@AdamZ: I totally agree with you in theory, but can you give a stone-cold exposition of that as fact?
How about it?
(49 posts) (19 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
What is a "more plastic DOF?"
Are you saying the bokeh is, and always will be, somehow different?
Or are you just saying the DOF will be physically different in a way which cannot be created on FX format?
What if you used Nikon's 105 or 135 f2 DC lens? Can that lens used with a D800e never create an image equivalent to medium format with a 40mp digital back? Perhaps CaryTheLabelGuy can address whether or not the D8003 can substitute as 40mp medium format camera when he does his review.
Posted 1 year ago # -
msmoto said:
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.
Hi
what you said makes such good sense. Not just about the speakers, although that does show how we get so carried away with trying to get the best quality even when it doesn't make any real world difference....I think we are all guilty of that one!! But also what you said about the different formats. It is very true. That medium format look shows up in some pictures but in others it won't. Also sometimes the look may not be what you want anyway. I wish I could find it, but I read an article years ago about a well known medium format photographer who took a picture with his hassie and compared it with one taken with a Canon G9. Both were printed around A4 size. He then got people to try and pick which was which. Apparently he got a 50% success rate!!! I guess the point is that it depends on what you are taking the picture of, the display was obviously set up to point this out.
As far as resolution is concerned, the D800/E is going to impact one side of medium format, maybe the major side. But it still won't create that same look when used in the right circumstances by a good photographer.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Obviously I ain't the best at explaining this but I will try a different tack.
Firstly yes the 36MP D800E with a good lens and good technique I believe may rival medium format quality in terms of sharpness and 'quality' when enlarged and in many types of photographs the difference will be unnoticeable. Then when you take into account the costs and flexibility it is an absolute no brainer.
Where larger formats come into their own is in that feeling where you can almost touch it, that 'look', depth or whatever else you want to call it!! If you haven't been able to see this by looking at other peoples work then it is pretty hard to explain.
Also this look doesn't come out with all pictures taken in larger formats. For example landscapes, I think the D800E WILL rival medium format (again, personal opinion). The larger the format the more life like an image will be if it contains depth(by that I mean objects not just in one plane of view) So for example a face will look more lifelike. Why?
Let's exaggerate things. Imagine you have 2 theoretical sensors. One is the size of a pin head, the other is the size of an A4 piece of paper. These sensors have unlimited pixels and no noise problems etc if you get my drift. Now you stick your 135dc lens on the front of both. To get the same field of view, one would be taken from 1 foot away(ignoring the lenses min focus distance) the other from 100 feet away. So...they both have the same dimensions in the picture. Which do you think would have the most life like feel about it, as if you are there in the picture? OK you can retaliate and put say a 10mm lens on to get that close look, but then you have distortion and a totally different perspective. Simply put, trading distance between subject to make up for sensor size will not give you the same look or feel and neither will replacing a lens to compensate.
It's more complicated than this of course and I don't think I have explained it very well or even correctly. There are also more reasons behind this look. Also it isn't just about bokeh and depth of field. You can see this look even when small apertures are used and everything is in sharp focus.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gavlister: How about this example? Take two identical FX bodies. Put a 35mm lens on one and a 135mm lens on the other. Now use both to fill the viewfinder with a head and take the same size head shot. The proportions on the face at 135mm will look "normal." Not so the facial proportions at 35mm; the nose will be elongated for example. Look at the bokeh in the background of both photos. It may be good at 135mm and non-existent at 35mm. Those things I understand. They are due to laws of optics. But I don't think there is much difference in the laws of optics between a 85 mm lens on DX and a 135mm lens on FX. The same should be true for medium format. "Normal" lenses on either format should look normal in a full body shot. "Portrait" lenses on either format should produce pleasing facial proportions in a head and shoulders shot. I don't see why a big difference would exist optically. Maybe I am wrong. I have never shot medium format. Maybe I am not a believer because I have never worked in that size.
I also understand how a 4x5 film will look better at 8x10 than a 35mm film enlarged to 8x10. Less enlargement will equal more retained image quality.
But the "magic" or "life like" quality or "look" of medium format? I don't understand that if is is due to something other than simply not having to enlarge the "film" as much prior to viewing it. I don't see how the laws of optics cannot simply be scaled to different format sizes such that the only difference is enlargement and why then larger and large original megapixel images don't simply start to overlap categories.
Maybe it is pixel size? Maybe larger pixels collecting more light create a more "life like" image? Will a D3 image be more lifelike than a D4 image? Doubt it. It seems to me larger pixels would tend to make the sensor more sensitive to low light but wouldn't necessarily create an image with more depth.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Donald. Like I said. I am not an expert and I may be talking rubbish in all this so am not too keen in furthering my opinions. Hopefully someone with a clearer method of putting this across will come along :-)
Look at it this way. Lets take a picture of something 1 dimensional, say a painting. Firstly if you enlarge it to 8*10" I doubt you would notice the difference between a D80 and a D800...or even a Hasselblad! If you enlarged it to 8*10ft now that would be different. The D80 would get lost. Between the D800 and the Hassie I don't think there would be much difference either. Why? Because this is mostly an exercise in resolution which the D800 should be outstanding in.
To try another tact with the difference in look. See if this makes sense.
Firstly I think you agree that the compression effect (what makes a wide angle exaggerate features or what makes the background appear closure on tele lens) doesn't alter between DX FX or MF. It may look different because of different distances from the subject and also from cropping though. So try this as an exercise....
Get an empty frame say 6*6" and one say 12*12". Hold them at arms length and walk up to a subject and frame them with it so they appear the same size in each frame. You would be a lot closer with the larger frame right? I guess this would be kind of like a 50mm lens equivalent on two different sensors :-) Now if you could take a snapshot of how they appear in each frame don't you think you are going to see them differently?
Now to get the same size you will have to magnify the smaller frame.
Effectively you can get closer to a subject for a given lens with MF. Therefore looking at it, the difference between the front of the face to the back of the head and also to the background will be more pronounced therefore giving it a different 'look'. It won't be so flattened. This difference will happen across the range of lenses but will become less noticeable as you increase the focal length.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gavlister: The frames example is starting to make some sense but it fails to account for what really happens which is that you use different lenses to fill each frame from the same distance. You are saying to obtain the same image size on the sensor (fill the sensor with a head, for example) you must be closer to that subject with medium format (assuming the same 50mm lens) and this necessarily changes perspective? I would agree the distance you are from the subject will change the perspective in the subject's face and the apparent distance between the subject and the background. Telephoto lenses tend to "compress" a scene (make the distance between the subject and the background seem less or "flatten" a face) and wide angle lenses tend to "expand" a scene (make the distance between the subject and the background seem greater or distort a face). This effect can occur with the human nose as the subject and the check as the background. If you use an extreme wide angle lens very close to the tip of the nose that nose will be elongated. This is why we don't use 35mm lenses for head shots. Conventionally, a "portrait" lens (50 to 85mm on DX, 85 to 135mm on 35mm film or FX and 100 to 150mm on medium format) is thought to have the most pleasing perspective for the human face when doing a head and shoulders shot. We can all agree on perspective changes due to the photographer's distance from the subject. We can all agree that larger film captures more detail and doesn't have to be enlarged as much. Beyond that I don't see the "magic" or "look" some people feel exists. I think photographers switch to medium format just to get a larger piece of film or a larger original digital image and the D800e will provide that without a switch.
I think we have to stop the discussion at this point since it is not advancing. Perhaps someone who has switched from FX to medium format can explain why. I have heard a few photographers who bought a phase one camera rave about it. If it is more than just more pixels perhaps they can tell us why. I look forward to D800e reviewers who comment on this aspect of the new camera.
Posted 1 year ago # -
adamz said:
guys, I'm only allowing the links here as they add to the discussion but please remember the rules of not linking to external pagesas 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
Yup, look at the detail in the D4 image sample at full size on Flicker. Great! But there is a subtle feel which comes from having simply a larger area within which to capture the image. And maybe at a nano tech level, it has to do with wavelengths and as the difference in size of the image gets smaller, the relationship between the wavelength of the energy captured changes as the format size decreases.
An analogous discussion might be in the high end audio and the "Tube Folks". Analog vs digital. By its very nature, the digital sound "image" has lost something in between its "pieces". Some believe they can hear this. Not really in a describable difference, yet in the subtle nuances of the sound. And even when we are older and can hardly hear anything, like some on this forum may be, chuckle, when listening the presence of analog can often be heard as if one is live vs recorded. And it is this very subtle difference that we will always find is present as the format increases in size.
Posted 1 year ago # -
We now have some comments from D800 users comparing it to medium format.
"I think that the D800 will also contribute to this. It is a game-changer, and considering its capabilities, quite possibly a career-changer for many people. The 36-megapixel images this camera produces almost reach medium-format quality. This will give me a distinct advantage with my fine art and limited edition prints — now I can make them even bigger. I love medium format, but the cameras are big and clumsy. Now, however, I can have medium-format quality in a smaller package, along with a much wider variety of lenses, including long lenses. I cannot wait to see the prints."
http://nps.nikonimaging.com/members/jim_brandenburg/index.htm
see also
I think the D800 can be called Nikon's first medium format digital camera. And I also think more his coming, like a 48 mp FX sensor in about 2 years.
Posted 1 year ago # -
donaldejose said:
What are those "aspects of medium format" that cannot be recreated with a small sensor of equal pixel size producing an equal image quality?16bit vs 14bit. Color range, skin tones, salvageable detail. If you like what you can do with RAW files then MF has very obvious advantages.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Unless you shoot over ISO400, in which case the D800 will kill any MF back.
Posted 1 year ago # -
16bit color is the major next hurdle for DSLRs. If they can reach that without the noise - that will be something. Massive processing needed though.
Check this one out where the D800 is compared to a Hassy. It pulls out the advantages and disadvantages for both.The D800 is not medium format and you can see the difference. The ability to print large is what I believe Mr. Brandenburg was referring to. Being said, that doesn't take anything away from what the D800 is capable of.
Posted 1 year ago # -
donaldejose said:
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?
There's no point doing that for Nikon. Nikon's sensor's read noise has gone so low to the point where oversampling is not needed. Nikon once did that, but not anymore. The reason the 41MP sensor needs to over sample is because they have high read noise. Look at D7000 and D800, the read noise is virtually 0, which causes the great dynamic range. Also, over sampling means more megapixels and would only increase the gaps and decrease noise performance. Although the gaps are diminishing due to micro lenses, there's still no point doing that because there's no significant advantage. Lastly, pixel binning (over sampling) has the same effect as bicubic down sampling your image.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Check these out peeps. josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
Now you know, there's virtually no difference between formats, just systems.
No changes in these no matter your format:
1. Dynamic range
2. Noise performance
3. Diffraction
4. Color accuracy
5. Depth of field
6. Bokeh
7. PerspectivePosted 1 year ago # -
It will be interesting to see if Nikon is able to improve the sensor in the D800 over the next few years and produce a better sensor for a D4X or D800x or D900 or whatever name. I would think the odds are they can. Odds are everything gets "better;" more processing speed, more memory, better sensors, better software. I think the D800 will be seen as Nikon's bridge into the IQ once reserved for medium format. Time will tell.
Posted 1 year ago # -
MikeWhis said:
Check these out peeps. josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
Now you know, there's virtually no difference between formats, just systems.Those formats are systems that have some very distinct differences - you can't separate the two. What differs is the capabilities on the creative edges of the systems. If you are shooting a portraiture and want the exact same end result, shooting at F/8 on DX or FX, sure you translate that to the larger format (F/16 or higher depending on the size) for can use f5.6 or smaller on M4/3rds. Take a 8x10 and shooting at F2.8, the achievable shallow DOF for the whole image can not be made by a FX/DX/M4/3rds system. You would need an aperture of f/.6 or something ridiculous (I didn't bother doing the math) that doesn't exist. People don't shoot 4x5 or 8x10 systems to print a 4x6 photo. Likewise people don't use cellphones to shoot 30 foot prints for buildings.
I get this writers point, but they don't really explain the characteristics fully and seem to try to explain everything by removing details that do make a difference as they are difficult to explain, especially someone who is starting out or doesn't particularly care. I wouldn't call it dishonest or incorrect, just falling short in explaining why some photogs choose these systems and the advantages they have in particular systems.
I'm not sure who this "expert" is but there is a lot of info on his page that puts me on edge with his proof. Instead of allowing each format to show on it's own merits what it can do, He is trying to prove everything by scaling systems up and down to get to his preset conclusion. I would say that the method is not accurate at all - but the end conclusion is not necessarily wrong - knew the answer but didn't know how to get to it. Most of his arguments start with making the ideal set image is a 4x6 image shot at f/11 with a FX camera or something close. They never really say but everything is scaled up and down to achieve his point.
Example/comparable (In outside of the photography world) - He needs to achieve a return of investment(ROI) to buy an item. He knows the ROI is there, but they have to justify it to their boss. To justify it, he puts in good numbers but falls short and can't figure out what they missed or why it is off. So then bogus garbage is added like it will save him time by not having to walk to a file cabinet across the office. He does that 2 times a hour and it takes 3min each time. That's 48 mins a day - 260 days a year = 208 hours/ yr which is roughly 10% of total hours per year (2200) and 10% of his salary is $5,000. So he states he saved the company $5,000 per year and his ROI is achieved. But we all know, eliminating a walk to a file cabinet does not cost the company $5,000/year.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It seems two arguments are going back and forth here. One about resolution and image quality and the other about what is 'special' or to approach differently, WHY do people use medium format.
My thoughts are that the D800 does challenge MF when looking at resolution and image quality in many situations, more so if you aren't pixel peeping. It is definitely a threat to it when you take price in to consideration.
As to WHY people use medium format and will still use it despite the D800 is a different ballgame altogether.
Donald, you say you can't see the difference. That really surprises me. To me it is as obvious as a baboons backside!! I suggest you look through some high quality books by well known photographers, for example Mario Testino. Pictures on the internet just don't cut it. He uses MF as do most of the top magazine and fashion photographers. The pictures are taken for magazines, not exactly pushing the pixel limitations. I think the reason you can't see it though is that it probably just doesn't fit in with your type of photography. I get the impression you are a 'technical' photographer, you are passionate about resolution, colour and sharpness rather than a picture with 'soul'. Quoting you earlier "This is why we don't use 35mm lenses for head shots. Conventionally, a "portrait" lens (50 to 85mm on DX, 85 to 135mm on 35mm film or FX and 100 to 150mm on medium format) is thought to have the most pleasing perspective for the human face when doing a head and shoulders shot." I mean seriously Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory couldn't have said that better :-) That isn't meant to redicule you, but everyone sees photography in a different way. There is a difference, MF jumps out at you compared to FF or DX, especially when it is used effectively. If you don't see it, that is great. At least you won't lust after ridiculously expensive cameras.
Posted 1 year ago # -
silversurfer: The Big Bang Theory is my favorite sit com even though I never watch sit coms because they are full of idle chit-chat and I don't learn anything from them! When I take time to turn on the TV I tend to look for something that teaches me something I don't know. I guess Sheldon would make the same choice. I love those BBT guys and I can identify with their inability to comprehend why they don't relate well with other people. Perhaps you are right about me just not being able to see the "soul" in MF. It does not "jump out" at me.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Donald, I really hope you didn't take insult to my post, it certainly wasn't meant that way. I just re read it and it could come across as a bit of an attack on you. So my apologies if it did. I am the same as you with TV, a friend of mine has all the episodes recorded and after digging my heels in initially I now find it quite funny and entertaining.
Anyway the point I was making! I've been to over 120 countries and photographed in most of those. One of my all time favorite places is Wadi Rum, a desert in Jordan. It left a huge impression on me. Something almost spiritual. I have heard people describe it as the most beautiful place on Earth. Anyway I was talking about it and an acquaintance said 'I've been there but don't see it. Looks just like another desert to me' She was a fashion model from Ukraine and it simply wasn't her thing. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My niece thinks Justin Bieber is the best talent in the world....no matter how much I push it on her she just doesn't seem to appreciate my ACDC collection ;-)
The beauty of photography is its diversity, there is something for everyone. Medium format will have it's place for a long time yet, as much for technical reasons as artistic. But I do think that gap is getting smaller and more and more specialised. I wish I was good enough to justify owning one :-/
Posted 1 year ago # -
silversurfer said:
The beauty of photography is its diversity, there is something for everyone. Medium format will have it's place for a long time yet, as much for technical reasons as artistic. But I do think that gap is getting smaller and more and more specialised. I wish I was good enough to justify owning one :-/
Yes, nice comment. And, if I have learned anything in this world, it is I do have a choice as to what I see. Without a lot of psychobable, we tend to project ourselves onto the world we see. And we can see either good, or ....
Some of the most barren spots in the USA are in the West and many folks find them boring. Yet, when riding solo across the USA on a motorcycle, there is a spiritual beauty which is breath taking. And this is what some of us would like to capture in our photographs.
Posted 1 year ago # -
silversurfer: I am about as easily insulted as is Sheldon Cooper. No offense taken. I thought it was funny and likely more true than you realized. I have seen beautiful images of Wadi Rum.
msmoto: I grew up in North Dakota and did see beauty in a landscape which to most people is bland. I can respect solo riding across the US. I surely would nod off and kill myself doing that!
Posted 1 year ago # -
donaldejose said:
silversurfer: I am about as easily insulted as is Sheldon Cooper. No offense taken. I thought it was funny and likely more true than you realized. I have seen beautiful images of Wadi Rum.msmoto: I grew up in North Dakota and did see beauty in a landscape which to most people is bland. I can respect solo riding across the US. I surely would nod off and kill myself doing that!
Spent first twenty three years of my life in Sioux Falls.... My last trip across country I came across Montana on US 2, then down to Dickinson. That was in 2008. Maybe I will try to find some images of North Dakota and post.... Oh, motorcycles do better than cars when you fall asleep.... sort of....your hand comes off the throttle and you wake up because the bike slows up suddenly... unless one has cruise control.
Posted 1 year ago # -
When my parents in North Dakota retired in cold North Dakota they moved South: to South Dakota! But not as far South as Sioux Falls. Crazy! I told them I was not going to visit them in the winter anymore.
Posted 1 year ago # -
DxOMark now has sensor ratings on the D800, D800e and D600 all three of which fall above their digital medium format sensor ratings. It seems to me, unless you are using some physics aspect of MF which FX simply cannot achieve (such as a shallower depth of field than you can get on FX at f1.4), then FX can substitute for MF in overall image quality.
Posted 7 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
