Nikon D800 - seems harder to justify Medium Format

[uaiomex]

No, I'm afraid I don't. It is based on educated guesses and 35 years as a professional photographer. Theoretically, due to it's micro grain structure 120 Technical Pan had in essence the power to compete for detail and drawing power with 4X5 cut sheet. but didn't. Even Tri-X 4X5 dusted any fine grain 120 roll-film, even TP. (if grain structure is analog to pixels).

I recall how digital MF users not long ago defended the format claiming the 16-bit advantage, the superior quality of the pixels of the CCD over CMOS and the finer lenses. Now, we know, the 16-bit was in reality only 14-bit. DSLR sensor manufacturers have developed 14-bit sensors than on any test-bench beat the quality of any MF sensor. Canon, Nikon and Leica have now amazing new lenses that trump even the finest large or medium format glass.  All the advantages that DMF had over D35 have fallen, except one. The size of the sensor.

If cramming more pixels was the answer for quality and drawing power, then in 10 more years a cell-phone will have the drawing power of an IQ180 back. I believe this will never happen. In other forums, APS advocates have this campaign of negating the advantage of FF cameras. Now we see the same thing with M43 users claiming there are no advantages of APS over M43. And this can go all the way down to reducing the sensors beyond the human scale.

DMF sensors still provide the best IQ and will keep this superiority. As long as someone keeps on producing them, bigger sensor cameras will always rule the non plus ultra of photographic image quality. However, their nemesis could be the popularity of the FF DSLR. DSLR Manufacturers enjoy 1000X more revenues than DMF makers. Practically all the money for RD goes for smaller sensors. In no time I believe, FF will have so much quality that going for bigger sensors will be only a matter of obsession. In fact we might be there now.

Being a true lover of medium format myself for years, I salivated for a decade for a DMF back but couldn't afford it. In the meantime DSLR systems matured enough to challenge the DMF superiority. I stop dreaming of getting into DMF. My Canon system is turning into a dream system. Nikon and Leica systems are dream systems too and soon Sony too. Maybe one day, DMF cameras will not be sold in enough quantities to justify production. I truly hope this never happens. I dream for a technological breakthrough that will allow getting into DMF without mortgaging one's life.

It is only now left to our eyes. Either see it or don't. I for myself, can usually tell the difference even over the internet. Will I sell my soul to the devil? No way!

Best
Eduardo







    

Hum... do you have any factual data (measurements) to back up these high level theoretical claims?

We have seen again and again that sensor technology has a much larger impact on sensor performance than basic physics:
- There can be 2 stops DR gap between sensors of the same size/generation (5DIII vs D800),
- A small 4/3 sensor like that of the Olympus OM-D is superior accross the board to the full size sensor of the 1Ds,
- ...

So in the end, size is just one characteristic with the potential to impact performance, but the only thing that really matters is measured performance.

Cheers,
Bernard

[hjulenissen]

No, I'm afraid I don't. It is based on educated guesses and 35 years as a professional photographer.

I respect the skilled photographers abilities to make great photography, just like I respect the great musicians abilities to make great music.

I don't think that being a skilled photographer in itself makes you an authority on camera technology, anymore than being a great piano player makes you able to analyze the details in how the 8000 (?) moving and sound-generating parts in a piano affects the sound.

DMF sensors still provide the best IQ and will keep this superiority. As long as someone keeps on producing them, bigger sensor cameras will always rule the non plus ultra of photographic image quality.

I dont think that MF necessarily will give you the "best" IQ for every kind of photography, and I certainly would not bet on it being best for all kinds of photography for all future. Like you say, it depends on how much R&D effort is put into the format.

-h

[Lester]

Since everyone is putting their 2 cents in, I am going to put my too. I shoot both MF and DSLR, there is camera for every style of shoot. I do have a D800e on backorder and I do shoot with the Mamiya 645 with the Leaf Aptus II 12 and yes I do carry the Mamiya 645 with 5 lens with the Leaf II 12 back. And I am 63 years old. One thing that the DSLR have on the MF is that, the widest lens for the Mamiya is 28mm. With the Nikon, it is 14mm. I do shoot wide angles for landscape and special effects.

[theguywitha645d]

Hi,

Me 56 years and the bag is 14.5kg (around 32 lb). It's just 135. A Sony Alpha 900 and a 77SLT plus a couple of lenses, a tripod and a pair of heads ;-)

Best regards
Erik

I am glad I am 48. My bag with the 645D, 35mm, 55mm, 120mm, and 300mm with a bunch of other stuff is 6.5kg. The tripod is 2kg more. No wonder I am so weak and feeble--I need to carry more stuff.

[Paul2660]

Since everyone is putting their 2 cents in, I am going to put my too. I shoot both MF and DSLR, there is camera for every style of shoot. I do have a D800e on backorder and I do shoot with the Mamiya 645 with the Leaf Aptus II 12 and yes I do carry the Mamiya 645 with 5 lens with the Leaf II 12 back. And I am 63 years old. One thing that the DSLR have on the MF is that, the widest lens for the Mamiya is 28mm. With the Nikon, it is 14mm. I do shoot wide angles for landscape and special effects.

Lester  isn't it closer than that, as the FOV of your 28mm in medium format is  equivalent to around 17mm in 35mm format if you are using a digital back without a crop factor.
I agree the weight adds up fast.  I am always trying to cut back depending on the hike I have.  At 53, my back just doesn't have what it used to anymore.

Paul

[Steve Hendrix]

Lester  isn't it closer than that, as the FOV of your 28mm in medium format is  equivalent to around 17mm in 35mm format if you are using a digital back without a crop factor.
I agree the weight adds up fast.  I am always trying to cut back depending on the hike I have.  At 53, my back just doesn't have what it used to anymore.

Paul

It is indeed 18mm (on say, P65+/IQ160/180, etc).


Steve Hendrix

[Lester]

Wait until you live to 63, the older you get, the worst things are.

[design_freak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk&sns=em

[uaiomex]

I never implied that I was an "authority". Perhaps you are one. If so, will you please explain the reasons why MF sensors still deliver better IQ despite everything else is matched and even surpassed by smaller formats?
Eduardo
P.S. Maybe I just got lost in translation when I did my (then) mandatory reading of Ansel Adams little books.

I respect the skilled photographers abilities to make great photography, just like I respect the great musicians abilities to make great music.

I don't think that being a skilled photographer in itself makes you an authority on camera technology, anymore than being a great piano player makes you able to analyze the details in how the 8000 (?) moving and sound-generating parts in a piano affects the sound.I dont think that MF necessarily will give you the "best" IQ for every kind of photography, and I certainly would not bet on it being best for all kinds of photography for all future. Like you say, it depends on how much R&D effort is put into the format.

-h

[hjulenissen]

I never implied that I was an "authority". Perhaps you are one.

I know some technology, and I do some photography. I am an authority on none of them.

If so, will you please explain the reasons why MF sensors still deliver better IQ despite everything else is matched and even surpassed by smaller formats?

Having 180MP obviously _can_ give you more details than having 20MP if a single shot is taken.

I have seen images that appeal to me coming from a large variety of camera/lenses. Usually, it seems that a clever photographer will see interesting motifs and be able to work around the limitations of any given camera.

If you are talking about "fair" side-by-side comparisions of digital MF vs 24x36mm that clearly shows a significant advantage besides spatial resolution, I have seen none that really struck me. Granted, it is fairly complicated to make such a test really "fair", and to investigate what fairness constitutes.

-h

[BJL]

... will you please explain the reasons why MF sensors still deliver better IQ despite everything else is matched and even surpassed by smaller formats?

Can you explain your criteria for this judgement of MF sensor delivering superior image quality?

The blanket claim of MF having superior image quality is not true: compared to the D800(E), some MF backs are superior in some respects (for example, resolution or detail from a 50MP+ back) but all current MF options are inferior in other aspects of IQ, like handling of low light when high exposure index ("ISO speed") is needed.

I agree that if the sensor technologies are sufficiently close, the larger format has a natural advantage, such is in the resolution of the final print (equal lp/mm in the image formed on the sensor give more lp/mm on the MF print) and the total light that can be gathered which leads to greater dynamic range and so finer tonal gradations and superior handling of scenes of high subject brightness range.

But recently, the sensor technologies are not even close: for photosites of equal size, the best CMOS sensors give far better "per pixel" performance, which MF can overcome only by having substantially more and/or larger photosites, requiring substantially more sensor area. I do not think that 44x33mm or Leica's 45x30mm have enough size advantage to overcome the current technological disadvantage on "per area" performance.

On the other hand, there is at least one area where formats close to the full 54x42mm of 645 format might always have an advantage due to lens optics: the natural size advantage of larger formats lenses means that the best 645 format lenses might deliver an image of superior quality to what any 35mm format lens can deliver, and with good enough sensors, this could be better than 35mm lenses could achieve even with an ideal sensor.

[MrSmith]

in answer to the OP it does make it harder to justify MFD as a fellow photographer has just ordered an 800e and has shelved the idea of paying 20k for an 'upgrade' from a p45 that isn't really justifiable. if the p45 somehow dies it will be replaced with a s/h one or a s/h H3d-39 which are quite cheap at the moment. from his point of view he gets a studio back-up and a location camera that means faster working, less lighting kit, reliable shooting to card, proper live view and the ability to shoot above 50asa. all for the price of a H/blad zoom lens.

[theguywitha645d]

I am going to sell my P25+ for a Nex 7. Same resolution and better sensor.

[Dick Roadnight]

... compared to the D800(E), some MF backs are superior in some respects (for example, resolution or detail from a 50MP+ back) but all current MF options are inferior in other aspects of IQ, like handling of low light when high exposure index ("ISO speed") is needed.

...On the other hand, there is at least one area where formats close to the full 54x42mm of 645 format might always have an advantage due to lens optics: the natural size advantage of larger formats lenses means that the best 645 format lenses might deliver an image of superior quality to what any 35mm format lens can deliver, and with good enough sensors, this could be better than 35mm lenses could achieve even with an ideal sensor.

In the real world, for shots requiring high resolution in the studio or for architecture/landscape... how would a D800 file compare to an up-sampled file from a 5 year old 22Mpx digital back?

... or a 5 year old 22Mpx multi-shot back that might cost the same money?

I do have a GH2 for low-light work, and the small sensor size gives greater DOF when DOF stacking is not an option.

[BJL]

I am going to sell my P25+ for a Nex 7. Same resolution and better sensor.

You are being obtuse right? The big pixel size difference there is likely more than enough for the sensor of the P25+ to off-set the technological inferiority of CCDs, which show up when pixel sizes are closer to equal, and the far larger format also allows the lenses to be superior on equal sized prints and in "lines per picture height" performance measures, even though they might measure a bit worse in "line per mm" scale.

(A little known fact: with equal lens designs of equal angular FOV and equal minimum f-stop scaled to different sizes, a smaller format version is inherently superior in the l/mm sense, due to the way that spherical aberrations and such scale with size, but the larger version is inherently superior on the more relevant measure of l/ph, and when stopped down for equal DOF and such.)

[BJL]

In the real world, for shots requiring high resolution in the studio or for architecture/landscape... how would a D800 file compare to an up-sampled file from a 5 year old 22Mpx digital back?

... or a 5 year old 22Mpx multi-shot back that might cost the same money?

Upsampling is not going to fix the resolution disadvantage at all, just hide the jaggies in big prints. But on other aspects of IQ, I really do not know: for example, the 22MP sensor seem to have plenty of DR for almost all needs and the MF lenses probably have an IQ advantage.

As to the multi-shot back I have even less of a clue how the comparison would go! It might overcome the resolution disadvantage.

That would be an interesting comparison, especially as it reduces or even reverses the price disadvantage for someone who already has the rest of the MF kit and just need the second hand back.

[theguywitha645d]

You are being obtuse right?

Definitely obtuse. You mean sensor size makes a difference? I just thought it was all about pixels. (This is rhetorical obtusity, BTW.)

BJL, I know you understand.

I can't remember, when the 24MP 25mm sensors came out, did the conversations keep going around and around like this? A photographic system is a symphony (or cacophony) of parts, all contributing to the final result. There are situations where some of those parts intersect, but every system makes a unique result. I recommend choosing a format for what it gives rather than choosing it for what another format gives.

What did we talk about before the D800...

[BJL]

What did we talk about before the D800...

IIRC correctly, the previous hot topic in internet fantasy photography was "Canon vs Nikon: which has more pleasing pattern noise at ISO 204,800?"

So compared to that, I think we are making progress in our therapy support group for the spec. obsessed.

[theguywitha645d]

LOL

[uaiomex]

My criteria is undoubtably made of limited sources and resources. Based on some "in-situ" visual comparisons and from some other professionals that heavily use on a daily basis MF equipment as well as dlsr's.

If I'm not lost in translation, what you are saying is that basically the D800 equals or betters DMF backs this side of 48X36mm. As far as I understand, only at high iso's this happens.

This is a shake-up, turn up-side-down world thing for every user of a DMF system. Are you sure?

On the other hand, you mention that with sensors approaching true 645 size, the advantage is because of the lenses. It is my belief the true advantage is the sheer size of the sensor in the first place. If lenses add to the equation it is because of the big image circle they produce, which in turn comes back to the sensor. The size of the sensor.

Eduardo

Can you explain your criteria for this judgement of MF sensor delivering superior image quality?

The blanket claim of MF having superior image quality is not true: compared to the D800(E), some MF backs are superior in some respects (for example, resolution or detail from a 50MP+ back) but all current MF options are inferior in other aspects of IQ, like handling of low light when high exposure index ("ISO speed") is needed.

I agree that if the sensor technologies are sufficiently close, the larger format has a natural advantage, such is in the resolution of the final print (equal lp/mm in the image formed on the sensor give more lp/mm on the MF print) and the total light that can be gathered which leads to greater dynamic range and so finer tonal gradations and superior handling of scenes of high subject brightness range.

But recently, the sensor technologies are not even close: for photosites of equal size, the best CMOS sensors give far better "per pixel" performance, which MF can overcome only by having substantially more and/or larger photosites, requiring substantially more sensor area. I do not think that 44x33mm or Leica's 45x30mm have enough size advantage to overcome the current technological disadvantage on "per area" performance.

On the other hand, there is at least one area where formats close to the full 54x42mm of 645 format might always have an advantage due to lens optics: the natural size advantage of larger formats lenses means that the best 645 format lenses might deliver an image of superior quality to what any 35mm format lens can deliver, and with good enough sensors, this could be better than 35mm lenses could achieve even with an ideal sensor.