Bye Canon?

[nicku]

They use MF because they destroy anything 35mm can offer for what they do. Period.

Sync speeds, leaf shutters, massive sensor size, exceptional glass, and a sense of seriousness for client PR.

I find it amusing when some compared high MP 35mm to MF, its no comparison at all.

+1

 

[dirtcastle]

There are 1,000x more "pro" photographers than medium format cameras ever made. Very very very few photographers need more than a 22MP image. Plus, at that size, I assume Perfect Resize works brilliantly for upscaled prints. Does Canon even make an MF camera? And we're on the Canon Rumors website, right? Just checking. ;-)

 

[jrista]

They use MF because they destroy anything 35mm can offer for what they do. Period.

Sync speeds, leaf shutters, massive sensor size, exceptional glass, and a sense of seriousness for client PR.

I find it amusing when some compared high MP 35mm to MF, its no comparison at all.

I don't think I really agree with all of that. I think that statement was entirely true five maybe six years ago. There is still a gap, for sure, but the gap is closing. The D800 has demonstrated that from a sensor standpoint, 35mm can approach the pixel counts of MFD. The D800 has also demonstrated that 35mm can far surpass the dynamic range of MFD. Medium Format glass is great, but so is the more expensive 35mm glass, particularly from Canon. The two are at least on par...and I would offer that Canon's latest Mark II superteles have higher resolving power with higher contrast than MF lenses (keep in mind, it is more difficult to correct lens defects and aberrations in lenses for larger formats than for smaller formats).

I can't disagree about leaf shutters, they definitely have some advantages, particularly sync speed. If you are a heavy flash user, which is particularly common in a studio setting, a leaf shutter can be a godsend. There is also no question that MFD cameras have higher pixel counts. Pixel count is frequently the most important factor of IQ...the more pixels on subject you get, the lower the relative noise, the higher the overall detail. In that respect, the need for lenses with similar resolving power to Canon's is somewhat unnecessary, MFD lenses resolve enough detail to support the pixel densities found in medium format sensors, and at the closer distances MFD is usually used for, such as studio photography, there is little contest at the current time (pixel counts currently trump lens resolving power).

That said, pixel counts in 35mm are increasing. It seems Canon is testing 40-50mp FF sensors in their next studio and landscape camera. In the next four to five years, we could see 60mp FF sensors, if not more. There are a few decided advantages to FF that MFD cannot touch: High ISO performance; Advanced high-speed AF systems; frame rate. With hyper-parallel readout technology, it will be possible to read out very high pixel count sensors at high frame rates. (Canon already demonstrated a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate!) When you NEED those things, then the leaf shutters and massive megapixel counts of MFD don't solve your problems. There is no comparing an MFD to a FF DSLR...the DSLR wins hands down every time in the high ISO/high frame rate/AF tracking scenario.

So...I would say it isn't as easy to matter-of-factly state these days that MF is the vastly superior camera, no comparisons. There ARE comparisons, and in many comparisons, 35mm comes out on top. That clearly indicates that MF, while it still certainly enjoys a for-the-moment-untouchable prestige in the studio photography arena, and in many cases the landscape arena, its powerful edge is dulling. In the landscape arena, where MF once reigned supreme, the D800 has REALLY closed the gap. It still lacks in terms of pixel count...one could photograph landscapes at 80mp if they wanted, or even 200mp with hassy's multi-shot mode. The vaunted D800 still can't quite touch that. The dynamic range of the D800 seriously brings into question the benefit of MF for the average landscape photographer, however. The studio prestige you acquire with your customers when you haul out the MFD doesn't exist for landscape photography...people care about the scene, not the equipment used.

To my knowledge, all medium format sensors still have a lot of read noise...similar to Canon's at low ISO. It will be interesting to see if medium format cameras move up from 11-12 stops to 14, or even 16 in the few cases where medium format offers 16-bit conversion (I believe Leaf has a couple 16-bit backs), with new advancements in sensor technology. Their key edge was pixel counts...with greater sensor area, they can pack more in, at similar pixel densities as smaller formats. There doesn't seem to have been much innovation on other fronts for MF sensor tech. If they do solve read noise problems and move up to ~15-16 stops of DR, MFD might survive the onslaught of DSLR innovation for another generation or two, assuming the DSLR market doesn't also move to 16-bit as well.

MFD is not the unassailable ivory tower it once was. There ARE comparisons, and the gaps ARE closing. Competition for the studio space will heat up in the coming years, and the MFD market won't be able to solely rely on "prestige" forever.

 

[RLPhoto]

They use MF because they destroy anything 35mm can offer for what they do. Period.

Sync speeds, leaf shutters, massive sensor size, exceptional glass, and a sense of seriousness for client PR.

I find it amusing when some compared high MP 35mm to MF, its no comparison at all.

I don't think I really agree with all of that. I think that statement was entirely true five maybe six years ago. There is still a gap, for sure, but the gap is closing. The D800 has demonstrated that from a sensor standpoint, 35mm can approach the pixel counts of MFD. The D800 has also demonstrated that 35mm can far surpass the dynamic range of MFD. Medium Format glass is great, but so is the more expensive 35mm glass, particularly from Canon. The two are at least on par...and I would offer that Canon's latest Mark II superteles have higher resolving power with higher contrast than MF lenses (keep in mind, it is more difficult to correct lens defects and aberrations in lenses for larger formats than for smaller formats).

I can't disagree about leaf shutters, they definitely have some advantages, particularly sync speed. If you are a heavy flash user, which is particularly common in a studio setting, a leaf shutter can be a godsend. There is also no question that MFD cameras have higher pixel counts. Pixel count is frequently the most important factor of IQ...the more pixels on subject you get, the lower the relative noise, the higher the overall detail. In that respect, the need for lenses with similar resolving power to Canon's is somewhat unnecessary, MFD lenses resolve enough detail to support the pixel densities found in medium format sensors, and at the closer distances MFD is usually used for, such as studio photography, there is little contest at the current time (pixel counts currently trump lens resolving power).

That said, pixel counts in 35mm are increasing. It seems Canon is testing 40-50mp FF sensors in their next studio and landscape camera. In the next four to five years, we could see 60mp FF sensors, if not more. There are a few decided advantages to FF that MFD cannot touch: High ISO performance; Advanced high-speed AF systems; frame rate. With hyper-parallel readout technology, it will be possible to read out very high pixel count sensors at high frame rates. (Canon already demonstrated a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate!) When you NEED those things, then the leaf shutters and massive megapixel counts of MFD don't solve your problems. There is no comparing an MFD to a FF DSLR...the DSLR wins hands down every time in the high ISO/high frame rate/AF tracking scenario.

So...I would say it isn't as easy to matter-of-factly state these days that MF is the vastly superior camera, no comparisons. There ARE comparisons, and in many comparisons, 35mm comes out on top. That clearly indicates that MF, while it still certainly enjoys a for-the-moment-untouchable prestige in the studio photography arena, and in many cases the landscape arena, its powerful edge is dulling. In the landscape arena, where MF once reigned supreme, the D800 has REALLY closed the gap. It still lacks in terms of pixel count...one could photograph landscapes at 80mp if they wanted, or even 200mp with hassy's multi-shot mode. The vaunted D800 still can't quite touch that. The dynamic range of the D800 seriously brings into question the benefit of MF for the average landscape photographer, however. The studio prestige you acquire with your customers when you haul out the MFD doesn't exist for landscape photography...people care about the scene, not the equipment used.

To my knowledge, all medium format sensors still have a lot of read noise...similar to Canon's at low ISO. It will be interesting to see if medium format cameras move up from 11-12 stops to 14, or even 16 in the few cases where medium format offers 16-bit conversion (I believe Leaf has a couple 16-bit backs), with new advancements in sensor technology. Their key edge was pixel counts...with greater sensor area, they can pack more in, at similar pixel densities as smaller formats. There doesn't seem to have been much innovation on other fronts for MF sensor tech. If they do solve read noise problems and move up to ~15-16 stops of DR, MFD might survive the onslaught of DSLR innovation for another generation or two, assuming the DSLR market doesn't also move to 16-bit as well.

MFD is not the unassailable ivory tower it once was. There ARE comparisons, and the gaps ARE closing. Competition for the studio space will heat up in the coming years, and the MFD market won't be able to solely rely on "prestige" forever.

What ever 35mm can do for studio, fashion or landscape, MF or LF will always do better. The best 35mm can offer is d800, the best MF can offer is IQ180 from phase one. Not even close and it will always be that way.

Don't forget that MF will innovate to keep ahead of 35mm as well. The next batch of MF cams could be 18 stop monsters with 120+ MP! Where is that measly 35mm camera now?

 

[jrista]

They use MF because they destroy anything 35mm can offer for what they do. Period.

Sync speeds, leaf shutters, massive sensor size, exceptional glass, and a sense of seriousness for client PR.

I find it amusing when some compared high MP 35mm to MF, its no comparison at all.

I don't think I really agree with all of that. I think that statement was entirely true five maybe six years ago. There is still a gap, for sure, but the gap is closing. The D800 has demonstrated that from a sensor standpoint, 35mm can approach the pixel counts of MFD. The D800 has also demonstrated that 35mm can far surpass the dynamic range of MFD. Medium Format glass is great, but so is the more expensive 35mm glass, particularly from Canon. The two are at least on par...and I would offer that Canon's latest Mark II superteles have higher resolving power with higher contrast than MF lenses (keep in mind, it is more difficult to correct lens defects and aberrations in lenses for larger formats than for smaller formats).

I can't disagree about leaf shutters, they definitely have some advantages, particularly sync speed. If you are a heavy flash user, which is particularly common in a studio setting, a leaf shutter can be a godsend. There is also no question that MFD cameras have higher pixel counts. Pixel count is frequently the most important factor of IQ...the more pixels on subject you get, the lower the relative noise, the higher the overall detail. In that respect, the need for lenses with similar resolving power to Canon's is somewhat unnecessary, MFD lenses resolve enough detail to support the pixel densities found in medium format sensors, and at the closer distances MFD is usually used for, such as studio photography, there is little contest at the current time (pixel counts currently trump lens resolving power).

That said, pixel counts in 35mm are increasing. It seems Canon is testing 40-50mp FF sensors in their next studio and landscape camera. In the next four to five years, we could see 60mp FF sensors, if not more. There are a few decided advantages to FF that MFD cannot touch: High ISO performance; Advanced high-speed AF systems; frame rate. With hyper-parallel readout technology, it will be possible to read out very high pixel count sensors at high frame rates. (Canon already demonstrated a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate!) When you NEED those things, then the leaf shutters and massive megapixel counts of MFD don't solve your problems. There is no comparing an MFD to a FF DSLR...the DSLR wins hands down every time in the high ISO/high frame rate/AF tracking scenario.

So...I would say it isn't as easy to matter-of-factly state these days that MF is the vastly superior camera, no comparisons. There ARE comparisons, and in many comparisons, 35mm comes out on top. That clearly indicates that MF, while it still certainly enjoys a for-the-moment-untouchable prestige in the studio photography arena, and in many cases the landscape arena, its powerful edge is dulling. In the landscape arena, where MF once reigned supreme, the D800 has REALLY closed the gap. It still lacks in terms of pixel count...one could photograph landscapes at 80mp if they wanted, or even 200mp with hassy's multi-shot mode. The vaunted D800 still can't quite touch that. The dynamic range of the D800 seriously brings into question the benefit of MF for the average landscape photographer, however. The studio prestige you acquire with your customers when you haul out the MFD doesn't exist for landscape photography...people care about the scene, not the equipment used.

To my knowledge, all medium format sensors still have a lot of read noise...similar to Canon's at low ISO. It will be interesting to see if medium format cameras move up from 11-12 stops to 14, or even 16 in the few cases where medium format offers 16-bit conversion (I believe Leaf has a couple 16-bit backs), with new advancements in sensor technology. Their key edge was pixel counts...with greater sensor area, they can pack more in, at similar pixel densities as smaller formats. There doesn't seem to have been much innovation on other fronts for MF sensor tech. If they do solve read noise problems and move up to ~15-16 stops of DR, MFD might survive the onslaught of DSLR innovation for another generation or two, assuming the DSLR market doesn't also move to 16-bit as well.

MFD is not the unassailable ivory tower it once was. There ARE comparisons, and the gaps ARE closing. Competition for the studio space will heat up in the coming years, and the MFD market won't be able to solely rely on "prestige" forever.

What ever 35mm can do for studio, fashion or landscape, MF or LF will always do better. The best 35mm can offer is d800, the best MF can offer is IQ180 from phase one. Not even close and it will always be that way.

Don't forget that MF will innovate to keep ahead of 35mm as well. The next batch of MF cams could be 18 stop monsters with 120+ MP! Where is that measly 35mm camera now?

You are just speculating. Speculation isn't fact. I'm trying to stick with the facts, and the fact is, the D800 made HUGE strides against MF. You can be an MF fan all you want, but just simply stating "MF and LF will always do better" is simply an anecdote...it doesn't prove anything. Where has the innovation really been with MF? The technology they use isn't particularly advanced...it just has LOTS of pixels. Lots of pixels gives you a lot of leeway, you can capture a lot of detail...when your close. But those pixels aren't really all that much better than Canon pixels...there is still a lot of read noise in them. The key benefit of MF, even in the case of the IQ180, is pixel count. In EVERY review I've read that compared the D800 to the IQ180, or the D800 to other MFD cameras, the phrase that cropped up a lot was "subtle differences". SUBTLE DIFFERENCES! You can print an IQ180 picture larger, and the detail in that print will be higher, for sure. But in general the differences are SUBTLE. When it comes to dynamic range, which can mean either shadow performance or highlight performance (because you can simply underexpose the D800 by a stop and recover to preserve those highlights), even the IQ180 doesn't stand a chance...it has quite a bit of shadow noise...not blotchy like a Canon sensor, but reddish and with a touch of pattern.

I'm not necessarily saying the D800 is "better". There is no question that 80mp gives the IS180 a significant lead, particularly for studio photography. My point is, the gap is closing...and the ONLY innovation we've seen so far in the MF camp is megapixel count increases. Even the 16-bit backs still don't achieve the same DR as the D800...noise just consumes more bits. I don't know if the MF market can really crank up the competition or not...it would be EXTREMELY surprising to see a sudden move to 18-bit. That doesn't gain anyone anything if read noise isn't reduced...same deal Canon has...they need to improve the readout technology and greatly reduce read noise to actually benefit from those extra bits.

Even assuming we suddenly do see MF cameras move to 18-bit ADC, that still doesn't speak to the other factors where 35mm DSLRs have a considerable edge against MF...high ISO, frame rate, AF system, sheer resolving power. Again...not saying 35mm is "better" yet. My point is...the GAP BETWEEN 35mm and MF IS CLOSING. It's not like we can flat out state that there is no competition between the two...there IS competition between the two. The D800 is the start of that competition. If we see a 40-50mp camera from Canon...that will be MORE competition. Competition means comparison, and the comparisons are being made...the differences: subtle!

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

WOw...how the heck did this post end getting 6 pages...

Don't feed the trolls...but hey, let's feed them...and it goes from fun to yet another...Nikon has more DR tirade....wow...I am sueing you all for lost minutes of time!!!!...LOL

 

[RLPhoto]

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

 

[dirtcastle]

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

Not to disagree, but this comparison is sort of like driving 160m/h on the freeway and saying the people driving only 100m/h are going slowly. It's all relative and in degrees.

 

[jrista]

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

Your still missing the point. I'm not saying 35mm "wins". You said there was no comparison, no contest. My argument is that there ARE comparisons, and that there IS a contest. Sure, MF currently wins...in a niche. Will that always be the case? Who knows...the point is, the GAP IS CLOSING...for that same niche. My point is, in general, FF DSLR is a better tool overall, particularly when sheer pixel count is not the most significant factor. I can foresee a point in time when FF DSLRs have AS MANY pixels as MF...with better IQ on a per-pixel basis, and with better performance on a per-pixel basis (faster readout, better AF and metering, etc.) Will that day, where MF and DSLR perform roughly the same, ever come? Who knows. Is there still "no contest" or "no comparison" between MF and DSLR? Hell no...absolutely there is a contest, and the comparisons are showing a shrinking margin for MF.

Well, that's the last time I'll try to make my point. If you still don't get it, eh...

 

[RLPhoto]

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

Your still missing the point. I'm not saying 35mm "wins". You said there was no comparison, no contest. My argument is that there ARE comparisons, and that there IS a contest. Sure, MF currently wins...in a niche. Will that always be the case? Who knows...the point is, the GAP IS CLOSING...for that same niche. My point is, in general, FF DSLR is a better tool overall, particularly when sheer pixel count is not the most significant factor. I can foresee a point in time when FF DSLRs have AS MANY pixels as MF...with better IQ on a per-pixel basis, and with better performance on a per-pixel basis (faster readout, better AF and metering, etc.) Will that day, where MF and DSLR perform roughly the same, ever come? Who knows. Is there still "no contest" or "no comparison" between MF and DSLR? Hell no...absolutely there is a contest, and the comparisons are showing a shrinking margin for MF.

Well, that's the last time I'll try to make my point. If you still don't get it, eh...

It's funny how you read but do not get understanding. MF is a niche, and in its niche there is no comparison to what it gives the photographer. A MF pixels will be bigger than a 35mm cameras which means sharper images. Give me a 12mp 35mm cam or a 12MP MF cam, and I'll use the MF cam everytime for what it's built for.

There is no contest in the market MF made, because its the cutting edge, its the best tech has to offer and someone will always want to have that.

35mm is like a child swinging its arms at the MF market for decades, and MF simply put its hand on the swinging child's head and heald it in its place.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

) you are so funny..... really,really.... the things that are important to me:

1. DR ( and yes those 3 extra stops make the difference)
2. Resolution. In what i do (commercial,product) size matters ( like in other cases )

let me put it this way.... why the top Pro photographers shoot only with Hassyes and MF cameras ??? 8) 8)

Emphasis on your words 'IN WHAT I DO'. That doesn't encompass everbody. I don't see many pros using MF and Hasselblad at sports events. Correct tools for the job etc.

I completely agree, I asked what kind of work he or she is doing, but no response. Art photography? Well I don't know man. Is it really those extra stops of DR that make him lose customers?

The answer is in the first post ... and here marked with blue

In what i do ( commercial,product and fashion, NOT Weddings and sports) the best camera is a MF camera ( but at the moment i don't afford to spend over 20k on such gear). The reason i thinking to switch on Nikon is that the D800 is way better than 5D3 ( in photography area mentioned above). I don't need fast fps , high ISO performance ( and yes, 5D is Better than D800 over ISO 6400, but i very rarely go above ISO 400).

PS.Hobby Shooter..... try to be little more informed before making a statement, and definitely more civilized in your posts.

Sorry, I think I am both informed and civilized. I guess myself and a number of other here on the forum are getting tired of people ranting about Canon and talking about changing brands. Please just go do it already. It's better for all and your business will pick up. I just wonder you have waited this long, the D800 haave been out for quite some time now.

 

[jrista]

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

Your still missing the point. I'm not saying 35mm "wins". You said there was no comparison, no contest. My argument is that there ARE comparisons, and that there IS a contest. Sure, MF currently wins...in a niche. Will that always be the case? Who knows...the point is, the GAP IS CLOSING...for that same niche. My point is, in general, FF DSLR is a better tool overall, particularly when sheer pixel count is not the most significant factor. I can foresee a point in time when FF DSLRs have AS MANY pixels as MF...with better IQ on a per-pixel basis, and with better performance on a per-pixel basis (faster readout, better AF and metering, etc.) Will that day, where MF and DSLR perform roughly the same, ever come? Who knows. Is there still "no contest" or "no comparison" between MF and DSLR? Hell no...absolutely there is a contest, and the comparisons are showing a shrinking margin for MF.

Well, that's the last time I'll try to make my point. If you still don't get it, eh...

It's funny how you read but do not get understanding. MF is a niche, and in its niche there is no comparison to what it gives the photographer. A MF pixels will be bigger than a 35mm cameras which means sharper images. Give me a 12mp 35mm cam or a 12MP MF cam, and I'll use the MF cam everytime for what it's built for.

There is no contest in the market MF made, because its the cutting edge, its the best tech has to offer and someone will always want to have that.

35mm is like a child swinging its arms at the MF market for decades, and MF simply put its hand on the swinging child's head and heald it in its place.

Sorry, very strongly dispute the notion that MF is the best tech available. It is certainly the most prestigious tech, no question there. But as I said, prestige won't hold the MFD market forever. It has some advantages, but it is not untouchable. What the D800 can do now is only the beginning. We'll see what Canon comes up with in a year, however if they pop out a 47mp part with all the features of a 1D-series camera with better low-ISO DR, then the war on MFD will have begun in earnest. We won't be talking about worthlessly flailing arms then...we'll be talking about a full-on war, and the question I'm presenting is...will the MF market REALLY be able to compete? They can throw out all the megapixels they want...they are already within the same pixel-pitch sizes of 35mm...they can push that envelope farther, enter the 2µm pixel range and again surpass FF DSLR...but without further process technology improvements, those 2µm pixels would likely be significantly inferior to 35mm format...more noise overall, higher read noise, etc.

BTW, factually, MF pixels are in the same ballpark as FF DSLR pixels. Using the IQ180 as an example, it has 5.2µm pixels. (The math: 53.7mm / 10328 pixels = 0.005199mm/pixel; multiply by 1000 to convert mm to µm.)

From a pixel size standpoint, that is quite average, and in the eyes of Roger Clark, quite ideal (he believes ~5µm pixels offer the ideal balance of all factors for overall IQ.) In comparison...the D800? 4.9µm pixels...hmm, once again, IDEAL! The Canon 1D IV? 5.7µm pixels. The 1D X? 6.95µm pixels! The 7D? 4.3µm pixels. The D3200? 3.85µm pixels. Medium format cameras are and have been in line with DSLR sensor pixel pitches for some time now. They do not have any particular advantage in pixel size overall until you get into the lower megapixel counts...30-40mp. However at those pixel counts, there is no pixel count advantage whatsoever, and something like the D800, that has arguably better per-pixel IQ, surpasses them. SNR matters a lot more at higher ISO, but since MFD cameras are low-ISO tools, the thing that really matters from an IQ standpoint is DR.

So...given the IQ advantage the D800 clearly demonstrates against say the Hasselblad 30mp or 40mp backs...would you really still pick the Hassy? I'd certainly take an IQ180 today if I had the option. I'd take a D800 in a heartbeat if my only other option was a Hasselblad H4D-31 or H5D-40 (which, btw, have 6.8µm and 5.9µm pixels, respectively...still SMALLER than the 1D X.)

Video review, Hasselblad H4D-40 and D800: D800 vs Medium Format with Roth and Ramberg

The argument near the end was the D800 did better in the shadows, and the H4D-40 did better in the highlights. Simple fact of the matter is, the D800 can do a full TWO STOPS better in the shadows (far more than he pushed in the video)...meaning it is a simple matter of under-exposing a bit more on the D800, and you have better highlights as well. Oh, and in terms of skin tones? That's all just math...tone curves. You can produce whatever results you want, including exceptional skin tones, with any digital camera. There are powerful tools that help you create color profiles or camera profiles for any brand of camera to meet whatever goals you want, even normalize the output of one camera to another (cross device calibration.) So, in the niche that is supposedly untouchable for FF DSLR (35mm format)? The D800 has most definitely encroached on that territory, and has more than touched it. It can compete head to head with a 40mp Hassy (something that is still commonly used in the studio photography world.)

I fully understand your arguments. It is not a problem of not understanding. It is a simple matter of disagreeing.

 

[RLPhoto]

It's funny you said the d800 is changing things. It's not.

That's what they said about 35mm film

That's what they said about the 1Ds

That's what they said about the 5D2

That's what your saying now with the d800

Quite frankly, MF is here to stay and will always be ahead of 35mm. The more pixels you add to 35mm, the harder and harder it gets to make lenses that will suffice, while MF will stay at a lower magnification thus making it simpler to keep more pixels sharp. I love how you bring out the ludicrous DR debate when it's not even relevant. LoL, current MF shooters will always shoot MF because of its mechanical advantages over 35mm + the superior IQ of MF.

You said the d800 is already optimized at 36MP but the IQ180 is at 80mp! LoL, no comparison.

Edit: oh, yes I would still choose the Hasselblad over the d800 for syncing at 1/800th and the ability to use schnider Lenses and tilt-swing bellows.

 

[jrista]

It's funny you said the d800 is changing things. It's not.

That's what they said about 35mm film

That's what they said about the 1Ds

That's what they said about the 5D2

That's what your saying now with the d800

Quite frankly, MF is here to stay and will always be ahead of 35mm. The more pixels you add to 35mm, the harder and harder it gets to make lenses that will suffice, while MF will stay at a lower magnification thus making it simpler to keep more pixels sharp. I love how you bring out the ludicrous DR debate when it's not even relevant. LoL, current MF shooters will always shoot MF because of its mechanical advantages over 35mm + the superior IQ of MF.

You said the d800 is already optimized at 36MP but the IQ180 is at 80mp! LoL, no comparison.

Well, you haven't given me anything but anecdotes and personal feelings. No facts.

I just proved that 35mm sensors and MF sensors have similar pixel densities. A 120mp PhaseOne would be in the range of the 7D. A 150mp PhaseOne would be in the range of the D3200. No real benefit there...its all in the same ballpark, pixel-size wise.

I'd be willing to bet big bucks that Canon's latest lenses are better than MF lenses. It is a difficult task to optimize a lens as the image circle gets larger. Optical aberrations become an increasing problem. That actually gives the edge on lens IQ to 35mm, not MF. I know Hasselblad farms out their lens design and manufacture to Zeiss. Zeiss makes great lenses, and have started using fluorite in Hassy telephoto lenses, similar to Canon (although I believe Zeiss still only uses a single fluorite element, where as Canon is using as many as necessary to optimize IQ.) Canon has a solid edge against Zeiss when it comes to their optics, though: nanocoatings. Microcontrast and flare control are far superior on Canon lenses with SWC. Zeiss T* is still a multicoating, and multicoatings are relative to nanocoating as a singlecoating is to a multicoating...HUGE difference.

Finally, to my original point...there is more to IQ than mere pixel count. As per-pixel IQ improves with 35mm sensors, the edge offered by having more pixels will shrink. One of the key benefits with MF is the ability to downscale, normalize noise, and improve sharpness. Printing magazine covers doesn't require 80mp...the pixel densities of prepress are around half (at most) that of inkjet printing (600-2500dpi). However, reduction in size does not normalize noise enough to overcome the benefits of having naively better IQ at higher spatial resolutions (thus negating the need to downsample in the first place.) The link below shows comparisons between the D800 and the IQ180. In each example, the D800 image is first (scaled down 2x), the IQ180 image is second. (scaled down 3x). IQ wise, the noise present in the IQ180 is very clear, even scaled THREE FOLD:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/36838-someone-had-do.html

Additionally, in every single comparison, the D800 image appears to be clearer, sharper, with fewer lens issues (some of the images from the IQ180 clearly show distortion.) And that is WITH considerable downscaling! Sorry, but you can't say that DR or the overall IQ improvements that have been made in modern APS-C and FF CMOS sensor technology is a non-issue. I'm a strong Canon fan myself, but there is no denying that noise is the Canon killer. With higher noise, IQ suffers in general at low ISO. The story is no different with a monster like the IQ180...noise kills.

 

[RLPhoto]

Yawn. Says it wasn't scientific enough to be solid evidence anyway. I base my statements here on evidence found from real world use and from other users. Check photogy and see how Alex koloskov praises the d800 but really doesn't provide what he needs compared to his Hasselblad. It's IQ in those tests still wasnt up to par and that wasnt even the IQ180. I won't post the link because I'll let you waste more time to go find the article.

Have you ever shot MF before? I loved my 501CM and now I wish I kept to to adapt a MF back to it. If you ever shot MF, you wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Don Haines]

So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... that's compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. That's right... a $400 p/s puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better....

and by the way.... I have shot 8x10..... MF is just a tiny toy in comparison

 

[RLPhoto]

So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... thats compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. Thats right... a $400 ps puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better....

Studio

Fashion

Landscapes

 

[Don Haines]

So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... thats compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. Thats right... a $400 ps puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better....

Studio

Fashion

Landscapes

Better on some things, not on all.

 

[RLPhoto]

So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... thats compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. Thats right... a $400 ps puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better....

Studio

Fashion

Landscapes

Better on some things, not on all.

It's king in its niche.

Btw, I've put a few frames of 4x5 velvia 50 thru a friend view camera. Stunning.

 

[jrista]

Yawn. Says it wasn't scientific enough to be solid evidence anyway. I base my statements here on evidence found from real world use and from other users. Check photogy and see how Alex koloskov praises the d800 but really doesn't provide what he needs compared to his Hasselblad. It's IQ in those tests still wasnt up to par and that wasnt even the IQ180. I won't post the link because I'll let you waste more time to go find the article.

Have you ever shot MF before? I loved my 501CM and now I wish I kept to to adapt a MF back to it. If you ever shot MF, you wouldn't be having this conversation.

Well, I keep trying to make well-founded arguments, and the only thing I get in return is anecdotes. I've commandeered this thread long enough, so I'm done.

BTW, yes, I have a friend who does studio photography. I've shot Hasselblads, 31, 40, and 60mp backs (H4D). Oh, he also has a D800 for his studio work...LOVES IT. His assessment of the differences? "Subtle. D800 kicks ass on DR. They blow up just as well."