Fred Greissing wrote:

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly.  It's like saying that you can shoot all product photography with a DSLR.  Well, you *could* but a tech camera with a digital back is better (and more prevalent among those doing advertising product work). I think it's just that most folks here either don't have experience with other tools, or they had some in the past but have no need for the options they offer now.

I have shot and owned MFD as well as shot for many years with medium format and large format film.

Medium format Digital is not all it's made out to be. After testing the D800 I saw no need to keep the flakey Phase One MFD cameras. 35mm DSLR cameras have progressed so much while MFD is creeping along in survival mode.

Many photographers have dropped medium format digital and the huge drop in valure from new to used is an indication of this.

Here's a good example of a photographer that shoots fashion, product and automotive who has replaced his medium format with the Nikon D800.

http://www.harperphoto.com/


Also this comparisson by the owner of an IQ180 80MP digital back is quite revealing:

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-v … one-iq180/

Fred, I know your experience and wasn't trying to dismiss your opinion.  I shot a D800 for the first time this weekend as the guy who owns the boat next to mine just bought one to take photos of his wife's paintings. It was nice, I guess, I'd have to spend more time with one.  For myself, I prefer a larger camera (I never liked 35mm as a format).  If it comes to pass that the only thing left to shoot is a 35mm DSLR (or if they become vastly superior) I'll transition - it's just a tool.  Like I said, I may pick up a D800 anyway, but I would prefer to wait until that sensor is in a larger camera (D4x? D5?).

Fred Greissing wrote:

I have shot and owned MFD as well as shot for many years with medium format and large format film.

Medium format Digital is not all it's made out to be. After testing the D800 I saw no need to keep the flakey Phase One MFD cameras. 35mm DSLR cameras have progressed so much while MFD is creeping along in survival mode.

Many photographers have dropped medium format digital and the huge drop in valure from new to used is an indication of this.

Here's a good example of a photographer that shoots fashion, product and automotive who has replaced his medium format with the Nikon D800.

http://www.harperphoto.com/


Also this comparisson by the owner of an IQ180 80MP digital back is quite revealing:

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-v … one-iq180/

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Fred, I know your experience and wasn't trying to dismiss your opinion.  I shot a D800 for the first time this weekend as the guy who owns the boat next to mine just bought one to take photos of his wife's paintings. It was nice, I guess, I'd have to spend more time with one.  For myself, I prefer a larger camera (I never liked 35mm as a format).  If it comes to pass that the only thing left to shoot is a 35mm DSLR (or if they become vastly superior) I'll transition - it's just a tool.  Like I said, I may pick up a D800 anyway, but I would prefer to wait until that sensor is in a larger camera (D4x? D5?).

Just a quick note (as a D800E user), referencing Fred's IQ180 comparison link. Within it, there is a distinction made regarding the IQ of the 'E' vs. the vanilla 800.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Under $5K for a kit including body and lenses if you really shop.  For the back alone you can find some in the $3k range.

I want one of those cube shaped Hassleblads and a back that will do 1600 ISO as good as a Rebel XTI or an original 5D and doesn't require tethering. When I can get the back for $500, I'll be switching over. I'd pay more if it can do higher ISOs.

I'm guessing that's not going to happen until the D900 exists and the D800 is under $2k.

MC Photo wrote:
My main interest in MFD is the form. I'd rather shoot through a waist level finder.

I'd be happy with a right angle LCD finder.

Waist level viewfinders on medium format digital have their limitations.

Magnification is low for most.

Phase One Mamiya 645 have a fixed prism and no waistlevel finder

The Mamiya RZ has a waist level finder and a rotating back, but the dimwits at Mamiya Phase One have not made a waist level finder optimized for the 50% crop factor on the 6x7 screen.

Hasselblad H has a waistlevel finder, but unusable for vertical compositions.
Same goes for Contax

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Just a quick note (as a D800E user), referencing Fred's IQ180 comparison link. Within it, there is a distinction made regarding the IQ of the 'E' vs. the vanilla 800.

I have both the D800 and D800e

There is very little difference in image quality.
You really have to go down to a pixel level to see the difference.
However if you have subject matter that makes moire issues come up
the D800 is going to be significantly better.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/22

Fred Greissing wrote:

Waist level viewfinders on medium format digital have their limitations.

Magnification is low for most.

Phase One Mamiya 645 have a fixed prism and no waistlevel finder

The Mamiya RZ has a waist level finder and a rotating back, but the dimwits at Mamiya Phase One have not made a waist level finder optimized for the 50% crop factor on the 6x7 screen.

Hasselblad H has a waistlevel finder, but unusable for vertical compositions.
Same goes for Contax

Agreed.  I have a full RZ kit (two bodies, most ever lens made, etc.) and the WLF, while my preference can be tricky.  I find focus to be more critical with digital as well.  Using different screens helped tremendously. 

I also use a loupe when necessary.

Now having said that, I really love the Leaf back with the RZ Lenses and I love the from factor.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Pretty cool.

Why not just use an available adapter to fit a DSLR to a 4x5?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/4x5-Large-Forma … 255ad3c231

That adapter only moves on one axis and it would take to many tiles to capture
enough of the 4x5 image circle.
4x5 wide angle lenses are not retro focal so there would be color cast issues.
4x5 cameras are big and not really solid enough for back shifting for multi shot
shifting. 4x5 cameras are monorail with some axial play, while the Fuji gx680 is a twin rail. The twin rail is more stable.



I don't want to lug around a big 4x5 camera on mountain trails or to tricky locations.
Here is the Fuji standard size compared to a 4x5 standard and my 8x10



The finished Fuji GX680 based hybrid is smaller than a Fuji gx680.

Here is the front standard infront of a D800.

Legacys 7 wrote:
Of course lens will play a factor. But I'm talking about format size/perspective that helps where 35 mm for example with wide angle will give me distortion/barrell. That seems to be what some are forgetting when they state, "You don't need medium format anymore." That was/is my point.

While MF dealers and fanboys like to criticise 35mm DSLR lenses MFD lenses have plenty of issues, especially when they are trying to keep them small.

Hell the Hasselblad 24mm has upto 4% of geometric distortion and severe relative illumination/vignetting

Fred Greissing wrote:
Having used MFD with the limitation they have of being smaller than 645 sensors I decided to build a camera to overcome this limitation and have higher dynamic range.

I am building a hybrid Fuji GX680 / Nikon camera for still life and landscape.

I am building it out of two Fuji gx680 front standards mounting my Fuji lenses on the front and a D800E on the back.

I will have tilt and shift on the front and back, like a proper classic technical camera.

The best thing will be using the shift and rise on the back of the camera to do rectalinear stitching. This will give me captures of a much larger area that an IQ180
and a MP count of over 120MP.

So far tests are very promising as the Fuji lenses match the resolution of my best
Nikon lenses. Actually the Fuji lens is a tiny bit sharper as you can see some aliasing on the target compared to the Nikon.



These were captured with the D800.



Bench testing Fuji 65mm.

The stitching will be really easy... just a simple planar stitch of the image projected by the Fuji lenses.

I have from 50mm to 300mm Fuji lenses as well as the ultra shallow depth of field 180mm 3.2..... all tilt shift lenses.

Virtual sensor are will be 78x58mm. Even more if I use front shift too, something I can do for distant landscapes.

It's sort of a Rhinocam on steroids.

Instead of the Nex7 I will use a Nikon D800 or D800E

Instead of 645 and 6x6 lenses I will be using the 8x8 plus Fuji GX680 lenses.

Unlike the Rhino I will have tilt shift on the whole lens range.

The Rhinocam gets significantly better results than a 40MP medium format digital camera.



I should be getting about twice that plus tilt shift...
Not to mention the better dynamic range of the D800 sensor over MFD sensors.

Also from tests I've done so far I do not get the color cast issues you get with a wide angle on a Medium format camera.
This is due to the large distance from the rear element to the sensor thanks to the large body desigh and mirror box of the Fuji GX680.

Cool thing is that I built the hybrid camera for under $ 500.

Can't wait to see results from this beast!

Fred Greissing wrote:

I have both the D800 and D800e

There is very little difference in image quality.
You really have to go down to a pixel level to see the difference.
However if you have subject matter that makes moire issues come up
the D800 is going to be significantly better.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/22

I hesitated and procrastinated over the E vs. the 800 for quite a while over the moire issue. Did a lot of research. Because, I've had problems with moire on my D300, so I was incredibly conscious of the issue. I have yet to encounter any moire at all with the E (doesn't mean it's not possible), while shooting the kind of fine patterns that caused crazy moire on the D300. All in all my personal experience and what my research exposed on the net before purchase, leads me to believe the whole moire issue with the E was severely overblown.

And as for pixel peeping to see any difference; I am of course not shooting both the 800 and the E, so I don't have any personal experience comparing, but I did comparison on the net before purchase, and the difference in detail of the E is palpable, and it doesn't take 100% to see it.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
I hesitated and procrastinated over the E vs. the 800 for quite a while over the moire issue. Did a lot of research. Because, I've had problems with moire on my D300, so I was incredibly conscious of the issue. I have yet to encounter any moire at all with the E (doesn't mean it's not possible), while shooting the kind of fine patterns that caused crazy moire on the D300. All in all my personal experience and what my research exposed on the net before purchase, leads me to believe the whole moire issue with the E was severely overblown.

And as for pixel peeping to see any difference; I am of course not shooting both the 800 and the E, so I don't have any personal experience comparing, but I did comparison on the net before purchase, and the difference in detail of the E is palpable, and it doesn't take 100% to see it.

Regarding the Moiree issue it is an issue and even Nikon documented it clearly from the launch.

For many people it is not an issue because they do not shoot sharp enough for it to be an issue. Buy this I am no saying that they are using bad technique, but they are not shooting stable enough for there to be the level of sharpness that makes Moiree apear. One has to keep in mind that the pixel size on a D800 or D800e is very very small and even microscopic motion blur will often be enough to avoid moiree. Shooting NEW suits for example will be more of a problem than shooting suits that are not new. I remember talking to a young photographer that shot used fashion for his book and then on his fist look book the new suits looked like christmas trees.

For example shooting at f8 is more of a Moiree problem than shooting at f16.