Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?  (Read 32865 times)
hasselbladfan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 407


« Reply #60 on: September 23, 2012, 03:24:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Zeiss is actually making a new series for DSLRs.

Much larger. This leads me to believe they are upto something.

Just look at the size of the 55mm 1.4



Look at it compared to the current 50mm 1.4 Ziess:



Much larger front element. Much longer barrel.

It seems Zeiss is designing the ideal lens without limiting itself with size constraints.

I talked to the Zeiss designer.

They let their designers loose. No size nor weight limitations, no budget constraints, just make us the best possible 50mm 1.4.

He showed me some 100% crops in the corners. Unbelievable.

And this is the beginning of a new line .........
Logged
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 419



WWW
« Reply #61 on: September 23, 2012, 04:53:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Today I had gotten the chance before the official opening of the last day of Photokina to speak to Dr. Nasse of Zeiss and put the new 1,4/55 on my HCam.
It also renders an Aptus 8 with 40Mpix (44x33mm) with very slight vignette in the corners.
The new 2.0/135 is completely free of vignette and will probably render a full 80 Mpix Leaf or Phase.
From my experiences with our Hartblei lenses also on the D800E and MF Backs I can tell you its the lenses.
Put a 4/120mm Hartblei , our a 4/40IF or the 2,8/80mm on both systems and the results will be very similar.

Regards
Stefan
Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
Camdavidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 122


WWW
« Reply #62 on: September 24, 2012, 12:20:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I use a D800 for my advertising and aerial work.  I also own and use an Alpa TC + 12 Max for personal landscape images shot to an Aptus 75.  I also shoot aerials with the Alpa TC/Aptus 75 combo.

Last weekend I shot an editorial landscape assignment with the Alpa and Aptus.

Both cameras have their place.  The D800 and D4 are fantastic cameras for a wide-range of assignments.  The Alpa, for me, is the perfect camera for landscape work that is quieter and more reflective. 

They both have a place in my kit.

http://www.camerondavidson.com

Logged
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418


WWW
« Reply #63 on: September 24, 2012, 01:53:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Eric - great shots. What is the blue line (mid image, running left to right) in the lower image?

Geoff
Logged

Geoff
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #64 on: September 24, 2012, 02:49:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Geoff,
I looked for lines and didn't see any?  Which image again?   And btw - on the full res images I posted for Hulyss to look at and compare to his DP2m files he posted, the 1st image is actually a square crop, which I set in the back using sensor flex.
E
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
pedro39photo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108



WWW
« Reply #65 on: September 24, 2012, 03:08:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi, i use 35mm Canon 5D mark 2, and Hassy H3D.

One the great advantages of the MFD its realy the small DOF...yes its true we can have a Nikon 24mm 1.4 wide open and have small dof, but what really amaze me its in my Hassy 50-110mm at wide 50mm and a full f8 at 5m ou 7m of the subject i still have small DOF !!!

And every time i tried to explain the "Myth of the magic MFD" its so hard...and the way this CCD sensors capture the light and the color its so different from my canon, for me the 35mm its my work horse, but now its feel me "more digital..."

This picture was made with a H3D, its simple with no great artistic or composition, but after 10 years in 35mm it blow me after i open it in Phocus...the DOF the Colors the way the sensor captures the light in the face...
After i made this picture, i know that i have to get good DMF no mater what 35mm sys i have..

PS: ( and the sky/clouds dont have any editing, masks or degrade ND filters...Just pure high dynamic range capture of the sensor)

 
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 03:22:45 PM by pedro39photo » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7406


WWW
« Reply #66 on: September 24, 2012, 08:22:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

What Marc says makes a lot of sense.

Best regards
Erik

I think either just a D800 or a D800 plus a MFDB on a technical camera is the way to go, here is my logic
1. A DSLR is needed as a general purpose camera anyways
2. High Image quality is dependent on excellent lenses
3. The D800E other than resolution has an exceptional sensor
4. Anything you can shoot with a MFDB you can with a DSLR but everything you shoot with a DSLR you cannot with a MFDB
So I separated my landscape kit by field of view; wide MFDB, Narrow D800E (you can't practically shoot narrow FOV with MFDB, weight size etc.)
To optimize the IQ and lenses I chose Leica R's on the D800E (for general purpose and handheld work I ended up with the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 OS and the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII) and Rodenstock HR's on the Tech camera with an IQ180
I can do anything with the D800E and when I want maximum file size or need shifts/swings/tilt I have the MFDB+tech camera.
I no longer use the Mamiya AFD II or Phase one DF as the D800E is more versatile.
I would never sell the IQ180/Rodenstocks in favor of the D800E because the IQ is so good and the shooting style is just more fun.
In summary on a budget the D800E and a Leica R zoom would satisfy most needs. If Ultimate IQ is the goal then go all the way with a MFDB/tech camera/Rodenstock or Schneider digital lenses.
Marc

Logged

tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 554


« Reply #67 on: September 24, 2012, 08:34:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi, i use 35mm Canon 5D mark 2, and Hassy H3D.

