[Parry]

The D800E is at 50iso and the A7r is at 100 iso.

A7r @ 50iso

Hmmmmm . . . . good innit?

[Rondec]

My mistake, $10000 difference in price for some pixel peeping delta in IQ.

The discussion has gone fairly far afield. Many (most?) people who buy 645Ds, already have 645 lenses that they used back in film days. At most they fill in gaps with more modern lenses. I don't own any of those lenses, but certainly they aren't all four or five thousand dollars a pop.

Be that as it may. I think it is fine for people to want better gear than they have currently, whether it is full frame with f2.8 zooms or, medium format digital with a couple of primes.

[ElJamoquio]

Ohhhh . . . don't go there. I like more than one lens too. It became a problem.

I don't use most of them and it's cost a fortune. Newbie ignorance was my problem.

Fortunately a lot of lenses for either camera are cheap, and the bigger the sensor, the 'less good' a lens has to be.

I think only the 25 and the macro are ultra-expensive, although $2k for the 'normal' lens is also quite pricey. Could be mis-remembering the prices.

[Parry]

Fortunately a lot of lenses for either camera are cheap, and the bigger the sensor, the 'less good' a lens has to be.

I think only the 25 and the macro are ultra-expensive, although $2k for the 'normal' lens is also quite pricey. Could be mis-remembering the prices.

I hate this camera thing. I means I have to do contracts and earn money.

D800e, N85/1.4G, N135/2DC and perhaps the Siggy Art 50/1.4 if it comes out good. That'll do me and what I really like to shoot. End of the year, see how it goes.

[jsherman999]

The discussion has gone fairly far afield. Many (most?) people who buy 645Ds, already have 645 lenses that they used back in film days. At most they fill in gaps with more modern lenses. I don't own any of those lenses, but certainly they aren't all four or five thousand dollars a pop.

Be that as it may. I think it is fine for people to want better gear than they have currently, whether it is full frame with f2.8 zooms or, medium format digital with a couple of primes.

Agreed, my main point there was that the argument "If you really want to step up in IQ, it makes more sense to upgrade to 645D than FF" doesn't hold a lot of water when you realize that the difference between an aps-c camera and FF camera can be as little as $500. I don't know that you made that particular argument, but a lot of folks do.

So many people lump a $8000+ body (+ lenses) in with a $1600-$3000 body as the same level of 'upgrade', and it's actually a vast cost delta for not as great of an IQ delta.

Foe people who really could use a 645D, already have some lenses for it and are not affected by the body price, it makes a lot of sense. For the typical 'upgrader'... not so much.

.

[Rondec]

Agreed, my main point there was that the argument "If you really want to step up in IQ, it makes more sense to upgrade to 645D than FF" doesn't hold a lot of water when you realize that the difference between an aps-c camera and FF camera can be as little as $500. I don't know that you made that particular argument, but a lot of folks do.

So many people lump a $8000+ body (+ lenses) in with a $1600-$3000 body as the same level of 'upgrade', and it's actually a vast cost delta for not as great of an IQ delta.

Foe people who really could use a 645D, already have some lenses for it and are not affected by the body price, it makes a lot of sense. For the typical 'upgrader'... not so much.

.

I think a lot of the differences people are seeing between formats are more attributable to the glass than to the format itself. People who buy expensive cameras tend to be more likely to invest in expensive glass -- and be able to use it.

For me, with a stable of k mount glass, a D800 does me as much good as a 645D would, albeit cheaper. Even an A7 only gets me a bunch of manual focus lenses on a full frame camera with an EVF (I'm not a big fan of EVFs and a nice feature of full frame is a bigger OVF). Unless I wanted to sell my glass, I couldn't make my switch and in my mind I don't see a big reason to jump to Nikon at this point.

If Pentax comes out with a 645D Mk II, it will be better with regard to sensor resolution, if nothing else. But it is still a pipe dream to ever consider buying something like that.

[Parry]

I think a lot of the differences people are seeing between formats are more attributable to the glass than to the format itself. People who buy expensive cameras tend to be more likely to invest in expensive glass -- and be able to use it.

For me, with a stable of k mount glass, a D800 does me as much good as a 645D would, albeit cheaper. Even an A7 only gets me a bunch of manual focus lenses on a full frame camera with an EVF (I'm not a big fan of EVFs and a nice feature of full frame is a bigger OVF). Unless I wanted to sell my glass, I couldn't make my switch and in my mind I don't see a big reason to jump to Nikon at this point.

If Pentax comes out with a 645D Mk II, it will be better with regard to sensor resolution, if nothing else. But it is still a pipe dream to ever consider buying something like that.

I think to make the jump you need to be very selective when it comes to lenses. It's a big cost and what owning Pentax has taught me is that out of the dozen or so I've stupidly gone and bought I only really use three and sometimes the 100 Macro and Siggy 8-16 (but very rarely these days).

There's options which suit me and more options are coming on the market at reasonable prices. I'm thinking Sigma Art primes here.

Should I go with a D800e I only want four lenses, perhaps even just two of this lot . . .

Sigma 35/1.4 Art
Sigma 50/1.4 Art (if near Zeiss Otus good)
Nikkor 50/1.2 Ai-S
Nikkor 85/1.4G
Nikkor 135/2DC

When I started out in this thing I found I wanted really wide angle and wanted to get everything in the frame. It looked awful. Simply terrible. Gradually, as I've aged in this, I've found myself using normal or longer focal lengths and being far more artistic in composition.

I also truly understand bokeh now. And it's smooth bokeh combined with sharp focus that makes a photo nice. Generally. Then you can easily work on the rest in PP, colours, exposure etc. Well for me anyway.

---

Last edited by Parry; 01-18-2014 at 10:01 AM.

[normhead]

Image Resources D800E full test image


36mp A7r vs 40mp 645D on Image Resources

A7r full 7360 x 4912 image

645D full 7264 x 5440 image

Actually, the 36 mp vs 40 Mp 645D was the article i was referring to.
They make it easy for you.


The D800 and A7r don't achieve the same level of detail.

It's quite possible that the lack of detail in the reds D800 and A7r is a function of the size of sensor pixel having reached the diffraction limit for the red spectrum, and that this is an issue that will remain with future incarnations of these sensors, both D800 and A7r.

[monochrome]

Actually, the 36 mp vs 40 Mp 645D was the article i was referring to. They make it easy for you.

What amazes me is how people are all atwitter about current cutting-edge technology coming close to a three-year-old camera that was really a K7 in a bigger box - and who knows how old the sensor technology already was at the time?

IF there is a 645DII, will it be as revolutionary as the ver.1 was at the time?

[Parry]

Actually, the 36 mp vs 40 Mp 645D was the article i was referring to.
They make it easy for you.


The D800 and A7r don't achieve the same level of detail.

It's quite possible that the lack of detail in the reds D800 and A7r is a function of the size of sensor pixel having reached the diffraction limit for the red spectrum, and that this is an issue that will remain with future incarnations of these sensors, both D800 and A7r.

Norm, I take it this is a Bayer sensor issue?

I don't know much about the 645D thing.

[Parry]

What amazes me is how people are all atwitter about current cutting-edge technology coming close to a three-year-old camera that was really a K7 in a bigger box - and who knows how old the sensor technology already was at the time?

IF there is a 645DII, will it be as revolutionary as the ver.1 was at the time?

I'm pretty sure its price will be revolutionary too.

It's the realm of the rich enthusiast and the commercial professional.

[monochrome]

I'm pretty sure its price will be revolutionary too.

It's the realm of the rich enthusiast and the commercial professional.

Oh certainly. But then a D800 and lenses is out of my range, whereas a K3, a DA60~250 and what I have isn't, but I can come close enough in IQ for what I do.

My comment wasn't meant to be interpreted with the "at the price" addendum. I was just commenting on the image output.

[Parry]

Oh certainly. But then a D800 and lenses is out of my range, whereas a K3, a DA60~250 and what I have isn't, but I can come close enough in IQ for what I do.

My comment wasn't meant to be interpreted with the "at the price" addendum. I was just commenting on the image output.

This is it. It's what you want to do that counts and it takes time and experience to develop a shooting and post-processing style and decide what it is you like to shoot the most and how you go about it.

Some kit is good for some stuff, other kit for another. But all within a budget.

One of my close friends has all the big FF Nikon gear, around £20,000 worth. He doesn't have a shooting style at all. He didn't even know Lightroom existed or anything about RAW until I told him. All he asked was "is there an auto option?" He doesn't have the time. He's worth about £500 million but hasn't the time to enjoy anything at all. Some people, however successful financially, just don't get it. Life that is.

[ElJamoquio]

Agreed, my main point there was that the argument "If you really want to step up in IQ, it makes more sense to upgrade to 645D than FF" doesn't hold a lot of water when you realize that the difference between an aps-c camera and FF camera can be as little as $500.

<cough>Or the same price with a APS F/2.8 lens</cough>

[Rondec]

Norm, I take it this is a Bayer sensor issue?

I don't know much about the 645D thing.

More likely CCD versus CMOS. I think all of the current full frame SLRs use CMOS sensors, while medium format still uses CCD -- there is somewhat different rendering which may be more pleasing and may render reds better as well.