Nikon D800 First Blush

[Steen]

I do share your expectations for the E version, Jan, and so far I haven't seen anything scary with regards to moiré.

On the other hand there was a Polish D800E picture with some specular highlights in the car keys that were rendered in a rather alarming way, did you notice them ?

See post # 168 (plus my comment in # 171) in this thread, the second link in post # 168 is a strange capture from the E version http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/34342-d800-4.html#post397790

 

[Steen]

Steen, When you point the lens at a building roof close to infinity, wouldn't f/5.6 (diffraction limit) enough? My question about the wider apertures were not about bokeh but actual infinity shots-landscapes, for example. (...)

Vivek, I think it depends on how much of the landscape-like scenery you want to be perceived as sharp.

I wanted sufficient Depth Of Field to cover more or less the entire scenery and I cannot imagine that f/5.6 would have made it.

And maybe that was also what Victor meant when he said in post # 17: "The 85mm image is definitely going soft at closer distances" (even though my image was captured at f/8).

Besides I would expect the D800 diffraction limit to be around f/9 according to the Diffraction Calculator at cambridgeincolour.com

 

[viablex1]

thanks for the download steen



80A_0112_85mmG_iso100_12bit_at_f1 by gungyduo, on Flickr

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Besides I would expect the D800 diffraction limit to be around f/9 according to the Diffraction Calculator at cambridgeincolour.com

That's just so much nonsense. I wouldn't give that any attention at all.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

That's just so much nonsense. I wouldn't give that any attention at all.

+1 to that. Although the theories of diffraction are based on the "laws of physics", there are examples of lens/sensor combinations that clearly defy them, the most prominent being the Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 macro, a lens that delivers sharp, detailed images all the way down to f/16 and very good results at f/22 on a 4/3 sensor. If the "laws" were to be read by the letter, many p&s camera, not to speak about camera phones, shouldn't be useable at all, but some of them, even with tiny, high MP sensors, deliver excellent results.

 

[Swissblad]

Thanks for the downloads Steen - the quality is amazing!

 

[Steen]

Hi Steen, Shocking to see the D800 with G lenses.
(...)

Hey Vivek, I guess I need to break down and admit that I do also use modern autofocus lenses. Sometimes

I just refuse to completely abandon my old AI-S type lenses just because of some extra million pixels on the sensor :lecture:

In the following posts I'll show you some captures with a lens designed 28 years ago in the film days, the AI-S Nikkor 20mm f/2.8

It's obviously not designed and corrected for digital sensors, still I like it for what it is and I intend to keep on using it.

 

[Steen]

High Noon


So now the inevitable High Noon ...

... I mean high ISO, first the Scenery at base ISO 100 (added daylight WB, and '50 out of 150 sharpness' in Lightroom, no other tweaks)

ISO 100 provided a shutter speed of 1/6 sec. at f/8

Link to the RAW file

80A_0094_AIS_20mm_iso100_12bit.NEF

click for native size (6.3 Mb)


Nikon D800 • AI-S Nikkor 2.8/20mm • 12 bit 1/6 sec. at f/8 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4​

 

[Steen]

High Noon


Now the high ISO shots (WB daylight, and Lightroom's Color Noise Reduction left at the default '25 out of 100', no other tweaks)

I should of course have made these high ISO test shots as 14 bit captures. Plain stupid

ISO 1600 provided me a shutter speed of 1/100 sec. (all else equal)

Link to the RAW file (tweak to your own taste)

80A_0095_AIS_20mm_iso1600_12bit.NEF

click for native size (10.5 Mb)


Nikon D800 • AI-S Nikkor 2.8/20mm • 12 bit 1/100 sec. at f/8 ISO 1600 • Lightroom 4​

 

[Steen]

High Noon


ISO 3200 provided me a shutter speed of 1/200 sec.

Link to the RAW file


80A_0096_AIS_20mm_iso3200_12bit.NEF

click for native size (12.8 Mb)


Nikon D800 • AI-S Nikkor 2.8/20mm • 12 bit 1/200 sec. at f/8 ISO 3200 • Lightroom 4​

 

[Steen]

High Noon


ISO 6400 provided me a shutter speed of 1/400 sec.

Link to the RAW file

80A_0097_AIS_20mm_iso6400_12bit.NEF

That's it, I didn't take it further than these standard ISO values.

click for native size (15 Mb)


Nikon D800 • AI-S Nikkor 2.8/20mm • 12 bit 1/400 sec. at f/8 ISO 6400 • Lightroom 4​

 

[vieri]

Yea I was off pretty bad with back focus on the lens. My 35 is dead on, 85 1.4 is -2. Surprisingly the 180 looks very good but am doing a double check. Also it seems to hold up is pretty fast on focus. This is encouraging for that lens. The 14-24 is a used but very mint still under warranty but a little surprised that far off. I'm on a laptop and was looking at them and I knew even when shooting something looked off. So toss those posted images. I will get better and post for sure. I spent the time this morning checking this and glad I did. Heading out now to play. Check in later

Guy, this may be why the 14-24 was sold in such a mint state If all your lenses are OK or off by a minimal bit, I'd suggest you'll have the 14-24 checked by Nikon...

 

[Vivek]

Hey Vivek, I guess I need to break down and admit that I do also use modern autofocus lenses. Sometimes

I just refuse to completely abandon my old AI-S type lenses just because of some extra million pixels on the sensor :lecture:

In the following posts I'll show you some captures with a lens designed 28 years ago in the film days, the AI-S Nikkor 20mm f/2.8

It's obviously not designed and corrected for digital sensors, still I like it for what it is and I intend to keep on using it.

Steen, Nearly 2 years ago I sold/gave away many of my Nikkors. Recently, I rounded up (for a different project) all the lenses I have. Still a lot. Among them the tiny 20/3.5. Your 20/2.8 pics look good. :thumbs: Those AiS lenses would never go out of fashion or use.

 

[viablex1]

80A_0094_AIS_20mm_iso100_12bit by gungyduo, on Flickr

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Guy, this may be why the 14-24 was sold in such a mint state If all your lenses are OK or off by a minimal bit, I'd suggest you'll have the 14-24 checked by Nikon...

The gentleman hated the front element. Thought he would scratch it.

 

[ssanacore]

Well I'm sold on the camera but this lens looks a bit weak for this sensor. Can't wait to see how it will do with Zeiss optics. I wonder if anyone can convert my Canon 17mm and 24 shift lenses to work on these bodies or my Leica R's ;-)

I would assume the D800E model will be more demanding on the optics, right?

 

[sergio lovisolo]

I would assume the D800E model will be more demanding on the optics, right?

Less demanding. The number of pixels is the same, but the AA filter acts as an
attenuator for the high frequency energy from very fine details. So a very good
optic with AA filter will be more penalized that a slightly worse one with no AA
filter.

 

[vieri]

The gentleman hated the front element. Thought he would scratch it.

Makes sense, of course, depending on where and how one uses his/her lenses. I was being half-facetious, it wouldn't be the first time than someone sells a mint-looking-but-not-perfectly-working lens pricing it based on its mint aspect rather than being honest about its internal problems...

Less demanding. The number of pixels is the same, but the AA filter acts as an
attenuator for the high frequency energy from very fine details. So a very good
optic with AA filter will be more penalized that a slightly worse one with no AA
filter.

Not quite, actually, it will be more demanding. An example which I hope will help clarify the issue. As we know, the AA filter reduces the amount of sensor resolution by blurring certain frequencies, therefore (numbers are made up):
- say a sensor WITH AA resolves 100 lines per inch;
- say a lens resolves 110 lines per inch;
THEN the lens will out solve the sensor, and be therefore more than adequate for the camera in use, with the sensor being the weaker link in the imaging chain;
- say now the same sensor WITHOUT AA resolves now 120 lines per inch;
- say you are using the same lens resolving 110 lines per inch;
THEN the same lens above will now be inadequate for the sensor resolution, and will become the weaker link on the imaging chain.

Therefore, a sensor WITHOUT AA filter will be more demanding on the used lens compared to the same sensor WITH AA filter - you'll need BETTER lenses with a non-AA sensor than those you'll find adequate with a sensor WITH AA filter...

 

[sergio lovisolo]

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

 

[Steen]

Blush

Well I'm sold on the camera but this lens looks a bit weak for this sensor (...)

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

Welcome aboard ssanacore :salute: