"Nikon D800 / D800E First Comparison"

[Fine_Art]

1. If your head is pressed up against the display using fixed-force screws, then adding any material in-between (such as glasses) would change the physical distance.

Not that I know how sensors are aligned to the camera frame/lense.

2. If a (flat, nonconcave/convex) object is inserted whose refractive index is very different from air, could it not alter the "optical distance"?

-h

Most cameras seem to have the chip mounted from behind. You can look at the chip when the lens is removed.

If bending the light = optical distance, then we are all saying the same thing.

[Wayne Fox]

So to summarize, your theory is the AA filter is an integral part of the sensor when manufacturing, so the only option was to apply a reverse version of the filter to neutralize it's effect, since it's not removable.

I guess this makes the most sense of any theory I've heard so far ... I think all the "optical" path issues could have been resolved with options other than OLP filters.

Hi BJL,

I believe this is precisely the reason Nikon took this path with the OLP filter implementation (pun intended post writing). Thirty years in high-tech manufacturing has taught me that it’s all about production costs and (hopefully) continuous improvement, providing a better product with each generation, while lowering production costs and price to the end user.

I agree that the effective light path must be made effectively same for both cameras to maintain consistency and commonality in the production line and avoid mechanical differences or adjustments between the two cameras. However, this might also be accomplished by using appropriate thicknesses of less expensive optical glass plates in the D800E to replace the crossed birefringent elements in the D800 (similar to what companies like LifePixel do when they remove the OLPF).

But there is one possibility I haven’t seen in this discussion that may explain Nikon’s choice to re-use the D800 birefringent filter(s) on the D800E. A while back I read a technical white paper on trends in manufacturing of digital camera sensors. It wasn’t specific to Nikon, but did mention Sony. With the goal of simplifying the manufacture of both sensors and cameras, the optical components in the filter stack on the sensors are being reduced. One of those components is the optical glass cover normally installed on the sensor package during sensor fab. (presumably done by Sony for the D800/E cameras).

The clear sensor filter is being replaced with one of the two birefringent filters, making it integral with the CMOS sensor package (and not economically feasible to remove). If this is the case with the sensor Sony delivers to Nikon for the D800/E (and I think this highly likely), it would explain Nikon’s approach of simply rotating that second birefringent filter (along with the necessity of replacing the integral wave plate/IR filter set between the two birefringent filters to eliminate the un-need wave plate). So I think Nikon’s published diagram of the D800/E filter stack is essentially correct:

http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/IMG/Images/Learn-And-Explore/2012/Camera-Technology/D-SLR-Series/Moire-D800-D800E/Media/OLPF_schematic.pdf

Except that it doesn’t show if the one of the birefringent plates is permanently installed on the sensor.

The cost savings here are obvious---Sony supply one identical part to Nikon for both cameras simplifying their sensor fab. line. And Nikon only has to change their line toward the end when the filter stack is installed to determine if the camera will be a D800 or D800E. Also, the reduction in components and air-glass interfaces should result in both lower production costs and higher final image quality. The savings should more than offset the possible extra cost of the birefringent filters in the D800E. A company like LifePixel could confirm if this is indeed the case for the D800 and other newer cameras. It will make a bit more difficult for them when converting such a camera to remove the OLPF. Their only choice when converting a D800 to eliminate the OLPF effect may be to do what Nikon does.

For future possibilities, there’s been a lot of progress over the past few years on the development of electrically-tunable birefringent filters. They are already being successfully used in high-end space and military imaging applications. The current costs to implement these in a high-volume consumer cameras may still be prohibitive. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see these in future digital cameras. Imagine having a dial or menu item where you can select a variable range of OLP filter effect from say 0 to 10, that you can set according to the subject!

EDIT:

And taking this concept further, since most tunable birefringent filters are based on LCD technology, with clear thin-film electrodes applied to the active LCD plates, there is no reason that the conductive layer couldn’t be patterned into a grid that would match the sensel grid (or the Bayer pattern). If placed directly over the sensel grid, the OLPF effect could be controlled for each individual sensel (or RGB group in the Bayer filter). If combined with an in-camera image processor smart enough to detect aliasing and moiré in the scene, it could dynamically, locally resolve any aliasing issues during capture for the affected areas of the image, while leaving the unaffected parts of the scene alone.

And I’ll offer one more trip into current science fiction land, based on the same concepts. It is also possible to construct electrically-tunable neutral density filters using LCD technology. Place such an ND filter grid over the sensor and it could be possible to individually control the sensitivity of each sensel. If combined with something like Tony Kuyper’s PS luminosity masks (but implemented in the camera’s image processor), the sensor response might be locally tuned to dramatically increase dynamic range during capture---operating as an adaptable, super-GND filter automatically reducing exposure in highlight areas.

Kind regards,
Bob

[RobertCubit]

So to summarize, your theory is the AA filter is an integral part of the sensor when manufacturing, so the only option was to apply a reverse version of the filter to neutralize it's effect, since it's not removable.

I guess this makes the most sense of any theory I've heard so far ... I think all the "optical" path issues could have been resolved with options other than OLP filters.

Hi Wayne,

Yes, that’s the theory. There is a lot of internet “noise” on this subject at the moment. But I did find a recent thread on photonet where Joseph Wisniewski is offering essentially the same explanation for Nikon’s approach. He seems quite sure this is how the D800E filter set is configured, but I have not yet seen firm confirmation of this by Nikon, Sony or a third party organization that has actually disassembled the D800E, like LifePixel or MaxMax.

I think perhaps Nikon is not likely to confirm this for the same reason they are reluctant to openly acknowledge that the base D800/E sensor chip may be manufactured by a competitor (Sony).

Kind regards,
Bob

[BJL]

... But I did find a recent thread on photonet where Joseph Wisniewski is offering essentially the same explanation for Nikon’s approach. He seems quite sure this is how the D800E filter set is configured ...

OK, that's fairly persuasive. Partly because I tend to trust Joe W. on topics like this: he works with sensors and such professionally, so has surely seen Sony sensors in the raw, if not this particular one. Though it just passes the buck to why Sony (or whoever fabs the sensor) cannot simply replace the Lithium Niobate slabs by cheaper optical flats. Too small a production run to be worth recomputing the slightly modified optical path cause by changing to glass?

[RobertCubit]

OK, that's fairly persuasive. Partly because I tend to trust Joe W. on topics like this: he works with sensors and such professionally, so has surely seen Sony sensors in the raw, if not this particular one. Toughbit just passes rhe buck to why Sony (or whoever fabs the sensor) cannot dimply replace the Lithium Niobate slabs by cheaper optical flats. Too small a production run to be worth recomputing the slightly modified optical path cause by changing to glass?

Yes, but I have learned to remain skeptical until I see conclusive evidence. That’s why I called it highly-likely (but still unconfirmed). And after all, even Joe can be wrong, occasionally. If you push him on the issue, he might even admit it!

Kind regards,
Bob 

[Guillermo Luijk]

Rob Galbraith's samples:

Nikon D800


Nikon D800E

[Ray]

Rob Galbraith's samples:

Nikon D800


Nikon D800E

Hey! Guillermo! Someone should fix that awful barrel distortion. 

[MatthewCromer]

These Rob Galbraith samples of false color fringing on fine details (not just "moire", but all kinds of bogus color information caused by the bayer filter, which the anti-aliasing filter does a lot to correct) is why I am quite mystified by all the folks who prefer cameras without AA filters.

Then again, people would rather spend 2-3 minutes fiddling with the right focus plane tilt on a T/S lens for a single 36MP image than spend the same 2-3 minutes taking a couple dozen frames that will become a 120MP focus stacked and stitched image with enormously better IQ.

The high-end aspirational photo equipment marketers have trained us well!   :-)

[Ray]

These Rob Galbraith samples of false color fringing on fine details (not just "moire", but all kinds of bogus color information caused by the bayer filter, which the anti-aliasing filter does a lot to correct) is why I am quite mystified by all the folks who prefer cameras without AA filters.

The answer is, selection bias. It happens all the time. We want to demonstrate that a particular thing is either undesirable, or desirable, as the case may be, then we can always do so by selecting the appropriate data that demonstrates the point we are trying to get across, whilst ignoring the contrary data.

This problem is not just confined to assessments of photographic equipment. It's a world-wide human problem.

[James_Schei]

Kind of a 800/800E and LR4 question. I Went to the Gailbraith site and downloaded the 800 and 800E nefs. And opened in LR4 both with auto camera adjts on and off and chromatic aberation on and off. My questions/observations. On the left side of intersection image the engine of the vertical motorcycle- on the 800E there is "stuff" not sure what to call it but it is not there or hardly there on the 800 image. And going into LR4 with the moire adjustment brush option set to plus 100 it is gone in one swipe (so far so good) on the right hand side of the Image looking at the double arrow sign and concentrating on the white areas. Is this Moire/beat pattern/atrifacting
again not sure what to call it. And the moire Adjustmnet brush in LR4 at +100 has no visible effect on either the 800 or 800E (the pattern is slightly less on the 800 image to start) And one more place just looking this time above the double arrow on the right a group of smaller signs again with lots of pattern etc. what ever it is and it is just slightly less on the 800 version. I am not posting pics at this time (have not done it and don't want to mess it up, My first post here in quit a while) but if anyone else downloads the nefs  are they seeing the same things and if someone knows what to call this stuff. I am waiting for mine from B+H and have been going back and forth on which one to get. Currently have 800E ordered  but these are the first raws I have seen.

[Bernard ODonovan]

Hello to all you lucky D800E owners. What a great sensor you now own  

http://www.imaging-resource.com  did some really great test shoots in a studio and I noticed interesting cross over points that may interest you and others debating which of the two 800's to purchase.

At ISO 400 the sharpness of the D800E is equal to the D800 at ISO 50

At ISO 400 moiré on the D800E is greatly reduced but still there if you look. The D800 has moiré too but the AA filter cleans most up but loosing some detail (D800 at ISO 50)

At ISO 800 moiré on the D800E is now starting to approach the level of the D800 yet sharpness is very similar. That increase in ISO does remove a tiny tiny bit a sharpness but noise levels are similar (D800 at ISO 50)

At ISO 1600 moiré on the D800E is just a hair way from that of the D800 at ISO 50

At ISO 3200 moiré on the D800E is now almost the same (D800 at ISO 50)

At ISO 6400 moiré on the D800E is virtually the same. Noise is now more obvious (D800 at ISO 50)

Incidentally the infamous Red Swatch that pretty much catches out every sensor made except Fovean does not affect many Nikon's and even at ISO 6400 this D800E is simply amazing. Still pulling detail from the swatch where other sensors were giving up at ISO 200 !

Like many other sensors the D800 seems to blow highlights and detail in white cloth. The D800E does not and just keeps showing detail deeper into higher ISO's

In the same still life test, the Larger Beer bottle green label is your moiré detector and I have also matched with other sources in the same images.

Now, how the shutter and aperture were changed in the tests I do not know.

Ultimately it will come down to real life tests to see if a D800E user can play a quick get out of moiré trouble trick by simply shooting at ISO 400 for as good as it could get on a D800 pics or say ISO 800 for a wee bit more added safety and hardly any loss of sharpness.

It is obvious the D800 can get into moiré trouble but the AA seems to hide it fairly well.

The ultimate moiré remover is your brain!  The D800E images look so good moiré is not that offensive...

[douglasf13]

Agreed, but both the AA filter and the Bayer filter cause blur, so some sharpening will be beneficial on both cases (I guess preaching to the choir . One approach could be to show some examples both without capture sharpening and with the (subjective) capture sharpening that is found optimal in each case. Then the reader can judge the cases. Yet another approach like on dpreview (that I like) is that it is possible to double check by the reader by downloading the RAW files for individual check in the personal favorite RAW processor. When that has been said, I think people read the articles here on LuLa as personal judgement of equipment in use in contrast to the camera reviews on the major review sites where personal opinions by the reviewer takes a back seat. I think the personal opinions are both respected and valued when they are stated as such and not as absolutes. No matter how it is done there will be long threads here and there about how wrong it was done

Another issue raised is the false detail from a sensor without an AA filter. It seems to me that one approach to really investigate this rather than debate the theoretical aspects of it, would be to use a much higher resolution image to check to which degree there is false detail. This could be done by zooming in on high frequency detail by going much closer to the subject and stitch the pictures to a (very) high resolution picture where the false detail will be revealed in comparison. There may be other ways to do it. I know it would be quite work intensive to do this, but it may put an end to some of the discussion and make some conclusions about this issue. And see how the AA filter equipped D800 will fare in this comparison as well.

  I think this false detail is often what some see as more detail with AA-less cameras.  As you said, not only does removing the AA filter cause color moire, but false detail occurs, which some apparently seem to like.

  This picture posted by Joakim on the miranda forums shows a good example of this.  Notice the window frames in the M9 picture. 

  As Joakim says, "I feel deeply sorry for the poor unfortunate souls that live in the building to the left, the contractor obviously used scrap material for the entire project. None of the window-sills or frames have the same measurements / thicknesses. Doesn't bode well for the internal structures..." 

[hjulenissen]

  As Joakim says, "I feel deeply sorry for the poor unfortunate souls that live in the building to the left, the contractor obviously used scrap material for the entire project. None of the window-sills or frames have the same measurements / thicknesses. Doesn't bode well for the internal structures..." 

Note the ladder (?) up on the roof to the right

[marcmccalmont]

One thought on the reversed AA filter is each layer has some Infra red and UV filtering properties
perhaps Nikon wanted to keep those properties constant between cameras and finding optical glass the same thickness and with the same filtering properties didn't make sense just stacking a reversed AA filter got them what they wanted without having to inventory extra parts, clever.
Marc

[Hans Kruse]

I haven't seen any review so far mention if D800 has silent first curtain (electronic shutter) for shooting in live view. It's on of the advantages that the Canon 5D mkII has over e.g. my 1Ds mkIII which does not have this feature. Even MLU is not as good as electronic shutter in live view since absolutely no mechanical movement results in starting the exposure.

[kers]

I haven't seen any review so far mention if D800 has silent first curtain (electronic shutter) for shooting in live view. It's on of the advantages that the Canon 5D mkII has over e.g. my 1Ds mkIII which does not have this feature. Even MLU is not as good as electronic shutter in live view since absolutely no mechanical movement results in starting the exposure.

a
As far as I know you can use Liveview in the d800 in a way only the shutter opens and closes- so it is not completely silent.
For Nikon it is huge progress for it used to move the mirror as well. ( now they have an extra motor to deal with the mirror - to let it stay open it does not need power anymore)

[Hans Kruse]

a
As far as I know you can use Liveview in the d800 in a way only the shutter opens and closes- so it is not completely silent.
For Nikon it is huge progress for it use to move the mirror as well. ( now they have an extra motor to deal with the mirror - to let it stay open it does not need power anymore)

On my 1Ds mkIII when in live view and take a picture in live view, there is a devastating vibration from the shutter with a fairly long lens and in the critical range of 1 second and 1/30s. This creates really visible blur. What happens is that the the shutter closes and then opens again to start the exposure. The mirror does not move, of course. But the sheer inertia of the shutter is enough to cause blurred images. So if this is how the D800 does it, then my advice is not to shoot in live view. What I do with the 1Ds mkIII is to use live view for critical focusing which includes checking DOF and then exit live view and use MLU for taking the picture(s). For the critical exposure ranges, I will use my cable release and open the mirror by one click and then wait 3-4 seconds and then take the picture. If I bracket I will step through the bracketing sequence using the cable release and click the mirror up and wait for each exposure. This works fine, but I would rather have live view as an option to take the pictures.  

[MatthewCromer]

On my 1Ds mkIII when in live view and take a picture in live view, there is a devastating vibration from the shutter with a fairly long lens and in the critical range of 1 second and 1/30s. This creates really visible blur. What happens is that the the shutter closes and then opens again to start the exposure. The mirror does not move, of course. But the sheer inertia of the shutter is enough to cause blurred images. So if this is how the D800 does it, then my advice is not to shoot in live view. What I do with the 1Ds mkIII is to use live view for critical focusing which includes checking DOF and then exit live view and use MLU for taking the picture(s). For the critical exposure ranges, I will use my cable release and open the mirror by one click and then wait 3-4 seconds and then take the picture. If I bracket I will step through the bracketing sequence using the cable release and click the mirror up and wait for each exposure. This works fine, but I would rather have live view as an option to take the pictures.  

This is another reason the Sony Alpha SLT version with the 36MP chip will have some really nice advantages for practical photo-taking, particularly around stability and sharp images:

* built in stabilization with all lenses
* electronic first curtain shutter
* no mirror slap ever (no need for fiddly MLU type functions)

And also

* ease of nailing exposure via preshot live histogram and/or WYSIWYGish EVF display.

[Hans Kruse]

This is another reason the Sony Alpha SLT version with the 36MP chip will have some really nice advantages for practical photo-taking, particularly around stability and sharp images:

* built in stabilization with all lenses
* electronic first curtain shutter
* no mirror slap ever (no need for fiddly MLU type functions)

And also

* ease of nailing exposure via preshot live histogram and/or WYSIWYGish EVF display.

Well, it was not to start a discussion on different cameras, but simply a question about the D800.

The Canon 5D mkII and mkIII have the ability to shoot without any physical movement, so it's not needed to go to mirrorless to get that. The Canon also has live histogram and the SLT is a crop sensor and 24MP.

[ndevlin]

These Rob Galbraith samples of false color fringing on fine details (not just "moire", but all kinds of bogus color information caused by the bayer filter, which the anti-aliasing filter does a lot to correct) is why I am quite mystified by all the folks who prefer cameras without AA filters.)

I can solve this mystery: because I spend very little time photographing apartment balconies, and prefer slightly greater post-production effort to clean-up any false colourto gain the benefit of an image with slightly greater resolution and accutance,visible to my eye (and to my surprise) even on these web-pegs. 

The odds of any of the artefacts uniquely appearing on the 800E impacting a finished print are also so close to zero as to make it a non-issue for me.  Most photographers will do vastly greater visible damage to their prints through bad sharpening than a few colour artefacts could wreak.

- N.