V
Vivek
Guest
Roger, re-read what I posted. The AA part is the LiNbO3 (Lithium Niobiate). I have taken apart enough of the AA/UV/IR filter stacks to type what I did.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
D800
- Thread starter Lars
- Start date
Double Negative
Not Available
Ha! Like Canon did? They quickly released some Mark II lenses after the 1Ds Mark III IIRC, e.g. the 16-35 and 24L.
Most definitely exciting times. It should be extremely interesting when the D800E is put through its paces and accurate and real world assesments can be made with regards to various lens performance and requirements in order to extract maximum potential from it's sensor. When this is done, especially with the raw files, we'll all have a better handle on the capability and strengths and possible weaknesses of this camera.
It will be interesting to see how the resulting D800e images will compare "head on" to medium format, especially to the current crop of 40MP models. No doubt the medium format manufacturers are well aware of the situation regarding competition and although it might take quite some time, I'm sure will respond by upping the ante, in making their entry level 40 MP backs (or cameras in the case of the 645D) competitive in both pricing structures, technology, and/or raising the MP level for these backs/cameras...all to increase the level of image quality output. Of course there are obvious differences between a 40MP MF backs & cameras vs. a 36MP 35mm DSLR, but those real and perceived differences are not always recognized by those who initially contemplate making a move from 35mm to MF and often only go simply by "the MP numbers".
I'm personally waiting to see and eventually try out optics on a D800E body when lenses are shot at the more open apertures. Something tells me that even the best lenses currently out there, are going to be "stressed" when performance across the entire frame is considered, when shot at wider apertures....although of course for landscape shooters, their target f-stop will be close to the diffraction limit.
This is where cameras like the S2 may have a distinct advanatge, in the ability of the lenses for that system, to be shot close to wide open and still take advantage of resolving power of the entire system. It remains to be seen how the D800E compares, in general.
Dave (D&A)
It will be interesting to see how the resulting D800e images will compare "head on" to medium format, especially to the current crop of 40MP models. No doubt the medium format manufacturers are well aware of the situation regarding competition and although it might take quite some time, I'm sure will respond by upping the ante, in making their entry level 40 MP backs (or cameras in the case of the 645D) competitive in both pricing structures, technology, and/or raising the MP level for these backs/cameras...all to increase the level of image quality output. Of course there are obvious differences between a 40MP MF backs & cameras vs. a 36MP 35mm DSLR, but those real and perceived differences are not always recognized by those who initially contemplate making a move from 35mm to MF and often only go simply by "the MP numbers".
I'm personally waiting to see and eventually try out optics on a D800E body when lenses are shot at the more open apertures. Something tells me that even the best lenses currently out there, are going to be "stressed" when performance across the entire frame is considered, when shot at wider apertures....although of course for landscape shooters, their target f-stop will be close to the diffraction limit.
This is where cameras like the S2 may have a distinct advanatge, in the ability of the lenses for that system, to be shot close to wide open and still take advantage of resolving power of the entire system. It remains to be seen how the D800E compares, in general.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
jonoslack
Active member
Well, it turns out that they haven't actually left out the AA filter - they've just changed it so that it does't blur the image.
If you scroll down near the bottom you'll see details of the AA filter and why they don't charge less. (seems like a strange definition of NO AA FILTER to me!)
Rob Galbraith link
Interestingly - I was at my local pusher, and he said that he had 130 pre orders for the 800, and only 35 for the 800e.
I'd guess that for those who haven't previously had a camera without AA filter (most Nikon users) then the 800 sounds like a safer bet.
If you scroll down near the bottom you'll see details of the AA filter and why they don't charge less. (seems like a strange definition of NO AA FILTER to me!)
Rob Galbraith link
Interestingly - I was at my local pusher, and he said that he had 130 pre orders for the 800, and only 35 for the 800e.
I'd guess that for those who haven't previously had a camera without AA filter (most Nikon users) then the 800 sounds like a safer bet.
Shashin
Well-known member
Actually, looking at the Nikon examples, I am not sure the AA filter is having a real impact. I hope someone does a direct comparison, but I think there may be nothing in it.
Double Negative
Not Available
Keep in mind the online samples are processed JPEGs with likely beta-level software/algorithms, etc. I think if they published some RAW files (and we had a means to decode them) it might be a little more interesting.
Even Canon hasn't offered better with their 1Dx samples for the same reason (which look quite disappointing at this stage, actually).
Actually, that's very true, but I at least they quickly did something about it. I think for Nikon their primes are completely new, so I would have thought this was in their consideration and most of the sample images on the website were taken with their trinity zooms.
Luckily for me, my canon lenses are all 'L II', and I never kept the 16-35, I don't think this is a good lens, perhaps it is to others!
Actually in the Nikon website it describes that a extra filter was added to the D800E version to cancel out the effects of the AA (blur filter)
On top of all my reading, it was described either on the Nikon site or from their testers, that the higher MP has brought in the effects of MF, that bad handling picks up more blur (from shake/vibration) and shooting in higher shutter speeds or using a tripod is more advised in certain circumstances, this to me is very interesting .... don't know what to make of it until I get one in my hands.
Double Negative
Not Available
True, true. Canon did move swiftly on that one. Go figure, I had the Mark I 16-35 (and still do). You're right; it's not a very good lens all things considered, even on 1.3x crop - I can only imagine how it much be on FF. But I refuse to get the Mark II (or the new 24-70 Mark II) partly because I'm done with buying filters; I like that I can share 72/77 filters across all my L primes and zooms... Not about to add 82mm as well. And I like my "classic" 24-70 just fine. The "reverse zoom" and hood arrangement is actually better than on the new one which uses a more normal system now.
As much as I love my Canons and L lenses, if they can't come up with a decent body soon, I might just can the whole platform. Truth be told, since going Leica (and Hassy) back in 2008 I've been using the Canon stuff less and less to the point I hardly use it anymore. With the cash I could buy a nice MF system instead.
viablex1
Active member
diffraction is diffraction the D4 looks a lot smarter
Lee Love
New member
Whether this camera fits your needs or not the D800 will be a home run for Nikon and they will sell everyone they can build. I also see some who trash the V1 but despite those views this has also been a huge success for them. Between the D4 and D800 Nikon is going to have a very good year.
Once I got a D3x I was amazed by the tonality, detail and robustness of the files.
I sold my D3 and D700 and never looked back.
The D800E will be another step forward. I expect the files to be mind blowing.
Will they be as good as a $40,000 MF camera?
In my hands, much, much better.
In the hands of a tripod using, low ISO MF master? I don't actually care.
For me, it's gold.
I'm also excited that Nikon brought the low volume E model to market for just $300 more.
Once I have a D4 and a D800E I imagine my D3x will be on the block.
Best,
Bill
I sold my D3 and D700 and never looked back.
The D800E will be another step forward. I expect the files to be mind blowing.
Will they be as good as a $40,000 MF camera?
In my hands, much, much better.
In the hands of a tripod using, low ISO MF master? I don't actually care.
For me, it's gold.
I'm also excited that Nikon brought the low volume E model to market for just $300 more.
Once I have a D4 and a D800E I imagine my D3x will be on the block.
Best,
Bill
etrigan63
Active member
Bill,
I have to agree with you. While MFD has it's amazing capabilities, the fact that I have to rob a bank to pay for one and keep a DSLR around for the low-light, fast action stuff I usually shoot keeps me from making the jump. While the D800E is not an MFDB by any stretch of the imagination, it's good enough for me.
I have to agree with you. While MFD has it's amazing capabilities, the fact that I have to rob a bank to pay for one and keep a DSLR around for the low-light, fast action stuff I usually shoot keeps me from making the jump. While the D800E is not an MFDB by any stretch of the imagination, it's good enough for me.
V
Vivek
Guest
Roger, I will retract my earlier post. I have no idea what Nikon are doing here.
Well some of us Nikon DSLR users have experience with their cameras coming direct from the factory with no AA filter. But the last one was in 1998 or so, before the D1.
The Nikon D1 pictures lack the Pop that the Nikon E3 pictures have.
I paid Kodak an extra $4000 to leave the IR cut filter off of a DCS200. They had to do a custom run of the CCD's through the Fab line. That was 20 years ago. Process change and testing can be expensive for smaller runs.
I'm glad to see the D800e in Nikon's line-up.
The Nikon D1 pictures lack the Pop that the Nikon E3 pictures have.
I paid Kodak an extra $4000 to leave the IR cut filter off of a DCS200. They had to do a custom run of the CCD's through the Fab line. That was 20 years ago. Process change and testing can be expensive for smaller runs.
I'm glad to see the D800e in Nikon's line-up.
V
Vivek
Guest
I just rip these AA/UV/IR filter stacks out myself and convert them for multi-spectral or UV only or IR only use.
I do have an ongoing (ambitious) project to get rid of the Bayer dyes to have a true monochrome cam. It would be D40x or a D200 or a D300- all are lined up for this purpose.
I do have an ongoing (ambitious) project to get rid of the Bayer dyes to have a true monochrome cam. It would be D40x or a D200 or a D300- all are lined up for this purpose.
I wonder if Kodak's original process of annealing the cover glass with the IR cut filter is responsible for it going 20 years and still working. The cover glass is impossible to remove. I tried with one.
Other cameras- the filters are easily removed.
I've read that some people have used acetone to take off the Mosaic color filters. This would not work on the Kodak sensors- the RGB filter is under the cover glass.
Other cameras- the filters are easily removed.
I've read that some people have used acetone to take off the Mosaic color filters. This would not work on the Kodak sensors- the RGB filter is under the cover glass.
V
Vivek
Guest
The sensors I have looked at (Sony & Panasonic) have a permanent clear glass cover, hermetically sealing the sensor. This is is epoxied. It is quite a task to remove it without damaging the sensor. After that one gets to see the sensor with a Microlens layer and under that are the Bayer dyes. No acetone (nail polish remover) won't cut it for any of these operations.
Each of these operations warrant multiple sacrifices.
Each of these operations warrant multiple sacrifices.
Doesn't surprise me, given my experience with the S2 and other MF systems - 36MP does require different technique than 12MP, for sure. Forget shooting at 1/60s handheld, with the "standard" lens....Even 1/125s is hit and miss...Once you get into these resolution numbers and if you wish to take full advantage of them (and you do, because otherwise the images look like c..p), you really need to either (a) use a tripod, or (b) shoot handheld at faster shutter speeds - 1/250s minimum with the 70mm lens and 1/500s even better or (c) use flash. And of course, focusing needs to be spot on, there is zero room for error, centimeters and sometimes millimeters make a difference...I suspect many people who buy the D800 will go through a bit of a learning curve first, and wonder initially why their 36MP images don't look as good as they had thought they would. Then they may realize that there is no free lunch and that MF-like resolution requires using MF-like shooting technique...which is not what they necessarily wanted ...My conclusion - for shooting handheld, in available light, a 15-20MP FF camera really is a better choice.