E versus non E. Splitting hairs

[Guy Mancuso]

Well I just got the E after a few months and a lot of shooting with the D800. Its different alright and I can only speak in C1 but you may want to take this to LR as well. Immediate visual difference the E is certainly sharper looking coming in at default and you know what they say about default , Its wrong and 9 times out of 10 it will always be wrong. LOL

Honestly i dont care what program your in you need to make a new default, preset or style for this cam. In C1 its too sharp and I have lowered my sharpening from 240 to 125 from the Non E to the E. but that was just a start it also has too much mid range contrast in the clarity. On the non E i added 15 points on the E i actually dropped it down to -15. Now let me stop right there as people that are looking for a look in there files as smooth than this is the ticket right here. Clarity is way to high coming in. So C1 and LR users you need to go play with this and drop the clarity down and do some side by sides with it at a lower setting. It smoothed the file right up. Also its a touch more contrasty too so I dropped it 5 points and than opened the shadows 4 points. Now I have my new default for the E . Now i can make a style in C1 to apply on import or you can make a preset in LR as well and apply this on import. Very important to get your base level down.

As Jack has mentioned which I do agree we can get a file to look identical with the non E and the E that is very clear now as I have the E in my hands. It just depends if you like going up with your settings or reducing them down. I tend to like reducing things down so maybe the E is better for me and yes end of day the E may have that slight micro detail advantage but you may never see it in print either. I will warn you out of the gate you start taking the E down in either program you think you are reducing the quality of your images because its not so sharp but reality is your getting them down to a better looking file. Natural for people to over sharpen digital images and it will look digital to get a smooth palette you need to drop this cam down some.

Now don't get me wrong either cam you can get to look like the other cam with the correct processing routine. Its a very very slight difference between them and end of day still not sure the E is the ticket over the D800. Maybe if you dont like to tweak things out of the camera the E will certainly look sharper. Myself I am after a look so whatever it takes to get that I have no issues of dropping sharpness and clarity levels to get it. Honestly the E looks a little too brittle ( subjective) coming out of the cam.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Now I should add these are my first impressions and as I shoot the E more I may make some slight adjustments as well, I went back and shot stuff i shot with the D800 and Phase so from memory i can tell whats up with each cam and how they handle those scenes . Obviously its also subjective to how much sharpness you like or not. I know and no one take offense but people tend to over sharpen because they want there purchases to look good. Admit it now. LOL But at some point you will realize its not always a good thing.

 

[Paul2660]

Guy, your findings are the same as I found. The E or non E can be brought close enough with the correct sharpening that you are "splitting hairs" I have read that the area where the E may out shine the base 800 is interestingly enough in the F1.4 to F5.6 range. After F5.6 as you point out you can either sharpen up the 800 or back off the E. If you have a chance I would love to see what you think about the E with a 24mm 1.4 or the 35mm 1.4.

For sure an E file can be over sharpened quickly whereas the 800 file seems to be able to take a lot more sharpening. I am finding I like the ability to sharpen up and not back off. But as you pointed out it's an individual thing.

I hope to be able to post some examples, E at F10 with a Zeiss 21mm and 800 at 21mm with a 14-24mm. I personally can't tell much difference once the files have been worked to their optimum settings for sharpening. Currently after a direct lightening hit to my house on Wednesday I am still coming back up with my PC's and have not attempted to do much work on files.

Either way, both cameras are really amazing and have really opened a new realm in 35mm digital.

Thanks for posting.

Paul

 

[GrahamWelland]

Guy,

Very interesting initial observations that equate to my own experience with a non-OLPF full spectrum and normal D800 pair. I've been revisiting my converted D800's files and toning them down because basically they appear TOO sharp and digital in nature. It isn't a good look IMHO and I prefer the files from the standard D800 which actually is pretty darned sharp with my Zeiss glass already. Sometimes you really can have too much acuity and it becomes too noticeable - initially impressive but ultimately tiring.

I thought it was just me in private un-sharpening my D800e (well mine is probably e++ due to no OLPF) images. Who'd expect that to happen?

 

[manouch shirzad]

Hi Guy,
I also received my D800E last week and have been busy testing the camera to make
sure it doesn't have focus problem. Steel I'm learning C1 and not comfortable working
with it, I know you have a lot of experience with C1 and any information about your
workflow and settings will be very helpful and appreciated.
Best,
_________
Manouch

 

[Oamkumar]

Hi Guy,
I got my D800E last week and I tested and confirmed that there is no focus issues. I found a green cast over the back LCD and is not visible in the images after downloading to the computer. Now I have only 50mm f1.8D and 105mm f2.8G vr. Waiting for a wide angle lens, and got confused between 14-24 and zeiss lenses. Trying Capture NX for postprocessing. I am very happy with the camera.
Thanks and regards,
Oam

 

[glenerrolrd]

Are you sure that over sharpening you are seeing isn t a function of the raw convertor ? I remember doing side by side comparisons between C1 and LR using my M8 and to my surprise the C1 conversions looked like my after versions of the LR conversion. The defaults seemed optimized rather than neutral .

It seems possible that neither C1 or Lr have really developed profiles specific to the 800E but rather have a generic D800 conversion algorithm . When I process a D800E file in NX2 I see no over sharpening (and remember Nikon recommended NX2 for the D800E when it was introduced ) ...in fact the Nikon forums complain most about the out of date sharpening logic in NX2 .

The D3S/D4 have that brittle digital sharpening look you are speaking to ...by design . Sports photography has moved onto high quality Jpegs ..no time to process raws . The photo editors want those files crispy ..not my preference .

Unfortunately it looks like Nikon has biased their in camera firmware to create files that “Pop” . I would prefer a nice flat file(linear tone curve) with minimal sharpening that can be “developed” to a specific aesthetic/look etc. Its in that darn file someplace ?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Roger retread my first paragraph . Of course it will always be a function of the raw converter. I can't speak for LR but I suspect it could be similar as I have read folks saying similar thoughts. In C1 it's a generic profile so the default is not exactly tuned to the E but the D800 does seem better at the default. It just needs adjustments made. If you remember the S2 in my review in C1 it was over sharpened by a large margin. Pretty similar to that at the defaults. LR I have not tried nor ACR with the E but if you are a user of those programs it could be similar. Something to look for.

For C1 try in the sharpening tab 125, .6, 1
Contrast -5 and HDR shadow go to 4
-15 Clarity as well
Seems like a pretty good base to start.

 

[Jack]

Way back when they were first released D), I compared D800 to D800E files and think I mentioned here that when both were optimally processed, I felt there was little to differentiate them. I agree that out of the cam, the E files are distinctly brittle and need to be dialed back to look smooth and natural -- at least to my eyes. At the same time, the D800 needs to get pumped a little to get to the same point -- and I too tend to prefer to pump instead of dial back and why I selected a pair of D800's instead of a pair of E's. Personally I didn't want one of each simply because they both require distinctly different processing workflows and I didn't want to deal with that -- yes, lazy LOLOL!

Re file "pop," I do not think it's as simple as Nikon wanting to create files that pop unless you mean jpegs. A raw file in C1 or LR is a raw file period, and in either program the E file needs to be dialed back or it looks brittle and heavily digital -- at least to my eyes. (I submit that a raw file in NX may be a different animal.) At this point I am only using and only ever likely to use C1 to process and LOVE the results.

 

[algrove]

Perhaps a dumb question, but when using LR can you import the 800E files as DNG's instead of NX2's?

If so what experience does anyone have doing this regarding file sharpness and overall color balance? Guess it depends on your settings, so those would help.

Got my lenses, just waiting for the camera-800E. Hordered the E model since I am used to not having an anti-aliasing filter. Thanks.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think you would have to convert the NEFS to DNGs. I never tried that myself but not sure if any advantage in doing that either. In my pea brain mind I would think you would lose any algorithms and or corrections that Nikon puts into the NEF. That would be my guess.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

As far as raw converters NX2 is a extreme no go for me. The workflow is horrible and frankly I did not like any of the results over C1. Again defaults in these programs unless for example a Phase IQ 160 is totally dedicated to its mother ship C1. Same with Hassy and Phocus. On C1 side any cam outside of there own a ICC profile is made. My guess C1 made the generic profile for the D800 since it was out first reason why the default looks pretty darn good out of the can. The E version coming to market later is just using that Profile. Now version 7 will most likely hit the streets at Photokinia than maybe will see a more dedicated profile for the E version. I brought this up because reading a few threads folks where saying the look of the E did not please them . Honestly the default is not pleasing me either so give those numbers a try and I forgot the biggy minus 15 clarity. I will fix that above post. Obviously tweak to taste but go by a print if you can. Monitors can be deceptive.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

BTW reason I have not posted this in images is it would probably be hard to see the slight variances. But play around and see what works best. Never take a default as face value as it usually can be improved on and basically the heart of this thread.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I just got C1, so can't speak to it, and have been using CNX2 and CS6 for my D800E NEF files. I have come across one shot in which a striped shirt was showing considerable moire when processed with CS6 but locked fine with CNX2.

Here is my question, how does C1 deal with a potential moire problem?

Best, K-H.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

C1 does have a Moire tool in the sharpening tab. Yet to run across it on the E YET

 

[eleanorbrown]

Guy I'm glad you have the same observations of the e files as I do... I have been working in post processing to get the crunchy feel and contrast softened. I will also try your suggestions of less clarity and sharpening. I have also been shooting long exposure water images at iso 64 instead of 100 and that smoothes the tonal transitions a bit in the water. Thanks, Eleanor

 

[glenerrolrd]

Way back when they were first released D), I compared D800 to D800E files and think I mentioned here that when both were optimally processed, I felt there was little to differentiate them. I agree that out of the cam, the E files are distinctly brittle and need to be dialed back to look smooth and natural -- at least to my eyes. At the same time, the D800 needs to get pumped a little to get to the same point -- and I too tend to prefer to pump instead of dial back and why I selected a pair of D800's instead of a pair of E's. Personally I didn't want one of each simply because they both require distinctly different processing workflows and I didn't want to deal with that -- yes, lazy LOLOL!

Re file "pop," I do not think it's as simple as Nikon wanting to create files that pop unless you mean jpegs. A raw file in C1 or LR is a raw file period, and in either program the E file needs to be dialed back or it looks brittle and heavily digital -- at least to my eyes. (I submit that a raw file in NX may be a different animal.) At this point I am only using and only ever likely to use C1 to process and LOVE the results.

Please explain what you mean by “a raw file is a raw file “ . Doesn t the firmware in the camera create the basic file and established the initial tone curve ,color distribution, sharpening and noise ..even on a raw file . If you are saying thats why the files look brittle in both C1 and LR before the conversion adjustments then I am having trouble following the logic .....camera creates the raw file , conversion software uses profile /settings established to produce a suitable first cut (photographer can override these with camera calibration or initial presets ) and finally you can use processing presets to interpret the converted file .

If Nikon gives you a brittle /high contrast/saturated file in the original .NEF then what is wrong with saying they built the file to Pop. Isn t that consistent with Guy s point about dialing back the conversion settings ?

I must be missing something.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Guy I'm glad you have the same observations of the e files as I do... I have been working in post processing to get the crunchy feel and contrast softened. I will also try your suggestions of less clarity and sharpening. I have also been shooting long exposure water images at iso 64 instead of 100 and that smoothes the tonal transitions a bit in the water. Thanks, Eleanor

We need to get Phase to make a specfice profile for the E version. Seems to me a lot of folks may not figure this out. C1 is usually very good at these profiles and I'm almost proof positive it was made for the D800 and not the E version. Like many of these systems there are growing pains. Nature of the game. I'll do some more testing this week and see what else I can figure out. The nice part for the D800 is the profile is very good in regards to sharpening and all that. Try those settings Eleanor see if your seeing what I am. The clarity one is the one that really smooths it down.

 

[Jack]

Please explain what you mean by “a raw file is a raw file “ . Doesn t the firmware in the camera create the basic file and established the initial tone curve ,color distribution, sharpening and noise ..even on a raw file .

No, a raw file should be a linear read of data directly off the sensor -- unless said sensor has a sidecar processing engine attached in series with it and I've seen no mention of that in regards to the D800/E sensors. How that raw data gets interpolated to useful image data is then 100% up to the raw processor. Most raw processors will apply some kind of a curve to that linear readout as default, and then of course some basic color profile assumptions, else-wise the image would look terribly flat and have inaccurate color. (In C1 we can choose from several curves, though "film standard" is C1's default.) Dedicated raw processors (NX in this case) may additionally utilize camera-specific user-input jpeg image parameters like saturation, sharpening and color bias settings to alter the look of the image, however C1 does not. Moreover, all of these can -- or at least should be able to -- be zeroed or deleted in a dedicated converter to get to the native raw file data back to what it was as it streamed off the sensor.

If you are saying thats why the files look brittle in both C1 and LR before the conversion adjustments then I am having trouble following the logic .....camera creates the raw file , conversion software uses profile /settings established to produce a suitable first cut (photographer can override these with camera calibration or initial presets ) and finally you can use processing presets to interpret the converted file .

Again, C1 does NOT use any of the camera's internal settings in determining conversion parameters, so that is one flaw in your "conversion software uses profile /settings established to produce a suitable first cut" assumption above.

If Nikon gives you a brittle /high contrast/saturated file in the original .NEF then what is wrong with saying they built the file to Pop. Isn t that consistent with Guy s point about dialing back the conversion settings ? I must be missing something.

You're only missing the fact that a raw file has no pop on its own, any of that has to be added by the raw processor or it has to be a difference in the sensor itself.

To be clear, what I am saying is *to my eyes* the E's files look brittle at base settings in LR and C1 while the D800 files behave normally or as expected in both. IOW, I see a distinct difference in how these two raw converters are rendering E raw data versus D800 raw file data. Logic dictates the difference I'm seeing has to be the presence of the OLPF since that's the only fundamental difference we've been told about. However, based on my experience the looks represent a much bigger difference than can be from no OLPF v OLPF alone. So the primary conclusion I am left with is there is possibly more different about these two sensors than we are privy to. The other possibility is I'm simply wrong about what I'm seeing...

 

[Bill_Green]

So here is what I want to know. How close is the D800E to the look of the DMR?