After using Canon 5D III and Nikon D800

[LKaven]

There does in fact seem to be an issue with the D800 that we are just coming to understand.  At ISO6400 and above, thermal noise will begin to predominate at higher shutter speeds (e.g., 1/80th).  It manifests itself as a consistent blue-magenta cast over the entire frame, with some localized maxima.  You can almost get away with ISO6400 out of camera if the subject is evenly lighted.  In dark scenes though, you will just start to see a cast.  Boost one stop to ISO12800 equiv, and it will be too much.  

If you use live view, it will be quite a bit worse.  

Interestingly enough, with a simple dark-frame subtraction, you can mitigate this noise to a negligible amount.  In fact, this works so well, that it's hard to understand why Nikon didn't implement this option as an extension to "long exposure" noise reduction.  Even a single library black frame, matched for shutter speed, gain, and WB, will do the trick very well.  I guess "long exposure" is a relative term if the sensor is hot enough.  

With the dark frame subtraction remedy, the camera is again amazing, and really does claim a place alongside the D4.  I suspect we will learn some new ways to massage this data to make it look even better.  Interesting camera.

[BernardLanguillier]

The AF thing strikes me as odd. Even with the multi cam 3500 in the D700 Nikon had the best AF system by far compared with the Canons. The newer module is basically a further development of that AF module... Unless there is something wrong with that development it should perform better than the AF in the D700/D3/D3s.

The D4 has the same AF module as the D800 AFAIK.

The AF of my copy of the D800 is excellent. I find it to be superior to both the D3x and D7000.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

The AF thing strikes me as odd. Even with the multi cam 3500 in the D700 Nikon had the best AF system by far compared with the Canons. The newer module is basically a further development of that AF module... Unless there is something wrong with that development it should perform better than the AF in the D700/D3/D3s.

The D4 has the same AF module as the D800 AFAIK.

I've tried a D800 and own a D4, while the D4 AF really works really well, I found the D800 which I tested not acquiring focus on features in the same way.

Every camera has advantages and disadvantages; the trick is to find one which does the important stuff for you. If fast accurate AF is what you need then a used pro model might be better than a high MP amateur camera. At the moment there are tons of old Canon 1Dy series and Nikon D3 series bodies on the used market. If video is what you want there again there are cheap solutions, and for hi-rez we now have the D800.

Edmund

[BernardLanguillier]

...not acquiring focus on features in the same way...

May I ask what kind of features you are talking about? 

Cheers,
Bernard

[Dustbak]

I've tried a D800 and own a D4, while the D4 AF really works really well, I found the D800 which I tested not acquiring focus on features in the same way.
Edmund

Which is one of the things that is really odd to me considering the AF module in the D800 is the same as the one in the D4. In the 'old days' the full size version (both D4 as well as D800 are considered to be pro models, which is why I prefer full size and small form factor) had a stronger motor to drive the screwdriver type AF lenses. AF with these type of lenses was faster on the full size models compared to the small form factor bodies. I figure this is still the case with the D4 but there should be no difference when using AF-S lenses.

I will find out when my D800e arrives

[eronald]

May I ask what kind of features you are talking about?  

Cheers,
Bernard

Of course Bernard, you would ask.

A minger's mince pies.

Edmund

[Keith Reeder]

Which is exactly where landscape photographers tend to operate!

I'm aware of that - my point is that most photographers, not being serious landscape photographers, will not benefit in any significant way from this so-called  "advantage": and yet it is weighted by DxO in such a way as to supersede every other metric.

[Keith Reeder]

We all seem agreed on the first point, but the testing I have seen shows a dead-heat at higher ISO speeds, once you assess at equal displayed image size (not the nonsense of 100% pixels on screen or judging from per-pixel SNR measurements, comparisons that ignore the fact that a higher pixel count allows printing or displaying at higher PPI, which reduces the visibility of noise.)

I can just speak as I see: I haven't measured the noise in the files, but I just much prefer the look of high ISO files from the 5D Mk III to those of the D800 - evaluated, as you rightly suggest, at an equalised "image level". This includes files that I've downloaded, converted and processed - though I say it myself, I have a pretty well-sorted high ISO conversion/processing workflow.

Don't get me wrong, as someone who advocates high pixel density as an advantage with no inherent noise penalty as the price to pay for the increased resolution, I'm gratified to see that the D800 performs as well as it does - as well as I'd expected it to - but purely subjectively, I find the 5D Mk III's high ISO to be more satisfactory to my eyes.

[Keith Reeder]

Even with the multi cam 3500 in the D700 Nikon had the best AF system by far compared with the Canons.

Have you ever tried them sided-by-side in properly challenging AF situations?

I have. Suffice it to say that the supposed superiority of Nikon AF over Canon AF was - and is - much exaggerated...

[shadowblade]

I'm aware of that - my point is that most photographers, not being serious landscape photographers, will not benefit in any significant way from this so-called  "advantage": and yet it is weighted by DxO in such a way as to supersede every other metric.

Not necessarily.

Sure, not everyone shoots at ISO 100 or needs 14 stops of dynamic range. But more DR at low ISO also means more DR at high ISO. At ISO 3200, this could be the difference between 9 stops of DR and 7 stops. At ISO 12800, it could be 6 stops vs 5 stops.

Also, DxO also publishes the individual scores from each test. If DR doesn't matter to you, you can still look at ISO performance. The total score really isn't all that informative anyway.

[BernardLanguillier]

I'm aware of that - my point is that most photographers, not being serious landscape photographers, will not benefit in any significant way from this so-called  "advantage": and yet it is weighted by DxO in such a way as to supersede every other metric.

DR at base ISO helps in many frequent situations faced by photographers... in fact in all these situations when we used to prefer working with negative film:
- it helps keep a safety margin when exposing tricky situations like a bride in full sun shine next to a dude wearing a black tuxedo,
- it helps with interior shots since you can get much more easily a fair balance between inside and outside without having to rely on time consuming HDR,
- it does of course help with landscape images,
- ...

On top of that, it helps with tone manipulations by making the file much more robust and clean. Just speak with the MFDB guys, they have a lot to say about DR.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dreed]

DR at base ISO helps in many frequent situations faced by photographers... in fact in all these situations when we used to prefer working with negative film.
...

I've seen it said that the DR gain for the D800 is primarily in the dark tone area. Does your experience match with that?

I suppose the question in my head is that when compared with other cameras such as the 5D2, does the D800 distribute the extra DR only in the dark parts of the image or is it also at the top?

[BernardLanguillier]

I've seen it said that the DR gain for the D800 is primarily in the dark tone area. Does your experience match with that?

I suppose the question in my head is that when compared with other cameras such as the 5D2, does the D800 distribute the extra DR only in the dark parts of the image or is it also at the top?

Hi Dreed,

Well, exposing to the right has become such a second nature that the question is in fact not relevant. The correct exposure is simply the one that is just short of clipping and there is zero latitude above.

Any image leaving some room for highlight recovery is, by definition, under exposed.

So the only thing that really matters with a linear digital sensor is shadow noise. This is true for all the sensors commercially available, be it an IQ180 or a cheapo compact.

But I guess that you question is "if you follow the metering advise of the camera and the camera histogram, how much does it under expose compared to an ideal ETTR?".

Well it does under expose to some extend. So if you don't try hard to expose to the right, then you will probably get a comfortable amount of highlight recovery. Whether the D800 under exposes more or less than its competitors, I cannot answer.

Cheers,
Bernard

[David Watson]

I have just received my D800E and must confess that having read this thread and comments by Lloyd Chambers and seen the Youtube video regarding Liveview and MF I was really worried.

But I have to say that I am more than satisfied with this camera.  The AF on all of my lenses (85 f1.4G, 24-70 and 70-200) works well and is accurate and I cannot see any problem with Liveview resolution at 100% on the back screen.

My only worry is that my very expensive H4D-60 outfit may well sit on the shelf.  Here are some crops of the same subject (my barn door) taken with a variety of cameras and all processed identically in LR4

[Ray]

But more DR at low ISO also means more DR at high ISO. At ISO 3200, this could be the difference between 9 stops of DR and 7 stops. At ISO 12800, it could be 6 stops vs 5 stops.

The DXO graphs for DR measurements show that there's no DR advantage for the D800 at and above ISO 3200.  The SNR at 18% grey is the same for both cameras at all ISOs, so essentially high ISO performance of these two cameras is about equal, regarding shadow noise and midtone noise.

At ISO 800, the D800 has about 3/4 of a stop DR advantage, and at ISO1600 about 1/3rd of a stop advantage, making allowances for slight differences in ISO sensitivity.

[Dustbak]

Have you ever tried them sided-by-side in properly challenging AF situations?

I have. Suffice it to say that the supposed superiority of Nikon AF over Canon AF was - and is - much exaggerated...

Yes, I have and would take the af of the D3/D700 anyday over the 5DII. Anyway, I could make the af work for me on all of them. It strikes me as odd that the af of the D800 would crap, certainly considering that it is the same af as in the D4 (provided there is not another issue with the af on the D800).

[David Watson]

Yes, I have and would take the af of the D3/D700 anyday over the 5DII. Anyway, I could make the af work for me on all of them. It strikes me as odd that the af of the D800 would crap, certainly considering that it is the same af as in the D4 (provided there is not another issue with the af on the D800).

Ray

I agree with you the AF of the D800 is not crap - on the contrary it is very good.  I wonder if some of the early cameras had a problem?

[BernardLanguillier]

But I have to say that I am more than satisfied with this camera.  The AF on all of my lenses (85 f1.4G, 24-70 and 70-200) works well and is accurate and I cannot see any problem with Liveview resolution at 100% on the back screen.

That's because there is none.  

The main cause of these discussion is the report written by Fred Miranda. He seems to be standing by his findings and claims that the use of high magnification was not the cause of his impressions.

Without going into a pointless debate about D800/5DMKIII, I guess that he got impacted by different things put together, although it very much feels like he didn't try very hard.

- the fact that the D800's live view uses the lens stopped down makes the result pretty dark if you stop down a lot. The obvious by-pass, almost instant with lenses having an aperture ring, is to focus wide open and the to stop down later,
- the first impression of high magnification is not good, because it feels like the D800 only streams a sub-sampling of its native resolution, which is not the case,
- coming from a lower res screen like that of the 5DII, it is true that the pixels of the D800 are smaller,
- he may not have been aware of non obvious workarounds in M mode, like the usage of different shutter speed settings in photo/video live view modes that makes it very easy to brighten the appearance of live view, even if the correct exposure is pretty dark.

Cheers,
Bernard

[asf]

- he may not have been aware of obvious workaround in M mode, like the usage of different shutter speed settings in photo/video live view modes that makes it very easy to brighten the appearance of live view, even if the correct exposure is pretty dark.

Cheers,
Bernard

I haven't had an opportunity to use the d800 yet or any Nikon live view but I don't understand how it works if the correct exposure is dark - does it not have exposure simulation  ? If not and you are used to using exposure simulation for live view I can see why it would be annoying.

Also I've read some other reports of the corners of the Nikon 24 shift lens having some corner sharpness issues on the d800. As I am interested in this camera/lens combo is there anyone with direct experience here who can report on the combination of these two? I know the knob problem is nothing to worry about, but CA and/or corner sharpness on a shift lens is (it was a big problem on Canon's 1st gen of their 24tse but thankfully eliminated on version II).

[BernardLanguillier]

I haven't had an opportunity to use the d800 yet or any Nikon live view but I don't understand how it works if the correct exposure is dark - does it not have exposure simulation  ? If not and you are used to using exposure simulation for live view I can see why it would be annoying.

Also I've read some other reports of the corners of the Nikon 24 shift lens having some corner sharpness issues on the d800. As I am interested in this camera/lens combo is there anyone with direct experience here who can report on the combination of these two? I know the knob problem is nothing to worry about, but CA and/or corner sharpness on a shift lens is (it was a big problem on Canon's 1st gen of their 24tse but thankfully eliminated on version II).

The live view of the D800 is designed to provide a faithful idea of the resulting exposure.

In landscape situations, the simplest workaround to brighten temporarily live view is probably to switch from photo live view (the target correct exposure is set) to video live view where a slower shutter speed is set to make focusing easier.

If I find time I'll post a video of this.

For the 24mm, I need to shoot more with this lens to be able to provide feedback.

Cheers,
Bernard