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!

D800 v D800E, chapter 6

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
RG posted nefs from the D800 and D800E, best direct comparison shots we can process from raw up that I've seen so far: Rob Galbraith DPI: Comparing detail and moire in the Nikon D800 and D800E



I downloaded the first set (image above) with the shoes and motorcycles and been playing with them in C1. He used the excellent 85/1.4 at optimal f5.6 aperture for both captures, conditions remained almost the same for both.

I opened them in C1, set sharpening on them the same and no surprise the E looks a little better. I then experimented to find a more ideal setting for each and ended up setting the E at 120/0.6/2.0 which appears to be right at the edge of being oversharp. I then adjusted settings on the regular file to a similar look, which took sharpening up to 240/0.6/2.0 and required a clarity bump to 25 to get teh micro contrast similar -- and to my eyes they look almost identical at actual pixel view. I left everything else at base C1 settings. There is perhaps a VERY slight edge to the E except it has the pattern and color moire in the shoes and left-most black motorcycle engine center frame. Next I slide the moire tool up to where it dissipates partially and matches the D800 -- at about 48 amount and 70 pattern -- they are for all intents and purposes dead nuts equal looking files onscreen at 100% view, but with a very slightly smoother "less digital" look to the regular D800 file. Note too, that the regular D800 file retains some of the pattern moire, but with much lower color. So far fine, at actual pixel view I can see some differences, but from experience I believe them to be extremely minor for normal uses. Now it was time for the ultimate comparison, a print, and so print I did.

I loaded the C1 tiffs into CS, applied my basic output sharpening (very, very light) and printed them each at native size on my Epson, to 13-1/2" x 20-1/2" at 360PPI on Harman FBAL Gloss Baryta, a very sharp paper. I left the moire tool off in C1 so the D800E file would get its full resolution benefit, but obviously would still show the moire. Viewing the prints with my reading cheaters on and nose in the prints, I can honestly see no difference -- and am a little surprised because I can't even really detect the moire in the E file as it is such a small area of the print. So I get the loupe out. With the loupe, I can see the moire more clearly and thus tell which print is which, but it honestly took the loupe for my eyes. Interesting point here is under the loupe, I can read the miniscule print in the blue no skateboarding sign in the D800 print to the right of the shoes next to the bench, but CANNOT read it in the D800E print due to moire color pollution occluding the type!

So next I uprez both to 2x native size at 27" x 41" and print comparative sections. First thing to comment on is both cams hold that size fine, but are starting to show some haggered edges -- so they won't go much larger for nose in the print viewing, but my guess is still fine for a 40" x 60" print at normal viewing distances. Anyway, with my reading cheaters on and nose in the prints, they look identical. I get the loupe out, they still look almost identical, and I am having a hard time choosing which is which because the moire is attenuated slightly by the uprez. (I need to investigate this more, not sure why or how, but it was a real result, probably due to the "smoothing" in the uprez algorithm.) Anyway, about now I am wondering if I printed the same image twice by mistake, so I reprint them and confirm they are indeed that close.

In conclusion for me so far, it's a REALLY tough call to say the E is "better" assuming you process them both IDEALLY instead of IDENTICALLY. I personally think the differences are academic for print, and remain so unless you plan on showing 100% crops on a large monitor as your main viewing platform. My study continues, but for right now I'm giving the regular D800 the slight advantage for MY uses simply because of the lesser moire issues. YMMV…

Special thanks to Rob Galbraith for making these files available!

Cheers,
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack, just a side note:

The file contains in the metadata: ©Jack Flesher :)
Yeah, this one above does, only because Rob's wasn't on it and I have C1 set to automatically add mine to all files whenever I upload.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Jack,

This is good news, as it shows that the theory and practice of AA filters need not be too different. People make a big deal about "detail, once lost, can never be restored." But a proper AA filter shouldn't lose any detail that is not destroyed by the discrete sampling of the sensor. The key word is "proper", and it looks like Nikon did a good job.

Best,

Matt
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Jack, thanks for the work. I don't find the print test surprising. I print from my Pentax 645D on a 44" printer fairly often and the print really cannot retain the fine detail. At least what you can see or believe you see at 100% on a monitor. I keep reading comments about getting the "most" from these cameras. I find it pretty useless filling out my tax forms to the third decimal place, although I am sure I am getting the "most" from it.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Shashin...if you keep filling out your tax forms to the third decimal place, I bet in about 30+ years, you will have saved the equivelent of the cost of the newly shown full frame 645D XII...which will be announced at about the same time (in approx 30 years) :)

I completely concur with Jack. I've printed up some crops from near identical shot scenes sent to me from the D800 and D800 E respectfully...at sizes greater than the equivilent of 44" on the long side. The resulting printed images were nearly identical as long as adjustment and processing was appropriate (but different) and also optimal for the files from both cameras. I thought Rob's posted images demonstrating the differences between both models of the D800 were extremely well done..as we're Tim's here on Getdpi!

