My quick D800 versus E test

[D&A]

I couldn't agree more with the consensus. First a big thanks to Tim and also to Jack. The slight difference in detail can be seen but how relevant it would be even if each file was used in a very demanding way, such as printing a very sizable large format print, I'd question if it would. In other words, not very much in my opinion.

Interestingly, I've previously compared pairs of DSLR's where one had their AA filter removed and there was far more of a striking difference then that being seen in the D800/D800E comparison. Something tells me the way Nikon implemented the multi layer glass orientation with regards to the D800E sensor, appears to have some sort of modifying effect as opposed to it simply having a single piece of protective clear cover glass over it's sensor. I'm still uncertain why Nikon did this, but something tells me the net result is the effect of something between having an AA filter and a camera without one, such as those that have their AA filter removed via an after market modification.

Dave (D&A)

 

[weinschela]

Now my appetite is really whetted. I decided some time ago to stick with the 800E but I am #3 on my dealer's list and none have been delivered yet. For those of us who are not NPS, it is frustrating.

 

[ustein]

>I'm still uncertain why Nikon did this

Me too but I would guess to have the optical path as much identical as possible. We also should not forget the sensor cleaning.

 

[Shashin]

Interestingly, I've previously compared pairs of DSLR's where one had their AA filter removed and there was far more of a striking difference then that being seen in the D800/D800E comparison. Something tells me the way Nikon implemented the multi layer glass orientation with regards to the D800E sensor, appears to have some sort of modifying effect as opposed to it simply having a single piece of protective clear cover glass over it's sensor. I'm still uncertain why Nikon did this, but something tells me the net result is the effect of something between having an AA filter and a camera without one, such as those that have their AA filter removed via an after market modification.

Dave (D&A)

Dave, Nikon most likely did that to keep the optical path length the same. Otherwise the sensor position in each camera would need to be different and so each body would be different.

I also think you will find with smaller and smaller pixel pitches, the difference between a sensor with an AA filter and one without will be smaller.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Thanks Tashley for posting this. There is indeed a slight difference in the spikes against the contrast of blue. Sharpening may help the d800, but it also introduces the micro crunchies.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Thanks for posting this! Not a huge difference, but visible in very fine detail. Not sure it makes much difference, but I see no reason to turn my nose up at it either. And although it makes no difference in these shots, from a noise perspective less sharpening is always preferable in my book. A 45 second exposure in post-sunset twilight and very blue light, could well show more difference.

 

[D&A]

Dave, Nikon most likely did that to keep the optical path length the same. Otherwise the sensor position in each camera would need to be different and so each body would be different.

I also think you will find with smaller and smaller pixel pitches, the difference between a sensor with an AA filter and one without will be smaller.

Shashin, thanks ever so much for your thoughts and explanations. I surmised in part early on that Nikon might be streamling production of both bodies, so adjustment and placemnt of each sensor would essentually be the same in both models.

What I wasn't aware of is the reduced effect of the AA filter with smaller pixel pixel pitch sensors. I realize actual resolution of a sensor can have a prominant effect on the incidence of moire' but then my question is what relationship might that have with regards to pixel pitch and effectiveness of AA filter?

Dave (D&A)

 

[tjv]

I'll get the E version despite not seeing any real world difference between the files. Thanks for posting this, Tim.

 

[tjv]

PS: I'd love to see a video test between the two models, especially considering the standard D800 has been said to be more prone of Moire than the 5D II/III.

 

[Jack]

What I wasn't aware of is the reduced effect of the AA filter with smaller pixel pixel pitch sensors.

The typical contemporary AA filter softens point-source lighting to about 130% of pixel pitch. Nikon's system employs a waveplate that handles the job with some interesting effects -- I do not understand all the physics of it, but it appears for whatever reason the waveplate AA is more easily canceled out with appropriate sharpening techniques.

If you all look more closely at the above image pairs I posted, you will note I have (ever so slightly) sharpened the #19 files so they are virtually identical or in some regions even a little better than the #60 files even though the native #60 is slightly superior to the native #19.

 

[Antonio Chagin]

I didn't read the part that says which one is which as to not be prejudgement.
I cannot see any real differences..

 

[D&A]

The typical contemporary AA filter softens point-source lighting to about 130% of pixel pitch. Nikon's system employs a waveplate that handles the job with some interesting effects -- I do not understand all the physics of it, but it appears for whatever reason the waveplate AA is more easily canceled out with appropriate sharpening techniques.

If you all look more closely at the above image pairs I posted, you will note I have (ever so slightly) sharpened the #19 files so they are virtually identical or in some regions even a little better than the #60 files even though the native #60 is slightly superior to the native #19.

Interesting! My gut feeling is prior to any prelease of images from these two cameras, most were expecting to see far greater differences between them than has been demonstrated so far. Maybe something akin to what we're used to seeing when a AA filter is removed by one of the aftermarket serices for performing this task on DSLR sensors. The differences between pre & post removal in a majority of those cases can be easily seen and generally the advanatges (if care is taken to image handling), can produce superior results. In the case of the D800/D800E, I'm far less certain of this, if at all.

I wonder if Nikon's proprietary protocol for implementing the D800E essentially AA free, was designed not only for consistancy in production of both bodies, but to also address other possible issues that they felt might have come back to haunt them with a multitude of user complaints for those that are not used to using cameras without AA. Hence the notable effect of removing a AA from a sensor (in the D800E) has somehow been molified to a degree and the net result is much milder. In other words, if someone was able to remove the waveplate assembly from a D800E sensor and substitute what is normally employed in a AA filterless sensor (a simple cover glass?), then would the effect and increase in sharpness be more readily demonstrated when compared to the regular D800 and possibly even the current D800E as it comes from Nikon. Conversely, as suggested, is it just simply that the pixel pitch of the D800 series of cameras is relatively small, so removal of it's AA filter has only a nominal effect? Just some thoughts.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Shashin]

but then my question is what relationship might that have with regards to pixel pitch and effectiveness of AA filter?

Dave (D&A)

Diffraction can be a natural AA filter. Large pixels can be very "sharp." My P25+ back is really sharp at 100%. So a AA filter on a 9um sensor would be comparatively strong. The difference with and without would be greater than for a 5um sensor where diffraction would be more obvious without an AA filter.

I think that made sense--I have not had my coffee yet.

 

[ustein]

The Zeiss 100m seems to be a lovely lens. Will check it for aerials.

 

[tashley]

The Zeiss 100m seems to be a lovely lens. Will check it for aerials.

Gorgeous but specialist: has serious purple fringes (not sure if Bokeh fringing or normal CA) on d800 In high contrast areas at wide open to md apertures, and LR doesn't get close to fixing them...

 

[Steen]

On my 2560 x 1600 pixel 30" screen the difference is evident regardless of whether I zoom in or not.

The E file has a lot more snap. Very much.
Some of it is probably due to the different lighting.
Still, when zooming in and comparing the details it is obvious that the standard file has been blurred by a blurring filter. I never liked the mere thought of that.

If in my country the price difference was only 11 percent like in the rest of EU I would definitely go for the E version.
But where I live, prices went up by 12 % the 1st of April and the price difference of the two models is now 35 % here in Denmark.
That's absurd.

Thank you for the file, Tim, good food for thought, hope to see more along the way.

 

[Jack]

In other words, if someone was able to remove the waveplate assembly from a D800E sensor and substitute what is normally employed in a AA filterless sensor (a simple cover glass?), then would the effect and increase in sharpness be more readily demonstrated when compared to the regular D800 and possibly even the current D800E as it comes from Nikon.

Dave,

In the current design, Nikon claims to have a flat of optical glass in place of the waveplate in the D800E. (Usually, a thickness of the glass or the appropriate AA filter with associated equivalent refractive index *IS* part of the entire optical formula, and would be required in the system.)

 

[Jack]

On my 2560 x 1600 pixel 30" screen the difference is evident regardless of whether I zoom in or not.

Yes, it is evident. But it;s not massive and appropriate sharpening of the AA filtered CAN (and clearly does) compensate pretty remarkably, almost to the point of no significant difference...

What we're missing here is an optimal D800E capture, using the absolute best lens at optimal focus distance and optimal aperture. In that (unique and mostly uncommon) situation, I'd agree the D800E will outperform the D800. Just hope you;re not shooting pictures of something with a regular, repeating pattern of micro detail :ROTFL:

Second point: While color Moire is relatively easy to remove, pattern Moire is a bugger -- even the best of tools usually have to blur the affected areas well beyond what an AA filter imparts initially. So caution to all of those who think it's an easy-to-deal-with issue...

 

[ustein]

>The E file has a lot more snap. Very much.
>Some of it is probably due to the different lighting.

Actually the different light helps the snap a lot.

>Still, when zooming in and comparing the details it is obvious that the standard file has been blurred by a blurring filter. I never liked the mere thought of that.

Me neither but I learned to live with it. Sometimes it seems that we photographers are obsessed by sharpness. In reality often more blurred images have a lot to offer.

Then again I would buy the D800E if I would not have the D800.

 

[tashley]

I've been watching this discussion develop with interest, and too busy with family to get too involved or to test various of the propositions put forward. Now I'm going away for a few days and will just take the E and a couple of lenses, shoot RAW to one card and JPEG to another and, since it's a cabin baggage only trip, will only have an iPad with me... so I won't be able to test either my or other people's theories.

However I do have some tentative responses and thoughts, plus some newer observations.

Firstly: in my examples above, I agree the the methodology wasn't perfect (I only claimed it was quick'n'dirty) but actually that Makro Planar is very sharp, even at distance. It hits its peak at F5.6. I used a very good tripod/head and shutter delay with MUP. (I just bought a remote release). The potential sources of error are focus (and that will always be an issue, only soluble by doing a large series of focus bracketed shots on each camera and choosing the best) and the fact that the light changed a bit. Any instability in the rig is most likely to have affected both files.

I trust the focus in my shots: highly magnified live view with that subject distance and that aperture/DOF? I'd stand by it as useful.

The light? Yes it did change and clearly some of the extra snap in the E file is down to the more contrasty light.

HOWEVER... there is more detail in the E file. Obviously. There must be anyway and there just is. And the fact that sharpening the 800 file can make it look very similar is interesting and useful but bottom line, there will always be some extra detail in that E file that sharpening can't find: and sharpening introduces other effects which at ISO 100 or 200 may not be too much of an issue but at higher ISO will be.

I don't sees huge difference between the two, but with good glass and good technique I do think it is enough to make a difference. A small one: but we MF shooters are used to paying large amounts for small differences! And I think those differences will show in print.

BUT BUT BUT... if I were worried about moire I'd get the 800. If I were intending to nearly always shoot handheld or with VR or with less than top top glass I'd get the 800. For example I am seeing less difference with the 24-120 zoom handheld with VR, little enough to be essentially irrelevant. Put that lens on a tripod and turn VR off and it's a different story as long as you are shooting at optimal apertures.

Bottom line: in most countries the E version isn't much more expensive and comes with NX, which, though not nice to use, is useful. Moire aside it's a free option to realise more file detail at minimal extra cost when the shooting conditions are right.

I haven't yet decided whether to keep one or both bodies but if I do only keep one, it will most certainly be the E....