D800 vs H5D-50c

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
pcm81
Contributing MemberPosts: 622
Like?
D800 vs H5D-50c
6 months ago

So, Hassy has switched to CMOS and with 50 PMX medium format the pixel density is similar to d800. Actually a bit less, at same pixel density ad d800 MF would have around 70MPX. I am guessing that the advertised 6400 usable ISO may indeed be cleaner than 6400 from d800, but probably only by a stop or two...

So the question is: why would you buy the new 50 MPX hassy vs d800? With older MF sensor tech color depth arguments were made to defend MF digital, but with CMOS sensors on new MFD cameras, it just seems like a bigger, bulkier d800. Clearly new MFD cameras are still for studio work or landscape only, 2fps and large lenses are not that useful for sports or reporting.

-- hide signature --

1. D800 is the first camera with resolution so high that it simply does not matter.
2. Most people who do not own/shoot d800 misunderstand it. Color depth and accuracy in addition to resolution is what makes d800 great. Resolution alone is over rated.

Casio Exilim EX-H5 Nikon D800
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Tord S Eriksson
Senior MemberPosts: 2,183Gear list
Like?
Re: D800 vs H5D-50c
In reply to pcm81, 6 months ago

Same sensor is coming in the Pentax 645D II, which is a low-weight member of the MF family, which could be a great street photography camera! Very little is known about it, hopefully it will not cost an arm and a leg!

-- hide signature --

tord (at) mindless (dot) com
Mostly Nikon V1, & D600, user

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Pentax K-x Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +22 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Hugo First
Contributing MemberPosts: 735
Like?
Re: D800 vs H5D-50c
In reply to pcm81, 6 months ago

people who need the hassy know they need it, and it won't matter that it costs 10x more than a D800. the D800 is primarily for normal people who crave the resolution of MF but can't really spring for it on their budget. this doesn't cover 100 percent of the shooters who use the respective cameras, but it probably is accurate for the vast majority of users. and i account myself as one of the D800 group, in that i love the detail and DR and the incredible editing latitude the D800 provides,l but i just want a camera i can use to go anywhere, do anything, and if something terrible happens to it i wouldn't be ruined financially (exaggerating slightly here for effect, but still...)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Grevture
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,983Gear list
Like?
Still a very different beast altogether
In reply to pcm81, 6 months ago

pcm81 wrote:

So, Hassy has switched to CMOS and with 50 PMX medium format the pixel density is similar to d800. Actually a bit less, at same pixel density ad d800 MF would have around 70MPX. I am guessing that the advertised 6400 usable ISO may indeed be cleaner than 6400 from d800, but probably only by a stop or two...

"Only" a stop or two - that would be a pretty remarkable difference consiedring the D800 is among the top cameras in terms of high iso performance.

More likely it will at most be between half a stop or one stop better - mostly by virtue of the 70% larger capturing area (which in itself should give about half a stop). And maybe in some part by virtue of being a almost three years newer design (the D800 was originally slated to be released in the summer 2011).

So the question is: why would you buy the new 50 MPX hassy vs d800? With older MF sensor tech color depth arguments were made to defend MF digital, but with CMOS sensors on new MFD cameras, it just seems like a bigger, bulkier d800.

Color depth has little, if nothing to do with CCD vs CMOS technology, more then anything else it is related to the design of the color filters. But this si also a factor which could mean teh Hassy is actually not noticeably better at high iso then say a D800 - a more conservative CFA design could actually mean slightly less of high iso performance, as a trade for more color depth.

Clearly new MFD cameras are still for studio work or landscape only, 2fps and large lenses are not that useful for sports or reporting.

Sports and reporting is probably a very low priority for any MF manufacturer

MFD cameras tend to be used in situations where you do not need a very fast workflow, nor having fast moving subjects. MF is more about maximizing resolution, about DOF control, and being able to use extremely well corrected lenses for good corner to corner performance.

The new Hassy (and the new Phase One backs and the Pentax using the same CMOS sensor) mean you get a somewhat more versatile MF camera then before. And with a significantly better live view which is not insigificant since these cameras is often used for the kind of precision photography where live view makes a lot of sense.

The D800 by comparsion is still a enormously more versatile camera, and while their uses intersect somewhat, the bulk useage of D800 is completely outside of what you will use a Hassy for, meaning they are only in some limited ways direct competitors.

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smells funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Keye
Senior MemberPosts: 1,584
Like?
Re: Still a very different beast altogether
In reply to Grevture, 6 months ago
Clearly new MFD cameras are still for studio work or landscape only, 2fps and large lenses are not that useful for sports or reporting.

Sports and reporting is probably a very low priority for any MF manufacturer

MFD cameras tend to be used in situations where you do not need a very fast workflow, nor having fast moving subjects. MF is more about maximizing resolution, about DOF control, and being able to use extremely well corrected lenses for good corner to corner performance.

The new Hassy (and the new Phase One backs and the Pentax using the same CMOS sensor) mean you get a somewhat more versatile MF camera then before. And with a significantly better live view which is not insigificant since these cameras is often used for the kind of precision photography where live view makes a lot of sense.

Yep: resolution, color depth, DOF, and better lenses to make use of those things. And better live view is always better if it's something you use. (Though I would have to think that anybody using live view a lot already has a solid external implementation at this point. Not that more options aren't better--they always are!)

Usable high ISO is very handy if ever trying to mix ambient and flash, and also offers some versatility for straight flash use. "6400" aside, even just a couple stops better performance over the current backs will be welcome breathing room/versatility.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads