D800e vs Leica S2-P MF

E

Eye-level

Banned
"very, very few Nikkors can do the sensor justice. The PCEs are a safe bet, as are most of the Zeiss lenses; of the AF glass, be careful with the primes." Very interesting comment with regard to recent thread about Zeiss glass... :)

It is an unfair fight if you ask me...just one of the lenses from the Leica costs more than the Nikon give me a break please...
 
S

STM

Senior Member
crycocyon said:
An unfair fight? 35mm vs Medium Format: Nikon D800E and the Leica S2-P

Not sure if this was posted before (sorry if so), but what an amazing comparison. My jaw is still on the floor in regard to how well the D800e (originally $3300) kept up with a $26k camera (and that's body only).
Click to expand...

To perhaps throw more gas on the fire, or maybe just muddy the waters some, I could shoot T-Max 100 with my Hasselblad and scan it at 4000 dpi with my Nikon CoolScan LS-8000 and still blow both of them clean off the hinges. 6x6 (A12) at 4000 dpi equals 81 MP, 6x4.5 (A16) at 4000 dpi equals 67 MP. And I can do it for one heck of a lot less than any FX or MF digital.

Please excuse the rant but the bottom line to all of this is who really gives a damn? With digital Photography, just as with computers and especially cell phones, all this mind numbing techie crap has gotten completely out of hand. Photography has always been, and always will be an ART. Of course there is a technical side to it, just try to learn the Zone System inside and out if you want to see technical, but honestly when all the dust settles and all you have left is the image, so much of that el-nerdo techie crap is as meaningless as tits on a bull. If some of photography's grandest masters; Adams, Cunningham, Stieglitz, Weston, Eugene Smith, Cartier-Bresson, et al, were still alive and shooting today I think it would be safe to say that none of them would give a rat's ass about how many megapixels this camera had, or how well it handled ISO 12,600. For them it was all about the image. And long after any of us are nothing but moldy bones, people will still be looking at their images and still be awed by the sheer mastery they had over their craft. And they all did it with what most would consider antiques today.
 
Last edited:
S

STM

Senior Member
Eye-level said:
"very, very few Nikkors can do the sensor justice. The PCEs are a safe bet, as are most of the Zeiss lenses; of the AF glass, be careful with the primes." Very interesting comment with regard to recent thread about Zeiss glass... :)

It is an unfair fight if you ask me...just one of the lenses from the Leica costs more than the Nikon give me a break please...
Click to expand...

And honestly, when it comes to film lenses at least, many, if not most, of the best CZ MF lenses did not necessarily resolve as highly as their top 35mm equivalents. Why? Because THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO. The much larger film format required substantially less magnification on the baseboard than did that little 35mm "postage stamp" and yet when their images were compared side by side to 35mm they still pretty much left it in the dust when you got over an 8x10.
 
J

jwstl

Senior Member
STM said:
To perhaps throw more gas on the fire, or maybe just muddy the waters some, I could shoot T-Max 100 with my Hasselblad and scan it at 4000 dpi with my Nikon CoolScan LS-8000 and still blow both of them clean off the hinges. 6x6 (A12) at 4000 dpi equals 81 MP, 6x4.5 (A16) at 4000 dpi equals 67 MP. And I can do it for one heck of a lot less than any FX or MF digital.
Click to expand...

You fell into the same trap as the the people you complain about....comparing megapixels. Just because you can create higher megapixel files doesn't mean they are better. Not all pixels are created equal.
 
S

STM

Senior Member
jwstl said:
You fell into the same trap as the the people you complain about....comparing megapixels. Just because you can create higher megapixel files doesn't mean they are better. Not all pixels are created equal.
Click to expand...

Quite to the contrary, I used that first paragraph as a perfect lead in on what I was saying about the stuck on stupid some things have become with electronics. Everything I said there had a purpose. And although you are correct about not all pixels are created equal, if you had ever seen a 24x30 print from a Hasselblad and T-Max 100 and you would understand. Better yet, look at a 24x30 print from a 4x5 negative if you want to see quality that will blow you away. That is a 6x magnification, a little more than a 5x7 from a 35mm negative.
 
Last edited:
J

jwstl

Senior Member
Eye-level said:
Yeah but if you read further on what he says you'll understand...
Click to expand...

I understand completely. If you want to make your point about the meaningless of megapixels then don't brag about how great your megapixels are. He wants it both ways and you can't.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
S

STM

Senior Member
jwstl said:
I understand completely. If you want to make your point about the meaningless of megapixels then don't brag about how great your megapixels are. He wants it both ways and you can't.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

Actually I don't think you do, but I am not going to waste any more bandwidth after this trying to explain it to you as I think everything I said either fell on deaf ears or went right over your head.
 
Last edited:
J

jwstl

Senior Member
STM said:
Actually I don't think you do, but I am not going to waste any more bandwidth after this trying to explain it to you as I think everything I said either fell on deaf ears or went right over your head.
Click to expand...

You keep thinking you are better than everyone if it gets you through the day. I've read enough of your posts to know what kind of person you are or the kind of person you are on these forums. If you ever want to discuss things intelligently without this air of superiority you seem to have let me know.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
E

Eye-level

Banned
I'd like to know why if the old Fuji S5 Pro has a sensor with such bad @ss DR how come they haven't made any new sensors with that design??? :) :) :)

Come on you all it is still to early for p!ssing!
 
C

crycocyon

Senior Member
STM said:
To perhaps throw more gas on the fire, or maybe just muddy the waters some, I could shoot T-Max 100 with my Hasselblad and scan it at 4000 dpi with my Nikon CoolScan LS-8000 and still blow both of them clean off the hinges. 6x6 (A12) at 4000 dpi equals 81 MP, 6x4.5 (A16) at 4000 dpi equals 67 MP. And I can do it for one heck of a lot less than any FX or MF digital.

Please excuse the rant but the bottom line to all of this is who really gives a damn? With digital Photography, just as with computers and especially cell phones, all this mind numbing techie crap has gotten completely out of hand. Photography has always been, and always will be an ART. Of course there is a technical side to it, just try to learn the Zone System inside and out if you want to see technical, but honestly when all the dust settles and all you have left is the image, so much of that el-nerdo techie crap is as meaningless as tits on a bull. If some of photography's grandest masters; Adams, Cunningham, Stieglitz, Weston, Eugene Smith, Cartier-Bresson, et al, were still alive and shooting today I think it would be safe to say that none of them would give a rat's ass about how many megapixels this camera had, or how well it handled ISO 12,600. For them it was all about the image. And long after any of us are nothing but moldy bones, people will still be looking at their images and still be awed by the sheer mastery they had over their craft. And they all did it with what most would consider antiques today.
Click to expand...

I am sure your Hasselblad can accomplish what you say it can accomplish, and I fully respect that, but this thread deals with the capabilities of a Nikon DSLR.

So, according to you, being interested in the technical aspects of the craft is being a nerd? Knowing something about the capabilities of the tools you use in your craft is meaningless? I've only been on this forum a short time, but to see something like that from a senior member here is frankly a surprise as I thought this forum was better than that.

I'm not posting a thread like this to immerse members here in technobabble.

Jim Brandenburg had four D800 prototypes for a month. I think he was aware of the technical specs of the camera and what the camera could achieve technically was a "game-changer" for him. He even did ISO tests for noise.

All of the masters you mentioned knew their equipment inside and out. They were masters not only of their craft, but also of the tools of their craft. Just as a painter knows which brush to use, the photographer knows which lens to use not just for artistic reasons but also for technical reasons.

I would really like to know where this animosity comes from in regard to anything more technical than what one reads in a manual.

I would think about how the cameras we work with now will be the antiques of the future. And not knowing where the technology is now, or where it can go in the future will leave us ill-equipped to make decisions that will effect the outcome of our art. Just look to all those who come here asking which camera is better to buy and WHY it is better. One cannot answer questions like that from an artistic standpoint, only a technical one. So I would have thought that one of the points of this forum is to help those who wish to make educated choices about their investments in equipment.








 
Last edited:
C

crycocyon

Senior Member
I'll point out one more thing. The comparison review of the two cameras isn't even a technical one! It deals purely with image quality of the two cameras. This makes your post about it being focussed on something overly technical even more absurd.

And furthermore, even making reference to nerds in relationship to anything technical is no different than a bully mentality in grade school.

You do not have to participate in a thread if it is overly technical, and perhaps your judgements are therefore better left to threads that deal purely with the art of photography.
 
S

STM

Senior Member
crycocyon said:
I
So, according to you, being interested in the technical aspects of the craft is being a nerd? Knowing something about the capabilities of the tools you use in your craft is meaningless? I've only been on this forum a short time, but to see something like that from a senior member here is frankly a surprise as I thought this forum was better than that.
Click to expand...

No, what i was saying is that with the advent of digital cameras, it seems that so many people get far too wrapped around the axle when it comes to how many megapixels this camera has versus that camera. Of if my camera has 16 megapixels it must obviously be a better camera than your 12 megapixel one. At some point it reaches the absurd. Of course you should be familiar with your camera and its capabilities, but from what I have seen from following several photography forums for over 13 years now, it seems far too many people just get so wrapped up in the technical minutae and forget that when it all comes down to it, the camera itself is just a tool, a recording device.

And actually when it comes to being a nerd, I am a Clinical Miicrobiologist, we are some of the biggest nerds around. You have to be to stare into microscopes and look at plates all day long. In fact, we are probably the worst nerds of all the departments in a hospital lab. It is an occupational hazard. I could care less if you call me a nerd, it doesn't bother me in the least. I have a very thick skin. Don't be so sensitive.
 
Last edited:
C

crycocyon

Senior Member
STM said:
No, what i was saying is that with the advent of digital cameras, it seems that many people get far to wrapped around the axle when it comes to how many megapixels this camera has versus that camera. At some point it reaches the absurd. Of course you should be familiar with your camera and its capabilities, but from what I have seen from following several photography forums for over 13 years now, it seems far too many people just get so wrapped up in the technical minutae and forget that when it all comes down to it, the camera itself is just a tool, a recording device.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. I agree with you completely that it is only a tool. But it is a fairly technical tool and I personally enjoy that part of the art. To me, the technology behind the art makes photography a lot more interesting than, for example, painting or drawing. I just happen to like to know why something gives us a better image, not just that it can or does. And I am fully on board when it comes to the risk of letting the technology get in the way of the craft. It is no replacement for craft or creativity.
 
C

crycocyon

Senior Member
STM said:
And actually when it comes to being a nerd, I am a Clinical Miicrobiologist, we are some of the biggest nerds around. You have to be to stare into microscopes and look at plates all day long. In fact, we are probably the worst nerds of all the departments in a hospital lab. It is an occupational hazard. I could care less if you call me a nerd, it doesn't bother me in the least. I have a very thick skin. Don't be so sensitive.
Click to expand...

Well, I work in a hospital as well, with a background in neuroscience (although presently am in infectious diseases), and I also work with microscopes all day as I'm responsible for an entire imaging facility (Zeiss equipment btw). Sure I can be nerdy about things, but admitting it is one thing, using it in reference to someone's attitude is something else. If you don't mind being called things, that is fine. But I would not expect others to play by my own standards of conduct. I am willing to play fair and be nice, but I too can be blunt and not hold back if that's the style you prefer.
 
S

STM

Senior Member
crycocyon said:
Well, I work in a hospital as well, with a background in neuroscience (although presently am in infectious diseases), and I also work with microscopes all day as I'm responsible for an entire imaging facility (Zeiss equipment btw). Sure I can be nerdy about things, but admitting it is one thing, using it in reference to someone's attitude is something else. If you don't mind being called things, that is fine. But I would not expect others to play by my own standards of conduct. I am willing to play fair and be nice, but I too can be blunt and not hold back if that's the style you prefer.
Click to expand...

Play it however you see it, I doubt you will hurt my feelings. I spent 23 years in the Infantry. And when I started out, like any other junior enlisted, for the first few years you would swear that your first name was "f**kin" because when anyone was looking for you they were always asking where is that 'f**kin' Murphy" or who whatever else your last name happened to be! But as i got more senior, and became a platoon sergeant, and eventually a Company Commander and Battalion XO, you were just on the giving end more than the receiving end!
 
Last edited:
Top