Nikon D800 First Blush

[Guy Mancuso]

I'll be very clear here even after only a half day with it, its not MF but its damn good and it does close the gap. This comes from a very picky MF shooter though. LOL

Also I want to be real careful how I said that because for 98 percent of the users they will be in heaven with it. I'm not in love yet but serious like. ROTFLMAO

 

[D&A]

Guy Wrote--->>>"I'm not in love yet but serious like."<<<

I hope that "line" is strictly reserved for inanamate objects? Can you imagine it being used on a real person when developing a relationship with them...LOL!

I have an initial feeling that when the D800 is being used and tested by individuals who will give both serious consideration for their lens selection and apply the usual good techniques for cameras with such high resolution, the files indeed will be impressive. Conversely the reverse will be true too and far too often I beleive we will see this camera in the hands of those who simply pick it up and use it like any APS type DSLR. What I am trying to say, is file quality and what is posted everywheres is going to be initially far more variable in quality than we might be used to seeing and sorting things out will take a bit of time for those that contemplate purchasing and using it. This is specially so for those who are choosing this particular camera for both the size of its file and also the quality of its output, relative to other potential camera system purchases.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Okay I had a bad feeling on those files posted and after a check my 14-24 is off by minus -14

 

[D&A]

Okay I had a bad feeling on those files posted and after a check my 14-24 is off by minus -14

Guy, I didn't want to say anything upon 1st glancing your posted images, feeling it wouldn't be fair since the camera was just recived and one needs time to calibrate their lenses, but I was somewhat surprised by what I saw and recently posted about the behavior and calibration of lenses used on the D800 is different than the same lens sample used on the D700/D3. Additionally as you know all to well (better than most everyone), that AF lens calibration especially when combined with a camera reaching these levels of resolution, becomes critical, even with use of a ultra wide angle lens.

Looking forward to your postings.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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

 

[D&A]

Interesting preliminary observations regarding your 180mm on the D800. Samples of that particular lens that I tested were showing it's age, in terms of acuity and side/corner sharpness, espcially compared to near similar focal length lenses by others. If your initial observations with that lens hold up, then you have a exceptionally good sample. Looking forward to more. Thanks!

Dave (D&A)

 

[routlaw]

Thank you Steen for providing the links and raw files, nice samples btw. I have downloaded and been examining them as well as doing some of my own edits and posting the results below. I hope you don't mind. I wanted to see just how malleable these files are. I have to say these samples are on an order of magnitude better and far more promising than what was provided on Nikons website when this camera was first introduced. I am curious though, why did you choose to use 12 bit vs 14 bit for raw file capture?

A couple of thoughts, questions. With my D4 I am seeing the beginning of diffraction loss at F 9.5 (halfway between F8-F11) using the 85 PC-E lens. I suspect the D800 camera is already heading in that direction long before probably just past F5.6 at best. Have you shot much with this aperture, and how does it compare to the F8 samples you are providing here. F8 is already pushing the limits for landscape and or architectural work let alone any thing less for DOF.

This disappointment in your second file 80A)_0019 with the 85 mm lens was the red channel noise in the blue sky even at base ISO regardless of whether I used NR on or off. Sort of reminds me of the days with the D2x.

Thanks again for the opportunity.

Rob

 

[Steen]

You are welcome Rob, and yes, feel free to edit as much as you like and post the results, and of course that goes for all of you, only please keep the pictures here on GetDPI.

I thought as an amateur I wasn't allowed to use 14 bit
Well, honestly I have never been able to see any difference between 12 bit and 14 bit in generous light when I tested it on my 'old' D300.
At some point I need to do some new 12 vs. 14 bit tests with this new machine when I get it back.

I haven't had time to do controlled investigations on diffraction but I believe you are right that it will be clearly visible at f/11 and even slightly visible at f/8 with this scary small pixel pitch.
Here I need to admit that some have told me that diffraction has nothing to do with pixel pitch, but it's still my understanding that it actually has in some way.
But let's take the diffraction discussion in another specific thread for that subject. For some reason it seems to be a rather complicated discussion.
Please somebody start a diffraction tutorial thread on the most relevant board here on GetDPI.

I assume any noise at low or even base ISO must also have a lot to do with the small pixel pitch.

 

[Steen]

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

How do they do with a bit wider aperture? They are pretty fast at f/1.4.

The AF-S 1.4/85mm G is actually amazingly sharp wide open, but as the focus plane is so razor thin it is a challenge to put it exactly where you want it.
That was why I chose to let the camera go back for focus calibration.
The camera needs to be as well zeroed as possible to get the best flexibility out of the AF Fine-tune feature.

The 1.4/50mm G is less sharp wide open, which is probably to be expected since it is a far cheaper lens.

Here's a wide open shot at close distance with the 85mm.
The tack sharp focus plane is there. Somewhere. Though not exactly where I wanted to put it


Link to download the RAW file - feel free to edit the file after your own taste and post it here on GetDPI only

80A_0048_85mmG_iso100_12bit_at_f1.4.NEF

click for native size (5.5 Mb)


Nikon D800 • AF-S Nikkor 1.4/85mm G • 12 bit 1/3200 sec. at f/1.4 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4​

 

[Steen]

Here's another wide open shot at close distance with the 85mm.

Link to download the RAW file - feel free to edit the file but please keep any posted results here on GetDPI only

80A_0112_85mmG_iso100_12bit_at_f1.4.NEF

click for native size (7.5 Mb)


Nikon D800 • AF-S Nikkor 1.4/85mm G • 12 bit 1/400 sec. at f/1.4 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4​

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Keep posting results folks. I got a chance to shoot all lenses and looking at the LCD looking great. Still a limitless timid on the 180 to make a call but once I download them I can get a better look. The 35 and 85 are stellar lenses and now the 14-24 looks so much better. Starting to feel good about this. I will find a home for Raws for everyone to play with. Just touristy shots. Lol

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Okay 5 people stopped me and asked what I was shooting. I think the cube got them. Than funny 4 of them knew me from the forums . Kind of nice even group photos. Lol

 

[Vivek]

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.

Guy's 14-24 shots seem soft. I had never seen that lens to be not sharp (on my D300).

 

[Jack]

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.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Okay I had a bad feeling on those files posted and after a check my 14-24 is off by minus -14

Make sure it's universally off by that much and doesn't change through the zoom range. If it's variable it NEEDS a trip to Nikon, because it has collimation problems - that's how you get a PDAF shift. The AF shift can't be tuned away, and you'd want the alignment taken care of.

My 14-24 really improved from service. It's a freaking fantastic lens - although I've only tested it on the D7000, but across the crop field it's like a laser. Serious microcontrast. It's so good to start that even with minor collimation issues it can still pass for a top-tier optic.

Yes, Nikon has serious QC issues. Basically you get to do your own QC.

 

[paulraphael]

Not so surprising that it can't compete directly with the top of the top of the line in MF backs. I'd be curious to see how it compares with lower end MF digital cameras, or with old ones that might be available for a bargain on the used market.

edited to add: I should ask for clarity, when you say it's the best in the dslr league, are you just talking about small format dslrs or are you inlcuding MF cameras?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Make sure it's universally off by that much and doesn't change through the zoom range. If it's variable it NEEDS a trip to Nikon, because it has collimation problems - that's how you get a PDAF shift. The AF shift can't be tuned away, and you'd want the alignment taken care of.

My 14-24 really improved from service. It's a freaking fantastic lens - although I've only tested it on the D7000, but across the crop field it's like a laser. Serious microcontrast. It's so good to start that even with minor collimation issues it can still pass for a top-tier optic.

Yes, Nikon has serious QC issues. Basically you get to do your own QC.

I checked 4 focal lengths

 

[nikonf]

I can't wait to get my hands on one to see how well it behaves with my Leica 100mm Macro-Elmarit, Zeiss 21mm and 85mm PC Nikkor.
Has anyone tried one with any similar optics?

 

[Jack]

edited to add: I should ask for clarity, when you say it's the best in the dslr league, are you just talking about small format dslrs or are you inlcuding MF cameras?

I am referring to full-frame 35mm Digital SLR's.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Can't wait to get my D800E. I thought I'd check it out and then get a second one if I like it, but what I've seen from the D800 I figure the D800E is not only a home run, but a HR with the bases loaded. I suspect it'll be very hard to find a second one, so my only regret now is I didn't order two!