Jack, thanks. sometimes my poor english don´t help me. you were very clear.In the raw processor, if you click the White Balance tool (WB dropper) on the same spot in the images, then the color is identical in both
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 v D800E, chapter 6
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
J
julianv
Guest
Readers with a technical bent would be interested in a thread on the LuLa forum, and in particular the tests and analyses reported by Bart van der Wolf. He found that the OLPF in the D800 is really close to ideal, and when the appropriate optimal deconvolution sharpening is applied to the outputs of both D800 and D800E, the results are essentially indistinguishable. The difference in measured resolution is only about 1%.
"Nikon D800 / D800E First Comparison"
According to van der Wolf, when differences show up, they will probably be in low contrast microdetails at spatial frequencies near theoretical max (Nyquist). This is because OLPF on the D800 is pushing the (unsharpened) response down near Nyquist, and the extra sharpening needed by D800 may not be able to pull these low contrast details out of the noise.
A word to those who want to make their own comparisons but do not have access to both D800 and D800E: the best samples I have found to date are those on Rob Galbraith's site, in this article:
Rob Galbraith DPI: Comparing detail and moire in the Nikon D800 and D800E
Download the NEF versions of the "intersection" image, and have at it with your favorite raw converter.
I would like to see someone post some carefully done comparison shots, made at high ISO, in low light, high noise conditions. That's the scenario where the extra sharpening required by the D800 might place it at a disadvantage.
"Nikon D800 / D800E First Comparison"
According to van der Wolf, when differences show up, they will probably be in low contrast microdetails at spatial frequencies near theoretical max (Nyquist). This is because OLPF on the D800 is pushing the (unsharpened) response down near Nyquist, and the extra sharpening needed by D800 may not be able to pull these low contrast details out of the noise.
A word to those who want to make their own comparisons but do not have access to both D800 and D800E: the best samples I have found to date are those on Rob Galbraith's site, in this article:
Rob Galbraith DPI: Comparing detail and moire in the Nikon D800 and D800E
Download the NEF versions of the "intersection" image, and have at it with your favorite raw converter.
I would like to see someone post some carefully done comparison shots, made at high ISO, in low light, high noise conditions. That's the scenario where the extra sharpening required by the D800 might place it at a disadvantage.
kuau
Workshop Member
Well I just started shooting with my D800 today, I still have a D800/e on order from amazon, no local Nikon dealers in Telluride, oh well price for living in a very small town I guess.
Jack has done an amazing job in comparing the 2 cameras, excellent comparison and i will will for sure try C1 to process my d800 files and use Jacks USM settinging and also add clarity.
IMHO since having owned a M9 and Leicas entry level lenses, I Still think the M9 files looked amazing, which leads me to believe like has been mentioned before, we need better lenses to handle such small pixels.
D800 is an amazing camera no question, and I can only hope for Nikon to release a new 24mm PC-E and a 17 PC-E.
I still have my Sinar arTec with my 3 lens kit, and a Leaf 33mp back, IQ is still great, and ease of use for me is quite good, so simple to do stitching, and If I need tilt it's always available for me and using shift at least with my 3 lenses does not degrade IQ, whereas a D800 with a T/S lens cannot do he same.
Still in he process of testing different lenses out on my D800,
Steven
Ps. again great job Jack. Thanks again
Jack has done an amazing job in comparing the 2 cameras, excellent comparison and i will will for sure try C1 to process my d800 files and use Jacks USM settinging and also add clarity.
IMHO since having owned a M9 and Leicas entry level lenses, I Still think the M9 files looked amazing, which leads me to believe like has been mentioned before, we need better lenses to handle such small pixels.
D800 is an amazing camera no question, and I can only hope for Nikon to release a new 24mm PC-E and a 17 PC-E.
I still have my Sinar arTec with my 3 lens kit, and a Leaf 33mp back, IQ is still great, and ease of use for me is quite good, so simple to do stitching, and If I need tilt it's always available for me and using shift at least with my 3 lenses does not degrade IQ, whereas a D800 with a T/S lens cannot do he same.
Still in he process of testing different lenses out on my D800,
Steven
Ps. again great job Jack. Thanks again
Now, ...... this is an announcement!
I thought I felt a little earthquake when I was reading this. :bugeyes:
Seriously though the question now is: Who will be first? Canon to bring a D800 competitor or Nikon to release the T/S wide angle lenses.
Camera rumour sites must have a good business in this age ..... LOL
manouch shirzad
Workshop & Subscriber Member
Thanks Jack.
your efforts and your time saving information are really appreciated.
________
Manouch
your efforts and your time saving information are really appreciated.
________
Manouch
David Schneider
New member
Interesting. Hope you'll post your thoughts on this from time to time.
kuau
Workshop Member
Jack,
I know you are a very experienced C1 user and have spent countless hours perfecting capture sharpening in C1,
Have you or anyone else in this matter come up with some comparable
capture sharpening settings in LR4 for high frequency images, ie landscape stuff when using a D800 that would get me closer to a D800/E micro contrast?
I have been using the "so called" deconvolution setting in LR4
Amount 40
Radius .7
Detail 100
Mask to taste usually around 23 so my Telluride blue sky's and clouds don't get sharpened.
Steven
I know you are a very experienced C1 user and have spent countless hours perfecting capture sharpening in C1,
Have you or anyone else in this matter come up with some comparable
capture sharpening settings in LR4 for high frequency images, ie landscape stuff when using a D800 that would get me closer to a D800/E micro contrast?
I have been using the "so called" deconvolution setting in LR4
Amount 40
Radius .7
Detail 100
Mask to taste usually around 23 so my Telluride blue sky's and clouds don't get sharpened.
Steven
Jack, just to make sure I get it: do you refer to your back and the Arca and the Rodenstock lenses, or just to whatever belongs to the DF?
Chris
Steven,
My experience with LR/ACR is now so old it's probably outdated, but here is a starting point that should be reasonably close, and what I used before C1 could handle the D800 files. My preference was for more sharpening and less detail than you chose. Try amount at 98, radius at 0.6 (or up to 0.8 for a less crisp base file) and then detail usually around 35. I choose masking based on grain in even-toned areas and usually this ends up being around 9 for an ISO 100/200 file.
Hopefully some others can chime in with better refined suggestions.
Bottom line is at least for me, C1 does a pretty significantly superior job. But I know LR stalwarts will claim I will not see the difference in a print
tashley
Subscriber Member
kuau
Workshop Member
Those are Lloyd's at Diglloyds recommended setting I think. I will give these a try and I also remember reading that cranking up the detail to 90 more closely resembles the D800/E look, but don't quote me on this
Jack, like yourself I sold of my Leaf AFI Hy6 kit and holding on to my arTec
I still believe for WA images the tech view solution is superior to 35mm FF
In regards to C1 vs LR4 that's a whole other story and,I agree with you C1 has the advantage, yet I like LR because I am quite fond of the print module.
I think the widest I will go on my D800 is a Zeiss 35/2 which I am renting right now from lens rental.com and so far performing very well.
Now if I can find an affordable long range lens, I would love the 200/2 but way out of my price range. I have the 180/2.8 and for landscape it is not good at all
Steven
Jack, like yourself I sold of my Leaf AFI Hy6 kit and holding on to my arTec
I still believe for WA images the tech view solution is superior to 35mm FF
In regards to C1 vs LR4 that's a whole other story and,I agree with you C1 has the advantage, yet I like LR because I am quite fond of the print module.
I think the widest I will go on my D800 is a Zeiss 35/2 which I am renting right now from lens rental.com and so far performing very well.
Now if I can find an affordable long range lens, I would love the 200/2 but way out of my price range. I have the 180/2.8 and for landscape it is not good at all
Steven
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Steven don't forget to AF tune that 180 on my body it was off like -14. Im sitting here waiting for FedX and my 200 F2. freaking torture
kuau
Workshop Member
Guy,
I was just shooting the 180/2.8 at infinity and just a hair of infinity, my corners were terrible. Though my closer up stuff looked great. So for me what I like to shoot. with long FL the 180/2.8 does not cut it or I got a bad copy??? Have you shot your 180/2.8 at infinity?
I am so jealous, 200/2 wow.... Im sure the results will be amazing.
I was just shooting the 180/2.8 at infinity and just a hair of infinity, my corners were terrible. Though my closer up stuff looked great. So for me what I like to shoot. with long FL the 180/2.8 does not cut it or I got a bad copy??? Have you shot your 180/2.8 at infinity?
I am so jealous, 200/2 wow.... Im sure the results will be amazing.
tashley
Subscriber Member
Can you tell us more about the zeiss 25 f2? I am trying to decide between it and the Nikon 24 1.4 for mainly landscape and travel use, and am particularly interested to hear aout how it performs in terms of distant subjects, edge to edge sharpness, and colour fringing, especially LoCas... Thanks!
Btw I personally find that too high a detail setting at other than low ISO makes the files feel a tad crunchy.
Btw I personally find that too high a detail setting at other than low ISO makes the files feel a tad crunchy.
tashley
Subscriber Member
tashley
Subscriber Member
My bad.. Sorry for the misread!
Steven, in an earlier posting we were discussing both the Zeiss 35 f2 for landscape use and the 180 f2.8 in general. As I mentioned, I was suitably iimpressed with the 35 f2 for landscapes and was one of the reasons I purchased it at that time. With regards to the Nikon 180 f2.8, I felt the copies I tried were a bit dated and were begging to show their inadequacy on higher resolution bodies. Some of those I tried even had soft edges/corners at mi-distances. A good copy of Sigma's 150mm f2,8 macro although a bit shorter focal length wise, was markedly superior at all subject distances, but it was important to obtain a good copy. At least there is fairly good consistency with most samples.
Dave (D&A)