Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon D800E v.s Hasselblad H4D40: my in-studio test-review  (Read 22276 times)
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 650


« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2012, 03:43:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Well really how much has changed?  Tons of work has been done with the 1Ds, 5D, 5D mk2, etc.     

No doubt. But the point is that DSLR is getting closer and for many markets that's enough.

To me it seems that the Nikon D800/E is a very interesting alternative to low end MF.

That's the way I'll be working, offering both alternatives.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1663



WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2012, 03:48:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Damn, there I was hoping this test would prove that the D800 was light-years ahead of any MFD and would see an end to these comparison threads.

Some hope  Roll Eyes
Logged

gazwas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 367



« Reply #22 on: August 04, 2012, 04:24:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting read Alex and very brave to post a review that swings opinion so much. I often feel the side a photographer usually takes has more to do with which of these cameras they own and justifying that decision more than anything else. That seems pretty much the case here reading the above replies.

Not wanting to take away anything from the D800, it is an amazing camera at an equally impressive price but I've not seen a single test at any aperture that would tempt me away from my Canons, never mind my MFD kit. A camera is not just the chip IMO and a 35mm based system will never be as flexible as a MFD back.
Logged

trying to think of something meaningful........ Err?
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7305


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2012, 04:32:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I presume physics preclude a full frame 135 DSLR being lightyears ahead an MF camera with a larger sensor ;-)

Best regards
Erik



Damn, there I was hoping this test would prove that the D800 was light-years ahead of any MFD and would see an end to these comparison threads.

Some hope  Roll Eyes
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7305


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2012, 04:53:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

You make a very good point in case of Canon. I have downloaded test images from DPReview and really looked for issues with DR. I'm pretty sure that Nikon does have an advantage but it may matter little for many subjects. Resolution is the same. Nikon has a lead, for sure, but it may matter little. In real life we don't have dead on focus, we need to stop down beyond optimum aperture and so on. Also, today cameras may be good enough. Lot of folks claim that 12MP is good enough for almost any work.

The Nikon has some interesting features, however:

- It's the highest resolving FF DSLR
- At present it is cheaper than the competition
- It's essentially a champ regarding DR in the full frame DSLR camp
- The D800E is the only FF DSLR without and OLP filter

Technically speaking, I guess the optimum is using an IQ 180 och an Alpa shimmed to 0.01 mm precision used with an APO HR Digitar at f/5.6 and a laser rangefinder. Some photographers do that or use live view on the IQ180 for focusing. But I guess that even the IQ180 is mostly used under lesser conditions, for instance with focal plane shutter causing vibrations.

Best regards
Erik

Interesting read Alex and very brave to post a review that swings opinion so much. I often feel the side a photographer usually takes has more to do with which of these cameras they own and justifying that decision more than anything else. That seems pretty much the case here reading the above replies.

Not wanting to take away anything from the D800, it is an amazing camera at an equally impressive price but I've not seen a single test at any aperture that would tempt me away from my Canons, never mind my MFD kit. A camera is not just the chip IMO and a 35mm based system will never be as flexible as a MFD back.
Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2763



« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2012, 07:00:50 AM »
ReplyReply


I tried to look at color accuracy. Note that this is about accuracy, not pleasantness.

First image shows the colors compared to color checker colors. The second one shows the position of the colors in lab space. The colors in the Nikon image, as processed, are significantly more accurate. In both cases the colors are probably more saturated than the reference colors, probably for better visual impression.

Erik,

Thanks for posting the Imatest Colorcheck results. However, your statement that the Nikon colors are more accurate is puzzling to me. The Nikon colors are over-saturated, but this is not that serious since saturation can be adjusted in processing and increased saturation is often desired anyway. However, shifts in hue are not desirable and these are reflected in the DeltaC*ab chroma corrected results, which are less for the Hasselblad. On the color plots, hue shifts are indicated when the line connecting the camera color and the ideal color do not pass through the white point. This is most evident in patch 15 in the Nikon file.

Regards,

Bill
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7305


WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2012, 07:59:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Bill,

It seems I posted the wrong screen dumps. Sorry! It is now corrected. Here are the correct images:

Thanks for pointing out my error!

Best regards
Erik


Erik,

Thanks for posting the Imatest Colorcheck results. However, your statement that the Nikon colors are more accurate is puzzling to me. The Nikon colors are over-saturated, but this is not that serious since saturation can be adjusted in processing and increased saturation is often desired anyway. However, shifts in hue are not desirable and these are reflected in the DeltaC*ab chroma corrected results, which are less for the Hasselblad. On the color plots, hue shifts are indicated when the line connecting the camera color and the ideal color do not pass through the white point. This is most evident in patch 15 in the Nikon file.

Regards,

Bill
Logged

MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 843



WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2012, 08:34:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To me it seems that the Nikon D800/E is a very interesting alternative to low end MF. Little doubt that better image quality can be achieved with high end digital, like the IQ180, if that equipment is put to perfect use. In addition, digital backs have a lot of flexibility.

How is a 10k digital back "low end" not everyone is a lawyer/optician  Roll Eyes
From where I'm looking digital backs have less flexibility than a pro DSLR.
Logged
MichaelEzra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 651



WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 04, 2012, 09:00:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Here is another comparison view that is easier to see via browser.
A custom made camera profile would likely equalize the tonal differences.
Resolution-wise this is splitting hairs, literally.
Both cameras are great:)
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7305


WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2012, 09:44:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I didn't want to be ignorant. MFDBs begin around 10 kUSD so that is the current low end. You can also get a used (or pre owned) back at lower price. The situation may be different if you happen to own a lot of equipment.

If you can buy a camera at one fifth the price doing the same job as the more expensive camera, it must be good news. A year ago the only 20+ MP alternative from Nikon was the D3X, at 8 kUSD. Canon and Sony owners had affordable 20+ MP alternatives for three years.

Best regards
Erik

How is a 10k digital back "low end" not everyone is a lawyer/optician  Roll Eyes
From where I'm looking digital backs have less flexibility than a pro DSLR.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7305


WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 04, 2012, 09:49:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the sample image.

I printed the samples in A2 with a crop on the head. In my view the Hassy image is a bit sharper, probably due to different image scale, image format, lens, diffraction and other issues discussed but the images are pretty close. There are differences, I cannot say which I prefer.

Best regards
Erik

Here is another comparison view that is easier to see via browser.
A custom made camera profile would likely equalize the tonal differences.
Resolution-wise this is splitting hairs, literally.
Both cameras are great:)
Logged

gazwas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 367



« Reply #31 on: August 04, 2012, 10:07:21 AM »
ReplyReply

From where I'm looking digital backs have less flexibility than a pro DSLR.

And there lies the problem with this type of comparison!  Undecided

Its more about your personal view point than anything else. I value the extra money spent on a digital back as they are more than just IQ and Mpix count. To me, in my field of work, a digital has way, way more flexibility than any 35mm DSLR. People who don't use one as I do won't see the added value and only see the BIG difference in price tag vs Mpix count.
Logged

trying to think of something meaningful........ Err?
Don Libby
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 724


Iron Creek Photography


WWW
« Reply #32 on: August 04, 2012, 10:46:00 AM »
ReplyReply

And there lies the problem with this type of comparison!  Undecided

Its more about your personal view point than anything else. I value the extra money spent on a digital back as they are more than just IQ and Mpix count. To me, in my field of work, a digital has way, way more flexibility than any 35mm DSLR. People who don't use one as I do won't see the added value and only see the BIG difference in price tag vs Mpix count.

Plus One!
Logged

Go Go
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 04, 2012, 11:14:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Plus One!

Plus Two!
Logged

EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2389



WWW
« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2012, 11:14:57 AM »
ReplyReply

To begin with, Nikonians may rejoice now they have a 3000$ 36MP camera instead of a 8000$ 24MP one. I guess that is without doubt a good thing.

Well maybe but the price difference is more because its not in a pro body format.  The pro body has significantly better autofocus among other advantages. Surely there would be many who'd pay $8000 for the D800E sensor put into a pro body?  People are saying the 5Dmk3 and the H4 bodies have more accurate AF.  

And yes, the D800 is cheap enough that most MFDB users could also have one in their bag.


Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7305


WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 04, 2012, 12:11:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Eric,

According to DPReview the AF-system on the D800 is the same as on the D4, of course they may be wrong.

Anyway, there D800 is the resolution champ in the Nikon lineup.

Some photographers actually switched over from 1DsIII to 5DII, either to save weight or to have two identical bodies. I also got the impression that the new Canon 5DIII is much more robust than the old 5DII.

The impression I have is that the "pro" bodies are now intended mostly for sports, photojournalism and high ISO work.

Best regards
Erik


Well maybe but the price difference is more because its not in a pro body format.  The pro body has significantly better autofocus among other advantages. Surely there would be many who'd pay $8000 for the D800E sensor put into a pro body?  People are saying the 5Dmk3 and the H4 bodies have more accurate AF.  

And yes, the D800 is cheap enough that most MFDB users could also have one in their bag.



Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2012, 12:56:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

To begin with, Nikonians may rejoice now they have a 3000$ 36MP camera instead of a 8000$ 24MP one. I guess that is without doubt a good thing.

The other impression I have is that the test images are quite close. An assumption may be that they would be even closer in print.

In my view, this is a very valid test. There are a few factors favoring the Hassy but there may be other factors favoring the D8000. I wouldn't call this a scientific test. In a scientific test we try to eliminate as many variables as possible. A scientific test also needs to be reproducible, therefore dollar bills and color checkers are used instead of young ladies. The tests that DPReview and ImagingResource do are more scientific, they ought to be for they do testing for living.

To me it seems that the Nikon D800/E is a very interesting alternative to low end MF. Little doubt that better image quality can be achieved with high end digital, like the IQ180, if that equipment is put to perfect use. In addition, digital backs have a lot of flexibility.

Best regards
Erik








The test was well done, but it is important that the test not be considered a comparison between the D800 and Hasselblad H4D40.
The lens is very important. As I posted before the 105mm 2.8G is not the best lens to use for this comparison.

(correction) ErikKaffehr examples processing both files the same way shows that the cameras are pretty much indistinguishable. If the test were re done with the Nikon 85mm 1.4G and using equivalent apertures the Nikon d800 would look better than with the 105 2.8G

Take a look again at how evident the difference between the 105mm 2.8G and the 85mm 1.4G is if you consider how close the test came out.

85mm 1.4G


105mm 2.8G


I bring this up because the results of the test were so close.

But it's also important to keep in mind that the 85mm 1.4G will also give you bokeh and shallow depth of field that the Hasselblad (Fuji) lens cannot match.

Then on top of that there is the superior flexibility, reliability and handling of a top of the line DSLR system.
Reliability is just without comparison especially when you consider that you can buy a back up of each lens and camera and still come out
at less than half the expenditure.


I'm no "Nikonian" or gear fan. To me it's all about the image and when I want certain results I will still use 8x10 film or larger medium fornat film, even if it is impractical.

I have come to the conclusion that there is no advantage to using MF digital over a D800 and D800E combination.

The only time there would be a difference and only between an IQ180 and a D800 is for prints of 60x40 inches
AND YOU WILL BE VIEWING PARTS OF THE IMAGE CLOSE UP. By that I do not mean looking at a full composition from a normal viewing distance.

Also there will be some scientific applications where pixel peeping is done where the increase in resolution is needed.

But in conclusion let me say that if you love gear and like to romanticize about medium format there is nothing wrong with that.
I'm all for enthusiasts..... hey people buy Ferrari's in California where the speed limit is 65 mph and drive around in a cramped car with limited viability.... for fun.
Don't get me wrong.... the price of pro cameras... D800 or Hasselblad would cost way more to pros if it were not for the enthusiasts with deep pockets that keep sales higher.

It is just important that enthusiasts don't sway the decisions new photographers need to make.

Another important point is that companies like Nikon and Canon will invest more than Hasselblad or Phase One.
This is for two reasons. First of all the sheer size of the companies, but also because Canon and Nikon make so many other
lower end cameras and their sales are very influenced buy the prestige of their flagship cameras.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2012, 04:03:53 PM by FredBGG » Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2389



WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 04, 2012, 01:58:13 PM »
ReplyReply


ErikWHiss's examples processing both files the same way shows that the cameras are pretty much indistinguishable.

Fred, not me as I haven't posted samples, but in my tests I did find large differences between the D800E and the AFi-ii 12.  Sorry.  Please correct this.   Also I am Eric, not Erik.  There is an Erik posting to this thread however.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 416


WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 04, 2012, 02:36:56 PM »
ReplyReply


ErikWHiss's examples processing both files the same way shows that the cameras are pretty much indistinguishable. If the test were re done with the Nikon 85mm 1.4G and using equivalent apertures the Nikon d800 would look better than with the 105 2.8G
....
I have come to the conclusion that there is no advantage to using MF digital over a D800 and D800E combination.

Eric has already noted that he doesn't agree with either your reading of his work or your conclusions.

That the d800 is a gamechanger goes without saying. We can all agree on that.

That it renders MFDB without purpose.... well, people find what they want. I'm not giving up mine. Must be for some reason.
Logged

Geoff
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #39 on: August 04, 2012, 04:07:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred, not me as I haven't posted samples, but in my tests I did find large differences between the D800E and the AFi-ii 12.  Sorry.  Please correct this.   Also I am Eric, not Erik.  There is an Erik posting to this thread however.


Oops... corrected. Sorry I got the names confused.

Let me also clarify there is a difference between a 49MP back and an 80MP back.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad