My quick D800 versus E test

[xpixel]

Capture One 6.4 is out with D800 / D800E support:


Camera systems and image software

 

[D&A]

Dave,

In the current design, Nikon claims to have a flat of optical glass in place of the waveplate in the D800E. (Usually, a thickness of the glass or the appropriate AA filter with associated equivalent refractive index *IS* part of the entire optical formula, and would be required in the system.)

I may be mistaken, but I thought Nikon was employing something more that a single "flat" of optical glass in the D800E. From my understanding (and it was a quick read that I might have mis-interpreted), they used something like two pieces of glass with some sort of wavelength filtering properties whereby their orientation together with one another cancels what effectively would be otherwise AA filtering. I'd have to go back and find/read the explanation but that was my understanding. If this was the case, I am wondering then if Nikon employed simply what others employed (a simple cover glass) over the sensor in place of the AA, would they have achieved a more pronounced increase of sharpness vs the regular D800, then we are seeing now in the currect D800E design?

Dave (D&A)

 

[Jack]

Well folks, frankly I feel the difference is so small as to be underwhelming IMHO. If I could only have one body it would be the plain old regular version D800 hands down. If I could have two bodies, sure, the second would be the D800E. Maybe.

 

[Jack]

I may be mistaken, but I thought Nikon was employing something more that a single "flat" of optical glass in the D800E. From my understanding (and it was a quick read that I might have mis-interpreted), they used something like two pieces of glass with some sort of wavelength filtering properties whereby their orientation together with one another cancels what effectively would be otherwise AA filtering. I'd have to go back and find/read the explanation but that was my understanding. If this was the case, I am wondering then if Nikon employed simply what others employed (a simple cover glass) over the sensor in place of the AA, would they have achieved a more pronounced increase of sharpness vs the regular D800, then we are seeing now in the currect D800E design?

Dave (D&A)

Dave, it is a sandwiched affair for both and anything but a simple cover glass, but it appears the critical missing piece in the D800E's sandwich is the waveplate. There are still the front and rear optical splitter panels, but with the waveplate removed in the D800E and replaced with optical glass, the 1/4 wave rotation is eliminated and thus the rear splitter acts as a recombiner instead of a second (4-way) splitter. In this fashion, Nikon has ensured that the optical path formulae for the sensor remains identical for both systems.

Here's the pdf: http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/IMG/I...ies/Moire-D800-D800E/Media/OLPF_schematic.pdf

 

[D&A]

Dave, it is a sandwiched affair for both and anything but a simple cover glass, but it appears the critical missing piece in the D800E's sandwich is the waveplate. There are still the front and rear optical splitter panels, but with the waveplate removed in the D800E and replaced with optical glass, the 1/4 wave rotation is eliminated and thus the rear splitter acts as a recombiner instead of a second (4-way) splitter. In this fashion, Nikon has ensured that the optical path formulae for the sensor remains identical for both systems.

Here's the pdf: http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/IMG/I...ies/Moire-D800-D800E/Media/OLPF_schematic.pdf

That's sort of the way I understood it too, although my previous postings used the wrong terminology. It's been a while since I both worked with and used a modified DSLR where the AA filter was removed but from what I recall a different sort of arrangement was used in it's modification and that is why I brought up the question if Nikon's optical arrangement in the D800E is causing some loss of sharpness compared to the D800 and partially responsible for what I feel is an underwhelming difference. My feeling it is certainly not what many expected of the differences being seen between the two cameras?

Dave (D&A)

 

[Jack]

why I brought up the question if Nikon's optical arrangement in the D800E is causing some loss of sharpness compared to the D800 and partially responsible for what I feel is an underwhelming difference. My feeling it is certainly not what many expected of the differences being seen between the two cameras?

I suspect it is more the opposite -- that this new (and IMHO clever) AA filter arrangement creates far less image degradation while still removing undesirable digital sampling artifacts like moire. So when removed, we only see the very marginal improvement we're seeing.

 

[D&A]

I suspect it is more the opposite -- that this new (and IMHO clever) AA filter arrangement creates far less image degradation while still removing undesirable digital sampling artifacts like moire. So when removed, we only see the very marginal improvement we're seeing.

Jack, I guess it could be seen both ways. Either Nikon's implementation of the AA filter on the regular D800 has had little effect on image degredation compared to AA filter removal, regardless of which method AA removal was implemented OR alternatively, the way they implemented AA removal on the D800E resulted in far less improvement in sharpness/detail as compared to other alternative methods of aftermarket AA filter removal.

One of the ways this question might be answered is when someone opts to have their regular D800 AA filter removed, by one of the companies that perform this modification regulary on DSLR's and of course have the opportunity to compare this modified D800 to the native D800E. I'm sure down the road, there might be some who will have the AA filter removed from their D800.

I may be wrong, but if I was to take a guess now, I would say aftermarket removal of the D800 AA filter will result in a bit of increase in sharpness over the native D800E (and thus a noticable increase increase in sharpness over the D800)....and that the way Nikon implemented AA filter removal in the D800E was done in such a way as to sacrifice a bit of additional sharpness and yet somehow as a consequence of this modified way of removing the AA filter, also reduced the occurance of moire' to a degree over other methods of AA removal. The part about reducing some of the occurance of moire' in their D800E AA filterless camera is an assumption but I know Nikon would be sensitive about marketing a camera where it's occurance would have been seen quite frequently (for obvious reasons). Then again consistancy in assembly of both cameras (D800 & D800E) probably also played a role. So in other words they somehow developed a conservative approach to what is essentually AA filter removal with some possible +/-tradeoffs, as I just surmised.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Steen]

Those of you who have for years been shooting cameras without AA filters, cameras like DMR, M8, M9 and S2, and 645D and all the different Medium Format Digital Backs, do you usually add a tad of sharpness in post processing ?

I had an M8 with a couple of Leica M lenses for a while, but it's been so long now that I no longer recall my post processing habits with that camera, so I'd be curious to know what you usually do in post with regards to adding sharpness.

 

[Paratom]

Those of you who have for years been shooting cameras without AA filters, cameras like DMR, M8, M9 and S2, and 645D and all the different Medium Format Digital Backs, do you usually add a tad of sharpness in post processing ?

I had an M8 with a couple of Leica M lenses for a while, but it's been so long now that I no longer recall my post processing habits with that camera, so I'd be curious to know what you usually do in post with regards to adding sharpness.

I sometimes have some sharpening when doing the raw conversion. Not much though.

 

[Jack]

Those of you who have for years been shooting cameras without AA filters, cameras like DMR, M8, M9 and S2, and 645D and all the different Medium Format Digital Backs, do you usually add a tad of sharpness in post processing ?

I had an M8 with a couple of Leica M lenses for a while, but it's been so long now that I no longer recall my post processing habits with that camera, so I'd be curious to know what you usually do in post with regards to adding sharpness.

Depended on the back and camera. With the P25 and P45+ and M8/9 yes, less with the M9. With the P65+/IQ160 and IQ180, it is capture sharpening only most of the time and only specific output sharpening as required for the image/output combo. So here I work the file at the opposite end compared to Joe. Note also that the P65+/IQ160 required very little capture sharpening to begin with, while the IQ180 needs a little extra boost for my tastes.

 

[Shashin]

Those of you who have for years been shooting cameras without AA filters, cameras like DMR, M8, M9 and S2, and 645D and all the different Medium Format Digital Backs, do you usually add a tad of sharpness in post processing

For my 645D, yes. For my P25+, usually no.

 

[Bill_Green]

Those of you who have for years been shooting cameras without AA filters, cameras like DMR, M8, M9 and S2, and 645D and all the different Medium Format Digital Backs, do you usually add a tad of sharpness in post processing

On the DMR I added edge sharpening only. Anything else was too much.

 

[Dan Bellyk]

No offence Tim but those are funny looking boats, just kidding love the contrast of colors of this scene, you have so many great photo ops on that side of the pond, thanks for sharing these Tim
Congrats on the gear!

 

[bab]

If you look in the center window on the green house you can see clearly on the #60 image right through the glass but on the #19 image the glass appears to look like a foggy window there is the best example I see of micro-contrast.

Also the green siding on the house looks sharper or you can see the paint pealing and the other image looks like there is some smoothing applied.

Additionally the bird wires (?) of the chimney and roof corner are CA'd in the #19 or out of focus and in the #60 image there sharper and no CA.

Regards

Barryoke:

 

[tashley]

@ Barry, I am with you on this: even given the bolder light in the #60 shot, there is still subtly more detail in a host of ways. Whilst the E version isn't dramatically sharper, like say comparing an M9 and a 5DII, the differences are there and they are significant.

@ Dan thanks! This is a relatively modest resort so none of Guy's fancy marina shots here!

 

[Jack]

Tim, Barry -- be careful guys, methinks you appear to be drinking the koolaid oke: :ROTFL:

Seriously, let's quantify the term "significant difference." To me, if it won't be seen in a typical large print, it isn't significant. So I am holding judgement until I have a comparative set of raw files in my hand to process optimally from start to finish and then print to compare the result side-by-side. If I then see a difference, I'll capitulate. But until then, I am sticking to "visible but marginal" gain.

:chug: and Cheers,

 

[donaldt]

have already picked up the D800E today
my reasoning behind is simple
what is lost from the AA filter can never be retrieved (dont be silly enough to think a few clicks on the sharpening will magically undo the AA filter)
and from pass experiences with Medium Format (from Mamiya to Hasselblad that I still own and use), Moire is very rarely an issue serious enough to trash a picture

I just tested the D800E shooting straight on a piece of fabric, I tried it with 3 different lenses, the 24-70, 135 f2, and 200 f2, yes the Moire is there and more apparent on the sharper 200 f2, but no its not that bad
for those of you who are still thinking E or no E, go with the E unless you are a professional fabric shooter

 

[ustein]

If I would buy now I would pick up the E. But I have the D800 (non E) and think can well live with it. More worried about image content now that makes good use of the resolution.

 

[Steen]

I suspect it is more the opposite -- that this new (and IMHO clever) AA filter arrangement creates far less image degradation while still removing undesirable digital sampling artifacts like moire. So when removed, we only see the very marginal improvement we're seeing.

Jack, are you saying that the 'ordinary' optical low-pass filter of the D800 Standard model is in fact some kind of a new arrangement and design (and maybe even patent) by Nikon ?

I thought it was just the same good old classic construction of an Anti-Aliasing filter (though I've actually never known before how they really worked) ?

 

[Jack]

Jack, are you saying that the 'ordinary' optical low-pass filter of the D800 Standard model is in fact some kind of a new arrangement and design (and maybe even patent) by Nikon ?

I thought it was just the same good old classic construction of an Anti-Aliasing filter (though I've actually never known before how they really worked) ?

Yes, it's a new design -- and clever. I am no engineer, but it appears with the current arrangement they can tune the amount of blur to a very precise level, like say to just at the Nyquist limit, thereby creating a close-to-ideal AA filter for any sensor. I believe it is why you still find some very slight moire in the D800 on occasion -- slightly visible at 100% view but un-noticeable in a print or web output, the perfect compromise.