012, 10:01:05 am
Hi,

Thanks for sharing.

Best regards
Erik

yes , this is the lens i was working. optically very good, nearly as good than the canon counterpart, but not reaching it complete.
at f8-11 very sharp till the corners even when fully shifted.
if shifted in 45 degree angle to its limit it vignettes a bit the corner, the eff. image circle is about , i would say 55 - 60mm.
a tiny bit of CA, but really tiny.
good distortion, a bit worse than the  canon 24tse II.
mechanically somehow crappy,- i had the older version and it was from the calumet rental and  was already very used.
the new 24PC i bought afterwards is better damped if the shift is locked.
but overall its a very good lens which is sharp enough to resolve the 800e to its limit.

i hardly doubt that any unsymmetric mf wide angle lens will do better, with or without red dot.
at least my sinar/zeiss M 40mm and my contax 35mm lenses are not better
( although not worse- both might perform similar in terms of sharpness and CA than the 24PC ).
i dont know about and even i dont know if there is a leica S counterpart.
mamya 645 35mm and pentax 645 35mm lenses are less good.
and all of these lenses above are not shiftable.
the rodenstocks 28 & 35 HR are somehow sharper and have  less/none CA.
distortion might be similar, but sensitive to flare they render with backlight  much worse, at least the 28HR.

btw.:
about new zeiss WA i have not so high expectations,  i will see if they will change my mind.
i tested all 35mm zeiss wa glass and i think the only good one in their line up is the fat 21mm, which shows at the same time a lot of moustache. best fixed focal wide i could find is the voigtländer 3,5/20, but i had to try several samples till i had a real sharp one. as well as the vl 40mm ( but longer than 35mm lenses are many good ones ). both resolve with the nikon very crispy, if stopped down to f8.

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: heinrichvoelkel on October 07, 2012, 03:00:11 pm
yes, thank you Rainer for the info. because of the 28mm, I was thinking you're using the Schneider 28mm PC lens, but good to know, someone is happy with his Nikon PC lens. Another question, did you try the 14-24mm Nikon zoom?

Regards
Heinrich
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 07, 2012, 03:19:09 pm
yes, thank you Rainer for the info. because of the 28mm, I was thinking you're using the Schneider 28mm PC lens, but good to know, someone is happy with his Nikon PC lens. Another question, did you try the 14-24mm Nikon zoom?

Regards
Heinrich

Distortion is quite pronounced at shorter focal lengths, but well corrected at 24.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 07, 2012, 03:33:07 pm
Hi,

I get the impression that camera profiles handle distortion, vignetting and lateral chroma quite well, so I don't care so much about those aberration. What about sharpness/resolution/MTF?

Best regards
Erik


Distortion is quite pronounced at shorter focal lengths, but well corrected at 24.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: rainer_v on October 07, 2012, 05:50:09 pm
resolution is very good. stopped down to f8-11 its sharp till the corners. 
you are right, CA is not a problem, and the 24PC dont show much of it in any case.
no, i still havent tried the 14-24mm.


Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 07, 2012, 06:40:12 pm
Hi,

I get the impression that camera profiles handle distortion, vignetting and lateral chroma quite well, so I don't care so much about those aberration. What about sharpness/resolution/MTF?

Best regards
Erik



Camera/Lens profiles do correct for distortion, vignetting and lateral chroma aberations, but AT A COST.

In particular resolution at the edges will suffer as you are shifting pixels around and doing scaling.

Remember correcting for pin cusion distortion involves distorting the image significantly at the edges.
If you are concerned about edge sharpness pre correction distortion should be kept in mind.

Camera/Lens profiles cannot preform miracles.

Here is what the corner of the 14-24 looks like before lens correction:

(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Nikon-14-24mm-f-2.8G-AF-S-Lens/Crop3/2009-11-19_12-32-11.jpg)
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: HarperPhotos on October 07, 2012, 09:12:06 pm
Hi Rainer,

I too am looking forward to Nikon bringing out 17mm PC-E lens.

Was disappointed when it wasn't unveiled at Photokina.

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/27/nikon-patents-for-17mm-f4-tilt-and-shift-10mm-f4-16-30mm-f4-5-5-6-and-28mm-f1-4-lenses.aspx/

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Stefan.Steib on October 08, 2012, 06:47:31 am
Fred

Using a testtable of comparably small size to MTF superwideangles is a total misconception, if any informations shall be drawn from this, you would need to focus at least twice
maybe 3 times (center, medium range and corners), to compensate for the spherical sharpness plane of wideangles. This and only this would give informations about real imaging in 3 d objects/scenes.

The whole testing on websites and also at most standardization instances takes this wrong approach, a wideangle is not a repro lens, thus a flat field is not needed.

Photographers and people who refuse to believe blindly into these standard MTF results do testimages (Like diglloyd.com) and then tell what you can really do with this lens.

Regards
Stefan
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: andre_m on October 08, 2012, 06:52:33 am
Maybe this is OT. I've rented the same 24mm PC from Calumet in August. The 10-pin connector of the D800 is too near to the lens. Shifting the 24mm PC in panorama direction using a remote control cable is limited on one side.
Haven't tried the 45mm PC. Remote control with my 85mm PC is no problem.

André
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 08, 2012, 05:08:12 pm
Fred

Using a testtable of comparably small size to MTF superwideangles is a total misconception, if any informations shall be drawn from this, you would need to focus at least twice
maybe 3 times (center, medium range and corners), to compensate for the spherical sharpness plane of wideangles. This and only this would give informations about real imaging in 3 d objects/scenes.

The whole testing on websites and also at most standardization instances takes this wrong approach, a wideangle is not a repro lens, thus a flat field is not needed.

Photographers and people who refuse to believe blindly into these standard MTF results do testimages (Like diglloyd.com) and then tell what you can really do with this lens.

Regards
Stefan



When you say flat field are you referring to focus plane.  I can think of quite a few uses other than repro work where a flat focus plane is quite important.

My main point though was that lens profiles are not magic. Corrections to distortion will result in resolution loss due to scaling and pixels being moved around.
If a lens is already a bit less sharp at the edges and has significant distortion the corrective distortion will reduce the sharpness that it already weaker than the center.

It seems too many people assume that distortion correction is at "no cost" and put too much faith in "fancy RAW converters"
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 08, 2012, 05:30:18 pm
Hi Stefan,

Thanks for comment. Just want to say that it is quite common that subject in landscape shooting is at infinity. My understanding is that a lens with field curvature will not focus correctly at infinity at centers and corners simultaneously.

You have posted some pretty impressive images from Hartblei cameras, high end backs and Canon wide angles.

My understanding is that the Hartblei lenses are Zeiss MF lenses. When I looked at the MTF curves of Hasselblad lenses I have not been that much impressed. Take the Macro Planar 120/4 for instance: http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/cfi/Makro-Planar4_120mm_CFi_107884_e.pdf, it doesn't seem to be very sharp off center, but I got the impression that it is a highly regarded lens.

A more typical lens may be the macro Planar 80/2: http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/contax_645/planar2_80mm_e.pdf it has about 70% MTF at 20 lp/mm or lower on a large part of the field. But I got the impression that it is a pretty good lens.

One of the better lenses for DSLRs is the Sigma 70/2.8 DG Macro, that lens has around 85-90% MTF at 20 lp/mm over the entire field.

Neverheless, the Hartblei lenses seem to be very sharp according to Lloyd among others. What is your take and explanation?

Enclosed diagrams:

Top Sigma 70/2.8 DG Macro at 20 lp/mm measured at Hasselblad
Center Planar 80/2.0 (Contax 645 mount)
Bottom Macro Planar 120/4 (hasselblad mount?)

Best regards
Erik


Fred

Using a testtable of comparably small size to MTF superwideangles is a total misconception, if any informations shall be drawn from this, you would need to focus at least twice
maybe 3 times (center, medium range and corners), to compensate for the spherical sharpness plane of wideangles. This and only this would give informations about real imaging in 3 d objects/scenes.

The whole testing on websites and also at most standardization instances takes this wrong approach, a wideangle is not a repro lens, thus a flat field is not needed.

Photographers and people who refuse to believe blindly into these standard MTF results do testimages (Like diglloyd.com) and then tell what you can really do with this lens.

Regards
Stefan
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: tho_mas on October 08, 2012, 07:01:29 pm
When I looked at the MTF curves of Hasselblad lenses I have not been that much impressed. Take the Macro Planar 120/4 for instance: http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/cfi/Makro-Planar4_120mm_CFi_107884_e.pdf, it doesn't seem to be very sharp off center, but I got the impression that it is a highly regarded lens.
I think the "highly regarded" 4/120 macro is the Contax, not the Hasselblad version... isn't it?
-> Contax 645 lenses: http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-objektive/service/downloadcenter/contax_645.html
-> Contax 4/120 macro PDF: http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/de/downloadcenter/contax_645/apo-makro-planar_t_4_120_ger.pdf

A more typical lens may be the macro Planar 80/2: http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/contax_645/planar2_80mm_e.pdf it has about 70% MTF at 20 lp/mm or lower on a large part of the field. But I got the impression that it is a pretty good lens.
on a P45 (6.8 microns pixel pitch) stopped down it's a sharp lens. At f8, f 11 and f16 it's also sharp enough to cover the image plane of the P45. Beside MTF charts and edge to edge sharpness it's above all a very nice lens (= nice look). It's sharp, yes, but I think it's particularly the look why people regard it as a "good lens".
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 08, 2012, 11:54:59 pm
Hi,

Thanks for pointing out that the curves are coming from the Contax version of the lens. Hasselblad used to have MTF data for all the V-lenses, but they removed those data from their web site. The reason I wanted to discuss that lens is the relatively low MTF at 40 lp/mm and that I have the impression that it is a lens that is considered a good one. The Hasselblad curves were quite similar to the Contax version as far as I can recall.

The Nyquist limit on the P45 is 73 lp/mm. I would expect a lens, like the ones I referred to, to transfer very little contrast at 73 lp/mm.

The Nikon D3X has similar pixel pitch to the P45, so if a lens is sharp on the P45 it would also be sharp on the D3X, may be even a bit sharper (per pixel) as that camera only uses the central part of the image circle.

This also reminds me of the "great MFDB shootout" of 2006 when Michael Reichmann, Bill Atkinsson and Charlie Cramer tested their new P45 backs. Michael had his new HR Digaron (?) lenses, Bill H-series "Blad" and Charlie Mamiya but there was not so much difference. I would expected the Digaron to stand out but I cannot recall that it was clearly the case.

Best regards
Erik


I think the "highly regarded" 4/120 macro is the Contax, not the Hasselblad version... isn't it?
-> Contax 645 lenses: http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-objektive/service/downloadcenter/contax_645.html
-> Contax 4/120 macro PDF: http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/de/downloadcenter/contax_645/apo-makro-planar_t_4_120_ger.pdf
 on a P45 (6.8 microns pixel pitch) stopped down it's a sharp lens. At f8, f 11 and f16 it's also sharp enough to cover the image plane of the P45. Beside MTF charts and edge to edge sharpness it's above all a very nice lens (= nice look). It's sharp, yes, but I think it's particularly the look why people regard it as a "good lens".

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Stefan.Steib on October 11, 2012, 10:15:36 am
>>>>>>>>Hasselblad used to have MTF data for all the V-lenses, but they removed those data from their web site. <<<<<<<<

You will still find these Infos here:

http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-camera-lenses/service/download_center/hasselblad_cf.html

Regards
Stefan
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 11, 2012, 02:46:20 pm
Hi Stefan,

Thanks a lot for info!

Best regards
Erik


>>>>>>>>Hasselblad used to have MTF data for all the V-lenses, but they removed those data from their web site. <<<<<<<<

You will still find these Infos here:

http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-camera-lenses/service/download_center/hasselblad_cf.html

Regards
Stefan
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Gandalf on October 12, 2012, 01:52:22 pm
Quote from: Dustbak
"When the camera is tilted for composition, the point of maxi- mum sharpness falls just behind the eyes. However, the DOF is almost large enough to render the eye sharp making the difference hard to see. A camera movement closer or further away from the camera even as small as 1 cm will change the result and True Focus might not fully correct the focus.
"

I think that is really the issue of True Focus right there. If the combined movement if photographer and model is more than 10 mm it fails. If you move 5 mm and the model moves 5 mm, the shot is out of focus. If even one of you is mostly still, it is a godsend. This is why the discussion is so polarized -- there is no middle ground. It either works for you or it doesn't. If it does work for you, it can be the difference between being able to use MFD vs. confined to DSLR.

I think people also fail to realize that needs are different for each photographer. I'm in the process of evaluating a new camera system, and it has to be flexible because I'm not entirely sure where I am going as a photographic direction. I was all excited to get a D800 until I spent a little time with one and realized it is the feel and format of DSLRs that I dislike the most. The resolution is great. The color reproduction is less so. Against a new Credo there is no comparison. Against a 25-40 mp Aptus or P-series Phase back of somewhat more comparable cost the decision process isn't that easy. If you need leaf shutter lenses or need lens movements the decision is easy, but if those are only things that you would really like to have some of the time, it gets tough. Same with telephotos. If you need them, the choice is easy. If you use a short tele on occasion, the choice gets harder. Sure the D800 is a relative bargain, that is undeniable, the question is whether it works for you or not. And that is a question that I have had a hard time answering.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 12, 2012, 02:29:09 pm
Hi,

If you have the camera on tripod and change composition, I'm pretty sure the camera will shift, unless it is suspended at the nodal point.

Regarding color, I have some doubts. Jeff Schewe and Michael Reichmann seems to say that color can be adjusted pretty freely. Have you tried to build and tweak a DNG profile?

Alex Koskolov made a few raw files from Hasselblad 4D40 and Nikon D800E available and those include pretty good shots of an Xrite color checker. The Nikon was more accurate, at least when using LR4. Both were oversaturated the Hasselblad much more than the Nikon. I may be that the Hasselblad had nicer colors but the difference may have been a small difference in saturation.

Note: I rechecked Mr. Koskolovs files. It turned out that the color checker exposure had green channel clipping on the Hassy image, so I could not build profiles. The image looked perfectly good to me. Learning all time.

Best regards
Erik




I think that is really the issue of True Focus right there. If the combined movement if photographer and model is more than 10 mm it fails. If you move 5 mm and the model moves 5 mm, the shot is out of focus. If even one of you is mostly still, it is a godsend. This is why the discussion is so polarized -- there is no middle ground. It either works for you or it doesn't. If it does work for you, it can be the difference between being able to use MFD vs. confined to DSLR.

I think people also fail to realize that needs are different for each photographer. I'm in the process of evaluating a new camera system, and it has to be flexible because I'm not entirely sure where I am going as a photographic direction. I was all excited to get a D800 until I spent a little time with one and realized it is the feel and format of DSLRs that I dislike the most. The resolution is great. The color reproduction is less so. Against a new Credo there is no comparison. Against a 25-40 mp Aptus or P-series Phase back of somewhat more comparable cost the decision process isn't that easy. If you need leaf shutter lenses or need lens movements the decision is easy, but if those are only things that you would really like to have some of the time, it gets tough. Same with telephotos. If you need them, the choice is easy. If you use a short tele on occasion, the choice gets harder. Sure the D800 is a relative bargain, that is undeniable, the question is whether it works for you or not. And that is a question that I have had a hard time answering.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 12, 2012, 06:14:50 pm
Hi,

I looked at  MTF curves and reread Diglloyd's article a few times. I specially looked at the 120/4 as I felt the MTFs curves were pretty low.

What is interesting that Lloyd found that the lens needs to be stopped down significantly, but it has a lovely rendition. He actually feels that the only lens which is similar is the Zeiss 100/2.

Hmm

Best regards
Erik

>>>>>>>>Hasselblad used to have MTF data for all the V-lenses, but they removed those data from their web site. <<<<<<<<

You will still find these Infos here:

http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-camera-lenses/service/download_center/hasselblad_cf.html

Regards
Stefan
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: kers on October 12, 2012, 07:35:45 pm
I would also like to have a 17mmPCE lens from Nikon, but in the meantime i really enjoy the 14-24mm lens.

I think it is one of the best lenses Nikon has made and does not disappoint me on the d800E.
(the detail is a bit better with the 24mm PCE .)
the distortion at 24mm is almost none ( better then the PCE) and at 14mm very decent and well corrected in ACR.
Flare is the only mayor problem because of the massive front lens...
btw the only program that i know of that deals with PCE-lens distortion is PTlens..
 ( I am trying to get photo Ninja to deal with the chromatic aberration)
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Stefan.Steib on October 14, 2012, 11:49:11 am
Eric

the Zeiss MF lenses that we use are somehow misrepresented by the shere numbers. If you read Lloyds test he also states this.
it is my experience that many lenses, especially from the MF range are totally misunderstood and should be looked at new from a digital point of view.
First- a larger imagecircle and the longer Flange Focal Distance result in chromafree and very low vignetting images. This kind of uniformity
is much more important than what people see in these MTF charts, which are valid only for flat repro situations which are not occuring in 99% of all images shot.
A final sharpening of very uniform and clean but not so sharp image will result in a better image than a pinsharp center with a lightfalloff with chromas in the edges and
uneven image character.

I see this proofed by many of our customer Photos who are more and more realizing that the current mainstream of lens"knowhow" totally misrepresents
the fact that some older lenses are also not so much prone to diffraction (many new lenses have their peak at open aperture which makes them nearly unusable
if you NEED to stop them down e.g. for product Photography where you just need this depth of field and struggle for every mm !)

This in combination with the special T* coating (7 layer-still best of all!) and a much denser blue channel (about 15-20%) gives the Zeiss glass this 3D look.

greetings from Germany
Stefan
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 14, 2012, 12:01:57 pm
Eric

the Zeiss MF lenses that we use are somehow misrepresented by the shere numbers. If you read Lloyds test he also states this.
it is my experience that many lenses, especially from the MF range are totally misunderstood and should be looked at new from a digital point of view.
First- a larger imagecircle and the longer Flange Focal Distance result in chromafree and very low vignetting images. This kind of uniformity
is much more important than what people see in these MTF charts, which are valid only for flat repro situations which are not occuring in 99% of all images shot.
A final sharpening of very uniform and clean but not so sharp image will result in a better image than a pinsharp center with a lightfalloff with chromas in the edges and
uneven image character.

I see this proofed by many of our customer Photos who are more and more realizing that the current mainstream of lens"knowhow" totally misrepresents
the fact that some older lenses are also not so much prone to diffraction (many new lenses have their peak at open aperture which makes them nearly unusable
if you NEED to stop them down e.g. for product Photography where you just need this depth of field and struggle for every mm !)

This in combination with the special T* coating (7 layer-still best of all!) and a much denser blue channel (about 15-20%) gives the Zeiss glass this 3D look.

greetings from Germany
Stefan

I love the C and CF lenses on digital, especially on a Canon.  They have such a smoothness to the images missing from the modern ultrasharp mega 35mm lenses.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: kers on October 14, 2012, 12:37:57 pm
I love the C and CF lenses on digital, especially on a Canon.  They have such a smoothness to the images missing from the modern ultrasharp mega 35mm lenses.

I agree the Zeiss have something special (i had two) - the only Nikkors that have this smooth and 3d look are the PCE-lenses and i like best the 45PCE in this respect.
Also their T* coating is so important- I must say Nikons nanocoating is a big step forwards.. ( I am not familiar with Canon Lenses)
really looking forward to see what Zeiss has to offer in 2013- ( must say i often like the light falloff of the Zeiss, makes images more dramatic..)
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: MrSmith on October 14, 2012, 01:52:46 pm
It seems too many people assume that distortion correction is at "no cost" and put too much faith in "fancy RAW converters"

Like Phocus. Those Fuji lenses made for hassleblad certainly benefit from the lens profiles, the chromatic abhoration at the edges was terrible on the 120 and zoom I used.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 14, 2012, 03:33:42 pm
Hi Stefan,

Just to make the point I have two "Zeiss" lenses marked with T* and dual serial numbers. They are made by Sony. So I'm not Zeiss sceptic.

You are also right that sharpening is part of the mix. A lens having benign aberrations would sharpen better than one having extreme corrections.

I also checked out the Diglloyd article and his finding was in part the reason I posted the question. He essentially says that the lens is lacking contrast and needs to be stopped down to f/11, but when stopped down it draws lovely. Diglloyd says that it is only matched by the 100/2 Macro Planar. I mostly shoot at f/8 so F/11 is OK with me.

A couple issues where I don't agree, but I am open for good explanations:

1) Flatness of field. When I shoot landscape, more often than not everything is at infinity. Curvature of field would affect edges and corners negatively: I would claim that a landscape subject at infinity when rendered in the focal plane would be flat. So I would argue that low curvature of field is important.

2) To my knowledge diffraction is only dependent on lens opening. Now, the shape of the aperture matters but most modern lenses I have nearly circular aperture. Diffraction is a property of light and nothing lens designers can do about. The reason that lenses loose sharpness is diffraction. The earlier a lens is becoming diffraction limited the better is the lens.

Now, I may be wrong on these issues. You can perhaps explain where I err, or point me to some source of information? Life is a learning experience!

I don't understand your statement "and a much denser blue channel (about 15-20%) gives the Zeiss glass this 3D look." Which blue channel are you talking about?

Also, could you post a sample with an example of "this 3D look", perhaps also with another image lacking the 3D look. It is much talked about, but I have not seen it demonstrated. Well possible that my Zeiss lenses have some of that 3D-look, I don't know.

Thanks for responding and trying to enlighten me about the issue.

Best regards
Erik

Eric

the Zeiss MF lenses that we use are somehow misrepresented by the shere numbers. If you read Lloyds test he also states this.
it is my experience that many lenses, especially from the MF range are totally misunderstood and should be looked at new from a digital point of view.
First- a larger imagecircle and the longer Flange Focal Distance result in chromafree and very low vignetting images. This kind of uniformity
is much more important than what people see in these MTF charts, which are valid only for flat repro situations which are not occuring in 99% of all images shot.
A final sharpening of very uniform and clean but not so sharp image will result in a better image than a pinsharp center with a lightfalloff with chromas in the edges and
uneven image character.

I see this proofed by many of our customer Photos who are more and more realizing that the current mainstream of lens"knowhow" totally misrepresents
the fact that some older lenses are also not so much prone to diffraction (many new lenses have their peak at open aperture which makes them nearly unusable
if you NEED to stop them down e.g. for product Photography where you just need this depth of field and struggle for every mm !)

This in combination with the special T* coating (7 layer-still best of all!) and a much denser blue channel (about 15-20%) gives the Zeiss glass this 3D look.

greetings from Germany
Stefan
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Stefan.Steib on October 14, 2012, 05:56:45 pm
I just wanted to point you on a discussion on the Openphotography forum from 2007 that was discussing this exact same subject but I just saw that the comparison images are gone now.

You can try yourself, all the Zeiss lenses with the latest T* cotaing do show this, best comaprison maybe the 100mm Zeiss makro and the 100mm EF Canon makro.

The Blue channel (as in RGB....) is denser with more info on the zeiss one the exact same  scene, lighting and processing. This is also the reason why the Zeiss lenses always look cooler and the Canon look yellowish.

About the 3D look, of course this is subjektive, but I´d propose to go over to flickr and take a look at the Zeiss groups, any user of these lenses reports this, but of course as
nobody permanently keeps a complete double set of lenses to test in his bag you will not find much 1:1 examples.
This was also discussed to death half a zillion times now, just type Zeiss 3D look into google and you will find exactly 1610000 results for this search.
I guess I will not start nr. 16100001.

regards
Stefan
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 14, 2012, 06:02:46 pm
Hi,

As I said I have two Zeiss lenses myself. I will google.

That thing about the blue channel, setting white balance on a gray card, wouldn't it adjust for that?

Best regards
Erik


I just wanted to point you on a discussion on the Openphotography forum from 2007 that was discussing this exact same subject but I just saw that the comparison images are gone now.

You can try yourself, all the Zeiss lenses with the latest T* cotaing do show this, best comaprison maybe the 100mm Zeiss makro and the 100mm EF Canon makro.

The Blue channel (as in RGB....) is denser with more info on the zeiss one the exact same  scene, lighting and processing. This is also the reason why the Zeiss lenses always look cooler and the Canon look yellowish.

About the 3D look, of course this is subjektive, but I´d propose to go over to flickr and take a look at the Zeiss groups, any user of these lenses reports this, but of course as
nobody permanently keeps a complete double set of lenses to test in his bag you will not find much 1:1 examples.
This was also discussed to death half a zillion times now, just type Zeiss 3D look into google and you will find exactly 1610000 results for this search.
I guess I will not start nr. 16100001.

regards
Stefan
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 15, 2012, 02:13:58 pm
Your points about Zeiss lenses are well known in the film industry.  Matched Zeiss PL mount primes really are amazing.  Many in rental are OLD, beat looking things.  Wonderful lenses.

T

I just wanted to point you on a discussion on the Openphotography forum from 2007 that was discussing this exact same subject but I just saw that the comparison images are gone now.

You can try yourself, all the Zeiss lenses with the latest T* cotaing do show this, best comaprison maybe the 100mm Zeiss makro and the 100mm EF Canon makro.

The Blue channel (as in RGB....) is denser with more info on the zeiss one the exact same  scene, lighting and processing. This is also the reason why the Zeiss lenses always look cooler and the Canon look yellowish.

* * *

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Stefan.Steib on October 15, 2012, 05:58:29 pm
>>>>That thing about the blue channel, setting white balance on a gray card, wouldn't it adjust for that?<<<

Well the greybalance will change the visible image, but the Blue channel does hold more information than a comparable blue channel on a canon lens.

This will affect shadows and Highlights. there is simply more detail visible and more contrast.

regards
Stefan
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 15, 2012, 09:58:27 pm
Hi,

You don't think that this would be related to better correction of the secondary spectrum on the Zeiss lens? I mean better correction of chromatic aberration in the blue part of the spectrum?

If I had Nikon or Canon I would probably just buy a Zeiss 100/2 Macro Planar to find out. I could put it my Sony with a Leitax adapter but loose automatic aperture and AF and 100 macro is not something I use very often.

I guess I try to compare the Zeiss lenses I have with the other lenses I have to begin with. I don't know about how much Zeiss the Sony lenses are, but they have T* markings, Zeiss serial numbers (in addition to Sonys) and came with a QC certificate from Zeiss (but no MTF curves).

I may end up buying a Hartblei? Who knows? The Sony FF I have right now is an Alpha 900, and it lacks live view. I do regard LV necessary for accurate focus with TS lenses. I have the new Alpha 99 on order and I think that camera is more suitable to work with T/S lenses.

Best regards
Erik




>>>>That thing about the blue channel, setting white balance on a gray card, wouldn't it adjust for that?<<<

Well the greybalance will change the visible image, but the Blue channel does hold more information than a comparable blue channel on a canon lens.

This will affect shadows and Highlights. there is simply more detail visible and more contrast.

regards
Stefan
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 16, 2012, 10:18:25 am
I've had a mixed experience with D800e color, partly due to some software issues.  I can get what I want but it takes some work in both the raw converter and in PS.  I like LR4 for the D800 in MOST situations.  C1 gets a sharper TIFF, but the profiles can be strange, but then again, C1's color editor is a very powerful and effective tool.  I end up using both.  I'm working on automating the process with new profiles and presets in C1 and LR.  When it comes together, the results are stunning.

It does come down to flexability.  I understand not liking DSLRs, its just a different experience from MF.  I like to work with both, although I favor using my 501cm with TMax over anything else. 

I think that is really the issue of True Focus right there. If the combined movement if photographer and model is more than 10 mm it fails. If you move 5 mm and the model moves 5 mm, the shot is out of focus. If even one of you is mostly still, it is a godsend. This is why the discussion is so polarized -- there is no middle ground. It either works for you or it doesn't. If it does work for you, it can be the difference between being able to use MFD vs. confined to DSLR.

I think people also fail to realize that needs are different for each photographer. I'm in the process of evaluating a new camera system, and it has to be flexible because I'm not entirely sure where I am going as a photographic direction. I was all excited to get a D800 until I spent a little time with one and realized it is the feel and format of DSLRs that I dislike the most. The resolution is great. The color reproduction is less so. Against a new Credo there is no comparison. Against a 25-40 mp Aptus or P-series Phase back of somewhat more comparable cost the decision process isn't that easy. If you need leaf shutter lenses or need lens movements the decision is easy, but if those are only things that you would really like to have some of the time, it gets tough. Same with telephotos. If you need them, the choice is easy. If you use a short tele on occasion, the choice gets harder. Sure the D800 is a relative bargain, that is undeniable, the question is whether it works for you or not. And that is a question that I have had a hard time answering.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ndevlin on October 16, 2012, 10:47:18 am
I've had a mixed experience with D800e color, partly due to some software issues.  I can get what I want but it takes some work in both the raw converter and in PS.  I like LR4 for the D800 in MOST situations.  C1 gets a sharper TIFF, but the profiles can be strange, but then again, C1's color editor is a very powerful and effective tool.  I end up using both.  I'm working on automating the process with new profiles and presets in C1 and LR.  When it comes together, the results are stunning.

It does come down to flexability.  I understand not liking DSLRs, its just a different experience from MF.  I like to work with both, although I favor using my 501cm with TMax over anything else.  

+1  Your experience mirrors mine precisely.

- N.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: fcicconi on October 16, 2012, 11:12:20 am
Hallo,

It depend of your work and How you work.
I prefer MF becouse I can see better in the finder. soon I make portraits F2,8 T 1/2 sec. and with 35mm it was really hard the focus, with the autofocus too..
Os for this that I choose MF and not 35mm
I tested IQ160 and Nikon D800, the file on the screen is not so different. I didn't printed in large size...
Only in the green of the grass and trees there is a difference.

My best.
Fabrizio
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Dustbak on October 16, 2012, 01:00:55 pm
Today I returned my D800e to the Nikon service point to get the green screen calibrated. This must be the most horrible screen I have ever used. I got so annoyed by its ugliness it started to have an impact on my shooting.

The colors that come out of the D800 are my next main gripe. Very nice for product work but I detest the rendering of skintones. The files also have what I would call 'a deep green undertow' that is very hard to get rid off without altering other things. Compared to the D800 my HB files are a true joy to open. Probably I need to just figure out how to get where I want but I have never had a Nikon that behaved this way colorwise.

I am also not so sure whether I find the new AF module more pleasant to use than the old one that was in the D3s and D700.

All in all, sofar this is the Nikon DSLR I have had the hardest time getting used to, I started with the D1 and have used most Nikon DSLR's.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: LKaven on October 16, 2012, 01:08:57 pm
I actually think out of all the DSLRs I've used, the D3x had the best color rendition.  But perhaps I'll get that out of the D800 if I work a bit harder at it.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 16, 2012, 01:52:00 pm
+1  Your experience mirrrs mine precisely.

- N.

Glad I'm not alone!  I have my Canon and Leaf workflows down to a science, everything is what I expect from those cameras.  it just throws me off having to work this stuff, and I really think it comes down to the profiles. 
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 16, 2012, 02:12:43 pm
Hi,

What do you mean by green screen?

Could you post a sample? It seems that at least one poster had badly mixed up his profiles in C1, something similar happened to you?

The raw files I saw from Nikon D800/D800E were very good in color. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=69391.msg549425#msg549425

Best regards
Erik

Today I returned my D800e to the Nikon service point to get the green screen calibrated. This must be the most horrible screen I have ever used. I got so annoyed by its ugliness it started to have an impact on my shooting.

The colors that come out of the D800 are my next main gripe. Very nice for product work but I detest the rendering of skintones. The files also have what I would call 'a deep green undertow' that is very hard to get rid off without altering other things. Compared to the D800 my HB files are a true joy to open. Probably I need to just figure out how to get where I want but I have never had a Nikon that behaved this way colorwise.

I am also not so sure whether I find the new AF module more pleasant to use than the old one that was in the D3s and D700.

All in all, sofar this is the Nikon DSLR I have had the hardest time getting used to, I started with the D1 and have used most Nikon DSLR's.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 16, 2012, 02:16:46 pm
Erik, he is talking about an issue where the screen, as opposed to the file, shows a green cast.  My D800e has this, but less so than others.  The files are unafected.

My profile problem was out of control.  I dumped all preferences and restarted the machine and things returned to normal.

Hi,

What do you mean by green screen?

Could you post a sample? It seems that at least one poster had badly mixed up his profiles in C1, something similar happened to you?

The raw files I saw from Nikon D800/D800E were very good in color. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=69391.msg549425#msg549425

Best regards
Erik

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Dustbak on October 16, 2012, 02:21:14 pm
No I cannot (largely because the body is already gone with UPS), the screen is way too green. This seems to be a pretty widespread issue. Apparently Nikon can calibrate it and fix that. At least one of my issues will be levied.

About the files, I am sure eventually I will get out of it what I like but I dislike opening the files for the first time and the amount of effort it takes sofar to get near I want is more than I would have preferred.

I like working with gelled flash and this is typically where the D800 behaves very differently than my D700 or the H4D. Profiling is kind of useless when going for pleasant (vs accurate). I probably need to look for different gels in this case.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 16, 2012, 02:27:58 pm
Thanks for explanation. Must be tired, but I didn't get it!

Best regards
Erik

Erik, he is talking about an issue where the screen, as opposed to the file, shows a green cast.  My D800e has this, but less so than others.  The files are unafected.

My profile problem was out of control.  I dumped all preferences and restarted the machine and things returned to normal.

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 16, 2012, 03:29:26 pm
I can live with it, for now.  It isn't that bad and is more visible in daylight.  Otherwise no problems, other than the color issues.  The problems I am having are not hardware related.  I can get amazing colors from it, its just work that I haven't had to do in years.  I don't like having to use LR and C1, depending on the file.  The D800e is very IR sensative.  Not as bad as the M8, but with some lenses blacks go purple.

And Moire.  I've seen it.  Less than with my Aptus 75s, 5d2 and 5d3, but in places I don't expect.  By places I don't expect, I mean when shooting outside, on the street.  I've only seen moire in the studio, and on the street only with the M8.  But I found moire in a guy's sweatsuit and hat.  I couldn't see the pattern in the clothes from 20 feet, but the D800e resolved it TOO well.  Fixed easily in C1, by the way.

No I cannot (largely because the body is already gone with UPS), the screen is way too green. This seems to be a pretty widespread issue. Apparently Nikon can calibrate it and fix that. At least one of my issues will be levied.

About the files, I am sure eventually I will get out of it what I like but I dislike opening the files for the first time and the amount of effort it takes sofar to get near I want is more than I would have preferred.

I like working with gelled flash and this is typically where the D800 behaves very differently than my D700 or the H4D. Profiling is kind of useless when going for pleasant (vs accurate). I probably need to look for different gels in that case.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: nik on October 16, 2012, 06:23:56 pm
You can get this fixed!!? Awesome, it's going in as soon as I'm back home. The green cast on the LCD monitor is awful.

Today I returned my D800e to the Nikon service point to get the green screen calibrated.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 16, 2012, 11:41:54 pm
Hi,

The IR issue is great surprise, good to know.

Regarding moiré, I guess we have been warned. The D800 has OLP filtering while the D800E has some engineering work done to remove the effect of the OLP filter. But rejoice, my understanding is that moiré actually means that your lens outresolves the sensor. So when you see moiré you know having exact focus and good microcontrast at pixel level. So the moiré actually shows that your technique is good!

Best regards
Erik

I can live with it, for now.  It isn't that bad and is more visible in daylight.  Otherwise no problems, other than the color issues.  The problems I am having are not hardware related.  I can get amazing colors from it, its just work that I haven't had to do in years.  I don't like having to use LR and C1, depending on the file.  The D800e is very IR sensative.  Not as bad as the M8, but with some lenses blacks go purple.

And Moire.  I've seen it.  Less than with my Aptus 75s, 5d2 and 5d3, but in places I don't expect.  By places I don't expect, I mean when shooting outside, on the street.  I've only seen moire in the studio, and on the street only with the M8.  But I found moire in a guy's sweatsuit and hat.  I couldn't see the pattern in the clothes from 20 feet, but the D800e resolved it TOO well.  Fixed easily in C1, by the way.

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 17, 2012, 12:56:47 am
Hi,

You could try my sharpening settings, enclosed below. This goes into deconvolution. Radius should match PSF of lens+sensor so you would increase if you stop down. My guess is that 1.5 (or so) works best for D800E at f/16.

BTW. How do you scan T-MAX 100? Trying to get some life in my Pentax 67 but have never been happy with my scans since I shoot DSLRs.

Best regards
Erik

C1 gets a sharper TIFF, but the profiles can be strange, but then again, C1's color editor is a very powerful and effective tool. 

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 17, 2012, 10:24:39 am
Erik,

The lens was the plastic fantastic, my $90 50 1.8D, hand held at 1/125, at 5.6.  Its the only AF Nikon 50mm I have.  It is light weight, sharp, contrasty, but not much magic.  My 50 1.4Ai from 1975 (this belonged to my mother who was a PJ) is not as sharp but looks better.

For scanning B&W I use the V750 with the Better Scan variable holder.  I really like the B&W output.  I scan at 6400ppi then downsize in PS.  I would gues sreal resolution is in the 2400 range, maybe less.  It resolves grain, which is where I want my scans to be.  The dedicated MF scanners I've used resolve smaller grain and do so with more acuity thatn the Epson with the BetterScan holders, but they end up being similar in sharpness at print sizes.  I've been scanning for YEARS but am by no measure a scanning expert.  I know what it takes to get the best scans out of film, and I know what is in a negative and the quality that can come out of one.  I've had an Imacon 343, 646, Nikon 9000, and Microtek 120tf.  I wish I still had the Imacon 646.  My current thinking goes something like this:  for editorial publications and prints up to 17" on the short side, the Epson does an admirable job with the BetterScan holders.  Higher quality is available from the Epson, but requires wet mounting, which I'm not willing to do.  When I need a higher quality scan I take the neg to a service bureau that does lots of work for ad agencies, wher ethey drum scan on a Tango.  This process works well.  I may or may not get the new Plustek when it is finally available, it really depends on the quality and more importantly, the convenience.  I'm sure it will be better than the V750 with the BetterScan holders, but the quality I get is fine from the V750, and is a fairly painless (for scanning) process.  If the Plustek is not a pain to use, and produces better files, I will replace the Epson. 

The Nikon 9000 was a pain.  Capable of great quality, but the MF holders are not great.  The Microtek was awesome, was easier to use, but slower.  No ICE, but I hardly ever used ICE anyway (still don't with the Epson).  When the stars aligned the Microtek was almost as good as the Nikon, but the Nikon lens was better at the margins. The Imacons were slightly easier to use with the magnetic holders, and allowed better results with less effort.  Not worth the price of an X1 unless you are fully commited to film.

Fred G. has some nice scans posted with the V750, I believe they were wet mounted.


Hi,

The IR issue is great surprise, good to know.

Regarding moiré, I guess we have been warned. The D800 has OLP filtering while the D800E has some engineering work done to remove the effect of the OLP filter. But rejoice, my understanding is that moiré actually means that your lens outresolves the sensor. So when you see moiré you know having exact focus and good microcontrast at pixel level. So the moiré actually shows that your technique is good!

Best regards
Erik

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: bcooter on October 17, 2012, 01:12:50 pm
I've had a mixed experience with D800e color, partly due to some software issues.  I can get what I want but it takes some work in both the raw converter and in PS.  I like LR4 for the D800 in MOST situations.  C1 gets a sharper TIFF, but the profiles can be strange, but then again, C1's color editor is a very powerful and effective tool.  I end up using both. 

snip

T,  I know you don't want to add another processing suite, but try Raw Developer.

It's interface is more industrial and less consumer oriented than Lightroom or C-1, but if I have a problematic file or session, RD probably gets more film like, less candy/consumer colors than any software I've used.

When you open the software, within the "in" section there is a edit button next to Camera adv.  I don't think most people even know it's there.

Press it and you'll get RGB channels with RGB settings within each channel.  It's not visual except on the preview but you can visually profile an image with more accuracy than any software I use and save the profile.

If I shoot multiple cameras for a session or project, I find RD kind of mellows the various platforms out and gives closer to the same look than anything else I've used.

Once again, it's less than pretty software, though straight forward and easy to use.

Give it a try.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 17, 2012, 02:53:27 pm
BC,

I think I will.  I've been thinking of RD or Raw Therapee.  Last time I used Raw Developer was with the 1ds2, worked wonders with that high contrast banding.  I'm still on their mailing list from way back when.  I was half considereing getting Nikon Capture NX, but man, I have PTSD from using it years ago.  It crashed every machine I owned whenever I sent a batch of files to process out, although color was nice.

I think these are all teething problems with the Nikon.  Until its worked out I'll stick to a Canon for any production, maybe the Leaf, and if possible, T-Max. The Canon may not produce as nice a file when all is said and done, but it just works. 

One more thing about the Nikon:  as a camera, it is fantastic.  Reminds me of my F4 and F5, but with a smaller finder.  Makes me want to stick with it.

I know I'd recomended the D800 to you before, but knowing your schedule, I'd wait until everything is sorted.  Frankley, if I had received this camera when I was working I would have taken it back until the software catches up. 

Thanks again BC.

T



T,  I know you don't want to add another processing suite, but try Raw Developer.

It's interface is more industrial and less consumer oriented than Lightroom or C-1, but if I have a problematic file or session, RD probably gets more film like, less candy/consumer colors than any software I've used.

When you open the software, within the "in" section there is a edit button next to Camera adv.  I don't think most people even know it's there.

Press it and you'll get RGB channels with RGB settings within each channel.  It's not visual except on the preview but you can visually profile an image with more accuracy than any software I use and save the profile.

If I shoot multiple cameras for a session or project, I find RD kind of mellows the various platforms out and gives closer to the same look than anything else I've used.

Once again, it's less than pretty software, though straight forward and easy to use.

Give it a try.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 17, 2012, 04:52:21 pm
Hi,

I was thinking about shooting some B&W, I tried both Velvia and Ektar 100 and never felt happy about. I was scanning on a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

...
For scanning B&W I use the V750 with the Better Scan variable holder.  I really like the B&W output.  I scan at 6400ppi then downsize in PS.  I would gues sreal resolution is in the 2400 range, maybe less.  It resolves grain, which is where I want my scans to be.  The dedicated MF scanners I've used resolve smaller grain and do so with more acuity thatn the Epson with the BetterScan holders, but they end up being similar in sharpness at print sizes.  I've been scanning for YEARS but am by no measure a scanning expert.  I know what it takes to get the best scans out of film, and I know what is in a negative and the quality that can come out of one.  I've had an Imacon 343, 646, Nikon 9000, and Microtek 120tf.  I wish I still had the Imacon 646.  My current thinking goes something like this:  for editorial publications and prints up to 17" on the short side, the Epson does an admirable job with the BetterScan holders.  Higher quality is available from the Epson, but requires wet mounting, which I'm not willing to do.  When I need a higher quality scan I take the neg to a service bureau that does lots of work for ad agencies, wher ethey drum scan on a Tango.  This process works well.  I may or may not get the new Plustek when it is finally available, it really depends on the quality and more importantly, the convenience.  I'm sure it will be better than the V750 with the BetterScan holders, but the quality I get is fine from the V750, and is a fairly painless (for scanning) process.  If the Plustek is not a pain to use, and produces better files, I will replace the Epson. 

The Nikon 9000 was a pain.  Capable of great quality, but the MF holders are not great.  The Microtek was awesome, was easier to use, but slower.  No ICE, but I hardly ever used ICE anyway (still don't with the Epson).  When the stars aligned the Microtek was almost as good as the Nikon, but the Nikon lens was better at the margins. The Imacons were slightly easier to use with the magnetic holders, and allowed better results with less effort.  Not worth the price of an X1 unless you are fully commited to film.

Fred G. has some nice scans posted with the V750, I believe they were wet mounted.


Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 17, 2012, 05:59:10 pm
Erik,

Film is mucho work.  I really liked Nikon's scan software.  It was right for color 95% of the time.  Imacons Flex software was good.  Silverfast could be brilliant or just the worst piece of shit you've ever encountered.  I now scan color negs as positives in VueScan and use a PS plug in for the reversal.  Digimark ColorNeg.  Works a treat on B&W as well.

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 17, 2012, 06:08:50 pm
I bought RD.  They hooked me up because I was a past customer, received a discount.

I dig it.  Better than C1 in terms of color, maybe better than LR.  In time after I fool with it enough I think it might be workable.

Then I downloaded a trial of Nikon NX.  All the funkiness in the C1 files is gone, color is good.  I need to work it some more, but I like what I see thus far. Yeah, it feels very 2003, but hasn't crashed.

T
T,  I know you don't want to add another processing suite, but try Raw Developer.

It's interface is more industrial and less consumer oriented than Lightroom or C-1, but if I have a problematic file or session, RD probably gets more film like, less candy/consumer colors than any software I've used.

When you open the software, within the "in" section there is a edit button next to Camera adv.  I don't think most people even know it's there.

Press it and you'll get RGB channels with RGB settings within each channel.  It's not visual except on the preview but you can visually profile an image with more accuracy than any software I use and save the profile.

If I shoot multiple cameras for a session or project, I find RD kind of mellows the various platforms out and gives closer to the same look than anything else I've used.

Once again, it's less than pretty software, though straight forward and easy to use.

Give it a try.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 17, 2012, 06:13:18 pm
Thanks for info!

I use Vuescan, too. Did not consider scanning color negs as positives, will try.

Actually I'm pretty sure I prefer digital, but it would be nice to put the old Pentax to some use.

Also, I hope you sort out the problems with the Nikon D800, it seems like a nice camera to me. I'm shooting Sony so I have no bindings to Nikon, but I liked the images I have seen.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

Film is mucho work.  I really liked Nikon's scan software.  It was right for color 95% of the time.  Imacons Flex software was good.  Silverfast could be brilliant or just the worst piece of shit you've ever encountered.  I now scan color negs as positives in VueScan and use a PS plug in for the reversal.  Digimark ColorNeg.  Works a treat on B&W as well.


Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: FredBGG on October 17, 2012, 10:17:59 pm
Erik,

The lens was the plastic fantastic, my $90 50 1.8D, hand held at 1/125, at 5.6.  Its the only AF Nikon 50mm I have.  It is light weight, sharp, contrasty, but not much magic.  My 50 1.4Ai from 1975 (this belonged to my mother who was a PJ) is not as sharp but looks better.

For scanning B&W I use the V750 with the Better Scan variable holder.  I really like the B&W output.  I scan at 6400ppi then downsize in PS.  I would gues sreal resolution is in the 2400 range, maybe less.  It resolves grain, which is where I want my scans to be.  The dedicated MF scanners I've used resolve smaller grain and do so with more acuity thatn the Epson with the BetterScan holders, but they end up being similar in sharpness at print sizes.  I've been scanning for YEARS but am by no measure a scanning expert.  I know what it takes to get the best scans out of film, and I know what is in a negative and the quality that can come out of one.  I've had an Imacon 343, 646, Nikon 9000, and Microtek 120tf.  I wish I still had the Imacon 646.  My current thinking goes something like this:  for editorial publications and prints up to 17" on the short side, the Epson does an admirable job with the BetterScan holders.  Higher quality is available from the Epson, but requires wet mounting, which I'm not willing to do.  When I need a higher quality scan I take the neg to a service bureau that does lots of work for ad agencies, wher ethey drum scan on a Tango.  This process works well.  I may or may not get the new Plustek when it is finally available, it really depends on the quality and more importantly, the convenience.  I'm sure it will be better than the V750 with the BetterScan holders, but the quality I get is fine from the V750, and is a fairly painless (for scanning) process.  If the Plustek is not a pain to use, and produces better files, I will replace the Epson. 

The Nikon 9000 was a pain.  Capable of great quality, but the MF holders are not great.  The Microtek was awesome, was easier to use, but slower.  No ICE, but I hardly ever used ICE anyway (still don't with the Epson).  When the stars aligned the Microtek was almost as good as the Nikon, but the Nikon lens was better at the margins. The Imacons were slightly easier to use with the magnetic holders, and allowed better results with less effort.  Not worth the price of an X1 unless you are fully commited to film.

Fred G. has some nice scans posted with the V750, I believe they were wet mounted.



Yup I posted some scans done with the v750, but they were dry scans. I have done wet scans too, but can't post them because I shot them for commercial clients.

Here are a couple of examples that I can post....

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5250/5356464560_f46a54d63a_b.jpg)

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5142/5738647019_08d35d415e_b.jpg)

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5299/5417854016_f1a10a64ae_b.jpg)

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5297/5417246191_cf601ffe23_b.jpg)

They are full frame 6x8 and crops.

The v750 is a good scanner. The software that comes with it Silverfast is good, but can be frustrating at times. Some of the complex curve editors are small so
playing with them can be tricky. A big wacom tablet can help a bit in particular if your monitor is large. Sometimes the curve editors after much tweaking can just go waco and you loose everything.

Regarding wet scanning it improves things in certain conditions. If you have a lot of curved tension in the negative it helps keep it flatter.

There are two ways of doing a wet scan with the v750. Single wet layer or dual wet layer.

With single wet layer you put the negative face down on glass with the fluid between the glass and the film. You put it emulsion down.
This will take away emulsion surface texture or at least dramatically reduce it.

With a dual wet layer you doe the above, but also wet the top of the film and place a clear mylar film on top.
This will smooth out and hide scratches on the plastic surface of the film.

here is a video of the dual wet scan preperation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMnxWknF4SM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMnxWknF4SM)

With the v750 you can use the wet scan glass tray (the one with the little handles in the video) for upto 5x7 film.

For 8x10 film you have to prep the negative right on the scanner proper. It's advisable to tape the edges of the glass plate to avoid fluid getting under the glass.

Here is a video of a single wet layer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8l0rLtsCLg&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8l0rLtsCLg&feature=related)

With a single layer you have to tape around the negative to avoid the fluid evaporating and drying out during your scan.
And remember emulsion towards the glass.

I use Aztek SMF 2001 fluid. It leaves no residue, but it is rather fast drying so you have to tape the edges well for longer duration scans.

The epson v750 produces great detail quite close to very high end scanners, however for transparancy film you will get better results with a higher end drum scanner.
Negatives "fit" just fine into the DMax of the V750.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 18, 2012, 12:10:36 am
To all concerned about D800 color, I broke down and downloaded Nikon Capture NX.  What a nightmare.  Aside from being slow (beach balls?) unintuitive, few tools, and generally out of another time, the color and rendering of the D800 files blows away C1, RD, and LR 4.2.  The color is really amazing.  I was at a kids birthday party, with my daughter, I wasn't creepin', and found the whitest ginger I could, and snapped his pic at ISO 800, wide open.  Shutter speed was 1/30 or so.  I tried attaching the pic but it hangs on upload.  I'll try again.

So great color is possible without a tremendous amount of work, just slow suffering of using NX.  I have it on a slow(ish) machine with a crappy video card.  I'll put NX on another machine and see if performance improves.

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: EricWHiss on October 18, 2012, 12:49:16 am
TMARK,
That makes sense and thanks for sharing.  Was the same with Canon and DPP.  Wonder if its just a matter of taking their camera profile?
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 18, 2012, 01:01:03 am
Hi,

No, I don't think so. My guess is that LR and C1 have ideas about color rendition. I guess that Nikon has ideas about color rendition that differs from Adobe's. It's a bit like Velvia, Provia and Ektachrome.

The problem is that sometimes we want accurate colors, sometimes natural colors and sometimes pleasant color.

I don't think that you can move color profiles easily between NX and LR. Well, you may be lucky... Camera profiles are not like standard ICC stuff, as far as I understand.

Perhaps the best way is to use a Color Checker convert it using NX and than trying to match the rendition using Adobe DNG profile editor or a similar tool, or just to fix a preset for facial tone?

My guess is that it is probably best to first create a 'zeroed out' profile that reproduces a color checker as close as possible, than create a preset to implement nice facial color?


Best regards
Erik


TMARK,
That makes sense and thanks for sharing.  Was the same with Canon and DPP.  Wonder if its just a matter of taking their camera profile?

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Dustbak on October 18, 2012, 03:05:02 am
To all concerned about D800 color, I broke down and downloaded Nikon Capture NX.  What a nightmare.  Aside from being slow (beach balls?) unintuitive, few tools, and generally out of another time, the color and rendering of the D800 files blows away C1, RD, and LR 4.2.  The color is really amazing.  I was at a kids birthday party, with my daughter, I wasn't creepin', and found the whitest ginger I could, and snapped his pic at ISO 800, wide open.  Shutter speed was 1/30 or so.  I tried attaching the pic but it hangs on upload.  I'll try again.

So great color is possible without a tremendous amount of work, just slow suffering of using NX.  I have it on a slow(ish) machine with a crappy video card.  I'll put NX on another machine and see if performance improves.

I have NX (was part of the D800e package) but have not gone the way of using it, I am still in shock over previous versions. I will give it a try later to see how it pans out. I have already bought C1 too. So now I can test it with LR, C1, Phocus and NX. I just have to wait to get the D800 back.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: LKaven on October 18, 2012, 07:40:18 am
Anyone here tried QPcard for this?
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 18, 2012, 09:25:23 am
I have NX (was part of the D800e package) but have not gone the way of using it, I am still in shock over previous versions. I will give it a try later to see how it pans out. I have already bought C1 too. So now I can test it with LR, C1, Phocus and NX. I just have to wait to get the D800 back.

In North America Nikon does not give us NX, which makes shelling out $130 for it insulting.

C1 is the "sharpest" converter I've tried, followed by LR 4.2 and RD.  I know that C1 always does some sharpening, or at least it did in prior versions.  I believe that I was successful in turning off sharpening in NX, and it appears that indeed the tiff was not sharpened.  NX's rendering is really nice, it pulls out subtle color, even though some detail was blurred at 100%, which was clearly visible in RD and C1.

NX versus DPP, well, DPP is better, sort of, but they are comparable.  DPP runs better and without lag in the adjustments.  I have a feeling that NX uses the VRAM and video card chipset, as it behaves just like a program that relies heavily on the video card with adjustments using an older machine.  I'll put NX on a newer machine and see if it is any better.  DPP is free as well.

What is funny is that I've had this camera since May, I believe, and I've only shot B&W with it, converting in C1 and then using SilverFX.  Its just now, as I rid myself of excess camera systems, that I started using it for everything, from shooting mood boards, editorials, the kids, street, that I noticed the color.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: kers on October 18, 2012, 12:38:58 pm
...., I broke down and downloaded Nikon Capture NX.  What a nightmare...
NX is not slow if you use it on a fast 64bit operating system... to be honest it has improved in speed a lot since the 64 bit versions
Yes the interface is from the stone age...not like ACR -  batch processing work fast.
It is the most gentle (soft) raw converter for the d800e but not the sharpest.
ViewNX is the fastest way to look into your raws and the only program that can read the changed information that you can save in the NEFs with NX At the moment i am using 3 Raw converters that i need depending on the subject.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 18, 2012, 01:37:59 pm
. . .  At the moment i am using 3 Raw converters that i need depending on the subject.

Me too.  This I don't like.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: EricWHiss on October 18, 2012, 01:47:33 pm
Anyone tried Aperture?
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Anders_HK on October 18, 2012, 03:14:05 pm
When I read this stuff it makes me all the more grateful for the Phocus conversions of my 3fr files.  

... same for Capture One Pro for my Leaf files  ;D
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 18, 2012, 09:34:51 pm
One more finding:  The C1 profile should be called "D800-High Noon No Shade Daylight", because in direct sun, not 4200k late afternoon magic hour sun, but full on 5200k-5600k Day Light, the C1 profile is bang on.

I suspect, but don't know, that the D800's color response in other than high noon light, at other than low ISO, changes significantly under different light or at higher ISO.

I'll dig up some NEFs I shot under strobes over the summer that were converted.  I don't remember any color oddness with those files.

On Capture NX:  My 2012 MBP does very well with NX.  It is fast.  It behaves a lot like SilverFX.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 18, 2012, 09:35:59 pm
Anyone here tried QPcard for this?

I'm seriously thinking about it.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 18, 2012, 09:36:34 pm
... same for Capture One Pro for my Leaf files  ;D

You'd love Canon, great color from C1Pro.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 19, 2012, 03:47:51 pm
Hi,

You suggest that QPcard is preferable to the more well known Xrite solutions? Why? More relevant patches?

Best regards
Erik

I'm seriously thinking about it.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 19, 2012, 04:05:00 pm
Hi,

You suggest that QPcard is preferable to the more well known Xrite solutions? Why? More relevant patches?

Best regards
Erik


I've only used XRite. 
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: deejjjaaaa on October 19, 2012, 04:20:37 pm
Hi,

You suggest that QPcard is preferable to the more well known Xrite solutions? Why? More relevant patches?

Best regards
Erik


I was suggested the following test - take a shot of both QPCard and XRite together (side by side in one shot)... make QPCard based profile, make XRite based profile... make conversion using QPCard profile, make conversion using XRite profile... compare how XRite target is rendered using QPCard profile vs how QPCard target is rendered using XRite profile (using BabelColor PatchTool or similar)... note - the same raw with both targets together.... naturally the color is a matter of taste and hence all that is irrelevant.

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 19, 2012, 04:39:02 pm
Hi,

Seriously, the Xrite has only two patches that are close skin (light skin and dark skin), the QPcard has a different set of patches and may be more relevant for some work. On the other hand the Xrite CC is the industry standard.

I guess it is better to start from a reasonably correct color reproduction and season it to taste than start with bad colors and making them nice.

Best regards
Erik




I was suggested the following test - take a shot of both QPCard and XRite together (side by side in one shot)... make QPCard based profile, make XRite based profile... make conversion using QPCard profile, make conversion using XRite profile... compare how XRite target is rendered using QPCard profile vs how QPCard target is rendered using XRite profile (using BabelColor PatchTool or similar)... note - the same raw with both targets together.... naturally the color is a matter of taste and hence all that is irrelevant.


Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: deejjjaaaa on October 19, 2012, 07:44:53 pm
Seriously, the Xrite has only two patches that are close skin (light skin and dark skin), the QPcard has a different set of patches and may be more relevant for some work. On the other hand the Xrite CC is the industry standard.

but then if you are using Argyll you can just take a shot of both targets together and build a profile based on all patches... and add datacolor's target on top of that... but at that cost you can buy already a ColorChecker SG.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 22, 2012, 01:12:13 pm
About the D800 color: The C1 profile seems optimised for high noon clear sky daylight, and strobes.  Great color under lights with C1 (Profoto D1s).  A tad over saturated, but nice.  No odd green/yellow bias.  It just needs profiles for "other" lighting.
Title: dramatic CA on D800 file shot with last generation AFS prime (look at 100% crop)
Post by: Bernd B. on October 31, 2012, 09:50:31 am
Here is one picture taken with a D800 and my Nikkor 85/1,4 AF-S at ISO 100, f/1,4 and 1/2500sec, developed in LR 4, lens profiles and CR removal checked.

Look at that CA above the hand. Is´nt that sick? CA in the center of an image???

Look at the purple fringing on the entire shirt. It renders the grey shirt purple.

With my Hasselnlad H3D39 and my first generation HC 150/3,2 at f/3,2 there is still some amount of purple fringing, but much much less.

My idea of shooting 35mm (D700 until now) is not only to have less effort when shooting, but also having less post production. Not sure if this works with the D800 files ....

(http://i49.tinypic.com/2lsbm7a.jpg)

(http://i45.tinypic.com/2928i1g.jpg)

(http://i46.tinypic.com/2w4ftrk.jpg)

Bernd
Title: Re: dramatic CA on D800 file shot with last generation AFS prime (look at 100% crop)
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 31, 2012, 10:00:34 am
Hi,

That is LoCA Longitudional Chromatic Aberration. It is a lens problem. LR has an option to remove it.

It will go away if you stop down to f/4. Try that first. I will post a link on LoCa removal in LR later tonight.

LoCA is something that almost all fast lenses suffer of.

Best regards
Erik

Here is one picture taken with a D800 and my Nikkor 85/1,4 AF-S at ISO 100, f/1,4 and 1/2500sec, developed in LR 4, lens profiles and CR removal checked.

Look at that CA above the hand. It´s that sick? CA in the center of an image???

Look at the purple fringing on the entire shirt. It renders the grey shirt purple.

With my Hasselnlad H3D39 and my first generation HC 150/3,2 at f/3,2 there is still some amount of purple fringing, but much much less.

My idea of shooting 35mm (D700 until now) is not only to have less effort when shooting, but also having less post production. Not sure if this works with the D800 files ....

(http://i49.tinypic.com/2lsbm7a.jpg)

(http://i45.tinypic.com/2928i1g.jpg)

(http://i46.tinypic.com/2w4ftrk.jpg)

Bernd
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Bernd B. on October 31, 2012, 10:06:05 am
Thanks Erik. I´m looking forward to your hint how to remove that.

Did you realize that I checked "CA removal" in LR? Did you mean something else?

BTW shooting at f/4 is not an option. I will not pay a fortune for a brand new f/1,4 lens in order to get a soft background and then stop down to f/4.

Bernd

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 31, 2012, 10:12:08 am
Hi,

Check this: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/04/new-color-fringe-correction-controls.html

The problem looks like LoCA to me, but I'm not absolutely sure.

LoCA is a problem with almost all lenses at f/1.4.


Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 31, 2012, 10:28:27 am
Thanks Erik. I´m looking forward to your hint how to remove that.

Did you realize that I checked "CA removal" in LR? Did you mean something else?

BTW shooting at f/4 is not an option. I will not pay a fortune for a brand new f/1,4 lens in order to get a soft background and then stop down to f/4.

Bernd



The old 1.4D and the 1.4AIS seem better than the new 85 1.4G.  Same with the old 50 1.4D versus the new 1.4G.  Also, try Nikon Capture.  It really is not bad at all.  I avoided it due to my experience with the old version from the D2x days.  The new version is fine.

In LR, you have to click on the CA for it to remove the color.  Works well and I believe it would fix this right up.  It is a paste-able setting so it can be applied to all images in a shoot, I believe.

T
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Doug Peterson on October 31, 2012, 10:43:53 am
I STRONGLY encourage you to open this file in C1 and turn on the purple fringing and CA removal tools. I suspect very much that you'll find C1 handles it much better with no hassle. Or send me the raw file and I'll do it and post the results.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: TMARK on October 31, 2012, 11:37:10 am
I STRONGLY encourage you to open this file in C1 and turn on the purple fringing and CA removal tools. I suspect very much that you'll find C1 handles it much better with no hassle. Or send me the raw file and I'll do it and post the results.

Doug, you have power?

And yes, C1's tools work well.  Works wonders on Mamiya and Canon files.  I've never used the CA tools with D800e files.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Bernd B. on October 31, 2012, 11:39:42 am
Thanks Erik and T. I just found out that I have only LR 4.0 on my MacPro. I will update to 4.2 and try again!

Thanks Doug! I used C1pro frequently until about 18 months ago. I even updated to 6 this January but never used it again, because I prefer the more natural look, expecially of the colors in LR. Indeed I must admit that sharpness in C1pro is miles ahead of any other raw converter (whilst noise rendering is´nt, after my my taste).

Bernd

Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Doug Peterson on October 31, 2012, 12:07:44 pm
Thanks Erik and T. I just found out that I have only LR 4.0 on my MacPro. I will update to 4.2 and try again!

Thanks Doug! I used C1pro frequently until about 18 months ago. I even updated to 6 this January but never used it again, because I prefer the more natural look, expecially of the colors in LR. Indeed I must admit that sharpness in C1pro is miles ahead of any other raw converter (whilst noise rendering is´nt, after my my taste).

Noise reduction was hugely improved in the v7 release. I'd put it ahead of LR by a good margin (of course this depends on what aesthetic for high ISO images you prefer so test for yourself).

And the color editor can very quickly produce different color renderings which can be saved as presets, defaults, or even as an ICC profile (future proof).

Maybe time to take one of our online or in person c1 classes?
Title: D800 + 85/1,4 AF-S file reprocessed in LR 4.2
Post by: Bernd B. on October 31, 2012, 12:15:32 pm
OK, here is what I could make out of it in LR 4.2.

The purple fringing on the shirt has become way better, thats impressive.

The CA on the hand has become better as well, but it is still visible. There seems to be no control for the orange silhouette.

My C1pro 6.3.3 cannot read D800 files and I do not want to invest on it any further, so I leave this option off. I think general color rendition is dependent on the raw engine and cannot be emulated or altered. Whilst the strange rendition of noise in C1pro becomes visible at higher ISO, general color rendition is present at any ISO. Sorry, I know C1pro has its strength (by far the best sharpness of all raw converters, powerful color-editior, especially useful on skin tones), but I dropped it for good reasons (e.g. my personal taste).

Bernd

(http://i46.tinypic.com/2mynukk.jpg)

(http://i46.tinypic.com/f23sph.jpg)

(http://i48.tinypic.com/2z99jlk.jpg)

(http://i50.tinypic.com/xda81u.jpg)
Title: Re: D800 + 85/1,4 AF-S file reprocessed in LR 4.2
Post by: Doug Peterson on October 31, 2012, 12:50:54 pm
OK, here is what I could make out of it in LR 4.2.

The purple fringing on the shirt has become way better, thats impressive.

The CA on the hand has become better as well, but it is still visible. There seems to be no control for the orange silhouette.

My C1pro 6.3.3 cannot read D800 files and I do not want to invest on it any further, so I leave this option off. I think general color rendition is dependent on the raw engine and cannot be emulated or altered. Whilst the strange rendition of noise in C1pro becomes visible at higher ISO, general color rendition is present at any ISO. Sorry, I know C1pro has its strength (by far the best sharpness of all raw converters, powerful color-editior, especially useful on skin tones), but I dropped it for good reasons (e.g. my personal taste).

6.4.4 supports the D800 files, no additional investment required.

7.0 can be run in fully functional trial mode for 60 days. I'd suggest trying that versus beating your head against the wall. General color rendition is fungible, only the defaults and the ability to differentiate between colors (especially in shadows) is inherent in the engine. I'm quite confident I could match in C1 whatever aspects of LR color you find pleasant.
Title: Re: D800 + 85/1,4 AF-S file reprocessed in LR 4.2
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 31, 2012, 12:56:10 pm
Hi,

I still think that it would be a good idea to test camera + lens at f/4, just to find out if it is really LoCA we see. We need to find the cause so we can prescribe the correct medicine.

You could perhaps post the raw image so we can download and check out?

You could also start a new thread here on LuLa. I know that Eric Chan stops by now and then but I don't think he looks at old Nikon vs. MF threads.

Best regards
Erik

OK, here is what I could make out of it in LR 4.2.

The purple fringing on the shirt has become way better, thats impressive.

The CA on the hand has become better as well, but it is still visible. There seems to be no control for the orange silhouette.


Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 01, 2012, 01:34:30 am
Hi,

Moving the hue slider a bit to the right may help, but may have other side effects. See enclosed screen dump.

Diglloyd has found out that some fringing may come from UV or IR. I'll see if I can find that article. So if you have an UV or IR-cut filter laying around you could test.

Best regards
Erik



Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Bernd B. on November 01, 2012, 06:16:04 am
Thank you, Eric! But your tweak turns parts of the hand grey.

Bernd
Title: Re: dramatic CA on D800 file shot with last generation AFS prime (look at 100% crop)
Post by: ondebanks on November 01, 2012, 08:09:08 am
Here is one picture taken with a D800 and my Nikkor 85/1,4 AF-S at ISO 100, f/1,4 and 1/2500sec, developed in LR 4, lens profiles and CR removal checked.

Look at that CA above the hand. Is´nt that sick? CA in the center of an image???

Look at the purple fringing on the entire shirt. It renders the grey shirt purple.

It's not sick at all! It's perfectly expectable when you shoot a 60mm diameter lens, containing no low dispersion glass, at the outrageous speed of f1.4.

With my Hasselnlad H3D39 and my first generation HC 150/3,2 at f/3,2 there is still some amount of purple fringing, but much much less.

That's a smaller diameter lens (47mm), and more importantly, a beam convergence which is less than half as steep (f3.2). The pixels are also larger, so the CA is less spatially resolved.

You're not comparing like with like. Try to picture the physics of what's being demanded of the lenses. If you need help doing that, that's cool - just ask us. What isn't cool is ranting about something before you attempt to understand it.

Ray
Title: Re: dramatic CA on D800 file shot with last generation AFS prime (look at 100% crop)
Post by: Bernd B. on November 01, 2012, 09:50:22 am
It's not sick at all! It's perfectly expectable when you shoot a 60mm diameter lens, containing no low dispersion glass, at the outrageous speed of f1.4.

That's a smaller diameter lens (47mm), and more importantly, a beam convergence which is less than half as steep (f3.2). The pixels are also larger, so the CA is less spatially resolved.

You're not comparing like with like. Try to picture the physics of what's being demanded of the lenses. If you need help doing that, that's cool - just ask us. What isn't cool is ranting about something before you attempt to understand it.

Ray

Ray,
the effect of the 150/3,2 MF-lens at f/3,2 is comparable to the 85/1,4 35mm lens at 1,4, so it seems natural to choose this lens trying to keep a "look" when going from MF to 35mm. Both of them are "professional grade". The Hasselblad lens was designed when there was even no digital back available for it (and stands out better today), whilst the Nikon lens was designed at a time, when a 24MP sensor was available for testing. I care less for "beam convergence", I pay money for equipment and expect it to be good. And I would have payed 500,- or 1.000,- EUR more for if it contained a low dispersion element that made it more useable.
Giving me an explanation why a brand new 1.500,- EUR lens does not perform so well is a bit excusing Nikon from their responsibility.
Purple fringing is a quite common effect, the amount of CA in the center is new to me.
Maybe LR has the tools to correct also the latter. Already now or maybe in the future. That was the reason for my post.
Bernd
Title: Re: dramatic CA on D800 file shot with last generation AFS prime (look at 100% crop)
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 01, 2012, 05:10:11 pm
Ray,

I have seen at lot of LoCA on large aperture lenses, even such supposedly sporting low dispersion glass. Zeiss Sonnars 85/1.4, 135/1.8 and Macro Planar 100/2 being examples.

I'm pretty firmly in the f/8, tripod, low ISO and MLU camp, so I don't really care, but I can see that those looking for very short DoF do. My way of achieving short DoF is a long lens, but if you work in a small studio it is not really an option.

I see your point, you are right, but that doesn't make the original poster happy ;-(

Interesting stuff from Tim Ashley: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2012/7/the-zeiss-100mm-f2-on-d800



Best regards
Erik


It's not sick at all! It's perfectly expectable when you shoot a 60mm diameter lens, containing no low dispersion glass, at the outrageous speed of f1.4.

That's a smaller diameter lens (47mm), and more importantly, a beam convergence which is less than half as steep (f3.2). The pixels are also larger, so the CA is less spatially resolved.

You're not comparing like with like. Try to picture the physics of what's being demanded of the lenses. If you need help doing that, that's cool - just ask us. What isn't cool is ranting about something before you attempt to understand it.

Ray
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 01, 2012, 05:35:54 pm
Hi,

I have tested Bernd's image with an evaluation copy of Capture One Pro 7, but I found no immediate salvation. I would say that the image processed by Bernd in LR 4.2 had less issues than what I could achieve in C1 v. 7, but I have little experience with the C1 product.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: dramatic CA on D800 file shot with last generation AFS prime (look at 100% crop)
Post by: heinrichvoelkel on November 01, 2012, 09:05:11 pm

Giving me an explanation why a brand new 1.500,- EUR lens does not perform so well is a bit excusing Nikon from their responsibility.

Bernd

Without offense, there lies the difference. What you expect to get for 1500 Euros and what Nikon is willing to design and sell for this price. This is no excuse for Nikon, but your expectations don't match with Nikon's business practice.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 01, 2012, 09:27:49 pm
Hi,

I have tested Bernd's image with an evaluation copy of Capture One Pro 7, but I found no immediate salvation. I would say that the image processed by Bernd in LR 4.2 had less issues than what I could achieve in C1 v. 7, but I have little experience with the C1 product.

Did you activate CA correction in the lens tab?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: Guy Mancuso on November 01, 2012, 10:00:14 pm
Also check purple fringing in C1. It should  clean right up.
Title: Re: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 02, 2012, 01:01:40 am
Yes, I checked both purple fringing and CA.

I enclose screen dumps of both LR 4.2 and C1 v7.

The LR 4.2 is processed with OP:s settings but I changed the settings for magenta fringing, that almost works but causes a green shift on the hand.

Best regards
Erik


Did you activate CA correction in the lens tab?

Cheers,
Bernard