Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: FredBGG on June 22, 2012, 01:33:28 am
-
Dynamic range and highlight recovery is often touted as one of the big benefits of MFD often exaggerated by vendors.
I recently decided to ditch MFD in favor of a combination of medium and large format film along with a high end 35mm DSLR.
Having seen some nice files I bought a D800.
Anyway I live in southern California and often shoot on location in the desert or at the beaches... I favor the beaches as I can go kitesurfing as soon as I finish shooting ;)
I often shoot with the model under flags ... sort of an arch. Sometimes I add a key light or reflector.
With this setup and shooting full length I often need to recover background detail as it tends to be over exposed.
So I did a quick highlight recovery test and it exceeded my expectations.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5340/7412274614_0ab5f4bf2f_b.jpg)
It is going to be a real pleasure to shoot on location with this camera, not to mention the particular look of the 85mm 1.4G.
I thought I would be losing highlight recovery by ditching MFD, but that simply is not the case.
It may even be better than what I have been able to do with Phase One P series backs.
it's a bit hard to see with the size I posted, but there is still tonality in the white of the numbers on the letter box....
-
Dynamic range and highlight recovery is often touted as one of the big benefits of MFD often exaggerated by vendors.
I thought I would be losing highlight recovery by ditching MFD, but that simply is not the case.
It may even be better than what I have been able to do with Phase One P series backs.
I'm not at all surprised, Fred.
Anyone can see the results for themselves in DxOmark...
Ray
-
Perhaps worth moving this thread to the 35mm forum?
-
Hello Ray,
I am a bit surprise, yes. I am used that overexposed images are usually quickly gone in the overexposed areas. Adobe raw still could do a good job sometimes finding the hidden information.
The D800 seems to have more headroom than the d3x in this respect. Looking at the small overexposed areas in this case it is fortunate that the image looks at first glance more overexposed than it really is.
-
Perhaps worth moving this thread to the 35mm forum?
why? each post has MFD info and might be handy for those wavering between a D800 and 40mpixel back and looking for user info.
-
Because the OP shows one image that was taken with a 35mm camera and discusses its qualities
But that's just MY opinion...
-
I think this is relevant to this forum, but let me elaborate.
First of all e really like the look of medium format, but find that unique look
more in larger medium format using film. While MFD has some of this look it is
actually quite close to the best 35mm system lenses. 6x8 film is 4 times the size of FF 35mm.
When I shoot film once I have the shot I shoot some backup with digital just for insurance purposes.
Due to the fact that my lighting setups are generally for film and mostly black and white
I need to have a digital camera with good dynamic range so I don't have to change scrims, fill or what not.
This makes the D800 an essential part of my medium format kit.
Secondly many people think of medium format for it's dynamic range and now it is just as good with
the D800, if not better. Also I think it would be safe to say that the D800 has some merit to be
discussed along side MFDB as it has a higher MP count than entry level MF thus making the d800 relevant to "large sensor photography".
Going back to the larger format look I find that with a combination of film and digital 35mm DSLR I am getting the best of both worlds.
While the D800 pretty much as good MFD with the exception of the 60 and 80MP the lens options for the D800
give me a vast range of looks. Nothing offered by Mamiya Phase gives me what the 85mm 1.4G or the 200 f2G give me.
Shallow depth of field is something I really like to use. The Fuji GX680 180mm 3.2 is IMO unmatched by anything from MFD manufacturers.
Shallow depth of field and tilt shift on a 6x8 capture area. I also find it to unreliable to shoot shallow depth of field with MFD.
Low viewfinder magnification and very limited focusing system as well as slow live view.
-
The D800 seems to have more headroom than the d3x in this respect. Looking at the small overexposed areas in this case it is fortunate that the image looks at first glance more overexposed than it really is.
Before concluding that the image is overexposed, one should look at the tone curve applied by the camera or raw converter. Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom use a hot tone curve for the Nikon D800. The actual exposure depends on the calibration of the light meter.
The Radigger (http://www.rawdigger.com/houtouse/lightmeter-calibration) web site has a good article on the calibration of the camera light meter. I performed the suggested test with my D800e and determined that the headroom was 2.75 stops from mid gray. This was for ISO 100 and a color temp of 4500 (late afternoon sunlight). Saturation of the sensor was 14.8%, whereas mid gray is 18%. The pixel values for a 2.2 gamma space would be 107 and 117 respectively [%saturation^(1/2.2)*255)]. ACR 7.1 rendered the 14.8% saturation at 173 in Adobe RGB.
Camera makers adjust headroom by changing the ISO to a lower value than would be indicated by the ISO standard. DXO measures the actual ISO. For the D800 at an ISO setting of 100, the measured ISO is 73. This means that the camera will give 0.45 stops less exposure than would be given by the ISO standard. This would place the highlights 1/2 stop below clipping. For the Phase One IQ180 at an ISO setting of 100, the measured ISO is 29, which would place the highlights 1.8 stops below clipping.
Regards,
Bill
-
Hi,
The original poster said he moved from MF digital to 24x36 digital and large format film, so I would say that his experience absolutely relevant in this context.
Best regards
Erik
Perhaps worth moving this thread to the 35mm forum?
-
I'm not sure I understand why the word "recovery" is in this discussion. Either one (or more) of the channels was blown, or it wasn't. Knowing when your camera manufacturer is playing coy with your perceptions is key.
Bill is correct that "standard" tone curves will exaggerate the highlights. You should be using UniWB to get as accurate a histogram as possible, without applying any tone curves whatsoever, in order to truly judge the exposure.
-
I'm not sure I understand why the word "recovery" is in this discussion. Either one (or more) of the channels was blown, or it wasn't. Knowing when your camera manufacturer is playing coy with your perceptions is key.
Bill is correct that "standard" tone curves will exaggerate the highlights. You should be using UniWB to get as accurate a histogram as possible, without applying any tone curves whatsoever, in order to truly judge the exposure.
I am talking about recovery is the sense of using recovery slider in raw or shadow highlights or a combination of other tools.
IF a channel is blown out beyond the very top of recordable dynamic range it's not recovery it's inventing it.
The point I am making is that recovering extremely bright highlights with this camera returns excellent results due to the linearity between the three channels.
With mode cameras you get color shifts and strange looking tones as if you had thrown your curves correction around too much or to many times.
After making these corrections I did the detail and colors were remarkably close to those of a correctly exposed image, even the detail and texture within the white numbers.
-
...recovering extremely bright highlights with this camera returns excellent results due to the linearity between the three channels.
With mode cameras you get color shifts and strange looking tones as if you had thrown your curves correction around too much or to many times.
I would think that using "camera neutral" (in LR) or "linear" (in C1) would return linear data for all the Nikon cameras. It seems there's more to what you're saying, but I'm not sure what it is.
One thing is for sure. The highlight adjustments in LR4 are much more "photographic" than on previous versions, which were all but unusable.
-
...... For the D800 at an ISO setting of 100, the measured ISO is 73. This means that the camera will give 0.45 stops less exposure than would be given by the ISO standard. .....
Regards,
Bill
Bill, thank you for pointing this out..in accordance i would think
1 the optimum exposure for the d800e is perhaps about 60asa.. optimum in the sense of getting the tonality at its best and noise the lowest...
2 D3x did not have this headroom for it performed a lot weaker at high ISO and Nikon did not want it to be a 100-800 asa camera but an 100-1600 asa camera....
please correct me where you think i go wrong...
-
I wouldn't exactly call that a great test image. Nothing was really blown, just overexposed.
The 5D3 has better recovery than that. The D800 has great range in the shadows though.
-
Dynamic range and highlight recovery is often touted as one of the big benefits of MFD often exaggerated by vendors.
I recently decided to ditch MFD in favor of a combination of medium and large format film along with a high end 35mm DSLR.
Having seen some nice files I bought a D800.
Anyway I live in southern California and often shoot on location in the desert or at the beaches... I favor the beaches as I can go kitesurfing as soon as I finish shooting ;)
I often shoot with the model under flags ... sort of an arch. Sometimes I add a key light or reflector.
With this setup and shooting full length I often need to recover background detail as it tends to be over exposed.
So I did a quick highlight recovery test and it exceeded my expectations.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5340/7412274614_0ab5f4bf2f_b.jpg)
It is going to be a real pleasure to shoot on location with this camera, not to mention the particular look of the 85mm 1.4G.
I thought I would be losing highlight recovery by ditching MFD, but that simply is not the case.
It may even be better than what I have been able to do with Phase One P series backs.
it's a bit hard to see with the size I posted, but there is still tonality in the white of the numbers on the letter box....
Thanks for the example.
Is my understanding that, as general rule, the last generation H4Ds still have an edge in recovering highlights against the D800, but the D800 owns the shadows.
I mention that in part because this cameras are so good that, some times, at the crop level, the only way to know is side by side comparison. I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk
Best regards,
James
-
It's a ncie example, Fred, but I think the same can be done with most of the newer MFDB. Certainly that's my thought anyhow and having mostly used MFDB's I wasn't surprised by how far you could pull down the highlights because this seems pretty normal.
-
All this talk about "highlight recovery" seems to be because Lightroom etc hides how a digital camera actually works. A sensor registers light linearly and either it clips or not. Typically the R G B channels do not clip simultaneously and then a raw converter can guess the clipped channels values, more or less successfully, I'd call that "highlight reconstruction" though, since the raw converter invents data that has not been recorded. It differs greatly between raw converters how good they are at guessing clipped data.
I often hear people say that MFDB has great "highlight recovery". Sure, it is just how the camera reports the sensitivity and histogram shows the data, if it underexposes the images then there's more "highlight recovery", but it only means that you get noisier shadows since the image is underexposed. Do a couple of experiments to learn how your camera's histogram and ISO works. If you think it has too little "highlight recovery", just underexpose. I know those that have their exposure correction dial constantly at -1 to get more highlight recovery when shooting with auto-exposure.
-
It's a ncie example, Fred, but I think the same can be done with most of the newer MFDB. Certainly that's my thought anyhow and having mostly used MFDB's I wasn't surprised by how far you could pull down the highlights because this seems pretty normal.
My point is that in ditching MFD I would lose this kind of control or would at least have to do color correction to the recovered areas
What I am saying is that it is as good if not better. If I consider the better shadows and overall better dynamic range I'm better of now
from an IQ point of view. If on top of that I add all the ergonomics, focusing, range of lenses, better bokeh, speedlight integration, image stabilization,
reliability, speed, proper live view, video, NPS... well I think it's a pretty clear picture.
While I was pretty confident of my decision and this highlight recovery/control is the icing on the cake.
-
the last generation H4Ds still have an edge in recovering highlights against the D800, but the D800 owns the shadows.
Talking about 'recovering' highlights vs 'recovering' shadows is arbitrary, the only thing that matters is total dynamic range which includes both.
A camera that is good at 'recovering' highlights (the H4Ds according to you) is a camera with a low effective ISO, and becomes bad at recovering highlights as soon as we expose more. For the same reason a camera that is bad at recovering highlights is a camera with a high effective ISO, and becomes a highlight champion just by systematically underexposing every shot.
If you are a RAW shooter, the only thing that matters is total DR of your sensor, i.e. how many stops below clipped highlights you can still have information with a decent low visible noise.
Regards
-
If you are a RAW shooter, the only thing that matters is total DR of your sensor, i.e. how many stops below clipped highlights you can still have information with a decent low visible noise.
And how well the raw converter can extract usable image data from the raw capture...LR4 and ACR 7 raised the bar...
-
Not sure this has anything to do with MFD versus 35mm digital, more a case of continuing improvements in the most modern generation of sensors. Each generation shows improvements over the last.
No doubt about it, dynamic range is a strength of the D800.
Quentin
-
With the new slider tools in LR4 it is nearly impossible for to go back to using C1 on any regular basis. Eleanor
And how well the raw converter can extract usable image data from the raw capture...LR4 and ACR 7 raised the bar...
-
Eleanor,
Thanks for the info! So you like the new sliders?
Are you using LR4 on also on your P65+?
Best regards
Erik
With the new slider tools in LR4 it is nearly impossible for to go back to using C1 on any regular basis. Eleanor
-
And how well the raw converter can extract usable image data from the raw capture...LR4 and ACR 7 raised the bar...
Could you explain a bit?
-
It looks like the D800 is saying to Phase and Hasselblad, "You must try harder", no doubt when it comes down to splitting hairs MF might have an advantage. The only thing MF now has a big advantage/difference is in the way they work. If you prefer to work the way a MF camera makes you work then it might justify the extra dosh......... a little. Then again the MF people have been trying hard to make a camera that handles more like 35mm for sometime now. A nice 6x6cm sensor and a image on a gg screen you look down on in the studio might restore some of the advantage, if portraits are your thing.
The D800 looks to tick a lot of the MF boxes, without the fuss or expense. I think there must be a lot of head scratching at hassy and Phase, if the tech bods can't come up with some very good reasons, it will be left to the marketing bull****ers to come up with them.
Luckily my wishing for a MF system passed me by without me being tempted in investing a house size bank loan to fund one. I actually think the new Canon 1D C could be the way I go, it's versatility could give me more income streams than a MF one trick Pony, no matter how good the trick is. Large quantities of MPs look to be less important in an age when less goes to print or it ends up being cgi'd to within an inch of it's life.
I sold a 1DsIII image today for a 2 meter print, I know it will look great, it would of looked greater on Phase 180 but I would not of got a penny more for it, so what would be the point?
I doubt the 800 is the death of MFD, it will make them think and work harder to provide value for money other than more useless pixels.
Kevin.
A quick tour of the 2012 Olympic site http://youtu.be/TwewnWMDucw
-
Erik, I really like the new sliders and use them on the majority of my files and yes I'm using LR4 with the 65+. Tomorrow I'm driving up to Boulder Colorado to pick up my D800e. Found one in a camera store there....have been on backorder for one at b&h for months with no luck. Look forward to checking out the dynamic range in this camera and processing in LR4. Eleanor
Eleanor,
Thanks for the info! So you like the new sliders?
Are you using LR4 on also on your P65+?
Best regards
Erik
-
Eleanor,
Congratulations to your D800E! I hoped that you already had one, but I understand they are hard to get. Which lenses do you plan to use?
I hope that you the D800E gives you the creamy quality you found with the P65+ and the Leica.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I really like the new sliders and use them on the majority of my files and yes I'm using LR4 with the 65+. Tomorrow I'm driving up to Boulder Colorado to pick up my D800e. Found one in a camera store there....have been on backorder for one at b&h for months with no luck. Look forward to checking out the dynamic range in this camera and processing in LR4. Eleanor
-
Erik do you have one of the 800 series Nikons? Don't know if the 800e will have that creamy quality of the 65+ and M9 or not but I will find out soon enough. I haven't had a DSLR that shoots RGB in years so I'm looking forward to the portability and auto focus! I have the 14-24, 35 1.4G, 50 1.4G, and Zeiss Makro 100 F2 manual focus. Eleanor
Eleanor,
Congratulations to your D800E! I hoped that you already had one, but I understand they are hard to get. Which lenses do you plan to use?
I hope that you the D800E gives you the creamy quality you found with the P65+ and the Leica.
Best regards
Erik
-
Erik, I really like the new sliders and use them on the majority of my files and yes I'm using LR4 with the 65+. Tomorrow I'm driving up to Boulder Colorado to pick up my D800e. Found one in a camera store there....have been on backorder for one at b&h for months with no luck. Look forward to checking out the dynamic range in this camera and processing in LR4. Eleanor
Eleanor
I've been comparing my D800E/Leica R lenses with my IQ180/Rodenstoch HR's and the bottom line is per pixel the D800E is sharper and has more dynamic range, however per frame the IQ180 has it beat, not as much as one would think though. Enjoy the D800E and consider some Leica R's with Leitax adapters to get the most out of your new camera!
Marc
-
Eleanor
I've been comparing my D800E/Leica R lenses with my IQ180/Rodenstoch HR's and the bottom line is per pixel the D800E is sharper and has more dynamic range, however per frame the IQ180 has it beat, not as much as one would think though. Enjoy the D800E and consider some Leica R's with Leitax adapters to get the most out of your new camera!
Marc
More dynamic range.... in most cases more important than the slight gain in sharpness with 60MP or 80MP sensors with lower dynamic range.
-
Thanks for the suggestion Marc. I do have the Zeiss 100 2 makro that I've been using on my D5100 and this is one of the best lenses I've ever used! After waiting months for a D800e on backorder at B&H with no luck, I drove to Boulder colorado yesterday to get a D800e. Turned out to be defective and had to return it and get back on their wait list...talk about a bummer! Eleanor
Eleanor
I've been comparing my D800E/Leica R lenses with my IQ180/Rodenstoch HR's and the bottom line is per pixel the D800E is sharper and has more dynamic range, however per frame the IQ180 has it beat, not as much as one would think though. Enjoy the D800E and consider some Leica R's with Leitax adapters to get the most out of your new camera!
Marc
-
Thanks for the suggestion Marc. I do have the Zeiss 100 2 makro that I've been using on my D5100 and this is one of the best lenses I've ever used! After waiting months for a D800e on backorder at B&H with no luck, I drove to Boulder colorado yesterday to get a D800e. Turned out to be defective and had to return it and get back on their wait list...talk about a bummer! Eleanor
Try Jim Lackey at Brightscreen he might have one (800) 235-2451
Marc
-
Eleanor,
I have no Nikons, unfortunately, I'm still using Sony. The reason I asked about the creamy quality is really that I'd think it has to do with sensor size. So I guessed that your Nikon would have the same potential as the Leica in that area. But you obviously didn't get your Nikon. One of the places I buy stuff here in Sweden semt to have a couple of D800Es yesterday but not so today. I hope you get the D800E soon and that you will be satisfied with your images.
I was actually considering to switch to Nikon when the D800 arrived, as I feel that Sony is not moving in the direction I want to see, at least not fast enough. But I have a decent investment in decent Sony stuff, so I decided not to take the plunge.
Best regards
Erik
Erik do you have one of the 800 series Nikons? Don't know if the 800e will have that creamy quality of the 65+ and M9 or not but I will find out soon enough. I haven't had a DSLR that shoots RGB in years so I'm looking forward to the portability and auto focus! I have the 14-24, 35 1.4G, 50 1.4G, and Zeiss Makro 100 F2 manual focus. Eleanor
-
The only thing MF now has a big advantage/difference is in the way they work.
I had a H4D-40 for almost two years, and I can say that the leaf shutter lenses alone are a big reason for using MFD. I've tried everything to get the same high speed sync on nikon/canon systems with no luck. The 35mm "solutions" are no practical at all (ND filters, Canon/nikon flashes, HSS transmitters etc etc).
Yesterday I was doing a shot in the afternoon and I wanted a shallow DOF look with strobes, I was using a 5D mark II, ISO 100, 1/160, f/11. With the H4D-40 I could've made it happened with ISO 100, 1/800, f/5... and f/5 DOF I something like f/2.8-3.5 in 35mm. Of course getting a wider DOF in MFD it's harder.
- Also true focus It's so much faster than a multi-point AF sensor, it really works, made my life simpler.
- Another clear differentiator is how they render color, I really hate canon magenta tint on skin tones, but of course you can fix it in post or with something like colorchecker passport, but getting a natural/real color from the beginning it's a time saver.
But LR4 is a game changer for me, you can recover the highlights and shadows in a more pleasant and natural look, I feel like my 5D mark II suddenly had a dynamic range update :)
-
I had a H4D-40 for almost two years, and I can say that the leaf shutter lenses alone are a big reason for using MFD. I've tried everything to get the same high speed sync on nikon/canon systems with no luck. The 35mm "solutions" are no practical at all (ND filters, Canon/nikon flashes, HSS transmitters etc etc).
Yesterday I was doing a shot in the afternoon and I wanted a shallow DOF look with strobes, I was using a 5D mark II, ISO 100, 1/160, f/11. With the H4D-40 I could've made it happened with ISO 100, 1/800, f/5... and f/5 DOF I something like f/2.8-3.5 in 35mm. Of course getting a wider DOF in MFD it's harder.
- Also true focus It's so much faster than a multi-point AF sensor, it really works, made my life simpler.
- Another clear differentiator is how they render color, I really hate canon magenta tint on skin tones, but of course you can fix it in post or with something like colorchecker passport, but getting a natural/real color from the beginning it's a time saver.
But LR4 is a game changer for me, you can recover the highlights and shadows in a more pleasant and natural look, I feel like my 5D mark II suddenly had a dynamic range update :)
In the situation you mentioned above you could have synced with the Canon at 1/250@F9. To open up to f/5 all you would need is a 1.5ND filter and more flash power.
Both solutions have their advantages. One requires investing more on the camera while the other more on lights.
Phase One offers both leaf and focal plane shutters as well as being able to mount older Mamiya and Hasselblad lenses. Best range of shutter options .. focal plane
up to 1/4000th and LS to 1/1600th syc (slower on some backs).
Both Canon and Nikon have leaf shutter know how and rumor has it that they are developing LS lens options for their SLRs.
There is also an adapter company working on a tilt shift adapter that supports leaf shutter adapting Hasselblad lenses to Nikon.
Leica figured it out so It's likely these guys may too.
Regarding color with both Canon and Nikon a lot has to do with the raw conversion. Adobe's standard color profiles are far to punchy. Just setting Adobe Camera Raw to Camera Natural
is a vast improvement.
I do agree LR4 is a big step forward.
-
Eleanor
I've been comparing my D800E/Leica R lenses with my IQ180/Rodenstoch HR's and the bottom line is per pixel the D800E is sharper and has more dynamic range, however per frame the IQ180 has it beat, not as much as one would think though. Enjoy the D800E and consider some Leica R's with Leitax adapters to get the most out of your new camera!
Marc
Marc, I would question your tech setup as this is not the case with my comparisons. Are you sure you have your Rodenstock lenses with camera calibrated properly? What tech camera platform are you using? I also feel most people here are overating the dynamic range of D800. At any rate, at least Marc is doing his own testing which I feel is more important than assuming others statements are factual.
-
At any rate, at least Marc is doing his own testing which I feel is more important than assuming others statements are factual.
Very wise thought. When it matters the most trust the tests you have done yourself versus others who you might not know.
-
also feel most people here are overating the dynamic range of D800
Sorry, but your feelings are irrelevant.
The data is the data ... Feelings play no role here.
-
Marc I would be curious to see the results of a test if someone put the same focal length lens on the 800e and the IQ180 (these devices both have near equivalent pixel size/um) and shot the same scene, then cropped the 180 file to the size of the 800e and compared the files...sort of a pixel for pixel comparison (hope I'm making sense here!). Both lenses must be of equivalent high quality with equivalent RAW processing. Over the years I've had 4 Phase One backs (currently a P65+) and they have all had this wonderful creamy smooth quality and incredible micro contrast at base iso, beginning with the P25 years ago. I'm wondering if the 800e will have this smooth quality at base iso too...don't know....is this super smooth quality a result of a CCD sensor or not? Can a CMOS sensor achieve this same super smooth creamy tonal transitions?? I should get my 800e next week so guess I'll see :-) ? Eleanor
Eleanor
I've been comparing my D800E/Leica R lenses with my IQ180/Rodenstoch HR's and the bottom line is per pixel the D800E is sharper and has more dynamic range, however per frame the IQ180 has it beat, not as much as one would think though. Enjoy the D800E and consider some Leica R's with Leitax adapters to get the most out of your new camera!
Marc
-
Marc I would be curious to see the results of a test if someone put the same focal length lens on the 800e and the IQ180 (these devices both have near equivalent pixel size/um) and shot the same scene, then cropped the 180 file to the size of the 800e and compared the files...[...]....is this super smooth quality a result of a CCD sensor or not? Can a CMOS sensor achieve this same super smooth creamy tonal transitions??
Compared in 24x36mm sizes, the D800E sensor will beat the IS180 sensor hands down. There is no special character to the CCD or the CMOS, and as much as Phase One tries to improve on the CCD, the read noise is much higher than for the CMOS Exmor.
Where you get the benefits is in the extra sensor real-estate, coupled with the correspondingly higher number of pixels. In typical applications, when the IQ180 output is downsampled to print size, there are secondary effects in (i) noise reduction, (ii) anti-aliasing, and (iii) increased dynamic range per print pixel.
I think you will find the D800/E to be very smooth. The read noise at base ISO is negligible, yielding very clean blacks and smooth gradations. With good profiling, the colors are outstanding.
-
Thanks Luke...I'm looking forward to delivery of my 800e next Tuesday...have some good glass here waiting for it! Eleanor
Compared in 24x36mm sizes, the D800E sensor will beat the IS180 sensor hands down. There is no special character to the CCD or the CMOS, and as much as Phase One tries to improve on the CCD, the read noise is much higher than for the CMOS Exmor.
Where you get the benefits is in the extra sensor real-estate, coupled with the correspondingly higher number of pixels. In typical applications, when the IQ180 output is downsampled to print size, there are secondary effects in (i) noise reduction, (ii) anti-aliasing, and (iii) increased dynamic range per print pixel.
I think you will find the D800/E to be very smooth. The read noise at base ISO is negligible, yielding very clean blacks and smooth gradations. With good profiling, the colors are outstanding.