D800 compared to Medium Format Digital Backs

TaoTeJared

Easy math: 5× higher Resolution + 4× more colours = 9× more money I know, far tooo simple. But still it sounds not completely off track?

Off track - yes. Wayyyyyyyy too oversimplified. Buying a phase one, Hassy, and even (but less so) Mamy (depending on what you buy), you are choosing a business partner not a product. That is/can be a whole different world and a completely different service class. But that gets into a whole different part that hasn't been included, is what you get with the MF systems (depending on what you buy, company you choose.)

I guess TTJ brings up a good point. With MP count getting so high on DSLR now could we see Nikon move to 16bit colorspace next? I think 14bit has been out for awhile so what would be the complications with going 16bit?

We are talking about enormous improvements over current "everything" in DSLRs. Processing chips, flash memory, full re-write of all raw files, bada, bada, keep it going down the road. There is a reason why it wasn't until the last few generations of MF backs that you had to shoot tethered to a Computer Box. Many like to understate this, but it is a huge deal. DSLRs going 16bit will be the next "real" improvement. That will help noise, resolution, IQ, everything.

Golf007sd

...but it is a huge deal. DSLRs going 16bit will be the next "real" improvement. That will help noise, resolution, IQ, everything.

I agree! Should Nikon implement 16-Bit into their line of DSLR's, I would be delighted to put my order in Right NOW. Moreover, I look forward to the day I place my pre-order.

That said, MF manufactures still would have an edge on the market, but they would feel the pain...which I'm sure they already do give those that have purchased the D800 or D800e.

Gareth

TaoTejared You do now, and like you said each format suits different tasks, but I do not own a D800

Your spot on with regard colour depth, 16 bit makes a difference especially when used with large cropped images

I used to use Hasselblad but like a lot of photographers have moved over to PhaseOne. I can only compare a D3x but this is now becoming old technology and I am waiting for the next generation of pro Nikon camera bodies

Maybe a D4X which encompasses the virtues of the D800 and D4 or perhaps Nikon might leapfrog again, with a
totally new concept of sensor and pixel count.

I think that the door is wide open for a manufacture like Nikon, Canon and other big guns to come into the MF arena. These days they have the funds and development and could break the MF Cartel price on Digital Backs.

Yip people buy MF for two reasons.

1. Dynamic Range
2. Skin Tones

If these two things are not your bread and butter then you don't need MF.

paulr

Sadly I think you are right, the demand for Mf is dropping due to lack of business for pro's who cannot justify the high costs of MF, Hasselblad admit that their main target sales area is for the rich amateur/collector.
Still when Nikon brought out the D3X it was a world beater, then the D800/D4 so fingers crossed the future for top end 35 mm could be promising.

TaoTeJared

MF will have always have a market - after 16bit comes 24bit - 65 million colors! One of the really unfortunate things of Kodak going under is that they made most of the MF CCDs and led the way in design. I understand the high costs of MF but If they brought them out of the stratosphear I think they could sell many more. To me, it's not so much of the price that turns me off (even if I could afford it), as the lack of lens selections from fish eye through super telephoto. They are out there, but are limited, really expensive, and not much if any better. Hence why D/SLRs have ruled the market for the last 30 years.

Gareth

True. You can forget about super tele on MF. But most people who use super teles need super fast multi point AF. Fish eyes are probably another matter, but there's not much call for fish eye shots in commercial work.

Ade

Sorry everyone, but 14-bit vs 16-bit is largely irrelevant when comparing DSLR to MF.

Going to 16-bit may improve the storage precision of the colors captured by the sensor, but it will not cause DSLR the sensor to suddenly produce more accurate colors or increase its range of colors.

When a sensor package is being originally designed, many tradeoffs must be made. One important tradeoff is color performance vs. light-sensitivity (high-ISO) performance:

- DSLR sensors are designed to have clean high-ISO performance at the expense of color performance

- MF sensors are designed to have great color performance at the expense of high-ISO performance

So the DSLR shooter can exclaim "wow it's so clean at ISO 12800!" while the MF shooter can boast "look how great the skin tones are!"

These tradeoffs are implemented in part by how the Bayer array of the sensor is designed. I.e., the Bayer sensor of a typical MF sensor is constructed to be more sensitive to subtle R/G/B color variations as compared to the typical DSLR sensor. Conversely, the DSLR Bayer array is more "color blind" (less discriminating) but has better light sensitivity.

So even if the output chain of a DSLR sensor is moved from 14-bits to 16-bits, this will not improve the sensor's color palette because the subtle color variations were already lost at the Bayer array.

Similarly, going from 14-bits to 16-bits has no impact on the dynamic range actually captured by the sensor. E.g., the dynamic range of the D800 sensor already exceeds the majority of MF sensors out there.

Golf007sd

@Ade: You maybe right in your statement regarding the Bayer array on current DSLR sensors. However, should Nikon or Cannon bring to market a 16-bit color array within their line of consumers DSLR's, I can assure you they will address this and still offer it at a much better price range. Case in point, is Nikon implementation (and not) of the AA filter.

donaldejose

Ade: If I understand you correctly, Nikon could design an FX 36mp sensor with a different Bayer arrangement to more accurately reproduce skin tones? Getting MF quality out of a D800 is just a matter of putting a different sensor into the D800? So Nikon could produce and market a D800p for Portrait version of the D800?

Let us assume a 24mp sensor becomes the new standard for both DX and FX. Then a 48mp sensor could become the standard for D4x and D800x and D600x. And a 48mp sensor optimized with a MF type Bayer array could become a D800p. This would better bring the D800 into the range of MF capability?

Is the reasoning leading to these possibilities consistent with your comment on what makes the MF sensor better for portraits?

Ade

The Bayer array is obviously the start of the chain. As we know the array consists of millions of red, green & blue color filters.

The choice of which exact hues of red, green & blue selected largely determines the color gamut (the range of colors) which can be represented.

A more important factor for this discussion is how discriminant (selective) those filters are. In most DSLR cameras, for example, the Red filter not only lets red colors through, but some greens as well. So color purity is sacrificed from the beginning, but results in a sensor that's more sensitive to greens -- which contains a lot of luminance information, good for high-ISO conditions.

I'm generalizing a bit here. Recent Canon DSLRs for example tend to let even more greens through than recent Nikons. So all else being equal, recent Canons will have better high ISO performance than Nikons, but Nikons will have more accurate colors.

In comparison, MF Bayer filters are very discriminative. Their Red filters really select reds, and the same with the green and blue filters. This results in better colors, but as described above, less sensitivity to greens where most of the luminance information is present.

Yes, Nikon could in the future ship a Bayer array that's more color accurate. The problem is not technology but marketing. High-ISO performance is a very important metric for DSLR buyers. So most DSLRs are designed to boost ISO performance while sacrificing color performance.

Would you purchase a camera that has great color accuracy but max clean ISO of say, just ISO 400? Most "enthusiasts" today would be up-in-arms if Nikon delivered a new DSLR with such a low ISO performance. It's all about expectations & tradeoffs.

donaldejose

I am suggesting a variation of one body, such as the D800. The D3x was said to not be good above a certain ISO; maybe above 800. Nikon could amortize cost of the D800 body by producing a D800, a D800e, a D400 using a DX sensor and a D800p using a different Bayer sensor. Those wanting higher ISO clarity could buy the D800. Those wanting MF studio performance could buy the D800p. Sure I think it would sell to lots of studio photographers if it could replace a $20,000 MF camera. In fact, they would probably buy two!

Ade

It's an interesting idea, for sure!

I can't speculate much on the economics, but everything has an opportunity cost. The D800e is already a niche, and is only economically feasible since a "self-cancelling" OLPF could be "easily" substituted for the regular OLPF. A D800p would be even more of a niche, yet more difficult (expensive) to build because unlike the OLPF, the Bayer array is integrated into the sensor, beneath the micro-lenses.

So rather than building a very niche D800p, Nikon might be better off spending its resources building a proper MF contender in the form of a D4x and target a higher price-point ($8000 range).

haroldp

The D3x is quite good at ISO 1600, and at 3200 if one down res's to 12 mp in post.

The D800e is astonishingly good at ISO 6400 when down res'd to 12mp in post.
It is much better (1-2 stops worth) than the 12 mp D700 at that ISO.

I do not have a D4 but Thom Hogan who is very meticulous and reliable claims that the down res''d D800 is as good as the D4 at those ISO's and loses some DR to the D4 as ISO's go above 6400.

I am using a D800e at ISO 6400 (down res'd to 12mp in post) routinely for available light theater work with very good results.

We should not forget that 35mm and DX sensors are produced in enough volume to support a lot of iterative R & D. Above and aside any trade-off issues, the current generation of DSLR sensors have much higher quantum efficiency than prior generations or MF sensors that have not had nearly as much R & D funding available, or competitive pressure.

The Image Quality test for most pro's is not 'best possible', but 'good enough'. That is why MF sales are hurting as DSLR's get better.

regards ... H

Ade

Ben Von Wong shot angels with a Hasselblad H5D and a D800E.

Can you tell which shots came from which camera?

http://www.vonwong.com/blog/h5d-40vsd800e/

FreezeAction

I have neither camera but have processed images from both... In the meantime Schneider and Rodenstock are not rolling over and playing dead. They both are gearing toward the medium format backs to be used behind a 4x5 large format camera. Total Perspective control with a highly refined lens for the required resolving power needed for medium format digital. Schneider makes the controller to link the electronic shutter powered digitar lenses to the back in 1/10 fstop increments. If I were a major player in the world of large, beautiful, bold landscape prints this would get my attention quick. Airport security will not affect the digital backs like large format film. In some of the fine print I read on this setup is that some of these large format digital lenses don't like pixels smaller than what is found on the D610 or the 5D MIII. I have not even tried to do the math to see what mega pixel back could be used for each size back. They do vary. 33x44 up to about 40x53 mm. I have the option to hang a D610 on the back of my 4x5 with a special adapter and use large format digital lenses for the best possible PC. Would rather use a D800e if and only if there are newer lenses that will utilize the smaller pixels. In the end it is what one's customer demands quality wise. Action shooting, D4S. Fine art reproduction, medium format. D800e sort of some of both. I have seen the work of a Hasselblad for fine art reproduction and the giclee looked exactly like the original. Exacting color is not needed for a kid on a bulls back. I could shoot that with my D5300 with the right lens.

Some not so cheap toys: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Large-Format-Lenses/ci/40/N/4288584245+4291256937+4291231926+4289367619

Mounts for Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad V to the back of 4x5 cameras. https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=2859

Not long ago I stumbled onto a page that had photos of a lady shooting a pro Nikon body on the back of a 4x5. Beats Nikon's flimsy PC lenses.

TaoTeJared

Interesting to see. I kind of expected more out of the Hassy.
I picked all the correct files (Nikon and correctly getting the color for magenta and purple never works) but it was interesting to see that there wasn't too much difference. Granted the images were low contrast, had lighting, and low dynamic range all with in a compact color pallet.

Schneider and Rodenstock have been making and updating those lenses for decades. Arca-Swiss, Linhof, Horseman, Sinar, Silvestri and a hand full of others. If you really want to see where the really high end stuff is doing, check out the Sinarback eXact.

FreezeAction

Interesting to see. I kind of expected more out of the Hassy.
I picked all the correct files (Nikon and correctly getting the color for magenta and purple never works) but it was interesting to see that there wasn't too much difference. Granted the images were low contrast, had lighting, and low dynamic range all with in a compact color pallet.

Schneider and Rodenstock have been making and updating those lenses for decades. Arca-Swiss, Linhof, Horseman, Sinar, Silvestri and a hand full of others. If you really want to see where the really high end stuff is doing, check out the Sinarback eXact.

What I was surprised to learn about the large format digital lenses is that the medical profession is using them. When I traced the 72x96mm sensor down it was for medical use. I also found a lot more stuff but it would be straying to far off topic for this thread. (Still a 72x96mm sensor on a 4x5 would make my day)

FreezeAction

Larger pixels on larger sensors by default have at least in the past been cleaner with less noise. Will that change? I don't know. I'm not into physics. Nikon nor Canon need to do medium format but those medium format backs for view cameras would be nice if they could be made for less especially once Canon and Nikon produce higher MP sensors on the 35mm format sensors. I can see the argument for the 4/3 sensor in medium format as well as the 3/2 on a full frame D800. For me it depends on how you generally crop your images is a factor to consider. IMHO the D800 has the edge over medium format in terms of production cost. Only if a client is willing to pay for medium format so there is a ROI for such would I invest in it. The big downside for me with medium format as much as I like the idea of an 80MP Mamiya back is that the lack of glass on the long side is a killer. I'd have no problem justifying a D800e with a pair of these VS medium format.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/Tilt_Shift.pdf

FreezeAction

I think the biggest weakness is in the availability of truly superb glass, not the potential of the sensors.

I'm in total agreement with this. I've seen this discussed and cussed more than once. Film was forgiving but high res sensors are not. My best sharpest large format lens will not resolve a D800 sensor.

WestEndBoy

I am also in agreement, though I wonder how much lens improvement can be pushed how quickly for a reasonable price. The D800 in retrospect might be viewed as the point when further sensor technology improvement became almost meaningless given lens quality.

In my view, that will de-emphasize the camera and we will see a steady deflation in price and emphasize the importance of lens quality where we will see a steady inflation in price.

Ade

I think there's still a lot of room for sensor & camera body improvements.

E.g., improvements in color accuracy, color depth, noise characteristics, AF performance (both speed and accuracy), video/audio performance, battery life, ergonomics, size/weight, speed, etc., etc.

And yes megapixel improvements too, even if we're starting to hit a point of diminishing returns for FX sized sensors.

DenverShooter

Please allow me to toss in my two cents worth. I shot medium format for 40 years. Primarily because 35mm print film sucked hard when you tried to make prints bigger than 8 by 10.. And no one wanted to look at your slides of your Grand Canyon vacation.

After all of the film disappeared I reluctantly moved to digital and it was an epiphany.

Now we are back to debating the medium format vs FX. And let me state if you can live with the lack of lenses and the fantastic cubic bucks of digital medium format go for it. I however will make just as good if not better images with my D800E and the plethora of Nikon lenses more than any medium format shooter could possibly imagine much less be able to shoot.

Lets see how many medium format lenses are available equivalent to the Nikon 800 mm F/5.6 (or teleconverted to 1000mm)? I shot two magazine covers with my Nikon 800 mm F/5.6 last year. How about a Nikon 600 mm F/4 equivalent? I shot one cover this year with mine. Have a Nikon 400mm F/2.8 equivalent in medium format? I didn't think so either. And none of those lenses are particularly inexpensive and I can't imagine what the equivalent would cost in medium format if they were even available!

Medium format is nice but the cost and lack of flexibility or lenses can really impede your creative desires. And the cost is more than the national debt of Greece to do it. Seriously $30K for a back? You could buy the Nikon 800 mm F/5.6 and 600mm F/4 for that...


Denver Shooter

Msmoto

@DenverShooter

Yup. In fact shooting a Hasselblad and the "long" lens of 250mm was like shooting 160mm on a full frame 35mm camera…..and I do not know of anything longer for medium format.

The words "cubic bucks" also refers to winners in motorsports…..LOL

donaldejose

Nikon won't go into medium format. They will just produce 50 mp FX sensor and a new line of lenses designed for high mp sensors.

WestEndBoy

I am also in agreement, though I wonder how much lens improvement can be pushed how quickly for a reasonable price

Reasonable price is not the question if they want to compete with medium format on quality. $5000 might seem like a lot to your average shooter for a Zeiss Otus, but it's insanely cheap in context. A $5000 lens paired with a $3000 camera is a bargain when compared to medium format. If Nikon comes out with a line of super premium primes and a 50mp/16 bit sensor, the argument for medium format becomes pretty tenuous.

I'm not saying that there won't be those who choose medium format for that extra little bit, but those people will be fewer and fewer, and given that, it makes no financial sense for Nikon to invest millions in developing MF when they can focus those resources on making MF less relevant in a field they are already strong in.

That is a good point about thinking about pricing in context. Do you think that the Zeiss Otus is what Nikon needs to aspire too, or even better?

I also wonder what Nikon could do with medium format if it poured its resources into it. Medium format today has technical advantages that should allow it to beat 35mm hands down, but the medium format producers don't have the resources of Canikon so are not able to develop the format to its full potential.