Nikon D800 - seems harder to justify Medium Format

[uaiomex]

My criteria is undoubtably made of limited sources and resources. Based on some "in-situ" visual comparisons and from some other professionals that heavily use on a daily basis MF equipment as well as dlsr's.

If I'm not lost in translation, what you are saying is that basically the D800 equals or betters DMF backs this side of 48X36mm. As far as I understand, only at high iso's this happens.

This is a shake-up, turn up-side-down world thing for every user of a DMF system. Are you sure?

On the other hand, you mention that with sensors approaching true 645 size, the advantage is because of the lenses. It is my belief the true advantage is the sheer size of the sensor in the first place. If lenses add to the equation it is because of the big image circle they produce, which in turn comes back to the sensor. The size of the sensor.

Eduardo

Can you explain your criteria for this judgement of MF sensor delivering superior image quality?

The blanket claim of MF having superior image quality is not true: compared to the D800(E), some MF backs are superior in some respects (for example, resolution or detail from a 50MP+ back) but all current MF options are inferior in other aspects of IQ, like handling of low light when high exposure index ("ISO speed") is needed.

I agree that if the sensor technologies are sufficiently close, the larger format has a natural advantage, such is in the resolution of the final print (equal lp/mm in the image formed on the sensor give more lp/mm on the MF print) and the total light that can be gathered which leads to greater dynamic range and so finer tonal gradations and superior handling of scenes of high subject brightness range.

But recently, the sensor technologies are not even close: for photosites of equal size, the best CMOS sensors give far better "per pixel" performance, which MF can overcome only by having substantially more and/or larger photosites, requiring substantially more sensor area. I do not think that 44x33mm or Leica's 45x30mm have enough size advantage to overcome the current technological disadvantage on "per area" performance.

On the other hand, there is at least one area where formats close to the full 54x42mm of 645 format might always have an advantage due to lens optics: the natural size advantage of larger formats lenses means that the best 645 format lenses might deliver an image of superior quality to what any 35mm format lens can deliver, and with good enough sensors, this could be better than 35mm lenses could achieve even with an ideal sensor.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Modern CMOS sensors perform best at base ISO, which is normally the lowest one. In this sense they are very similar to MF sensors. The difference is that MF sensors have much more shadow noise (technically called readout noise). The shadow noise in MF sensors is almost a magnitude higher than in the latest CMOS. The low readout noise is the reason D800 reigns in DR.

There are a lot of factors for the playing field not be level:

1) MF sensors are bigger that is good for MTF
2) MF sensors may have different CGA (Color Grid Arrays) designs
3) MF lenses may be "better" than lenses normally used on DSLRs
4) MF backs are often used with proprietary software

The way I see it:

If you start from scratch a Nikon D800 with a couple of decent lenses will give you the same image quality as a low end MF system at 25% of the price. If you already have a decent MF system, a low end MF back may be a natural option.

I have seen a well executed comparison on Diglloyd between Nikon D800 and a Leica S2 using some of the best lenses available, and in my view the Nikon came out on top. (Corners were much better on Nikon, while Leica S2 may have been slightly better near the center. Leica S2 had a lot of Moiré.)

The comparison on Diglloyd was based on a single image, but was carefully executed, with focus bracketing on the Leica, the best series of images rom five sets were used.

Best regards
Erik

If I'm not lost in translation, what you are saying is that basically the D800 equals or betters DMF backs this side of 48X36mm. As far as I understand, only at high iso's this happens.


Eduardo

[Dick Roadnight]

Upsampling is not going to fix the resolution disadvantage at all, just hide the jaggies in big prints...

As to the multi-shot back I have even less of a clue how the comparison would go! It might overcome the resolution disadvantage.

That would be an interesting comparison, especially as it reduces or even reverses the price disadvantage for someone who already has the rest of the MF kit and just need the second hand back.

Pixel count is not the same thing as resolution... does a quality 22 Mpx (multi-shot) back (up-sampled) resolve more detail than a D800?

You can up-sample quality (MF) files, but you can normally down-sample ff files without loss of detail?

...and a good non-retro lens helps as well, of course.

[BJL]

Pixel count is not the same thing as resolution...

No, but pixel count does limit resolution though: my comment was that an image from a normal (not multishot) 22MP back has less resolution that given by a D800(E) with good enough lenses, and up-sampling will not overcome that.

[BJL]

My criteria is undoubtably made of limited sources and resources. Based on some "in-situ" visual comparisons and from some other professionals that heavily use on a daily basis MF equipment as well as dlsr's.

Unless those professionals and their work that you are judging already include experience with the D800(E), such comparisons are not relevant to this thread. More so if the 35mm format cameras in the comparisons are Canon rather than Nikon or Sony, because of factors like the lower maximum dynamic range of Canon's sensors.

... what you are saying is that basically the D800 equals or betters DMF backs this side of 48X36mm. As far as I understand, only at high iso's this happens.
This is a shake-up, turn up-side-down world thing for every user of a DMF system.

I am saying, based for example on comparisons to the Leica S2 with its 45x30mm sensor, that the D800 has about matched or passed those smaller "medium formats", and not just at high ISO speeds. Let me say yet again that the per pixel performace of the D800 sensor now surpasses that of the CCDs use in larger formats at base ISO speed too. And my claim about formats like 44x33mm does not turn the world upside down for users of formats 48x36mm or larger, so I do not understand your claim about "every user of a DMF system".

On the other hand, you mention that with sensors approaching true 645 size, the advantage is because of the lenses. It is my belief the true advantage is the sheer size of the sensor in the first place.

You cannot isolate the sensor from the lenses: the sensor can at best record perfectly the image delivered to it by the lens, so the inherent advantage of larger format lenses is something that smaller sensors might never be able to overcome completely. And how many times to I have to repeat: yes, if the larger formats used sensors that roughly matched the intrinsic technical capabilities of modern CMOS sensors, then of course the sensors would be capable of greater image quality as soon as the format is just modestly larger, like 44x33mm ... But those CCDs no longer come close to being intrinsically as good as the best current CMOS sensor technology, evan at low ISO speeds, so only a substantial size advantage can overcome that.

[EinstStein]

Just by reading your post I'm reading your mind that, it's obvious you prefer 35mm FF to the 1.5x or even smaller cropped format..
How did you justify the larger sensor on the 35mm FF to the cropped format?

[BJL]

Just by reading your post I'm reading your mind that, it's obvious you prefer 35mm FF to the 1.5x or even smaller cropped format..
How did you justify the larger sensor on the 35mm FF to the cropped format?

To whom was this question addressed?

Note: 35mm format sensors offer the same CMOS technology as in smaller format cameras of the same brand, whereas sensors larger than 35mm format used very different (and by now, significantly inferior) CCD technology. This means that comparisons of current options between MF and 35mm are quite different than comparisons between 35mm and smaller formats.

[EinstStein]

I thought the discussion was on the MF vs. D800. I read some comments questioning the value of MF's larger sensor.
But never mind, you have your point. 

[peterv]

... the inherent advantage of larger format lenses is something that smaller sensors might never be able to overcome completely...

Hi, I'm lurking here mostly, trying to understand and learn...

Could anyone please elaborate a bit on the inherent advantage of larger format lenses?
Is this about resolving power, character, rendition?

BTW, here's another comparison D800E-S2:

http://blog.mingthein.com/category/leica/

[uaiomex]

It's only a very thin line separating MF shooters under 44X33 and MF shooters over 44X33. I think that whatever touches the former, eventually will touch the latter.
Eduardo

so I do not understand your claim about "every user of a DMF system".

[Geoffreyg]

It's only a very thin line separating MF shooters under 44X33 and MF shooters over 44X33. I think that whatever touches the former, eventually will touch the latter.
Eduardo

?
What about those of us shooting 44x33?

[Radu Arama]

IMHO the (negative) influence of the D800 (and the influx of used 645D once the 645D2 will become a reality in less than a year) will be tremendous in the way of disrupting the "update chain" that MF companies use as a business model today (and have used it for a lot more in the digital age). To the point it will be much harder for a lot of people to justify an initial 4K to 7K investment into a first foray in the MF world by buying an used camera + an older back considering they will have the option to chose either a new D800 or a (probably not very used) 645D for the same amount. Of course there will still be some people who will do it and find a compelling reason based on their needs but all in all compared with a couple of years a go the competition in this price bracket will be fierce.

It also will be much more problematic to move used 40Mp cameras/backs of today (like H4D, or P1&Leaf backs) when they will face the new 645D2 at similar prices and (from what I heard) with many more features and advantages. Further more the Pentax as a DMF system will reduce some of today's drawbacks (like tethering, fewer new digital lenses) to become even more appealing to some.

In a phrase this situation means less opportunities for current DMF users (at all levels except the very high end) of "traditional brands" to upgrade their current gear at reasonable prices thus fewer sales of new gear for those companies. Or if the dealers will continue to use the same upgrade patterns of today they will transfer the financial burden of slower moving gear to themselves.

BR,
Radu

[BJL]

It's only a very thin line separating MF shooters under 44X33 and MF shooters over 44X33. I think that whatever touches the former, eventually will touch the latter.
Eduardo

Maybe but not necessarily. For one thing, the gap in sensor performance might not grow much more: the best CMOS sensors now seem to be fairly close to theoretical limits on maximum sensitivty (for a CFA sensor) and low dark noise.  Also, with full 645 format of 56x42mm (which is larger than 36x24 by about 75% linear, compared to only a 28% size advantage for 44x33), the inherent advantages in the quality of the images from a larger sensor (like resolution about 75% greater from the same basic lens design scaled up) might mean that good 645 lenses with CCD sensors keep an advantage over 35mm format lenses even with a perfect sensor.

