[mikeSF]

On a side note. I thought by now I could be picking up a used 645D at a good price due to the development of newer versions of that camera.

hmm, that's strange, with all the talk from the Nikon boards, I thought there would be an entire used market of abandoned 645D's after the D800 came out.

[ogl]

I don't see artifacts. A7R is just sharper


Given $6000 price difference between the two cameras, I would say 645D needs a newer sensor. Otherwise it's totally dead

A7R is a bit sharper, but pay attention that 645D reproduces the structure of objects better. Better halftones. Better details.
Open you eyes.

SONY can't show such level of details - it's close, but coudn't.

As for sharpness - silly argument. It means nothing.

First of all, the sharpness in JPEG could mean 4 things:
1. JPEG engine's algorithm of A7R offers more sharpness.
2. Sony lens has better contrast/resolution.
3. Sony lens and Pentax lens have different resolution at f8.
4. The cameras have different JPEG modes during test photos.

Any comparision could be correct in RAW in equal condition - DOF, light, focal range, aperture equiv., the same object and e.t.c.

[ogl]

Here is upscaled A7R to 40 MP (same as 645D)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5510/10731456566_f9d84a5f8e_o.jpg
]

Full absurd to do such things. Who cares about such photos in JPEG?

[ElrondElensar]

Even IR editors themselves agree A7R has best image quality in their studio

Sony A7R image quality analysis: Medium-format quality in a 35mm body? Judge for yourself.

[JohnBee]

Full absurd to do such things. Who cares about such photos in JPEG?

I spent time with the RAW files from both the D800E and 645D shortly after Imaging resource released their studio shots and found that the D800E actually out-resolved the 645D in many areas throughout the scene. Which was likely due to the MF DOF differences and/or optical performance outside the center area.

That being said, I also think it's worth mentioning that the 645D's red channel performance was outstanding to say the least whereas the D800E was struggling to keep up. To which I'd add, wasn't enough to conclude the D800E a wash, though it was enough to remain apparent at 1:1 resolution.

Other than that, I was genuinely surprised to find that the D800E could easily keep up with the 645D in terms of overall resolution, dynamic range, color fidelity etc etc. even when uprezed to match the MF frame of view. Which I think says alot about the state of the FF sensor performances gains against that the older MF sensor found in the 645D.

Whatever the case, these types of generation overlaps are inevitable given the nature of the sensor market. And so I wouldn't get to comfortable with such things given that it will only be a matter of time before the same silicon used in these FF sensor gets placed in a MF sensor. At which point... we can all start dreaming again.

[JohnBee]

Even IR editors themselves agree A7R has best image quality in their studio

Sony A7R image quality analysis: Medium-format quality in a 35mm body? Judge for yourself.

I'm really not sure what these guys are referring too but I can only assume they're talking about select areas in the scene from the JPG samples. That being said, I don't think the A7R fairs well against the 645D in terms of red channel performance which seems more prevalent in RAW when comparing both samples side by side.

[JohnBee]

...but perhaps the release of this camera was a little premature from Nikon? For without the lens system to back it up, this camera may well become an expensive paperweight for those who like to shoot wide angle and then print big.

Based on what is written(updates), I'd say it was more along the lines of the test being premature than the actual system. see: AF-S 24mm f/1.4G ED

That being, I'd say that D800E is an excellent alternative to the 645D in terms of resolving power without compromising on the versatility of having an all around camera.

[normhead]

Even IR editors themselves agree A7R has best image quality in their studio

Sony A7R image quality analysis: Medium-format quality in a 35mm body? Judge for yourself.

The enthusiastic interpretation…


and what they actually said…

The camera that shocked the staff of IR with the amazing level of detail it showed now has a competitor with the Sony A7R. The mosaic crop shows slightly crisper detail in the A7R's image, while the Pentax still produces a cleaner image of the red fabric. (The 645D also reveals the color from the halftone dots in the "grout" in the mosaic, which the A7R still misses - Yes, those little flecks of color in the 645D's image are present in the subject, they're the cyan, magenta, and yellow dots of ink in the offset-printed halftone.)

I love being able to look at the images myself, instead of listening of the editors enthusiasm for a new product… I look at the images and think, if I buy an A7r, I'm still going to want a 645D, and since I've bought a K-3, I don't want a D800 or an A7r. Is that the judgement you wanted to hear?

[jonny1986]

imaging resource have no particular light or natural transition of tonality...the 645 has sa superb tone transition that create natural tack sharp images even with 300 dollar lens.

the d800e can dream of this only.,..but people who have never shot it will keep saying contrary based on imaging resource.

tha'st good cause i will buy a used 645d for penny in the future.

[normhead]

imaging resource have no particular light or natural transition of tonality...the 645 has sa superb tone transition that create natural tack sharp images even with 300 dollar lens.

the d800e can dream of this only.,..but people who have never shot it will keep saying contrary based on imaging resource.

tha'st good cause i will buy a used 645d for penny in the future.

Not if I get there first.

[jonny1986]

Based on what is written(updates), I'd say it was more along the lines of the test being premature than the actual system. see: AF-S 24mm f/1.4G ED

That being, I'd say that D800E is an excellent alternative to the 645D in terms of resolving power without compromising on the versatility of having an all around camera.

resolving power is nothing without a natural look superb lenses......th d800 3 even wight the top notch 14.28 or zeiss prime sruggle to reach outstanding corner sharpness...and only stopped down after the best aperture...diffraction in addiction is sever with a ff camera while with 645d you can shoot even f22 without losing sharpness.
te d800e is good but don't touch the645d for iq....and 4:3 ratio and ccd sensor are two characteristic of the iq of 645. even my k10d at base iso produce images i prefer even compared to my k5.

