My D800 Review
- Thread starter Mt Spokane Photography
- Start date
- Status
Tammy said:
Like what? Isn't the 24-70mm f/2.8G glass I own top end? Its certainly priced like it. I'm not going to try a 200mm f/2, because I couldn't afford it, and the focal lenght is not one I use.
Nikon's top lenses are very sharp, but no different from Canon when it comes to AF variabiliity. And, many of the top ones, like the 24-70 f/2.8G have excessive CA's.
Then, they have nothing comparable to my Canon 100-400mm L, or my 135mm L.!
Upvote
0
Kernuak said:
36MP is just 16MP equivalent on APSC. so if you shoot with a rebel at 18MP, you're already outresolving the D800 and pushing your lenses much harder. Say nothing of the D3200 with it's 24MP APSC sensor which would be nearly a 60MP sensor if it was full frame. In conclusion, the D800 doesn't really push lenses all that hard. That's a web myth. It is just that until now, nothing pushed the edges and center in a way that would reveal the difference. Yet you're still resolving more even if the center still outresolves the D800 and the edges just keep up. Ultimately ask yourself two questions:
1) You can only capture a better quality version of the image projected by the lens, but never worse as you can always chose a level of detail confortable to you. So why fear MP? It's just flexibility IMO.
2) if you invested big money in glass, why are you not pushing that glass to the max? It's like Keeping a 5DmkI just because of fear the 5DmkII may reveal flaws in some glass while missing out on all the rest.
From my experience, all the f2.8 and f1.4 glass from nikon I've tested has been really good on the D800. 14-24,24-70,70-200 all hold up. Fast primes wide open, as expected need to be stopped down for a truly superb image, yet even wide open, they hold up well and the shallow DOF makes edge detail somewhat irrelevant since it is often out of focus with the subject isolated near the middle. There is more detail to squeeze out of these lenses. I guess the D4X may do it?
And no I would not trade down resolution because I'm getting a few things out of it which regardless of the lens used benefit me thanks to the high sample rate.
1) color graduations. the more pixels the smoother the graduations. particularly evident in landscapes.
2) reduction in demosaic/AA induced softness. more pixels minimizes the degradation due to the bayer pattern as perceived in very fine detail.
3) less aliasing stair casing effect on fine detail. Even with AA filters, I'm finding that just like with AA in video games, downsampling yields slightly better looking images.
I think we're going to see 30-40MP become the new baseline for any competitive full frame DSLR with the boundaries being pushed much further since there are benefits beyond just detail when you ovesample an image
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120524_1-Nikon-D3200.html
You guys worry now but I'm sure once canon has done the inevitable jump to 30-40 MP, EVERYBODY is going to be saying the same thing: It was silly to fear the pixels. 8) This was the same fear we had when the 20MP canon DSLRs came out and nobody even thinks twice to question that move today.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:I've been busy using the D800 and 1D MK IV, so I do not yet have much of a a update. One think I can say, is that it takes a lot more time to edit, due to lengthy processing time for a large number of files, but it is not so much that spending $3K on a new computer wouldn't fix
The other thing, is that it makes Nikons lesser lenses look like rubbish, and their best ones look none too good. Without extreme care, images are no better than the 5D MK III and the kit lens. There are a few other quirks that bother me, and some features that really shine.
So far, I'm not in any hurry to dump my Canon stuff and switch to Nikon. I tried video the other night, but was not impressed with the autofocus. However, it will autofocus slowly while taking a video, but it loses focus and ends up with fuzzy video. (Even though the Green focus indicator shows its in focus)
To be fair, I've only used it for a few thousand shots over a 1 week period, but I can now operate it in the dark, even changing most settings, so I've become pretty proficient with it.
I do not have a equivalent of the 35mmL or 135mmL to use with it, in fact, I have stopped using all lenses but the 24-70mm G, its very good, but not up to the 35mmL or 135mm L.
I found a lot of your comments really interesting Mt. Spokane. I currently shoot with both system as well, however while I tried the D800 I actually have a D4 while I await for my 1DX. On the video AF I noticed the same as you which is the D800 is a bit slow. On the D4 however the AF in video is really fast to the point we can actually use it because it does not search for ever and make the video useless!
Now where I was most interested as well was around your comment about your keep rate using the D800, which shares the same AF system as the D4. Using the latest Nikon glass from their 1.4G series or even the 70-200 2.8 VR II zoom, I too found my keep rate to be low. I even compared some session I did with a 5D mkIII with my dauther playing and running. With the 5D mkIII new AF my keep rate even at f2.8 was over 90%. Doing the same type of shooting with the D4 stopped down at f4 gives me a 50% keep at best.
Am sure there are some user error on part in there, but I just found it interesting that you noted your keep rate as well. WHile you are using an older Nikkor lens on your side, I get the same conclusion with the latest Nikon glass!
Upvote
0
JR said:
I never did figure out the keep rate, but even in bright light, when I was trying to do a AFMA, no matter which lens, a lot of them were mis focused. I think it is a lens issue, and its just that the Nikon lenses I was adjusting had a lot of accuracy variation in the focus.
It wasn't horrible, about 80%. The 5D MK III focusing in very low light is extremely accurate, but a bit slow in very low light. If only I could see the selected AF point in difficult lighting conditions.
Upvote
0
J
Jettatore
Guest
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Why not rent the 14-24mm? You said you were interested in even purchasing that if you end up keeping the D800. While you have the thing, it would seem to be worth the small investment to rent at least that lens, if not also some of the highest end primes available from Nikon, even if you feel the Canon equivalents are simply better. You could even try adapting a Canon lens to the system for some Manual Focus sensor comparisons.
Upvote
0
My Nikon 14-24 is sharp edge to edge by f/5.6 on a D800... but, yes, before I got rid of my Canon 16-35 & 17-40, I would be very worried about how they would hold up to a 30+ MP sensor. In fact, I was worried about how they didn't hold up to a 22MP sensor, even at f/11, which is why I got rid of them.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Do it. The Nikon 14-24mm lens will blow your socks off unless you have experienced something similar before. I went ahead and purchased it for my Nikons back before the tsunami (thankfully!), and it's a rock star. I would own it even if I didn't need the extreme wide angle capability. The only bad thing is that I am used to lenses that go to f/1.4. People brag about lenses like the 16-35mm II or the 10-22mm, and they don't even live in the same world as the Nikon 14-24mm.
Upvote
0
helpful said:
I'd be interested in seeing how the famed Zeiss Distagon 21mm stands up to the 14-24
Upvote
0
On the sample images (granted Canon's samples weren't a good representation, so it may not be the best comparison), I was noticing softness in the corners of the landscapes, all of which were taken using the 14-24 at f/8. There was insufficient depth of field, which likely exacerbated the corner softness, but it was certainly there.sarangiman said:
I rarely use my 17-40 now, except for some extreme looks from the distortion, due to the corner softness at 21 MP. That said, it is probably sharper than the 24-105 between around 24-30mm.
Upvote
0
From what I've seen from the Zeiss, it's not a very fair comparison. It's as sharp or maybe sharper than the Canon 24 f/1.4 MkII (I haven't seen many direct comparisons), which is sharp right to the corners at around f/5.6 to f/11.ChrisAnderson said:helpful said:
I'd be interested in seeing how the famed Zeiss Distagon 21mm stands up to the 14-24
Upvote
0
ChrisAnderson said:I'd be interested in seeing how the famed Zeiss Distagon 21mm stands up to the 14-24
Lloyd Chambers (www.diglloyd.com) has tested them head to head. His site is payed subscription only but I guess I can say that generally the 14-24 compares pretty favorably with the Zeiss, especially when stopped down a bit. I've got a D800E on order as well as a Zeiss 21/ f.2.8 on its way. I hope to borrow a 14-24 from a friend and compare them myself. I'll report back (but who knows when I'll get my D800e?).
Cheers!
Upvote
0
The Sigma I can believe...the Tamron 70-300? That I think would be a big mistake. It produced decent results on a crop camera (my 60D), but on a 36mp full-frame, I can't imagine it holding up. Especially not at the long end.dilbert said:
Upvote
0
The samyang is incredible... I get blown away just how sharp text and such is at the very edge of the frame with this lens. And to think I got it for brand new at like $329. Best value out there, IMO. You don't need AF with this lens due to the incredible focus depth.
I highly recommend it for somebody who wants an ultra-wide for FF.
I highly recommend it for somebody who wants an ultra-wide for FF.
Upvote
0
J
Jettatore
Guest
helpful said:
'Helpful' to be fair about it, the Nikon 14-24 is not without it's downsides. It's big, it's heavy, it has a protruding front element that can't be protected with a filter, and it's focal range is not nearly as useful for most styles of photo-journalism or walk around photography as a 16-35 focal range which can give you ultra wide angle, to a normal to life view depending on what end of the zoom you put it on and how close you get. Aside from that, it's expensive, and one might well consider a 14mm prime (Canon's of which I hear is superior to the 14mm end of the 14-24 Nikon as well as the regular 14mm Nikon prime) along with a 24mm prime which would be much faster than the max aperture of the 14-24 on the 24 end. So you get a good, but very arguably not the best, large, heavy, expensive 14mm with a high quality but slow 24mm prime built in for some extra utility/convenience. I'd rather have the 16-35 or a 14mm Prime.
Upvote
0
I may still go for a D800E, but I want to sell the D800 first. I will also want a faster computer, and to do that will not be a minor upgrade, since my 64 bit i7 with SSD is pretty fast already. I'll need everything new and upgraded to get the power to efficiently handle those huge files. They are 100-200mb when uncompressed.
My 24-70G lens is sold, I found f/2.8 to be too slow for my low light usage, even f/2 and f/1.4 is marginal.
My 24-70G lens is sold, I found f/2.8 to be too slow for my low light usage, even f/2 and f/1.4 is marginal.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
