Easy.

503CW, and then you can get three of their highest-grade lenses and still have money left over for plenty of film and development costs.

Going from a D3x to a HD40 is much less of a jump than from a 1Ds mk3 or 1Dx. Beyond the focal length issue (and some situations like in a studio or architecture) Nikon's Fx Dslrs are enough. Oddly there is a huge difference between canon and Mf just in sharpness.

no matter what You say - 5000GBP is not even close to 15000GBP, not to mention the lack of specialized lenses for different shooters - i.e. wildlife, OTOH if You are a fashion photographer You most likely own medium format anyway.

PaulR said:
Yes, Even bought the Nikon PC 24 lens but sadly found it not the easiest lens to get on with so we parted Shift lens with LF camera' s are far more easy to use. On 35 mm, DOF is a major problem unless you are prepared to go to great lengths doing stacking shots.

Gah! You're breaking my heart, man! I would've taken that lens to the grave with me. And stacking is a piece of cake even with uncompressed raw files. With a lens that wide it wouldn't take more than 15-20 exposures to fill a frame front to back, and thats hardly a load that CS5 couldn't handle processing in under 10mins.

Interesting weight comments PaulR thanks for sharing that. Weight should be a major issue with a lot of people I think I know it is with me thats for sure..

Hi all,

I've been in this since the 60's with 5x7'' cameras and 4x5'' cameras and worked news with Rollies and Nikons, and advertising with Mamiya and Nikon.

Experience tells me that a bigger sensor will have more to pick up, and a larger sensor will have a difference characteristic for the image, and give the same image sensor on two cameras (which it _never is_) bigger would be better.

But as I said, it never is. Larger format cameras use a distinctly different sensor on their cameras. It isn't as sensitive, doesn't have the dynamic range (given that the smaller sensor has to in order to cover the same area with the same visual acuity), and that, as the Bard said, theres the rub.

While I might be a perfect fan of DXO, there are multi-million dollar companies with a cadre of hungry lawyers standing guard at their door keeping them honest on their test figures. That tells me the numbers aren't far enough off the mark to do much about them.

And that says that the medium format cameras don't offer, in my words, a significant cost effect leap from full frame SLR.

I just don't see it. The dynamic range of a full frame bumps up the quality sufficiently that the benchmark has been the D3X. To me that is a telling comment.

Good luck to you who can hold the D4, I wish I was one of you. ;-)

My best to all,

Mike

Yes, Even bought the Nikon PC 24 lens but sadly found it not the easiest lens to get on with so we parted Shift lens with LF camera' s are far more easy to use. On 35 mm, DOF is a major problem unless you are prepared to go to great lengths doing stacking shots.
It was interesting to note that a D3X with a 24-70 lens is just 200grams lighter than a Hassey D4H and a 80mm lens, So if you were to go down the MF route, no need to go to the gym

This is an interesting topic actually and I think people should at least consider the Pentax and even Hassey medium format systems. However, PaulR I think a lot of people on this forum like you, own a lot of amazing Nikkor glass like 300mm 2.8 VR and 14-24mm etc so it keeps people in the Nikon highend body loop. 2012 is going to be a fun year for releases in FX. Have you ever shot medium format before?

In retrospect large format did give me far better perspective control. I have owned 35mm shift lens and did not like them compared to 4x5 0r 8x10. Other than that I still say.......better do a side by side comparison BEFORE you buy these bigger formats. I saw a series of photos shot in Acadia by a pro large format photographer taken from the same view a few hours after I shot there. The comparison proved to several who looked at both that timing, the right lighting, etc. are often very critical. I just don't see any field advantage. In the studio it is a whole different matter and I do NO STUDIO work anymore as I did not find it as true to what I wanted. If I was doing a catalog product shoot anymore I would reconsider. I still would like to know how those who try this make out.

Im just waiting for a digital back for my 500C/M of reasonable resolution to become "cheap" and Im in.

PaulR said:
PS Even Professional Photographers have to justify there shiny new cameras to “ Her who Must be Obeyed”, otherwise our other halves, spend the same amount on “Jewelry.”

Hey, I thought it was only my wife that did that. Fortunately for me as far as she's aware, a D3x is only a few hundred pounds! Well we are in hard times dear, and prices have tumbled :-)

Seriously though, i'd love to try my hand at digital medium format, but sensibly it offers nothing that I need, and would actually be quite detrimental to my (mainly reportage) style of photography. I have missed several (perfect) shots over the last year due to the frame rate of my D3s not being fast enough! Each to his own, I guess I might feel different if I was based in a studio or mainly shot landscapes?

Not to give a "typical response" but MF and LF still has distortion under control like 35mm still doesn't (sure my 300mm has no distortion) but how about a good 50 range (vs Mf 70 or 85mm and LF 105 or 135mm...)

Perhaps some clarification should be brought to this Post,having spent over 40 years has professional photographer using all formats and most camera Contax, Nikon, Linhof, Mamiya RB/RZ, Sinar Full Technical cameras and Hasselblads I understand the qualities these cameras can create in a studio environment.

You only have to look at Ebay prices, and see what these cameras go for to see how sad such quality cameras are worth in Large and Medium formats compared to what they cost.

The majority of professional photographers use medium format cameras simply because the quality they produce cannot be matched . Only in recent years have pros starting using DSLR mainly due to ease of use compared to medium format. plus manufactures have been bringing their standards up to try and match medium format . Example the D3X Sony and Canon all with very high pixel ratings.

One also as to consider to what end is the client wanting in the finished product, because this as a major requirement to what size pixel rating will give the desired result. Example large cropped bill board sizes or just webpages

Unfortunately all camera manufactures at the professional end have put prices way above their true value,
The industry has changed, and I can assure you the days of the professional photographer charging what they want for a days shoot has long gone. So even professional are having difficulty justifying vast amounts of money for expensive equipment if they want to show black ink on the balance sheet at the end of the year.

Going back to my initial point, I find it very difficult to change manufactures either way, due to cost, I was considering the Hasselblad D4H but when you start to add up the extra lenses which would be required, they is little change out £30,000. and that would not cover my Nikon range of lenses and other Nikon equipment So I hope that Nikon with their vast budgets on future technology will match the medium format cameras and even small pros like myself can then match the big boys with their big toys

PS Even Professional Photographers have to justify there shiny new cameras to “ Her who Must be Obeyed”, otherwise our other halves, spend the same amount on “Jewelry.”

I think the D400 would be something I would think about upgrading into. I don't really think I am into shooting a FX body just yet. I will have to imagine it will be a decent jump from my D5000 to a D400...we will see when the specs come out what it looks like.

@PaulR: BEFORE you commit to larger formats I suggest you shoot Nikon DSLR side by side with what you are thinking of buying. I invested heavily in medium and large format. I also SOLD them when I began to realize that the 35mm (F5 Nikon) I was METERING in preference to spot meters which I found not accurate enough were way too often producing more useable shots than the more expensive and larger formats, And do not try this sell larger format gear today as you will be in for a sad and bad surprise.

In side by side shots my Nikon often was surprisingly comparable to the larger and SLOWER FORMATS. I was very fast setting up the bigger cameras. I think you had better reread your second to the last sentence about divorce. Larger formats is a "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" deal if I have ever seen one. Todays work flow from a D700 or a D300, or a D7000 (complete with a video that really does perform) blows the doors off these larger formats. I know you guys HATE the I'll switch to Canon posts. I for one think that there is some merit to those compared to larger formats.

For my one use I am convinced the D7000 is good enough right now. If you are shooting stills....a D300 is good enough. But when the D400, the D800, and the D4 come out they will be in my opinion, better than medium or large format. IF YOU SHOOT IN THE FIELD LARGER FORMATS ARE INEFFICIENT. The Camera I believe I am after is the D400. I have had results on D300 and D90 and now to a degree on start up the D7000 that convinces me the D400 is what I want. But with the Nikon DSLRs I have now......I can wait for the D400. And the D800 will get me wondering if it gets good reviews. I think if the D400 was announced BEFORE the D800 it would hugely effect D800 sales!! That is why Nikon is playing their hand this way. The D400 easily could have been ready when the D800 was.

DutchNikon said:
mm Guess the issue is not in the price, but in the 'Does it make sense to acquire" ...

I think a modified 'Does it make sense & Do I have the money to acquire"... Covers most of the crying about price on almost anything.

I would love a Leica S2 and It would make since for what I shoot, but alas I do not have the cash or can justify the $ to get one.

bjrichus said:
@Sevencrossing, Have you seen the price of a VG condition Rolli on eBay recently? Talk about inflation!!

I see those listed for absurd amount of money. They also never sell. I bet I have seen one listed over a year now.

DutchNikon said:
mm Guess the issue is not in the price, but in the 'Does it make sense to acquire" ...

A Camera is still a tool, and if you need the tool to make money, and make a good profit using the tool, then the price is not realy an issue...

@DutchNikon, from reading the comments that @PaulR made (divorce etc), I think he might not be making a living from photography.

That said, this game does have some very expensive toys, doesn't it?

@Sevencrossing, Have you seen the price of a VG condition Rolli on eBay recently? Talk about inflation!!

mm Guess the issue is not in the price, but in the 'Does it make sense to acquire" ...

A Camera is still a tool, and if you need the tool to make money, and make a good profit using the tool, then the price is not realy an issue...

Better for what ???

If you shoot news, sport or wildlife ,Medium format is not really an option

In the days of film many of us had a Rollie or a Linhof as well as our F. Today most friends who need Medium Format seem to hire

I appreciate this is Nikon Rumors But when you look at the top end of Nikon cameras and possible price tags of the new D800/D4, well maybe we should be having a careful look at the medium format section cameras and what is available.
I did exactly that but its the old story, once your into a manufacture and there extras you are stuck, unless you want to loose some serious money. When the D3X came out in 2009 I think everybody fell over with the price Circa £6000 +, the market brought the price down to at best to £4500 and today its circa £5000, No doubt the same thing will happen to the D800/D4
I have a D3X plus a plethora of professional lenses WT4 and all Nikon Flash gear, a substantial amount of money. Yet when I look at the Medium Format cameras it falls well down the list in costs. The Hasselblad D4H with one lens comes in at £15,000 +++ Mamiya+++ at £10,000 and Leica S2 well thats off the Radar So Nikon it is, D4 Guess Starting at £7000 falling to £5500_ £5750 three months later. Still compared to Medium Format these prices are not unrealistic but they do cause a few divorces.
Enough fortune telling with the Magic Ball, Just will have to be patient and wait till actual facts not wishes come through.

Trade-in programs have the effect of artificially increasing the resale value of the product. This is a very conservative move and serves only to reassure people that their investment won't depreciate faster than a known rate. It is most commonly seen in "luxury" goods markets, where status is a significant portion of perceived value AND a significant portion of the original selling price.

A very similar practice is followed by high-end car makers. The styling of high-end cars evolves much more slowly than that of low-end cars. This is to ensure that a new model does not "obsolete" the styling of an older one, driving down resale value.

Let's examine why this is bad for the average consumer who does not want to buy status:

The reason a D100 is worth so little today (practically free) and such a tiny fraction of its original price is that a D100 is technologically obsolete. I think most here can agree on that. The reason we agree on that is because we value a camera's capabilities, not its status. We place a value on that D100 equal to its intrinsic worth as a camera.

If Nikon were to implement a trade-up program it MUST offer the consumer more money for said D100 than the market rate of today. If Nikon does not offer more than the current market rate they will have no takers and the program is effectively nonexistent.

Since logic dictates they offer more than current market rates that means they have artificially raised the value of said example D100 while not increasing its intrinsic worth. Therefore the entire used Nikon market becomes perverted. No longer is one simply paying for capability, one is paying for the promise of artificial value to be refunded, as it were, at the end of a product's life.

Nikon is, like me and I suspect like you, interested in making money. I pay the bills, feed the kids, and hopefully make the world a better place through the power money gives me. Nikon can not burn money over the long term any more than you or I can.

As I said above, Nikon MUST offer more than current market prices for this program to be anything other than a slide on the quarterly Power Point. If they artificially raise the value of a camera the money must come from somewhere, and it won't be them. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

I don't know about you, but I want to pay for camera tech. I don't want to pay for status and I don't want to pay for a promise of money in the future.

It's a great idea and I would be trading in my D90 for a full frame in a heart beat ! Another great idea would be to release the D800 immediately and I'll pay full price for it even !!

Just a little FYI, Canon has a trade up loyalty program of sorts. They'll give you discounts on an upgraded model if you send in your old broken model - nothing fabulous, but I'd love a little discount to upgrade some of my gear.

Why would I do a trade up on a nikon to only get 10% off. While a great Idea in theory you can get refurbished bodies or bodies on rebate for less without losing your other nikon product. If I don't get at least 25-30% off I'll just buy it new and get the warranty to go with it. Now if you could trade in an 80-200mm f2.8 for a 70-200mm vr2 and only put in $1000 or $1200 extra I would go for it...

Lets be honest here. Does Nikon really need a trade-in program when everyone that reads this website, and forum are willing to purchase the latest and greatest the very night of the press release. Take the D7000 for instance, I remember quite a few here pre-ordered it that very night. With such demand, Nikon would be brain-dead to offer a trade-in program, and give away margin for no reason.

Phase One on the other hand is a far more costly purchase, and trade-ins are necessary to support the photographer who can't afford new, but wants better than DSLR quality.