Medium format quality for about $5,000?

<p>I currently use a Nikon D300S or Hassy (scanned professionally) and am pleased with results. But if I want MF quality (or better) and want to stay with digital Nikon and 35mm, any recommendations? I would like to keep the initial cost to about $5,000 including the body and one lens. I hear great things about Otus lenses but the cost... I am not averse to a prime lens but I want to make sure the lens can match the resolution (you know what I'm saying.) Looking at the reduced pricing of the 750 vs the 810. I don't see a Landscape forum here so chose nature, but most of what I do is landscape such as trees, mountains, a little macro...etc. I am not a guy to use a zoom as big as the Hubble telescope to photograph every whisker on an antelope's ass from 400 yards. I'm more likely to want a highly detailed meadow shot in the failing light or a sunrise over Denali. Hope that helps. Not sure I need to jump to 36MP as the largest I typically print is 16x20. I guess where I'm confused is do I go 24MP and put more into a lens? Any advice from anyone using some of this gear is appreciated. </p>

<p>I have a D810 and I believe the quality is very close to my scanned Happablad, Mamiya RZ67, and even 4x5 negs and transparencies. The only down side to me as a professional is that the very large files are slow in my Imac computer with only 8 gigs of Ram. I have seen photos shot on the D810 using a Hasselblad lens on with a adapter and the quality is exceptionally good. </p>

<p>I agree that the D810 would more than suffice. Lens choices have never been better, as you now have some really stellar choices from Nikon but also from companies like Sigma that are in some cases out-doing Nikon with lenses like their 35/1.4 Art for much less than Nikon's counterparts. What focal length(s) do you see yourself using on a 35mm style body?</p>

<p>If price is a consideration, Nikon D800's are selling at a discount compared to the d810. </p>

<p>For a 16"x20" print at 300dpi, the 24MP resolution is just a tiny bit short on the short end - not to the extend where I believe it would degrade the print a lot, though, but with the extra resolution of the D8x0, you do get a bit more play to crop and still deliver that size print in top quality.<br>

As for lenses - do you need wide apertures? You can save a lot of money by opting for the slightly slower lenses, which stopped down perform as well as the faster lenses. It's even not uncommon that they've got better resolution as their designs are less complicated. Lenses as the f/1.8G primes of Nikon are fine examples of this. If you're usually around f/8 of f/11, any good recent zoomlens would do the trick quite fine. Paying for f/1.4 is worth it if you often shoot at f/2.8 or faster, but if not, I'd save the money and get something simpler.</p>

<p>The optics of a medium format camera only have to work half as hard to achieve the same resolution as a small format (i.e., full-frame) camera. Because their pixels are larger and there is more room for electronics, MF digital generally has better dynamic range than SF digital. The differences seem to be shrinking. In overall effect, the image quality of my Sony A7ii with 24 MP is about the same as my 16MP Hasselblad CVF back. My 42 MP A7Rii is much better, including dynamic range.</p>

<p>The Nikon D810 is in the same category - 36 MP and no AA filter. The problem is which lens to use. Nikon prime lenses are largely film quality, although a few new offerings transcend the 12 MP level. Short of the Zeiss Otus, Zeiss CF.2 and Milvus lenses would be worth considering, if you can do without auto focus.</p>

<p>High-end Sony and Zeiss lenses for the A7 are generally much better for several reasons. They don't have to use inverted-telephoto design to clear a mirror, and people seem willing to pay a premium for lenses which take advantage of the 42 MP sensor, with or without auto focus. You can get Leica quality on the A7, without paying Leica prices.</p>

 

<p>Thank you for your responses. I imagine I'd start with a wider angle lens such as a 24 or 35mm. And I'm not averse to an aftermarket lens. I was wondering about the RAM and how long a 36MP file will take to load and work on. Will have to look at my PC, I think I have 16MB. Also, I am not tied to a very fast lens since I rarely shoot wide open and I have extra appendage called a tripod that I always carry with me. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon prime lenses are largely film quality, although a few new offerings transcend the 12 MP level. Short of the Zeiss Otus, Zeiss CF.2 and Milvus lenses would be worth considering,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you please provide some independent data that shows that F-mount lenses do not reach resolutions higher than 12MP, and that the Zeiss ZF.2 lenses do exceed the resolution achieved by other F-mount lenses? Thanks.</p>

<p>I know that this is out of your stated price range but as a pro you should consider a Hasselblad digital back CFV-50c. The price new at B&H is $9,995. Ask your CPA to look at the impact on your taxes considering the depreciation you can take.</p>

<p>Anthony, I'm not a pro, I just like to take photos : ) </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can you please provide some independent data that shows that F-mount lenses do not reach resolutions higher than 12MP, and that the Zeiss ZF.2 lenses do exceed the resolution achieved by other F-mount lenses? Thanks.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>12 MP quality is an exaggeration. Actually Nikon lenses look as good as any other on a 12 MP sensor, but start to fall apart at higher resolution.<br>

<br>

I know mainly from my own experience that Nikon lenses do not achieve pixel-sharpness on a 42 MP A7Rii sensor. The 55/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor is one exception, but its bokeh is rather harsh. Nikon's shorter primes fall far short of the performance of corresponding Zeiss Distagon lenses, as seen in the following examples. The new Milvus lenses are much more sophisticated in design than the older FZ and FZ.2 lenses, as are the Loxia and Batis lenses I use on the Sony.<br>

<br>

As much as your choice of lenses, it takes great care to achieve the best results from either medium format or full-frame small format cameras. Even the slightest vibration spoils sharpness at the pixel level. That means a good tripod, mirror locked up (if applicable) and a soft cable release. In the Sony, also use the electronic first shutter.</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/444-nikkor_afd_35_20_ff?start=1<br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/587-zeisszf3520ff?start=1</p>

<p>I work with a Hassy as well as a Nikon d810 and I Think that the d810 will serve your purposes. I use top of the line Nikkor glass and love the results. I agree with the previous comment on a good tripod.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<p>So I'm perusing BH and looking at Milvus, Otus, the Sigma and don't see CF.2 lenses mentioned by Edward? Also, the Distagon's have good reviews- thoughts there vs the Milvus? Not sure if the modest cost savings are worth it. The Distagons look nicer to me though and more classic (yeah...I know...these things sometimes matter to people). If I could get an 810 and a prime Zeiss lens I would be pretty happy I would think. I can drive to BH in a couple hours to handle these as I imagine images of them online don't do them justice. I appreciate all the advice.</p>

<p>I don't believe that an 810 or any digital "35mm" sized digital negative will match a quality medium format scan or high end MF digital back, nor even get near the detail in a 4X5 high end scanned negative. </p>

<p>B&H has Pentax 40 MP 645D on sale new for $3,711. Lot's of Pentax, AF lenses in used market for sale in excellent condition. You may want to reconsider your strategy if you want medium format quality. </p>

<p>Your own experience, Edward, is hardly independent data. Anyone who read more than a few of your posts in the last few months can see you are about as biased as a 15 year old is about his favourite game console.<br /> The two lenses you select for your independent data are very carefully chosen indeed: a known mediocre, and older, Nikon lens (35 f/2D) versus one of the best lenses Zeiss had in their ZF.2 line-up. Try the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/792-sigma3514dgfx?start=1">Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art</a> instead, on that same page, and your statement is what falls apart. Comparing the <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-F18G-ED-on-Nikon-D800-versus-Sigma-35mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800-versus-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-2-35mm-ZF2-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800__1294_792_1057_792_336_792">Sigma versus the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G versus the Zeiss ZF2</a> on dxomark.com, the Sigma comes out top, and the Zeiss does not beat the Nikon - and these are tests on the D800, which is relevant to the OP who asked about that camera. <a href="https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-35mm-f1-8g-ed/3">Photographylife </a>tested all these lenses too, and probably had an exceptional sample of the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G, as it beat all of them for mid-range apertures - making it a pretty great choice for landscapes. Simply put, there are a bit too much findings contrary to your experience, so your bold statements that no Nikon lens has enough resolution needs some nuance. For the OP, it means focussing mainly on the Zeiss lenses might be cutting himself and his wallet short.<br /> All that said, I really like the Zeiss 35mm f/2, and it would be my choice - but resolution is and never has been my top priority. If resolution is priority, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4A is a better bet.<br /> Now, maybe OP isn't even looking for 35mm, but my point is that you shouldn't just limit yourself to a specific brand. Rather, for each focal length that matters, look for yourself at reviews, user reports and photos made with a lens to figure out what makes the best choice - the large 3rd party brands have very interesting lenses, as does Nikon, as does Zeiss - they all warrant a look, because none of them is best at everything.</p>

<p>I have attached two quick snaps comparing a Zeiss Batis 25/2 with a Nikon AIS 24/2. The detail panels are 100% crops (pixel=pixel) of the respective upper right corner. It's equivalent to looking at a 35 mm slide with a 10x magnifier. I've you've ever done that with film, you know it's not a pretty sight.</p>

<p>Resolution may not be everything in some applications, but if you wish to have medium format quality, especially for landscapes, it's at the top of the list.</p>

<p>A7Rii + Zeiss Batis 25/2 at f/5.6<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18121275-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>A7Rii + Nikon 24/2 AIS at f/5.6<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18121276-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>Never mind, some people just live in their own little world.</p>

<p>Here is a comparison between scanned Ektar 100 from an Hasselblad and the same scene (taken 6 years later) using a Sony A7Rii. The film was scanned with a Nikon LS-4000 at 4000 ppi, approximately 72 MP in size (8500 x 8500). The A7Rii image is 42 MP, but reduced to square format, the equivalent of about 30 MP. The detail panel was taken from the second silo from the right, in approximately the same area.</p>

<p>Color in the Ektar scan is certainly more dramatic, but IMO not as realistic. Ektar is not known for subtlety. Neither photo was subject to more than minimal post processing. The purpose of this demonstration is to show that you can get MF quality from a FF camera. What you do with it from there is a matter of taste and purpose.</p>

<p>Repetitive patterns like corrugated steel have a propensity to create Moire in digital (or scanned) images. The same shot taken with an Hasselblad CFV16 back was unusable as a result. There are traces of Moire in both the film scan and A7Rii, but it is so slight as to be negligible.</p>

<p>Hasselblad + CF60/4 at f/8 + Ektar 100<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18121298-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="700" /></p>

<p>A7Rii + Zeiss Batis 85/2<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18121292-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>There is no way to compare these lenses on a D810, even if I had one. That said, an SLR lens has such a long back focus that the effect of the thick cover glass on the Sony can be ignored. People are still using 30 year old lenses on the Hasselblad, and the 24/2 was rather highly regarded in its day. I could have used an f/2.8 Nikon zoom for comparison, but what would that prove (e.g., zoom lenses are compromised)?</p>

<p>Zeiss lenses for the Sony are designed along the same principles of their Otus lenses, except for linear distortion. Milvus lenses are similar in this respect. Unfortunately, I don't have a Milvus lens, nor are there many reviews at present. With the introduction of extremely high resolution digital cameras, Zeiss has taken a turn for the better in order to keep ahead of the game. Other than the D810, Nikon has no camera with comparable resolution. I've seen no critical reviews of some newer Nikon primes, like the 35/1.4. However the MTF curves are less than impressive.</p>

<p>I have previously published a comparison of various 50 mm lenses - Nikon, Zeiss and Leica - and the 30 year old 50/1.4 AIS holds its own pretty well, and does better on the Sony than my Summicron DR. The 30 year old 55/2.8 AIS does remarkably well, on a par with the Zeiss Loxia 50/2 and Summicron 90/2 (distance adjusted for same magnification).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The comparison of a 30-year old wide angle, with an adapter versus a very recent design on its native mount - even if the Nikkor was highly regarded in its day, if there is one category where lens development made huge steps forward, it is wide angles. So a fair comparison would have been the Nikon AF-S 24mm f/1.4G or f/1.8G, but surely not this lens. The world moved on since.<br /> Your original statement was this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Nikon D810 is in the same category - 36 MP and no AA filter. The problem is which lens to use. Nikon prime lenses are largely film quality, although a few new offerings transcend the 12 MP level. Short of the Zeiss Otus, Zeiss CF.2 and Milvus lenses would be worth considering, if you can do without auto focus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This isn't about how lenses perform on your Sony, this thread is about using F-mount lenses on a D810. You claimed Nikon makes no primes up to the job. Your last post, you actually list two lenses (both designs well over 30 years old, funny enough) which suddenly apparently are up to the job. Now, that's weird, so those "largely film quality" lenses actually could be worth considering?<br /> My whole point was just that you made this bold statement above with no evidence to support it, and your latest comparison shots do nothing to change that. Can't you just admit that your statement above was a bit overly blunt and completely lacking in nuance? I think there is enough evidence now to suggest that there are plenty lenses - from Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss, and also Tamron and Tokina, - that are perfectly fine on a D810. Again, if I were the OP (he probably left by now, and I apologise for that), I'd list the focal lengths I'd want/need, and start looking per focal length what makes the best lens in terms of budget/weight/size, without excluding any brand up front.</p>

<p>The Nikon 50/1.4 works better on the A7Rii than the Leica Summicron 50/2, primarily because it has a much longer backfocus length. It is still nowhere close to performance of the Ziess Loxia 50/2. The 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor is sharp enough, but the overall image quality is not as good in the out-of-focus areas.</p>

<p>The Nikon to FE adapter is simply a passive piece of metal, with a bayonet on one end, a flange on the other, and a hole through the middle. It seems to be concentric, and the flanges are parallel (otherwise you would see a dramatic difference in diagonal corners).</p>

<p>Medium format is not without its issues either. It is very difficult to focus it accurately, especially at close range. You must take care not to look through the lightly ground glass to the virtual image. A focusing magnifier, like the "chimney" hood works best. Secondly the camera generates a lot of vibration with its huge mirror. It is important to lock the mirror up for best results, at any reasonable (i.e., < 1/250 sec) shutter speed and use a sturdy tripod and remote release. Finally, older lenses may not be quite up to the task with high resolution digital backs. They are good enough for film (as shown) and the CFV16 back (which has comparable resolution to film). The folks at Luminous-Landscape, always in pursuit of resolution, think you are better served using MF digital on a technical camera with lenses designed for digital use. (Roughly speaking, a digital pixel is worth three pixels scanned from film. I have examples in my portfolio to that effect.) The CFV50 is a bargain right now, by MF standards. It has a horizontal 645 aspect ration, which is problematic with a Hasselblad 500 body. It's not easy to use the camera on its side for vertical compositions, and a 90 deg prism may not fit around the digital back (the CMOS version is supposed to be thin enough.)</p>

<p>I realize that no amount of testing I might post will change some opinions. It's like explaining evolution to a fundamentalist - each missing link found creates two more missing links.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This isn't about how lenses perform on your Sony, this thread is about using F-mount lenses on a D810.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the Nature Forum, not the Nikon fan club. The OP is asking the best way to achieve medium format quality on an FF body, for under $5000. Whether the D810, Canon 5Ds or Sony A7Rii, that's basically a body and one lens (maybe two Sigma ART lenses).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The OP is asking the best way to achieve medium format quality on an FF body, for under $5000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The best way to achieve medium format quality is to get a medium format camera. Neither the Sony, Nikon, Canon, Leica, etc. provide medium format quality.<br>

they all take great pics, but its not quite the same level.<br>

</p>

<p>Medium format digital starts at about $7K for a Pentax 645z, for the body only. After that it gets really expensive. If you have an Hasselblad kit, the CFV50e back is on sale for under $10K, about what I paid for 16MP eight years ago. Used CFV16 backs still go for $5K, if you can find one.</p>

<p>Medium format film hasn't been a contender against FF digital in several years (e.g., Leica M9), plus it runs over $20/roll for film and processing (only). Where are you going to find a real film scanner these days, other than a repurposed flatbed?</p>