After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forums \| Pro Digital Corner \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 end

Archive 2012 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

zyberk
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

I'm a practical person or at least that the way I see myself :- )…….so I have to ask a serious and practical question.
Why would I, or anyone else, need 36 MP camera if most of the people who own printers, and they are small minority, don't print bigger than 13".
Is it to look at a small fragment of the picture on the monitor and get ecstatic about the resolution, it is about ego or there is something else that I'm missing?
If I were a super perfectionist then I would consider MF camera, but even then I'm not sure I would discern the differences between prints from a good 12-24 MP camera and MF . I must confess that I don't print regularly bigger than 13x19 and seldom 16x20 since my budget for framing is limited as well as space on the walls.

Can anyone, who actually used and compared results from D800 vs. MF camera advise?
Many thanks in advance.

Apr 07, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Dennis H.
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

Believe it or not myself and several other people can pick out the D800 print against my D3 print even at 8X10, there is more DR and one heck of a lot more detail. I normally print 16X20, but yes you can see the difference even in a small print.
I don’t have a medium format camera to compare, but I am sure the medium format would be better.
Dennis

Apr 10, 2012 at 09:47 PM

chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

Apr 10, 2012 at 10:41 PM

timpdx
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

While I don't own a printer bigger than 17 x 22" but I sure do print bigger than that for work.

I also have a collection of Canon glass, too, and that is probably not going to stop me from jumping over to a D800/e.

I can only compare to scanned MF, which is a thing of beauty, but I have looked over the D800 RAWs posted around the web, and count me impressed. Used to shoot Mamiya MF. Only a drum scanned MF film chrome is going to beat the D800 and that difference is not going to be that big. D800 seems to easily exceed the Imacon or Nikon 8000ED scans I have personally done over the years.

as for how it stacks up against the latest Phase Ones, I don't know

Apr 10, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Mark_L
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

zyberk wrote:
I'm a practical person or at least that the way I see myself :- )…….so I have to ask a serious and practical question.
Why would I, or anyone else, need 36 MP camera if most of the people who own printers, and they are small minority, don't print bigger than 13".
Is it to look at a small fragment of the picture on the monitor and get ecstatic about the resolution, it is about ego or there is something else that I'm missing?
If I were a super perfectionist then I would consider MF camera, but even then I'm not sure I would discern the differences between prints from a good 12-24 MP camera and MF . I must confess that I don't print regularly bigger than 13x19 and seldom 16x20 since my budget for framing is limited as well as space on the walls.

Can anyone, who actually used and compared results from D800 vs. MF camera advise?
Many thanks in advance.

A lot of it is 'insurance' for me, my best photographs will stay with me forever and who knows what I will do with them in the future? Maybe one day I get loads of print sales, maybe one day I want to hang it on a wall and print it big, maybe one day it's a billboard. The point is, no one knows what will happen in the future and when that extra res might be needed and I can't just go back and reshoot it. I'd rather shoot and get the best capture possible in the first instance, HD space will only get cheaper.

For me, MF film is vastly overrated. I went from all 6x7 to a D700 and while one frame of my D700 won't outdo 6x7 but 3 frames stitched will. I have seen many landscape exhibitions where a few entries have been on drum scanned 6x7 and really the large prints were not much to shout about, maybe at magnifying glass level there was more detail but it mostly hidden in a load of grain while the digital files were very clean, the only film prints that really shone were 4x5.

It depends how critical you are, I know lots of people that make huge prints from small files and say they are fine, I can see degradation in print from my D700 as soon as they are interpolated up and find most exhibitions grossly over-enlarge. The max I would ever print 6x7 was 20x16" (7x enlargement) or the prints would start to get obviously worse and usually I'd stick to 16x12". Most of my landscapes are from 9-12 D700 frames stitched together because it doesn't have the resolution so I welcome 36MP.

Apr 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM

RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

Why would I, or anyone else, need 36 MP camera if most of the people who own printers, and they are small minority, don't print bigger than 13".

You rather answered your own question by acknowledging that there are people who do print larger. Clearly, the 36mp camera is for them, not you, even if they are a minority.

If I were a super perfectionist then I would consider MF camera, but even then I'm not sure I would discern the differences between prints from a good 12-24 MP camera and MF . I must confess that I don't print regularly bigger than 13x19 and seldom 16x20 since my budget for framing is limited as well as space on the walls.

You may be printing too many pictures (a matter of selectivity). Wherever I display images, whether on my own wall or in a web gallery, or one of my portfolios, or the couple of places I have public displays, I'm always removing old work whenever I create a superior example. Space is always finite, so it's always a matter of displaying what is best at any point it time.

I can see degradation in print from my D700 as soon as they are interpolated up

Yes, a good eye can tell the difference as soon as interpolation begins, but if two comparison images are displayed small enough that neither has been interpolated, it's difficult to tell the difference. Actually, the same was true of film, too. A 35mm contact print looked as good as an 8x10 contact print...it was just whole lot smaller. But the moment you enlarged the 35mm a bit, you could tell the difference even in small prints.

Whether it's acceptable enough has a lot to do with the subject matter--there are viewer expectations of detail for some subjects that doesn't exist for other subjects. And some people who have not experienced the amazing subtle surface tonality of prints from larger formats simply don't yet know what "good" is.

Apr 11, 2012 at 01:46 PM

Brit-007
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

I was at a store the weekend looking at Medium Format. They had a couple of test prints at around 2'x3'. One was from a 1Ds2 which was a very nice print. The other was from a Phase 6MP back, around 15 years old and the image just popped. Perhaps too much detail for the average user but you could actually pick out the detail in the clothing to the point it looked real.

With medium format the files are 16 bit, there is no filter to reduce the sharpness. Just the colour graduation of the skin tones is superb. I am seriously doing all I can to fund a new system. They can be had for around $10k for a complete kit. I am aslo trying to decide between new and just getting a back for my RB.

Apr 11, 2012 at 07:17 PM

RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

Apr 11, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Brit-007
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

Not a true medium format in my mind. Did not see any reference to a changable back. I have had a quote for a new 645D with a discount for trading in an RB67 with the outfit for $8500. I would then have to purchase a wide angle and a portrait lens which would add some money. I am srtill thinking of just getting the adaptor for the RB and getting a secondhand back for about $6500.

Apr 11, 2012 at 11:10 PM

KURTZ
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

Brit-007 wrote:
I was at a store the weekend looking at Medium Format. They had a couple of test prints at around 2'x3'. One was from a 1Ds2 which was a very nice print. The other was from a Phase 6MP back, around 15 years old and the image just popped. Perhaps too much detail for the average user but you could actually pick out the detail in the clothing to the point it looked real.

With medium format the files are 16 bit, there is no filter to reduce the sharpness. Just the colour graduation of the skin tones is superb. I am seriously doing all I can to fund a new system. They can be had for around $10k for a complete kit. I am aslo trying to decide between new and just getting a back for my RB.

Why would you need it? Is this the "pro section"? Most of would be Professional Photographers selling to agencies or clients as I do, I would think and not printing for our walls. It's the file that sells, not the print. Like the quote above points out, 36MP from a small sensor with or without the AA filter will never be good enough, maybe for sports... After be a Creative in agency life for 15 years and then going behind the lens, I will say that based on those years that the files coming from the new camera from Nikon will not wow many clients. I look at those new files and compare them to my 1Ds MKIII and am not impressed. Until something changes on the in-camera processing plus sensor technology, the 16-22 MP is sweet spot for a DSLR.

16 bit wins, hands down. Why Canon Nikon have not confronted this keeps then out of pro studios, I mean pro, as in studios 500K plus a year. Where fortune 500, ad agency infiltraition happens.

I shoot most of my work with my Phase One 645AF and P40+ DB. I have owned and used extensively the the Hasselblad 16MP and Mamiya 22MP backs, and can say that they are the sweet spot for MFD with the older lenses. With my P1 & P40+, I need the new digital lenses that are optimized for these new backs to get the "WOW" factor. Nikon will need to design new lenses and processors to handle this new chip, but I do not see that happening, they should have been rolled out at the same time.

My question is, why would really get hysterical about this anyway? I guess people get excited about new table saws as well, craziness abounds.

Cheers,
Johnny Kurtz

www.johnnykurtz.com

Apr 11, 2012 at 11:14 PM

RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

Brit-007 wrote:
Not a true medium format in my mind. Did not see any reference to a changable back. I have had a quote for a new 645D with a discount for trading in an RB67 with the outfit for $8500. I would then have to purchase a wide angle and a portrait lens which would add some money. I am srtill thinking of just getting the adaptor for the RB and getting a secondhand back for about $6500.

I held on to my RZ67 cameras for a long time in the hopes of there someday being a true 6x7 back so that my excellent 50mm UDL lens would still be fully useful. Alas, I saw that would never happen.

The sensors in the backs for RB/RZ cameras are no larger than that on the Pentax, which means you're using a "crop format" with the Mamiya lenses. If you want to shoot film, you can still pick up used Pentax 645 bodies that use the same lenses.

Apr 12, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Beni
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

KURTZ wrote:
Brit-007 wrote:
I was at a store the weekend looking at Medium Format. They had a couple of test prints at around 2'x3'. One was from a 1Ds2 which was a very nice print. The other was from a Phase 6MP back, around 15 years old and the image just popped. Perhaps too much detail for the average user but you could actually pick out the detail in the clothing to the point it looked real.

With medium format the files are 16 bit, there is no filter to reduce the sharpness. Just the colour graduation of the skin tones is superb. I am seriously doing all I can to fund a new system. They can be had for around $10k for a complete kit. I am aslo trying to decide between new and just getting a back for my RB.

Why would you need it? Is this the "pro section"? Most of would be Professional Photographers selling to agencies or clients as I do, I would think and not printing for our walls. It's the file that sells, not the print. Like the quote above points out, 36MP from a small sensor with or without the AA filter will never be good enough, maybe for sports... After be a Creative in agency life for 15 years and then going behind the lens, I will say that based on those years that the files coming from the new camera from Nikon will not wow many clients. I look at those new files and compare them to my 1Ds MKIII and am not impressed. Until something changes on the in-camera processing plus sensor technology, the 16-22 MP is sweet spot for a DSLR.

16 bit wins, hands down. Why Canon Nikon have not confronted this keeps then out of pro studios, I mean pro, as in studios 500K plus a year. Where fortune 500, ad agency infiltraition happens.

I shoot most of my work with my Phase One 645AF and P40+ DB. I have owned and used extensively the the Hasselblad 16MP and Mamiya 22MP backs, and can say that they are the sweet spot for MFD with the older lenses. With my P1 & P40+, I need the new digital lenses that are optimized for these new backs to get the "WOW" factor. Nikon will need to design new lenses and processors to handle this new chip, but I do not see that happening, they should have been rolled out at the same time.

My question is, why would really get hysterical about this anyway? I guess people get excited about new table saws as well, craziness abounds.

Cheers,
Johnny Kurtz

www.johnnykurtz.com

MFDB's are not 16 bit either despite the advertising hype.

Apr 12, 2012 at 10:45 AM

KURTZ
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

Mine is, half way down the page. Also PS, Lightroom and Capture One all disagree with you. They all read my RAW files as 16 bit. http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/P-Series/P-Specifications.aspx

Apr 12, 2012 at 02:22 PM

zyberk
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

Thanks everyone for replies.
I posted after reading D800 "expert reviews" resulting from literally few hrs. of playing with a new and very complex technology and "opinions" of many who only heard about the camera. Hence the title of my post and questions.

Most people do not sell to agencies, hang exhibitions and majority don't even own an inkjet sprinkler to produce a print (ordering prints at Costco is not the same). Majority don't even have quality calibrated monitors or colour space aware browsers to view the "irrefutable evidence" of a product superiority based on 500 pixel image. Yet it allows them to declare which product is either "trashing", "burying" or at least "not coming even close" to the other : -). The main discussion are limited to sharpness and more recently DR based on some published numbers.

Similar nonsense regards the lens quality quarrels where some "proud owners" (gotta love the expression - "a proud owner"), claim "superior µcontrast", "3D look" produced by a certain brands or at least claim a "unique rendering".

All this is taking place as if the latest product was the last and the best forever : -)
Is this infantilism, immaturity or power of advertising?
It looks that sheeple will believe any BS on stilts if it comes to them from the media and is frequently parroted by others. The unfortunate truth is that one can buy tools, but not talent and skills.

Apr 12, 2012 at 03:09 PM

KURTZ
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

Very well said.

Apr 12, 2012 at 03:15 PM

chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

zyberk wrote:
Thanks everyone for replies.
I posted after reading D800 "expert reviews" resulting from literally few hrs. of playing with a new and very complex technology and "opinions" of many who only heard about the camera. Hence the title of my post and questions.

Most people do not sell to agencies, hang exhibitions and majority don't even own an inkjet sprinkler to produce a print (ordering prints at Costco is not the same). Majority don't even have quality calibrated monitors or colour space aware browsers to view the "irrefutable evidence" of a product superiority based on 500 pixel image. Yet it allows them to declare which product is either "trashing", "burying" or at least "not coming even close" to the other : -). The main discussion are limited to sharpness and more recently DR based on some published numbers.

Similar nonsense regards the lens quality quarrels where some "proud owners" (gotta love the expression - "a proud owner"), claim "superior µcontrast", "3D look" produced by a certain brands or at least claim a "unique rendering".

All this is taking place as if the latest product was the last and the best forever : -)
Is this infantilism, immaturity or power of advertising?
It looks that sheeple will believe any BS on stilts if it comes to them from the media and is frequently parroted by others. The unfortunate truth is that one can buy tools, but not talent and skills.

Can I ask a simple question...why does it seem to bother you what others buy and for what reason. If they purchase a brand new D800 to put onto their trophy case...who cares. If they say their D800 will beat your 5D3 with one hand tied behind it's back...who cares. As long as the people who purchase a camera get satisfaction out of the camera...then all is well. Why so critical on other's view of their equipment?

Apr 12, 2012 at 04:59 PM

zyberk
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

Ad: Chez,
Of course you can ask a simple question, although I thought that my msg. was clear.

It doesn't bother me what anyone buys for the "trophy case" or whatever.
What bother me is volume and stupidity of these "discussions" polluting the forum where I'd like to read and learn something new and useful.
BTW, regarding your wrong assumption, I don't own 5D3.

Apr 13, 2012 at 03:28 PM

chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

zyberk wrote:
Ad: Chez,
Of course you can ask a simple question, although I thought that my msg. was clear.

It doesn't bother me what anyone buys for the "trophy case" or whatever.
What bother me is volume and stupidity of these "discussions" polluting the forum where I'd like to read and learn something new and useful.
BTW, regarding your wrong assumption, I don't own 5D3.

Then I'll ask another simple question...why do you return to these "stupid" threads and continue to post in them. In fact, why do you even open up these stupid threads?

Apr 13, 2012 at 09:21 PM

KURTZ
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

Apr 13, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Beni
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics…

KURTZ wrote:
Mine is, half way down the page. Also PS, Lightroom and Capture One all disagree with you. They all read my RAW files as 16 bit. http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/P-Series/P-Specifications.aspx

Nope and neither is my Leaf Aptus-II 8, it's marketing hype, there is barely 14 bits of actual information in the files. You might want to do some reading up on the subject. Here's an interesting thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60672.0

Apr 14, 2012 at 09:01 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Pro Digital Corner \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end