[jonny1986]

Based on what is written(updates), I'd say it was more along the lines of the test being premature than the actual system. see: AF-S 24mm f/1.4G ED

That being, I'd say that D800E is an excellent alternative to the 645D in terms of resolving power without compromising on the versatility of having an all around camera.

resolving power is nothing without a natural look superb lenses......th d800 3 even wight the top notch 14.28 or zeiss prime sruggle to reach outstanding corner sharpness...and only stopped down after the best aperture...diffraction in addiction is sever with a ff camera while with 645d you can shoot even f22 without losing sharpness.
te d800e is good but don't touch the645d for iq....and 4:3 ratio and ccd sensor are two characteristic of the iq of 645. even my k10d at base iso produce images i prefer even compared to my k5.


nikkor lenses even the best are struggling with the d800e sensor...every lens under 50 mm is struggling....the 645d can grow up at 80 million pixel with great results...i doubt at 80 million pixel the lenses for 35 mm can resolve the sensor.

[jonny1986]

Not if I get there first.

there will be for me and you...everybody is buying the a7...i have seen all the gallery from sony a7r and every time the same...clarity far behind, poor tonality smoothness...harsh contrast.....and most of all zero 3d feeling,, the contour of subject looks always jagged while with 645d it seems well defined...
for me the only 35 mm camera , apse or ff, that has the real medium format characteristic and produce at least at base iso comparable images, with less resolution, are the merril from sigma both the sd1 and the compact. i will take them every day against d800e and a7. and i don't care about dxi rating or imaging resource test....i want see real photo with natural light with a 28 mm lenses.
look the official sony gallery of a7r a7...those who say these are better than 645d images must go to optics center.

[Rondec]

resolving power is nothing without a natural look superb lenses......th d800 3 even wight the top notch 14.28 or zeiss prime sruggle to reach outstanding corner sharpness...and only stopped down after the best aperture...diffraction in addiction is sever with a ff camera while with 645d you can shoot even f22 without losing sharpness.
te d800e is good but don't touch the645d for iq....and 4:3 ratio and ccd sensor are two characteristic of the iq of 645. even my k10d at base iso produce images i prefer even compared to my k5.


nikkor lenses even the best are struggling with the d800e sensor...every lens under 50 mm is struggling....the 645d can grow up at 80 million pixel with great results...i doubt at 80 million pixel the lenses for 35 mm can resolve the sensor.

The D800 is a good camera, no doubt about it, but as I said before, the true test of these cameras is real world shooting. And in this, there is just an amazing rendering of tones/color by medium format digital, that is unrivaled at this point by full frame cameras. I just think pixel peeping doesn't tell you about real life performance.

Sharpness is plenty good with both cameras and that is really all that you can judge from these test scenes.

[JohnBee]

That's great, for the ultra-wide shooter. Then again, I'd question the cost of doing so with a MF system tbh. ie, 10K for a body and how much for an ultra-wide AF lens to match(oops. ). And don't get me wrong, I'm not poking fun at the MF solution. I'm simply pointing out the outrageous price and convenience divide between both systems.

On the issue of lens selection, I can see where one would say such a thing. Though I honestly don't think the issue is severe enough to warrant investing in a MF system let alone quoting a Zeiss lens as a justifiable reason to do so. ie, if an ultra-wide Zeiss becomes the central obstacle for greener pastures, then what are we to make of the MF lens selection?

Along these same lines, while I think we can all conclude the FF system aren't likely to ever be the crowd favorite on the ultra-wide performance end of things. I'm not convinced this will ever become a mainstream issue per say. Mainly where, ultra-wide lenses seem more of a niche than mainstream.

Having said all that, I'd also point out that one needn't be drug down with thoughts of high costs and lens performances on the ultra-wide to wide angle end of things either. ie, the Sigma 35mm 1.4 which costs under 900, ranks one of the highest scores on the D800. Similarly, we have the Samyang lenses which seem to have an excellent reputation all the way down to 14mm. And so, I honestly don't think the issue is as severe as some people tend to make it appear.

NB. Here's a handy compilation of lens/MTF charts for the D800/E system.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Which-lenses-for-your-Nikon-D800/The-Nikon-D8...e-angle-lenses

And for your viewing leisure, here's a little low cost normal - ultra wide output to help remind you of how pointless a 36mp FF is on the wide end of things:





And a few low cost 14mm samples:

resolving power is nothing without a natural look superb lenses......th d800 3 even wight the top notch 14.28 or zeiss prime sruggle to reach outstanding corner sharpness...and only stopped down after the best aperture...diffraction in addiction is sever with a ff camera while with 645d you can shoot even f22 without losing sharpness.
te d800e is good but don't touch the645d for iq....and 4:3 ratio and ccd sensor are two characteristic of the iq of 645. even my k10d at base iso produce images i prefer even compared to my k5.


nikkor lenses even the best are struggling with the d800e sensor...every lens under 50 mm is struggling....the 645d can grow up at 80 million pixel with great results...i doubt at 80 million pixel the lenses for 35 mm can resolve the sensor.