Medium Format in Nikon's Future

sevencrossing

if your technique is exceptional and you have the best tools on the market the results will be jaw dropping - the extra kick that will settle you apart from your competitors.

absolutely

There is a very good reason Tim Wallace uses a Hasselblad
It produces a better images than a D800
May be the difference is small, but no one is suggesting, when it comes to IQ the D800 is better than the H4D-60

It has one disadvange it is horrendously expensive

WestEndBoy

Somewhere I heard that the Nikon D4 product shots for Nikon were done on MF, perhaps a Phase One if I recall.

If that is true, that is a great endorsement for MF.

Ade

There is a very good reason Tim Wallace uses a Hasselblad

Tim Wallace of course also shoots a ton of Nikon, and has gone on many speaking tours on behalf of Nikon.



When Aston Martin commissioned him to shoot all of the pictures exclusively for their Centenary celebration this year, I believe Tim used both his Nikon and his Hasselblad about equally.

In fact Tim shot some of the most iconic images (the Aston Martin DBS in front of the LA Opera House) on a Nikon D3S.

TaoTeJared

Somewhere I heard that the Nikon D4 product shots for Nikon were done on MF, perhaps a Phase One if I recall.

If that is true, that is a great endorsement for MF.

I think it was the D3 actually. I kind of remember because everyone was trying to find the EXIF of the D4 to see if it was done again. I'm sure it was but I don't think anyone found a photo with the EXIF.

No one should read into it or be surprised. There is no "gotcha" there. Ad agencies do the promotions and Product shots are sent out or done in house AT/BY the ad agency. Nikon is not the one's making the photos. The ad agencies/photographers use what they have and are comfortable with. I saw a video on a Canon release and they got the camera for 4 hours and had to give it back - just days before the release. No photographer is going to take photos of a huge release with a system they are not comfortable with if they have the option. Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sony are all the same - Hassys/ Phase One's all took their debut photos.

Ade

I enjoy reading all the conversation regarding all the technical limitations of the various formats/sensor tech, color depth, etc. However, I would suspect that only a very few pros can extract the best from the equipment. And, the alterations from image capture to final product are so extensive, I would doubt I could tell the difference.

An example is in the quality of photos on the Honda Jet site....are these MF or a D800, or??? http://hondajet.honda.com/gallery-and-downloads/#1

@msmoto check out this new vid profile of aviation photographer Jessica Ambats:

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@ TTJ - I think 24bit is 4 Quadrillion, but then who's counting?

@Ade - Nice catch with Ambats work - really neat. I've shot out of a lot of aircraft, but nothing 'organized'.

My best,

Mike

FlowtographyBerlin

This thread is so funny.

ben_dmb

When a $500 FX new body hit the market than the DSLR will have already been dead. Nikon or any other manufacturer out there cannot capitalize on this price point. The battle would be for a different type of technology when that $500 mark happened.

WestEndBoy

When a $500 FX new body hit the market than the DSLR will have already been dead. Nikon or any other manufacturer out there cannot capitalize on this price point. The battle would be for a different type of technology when that $500 mark happened.

Why?

ben_dmb

At today's value $500 brings Nikon money from entry level DSLR bodys. But they do not put all they features in them. Nikon keeps the bells and whistles for the high end of their product which they can markup properly and from which they make real money. It is the same as German cars like BMW, Audi, Mercedes (Nikon, Canon, Sony) and hyper cars like Ferrari, Bentley, Austin Martin (Hasselbland, Leica ..). Those are never ever cheap just because the gimmicks they put in those products you cannot put in a Corolla, Jetta, Versa and keep a low price tag on it. Or you cannot buy a Toyota Avalon with the money for Toyota Yaris. So when the time of $500 FX body comes that means that there is already something else on the market that people look to spend $5,000 just because it is going to be the top notch gadget at the moment (which I believe it could to be something totally different from what we have today). Therefor the days of full frame could be death already.

Ade

I don't entirely agree.

Just because there might be low-end commodity FX camera at $500 doesn't mean there can't be a super-premium FX camera at $5000, with exclusive high-end features. Sensor size is just one factor out of many.

ben_dmb

That could be true also.

PB_PM

Not could be, there is history to back it up. Just look at 35mm film cameras. They all had the same sensor size, but there were bodies at similar price points to modern digital cameras.

ben_dmb

PB_PM - I do not know the film era well but your sensor was your film sort of speak. And they were all 35 mm. which meant that the quality was in the film itself not in the size of film. Now, if there had been a 24 mm film camera, would it have been priced as a 35 mm camera or lower? Probably this is me being stupid for actually thinking of this comparison.
What I am trying to say here is that full frame is the today's high end in SLR and not only, and mostly because of the IQ. That is the reason full frames are expensive today. Going down to $500 in today's money IMHO would mean that full frame would not be the high end everybody is going for today but probably it would just be what a point and shoot represents today, and the real high end at that time could be a totally different technology with potentially better IQ for which there would be a more aggressive market than a $500 full frame. That is the reason I initially said that when $500 mark happened then the days of DSLR would be dead.

BUT this is only my view on the matter.

PB_PM

Most of the modern digital formats are based on film sizes. There was 4/3s sized film, APS-C film, 35mm (FX) film, 120mm film (medium format) and large format.

I was specifically talking about 35mm film cameras. There were toss away 35mm film cameras that cost $10, all the way up to cameras like the F5 that cost as much as the D4.

ben_dmb

Wait, I am starting to understand your point. Film was 35 mm (FX) and was priced from low to high. And although the technology advanced from film to digital and almost killed film era, the full frame survived and we are bound to see a time when the prices are going to be covering low end of digital full frame as well. In my native country we use to say : "if you don't have an old guy, buy one" .

PB_PM

Yes. As the cost of manufacturing drops, we will see a wider range of bodies that use the FX format sensors. We have already seen this in the likes the D600/D610 and the Sony A7. A few years ago nobody would have dreamed of being able to buy a new full frame sensor camera for less than $2500, today you can.

ben_dmb

And I am one of the happy beneficiaries of this. I own a D600 that made a difference for my hobby.
And recently I have tried out the A7 for 15 minutes in a Sony store. It is an impressive camera in all respects but price.

Msmoto

@Ade

Thanks for the video…. I noted she was shooting Canon…..… I do remember shooting from a helicopter in the 1960's…very similar but far less commercial. We were doing in house stills and cine for Alderman Studios in High Point, NC.

As to medium format, in those days I was using a Hassy 500c…actually several. Loved 'em.

TaoTeJared

PB_PM - I do not know the film era well but your sensor was your film sort of speak. And they were all 35 mm. which meant that the quality was in the film itself not in the size of film. Now, if there had been a 24 mm film camera, would it have been priced as a 35 mm camera or lower? Probably this is me being stupid for actually thinking of this comparison.
What I am trying to say here is that full frame is the today's high end in SLR and not only, and mostly because of the IQ. That is the reason full frames are expensive today. Going down to $500 in today's money IMHO would mean that full frame would not be the high end everybody is going for today but probably it would just be what a point and shoot represents today, and the real high end at that time could be a totally different technology with potentially better IQ for which there would be a more aggressive market than a $500 full frame. That is the reason I initially said that when $500 mark happened then the days of DSLR would be dead.

There was 24mm film (APS) and for the consumer market the system spanned prices. There was also 16mm (half-frame i.e. original Olympus Pen) that also spanned price points. There are many historic periods that really can compare very well.

A $500 FX is very doubtful to ever happen for a whole slew of reasons. Primary we won't see one due to the time for the tech to reach that price point (12+ years- at least 3 full generations) smaller sensors IQ will reach current FX systems IQ, software will also be able to mimic FX format qualities (i.e. Bokeh) and costs for those will also drop-a bit. All of this will create a situation where the physical FX size for a system along with cost is an option, but so is a smaller sensor, smaller system, lower cost with more than good enough quality. Consumers will drive the latter, as they have for the last 100 years of photography.

Golf007sd

And what do we think of this:

Msmoto

Well, if I had the money, I would certainly get a Phase One camera and lenses for it….. but, I do not have the $100,000 to spend. I would get a lot of things if money were no issue…. like a Leica M Monochrom Digital Camera. And the $40,000 in lenses. Oh, yes, probably a view camera as well. And a studio….some grips, and on and on…..

WestEndBoy

Money no object......I would buy Nikon and have my own custom camera company.

Did that with a coffee shop once........

PB_PM

If money were no object I would get some smart folks to make me a custom camera and lenses, not medium format.

Those new medium format cameras do seem to have good performance, now that they use CMOS sensors low light is no long an issue. One fashion shooter compared the Phase One to a D800 and said it was at least a stop better in low light.

WestEndBoy

There are very significant engineering and technical advantages to a larger format. However, the large format makers don't have the breadth and depth that Canikon has to fully and competitively exploit those advantages.