Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Andreas_M on May 03, 2012, 12:49:30 pm

Title: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 03, 2012, 12:49:30 pm
No clue if this is in the right sub - forum?


Hi all,

my name is Andreas and I am very new on this forum, although I am a regular LL vistor since... well, very long.
Before I get into my topic I think you all deserve to understand who am I.
Ok, let's start with what I am NOT. I am not a professional, I would even not quote myself as an Artist. I am just one of those guys who have enjoyed photography since the late 70th (last century, that is).

I am also not a native English speaker and so, at least from a gramatical point of view, there will be errors and sometimes my English wording might lead to missunderstandings.

Ah, yes - I am not a typer, actually my typing is terrible and you will find typos - I still hope the text remains readable.

So with that out of the way, let me start with my topic. Iwas actually  very surprised to see all the hype about Nikons new D800 - I really can not understand it, especially from guys like on this site, who are devoted to Landscape, Fine Art etc.

But don't get me wrong, I am not in particular bashing Nikon here and I think that the D800 is probably the best camera in the - well 35mmm heritage shooting gear market place.

But a milestone?

Hang on - something is wrong here.

Let me try to resume what happened in the digital era and let me simply skip the analog stuff.

Well, we had a Milestone when Nikon introduced the D1. It was the first kind-of-affordable professional digital camera at that time and broke the crazy Kodak domination with pricing far out of reach. Great job Nikon.

The next one was doubtless the D30 from Canon. The first camera with a CMOS sensor - did not everybody tell us that CMOS is too noisy and CCD the only way to got?
Well, Canon proofed them all to be wrong - the CMOS in that Canon's dominated the image quality department actually for a long time - up until the Nikon D300 was introduced.

I don't think that any other camera up until the Nikon D90 and Canon 5D Mk.II were Milestones. All that happened was very predictable, better AF, better finder, more resolution, reduction in shutter lag, extended battery life, water and dust resistant, oh yes - dust removal technology and so on. But milestones?

No, it was actually very comparable to Leica's M series: The concept was there, refinements and better (or at least different) user interfaces, improofed (or again at least different) overall ergonomics - but nothing fundamentally new.

D90 and 5D Mk II brought video to the game and changed the market place for some. In fact, the 5D Mk II opened the door top Holliwood for Canon - well done.
A Milestone for sure.

Olympus and Panasonic introduced micro 4/3 - what a great concept! And opposed to Sony (Samsung...) the lenses match the body and mft brought the promise of a more compact system to the market. Nobody else has done that so far (leaving aside the ill - fated Nikon 1 and the jut too new Fuji system for a moment - the latter might change the game again, for reasons I will mention below).

Kudos to them - a true Milestone.

So here we are, it is 2012, everybody is freaking out about a camera that puts 36 million pixels onto a single chip of (roughly) 35 mm. But - and this is my point - nothing has changed:
- We still have a stupid Bayer filter in front of the sensor
- As advanced as it may be - we still do stupid interpolation to get the full color information
- We still live with strange artefacts - or use an AA filter

In other words: This camera is not so much different from the one that my company introduced back in 1998 (it was an industrial camera - I am not in the photographic industry). At that time we had a 1.3 Megapixel sensor with... well, a Bayer filter array.

Sure - I know, the sensitivity, the speed, the resolution, enough said. This is NO milestone, this is like in the old days of the car industry: Nothing betters cubic capacity - well, apart from more cubic capacity....

So Mr. Nikon, Mr. Canon - are you listening? We (well, at least I) are waiting for the better sensor technology! Given the advances in sensors, I see no reason that we could not have something more advanced than Bayer. Foveron shows that it is possible - even the Fujis XTrans is at least a bit more modern.

I for one am sick of this blowing up a device that is essentially flawed.

And by the way: The Nikon D 800 is built to be a highly transportable camera (opposed to medium format or even bigger) - but having 36 Mpixel this concet just does not work that way - every oh so slight movement will show up in the file. As a result you need a tripod (a good one) and lose out your mobility. Where, the heck, is the sense in that?


Well, again - the D 800 is a great camera - but no milestone, just old, falwed technology taken to the next level.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: JonathanRimmel on May 03, 2012, 01:09:55 pm
I do agree. A large increase in megapixels can hardly be called a milestone. If Nikon or Canon could buy the Foveon sensor technology, imagine the possibilities. Sigma thus far has introduced very subpar cameras with this fine sensor. But if one of the big two got a hold of it...
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 03, 2012, 01:48:30 pm
I do agree. A large increase in megapixels can hardly be called a milestone. If Nikon or Canon could buy the Foveon sensor technology, imagine the possibilities. Sigma thus far has introduced very subpar cameras with this fine sensor. But if one of the big two got a hold of it...

That's one thing. However, we know that the Foveron 3-layer technology has it's downsides also (very bad sensitivity in blue, for example) - so why don't they get their act together and just get it re - thought and re - formulated!

I know why - milking the dead cow called Bayer is a guarantee to nake money.
The danker is: They might lose the connection, might become follower instead of innovators (look at Canon in particular - nothing new since the D 30, apart from video)
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Robert55 on May 03, 2012, 01:59:12 pm
Saying Bayer is inherently inferior is becoming an old cliche, which is feeding on the belief [it is nothing more than that] that if only Canon, Nikon or Sony would "go Foveon" they would create groundbreaking cameras. Foveon fans of course have to say that, because Sigma has not really been able to show such progress
IMO you are underestimating what has been achieved with Bayer sensors, what is still possible, and the degree to which Foveon is becoming the evolutionary dead-end
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 03, 2012, 02:13:32 pm
Thanks for your point of view - appreciated.
But as a matter of fact the Bayer filter, at least as we know it, is in fact not an ideal solution:
It relies on interpolation, which is in other words an educated guess of what the color and luminace of the pixel has to be.

For the most part this is working more or less well.

But the effect is very clear: Bayer does spoil the resolution and the color fidelity. Depending on the de - Bayer filter, you will get more or less half of the nominal resolution - sometimes a bit more.

You do so a the cost of
- processing power: Do get good de - Bayer results you need at least a 7x7 kernel and a Laplace filter - in addition to many other tricks the companies do. This is an incedible processing load.
Ok we have the fast Asic's like Digic, Expeed - whatever they are called. But it remains somewhat questionable if you could not use that power for something else - of have smaller (read less power hungry) Asic's for extended battery life.

- producing artefacts: Not much to say here. Everybody knows about the Moiree problem. Some are affected more, other less

- Waisting sensor reel estate. YES, this is what they do: Insted of having somehow 3 colors in one place, you need 3x3 pixel to have all colors. I call this less than clever...

I am not a Foveron fan, I am NOT saying the big guys shall just buy that stuff and make a great camera - no, I think that there have to be other ways. And I am sure we will see it somewhen in the future - but for now the big guys are just happy with a medicore technology and sites like this (and many others) are supporting this laziness by looking at a camera like the D 800 as if it were the holy grale - it is NOT.

Well, in my mind :-)
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: jeremypayne on May 03, 2012, 02:17:01 pm
No clue

Agreed.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 03, 2012, 02:24:01 pm
Agreed.

:-)

Thanks a lot - good to see you're at least reading my nonsense :-)
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: TMARK on May 03, 2012, 02:29:16 pm
You mght be right in terms of a spec sheet, but in reality this is to me as revolutionary as the original 1ds.

The promise of the 1ds was that it would replace medium format film for advertising and editorial work.  It did, to a degree, and I mothballed the Mamiya RZ system and shot with two 1ds cameras.  Yeah, the color was odd at times.  Yeah, the buffer was small.  Yeah, the images could look flat without lots of post, but it was digital and full frame.  Worked great for most commercial work.  Then the 1ds2 addressed the original 1ds problems with iso and buffer, but had really odd problems with color, looked flat.  Same for the 5d.  So I bought an MF back, and rented them, for larger jobs that required depth and color, and went back to film for editorial.  The 5d2 and 1ds3 were better in every way, but not enough to stop me from shooting film or MF backs. The D700 didn't have enough pixels.  It just needed 16, to my eyes.

The D800 changed all that.  There are no compromises, for my use anyway.  Color is fantastic, dynamic range is incredible.  Handling is great.  No more film, no more MF.  Did I mention they are cheap as chips?  So from my standpoint they are a milestone, because this is the camera many professionals wanted when the 1ds came out, 10 years ago.  The proof isn't in the spec sheets, its in the images and usability of teh camera.  And the D800 addressed ALL of my concerns.  I even rejoined NPS so I could get one.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 03, 2012, 02:47:47 pm
Looks to me that DRReview guys are starting to trickle into LuLa.

Or, in other words, tire kickers are starting to kick in. ;)



EDIT: Correction: DPReview, of course
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 03, 2012, 03:29:50 pm
Looks to me that DRReview guys are starting to trickle into LuLa.

Or, in other words, tire kickers are starting to kick in. ;)

Wouw - thanks for your warm welcome. You are #2 of the "old users" that made it clear that my thoughts are
a) too stupid to even comment on them
b) new users with somewhat other ideas are not welcome
c) this is a closed shop.

Got the message, don't worry, and resign.

Cheers,

Andreas

PS: No DRReview site on this planet - but I am even no DPReview guy :-)
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Ellis Vener on May 03, 2012, 04:41:34 pm
If one person's snarky comment will make you turn tail and run well you must be afraid your argument is pretty weak.

Is the D800 revolutionary? It depends on what aspect you are considering.
As far as Bayer vs non-Bayer color is concern you are right: no revolution here.

As far as sheer resolution? Well Phase One and Hasselblad both make higher resolution cameras.

And regarding sensitivity range, the D3s, D4, EOS 1X, and 5D mark III all surpass it.

But in terms of being a very high resolution photographic device that is portable, with a very large dynamic range combined with very high practical sensitivity range, very wide range of lens choices at a price that is far short of the shores of insanity, then yes the vast evolutionary step the Nikon D800 and D800e cameras make edge into  revolutionary territory.

There is obviously a lot of marketing hype surrounding the D800 some is direct, some is planted and some folk are volunteering to be unpaid extensions of Nikon's marketing team.

But looking at the facts both on the spec sheets and in the results (I have so far shot a few thousand frames with a D800) it is pretty clear that there is nothing else currently on the market that is like it, so that does make it revolutionary, just as revolutionary as the Nikon D1X, Canon EOS 1Ds Mk I, 1Ds Mark III, and Nikon D3s.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: ckimmerle on May 03, 2012, 05:26:59 pm
....it is pretty clear that there is nothing else currently on the market that is like it, so that does make it revolutionary, just as revolutionary as the Nikon D1X, Canon EOS 1Ds Mk I, 1Ds Mark III, and Nikon D3s.

I guess it depends on your definition of "revolutionary". In my mind, not a single one of the cameras you listed, including the D800, come even close. Sure, they each had their own individual advances in technology, but that's nothing more than expected progress, not a revolution.

The only true revolutionary digital cameras (not including the invention) would include the Kodak DCS, which was the first professional digital camera boasting 1.3mp, a cabled, shoulder bag, and no preview screen, and the Apple and Kodak digital cameras which were the first consumer digital cameras introduced five years later. All others digital cameras are simply advances, but there is not a one that is "revolutionary"
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 03, 2012, 05:42:18 pm
Welcome indeed, Andreas! How rude of me not to say it earlier.

Well, with that out of the way, lets get back to business. You chose for your first post a rather controversial statement, somewhat even confrontational, so no wonder you encountered a resistance.

You said:

Quote
... I was actually  very surprised to see all the hype about Nikons new D800 - I really can not understand it, especially from guys like on this site... I for one am sick of this blowing up a device...

That does not sound as an especially friendly introduction, does it?

In addition, you chose to introduce yourself with a diatribe on a theme that does not really interest many on this board (definitely not me, although I can be wrong for others, of course). I could not care less if you call it (or not) a milestone, revolutionary, best thing since sliced bread, second coming of Jesus, or whatever else. My interest in photography is not of that nature: labels, subjective rankings, and semantic hairsplitting.

Having said that, I will not engage in any further debate as how to call this camera, but I am still very much interested in its real capabilities and what it can do different and better than the current crop of competitors. And, for the record, I am a Canon guy.

Empty debates on the theme "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" are of no interest to me. 

Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Ellis Vener on May 03, 2012, 05:55:33 pm
I guess it depends on your definition of "revolutionary". In my mind, not a single one of the cameras you listed, including the D800, come even close. Sure, they each had their own individual advances in technology, but that's nothing more than expected progress, not a revolution.

The only true revolutionary digital cameras (not including the invention) would include the Kodak DCS, which was the first professional digital camera boasting 1.3mp, a cabled, shoulder bag, and no preview screen, and the Apple and Kodak digital cameras which were the first consumer digital cameras introduced five years later. All others digital cameras are simply advances, but there is not a one that is "revolutionary"

You wish to define "revolution" in terms of technology. I am defining it terms of actual photographic practice and in terms of working photographers expectations of what a practical camera can do. I agree about that Kodak camera. I used one of the first ones covering the 1992 Republican Party (notice no one ever calls rhem the GOP anymore? But I digress) political convention in the Houston Astrome. Turning a 600mm f/4 into a practical 1800mm f/4 - so that I could see and document First Lady Barbara Bush use body language to tell Vice President Dan Quayle to get lost -that was fun.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 03, 2012, 06:13:47 pm
Quote
You said:

Quote
... I was actually  very surprised to see all the hype about Nikons new D800 - I really can not understand it, especially from guys like on this site... I for one am sick of this blowing up a device...

That does not sound as an especially friendly introduction, does it?

Ha - that's what I know from many forums: Take a sentece or two, out of context and make your point.
At least - you start to discuss instead of just telling me to better shut up...

I don't see any unfriendliness, to be honest. Quite the opposite - you guys deal with equipment on a rather high level, be it for profession, art of just fun. You guys are indeed different from many (not all) the others that are gear freaks and pixel fanatics and whatever else you call them.

My point was (still is) that I am particulary surprised at the reaction of you guys (at the definition above).

Quote
Having said that, I will not engage in any further debate as how to call this camera, but I am still very much interested in its real capabilities and what it can do different and better than the current crop of competitors. And, for the record, I am a Canon guy.

You see - that is something I fully subscribe to: I understand that this camera is seen as a very capable beast and - as I said in my original post - is probably the best in the somewhat 35 mm market place.

Ok, I understand that you are not interested in this discussion and I fully understand and accept - so I stop here :-)
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 03, 2012, 06:29:20 pm
If one person's snarky comment will make you turn tail and run well you must be afraid your argument is pretty weak.

Well - this is not the point here: It were two people (out of 4, I guess) that made it clear that they do not want this kind of discussion.

Quote
Is the D800 revolutionary? It depends on what aspect you are considering.
As far as Bayer vs non-Bayer color is concern you are right: no revolution here.

To get this out of the way: I am not saying that Bayer is bad, old fashioned or whatever in every case. At the end of the day the Fuji YTrans is Bayer - in a different way - and seems to get better results. Kudos!

What bothers me is simply that I do not see any advance at Canon, Nikon, Sony - as far as Sensortechnology is concerned. All they do is blowing up the technology they introduced a decade ago.
One result is very obvious: Canon lost track - or better: By staying on-track too long they lost the leadership...



Quote
But in terms of being a very high resolution photographic device that is portable, with a very large dynamic range combined with very high practical sensitivity range, very wide range of lens choices at a price that is far short of the shores of insanity, then yes the vast evolutionary step the Nikon D800 and D800e cameras make edge into  revolutionary territory.


Well said and it is probably the one thing that is misleading in my post: What is a milestone and what not.
Clearly the D800 is a technical achievment and a GREAT CAMERA. I can see easily that it can be for someones work all they ever asked for. For them, for their business or art (ofr, why not, hobby) this may well mean a revolution.

This is all not what I mean with a milestone. But I thought I explained it enough - I am simply waiting for the XTrans or Foveron or whatever answer from the big guys.

Maybe it is just me - but I can see no reason for pumping up resolutions instead of thinking different. But I can also not see a good reason why we do not have much more fuel cell cars instead of the old oil - based engines. MAybe at the end it is me...


Quote
But looking at the facts both on the spec sheets and in the results (I have so far shot a few thousand frames with a D800) it is pretty clear that there is nothing else currently on the market that is like it, so that does make it revolutionary, just as revolutionary as the Nikon D1X, Canon EOS 1Ds Mk I, 1Ds Mark III, and Nikon D3s.

I agree, there is nothing else on the market right now. My thesis is just: Nikon has failed to depart from the competition. I am pretty sure that we will see Sony's with the same sensor rather sooner than later and a Canin with similar spec maybe later than sooner. And then? Next round? Pump it up again, Sam?

Oh well....
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Fine_Art on May 03, 2012, 07:37:04 pm
You wish to define "revolution" in terms of technology. I am defining it terms of actual photographic practice and in terms of working photographers expectations of what a practical camera can do.

Exactly. The camera does not exist to be an object of wonder. This camera is quite good for many types of photography. The detail, even in low light/ fast action is very high. That is all.

You could say modern consumer computers are not revolutionary compared to those from the 70s. Its just smaller transistors. Well there is a big difference in the capability at a users fingertips. A $500 computer now has more capability than the supercomputer only available to big research organizations from not that long ago.

If it is not a milestone to you it is an opinion based on how you use it. If you still play solitaire on a 4 core multi-GHz computer instead of the 8MHz PC in the garage that is your choice.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: ckimmerle on May 03, 2012, 08:38:00 pm
You wish to define "revolution" in terms of technology.

There is simply no way you could have inferred that from my post. It couldn't be further from the truth. I am defining the word as "radically new", or "marked change". A game changer, if you will. That is exactly what the first digital cameras were. They completely changed both the art and science of photography, as well as how photographers work. The D800 is not a game changer, it is not revolutionary. It is simply the next generation of what is becoming a long line of digital cameras.

I am defining it terms of actual photographic practice and in terms of working photographers expectations of what a practical camera can do.

Which has nothing at all to do with the definition of "revolutionary" or "milestone"
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: JohnBrew on May 03, 2012, 09:08:18 pm
Chuck, you are absolutely correct. The D800 is only the latest iteration of the digital game. Sure, everyone is excited about having 36 mp to mess around with, but it's only a matter of time until the bar will be raised yet again, and we will have to put up with all the superlatives ad nauseum, once more. Help me, Rhonda!
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: BJL on May 03, 2012, 11:27:29 pm
To get this out of the way: I am not saying that Bayer is bad, old fashioned or whatever in every case.
I am glad you cleared that up, since a previous post seemed to be a long list of attacks on Bayer CFA sensors heard so often from Foveon X3 enthusiasts.
Quote
What bothers me is simply that I do not see any advance at Canon, Nikon, Sony - as far as Sensor technology is concerned. All they do is blowing up the technology they introduced a decade ago.
It is very hard to say that, about Sony in particular. A decade ago it was still using CCDs, while Canon was using CMOS sensors that transfer an analog signal off the sensor to off-board ADCs; now Sony is using CMOS sensors with a different and apparently better approach of on-chip column parallel ADC, and over the last few years these have improved from 12-bit to 14-bit, and as a result now deliver far greater dynamic range (while also supporting very high frame rates, such as the 12fps, 24MP Sony A77.) Over the same decade, Panasonic has similarly gone from CCDs to the more traditional type of CMOS producing analog output and on again to some CMOS sensors that produce an inherently digital signal on the sensor chip.

Anyway, it simplistic to say that all important progress must be "radical", throwing away old approaches. The more mundane reality is that a lot of great progress is made by substantial yet evolutionary improvement on the existing foundations. The example of Foveon's aproach to X3 sensors is a cautionary tale about putting too much value on radical innovation for its own sake. In many ways, the promise that many of us saw when we first heard of the X3 concept has not been fullfilled due to problems like high noise levels, low sensitivity in blue, and the difficulty extracting three primary color signals from the three raw outputs at each pixel that are in fact mixes of all colors of the visible spectrum.

P. S. your criticism is, sadly, true of the Kodak and Dalsa sensor designs.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: hjulenissen on May 04, 2012, 02:31:38 am
So here we are, it is 2012, everybody is freaking out about a camera that puts 36 million pixels onto a single chip of (roughly) 35 mm. But - and this is my point - nothing has changed:
- We still have a stupid Bayer filter in front of the sensor
- As advanced as it may be - we still do stupid interpolation to get the full color information
- We still live with strange artefacts - or use an AA filter
So do you want something _different_ or something _better_?

I think that you need a good understanding of physics and signal processing in order to get the subtle points of aa filtering, color filtering and interpolation (not claiming that I myself get all of the subtle points). Bashing interpolation on the basis that it is "inventing" data indicates to me that you do not have this understanding (sorry if that comes out blunt), since any image is heavily processed by similar processes from sensor to display/print, no matter what sensor tech. Unless your display (sub-)pixel grid and printer dot pattern and camera sensor sensel arrangement all line up perfectly (trust me, they don't), interpolation will happen in the signal chain.

My take is that most of the problems with Bayer seems to reduce with increasing pixel density. If*) Nikon can give us better images in a $3000 DSLR using 36MP Bayer than e.g. 18MP Non-Bayer, why should they choose the latter? Only to impress spec-readers with something new?

Since most of us are not camera designers (nor publish scientific papers), I'd suggest that we focus on the end-results instead, and treat the camera more like a "black box". If we do that, I believe that currently CFA/Bayer/OLPF cameras tends to give the best (balanced) results among existing cameras for most camera applications and viewer taste, a sensible budget etc. Perhaps something revolutionary will come next month. If so, I will be very happy about it.

-h
*)Of course, I dont know what technical/economical trade-offs Nikon face, so I am just throwing out something that seems sensible to me.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 04, 2012, 02:33:15 am
It is very hard to say that, about Sony in particular. A decade ago it was still using CCDs, while Canon was using CMOS sensors that transfer an analog signal off the sensor to off-board ADCs; now Sony is using CMOS sensors with a different and apparently better approach of on-chip column parallel ADC, and over the last few years these have improved from 12-bit to 14-bit, and as a result now deliver far greater dynamic range (while also supporting very high frame rates, such as the 12fps, 24MP Sony A77.) Over the same decade, Panasonic has similarly gone from CCDs to the more traditional type of CMOS producing analog output and on again to some CMOS sensors that produce an inherently digital signal on the sensor chip.

Agreed. Here my wording was simply wrong.
Of course Sony made some important steps forward particular in sensor technology. But at the end of the day I still find the results somewhat questionable. Yes, we have 36 Mpix now, add to that that these pixels are of high quality. But again, due to the used technology we still have to deal with a lot of the same problems that we had back in the 90th - interpolation, artefacting, and so on.
Now, again, I am not saying that Foveron is the solution - in fact I doubt it (unless someone clever there has a great idea, which is of course possible. But as of now I have no problem to say that Bayer CFA in general are superior).


Quote
Anyway, it simplistic to say that all important progress must be "radical", throwing away old approaches.

Agreed and I was not at all saying that the D800 is no progress. It is, for sure.
 
Quote
The more mundane reality is that a lot of great progress is made by substantial yet evolutionary improvement on the existing foundations. The example of Foveon's aproach to X3 sensors is a cautionary tale about putting too much value on radical innovation for its own sake. In many ways, the promise that many of us saw when we first heard of the X3 concept has not been fullfilled due to problems like high noise levels, low sensitivity in blue, and the difficulty extracting three primary color signals from the three raw outputs at each pixel that are in fact mixes of all colors of the visible spectrum.

And again I could not agree more.
But then again, look around and you will see companies that at least keep on trying something different. Leaving the radical Foveon approach aside, we still have Fuji.
These guys clearly saw very early (back in CCD times) that the traditional Bayer CFA design has it's flaws and tried to think out of the box. SuperCCD was a quite different approach and, much like Foveron, never delivered to the promise - but someone at Fuji said - ok, let's try it in a different way again. Over EXR we are now at XTrans.
All of them are Bayer CFA designs with a different approach compared to the mainstream and allof them were trying to tackle the well known traditional Bayer CFA problems.
Canon was brave to introduce the first CMOS based large format camera and that was a big part of their success - I just wish someone of the big guys would be brave again!

Quote
P. S. your criticism is, sadly, true of the Kodak and Dalsa sensor designs.
I have no insight to Kodak - but I know that Dalsa was a very conservative company - that has probably not changed after the aquisition by Teledyne - time will tell.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 04, 2012, 02:55:39 am
So do you want something _different_ or something _better_?

Better, please :-)
To define that: I am in love with smooth gradients, very high color fidelity and images, where I do not need to correct a terrible lot of basic image artefacts. What I mean by basic artefacts is something like moiree, false colors in general, for example. More resolution with not so much more pixels would be nice also, since handling of files does have some importance (minor though). In a word: Better usage of a given sensor format would be a nice goal.

Quote
I think that you need a good understanding of physics and signal processing in order to get the subtle points of aa filtering, color filtering and interpolation. Bashing interpolation on the basis that it is "inventing" data indicates to me that you do not have this understanding (sorry if that comes out blunt),
That's fine, no problem. I am not a sensor designer, so in a way you are right. But being in the machine vision industry for more than 15 years tells me many things about sensors and - yes - also about Bayer CFA design and why what happens, if we do the Bayer interpolation.

Quote
since any image is heavily processed by similar processes from sensor to display/print, no matter what sensor tech. Unless your display (sub-)pixel grid and printer dot pattern and camera sensor sensel arrangement all line up perfectly (trust me, they don't), interpolation will happen in the signal chain.

You see - I am not bashing the needed interpolation for the sake of it. I even don't bash it, like I don't bash Nikon or the D800 in particular. I just think that it is time to think twice: Is blowing up the resolution of traditional Bayer CFA sensors the right way? I very much doubt it. As I said earlier - Fuji seems to have a clever idea with it's XTrans technology - which is still interpolation, but gives (as far as we can say now) better results at a given resolution.
Imagine a sensor with a more clever CFA than the traditional Bayer and "only" 20 Mpix (as an example - I have no insight how much advantage the XTrans really delivers) - having the same resolution than a 36 Mpix Sony CMOS - that's nice, isn't it?

Quote
My take is that most of the problems with Bayer seems to reduce with increasing pixel density. If*) Nikon can give us better images in a $3000 DSLR using 36MP Bayer than e.g. 18MP Foveon-like, why should they choose the latter? Only to impress spec-readers with something new?
Agreed. But then again - that'S not my point.

Quote
Since most of us are not camera designers (nor publish scientific papers), I'd suggest that we focus on the end-results instead, and treat the camera more like a "black box". If we do that, I believe that CFA/Bayer/OLPF cameras tends to give the best (balanced) results among existing cameras for most camera applications and viewer taste, a sensible budget etc. Perhaps something revolutionary will come next month.
It does not even need to be revolutionary to be a milestone....

-h
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: ErikKaffehr on May 04, 2012, 03:14:51 am
Hi,

In my humble opinion the D800 is a milestone for Nikon users, who now have a high res, full frame, professional camera at an affordable price. The D800/D800E is probably the best full frame landscape camera, ever. Nikon could have released a D700X with the same sensor they used in the D3X, but they did not.

Little doubt, development won't stop. Higher resolution cameras will come. On the other hand we are close to physical limits, there may be no more photons to catch and diffraction may also be a practical limit.

Some Canon users may switch from the 5DII to the D700 for the better resolution and the significant advantage in DR at low ISO.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: hjulenissen on May 04, 2012, 03:27:58 am
Better, please :-)
Agreed.
Quote
To define that: I am in love with smooth gradients, very high color fidelity and images, where I do not need to correct a terrible lot of basic image artefacts. What I mean by basic artefacts is something like moiree, false colors in general, for example.
A high-resolution CFA/Bayer/Olpf sensor that prioritize color filter accuracy over sensitivity/SNR would seem like a possible fit to those demands.

Sound like you would like a relatively strong olpf (relative to pixel pitch) so as to minimize artifacts at the cost of reduced contrast close to the Nyquist frequency.
Quote
More resolution with not so much more pixels would be nice also, since handling of files does have some importance (minor though).
This one is harder. I suspect that development of Bayer will give us increasingly large files. Fortunately, it seems that most of us are able to cope with the increased storage space/bandwidth, and those that are not can always use jpeg or the built-in "raw" lossy compressed formats.

If you are concerned about sluggish raw development software (aka Lightroom 4), I think that file-size in kByte and megapixel is only one component. Non-Bayer technologies could easily be as heavy on the developer even if file-size or pixel-count was lower (Foveon color processing is reported to be very complex).
Quote
In a word: Better usage of a given sensor format would be a nice goal.
Why is "Better usage of a given sensor format" a goal instead of simply "better images"? So what if Bayer means that we needs 30 MP to produce the luminance equivalent of a 2x MP hypothetical sensor, so what if Bayer files are 30% larger than some philosophic ideal representation. The key word is "hypothetical". Bayer is here, right now. It is producing remarkable results. It is highly likely that Bayer designs will produce even better results next year.
Quote
You see - I am not bashing the needed interpolation for the sake of it. I even don't bash it, like I don't bash Nikon or the D800 in particular. I just think that it is time to think twice: Is blowing up the resolution of traditional Bayer CFA sensors the right way? I very much doubt it.
This is similar to the "megapixel wars" discussions, where some will claim that the D800 would have had better "image quality" if they had been more conservative on the sensel density. And some will claim the opposite. We simply don't know. It is interesting to speculate, and I have learned a lot from speculations of clever people, but the only "truth" is what you can buy at B&H today.
Quote
As I said earlier - Fuji seems to have a clever idea with it's XTrans technology - which is still interpolation, but gives (as far as we can say now) better results at a given resolution.
(I have added bold tags to the quote)
I cant help but notice that last part. I don't want better results at a given resolution, I want better results. Anything that does not give me better results is of little interest to me.

I think that the photon counter suggested by Eric Fossum is interesting as a pedagogic and philosophic device. As we are measuring a natural phenomenon, we will never measure any more information than what nature provides. Knowing that limit might guide us in the right direction.

-h
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 04, 2012, 03:47:17 am


Sound like you would like a relatively strong olpf (relative to pixel pitch) so as to minimize artifacts at the cost of reduced contrast close to the Nyquist frequency.This one is harder. I suspect that development of Bayer will give us increasingly large files. Fortunately, it seems that most of us are able to cope with the increased storage space/bandwidth, and those that are not can always use jpeg or the built-in "raw" lossy compressed formats.
It's not only that: Better usage of a given reel estate results in bigger pixels (not want to ride a dead horse, but one of the advantages MF still has is the bigger pixel size. At the end of the day it is about photons. Difraction limit is another physical issue to keep in mind)

Quote
I cant help but notice that last part. I don't want better results at a given resolution, I want better results. Anything that does not give me better results is of little interest to me.
Agreed. So let me re-word:
If I can get better results by using a more clever technology (which still could be Bayer - like the XTrans (and to make it double save: I am not saying XTrans IS better, but the promise is that it COULD be better) that would be nice and a milestone in my mind.

Quote
I think that the photon counter suggested by Eric Fossum is interesting as a pedagogic and philosophic device. As we are measuring a natural phenomenon, we will never measure any more information than what nature provides. Knowing that limit might guide us in the right direction.
Agreed.
But that leaves issues like difraction, lens resolution and also usability aside (portable device which can only be used on heavy tripod sounds questionable to me)

At the end of the day a camera is not only about the sensor and the resolution - it needs to be usable in all aspects.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: marcmccalmont on May 04, 2012, 04:09:06 am
Hi,

In my humble opinion the D800 is a milestone for Nikon users, who now have a high res, full frame, professional camera at an affordable price. The D800/D800E is probably the best full frame landscape camera, ever. Nikon could have released a D700X with the same sensor they used in the D3X, but they did not.

Little doubt, development won't stop. Higher resolution cameras will come. On the other hand we are close to physical limits, there may be no more photons to catch and diffraction may also be a practical limit.

Some Canon users may switch from the 5DII to the D700 for the better resolution and the significant advantage in DR at low ISO.

Best regards
Erik

I just received a phone call my "it's not a milestone" camera is in! I switched sort of, I'll keep my 5DII and Canon lenses to use when I need them and in 3.5 years when Canon releases a 5DIV or 3D "it's not a milestone" camera!
Marc :)
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: hjulenissen on May 04, 2012, 05:48:51 am
It's not only that: Better usage of a given reel estate results in bigger pixels (not want to ride a dead horse, but one of the advantages MF still has is the bigger pixel size. At the end of the day it is about photons. Difraction limit is another physical issue to keep in mind)
Yet the D800 have significantly smaller sensels than the 5Dmk3, but seems to offer as good or better IQ where it matters to many users.

I disagree, I think that the biggest advantage of large sensors is that they are large and that they have a large amount of sensels (sensel density is a good thing). Nothing about photons suggests that large sensels is a good thing AFAIK. Silicon designers may or may not claim that larger sensors would improve e.g. the D800, but I have only heard such claims from people who do not design silicon. I think that if you could extend the D800 sensor to MF (keeping sensel size constant) you would have a very impressive MF sensor.
Quote
If I can get better results by using a more clever technology (which still could be Bayer - like the XTrans (and to make it double save: I am not saying XTrans IS better, but the promise is that it COULD be better) that would be nice and a milestone in my mind.
Sure. And the D800 (and D7000/K5 before it) seems to give improved sensor-IQ results compared to predecessors.
Quote

But that leaves issues like difraction, lens resolution and also usability aside (portable device which can only be used on heavy tripod sounds questionable to me)

At the end of the day a camera is not only about the sensor and the resolution - it needs to be usable in all aspects.
If you double the amount of pixels in a given sensor/camera, it does not suddenly become unusable hand-held. To get optimal results you will always have to be able and willing to put in a lot of effort. For many of us, sub-optimal results are good enough.

-h
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: kers on May 04, 2012, 09:35:15 am
Hello Andreas,

In my opinion the digital camera has evolved from bad to much better than the original film camera in only 10 years!

So in the last 10 years happened much more than in the previous say 50 years.

The choice for a bayer pattern is getting less and less significant with more and more pixels. So more pixels are important especially when the quality is getting better and better.

I use to buy a camera every 10 years- now after 3 years the new camera is twice as good and half the price.

maybe you should turn your subject to audio where we went from LP to CD to MP3- there you have a point


Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: John Nollendorfs on May 04, 2012, 11:44:09 am
The "milestone" in the D800 is not so much technology, but rather the "stars aligning" in a special way. Nikon is delivering at a "reasonable price", something that we have been eagerly waiting for many years. Most photographers couldn't afford the $20-30k MF cameras, the way the photography business has changed in the last 10 years. While the D3x was a great camera, many of us also could not afford the $8k  price tag on that either. Finally, Nikon has come across with with a "good value" camera for the "rest of us"!
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 04, 2012, 05:22:59 pm
Hello Andreas,

In my opinion the digital camera has evolved from bad to much better than the original film camera in only 10 years!

So in the last 10 years happened much more than in the previous say 50 years.

The choice for a bayer pattern is getting less and less significant with more and more pixels. So more pixels are important especially when the quality is getting better and better.

I use to buy a camera every 10 years- now after 3 years the new camera is twice as good and half the price.

maybe you should turn your subject to audio where we went from LP to CD to MP3- there you have a point




Hello Kers,

I like your reply.
You are absolutely right in saying that the digital camera overrun film in just 10 years (for most aspects, there is still something about film I just love - but for sure it is not the quality. It's more the... well, haptics, for the lack of a better word).

I just do not understand your point "The choice for a bayer pattern is getting less and less significant with more and more pixels"
Is it not the other way round: We need more and more pixels beacause of the Bayer pattern? Just a thought...

My problem in turning my attention to the audio: I am not interested too much in it :-)
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 04, 2012, 05:26:51 pm
The "milestone" in the D800 is not so much technology, but rather the "stars aligning" in a special way. Nikon is delivering at a "reasonable price", something that we have been eagerly waiting for many years. Most photographers couldn't afford the $20-30k MF cameras, the way the photography business has changed in the last 10 years. While the D3x was a great camera, many of us also could not afford the $8k  price tag on that either. Finally, Nikon has come across with with a "good value" camera for the "rest of us"!

Agreed John - it is a commercial milestone.

And probably this is a good place to all the users that have writen that it is a milestone for them to own and use that camera:
Oh, I understand that very, very well - peronally my first D60 back in, wait, I guess 2001, was a milestone.
In fact every camera I buy - which does not happen that often (give and take 5 - 7 years) is a very valid milestone for me.
That's not what I meant with my post - and I am sure you will be happy and will make astonishing shots.

Title: Why the D800 is a Millstone for some
Post by: Ellis Vener on May 04, 2012, 05:40:49 pm
I think it is more accurate to say that the D800 is a millstone tied around the neck of those who think they absolutely need one so their photographic life can be complete but cannot afford one,get their mitts on one, or those who are trying to find ways to deny their longing for one.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Javier S. on May 04, 2012, 06:42:55 pm
Hi, just a different point of view

I´ve been working with film until I got a 1Ds Mk III and then a 5D Mk II because I found that digital didn´t meet what I expected for my images.
I do a  lot of underwater photography and so smooth gradation in blue is a must for me.

A milestone for mankind will, most probably never be any camera, but it can indeed be for a photographer.

I think that, even for freakies, when you find something that really improves or helps you greatly on what you try to achieve, that can be called a milestone.

The difference, in my opinion, is that what can be a milestone for me could not be for you, as you may see things and work in a different way than I do.

I´m a Canon user, and will be more than happy if I can get a Canon as the new Nikon. Eaven though I have to think a lot before changing not only brand, but camera, as the housings are well above 5.000 $ and work only for a specific model (they change always some buttons or move them just a couple of mm away so that they cannot be updated), this new camera will make me think of a change.

Of course, we increase our expectances and imagine new things that can be done with new features (no one would have tried to decode DNA 200 years ago mainly because there were no tools to do it and thus no one even knew what DNA was about 400 years ago), but they are just tools. It´s up to ourselves how we use them and what can we achive with them. I don´t mind if they use one or another kind of sensor, as far as I can get what I have in my mind.

I belive that if a company can surpasse widely the others with whatever it is, a new sensor or anything else, they will do it. But is true that as well as we can improve with new tools, companys develop prducts to match the users expectancies as well. Otherwise they sell nothing.

The best brushes and oleos will not get the best paintings if the painter is not a fine artist (and that is to be judged by others, see Van Goghs case) but the same painter with poor tools can get you astonished with his art.

Anyway, It´s nice to read a different opinion from the rest, despite if I agree or not, it makes me think and I find it positive. So thank you Andrea

A milestone: yes for some, not for the rest.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: ErikKaffehr on May 05, 2012, 12:47:57 am
Hi,

I'd suggest that you see the bayer pattern as the problem. The bayer pattern is not the problem, but a solution to the problem. The Foevon designs are another solution to the same problem. Getting color information from monochrome pixels.

Another issue is that we have discrete sampling, which comes with aliasing. Making the pixels smaller reduces aliasing, but it seems that sub micron pixels may be necessary to eliminate it completely without the support of OLP filtering.

Best regards
Erik

Hello Kers,

I like your reply.
You are absolutely right in saying that the digital camera overrun film in just 10 years (for most aspects, there is still something about film I just love - but for sure it is not the quality. It's more the... well, haptics, for the lack of a better word).

I just do not understand your point "The choice for a bayer pattern is getting less and less significant with more and more pixels"
Is it not the other way round: We need more and more pixels beacause of the Bayer pattern? Just a thought...

My problem in turning my attention to the audio: I am not interested too much in it :-)
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Keith Reeder on May 05, 2012, 05:19:58 am
It's a fine camera, but it's not at all a milestone - it's an utterly predictable (not that there's anything wrong with that) progression from what went before.

The higher MP count was entirely predictable (and a good thing in my book); and the DR is simply what comes from using the same sensor technology that went before in the D7000 (in some respects it is the D7000 sensor, "full framed" up).

It couldn't be a more evolutionary camera - and again, nothing wrong with that.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 05, 2012, 01:56:34 pm
It's a fine camera, but it's not at all a milestone - it's an utterly predictable (not that there's anything wrong with that) progression from what went before.

The higher MP count was entirely predictable (and a good thing in my book); and the DR is simply what comes from using the same sensor technology that went before in the D7000 (in some respects it is the D7000 sensor, "full framed" up).

It couldn't be a more evolutionary camera - and again, nothing wrong with that.

Hi Keith - you nailed it: This is exactly what I think about the D800: Predictable (though very fine) - and just a matter of time that others will raise the br again-
Nothing wrong with that - but I fear that the whole camera industry (with the exception of Fuji) is thinking too much into the direction of increasing resolution, because of Bayer CFA (as used today) and is not brave enough to change the game - in what way ever (again, I am not a Foveron person, I think it has too many dissadvantages).

This leads into teritory where it becomes more and more problematic: A 6 Mp sensor has simply not enough resolution to show minor to medium lens flaws, an 18 Mp sensor still has not enough resolution to show minor lens flaws (but shows medium ones clearly) and the 36 Mpix one.... well, we will see. In addition these high resolutions show shake, any kind of movement much more. And so on... it just becomes harder.

This is why I think that probably a different approach is needed.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: hjulenissen on May 05, 2012, 02:17:35 pm
This leads into teritory where it becomes more and more problematic: A 6 Mp sensor has simply not enough resolution to show minor to medium lens flaws, an 18 Mp sensor still has not enough resolution to show minor lens flaws (but shows medium ones clearly) and the 36 Mpix one.... well, we will see. In addition these high resolutions show shake, any kind of movement much more. And so on... it just becomes harder.
A 36 MP FF sensor will not give worse images due to camera shake than a 12 MP one will. However, if camera shake is the main problem at 12 MP, swapping the camera for a 36MP may not be the solution (rather fix the main limitation by using a stand, a stabilized lense, or a flash)
Quote
This is why I think that probably a different approach is needed.
Needed for what? I think that you have provided poor arguments as to why it is likely that a radically different sensor design will give us more "image quality" faster than what refinements of the Bayer sensor can give us.

I think that the fundamental limit of Bayer is a loss of 50% (?) or so of the photons hitting the sensor due to non-co-located color-filtered sensels, and the fundamental photon statistics. Other than that, most limits seems to be practical/economical, and something that may continue to improve.

-h
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: BJL on May 05, 2012, 02:44:24 pm
Andreus,
1. The fact that increasing sensor resolution "reveals" more the resolultion limits of lenses is in no sense a disadvantage of increased sensor resolution: one natural goal for progress in sensors is reducing the limitations that sensors impose in image quality, such as delivering less than the resolution that the best lenses can deliver. The only way to do that is for the sensor tomsubstantially outresolve the lenses: "oversmapling".

2. This has nothing to do with whether the sensor uses a color filter array (Bayer or a variant like Fujifilm's); sensormresolution that roughly matches or exceeds a lens' resolution will reveal the limits of the lens.

3. Rather than accuse almost the entire industry of being on the wrong path, perhaps you should have the humility to consider the likelihood that the sensor and camera makers are actually researching and testing various technological opportunities, with the strong motivation of needing to keep up with competitors, and that sensors almost all continue to use color filter arrays because that continues to give better results than any other method tried so far. Did you know that several sensor makers (Fujifilm is one IIRC) have patents on other approaches to the "X3” idea of measuring three colors at each location (like multiple stacked color filters at each location) but none of those ideas have been implemented in products yet?
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: jeremypayne on May 05, 2012, 03:08:03 pm
This leads into teritory where it becomes more and more problematic: A 6 Mp sensor has simply not enough resolution to show minor to medium lens flaws, an 18 Mp sensor still has not enough resolution to show minor lens flaws (but shows medium ones clearly) and the 36 Mpix one.... well, we will see. In addition these high resolutions show shake, any kind of movement much more. And so on... it just becomes harder.

This is why I think that probably a different approach is needed.


To summarize ... "the D800 is so good, it is bad."

Nonsense ... and not at all a reason to pursue "a different approach".
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: alba63 on May 05, 2012, 03:43:22 pm
But don't get me wrong, I am not in particular bashing Nikon here and I think that the D800 is probably the best camera in the - well 35mmm heritage shooting gear market place.
But a milestone?

Such a long posting for such a weak message?

If d800 is the best 35mm DSLR, and at a very moderate price, this can easily be called a milestone. Virtually every review so far has pointed out that colour, DR and resolution are superb, many have shown that it rivals MF cameras (much more expensive) in more than one or two respects.
It has often been said that putting more pixels on the same surface in not revolutionary etc. But people expect probably a bit too much. Compare the d800 to a 6-8 year old one, and you may start to see that the amount of evolution over the years in also a revolution.

Bayer Sensors may technically not be perfect, because they have to interpolate colour for the surrounding pixels. But as pixels get smaller and denser, the colour information gets more and more precise, fine detail is better rendered, specially if noise and DR are not getting worse (which is not the case for the d800). In other words: The higher the pixel count goes (noise kept low and DR high), the less relevant the Bayer disadvantage will get. Add RAW converters that keep getting better and better and there is less and less to critizise.

I am not a sensor expert, but I have read - several times - that inside a Foveon based camera the amount of processing and calculating (with highly complex algorithms) is higher than in a Bayer sensor. In theory the Bayer filter approach seems not very perfect, but in practice it works pretty well. And it is telling that noone so far has presented an approach that delivers results that are - all counted in - better.

Bottom of the line seems that in order to get better image quality (in a much more limited types of shooting conditions), you have to invest at least 5x as much money, lenses included even more. To make such a camera available for under 3000 bucks can be easily called a milestone. I have seen detailed comparisions between the Leica S2 and the d800 that showed that the Leica struggles to come out as the better camera: Some slight advantages here, some weaker points there...  If you count in the number of situations (low light, fast shooting required, availability of different and specialized lenses) where the DSLR (d800) is superior, it looks like a real winner here. To ask 15000 for a camera and 4-5000 for a lens (that is optically excellent, as in the Leica S2 system) is hardly revolutionary.

So I think - as most reviewers who tested the d800 so far - that the d800 is pretty much an important milestone. Although I do not have one (yet).

Bernie
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 05, 2012, 04:34:04 pm
Such a long posting for such a weak message?
What is waek aboutr stating that I do not bash a acamera / firm?

Quote
If d800 is the best 35mm DSLR, and at a very moderate price, this can easily be called a milestone.

I don't know if I agree - because this means that we have a milestone every half year or so...well, I guess that it will take probably a bit longer in the case of the D 800, but anyway: As soon as we have something either better in IQ or similar but cheaper - we have a new milestone?

Quote
I am not a sensor expert, but I have read - several times - that inside a Foveon based camera the amount of processing and calculating (with highly complex algorithms) is higher than in a Bayer sensor. In theory the Bayer filter approach seems not very perfect, but in practice it works pretty well. And it is telling that noone so far has presented an approach that delivers results that are - all counted in - better.
Why are so many people try to "nail" my statement to Foveon? I said it clearly and I repeat: I do not believe that Foveon, like we know it today, is an alternative.
Stepping back to your statement about Bayer issues becoming less and less of a real world issue with smaller sensel size (if I got your statement right?), which I agree to, the question has to be asked why no one apart from Fuji has the idea to do something different - the XTrans is still a Bayer CFA - but taken to a different level. I don't know if it works and Fuji will most probably not make any Full Frame sensor (so we have no real comparison), but if this works and avoids some of the major Standard - Bayer CFA shortcomings, then this could well be a milestone. Better resolution at less nominal pixel, simply because the used Bayer pattern allows to not use AA and to have better de-Bayer algorithm seems to be a natural approach to me, as closer we come to sensel sizes taht become harder and harder to manager (also in terms of lens resolution and so on) - don't you think so?


Quote
Bottom of the line seems that in order to get better image quality (in a much more limited types of shooting conditions), you have to invest at least 5x as much money, lenses included even more. To make such a camera available for under 3000 bucks can be easily called a milestone. I have seen detailed comparisions between the Leica S2 and the d800 that showed that the Leica struggles to come out as the better camera: Some slight advantages here, some weaker points there...  If you count in the number of situations (low light, fast shooting required, availability of different and specialized lenses) where the DSLR (d800) is superior, it looks like a real winner here. To ask 15000 for a camera and 4-5000 for a lens (that is optically excellent, as in the Leica S2 system) is hardly revolutionary.

I agree.
I would be interested to read this comparison - do you have a link?

Title: Why people think you are advocating Foveon style should replace Bayer CFA
Post by: BJL on May 05, 2012, 04:54:00 pm
Why are so many people try to "nail" my statement to Foveon? I said it clearly and I repeat: I do not believe that Foveon, like we know it today, is an alternative.
People are probably using "Foveon" in the general sense of "X3", measuring three colors at each location, as opposed to using the Bayer CFA approach. And they probably think that you are a zealous partisan in favour of Foveon _style_ as superior to the Bayer CFA approach because of your flood of nasty comments about the Bayer CFA approach and suggestions that the X3 approach and not interpolating, as with Foveon, is the way to go. That and your comments dismissing or ignoring the huge technological improvements in sensors made over the last decade, apparently because simply staying with the Bayer CFA means to you that a company like Sony is not innovating.

Subsequent revisions and retractions of your claims in the face of refutations do not entirely release you from the tone set by comments like:

So here we are, it is 2012, everybody is freaking out about a camera that puts 36 million pixels onto a single chip of (roughly) 35 mm. But - and this is my point - nothing has changed:
- We still have a stupid Bayer filter in front of the sensor
- As advanced as it may be - we still do stupid interpolation to get the full color information
- We still live with strange artefacts - or use an AA filter

... Given the advances in sensors, I see no reason that we could not have something more advanced than Bayer. Foveron shows that it is possible - even the Fujis XTrans is at least a bit more modern.

I for one am sick of this blowing up a device that is essentially flawed. ...

... milking the dead cow called Bayer is a guarantee to nake money.

But as a matter of fact the Bayer filter, at least as we know it, is in fact not an ideal solution:
It relies on interpolation, which is in other words an educated guess of what the color and luminace of the pixel has to be.

...

But the effect is very clear: Bayer does spoil the resolution and the color fidelity. Depending on the de - Bayer filter, you will get more or less half of the nominal resolution - sometimes a bit more.

You do so a the cost of
- processing power: Do get good de - Bayer results you need at least a 7x7 kernel and a Laplace filter - in addition to many other tricks the companies do. This is an incedible processing load.
Ok we have the fast Asic's like Digic, Expeed - whatever they are called. But it remains somewhat questionable if you could not use that power for something else - of have smaller (read less power hungry) Asic's for extended battery life.

- producing artefacts: Not much to say here. Everybody knows about the Moiree problem. Some are affected more, other less

- Waisting sensor reel estate. YES, this is what they do: Insted of having somehow 3 colors in one place, you need 3x3 pixel to have all colors. I call this less than clever...

Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 05, 2012, 05:16:50 pm
Good point - overlooking one important sentence in the last quote YOU selected:

"But as a matter of fact the Bayer filter, at least as we know it, is in fact not an ideal solution:"

At least as we know it is the key here. Not too hard to understand, I thought.

And by the way - I never said that X3 in the sense of three layer is the way to go. It might or might not be. Fuji had some years ago the idea to have one big and one small sensel under one Micro lens for increased dynamic - and it worked to some extend.
I have to be careful, that is what I learn here, so let me make it clear: I do not say that XTrans or a kind of SuperCCP (would be called SuperCMOS today) is the RIGHT way - who am I to say that.

All I say: I am worried that the big guys (and Canon at the forefront right now) are not looking enough out of the box (or - maybe that is wrong alltogether, maybe they do look out of the box and are simply not ready yet - the point is: Yet another conventional Bayer CFA camera is something I have a hard time to understand to be a milestone - it is for sure a great camera, to make this also - again - clear)
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: jeremypayne on May 05, 2012, 05:17:04 pm
What is waek aboutr stating that I do not bash a acamera / firm?

You have been bashing the D800, Nikon, Canon and pretty much every other manufacturer except Fuji and Sigma.

What is weak is your understand of the topics at hand.

Calling the Bayer CFA approach to digital imaging "stupid" is ... well ... stupid.



Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: BJL on May 05, 2012, 05:47:38 pm
"But as a matter of fact the Bayer filter, at least as we know it, is in fact not an ideal solution:"
Not being "ideal" is no basis for any of your criticisms of the main sensor makers, because it is consistent with being the best method available, or even being the best method that is physically possible. The constraints of physical reality do not always allow an "ideal" solution to our problems. One of those physical constraints is that the photo-electric effect is almost color blind: it will detect photons of all colors at roughly the same rate. It is even harder to get the photo-electric effect to detect one color but not another of shorter wavelength. For example, we might dream of a sensor with one layer that detects all red photons but lets all blue and green ones pass through, followed by a layer that detects only green, and so on, but that might not be physically possible.

Do you have any evidence that a better solution is possible, or that camera companies could have a better method now if they had worked hard enough on finding one? It is not enough to point to the disadvantages of one method, because it might be that any other method without those disadvantages has other, greater disadvantages.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 05, 2012, 06:22:01 pm
You have been bashing the D800, Nikon, Canon and pretty much every other manufacturer except Fuji and Sigma.

What is weak is your understand of the topics at hand.

Calling the Bayer CFA approach to digital imaging "stupid" is ... well ... stupid.





Thanks :-)
Point taken.
But will all respect - not thinking out of the box is also, well at least not too clever.

But I agree, my wording was not precise enough and this is a valid point: I should have said Bayer CFA as we know it.

The first part of your statement is what I do not at all agree to. I do not call it bashing, if I point out what I -feel- might be wrong. I don't and I think I made the pointseveral times that I am sure that the D800 is a great camera. That's no bashing.
If you want me to I could bash Fuji and in fact I have - in your terms - bashed Sigma.

I can't understand what the problem is if someone says that the D800, being a great camera, is not a milestone, simply because it does not introduce any new technology but instead blowing up an Exmore sensor, much of the kind we know from APS C cameras like the Nex 7, A77 or Nikon D7000 - with great results, for sure.
Why do so many users here take that so - well, nearly personal?

I just wanted to express my surprise that so many people talk about a milestone - and it's not more than a very well executed, very predictable evolution of the Exmore sensor family.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Andreas_M on May 05, 2012, 06:40:01 pm
Not being "ideal" is no basis for any of your criticisms of the main sensor makers, because it is consistent with being the best method available, or even being the best method that is physically possible.
Precisely this is the point I am questioning.
Don't get me (again) wrong - I am not talking about a X3 solution (at least not as we know it today) - this might still be an option in the long term (or a dead end - which is probably more likely today), I am talking about new ways that help us getting rid of some of the standard Bayer shortcomings.

Quote
The constraints of physical reality do not always allow an "ideal" solution to our problems.
Your definition of ideal is a bit different than what I had in mind: You define ideal as a physical ideal, right? And there is no dissagreement betwen us in this aspect: There is no ideal solution to our problems and probably there will never be one.
There is another definition of ideal: Ideal in the sense of the best possible compromise. That's what I meant and I just expect comapnies to look for that kind of solution.
Now, you might still believe that standard BAyer CFA is the best solution. Maybe you are right, but I have my doubts.

Quote
One of those physical constraints is that the photo-electric effect is almost color blind: it will detect photons of all colors at roughly the same rate.
True. But this is not the point. It is all about the question if a standard pattern of G-B-G-B in line one and R-G-R-G in lien two (and so on) is the most effective way. Do not forget: This pattern has been primarily developed to match monitor outputs. We are talking about prints, aren't we? A different pattern might be a good idea.

Quote
Do you have any evidence that a better solution is possible, or that camera companies could have a better method now if they had worked hard enough on finding one? It is not enough to point to the disadvantages of one method, because it might be that any other method without those disadvantages has other, greater disadvantages.

A good and valid point.
To your first rethoric question: No, I have no evidence that something else will work better. But I have two other things: A lot of professional experience with the standard Bayer CFA dilema. This is not in photography, I must admit, but in Machine Vision.
The other thing: I have hope. Hope that things like Xtrans will work, finally.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 05, 2012, 08:03:26 pm
Now, you might still believe that standard BAyer CFA is the best solution. Maybe you are right, but I have my doubts.

Hi Andreas,

Doubts, why??

Quote
It is all about the question if a standard pattern of G-B-G-B in line one and R-G-R-G in lien two (and so on) is the most effective way. Do not forget: This pattern has been primarily developed to match monitor outputs.

Says who?

Quote
To your first rethoric question: No, I have no evidence that something else will work better. But I have two other things: A lot of professional experience with the standard Bayer CFA dilema. This is not in photography, I must admit, but in Machine Vision.

Ah, that explains a lot. Machine vision is all about making relevant differences (more than) visible, not about a rendering that closely models human vision, does it?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: BJL on May 05, 2012, 08:23:42 pm
To your first rethoric question: No, I have no evidence that something else will work better. ... I have hope.
That is all that needs to be said really, and I think we will all agree that it is good to hope for a truly new and better idea than the Bayer CFA, or any CFA.  Which has absolutely nothing to do with any denigration of the progress that is or is not represented by the D800, because there are many other ways that camera technology can be improved that do not inolve getting rid of the Bayer CFA.

I will stick my neck out and guess that the improvement we have seen over the last decade from the passive sensor approach of the CCD to today's best active pixel CMOS sensor technology is greater than any improvement possible by changing the CFA arrangement (as Fujifilm has tried on several occasions) or even by eliminating the need for a CFA entirely.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: hjulenissen on May 06, 2012, 11:42:15 am
If you are shooting B&W landscape at base ISO to jpeg and never adjust the color contribution, Bayer might be a poor choice. Just stripping the CFA and removing or reducing the AA filtering would give you more resolution, and more photon efficiency.

If you are pushing extreme low-light photography to the point where colors does not matter, Bayer might be a poor choice.

If you are shooting flowers in a vase in a studio and want the highest possible spatial resolution, you might want to get rid of the cfa and use a color wheel.

If you use your camera for machine vision, you may want to optimize the camera for that application.


For most of us, Bayer seems to be a rational and economic method to give us widely usable cameras at a given technological level.

-h
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 08, 2012, 02:10:54 am
It may not be a milestone, but it helps me capture challenging images more easily than any other cameras before it and that is the only thing that really matters, is it not?

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8167/7154074598_3360e98a57_o.jpg)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Fine_Art on May 08, 2012, 04:25:16 am
Looks good to me. In fact it is well off the chart. Look at the measuring wheel with fine lines on the right. Compare to other cameras.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800e/FULLRES/D800EhSLI00050.HTM (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800e/FULLRES/D800EhSLI00050.HTM)
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: AJSJones on May 10, 2012, 04:06:54 pm
So here we are, it is 2012, everybody is freaking out about a camera that puts 36 million pixels onto a single chip of (roughly) 35 mm. But - and this is my point - nothing has changed:
- We still have a stupid Bayer filter in front of the sensor
- As advanced as it may be - we still do stupid interpolation to get the full color information
- We still live with strange artefacts - or use an AA filter

We get a milestone every mile :D

Even the human eye has not progressed beyond using an array of three different kinds of color sensor cells and it does a massive amount of (stupid?) interpolation, interpretation and even compression (like mpeg) too, before it ever sends the information to the brain :D  The brain just suppresses what would otherwise be called flaws.  Seems like digital is doing quite well in getting the eye the right information - we just have to process it correctly.

Now, what was your question, again?
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: jeremypayne on May 10, 2012, 04:54:34 pm
We get a milestone every mile :D

Even the human eye has not progressed beyond using an array of three different kinds of color sensor cells and it does a massive amount of (stupid?) interpolation, interpretation and even compression (like mpeg) too, before it ever sends the information to the brain :D  The brain just suppresses what would otherwise be called flaws.  Seems like digital is doing quite well in getting the eye the right information - we just have to process it correctly.

Now, what was your question, again?

Exactly.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: John Nollendorfs on May 11, 2012, 11:44:20 am
You have been bashing the D800, Nikon, Canon and pretty much every other manufacturer except Fuji and Sigma.

What is weak is your understand of the topics at hand.

Calling the Bayer CFA approach to digital imaging "stupid" is ... well ... stupid.





I think what Andreas is meaning to imply is that short of Fuji and Sigma--Canon, Nikon & Sony are not trying new imaging technologies, but only refining existing ones. I hope I have summarized the "crux" of your statements when applied to the D800, Andreas?

Pure research into imaging for companies  such as Canon, Nikon & Sony is incredibly expensive. It is much easier and logical for them to further refine and develop existing technologies. (Their way of thinking) But it is interesting that a European cell phone company would invest and develop a new imaging technology with a 44 MP sensor, and unique processing techniques for that sensor!
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: AJSJones on May 11, 2012, 02:18:47 pm
I think what Andreas is meaning to imply is that short of Fuji and Sigma--Canon, Nikon & Sony are not trying new imaging technologies, but only refining existing ones. I hope I have summarized the "crux" of your statements when applied to the D800, Andreas?

Pure research into imaging for companies  such as Canon, Nikon & Sony is incredibly expensive. It is much easier and logical for them to further refine and develop existing technologies. (Their way of thinking) But it is interesting that a European cell phone company would invest and develop a new imaging technology with a 44 MP sensor, and unique processing techniques for that sensor!

The Nokia 41MP still uses a Bayer array (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/03/innovation-or-hype-ars-examines-nokias-41-megapixel-smartphone-camerainnovation-or-hype-ars-examines-nokias-41-megapixel-smartphone-camera/), but they have gone further down the road of processing, as you say.
Quote
Since each pixel in a finished 5MP image on the 808 PureView gets data from eight different pixel locations on the sensor, a value for red, green, and blue can be determined without extra interpolation. Furthermore, noise caused by some pixels returning random or inaccurate values is effectively averaged out by combining data from more than one pixel location. This results in more accurate color and reduced noise overall.
Additionally, oversampling reduces the softening effects of the Bayer filter, the anti-aliasing filter, and diffraction of the tiny lens, resulting in sharper images.

 I think Andreas is just frustrated that no-one has yet come up with something much better than the Bayer array (or CFA in general) and got it to work well.  Until something comes along to make it look stupid (in retrospect, of course), we are stuck with it as the smartest thing around (barring 3 separate exposures with 3 filters etc).  That doesn't mean they're not working on it, though...
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: t3hh on May 20, 2012, 09:46:44 am
Looks to me that DRReview guys are starting to trickle into LuLa.
Or, in other words, tire kickers are starting to kick in. ;)
EDIT: Correction: DPReview, of course
what a useful and intelligent comment! really represents how different is LuLa forum from DPR...
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 20, 2012, 09:58:23 am
I think what Andreas is meaning to imply is that short of Fuji and Sigma--Canon, Nikon & Sony are not trying new imaging technologies, but only refining existing ones. I hope I have summarized the "crux" of your statements when applied to the D800, Andreas?

The same could be said about most car manufacturers having done little to go beyond our current engines technologies.

The thing though is that those companies are running different streams of activities in parallel. They have to make tough calls in terms of selecting what technology to use in a given product.

The focus is not innovation, it is value for customer and stakeholders.

Sigma tried with Foveon, I believe they have lost a lot of money in this endeavor, perhaps enough to threaten the future of the company. Was their focus on Foveon interesting for those interested in sensor technology? Amazingly interesting. Was it a decision stakeholders are happy about? That's a lot less obvious.

So unless you consider Canon and Nikon to be research entities, I am not sure they can be blamed for the way they conduct their business.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 20, 2012, 12:59:14 pm
what a useful and intelligent comment! really represents how different is LuLa forum from DPR...

And you would know it after five anonymous comments?
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: t3hh on May 20, 2012, 03:49:17 pm
And you would know it after five anonymous comments?
sure. and i know now the quality of your 2047 non-anonymus comments.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: hjulenissen on May 21, 2012, 03:29:55 am
The same could be said about most car manufacturers having done little to go beyond our current engines technologies.
...
So unless you consider Canon and Nikon to be research entities, I am not sure they can be blamed for the way they conduct their business.
Companies like IBM and Intel seems to focus a lot on basic research. I like to think that this is a conscious effort to be able to sell products that no other companies (or governments) have the capital and stamina to produce. This means that shareholders have to be in it for the long run.

A favourite story of mine on this subject was about Japanese vs Western manufacturers of electronic musical instruments. Yamaha wanted to get into the market, and from the early 70s onwards, they started introducing interesting, but commercially unsuccessful products. What they did was gather experience and build a name. At the same time, a number of exciting US and European manufacturers had creative and commercial success, but they had one problem: their investors were in it for the short profit. Every new product had to be a success, or else the company would go belly-up. Consequently, most of them (over time) disappeared, and those that survived tended to focus on safe, evolutionary products.

Then in the early 80s, Yamaha hit gold with the DX-7, based on research at Stanford. What it did was fundamentally different from what the competitors did, and it was a great success. Every 80s ballad has the DX-7 electric piano sound all over it.

Could this story happen today, with "landscape photography" as the product and Chinese/Indian manufacturers as the "underdog"? Does Western (and Japanese?) manufacturers walk the safe path of moderate evolution for each camera generation, while some revolutionary concept just awaits the right manufacturer to change the market? I think this is what the thread starter wants to discuss? My reply is perhaps, probably. But such advances tends to come from a radically unpredictable angle. Of course Canon and Nikon & Friends have a staff of PhDs that constantly think about S/N-ratios, Dynamic Range, MTF50, color accuracy and such. If there is a free lunch anywhere, chances are that they have simulated it, calculated the cost/risk etc. I dont think the potential from ditching Bayer is all that large. If we see such a product, I am guessing that (just like the DX7 in my story) will be more fundamentally different, and perhaps not "the ultimate high-quality". Perhaps it will allow flexible usage of multiple (cheaper) sensors/lenses, more room for dsp/raw development to play with stuff. Imagine being able to distort the sensor shape (or lense) to do local phocus/DOF adjustement .
-h
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: JohnBrew on May 22, 2012, 07:37:14 am
After a well-known blogger has made copius side-by-side tests between the D800 and it's E cousin, one has to wonder why Nikon went to the trouble of building the E. The differences appear miniscule and with proper PP non-existent. Now that Leica is coming out with a camera body which has no AA filter and no Bayer array solely for bw, I wonder why didn't Nikon, if they really wanted to do something totally different for photography, do something similar. I feel the original statement of this thread, now that the hype has worn off, is entirely correct.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: MarkL on May 25, 2012, 06:55:38 am
After a well-known blogger has made copius side-by-side tests between the D800 and it's E cousin, one has to wonder why Nikon went to the trouble of building the E. The differences appear miniscule and with proper PP non-existent.

Because it makes good business sense. Nikon have staid they wanted to challenge the medium format market and a lot of those guys would have dismissed the D800 outright if there was no AA filterless option or dismissed at unsharpened sample images. Few people pay for online subscription sites or do extensive testing like that, it's more about perception or attracting people to look in the first place.

Oddly it seem the people that may benefit most from the E version are people that shoot a lot at high iso rather than the landscape and studio guys.
Title: Re: Why the D800 is not at all a Milestone
Post by: dhale on July 02, 2012, 08:35:04 am
I will disagree.  You, apparently, do not own a D800e or a D800.  When the sensor plus the auto-focus system, and the camera as a whole are considered, this is a revolutionary camera.

Name another camera that rendered all but the very best lenses useless.  Only the sharpest highest contrast lenses allow owners to realize the body's potential.  The list of DSLR bodies the can do that is very short.

I had been waiting since 2009, when I decided to replace my Nikon F3, for a camera that could achieve what I was getting from film like Kodachrome 25 or Fuji 50 in a DSLR.  Nikon has done that with these two bodies.  I opted for the D800e.