Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: henrikfoto on May 18, 2012, 03:18:37 pm
-
http://www.newsmailservice.com/mail.asp?07887560457615611hrdnna
Maybe they are about to finish a new model ??
Henrik
-
Yep, I got that email.
So in a panic reaction to the Nikon D800, HB is to slash prices across their camera range confirming everyone's suspicions that they were always overpriced in the first place while alienating current users who paid the inflated prices buy instantly devaluing their investment....... Classic!
I'm convinced this will make more disgruntled HB users jump ship than potential Nikon purchasers trade up. Let's hope not
-
Yes MF is allwaysa bad investment, but I feel pretty sure Hasselblad has something big coming.
I don't think they care much about Nikon. More likely they will try to reduce some of their inventory
before they show their new model??
Maybe a Hasselblad 80mp or a 80MS???
Henrik
-
I see this as more a cut to the chase. I mean who pays list price anyhow? Now you can just get closer to the final price without asking.
-
You´re an optimist Henrik. Even if they have something going to be released at Photokina, 4 months of dramatically reduced turnarounds would kill them.
(probably anyone...). This is the only chance to get some sales going. But I also fear this will as well drive the other customers who just have invested totally crazy.
actually this has already happened before, so the reactions are pretty well known. I also think the reply by Phase/Leaf will follow soon.
regards
Stefan
-
here the official link to the Hasselblad announcement:
http://www.hasselblad.com/price-reduction
-
Hmmm .... :)
Maybe they have new lens in place of HCD 35-90 ::) and they want to sell it off ...
And they have next model with full frame chip
Who knows :)
-
Yes, I might be an optimist, Stefan. Who knows?
Time will show I guess. As far as I understand Phase are selling very good.
I don't think the best 35mm cameras are much closer to the best MF now than 5 years ago.
But of course most cameras now can make very good A4 prints (or even larger).
But MF is a terrible investment if you follow all upgrades >:(
Let's see what Hasselblad are up to :-\
-
I see this as more a cut to the chase. I mean who pays list price anyhow? Now you can just get closer to the final price without asking.
If that is true (which I doubt) where does that leave their dealers and their margins......... none existent?
-
Back to the roots? Zeiss lenses ;)
-
Back to the roots? Zeiss lenses ;)
That would really be great! New Zeiss af lenses :) :)
That might really tempt a lot of the old Hasselblad-users back.
-
As posted on getdpi...
Hassy hasn't released any new flagships in a while* and it's pretty normal for there to be some form of price cuts at a certain stage of product cycle. The sky is not falling.
Team Phase One, in a way recently effected a small price cut by releasing the Credo which provides much of the capability of an IQ.
Does the D800 factor into their pricing decisions? I'm sure it does. So does the IQ, the Credo, the Pentax 645, the overall economy, internal estimates for when their next generation widget will ship, currency fluctuations, inventory levels, anticipated profit on accessory items like lenses which usually experience a boost following a price drop on the main products, Photokina later this year, etc etc.
To attribute any company's pricing changes to any one news-event or product is really just silly.
*this is not meant as an inflammatory comment; every company operates on product cycles. I don't know exactly where Hasselblad is in theirs, but it is clearly well past the start of the product cycle.
-
I think Hasselblad is doing some interesting things personally with sales and marketing. But one comparison point really sticks out to me that maybe is relevant to this thread. Besides price and the great image quality, the thing about a D800 is that a person can just buy it. No waiting for the dealer to return their calls or suffer through while they try to talk you into buying that piece of crap phamiya DF body instead of what you were asking for. If you want a D800 you don't have to talk to anyone, you just buy it - couple clicks at the computer - done! Is it so much less complicated than a MFDB? Not! But nobody expects any hand holding and none is needed. The blogs and forums have all the info a person needs if they don't want to read the manual. Buying a MFDB should be this easy. Why isn't it?
I hope that whatever Hasselblad comes up with next, they make it available in their on line store and even through places like Amazon just like the D800. How much more could they cut from the price by selling direct? No offense meant to the dealers on the forum but do you sometimes feel like the weak link in the MF chain?
When I wanted to buy a CF back three years ago, I called a half dozen dealers since I didn't know where to start. Only people from three of these returned my calls and only two bothered to prepare a quote, but I didn't get those for more than a week. While I was waiting I called Hasselblad to see if they had any used CF backs. To my surprise they were the ones who were ready to get to work on helping me, and I was happy to find out I could buy a new one from them directly. I saved about $10k that way too. Service was never an issue. I could pick up the phone and call Hasselblad's tech guy anytime I wanted or e-mail.
-
Even if those cameras will all get successors (at current discounted prices) I find it very difficult to believe they will hold a candle to what Pentax has in store for next year. Of course Hasselblad retains a series of advantages (leaf shutters, much larger support and lease base worldwide, most likely more brand power/awareness in certain markets) but they will need at very least an one up shift to be competitive (e.g. the 50Mp camera for the price of the current H4D 40, the 60 Mp for the H4D 50, and so on).
Also the new Pentax D FA 90/2.8 will be an interesting lens to see since it will set the trend for the future Pentax primes (performance and quality vs. price) and even if it will be 2000 Euro (unlikely) the combined price of a 645D + 55/2.8 + 90/2.8 able to operate in all weather will still be 1000 Euro less than a H4D40+80mm
BR,
Radu
-
The medium format business is currently like demolition derby: fun to watch but painful to be in. Hassy's back design is so old it's becoming retro. They are staying alive only because of their name and install base. The only reason I could see to presently buy-in would be because one's industry expects that pros of a certain calibre will show up with Hassy gear. That's pretty much only the fashion biz, and even that is not at all a universal truth.
Medium format has to create a reason to live, and a reason for us to buy. There was always an obvious one, but the D800 has pretty much taken that away. What remains are outrageously high lens prices, so-so autofocus and tethering capacity.
Personally, I chose to sell my Pentax 645D not because the D800E was better (frankly it's a tie, with the Pentax having better UI and a more usable aspect ratio and the Nikon better everything else), but because Pentax priced their new 25mm lens at close to $5K. Are you fricking kidding me? If that's a harbinger of future lens prices, b-bye.
Certainly a 60-80MP back would produce somewhat better files, with perfect technique, but at what price and for what final application?
Outside of the '1%-ers', whom Phase and Leica have tied up nicely, Hassy's only pitch is for photographers to 'be different' at a modest premium. As a craft business, that's a scary financial proposition. But good luck to them.
- N.
-
BTW, the sentence
"Price misconception has long been the biggest barrier to ownership."
http://www.newsmailservice.com/mail.asp?07887560457615611hrdnna
is... priceless.
-
Hi Radu,
You appear to have insights related to Pentax' plans. Based on those, would you purchase the DA or the DF-A version of the 25mm ?
Much appreciated.
Tom
-
I think Hasselblad is doing some interesting things personally with sales and marketing. ..........snip
This is just a market correction and not really that big of a discount, not like 1/2 off or a fire sale.
In fact I have no idea what it takes to make a camera, all of medium format hasn't moved that much in technology in the last few years in regards to technology and price.
Some of that is good in the fact that what your using today really isn't obsolete, some not so good as you don't have multi point autofocus, high iso, and a lot of usability 35mm offers.
I'm not knocking medium format, still use it from time to time, but in regards to electronic development, all still cameras are almost in the stone age compared to everything else that is computer driven.
Sure a h4d 40 does a few things my P30 and Contax doesn't, but I'd view it as a rather have than must have proposition.
This image was shot during a film session with the Contax and p31 using continuous lighting and it worked fine on a 5 to 6 shot day and this with a 6 year old back and a 10 year old camera.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/julia_shot_4_final_small_web.jpg)
But it wouldn't be my camera of choice on a 20 session a day lifestyle shoot.
The h4d40 looks interesting to me because of skin tones and it goes a stop higher than my current medium format cameras, but it's not a must buy for me, it's a kinda would like to have it buy.
Advertising and marketing has changed. GAP just ran a national campaign, where the on camera talent is social bloggers that styled themselves. 6 years ago they would have been celebrity talent or high end models with a staff of stylists and probably larger crews and most definitely a few medium format cameras in the magliner. Today it was probably 5d2's or 3's.
Anyway, in advertising it's just a different world and will be for a while and for us when it comes time to buy, a $14,000 Scarlet, or Red 1 seems cheap when you start looking at medium format still cameras from any company.
Regardless, I don't see the Hasselblad offer as a omg move, it's just a discount to clear inventory.
Everybody does it.
Now will the Nikon D800 change things. For me no, I don't see the point, but for others that feel they must have 30 something megapixels and have a tight budget I guess it's worth it considering the $3,000 buy in is nothing in the world of professional cameras.
How the effects medium format I have no idea, but I do know the younger assistants I work with don't have $15,000 to spend on an entry level medium format camera and a few lenses, but can scratch up the money for the Nikon.
IMO
BC
-
Hello Tom,
If you need a ultra wide lens a.s.a.p. I would chose the DA variant, buy it from Europe or Far East and use the today's strength of the USD and the competition amongst European dealers to gain probably close to 1K USD versus the American price (I am under the impression that you live in the USA, sorry if I am wrong). If the need is not very urgent I would wait until March - April of next year and buy the new ultra wide zoom close* both in focal length and f stop to the prime.
* "close" means of course not identical but it still starts with a 2 and the f stop with a 4.
Best regards,
Radu
Hi Radu,
You appear to have insights related to Pentax' plans. Based on those, would you purchase the DA or the DF-A version of the 25mm ?
Much appreciated.
Tom
-
seems an odd move as it's hardly going to increase it's customer base by stealing sales from smaller formats and just means less revenue, maybe the smart move would be to make the product more 'luxury' with another Ferrari type tie-in with a cheap bit of metallic paint and faux carbon fibre and charge more money. ::)
-
Seems to me that Hasselblad are now directly competing with the Nikon D4 and Canon 1Dx as these camera bodies are built to the same or similar professional standards as the H4D and now the price points for bodies is similar. Prices for pro quality lenses are not that far apart either (viz Caon's new 24-70, Nikons 200 F2 and so on) My D800E is a nice little camera but a lot of it is based on Nikon's consumer products line and it just does not have the build quality or durability of a Hasselblad product. When Lloyds Chambers unpacked his new D800 the battery compartment cover fell off. When I got mine I was extra careful as it is really pretty flimsy.
My investment in Hasselblad equipment is in the system and in particular the glass. Their upgrade (aka customer loyalty) programme is reasonable on a 2-3 year cycle and like other posters I think that the actual colour and tonal quality of the Hasselblad files are more to my taste and IMO better than anything from Canon or Nikon at the present moment.
-
Is the H4d that pro build? I know our DF isn't close, on par with my original 5D I'd say and nothing like the 1DS3 I had. Is the 'blad weather sealed? Curious.
-
Ben, H4D is not weather sealed.
-
If you think the 'blad's are so tough and well built, you're pretty easy to please. The D4/1Dx, and the S2 are the true build-standard.
What blows me away is that 'blad still *make* an HD-31!?#$>??? That technology is so old it's collection social security. Still gets the job done, but seriously? Who buys this new?
The line about 'price misunderstanding' was also LMFAO-worthy. That's right boys, people didn't know what your gear cost, so you lowered the price. Do well in that first year symbolic logic course? a :D ;D :P
-
On the professional level, I've never understood why anyone was worried about a price reduction, or a change in pricing strategy after they bought a piece of equipment.
Heck I know how to pinpoint exactly when Apple will come out with a new powerbook . . . 3 weeks after I buy the current model.
The thing is even with Apple, that doesn't make what I bought less useful.
Same with cameras.
I'm not a camera dealer or collector, I use them for work so what I buy I use, I keep with the plan of using it until it is worn out. 5,10 more megapixels, 1/5th more sensor size really doesn't change my mind.
Actually when the Phase IQ backs came out I was kind of jealous that finally a medium format back had an lcd you could see an image on, but then Phase (and I believe Hasselblad) have wi-fi to the I-pad.
This is better than any camera LCD I've ever used and since we tether most medium format projects anyway, having an Ipad by your side is a heck of a lot more exacting than always peering down to a 3" lcd, so I continued on with my two backs and never worried about it.
But even without the Ipad it doesn't make the cameras any less valuable to me than the day I purchased them, because they still work.
Maybe it's me, because I still use Contax and that company is gone, though with 4 bodies I've never worried about repairs and had few repairs anyway.
I also use a p21+ next to a p30+ and have never had a client or anyone for that matter think one looked more detailed than the other. Actually given my choice I usually use the p21+ because it shoots faster and more responsive.
These were shot with two "old" cameras. The swimmer a p21+ and Contax, the woman a Leica M-8. Doesn't change a thing that their are new versions of these back and cameras, at least to me or the clients that did and continue to run these images.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/rrg_swimmer_web.jpg)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/rrg_paris_leica.jpg)
Now if I was an amateur I'd never worry about this stuff, because you not shooting for anyone but yourself. I don't understand pixel staring, but if seeing an eyelash on someone three blocks away turns you on, it's your money, have fun.
Then again if I was an amateur and not working with deadlines, tethering, client reviews, I don't think I'd own as many digital cameras, except maybe for polaroids and somethings that digital works best for and I'd have a whole collection of film cameras, because there is a ton of really interesting film cameras from 35mm, 645, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5 etc. etc., that will change the look of your work and most film cameras are dirt cheap.
But if you dig digital, pro or amateur cool, use it, enjoy it and don't look back, because there is nothing your going to buy in the digital world that won't drop in price eventually.
And if I was contemplating a Hasselblad I'd look at this as good news, even if I owned one already because it's a better deal for a backup.
IMO
BC
-
If you think the 'blad's are so tough and well built, you're pretty easy to please. The D4/1Dx, and the S2 are the true build-standard.
What blows me away is that 'blad still *make* an HD-31!?#$>??? That technology is so old it's collection social security. Still gets the job done, but seriously? Who buys this new?
The line about 'price misunderstanding' was also LMFAO-worthy. That's right boys, people didn't know what your gear cost, so you lowered the price. Do well in that first year symbolic logic course? a :D ;D :P
Here we go. Did I say weather sealed? No I didn't. All I implied was that Hasselblad cameras are built to a durable maintainable standard just like the D4 and the D1X. Horses for courses or or should I say asses for courses. ;D ;D
-
BTW, the sentence
"Price misconception has long been the biggest barrier to ownership."
http://www.newsmailservice.com/mail.asp?07887560457615611hrdnna
is... priceless.
I am somewhat curious about the cost-of-use of these cameras as a function of the depreciation curve. But it would be hard to compute, because the dealers are trying to keep the sale price as close to MSRP as possible, and so one doesn't know what the used market will look like. Will the first year cost $2000 or $5000?
At least with the Nikons, I know that most everyone will pay $3000 for the D800 body. Very few people will pay less, and a few people will pay more.
But using the term "price misconception" is very weird in this context. Whose misconception are we talking about? Are we supposed to concede that we somehow "misunderstood" Hasselblad's old prices, and that they were really good prices? Did Hasselblad misconceive their prices earlier, but now have them conceived correctly? Or is it just some freakish newspeak?
-
Model H4D50 and H4D60 - prices returned to their original prices - as if someone had forgotten about it ::)
-
If you think the 'blad's are so tough and well built, you're pretty easy to please.
I think 'blads are tough and well built, but I'm not easy to please. Apparently NASA thought the same when they sent them to the moon.
-
I think 'blads are tough and well built, but I'm not easy to please. Apparently NASA thought the same when they sent them to the moon.
Needless to say, those were mechanical C500EL models that went into space, not the current H, a totally different camera and lens system.
Michael
-
Needless to say, those were mechanical C500EL models that went into space, not the current H, a totally different camera and lens system.
Michael
Of course, but the original comment I was responding to was pretty dumb. I don't think anyone who uses a modern H series camera regards them as exactly flimsy...
-
Needless to say, those were mechanical C500EL models that went into space, not the current H, a totally different camera and lens system.
Michael
Funnily enough, although the NASA Hasselblads performed brilliantly in the extreme conditions they were subjected to on the surface of the moon, the thing they didn't have to cope with was rain and general wetness. Which, in fact, is the one thing that the old 500 series 'Blads are really useless at dealing with ;)
In that respect, Cornwall on a soaking wet day is actually a sterner test than the vacuum of outer space . . .
John
-
i have been shooting with h system in -25 in finland ,last week in middle east desert 42 in shade iam at brisbane airport after photo shoots in the open cast mines then off to perth and the western australia mines killing time reading LL while waiting for next flight.Also shot with the h cameras in snow in finland and in very heavy rain in the uk on over night bridge lifts etc i do not know how the camera is sealed but it works for me in many very difficult situations and weather.Hope this helps with a bit of feedback from somebody works the cameras hard and needs to keep his very demanding clients happy.regards
-
Those unexpected downpours in the studio are killers.
well, after you paid for the Hasselblad, you may had neglected the roof repairs...
but an assistant with an umbrella should always be at hand.
-
those fujiblad cameras are not as robust as the real h/blad-zeiss. i know of somebody who had a zoom lens with loose elements after he flew with it, H/blads response was 'don't fly with it orientated towards the front/rear of the aircraft on takeoff as that can happen'
they feel cheap, and the plastic/rubber they use is not a patch on that used on pro-dslr's the battery grip plastic goes manky in a couple of months use, and the center circle/af point never lines up with the middle of the sensor. £20k? £5k for a floppy zoom. lol.
-
While the Fujiblads are perfectly fine cameras, I have never found them to bear any physical resemblance to the indestructible and exceptional quality of the true film Hassies of old, which had that, "better put me in your will" build to them.
- N.
-
Is't an interesting result.
I will love if they are preparing an update. Now we must remember that when Ventizz Capital acquired Hasselblad they did talk about expanding the target market, and pricing is a way of doing it.
The issue with a new system or an update to the exiting one is sensors.
But this seem right, even if is just a reaction to the D800 (no pointers in that direction) it's great.
Seem like hasselblad is trying to adapt to the market.
Best regards,
James
-
IF you're a working pro and need the resolution, MF is worth it and pays for itself in 12-18 months. Done.
5DmkXX is not a 50MP and cramming 36MP into a FF35mm sensor just doesn't do the trick for ME and MY clients. you're results may vary...
-
... cramming 36MP into a FF35mm sensor ...
Please explain why you use the DPReview-style pejorative "cramming" when the evidence very much suggests that pixel-for-pixel, the photosites of the D800(E) overall perform better than the photosites of the CCD in any DMF back.
Whatever happened to the good old days, when people welcomed new emulsions of higher resolution, instead of hurling insults at such options without, apparently, having even tried them? That included the welcome given to some new black-and-white film emulsions of higher resolution than the D800(E) sensor, so I think we can rule out the idea that 35mm lens systems cannot make use of this much resolution.
-
i welcomed the 5d, 5d2, Nion, Sony, but 22-24 is the limit. these are my real world working pro results, the H3D2 that I use yields better results for the way I work. I use the FF35 for anything applicable, but IMO, 22-24 is the limit -the canon and the Sony look good, the Nikon, meh.
I would gladly welcome some new film emulsions as I shoot a lot of 120 film as well.
remember DP review when it was independent and no one knew about? those were the days...
-
Not sure why you'd say that Jim. The D800's sensor is better in every respect than the D3x's, which was the 35mm standard. And the better lenses take full advantage of it.
Sensor technology is a fast-moving field where real advances are being made, beyond pixel-count. It's just that the cost dictates that's it's been mostly the big camera companies who are making the advances. Hasselblad has not done anything innovative in back or sensor tech for.....ages. That doesn't reduce the existing utility of their devices - which we all agreed, and still agree, are superb image-producers - but the sensors on 35mm cameras and APS-C cameras are catching up fast, and to a shocking extent.
Cheers,
- N.
ps. really nice work on your site - especially like the portraits
-
i welcomed the 5d, 5d2, Nion, Sony, but 22-24 is the limit.
Again I ask why that particular number is the limit? It makes no sense to me in the face of evidence that the D800 delivers significantly more resolution that any 24MP camera, and with very good per pixel performance for dynamic range, noise levels, and such. I see no evidence that even 36MP is the limit, given how well 18MP sensors in APS-C format perform.
-
I don't think sensors are that expensive or complicated to design, like memory chips they consist essentially of a small number of replicated cells.
For a sensor you need a team of a few very specialized guys, rather than a big team which is the case for processors.
I think the real issue which led to the dearth of sensors has been cultural. Camera companies made cameras, film companies made film.
Minolta fused with Konica, Sony bought both teams, then they went into the sensor business.
A generation of cameras is coming which will be a block of metal with a sensor at one end and a lens mount on the other, with all control functions handed off via a wireless iphone interface.
When these cameras finally arrive, the camera corps will be forced to go into sensors to differentiate their offerings. Or, like the personal computer firms when came the PC, they will die.
Edmund
Not sure why you'd say that Jim. The D800's sensor is better in every respect than the D3x's, which was the 35mm standard. And the better lenses take full advantage of it.
Sensor technology is a fast-moving field where real advances are being made, beyond pixel-count. It's just that the cost dictates that's it's been mostly the big camera companies who are making the advances. Hasselblad has not done anything innovative in back or sensor tech for.....ages. That doesn't reduce the existing utility of their devices - which we all agreed, and still agree, are superb image-producers - but the sensors on 35mm cameras and APS-C cameras are catching up fast, and to a shocking extent.
Cheers,
- N.
ps. really nice work on your site - especially like the portraits
-
Again I ask why that particular number is the limit? It makes no sense to me in the face of evidence that the D800 delivers significantly more resolution that any 24MP camera, and with very good per pixel performance for dynamic range, noise levels, and such. I see no evidence that even 36MP is the limit, given how well 18MP sensors in APS-C format perform.
It is not only about the sensor.
Lenses. There are those that say that we are no-way near outresolving lenses and those that say we're already way past it. The difference seems to be that the first look at the center portion of lenses and the latter into the corners. Short DOF photographers (portraits etc) typically don't need so much corner sharpness (corners usually out of focus anyway), while landscape and still life photographers want it badly. When current D3x lens tests show less than impressive corner performance of many lenses it does not look too good for the D800. There are some lenses that look good (85mm looks great!), but how many are there and which focal lengths? We'll see over time.
On the other hand MF SLR-type of lenses don't seem overly impressive in this regard either. The best performers seems to be tech cam Rodenstock lenses.
Concerning short DOF there's another aspect to consider though. f/2.8 on a 54x41mm sensor is about f/1.8 on a 36x24mm if you want same DOF. Isn't it so that MF lenses are sharper also in the center at f/2.8 than 135 lenses at f/1.8?
-
I don't think sensors are that expensive or complicated to design, like memory chips they consist essentially of a small number of replicated cells.
For a sensor you need a team of a few very specialized guys, rather than a big team which is the case for processors.
I think the real issue which led to the dearth of sensors has been cultural. Camera companies made cameras, film companies made film.
Minolta fused with Konica, Sony bought both teams, then they went into the sensor business.
A generation of cameras is coming which will be a block of metal with a sensor at one end and a lens mount on the other, with all control functions handed off via a wireless iphone interface.
When these cameras finally arrive, the camera corps will be forced to go into sensors to differentiate their offerings. Or, like the personal computer firms when came the PC, they will die.
Edmund
+1
I agree with you
-
i welcomed the 5d, 5d2, Nion, Sony, but 22-24 is the limit. these are my real world working pro results, the H3D2 that I use yields better results for the way I work. I use the FF35 for anything applicable, but IMO, 22-24 is the limit -the canon and the Sony look good, the Nikon, meh.
I would gladly welcome some new film emulsions as I shoot a lot of 120 film as well.
remember DP review when it was independent and no one knew about? those were the days...
I used to believe that it will be pretty hard to produce a sensor / chipset combination better than the D3x on the digital 35mm format. So I was expecting a long time will pass before it could be done. I remembering opening the D3x files for first time. The files were great, pulling shadows was simple amazing.
The Canons are great too, and they produce far less texture (skin textures, less preprocessing, but I do want the textures to be there and don't plan of getting rid of them ) that the Nikon or Sony cameras. They also have fantastic auto white balance (that for me destroys the quality of light, I want the moody yellow lights to produce the effect, but most people don't )
Now the D800 files may lack and specific character, but they are very good. It seems to me that you don't believe that the D3x files are any good. That is proof positive that it will be a supper challenge for Nikon to produce any machine that you find any good.
The old backs are very good in a pixel per pixel basis. The backs use to have big photosites. That is no longer the case. Of all the professionals and serious amateurs I interact with, you are the only one that find the D3x /D800 files to be just "meh". A lot of them prefer the Canon looks, or the Canon system or the Sony lenses or Hasselblad, but that don't make the Nikon files bad: Not the D3x or the D800.
I just wanted to add a link to the opinions of someone we are familiar with. He is, as we know a medium format lover and has a very good understanding of his system (Phase one). He is not seen the D800 (I typed D3x in error) as better than Phase (better for what will be the question) but find the files to be very good:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/35804-nikon-d800-first-blush.html
Note that he is not showing professional grade Photos, in that forum he is just walking the camera. The results are good, but it's fun.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
Of all the professionals and serious amateurs I interact with, you are the only one that find the D3x /D800 files to be just "meh". A lot of them prefer the Canon looks, or the Canon system or the Sony lenses or Hasselblad, but that don't make the Nikon files bad: Not the D3x or the D800.
I have a D3x. The files are "meh".
It will always take a decent "meh" picture.
The exposure will be good, sharpness will be good, focus will be superb unless you really ask the impossible.
If you need a decent picture the D3x is great. If you need a great picture, the D3x is decent.
I also have a D4. The camera appears to have some sensor-related issues; however when they are taken into account, the files of people are superb.
Edmund
-
I have a D3x. The files are "meh".
It will always take a decent "meh" picture.
The exposure will be good, sharpness will be good, focus will be superb unless you really ask the impossible.
If you need a decent picture the D3x is great. If you need a great picture, the D3x is decent.
I also have a D4. The camera appears to have some sensor-related issues; however when they are taken into account, the files of people are superb.
Edmund
Ok, Ok, I know two. :)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see MEH.
Look up meh in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
"Meh" is an interjection, often used as an expression of indifference or boredom. It can also be used to indicate agreement or disagreement. It can also be used as a verb, (rendering something uninteresting or boring) and an adjective, meaning mediocre or boring.[1]
Wo will say,
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
It is not only about the sensor.
Lenses. There are those that say that we are no-way near outresolving lenses and those that say we're already way past it.
I agree that lenses are likely to be the ultimate limit on useful sensor resolution in a given format. But the evidence (like that you describe) is clear so far that the D800 gives significant improvements in resolution over 35mm format sensors of 24MP or less from a wide variety of lenses, even though the extent of the improvement is less towards the corners, less with some lenses that others, and less at the extremes of the aperture range (due to diffraction at small apertures, lens aberrations at large ones).
I am mystified by the idea that there is a "natural limit" on sensor resolution for a given format at a point (22-24MP?) beyond which clear further gains in resolution are possible, simply because the extent of the gains varies with the circumstances.
After all, differences in lens resolution were clearly visible with film, and even with films of less that the highest resolution. Especially when one examines the corners of the larger prints encouraged by higher resolution films. Yet no one suggested that new higher resolution, finer grained films went past some natural resolution limit (of, say 83 lp/mm, which is the absolute upper limit for a 24MP sensor in 35mm format.)
I will repeat that the D800(E) does not even match the resolution of some monochrome films. For example, TMAX 100 and 400 have distinctly higher resolution and better MTF than the D800 or D800E, and I have never heard of anyone criticize those films as going beyond some natural resolution limit imposed by lenses.
For comparison:
- a 24MP sensor in 35mm format has pixel pitch of 6 microns, so an absolute upper resolution limit of 1000/12 = 83 lp/mm
- a 36MP sensor in 35mm format like the D800's has upper resolution limit of just under 100 lp/mm
- TMAX 100 has MTF of 70% or better all the way to 100 lp/mm, and MTF 50% or better up to 125 lp/mm
- TMAX 400 has MTF of 50% or better to beyond 100 lp/mm
And in reality, Bayer CFA demosaicing reduces the resolution of those sensors below those maximum (Nyquist) values.
It will be time to complain about "excessive sensor resolution" when sensors surpass the resolution of _all_ the films that have been popular in 35mm format for the sake of their high resolution.
-
It will be time to complain about "excessive sensor resolution" when sensors surpass the resolution of _all_ the films that have been popular in 35mm format for the sake of their high resolution.
As I have noted before, in principle I agree with you. However I'm kind of starting to change my view on this a bit.
The thing with film is that detail is still there past the grain which gives it a forgiving character, and also how it was handled in post-processing was also more forgiving. Digital is not forgiving at all, it's easy to pixel peep and see very small variations in sharpness. With digital everyone is much more aware of the resolution.
Digital post-processing workflows of today expects a reasonably sharp input file (for sharpening to work well etc), and customers also expect that a 50 megapixel file has twice the resolution of 25. A high quality file is one that look sharp at 100%, that is what we expect.
I don't think we are there yet in technology and mindset that digital file megapixel count should not mean anything concerning actual image resolution. 24 megapixel APS-C and 36 megapixel 35mm digital is working in the direction to change that though ;)
-
I used to believe that it will be pretty hard to produce a sensor / chipset combination better than the D3x on the digital 35mm format. So I was expecting a long time will pass before it could be done. I remembering opening the D3x files for first time. The files were great, pulling shadows was simple amazing.
The Canons are great too, and they produce far less texture (skin textures, less preprocessing, but I do want the textures to be there and don't plan of getting rid of them ) that the Nikon or Sony cameras. They also have fantastic auto white balance (that for me destroys the quality of light, I want the moody yellow lights to produce the effect, but most people don't )
Now the D800 files may lack and specific character, but they are very good. It seems to me that you don't believe that the D3x files are any good. That is proof positive that it will be a supper challenge for Nikon to produce any machine that you find any good.
The old backs are very good in a pixel per pixel basis. The backs use to have big photosites. That is no longer the case. Of all the professionals and serious amateurs I interact with, you are the only one that find the D3x /D800 files to be just "meh". A lot of them prefer the Canon looks, or the Canon system or the Sony lenses or Hasselblad, but that don't make the Nikon files bad: Not the D3x or the D800.
I just wanted to add a link to the opinions of someone we are familiar with. He is, as we know a medium format lover and has a very good understanding of his system (Phase one). He is not seen the D800 (I typed D3x in error) as better than Phase (better for what will be the question) but find the files to be very good:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/35804-nikon-d800-first-blush.html
Note that he is not showing professional grade Photos, in that forum he is just walking the camera. The results are good, but it's fun.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
My ears where ringing. LOL
Its been a bit since I started that thread and now with C1 under the D800 blanket things have really improved a lot. The D800 is the best thing going in 35mm world PERIOD. Im sorry the D3x is old hat ( not bad just dated) and we can't compare it to the new sensor the new sensor just being a lot better in many ways. Some things have changed since I shot Nikon last I think the D300 but some of the new G lenses are amazingly good . Yes the 85 1.4 is a standout and I just did get the older version of the 200 F2 lens as well and they are really good on this sensor. Like anything else in the higher pixel range we just need to put good glass in front on these high resolving sensors to get the most from them. The D800 is absolutely no exception to this it begs for good glass. So if you get one don't try to cheap it out fit it properly and it will do a very good job for you. Yes to answer the age old question is it MF well no its not but it is very very good and the closing in hard on it. The MF world still enjoys the nice tonal range and great neutral color that we get in almost all the backs. Nikon needs a touch of work here but outside of that the DR is amazingly good and some would say better , you won't see me argue that point either its damn good. Also the noise floor will smoke any MF back since there simply is no noise until you hit ISO 800 or more so your shadows are very good and noise free. So overall the quote of the day to a lot of people that have them and also have MF systems the bottom line is its good enough and have to say in some cases its very true. I still shoot with my tech cam and still love my Phase back no question about it but I look at this in several ways it replaced 3 systems down to 2 systems for me and use the Nikons for a lot of stuff it has hit a tipping point of 36mpx that I can for lack of a better word cheat the DF system and not use it now. This has saved me money and actually built up the 35mm kit I always had but now its a lot better and for a lot of gigs its just what I need. Sure I have downgraded some without the DF kit but its also not the easiest kit to shoot and the 35mm kit is just more versatile . Where else are you going to get a 200F 2 in MF , it just don't exist.
But I am not giving up the tech cam and my Phase back I did downgrade to the 140 since I really don't have to deal with crop lines in the finder anymore as its tech cam only and 40 mpx is a sweet spot for me but I did love the 160 no question. But the extra 20 mpx was nice to have but not really needed I was avoiding the crop back than as I shot the Df.
Anyway I see a lot of people struggling with this D800 on the acceptance level and I can certainly understand some of it, but reality is its very good its a fence sitter for some or it tips the scales in favor of 35mm now and it also is a supplement to our MF kits. I understand many sides of this coin toss . Its a great new sensor with some great new lenses and its not the old Nikon we knew of and Canon folks should be watching closely. It adds a new element to the scene but it also adds use with care like a MF system as well. Your capturing 36 mpx now and it will soak up shutter speeds. I found that out the other day shooting the 200 on a monopod and I am a rock as far as holding cameras but it did not like 1/125 too much which in the past I could do with a older less mpx kit. Not now it was far better at the 1/200 range so just like MF it wants some shutter speed to handle the mpx size. But again being a MF owner for several years now with a lot of backs the Nikon is classified as good enough in my book. Its not MF and MF is not Nikon. Enjoy the day.
-
Guy,
You always like the latest thing best.
I agree that the D800 is a big step forward.
But most of us learnt out lesson with the 5DII: Any high-end prosumer model can get within the range of an MF solution for 1/10 the price.
Edmund
My ears where ringing. LOL
Its been a bit since I started that thread and now with C1 under the D800 blanket things have really improved a lot. The D800 is the best thing going in 35mm world PERIOD. Im sorry the D3x is old hat ( not bad just dated) and we can't compare it to the new sensor the new sensor just being a lot better in many ways. Some things have changed since I shot Nikon last I think the D300 but some of the new G lenses are amazingly good . Yes the 85 1.4 is a standout and I just did get the older version of the 200 F2 lens as well and they are really good on this sensor. Like anything else in the higher pixel range we just need to put good glass in front on these high resolving sensors to get the most from them. The D800 is absolutely no exception to this it begs for good glass. So if you get one don't try to cheap it out fit it properly and it will do a very good job for you. Yes to answer the age old question is it MF well no its not but it is very very good and the closing in hard on it. The MF world still enjoys the nice tonal range and great neutral color that we get in almost all the backs. Nikon needs a touch of work here but outside of that the DR is amazingly good and some would say better , you won't see me argue that point either its damn good. Also the noise floor will smoke any MF back since there simply is no noise until you hit ISO 800 or more so your shadows are very good and noise free. So overall the quote of the day to a lot of people that have them and also have MF systems the bottom line is its good enough and have to say in some cases its very true. I still shoot with my tech cam and still love my Phase back no question about it but I look at this in several ways it replaced 3 systems down to 2 systems for me and use the Nikons for a lot of stuff it has hit a tipping point of 36mpx that I can for lack of a better word cheat the DF system and not use it now. This has saved me money and actually built up the 35mm kit I always had but now its a lot better and for a lot of gigs its just what I need. Sure I have downgraded some without the DF kit but its also not the easiest kit to shoot and the 35mm kit is just more versatile . Where else are you going to get a 200F 2 in MF , it just don't exist.
But I am not giving up the tech cam and my Phase back I did downgrade to the 140 since I really don't have to deal with crop lines in the finder anymore as its tech cam only and 40 mpx is a sweet spot for me but I did love the 160 no question. But the extra 20 mpx was nice to have but not really needed I was avoiding the crop back than as I shot the Df.
Anyway I see a lot of people struggling with this D800 on the acceptance level and I can certainly understand some of it, but reality is its very good its a fence sitter for some or it tips the scales in favor of 35mm now and it also is a supplement to our MF kits. I understand many sides of this coin toss . Its a great new sensor with some great new lenses and its not the old Nikon we knew of and Canon folks should be watching closely. It adds a new element to the scene but it also adds use with care like a MF system as well. Your capturing 36 mpx now and it will soak up shutter speeds. I found that out the other day shooting the 200 on a monopod and I am a rock as far as holding cameras but it did not like 1/125 too much which in the past I could do with a older less mpx kit. Not now it was far better at the 1/200 range so just like MF it wants some shutter speed to handle the mpx size. But again being a MF owner for several years now with a lot of backs the Nikon is classified as good enough in my book. Its not MF and MF is not Nikon. Enjoy the day.
-
Hey I would not touch a Canon even with your hand. LOL
If you only knew how many I do not like. LOL
-
This same discussion flared up when the D3X came out, people proclaiming the death of medium format. 35mm DSLR's are catching up to the lower end of the MFD market made up of cameras that are 3 or so years old. I'm looking forward to seeing the next generation of MFD cameras from Hasselblad, I like their cameras for much more than just the image quality.
I also remember seeing this test comparing a H3D-31 and Nikon D3x, I know which one I would rather have:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=35603809
-
I seem to recall it happening with the 645D from Pentax as well.
there's never one particular reason to choose a MFD over 35mmD. Sure they have resolution approaching the mid range MFD, but there's still plenty to keep us on MFD. I think it's a good thing what Nikon have done, but it's not going to make me feel like I've made the wrong choice going the route I have.
-
Yes very true, the 645D was supposed to spell the end of all other medium format cameras. I believe that same argument is slowly surfacing again with rumours stating there will be a 645D successor soon.
I'm pretty sure the argument comes up that 'full frame' cameras are defunct too because APS is so good. I wonder when the argument will be between mobile phones and APS...
Still I'm looking at getting a Panasonic GX1, not because the IQ is as good as my Hassy, it's just much more comfortable putting it in a pocket.
-
I worked with Hasselblad direct too. It was very pleasant and
saved me money vs the local dealer. To their credit, the local
dealer is also very pleasant, but reality is most people buy 35mm
from the dealer ... and their inventory proves it, so they have no incentive
to save me money like H did. I just asked Hasselblad for a deal, and H came through.
I probably got lucky on the purchase timing too...
James