Dave (D&A)
 

danielmoore

New member
The heart of the matter, certainly. Now what I'm thinking is to obtain an E simply to differentiate myself from a client who may own the several times more obtainable non E.
Possibly I'll have to spout about it's virtues with some hot air and puffed chest, and churn through a little extra post processing. It's going to be my money maker for a while since funding keeps me out of the MF bracket. It'd be nice to have a bit of an edge, even if only self promoting. Daniel who?
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
The heart of the matter, certainly. Now what I'm thinking is to obtain an E simply to differentiate myself from a client who may own the several times more obtainable non E.
Possibly I'll have to spout about it's virtues with some hot air and puffed chest, and churn through a little extra post processing. It's going to be my money maker for a while since funding keeps me out of the MF bracket. It'd be nice to have a bit of an edge, even if only self promoting. Daniel who?
:ROTFL:

Daniel Moore, they call him 'Mr E', the man who doesn't need to sharpen so much...:thumbup:
 

tjv

Active member
Interesting observations, thanks. I'm still waiting for my D800E order but this has me thinking, for sure...
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
IMO, there's enough of a difference in detail at these crops to want the D800e.However, the artifacts and moire, in the crop of the balcony, lower left, are unlike any moire i've seen though - It's like a chroma shift with banding, and not sure if post can mitigate that.

I'm curious if these cameras are still going through a sort of "beta" mode, as there's been reports of several technical issues with electronics. I still want one, but am in no hurry - a few firmware upgrades and more inventory ought to do it.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
The heart of the matter, certainly. Now what I'm thinking is to obtain an E simply to differentiate myself from a client who may own the several times more obtainable non E.
Possibly I'll have to spout about it's virtues with some hot air and puffed chest, and churn through a little extra post processing. It's going to be my money maker for a while since funding keeps me out of the MF bracket. It'd be nice to have a bit of an edge, even if only self promoting. Daniel who?
If Nikon can come out with a red lacquered version like Pentax did with the 645D, then you would really stand out!
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>the artifacts and moire

The color aliasing in the text does not look too good with the D800E. Otherwise is shows more clarity. I don't care that much as I normally would not compare.
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
IMO, there's enough of a difference in detail at these crops to want the D800e.
Are you talking the crops Rob posted where he processed identically, or are you talking crops that you processed to each sensor's ideal? I assume the former, because I think if you actually take the time to do the latter, you won't see the differences like in the former...

:chug:
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
>the artifacts and moire

The color aliasing in hte text does not look too good with the D800E.
The upside is if you bump the moire tool in C1 up to 75/15, you can read the sign too -- but now the images look essentially identical as respects fine detail resolution. I think the real decision issue is do the small gains of added detail outweigh the costs of dealing with visible moire? For me, I'm not sure they do... But as a second body, knowing I can process it out to basically a regular D800 look, then it seems like a why not? But then I ask myself when and what would I really ever use it for, and it seems like an added hassle factor more than anything. But on the upside you can apply the C1 moire tool in batch, so could effectively leave it on as standard in my basic D800E style and apply it on import, then it's dealt with before I even open the files. THen for the rare (unknown?) occasion I might want it off, I can turn it off for the mostly academic gain in detail...
 
All of this suggests that Nikon did a hell of a job designing the OLPF on the d800. It comes close to the theoretical ideal of such a filter, which is to have no effect at all on information below the Nyquist limit.

A perfect analog filter is impossible, but this one manages to do visible damage that's mostly reversible.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack,

This is good news, as it shows that the theory and practice of AA filters need not be too different. People make a big deal about "detail, once lost, can never be restored." But a proper AA filter shouldn't lose any detail that is not destroyed by the discrete sampling of the sensor. The key word is "proper", and it looks like Nikon did a good job.

Best,

Matt
All of this suggests that Nikon did a hell of a job designing the OLPF on the d800. It comes close to the theoretical ideal of such a filter, which is to have no effect at all on information below the Nyquist limit.

A perfect analog filter is impossible, but this one manages to do visible damage that's mostly reversible.

:thumbs:

Precisely guys. IMHO, this new Nikon design OLPF is remarkable.
 
Top