Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: dreed on June 12, 2012, 03:07:02 am
-
In their D800 review, dpreview look at the difference between the D800 and D800E.
Some of the 100% zooms on raw images can be found starting here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/22
-
A pixel peepers wet dream?
-
It would seem that if you want to see the differences in IQ between the D800 and the D800E then you must engage in pixel peeping or the equivalent of that with prints.
-
It would seem that if you want to see the differences in IQ between the D800 and the D800E then you must engage in pixel peeping or the equivalent of that with prints.
Thing is, if your print is large enough, the audience will essentially be pixel-peeping too.
-
Thing is, if your print is large enough, the audience will essentially be pixel-peeping too.
Only if its an audience of photographers! ;D
In my experience - the art buyer stands back and admires.
The Photographer sticks his nose into the print.
Whilst I fall into category 2 - I sell to category 1. And to date no client ever has said 'geee.. I wish this sharper.. or I wish this had more resolution'
Makes one stop and think about who we are pleasing with the never ending quest for more resolution.....
-
I am in favor of the d800E
As long as you do not have too often moiré, who cares for a bit more sharpness...?
In print -the destination of these 36MP images- things always come out a bit softer so the extra acutance is welcome, as in downsampling.
Also High ISO images need less sharpening or non at all.
-
The AA-filter in D800 is so weak that the D800E provides very little advantage after sharpening.
I'd like them to have done the landscape tests at f/8 though which is typically the best compromise for edge-to-edge sharpness vs diffraction. f/4.5 as they tested is not likely to be used often for landscapes, and f/16 only in emergencies.
-
It also shows how important it is to have a great demosaicing algorithm to extract the little advantage you get from D800E.
I think RawTherapee's amaze demosaicer + minor deconvolution sharpening (attached) does the job better (less false colors, finer lines) than the various raw converter examples on the dpreview page http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/27
Some of the fences are hopelessly moireed though.
I would also be a bit worried how those aliased diagonal wires to the right would end up on a print - I don't like see traces of pixels in a print. But as said, f/4.5 is an extreme, at f/8 the image would be a bit softer with less aliasing and moire issues.
-
I own both a D800 and D800e and have been using them for a couple of months now.
I wrote in my original reports that the difference in resolution were small, but visible, and not just on-screen at 100%. These can be seen in 13X19" prints.
But I also wrote that only the very best lenses and the very best shooting technique allows that small difference to be worthwhile. This has essentially now been corroborated by DPReview.
I have yet to see significant moire other than when I set out to do so for testing purposes.
Michael
-
The AA-filter in D800 is so weak that the D800E provides very little advantage after sharpening.
I'd like them to have done the landscape tests at f/8 though which is typically the best compromise for edge-to-edge sharpness vs diffraction. f/4.5 as they tested is not likely to be used often for landscapes, and f/16 only in emergencies.
I think that the D800/E changes the game here with respect to aperture. They (dpreview) discuss the impact of smaller apertures on image quality and as Michael and dpreview say, the best technique is required for getting the best out of the sensor. I take that to mean including what the aperture is set to.
So setting up for a shot now requires knowledge of where each lens peaks in terms of IQ vs aperture and the resulting resolution.
What if there was an iPad/iPhone/whatever application where you could select the lenses that you have available, what is the required range of distances for subjects to be in focus is and have it tell you which lens will produce the best resolution? I say that because not all lenses peak at the same point in MTF graphs and trying to cram all that into your brain is likely to result in lossy compression. Or even just to answer the question "I have lenses X, Y and Z in my bag, I want to shoot at AAmm, using f/B.B, which lens gives me the best resoslution?"
-
Hi,
Sharpening is also a part of the equation. An image with AA-filter needs more sharpening than a non AA-filtered image.
The best aperture is where the lens gets diffraction limited. With the very best lenses that may happen at f/5.6 or even at f/4. Some lenses achieve optimum performance at large apertures, without being limited by diffraction. Those lenses will maintain performance stopping down until diffraction limit is met. There are very few photographic lenses that are diffraction limited at f/4. my guess would be one or two telephoto lenses for the Leica R, the Coastal Optics 60/4.0 Macro lens and possibly some of the Canon L-series telephoto lenses.
Best regards
Erik
I think that the D800/E changes the game here with respect to aperture. They (dpreview) discuss the impact of smaller apertures on image quality and as Michael and dpreview say, the best technique is required for getting the best out of the sensor. I take that to mean including what the aperture is set to.
So setting up for a shot now requires knowledge of where each lens peaks in terms of IQ vs aperture and the resulting resolution.
What if there was an iPad/iPhone/whatever application where you could select the lenses that you have available, what is the required range of distances for subjects to be in focus is and have it tell you which lens will produce the best resolution? I say that because not all lenses peak at the same point in MTF graphs and trying to cram all that into your brain is likely to result in lossy compression. Or even just to answer the question "I have lenses X, Y and Z in my bag, I want to shoot at AAmm, using f/B.B, which lens gives me the best resoslution?"
-
I realize dpreview was pixel-peeping - not something typically done with fine art prints, but at the same time, I was surprised at the obvious degradation of the D800e "advantage" at smaller apertures like ƒ16. So much of the work done by outdoor landscape and nature photographers pushes the defraction limit at ƒ11, 16 and 22 that it would appear there is little or no realistic advantage to owning the "e" version.
I'd love to hear from those who are making active use of small apertures and the D800e (especially if you can compare your results to those from a straight D800) – can you confirm the obvious loss in advantage shown by the dpreview team? Perhaps I can save myself $300 and just purchase a D800.
-
Most of my Leica R's on a D800E are optimum between f5.6 and f8.0 I see no difference, f4 and f11 are a bit soft
Marc
100mm Makro
-
I'd love to hear from those who are making active use of small apertures and the D800e (especially if you can compare your results to those from a straight D800) – can you confirm the obvious loss in advantage shown by the dpreview team? Perhaps I can save myself $300 and just purchase a D800.
Why not get the "E" and have an advantage when you need/want the extra sharpness? The "E" images really are quite 3 dimensional I think worth the $300
Marc
-
I think, using the small apertures to achieve greater depth of field is vastly overdone.
Back in film days, with 220 film I tried to use F22 and F32 whenever possible. Then with dSLR, I weaned myself from it towards F8.
Not so long ago, I came across a few new photography books in which the authors promoted the use of small apertures to achieve greater DOF. So, I thought, maybe the DOF will compensate for the diffraction devil, and that these guys know something I don't, so I tried the small apertures again.
It didn't take very long to discover that the combination of the diffraction and departure from the lens sweet spot kills any sharpness, so I'm back to F5.6 and F8 (on APS-sized body).
-
It didn't take very long to discover that the combination of the diffraction and departure from the lens sweet spot kills any sharpness, [...]
This is not entirely true. While diffraction does reduce the per pixel contrast, it is however also a type of blur that's recoverable to a large extent with proper (=deconvolution) sharpening. There are limits to such restorations though.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I think, using the small apertures to achieve greater depth of field is vastly overdone.
It didn't take very long to discover that the combination of the diffraction and departure from the lens sweet spot kills any sharpness, so I'm back to F5.6 and F8 (on APS-sized body).
I couldn't agree more. Over the years, I've moved through the 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5 range using upper limits of ƒ22 to ƒ64 respectively, but more recent use of a 4:3s sensor demonstrated clearly that ƒ11 was its limit. However, back in the 35mm days, I could routinely use ƒ22 on Velvia with no problem. Perhaps it's wishful thinking that the same could be achieved with the full-frame D800 without any obvious degradation. The degradation is there when pixel-peeping; hopefully it is not apparent with 20"+ fine prints.
-
The best aperture is where the lens gets diffraction limited. With the very best lenses that may happen at f/5.6 or even at f/4. Some lenses achieve optimum performance at large apertures, without being limited by diffraction. Those lenses will maintain performance stopping down until diffraction limit is met. There are very few photographic lenses that are diffraction limited at f/4. my guess would be one or two telephoto lenses for the Leica R, the Coastal Optics 60/4.0 Macro lens and possibly some of the Canon L-series telephoto lenses.
Hi Erik,
I don't think this is quite true, but perhaps that depends on one's definition of 'diffration limitation'.
As I understand the term, a lens is diffraction limited at a particular aperture when no amount of improvement by the lens designer and manufacturer could reveal any additional sharpness, simply because one cannot defeat the laws of diffraction. But it's interesting that physics research departments are trying very hard to defeat the laws of diffraction through the development of artificial materials, produced by nanotechnology, which have a negative refractive index, and could theoretically make it possible, eventually, to develop a camera lens which is as sharp at F22 as a good quality lens currently is at F5.6.
In practice, the effects of diffraction are present at all apertures in all lenses, but at larger apertures, say as F1.4 to F5.6, such effects are overshadowed by other lens aberrations which are the main obstacle to improving the lens sharpness.
If a lens is sharpest at F4, that doesn't mean the lens is diffraction limited at F4. I'd be very surprised if any 35mm-format lens exists which is diffraction limited at F4. Maybe certain very small-format lenses designed for P&S cameras can be diffraction limited at F4. Maybe microscope lenses can be diffraction limited at F4 or wider. I'm not sure about that.
Again, as I understand the situation, most DSLR camera lenses would not be diffraction limited till F11 and beyond, the apertures at which all lenses are equally bad.
ps. One also sometimes finds that a particular telephoto lens which is impressively sharp at F2.8 is only very marginally sharper at F2.8 than it is at F8. Furthermore, its sharpness at F8 may not be as great as the sharpness of other less impressive lenses at F8. In other words, the lens has been optimised for maximum sharpness at F2.8, with a trade-off of being slightly less sharp than it could be at physically smaller apertures.
-
I couldn't agree more. Over the years, I've moved through the 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5 range using upper limits of ƒ22 to ƒ64 respectively, but more recent use of a 4:3s sensor demonstrated clearly that ƒ11 was its limit. However, back in the 35mm days, I could routinely use ƒ22 on Velvia with no problem. Perhaps it's wishful thinking that the same could be achieved with the full-frame D800 without any obvious degradation. The degradation is there when pixel-peeping; hopefully it is not apparent with 20"+ fine prints.
Terry,
I wonder how much of the sharpness is attributable to the film format/sensor size and how much to the media (film vs sensor, and putting up with the diffraction).
At the same time, we didn't do then so much pixel peeping as now. The printing was analog, and the photographic paper reacted also differently than the modern ink-jet papers. I produced some 12ft long prints from a 6x9 and 6x17 film, and found them plenty sharp. Most of the time, I used often F16 or F22, occasionally even F32, and at that time, I didn't even know what a diffraction was. I don't think, I could have it done from a 35x24mm image, regardless of the aperture used.
-
The lens they used in the test don't really peak at f/4.5. Center sharpness is at peak yes, but if you look at the edges there's plenty sharpness falloff.
Some will probably prefer having supersharp center and somewhat fuzzy edges like dpreview, but for landscapes I prefer having a more even edge-to-edge performance, and for many that is f/8 (there are exceptions though). There will also be depth of field issues, having larger aperture than f/8 will be problematic in many landscape scenes.
-
I note much of this discussion is only relevant when photographing either a fairly flat subject or when sharpness is only required in part of the scene. For many shots, stopping down significantly past any diffraction limit will give an apparently sharper image to the viewer (not pixel-peeper!) simply because more of the subject is in focus.
High pixel-count cameras like the Nikon D800 twins are no less sharp than low pixel-count cameras stopped way down so give the best of both worlds.
Personally, nothing I do benefits from even the 18 good megapixels of my current SLR so I'll save on computer space and processing time for now, though I do get the interest and will watch to see if the benefits of these complex sensors prove real over time.
Don
-
The resolution of D800 is similar to that of 4x5" film. For landscape photography I think that with that amount of resolution you really need tilt/swing to be able to optimize your depth of field. High resolution opens up for a whole different shooting style.
I don't see a move towards traditional view camera techniques though, and there are not too many tilt/shift lenses to choose from either. Shooting ultra-wides with distorted perspectives and not care seems to be the modern style of landscape photography :-)
-
I downloaded the RAW files from the comparison and processed a crop in Lightroom 4.
http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/144023796/original
http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/144023797/original
I guess it should be easy to tell which is which?
-
Another pair of the same crop:
http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/144024484/original
http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/144024482/original
Again which one is D800 and which one D800E?
-
Patrick diFruscia, landscape photographer extraordinaire, usually shoots at f16 and sometimes even more.
Eduardo
The lens they used in the test don't really peak at f/4.5. Center sharpness is at peak yes, but if you look at the edges there's plenty sharpness falloff.
Some will probably prefer having supersharp center and somewhat fuzzy edges like dpreview, but for landscapes I prefer having a more even edge-to-edge performance, and for many that is f/8 (there are exceptions though). There will also be depth of field issues, having larger aperture than f/8 will be problematic in many landscape scenes.
-
I got the D800E, I like the pictures, haven't gotten moire despite trying. I use a lot of old MF lenses and this may be the best camera ever for them. Lot of bang for the buck.
-
The resolution of D800 is similar to that of 4x5" film. For landscape photography I think that with that amount of resolution you really need tilt/swing to be able to optimize your depth of field. High resolution opens up for a whole different shooting style.
I don't see a move towards traditional view camera techniques though, and there are not too many tilt/shift lenses to choose from either. Shooting ultra-wides with distorted perspectives and not care seems to be the modern style of landscape photography :-)
Just out of interest, where did you get the data that the resolution of the D800 is similar to 4x5 film?
I definitely wish there were more ultra-wide tilt-shift options, though. 24mm, with 12mm of shift, is great for stitching, but, when you want everything in a single frame, I'd prefer a 12-14mm tilt-shift lens - a bit of forward tilt to align the plane of focus closer to the ground plane, and a bit of upward shift to keep trees vertical. Zeiss or Leica, where are you?!
-
Hi Shadowblade,
Check out the link below
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/27/nikon-patents-for-17mm-f4-tilt-and-shift-10mm-f4-16-30mm-f4-5-5-6-and-28mm-f1-4-lenses.aspx/
Your wish might come true.
Cheers
Simon
-
Just out of interest, where did you get the data that the resolution of the D800 is similar to 4x5 film?
It is quite subjective of course, it depends on how much grain you can accept. Thing with film is that detail is resolved way past the grain size. If you don't mind grain you'd probably need 100+ megapixels to match 4x5", but if you do mind grain then ~40 megapixels is around the tipping point when digital starts to perform better. From stuff I've read here and there P45+ (39 megapixels) was the tipping point for many large format photographers to abandon 4x5" film.
This camera test is good for coming to your own conclusions:
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html
-
Was there not a comparison recently which showed that IQ180 back beats 8x10" quite handily? Now we have seen also here that D800 is almost as good as IQ180, so to me it seems believable that D800 would equal or beat 4X5", easily.
-
It is quite subjective of course, it depends on how much grain you can accept. Thing with film is that detail is resolved way past the grain size. If you don't mind grain you'd probably need 100+ megapixels to match 4x5", but if you do mind grain then ~40 megapixels is around the tipping point when digital starts to perform better. From stuff I've read here and there P45+ (39 megapixels) was the tipping point for many large format photographers to abandon 4x5" film.
This camera test is good for coming to your own conclusions:
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html
It's all well and good to say that backs out res LF film etc, the main point of the DPreview is that DLSR sensors are out resolving the stable of lenses available. Most lenses are still based on optics designs from the 80's.
The camera manufacturers need to take up the challenge of producing better lenses.
-
The camera manufacturers need to take up the challenge of producing better lenses.
Diffraction is getting a big problem if we want more pixels from small sensors. There is nothing optical companies can do about that. There really is no substitute to square inches...
-
Was there not a comparison recently which showed that IQ180 back beats 8x10" quite handily? Now we have seen also here that D800 is almost as good as IQ180, so to me it seems believable that D800 would equal or beat 4X5", easily.
hello Petrus,
no the opposite...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60589.0
and 36mp is not 80mp so there you have the difference...
still with 36mp of good information you can do a lot ( and if you go stitching you can do a lot more )
-
hello Petrus,
no the opposite...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60589.0
and 36mp is not 80mp so there you have the difference...
still with 36mp of good information you can do a lot ( and if you go stitching you can do a lot more )
It was another comparison, not this one. But fine with me. If IQ180 is almost as good as 8x10 and D800 almost as good as IQ180, that makes D800 just about the same as 4x5. No? ;D
-
A luxury home just 300 yds behind will never equal beach front property. Never. ;)
Eduardo
It was another comparison, not this one. But fine with me. If IQ180 is almost as good as 8x10 and D800 almost as good as IQ180, that makes D800 just about the same as 4x5. No? ;D
-
Diffraction is getting a big problem if we want more pixels from small sensors. There is nothing optical companies can do about that. There really is no substitute to square inches...
Then I guess our route to higher quality is software – Adobe: Bring deconvolution sharpening to Lightroom!
-
Adobe: Bring deconvolution sharpening to Lightroom!
It is already there in Lightroom (since LR 3 I think) ... if you jack the detail slider to 100% you are then utilizing deconvolution.
-
A luxury home just 300 yds behind will never equal beach front property. Never. ;)
Eduardo
Formulating irrelevant analogies won't win arguments. Ever. ;)
-
It is already there in Lightroom (since LR 3 I think) ... if you jack the detail slider to 100% you are then utilizing deconvolution.
That's what Schewe says in the Lightroom 4 tutorial, but I'm not sure if this was added in LR4 or in LR3.
-
That's what Schewe says in the Lightroom 4 tutorial, but I'm not sure if this was added in LR4 or in LR3.
99.999% sure it was in LR 3 ... just not sure if it was there in a 2.X release.
-
99.999% sure it was in LR 3 ... just not sure if it was there in a 2.X release.
I'm 99.999% sure it was not in LR2, but anyway this has only historic interest I guess now. The main thing is that it is in LR4 which in a number of ways is an amazing update.
-
In their D800 review, dpreview look at the difference between the D800 and D800E.
Some of the 100% zooms on raw images can be found starting here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/22
Imagine my thrill. What photographer (as opposed to pixel-peeper) gives a damn?
-
Irrelevant to you. Besides my post was for fun among fellow photographers, not to win any argument. You should be over that by now. (I think).
Eduardo
Formulating irrelevant analogies won't win arguments. Ever. ;)
-
Diffraction is getting a big problem if we want more pixels from small sensors. There is nothing optical companies can do about that. There really is no substitute to square inches...
It depends on how you see it. If you are a landscape photographer and want to maximize depth of field only resolution matters, not sensor size. Larger sensor => longer focal lenghts => shorter DOF => compensated with smaller aperture => zerosum game concerning diffraction.
-
Hi, IMHO "a" is the sharper one
I downloaded the RAW files from the comparison and processed a crop in Lightroom 4.
http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/144023796/original
http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/144023797/original
I guess it should be easy to tell which is which?
-
Hi,
In my view "c" is the sharper one.
Best regards
Erik
Another pair of the same crop:
http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/144024484/original
http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/144024482/original
Again which one is D800 and which one D800E?