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!

Nikon D800 First Blush

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I went back into Capture NX and played around a little and from what I am seeing is it does do a better job with the file itself. Still playing but this looks pretty good.

 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Your welcome folks have to say i went back into last weekend files and looking through the images in Capture and my opinion on the cam went up a notch higher. I have everything turned off in camera as far as sharpness and such but my raws are looking much sharper in Capture. Not sure what it is but I like it. Honestly I am not liking what i am seeing in ACR with this cam. Still the program is weird but I like the files and some of the controls better. I'm still playing around as i really want to get a good handle on this so please bear with me as I go through this. I am hoping this stuff does help folks
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Just to show what I am seeing. I processed this before in ACR and i was testing my 180 and i thought the image was marginal and i still need to tweak the AF on the lens. Looking at it today in Capture well the left wing is far better than what i saw before. I can see good detail in the wing feathers.

 
M

mikoo

Guest
Capture NX is the best software, in my opinion, for NEF file manipulation.
Thanks for sharing the photos, Guy.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well it seems that maybe the case at the moment from what I am starting to see and it really should be its Nikons cam and software like Phase and C1 propeitry software is usually the best. I will keep plugging away at it as some things i am pretty damn anal like image quality is my number one thing. Honestly this has been bugging me and kept me up last night.


BTW Not listed anywhere for sale or really even mentioned but the D800 does have interchangeable focusing screens. I can see the release and the wire that holds it down inside the cam. So hopefully at some point Nikon will release something for it but it clearly does have the capability to be changed.
 

jlancasterd

Active member
We started today.

All with 24-120mm f/4 zoom handheld (LR4 + our CS5/6 scripts).

Gallery with full sized samples can be found here (gallery will grow).
Thanks! That's exactly what I needed to see as I'll be using the 24-120 f4 as the 'normal' lens on my D800 when I get it – at least initially.

I may go for Zeiss primes eventually, or the 24-70 f2.8 when (if?) it gets upgraded with VR2 etc.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Even though I am not crazy about the program itself the files look a lot better than ACR.

....and that's been the problem ever since Capture was first released (for NEF files). It's always been able to extract the best from NEF's but unfortunately for some shooters, at too high a cost with it's infrigment on time required for processing files and it's interface. It's interface has always been cludgy (hey did I spell that right?) although it's gotten better with each successive generation, and processing file(s) used to take eons...but that's been improved too, yet for some these issues still exist. It's fine when one has a limited # of files to process, but if the job has hundreds of files or more, out comes the ACR . The best analogy I could come up with is this: you know that awful tasting medicine you had to take as a kid? You knew it would it was good for you and would make you feel better, but yet you still hated taking it! For me that's "Capture"...LOL!

Guy, the files you re-posted with Capture do appear to be better and this even comes through at screen resolution although I've found with Capture it's easy to slightly over-sharpen.

As for the 180mm, you might have gotten one of the better samples. Out of all the lenses you mentioned you obtained, the 180 was in my opinion the biggest concern as many samples I tested just fell short when used on high MP cameras like the D3x. Even on 12MP D3s, I though some others lenses in similar focal length range eclipsed it's performance by a considerable margin.

Thanks for posting your images and thoughts. Your preliminary observations are very informative and helpful, as were Steen's and others who have done the same.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

D&A

Well-known member
Thanks! That's exactly what I needed to see as I'll be using the 24-120 f4 as the 'normal' lens on my D800 when I get it – at least initially.

I may go for Zeiss primes eventually, or the 24-70 f2.8 when (if?) it gets upgraded with VR2 etc.
I may certainly be in the minority (and opinions vary greatly with many), but there are two Nikon lenses (zooms) that I personally felt performance fell far short of what I was expecting/hoping for, especially for what they cost. These are the latest 24-120 f4 and 16-35 VR, but for somewhat different reasons. I can see excellent sharpness in the 16-35 VR at its wide end where it would do fine on the D800 save for the excessive distortions at/near 16-19mm, which for complex subjects (and subsequent distortion correction) with large # of files, simply wasn't an attractive or workable option. Nikon I believe wanted improved sharpness at 16mm over the 17-35 f2.8 at 17mm, so excessive barral distortion unfortunately was a consequence.

I recently tested a # of samples of the 24-120 f4 (latest version) for use as a "walk around" and as long as not shooting subjects that are complex in nature, at the wider end of its zoom range, distortion correction is pretty straight forward. The other issue for me personally, was it's overall relative performance on the edges/sides (save for focal lenghts above approx 65mm). It wasn't bad but wasn't what I hoped for either. Sort of middle of the road in parts of the frame. Again this is a wider range constant aperture zoom and compromises have to be made. I felt even a superb sample of Tamron's 28-75 f2.8 lens ran rings around the current 24-120 f4 but again its range is considerably shorter. Yet if looking for a high performance relatively light/small walk around lens where high(er) performance is required for a high MP camera, a really good sample of the 28-75 f2.8 offered not too much optical compromise relative to larger Nikon pro glass.

I'm only mentioning these observations as obviously even a decent lens might look alright on a D800, but if extracting max. performance is desired, lens selection becomes all that more important.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

tashley

Subscriber Member
Just playing around yesterday with my 85 and 35 lenses and I used Capture NX2 to process these.
Thanks a bundle Guy. These files look SERIOUSLY good. Capture NX is included with the D800E so maybe I'll just have to get used to it... I can see it'll be like so many other cameras... LR is Mission Control for import and catalogue but the Picks get sent to whatever native program is best before ending up as TIFF in LR....

I am so looking forward to whenever my D800E arrives. This is the first time I've ever bought glass in advance of an anticipated camera...
 

mark1958

Member
I have been shooting canon and I can say that the Nikon 24-70 is so much better than any of the Canon zooms in the same focal range. Canon's new 24-70 when released should be an improvement (or it should because of the cost). I am impressed with the image sharpness obtained with the nikon 24-70 corners. There is a bit of distortion at both the wide and tele end but it is nicely corrected in Lightroom. Moreover, the Nikon 14-24 is superb. I have never experienced such an outstanding wide zoom. I have read mixed opinions of the Nikon 24-120 but perhaps you should trade in the 16-35 and 24-120 for the Nikon 24-70 and 14-24. I had similar experiences with the Tamron for Canon---

I may certainly be in the minority (and opinions vary greatly with many), but there are two Nikon lenses (zooms) that I personally felt performance fell far short of what I was expecting/hoping for, especially for what they cost. These are the latest 24-120 f4 and 16-35 VR, but for somewhat different reasons. I can see excellent sharpness in the 16-35 VR at its wide end where it would do fine on the D800 save for the excessive distortions at/near 16-19mm, which for complex subjects (and subsequent distortion correction) with large # of files, simply wasn't an attractive or workable option. Nikon I believe wanted improved sharpness at 16mm over the 17-35 f2.8 at 17mm, so excessive barral distortion unfortunately was a consequence.

I recently tested a # of samples of the 24-120 f4 (latest version) for use as a "walk around" and as long as not shooting subjects that are complex in nature, at the wider end of its zoom range, distortion correction is pretty straight forward. The other issue for me personally, was it's overall relative performance on the edges/sides (save for focal lenghts above approx 65mm). It wasn't bad but wasn't what I hoped for either. Sort of middle of the road in parts of the frame. Again this is a wider range constant aperture zoom and compromises have to be made. I felt even a superb sample of Tamron's 28-75 f2.8 lens ran rings around the current 24-120 f4 but again its range is considerably shorter. Yet if looking for a high performance relatively light/small walk around lens where high(er) performance is required for a high MP camera, a really good sample of the 28-75 f2.8 offered not too much optical compromise relative to larger Nikon pro glass.

I'm only mentioning these observations as obviously even a decent lens might look alright on a D800, but if extracting max. performance is desired, lens selection becomes all that more important.

Dave (D&A)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
....and that's been the problem ever since Capture was first released (for NEF files). It's always been able to extract the best from NEF's but unfortunately for some shooters, at too high a cost with it's infrigment on time required for processing files and it's interface. It's interface has always been cludgy (hey did I spell that right?) although it's gotten better with each successive generation, and processing file(s) used to take eons...but that's been improved too, yet for some these issues still exist. It's fine when one has a limited # of files to process, but if the job has hundreds of files or more, out comes the ACR . The best analogy I could come up with is this: you know that awful tasting medicine you had to take as a kid? You knew it would it was good for you and would make you feel better, but yet you still hated taking it! For me that's "Capture"...LOL!

Guy, the files you re-posted with Capture do appear to be better and this even comes through at screen resolution although I've found with Capture it's easy to slightly over-sharpen.

As for the 180mm, you might have gotten one of the better samples. Out of all the lenses you mentioned you obtained, the 180 was in my opinion the biggest concern as many samples I tested just fell short when used on high MP cameras like the D3x. Even on 12MP D3s, I though some others lenses in similar focal length range eclipsed it's performance by a considerable margin.

Thanks for posting your images and thoughts. Your preliminary observations are very informative and helpful, as were Steen's and others who have done the same.

Dave (D&A)
Yes Dave i am noticing the slightly over sharpened looks too, its good but just a touch to much. I'm looking at my menu items now and seeing if i have some camera sharpening on with the raws and than look at Capture and see under pic. controls whats going on . The files look overall better for sure but like to knock that sharpening down a touch more or turn off and do it myself. Yea Yea yea RTFM i know . LOL
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I went back into Capture NX and played around a little and from what I am seeing is it does do a better job with the file itself. Still playing but this looks pretty good.
I like the NX versione quite a bit better.

The ACR images seem to have reddish flat browns for example, the NX file looks more natural but also more powerfull to me.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Looking at the meta data I have in Picture controls sharpening at 3 so it looks like the raws are getting tagged. Damnit
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Okay found the darn default for sharpening in camera was set at 3 apparently this is getting carried over to NX so I will go fix that in the converter. I wish these camera folks would just turn all this crap off in camera and let us go from zero. LOL
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Okay you can apply picture control settings from camera in NX and the ability to turn off and on as well. But 2 looked pretty good but I set it to 1 and turned it off.

Need to remember folks that the default in camera is 3 and it does get applied to the raws but you can turn off picture controls in NX. So be aware of that when you get your cams they have the default at 3
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Guy,

Now that you're getting good color from the Nikon software, do you have any comparisons of Reds on the IQ160 and D800? I'm assuming that store is Orange. :ROTFL:

Matt
 
Top