D800 is finally here

L

lbloom

Guest
Am I the only person that wasn't very impressed by the D800 sample images?
 
G

ghosh9691

Guest
lbloom said:
Am I the only person that wasn't very impressed by the D800 sample images?

There are many who aren't! But keep in mind, they have only released low ISO images, the highest being ISO640. At ISO640, you can already see fine grained noise at 100%. It's not very distracting but wonder what it would look at ISO1600. If you look at the 1DX sample images, even at ISO1600 the noise is not distinguishable. Same for the Nikon D4 - no noise at higher ISO speeds. In addition, I noticed that the image corners are not very sharp - definitely running into some lens performance issues there!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,820
2,509
ghosh9691 said:
...you can already see fine grained noise at 100%. ... If you look at the 1DX sample images, even at ISO1600 the noise is not distinguishable. Same for the Nikon D4 - no noise at higher ISO speeds.

Now...downsample those 36 MP images to 16-18 MP and see how the noise compares - otherwise, it's an unfair comparison, just like all those folks who complain that their new 7D is noisier than the old 40D, and they're comparing at 100%.
 

torger

EOS RP
Nov 16, 2010
236
0
Gothmoth said:
you read the link someone posted here about the G10 vs. hasselblad 39MP on A3 print size?

Yes. The differences may be considered small, and even if they are fairly large it is easy to make mistake in comparison, just like with any quality parameter. In this case especially if you're not allowed to walk close-by.

You can do the same type of tests to demonstrate that you don't need better ISO performance or better DR. So we can stop camera development at G10 :).

I do prints myself, at many different resolutions. I look at them, both from a distance and up close. The value of resolution differs depending on subject. Some compositions invites close inspection of details, some don't. I do appreciate the fine nuances in quality though, that makes me pay lots of money for my lenses too, and really, differing between a low quality and high quality lens in a real picture is much harder than resolution.
 
A

Astro

Guest
neuroanatomist said:
Now...downsample those 36 MP images to 16-18 MP and see how the noise compares - otherwise, it's an unfair comparison, just like all those folks who complain that their new 7D is noisier than the old 40D, and they're comparing at 100%.

what does downsampling offer when im a wildlife photog who wants to crop?
or when i need billboard sized prints?

i mean that´s what the MP junkies tell all the time is the reason why they need more then 22 MP.

who is buying a 36MP camera to downsample images so they have the same quality as a 6 year old camera?

nonsense....
 
A

Astro

Guest
lbloom said:
Am I the only person that wasn't very impressed by the D800 sample images?

nope.. the landscape images i saw are not impressiv. neither detail or noise wise.
 
G

ghosh9691

Guest
neuroanatomist said:
ghosh9691 said:
...you can already see fine grained noise at 100%. ... If you look at the 1DX sample images, even at ISO1600 the noise is not distinguishable. Same for the Nikon D4 - no noise at higher ISO speeds.

Now...downsample those 36 MP images to 16-18 MP and see how the noise compares - otherwise, it's an unfair comparison, just like all those folks who complain that their new 7D is noisier than the old 40D, and they're comparing at 100%.

Yes, you are correct. However, I was not making a comparison - just stating an observation that the D800 image at ISO640 taken by itself at 100% shows noise that is distinguishable. Not more or less than any other camera, but noise just by itself.
 
C

Canon-F1

Guest
neuroanatomist said:
Now...downsample those 36 MP images to 16-18 MP and see how the noise compares - otherwise, it's an unfair comparison, just like all those folks who complain that their new 7D is noisier than the old 40D, and they're comparing at 100%.

i prefer to UPSAMPLE images from a 1D X to 36 MP.

honest the D800 sample img_05_l.jpg does not impress me a bit at iso 320.

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_05_l.jpg
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,633
1,590
I'm sure its a fine camera, and having a choice is good. If all cameras were identical, we would only need one model.

Nikon was obviously hurt by criticism of the low pixel count of their bodies, and stated three years ago that they would not be giving so much weight to high ISO in the future.

I'd not be afraid of it, and it offers some really nice features for a reasonable price. Its all about selling lenses, of course, thats where the profit is in DSLR's.
 

kbmelb

EOS 90D
Oct 14, 2011
142
0
To me the D800 is fools gold. It is relying heavily on scaling down to hide the limiting factors of a 36MP and it sacrifices a lot for the MP crown. I personally was very proud of Canon when they announced the 1Dx. At 18MP the DLA being a sweet spot of f/11 seemed genius to me. I shoot 5DII and 1DsII and I actually prefer the file size of the latter. Under ISO 800 the IQ is comparable.

As a shooter of 5DII I can really see the effects of diffraction at f/16. It's nothing to cry about but it is there. The landscape shot Nikon posted at ISO320 and f/8 looks to have a moderate+ level of sharpening to it and at the focal point still doesn't look sharp which I would suspect to be a diffraction issue.

As far as large prints go, the original 5D made for some astonishing 30x20 prints. I'm going to say, once printed, that the difference between the 36 and 18, 21 or 22MP (or whatever 5DIII will be) is going to be fairly indistinguishable. I might even guess the 18MP will best them all.

In the end for me, I will not be jumping ship to Nikon. I will be weighing the pros of the 1Dx and 5DIII(x) and as of right now without seeing the the new 5D I'm leaning to 1Dx for what I expect to be amazing IQ 18MP. If the AF on the new 5D is what I want and it doesn't go over 24MP I'll probably end up with it based on price.
 
C

Cropper

Guest
Well the D800 seems to have a lot of the features that I would like to see in a 5D III, but doubt that Canon will indulge us with (good AF with f8 sensitive point !!!! ; a crop mode, for ex.).

Hope Canon goes high resolution on the next 5D (30MP with a 1.6x crop mode with faster FPS would be really nice).
By now they should be able to bump the resolution and still improve high ISO quality and DR.

Regardless of what Canon does I think Nikon has got a winner here.
 
C

Canon-F1

Guest
Cropper said:
Hope Canon goes high resolution on the next 5D (30MP with a 1.6x crop mode with faster FPS would be really nice).

what are you talking about?
in camera cropping?

if you talk about EF-S lenses.. forget it.
 

torger

EOS RP
Nov 16, 2010
236
0
With 36 megapixels you can say you get into medium format territory. In is a low cost alternative to those that would like to have medium format but cannot afford it, or for those that can afford the 135 system is more versatile.

Concerning if 36 megapixels is "too much" "diffraction limited" etc, it is the exact same problem with medium format, and it have reached 80 megapixels so far.

You must have another mindset, with low res cameras you think it is kind of an error if the sensor is not setting the resolution limit. With higher resolution there are many other factors that come into play. You need to plan your DOF even for landscape pictures, you can often not expect that 100% of the picture is 100% sharp, but if you plan right the most important things are. Tilt-shift lenses should gain popularity from higher resolution, when you can plan your DOF just like large format view cameras. In shallow dof (people, fashion etc) photography the diffraction is a non-issue of course, but lens resolving power may become more of an issue.

An important feature the D800 lacks though as I see it is the mRAW and sRAW formats that Canon has. I want to shoot RAW 100% of the time, but if I shoot hand-held low light etc ~12 megapixels is suitable, I cannot hand-hold 36-megapixel-sharp (without flash). With high megapixel count a reduced RAW format makes the product much more all-around.
 
C

Cropper

Guest
@Canon-F1 :

In camera cropping would allow to extend the range of telephoto lenses, and also increase the frame rate if needed.
As someone who can't afford an EF 800mm F5.6, this would be a very appreciated feature, and should be very easily done (the D800 has it) !

@altenae :

If high ISO and DR improvement is not compromised why not more resolution ?

But It's a matter of "different strokes for different folks" I guess.
 

torger

EOS RP
Nov 16, 2010
236
0
Cropper said:
If high ISO and DR improvement is not compromised why not more resolution ?

High ISO and DR is compromised. But the compromise only becomes really significant above ISO6400 (at ISO100 the DR could even be better on the higher resolution camera).

So if you need to shoot ISO12800 - 51200 a high res sensor is with current technology bad for you. But on the other hand I don't think Canon or Nikon will let that kind of ISO performance drizzle down from their flagship models, so if you need that kind of ISO performance you will have to go for D4 or 1DX.

If you rarely feel the need to go above ISO6400, small pixels won't hurt you much. You'd probably use one of the binned RAW formats at that ISO if your sensor had 36 megapixels. It is a mystery to me why Nikon did not include binned RAW formats on the D800...
 
M

macfly

Guest
Canon has made a huge misstep on this, and given away the lead they fought for and won back in 1991 when I traded my then new Nikon F4 for the far superior Canon EOS1n. IMHO Nikon (with Sony's help) have finally reclaimed the top stop, and Canon has given away a twenty year lead.

All those people whining about a camera having too many pixels, just buy the one with the right amount for you, but for those of us who want more, live and let live. Why should we be limited by your desire for mediocrity?

For those of us who want ultimate quality, this post from the Sony rumor site is wonderful news - http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-sony-about-to-release-organic-sensors-in-2013-100-megapixel-sensors-for-2013-2014/
 
C

Canon-F1

Guest
Cropper said:
@Canon-F1 :

In camera cropping would allow to extend the range of telephoto lenses, and also increase the frame rate if needed.
As someone who can't afford an EF 800mm F5.6, this would be a very appreciated feature, and should be very easily done (the D800 has it) !

it´s nothing other then cropping in post.

you mix things up here.
you can´t use EF-S lenses on a canon FF body.. it´s not working as with nikon FF bodys and DX lenses.

so in camera cropping makes not much sense for canon.
 

Meh

EOS RP
Sep 20, 2011
702
0
Cropper said:
In camera cropping would allow to extend the range of telephoto lenses

Really, how so? Crop sensors are said to give extended range but that is because generally they have higher pixel density than contemporary FF therefore there are more pixels on subject when you are focal length limited... i.e. when you can not fill your frame with the longest focal length you have available. This is not true for a "crop mode" on a FF sensor.
 
<-- start Taboola -->