Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Josh-H on February 06, 2012, 07:34:38 pm
-
HERE (http://www.larssteenhoff.com/2012/02/06/nikon-d800-new-pictures/)
The new Nikon D800 surpasses all expectations with its 36.3 megapixel resolution ensures maximum fidelity and unsurpassed
The new release of the Nipponese company offers unparalleled features to please all demanding professional photography, videographers and filmmakers.
Sao Paulo, February 6, 2012
Nikon introduces its long-awaited release, the HD-SLR D800, which offers resolution never seen before, amazing picture quality and valuable video resources, still optimized for professional multimedia photographers and videographers. With unparalleled balance between precision and functionality, the Nikon D800 brings innovations such as the CMOS sensor 36.3 megapixel FX-format, 91,000 pixel RGB sensor, advanced Scene Recognition System and many other new features.
Exceptional Image Quality
The new 36.3 megapixel CMOS sensor (7360 x 4912 resolution) and FX format (35.9 x 24mm) is the largest in terms of resolution so far developed by Nikon, and come meet nikonzeiros numerous requests from around the world. It is ideal for situations where you can not compromise the fidelity, such as weddings, photo studio and record landscapes. A resolution of this magnitude gives the photographer the ability to portray even the smallest details with stunning clarity. Every aspect of the sensor of this model was designed to ensure clear images in low light, so it has enhanced features like OLPF converter and a 14 bit A / D to minimize the noise around the picture.
The D800 lives up to Nikon’s reputation of being the sovereign ability to capture in low light thanks to the standard range of ISO 100-6400, expandable to 50 (Lo-1) and 25600 (Hi-2), which helps create gradient amazing colors when shooting JPEG or RAW.
All these image data are directed to a channel of 16 bits for maximum performance. Photographers can also take advantage of the lenses in FX format lenses for more options and increased focal range (1.5X), while still maintaining the clarity and detail in high resolution of 15.3 megapixels (4800×3200).
The D800 has an advanced Scene Recognition System with its array of colors (3D Color Matrix Meter III), which provides precise measurement in the most challenging lighting conditions. At the heart of this system is the innovative RGB sensor that analyzes each scene meticulously, recognizes factors such as light and bright and then compares all the data using the unique database of 30,000 images from Nikon. This new sensor still has the ability to detect faces with high accuracy even when shooting through viewfinder. The Color Matrix Meter also prioritizes the faces detected, allowing the right exposure even when the subject is backlit.
Novelty is also the exclusive image processing engine Nikon’s EXPEED 3, which controls the entire system and is the catalyst behind the responsiveness of the camera’s auto focus and performance. The new Nikon image processing engine is capable of processing huge amounts of data, with perfect color and tone perfect. 3 The EXPEED also contributes to energy efficiency, allowing the user to use the camera for longer.
Featured in the new and improved white balance system of this model that more accurately recognizes both the sources of natural light and artificial ones, and gives the user the option to retain the warmth of ambient lighting.
Users can also capture a greater dynamic range with the HDR function and enjoy the benefits of Active D-Lighting for balanced exposures even in backlit scenes. In addition, the camera offers a dedicated button for quick access to Nikon’s Picture Controls to adjust the parameters of photo and video in real time, such as color, sharpness and saturation.
True Cinema Experience
The Nikon D800 is a compact and lightweight which is ideal for the production environment. Its features are very practical and functional usable by both filmmakers in the field and in the studio or filmmakers. Filmmakers have the option of multiple resolutions and frame ranges, including Full HD 1080 and HD 720 30/24p to 60p. By using the method of data compression B-Frame, the user can record video in H.264 / MPEG-4 AVC up to 29:59 minutes per clip. The optimized CMOS sensor reads the image data on rates incredibly quick results almost instantly.
The D800 also allows videographers to keep the resolution high definition (1080p) regardless of the selected scene mode. Users can also compose and easily check critical focus for HD LCD monitor 3.2 “and 921 000 pixels with reinforced fabric, automatic control of brightness and wide viewing Anglo.
For professionals, it is important to have a camera that has digital recorders and external monitors. With the D800 is possible to transmit an uncompressed HD signal directly off the camera for an HDMI output (8 bit, 4:2:2). This signal can be transmitted to a display, digital recording device or routed through a monitor, eliminating the need for multiple connections. The image can also be viewed simultaneously on the LCD screen and an external display screen while excluding the state data of the camera for streaming media.
The D800 also includes features to enhance the audio quality, as a specific output for headphones used to monitor the audio levels during recording, which can be adjusted within 30 steps. Have the onboard microphone can be adjusted with up to 20 steps of sensitivity for the faithful reproduction of sound. To complete the recording can be configured to be activated via the shutter button.
Shutter speed and performance with amazing accuracy
The autofocus system Advanced Multi-Cam 3500 AF is the next generation of the proven 51-point AF system Nikon. The fully customizable system offers users the ability to capture fast moving subjects in focus and accurately track, or select a single AF point with absolute precision in detail. The focus system uses 15 sensors of the type AF Crusaders for accuracy and the system also emphasizes human faces even when the viewfinder is used. The D800 also employs 9 cross-type sensors fully functional when used with compatible NIKKOR lenses and teleconverters aperture f / 8 or smaller.
For maximum versatility in different situations, users can also select multiple AF modes, including normal, expanded area and tracking of faces and objects / people, even the optical viewfinder.
Ready to shoot in less than 0012 seconds, the Nikon D800 can capture files in FX mode and resolution up to 4 fps, or up to 6 fps with DX mode with the optional battery pack MB-D12 battery and compatible. To further improve the speed of the camera and the overall workflow, the D800 uses the new standard USB 3.0 for fast transfer.
Format and operability
The structure of the Nikon D800 is designed magnesium alloy for maximum durability and reliability. The camera body is closed and sealed with gaskets to resist dust, moisture and also to electromagnetic interference. You can easily picture of the composition through the viewfinder of course, which offers 100% coverage of the scene.
The shutter was tested to withstand 200,000 cycles, ensuring maximum durability, while the sensor cleaning is made by the vibration of OLPF. The self-diagnostic shutter unit also includes a mirror balancer to minimize the residual impact of the “bounce”, improving the AF and zoom viewing time. Furthermore, the display is coated with a new finish protection thermal which serves to resist to overheating during prolonged use. For storage, the D800 has dual card slot for CF and SD cards, offering the user the possibility of recording up when a card is full, recording RAW / JPEG, separately, and the added option of recording still pictures to and video card to another. For recording and transfers at high speed, data can be recorded on the latest UDMA-7 and the cards SDXC/UHS-1.
The D800 also features built-in flash, and is compatible with the acclaimed Creative Lighting System Nikon, including the Command Mode for embedded control Speedlights wirelessly.
-
How long usually before Canon announces their competing camera?
-
How long usually before Canon announces their competing camera?
Do you mean announce or actually make available? :) Judging from the 1DX those 2 dates can be more than 6 months apart.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Do you mean announce or actually make available? :) Judging from the 1DX those 2 dates can be more than 6 months apart.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, this is going to put Canon really on the back foot. With one announcement Nikon kill the 7D, 5D MKII and probably quite a few 1DX sales (call it still born if you like). Investment in glass aside, if you are in the market today for a High MPX DSLR for landscape I know what I would be buying....
Bernard... going to downgrade your D3X to a D800? (I think there may be a few Nikon shooters considering that!) ;D
-
Yes, this is going to put Canon really on the back foot. With one announcement Nikon kill the 7D, 5D MKII and probably quite a few 1DX sales (call it still born if you like). Investment in glass aside, if you are in the market today for a High MPX DSLR for landscape I know what I would be buying....
Bernard... going to downgrade your D3X to a D800? (I think there may be a few Nikon shooters considering that!) ;D
Actually I sold the D3x a few months back before it lost too much value, so the answer is yes. :)
I am pretty sure Canon will deliver a 5DIII very soon that is likely to have 7D like physical specs, meaning weather proofing and all. The Canon and Nikon line ups will be very similar then.
The lenses line ups are also incredibly close with respective strenghts and weaknesses, choosing one system over the other will become real hard but the good news is that amazing image quality will be made available for all at pretty reasonnable prices! Photographers win! :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Regretfully I think Canon has become to fat and bloated to answer with much more than a meager upgrade to the 5DII. Sad....I have shot Canon all my life...but if they don`t start producing I will have to learn Nikon. I`m getting to old to keep saying they will do us right soon. :(
-
How long usually before Canon announces their competing camera?
mmm, I thought everyone said the MP wars were over?
I don't remember if Nikon has ever beaten Canon as far as a significant MP upgrade in FF. The 20mp barrier was the 1DsMark3, out about a year before the D3x.
So when will canon offer an answer? who knows ... based on the 1Dx announcement they may have decided not to even go there.
Canon has been aggressively improving lenses for some time now, some speculate so users aren't disappointed with the IQ of higher pixel counts of the 36+mp sensors.
D800 looks like a sweet camera ... great news for Nikon shooters - finally a high resolution body for under $3000. I doubt any Canon shooters will abandon their glass as long as Canon can offer a decent alternative sometime this year, but if not some will, great for my store. Nikon is now price protecting dealers like Sony does, so the big internet sellers can't undercut the little guys out of the game. there is a lot of pent up demand for this body ... years worth.
I really like the option of leaving the AA filter off (not sure whey they didn't leave it off of all them, at 36mp the sensels are so small moire should be extremely rare.)
I've seen a ton of users move from Nikon to canon because of the 5D mark 2, will be interesting how many of them still have their Nikon glass. If so I expect them to dump the canon stuff and grab this baby fast. Can't wait to get one in the store and give it a go.
(although I don't shoot either anymore, it's either MFDB for me or sony NEX5 soon to be NEX 7).
-
D800E samples:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So is this the beginning of the end of medium format?
-
So is this the beginning of the end of medium format?
I don't know, but I have just browsed through the D800 and D800E samples... and they are pretty impressive in my book.
Combined with top lenses like the 14-24 f2.8 it delivers images that may never have been achievable until now without stitching. Just look at the level of details in the corners at 15mm...
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_01_l.jpg
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Canon shooters have their own glass. Seems to me it's the D4 owners who will be upset.
Mike.
-
Image detail is impressive on the 'E'. You would need to be fussy about lens selection though.
Almost feel like selling all my canon glass ??? and put the purchase of a Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZE on hold.
-
Well I'm glad they're showing us those 800 versus 800E examples. Gives me a reason not to jump right in, I have to think about those issues. I was getting so tense there for a few minutes.
But, hey, you sure can see the difference between superb and merely extremely good optics in those examples. With that many megapixels the f numbers might as well just stop at "8."
So have there been any claims about dynamic range? Those deep .jpg shadows are not too shabby looking!
-
Sweet! The game is on.
Pentax needs glass and they aren't showing any signs of it coming soon so they're now on the sidelines.
Canon may announce soon, or not. Either way it'll have to be at a price point that kills everything else they sell.
Switch ? Not until there's a lens like the 17 TSE in Nikons line up.
-
What I don't get is how and why Nikon posts a some of these demo images. Some of them are horrible and show nothing of the camera or in a negative way could even say the camera can't do better on pixel level. (Which I think is not true, because you can see what it can do in some samples) just silly....
When it comes to Canon, I don't think many will start selling their Canon stuff so soon... Or at least it would be stupid. There will be a 30Mp plus camera sooner than many might think.
-
Rob Galbraith describes how the 800E works:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-11674-12304
Rather interesting.
"We don't know why Nikon elected to rework the low-pass filter in the D800E rather than remove it completely or replace it with something else. Whatever the reason, our briefing on the camera made one point clear: the D800E will act as if the filter weren't there at all."
-
Amazing toy! :)
The single feature I'm not found of at all is the battery.
With my "old" (!!!) D300 I never depleted it in a single day of shooting. This new battery is the same found in lesser models, which means, for me, to bring at least two batteries, where in the past (hold on to your seat) I never bought a second EN-EL3e battery.
With more or less 50K pictures taken it's still at its max life capability.
-
With my "old" (!!!) D300 I never depleted it in a single day of shooting. This new battery is the same found in lesser models, which means, for me, to bring at least two batteries, where in the past (hold on to your seat) I never bought a second EN-EL3e battery.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the EN-EL3e has 1500mAh while the EN-EL15 has 1900mAh. This would mean that the newer cameras consume much more energy and if they would still be using the "old" EN-EL3e things would even be worse.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the EN-EL3e has 1500mAh while the EN-EL15 has 1900mAh. This would mean that the newer cameras consume much more energy and if they would still be using the "old" EN-EL3e things would even be worse.
It's possible, for sure.
What can I say is that I now get 1000+ shots per charge. I never tested the average number, but maybe between 1100 and 1400.
It's a step back. Two batteries to charge, two batteries to carry along the camera. Not a huge deal, but still something to remember.
The huge battery life proved to be useful in long night stop motions...
-
Nikon D800 and D800E:
"The images are so big that for the first time in a Nikon DSLR, we've employed [the] USB 3.0 technology," says James Banfield of Nikon ...
This is good news for Apple, because they avoid USB 3.0 on their computers ... If you wish to use this kind of "speed" connection, you will need a computer with a thunderbolt port & converter ... even Apple is not perfect ...
regards, Filip
---------------------------
http://shotworldwide.com
-
The question was asked. "Will the D800 kill medium format"
For me yes.
I was looking closely at the 645D. With a couple of lens was going to be every bit of 20k.
Since I already have the Nikon lenses it's now a very affordable body only purchase.
I cannot wait to shoot the D800 with my 200 f/2.
Will it kill medium format,never. Will it affect sales? You betcha?
-
I'm curious how pixel quality will compare to the magic of the D3X ...
-
I'm curious how pixel quality will compare to the magic of the D3X ...
I don't think you need to wonder much ... the D7000 is basically a cropped version of this sensor.
-
So is this the beginning of the end of medium format?
Medium format digital began with around 6MP sensors..., with cellular phones now having X MP exceeding early DSLRs... then why would there be an end to medium format??? It is not mere pixels. The sensors and image quality are designed for different purposes (base ISO, high ISO capability etc). The cameras and systems themselves are different. In respect to the question it may interest to read of Leaf's history, recent posted elsewhere here on LuLa; http://thedustylenscap.com/2012/02/04/from-science-to-art-the-story-of-leaf/
During history of course, customer base may have changed. So what? I shot Nikon before. Will I buy the D800 and give up medium format? Nope. Why? I have different requirements now. Those who do buy the D800 or are interested in it, ENJOY, it is great news for DSLR users.
Best regards,
Anders
-
I just printed some of the D800 samples and as a D3x owner the choice will be the d800e.
It is a mayor step forward in better microdetail and microcontrast. + silent mode+ 1 pound less weight + video+ little (commander) flash + 6400 asa(?)
-
During history of course, customer base may have changed. So what? I shot Nikon before. Will I buy the D800 and give up medium format? Nope. Why? I have different requirements now. Those who do buy the D800 or are interested in it, ENJOY, it is great news for DSLR users.
Actually it is a great news for photographers for whom the technical quality of images is important. I am not sure how relevant the size of the sensor really is even if there are other reasons to prefer a MF camera as discussed in another thread.
In terms of quality, my view is that, judging from the current samples, the output of the D800E is in the very same ball park as the S2, 645D and P45+, Leaf, H4D40... I am 99% sure that they would be impossible to distinguish at any print size.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Medium format will probably move to CMOS in the future. At that point, the marketing machine will tell us that it is a giant leap forward and that it will definitely beat the "better pixels" of the previous generation. That doesn't negate the need for MF tough, but maybe it will be time to go back to basics and not try to attribute magical properties to those things to some kind of amazing sensors.
There was a need for large and medium format in the era of film, no one disputed that, and that need wasn't based on the properties of films used in those cameras. Why should it be different now?
-
Anders,
I would guess that the D800 sensor will outperform current MF sensors even at low ISO speeds, with greater dynamic range at minimum ISO due to the far lower read noise of current CMOS designs. If so, apart from the inertia of photographers who own gear of a certian brand and format and out of familiarity can work better with it, the longer term future of formats larger than 36x24mm probably relies on two things:
1. Even higher resolutions (serving the needs of an ever smaller proportion of photography)
2. Better lenses, both to keep up with ever higher resolution and with better control of distortion, corner performance, bokeh, etc.
The comparisons I am most curious about are not yet more pixel-peeping studies of resolution and "micro-contrast", but of lens performance, particularly under the challenge of images displayed big and viewed close. And there, I mean bokeh (boke actually) in the proper sense of the _qualities_ of OOF rendering, not just the sheer quantity of blurring: the harshness or otherwise of OOF elements, the presence or absence of annoying bright double lines along OOF lines that go with aperture designs that produce bright circles at the edge of the circle of confusion, and so on.
-
So the 300 dollar question is D800 or D800E. That decision is going to cause a lot of pain if you go for the E version and start seeing moire a lot. Certainly if you want it for landscape ONLY work then it makes sense but if you plan on doing studio work or wedding/portrait also then its a bigger decision.
If moire wasnt going to be an issue on a 36 meg sensor then why offer the aliased version at all.....
-
Looks like Nikon was also struggling with the same question and they decided it is up to customer to decide.
The fact there are two versions shows that moire can be an issue. To what extent it is unclear, but big enough for Nikon not to take any risk.
P.S. I don't believe it means only premium vs standard option (too small price differentiator), but rather professional capabilities (knowledge of moire & handling it) are needed for the expensive one, yet possibly more rewarding by better end results.
So the 300 dollar question is D800 or D800E. That decision is going to cause a lot of pain if you go for the E version and start seeing moire a lot. Certainly if you want it for landscape ONLY work then it makes sense but if you plan on doing studio work or wedding/portrait also then its a bigger decision.
If moire wasnt going to be an issue on a 36 meg sensor then why offer the aliased version at all.....
-
Looks like Nikon was also struggling with the same question and they decided it is up to customer to decide.
The fact there are two versions shows that moire can be an issue. To what extent it is unclear, but big enough for Nikon not to take any risk.
Assuming it works well, the question is how much resolution you loose when applying the moire removing tool.
The samples are encouraging but we will need more, like your typical urban landscape,...
Now moire was never really a huge issue with the ZD so I am currently leaning towards the E version.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I sold my D700 last quarter of 2011 thinking the D800 was right around the corner, I actually sold the camera and 4 pieces of Nikon glass for more than what I paid for them. I had wondered if I needed or even wanted a 24MP camera, now that I know it's 36MP, it's a no-brainer, I preordered mine this morning..!!! :-)
-
Now lets see what canon brings to the table, but I don't know if it would be as impressive.
-
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_01_l.jpg
I took a look at this sample and while the image size, color and tone are impressive I can't help but think this shot looks plastic. I'm sure this file will do good printed at 16x20, but it really seems to lack detail to my eyes. It looks like texture was removed from everything
Don't get me wrong....I'm sure this camera is awesome. I just hope the example posted above was a high iso shot that had noise reduction turned on. I often see the same result with my 5D MKII when shooting at iso 800 and running it through noise reduction software.
-
In terms of quality, my view is that, judging from the current samples, the output of the D800E is in the very same ball park as the S2, 645D and P45+, Leaf, H4D40... I am 99% sure that they would be impossible to distinguish at any print size.
While not all can be seen by JPGs... the D800E is of a different design than S2, 645D and all you mention. Thus there will be differences no matter what, and with benefit to the larger formats, but of course depends on light and subject and more. The JPGs are not bad, but there is no way I can see image quality (low ISO) being better than even the 28MP Leaf which I prior owned. Yet, they are different tools. Looking at the samples I frank believe the image quality from 22MP Leaf Aptus 22 is very easily capable of higher image quality at low ISO, but of course with lesser pixels. DR/NR, for DSLR that is also performed inside the camera in a black box. How well? Actual comparisons will tell later...
Anders,
I would guess that the D800 sensor will outperform current MF sensors even at low ISO speeds, with greater dynamic range at minimum ISO due to the far lower read noise of current CMOS designs. If so, apart from the inertia of photographers who own gear of a certian brand and format and out of familiarity can work better with it, the longer term future of formats larger than 36x24mm probably relies on two things:
1. Even higher resolutions (serving the needs of an ever smaller proportion of photography)
2. Better lenses, both to keep up with ever higher resolution and with better control of distortion, corner performance, bokeh, etc.
Oh dear... D800 outperform current MF sensors even at low ISO speeds... Nope, nope, nope. Doubtful at best, if not impossible. Sample are very far from it (+1 on plastic, lack detail).
It is not only about pixels folks, although the more pixels are part of the equation.
1. Yes more pixels, but also further improvements in image quality. That go for all medium format, DSLRs and cellular phones!
2. Lenses of all current medium format systems more or less already have the better lenses. The more critical will be for DSLR lenses, since the format is smaller.
Above said, it is really good news for DSLR users with the D800 / E, congrats 8)
Best regards,
Anders
-
The big question will be how the existing lineup of Nikon lenses will fair on this body.
Recommendations and opinions of the best choice of lenses up to 200mm would be appreciated.
-
The DR argument in favor of the larger but far noisier CCDs in DMF has been lost long ago: that contest will probably only be worth reopening if and when when a good CMOS sensor is offered in a format larger than 36x24mm. A comment like "if not impossible" seems to be assuming comparable technologies, instead of acknowledging the huge technological lead that Nikon, Sony and Canon have taken in recent years over the Dalsa and Kodak CCD divisions.
The few publicity JPEG's we have seen so far are no basis for IQ judgements, especially went comes to DR: let us wait for comparisons of well-processed raw files. Criticisms like "plasticy" can only relate to how the JPEG conversion was done, not the raw sensor performance; at least when the OLPF filter effect is not involved as with the D800E and the DMF alternatives.
I agree with
"... The more critical will be for DSLR lenses, since the format is smaller." --- Anders_HK
and
"The big question will be how the existing lineup of Nikon lenses will fair on this body." --- David Watson
Of course, it is enough that the best, most expensive primes and maybe a couple of the very best Nikon zooms do well, since primes are what the MF alternatives are offering for the most part.
-
Canon shooters have their own glass. Seems to me it's the D4 owners who will be upset.
Mike.
If you bought a D4 thinking it was not targeted directly at sports and action shooters and was the highest resolution camera Nikon makes , you didn't do your homework regarding the D3X.
Meeting with Nikon's Lindsay Silverman in the weeks prior to the official announcement I asked why a smaller body than the D3 series. "user feedback" was the answer. Most people wanted a smaller than D3 / D4 /1Ds /1D body size. Does that mean a D4X with a higher frame rate and larger buffer isn't in the offing? I didn't bother to ask. If enough demand is there, my guess is it will come.
-
"http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_01_l.jpg
I took a look at this sample and while the image size, color and tone are impressive I can't help but think this shot looks plastic. I'm sure this file will do good printed at 16x20, but it really seems to lack detail to my eyes. It looks like texture was removed from everything"
I just opened the image in Photoshop to see the Camera Data. See the attached screen shot.
At this point we don't know if the photo was shot as a JPEG (and was what compression level, color space, etc.) or as non-compressed, lossly compressed, or lossy compressed 12 bit or 14 bit per channel NEF file, and if it was originally a NEF, how it was processed and what software was used to process it with (although a good bet is that an alpha version of the soon to be release update of Nikon Capture NX2 was used) and what level of JPEG compression (or possibly multiple JPEG compressions were used to prep the file for internet distribution.
For Epson printers: At 360ppi the non-interpolated print size is 20.444 x 13.644 inches, but as been proven to most people's satisfaction the Epsons can do a damn fine job with Luster and gloss papers with files @ 180ppi and that yields a 40.889 x 27.289 inch print - but of course how good the print is will depend on the skills of the person making the print.
If you print at 300 dpi (Canon and I believe HP) you get a 24.533 x 16.373 inch print. With my Canon iPF 6300 imagePROGRAF I feel the bottom limit before start to see printing process artifacts is in the 200-225dpi range.
At 300ppi the
Edit:
Looking at the File Info tabs in PsCS 5 again, according to the info under the Description tab, The file was originally processed in Capture NX 2.3.0 W software
-
Hi,
I don't see the step going from 24 MP to 36 MP as a giant step. It is a 22% increase in linear resolution, exactly corresponding to what we already have in the D7000. So I'd say that it is slightly more demanding on lenses.
The major benefit, as I see it, is that Nikon users now have an economically much more attractive alternative to the D3X and directly competing with Canons offering, the venerable 5DII. The other benefit is that the smaller pixels probably reduce the thickness of the OLP filter. Nikon will also have a non OLP filtered version of the camera. That development should keep everyone happy.
Best regards
Erik
The few publicity JPEG's we have seen so far are no basis for IQ judgements, especially went comes to DR: let us wait for comparisons of well-processed raw files. Criticisms like "plasticy" can only relate to how the JPEG conversion was done, not the raw sensor performance; at least when the OLPF filter effect is not involved as with the D800E and the DMF alternatives.
I agree with
"... The more critical will be for DSLR lenses, since the format is smaller." --- Anders_HK
and
"The big question will be how the existing lineup of Nikon lenses will fair on this body." --- David Watson
Of course, it is enough that the best, most expensive primes and maybe a couple of the very best Nikon zooms do well, since primes are what the MF alternatives are offering for the most part.
-
So is this the beginning of the end of medium format?
No.
I'm pretty sure that medium format sensors with more than 80MP area already under development, if not cameras using them.
I'd like to rant here about the purported relationship between pixel size and image quality, especially given the recent story by Mark Dubovonoy but there's already been enough said about that bit of fiction. I'll just say that the IQ180's sensor has a pixel size smaller than that of the 5D Mark II and thus also the 1DX, so clearly both of those cameras must therefore have higher signal to noise than the IQ180 and so on.
There's a constant push for "better" and "more" and this will continue to drive sensor development for the foreseeable future because if you don't then the guy next door will. And why will he? Because it is both a marketing advantage and because customers want more.
A medium format sensor using the same pixel density as the Nikon D800 would be 91MP.
-
I've been asking around and have looked at many review sites (FM, photozone, SLRgear included). The one's I've come up with are 14-24 2.8, AF-S 50 [1.4 or 1.8], AF-S 85 1.4, 70-200 2.8 II VR, and the 200 f2. I have shot canon for 5 years and have pre-ordered a D800e. Canon has two months to release a compelling alternative for me otherwise I think I'll try Nikon. I primarily use a GH2 for day to day now anyway. 5D2 stays in the bag an awful lot.
I'll miss three lenses the most. 24 TS-e, 100 2.8 IS, 70-200 2.8 II IS.
While I've been an avid reader of this site for years, it's apparently my first post.
Regards,
Justin
The big question will be how the existing lineup of Nikon lenses will fair on this body.
Recommendations and opinions of the best choice of lenses up to 200mm would be appreciated.
-
Each camera comes with a coupon for a free box of Adobe Healing Brush Tools. Because judging from those samples, portrait photographers are going to need them. The mouse clicking in head-shot salons will be deafening.
Would love to see some examples shot with Zeiss optics but I will probably have to wait for that.
-
Each camera comes with a coupon for a free box of Adobe Healing Brush Tools. Because judging from those samples, portrait photographers are going to need them. The mouse clicking in head-shot salons will be deafening.
You should see what even models with pro makeup look like using MF backs, it ain't pretty at 100%....
-
A medium format sensor using the same pixel density as the Nikon D800 would be 91MP.
so 3x36 is 108 if they could stitch 3 D800 sensors together and build a back for 3x the price of a D800 then i'll certainly give it a lot of thought ;D
-
Hi,
I don't think so...
1) I don't think that you can buy D4, yet, so there are probably no D4 owners
2) The D800 spec were known for a very long time (like six moths) so I'd say that the D800 comes as a surprise to no one
My take is really that both Nikon and Canon has found out that most landscape and studio shooters prefer smaller cameras than the 1D and D# series. So the new top models are high frame rate, high ISO and medium resolution.
Obviously, the D800 will kill of the D3X. My guess is that we either won't see a D3X replacement or that it will have 50 MP. Sony has a well performing APS-C sensor in the NEX-7 and it would scale well to FX format.
Best regards
Erik
Canon shooters have their own glass. Seems to me it's the D4 owners who will be upset.
Mike.
-
Seems to me it's the D4 owners who will be upset.
In about the same way that the announcement of a hot new Ford pickup would make people regret their recent purchases of Mustangs: these two models have very different strengths and weaknesses. (Not that it affects me directly: photographically, I am more of a Mini driver, looking forward to the news from Olympus tomorrow.)
-
Oh dear... D800 outperform current MF sensors even at low ISO speeds... Nope, nope, nope. Doubtful at best, if not impossible. Sample are very far from it (+1 on plastic, lack detail).
I am not sure what example you are basing you plastic look comment on, but for what it is worth the library image linked to above was shot with the D800, not with the D800E.
As far as lack of detail goes, does it also apply to this image?
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample02/img_06_l.jpg
In particular check out the top of the trees in the foreground, this is where the focus is critical (probably focused with live view) and with extremely fine detail. I find this remarkable even if there are some halos apparent in some parts of the image (mostly the strongly back lit left part). The look is of course different from that of AA filtered images, but the micro detail is identical to what I have seen from most backs, with perhaps a bit less artifacts in the D800 image.
Anyway, I'll probably get the D800E and will be interested in a shoot out with a MF back owner based in Tokyo, just for fun. ;D I would only make sense that a 7 times more expensive S2 wins... but I am pretty sure we will see a draw.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample02/img_04_l.jpg
Photographer: Toshiya Hagihara
I wonder if Nikon and Toshiya Hagihara have spotted the dragonfly wings perched on the branch ;D
-
As another poster said, the images shown by nikon as samples of the D800 look awful at 1:1. This image for example that comes form the D800E does not look much better at 1:1 in terms of actual pixel quality than the iphone 4s on a good day: http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample02/img_07_l.jpg
I don't believe the camera is actually that bad and would like to see samples that use proper technique (tripod, proper processing, etc). Some of the images have obvious halos around things like branches as well. Here is an example: http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample02/img_06_l.jpg
Nikon should take those down and update them with proper files because this is quite embarrassing for a 36mp sensor.
-
My current camera, a D300, is due for a replacement. Considering that my computer is just barely keeping up with the output from my D300, a new laptop and hard drives would accompany a D800 purchase for me. The sticker price of a D4 isn't looking bad at all!
-
It's pretty exciting for me. I've been fighting with the fact that the Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED is going for $3000+ on the used market and I've been experiencing a personal dilemma over continuing to shoot film now that I want to phase out my darkroom work. Not to mention nobody locally does E6 any more, Kodak discontinued 160VC on me, and the Class 11 at Kodak has everything up in the air for Kodak color-neg. A 36MP sensor without a bayer filter is pretty exciting stuff, even if it's "only" 35mm in size and could be a solution for me for 3+ years.
The challenge I see is the lens lineup from Nikon. I couldn't purchase any of their wide-angle lenses for use with this sensor and have confidence in my purchases. The 35mm 1.4 looks pretty good but other than that I'd be left with the Zeiss 21mm and the Zeiss 35mm for lenses that resolve well enough for this sensor. I'm not a fan of their out-dated perspective control lens. If Canon were to do something similar and release a 36MP camera (like the old rumors said they would) then I'd have a lot more confidence in knowing there are some good wide angle primes from Canon, some good lenses from Zeiss and the 17mm and 24mm II TS-E lenses are beauties that could mesh well with a high resolution sensor.
Either way I've listed my Mamiya 7II for sale and may have it sold before I go to bed tonight. That money's earmarked for some sort of digital solution that I've been pondering over for a while.
-
I just made some 43 inch high test strips from a few of those .jpg samples. Very sweet, about 3/4 of the nit-picking objections I could make have to do with the optics or imprecise focus rather than the resolution.
The only print that I would call damned-near-perfect is the geisha shot, which just goes to show that we are getting into cameras that require excellent technique. Say sayonara to hand holding, because in addition to motion blur, drifting even an inch off-focus can now make a difference when close in. Optical edge aberrations are the main on-print objection elsewhere.
But even ignoring optical issues it's pretty clear that the high res sensor does bring a lot to print quality especially in terms of smoothness. To my mind that's the real advantage of big sensors. Even completely out-of-focus areas look better when they read as being smooth and you can really see it on most of those samples. Although I must say that in one image the rather extreme aberrations at the extreme corners clearly suffer greatly from being seen in high resolution on a print, and would need to be cropped or painted out.
For most of those images it wouldn't take too much post processing at all to create exhibition quality 30x45's on smooth paper.
edit...and zooms in general are starting to look rather unworthy of such sensors. It's prime-time for DSLR's.
PS are there any RAW images out there? And software updates to process them?
-
Good news,however I'll be keeping my D3x for a bit longer.
I don't need bigger files and like the body shape of the D3x.
I also do believe that Nikon will release a D4x in the near future, I'll make up my mind then.
Cheers,
Willem.
-
I am not sure what example you are basing you plastic look comment on, but for what it is worth the library image linked to above was shot with the D800, not with the D800E.
As far as lack of detail goes, does it also apply to this image?
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample02/img_06_l.jpg
In particular check out the top of the trees in the foreground, this is where the focus is critical (probably focused with live view) and with extremely fine detail. I find this remarkable. The look is of course different from that of AA filtered images, but the micro detail is identical to what I have seen from most backs, with perhaps a bit less artifacts in the D800 image.
Lots of what looks to be demosaiced hot pixels though. Here's one example but there are many all over the place.
-
Lots of what looks to be demosaiced hot pixels though. Here's one example but there are many all over the place.
Yep but it is hard to tell. There is frost all over the place, that could be it also.
I don't see too many of those on the other samples.
Anyways, we all know that AA filter less images are bound to have many artifacts in them, that has been the case with MF images also and the back owners have mostly not found these to be actual issues.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCfP-2B7Kng
-
To date, Canon have saved their best for the 1 series and pretty much killed every lesser model SLR. They are a bigger company, their marketing department probably demands it, they can afford to make inferior spec'd parts for each lower series camera to separate the line. Even as this site has pointed out switching software off that the marketeers say is not what the lesser model buyer wants or needs.
Nikon being such a poor small company can only afford to give it's SLR Customers the best. Oh poor Nikon, giving those poor Nikon buyers more than they need. I bet the Marketing department at Nikon is under staffed. They must ignore each other at Nikon and just listen to the Customers. Shame on you Nikon. :P
-
0
The challenge I see is the lens lineup from Nikon. I couldn't purchase any of their wide-angle lenses for use with this sensor and have confidence in my purchases.
Are you including the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8g in that list? Look at the D800 sample shot in the library, for example. This lens is sharp from corner to corner, even wide open. I've only seen one lens that even comes close to it.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html
-
Are you including the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8g in that list? Look at the D800 sample shot in the library, for example. This lens is sharp from corner to corner, even wide open. I've only seen one lens that even comes close to it.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html
Indeed, the 14-24 f2.8 will have zero problem with the D800. It was designed from scratch to be able to deal with this level of resolution down to the very corners. This lens is without doubt one of the strongest assets of the Nikon system and Canon has not been able to replicate it yet more than 4 years after its release. Many EOS users are going through the trouble of using an F mount adapter so as to be able to shoot with the 14-24 f2.8.
The only wide angle lens coming close is the Zeiss 21mm f2.8. For the rest the 14-24 f2.8 is in a class of its own. It does cover the 35 mm format far better than the fixed focal length Hassy and Phaseone 28mm f4.0 cover their respective formats. I don't know about the Pentax and Leica equivalents that are said to be excellent, but of course are far from being as wide and are fixed focal lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
......As far as lack of detail goes, does it also apply to this image?
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample02/img_06_l.jpg
.......
........I don't believe the camera is actually that bad and would like to see samples that use proper technique (tripod, proper processing, etc). Some of the images have obvious halos around things like branches as well. Here is an example: http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample02/img_06_l.jpg
Nikon should take those down and update them with proper files because this is quite embarrassing for a 36mp sensor.
Same photos, different conclusions. Interesting.
-
Same photos, different conclusions. Interesting.
I do agree that some of the branches do have a halo around them, but still think that the resolving of fine details is excellent.
The halo is most present in the strongly back lit areas left of the center of the image, you have a lot less to the right. I feel that the way to sharpen these AA filter less images is probably different.
I would be interesting to see how well Capture one pro is going to perform with D800E files, hoping that Phaseone doesn't consider the D800 as a competitor like they do with the Pentax 645. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There seems to be a lack of micro contrast in the images and one image seems to show asymmetric sharpness. Rather blury on the left.
It's difficult to say whether the lack of micro contrast is the lens used or the raw development. The images show good resolution in the central area.
-
Indeed, the 14-24 f2.8 will have zero problem with the D800. It was designed from scratch to be able to deal with this level of resolution down to the very corners. This lens is without doubt one of the strongest assets of the Nikon system and Canon has not been able to replicate it yet more than 4 years after its release. Many EOS users are going through the trouble of using an F mount adapter so as to be able to shoot with the 14-24 f2.8.
The only wide angle lens coming close is the Zeiss 21mm f2.8. For the rest the 14-24 f2.8 is in a class of its own. It does cover the 35 mm format far better than the fixed focal length Hassy and Phaseone 28mm f4.0 cover their respective formats. I don't know about the Pentax and Leica equivalents that are said to be excellent, but of course are far from being as wide and are fixed focal lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think I've mentioned a few times, the quality of this Nikkor 14-24/2.8 is the main reason why I bought a Nikon D700, 2 or 3 years, ago despite being a long-time Canon user. I later bought a D7000 with 24-120/F4 zoom, so these two cameras and lenses are now what I use for most of my photography. However, when I need a long telephoto lens, I'll still pick up my Canon 50D with 100-400/F5.6 IS zoom.
For me, the D800E will be a good replacement for both of these Nikon cameras. Because the pixel density of the D800 is close to that of the D7000, the D7000 will have no crop-factor advantage and will therefore be basically redundant, apart from those occasions when it's advantageous to carry two cameras with lenses attached in order to capture the fleeting moment which doesn't wait for one to change lenses.
-
I do agree that some of the branches do have a halo around them, but still think that the resolving of fine details is excellent.
The halo is most present in the strongly back lit areas left of the center of the image, you have a lot less to the right. I feel that the way to sharpen these AA filter less images is probably different.
I would be interesting to see how well Capture one pro is going to perform with D800E files, hoping that Phaseone doesn't consider the D800 as a competitor like they do with the Pentax 645. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
At the risk of starting a flame war, I put together this image that compares the Pentax 645D vs the samples Nikon posted. http://blog.dominik.ca/2012/02/07/nikon-d800e-vs-pentax-645d/ (http://blog.dominik.ca/2012/02/07/nikon-d800e-vs-pentax-645d/)
It seems that Lloyd Chambers observed the same issues I have when looking at the Nikon samples. http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120207_8-NikonD800-Samples.html (http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120207_8-NikonD800-Samples.html)
I'm also positive that I can get more detail from the Pentax by using a better tripod and more careful technique. The longer exposures on the Pentax frames should have put it at an disadvantage against the Nikon.
-
At the risk of starting a flame war, I put together this image that compares the Pentax 645D vs the samples Nikon posted. http://blog.dominik.ca/2012/02/07/nikon-d800e-vs-pentax-645d/ (http://blog.dominik.ca/2012/02/07/nikon-d800e-vs-pentax-645d/)
It seems that Lloyd Chambers observed the same issues I have when looking at the Nikon samples. http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120207_8-NikonD800-Samples.html (http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120207_8-NikonD800-Samples.html)
I'm also positive that I can get more detail from the Pentax by using a better tripod and more careful technique. The longer exposures on the Pentax frames should have put it at an disadvantage against the Nikon.
The Pentax images are for such much better.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think it is a bit early to come to any conclusions based on Nikon JPEG samples, I would not be surprised if less-than-perfect technique was employed during shooting, and JPEG compression reduces microcontrast.
However it would be a total disaster for the (lower res) medium format cameras if they do not show an significant edge, costing many times more and being less versatile. Sony's sensors have shown to perform very well, so I'm sure medium format at similar resolution won't have much of an edge concerning the sensor. The value of having larger area is often greatly exaggerated - at base ISO photon shot noise is not a problem for 24x36, the difference up to say 44x33 (typical size of entry level medium format) is negligible.
The advantage of medium format will instead be on the lens side I think, where you can have larger pixels for the same resolution and thus stress the resolving power of the lenses less.
At 36 megapixels it will be very evident which lenses that are sharp and which are not. Which are sharp and which are not will depend very much on which optical designs that are possible for a specific focal length, plus how well executed they are of course. Some focal lengths will perform very well, while others will not. 50, 85 mm will be good, 70-200 zoom will be good. Ultra wide lenses will be poor. I'm more familiar with Canon lens performance though, Nikon are better than Canon on some focal lengths and vice versa.
-
At 36 megapixels it will be very evident which lenses that are sharp and which are not. Which are sharp and which are not will depend very much on which optical designs that are possible for a specific focal length, plus how well executed they are of course. Some focal lengths will perform very well, while others will not. 50, 85 mm will be good, 70-200 zoom will be good. Ultra wide lenses will be poor.
Indeed. I am not too worried, the Zeiss ZF 100 f2.0 and 50 f2.0 I have been using should hopefully be up to the task. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I seem to remember less than stellar results in Nikon's photos at the launch of the D700. I was less than impressed. And then people started shooting with the camera, et voila! decent images. I'll defer judgement until I've seen what we get from other sources. Personally, I'm just hoping the market now gets (relatively) flooded with D3x bodies, & I can pick one up cheap(ish).
-
At the risk of starting a flame war, I put together this image that compares the Pentax 645D vs the samples Nikon posted. http://blog.dominik.ca/2012/02/07/nikon-d800e-vs-pentax-645d/ (http://blog.dominik.ca/2012/02/07/nikon-d800e-vs-pentax-645d/)
It seems that Lloyd Chambers observed the same issues I have when looking at the Nikon samples. http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120207_8-NikonD800-Samples.html (http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120207_8-NikonD800-Samples.html)
I'm also positive that I can get more detail from the Pentax by using a better tripod and more careful technique. The longer exposures on the Pentax frames should have put it at an disadvantage against the Nikon.
Thanks for the comparison. Your shots also illustrate just how good the 120mm is (and that the new 55 is not quite in the same league).
Tom
-
Very slight traces of banding I see at the left over the curtain and under the Fuji lens. Very clean for 25,600.
here:
http://mansurovs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Nikon-D800-High-ISO-Sample-4.jpg
-
[Aside to deejjjaaaa: Chris Sanderson is right that this topic belongs here, not in the thread he closed.]
The question is why the D800E still has the two somewhat pricy slabs of special glass that do OLPF filtering, but oriented so that the filtering effect does not happen.
My guess is based on this fact: if they were removed, leaving a thinner layer of glass in front of the sensor and more air, the optical path length (and light travel time) would be shorter due to the lower refractive index of air, and this would move the focal point. Even a flat slab of glass in the path of light moves the focus. Also, the optical elements sandwiched between the two parts of the OLPF (I guess IR cut filter, as Imaging Resource also does) would have to move closer to the sensor, unless Nikon could put an air gap in there, again changing the optics. So for Nikon to simply leave out the OLPF is the far smaller number of cameras that it is likely to sell in the "more resolution, more aliasing" version E, it would have to either move the viewfinder screen, or the reflex mirror, or the sensor, to restore matching between the optical path to the sensor and the optical path to the VF screen. Maybe all that redesign and a second slightly different fabrication setup would cost more than leaving in the two slabs of special OLPF glass.
Illustration from Nikon via Imaging Resource:
(http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/zd800e_lpf1000.jpg)
-
This is all very well, but how many photographers have lenses capable of matching the resolution of the camera. Throw out your zooms now. Only a very few Nikon prime lenses will do the job.
Frankly, if you really need that sort of resolution you are probably better off with medium format. I think this camera will appeal primarily to those who are endlessly chasing bigger and bigger numbers, mainly for the sake of it.
As for some of the comments about it hurting Canon, how many people will ditch their system just for these numbers. Again, probably only the number chasers (do those people actually use cameras or just talk about them?).
-
This is all very well, but how many photographers have lenses capable of matching the resolution of the camera. Throw out your zooms now. Only a very few Nikon prime lenses will do the job.
Frankly, if you really need that sort of resolution you are probably better off with medium format.
Firstly, a $3000 high resolution SLR is clearly only intended for a small group of photographers, who are likely to either own good sharp Nikon lenses, or be willing to buy some. And when you consider DMF as an alternative, note that this $3000 camera leaves about $7,000 or more spare to help buy the needed Nikon lenses compared to even entry-level DMF pricing.
Secondly, it seems that some Nikon zooms are also up to the task, but when you approach MF resolution territory, you might have to accept the "MF lifestyle" of using mostly prime lenses.
Thirdly, lens resolution does not end suddenly at some limit in lines per mm [l/mm], so what happens when sensor resolution increases "too much" is just that the overall resolution goes up less than the sensor alone would indicate, buy you still get more resolution in l/mm or better contrast at equal l/mm, than with the same lens and a lower-resolution sensor. This point can be lost on people who only compare alternatives with different pixel counts at 100% pixels on-screen rather than under equal viewing conditions, meaning viewing equal sized images from equal distance.
-
And when you consider DMF as an alternative, note that this $3000 camera leaves about $7,000 or more spare to help buy the needed Nikon lenses compared to even entry-level DMF pricing.
Exactly. $7000 is a lot of money. Think of all the lenses one could get for $7000? Or all the travel? Or even a nice 24 inch printer with cash to spare?
-
This is all very well, but how many photographers have lenses capable of matching the resolution of the camera. Throw out your zooms now. Only a very few Nikon prime lenses will do the job.
Frankly, if you really need that sort of resolution you are probably better off with medium format. I think this camera will appeal primarily to those who are endlessly chasing bigger and bigger numbers, mainly for the sake of it...
I think you are right… for now
My idea is that the sensor itself and camera could be very good.
So then you only need the right glass. ..expensive lenses.
At the moment only the teleprimes are very expensive.. and very good.
They are made because there is a market for them. This market will grow quickly to normal and wide-angle lenses as soon as MDF people are interested in using 35mm cameras. I am sure this interest is there.
Already Nikon and Canon are producing new high quality lenses to feed that need and it is only the start. If not, we have Zeiss et al to fill that gap.
-
This camera together with Zeiss primes must be a real killer.
I'm curious on the first test shots of this kind.
But for me it also appears clear, that with these extreme resolutions the limits of the format will soonish be reached:
1.) You'll need expensive first class lenses to feed the sensor.
2.) You'll need to keep the F-Stop low enough since diffraction comes in sooner (with a pixel pitch of 4.88µ the Airydisk will fully cover a sensel at about F 5.0, at F 11.0 four sensels will fully be covered by the Airy disc)
3.) You'll need to be even more consequent in your shooting technique, use tripod, MUP and so on.
If one of 1-3 is not met it is very likely you're just going to produce data junk on your Harddisk which contains 50-75% mush.
-
This is all very well, but how many photographers have lenses capable of matching the resolution of the camera. Throw out your zooms now. Only a very few Nikon prime lenses will do the job.
Frankly, if you really need that sort of resolution you are probably better off with medium format. I think this camera will appeal primarily to those who are endlessly chasing bigger and bigger numbers, mainly for the sake of it.
if you want to hand clients 100meg tiffs (or be able to crop to 60) and shoot in poor light at 400-800asa, shoot handheld and focus accurately then you are not better off with medium format.
there are lenses out there that are more than a match for this kind of sensor. not a nikon user but the zeiss 50mm makro-planar f2 will be on my shopping list when canon bring out something similar, the 17,24 and 90 tse are all very good and the 70-200. the new 24-70 we don't know but i presume it's been updated to have the resolving power. i'm sure nikon have some good lenses? the short zoom is meant to be fantastic.
a pointless upgrade for the Flickr merchants and lurid HDR fans but for working photographers who need the file size i think £2k (vat off) is an absolute bargain.
-
You should see what even models with pro makeup look like using MF backs, it ain't pretty at 100%....
Yes, I am going to make my female models shave just 20 minutes before the shoot! 8)
I pre-ordered the 800E. I am a lifetime Canon user. I too hope they announce the 5D3 before the 800E ships. I have a lot of glass I really like and don't feel like swapping out. I will especially miss:
* 85 1.2
* 45 tilt/shift
*17 tilt/shift
* 24-70 II just coming out (MTF looks great compared to teh very good version I)
But the 5D2 has been around for 3 years and is still a solid camera. So at least these bodies will stick around for a while and make the switch worth the trouble. (I only have a 40D right now for pesonal reasons and need a full frame again by April.)
Maybe though Canon is going to announced the 40MP rumoured camera? Those 3 new lenses may be a precursor?
-
I think it is worth mentioning that many of the sample shots out there were taken between July and September of 2011. One linked above was the 14-24 zoom 15mm at f/8.0
Many companies will put an embargo on early images from an alpha camera. While Nikon is apparently comfortable with those images, firmware and other software tweaks are often underway up to and even past the first shipment date.
The pixel size is not that much different than that of MFDBs like the IQ180. There is no reason to expect much less than the kind of results that sensor is capable of. The CMOS should give it a bit of an edge over some of the MF CCD backs, as should the newer design and more up to date software (than some older backs.)
There are a few folks around who were able to tweak their tools and techniques to get great quality out of the otherwise disappointing Kodak 14N.
I was quite happy with the majority of my Canon 1DsII images at 18"x27", 180dpi native without rezzing up. I sold all of my MF 645 and 6x7 film equipment after I got the 1DsII. I hope that the 27"x 40" 200-210 dpi images of the 800E can tweak out a bit more quality without the AA filter.
I print everything at a minimum size of 20"x30". For larger images I have been using 4x5 film. I have 2 24" printers and a 44". (Just to answer the "nobody is going to change systems, except those that don't actually make pictures" comments.)
-
the new (Canon) 24-70 we don't know but i presume it's been updated to have the resolving power
The MTF graphs look pretty impressive. I know I relied on my 24-70 for about 70% of my fashion work and really enjoyed it. The new lens looks like it should be steller.
I am hoping that they updated the 3 lenses they just released in anticipation of a new high MP camera?
-
After switching back and forth between the posted pictures from the D800 and the Pentax 645, I have to honestly say that I don't see much advantage at all for the Pentax. It depends on where on the images you look, it seems to me. Parts of the Pentax image are quite soft, although I suppose some of that could be motion blur, given the slow speeds at which the Pentax images were shot. (Look at the broken birch trees at the bottom of the shot on the far right.)
I'm certainly not an expert in this, but wouldn't a shot with lot of various shades of green be an advantage over a shot that's mostly black, grey and white, when looking for edges? (Aren't greens given more weight by sensors?)
I think the three most modern Nikon f2.8 zooms will handle this sensor quite nicely, and a number of primes will too, without having to go to Zeiss.
-
I think it is worth mentioning that many of the sample shots out there were taken between July and September of 2011. One linked above was the 14-24 zoom 15mm at f/8.0
At least the first snowy landscape looks like it was shot no later than early June from the typical spring snow condition in the distance but I would actually tend think it was shot even earlier since there is fresh snow on the trees (which should mean no later than early May, probably April).
I could be wrong and this could be fall 2011, but I would be surprised if that were the case.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Interesting.
For the 800E, the first 4 of 6 images have EXIF data from September 2011. The last two images with snow have EXIF data from the same day in December 2011.
Some of the 800 images are dated all of the way back to July.
Still Rob Galbraith said he was not allowed to post any images because the firmware was not finalized.
I was one of those who pre-ordered the Kodak 14N the day that was announced. As we waited for samples and release we started to see increasing numbers of oddities with it's images, which was a shame. I had to cancel my pre-order, as did many others. I know some folks here were able to make a go of it, I think Rainer? But Kodak kept tweaking firmware to try to fix issues over the next 2 years, partly du to the lack of an AA filter. But taht was at lower resolution.
I don't think we have that in this case at all. Everything looks mostly solid so far. But as small glitches are discovered through the Alpha and Beta testors, and updated firmwares make their through testing and into production, we may see images a bit better than what we have seen so far.
I don't think either Canon or Nikon have ever missed too far on core image quality or functionality, just a few smaller hiccups that I recall.
FWIW, there is an example of moire patterns in the 800E taht are not apparent on the 800 on Nikons site (in the kimono image):
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/features01.htm#a12
They also have a comparison of the detail in the stone walkway between the 800 and 800E. It is not clear how agressively they sharpened the 800 image (if at all) to try to compensate. I know Canon has recommended some very aggressive sharpening in the 1 series in the past. This isn't direct, but somone else quoting a white paper:
"There is a Canon white paper that recommends USM settings of 0.3, 300, 0 to restore the sharpness that was lost in the filter"
-
Interesting.
For the 800E, the first 4 of 6 images have EXIF data from September 2011. The last two images with snow have EXIF data from the same day in December 2011.
I could be wrong then.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What I don't get is how and why Nikon posts a some of these demo images. Some of them are horrible and show nothing of the camera or in a negative way could even say the camera can't do better on pixel level. (Which I think is not true, because you can see what it can do in some samples) just silly....
When it comes to Canon, I don't think many will start selling their Canon stuff so soon... Or at least it would be stupid. There will be a 30Mp plus camera sooner than many might think.
Really? I'm not sure anymore. 1Ds users don't feel the X is a real upgrade, if Canon made the 5d 30+mp I think Ds users would buy that and rob the X of sales.The X is touted as a D & Ds upgrade.
I don't think Nikon will dump the D3X customers in the hope they buy a D4, a new D3X will most likely provide Canon Ds users with an upgrade they wanted. Not many of us D/Ds users are exactly in love with the cameras, we have learnt to live with them, and I've earned good money with it, but it has never been the camera I thought it could or should of been.
I can't see a new 5D having video output like the new Nikons, that would make the increasingly looking pointless 300c even more pointless. Canon look to be more worried about treading on other Canon toes than they do about the competition.
Nikon is ticking more boxes for me. I could spend £5k on Nikon 800 and lenses to get a basic system up and running alongside my Canon, that is not a lot of money in the digital grand scheme.
Kevin.
-
Really? I'm not sure anymore. 1Ds users don't feel the X is a real upgrade, if Canon made the 5d 30+mp I think Ds users would buy that and rob the X of sales.The X is touted as a D & Ds upgrade.
I don't think 5D mark 3 or whatever it will be called will be the high res camera, it will more likely be a 20-22 mpix with good auto-focus and decent speed. Probably a bit faster than D800, possibly a bit better at high ISO, but lower resolution. An all-around camera for those that cannot afford 1DX.
Some may have forgot, but Canon has actually announced in November that there is a 4K video DSLR in development, "the new camera will be ideally suited for cinematographic and other digital high-resolution production applications". Canon's own picture of the camera showed a pro body (integrated battery grip). This could be a high megapixel sensor used in binned mode when shooting video. Binned 4:1 would yield about 40 megapixels.
-
Given the high number of pixels in the D800, I think there is still room for a D700 variant with a higher-rated sensor, say around the 18 MP range, with the new Expeed 3 engine, but otherwise as the D700 is now.
-
At this point I believe the new D800(e) is the new D3x.
I don't think Nikon will dump the D3X customers in the hope they buy a D4, a new D3X will most likely provide Canon Ds users with an upgrade they wanted.
-
A higher resolution Canon "5D Mk III", of say 30-40MP would not steal many sales from the 1DX, because the dominant market for the latter is driven by its high speed performance (frame rate, AF, ISO) performance. The strategy of avoiding cannibalization by not offering a popular new product option is the fallacy that bought Kodak down ["no digital, it will steal from our film sales"], and hurt Xerox ["the computers with a mouse and GUI, email and laser printer developed at PARC will steal from our photocopier revenues"]. If you do not "eat your own", the competition will. Nikon is doing a wise thing, offering the D800 and D4 with clear advantages over each other, serving different use cases.
That leaves the question of whether Nikon or Canon will offer a third variant: their lower resolution 36x24mm sensor in a lower spec., lower speed body, akin to the D700. I suspect and hope not: people spending about $3000 on a camera body should learn that a higher pixel count image converts nicely to an image of lower resolution, reduced noise, and improved DR. You cannot however convert in the other direction, adding resolution that is not there.
-
I just pre-ordered the E model; am selling a piece of Leica glass I don't use to finance it so the purchase is a near wash. I use NX2 in addition to PS5 so it should work out, moire-wise. I'd have not thought, a few months ago, that my D3x might become a backup body (though I'll continue using the big camera underwater as I've an Aquatica housing for it and am in no rush to buy a new one.) Beware the technology merry-go-round...
I have the 14-24/2.8 which will get a lot of use on the new body. In the prime department, there's the 50/1.4, the 85/1.4, and the new 105/2.8 macro VR to pair with it. We'll see how the 24-70/2.8 fares- that's been my go-to lens on a D700 body and I hope it works well on the D800E. I've not used that lens much on the D3x; shooting underwater I use the 16mm/2.8 FE and the 105 pretty exclusively.
Hoping to receive the camera in early May but don't know where I am in B&H's queue.
-
Really? I'm not sure anymore. 1Ds users don't feel the X is a real upgrade, if Canon made the 5d 30+mp I think Ds users would buy that and rob the X of sales.The X is touted as a D & Ds upgrade.
I don't think Nikon will dump the D3X customers in the hope they buy a D4, a new D3X will most likely provide Canon Ds users with an upgrade they wanted. Not many of us D/Ds users are exactly in love with the cameras, we have learnt to live with them, and I've earned good money with it, but it has never been the camera I thought it could or should of been.
I can't see a new 5D having video output like the new Nikons, that would make the increasingly looking pointless 300c even more pointless. Canon look to be more worried about treading on other Canon toes than they do about the competition.
Nikon is ticking more boxes for me. I could spend £5k on Nikon 800 and lenses to get a basic system up and running alongside my Canon, that is not a lot of money in the digital grand scheme.
Kevin.
I think what has happened is now quite clear. It started with the Sony A900 and Canon 5D mkII. These full frame cameras appealed to a lot of photographers and to such a degree that the market for D3X and 1Ds mkIII cameras basically vanished.
What I see is that Nikon has realized this and the D800 is the replacement for the D3X. Canon said the 1DX is the replacement for the 1D and the 1Ds lines, but I don't believe this is really the truth. A 5D mkII followon equivalent to the D800 will de facto be the 1Ds followon. In order to compete with Nikon a decent if not the same AF system from the 1DX and dual memory cards and weather sealing is needed. And a resolution similar. It looks to me as the D800 is basically a D7000 sensor scaled to full frame. If Canon did the same, scaling the 18MP APS-C sensor (improved of course with better DR) to full frame and a 7D type body with enhancements we would have a 46MP Canon hirez camera. Probably this would be a 4-5fps camera. It would not compete with the 1DX really.
Btw. I have a 1Ds mkIII and didn't expect 4 years ago that the 5D mkII came with basically the same sensor and better live view etc. and I guess recent buyers of the D3X didn't expect this is be soon rendered almost worthless...well so it is.
-
... That leaves the question of whether Nikon or Canon will offer a third variant: their lower resolution 36x24mm sensor in a lower spec., lower speed body, akin to the D700. I suspect and hope not: people spending about $3000 on a camera body should learn that a higher pixel count image converts nicely to an image of lower resolution, reduced noise, and improved DR. You cannot however convert in the other direction, adding resolution that is not there.
But a lower resolution sensor, à la that used in the new D4, in a D700 form, might make some considerable sense.
-
But a lower resolution sensor, à la that used in the new D4, in a D700 form, might make some considerable sense.
Maybe; in particular if it could offer a higher frame rate than the D800's 4fps while staying well below the D4's price --- and that seems doable. But as far as IQ advantages at the lower resolution (still 16MP!), that mostly depends on how D4 sensor IQ compares to results from the D800 processed down to the same resolution. Which by the way, could involve converting down to a three color per pixel format like JPEG at a lower pixel count than that of the Bayer CFA output of the lower resolution body: an 8MP JPEG conversion from the D800 should roughly match the resolution given by the 16MP D4, by the usual "two Bayer pixels = one full RGB pixel" rule of thumb. Do you remember how good 6MP images from the Kodak 14N looked, despite the concerns about noise in its full resolution output?
-
But a lower resolution sensor, à la that used in the new D4, in a D700 form, might make some considerable sense.
It would probably be a very low cost development for Nikon.
- No extra design,
- Very little extra validation,
- Very little extra production equipment needed.
We could expect it to sell at the same price point as the D800. The only question, how would they call it?... how about D800H? ;D
A combo made up of a D800E + D800H would be any photographer's dream IMHO.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But a lower resolution sensor, à la that used in the new D4, in a D700 form, might make some considerable sense.
Not from the Nikon standpoint. Where is the competition?
It would ruin the D4 sales.
If it will come it will be later than 1 year from now.
-
Not from the Nikon standpoint. Where is the competition?
It would ruin the D4 sales.
Maybe not if it is sufficiently differentiated from the real key selling points of the D4 its very high frame rate and AF capabilities, and maybe the integrated vertical grip, extremely rugged construction. That would mean finding a niche between 4fps of the D800 and the 10 or 11 fps of the D4.
Nikon did do this before with the D3/D700.
But I tend to think that two models, D4 and D800, is enough in this relative low volume sector compared to DX format: the extra sales won by adding more models to come slightly closer to the perfect camera for more customers have to be weighed against the extra costs. Look at how Apple keeps iPhone profits high in part by targeting a few models at a few high volume, high profit sectors, not trying to meet the desires of every single smart phone buyer, and accepting that some customers will this be lost to other brands.
-
They should make a mirrorless FF capable of M-Mount lenses with life view and microlenses.
Maybe next X-mas ? ;)
I wonder where they make their money - bodies or glass?
-
They should make a mirrorless FF capable of M-Mount lenses with life view and microlenses.
Maybe next X-mas ? ;)
I wonder where they make their money - bodies or glass?
The success of the NEX must not have remained un-noticed at Nikon.
It should be very clear by now that the 1 series was never intended to compete with the NEX, it was targeting the lifestyle shooters who have been buying 4/3 cameras.
The obvious segment to target now is compact FF cameras with super high low light image quality and blasing fast AF, probably EVF.
Now the options for Nikon are:
- Release the D800H I mentioned above (still possible and in fact likely late 2012, early 2013). This makes a lot of sense at it enables them to amortize the cost of the D4 sensor development on a much larger series,
- Follow Pentax with a mirror-less camera designed to use F mount lenses, I would be surprised if Nikon went this route,
- Develop yet another mount with a shorter distance for a rangefinder like design that would be very compact. This would require the development of 4 new fixed focal lenses (24, 35, 50 and 80mm). It would be able to accept F lenses with an adapter.
Considering the clear positioning of Nikon as a high end market leader and their ability to listen to market needs, option 3 sounds extremely likely. The only question is when and I would say 2013.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
#$%@^*&$ all those camera companies!
After eating ramen for 6 months and plunking down 8500 bucks on the Pentax 645d, and spending a few thousand more on lenses and filters
(I was saving for a Phase one back, thank god for small favors!) I was happily snapping away, only slightly perturbed when thoughts of the Pentax 645 25mm would slip into my head (digitally optimized read: really expensive!) I had been convinced after waiting years that neither Canon nor Nikon would put a big sensor into one of their cameras, now this!
hmm, Nikon has that really cool 135mm f/2 DC lens... couple of primes...oh a 70-200mm f/2.8 you don't say...
Oh the horror, the horror....
-
#$%@^*&$ all those camera companies!
After eating ramen for 6 months and plunking down 8500 bucks on the Pentax 645d, and spending a few thousand more on lenses and filters
(I was saving for a Phase one back, thank god for small favors!) I was happily snapping away, only slightly perturbed when thoughts of the Pentax 645 25mm would slip into my head (digitally optimized read: really expensive!) I had been convinced after waiting years that neither Canon nor Nikon would put a big sensor into one of their cameras, now this!
hmm, Nikon has that really cool 135mm f/2 DC lens... couple of primes...oh a 70-200mm f/2.8 you don't say...
Oh the horror, the horror....
lol
There will be a lot of medium format salespeople reading up on how to prepare ramen when D800 ships.
-
The success of the NEX must not have remained un-noticed at Nikon. <snip>
- Develop yet another mount with a shorter distance for a rangefinder like design that would be very compact. This would require the development of 4 new fixed focal lenses (24, 35, 50 and 80mm). It would be able to accept F lenses with an adapter.
Considering the clear positioning of Nikon as a high end market leader and their ability to listen to market needs, option 3 sounds extremely likely. The only question is when and I would say 2013.
Cheers,
Bernard
Why a different mount? The F mount is pretty small, and the NEX lenses are pretty large. If they just produced a small mirrorless body, that matched the size of the NEX, they'd then have the same kind of awkward system the NEX is -- One that saves you almost no space when traveling with a system, that is virtually as heavy as a full-sized system (because the "small" part is such a minor piece of the system), but that already has all the required lenses in place.
Alternatively, they could produce a digital rangefinder that uses Nikon rangefinder lenses. Those would sell like hotcakes...for a while.
-
Alternatively, they could produce a digital rangefinder that uses Nikon rangefinder lenses. Those would sell like hotcakes...for a while.
Which is the same thing, they would have to produce lenses for this system, right?
As far as i know it is not based on the F mount.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Why a different mount? The F mount is pretty small ...
Depth, not diameter, is the main issue. This is the same reason that no 35mm format rangefinder has a mount anywhere near the roughly 46mm depth of F mount: to reduce body size and allow great flexibility in lens design by allowing the option of far lower back-focus distance, meaning rear lens elements far closer to the sensor. (Yes, this can be done with "near telecentric lens designs": back-focus distance and exit pupil height are quite different.) [Added: like the Nikon rangefinders, whose lenses would need a lens mount shallower the "F" to be usable.]
... the NEX lenses are pretty large.
On one hand, Sony has for some reasons done the worst job on lens downsizing amongst current mirrorless systems: look at micro Four Thirds for far better exploitation of the downsizing possibilities, and it is not only the 25% difference in format size. In particular, the collapsable and pancake lenses give a body depth than neither F mount nor Pentax's K mount (as in the K-01) can match: the front of some of those lenses sits closer to the sensor than the F or K bayonet does.
On the other hand, it could be that for many lenses, the front elements end up about the same distance from the focal plane anyway, so that a shallower lens mount then just means that the lens body is longer. So maybe the strategy of the Pentax K-01 can be made to work: for the lenses that do benefit from a low back-focus distance, have the rear elements protrude back into the empty space where the mirror used to be. If this can be done well enough, then having the same overall camera+lens depth might give some advantage to the "deeper body, shorter lens" approach, because you have more room in the body for stuff like external controls and battery space.
Added: If the system is designed to support existing lenses via an adaptor, the main argument against a new shallower lens mount comes to "I do not want to have to use an adaptor". This seems a rather weak reason to hamper future lens design options, since one could simply leave the adaptor permanently in place. Maybe I am just insufficiently concerned about backward compatibility, like my skepticism of the idea that the ideal format for interchangeable lens digital cameras is 36x24mm.
-
In case you missed it on rumors site, there are samples at various ISO settings:
http://forum.xitek.com/forum-viewthread-tid-969280-extra-page%3D1-ordertype-2-t-1329013603.html
Higher ISO samples look good to me, the earlier samples on Russian site looked worse IMO.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/GIWRi.jpg)
More 100% crops. (http://networkedblogs.com/tOI2M) The D800 with the 70-200 at f/8, 1/15sec and iso 100. I want to see some shots at F5.6. There aren't too many out there.
-
In case you missed it on rumors site, there are samples at various ISO settings:
http://forum.xitek.com/forum-viewthread-tid-969280-extra-page%3D1-ordertype-2-t-1329013603.html
Higher ISO samples look good to me, the earlier samples on Russian site looked worse IMO.
They look better than the D3x at pixel level.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I find the samples really quite underwhelming. They just look like large 35mm dslr samples rather than something verging Medium Format.
They have a typical Nikon or Canon look It's OK but doesn't have the wow factor and still look a bit soft. My guess it's the lenses and I still think the files from the 18MP M9 look better.
As for the beginning of the end for MF? Not even close.
-
Nothing beats cubic inches for a quarter of a mile. For a GP circuit the story is quite different. :D
Eduardo
-
I find the samples really quite underwhelming. They just look like large 35mm dslr samples rather than something verging Medium Format.
They have a typical Nikon or Canon look It's OK but doesn't have the wow factor and still look a bit soft. My guess it's the lenses and I still think the files from the 18MP M9 look better.
As for the beginning of the end for MF? Not even close.
Why does it surprise you that they look like large 35mm dslr samples? or have a typical Nikon look? ???
They are.
-
Why does it surprise you that they look like large 35mm dslr samples? or have a typical Nikon look? ???
They are.
I didn't say I was surprised. Infact I really was expecting that it would be the case when they announced the camera. I was hoping for more though, like the marketing did tend to suggest and I did think the 800E would be a bit better than the samples.
Some people are questioning wether this to be the end of medium format sales, however it leads me to hypothesise that current dSLR technology probably plateued a while back while medium format continues to leapfrog i.e. Phase One IQ180 compared to P65+.
-
Lenses, lenses, lenses .....
-
... current dSLR technology probably plateued a while back while medium format continues to leapfrog i.e. Phase One IQ180 compared to P65+.
I must have missed something: in what sense does the 80MP IQ180 leap-frog the 60MP P65+, other than a roughly 15% increase in linear resolution due to the reduced pixel pitch? I do not recall any claims of improvements at the 100% viewing, "per pixel" level in observed IQ or in measurements of noise, well capacity, dynamic range, or such. Do IQ180 images look better in 100% on screen crop comparisons, which I imagine is how you are judging the D800? Because the obvious point has to be made again that even with equal "pixel quality" as judged in 100% on-screen comparisons, an increase in pixel count allows printing or displaying at equal size using higher PPI, or making a larger print at equal PPI, both of which should give an IQ improvement. In fact, my rule of thumb for sensor development aimed at high resolution needs is that the best path forward is to keep per-pixel quality about the same while reducing pixel size and increasing pixel count, thus improving resolution, shadow noise, subject brightness range handling, moiré, and so, in fair comparisons at equal viewing size.
My feeling is that DMF has recently reached a plateau equivalent to what Canon, Nikon and Sony reached some years earlier: the high end sensors are now at "full frame size" with respect to the lens systems. But to the extent that lens performance is likely to become the main plateau, one would expect 54x40mm MF to end up on a higher plateau than 36x24mm. (As Christoph just said above!)
-
I didn't say I was surprised. Infact I really was expecting that it would be the case when they announced the camera. I was hoping for more though, like the marketing did tend to suggest and I did think the 800E would be a bit better than the samples.
Some people are questioning wether this to be the end of medium format sales, however it leads me to hypothesise that current dSLR technology probably plateued a while back while medium format continues to leapfrog i.e. Phase One IQ180 compared to P65+.
Hum... I would not underestimate the ability of Capture NX to mess up the sharpening of .nef conversions! It does a very good job colorwise but is very far behind the curve in terms of achievable sharpness due to Nikon's focus on the total lack of digital artifacts.
C1 Pro or Raw Developper may show things on a very different light.
I have in the end decided to get the D800 and should be available in Tokyo in April for a shoot out against any of the 40 mp class backs. :-) whatever comes out it should be good fun!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I must have missed something: in what sense does the 80MP IQ180 leap-frog the 60MP P65+, other than a roughly 15% increase in linear resolution due to the reduced pixel pitch? I do not recall any claims of improvements at the 100% viewing, "per pixel" level in observed IQ or in measurements of noise, well capacity, dynamic range, or such. Do IQ180 images look better in 100% on screen crop comparisons, which I imagine is how you are judging the D800? Because the obvious point has to be made again that even with equal "pixel quality" as judged in 100% on-screen comparisons, an increase in pixel count allows printing or displaying at equal size using higher PPI, or making a larger print at equal PPI, both of which should give an IQ improvement. In fact, my rule of thumb for sensor development aimed at high resolution needs is that the best path forward is to keep per-pixel quality about the same while reducing pixel size and increasing pixel count, thus improving resolution, shadow noise, subject brightness range handling, moiré, and so, in fair comparisons at equal viewing size.
My feeling is that DMF has recently reached a plateau equivalent to what Canon, Nikon and Sony reached some years earlier: the high end sensors are now at "full frame size" with respect to the lens systems. But to the extent that lens performance is likely to become the main plateau, one would expect 54x40mm MF to end up on a higher plateau than 36x24mm. (As Christoph just said above!)
All accounts, from what i read, including here on Luminous Landscape is that the IQ 180 is better than the P65.
I've personally found the same improvement between a P65 and P45 as I've owned them. The difference I've found between the 65 and 45 is a very noticible improvement.
I'm not seeing that kind of change in 135 generations at all.
-
Hum... I would not underestimate the ability of Capture NX to mess up the sharpening of .nef conversions! It does a very good job colorwise but is very far behind the curve in terms of achievable sharpness due to Nikon's focus on the total lack of digital artifacts.
C1 Pro or Raw Developper may show things on a very different light.
I have in the end decided to get the D800 and should be available in Tokyo in April for a shoot out against any of the 40 mp class backs. :-) whatever comes out it should be good fun!
Cheers,
Bernard
Interesting. Well I do hold hope for dSLRs as I would much rather use them. I use my M9 more than my MF at the moment. I look forward to seeing your and anyones tests with the new generation of dSLRs and 40mp backs. But I don't believe the Nikon and Canon lenses are up to the task though.
-
All accounts, from what i read, including here on Luminous Landscape is that the IQ 180 is better than the P65.
I am sure that IQ180 IQ is better, in the only sort of comparison that I care about: at equal viewing size (say equal print size and viewing distance.) That is why I specifically made the distinction between this and the goofy practice of comparing digital cameras of different pixel counts on the basis on 100% crops, which is, I think, all that you have to go on with the D800.
So may I repeat my question about the meaning of "better":
I do not recall any claims of improvements at the 100% viewing, "per pixel" level in observed IQ or in measurements of noise, well capacity, dynamic range, or such.
Do IQ180 images look better than P65+ images in 100% on screen crop comparisons, or only in fair, equal size comparisons?
Edit: on your comparison of P45 to P65, that was of course an improvement in both sensor size and resolution , so no surprise that IQ improved there. On the other hand, the spec's and discussions I have read indicate that there was no improvement in per-pixel specs between the P45 and P65 sensors, so 100% crop viewing would probably show no improvement, and possibly even an IQ decline, due to greater enlargement of lens imperfections, focusing errors, and such.
-
apparently, yes.
The LL review is interesting and if memory serves. The richness of the file and the brilliance in highlight detail in particular is worth the step up. It was , I believe, compared to the difference between 4x5 and 10x8 film.
-
Edit: on your comparison of P45 to P65, that was of course an improvement in both sensor size and resolution , so no surprise that IQ improved there. On the other hand, the spec's and discussions I have read indicate that there was no improvement in per-pixel specs between the P45 and P65 sensors, so 100% crop viewing would probably show no improvement, and possibly even an IQ decline, due to greater enlargement of lens imperfections, focusing errors, and such.
This is contrary to what I have found. I left the P45 for the P65 because I found it was a lot better. It's the tonality, the colour, the resolution. The downside was the extra computing power needed and that it was starting to out resolve my V series Blad so I needed to change to the H which is what I'm using now.
Even when you see a jpg of a scanned Large Format Film transparency, small on the internet, a comparison between medium format or dslr small on the internet, you still can clearly see you are looking at something different.
Don't get me wrong I'm not bashing 35mm for the sake of it. I use my Leica most of the time these days but there is no denying what a 60MP back can provide.
-
I think we are agreeing that the relevant comparisons are of final images under equal viewing conditions, not 100% crops entailing different degrees of enlargement, but your responses are not clear. If so, I await such comparisons (of equal sized prints?) of the D800 to previous 36x24mm format efforts.
This certainly sounds like a same size comparison, not a 100% crop comparison:
Even when you see a jpg of a scanned Large Format Film transparency, small on the internet, a comparison between medium format or dslr small on the internet, you still can clearly see you are looking at something different.
This is contrary to what I have found. I left the P45 for the P65 because I found it was a lot better. It's the tonality, the colour, the resolution.
That does not contradict anything of what I said. In particular, I expect things like tonality and resolution to improve in equal viewing size comparisons if one increases the pixel count while roughly maintaining per per-pixel performance (or even letting it drop slightly, as has happened with some or all MF CCDs as the pixel pitch decreases). This is what Kodak and Dalsa have been doing for many years now with their CCDs, in particular in the sensor progression from P45 -> P65 -> IQ180.
-
I have in the end decided to get the D800 and should be available in Tokyo in April for a shoot out against any of the 40 mp class backs. :-) whatever comes out it should be good fun!
Interesting. Why the D800 and not the E version? I am just curious because I am having hard time to decide myself.
-
Interesting. Why the D800 and not the E version? I am just curious because I am having hard time to decide myself.
A few reasons:
- I don't believe the small extra resolution is worth the extra time required to deal with moire. I know that I will not have the time to scan images for moire and will end up finding it after printing large images which will generate a significant cost,
- Since I intend to keep stitching anyway, this extra detail is even more irrelevant,
- The difference of price in Japan is nearly 600 US$ which corresponds to the money I just spent on a Sigma 8mm circular fisheye which I find to be much better value,
- I still have philosophical doubts about the relevance of capturing images that can mathematically not be a faithful reproduction of the scene due to the presence of false colors and false details,
- I intend to use the D800 for video also and there are widespread concerns about video on AA filter less devices (unconfirmed so far though),
- For family reasons, I need this camera quickly and the 3 weeks early shipment of the D800 will actually make a difference for me,
- Finally I know from my D3x experience that proper sharpening manages to remove most of the initial softness one can feel when opening images in a suitable raw converter,
We may find out that Nikon did an outstanding job with moire control on the D800E and that there really are no issues with moire. Worth case I'll get one in a few months as a back up. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I believe van Gogh had similar concerns.
I think he was on average way to stone to understand the word mathematics in the first place... ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
- I still have philosophical doubts about the relevance of capturing images that can mathematically not be a faithful reproduction of the scene due to the presence of false colors and false details,
And I have philosophical doubts about using philosophical doubts about not wanting to lose any information as a reason for accepting false or misleading information. It is like a diner in a restaurant picking up eating a scrap of food that fell on the floor to avoid wasting any part of the wonderful food.
That is, I agree, but mostly I think that the philosophical claims on either side (see Sean Reid's essay for the other side) can not decide it: we need to look at how filtering and post-processing options affect the sort of pictures and prints that we are interested in. (Or, "Can I just brush that dust of the food I dropped, or will it taint the taste of the meal?")
there are widespread concerns about video on AA filter less devices
Local video guru Graeme Nattress seems to agree, with motion handling and compression an extra issue not facing still photography:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62537.msg503875#msg503875
-
A few reasons:
- I don't believe the small extra resolution is worth the extra time required to deal with moire. I know that I will not have the time to scan images for moire and will end up finding it after printing large images which will generate a significant cost,
- Since I intend to keep stitching anyway, this extra detail is even more irrelevant,
- The difference of price in Japan is nearly 600 US$ which corresponds to the money I just spent on a Sigma 8mm circular fisheye which I find to be much better value,
- I still have philosophical doubts about the relevance of capturing images that can mathematically not be a faithful reproduction of the scene due to the presence of false colors and false details,
- I intend to use the D800 for video also and there are widespread concerns about video on AA filter less devices (unconfirmed so far though),
- For family reasons, I need this camera quickly and the 3 weeks early shipment of the D800 will actually make a difference for me,
- Finally I know from my D3x experience that proper sharpening manages to remove most of the initial softness one can feel when opening images in a suitable raw converter,
We may find out that Nikon did an outstanding job with moire control on the D800E and that there really are no issues with moire. Worth case I'll get one in a few months as a back up. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
Very wise decision, Bernard ;D . A major advantage of the lack of an AA filter in MFDBs was the reduced cost of a system that was already ridiculously expensive. However, the D800E has no such advantage. The cost of a lack of an AA filter is greater. One is paying more for an absence of something. Sounds a bit crazy to me ;D .
Another issue which I confess I don't really understand, because I'm not as smart as some of you very technical guys, is how a signal can have it's vertical resolution diminished in one instance, then restored in the next instance. I'm curious as to what's actually taking place here. Can anyone elaborate?
-
... how a signal can have it's vertical resolution diminished in one instance, then restored in the next instance. I'm curious as to what's actually taking place here. Can anyone elaborate?
As indicated by Nikon's illustration here
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/page3.asp
the beam is split by one filter layer and then reunited by another. Talk of "diminished resolution" is misleading --- it is just that the light from one point is temporarily spread over several locations, which is similar to the state of the light from a single point on the subject as it travels through a lens before reaching the focal plane. The strange and somewhat costly split-reunite strategy is, I am guessing, in order to keep as much of the optical path and design the same in the two models, to avoid having to make other more expensive design changes in what is expected to be a far lower volume alternative. And that "lower volume" is the most obvious explanation for the price difference.
P. S. to John Camp below: it might have been my post you are recalling; I have been shopping that hypothesis in various places. Also, for $300, I will provide a UV filter smeared with a small, scientifically determined amount of vaseline, to convert the D800E back to a D800.
-
Very wise decision, Bernard ;D . A major advantage of the lack of an AA filter in MFDBs was the reduced cost of a system that was already ridiculously expensive. However, the D800E has no such advantage. The cost of a lack of an AA filter is greater. One is paying more for an absence of something. Sounds a bit crazy to me ;D .
I saw an answer to this somewhere that made some sense to me; it may have been on DPR. For cost reasons, the D800E does not actually have fewer filter elements than the D800 (as you note in the bottom half of your question.) This may be the case because simply leaving the filters out entirely may have required other adjustments in the camera that would be more expensive that putting them in, in a different orientation. At the same time (this other answer suggested) Nikon expects to sell significantly fewer D800Es, and so the per-unit cost of the altered machine rises, given the additional machining work, etc.
Here's a question that I would like somebody to address: WOuld it be possible for, say, a high-end filter maker to make a blurring filter that would fit on the end of the a lens, that would have the same effect as an AA filter? So that you could buy a D800E and add a filter if you thought it was necessary?
-
And here's another question. Does moire occur with any regular repeating structure that's of the proper size to generate it, or does the structure have to have a rectangular form? That is, would a series of regular, closely-spaced, curved forms, like the scales on an insect wing, also generate moire?
-
Here's a question that I would like somebody to address: WOuld it be possible for, say, a high-end filter maker to make a blurring filter that would fit on the end of the a lens, that would have the same effect as an AA filter? So that you could buy a D800E and add a filter if you thought it was necessary?
Has anybody had experience with these things (http://www.caprockdev.com/antimoire.htm)? They screw in front of the lens and provide different levels of AA filtration.
-
It should have no AA filter. On the rare occasion that you are dealing with a fabric or similar that will cause the problem the photographer is smart enough to know that moving closer or farther away will remove the unfortunate frequency. Alternatively a "pantihose filter" also does the trick.
The unfortunate downside to this is the manufacturer has to sell you less when they want to sell you more.
-
... the photographer is smart enough to know that moving closer or farther away will remove the unfortunate frequency.
If that moving is possible, and if the photographer can either anticipate the moiré in advance, or can detect it on review (zoom to 100% pixels on LCD, pan around for a minute) and has the opportunity to move and reshoot. This would not work with the example posted recently of aliasing in roof tiles, where the distance is too great for a change of camera position to help, nor for situations where the photographer cannot move easily or when there is only one opportunity to get the shot.
So sometimes, some photographers need the camera to get it right the first time.
-
I have philosophical doubts about anyone who has philosophical doubts concerning the ethics of inducing false colours and false details by using a camera without an AA filter and yet who champions stitching.
That actually is an interesting comment worth discussing in depth but I will unfortunately not have enough time today.
There is in fact in my view key philosophical differences between:
- an image whose every pixel is potentially nothing but a digital artifact even if the macro image looks real,
- an image blurred because of an AA filter,
- an image whose corners are blurred because of the limitations of a lens,
- a stitched image with possible stitching artifacts,
- an image blurred because of slow shutter speed,
- an image blurred because of poor optics,
- ...
They are all imperfect projections of reality and play differently with the additional filter called our senses. My view is that some are less fake than others but I would already reach a high level of philosophical enlightment if we could agree that they all are. The rest will be a matter of how fake we want our images to be.
But I do apologize for the usage of arrogant words like "philosophy"! :-) nonetheless, this philosophical argument is only one of the reasons why my next DSLR is probably going to be a D800.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've always liked stitching not for more resolution but for control of the projection and therefore the composition. Lenses are either fish-eye or rectilinear. Digital processing makes it much easier to use other projections such as cylindrical. There are also stitched images where the camera is moved down a street, for example. This type of stitching gives an image not unlike a painting in that it's a flat field rather than a one eyed image drawn out by a cyclops.
-
Just some observations...
Human nature never ceases to surprise and amaze.
Over the years, and on many a thread, I've seen photographers lament,
complain, and emote, to the point that some even send their
cameras away to have the AA filter removed. I've read their pleas,
suggestions and fervent hopes for camera makers to offer a next gen
model "without an AA filter".
Now, with the D800e, Nikon has come across with exactly what they've
so ardently asked for and dreamed of. What do they do? Well, I won't
speak for all, but from what I've read at LuLa, and other sites, many
are now running the other way, in rabid fear of the demon moire!!
:D :D :D Gotta luv it, I guess.
-
What do they say.....
'Be careful what you as for.. because you just might get it.' ;D
-
Bernard, no need for apologies, I hope you enjoy your new camera.
I am looking forward to using some lenses with it that are really not a good match for DX bodies. The 85 f1.4 AF-S and my new Sigma 8mm fisheye should deliver their full potential.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As indicated by Nikon's illustration here
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonD800/page3.asp
the beam is split by one filter layer and then reunited by another. Talk of "diminished resolution" is misleading --- it is just that the light from one point is temporarily spread over several locations, which is similar to the state of the light from a single point on the subject as it travels through a lens before reaching the focal plane. The strange and somewhat costly split-reunite strategy is, I am guessing, in order to keep as much of the optical path and design the same in the two models, to avoid having to make other more expensive design changes in what is expected to be a far lower volume alternative. And that "lower volume" is the most obvious explanation for the price difference.
As someone who stopped using protective UV filters years ago because of the possibility of unwanted reflections, as well as the additional cost, I'm a bit concerned psychologically about the presence of two unnecessary pieces of glass in the path of the signal, that are both actually altering the signal but serving no ultimate purpose.
Such concerns may well be entirely groundless, but one can't help wondering about the effects of even the slightest misalignment due to imperfect quality control.
In other words, is the difference in crispness and that magical 3-dimenional quality ;D likely to be as great as it might have been without those two unnecessary pieces of glass in the path of the signal?
I would have been happier if the initial design of the camera physically excluded any AA filters and the premium was charged to those who prefer the model which included the AA filters.
-
And here's another question. Does moire occur with any regular repeating structure that's of the proper size to generate it, or does the structure have to have a rectangular form? That is, would a series of regular, closely-spaced, curved forms, like the scales on an insect wing, also generate moire?
If you have no AA filter, you will have aliasing for any scene/lense/stand/... combination that project light with sufficient high spatial frequency onto the sensor.
This aliasing may look "good", "bad" or "just the same" for any one viewer in a particular setup. If the scene contains highly regular structures (typically, but not necessarily man-made) of high contrast and/or color-contrast, this aliasing will typically give false-frequency content that can be quite visible, that most people dislike, and that can be hard to remove.
-h
-
A few reasons:
- I don't believe the small extra resolution is worth the extra time required to deal with moire. I know that I will not have the time to scan images for moire and will end up finding it after printing large images which will generate a significant cost,
- Since I intend to keep stitching anyway, this extra detail is even more irrelevant,
- The difference of price in Japan is nearly 600 US$ which corresponds to the money I just spent on a Sigma 8mm circular fisheye which I find to be much better value,
- I still have philosophical doubts about the relevance of capturing images that can mathematically not be a faithful reproduction of the scene due to the presence of false colors and false details,
- I intend to use the D800 for video also and there are widespread concerns about video on AA filter less devices (unconfirmed so far though),
- For family reasons, I need this camera quickly and the 3 weeks early shipment of the D800 will actually make a difference for me,
- Finally I know from my D3x experience that proper sharpening manages to remove most of the initial softness one can feel when opening images in a suitable raw converter,
We may find out that Nikon did an outstanding job with moire control on the D800E and that there really are no issues with moire. Worth case I'll get one in a few months as a back up. ;D
Thanks for sharing your reasons.
I am quite tempted to get the E version. I think I will wait to see more samples. Hopefully LR and other tools will get support for D800(E) soon after the cameras start shipping.
My thoughts are:
- one cannot get rid of a moire even with the AA filter anyway. See current Lloyd's blog for example, the D3x test pictures with the roofs have a lot of it. The bad thing about moire is, that once you start looking for it, you find it more easily :-)
- I am not sure about the false details, are the blurred details more real than the aliased ones? Probably not, sometimes maybe better looking and sometimes not. Deconvolution is great, but has trouble with noise and cannot reconstruct the signal completely. It might introduce slight halos as well
- I will be (probably) not doing any wedding or studio work with clothes, so the risk of loosing critical shot because of moire is quite low
- don't hear much complaining from MFDB users about moire
- OTOH the price difference is indeed not negligible, nearly 20% here as well right now
It is a bit difficult to choose, but having the choice is great and I am happy Nikon offers both versions ;-) I would prefer to have the E version without any low pass filter though.
-
- one cannot get rid of a moire even with the AA filter anyway. See current Lloyd's blog for example, the D3x test pictures with the roofs have a lot of it. The bad thing about moire is, that once you start looking for it, you find it more easily :-)
You cannot remove it completely, but you can have less moire at the price of reduced sharpness.
What kind of scenes and print sizes do you do where the difference in sharpness is so important?
-h
-
You cannot remove it completely, but you can have less moire at the price of reduced sharpness.
Yes, that's clear to me.
What kind of scenes and print sizes do you do where the difference in sharpness is so important?
I usually do landscape (often use stitching), who know what I will do in few months though. I don't think the difference in sharpness will be that big, I can just stitch more frames. OTOH it is always not bad to get more details and be able to finish with less images. Hard to tell how much more detail will one get with E version right now, without more samples to look at. Difference in resolution between D3x and D800 is around 23%, one might say it is not big difference too.
-
when my 800E arrives I let everyone know,, ;D
Derry
-
Having moved mostly away from MFDB to 5D2 I now encounter moire very rarely. Just for the record, I have been frustrated with MFDB moire for years and have spent way too much time both in-camera and using software in post to avoid/fix it. My experience has also been that often software cannot remove moire without leaving "zebra stripe" pattern moire behind. :)
-
Shouldn't deconvolution sharpening help getting rid of the unsharpness caused by the AA Filter?
The PSF should be well known or am I totally wrong here ?
-
Shouldn't deconvolution sharpening help getting rid of the unsharpness caused by the AA Filter?
The PSF should be well known or am I totally wrong here ?
Time will tell ... but what I do know for sure is that I have seen some extensive comparisons using D300's both with and without AA filters. The cameras were put through some rigorous testing and the processing was sophisticated.
The results of the test were very clear, to me:
- without capture or output sharpening, there was a very noticeable difference between the files; these differences were clearly visible in modest sized prints (10"x15" prints)
- with proper capture and output sharpening, it took a bit of work to find the differences in the files and I could not see the differences in the prints
At the time, I was considering having my D700 modified to have the filter removed and concluded it was not worth it. I came to have a better grasp and appreciation of the role of capture sharpening in digital imaging.
-
Sounds reasonable to me and is similar in my current hybrid film-scanning workflow.
-
Having moved mostly away from MFDB to 5D2 I now encounter moire very rarely. Just for the record, I have been frustrated with MFDB moire for years and have spent way too much time both in-camera and using software in post to avoid/fix it. My experience has also been that often software cannot remove moire without leaving "zebra stripe" pattern moire behind. :)
Hello Benmar,
Could you tell me with what type of photography you had problems with moiré when using MFDB..?
-
My work has been shooting products for catalog/internet, with lots of bed linens and upholstered furniture. One thing I'd add about the relatively rare instances I find moire with the 5D2 is that it is softly defined enough that I can take it out with software without luminosity moire remaining when the color part of the moire is taken out.
-
Time will tell ... but what I do know for sure is that I have seen some extensive comparisons using D300's both with and without AA filters. The cameras were put through some rigorous testing and the processing was sophisticated.
The results of the test were very clear, to me:
- without capture or output sharpening, there was a very noticeable difference between the files; these differences were clearly visible in modest sized prints (10"x15" prints)
- with proper capture and output sharpening, it took a bit of work to find the differences in the files and I could not see the differences in the prints
At the time, I was considering having my D700 modified to have the filter removed and concluded it was not worth it. I came to have a better grasp and appreciation of the role of capture sharpening in digital imaging.
Thanks for the info, it is useful to me to know you couldn't see a difference in the prints. Was capture and output sharpening applied to both both the AA and non-AA files, and if so, was it applied in equal amount to both files. The obvious 'concern' being that the non-AA files will always remain a step sharper if both files are sharpened equally. I also wonder about the relative effects of micro-contrast enhancers such as Focus Magic, Topaz Adjust 5, and perhaps the Clarity control in Adobe Camera RAW.
-
Shouldn't deconvolution sharpening help getting rid of the unsharpness caused by the AA Filter?
The PSF should be well known or am I totally wrong here ?
I doubt that Nikon publish the PSF of their cameras. Further, Nikon may not choose to use deconvolution in camera or in their raw development.
Any signal attenuation prior to adding noise will reduce the SNR. Depending on how large the SNR is to begin with (and how much attenuation), compensation gain (sharpening) might cause objectional noise/artifacts.
-h