p.3 #1 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file
S Dilworth wrote:
With a good enough lens and a Profoto Giant Reflector, you might be surprised what your camera would do. The crop above isn’t a 100 % crop (neither did mshi claim it to be, but people make assumptions).
I use my Nikon 200 f/2 VR II or Zeiss 100/2 MP for portraits on the D800E and I very much doubt whether it will come close to the above shot by mshi even at ISO 100. I'm not assuming the same is a crop either.
This is a quick shot I took the other day. A snapshot really. D800E, 200 f/2 VR II @ f/2.2. Cropped about 25%.
p.3 #3 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file
mshi wrote:
Here is another crop with the sharpening settings all set to ZERO.
No matter what the settings say, that image has been sharpened. Many camera manufacturers do things to RAW files and the RAW processors to give you a better looking file out of the box, e.g. noise reduction. Let's just say that the '0' is a marketing 0.
p.3 #6 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file
Graham Mitchell wrote:
Just the magnification factor. But most DSLRs have inadequate viewfinders, imo.
Weird...but I still don't get the viewfinder thingy. I look through it, I see the scene I am wishing to compose.....Little bit brighter....little less brighter...eh....not that big a deal.
p.3 #7 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file
Well before I bought my 1Ds, I had only had crop bodies. First thing I noticed about the 1Ds was the viewfinder. Makes a difference, especially when there is no live view or whatnot - especially when using manual focus glass, as I do
p.3 #8 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file
Graham Mitchell wrote:
No camera has ever used 16 bits fully. The least significant bit or two is just noise.
+1 Yep hehe. That might change soon, though, with on-chip DACs and tech like exmor from Sony (well, from IBM I believe but yeah). Apparently the Leica M chip (new one) also uses digital CDS as well. Supposedly. It wouldn't take much more improvement over the D800 chip to make good use of 15 bits. 16-bits nah, but we'll get there at this rate I believe. At this point I think high ISO is so good, I want some deep deep full well capacity and base ISO 50 or so ;-0 More concerned with the Canon side of things. First they came out with 14-bit raw without restrictions on shooting speeds, etc, but then haven't really "grown" into it.
p.3 #9 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file
roman.johnston wrote:
Weird...but I still don't get the viewfinder thingy. I look through it, I see the scene I am wishing to compose.....Little bit brighter....little less brighter...eh....not that big a deal.
Or am I missing something.
Roman
Brightness is one thing, and if you're trying to manually focus in low light you'd appreciate all the brightness your VF could muster. It also makes viewing easier on the eye in general.
We're not just talking brightness though - we are also talking apparent image size. Which viewfinder would you prefer when judging composition and focus accuracy?
It's a no-brainer for most people. Seeing what you're working on is rather important. By the way, I chose to make the image that way because the size difference represents the different apparent image sizes between the worst and best SLR viewfinders ever made that I'm aware of. I'd take the larger one any day. Medium format is significantly larger still, and one of the compelling advantages of the format.
p.3 #10 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file
When you put them side by side....I can of course see the relative difference you are trying to get across. But I have looked through MF, through FF and through DX and never do I say....I wish I could see more. But again...landscape I do not live in the viewfinder, and often find myself only looking quickly as I narrow down my composition....then switch to live view for final tack sharp focus.
So...actually it doesn't matter much to me as long as I can see I have things framed like I want (which I often work out before I ever put my eye up to the viewfinder)
But that is from a landscape shooters perspective. I am guessing if I were a wedding shooter where I lived in the viewfinder....I would probably place more value on it.
p.3 #11 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file
roman.johnston wrote:
When you put them side by side....I can of course see the relative difference you are trying to get across. But I have looked through MF, through FF and through DX and never do I say....I wish I could see more. But again...landscape I do not live in the viewfinder, and often find myself only looking quickly as I narrow down my composition....then switch to live view for final tack sharp focus.
So...actually it doesn't matter much to me as long as I can see I have things framed like I want (which I often work out before I ever put my eye up to the viewfinder)
But that is from a landscape shooters perspective. I am guessing if I were a wedding shooter where I lived in the viewfinder....I would probably place more value on it.
Ok, if you shoot landscape then it makes more sense. If you are shooting people and want to see when the model blinks through the viewfinder, for example, or notice some stray hairs etc, you can never have too much viewfinder size.
Dec 05, 2012 at 10:54 PM
mshi Offline • • • • [X]
p.3 #12 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file
Medium Format doesn't have to cost multiples of a DSLR system. Today, you can buy, for example, an excellent quality used Hassy 503C/M system with lenses for under two grand easily. Adding a digital back for another six to eight grand, you're still under ten grand that a Nikon or Canon system can easily set you back. Quality from MF will speak volume when you do your big C-Prints later.
Check out the French shooter Peerre Gonnord's work, who hasn't UPDATED his hassy since 1980s. But he shoots his hassy with a digital back. I met him in Atlanta last month, what a terrific guy.
p.3 #15 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file
Magnificent! I like them all, particularly #2.
Dec 06, 2012 at 12:33 AM
mshi Offline • • • • [X]
p.3 #16 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file
Here is a behind-the-scene video of the legendary Italian fashion Photographer Paolo Roversi at work. Pay attention to the camera that he is using in vid.
p.3 #17 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file
You could make the argument that the legendary Italian photographer became a legend over time while settling into the 6X6 Hasselblad (and probably that for some but not all his work) in the "Film Days."
With a gaggle of technicians (lighting, camera and film lab) wardrobe, makup and complete control of subject and lighting he doesn't need to go digital. But that doesn't mean that you can't get the same or "better," faster, cheaper results with some kind of a digital set up. As I view the posted shots they are unremarkable technically but certainly creative in wardrobe, posing and fashion concept.
Dec 07, 2012 at 12:31 PM
mshi Offline • • • • [X]
p.3 #18 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file
SoundHound wrote:
You could make the argument that the legendary Italian photographer became a legend over time while settling into the 6X6 Hasselblad (and probably that for some but not all his work) in the "Film Days."
With a gaggle of technicians (lighting, camera and film lab) wardrobe, makup and complete control of subject and lighting he doesn't need to go digital. But that doesn't mean that you can't get the same or "better," faster, cheaper results with some kind of a digital set up. As I view the posted shots they are unremarkable technically but certainly creative in wardrobe, posing and fashion concept....Show more →
Those final images out of the shoot are masterpieces according to my lowly taste though. Paolo Roversi had been famous for shooting 8x10 Polaroid in constant light in film days because only Polaroid could give him the uncontrollable randomness that he has always dreamed to obtain in his images. The video in the above link, however, shows he was shooting digitally tethered with Capture One in constant lighting condition.
p.3 #19 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file
It looks so because of flat light. try it in a studio setting with proper lighting. The difference will be extraordinary.
zesto wrote:
I use my Nikon 200 f/2 VR II or Zeiss 100/2 MP for portraits on the D800E and I very much doubt whether it will come close to the above shot by mshi even at ISO 100. I'm not assuming the same is a crop either.
This is a quick shot I took the other day. A snapshot really. D800E, 200 f/2 VR II @ f/2.2. Cropped about 25%.
