D800 compared to Medium Format Digital Backs

TaoTeJared

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.

"or even better?" WTF?!?!?!? That is exactly the thought process why Nikon does not listen to it's customers or think they are completely unreasonable by the "requests".
Sorry @WestEndBoy, I don't mean that at you, but just the statement itself which I have seen before. Better is basically not achievable. Leica's 50mm f2 APO is the best out there - took them 15 years to develop that lens. The Otus is just under that by a fraction. You can't get better other than adding AF to it.

As for Medium format, the existing companies do beat FX hands down in IQ for what they are intended for. It is one of those things where the IQ exceeds web quality images by so much that you just can't tell. MF is not a competitor to DSLRs - at all. DSLRs could enter into that realm to a point. It's a one way street in that regards.

Nikon doesn't have any spare resources for anything but what they are doing. I do not want to see them dive into something they have no experience in. They have kinda sucked lately at what they are suppose to be good at.

I don't think many quite understand why people shoot medium format, or just look at the option through "DSLR eyes." The expanded color & DOF are the major reasons - NOT MEGAPIXELS. MP is a marketing grab, not a tool grab. Huge printed AD campaigns were being done with 8mp bodies - resolution is nice, but not remotely a deal breaker. Software has always bridged the gap and still does.

donaldejose

I tend to think that is correct; a high megapixel FX sensor plus very sharp f1.4 glass is "enough."

WestEndBoy

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.

"or even better?" WTF?!?!?!? That is exactly the thought process why Nikon does not listen to it's customers or think they are completely unreasonable by the "requests".
Sorry @WestEndBoy, I don't mean that at you, but just the statement itself which I have seen before. Better is basically not achievable. Leica's 50mm f2 APO is the best out there - took them 15 years to develop that lens. The Otus is just under that by a fraction. You can't get better other than adding AF to it.

As for Medium format, the existing companies do beat FX hands down in IQ for what they are intended for. It is one of those things where the IQ exceeds web quality images by so much that you just can't tell. MF is not a competitor to DSLRs - at all. DSLRs could enter into that realm to a point. It's a one way street in that regards.

Nikon doesn't have any spare resources for anything but what they are doing. I do not want to see them dive into something they have no experience in. They have kinda sucked lately at what they are suppose to be good at.

I don't think many quite understand why people shoot medium format, or just look at the option through "DSLR eyes." The expanded color & DOF are the major reasons - NOT MEGAPIXELS. MP is a marketing grab, not a tool grab. Huge printed AD campaigns were being done with 8mp bodies - resolution is nice, but not remotely a deal breaker. Software has always bridged the gap and still does.

No worries. I know where you are coming from. However, I remain unconvinced that Zeiss and Leica cannot be bested, though I concede it would likely be a huge challenge. Pitchblack's comments about a $5,000 35mm lens that competes against a MF has got me thinking. Acknowledging your point, it might be more expensive than $5,000 to play this game for Nikon. Though I suspect if anybody can play this game, it will be Canikon.

Certainly agree with your points on resolution. Expanded colour and DOF though. It would seem to me that 35mm at F/1.4 will be a similar DOF to MF at 2.0 or 2.8, depending on the size of the MF that we are talking about. In terms of colour, if Nikon introduced a 16 bit sensor, what would they still have to do to match the colour of 16 bit medium format?

Look forward to your thoughts.

Paperman

Sorry - coming a bit from behind ...

Looking at the link comparing Hasselblad & D800 Ade added, I just said to myself what the heck does the color depth/skin tone quality matter when the images are processed so much ??

In the film times, there was also of course "touching" but it was called "touching" for a reason; the images were more "pure" . One did try to get 90% of the shot while shooting leaving little to darkroom ( none if shooting slides ). So MF did make a big difference.

Today's fashion/studio photographer only has to catch the look, the impression on face - that is what counts ... The colors are easy to achieve in post processing. So why should any studio photographer worry about the color depth ( that comes with a $50,000 tag ) when the least we notice on a model's face/body is the richness of skin tones ? ( Aren't they always sort of white ? )

And if any photographer (like the one in the link ) really worried about image quality, he wouldn't be doing a model shoot at ISO 400 with the D800 .

Ade

The D800 is quite capable in delivering high quality files at ISO 400 when the situation calls for it.

Ben Von Wong does a ton of post-work in Photoshop to achieve his vision. But not everyone shoots like Von Wong. Lots of studio / portrait & fashion photographers shoot MF because MF still provides the best possible image quality for them.

Even for Von Wong, there will be situations when MF will suit him better... either to achieve a certain aesthetic (sometimes the sharpness, DoF & bokeh of MF is just incomparable) -- or because of a technical need (e.g., the fast sync of leaf shutters come in handy at times).

FlowtographyBerlin

It would seem to me that 35mm at F/1.4 will be a similar DOF to MF at 2.0 or 2.8, depending on the size of the MF that we are talking about.

For the same DOF of f/1.4 at 35mm film, you need f/2.2 on a 6x4 MF. f/1.8 FX equals f/2.8 MF. A f/4.0 on MF is the same as f/2.6 on FX. Anyway, the DOF is not really a point pro or contra MF, that's not what they're famous for. Even worse, to get a larger DOF (more things sharp), you need to close the aperture more, meaning you need more light, too.

sevencrossing

-- or because of a technical need (e.g., the fast sync of leaf shutters come in handy at times).

This seems to be the big advantage of using a Hasselblad, e.g. using fill-in flash in bright sunshine

Msmoto

Another issue regarding medium format, mentioned in past threads…. the client in some cases will 'suggest' shooting in medium format vs. 35mm. In my very early days (1960's) in the furniture photography industry, almost everything was shot on sheet film, from 4"x5" to 11"x14". With my examples using my "F" bodies, 24mm f/2.8 and 85mm f/1.8. I convinced them there was another way to do it when on location. One of my shots done in a furniture showroom during the market week, was the first 35mm transparency ever used in House Beautiful magazine. From there things began to expand, but the vast majority of clients wanted to see large film and not a small slide.

So, the argument for medium format is not always because of the end quality, but of fears about the smaller format. I will admit, in those days, for most of my work, including most catalogs and several billboards for a bank, I went with the Hasselblad on location, 4x5 in the studio for products. But, tilt shift was the major reason for the studio use of a view camera.

donaldejose

Remember the $8,000 D3x which offered a "fantastic" 24mp which you can now get for $2,000 in a D600/D610 or for even less than $2,000 if you buy a refurbished one? Consider the yet to be produced D4x which Nikon could price at $9,000. Nikon should use an approximately 50mp sensor and insert two Expeed 4 processors for more processing power (if they can work as two processors which is common in computers). The new high megapixel sensor should be "tuned" for great skin tones more than for high ISO or speed. In other words, the D4x (and D800x) are the Nikon models to "cross over" to medium format. The D4s is now at $6,500. The D800 is now at less than $3,000. There should be room to add sensor, processor and software improvements which equate more with medium format and still not cross the $9,000 price line, especially with a D800x.

Lenses? Portrait and studio work will be the natural environment in which such cameras will be used most often. We have the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art, the Zeiss Otus 55mm f1.4, a Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art coming, the Nikon 85mm f1.8, the Nikon 85mm f1.4, likely a Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art next year, likely more Zeiss lenses like the Otus coming, the Nikon 105mm Macro, the Nikon 105 f2 DC, the Nikon 135 f2 DC, the Nikon 200mm f2 and the Nikon 300mm f2.8. A sufficient range already exists for such a body and more will be produced once it arrives. Some lesser known lenses, such as the Sigma 180mm f2.8 macro, might prove to be great with high megapixel bodies once they are tested.

I am just saying there is no good reason for Nikon to start producing MF bodies and lenses when it can better use its limited resources to move high end DSLRs and lenses into MF territory.

sevencrossing

PitchBlack Technology is changing so quickly.

It is indeed
I was thinking of something like this

http://www.ambientlife.co.uk/_photo_6906081.html

donaldejose

Look at this:

Sub $3,000 36 mp FX DSLRs bodies compared to $22,000 37.5 mp medium format body.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Leica-S-sensor-review-Consummate-performer/Leica-S-vs-Sony-A7R-vs-Nikon-D800E-Lags-behind-in-DR-and-high-ISO-sensitivity

Just what more are you getting for that extra $19,000?

FreezeAction

The longest MF lens I know of: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/362307-REG/Hasselblad_3023300_Telephoto_300mm_f_4_5_Auto.html

Not much reach compared to a Nikon 800mm with a 1.25 converter. If you have the 17k for one laying around..
Still Nikon's 600mm is much more reasonable for the reach that is long enough for most of us on a D800. If my math is close it would take upwards of a 1000mm MF lens to equate? MF for grandios landscapes yes but long wildlife etc just not doable with MF. Schneider's TS lenses for MF make landscape photography more appealing with 60-80 MP sensors. Still the cost........ one could buy a lot of 8x10 film and processing for the cost. Patience in shooting might be a big virtue that still saves a lot of dollars.

TaoTeJared

Yes. True. Now. In 2004 NIkon only *just* came out with the D2X which was 12.2mp with a DX sensor and 8 bit color. Eight. It didn't have its first FX sensor until the D3 in 2007. If the D810 or 820 or 830 of ten years from now puts as much distance between it and the D800 as the D800 has put between itself and the D2X? It's hard for me to see an argument for medium format, assuming you pair it with great lenses. F1.4 on an FX frame gives you a pretty narrow depth of field.

Not saying that MF won't better... just not tons. Will there be a market for the super premium prices you have to pay to get that little bit extra? I don't know. Maybe.

That is assuming that MF just stalls out and doesn't move forward - which we know that isn't true. I think you will see MF really put $$ into pushing forward since the next DSLRs will be really close. They will hit the 24bit color & 36bit color just as DSLRs will move forward.

Looking at the link comparing Hasselblad & D800 Ade added, I just said to myself what the heck does the color depth/skin tone quality matter when the images are processed so much ??

Color depth is HUGE! It adds sharpness, accuracy of colors, contrast, fluid transitions, the "grain" in sky photos drop, Posterization is minimized, and gives even more options to edit. Simply you can't edit what isn't there. It's the same reason why we try to expose images to retain highlights and shadows. Also, not every photo is "Processed" a ton. I know a lot of people over saturate images, etc. everywhere, but for product images, the color has to match. Personally I just cringe when I have a subject show up with purple, magenta or orange colors as I know Nikon just doesn't handle it real well. More color depth means more editing options at each color so you can get it correct.

As for DOF the real grab is not the focus area DOF, but how the background focus drops off more dramatically. As a matter a physics, you can't do the same with FX in a single shot.

I would warn against DXO trying to compare against FX and Med format. DXO's tests are designed for DSLR use/strengths and are applied to MF. They also ignore the strengths of MedFmt systems. The differences are quite more than they are capable of showing. That said, the Leica S is really more of a better hand-held iso 100-200 studio camera.

TaoTeJared

I have rarely experienced Value & Quality experienced in the same product. "Value" is not a point. You either want the highest quality output available or you are willing to compromise. A choice must be made - albeit one that is usually made for us as our pockets are not deep enough. As MsMoto said, some clients require certain systems, even if we all know better. I have heard many commercial photographers who work with the big Ad houses say they could never show up with a DSLR. High end MedFmt will never be for the masses nor is it made for them.

The types of Med format systems that should be compared to are the lower end backs and Pentax's. The color depth and "file output tech" is the same as DSLRs. Specific system comparison is valid. The global view comparison is just fraught with too many idiosyncrasies that is specific to each system.

There is a very well known nature photographer that has a store in my area and he has amazing prints. He uses MedFmt film for decades, MedFt Digital, and DSLRs. When you see the images printed at 5ft long side by side, you can start to pick the formats out quickly - very quickly. I can pick out every DSLR image as the color just looks flat compared to the others. Same can be said with the older Film images as well - just less pixelation and less uber sharpness. Personally I like the Fim one's better.

There is of course some people must find a narcissistic way need to trick themselves that the system they own is just like a $50,000 system, but it isn't true. The D800 is not a MedFmt competitor. It does move into some areas that were vacant before at it's price point.

spraynpray

Funny how glib comments like 'a good big un will always beat a good little'un' have not come out in this thread. :P

Why is it that the 'benefits' of shallower DoF get extolled hugely in the DX/FX discussion but hardly mentioned in this FX/MX(?) discussion. Why is it that ISO noise improves from DX to FX, but not FX to medium format?

Ade

There are benefits but past FX we quickly get into diminishing returns.

Few people would pay an extra $30k - $50k into a quickly depreciating asset for marginal improvements which -- depending on the situation -- are often quite subtle (or downright invisible).

DaveyJ

I have a lot of medium format and large format experience. Mostly with film for ownership of these formats but I have gone WAY out of my way to see the digital versions. I'd rather not get into a listing of my medium format and large format cameras and lens but it was an investment that would make one pause today. When I switched to digital I went to DX format as my lesson learned was pretty harsh. One day I sold $150,000 worth of that film gear and that still left me with my prize rigs. It also made it easier to sell the kept lens and cameras as the buyers already knew how well I had kept my equipment and had seen the results these rigs had produced. WHY did I get out of medium and large format? In a word inflexibility!

I also began to get exposed to medium and large format digital which I was appalled by it's stupidity at the time. Any 30 second exposure of a scene to me was WORTHLESS AS THEY SHOWED CLOUD SHIFT AND ALL KINDS OF ARTIFACTS. I have seen large format digital rigs in use in the last two weeks. The results left me puzzled what in the hell the "artisans" were even trying to accomplish. Another really troubling aspect is aspects like dynamic range and field portability. Have you ever carried a hundred pound camera box up a mountain? I have. In time my son began to do the lugging.

If I ever got back to this arena it would be with film not digital. I'd get the Fuji GX 617 again and the 90 and 180 lens panels as those gave me some of my most prized images. But I sure as hell would buy a Nikon D800 or 800E WAY over a larger format. Or for that matter get a new D4s. Medium fomat lusters ye be warned!!!

donaldejose

I will hazard a guess and express the opinion that medium format will fade away to very small numbers and those who buy a medium format system today will see the value of their investment drop to 10% of its purchase price within four to five years. Why? Because 24mp is the standard today in Nikon DX and 24mp will be the standard in Nikon FX when the D5 appears in two years. Also, we will have clean ISO with very high IQ at ISO 6400 in just a year or so; surely with the D5. Finally, a D4x will arrive in 2015 with around 50mp and a D810 in 2016 will meet or exceed those 50mp (perhaps using the same sensor in the D4x?). A series of new FX lenses are being produced (Sigma A, Leica Otus, Nikon/Canon will start designing lenses for high megapixel sensors) and together with the 50mp sensors they will make medium format obsolete because the gain offered by medium format will not be worth the extra cost. For $12,000 a person will be able to purchase a very high mp FX body plus two or three designed-for-high-megapixel-sensor lenses. Companies producing medium format systems will be selling fewer and fewer over the years creating cash flow problems which inhibit adequate research and development to keep up with Nikon or Canon full frame bodies and lenses. Medium format is dying. Yes, it will still have some advantage when printing mural or builboard size but there will be very little need for that advantage. Fewer sales will mean increased prices or the companies will go bankrupt.

PB_PM

Medium format already is a very small market, if it gets any smaller the manufactures will likely disappear.

sevencrossing

Funny how glib comments like 'a good big un will always beat a good little'un' have not come out in this thread. :P

Why is it that the 'benefits' of shallower DoF get extolled hugely in the DX/FX discussion but hardly mentioned in this FX/MX(?) discussion. Why is it that ISO noise improves from DX to FX, but not FX to medium format?

The difference is there but as other have said the difference is narrowing this is also happening in Dx vs FX
I think FX and DX sensor are more advanced than Medium format ones, which tend to be designed for maximum quality at lower ISO values

TaoTeJared

@PitchBlack - I think you have missed my position and it is hardly a strawman.

"First, it makes no sense for Nikon to make a medium format camera.

I totally agree. There is no reason for Nikon to get into the medium format market.

Second, though there might be a few photographers willing to buy a $50,000 200mp/24 bit color/ Clean ISO at 3200 ISO Phase One digital back.

As @PB_PM said - it is already a very small market.

I believe the same people who buy MedFmt systems will continue to do so for the same reasons they do today. What to keep in mind, is that as some mediums age (printing, HD video, etc.) business (including us) will have to do more and produce better products to grab people's attention. Printing has been able to produce 36-bit color for years. The movie Avatar gave us a look at what extreme color gamut can create. The evolution of 4k is going to bring movies to 36-bit color. Our perception of what is "good" and "great" is always increasing and that will continue to drive technology. Good enough 10 years ago with digital (even MedFmt) barely cuts it today. When we get a 80mp DSLR like you described, something will be better, and people will continue to desire that, and question why it is so expensive and say it isn't worth it.

Ironheart

Ultimately then, I can own a D800 and a D7100 and have the advantages of both without having to invest in and maintain an entirely different ecosphere of stuff.

+1, Amen
And you effectively double your lens collection due to the focal length multiplier.

@TTJ, when you say 36bit I assume you mean 12bits per color channel. When we talk about 12, 14, or 16 bits in camera or RAW format, we mean per color as well, so a 14bit NEF would be 42bits in this same parlance. The difference in color between 14 (42) bit and 16 (48) bit is 4 trillion possible colors vs 281 trillion. Which means a 16bit (medium format) raw color space has more shades of blue than a 14bit (FX or DX) has colors. Which I why I agree that color depth is way more important that megapixels. I am constantly frustrated by flower colors "in the wild" vs what I can actually reproduce on screen or in print. Fucia and purple being the most frustrating. It almost makes me want to go back to black and white :-)

As a comparison HDTV only displays 8 (24) bit color or 16 million measly colors (your computer monitor might do 10)

mikep

comparing an 80mp back to a d800 is legitimate, but only if you are printing huge - and few people are doing this, so who else cares?

you guys are talking about "trillions of colors"? ... what printer can print that? what monitor can display that? and whose eyes can tell the difference?

most images are used online and saved as jpegs which yield 16 million colors, can tiffs cope with more than that? can our eyes discern the difference? i dont think so. call me a philistine but im sure im happy with 16 million colors, and maybe even a lot less than that

these days you get amazing images from any dslr camera - and there are far more important aspects to a picture than how many X billion colors it might or might not have, or contrast or anything else

hassleblad's website : http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/showcase.aspx

can anyone say these images are not repeatable with a d800?

medium format is a business that will survive only so long as clients are willing to pay for the premium $ and swallow the marketing spiel of "high end" photographers

Ironheart

Mike, the trillions come in useful when editing, as you always want to edit in the highest possible colorspace before final render which might be 8bit JPEGs or a high-end 12bit capable printer (68 billion colors). Why would canikon make 14bit sensors and pipelines if it didn't matter?
Read this quick tutorial with pictures and histograms on why we need trillions of colors to make the world go round, it's far better than I could explain:
http://laurashoe.com/2011/08/09/8-versus-16-bit-what-does-it-really-mean/

WestEndBoy

Ultimately then, I can own a D800 and a D7100 and have the advantages of both without having to invest in and maintain an entirely different ecosphere of stuff.

+1, Amen
And you effectively double your lens collection due to the focal length multiplier.

And I can double my lens collection by switching my D800 to DX mode.