One the great advantages of the MFD its realy the small DOF...yes its true we can have a Nikon 24mm 1.4 wide open and have small dof, but what really amaze me its in my Hassy 50-110mm at wide 50mm and a full f8 at 5m ou 7m of the subject i still have small DOF !!!

And every time i tried to explain the "Myth of the magic MFD" its so hard...and the way this CCD sensors capture the light and the color its so different from my canon, for me the 35mm its my work horse, but now its feel me "more digital..."

This picture was made with a H3D, its simple with no great artistic or composition, but after 10 years in 35mm it blow me after i open it in Phocus...the DOF the Colors the way the sensor captures the light in the face...
After i made this picture, i know that i have to get good DMF no mater what 35mm sys i have..

PS: ( and the sky/clouds dont have any editing, masks or degrade ND filters...Just pure high dynamic range capture of the sensor)

 

That's really a lovely photo, both in content and rendering.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #68 on: September 24, 2012, 09:17:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I talked to the Zeiss designer.

They let their designers loose. No size nor weight limitations, no budget constraints, just make us the best possible 50mm 1.4.

He showed me some 100% crops in the corners. Unbelievable.

And this is the beginning of a new line .........

Seems my guesses were right.

I think this is going to be a very successful move. I can see many photographers taking the route of
these lenses on a 36MP dslr  instead of a MFD system. These lenses IMO will blur the lines between the formats.

Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #69 on: September 24, 2012, 10:06:45 PM »
ReplyReply

These lenses IMO will blur the lines between the formats.

The good news is it looks like it won't be that long before we find out.  I'm curious to see how the 46mp canon will perform too with lenses like this, however we already know a bit about the very good 17 and 24mm TSE lenses being used with the IQ180 with Stefan's HB1.   Probably these new lenses will be on priced about the same as what MF costs. 

 My guess is the color will still be an issue and for sheer detail the MFDB's will still have the edge. There is no substitute for CC's, or in this case square mm's of sensor.    Where DSLR's are winning out is multipoint AF (if you use it), high ISO performance, and all the flash gear.  How great it is to control a bunch of small flash all of which are doing ettl with the camera. 

  It's a great time to be a photographer with all these options! 
Logged

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

Posts: 1651


« Reply #70 on: September 24, 2012, 11:01:22 PM »
ReplyReply

The good news is it looks like it won't be that long before we find out.  I'm curious to see how the 46mp canon will perform too with lenses like this, however we already know a bit about the very good 17 and 24mm TSE lenses being used with the IQ180 with Stefan's HB1.   Probably these new lenses will be on priced about the same as what MF costs. 

 My guess is the color will still be an issue and for sheer detail the MFDB's will still have the edge. There is no substitute for CC's, or in this case square mm's of sensor.    Where DSLR's are winning out is multipoint AF (if you use it), high ISO performance, and all the flash gear.  How great it is to control a bunch of small flash all of which are doing ettl with the camera. 

  It's a great time to be a photographer with all these options! 

Less than a year ago everyone was saying the 35mm FF sensors will not be able to reach the dynamic range of CCD sensors.
We know today that the D800 has higher dynamic range.

Regarding color depth MFD with the IQ180 MF is still a bit better.
However if you look at the color depth improvements with the last Nikon generation d700 to d800 the improvement is a bigger step up than the
equivalent improvements made by MF manufacturers.

I think it is safe to say that the next generation will catch up with the IQ180 as far as color depth goes.

Add this to the ergonomics and it's hard to see anything but a fast shrinking niche for MFD.

Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #71 on: September 25, 2012, 12:24:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred,
I'm still saying the Aptus 12 has more dynamic range than the D800E. You can pull whatever chart you want from DXO but you won't convince me until you can show me side by side images you took yourself or tests you did yourself under a scientific regimen.       The D800e is a remarkable camera but then so is  the AFi-ii 12.      Maybe your point of view is that for advertising or celebrity portrait you don't need anything more since the images are just used for web, magazines and small print, but don't forget there are a lot of people out there shooting art reproduction, fine art, and other jobs that require much higher IQ.  And then there's just the different look MF cameras have compared to DSLRs.  Did you read the comments left by users who had both? They were not saying the D800 was better, maybe more convenient or sufficient, but not better.

Last year it was the Nikon d3x that everyone who didn't know better was saying how it had surpassed the MFDB.  It's just silly... every year both formats improve.  When the next generation of DSLR's come out there will also be new MFDB backs that have improved too.     I happen to think my AFi has better ergonomics than any of the DSLR's I've used plus a way better viewfinder.  You should try one.  Next time you are in SF I'll give you a test drive.
Logged

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

Posts: 1651


« Reply #72 on: September 25, 2012, 01:37:34 AM »
ReplyReply

When the next generation of DSLR's come out there will also be new MFDB backs that have improved too.

The point that I was making is that 35mm is improving at a faster pace. Looking at past improvements
of MF and 35mm it is likely that 35mm will catch up in all areas other than sensor area.

If this were not the case. WHY DON'T THE MF manufacturers that are losing market share not post
side by side comparisons, both online and downloadable.
 
WHY don't they encourage the magazines where they advertise to do these tests?

The reason is quite simple. The difference is very subtle.... and may soon be gone all together.

You quote people that have both. (I had both and used both).... well here is an interesting test done
by the owner of an IQ180:

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/

Quote
At 3020 inches, you can see subtle but clear differences between the IQ180 and the D800E. Not all of them weighted in favour of the medium format camera, though. For instance, the D800E produced much more pleasing shadow areas on the prints of the photographs produced to test dynamic range.

Both lab tests and field tests seem to confirm the same thing.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #73 on: September 25, 2012, 01:51:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe your point of view is that for advertising or celebrity portrait you don't need anything more since the images are just used for web, magazines and small print, but don't forget there are a lot of people out there shooting art reproduction, fine art, and other jobs that require much higher IQ.

I can assure you that dynamic range is far more important when shooting fashion and portrait on location compared to art reproduction in controlled lighting.

My wife is a fine artist. She paints both oils as well as miniature paintings done with tiny brushes (some with only 2 or 4 hairs) and magnifying glasses.
I use a spot meter as well as a print calibration tools to determine exposures.
I can assure you that there is a much higher lighting ratio when shooting a black actor in a bright white dress under the sun in California
than reproducing a painting.

That said the higher tonal range of an IQ180 will reproduce color in paintings better.... but not by leaps and bounds.

If dynamic range were so important in art repro people would be taking multiple close exposures and doing HDR.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 01:58:01 AM by FredBGG » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #74 on: September 25, 2012, 02:04:50 AM »
ReplyReply



PS: ( and the sky/clouds dont have any editing, masks or degrade ND filters...Just pure high dynamic range capture of the sensor)

 



It is very clear from this photo that it is exposed more in favor of the highlights. Just look at the total lack of detail in the ladies black pants.

Pure high dynamic range would produce more detail in the shadows and blacks.

Also the clouds are not particularly bright, and not the brightest parts of the scene, so easily within normal dynamic range performance.
If you look closely the woman's tops have areas that are brighter. So the clouds are not "pure dynamic range"...
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 02:28:59 AM by FredBGG » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #75 on: September 25, 2012, 02:16:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi, i use 35mm Canon 5D mark 2, and Hassy H3D.

......And every time i tried to explain the "Myth of the magic MFD" its so hard...and the way this CCD sensors capture the light and the color its so different from my canon, for me the 35mm its my work horse, but now its feel me "more digital..." .......

The Canon 5D mark 2 is and was hardly a high IQ camera. Of all the cameras I have owned the 5D mark II was the least I ever used.
I ended up using it more for video. I preferred the skin tones at base ISO from my 1Ds. The 5D mark II was problematic with hot lights
if I did not use an IR UV block filter. There is also more junk in the blue channel with the 5D II as well as the 5d mark III.

Look at this comparison of the blue channel between the d800 and 5D III



Look at almost twice the junk in the blue channel isolated here.

« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 02:30:08 AM by FredBGG » Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #76 on: September 25, 2012, 02:44:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred,
"there is a much higher lighting ratio when shooting a black actor in a bright white dress under the sun in California"
That's probably true but the color tonality and accuracy are way more important in art repro.  The DSLR's just don't pick up the subtle things that MFDB get. 

Just out of curiosity which digital backs have you used extensively?  I'm still struggling to understand how you can have such a different idea.  I mean the internet is a wonderful tool for self validation - if you go look for proof you will find it whatever you wanted to prove. That's why I test myself.   I take all your information on the fuji or shooting people without argument because I know it comes from your own experience, however I wonder if you are basing your ideas on these cameras on some older digital back like the phase p25+ or something?  How many generations old are those?    I currently shoot with an Aptus-ii 12R (AFi mount) and also a hasselblad CF 528 multishot / microstep back.  The CF 528 is an older back probably from 2006 or something but it still can produce a file that is very impressive in multishot mode.   I think the DR of the 528 at base ISO is 1-2 stops more than anything else I have ever seen.    I also have an RZ ii which I can use either back on and a bunch of LF film cameras.

I think the MFDB makes will keep innovating and what I think might wipe them out is not DSLR's but maybe stuff like the RED or Black Magic more because that's the way the industry is going than from image quality.  We'll probably see CMOS MFDB's at some point and have video and live view.

Logged

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

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #77 on: September 25, 2012, 02:59:03 AM »
ReplyReply

@ Fred,

Your are a very fine photographer and I very much admire your work. However it seems in somewhat repeat your posts contain incorrect information, works by others, and argue of dslr over mfdb. It begs to puzzle...

The point that I was making is that 35mm is improving at a faster pace. Looking at past improvements
of MF and 35mm it is likely that 35mm will catch up in all areas other than sensor area.

Above is very incorrect to say the least. Here;

Aug 1998 LEAF showed their 6MP Volare
Jun 1999 NIKON announced their 2.7MP D1

What has changed?
D800E was announced same long after Aptus-II 12 Huh
Leaf; 36x24 sensor -> 645 80MP
Nikon; 24x17 sensor -> 36x24 36MP

Interesting to note from above is
D1/Volare = 2.7/6 = 45%
D800E/Aptus-II 12 = 36/80 = 45%

= NO CHANGE

Life goes on...

You quote people that have both. (I had both and used both).... well here is an interesting test done
by the owner of an IQ180:

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/

Both lab tests and field tests seem to confirm the same thing.

In frankness I did not bother to read that article because the costant debate is tiring. The images in the article however bear already witness of what seems two gents having done the test and not taken time to wait out a photogrphic light, and much worse appear to not have processed the images to get the very most out of the files. The images mere have a look of having been opened at defaults... Thus I fail to comprehend what solid conclusions they could draw and I fail to see that the comparison has any value. Result is that they seem to miss what extra MFDB brings and are simply better off with a DSLR. Then what is that comparison compared to the posts above by folks who use both D800 and MFDBs for making real imagery and assumably to push the files to get there??

I believe it is simple, a D800 and MFDB are tools. For someone who find need and/or can make use of MFDB then it is worthwhile, else it is not. In that respect it seems nothing has changed since film days...

All respect.

Best regards,
Anders
Logged
Isak Bergwall
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #78 on: September 25, 2012, 03:01:05 AM »
ReplyReply

People talk a lot of ergonomics and handling and how great it is on the D800..But nobody seem to mention that those parts have gotten worse compared to the D700. The hand grip is much smaller on the D800 than the D700 and if you have slightly bigger hands or just like to hold your camera firmly it feels really uncomfortable with that deep small grip that you can't rest your hand easily on like you could on the D700. Also the viewfinder is a joke as it is with most Dslr's. And that is important if you do not use live view for all your shots.. This is of course a personal opinion..

I do not understand why the cameras are getting smaller and smaller for every new iteration.. is portability more important that ergonomics these days?
Logged
Isak Bergwall
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #79 on: September 25, 2012, 03:06:07 AM »
ReplyReply

And another thing..

When it comes to evolution of products and that DSLRs are so much better..

Just look at the interfaces and displays on a D800, and a high end MFDB with touchscreen that are on pair with the Nikon Retina display and good menus and handling in opposite to d800 with 20 small buttons and rooted menus that goes deeper than the dwarf caves of LOTR..

On that level MFDS of today is so much more advanced than the current DSLR..

Also cleaning of a MFDB sensor seems much easier than cleaning a DSLR sensor, and that is a big plus for one that is out in the field and doing their work.. (The dust removal function on the D700 was a joke).
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad