Reading mode: Light Dark

Is Nikon D/800 camera like medium formats?

Go to last post
K

khighfi

Member
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
The advertisements indicate that the footages taken from D/800 are close to medium formats, as far I know picture quality relay on sensor dimension, the bigger the better. So since D/800 sensor dimension is short to 36/24mm and medium formats is 120mm I think cannot be, but that could be only theory.

Also worth to mention even new digital medium formats like Hasselblade don't come full frame of medium formats, I noticed their sensors size just little over 36/24mm .

Anybody like to answer.
Many thanks to all.
 
MF sensors are generally bigger, but not always full sized (same as film). The Pentax 645D sensor is 44mm x 33mm, where as true MF film (i.e., Pentax 645) is 56mm x 41.5mm.

MF cameras have the advantage of larger glass, which is an improvement over FF cameras by a significant margin.

While the D800 sensor is approaching the resolution of MF it still is a FF sensor with FF glass, so it will not be quite as good as MF and when you add the glass factor to the equation it still gives an advantage to MF.

Back to the sensor size, MF sensors enjoy larger pixels, which can provide a noise advantage, too. However, Nikon and Sony have shown that with some clever engineering you can close the gap on those advantage, but MF has not yet been eclipsed.

It will be interesting to watch how future FF sensors and and camera systems impact the MF market. The D800 at $3,000 is starting to breath down the neck of systems costing 3 time or more. Change is coming.
 
khighfi said:
The advertisements indicate that the footages taken from D/800 are close to medium formats, as far I know picture quality relay on sensor dimension, the bigger the better. So since D/800 sensor dimension is short to 36/24mm and medium formats is 120mm I think cannot be, but that could be only theory.

Also worth to mention even new digital medium formats like Hasselblade don't come full frame of medium formats, I noticed their sensors size just little over 36/24mm .
Click to expand...
When they say it is close to medium format, they are referring to digital medium format cameras, which, as you noted, use a much smaller sensor than full-frame medium format (around 40/53mm). So it is bigger which gives it an advantage. However, picture quality only partially relies on sensor dimension, how it is made also has a big impact. Medium format sensors haven't seen a lot of development recently but 33mm sensors have. Technologically 35mm medium format sensors (such as the D800) are far more advanced. It is only a question of if their technological advantage is enough to make up for the more/larger pixels of digital medium format.
 
Harsh resolution.
Yes its sharp and detailed but medium format have a different rendering.
Much more natural, less harsh transition.

In getdpi forum there is some guys. Who own a back and bought. Also the d800. Their findim seems to be the d800is high quality resolution camera, butmedium format file are another things, especially or the way they take post production.

One of them has also pointed out that all his nikon gear are not really up corner to conrner to sensor.

In addition medim format now reach 80 million and can go up without penalization from lenses side, i doubt a 35 mm camera can go up to 80 million, few lens in the 35 could resolve this kind of sensor.
BobYIL said:
Check this one:



--
BobYIL
Click to expand...
 
MF ist still very good at detail and color rendering.

Have you seen this comparision? Phase One P45+, D3X, D3

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=30419028&problem=max
khighfi said:
The advertisements indicate that the footages taken from D/800 are close to medium formats, as far I know picture quality relay on sensor dimension, the bigger the better. So since D/800 sensor dimension is short to 36/24mm and medium formats is 120mm I think cannot be, but that could be only theory.

Also worth to mention even new digital medium formats like Hasselblade don't come full frame of medium formats, I noticed their sensors size just little over 36/24mm .

Anybody like to answer.
Many thanks to all.
Click to expand...
 
jonny1976 said:
Harsh resolution.
Yes its sharp and detailed but medium format have a different rendering.
Much more natural, less harsh transition.

In getdpi forum there is some guys. Who own a back and bought. Also the d800. Their findim seems to be the d800is high quality resolution camera, butmedium format file are another things, especially or the way they take post production.

One of them has also pointed out that all his nikon gear are not really up corner to conrner to sensor.

In addition medim format now reach 80 million and can go up without penalization from lenses side, i doubt a 35 mm camera can go up to 80 million, few lens in the 35 could resolve this kind of sensor.
Click to expand...
Frankly when I first saw that picture, especially the side-lit portion of the forehead of the person I recalled the portraits of Yousuf Karsh :) They were mostly shot with an 8x10 camera and the detail and resolution were on par with his photographs.

About harshness: The most important indication for extended tonality, IMHO is the DR and the D800/E series do not disappoint from this regard too as they exhibit the same -if not superior- DR ratings like their MF brethren. Color depth? The same situation. So where the mentioned "harshness" could be originated from?

I think some top new design 35mm lenses have some unique microcontrast characteristics compared to the majority of the DMF lenses. In the samples, you will not be able to notice this harshness with the Tamron zoom for example. I also remember from my old GSW 690III that the 65mm lens was extremely sharp however failing to show the acutance and crispness of the Summicron 35 asph. For example if the photographer had used the old 105/2.5 Nikkor instead of the 70-200 zoom for that shot, it would certainly be as sharp however somewhat "milder" in rendering.

The other -and very imortant- factor here all the MF sensors are based on CCD whereas the great majority of the FF and DX format cameras are based on CMOS sensors. Naturally, some differences are to be observed however I do not believe that anybody would call the outputs of the D90 being harsher than those of the D200. If there's some than it should rather be due to PP, not the sensor.

Just my humble opinion..
--
BobYIL
 
Thank you all very much for helpful information's. The reason I asked because my dealer recommend D/800 when I asked for high resolution camera like MF. Frankly speaking didn't like images from D3x and D/800 despite much better than analog because I don't see good resolution and contrast or like MF offer, I think if I enlarge these images they show weakness as 35mm always does.

From what I understand in this discussion that large lens permit more exposure and details to the sensor, and that the reason MF are still better than 35mm, if this make huge different over D/800 then I might buy D/MF camera. However since the sensor size in D/MF cameras less than 120mm that’s mean we don't have full frame-D/MF yet! So Is it better I wait until the industry bring up full frame 120mm cameras? or the recent D/MF cameras are good enough to meet MF demand/standard and the difference should be little.
 
I always think MF film is so much better than digital MF. Totally different rendering. The difference between MF digital and D800 is marginal, compare to the huge difference between MF film and DMF.

MF Film> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Digital MF> > D800
 
I want to go to analog MF but they told me its getting difficult finding place for processing films, also I heard Kodak bankrupt.
 
when i see that photo the first thing i think is DIGITAL, harsh, rendition of skin tones, abruptly smoothness of tone. medium format has a much better rendition of tone transaction. resolution is there but it reminds me of a d7000 image quality with big resolution.

cmos are better because they are less sensitive to heating but ccd produce a much more interesting image at base iso. when i see the images produced by my old k10d with ccd they are simply much more pleasing even if they use a 7 years technology, have according to dxo marks much less dr and color depth. about color depth.

dx3 was marked better than many back. i was at photokina 2010 and in the hassy booth they have printing of the same image made by the old h3d 30 million d3x and canon mark d2, they were big a3 printing. they underlined how poor the color rendition and smoothness was compared to the hassy. according to dxo mrk the d3x has better color depth.

personally i consider dxo mark not really the holy grail. in real world big sensor make a difference.

in addition so far i have seen very few sample of lenses delivering corner to corner sharpness with high level of micro contrast. medium format lenses even old film lenses, can resolve even the 80 million back.
BobYIL said:
jonny1976 said:
Harsh resolution.
Yes its sharp and detailed but medium format have a different rendering.
Much more natural, less harsh transition.

In getdpi forum there is some guys. Who own a back and bought. Also the d800. Their findim seems to be the d800is high quality resolution camera, butmedium format file are another things, especially or the way they take post production.

One of them has also pointed out that all his nikon gear are not really up corner to conrner to sensor.

In addition medim format now reach 80 million and can go up without penalization from lenses side, i doubt a 35 mm camera can go up to 80 million, few lens in the 35 could resolve this kind of sensor.
Click to expand...
Frankly when I first saw that picture, especially the side-lit portion of the forehead of the person I recalled the portraits of Yousuf Karsh :) They were mostly shot with an 8x10 camera and the detail and resolution were on par with his photographs.

About harshness: The most important indication for extended tonality, IMHO is the DR and the D800/E series do not disappoint from this regard too as they exhibit the same -if not superior- DR ratings like their MF brethren. Color depth? The same situation. So where the mentioned "harshness" could be originated from?

I think some top new design 35mm lenses have some unique microcontrast characteristics compared to the majority of the DMF lenses. In the samples, you will not be able to notice this harshness with the Tamron zoom for example. I also remember from my old GSW 690III that the 65mm lens was extremely sharp however failing to show the acutance and crispness of the Summicron 35 asph. For example if the photographer had used the old 105/2.5 Nikkor instead of the 70-200 zoom for that shot, it would certainly be as sharp however somewhat "milder" in rendering.

The other -and very imortant- factor here all the MF sensors are based on CCD whereas the great majority of the FF and DX format cameras are based on CMOS sensors. Naturally, some differences are to be observed however I do not believe that anybody would call the outputs of the D90 being harsher than those of the D200. If there's some than it should rather be due to PP, not the sensor.

Just my humble opinion..
--
BobYIL
Click to expand...
 
jonny1976 said:
when i see that photo the first thing i think is DIGITAL, harsh, rendition of skin tones, abruptly smoothness of tone. medium format has a much better rendition of tone transaction. resolution is there but it reminds me of a d7000 image quality with big resolution.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty much sure that you would say exactly the same thing when you see the IQ180 picture without knowing what it is. Direct output of D800 and IQ180's IQ are not so much different in terms of digital harshness, I believe.
jonny1976 said:
cmos are better because they are less sensitive to heating but ccd produce a much more interesting image at base iso. when i see the images produced by my old k10d with ccd they are simply much more pleasing even if they use a 7 years technology, have according to dxo marks much less dr and color depth. about color depth.
Click to expand...
I kind of agree with you, but CCD's high ISO performance is horrible. Also, I'm sure that post processed D800 image is better than any vintage CCD camera.
jonny1976 said:
personally i consider dxo mark not really the holy grail. in real world big sensor make a difference.
Click to expand...
I think the lens makes much more difference between small and large sensor. dxo mark doesn't count on the lens.
jonny1976 said:
in addition so far i have seen very few sample of lenses delivering corner to corner sharpness with high level of micro contrast. medium format lenses even old film lenses, can resolve even the 80 million back.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
I've seen samples from the 645D and the general image quality seems superior to me. Not a lot, but it's noticeable. There's something about the rendering, sharpness, tones transition, microcontrast, that is better than on the D800. The images have more character, they are very strong and natural.

The D800 samples i've seen so far, are great, with many details, much better than any other FX/DX cam, but I can't get the same WOOOOW! factor. WOW yes, but IMHO, the 645D is still on a higher level.... as it should be a much more expensive camera.

Of course, for its price, the D800 is a wonderful performer.
 
Most digital MF these days is not true 6x6 or 6x7. It's more like 36x48. There are a few bigger sensors, but they are very expensive.

The D800 is a different animal. It has a state of the art CMOS sensor with low noise. It is hard to compare in some ways. It makes up for some of its smaller size with dynamic range. It's hard to tell where things balance out these days in the 40MP range.
 
khighfi said:
The advertisements indicate that the footages taken from D/800 are close to medium formats, as far I know picture quality relay on sensor dimension, the bigger the better. So since D/800 sensor dimension is short to 36/24mm and medium formats is 120mm I think cannot be, but that could be only theory.

Also worth to mention even new digital medium formats like Hasselblade don't come full frame of medium formats, I noticed their sensors size just little over 36/24mm .
Click to expand...
No the D800 is a completely different animal!

It has:
  • greater than 1fps
  • video
  • a vast array of lens' including zooms, and other lens' which give greater effective depth of field control
  • costs far far less
In terms of image quality, it's approaching the lower end of medium format, which to many is good enough, some probably not good enough. Also, since the sensors are larger in medium format, the lens' aren't stressed as much, so you will get some better micro contrast.
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Currently shooting: Nikon D3S, D700
http://www.joesiv.com
 
Let me understand this, with all this hype of MF,FX,DX ...etc can you tell me really if a professional photographer use both cameras to take the same picture we would see the difference ? i doubt it.
 
No; medium format it's not about resolution, ISO or bigger pixel size for easy bigger printing. It's about smaller DOF, another FOV, diferent subject magnification...
-
http://www.BogdanSandulescu.Ro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top