Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Test shots to compare the D800E, 6x7 scan, digital 645?  (Read 4536 times)
snakyjake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« on: December 19, 2012, 04:33:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Seeking someone who has test shots to compare the Nikon D800E w/ prime lens, 6x7 scanned film using Imacom (and future Plustek Opticfilm 120), and digital 645.

I don't photoshoot to make money, but do it for art.  This means I'm picky, have the time to get it the way I want, but don't have a large budget ($10K max, more comfortable with $5K).  The scenes I capture are special to me, which is why I preferred MF to 35mm 10 years ago.

Since the film processing/print labs no longer locally exist like they used to, and technology has advanced over the past 10 years, it is time re-evaluate my equipment and investment.  Whatever I decide is going to cost me good money, so I'm ready to re-evalute my total investment and perhaps move to a different platform.

   Have a medium format film (Mamiya 7II and Mamiya RB67) setup. 
   I photoshoot landscapes with buildings or old objects in the photo, but nothing that requires tilt/shift.
   Demand dynamic range, contrast, and resolution at every corner.  I don't like seeing grain or noise, or edge blurriness.
   I like my photos to either make you feel like you're there at the scene.

I've spent two weeks searching and reading the web on the subject.  From I've gathered so far:

   Nikon D800E receiving a lot of praise.  But I'm concerned the lenses lose focus at the edge.  Also concerned about depth of field or losing shadow detail.
   Seen some results of very high end medium format digital backs.  Way too expensive for me.
   Digital 645 I'm more curious about.  But I'm not sure how it compares to the other options.  Not sure of the differences between Pentax, Mamiya, Hasselblad.  I dont need anything fancy or fully automated (Im used to mechanical cameras).  Prefer awesome landscape/scene lenses, solid and durable construction.
   Since I already have MF film camera, scanning seemed like a logical choice.  But Im hearing that scanning film has its own set of negatives, though not exactly sure what they are.  Probably cant afford an Imacom, so Im considering either Plustek Opticfilm 120 (depending on reviews), or outsourcing my negatives for scanning (which is expensive too).

So either  way, Im looking at spending money and time.  Im at a fork in the road, and need to decide which new road to take.  Hoping for a road that doesnt leave me down a dead end or having to re-invest another $5-10K 5 years from now (though this may be the reality).

Thank you,
Jake
Logged
Ian99
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2012, 09:34:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Jake, I have a RZ67 system plus DSLRs. An Imacon will cost $5-10K. IMO a better route is the Nikon 9000ED scanner, which I just happen to have on sale right now!!
Check the For Sale pages or send me an email.
Ian99
Logged
Michael Nelson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2012, 10:23:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Jake,

Another option which has worked well for me (YMMV)...If you are located in the US

All of my commercial work is digital. I rent the cameras as needed. However, for all my photography, I still shoot my RZ. 4x5 & 35mm film cameras. I send the C-41 to http://phototechlabs.com/ for processing and reference scans. GREAT processing and terrific reference scans. I then send the one or two images (keepers) to be drum scanned here: http://www.eigerstudios.com/.

For years I've been scanning on my flatbed scanner and am quite good at it. However, I'm limited by the hardware, time it takes and my skill level (I'm good just not great at it). I'd rather be photographing than scanning.

For me the difference in scans between a skilled/experienced drum scanner and my flatbed is enormous. Lenny is just terrific.

I've had great success with USPS Priority Mail (so far...). It's fast and cheap to ship, if in the US.

No, it's not instant like digital, however, film is not digital, and a CCD/LED scanner is not the same as a drum scan by an experienced tech.

This method has been working for me, being able to fondly use my existing film cameras/lens.

Food for thought...
Logged

Michael Nelson
www.michaelnelson.com
snakyjake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2012, 02:57:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael,

How would you compare large prints from your digital (something like MF645 40MP) vs. 6x7 film drum scanned?  Also curious how a MF 40MP compares to Nikon's D800E.

The way I'm seeing it:

* Keep my 6x7 and drum scan.
* But if D800E is as good as a drum scan, then just buy the D800E.
* If MF 645 with 20 or 40 mega pixels is better than drum and the D800E, I'll set a goal to save up for it.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7915


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2012, 03:22:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Check this: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

Or my own articles:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

Best regards
Erik
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2012, 03:57:18 PM »
ReplyReply

If you are used to MF film and not into 135 format film, then you must expect to find things very different using a small camera, tiny viewfinder etc. etc. and I don't think that you'd find it a better experience at all.

I used both formats all my working life, and am in the FF digital (Nikon) world right now. I know this: I have often wished that I still owned my old 500 Series 'blads. Why? Because small cameras were and still are very convenient for shooting model pix, but for anything else, I would really prefer the slower, far more studied approach that MF forces upon you. Of course you can shoot 135 format slowly; trouble is you never do. Or at least, I can't.

If your interest is in b/white, you can process your own stuf at home quite easily. If you like colour, then continue as you're doing and send off to a lab you trust. I have an idea that they have reached a critical mass, where those that survived so far now have all of the market to themselves and might find that good enough for future existence; maybe the film-making people will feel the same. Either way, I don't think there's a need for a rush to jump right now.

Rob C
Logged

WIFoto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2012, 10:04:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Jake,
I sent you a PM

Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2012, 11:35:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Take a look at this test:

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



Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2012, 11:37:44 PM »
ReplyReply

   Digital 645 I'm more curious about.  But I'm not sure how it compares to the other options.  Not sure of the differences between Pentax, Mamiya, Hasselblad.  I dont need anything fancy or fully automated (Im used to mechanical cameras).  Prefer awesome
Jake


Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2012, 11:41:37 PM »
ReplyReply

   Digital 645 I'm more curious about.  But I'm not sure how it compares to the other options.  Not sure of the differences between Pentax, Mamiya, Hasselblad.  I dont need anything fancy or fully automated (Im used to mechanical cameras).  Prefer awesome
Jake


The Pentax 645D while being the least expensive is very well weather sealed for water and dust. Neithe Mamiya or Hasselblad are weather sealed. Same goes for the lenses.

http://youtu.be/7wPD1wRpels

Also the Pentax has two card slots so you have either redundancy (images saved once on each card) or twice the storage capacity.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2012, 11:52:50 PM »
ReplyReply

D800E vs Hasselblad

Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2012, 11:57:30 PM »
ReplyReply

If you need some help in choosing your lenses got here for test charts with center, middle and corner crops at all apertures

http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=750&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=708&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

Logged
Dennishh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2012, 10:32:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for doing the comparison! Did you happen to shoot a series that f5.6? Seems like some diffraction is starting to happen with the Nikon at F11 would be interesting to see the two at f5.6  or f8
Logged
snakyjake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2012, 06:45:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Still difficult to find a landscape comparison between the D800E, 6x7 scanned film, and digital 645.  From the sites below it does appear the D800E does extremely well for studio. 

I still want to see landscapes, testing of the edge of lens to see if the lens quality and the senor are high quality.  Scanned film show a lot of noise.  The IQ180 is amazing, so is the price.

To me it looks like the only competition the D800E gets is from a $48K PhaseOne IQ180.

Here's some good sites:
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html
http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180
http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format

Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7915


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2012, 12:46:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Check this: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2012/10/six-months-of-the-d800-two-photographers-reflect

My own experience is more like 24MP is mostly preferable to 67 film, unless you have a foible for film or you are excellent at scanning.

Film is said to have a special look, depending on which film, of course.


BTW: Michael made one of the first Digital to 67 comparisons here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml , still worth reading!
Best regards
Erik



Still difficult to find a landscape comparison between the D800E, 6x7 scanned film, and digital 645.  From the sites below it does appear the D800E does extremely well for studio.  

I still want to see landscapes, testing of the edge of lens to see if the lens quality and the senor are high quality.  Scanned film show a lot of noise.  The IQ180 is amazing, so is the price.

To me it looks like the only competition the D800E gets is from a $48K PhaseOne IQ180.

Here's some good sites:
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html
http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180
http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format


« Last Edit: December 24, 2012, 12:59:27 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8360



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 24, 2012, 09:06:07 AM »
ReplyReply

BTW: Michael made one of the first Digital to 67 comparisons here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml , still worth reading!

Thanks for reminding us of that article.

It is pretty fascinating to realize that most top APS cameras, if not 4/3, today are clearly superior to the 1ds in all aspects.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Go Go
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2012, 10:04:56 AM »
ReplyReply

For all things related to analog photography you might want to check out apug.org!

A great resource!
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad