I wish Nikon would make a medium format camera. I love medium format, but the only medium-format camera I have is a Holga. :D As an avid Nikon photographer I'd love to use a Nikon medium-format SLR like Hasselblad. Anyone else agree?
How about it?
(49 posts) (19 voices)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
Maybe the D800 and D800e will be able to serve as a Nikon medium format camera with its 36mp sensor.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The Nikon D800E is going to be very close to medium format quality and will out perform it in high-ISO. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there is no reason to buy a MF camera anymore, it's just that the D800E will ber VERY close to the entry level MF cameras in terms of IQ and in some ways, will be better. For $3300, it's a steal.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Look at these 16mp D4 images original size and then tell me the 36mp D800 is not going to be "medium format" impressive.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/6646238207/sizes/o/in/set-72157628743319559/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/6646215767/sizes/o/in/set-72157628743319559/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/6646175323/sizes/o/in/set-72157628743319559/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/6646178255/sizes/o/in/set-72157628743319559/
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm not so sure. If Nikon came out with MF, it would be very expensive: probably in between the 645D and S2. Lenses would also be very expensive- probably $3-5k each. I don't think it will really add anything either, since we already have a decent range of MF products out there, and a Nikon one probably won't do much new.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TJGilbert21 said:
I wish Nikon would make a medium format camera. I love medium format, but the only medium-format camera I have is a Holga. :D As an avid Nikon photographer I'd love to use a Nikon medium-format SLR like Hasselblad. Anyone else agree?Yeah, maybe a MF Nikon would be nice to have but you're probably asking the wrong crowd here. Most here probably only (or mostly) shoot SLR's and like it this way. I'm one myself so I can't say much but you'll probably get a better reaction if you ask the same question to a MF crowd.
...wait a second... Why am I answering a two year old post???
Donaldejose, this is all your fault I'll have you know! >:(
Posted 1 year ago # -
All this talk about the D800 rivalling medium format seems to have gone off track a bit. Sure whilst a bigger sensor can generally hold more pixels, to my way of thinking this isn't what medium format is all about. Maybe I am wrong but having all these pixels is only good for large prints or cropping.
Medium format to me is all about the look of the photo. It just has that 'larger' look with more depth to it.
I would love a medium format digital made by Nikon but doubt it will ever happen. Still, you can pick up MF film cameras dirt cheap thankfully :-)
Oh..I wonder how many people will start comparing that new Nokia phone with the 42MP camera with medium format ;-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Just why cannot you duplicate "the medium format look" with an equivalent DSLR lens? We equate DX and FX "look" by using a DX lens equivalent to the FX counterpart. It seems to me there should be no law of optics which says you can never get "the medium format look" out of the D800e no matter which lens or f-stop you use. Want more resolution? Use the D800E. Want shallow depth of field? Use f1.4, f1.8 or f2; all very readily available. Why would those choices not make the D800e equivalent to a Nikon medium format camera for the amazing price of less than $3,500.00?
About 2 years ago some people asked why Nikon doesn't make a medium format camera. Well, maybe they just did in the D800e even though it does not have the old film size associated with medium format.
This graphic may interest some people.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kinematic/6860874157/sizes/l/in/photostream/
I suggest taking a Nikon D800e (or D800 if you want to avoid the chance of moire) and mounting this Voightlander 40mm lens on it to obtain an "entry level" medium format equivalent with a "normal" lens. This should be the least expensive way for all of us who have shot only 35mm film and DX or FX DSLR to "enter" into medium format.
Here is a sample image shot with this lens mounted on a Nikon D3x. Click on the image to see it full size. The D800 should do better (especially the D88e)!
http://pliki.optyczne.pl/voi40/voi20_fot21.JPG
Now tell me, why wouldn't you be able to use this 40mm lens on a D800e and produce the same quality as you get from an entry level medium format 40mp back with an 80mm lens? Since I have never shot medium format, there may be many reasons I don't know about.
Here are some reviews of this lens:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/263-voigtlander-ultron-40mm-f2-ii-nikon-mount-review--test-report
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=271
http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/40mm-f2.htm
DxOMark has not tested it:
Posted 1 year ago # -
I was mor hoping for a large format body... All those nice nikkors for 4x5 would be cool in a new LF package...
Posted 1 year ago # -
I wonder how the D800E stacks up in terms of image quality to say the Leica S2, Phase One and Hassey systems? It must be at least in the ballpark I'd imagine? The images from the Pentax medium format system are also stunning. Sure can't wait to get my hands on the D800E thats for sure.
By the way, I voted for the D800 with the 36mp sensor too not the D4 sensor although more than half voted for the D800 with the D4 sensor instead on nikonrumors poll question. Nikon has really given us what we want.
Posted 1 year ago # -
kanuck said:
I wonder how the D800E stacks up in terms of image quality to say the Leica S2, Phase One and Hassey systems? It must be at least in the ballpark I'd imagine? The images from the Pentax medium format system are also stunning. Sure can't wait to get my hands on the D800E thats for sure.I can confirm that it's every bit as good. But hey, how about a double sized 70MP D800 chip?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Oh, gosh, NIKON does make a medium format camera. They just market it under a different name. And WOW, the high speed lenses... f.3.5 to 4.5, yup and for only about $50,000. One body and one lens. By the time you get finished spending your $100,000 to 150,000 to get all of what you may need to duplicate what is available in the current FX for less than $30,000, you may wish you were back with the FX size.
And the names they use... Leica, Hasselblad, chuckle.... An individual I know has one of those backs with something like 56Mp ......yeaow! And he orders things like three CF tripods at once from RRS.
Richard Pryor said once Cocaine was God's way of telling someone they had too much money.... maybe these mega buck cameras are sort of the same for some of us.....
Please get a good laugh from all this....
Posted 1 year ago # -
Take a look at the 41 megapixel sensor and oversampling technology in the Nokia PureView.
Info links here: http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=5&page=7
Now put that sensor density on a FX chip and the oversampling technology in the body.
What do you have? Perhaps 210 megapixels which can be shot as 210 megapixels or oversampled by 7 to act as 30 megapixels? I see no reason why the oversampling process cannot be electronically varied (as ISO is now) so the processor which performs the oversampling can do it at Nokia's current 7 or by some other factor selected by Nikon. If you oversampled a 210 megapixel chip by 10 it would act as a 21 megapixel chip. If you oversampled a 210 megapixel chip by 14 it would act as a 15 megapixel chip.
Would the Nokia technology not create a whole new generation of digital SLR cameras?
Posted 1 year ago # -
donaldejose said:
Just why cannot you duplicate "the medium format look" with an equivalent DSLR lens? We equate DX and FX "look" by using a DX lens equivalent to the FX counterpart. It seems to me there should be no law of optics which says you can never get "the medium format look" out of the D800e no matter which lens or f-stop you use. Want more resolution? Use the D800E. Want shallow depth of field? Use f1.4, f1.8 or f2; all very readily available. Why would those choices not make the D800e equivalent to a Nikon medium format camera for the amazing price of less than $3,500.00?About 2 years ago some people asked why Nikon doesn't make a medium format camera. Well, maybe they just did in the D800e even though it does not have the old film size associated with medium format.
I suggest taking a Nikon D800e (or D800 if you want to avoid the chance of moire) and mounting this Voightlander 40mm lens on it to obtain an "entry level" medium format equivalent with a "normal" lens. This should be the least expensive way for all of us who have shot only 35mm film and DX or FX DSLR to "enter" into medium format.
Firstly resolution and sharpness has nothing to do with the look that different size format produces....why is full frame more popular than cropped frame? For one it looks better. Have you ever taken a picture with a full frame camera and cropped it out? It doesn't look the same, it looks flatter, it has less character to it. That is all a cropped sensor is, thats why (one of the reasons) full frame looks so much better. Then relate this to medium format and even large format. People use these formats for a reason, not just to get more pixels and resolution. Why do pros use $50, 000 hasseldlad medium format for magazine size head shots shots where the resolution isn't going to make much difference? It looks better, more lifelike.
Secondly, quote "We equate DX and FX "look" by using a DX lens equivalent to the FX counterpart" What you are mistaking is 'equivalent focal length'. Two totally different things. What you are saying is that (roughly) a 35mm lens on a DX will have the same 'look' as a 50mm on an FX camera? You will capture roughly the same 'scene' but that is about all. A lens will have the same compression and 'look' about it whether you stick it on a full frame or crop frame body. For example a 200mm will have the same compression effect on an FX and DX body, all you are doing is cropping the centre on the DX! Same goes for a 35mm, a totally different look. By cropping a picture does not change the compression or individual look of a particular camera or lens.
Maybe someone could explain this better or maybe I am missing something as this comes up a lot.
It may be subtle to some people but there is a magic with medium format and large format...as there was when FF first came in digital.
I shoot for fun with a Mamiya RZ medium format film camera. You can pick one up with lenses for less than $500! They aren't as sharp as these new digital cameras but they produce beautiful pictures.
I think cameras like the D800 are fantastic and revolutionary and yes, I think they will impact the MF market. But I think people have got so caught up with resolution and graphs and reviews and how good this looks blown up at 100% that they are missing the art and soul of taking beautiful pictures. Have a look at this guys site, maybe you can see what I mean http://www.assafezra.com/bw.html
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gavlister said:
Have a look at this guys site, maybe you can see what I mean http://www.assafezra.com/bw.html
I looked and I think I will post this here so one can compare... Open the link above in a new window and then look at this shot and tell me what you think. Is mine on 2 1/4 with a Hasselblad, Mamiya, old Bronice? Or?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I don't get the "magic" business. Seems all "smoke and mirrors" to me. If equivalent focal length lens doesn't give you the same blurred background for example, you don't have to use the equivalent focal length lens as you did in the large format. You can use a longer lens and back up. If you want a square format, just crop the image square.
I checked the website referenced and in my opinion msmoto's photo is better than most photos on that site. The site does have a few photos with interesting composition but I see no "magic" there and certainly no reason to shoot medium format.
Perhaps it is just me. But I also suspect someone who has spent over $20,000 or $30,000 to get a medium format digital camera will now be prejudiced about its true abilities and "see" all sorts of reason to justify their purchase. I do expect the D800e vs. medium format issue to be covered a number of times in comparison reviews by independent reviewers once the production model is out. That will be interesting.
Posted 1 year ago # -
msmoto said:
I looked and I think I will post this here so one can compare... Open the link above in a new window and then look at this shot and tell me what you think. Is mine on 2 1/4 with a Hasselblad, Mamiya, old Bronice? Or?
Hi
nice shot. Well definitely digital, either a cropped picture or taken with a DX camera and a telephoto lens around 200mm at a guess?
Definitely not medium format although I really am NOT an expert and am probably about to be shot down in flames ;-)
Telephoto isn't what medium format is all about! The idea or 'look' of medium format is its depth which is lost in telephoto compression. Sorry when saying depth I am not necessarily meaning depth of field., more just that 'feel'
I posted that guys website not just because he uses medium format but because his pictures have soul to them which is to me, what photography is all about. Not comparing camera bodies and lens to dxo charts.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html
Posted 1 year ago # -
donaldejose said:
I don't get the "magic" business. Seems all "smoke and mirrors" to me. If equivalent focal length lens doesn't give you the same blurred background for example, you don't have to use the equivalent focal length lens as you did in the large format. You can use a longer lens and back up. If you want a square format, just crop the image square.I checked the website referenced and in my opinion msmoto's photo is better than most photos on that site. The site does have a few photos with interesting composition but I see no "magic" there and certainly no reason to shoot medium format.
Perhaps it is just me. But I also suspect someone who has spent over $20,000 or $30,000 to get a medium format digital camera will now be prejudiced about its true abilities and "see" all sorts of reason to justify their purchase. I do expect the D800e vs. medium format issue to be covered a number of times in comparison reviews by independent reviewers once the production model is out. That will be interesting.
Firstly, as I said before I posted his site for a reason. Not to say whose pictures are better or worse. I really like them because they show something different that's all. You must agree though, they have very different looks about them. Which is better or worse is personal opinion and also besides the point. That said I really like the above photo!!
I see what you are saying and agree with you mostly. But the fact is the bigger the sensor/size of film the more 3d like it will be.
Just curious, have you wondered why camera makers went to the expense of making full frame digital sensors when previously it was only cropped sensors? It wasn't just about being able to cram more pixels into a camera!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gavlister:
Look at Peter Hurleys work, especially his headshots: http://peterhurley.com/photography/actors-headshots/broadway/
And this video of him working with a very expensive digital back medium format camera:
As an aside, an interesting lighting set up he is using, isn't it?
Look at this guys work http://www.jimmaxwellphotography.com/
He uses a Nikon D7000, a Nikkor 18-200 zoom lens and sets his picture controls to Vivid!Both are WOWs to me. Different styles, but great impact in each.
I suspect, but don't know, that the size of the original transparency, negative or digital image shot at base ISO is a significant factor. I suspect the max quality in the original image will hold up better the less it has to be enlarged. If one image has to be enlarged 10 times and the other image has to be enlarged 20 times to get the same 8x10 print I would image the 8x10 print which required the least enlargement has lost less of the original image quality which was in the original size image. With 35mm film that original image was always the same size: the size of a 35mm negative or transparency. But with FX digital the size of the original image is not limited to x pixels by y pixels. Hence, I suggest a 24mp DX image may be able to move near the original image quality of an older generation 12 mp FX image and I suggest a 36mp FX image may be able to move near the original image quality of a 40mp medium format digital back. Hopefully, we will soon be able to test this idea with a 24mp DX400 compared to a 12mp D3 and a 36mp D800e compared to a 40mp medium format. In each case you should have equivalent size original digital images to compare.
The laws of optics won't change so "equivalents" have to be found. For example, perhaps the depth of field of an 80mm medium format lens at f2.8 won't be the same as the depth of filed of a 43mm FX lens at f2.8. But an "equivalent" depth of field should be obtainable by making adjustments to mm and f-stop and distance from the subject to obtain the equivalent medium format look.
I am sure there is a reason Peter Hurley chooses to use medium format now. I noticed in some older photos and videos I have seen of him working that he was using a 35mm camera, not a medium format camera. My guess is that he likes to start with the largest megapixels he can obtain in his original image. I doubt it is due to optics.
Posted 1 year ago # -
And the answer please:
Hasselblad 500C w/Planar 120mm Lens
Kodak 100 TMax 120 film in in HC-110 pushed to ISO 320
Cropped from about 1 1/2 " square on negScanned to 14Mp image, reduced to about 4,5Mp and presented here after some Lightroom 3 work.
OK, OK, just a bit of humor.... but I really think it is difficult to tell unless one went to Flicker and saw the original
D90, AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR at 95mm, ISO 400, 1/500, f/5.6. Image size is about a 4.5 Mp part of the original 12Mp DX format.A side note: In years past I obtained some of what was called Hi End Audio, Mark Levinson, Wilson Audio, Quads, and others. These absolutely crazy setups can go from $15,000 up to $250,000 and this was in the 1980's. The "audiophiles" were certain they could tell the difference between a $5,000 speaker and a $50,000 speaker. And of course i was in one of those groups who were certain I could tell the difference. What was interesting was that there were very few if any "blind tests" which demonstrated the difference in the speakers. And of course as folks got older like myself, today everything sounds great.
In viewing different photographs, I do think at times the "look" of the format can be appreciated. Yet, I have seen some photos done with film, 35mm Plus X Rated at ASA 80 D-76 1:1 Short development, where the quality looked like 2 1/4 x 2 1/4. And some medium format stuff apparently done by "experts" which looked like crap. I have seen one of the images from the new D800 which I believe is at least 20" x 30" and the detail is almost unbelievable. It looks just like medium format.
So, who knows. Maybe what made Avedon and Hiro such cool dudes in my day were other qualities than the large formats. Maybe it was in the way they related to their subjects.
Posted 1 year ago # -
msmoto said:
A side note: In years past I obtained some of what was called Hi End Audio, Mark Levinson, Wilson Audio, Quads, and others. These absolutely crazy setups can go from $15,000 up to $250,000 and this was in the 1980's. The "audiophiles" were certain they could tell the difference between a $5,000 speaker and a $50,000 speaker. And of course i was in one of those groups who were certain I could tell the difference. What was interesting was that there were very few if any "blind tests" which demonstrated the difference in the speakers. And of course as folks got older like myself, today everything sounds great.I know exactly what you mean! These days I stick with my self modified Quad electronics and build my own speakers. Too many years of shooting 12 gauge shotguns and heavy caliber handguns and rifles.
Posted 1 year ago # -
guys, I'm only allowing the links here as they add to the discussion but please remember the rules of not linking to external pages
as for medium format, no matter how many pixels You gonna put into 35mm sensor it's never gonna be medium format, there are some aspects of medium format that can't be recreated on fx
Posted 1 year ago # -
adamz: yes, sorry about the links but they are examples of the discussion and so much more efficient than trying to copy stuff into the thread. People would stop reading and the discussion would die.
What are those "aspects of medium format" that cannot be recreated with a small sensor of equal pixel size producing an equal image quality?
This comment is near the heart of this discussion. Why cannot the D800e with appropriate lenses, f-stops and working distances never equal a medium format camera with digital back?
I know of the DX and FX sensors get better with technology the medium format sensors will also and you are chasing a moving target but I am trying to compare the D800e of today with the 40mp medium format sensor of today. I think independent tests will show them to be very close in the image quality they can produce.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@donald - why? because as much as DX will produce different DOF with fixed aperture as much medium format will produce a different, IMHO more plastic DOF.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
