So, the D800 is not the highest res DSLR afterall

All true, but for those who don't make a mint for their studio images, MF is pointless.

I remember seeing an interview with Rankin, in which he said he fetches up to £10k per shoot. Now, MF is obviously no big deal for him to buy into. But he'd probably produce very similar with a D800 and same lighting set up.
 
Laudrup said:
Not to you, but you don't have to make a living from it. The cost is all relative.
Click to expand...

The question of course is whether the D800 offers good enough IQ to meet the demands of alot of users who previously used medium format while offering various other advanatges.

Leica to me seem to be in a better situation than Pentax though, their offering ultra high quality lenses with autofocus(however limated its better than manual focus Ziess on the D800) and a brand/design that likely both appeals to rich amatures and the clients of pro's. The 645D on the other hand seems like a product created for a market that the D800 may have largely removed.
 
HoppyUK said:
LOL There's no doubt that, all things being equal, bigger is better. But how much better do you need? Especially when you consider the extra size/weight and exponential increase in price.

With film, medium format was so much better than 35mm there was a big market for Hasselblad, Bronica, Mamiya, Pentax, Yashica, Rollei etc. Every pro shot medium format, every wedding photographer, but not now. Full frame digital has taken that market, and that's why medium format manufacturers (those that are left) are stuggling and have to charge silly prices to survive on low volume sales.

And that's not going to get any better. Medium format sales are so low now, nobody can afford to invest in sensor development and they all use those old Kodak CCD jobbies that are way behind the times. What Leica and Pentax thought they were doing lannching brand new medium-format (so-called) digital cameras into today's market is hard to fathom.
Click to expand...

Leica did it to get back into the pro market, it's their flagship.
 
Laudrup said:
Leica did it to get back into the pro market, it's their flagship.
Click to expand...

S-series is doing a very good impression of a white elephant IMHO.

M-series is Leica's flagship, always has been, and they've done a great turnaround job on that. I think dropping the model numbers and just calling it M is a marketing masterstroke, and parallels with Porsche 911 are exactly right.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
All true, but for those who don't make a mint for their studio images, MF is pointless.

I remember seeing an interview with Rankin, in which he said he fetches up to £10k per shoot. Now, MF is obviously no big deal for him to buy into. But he'd probably produce very similar with a D800 and same lighting set up.
Click to expand...

Rankin used an S2 for his BBC show. Here he is talking about using the new S3:

http://blog.massimilianotiberi.com/?p=2851&doing_wp_cron=1352306968.1255099773406982421875

Moreorless said:
The question of course is whether the D800 offers good enough IQ to meet the demands of alot of users who previously used medium format while offering various other advanatges.

Leica to me seem to be in a better situation than Pentax though, their offering ultra high quality lenses with autofocus(however limated its better than manual focus Ziess on the D800) and a brand/design that likely both appeals to rich amatures and the clients of pro's. The 645D on the other hand seems like a product created for a market that the D800 may have largely removed.
Click to expand...

The 645D seems to have died through starvation of new lenses. It looked a nice prospect at one point and there was a lot of hype.
 
HoppyUK said:
S-series is doing a very good impression of a white elephant IMHO.

M-series is Leica's flagship, always has been, and they've done a great turnaround job on that. I think dropping the model numbers and just calling it M is a marketing masterstroke, and parallels with Porsche 911 are exactly right.
Click to expand...

The Leica S is their self-confessed flagship, it's a statement of intent by Leica. They are looking to become market leader of the MF market and get back to catering extensively to the pro market. It's a good strategy considering their niche market.
 
Nod said:
Not sure. I think Messi's a premier division footballer, so at a guess, Arshavin is from a much lower or even non league club.
Click to expand...

Thanks - that explains why I never recognised the names. I have zero interest in football.
I wondered if they were obscure photographers. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Me neither, Dougie, which is why I was a bit wrong in my guess! IMO, they're probably both as overpriced/valued as that Leica!
 
Laudrup said:
The 645D seems to have died through starvation of new lenses. It looked a nice prospect at one point and there was a lot of hype.
Click to expand...

The price of the new lenses and the crop factor meaning you need to pay £3000 to get wider than 26mm have I guess not helped for something that seemed to be marketed as a landscape camera.

The main failing of the S series to me seems to be that its not advanced a great deal in the last 3 years, pre 2012 it represented a massive jump in resolution from any FF DSLR.
 
Cagey75 said:
Im always amused by people who tar everyone with the same brush.

"They" . . . Way to generalise.

I'm in a position where I could buy MF - but it would be a waste unless I was getting €1000's per job. Those are the people who buy them because the camera ends up paying for itself. But they're mostly very studio based. You won't be shooting a gig with a MF camera, that's for sure. Anyone who shoots above ISO 800 knows a FF camera is going to kick MF for their needs.
Click to expand...
Just me with the sweeping statements then:lol::lol:
Cagey75 said:
For 10 x the price, 1/500 sync is the best it offers?

Anyone who watched the camera store's D800 Vs Hasselblad or D800 Vs Pentax 645D, will know it more than stood up well against both.

What I find funny are those who overly defend MF, without ever having used it. And probably never will.
Click to expand...
:lol:
The thing about MF is 'you know when you need it' its quite simple. In film days, I needed it.

I don't need it now, I don't even lust after it, but then I don't need or lust after FF either, but I must read at least once a week that if I'm serious about photography I should shoot FF. and people knocking MF as irrelevant are as blind to the truth as people who promote it without experience. Like I said, if you need it, it's a no-brainer. But it's an increasingly diminishing niche.
 
Hybrid IIRC rather than straight digital. Never used the high speed synch TBH. Presumably, the Leica uses a non focal plane shutter to achieve the high synch speed?
 
Nod said:
Hybrid IIRC rather than straight digital. Never used the high speed synch TBH. Presumably, the Leica uses a non focal plane shutter to achieve the high synch speed?
Click to expand...

I think it is hybrid, 1/125s on the mechanical and higher with the digital i believe.

Have looked more into the s2 - the 1/500s sync speed is with lenses with a built in leaf shutter.
 
Cagey75 said:
Plays for Barcelona (best club) and Argentina. Both great, just one is that bit greater.

So the comparison isn't a great one, unless you really consider this Leica to be the best camera in the world.
Click to expand...

is that the same Barcelona that got beat by ,,,,,errr Celtic ? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
The high cost will be partly to claw back the development and manufacturing investment of a camera that will clearly have low sales.
Nikon will sell 1,000s of D800s and are therefore not in the same position. If they were likely to only sell 200 D800s I would imagine the price would be much higher (and they wouldn't make it in the first place!)

Just the same as any other low sales volumes quality products.
 
I'll wait for the Panasonic version!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top