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

D&A

Well-known member
Just a seperate comment from my post above. I agree with most that some of the D800 images don't quite display the 3D often seen with MFD, even those from ~40MP MF cameras and backs. Not sure if I completely attribute it to simply the differences in DOF at at given f-stop when closely matched lenses (and angle of views are considered) or alternatively when these DOF differences are combined with characteristics that can be attributed to the somewhat larger sensors in the ~40MP cameras/backs is responsible?

Additionally some of the 100% crops look a bit soft as compared to some others I've seen. I wonder if in part it was due to the possibly of flat lighting at the stadium that day or the difference in microcontrast that seems to partially exists between some of the D800 shots vs. MFD? Although one might expect lower microcontrast from certain Nikon lenses, others lenses employed are quite capable in this regard.

I do believe examining large format prints of similar images from the D800 and a MFD camera may reveal some of the differences in 3D rendering better than viewing web sized images.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

ptomsu

Workshop Member
This is getting a very irritating discussion - I cannot understand how one can see 3-Dimensionality in these Web size images ?????

I definitely can't!

So I also cannot see any differences in this regard to MFD of course.

Are we really serious?
 

Jérôme.E

Member
Jerome, thanks ever so much for posting these, especially the images taken with the 24mm PCE. Obviously impressive with regards to both the rendering and level of detail, and is something we haven't see from a Nikon DSR previously. I'm still trying to get a handle on higher ISO shots, such as those taken at 1600 and 3200....sort of the bread and butter ISO's I often use in low light theater production work. Would it be possible when time permits, to post a crop (without post processing noise reduction), of those the higher ISO (1600 & 3200) images you posted above? Maybe covering part of the print on the easel extending across the floor to part of the man's dark color suit? This would cover some of the deeper shadows and a bit of highlights, while in comparison, the upper part of the ceiling would approximate some of the midtones. Thanks once again!

Dave (D&A)
You're welcome Dave
I'll do it soon
And in an hour you'll have the NEF!
 

D&A

Well-known member
You're welcome Dave
I'll do it soon
And in an hour you'll have the NEF!
Thanks very much Jerome, it's appreciated! I won't be able to examine them till late this evening when I return to a regular desktop computer.

Dave (D&A)
 

Jérôme.E

Member
This is getting a very irritating discussion - I cannot understand how one can see 3-Dimensionality in these Web size images ?????

I definitely can't!

So I also cannot see any differences in this regard to MFD of course.

Are we really serious?
I didn't mean you could see the 3D rendering with those Web size images.
Mis-understanding here.
But certainly with the tif and with some lenses.

It is pretty hard to see, at least for me, the difference between format with web sized images and especially from architectural/landscape images.
I found it easier with portrait/studio photography.
 

D&A

Well-known member
I didn't mean you could see the 3D rendering with those Web size images.
Mis-understanding here.
But certainly with the tif and with some lenses.

It is pretty hard to see, at least for me, the difference between format with web sized images and especially from architectural/landscape images.
I found it easier with portrait/studio photography.
To add to this discussion, my mentioning of 3D rendering (above) of D800 images vs. MFD, was reflective of my printing large format prints of provided RAW files and comparing, not of viewing web sized images.

Dave (D&A)
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
That 14-24 stadium shot really shows off the dynamic range. That's midday sun, sunlit clouds, AND stadium shadow. Nothing looks blocked or murky. I do notice you don't quite get the grass texture in the crop... could be the lens, or it's just at the AA filter limit.

24 @ f/8 = 3mm aperture. So much for the Internet "diffraction limit" meme. Lol. But a 3mm aperture is probably TOO small and could explain the lack of texture.

The 70-300 looks slightly backfocused but shows what a fine lens it is.

The 85/1.8G looks very nice. So glad I ordered one (on Feb 12, maybe I'll get it before xmas - lol).

Can't wait to get my D800E.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Btw went to camera store today . Now I did this handheld at 1/30 of a second at 5.6 no need for images but shot the Zeiss 25 F2 and the 14-24 at 24 and actually the Nikon was sharper. Okay now I was manual focusing the Zeiss and sure I could be off and really that is my point. By the time you focus a wide like this you could be off anyway. Also the D800 focus screen is not a great screen for manual focus anyway. In the end given the zoom it just has more going for it. I thought about the 24 1.4G also but I keep reading about soft corners. In all honesty I maybe better with my 14-24 in the end. I am after a great 24mm focal length the rest of the zoom is a bonus. It's just a little big but I can deal with that.
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>In all honesty I maybe better with my 14-24 in the end. I am after a great 24mm focal length the rest of the zoom is a bonus. It's just a little big but I can deal with that.

I once had the 14-24mm and it is an excellent zoom. If I would shoot often 24mm or wider this would be my choice. I may get loaners for review though.

Interesting would comparing the 24-70mm to the 14-14mm at 24mm.

Actually for me MF on the D800 would result for me in out of focus issues. That is why I right now only consider AF lenses. If the D800 would have a swivel LCD manual focusing in live view would be much simpler.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
With that I have tell you a long time secret here , I shot Nikon for many many years and Canon as well. But if anyone remembers me several years ago getting so fed up with Canon glass and bolting Zeiss and Leica glass just to get some quality . I will have to say given Nikons latest glass they really stepped up there game. I have to give them a lot of credit for this. My 85 and 35 G are killer good and this zoom which I hate freaking zooms is just stellar. That says a lot coming from me. I am a serious nit picking glass whore. Lol
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
>In all honesty I maybe better with my 14-24 in the end. I am after a great 24mm focal length the rest of the zoom is a bonus. It's just a little big but I can deal with that.

I once had the 14-24mm and it is an excellent zoom. If I would shoot often 24mm or wider this would be my choice. I may get loaners for review though.

Interesting would comparing the 24-70mm to the 14-14mm at 24mm.
The 24-70 not rated great at 24 or better I should say.
 

danielmoore

New member
I have the 14-24 and 24-70 and the latter is just useable at 24mm. The 14-24 has the least distortion of any Nikon 24mm focal length and makes it indispensible for architectural work. I rented a 24mm PCE and it wasn't as sharp as my 14-24 and had notable distortion, which for it's intended purpose is just not something I can accept, much as I'd like to. I would like to do a comparison with an auto distortion corrected D800 image with the 24 PCE, downsampled, maybe it's good enough.
 

tjv

Active member
Great to see some PCE lenses used here. I'd be super appreciative if we could play with some of the PCE NEFs.
Thanks again,
TJV
 

D&A

Well-known member
Btw went to camera store today . Now I did this handheld at 1/30 of a second at 5.6 no need for images but shot the Zeiss 25 F2 and the 14-24 at 24 and actually the Nikon was sharper. Okay now I was manual focusing the Zeiss and sure I could be off and really that is my point. By the time you focus a wide like this you could be off anyway. Also the D800 focus screen is not a great screen for manual focus anyway. In the end given the zoom it just has more going for it. I thought about the 24 1.4G also but I keep reading about soft corners. In all honesty I maybe better with my 14-24 in the end. I am after a great 24mm focal length the rest of the zoom is a bonus. It's just a little big but I can deal with that.
Guy, regarding the 24mm f1.4G vs. the 14-24 at 24mm...it took all of four samples of the 24mm f1.4G till I found one that performed virtually as good as the 14-24mm @ 24mm when both were shot at f2.8. At f1.4 and f2, the best sample of the 24mm f1.4G was a bit softer along the sides/corners at f1.4 and f2 that the matching performance of both lenses at f1.2 (and 24mm). F2 on the single focal length lens wasn't that far off either. Size of the 24mm f1.4G is of course more manageable and easier to take in a small bag, but one has to keep in mid they are giving up the rest of the focal lengths of the zoom.

Bottom line is there are some really good samples of the 24mm f1.4G, although none I tried were sharp edge to edge at f1.4 (but not far off at f2!). All these tests were performed on a D700 and D3s.

Dave (D&A)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yea I'm a little torn on the 24 1.4g . It looks to be slightly sharper at
2.8 than have the faster apertures to play but I give up the wider side but do get a smaller less weight lens. I'm leaning towards it but not convinced yet. Like to see it on a D800 first
 
Top