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!

Nikon D800 First Blush

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
My first blush: the files are excellent, the color is very good and the noise handling is spectacular. I am processing them in ACR and LR and am liking what I'm seeing very much. (I cannot wait to get them in C1 though!) I will even go so far as to say this is the best DSLR file I have seen to date as relates to color, noise and *captured* dynamic range.

However, the file does NOT have the malleability of the Phase file; you cannot crank shadows way up and hold the quality like you can on the IQ, so what I'd call the output DR is still superior on the IQ file. The other thing you notice immediately is how much less the image "zooms" when you go to 100% as compared to the IQ180 -- very close pixel pitches and a lot more of them on the IQ180 so that makes sense.

I need to shoot some people in good outdoor light to comment on how it handles skin. So far from a few interior interior shots I've done it looks pretty darn good, but again does not appear to be full MF caliber.

So, is it an MF replacement? No, at least not for me. To me, the most obvious difference is the MF files still have more elasticity to them, and that is something I use a lot to get my final working file to where I want it. But for a shooter who cannot enter MF, I will step out on that limb and say the D800 appears to be the best thing going to date in the DSLR league. I am impressed with it and likely to keep it.
Jack,

Regarding the malleability of the NEF files, you might want to run them through Nikon Capture NX2 to really see what they are capable of.i have always found that NX2 can pull out a lot more shadow and highlight information from native Nikon files than either C1 or any ACR variant. The workflow sucks but the raw results really are worth it it the end. (I recognize of course that you are very much at home around the C1 workflow).
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
The gentleman hated the front element. Thought he would scratch it.
Guess what, been there, done that (argument with an over zealous sprung door). A tiny mark will flare horribly with the 14-24 but it was a $300 fix by Nikon.for a new hood assembly & replacement front element. :D

Watch these hood petals when really cold - the door bump shattered my hood on a very cold day which in turn knocked the front element.
 

vieri

Well-known member
Vieri, resolution of the sensor is the same in both cases (36 Mp.). You should consider the AA filter (I understand that this is counterintuitive) as part of the lens.
Is the lens that, with it, has less resolution.
So, eliminating the AA filter, is like adding resolution to the lens (or less penalizing it) so a lens with less native resolution can perform even better (depending on the strength of the AA filter) that one with more.
But in italian I would be a little more understandable...
Regards.
Sergio
Sergio, your argument isn't counterintuitive, is plainly backwards :) In the real world, you have a lens - say the 85mm f1.4 - that DOESN'T change, no matter which body you mount it on. You then have two cameras, the D800 and the D800E, and the sensor system is different between them in that one HAS an AA filter while the other DOESN'T, even if the actual light sensitive wells' area is the same. I am pretty sure everyone would agree that the AA filter is part of the camera, not of the lens...

Therefore, my previous example still stands. Let's make it less abstract:
- let's say you have a lens (the Nikkor xx mm fx.x) that resolves 100 lpm;
- let's say you put it on the D800 that in this case (numbers are, again, randomly selected) solves 90 lpm;
THEN the lens out resolve the sensor/camera combination.

- let's now say you have the SAME lens (the Nikkor xx mm fx.x) that STILL resolves 100 lpm;
- let's say you put it this time on the D800E that in this case (numbers are, again, randomly selected) solves 110 lpm;
THEN the lens will be out resolved by the sensor/camera combination.

THEREFORE, the D800E sensor/camera combination is more demanding for a lens than the D800.

I hope this is clearer, otherwise I guess we'll have to agree to disagree... and, in order to get the best results, I'll put my best glass on the D800E, while you'll put your worse one on it :D
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I agree with Vieri. The 800E would be more demanding and, ALSO, it would show the diffraction effects more clearly than the 800.

The 800E would need to be kept clean all the time. This would be less of a bother with the 800.

I am saying these based on using AA and AA less cams for several years.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
D800E will be more demanding due to no AA. But honestly folks, the net difference will be marginal (like minuscule and only visible at careful 100% comparisons), and likely totally disappeared by f8 due to diffraction anyway. You will see it on the fast teles shot at f4, and that is where you'll also start the sharpness versus moire tradeoff debates.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack,

Regarding the malleability of the NEF files, you might want to run them through Nikon Capture NX2 to really see what they are capable of.i have always found that NX2 can pull out a lot more shadow and highlight information from native Nikon files than either C1 or any ACR variant. The workflow sucks but the raw results really are worth it it the end. (I recognize of course that you are very much at home around the C1 workflow).
For sure, I should process with the manufacturer software -- know that lesson from trying to convince Phase shooters to try C1 instead of sticking with LR for their Phase files! :banghead: I'm just not in favor of purchasing a $180 software I cannot demo first and will likely not ever want to use anyway...
 
V

Vivek

Guest
One major reason I stopped buying Nikon is this NX issue. Expensive, slow but mandatory for the best results from a Nikon cam. Upgrade policy is exactly the same as Adobe.

In the Netherlands, it (NX2) is offered as a package deal with the D800E body which costs about 500 Euros more than the 800. It seems that NX2 is essential for the 800E.
 

danielmoore

New member
Lloyd Chambers wrote about very significant focus shift with the 14-24 G.

My sample bears this out and now only trust live view focus for critical sharpness.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Lloyd Chambers wrote about very significant focus shift with the 14-24 G.

My sample bears this out and now only trust live view focus for critical sharpness.
Sounds like that makes it almost unusable on the D800 for walk-around shooting -- bummer. Looks like I settle for a 20mm prime.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Steen,

thanks for your helpful examples. 1600 ISO would be quite usable I think.
I actually found 3200 to be fine for me, pleasing fine to moderate noise structure. One thing Nikon seems to have cracked, is the noise signature is mostly monochrome, so much more pleasing in an image -- at least to my eyes...
 
When you have a camera with an AA filter, in reality the filter is not applied -part-of the sensor, (the transducer, which converts light in electrical signals) it is applied to the lens, and reduces it resolving power, not that of the transducer itself.
A camera is an energy system. This energy derives from the external light and is conducted to the energy transducer (the sensor) trough an optical channel which comprises the lens, filters, (IR, UV etc) and in some cases, an AA filter. At the end
of this path, light is supplied to the sensor itself, which converts it to electrical signals.
The resolution of a sensor is proportional to the number of its pixels.
But a sensor has a limited capability to accept energy from the light path: limited in amplitude by its sensitivity and his dynamic range, and in frequency by a strange thing
called Nyquist limit, which is a frequency in the electric side of the sensor, and lines per
millimeter on the optical side of the sensor.
The sensor says to the lens designer: hey, you are sending me more energy than I am able to convert, please do something... the designer replies: stupid, tell the photographer
to close the lens and use a shorter exposure! but the sensor replies: hey, there is still
something wrong: you are sending me energy with too high frequency (resolution) and I
am unable to convert it -shame on Nyquist- so I must aliase it .
Well, says the designer, all can I do is to reduce the exuberance of this lens which is supplying energy to you with a high frequency attenuator that is called AAfilter, but I
have to tell you that I am unable to build one that will eliminate only the part of light
that you don't like, but much more than that. So I will try to compensate this loss with
a stronger lens, one which has more resolution, to obtain anyway a good image. This is
due to the defects of this filter, I must supply to it more energy in the high frequency
range to partly compensate his action.
But if you accept a little aliasing, I can avoid to use the attenuator, and so I can send you the required energy even with a lens a little weaker than that I must use when the attenuator is in the light path.

Out of the shameless apologue. The AA filter is an obstruction APPLIED TO THE LENS to
avoid that high frequency energy reaches the sensor. It reduces the resolution of the lens,
it is still in the optical part of the system. If we eliminate it, it will be easier for the lens (less demanding) to produce enough energy to reach the Nyquist limit, after which that energy is aliased-
That's all, folks!

Thanks.
Sergio
 
Last edited:
S

ssanacore

Guest
Re: Blush





If you had seen the photographer in action you would no longer worry about the lens ... :D

Welcome aboard ssanacore :salute:
Hope you didn't take the remark personally. But as a substitute for MF for my landscape work, it seems like it will take superb optics to get the most from this camera. Can't wait to get my hands on one.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Hmmm after shooting the lowly rated 180 one wonders but I need to get this stuff home on my 30 inch monitor and I really need C1 to process as I can mentally compare to what my IQ 160 does. Have to say its damn fun to shoot BUT you can't be sloppy either. My bet some people will sell these off after they realize it's work.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Now my G glass is kicking butt and taking numbers don't get me wrong but for some lenses on the bubble they really need a workout. My 14-24 is looking really good now but falling into a trap thinking F8 is going to carry DOF than that will not always be the case. With this lens you tend to get real close to your subject which obviously kills DOF. Again I will repeat a comment I said earlier for non MF shooters in some ways your going to need to practice what we have to do. It's getting harder to cheat good technique. Why I said some will sell them as some folks don't want to work it.
 

vieri

Well-known member
Again, one last time.

Say you have a lens that resolves 90 lpm. Say you have a sensor that resolves 100 lpm, but you put an AA filter on it to reduce it resolving power to 90 lpm. Now your lens resolves exactly what light/frequences/etc will arrive on the surface of the sensor, using all the resolving power the sensor has. Agree so far?
Say now you take the AA filter out of the sensor; the sensor will now resolve its full potential of 100 lpm, but your lens will still be resolving 90 lpm; your image will look like the one taken with the AA filter exactly, not putting the extra resolving power freed by the missing AA filter to its advantage. Now, in order to have the full 100 lpm resolved, you will need a BETTER lens, able to resolve 100 lpm. Agree so far?

So, given a sensor in two configuration, one WITH and one WITHOUT an AA filter, in order to fully use the resolving power of the sensor that taking off the AA filter will unleash, you need a BETTER lens; therefore, a camera without AA filter is MORE demanding on lens quality than one WITH AA filter, everything else being equal as in the case of the D800 and D800E cameras.

Really.

However, being this a free world, you can believe what you want, no problem by me :D as I said, this is my last post on this, I hope things are a little clearer now. Maybe is a language barrier problem, I don't know.

Ciao,

V.

When you have a camera with an AA filter, in reality the filter is not applied -part-of the sensor, (the transducer, which converts light in electrical signals) it is applied to the lens, and reduces it resolving power, not that of the transducer itself.
A camera is an energy system. This energy derives from the external light and is conducted to the energy transducer (the sensor) trough an optical channel which comprises the lens, filters, (IR, UV etc) and in some cases, an AA filter. At the end
of this path, light is supplied to the sensor itself, which converts it to electrical signals.
The resolution of a sensor is proportional to the number of its pixels.
But a sensor has a limited capability to accept energy from the light path: limited in amplitude by its sensitivity and his dynamic range, and in frequency by a strange thing
called Nyquist limit, which is a frequency in the electric side of the sensor, and lines per
millimeter on the optical side of the sensor.
The sensor says to the lens designer: hey, you are sending me more energy than I am able to convert, please do something... the designer replies: stupid, tell the photographer
to close the lens and use a shorter exposure! but the sensor replies: hey, there is still
something wrong: you are sending me energy with too high frequency (resolution) and I
am unable to convert it -shame on Nyquist- so I must aliase it .
Well, says the designer, all can I do is to reduce the exuberance of this lens which is supplying energy to you with a high frequency attenuator that is called AAfilter, but I
have to tell you that I am unable to build one that will eliminate only the part of light
that you don't like, but much more than that. So I will try to compensate this loss with
a stronger lens, one which has more resolution, to obtain anyway a good image. This is
due to the defects of this filter, I must supply to it more energy in the high frequency
range to partly compensate his action.
But if you accept a little aliasing, I can avoid to use the attenuator, and so I can send you the required energy even with a lens a little weaker than that I must use when the attenuator is in the light path.

Out of the shameless apologue. The AA filter is an obstruction APPLIED TO THE LENS to
avoid that high frequency energy reaches the sensor. It reduces the resolution of the lens,
it is still in the optical part of the system. If we eliminate it, it will be easier for the lens (less demanding) to produce enough energy to reach the Nyquist limit, after which that energy is aliased-
That's all, folks!

Thanks.
Sergio
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
**** I just got hit for my Nikon purchases my wife just killed me in a antique store. Pay backs are a bitch. Lol
 
Top