Nikon D800 First Blush

[Guy Mancuso]

Okay home on my 30 inch monitor. one word

 

[paulraphael]

More words, please!

 

[ustein]

>You don't have to use the 2012 process in ACR or LR 4.0, you can revert back to the 2010 process which then provides all of the tools, and attributes we are used to and this is what I did on this image.

I know. I think 2012 was introduced to do a better job in the highlights and shadows. How much did you push the fill light?

 

[MGrayson]

Okay home on my 30 inch monitor. one word

OK, Guy. The tough one - M9 CCD files vs. D800 CMOS. WHere do you come down? Have you finally found a CMOS chip whose look you like?

Not just academic interest ,

Matt

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I'll say this with no words of doubt best NIkon or Canon file I have ever seen in any CMOS chip.

 

[Jack]

Going from memory which admittedly is dangerous at my age, I will go out on a limb and say the D800 is sharper and more detailed than the M9, but the M9 gets the nudge on pushing the native ISO file around -- I'd need to compare side-by-side to comment on absolute color.

And as soon as the Sun comes out, I will be comparing D800 files head-to-head with the IQ.

 

[Chris C]

Nikon should not have put a flash on such a camera.

Or alternatively; It's great they did. Nikon's remote-flash system works fantastically well when using the 'pop-up' to trigger un-tethered flashes.

......... Chris

 

[Jason Muelver]

Jack,

That's the stuff I'm looking for.

There is a lot of pixel peeping high tech talk in this thread. While informative, it means nothing to me, and even less to my clients.

What I am looking for, is does it provide a better delivered file to my typical clients (brides). I haven't found my D3 that limiting in that regard. But I am looking for a difference maker and I'm wondering if the D800E will be it. I think it comes down to DR and if I can WOW brides with the intricate detail in a white dress without fear of a blow out, and superior skin tones. I've been thinking the M9 would be better in that regard, but now comes the D800.

I know a lot of you are landscape/arch shooters, but this is a business decision for me. Quite simply, will it make me more money/clients?

Any people shooters fire this up yet?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Jason I am NOT a landscape shooter. I hedged my bets on the D800. Guess what I WON.

 

[routlaw]

>You don't have to use the 2012 process in ACR or LR 4.0, you can revert back to the 2010 process which then provides all of the tools, and attributes we are used to and this is what I did on this image.

I know. I think 2012 was introduced to do a better job in the highlights and shadows. How much did you push the fill light?

Perhaps this is true, thus far I am not realizing the proof in it however. Understand though I was not trying to make a finished image so much as examine the file quality and in this case in particular the DR. The apparent lack of DR based upon the poor SNR from white to black is what prompted me to start this discussion.

Pushing the fill light would not have helped one iota in this regard and if anything would have exacerbated the noise level already showing in the piano.

So at the risk of :deadhorse: my take on DxO's analysis for DR on cameras is preposterous. I'm just not buying it. Its worth noting my skepticism about their testing methods started long before the introduction of the D800 too. Anyone who has followed their camera test over the last few years will know their claim is the smaller the pixel the better the dynamic range and SNR when averaging pixels and there in lies the rub. One only has to look at the specs on either Kodaks or Dalsa's sensor to understand the larger the photosite (pixel dimension) the greater the ability to fill up with more photons/electrons, which is directly proportional to the SNR and therefore DR. But DxO would have you believe a 1 cup measuring cup will hold more water than a gallon pail. This assertion simply flies in the face of physics.

Unfortunately when working in the field with any of these cameras you are not averaging pixels, there is no way to (that I am aware of) unless you own a Betterlight Scan Back which does allow you to do this by reducing the resolution and thereby file size while at the same time dramatically reduce noise if its there. That said a photographer can increase the signal to noise ratio on Nikon cameras by using the multiply exposure routine within the menus. I used to do this regularly with my D2x which dramatically reduced noise. There are some caveats however, you have to have a very solid tripod, employ perfect technique and be prepared to have jittery artifacts from overlaid shots if its windy, or clouds are moving. Stationary subjects such as Steens grand piano shot are best in this scenario. It would have been interesting also to see if a 14 bit capture might have improved the noise level in the piano.

This is not to say the D800 will not be a great camera in some but not all circumstances. For many this camera will be an exercise in frustration as Guy also eluded to earlier on within this thread.

Just some rambling thoughts on the subject.

Rob

 

[Jason Muelver]

Jason I am NOT a landscape shooter. I hedged my bets on the D800. Guess what I WON.

I know you weren't, Guy. Dammit. This is gonna cost me a bit, isn't it?

I'm thinking an 800/D3 combo could do some exciting stuff for a wedding day.

D800 for the artistic and large spread album shots, D3 for PJ work.

 

[Jason Muelver]

Jason I am NOT a landscape shooter. I hedged my bets on the D800. Guess what I WON.

Now.. about that AA filter or lack there of.... :watch:

 

[Jason Muelver]

In all seriousness, Guy, ever do any work with an S2?

I'm eyeing it as 85% of the performance of the S2 at 15% of the cost. I can accept that ratio.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

75-85 percent
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/digit...view-guy-mancuso-jack-flesher-getdpi-com.html

And yes as a wedding shooter the ISO stuff alone will blow your doors off. The detail is in the file no worries there. I have seen a lot less power doing weddings and I cringe when i see these folks shooting what they do. LOL

For a wedding guy looking for a edge on file quality I believe this is it.

You need some raws to look at I can load up some of these.

I would certainly as a wedding shooter get the best Nikon glass and all the G glass is seriously good. 24,35,85 the 70 -200, 14-24, 24-70 all have the speed and quality to them. I may have missed one or two but that is a good basic setup with these.

 

[Steen]

Rob, when I took the very last trivial test shots of a corner without much light, I suddenly had a bright moment and remembered to take them in 14 bit mode as well.

But it's a far less challenging histogram than the 'grand piano in white room' shot, so I don't know if it is of much help for your DR investigations.


Here are the two test shots both of them at ISO 100 (here I have added 50 out of 150 sharpness to the jpegs in Lightroom, no other tweaks).

I have both of them at ISO 1600, 3200 and 6400 as well if it's of any help to also post those higher ISO samples ?


12 bit at ISO 100

Link to the RAW file

80A_0126_85mm_G_iso100_12bit.NEF

click for native sized jpeg (6.5 Mb)


Nikon D800 • AF-S Nikkor 1.4/85mm G • 12 bit 1/10 sec. at f/4 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4​

14 bit at ISO 100

Link to the RAW file

80A_0130_85mm_G_iso100_14bit.NEF

click for native sized jpeg (6.6 Mb)


Nikon D800 • AF-S Nikkor 1.4/85mm G • 14 bit 1/10 sec. at f/4 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4​

 

[Paratom]

Can anybody show some more skin tone from the D800? Whats your guys feeling about color and skin tones with the D800 - lets say compared to the D700?

 

[ceh]

Hey stein you would have to know him, I totally agree this is a very useful discussion by people that know a hell of alot more than me, not trying to mess with you. Routlaw is kind of my idol.

here is a 100 percent crop


crop by gungyduo, on Flickr

..why Adobe RGB?

 

[routlaw]

..why Adobe RGB?

Why not? With Nikon you get the choice of Adobe RGB or sRGB, so why not choose the color space with the largest color gamut. Makes total sense to me especially if you consider the purported huge color depth of this camera as well as the D4.

Rob

 

[ceh]

Here's one with an old screwdrive focus AF Nikkor 35mm f/2 D (basically a 23 year old lens design afaik), weighs 205 g (review by Thom Hogan)


Link to the RAW file

80A_0109_AF_35mm_D_iso100_12bit.NEF

click for native sized jpeg (7.8 Mb)

in some browsers the F11 key maximizes and again minimizes <-> the web browser window


Nikon D800 • AF Nikkor 2/35mm D • 12 bit 1/60 sec. at f/8 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4​

O.K.,

Why sRGB ? (source file)

 

[Jack]

I am shooting in 14-bit and see no reason not to -- the cam is still extremely fast.