D800 hyperbole

[AveryRagan]

"The simple answer is that Nikon would have created a separate product if they believe people will pay more money irregardless of if it actually has better quality."

I think that your assumption is based on the vanity factor, such as a gold plated thingamajig to hang around your neck, not on a perceived desire for quality. $300 dollars is not a lot separating the two models so I would eliminate the vanity factor. A company like NIKON frequently makes decisions based on what they perceive the customer wants, not vanity, and there us the pride factor in producing a possible breakthrough product.  Face is still big in Japan even though Seppuku is out of fashion.

It definitely be an interesting summer watching the DSLR and MF crowds duke it out. Science doesn't always eliminate stubborn pride and desire.

I've always wanted one of those status symbol Leica's with the built in quality to boot. My boss won't let me buy everything my heart desires.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

"[...] My boss won't let me buy everything my heart desires.

Stupid boss ... 

[AveryRagan]

Can I quote you?  Your safe since she can't user her teacher look on you .

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

What should I say?
I'm self-employed.
Draw your conclusions ... 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

If you like the result and the film approach works for you than it is just fine.

On the other hand I'd say that Michael is also right. Much depends on weather you like the film looks and if you are really good at driving your scanner.

Tim Parkins article is interesting in that it shows how good results you can get from film with adequate processing. It also seems that the Mamiya 7 you have is a very competent camera, having very good lenses.

I have done a lot of testing of film versus digital and I essentially share Michaels view, but I don't miss the dark room, especially not the chemicals.

Some of my experiment are summarized here http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2 and here http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

Best regards
Erik

If I hadn't infrared dust removal in scanning, I think I'd stop using film, there'd be a borderline of trouble for me. I just looked at the sector star image I took with the old Mamiya Press. 96 sectors = 48 cycles up to a diameter of 57 Pixels from a 4000 DPI LS-9000 scan ... depending how exactly I judge it I come to something like about 25 effective megapixels for a 6x9 cm negative, but these are good pixels then. And this was a camera I had already 20 years ago. All my images from that time will transform to 25 good megapixels today. I'm curious how the 24" printing will go in the next months with this old stuff and I'm looking forward to it.

The Mamiya 7ii I have now is better (sharper):These guys (http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/) claim something like 50 MP for the Mamiya 7 kit they used with a 4000 DPI scan. They claim 80 MP with a 8000 DPI scan. With a microscope (not really practical for day to day use though) they achive something over 100 MP. Whatever we believe in - If I wanted something near that today (non stitched) in the digital world, I'd have to pay a real lot of money.

If I had some 50-60 k Euro to waste, maybe I'd jump on to the high end digital train, but as a non pro -and this was my constraint- I'll wait a bit more. These 2 professional guys who still use 4x5" film I learned to know the last months (one an architecture photographer, the other doing landscape and calendars) really gave me something to think about.

I'm not against digital at all. Actually I don't have darkroom anymore since the digital processing allows things I could not even dream of in the past.

For me, I think it will not take too much time (maybe some more years - no idea) until the cost/quality ratio for high end digital is at a point where I'll change.

But not yet now.

With all due respect
Cheers
~Chris

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I really don't want to start a principal debate on film vs. digital and I don't remember myself saying Michael was wrong at some point.
For me it is clear the days of film are counted, apart from very few niches, like Majiks thread on the Inuit life.
That is pretty clear.
But there still is that not so small niche where a certain amount of high quality can be achived by film with much less investment than with digital, especially if one already has the anolog MF equipment. (Actually I'm working hybrid).
What would I have to pay for a 50 MP system with 3 lenses again ?

I'm sure there will be the day when I switch, because of the simple constraints of the cost/quality ratio.
Digital quality is getting cheaper rapidly. Really fast.
I also believe there is still some time left - but the clock is ticking.
If I hadn't had the Mamiya Press when I returned to photography I most likely would have bought a DSLR and kept craving for a MFDB.
I would have had the feeling of a bad compromise.
With MF film and the equipment I already have right now I'm in a pretty good situation.
If I had to start from scratch today I definitely would go digital, but I didn't start from scratch two years ago and I had old stuff to scan (still not finished doing this).
Honestly - I'm curious to meet the day when I will sell my Mamiya 7ii and my LS-9000.
And I'm even more curious what the equipment will be then.
But the day is not yet today.

Cheers
~Chris

[tsjanik]

  Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2012, 03:10:56 PM » Reply Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from: dds on March 15, 2012, 11:51:46 PM

 Digital cameras without a.a. filters record a lot of false data. If we want to incorporate that into the look of our images, fine.

 

When I create a photo, I don't record data, I try to bring into existence an impression of my experience. That's the difference between art and science.

Quite often the artistically challenged forget that, and obsess about the faults of their gear, rather than their own lack of imagination.   

Good answer and to the point of photography for most of us.  It is worth mentioning that the AA filter removes real data, which is in a sense, creating false data.  Which "falseness" do you prefer is the real question.

Tom

[jeremypayne]

 It is worth mentioning that the AA filter removes real data, which is in a sense, creating false data.  Which "falseness" do you prefer is the real question.

Well ... it is also worth mentioning that it is usually easier to reverse the blurring of the image caused by an AA filter than it is to remove the artifacts caused by detail beyond the sensor's limit ...

I'm gonna get the D800, not the D800e.

[Steve Weldon]

Everyone seems to know Michael wrote this article but me.  Am I missing something that's on the screen, or do we just know that if another writer isn't mentioned it's Michael writing?

Nice article, an organized synopsis useful to those who haven't yet made their decision.

Bump.   An answer would be appreciated.

[PierreVandevenne]

The style is recognizable and

"This coincides with my return to Toronto from Mexico"

confirms it.

[marcmccalmont]

Well ... it is also worth mentioning that it is usually easier to reverse the blurring of the image caused by an AA filter than it is to remove the artifacts caused by detail beyond the sensor's limit ...

I'm gonna get the D800, not the D800e.

remember with the 800E you can shoot at f8 creating an AA filter or f5 and no AA filter your decision. With the 800 you have no choice........    although I like the idea of vibrating the sensor as an AA filter that way you can turn it on or off at your discretion
Marc

[tsjanik]

Well ... it is also worth mentioning that it is usually easier to reverse the blurring of the image caused by an AA filter than it is to remove the artifacts caused by detail beyond the sensor's limit ...

I'm gonna get the D800, not the D800e.

That’s true, but my point is that both the presence or absence of an AA filter introduces artifacts or false information, you simply have to choose which.

[Steve Weldon]

The style is recognizable and

"This coincides with my return to Toronto from Mexico"

confirms it.

This is in response to my question? 

Let me be more clear.  I'm not arguing if Michael wrote this piece or that his style isn't recognizable.  In any case, you usually don't have to do any investigative work to determine the author of an article.

What I'm asking is am I missing something that would normally be there.  Like a place where authors names usually go that I'm just missing?  Or maybe it's just a habit where if he doesn't list another author, then he just assumes we'll know it's him?  Either way I'm fine with, it's the clarification I'm after.  I'd rather not guess.

[michael]

Unless an article on this site is attributed to someone else, I'm the guilty party.

Michael

[hjulenissen]

Quote

The problem with writing anything on the web is that there's always some smart guy eager to belittle by pointing out an exception.

Unquote

If it is logic they are trying to use to contradict you then that is reasonable and expected. But if they are merely trying to  wind you up then there isn't a chance in hell of winning unless it is face to face. If it is on the internet then, if possible, you ignore them. Ironically all of us have probably indulged in the art of wind ups?

I actually think that this is a good thing about the 'net. No longer have journalists, authors and officials the monopoly on the "one, right truth". People will always critizise what you write. Some critique may be perceived as irrelevant, naiive, etc, but I think one must have a fairly big ego to think that one can never learn from critique.

Part of this democratization is that it is becoming harder to judge what is a fair and balanced comment based on "best practice", "references" or "experience", and what is not. My guess (hope?) is that our children will be a lot better than ourselves at judging this than we will ever be.

So what if a guy found an exception in your text. Hopefully the text will still have value for its target readers. Writing "bullet proof" is , as you say, very hard, and tends to make the text more similar to legal contracts than anything anyone would willingly read in their spare time.

-h

[32BT]

I wish Michael would simply go back to writing subjective experience articles instead of trying-to-be-as-objective-as-humanly-possible-and-still-be-condemned-by-the-iTroll-community… Trying to be objective equates to trying to be boring. I like to read about his enthusiasm, in fact, I usually look for the enthusiasm in any story, no matter if it's appropriate enthusiasm or misplaced.

Till now, unless one has been able to outlay $25,000 to $50,000 for an MF back, camera and lenses, this type of resolving power has not be accessible.

Whatever happened to renting a MF back for a fraction of the cost?

Keep in mind that a 36 Megapixel camera isn't for everyone. If you just shot for the web and electronic media; if you rarely make prints larger than Super-A3 (13X19"), if you don't own high-end glass and know how to get the most from it, then neither the D800 nor the D800e are going to make a visible difference to your photography – at least not in terms of their higher resolving power.

Uh oh, that sort of flies right into the face of the "everything matters" article! But I don't care, because I understand the gist of what he's trying to say.

[BJL]

with the 800E you can shoot at f8 creating an AA filter or f5 and no AA filter your decision. With the 800 you have no choice

On the other hand, with the D800 you do have the choice of using f/5 or even f/2.8 for shallow DOF while putting focus on a subject like a tiled roof or article of clothing and yet not suffer from moiré (or less of it, anyway). With the D800E, you do not have that particular choice.

As you suggest, this is a choice between two ”slightly imperfect but pretty darned close" approximations of the image striking the sensor, and people will have to choose which set of imperfections they would rather have to deal with. I for one completely understand why Nikon expects the majority to go with the option of "less moiré, slightly more sharpening sometimes required".

[hjulenissen]

As you suggest, this is a choice between two ”slightly imperfect but pretty darned close" approximations of the image striking the sensor,

A significant difference is that an aa-filter will only (negatively) affect very high spatial frequencies (close to the Nyquist frequency). For a 36MP camera, those are really minute details.

Not having an aa-filter can affect any and all spatial frequencies, meaning that even for a 36 MP camera and moderate print sizes/viewing distances the errors can sometimes be seen.

-h

[Jack Flesher]

Personally, I think it was perfectly stated as written, stating facts and offering solid advice, leaving nothing really to be argued about.  However I believe the debate that will continue to rage will be the D800 v (comparable) MF DB at the $3000 entry point.  

FWIW, I have the AA D800 on order, because my need for it is primarily people (wearing clothes ) in a non-studio environment -- and I believe it will be a superior tool to my MF kit for that purpose. But in no way do I see it replacing my MF kit...

Cheers,

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I wish Michael would simply go back to writing subjective experience articles instead of trying-to-be-as-objective-as-humanly-possible-and-still-be-condemned-by-the-iTroll-community… Trying to be objective equates to trying to be boring...

Amen, brother!