In fact, I am sure that some people believe that even 44x33 and 45x30 is big enough that the inherent advantages of the lenses keep those formats ahead in IQ, but the recent comparisons between Nikon D800 and Leica S2 suggest that the 25% size gap is not enough.

EDIT: another point in favor of larger formats that I overlooked. Even if dynamic range is better for a smaler CMOS sensor, that only relates to how much noise is seen in deep shadows (and with severe underwxposure ofmtue sensor, meaning at higher ISO settings.) When instead you look at fairly well lit parts, maybe all the normal printable range from the highlights down to three or four stops below midtones, the dark noise used in DR measurements is overwhelmed by photon shot noise, and looking at just that shot noise, a larger sensor that counts more total photons has an advantage in signal-to-noise ratio. This perhaps relates to the finer, smoother tonal gradations often claimed for MF in comparison to 35mm format.

[eronald]

The MF guys wrecked their own market by combining predatory pricing with underperforming camera bodies. In the end, interestingly, the worst camera with the highest dealer margins is the one which is selling (Mamiya) while the best (Sinar) went down the chutes. So pick today's worst MF product: That will be the last man standing.

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I think it is more complex than just a few factors. The obvious factor are:

- Noise as you said a bigger sensor surface collects more photons, leading to less shot noise
- MTF, any feature on a MF sensor will be larger assuming same FOV (Field of View) so MTF will be higher

Now, the less obvious factors

Are MF lenses better? Maybe, or may be not. It is probably easier to build a good 135 lens than to build an MF lens. With SLR designs the mirror assembly requires telecentric designs on short focal lengths. More symmetrical designs may have better corner performance, but we get problems with excessive lens cast.

DSLRs are usually used with zooms and MF more often with prime lenses.

What I would expect?

Well, it seems there is a market for low end MF digital, like 22-25 MP backs. I'm not sure people are buying them for image quality.

For the midfield, Pentax 645D and the Leica-S2 and others I would presume that the Nikon D800/D800E is a real competition. I guess that its is practical people  buying the 645D and it is a fine camera. It lacks Live View for critical work. It's a hard to ignore fact that you can buy two D800/D800E bodies and a bunch of very fine lenses from Nikon and Zeiss just for the price of the 645D body.

Leica S2 is a different thing. It has a red dot and awesome lenses, but it still lacks live view.

Than we have a high end like Phase One IQ180. These make a lot of sense if you have the money and the knowledge how to drive them.

In my view the Nikon is D800 is not the ultimate camera. We already have 24 MP sensors in APS-C, and they are just doing fine. I'm pretty sure we will see 50MP full frames in a couple of years). Perhaps a Nikon D4X. Will the lenses keep up? Good question. The best primes are good for 50MP FX but most zooms will have bad corners.

Finally, I think that MF digital needs live view badly.

Best regards
Erik

Maybe but not necessarily. For one thing, the gap in sensor performance might not grow much more: the best CMOS sensors now seem to be fairly close to theoretical limits on maximum sensitivty (for a CFA sensor) and low dark noise.  Also, with full 645 format of 56x42mm (which is larger than 36x24 by about 75% linear, compared to only a 28% size advantage for 44x33), the inherent advantages in the quality of the images from a larger sensor (like resolution about 75% greater from the same basic lens design scaled up) might mean that good 645 lenses with CCD sensors keep an advantage over 35mm format lenses even with a perfect sensor.

In fact, I am sure that some people believe that even 44x33 and 45x30 is big enough that the inherent advantages of the lenses keep those formats ahead in IQ, but the recent comparisons between Nikon D800 and Leica S2 suggest that the 25% size gap is not enough.

EDIT: another point in favor of larger formats that I overlooked. Even if dynamic range is better for a smaler CMOS sensor, that only relates to how much noise is seen in deep shadows (and with severe underwxposure ofmtue sensor, meaning at higher ISO settings.) When instead you look at fairly well lit parts, maybe all the normal printable range from the highlights down to three or four stops below midtones, the dark noise used in DR measurements is overwhelmed by photon shot noise, and looking at just that shot noise, a larger sensor that counts more total photons has an advantage in signal-to-noise ratio. This perhaps relates to the finer, smoother tonal gradations often claimed for MF in comparison to 35mm format.

[hjulenissen]

In my view the Nikon is D800 is not the ultimate camera. We already have 24 MP sensors in APS-C, and they are just doing fine. I'm pretty sure we will see 50MP full frames in a couple of years). Perhaps a Nikon D4X. Will the lenses keep up? Good question. The best primes are good for 50MP FX but most zooms will have bad corners.

I dont think that being lense-limited need to be such a bad thing.

I have a couple of good lenses, and if I could be reasonably certain that my camera was able to record, accurately, every piece of information that it could offer, it would give DXO and similar packages optimal working conditions.


-h

[torger]

Are MF lenses better? Maybe, or may be not. It is probably easier to build a good 135 lens than to build an MF lens. With SLR designs the mirror assembly requires telecentric designs on short focal lengths. More symmetrical designs may have better corner performance, but we get problems with excessive lens cast.

I'd say that yes if you go to the Rodenstock Digaron and Schneider Digitar lenses it is clearly superior for what they can do, i e tilt and shift from wide to short tele. Lens cast on Dalsa chips without microlenses is not bad at all, problem is that SLR cameras sell better (which need better sensitivity) so now all high-end MF backs have microlenses and cannot handle lens cast of the wides as well, the retrofocus digarons perform ok with them though so lenses do exist but you need to pay more (retrofocus is more expensive designs).

I see the D800 as more of a threat to low end MF DSLRs (pentax etc) than to technical cameras. Nikon's PC-E lenses are okay, but not more than that, at least the 24 from what I have seen so far. A camera is more than just the sensor.

I agree that live view would be really nice. Ground glass which I use is ok (better than its reputation I'd say), but makes the camera much more expensive and heavy (due to the high precision sliding back).

[BernardLanguillier]

In my view the Nikon is D800 is not the ultimate camera. We already have 24 MP sensors in APS-C, and they are just doing fine. I'm pretty sure we will see 50MP full frames in a couple of years).

Not, it is not, but the question is whether it has to be or not?

- In terms of resolution, who needs more than 36 tack sharp pixels [please don't answer "crazy stitchers"...  ]?
- In terms of DR, who needs more?

All this is not done for the sake of improving camera technologies, but to solve practical issues met by photographers. Having spent one month with the d800, I see very few issues left to solve.

Cheers,
Bernard

[gerald.d]

I'd say that yes if you go to the Rodenstock Digaron and Schneider Digitar lenses it is clearly superior for what they can do, i e tilt and shift from wide to short tele.

Related, but slightly tangential...

Is this truly the case at the wide end? What about the Canon TS-E's on an HCam?

Is a Rodenstock HR Alpagon 23mm on an Alpa body really better than a 24mm TS-E II on the HCam, assuming the same sensor is used?

The DSLR makers have a huge scale advantage here. If (as I am led to believe) there is not that much between a DSLR lens costing $2,200, and an equivalent MF lens costing 4x the price, I'm not sure how valid the lens argument really is.

[torger]

Related, but slightly tangential...

Is this truly the case at the wide end? What about the Canon TS-E's on an HCam?

Is a Rodenstock HR Alpagon 23mm on an Alpa body really better than a 24mm TS-E II on the HCam, assuming the same sensor is used?

The DSLR makers have a huge scale advantage here. If (as I am led to believe) there is not that much between a DSLR lens costing $2,200, and an equivalent MF lens costing 4x the price, I'm not sure how valid the lens argument really is.

I'd like to know in more detail too, it is a bit hard to find out since the Rodenstocks/Schneiders are rarely tested, one have to find shots here and there on the net and guess from that. The 24mm TS-E II has much better performance than the PC-E 24mm for sure, I have one myself. It is also not as handicapped in movements like the PC-E 24 either. What I do know is that the DSLR lenses get corner sharpness issues at high resolution (the TS-E 24 too), but I don't know for sure how large corner sharpness issues on the wides are for the Rodenstock/Schneiders, maybe problems are larger than I think there.

For me personally the comparison Nikon D800 + PC-E 24 vs Aptus 75 + Schneider 35 XL would be a great test. About the same amount of pixels, same FOV, both able to tilt and shift. I plan to get a 35 XL but don't have it yet unfortunately.

Comparing the 23mm Rodenstock with 70mm image circle with the TS-E 24 II is an interesting lens quality test (would not be surprised if the TS-E wins, it is a great lens), but system-wise it is more relevant to compare it with a 35mm or a 40mm with 90mm image circle. 135 digital only has 36x24mm sensors so they need shorter focal lengths and higher lpmm numbers than a 48x36 or 54x41mm sensor to achieve the same FOV and resolution.

I don't think it is that valuable to mix in price into the equation, speciality products like MF is very expensive and will always have poor price/performance compared to mass-market products. If MF has something to offer and is not too expensive for the professional then it is ok, but if it is just expensive without offering anything then it is worthless...