will the D800E give you Pentax 645D type images ?

Started Mar 5, 2012 | Discussions thread
topstuff Senior Member • Posts: 1,209
Re: will the D800E give you Pentax 645D type images ?

Jon Rty wrote:

And the 645D sensor is more than 2 generations worse than the D800. The technological gap between MF and DSLRs is huge, and grows every day. There's no way MF manufacturers can keep up with Canon, Nikon and Sony when Nikon sells more D4s in a month than every Phase One model in a year.

AllanRinggaard wrote:

Yes, but they are also 1 or 2 generations apart.

-- hide signature --

Best Regards
Allan Ringgaard

http://www.allanringgaard.dk

With respect , your point does not really work out in reality.

I work in the marketing & publishing business and we work with a lot of pro's.

Cameras like the 645D and the Leica S2, let alone the Hasselblad/Mamiya crew, produce a genuinely better image quality for the applications they are being used for.

Period.

Pro's are unsentimental about their gear ( although a few Leica users do seem to have a love affair with their S2's ! ) and the reality is that if they think the D800 would be better for a job then they would use it. And for some work I have no doubt that they will.

There is another point to consider - the 645D uses a different sensor tech. It is not just about size of sensor ( 1.7x the size of 35m FF) , but also that the 645D is a CCD rather than a CMOS. There is no doubt that a CCD sensor renders images "differently" to CMOS.

If you take the fact that the 645D is CCD. Add on the fact that the sensor is much larger and then add on the fact that DOF is completely different, you are left with the reality that the D800 will NEVER produce 645D like images.

That is just the way it is.

And your point about volumes sold by Canikon is not really relevant. Sure, canikon sell tens of thousands of units each month. But they are all consumer-priced items ( even a D4 ) and built down to a price so that they are relatively affordable.

MF cameras do not have to even try to be priced at a consumer level ( they are professional tools, much like a farmer spending $300,000 on a combine harvester) and so they are not so affected by the need to keep costs down. And built in obsolescence is not such a factor - many pro's may keep their MF gear for many years.

Believe me. MF digital files are a revelation compared to DSLR to work with. There is no contest unless you are into shooting sports in low light or other specialities.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow