Does the D800E reach MF quality ?

[Stefan.Steib]

I have done a test wednesday on the PCP Show in Frankfurt where I happened to have my booth beneath Nikon´s. I used our Hartblei 4/40 IF TS on the D800E. I will link to full resolution JPG´s (and NEF´s) on my server, done with Lightroom 4.1 Beta (I have to say this new version really looks good to me , mostly it´s F_A_S_T !) The first shot _DSC5245.jpg is a closeup that shows what happens when you go to fabric with a really sharp lens (the Zeiss datasheet for our lens states 200 LPmm), we have a heavy Moiree here- I did NOT use any moiree correction to make it obvious. Aperture was f11, heavy Benbo MK5 tripod used, Mirror prerelease 2 sec, video focused on point.
The second image _DSC5250.jpg was shot a bit more backwards to show the scene, there you can also see the original colors of the fabric without moiree.

The settings for the JPG´s are: Quality 100 %/300 dpi/ProPhotoRGB.
I tried to get the "medium Format look" that some people describe with some finetuning, both images use the exact same sharpness and other settings.

http://www.hcam.de/downloads/_DSC5245.jpg
http://www.hcam.de/downloads/_DSC5250.jpg

the NEF´s are here

http://www.hcam.de/downloads/_DSC5245.NEF
http://www.hcam.de/downloads/_DSC5250.NEF

I would say that matches MF in the good and in the bad.

Greetings from Lindenberg
Stefan

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Lovely Moire on those fabrics

[Stefan.Steib]

This is intentionally, I just wanted to show this to the Nikon guys, they were just flattened by the amount of Moiree our 40mm was able to produce with the D800E....
Whereas  Lightroom or Capture One can of course remove this completely.
I just tried Lightroom 4.1 RC2 - cool !

regards
Stefan

[yaya]

Stefan any idea why they do not use any compression on the D800? Or it might be that Apple still haven't added RAW support in 10.7 so it's not reading the file size properly?

[chrismuc]

Both the Phase/Leaf 80 MPixel backs have 5 um pixel size like the Nikon D800. And the D800 - according DXO tests - at least reaches the DR of the MF backs (14.4 vs. 13.6), so using the same lens should lead to similar picture quality results (if the MF backs are cropped to 36 MP like the D800), if the D800E is used (in order to avoid an AA-filter for D800 and MF).
So the main difference should be the pixel count.

[Stefan.Steib]

Hi Yair

I had used the max filesize, 14 bit, no compression for this test (thanks to the friendly help of Nikon Germany, who assisted me in this, otherwise I would not have found everything so fast, because the amount of settings is OVERWHELMING !)

Greetings from Lindenberg
Stefan

[BJL]

The first shot _DSC5245.jpg ... we have a heavy Moiree ... Aperture was f11 ...

If the strategy of avoiding moiré and "Christmas lights" and other aliasing artifacts with the D800E involves stopping done beyond f/11, then it involves diffraction effects that sacrifice far more resolution/detail/sharpness/accutance/whatever than doing it the way the way that signal processing professionals have always done it: with low pass filtering. So it seems that if I am interested in subjects with fine regular patterns, be they layers in sedimentary rocks of patterns in plumage or [animals] stripes or lines in buildings or in fabrics, I would be better of with an OLP filter. (Batch sharpening FTW!)

[Stefan.Steib]

For sure if I´d be doing fabrics the whole day (catalogue and fashion as well as portrait) I´d choose the normal D800.
for anybody else with normal usage and a good rawconverter with moiree removal I´d say go with the D800E. (Best buy both and have a spare if neccessary)
Same thing applies in full to every MF back without AA Filter. So now I ask- how are you using your MF backs ?
No Catalogue, fashion and portrait ?
:-)

Regards
Stefan

[HarperPhotos]

Hi Stefan,

Had a played with the raw images from the D800E and I will be ordering one with the battery grip. My complete Mamiya 645AFDII camera and all my Mamiya lenses will be sold as I will have no use for it. I will keep my Leaf Aptus 75 for my Mamaya RZ and Sinar systems as I just couldn’t part with them. I will use my Nikon D3x where I know that moiré will be a problem such as fashion and will wait for Nikon to introduce a Nikon D4x which I am positive will happen.

I haven't used the Leaf Aptus 75 for over 3 years for any fashion or location work cause of the problem of moiré.

Its interesting that Michael Reichmann likes to quote the boogie man when it comes to moiré, well i just what to say with no disrespect Michael the boogie man is real and when he shows he certainly can bite you on the bum.

Cheers

Simon

[BJL]

So now I ask- how are you using your MF backs ?
No Catalogue, fashion and portrait ?

My last MF camera was a Brownie ... but my subject matter does include fine regularly patterned architectural details and bird plumage and friends in striped shirts, so for me, following "digital signal acquisition best practice" (low pass filtering before sampling) is probably the right choice. Or at least, the safe, lazy choice for avoiding PP fixes.

[32BT]

Whereas  Lightroom or Capture One can of course remove this completely.
I just tried Lightroom 4.1 RC2 - cool !

Okay, so what settings did you use in Lightroom to remove this?

also kudos for sheer awesomeness & usefulness of these examples, and of course for making the RAW files available...

[Stefan.Steib]

I tried the Masking effects in LR 4.1 RC2. You can just chose Moire, set your brushsize and removal amount and brush it off.
Works pretty fast and normally you do not have a full image  of moiree as in my sample.

regards
Stefan

[t3hh]

I have done a test wednesday on the PCP Show in Frankfurt where I happened to have my booth beneath Nikon´s. I used our Hartblei 4/40 IF TS on the D800E.

Can I just ask why did you choose TS lens to shoot totally flat and vertical plane?

[Doug Peterson]

Both the Phase/Leaf 80 MPixel backs have 5 um pixel size like the Nikon D800. And the D800 - according DXO tests - at least reaches the DR of the MF backs (14.4 vs. 13.6), so using the same lens should lead to similar picture quality results (if the MF backs are cropped to 36 MP like the D800), if the D800E is used (in order to avoid an AA-filter for D800 and MF).
So the main difference should be the pixel count.

This of course assumes that DXOs measure of DR corresponds perfectly to most photographer's needs.

Noise and tonality is a funny thing, two images can have very similar numerical measures of noise and one can be a beautiful aesthetically pleasing gaussian grain and the other a horridly ugly clumping of crappy noise. This is especially when it comes to smooth transitions of tone and color accuracy because when you need to dig deep into shadows it is these attributes that either allow you to include shadow detail as part of the overall frame in a way that looks natural or not.

I'm not saying that is the case here. I've not spent enough time yet with a D800 to comment. I'm simply saying that purely numerical measures of photographic quality are always very dangerous to use on their own.

DXO is a great source of information and I think the photo community is lucky to have them. But they are at their most useful when comparing similar camera systems (e.g. one generation of nikon dSLR to the next generation of nikon dSLR), rather than comparing systems that are different in just about every way (e.g. D800 vs. IQ180). Especially once you through software in the mix where some of the magic of an integrated software/hardware solution like Phase+C1 or Hassy+Phocus comes into play.

[BernardLanguillier]

Noise and tonality is a funny thing, two images can have very similar numerical measures of noise and one can be a beautiful aesthetically pleasing gaussian grain and the other a horridly ugly clumping of crappy noise. This is especially when it comes to smooth transitions of tone and color accuracy because when you need to dig deep into shadows it is these attributes that either allow you to include shadow detail as part of the overall frame in a way that looks natural or not.

I'm not saying that is the case here. I've not spent enough time yet with a D800 to comment. I'm simply saying that purely numerical measures of photographic quality are always very dangerous to use on their own.

With more than 200gb of images captured, I can confidently say that actual shooting with the D800 confirms the DxO data, or at least that I do not see any discrepency. Does this mean that it is as good as an IQ180? I cannot tell, but it sure seems good enough for any practical application I am throwing at it, like in brilliantly good enough.

Those files are simply amazingly clean and robust. Piling up curve adjustments layers, moving back and forth from RGB to lab,... None of this seems to put a dent in the files. I hear that the D800E is even cleaner for those not concerned by color aliasing.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ndevlin]

Does the D800E put out MF quality? In a word, "yes". 

Frankly, the only reasons I can presently see to shoot MF under 60/80MP is because it perfectly fits your workflow, you absolutely need the 645's better image aspect ratio, or your professional image precludes showing up with 35mm gear (a valid concern in several of the industry's shallower sectors).

Moire is functionally a myth, or at least no more of a reality than it always has been with MF. If you shoot fashion, get a D800.

- N.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It seems that some of the posters having experience with different sensors confirm the validity of DR measurements by DxO.

Marc McCalmont has posted some info. He has or have had P45+, IQ180, Canon 5DII, Pentax K5 and now Nikon D800E. His experience essentially agrees with DxO-mark.

Mark Dubovoy, the guy who claimed 6 stops of DR advantage of MFD over DSLRs now seems to be content with the DR on his D800E.

I guess that some of the info regarding DR advantage of MF over DSLRs is coming from Canon users, all Canon cameras are pretty bad on DR at base ISO.

Although it's possible to have good high ISO performance and have bad DR at base ISO, which the Canons illustrate, any camera having good DR at base ISO would also excel at high ISO, because increasing ISO is basically just underexposure. On the high end, near saturation all sensors are created almost equal.

Now, I'd say that we need to look at the whole system, subject, lens-shade, lens, camera body, sensor, tripod and photographer. That still leaves out what is made in post. Phase One also develops Capture one, one the best raw converters. It is quite possible that Capture One can make the best of Phase One images.

Best regards
Erik

This of course assumes that DXOs measure of DR corresponds perfectly to most photographer's needs.

Noise and tonality is a funny thing, two images can have very similar numerical measures of noise and one can be a beautiful aesthetically pleasing gaussian grain and the other a horridly ugly clumping of crappy noise. This is especially when it comes to smooth transitions of tone and color accuracy because when you need to dig deep into shadows it is these attributes that either allow you to include shadow detail as part of the overall frame in a way that looks natural or not.

I'm not saying that is the case here. I've not spent enough time yet with a D800 to comment. I'm simply saying that purely numerical measures of photographic quality are always very dangerous to use on their own.

DXO is a great source of information and I think the photo community is lucky to have them. But they are at their most useful when comparing similar camera systems (e.g. one generation of nikon dSLR to the next generation of nikon dSLR), rather than comparing systems that are different in just about every way (e.g. D800 vs. IQ180). Especially once you through software in the mix where some of the magic of an integrated software/hardware solution like Phase+C1 or Hassy+Phocus comes into play.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I plan to look more into this. This is the effect of stopping down on three APS-C sensors.



Best regards
Erik

If the strategy of avoiding moiré and "Christmas lights" and other aliasing artifacts with the D800E involves stopping done beyond f/11, then it involves diffraction effects that sacrifice far more resolution/detail/sharpness/accutance/whatever than doing it the way the way that signal processing professionals have always done it: with low pass filtering. So it seems that if I am interested in subjects with fine regular patterns, be they layers in sedimentary rocks of patterns in plumage or [animals] stripes or lines in buildings or in fabrics, I would be better of with an OLP filter. (Batch sharpening FTW!)

[torger]

I have myself compared my Aptus75 with a D7000, pixel per pixel (no scaling to adjust for resolution). The D7000 is per pixel quite close to D800, and the Aptus75 is quite close to D800 in resolution but is of course a rather old back now (I don't think the current Aptus-II 7 in terms of image quality is miles ahead though). What you can see there is that clearly the D7000 has lower noise floor, but from saturation to about 7 stops down the Aptus is a bit less noisy. I think this is due to lower photon shot noise.

So which one of them has higher dynamic range? Technically speaking, the D7000 of course since it has lower noise floor. But from a photographic standpoint you may argue that it is more important to have cleaner darks and midtones than the very-close-to-black shadows. If you are a photographer who never pushes shadows in post-processing you probably won't enjoy the clean superdark shadows, but may enjoy the cleaner brighter parts of the picture (probably a bit better tonality). On the other hand one can argue that the D7000 is already so clean that the even less noise of the Aptus75 is irrelevant.

Therefore I think the dxomark DR measurement is a bit one-dimensional. It would be interesting if one could measure in things like "skin-tone tonal range in well-exposed pictures" etc.

[EinstStein]

I tried it. Put  lenses into the equation, it's not M9 quality yet.