22MP MFDB vs. D800 or 5DIII

[MichaelEzra]

I did an evaluation of ZD Camera vs D800E, both with prime lenses (Nikon 50mm F1.4D, Sigma 70mm F2.8 and Mamiya AF 80mm F2.8, at sharpest apertures) @studio.
ZD seems to have a higher level of pixel sharpness and appears to be better enlargeable.
D800E gives a larger file from the start but I could not get that tight crispness of ZD yet, although still pretty sharp.
ZD is much more prone to moire than D800E, considering similar image composition and the same subject & light.

D800E does not handle overexposure well, its strength is in the shadows.
D800E shadows are NOT noise free, even at ISO 100 there is a fine noise with grain structure. Although it depends on how deep one chooses to look into these shadows.
ZD's strength is in highlights, it handles even 2EV overexposure but shadows are not to be lifted much.

[ejmartin]

I did an evaluation of ZD Camera vs D800E, both with prime lenses (Nikon 50mm F1.4D, Sigma 70mm F2.8 and Mamiya AF 80mm F2.8, at sharpest apertures) @studio.

D800E does not handle overexposure well, its strength is in the shadows.
D800E shadows are NOT noise free, even at ISO 100 there is a fine noise with grain structure. Although it depends on how deep one chooses to look into these shadows.
ZD's strength is in highlights, it handles even 2EV overexposure but shadows are not to be lifted much.

That sounds like an issue that the two manufacturers decided to calibrate their meters differently.  'Does not handle overexposure well, but is strong in shadows' simply means that the meter sets middle gray higher than you want, so you simply have to adjust accordingly.  Similarly, 'handles even 2EV overexposure' simply means that the manufacturer left a lot of highlight headroom when locating metered middle gray in the raw data range.

I would rather say there is a dynamic range, and a choice of where to place metered middle gray within it, rather than to say that there is a 'shadow DR' and a 'highlight DR'.  Different manufacturers make different choices about the metering, and part of learning one's equipment is discerning what choice was made, and compensating according to your own preferences.

[EricV]

D800E does not handle overexposure well, its strength is in the shadows.
ZD's strength is in highlights, it handles even 2EV overexposure but shadows are not to be lifted much.

On that basis, I would give the Nikon +2 points, +1 for exposing correctly, +1 for large dynamic range.
And I would give the Mamiya -2 points, -1 for underexposing, -1 for lower dynamic range.
Joking aside, exposure is more or less irrelevant, since you are not forced to accept the meter recommendation.

[SpiritShooter]

Tried 5DIII and D800. My impression:
1. With 400mm~600mm, Gee, 5DIII is like a machine gun, super fast and super accurate.
2. On the other extremes, 17mm or 24mm, T&S. 5DIII rules again. It's unique.
3. In the middle, 50mm/1.2, 5DIII performs better than D800 but with standard zooms, 24-70 and 70-200, it's the other way.
   But in this range, M9 stands out. M9 does not go beyond 135mm, but it makes 130mm ~ 200mm irrelevant.

My impressions: It's M9 for 24~135mm, and beyond these range, it'd be 5DIII. D800 is a very good body, but need lenses to match it.  

I own a Nikon D800 with 24/1.4G, PC-E 24, 50/1.4G, 85/1.4G 105 f/2.8G VR and 70-200 2.8G VR lenses,  I also own a Leica M9 with Summicron 35, 50 & 75 mm 6bit coded lenses. I have had the D800 since April and have done a myriad of shooting. In my experience, there is just no way that anyone can tell me the M9 has better IQ or exceeds the D800/E.

Many of the supposed comparisons that I see on the web compare cameras with lenses that are not top notch glass. This colors the results and makes them fairly insignificant.
Anyway, just my experience....

[BernardLanguillier]

In my experience, there is just no way that anyone can tell me the M9 has better IQ or exceeds the D800/E.

But you'll have to agree that the Leica logo of the D800 sucks.

Cheers,
Bernard

[FredBGG]

One big reason is that I just know that I will get a better result from the bigger camera and the slower way of working.

This whole thing about the "slower way of working" is not logical at all.

You can take just as much time and care with a smaller camera.
Just because the limitations of MFD force you to go slower does not mean you can't take your time and shoot
with the same approach with a 35mm DSLR.

I shoot high end celebrity portraits with all formats and there are times when I will shoot with a 35mm DSLR
and take only 5 to 10 shots in the whole session as if I was shooting 8x10 film. I'll even put the 35mm DSLR camera
on a heavy duty column stand.

On this shoot with Larry King I took 12 shots.

[FredBGG]

Many of the supposed comparisons that I see on the web compare cameras with lenses that are not top notch glass. This colors the results and makes them fairly insignificant.
Anyway, just my experience....

Very true.

I've seen comparisons with a 24-70 on the 35mm DSLR and prime on the MFD.... rather silly

[DaveDn]

Fwiw, I tried the much-vaunted Zeiss 21 f2.8 and found it to be crap. Er, um, I mean a non flat-field lens. Bitingly sharp in the centre, it was mushy on the edges at f8, at a middle-distance, focussed by liveview.  No excuse for that. Interestingly, the 16-35 VR matched it in the centre at f8 and kicked its ass on the edges. 

- N.

Nick, did you hit it with a hammer first 

My 21ZE is the best lens I have ever used in this focal range. It also has a flatish field. Ive shot the odd brick wall with no problem other than a bit of moustache distortion. The  MTF also supports this.
Maybe your copy was a dud!
This first copy of the 21ZE that I purchased was soft on the left side. The second copy is tack sharp into the corners.

[FredBGG]

For me, the D800E caused me to sell not only my 645D but my M9 as well (though not the lenses).  At working apertures, the better Nikkor primes on the 800E match the "M" glass , except with twice the pixels, more accurate focus and usable high ISO.  Besides, you can buy a 24 f1.4, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 for the new price of a single Leica lens.  That's gotta count at some point. Size is the Nikkors' only shortcoming.

Fwiw, I tried the much-vaunted Zeiss 21 f2.8 and found it to be crap. Er, um, I mean a non flat-field lens. Bitingly sharp in the centre, it was mushy on the edges at f8, at a middle-distance, focussed by liveview.  No excuse for that. Interestingly, the 16-35 VR matched it in the centre at f8 and kicked its ass on the edges. 

- N.

Zeiss 21mm vs Nikon 16-35. Not even close.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=689&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=708&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

[sunnycal]

Zeiss 21mm vs Nikon 16-35. Not even close.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=689&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=708&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

You selected 16mm comparison to 21mm. I dont know if your point was that Zeiss can not do 16mm (so it is not close) or if 16mm on Nikon lens is not close to Zeiss 21mm. If you compare Nikon lens at 20mm to Zeiss, they are actually close.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=689&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=3&LensComp=708&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4