D800 - Sample Photos

[ereka]

This is from the viewpoint of someone who photographs mainly portraits. Landscape shooters, for example, might have a very different take on it. Maybe my eyes are going wonky with old age, but I've taken a quick look at the D800/D800E portrait samples and to be honest can't see any useful improvement in detail over and above my 8mp 1DMkII. Even if there is detail that I'm missing, all the emphasis in portrait retouching seems to be on blurring or 'smoothing' the skin so why would we need more detail there? Anyway, in the real (non pixel-peeping) world, do portrait or wedding clients usually examine their pictures through a loupe? There might be other advantages to the D800 (e.g. the face recognition feature that allows automatic exposure of the face in backlit situations with no need for the photographer to think about exposure compensation seems quite convenient for fast moving situations when you don't really have time to think, whenever those might be) but for pure resolution seems like overkill. Also, as someone else has pointed out, how does it perform in low light situations e.g. weddings? Possibly not a wedding photographer's dream camera? The 1Dx is looking more attractive by the minute. Canon had better hurry up if it's going to announce a 5DMkIII/5Dx though, before a lot of rich amateur/semi-pro camera users jump ship? Just a thought.

 

[Canon-F1]

Even if there is detail that I'm missing, all the emphasis in portrait retouching seems to be on blurring or 'smoothing' the skin so why would we need more detail there? Anyway, in the real (non pixel-peeping) world, do portrait or wedding clients usually examine their pictures through a loupe?

and how many couples order billboard prints?

if i read here in this forum i wonder how there can be room on this little planet for all the big prints people do.

 

[Flake]

I admit. I googled every Hassy image sample I could find. I have two 23" HD monitors, and so with photos side by side, I could not tell the difference between the sample and the Phase One 40ish MP back.

I'm sastified, I'll take one. For the price, maybe two or three. The only thing now is fitting it with the new canon glass

If only we didn't have to shoot through air... ... ..

Perhaps you should do a bit more reading and a bit more comparing of images? People can't tell the difference between a Hassleblad and a Canon G10 ! We're not talking Joe public here, this is industry professionals.

However take the MF format camera and photograph a really contrasty scene, then the D800 and I can guarantee you'll see a huge difference in the histograms, with the Phase one showing a steady rise & fall with the peak around the centre, and the DSLR with the peak over to the right, sky blown out & little shadow detail.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

If you want to read the test which was done.

The spec which I find interesting about the D800 is the Iso which maxes at just 6400 I do wonder what the noise performance and the dynamic range is going to be like.

And I'm sure we're all looking forward to the Nikonistas who were not so long ago telling us that 12MP was enough and endlessly extolling the virtues of low noise low light performance etc etc, suddenly reversing everything and telling us that more MP is the way to go regardless of noise!

 

[Canon-F1]

wrong froum.. maybe this should be moved to the 3party forum.

 

[justsomedude]

I'm considering switching to Nikon mainly because i'm sick of the Canon autofocus.

Don't get me started on Canon AF. :-\

 

[justsomedude]

and how many couples order billboard prints?

if i read here in this forum i wonder how there can be room on this little planet for all the big prints people do.

I regularly print 62" wide fine art landscapes - and sometimes bigger - for gallery and corporate sales. I use PrefectResize/Genuine Fractals to get the image sizes I need... but I'd prefer to have more pixels provided natively out of camera and less stretching to do in post.

Because of this I, for one, see a huge need for 36MP+ in a FF sensored body, so long as the quality isn't compromised and I'm sure many other fine art landscape photographers agree. Now Nikon is proving it can be done.

My curiosity is certainly piqued.

 

[justsomedude]

But those fingers are a bit noisy...

That hand is outside the DOF... look at the hand on the opposite side of the frame. Tacky sharp.

 

[Astro]

Because of this I, for one, see a huge need for 36MP+ in a FF sensored body, so long as the quality isn't compromised and I'm sure many other fine art landscape photographers agree. Now Nikon is proving it can be done.

is proving it...? mhm well.... the landscape images i saw look not better then the ones from a 5D MK2.

so im still skeptical.....

 

[justsomedude]

the landscape images i saw look not better then the ones from a 5D MK2.

so im still skeptical.....

I don't think you're understanding my argument...

It's not about being "better", it's about pixel density and DPI. Stretching a 22MP image to a 6-foot wide print is worlds away from stretching a 37MP image to a 6-foot wide print. The less stretching required, the better clarity on the resultant print.

 

[thepancakeman]

I think there is a lot of lighting help in making those photos look good. Great lighting can make even poor photographers look skilled.

lol given that photography is all about lighting your comment makes no sense.

what makes a photographer really good if not his lighting skills?
choosing the right iso, gently pressing the button?

Yeah, sure. Go shoot some sports and let me know how much time you spend working on the lighting. ???

 

[ghosh9691]

But those fingers are a bit noisy...

That hand is outside the DOF... look at the hand on the opposite side of the frame. Tacky sharp.

Outside the DOF? At 10ft subject distance, the DOF would be 0.3ft for this lens and I'm sure both hands are within that DOF. I doubt that the result of the right hand (the model's) being a bit less sharp is due to DOF. It is more likely due to the limitation of the lens - i.e. lens is less sharp at the edges of the frame than at the center. Keep in mind that this was at 160mm focal length at f/4.5, therefore the camera must have been at least 10ft away if not more.

 

[Canon-F1]

I think there is a lot of lighting help in making those photos look good. Great lighting can make even poor photographers look skilled.

lol given that photography is all about lighting your comment makes no sense.

what makes a photographer really good if not his lighting skills?
choosing the right iso, gently pressing the button?

Yeah, sure. Go shoot some sports and let me know how much time you spend working on the lighting. ???

well sports photography is like journalism photography not about ART.
it´s more about reporting what happens.
even my grandma has a few good pictures when she shoots 9 FPS bursts all day.....

landscape photography is about "waiting for the light", portrait photography is about light, fashion.. even wildlife photography needs an EYE for good light.

 

[Picsfor]

The veil in the photo sample of the bride is just amazing. My 7D can't capture detail like that and my 1D4... I don't know. Maybe? I tend to doubt it. All of the "you don't need 36MP" doubters should look at this image.

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_02_l.jpg

Nice picture - but woooaaaahhhhhh, way toooooo much detail.
Honestly - how many brides want to be able to literally count those lovely blond hairs we're not supposed to see?

You can't just see the spot under the make up, you can see what pores are blocked. Good for product, landscape, industrial and architectural - extremely bad for portrait and weddings.

The Nikon people seem to have got it right. A D4 working in tandem with a D800.
As for that video clip, very nice. All the same things said about the 5D2 video when that came out. I suppose we'll see an episode of House filmed using it so they can make positive comparisons?

It is a very nice camera for an awful lot of people - but i'm not one of them.

I like the AF and dual card slot and erm - no that's it!

Let's be honest and admit that Nikon have made an extremely nice and desirable camera that will certainly be grabbing the money off the new entrants to the serious DSLR market. This camera really does put Canon on the spot to release their offering some time very soon.

 

[Canon-F1]

Nice picture - but woooaaaahhhhhh, way toooooo much detail.
Honestly - how many brides want to be able to literally count those lovely blond hairs we're not supposed to see?

yep it´s like pron in HD... you don´t want to see that...

 

[weixing]

Hi,

and how many couples order billboard prints?

if i read here in this forum i wonder how there can be room on this little planet for all the big prints people do.

I regularly print 62" wide fine art landscapes - and sometimes bigger - for gallery and corporate sales. I use PrefectResize/Genuine Fractals to get the image sizes I need... but I'd prefer to have more pixels provided natively out of camera and less stretching to do in post.

Because of this I, for one, see a huge need for 36MP+ in a FF sensored body, so long as the quality isn't compromised and I'm sure many other fine art landscape photographers agree. Now Nikon is proving it can be done.

My curiosity is certainly piqued.

36MP+ FF sensor... no problem to Canon as they already had a 120MP APS-H sensor 2 years ago...

Anyway, just wonder how long will the user willing to wait for the photo to be written to the card before removing the card? At 36MP (74MB RAW file), shoot continous for 1s @ 4FPS = 4 x 74MB = 296MB and will took the DSLR at least another 1.96s to write to the cards if you use the US$800++ (100MB/s write speed) SanDisk Extreme Pro CompactFlash Card... SanDisk must be very happy now!

Have a nice day.

 

[SeanL]

.... the landscape images i saw look not better then the ones from a 5D MK2.

so im still skeptical.....

This was also my observation from looking at the two outdoor images. I would go further to say I get clearly better results with my 5D MkII with files viewed at 100%, IQ/sharpness. When I say this I mean that if I shot these with the Canon I would be concerned that the camera was malfunctioning.

Ok, so these were shot at f/8, but I still can't find anything clearly resolved in the images.

The indoor files are better so maybe the landscape images are not representative?

I should say that I have zero Nikon experience.

EDIT: Ok, maybe I went a little overboard in this post with the malfunctioning part. Still, I was surprised to view the two files at 100%.

 

[psolberg]

.... the landscape images i saw look not better then the ones from a 5D MK2.

so im still skeptical.....

This was also my observation from looking at the two outdoor images. I would go further to say I get clearly better results with my 5D MkII with files viewed at 100%, IQ/sharpness. When I say this I mean that if I shot these with the Canon I would be concerned that the camera was malfunctioning.

Ok, so these were shot at f/8, but I still can't find anything clearly resolved in the images.

The indoor files are better so maybe the landscape images are not representative?

I should say that I have zero Nikon experience.

EDIT: Ok, maybe I went a little overboard in this post with the malfunctioning part. Still, I was surprised to view the two files at 100%.

technique is important. honestly for real samples read on Lloyd Chambers blog once get gets one. he knows how to get the most out of any body as the ultimate pixel peeper that he is. So he'll judget it better than anybody. but IMO from what I seen is that the D800 is indeed going to show more detail, and produce superb results when you look that close. It is mind blowing but if you take a step back....it is sort of the problem I have because the difference over 20mp is really visible only by obsessing over pointless highly zoomed crops...I mean WTH, are people going to look at prints with electron microscopes next?. you won't see much difference in real work. to quote Ken Rockwell, this is all just measurebators with a magnifying glass.

It's not about being "better", it's about pixel density and DPI. Stretching a 22MP image to a 6-foot wide print is worlds away from stretching a 37MP image to a 6-foot wide print. The less stretching required, the better clarity on the resultant print.

big prints are viewed farther way so this is a road to nowhere. A 10 foot billboard isn't going to be seen at 1 feet. true more is better but the law of dinishing returns applies quickly and factors liek viewing distance and print medium will have a far greater effect than a mere 10MP.

 

[V8Beast]

Pixel count aside, the dynamic range in these files, particularly the library shots, is stunning. The books in shadow are clearly visible, yet the light coming through the ceiling doesn't blow out the highlights.

 

[wickidwombat]

Soooooo...

where did all the Oh no current lenses cant resolve more than 20MP crowd go to?
looks to be resolving plenty fine to me. Nikon on are going to stuggle to keep up with demand on these for a year i think the waiting list is going to be Loooooong

 

[V8Beast]

Soooooo...

where did all the Oh no current lenses cant resolve more than 20MP crowd go to?
looks to be resolving plenty fine to me. Nikon on are going to stuggle to keep up with demand on these for a year i think the waiting list is going to be Loooooong

When the 1DsII came out, people said: "16.7 MPs is too much, it's going to take up too much card space, the lenses can't keep up." Somehow the photographic world managed.

When the 1DsIII came out, people said: "21.1 MPs is too much, it's going to take up too much card space, the lenses can't keep up." Somehow the photographic world managed.

I have a hunch that history will repeat itself with the D800.