Nikon D800 First Blush

[routlaw]

First of all thank you for all of your very informative and helpful posts regarding the 800. Can you please clarify the above?...... are you saying that ACR has a built in profile for the 800 that was supplied by Nikon? Its a big improvement.... just very curious.

Victor

Yes its a huge improvement and perceptually to me the best of all the conversions including the rendition from C1 with IQ180 which really is too warm IMHO. The NX2 conversion looked too clinical and anemic for my taste. This is why I have been emphatic for years now that you don't need NX/NX2 for the best raw file conversions.

Too clarify, its really hard to answer your question with absolute certainty but this would be my guess that these profiles are straight out of the camera and identical from within the menu system of the camera. They match 100% verbatim the menu selection.

>along with updater to get it to version 2.3.1 is so terrible that it 'Cannot Load File' even when that file is a small jpeg, let alone a NEFF file from either D800 or D7000 or indeed any file whatsoever. Nikon support page has no indication as to why. I'm on a mac pro with 16GB of RAM, latest OS and loads of fast disc space...

I had exactly the same issues. Switched NX2 to 32 bit and all was fine.

Thanks Uwe, that did it. Had not realized these latest versions of NX2 had gone to 64 bit mode or maybe they haven't and are just trying to under a 64 bit OS. It was my understanding on the Mac platform it was still a 32 bit program.

All expressed above regarding Capture is why I continually avoid using it at almost all costs. Sure if I have a particular file where there is some aspect where running it through Capture provides some distinct advantage, I"ll hold my nose and proceed...otherwise I'll accept certain small compromises and run large # of Raw files through something else.

You think the current version is bad now...some here should have been around using it in the earliest days when it wad first released. It was truly a nightmare and Nikon has had all these qqqyears of feedback requesting the program match the quality of their cameras. To their credit, they did make major upgrades to the prrogram, rendering it from unusable and near worthlessness to it"s present incarnation.

Dave (D&A)

Dave I know this pain all too well, in fact I bought the first D1 classic in the region where I live and remember paying $500 for the first iteration of Nikon Capture. Had to be the worse $500 I have ever spent in photography and then there were the upgrades. Its astonishing to this very day Nikon makes such great cameras but produces some of the worst software (Capture Control excluded) imaginable. They should be paying us to beta test this stuff rather than trying to sell it on the open market.

Regardless, hold your nose no longer and use the method I just described and I think you will be thrilled with the results. That way you'll have both hands now to operate the keyboard. :ROTFL:

 

[ustein]

>in fact I bought the first D1 classic in the region where I live and remember paying $500 for the first iteration of Nikon Capture. Had to be the worse $500 I have ever spent in photography and then there were the upgrades.

Remember this too. Was shocking with the D1 that you could shoot Raw and nothing in the box could open it.

 

[tashley]

OK now I processed Guy's first files: one in C1 and export to downsized tiff so as to match the nikon file but otherwise with C1 defaults, the other with the Nikon file processed in Capture NX2 again with defaults, then exported to tiff. I then imported both into LR and looked at them side by side.

The Phase file wins by a bit at 100% view in the central regions and appears to do rather better at the edges but I think this is a DOF issue: the railings on the left and the near bushes on the right are rendered similarly in both, the further background (trees, roof) on both sides are notably better in the Phase file.

At 50% view on screen it really is a wash, assuming I am right about the DOF (which I'm probably not!) and excluding issues of colour balance.

I also bumped up the exposure and blacks sliders the whole way (LR4) and though this is a mad test, it did show that there is less noise in the nikon file (a lot less) and slightly more detail in the C1 file.

So... I am thinking that for me at least, if I need an enlargement of less than 40" on the long, and if I choose the best glass, then the D800 (and hopefully especially the E) will be just as useful in principal.... as an IQ160. I'll have to do my own IQ180 comparisons. And then there's the issue of colour.... and the fact that this was on a laptop screen!

 

[ustein]

>ANd then there's the issue of color.

For some it is the price too

 

[jonoslack]

>ANd then there's the issue of color.

For some it is the price too

For me it's the colour - I've yet to see any photos taken in late evening light (always my argument with Nikon colour). You can take as many colour cards as you like in normal daylight . . . but if I take shots in the evening (or in the early morning) I don't want neutral grey . . . I want to see what I saw!

So - can anyone convince me that things have changed?

all the best
Jono

 

[tashley]

>ANd then there's the issue of color.

For some it is the price too

Uwe, stop being so practical!
:toocool:

 

[ustein]

Uwe, stop being so practical!
:toocool:

I am not but my bank is

Actually a main reason is that I want the flexibility of the DSLR (even better if a small mirrorless camera would do).

 

[tashley]

For me it's the colour - I've yet to see any photos taken in late evening light (always my argument with Nikon colour). You can take as many colour cards as you like in normal daylight . . . but if I take shots in the evening (or in the early morning) I don't want neutral grey . . . I want to see what I saw!

So - can anyone convince me that things have changed?

all the best
Jono

I never saw that with my D7000 Jono but your colour vision is better than mine...

Still in China?

 

[tashley]

I am not but my bank is

Actually a main reason is that I want the flexibility of the DSLR (even better if a small mirrorless camera would do).

Have you tried a NEX7 with Leica Noctilux F1?

Rather sexy...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Looking at the raw files Guy provided for us to download something immediately looked awry compared to what I normally get with my D4 and D3 for that matter. One of the give aways in the ACR conversion was the overly cyanish blue sky and color pollution in the asphalt pavement compared to what I get with the D4 especially, being either too red or cool. The C1 file from the IQ160 struck me as being a bit too warm, albeit with subjectively the most pleasing or likable color over all compared to either of the Nikon files.

My hunch was that one important item was overlooked during those Nikon conversions in ACR and sure enough that was it. Effectively in the camera icon module (ACR) where the profile window exist, by clicking on this and instead of leaving the Adobe Standard as the profile conversion, choose one of the Camera profiles instead and in this case I kept it simple and straightforward by choosing the Camera Standard. Suffice it to say the differences are NOT subtle but more importantly this allows you to use the built in Nikon camera profiles as it was meant to be in lieu of any custom built profile such as X-Rite Passports. It matters not whether you choose 2012 or 2010 process the file will look the same assuming you do not mess with the controls for each one and in this case kept the adjustments at the defaults of ACR in all 3 of them. Once opening the files I left them as is with the exception of the store front at Easy Street which I did adjust the higlights in levels about 5-10 pts to more closely match the values in Guys rendition of NX2.

Here are the samples, all from ACR using Camera Standard instead of Adobe Standard, along with the screen capture of the camera profile window in ACR 6.7 PS CS 5.

Hopefully this will help all who are struggling with NX2 and doubtful about LR/ACR conversions.

Rob

Rob excellent catch. I'm going to go back and look at this. I was really wondering about the church shot . Going to look at Glory Bees too

Btw on C1 with my IQ 160 my normal practice is to drop the kelvin temp about 300 to 400 to cool it down. Being a test I did not want to do that but yes it is warm. On testing I never want to add those variables in and one big reason I upload the raws so folks can do what pleases them.

 

[jonoslack]

I never saw that with my D7000 Jono but your colour vision is better than mine...

Still in China?

Just got back - left Hangzhou at 1 this afternoon, home by 10 tonight (good eh!) Just a little matter of an 8 hour time difference. Fiddled with photos for the whole flight, and now it's time for bed (seem to have missed a night somewhere).

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I knew this forum could tame this beast together. Great work everyone. As I mentioned in the beginning and glad I posted Raws was I rarely if ever use ACR. And NX2 is just from Mars. Lol

Hopefully waiting for C1 and D 800 support soon. I keep hearing whispers of Version 7 too.

 

[ustein]

>Have you tried a NEX7 with Leica Noctilux F1?

I used the NEX-7 with the Leica 50mm Cron. Very nice results but I am not a fan of manual focus if shooting handheld.

 

[Greg Seitz]

Pushing and Pulling the files

First off, Guy, thanks so much for all your work in putting this comparison together and providing the raw files to work with. It's been very enlightening.

I was curious how far I could push and pull these files in both Lightroom 4 and Capture One 6.3.5 and thought it would be interesting for others to see how the files look. So, first off showing a crop of +2.5 in C1 and Lightroom. To even the playing field I've turned off all noise reduction on both apps.

First the IQ160 file as processed in C1 (+2.5):

Now the IQ160 file via Lightroom 4 (+2.5):

Ok, now the D800 file via Lightroom 4 (+2.5):

Ok, now with +5 - this is Lightroom 4 only:

IQ160 (+5.0):

D800 (+5.0):

And now the flip side of the coin. Pulling the images by -5, showing one of the brighter regions in these crops:

IQ160 (-5.0):

D800 (-5.0):

Pretty Interesting!

 

[routlaw]

Rob excellent catch. I'm going to go back and look at this. I was really wondering about the church shot . Going to look at Glory Bees too

Btw on C1 with my IQ 160 my normal practice is to drop the kelvin temp about 300 to 400 to cool it down. Being a test I did not want to do that but yes it is warm. On testing I never want to add those variables in and one big reason I upload the raws so folks can do what pleases them.

Its curious I just went back to the IQ 160 image of the Nursery building and opened it in PS5/ACR 6.7 also, did a quick gray balance on the 3rd from right gray patch using Adobe Standard camera profile. Its important to note for those using Nikons the other profiles were NOT made available for this camera which does imply LR/ACR is deriving those straight from the camera in this case the D800.

Anyway using LR 4 I obtained dramatically different results than you got with C1 for the IQ160 and I suspect more accurate color to boot. The more I looked at the Phase files and conversions the redder/warmer they appeared. Once again the black asphalt driveway being overdriven in red vs a neutral black, and the white stucco building with some warm tint as well. Notice how neutral both appear in the ACR 6.7 rendition. The foreground gravel also looks more believable to me not being so reddish. Ok this is the bad news, the good news for phase owners is this file trounces the D800, sorry not even close the IQ 160 being substantially much better and more so than I would have guessed… and it should.

Here is ACR rendition.

Rob

 

[D&A]

Dave I know this pain all too well, in fact I bought the first D1 classic in the region where I live and remember paying $500 for the first iteration of Nikon Capture. Had to be the worse $500 I have ever spent in photography and then there were the upgrades. Its astonishing to this very day Nikon makes such great cameras but produces some of the worst software (Capture Control excluded) imaginable. They should be paying us to beta test this stuff rather than trying to sell it on the open market.

Regardless, hold your nose no longer and use the method I just described and I think you will be thrilled with the results. That way you'll have both hands now to operate the keyboard. :ROTFL:

Thanks for your empathy. You and I both (and I'm sure many others) went through the original D1 fiasco along with Nikon offering nirvana with the $500 purchase of the original Capture. That wasn't the worse money I ever spent. That prize goes for the repeated $$ spend on subsequent Capture upgrades that never ever came close to the hype in Nikon's pre release literature and statements and promised fixes. Unless there is a specific file that gains something from running through Capture that can't be duplicated with any other converter, I basically left Capture a long time ago for ACR....and with recent camera and lens profiles getting better and better, it reconfirms that decision.

I've always believed that Capture had real potential if only Nikon could select software developers that had the competency to understand the needs of not just those that have the time to run through a handful of RAW NEFS, but address the concerns of the working pro who has a multitude of jobs requiring both speed and efficiency of their RAW converter in handling complex tasks and large numbers of files simultaneously. I think that even if Capture's cost was double of what it is now, there would be sufficient #'s who would be willing to pay, if the software was adequately capable of achieving these stated goals.

Dave (D&A)

 

[ustein]

Maybe that the D800 helps Nikon finally understand the need to do much better with NX2. Fingers crossed

 

[D&A]

:banghead:

Maybe that the D800 helps Nikon finally understand the need to do much better with NX2. Fingers crossed

Uwe, you may be right, but most feel Nikon should have realized that many generations ago of Nikon pro level cameras. It's been more than a decade that we have been explaning to Nikon some of the critical needs that aren't being met by Capture, so it's hard to believe that all of a sudden now it's going to change. This is just a gut feeling but I think Nikon feels as a whole that Nikon users are only willing to pay up to a certain amount of $$ for Capture and so investment in it is hampered by that notion. I've always felt that there should have been two different versions of Capture, sort of like PS Elements and full blown Photoshop /Lightroom. This way they could do the pro level Capture correctly by investing in it's proper development and then charge accordingly.

Once again I'm looking forward to getting back this evening to a real computer and catch up on examining/downloading all of today's posted files and comparisons.

Dave (D&A)

 

[ustein]

I try to be optimistic

 

[Lee Love]

Thanks! :ROTFL:

If the price drops (800E) it might be tempting. At the moment I do not see the reason behind >500 Euro price difference, other than the aforementioned CYA.

Your kidding right ? The D800/E are amazing cameras at an amazing price. I don't see how anyone can complain about Nikon's pricing on this camera.

The stupid Canon 5D Mark III is $3500 US and it simply fixes the bugs the Mark II had.