Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 250

Thread: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

  1. #51
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by wentbackward View Post
    I don't see why Nikon going from 24 -> 36 MP in a Nikon body radically changes anything to be honest...
    I completely agree. The big change for Nikon came with the D3X, a superb camera in every way. Unfortunately, it was (is) almost 3 times as expensive as the competition and very close to MF DB, so I have a feeling most photographers disqualified it from the start. The resolution advantage going from 24 to 36MP isn't dramatic in any way, but a price drop of 60% is.

  2. #52
    petercoxphoto
    Guest

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    We've just produced a pair of 40x60" prints comparing the D800E with Nikon 24mm PC-E and the IQ180 and the Schneider 35mm. The results are very interesting indeed - if you can make the hangout at 4pm Irish time, 11am Eastern, you'd find it worthwhile I think.

    Add Neil McShane to your circles on Google Plus to receive the invite (https://plus.google.com/116143938603101885158).

    Cheers,
    Peter

  3. #53
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Peter,

    For those of us that cannot watch, please post a written summary here for thread posterity.

    Thanks in advance,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 7 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #54
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Yup, I'm not a Google plus user but would be very interested to hear your findings!
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #55
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Yup, I'm not a Google plus user but would be very interested to hear your findings!
    Nor am I and I barely have time for this place to be honest. I don't surf much anymore.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  6. #56
    Workshop & Subscriber Member manouch shirzad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NY, NJ, United States
    Posts
    133
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    10

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    What is Google Plus? a new photo website.
    _______
    Manouch

  7. #57
    petercoxphoto
    Guest

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Hi guys -
    Sorry for the brief responses to this thread, but as you might imagine we've been incredibly busy with this test. We started yesterday morning at 9am, finished at around midnight and have been at it for about the same amount of time today.

    We had the Google+ hangout and it was well attended, sorry if you tried to get on but found it was full.

    I'll let you know the basic conclusion now, and will provide more details in a few days when we have the video live and the detailed article written up.

    Essentially, at 40x60", the D800E with the 24mm PC-E lens is extremely close to the IQ180 with the 35mm Schneider on the Arca-Swiss. Close enough that at a 'normal' viewing distance of 4-5 feet, you can't tell which is which.

    At close viewing, less than about 2 feet, the difference becomes apparent. But it is nowhere close to what you would expect.

    In 20x30" prints, the difference is also apparent, but you have to be less than a foot from the print to tell.

    I'm gobsmacked, to say the least.

    Dynamic range is, as far as I can tell, at least equal between the cameras. Colour rendition appears to be better on the IQ180.

    Bear in mind, the IQ180 we were testing is my own. We borrowed the D800 and D800E from friends and colleagues. So I'm giving this result as an IQ180 owner.

    Cheers,
    Peter

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Presumably at 20x30, the IQ is being down-rezzed, and the D800E up-rezzed, whereas at 40x60, both are being up-rezzed.

    How were the 40x60 files created?

    More interesting (to me), is the relative lens performance. Anyone know how the Nikon 24 PC-E compares to the Canon 24 TS-E II? (wondering how an IQ180 on a HCam would perform here).
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by petercoxphoto View Post
    Essentially, at 40x60", the D800E with the 24mm PC-E lens is extremely close to the IQ180 with the 35mm Schneider on the Arca-Swiss. Close enough that at a 'normal' viewing distance of 4-5 feet, you can't tell which is which.
    40x60" would be 122 ppi for D800, 20x30" 245 ppi.

    As a rule of thumb I usually think that going below 200 ppi for fine art prints is undesirable since one may start seeing pixel structures when nosing the print. If nosing quality is not needed (=wanted) we can quit doing high resolution photography right now. 10 megapixel is enough to make any picture good for "viewing distance".

    Like most items with high quality, one really have to look closely to see any difference.

    What would be interesting to know is if the D800 with PC-E 24 delivers sharp pixels all the way to the corner, and if IQ180 with the Schneider does the same.

    Say if the Schneider is outresolved by the 80 megapixel IQ180 so the real resolution therefore is close to the 36 megapixel D800E that would be a shocking result. But if both deliver sharp pixels for their resolution then it is just up to the user to decide how many megapixels they need.

    It is quite easy for any of us to test if we think we need 80 megapixels rather than 36, just do a crop test print of a imagined print size resulting in a certain ppi, look at it and see if we think it is sharp enough for the size. I've done that myself in great detail. What I find harder to test and find results for is if system XYZ can deliver sharp pixels corner to corner. It is one thing to have X megapixel sensor, another to have a lens that can make all those megapixels sharp so we get full use of them in a print. I was hoping to get that kind of questions answered from this test.

    My guess would be that the PC-E 24 would not hold up 100% to the corners of the D800, and also the Schneider would have some problems on the IQ180 (therefore I suggested rodenstock digaron-w lenses).
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    40x60" would be 122 ppi for D800, 20x30" 245 ppi.

    As a rule of thumb I usually think that going below 200 ppi for fine art prints is undesirable since one may start seeing pixel structures when nosing the print. If nosing quality is not needed (=wanted) we can quit doing high resolution photography right now. 10 megapixel is enough to make any picture good for "viewing distance".
    Right on the money. I've done these tests.... I just downsample my IQ180 file to 36MP and print to the same size as my original file. Yes..... at five feet there is little difference and I'm printing to 40 inches in one direction on canvas. BUT..... everyone wants to walk into the print - its only natural. The difference then becomes very apparent. If the image contains high frequency it becomes lost with 36MP. There's only so much upsampling that can take place.... and I'm only talking about 40 inches....jeeez these guys are printing to 60 inches. That would be the outer, outer limit for me with an IQ180 file.

    For me, the D800 file for high frequency is limited to 250ppi for upsampling which means that the outer limit for high frequency images is 30 inches in the long direction..... that's it for me! This is image specific..... so if I were shooting architectural detail - likes windows or doors - I might be able to print to 40 inches, but the subject matter is lower frequency which now takes up most of the image. Anyway..... my two cents.

    Victor

  11. #61
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    They will post a video here The Circle of Confusion
    but it's not up there yet.

  12. #62
    Subscriber and Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,803
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by wentbackward View Post
    You might be interested that Ming Thien compares the Leica MM with the D800.

    The Medium Format / Large Format versus Leica discussion has been going on since the 30's. I don't see why Nikon going from 24 -> 36 MP in a Nikon body radically changes anything to be honest and I think Ming Thiens comparisons raises some interesting questions when you consider he's comparing 18 to 36 MP.
    He uses a 45P - Tessar design for the Nikon versus the 50AA....talk about a crippled comparison.

    Bob

  13. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    691
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Zeiss Tessar design, super centre sharpness. I think the comparison shows both that at a technical level a $3000 camera can hold its own against $11000 of gear. It also shows that 18 vs 36 MP is not a great difference, and of course 36 vs 80 MP is not a great difference so by logical inference, 18MP is roughly equivalent to 80MP. It's not so ridiculous because a 36MP sensor can print at 60x40, an M8 can look great at 20x30 or even larger.

    My point is that roughly the same argument has been going on since the 30's and reaching a fever pitch again, why has a 24 -> 36 MP change caused such a change? I guess Nikon realise Leica's clever marketing through social media and this is a full on assault using the same means. They just need a celebrity, Nikon equivalent of Seal and they're done.

    Sorry but clearly it's all hyperbole to sell more cameras in market where many people are giving up entirely, using instigram on iDroid to upload pictures of their cat to facebook or switching to things like the Nex7/XPro1.

    It's a shame Nikon failed to put the D4 sensor in the D800. That's a real upgrade I could have used. A D4 will also look pretty respectable at 60x40.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #64
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    While I mostly agree with you, there are situations where every pixel counts. I made some very interesting observations during a job for a client recently. This is slightly but absolutely related, so I post it on this thread:
    The client wanted some very large (200-240 cm longest side, that's a round 90") prints of landscapes in Norway (not my photos). They had very specific requirements with regards to locations, colours and style. That, and time as well as budget constraints, limited the selection of useable photos considerably. Most of the photos that were looked at initially (before I became a part of the process) were taken with DSLR cameras between 12 and 18MP.

    Since I couldn't dismiss the selected photos without showing why, I made, together with the print shop, samples of how they looked at that kind of enlargements. What I noticed with all of them was that, while it's possible to stretch digital files rather far, when they "fall apart", it seems to happen rather abruptly. This confirms previous experiences with files from all kinds of digital cameras, including MF, but it's the first time that I've had the opportunity to test it out on several photos together with a very qualified printer.

    If that is correct, it means that if one really needs those extra 10, 20 or 30 centimeters in a very large format (in this case to fill a certain wall space), 50% extra pixels may be very useful, be it a traditional DSLR or an MF DB. Have anybody else had similar experiences?

    As an aside (off off topic):
    The client had already bought a 35mm slide (Provia, probably 100 or 100F) for too much money which they insisted on using in a space where 220cm width was needed. I didn't really have much hope succeeding with that one, but the printer was of a different opinion. They scanned it to the required size, 240ppi at 220cm length, and printed it on matt paper. While the result doesn't hold up when studied from up close, it didn't "fall apart" like the digital files, and from 3 meters, which is the closest normal viewing distance for this particular photo, it looks very nice. Not perfect, at least not from a photographer's point of view, but the client is very happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by wentbackward View Post
    Zeiss Tessar design, super centre sharpness. I think the comparison shows both that at a technical level a $3000 camera can hold its own against $11000 of gear. It also shows that 18 vs 36 MP is not a great difference, and of course 36 vs 80 MP is not a great difference so by logical inference, 18MP is roughly equivalent to 80MP. It's not so ridiculous because a 36MP sensor can print at 60x40, an M8 can look great at 20x30 or even larger.

    My point is that roughly the same argument has been going on since the 30's and reaching a fever pitch again, why has a 24 -> 36 MP change caused such a change? I guess Nikon realise Leica's clever marketing through social media and this is a full on assault using the same means. They just need a celebrity, Nikon equivalent of Seal and they're done.

    Sorry but clearly it's all hyperbole to sell more cameras in market where many people are giving up entirely, using instigram on iDroid to upload pictures of their cat to facebook or switching to things like the Nex7/XPro1.

    It's a shame Nikon failed to put the D4 sensor in the D800. That's a real upgrade I could have used. A D4 will also look pretty respectable at 60x40.

  15. #65
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    >While the result doesn't hold up when studied from up close, it didn't "fall apart" like the digital files

    Interesting. How did you upsample the digital files?
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  16. #66
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    My guess would be that the PC-E 24 would not hold up 100% to the corners of the D800, and also the Schneider would have some problems on the IQ180 (therefore I suggested rodenstock digaron-w lenses).
    Both Canon and Nikon are working on newer versions of their tilt shift lenses.

    Canon has already come out with its version II of the 24mm and it is drastically improved.

    Here is it's corner performance compared to the Nikon 24mm PC-E.

    Nikon 24mm PC-E


    Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L Version I


    Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L Version II


    The progress being made is very significant.

    I wonder how the test would have gone with the D800 with the Canon TS-E 24mm on it. Maybe a match for the IQ180 or at least even closer.

    Nikons next releases of TS lenses will most likely be on par with Canons current offerings.

    These are test shots with the lenses wide open.
    Last edited by FredBGG; 28th May 2012 at 12:21.

  17. #67
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    871
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    134

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by petercoxphoto View Post

    I'm gobsmacked, to say the least.
    It's pretty much what I would expect. Sort of how my p45 files compare to my IQ180 files when I start printing large.
    wayne
    My gallery

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area, California
    Posts
    385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Is it possible to use Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L Version II on D800 with adapter?
    Last edited by subrata1965; 27th May 2012 at 23:18.

  19. #69
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by ustein View Post
    >While the result doesn't hold up when studied from up close, it didn't "fall apart" like the digital files

    Interesting. How did you upsample the digital files?
    I didn't do it myself, since the print shop has much more experience in this than I will ever get, doing this kind of work on a daily basis. I know that they made attempts with at least two different kinds of software of which PS 5.5 was one.

    They did predict the outcome in beforehand, for film as well as for digital. They also run the best photolab in Bangkok btw., and do all my film processing. Their work is so good that I don't really consider doing that myself, even if it would save me a fair amount of money.

  20. #70
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by subrata1965 View Post
    Is it possible to use Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L Version II on D800 with adopter?
    Nope. The EF mount has a much shorter register distance than the F-mount, so a converter would require some kind of lens that would most probably reduce the quality.

  21. #71
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by subrata1965 View Post
    Is it possible to use Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L Version II on D800 with adopter?
    Not with an adapter, but the lens can be modified to fit. Rather expensive job and you lose auto aperture

  22. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    As an aside, going from the examples above, the Nikon PC-E seems squarely in between performance wise compared to Canon's MKI and MKII offerings. I wouldn't call it horrible, either, just average...
    To keep this relevant to MF, how do those that own the 80MP backs feel about the findings here? Jack?
    It'd be amazing to see some scans of the prints at scale too, if you have time, Peter.

  23. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    PS:
    Does anyone out there use Perfect Resize 7 to upres photos? It used to be called Genuine Fractals, I think. I wonder how using such a program would influence a test like this.

  24. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    While the result doesn't hold up when studied from up close, it didn't "fall apart" like the digital files
    I'm not surprised. I've played around with some velvia slides testing to print large, and film has through the grain a special structure that can be over-enlarged without looking bad. Yes you see all the grain but it has a nice quality to it showing that this is a photograph, somewhat similar to seeing individual brush strokes when looking close at a painting.

    Digital files does not have that charm at all, pixel structures are not nice, and I'm not particular fond of the look of fractal upscalers and the like either. Therefore I personally think that with digital the need of high resolution and overall high technical quality is higher than with film.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by FredBGG View Post
    The progress being made is very significant.

    I wonder how the test would have gone with the D800 with the Canon TS-E 24mm on it. Maybe a match for the IQ180 or at least even closer.

    Nikons next releases of TS lenses will most likely be on par with Canons current offerings.
    Very enlightening Fred - thanks. Are test chart shots like that available for the tech-cam lenses do you know?

    But I think your point raises another, perhaps more general, question.

    This is a test of systems, not just of sensors. Was the best available lens actually used on both the D800 and the IQ180?

    Personally, I'd love to see a test between the following:

    Best c15mm glass possible for the Nikon on the D800.
    23HR on a tech cam on the IQ180
    24mm Canon TS-E on the HCam on the IQ180.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    PS:
    Does anyone out there use Perfect Resize 7 to upres photos? It used to be called Genuine Fractals, I think. I wonder how using such a program would influence a test like this.
    I have used this program for years and consider it one of the best upsampling solutions available. In most cases upsampling has to take place somewhere in the stream. The printer driver is the worst case and PS isn't much better. Lightroom doesn't offer the kind of control I would like so I use Qimage which upsamples on the fly and is extremely flexible. This also eliminates the very large files that result from PR7.

    Victor

  27. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Sorry, also...

    The IQ180 will be used both on an Arca-Swiss Rm3d with a 35mm Schneider APO-Digitar XL and a 645AF with 35mm Phase One f/3.5 lens.
    Results?

  28. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    691
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    +1 for perfect resize. The most common mistake I see (especially regarding Lightroom) is oversharpening the images before upsizing. I recommend Nik Sharpener. It's adaptive sharpening algos work pretty well.

  29. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    The resolution advantage going from 24 to 36MP isn't dramatic in any way, but a price drop of 60% is.
    You are right of course in that going from 24 to 36 is not revolutionary, but I think we still can see on all the MF forums that the 36 megapixel D800E has had a dramatic impact. I think it has broke some sort of psychological limit, we got used to 20-24 megapixels in DSLRs since a few years, but 36 megapixels still has that medium format sound to it.

    It is also very close in resolution to the IQ140 and similar products. That little bump in megapixels has made comparison with MF systems much more interesting than before. We may also come to a tipping point where a large part would-be MF users find DSLRs to have high enough resolution. Time will tell, but the D800 could really be a revolutionizing camera... a little bit like when photographers shooting 4x5" film eventually went digital because it reached a tipping point when it became good enough (it was somewhere around P45+ for many it seems, i e similar resolution to the D800), but this time around it is MF digital shooters that may move down to DSLRs.

  30. #80
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by FredBGG View Post
    Both Canon and Nikon are working on newer versions of their tilt shift lenses.

    Canon has already come out with its version II of the 24mm and it is drastically improved.

    Here is it's corner performance compared to the Nikon 24mm PC-E.

    Nikon 24mm PC-E


    Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L Version I


    Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L Version II


    The progress being made is very significant.

    I wonder how the test would have gone with the D800 with the Canon TS-E 24mm on it. Maybe a match for the IQ180 or at least even closer.

    Nikons next releases of TS lenses will most likely be on par with Canons current offerings.
    I would assume these posted corner performances are from "unshifted lenses"? If so, I'd be interested in seeing 5 degree and full shift comparions with the Nikon and newer Canon.

    Dave (D&A)

  31. #81
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    You are right of course in that going from 24 to 36 is not revolutionary, but I think we still can see on all the MF forums that the 36 megapixel D800E has had a dramatic impact. I think it has broke some sort of psychological limit, we got used to 20-24 megapixels in DSLRs since a few years, but 36 megapixels still has that medium format sound to it.

    It is also very close in resolution to the IQ140 and similar products. That little bump in megapixels has made comparison with MF systems much more interesting than before. We may also come to a tipping point where a large part would-be MF users find DSLRs to have high enough resolution. Time will tell, but the D800 could really be a revolutionizing camera... a little bit like when photographers shooting 4x5" film eventually went digital because it reached a tipping point when it became good enough (it was somewhere around P45+ for many it seems, i e similar resolution to the D800), but this time around it is MF digital shooters that may move down to DSLRs.
    Exactly . It hit a tipping point that I could actually use it for commerce. This replaced my DF kit in many ways. It is good enough to let me sell that kit drop down from the 160 to 140 and use my tech cam. The crop factor actually gives me a little extra movements as long as I can get back far enough to equal the FF of the 160. Sure in some ways it's a compromise and a little less horsepower but I can stitch too. End of day I got a easier working setup and I always liked the 40 mpx sensor so really no lose except large print size. I'm happy with max 30x40 prints and my printer is 24 inches wide so really to do my own gallery or sell prints it would be 24 x whatever anyway. I made this call before the D800 hit the streets and sold my DF kit a week before the D800 was in my hands. I just guessed right. Is it better than MF no but it's close enough for commerce work. And frankly I'm sort of getting out doing commerce work anyway and working more with my wife's business that we bought in January. All I care about is doing workshops as that gives me the most pleasure and shooting for myself. The commerce work is a means to a end. LOL
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  32. #82
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    You are right of course in that going from 24 to 36 is not revolutionary, but I think we still can see on all the MF forums that the 36 megapixel D800E has had a dramatic impact. I think it has broke some sort of psychological limit, we got used to 20-24 megapixels in DSLRs since a few years, but 36 megapixels still has that medium format sound to it.

    It is also very close in resolution to the IQ140 and similar products. That little bump in megapixels has made comparison with MF systems much more interesting than before. We may also come to a tipping point where a large part would-be MF users find DSLRs to have high enough resolution. Time will tell, but the D800 could really be a revolutionizing camera... a little bit like when photographers shooting 4x5" film eventually went digital because it reached a tipping point when it became good enough (it was somewhere around P45+ for many it seems, i e similar resolution to the D800), but this time around it is MF digital shooters that may move down to DSLRs.
    I agree, but it's funny, a kind of final proof of man's inability to do logic reasoning when it comes to desirable gear. The increase is exactly the same as the increases from 4 to 6 and 8 to 12 megapixels were. If you ask me, those increases were way more important, since they made it possible to print at sizes commonly used by photographers and their clients. But did they bring out the same kind of celebrations? Not at all. Big numbers are big numbers. People want megapixels by the gallon, not in teaspoons.

    But of course, more megapixels is a good thing and important for some. I would be more than happy to own one of those beasts (MF DB or D800), but do I need it to take acceptable photos?.
    Things I sell: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/epixx?language=en
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    I am trying to get excited about the D800E, but I'm not quite there as most of those here. Don't get me wrong, it is the best 35mm DSLR I have used to date, and I have had 1DSIII, 5DII, 5DIII, M9 etc.

    I am looking at files out of the IQ180 w/80LS compared to D800E with 50/1.4G, and the IQ files look better, even on screen. The skin tones, and general tonality have a smoothness that I can only describe as magical.

    The D800E is hands down the more convenient tool to use, and I want it to replace the IQ for this reason alone, but I cannot see it doing that just yet.

    Perhaps it's the larger format. For now, both are going to be hanging around.

    I do see the Nikon replacing my Canon kit. The Nikon flash system, as far as I can tell so far, is superior to Canon as well. But I have so many Canon lenses and accessories that I am not sure this is going to happen either.

    For now, I am going to use the D800E with 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 as a convenient landscape kit when I don't feel like lugging the IQ around, or when I'm in locations such as my kayak where I don't want to risk dunking my phase kit. YMMV.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #84
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    I am trying to get excited about the D800E, but I'm not quite there as most of those here. Don't get me wrong, it is the best 35mm DSLR I have used to date, and I have had 1DSIII, 5DII, 5DIII, M9 etc.

    I am looking at files out of the IQ180 w/80LS compared to D800E with 50/1.4G, and the IQ files look better, even on screen. The skin tones, and general tonality have a smoothness that I can only describe as magical.

    The D800E is hands down the more convenient tool to use, and I want it to replace the IQ for this reason alone, but I cannot see it doing that just yet.

    Perhaps it's the larger format. For now, both are going to be hanging around.

    I do see the Nikon replacing my Canon kit. The Nikon flash system, as far as I can tell so far, is superior to Canon as well. But I have so many Canon lenses and accessories that I am not sure this is going to happen either.

    For now, I am going to use the D800E with 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 as a convenient landscape kit when I don't feel like lugging the IQ around, or when I'm in locations such as my kayak where I don't want to risk dunking my phase kit. YMMV.
    I agree it's nothing really to get excited about. MF still turns my jets on and why I still want my tech cam . To me it's a slight step down as I still think MF is better but some things are exciting like my 200 f2 lens which I love the look from that thing. I can't get that in MF both in look and speed. For me it's a combination of both and it's also what you want to do. For a hobbyist not sure I would have bought the Nikons myself as I really enjoy shooting a MF back and tech cam as nothing is better than that in many ways. I do like the Nikons for ease of shooting as a Pro but not so sure if I wasn't a Pro that I would have bought in. Probably would buy a M9 and tech cam if this was my hobby. My hobby is golf not photography . LOL

    I'm still a strong supporter of MF and the IQ from it. That is just not going to go away. I just have to make business decisions that I really sometimes don't enjoy. I like the Nikon a lot it does the job and it does it well so I'm not throwing fits on this decision as it is fun to shoot and it's doing a very nice job on the IQ level and it's good enough in many ways. I can see people in almost any decision on this as relevant as the Nikons certainly are damn good now.

    One big issue that plagues the Nikons that I can't find a way to get around is wide angle and movements. Here the tech cam smokes it but than my again my 200 F2 smokes the tech cam. This makes it not a easy decision for a lot of people on there needs. It's really a personally decision on what's going to work the best for your type of shooting. So I can see a lot of tech and MF shooters buying in to fill in the gaps and vise versa. Not easy decisions folks. I'm here to help if anyone needs it but first I'm off to go play golf. ROTFLMAO

    Enjoy the day and Happy Memorial day!!!
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  35. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    My hobby is golf not photography . LOL
    Guy, the challenge I have is that it is easier for me to spend money on photo gear with fantasies of taking better pics, than to work on bringing my handicap down Having said that, I'm off to the course right now, quite excited as I saw something in Luke Donald's swing last night that I think I can replicate

  36. #86
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Lol I went and bought new irons yesterday so I'm off to go play a round with my daughter, her Boyfriend and his dad. I realized my clubs where 8 years old no wonder I can't get my handicap down. We talk about the tech here in photography but the tech in golf is amazing as well.

    Have fun let me know if Luke's swing technique worked. Lol
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  37. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Lol I went and bought new irons yesterday so I'm off to go play a round with my daughter, her Boyfriend and his dad. I realized my clubs where 8 years old no wonder I can't get my handicap down. We talk about the tech here in photography but the tech in golf is amazing as well.

    Have fun let me know if Luke's swing technique worked. Lol
    Guy, don't take the price stickers off the new sticks, they don't work as well once you remove the price tag

  38. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,310
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    I agree with this as well, and I see this as a printer. Digital files have a higher inherent sharpness due to their lack of noise, but the very noise that obscures the fine detail in film is also what makes it pleasant to look at when it is printed large. It hides those little imperfections better...lens softness and aberrations etc, and it does not have the digital artifacts that makes digital more problematic at 100% (or greater) -- the aliasing, bayer miscalculations, more severe chromatic aberrations and color fringing etc. As far I as am concerned, that all else being equal, film is better for really stretching enlargements, but digital usually looks sharper and cleaner at moderate sizes. The fractal enlargement programs will increase the sharpness at larger sizes, but I don't think it results in a better looking enlargement on the paper...quite the opposite, actually. I think a better technique is actually to do something to mask the errors, rather than try to increase the sharpness. I find that I can enlarge the S2 to 1.5m on the long side without a problem (about 120ppi), but if I were going to go bigger, I would probably add a bit of noise...sacrifice that last bit of detail for a more pleasant character.

    You also mentioned the importance of lenses earlier, and I think that is something that gets mentioned a lot, but cannot be overstated. The higher the resolutions get, the more important it is for the lenses to outdo the sensors. That 36-40mp+ will reveal ever little problem with your lenses all the more clearly. If you are going to see a real advantage from it you need a lens that will max out your sensor.

    A quick note on the 2m panoramas, however...I think 35mm would be quite a stretch for that! I just did a bunch of 2.5m panoramas (also for a Norwegian!), but they were scanned from 6x17...they hold up extremely well, but 35mm for a 2m enlargement...well, it might have an interesting look, but it would be essentially all fuzzy grain clouds...at least until you were about 5 feet away.

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    I'm not surprised. I've played around with some velvia slides testing to print large, and film has through the grain a special structure that can be over-enlarged without looking bad. Yes you see all the grain but it has a nice quality to it showing that this is a photograph, somewhat similar to seeing individual brush strokes when looking close at a painting.

    Digital files does not have that charm at all, pixel structures are not nice, and I'm not particular fond of the look of fractal upscalers and the like either. Therefore I personally think that with digital the need of high resolution and overall high technical quality is higher than with film.
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  39. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    I agree it's nothing really to get excited about. MF still turns my jets on and why I still want my tech cam . To me it's a slight step down as I still think MF is better but some things are exciting like my 200 f2 lens which I love the look from that thing. I can't get that in MF both in look and speed.
    Guy - when you refer to speed here, do you mean optical speed, or speed of use/AF?

    I would have thought the Mamiya 300/2.8 would give a similar look to the Nikon. It and the Nikon 200/2 have very similar physical aperture sizes and fields of view on their respective sensors.

  40. #90
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    I've quoted these previous bits:

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    going from 24 to 36 is not revolutionary, but I think we still can see on all the MF forums that the 36 megapixel D800E has had a dramatic impact.
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Exactly . It hit a tipping point that I could actually use it for commerce. This replaced my DF kit in many ways. It is good enough to let me sell that kit drop down from the 160 to 140 and use my tech cam.
    to help answer this one:

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    To keep this relevant to MF, how do those that own the 80MP backs feel about the findings here? Jack?
    tjv,

    First off, some background. I know Peter and we both went to MF, and ultimately to the same back and the same tech cam for the same reasons. I emailed him before his test and told him what I suspected he'd find --- that conversation went something like this:

    Me before the test: "I am really looking forward to your conclusions too. I of course did some tests for myself, but honestly wanted some other confirmation before going public with them. The IQ180 is net superior on detail and color, but for most shooters probably not nearly enough of a gain to justify the 7 or 8 times greater investment in gear and the 4x more complex LCC capture and processing routines. The D800 has slightly superior DR also, which is impressive on its own."

    Peter after his test: "Yes, we came up with the same results, although from our testing I'd say the two cameras are equivalent on DR. The margin on image quality and colour is very close for all practical considerations."

    IMHO Guy hit it on the head when he said the D800 hit a tipping point in resolution that made it a viable MF alternative.

    My more generalized answer would currently be something like this:

    1) At a 32x43 inch (80x105 CM) print, the IQ180 file can be printed native at 240 PPI. The D800 file needs a marginal (and easily accomplished) 140% linear uprez to print that same size and resolution. Net result is the IQ file is going to have visibly smoother tonality, but -- and this is a big but -- you'll have to have your nose in the print and to see it; viewed from normal viewing distances, they will be surprisingly similar and equally good.

    2) If you now go to a 60x80 inch (150x200 CM) print, the IQ will look notably smoother at any viewing distance less than 3 feet (1M), but still probably not all that visibly superior at normal viewing distances.

    3) At print sizes 24x32 inches (60x80 CM) or less, you will not see significant differences unless you put a loupe on the prints to compare them.

    I will add a few final comments.

    DR: I stand by my claim of slightly superior DR out of the D800. I am not talking strict engineering definitions of DR, but practical extractable DR from the files; the D800 is so superior on noise that the shadows can be pumped a *lot* before becoming unusable. To be sure, the IQ180 shadows can be pumped impressively well too, but the D800 goes to the same level with less noise.

    Noise: Per the above, the noise characteristics of the D800 are impressive. We've all believed since the beginning of digital history that bigger, fatter pixels will always be superior on noise than smaller, tightly packed sensors can manage -- and that's been mostly true up until now. Here, both the IQ180 and most especially the D800 prove that old belief flat out wrong.

    Ease of use: No question, the D800 is a dream for rapid capture and quick, easy processing.

    Cropability: No question, the IQ180 has a huge amount of room for after capture cropping to desired composition -- you can crop it 50% and still have a 40MP file to work with.

    Color: For those needing exacting color accuracy, like for product imaging or art-reproduction, the IQ180 will win by some margin in most critical applications. This can perhaps be improved for the D800 with better profiles to the point it's irrelevant, but only time will tell.

    And there you have it, my simple two-cents worth.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  41. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    I've quoted these previous bits:

    1) At a 40x53 inch (100x135 CM) print, the IQ180 file can be printed native at 240 PPI. The D800 file needs a marginal (and easily accomplished) 140% linear uprez to print that same size and resolution. Net result is the IQ file is going to have visibly smoother tonality, but -- and this is a big but -- you'll have to have your nose in the print to see it; viewed from normal viewing distances, they will be surprisingly similar and equally good.
    Jack,

    54 inches is actually 'only' 194ppi. That, to me, is the outer limit. 240ppi, which is equivalent to a 43 inch print, produces a stunning print which cannot be matched by a 36MP file..... although at normal viewing distances they will be similar.

  42. #92
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    The IQ180 is net superior on detail and color, but for most shooters probably not nearly enough of a gain to justify the 7 or 8 times greater investment in gear and the 4x more complex LCC capture and processing routines. The D800 has slightly superior DR also, which is impressive on its own."
    Some defense of the MF :-)

    I've done some DR testing on my own, and my conclusion there is that the MF backs are good enough - the extra DR gain you get from D800 and other sony exmor sensors are into more or less irrelevant shadows where photon shot noise is a bit high anyway. What one would want now is higher full well capacity, that is increase dynamic range into the highlights so we can start dropping gradient filters / HDR for real.

    If you're for example a fine art landscape shooter I don't find the tech cam be much more complex than my Canon system. What makes things complex is making fine compositions and capturing them in high resolution. Maybe I'm a bit slow to decide about the composition but I find that the LCC adds about 10 seconds to a 20 minute workflow, and gives you the added bonus of dust removal. In really bad conditions like very hard wind or poor tripod footing or shooting above my head or very low light I prefer the Canon though.

    The real problem with MFDBs as I see it (from a landscape shooter's perspective) is not so much the performance or complexity, it is simply the crazy high cost of the backs themselves. It is just too much for too little. The cameras and lenses are expensive too yes, but not crazy expensive, it is more like "you get what you pay for" feeling there. MFDBs are now very close to be worse at everything except resolution, and still cost many times more. It won't work forever.

    If it really is true that MFDBs cannot be made cheaper due to large chips and low volumes I think that some of the companies may go out of business the coming years.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Some defense of the MF :-)

    The real problem with MFDBs as I see it (from a landscape shooter's perspective) is not so much the performance or complexity, it is simply the crazy high cost of the backs themselves. It is just too much for too little.

    If it really is true that MFDBs cannot be made cheaper due to large chips and low volumes I think that some of the companies may go out of business the coming years.
    So true, so true. I made the decision a long time ago that any money thrown at MF is dead money. If you can't afford to eat the investment you should stay away. Nikon, and soon Canon and Sony, are going to change this landscape forever.

    Victor

  44. #94
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    270
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Newer and newer DSLR is getting better and better. I owned Sony A100,A700, A900 to A77 (APSC which is actually better than the older FF model) and I can see the IQ is improving.

    It wont be long before DSLR will reach to a point where you can't justify the price-performance ratio of a DB anymore. Unless DB comes with something new, amazing DR perhaps We also need a new body with great autofocus/image stabilizer for starter.

    I hope the comparison will give us input on DR, clarity, details, color, 3D and depth, file latitude, etc.

    Maybe in a few years I have to sell my IQ

    -Dan Santoso

  45. #95
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by vjbelle View Post
    Jack,
    54 inches is actually 'only' 194ppi. That, to me, is the outer limit.
    You are correct, an early morning pre-coffee brain twist -- I meant 32x43 and have edited accordingly...

    240ppi, which is equivalent to a 43 inch print, produces a stunning print which cannot be matched by a 36MP file..... although at normal viewing distances they will be similar.
    However, I respectfully disagree with you 100% on this comment and stick by my original statement: You need to get your face in the prints side by side to see the differences. Sorry, and I know it's going to be an unpopular comment for many MFDB owners, but I have done the print comparisons myself with both processed and optimally printed, and found the difference is minor even on close inspection, advancing to undetectable at normal viewing distances. I will go further and state for most photographers printing 40 inches or smaller, the price-performance ratio only makes sense if you need absolute correct color and then have a client to bill appropriately for it... One of my oldest and most basic business axioms is, "Sometimes 'good enough' is."

    Cheers,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  46. #96
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Some defense of the MF :-)

    I've done some DR testing on my own, and my conclusion there is that the MF backs are good enough - the extra DR gain you get from D800 and other sony exmor sensors are into more or less irrelevant shadows where photon shot noise is a bit high anyway.
    And I would agree with you up until the D800 -- I suggest you download one of the many D800 raws posted and pump the shadows and look for yourself. Or even easier, wait for Lloyd to get his next blog entry online about noise in the latest Nikons -- even he was gobsmacked at his result... David has Goliath teetering.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  47. #97
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    And I would agree with you up until the D800 -- I suggest you download one of the many D800 raws posted and pump the shadows and look for yourself. Or even easier, wait for Lloyd to get his next blog entry online about noise in the latest Nikons -- even he was gobsmacked at his result... David has Goliath teetering.

    I totally agree with Jack. Just because it sounds incredible, doesn't mean its not true!

  48. #98
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    Guy - when you refer to speed here, do you mean optical speed, or speed of use/AF?

    I would have thought the Mamiya 300/2.8 would give a similar look to the Nikon. It and the Nikon 200/2 have very similar physical aperture sizes and fields of view on their respective sensors.
    Not even remotely close. Mamiya phase has nothing that comes close to the look of either the Nikon 85mm1.4 or the 200mm f2.

  49. #99
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    However, I respectfully disagree with you 100% on this comment and stick by my original statement: You need to get your face in the prints side by side to see the differences. Sorry, and I know it's going to be an unpopular comment for many MFDB owners, but I have done the print comparisons myself with both processed and optimally printed, and found the difference is minor even on close inspection, advancing to undetectable at normal viewing distances. I will go further and state for most photographers printing 40 inches or smaller, the price-performance ratio only makes sense if you need absolute correct color and then have a client to bill appropriately for it... One of my oldest and most basic business axioms is, "Sometimes 'good enough' is."

    Cheers,
    Yes Jack,

    I agree almost 100% with you. Mind you that my comparisons were done with downsampled IQ180 files and then printed to 40 inches and compared to the original 80MP file. I'm looking at high frequency city-scape stuff that shows a difference but not until you are very close to the print..... but I'm real, real picky. So, I can only apply my standards to me and certainly not anyone else. Certainly there is never going to be a price-performance ratio that makes any sense..... I believe the MFDB model is completely broken and the beast is destined for extinction.

    Victor
    Last edited by vjbelle; 28th May 2012 at 11:43.

  50. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: D800/D800E/IQ180 comparison

    I've done tests on the D7000 in terms of noise which per pixel is almost exactly the same as the D800, my results here:

    An image sensor noise test

    Did not have an IQ180 to compare with though, just my old Aptus 75... yes I have looked at RAW files and done very careful comparisons with exact exposures, and yes the exmor sensor is noticably less noisy.

    *But* to make any real difference it must be so much less noisy that the extra dynamic range actually changes something in the workflow, and if you used gradient filters in backlit scenes on your MFDB before you will most likely not stop doing it with the D800. It is not that much better. Getting rid of almost all read noise is great, but shot noise is still there. the only way to improve that further is to get better full well capacity - i e allowing for longer shutter speeds without clipping.

    To truly make gradient filters / HDR obsolete for us landscape photographers I would say that you need the noise performance of the D800 pixels plus two more stops up to saturation, so you can push with less photon shot noise.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •