Nikon D800 First Blush

[Guy Mancuso]

Let me work on that today for sure.

Folks I am just about to post another full frame phase and full frame Nikon back a page so will go in and edit so its all together. POST 234 has been revised please revisit that

 

[jlancasterd]

I may certainly be in the minority (and opinions vary greatly with many), but there are two Nikon lenses (zooms) that I personally felt performance fell far short of what I was expecting/hoping for, especially for what they cost. These are the latest 24-120 f4 and 16-35 VR, but for somewhat different reasons. I can see excellent sharpness in the 16-35 VR at its wide end where it would do fine on the D800 save for the excessive distortions at/near 16-19mm, which for complex subjects (and subsequent distortion correction) with large # of files, simply wasn't an attractive or workable option. Nikon I believe wanted improved sharpness at 16mm over the 17-35 f2.8 at 17mm, so excessive barral distortion unfortunately was a consequence.

I recently tested a # of samples of the 24-120 f4 (latest version) for use as a "walk around" and as long as not shooting subjects that are complex in nature, at the wider end of its zoom range, distortion correction is pretty straight forward. The other issue for me personally, was it's overall relative performance on the edges/sides (save for focal lenghts above approx 65mm). It wasn't bad but wasn't what I hoped for either. Sort of middle of the road in parts of the frame. Again this is a wider range constant aperture zoom and compromises have to be made. I felt even a superb sample of Tamron's 28-75 f2.8 lens ran rings around the current 24-120 f4 but again its range is considerably shorter. Yet if looking for a high performance relatively light/small walk around lens where high(er) performance is required for a high MP camera, a really good sample of the 28-75 f2.8 offered not too much optical compromise relative to larger Nikon pro glass.

I'm only mentioning these observations as obviously even a decent lens might look alright on a D800, but if extracting max. performance is desired, lens selection becomes all that more important.

Dave (D&A)

The distortion in images from either the 24-120 f4 or the 16-35 f4 doesn't bother me too much because it is so easily corrected using the Lens Correction tab in LR4

 

[Jack]

Agreed -- the distortion corrections are very easy, so a non-issue. On the performance of the 24-120, I hear what you're saying, but for me this remains an impressive single walk-around lens -- great range and very good optical performance.

Honestly, as "bad" as you think the corners are, they're still better than any of the older "AF-D" primes in that range.

 

[weinschela]

Guy, looking at the images in post 234, I would agree with you on the fine detail rendering of the MF vs the Nikon, but if you look at the windows and what is inside them, the DR of the Nikon is rendering more shadow detail. Is that possible? Did the light change or am I missing something? I have a 800E on order but won't see it for a while so have to be a voyeur.

 

[Jack]

Guy, a question for clarification.

To understand clearly, you stepped back with a comparable focal over your IQ160 to try and capture similar images from 36MP on both sensors. What this does not show is what the extra 24MP you tossed from your IQ160 would do for the image. Did you by any chance shot a comparable framing with the IQ at full resolution? If you have it, it might be interesting to see the impact of the extra 67% of pixels do for that image...

(PS: As for DR, I know you can pull the shadows of the MF file up considerably in C1, especially if you used film standard instead of film extra shadow curve.)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I shot two clearly different images on the Phase. One I was back further and than cropped in to the Nikon dimensions. That is the first set

After my edit ( the last 4 images posted) I used the second Phase image at a full 60mpx at the SAME framing of the Nikon. Also the crops of the Phase will be tighter than the Nikon so the Phase represents the full 60 mpx full frame and the full frame 100 percent crop.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

As far as DR do not go by this I lifted the shadows of the Nikon a considerable amount. More a detail test than anything. ACR brings in the Nikon at a 5 point black point which is WAY too much right out of the gate. Its simply not accurate. We really can't determine DR right now until we can use a program that will do both files together in the same program. Most raw processors there is a big variance in this and also in color. So until we can accurately get them in the same processors its really a guessing game.

 

[Jack]

I shot two clearly different images on the Phase. One I was back further and than cropped in to the Nikon dimensions. That is the first set

After my edit ( the last 4 images posted) I used the second Phase image at a full 60mpx at the SAME framing of the Nikon. Also the crops of the Phase will be tighter than the Nikon so the Phase represents the full 60 mpx full frame and the full frame 100 percent crop.

Okay, you went back and edited your past on the previous page and added the new comparison -- duh. I see it now, did not see it before, had not gone back to yesterday's post because I had already read it!

 

[ptomsu]

Guy,

looking to your comparison shots - BTW many thanks for doing that - I simply find the differences between the D800 and IQ160 (I guess) pretty small, marginal and academic.

Sorry if I do not make lot of friends by speaking out what I feel.

And BTW I expect any HB back comparison to end up in the same area.

Peter

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Its a little hard to see web based but the tonal range, fine micro detail and things MF is known for are obvious. The Nikon is very very good and threading very close but its really not there but I'm pretty pleased with it. Obviously it will give the 22 mpx a little run since it is closer to those backs as far as look in micro detail and such. Admittedly we are early in the game here and more testing is needed but we really need to be using the same programs for real accuracy. Question is what program is favorable to both cameras.

Peter I know what your asking and the answer is no. Keep your Hassy but certainly think about the Nikon too in your bag. I know the million dollar question here and honestly I can't give up my MF stuff its just too damn good but I am embracing the Nikon to fill the gaps and very glad I upgraded my 35 system to the D800

 

[Jack]

Peter, I guess one man's small is another man's large


Seriously, I see a fairly significant difference, especially if you go back and look at what he added this morning -- a lot more file to print from. I will hold off color and tonality comments because we don't have the Capture Software figured out yet, but I think it is pretty obvious it needs to get significantly better for Nikon to be in the same league as the MF capture.

Just comparing file qualities, I think this D800 gives a 9u MF sensor a good run for it's money, and maybe even the few generation old P30+ and Hassy equivalent with micro-lenses. But once you step into comparable resolution MF territory even from a few generations ago, I do not see the D800 being in the same league. Not saying it's bad cause it isn't, it is clearly quite excellent and the best thing going in full-frame 35mm DSLR.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Peter, I guess one man's small is another man's large


Seriously, I see a fairly significant difference, especially if you go back and look at what he added this morning -- a lot more file to print from. I will hold off color and tonality comments because we don't have the Capture Software figured out yet, but I think it is pretty obvious it needs to get significantly better for Nikon to be in the same league as the MF capture.

Agreed I'm very pleased and we can't truly compare some things until the same software is used but it is still clear MF has its place and will not lose it anytime soon. But if you do buy the Nikon like anything else I can clearly advice of getting the best glass in front of it.

 

[ptomsu]

Its a little hard to see web based but the tonal range, fine micro detail and things MF is known for are obvious. The Nikon is very very good and threading very close but its really not there but I'm pretty pleased with it. Obviously it will give the 22 mpx a little run since it is closer to those backs as far as look in micro detail and such. Admittedly we are early in the game here and more testing is needed but we really need to be using the same programs for real accuracy. Question is what program is favorable to both cameras.

Peter I know what your asking and the answer is no. Keep your Hassy but certainly think about the Nikon too in your bag. I know the million dollar question here and honestly I can't give up my MF stuff its just too damn good but I am embracing the Nikon to fill the gaps and very glad I upgraded my 35 system to the D800

I for myself have decided to keep my Hassy anyway. Simply because I love to work with it.

I think you are right that you cannot see a del difference on a small computer screen. Would really love to compare big size prints from both - D800 and MFD.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

When I get back home I will put up the 2 Phase captures and the Nikon capture in raws and post a link to them for folks to play with.

 

[Vivek]

Steen, Thanks for the post at f/5.6.

Have you got any of the f/1.2 lenses? If so, any samples at f/1.2?

 

[Antonio Chagin]

Well I finally install Capture NX2 and did compare with ACR.
Color are better and more natural with Capture NX2.
Sharpening came out a lot better with ACR and I mean a lot..
Then try converting with out sharpening in NX@ and then doing it in PS and did not came out right.
I rather do it in ACR and work on the reds with an action in PS selective colors....
Just my opinion.
ACH

 

[sergio lovisolo]

Agree, had the same results. Not to speak of very high iso conversions...
Sergio

 

[D&A]

The distortion in images from either the 24-120 f4 or the 16-35 f4 doesn't bother me too much because it is so easily corrected using the Lens Correction tab in LR4

Uncfortumately when it comes to the 16-35 VR it isn't fully correctable for the subjects I was shooting and there was absolutely no easy fix, regardless of the amount of time spent correcting the files nor techniques applied. I fully explained the issue in a previous post a few weeks ago, so I won"t repeat all the details here but it related to group shots in very close quarters with internationally recognized individuals. Correcting for distortion of the group resulted in straight lines in the interior and other recognizable items taking on the appearance of a circus funhouse. I even sent the file to two well known photoshop gurus and they couldn't come up with an acceptable solution (file).

So when I hear distortortion is easily correctable, it may be, but not in all situations. For landscape and certain other commonly found subjects, yes, distortion correction can often be a simple fix, but it cannot be applied to all types of images, especially where residual distortion would not be acceptable for a paid application. In these type of situations, the 16-35 VR was unacceptable with use at it's widest focal length settings, for my particular application. Other than that, it's a fine lens and certainly will be most acceptable in a wide variety of uses. It's sort of analogous to a situation where a very fine lens might be great for general shooting but use for a specific application such as in astrophotography, it might not cut it, no matter what type of post processing corrections are applied. Still I personally felt the amount of distortion at the wide end of the 16-35VR being at the highest level of any previous Nikon wide angle zoom, was somewhat of a surprise.

Interestingly, Tokina was aware of this and when they released their two ultra wide angle full frame zoom lenses for Nikon, they specifically tried addressing the distortion issue, by releasing their lenses with amazingly low distortion. Unfortunately the price paid for their extremely low distortion throughout their zoom range, was somewhat uneven and soft edge performance at the wider apertures and focal lengths....the opposite of the Nikon 16-35VR.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Okay I made these look like something I would go to print with. You can see my note on the images. I did the Phase in C1 and the Nikon in Capture NX2. I WB off the same white chair. Again can be variance in the converters and any other variable.

Here is a link to the Raws( included the wide shot as well for cropping). PLEASE folks ONLY post results here at GetDPI.com is all I ask. I just don't want to be chasing down comments all over the web. Thanks Guy

https://www.yousendit.com/dl?phi_ac..._download%26batch_id%3DM3BtcmxkQ1IrV3h2TzhUQw

 

[Guy Mancuso]

If folks want to share a link to other forums for friends to see than I suggest sending a link to the whole thread so they can follow all the great input from our esteem members. BTW thanks everyone for your patience and great input here. A ton of great data here.:thumbs: