So if Moiré is not much of issue, why 800 over 800E?

<p>I was just going over some of the comments in previous topic on "<a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00amZu">Nikon D800E : moire - how bad is it?</a>" It seems like there's not an advantage either way. Why would someone choose one over the other? </p>

<p>There is a price difference, probably enough for a spare battery in most markets.</p>

<p> </p>

<p dir="LTR">I bought the 800E as I do bird photography, wanted the extra sharpness, and had no problem with the price difference. I can't prove though that this was the right decision (meaning that I do get sharper images), I believe it is, and am very happy with the camera. </p>

<p>All of the relatively trusted, coherent reviewers(not kr, for example) have stated that the difference is subtle.</p>

<p>It's been said that you can only tell the difference between the D800E and plain D800 at f/5.6 and faster - by f/8, the diffraction removes the difference. The trick is finding lenses that are 36MP sharp at f/5.6. If your lenses aren't that sharp by f/5.6, or if you usually shoot slower, then the D800E is pretty superfluous. As for moire, there <i>is</i> a difference even though the plain D800 isn't entirely free of it, and for "wildlife with occasional architecture", for example, the plain D800 may be better. Likewise if you don't have time to try to fix up moire in fabric on a deadline. Not a problem for me, hence my E.</p>

<p>You could just as easily phrase your question the other way round Eric - Why the D800E over the D800?</p>

<p>The price difference was a factor for me. £300 UK isn't an insignificant sum, and it would buy several spare batteries, even at their current inflated price. However, I made the decision after viewing every sample image and review I could find. I came to the conclusion that the difference was either lost in translation to the web, or there basically was no visible difference and that many people were suffering from "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. Those tiny, tiny differences that were visible appeared to be about the same as between processing a NEF file in CaptureOne and in NX2, since CaptureOne's sharpening is slightly more aggressive. And if you only ever shoot JPEGs you'd be completely wasting your money buying a D800E anyway, IMHO.</p>

<p>Nikon has very good personnel in the marketing department. Any slight price increase that will *perhaps* produce a better-quality image results in more profit for the company overall. [The display of Internet images will not be vastly improved if taken with a Nikon D50, a D7000, or a D800E ... just the *newer* tool makes a better-profit structure for Nikon.]</p>

 

<p>When first announced, it wasn't clear if there was much resolution difference or moire difference. It seemed pretty safe that the resolution on the D800 was going to be remarkably better so I went the "safe" choice with it. I'm still getting a handle on the diffraction issue that creeps in by f8 (which was over f11 with D700). At this point I might get the 800E but I don't feel as if I have lost anything with the D800. At smaller print size it is not an issue. For those of us who want sharp landscapes from foreground to background (which is not everyone), maxing out a lens at f5.6 means about 24 mm lenses and wider. That actually is mostly ok for that application. It takes some getting used to, like any new tool. </p>

<p>If anything, I'm surprised that more people haven't gone with the E (or that Nikon didn't expect more people to do so) - if you want a 36MP camera, why would you not want every bit of sharpness you can get, unless moire is expected to be a real issue? There are reasons, but I'm surprised that Nikon expected the E to be so much rarer.<br />

<br />

One issue I've had with the D800E is that I've been shooting stopped down for sharpness a bit more than with the D700 (where I was quite often wide open). That means I'm using f/5.6* a lot - and it's showing up muck on my sensor in a way that was rarely a problem on the D700 (when I was usually at f/2.8 or faster for a lot of my shots, at least of people). I've just dropped off my camera with Nikon UK for a sensor clean (I'm nearby and keep the warranty that way). The receptionist claimed to know nothing about the left autofocus problems, I was interested to find. Someone immediately after me dropped off a D800, but I didn't get the chance to ask the reason for their visit, or for their camera choice.<br />

<br />

(* For landscapes, which I don't shoot as much as I'd hope, I'm now planning to focus stack, at least if I don't get a better tilt-shift or finally get around to buying a 5x4 before all the useful films disappear.)</p>

<p>There are advantages to both. However it's not real strong in either direction from what I've seen. I have the D800E and it is very sharp with proper technique. But a D800 will look almost as sharp with proper sharpening. There is extra moire with the D800E in some situations. But the D800 still has moire issues. It's not clear to me how much more often you get issues with the D800E. For what I shoot I rarely find moire to be a problem. To me the regular D800 is the safer bet, and if I had to buy again that's probably what I would do (just to save the $300).</p>

Andrew, most people will buy the more

affordable camera that will serve their

needs. I bought the D800 as I wanted a

quieter camera with good AF sensitivity

in low light. So I bought the D800

instead of D4 mostly because of the

price. Also, I'm not a high fps shooter so

the speed of the D4 was not necessary

(though now I regret it because of the

buffer). The good thing is that I can

always switch as the popularity of the

D800 will likely keep resale value high. I

have no interest in the "E".

<p>There doesn't seem to be much support for getting the "E". It seems as if the "E" is only worth getting if you know you're going to be shooting a <em>lot</em> of fine detailed subjects and plan on viewing final image/print at very high magnification. Seems like you have to dig pretty deep to notice sharpness difference and moire issue. </p>

<p>Sure, Ilkka - I guess I'm just thinking of the car extras way of thinking: once you've spent a lot, what's a little extra to make it what you want? (Which is why the two cars in my household both have the largest engine spec available.) My thought process was: I'm spending an amount of money that I can't afford to do again any time soon - there's no "buy a D800 now, think about buying a D800E later". Spending the extra 10-15% to make sure I got the best out of the other 85-90% seemed worthwhile - I'd always have wondered whether I missed out on the "better camera" by cheaping out. Hence, to me, the price difference didn't matter all that much.<br />

<br />

If I was absolutely convinced that there'd be no benefit to paying a premium, I obviously wouldn't have done: some images have shown a clear benefit, so although I concede that a lot <i>don't</i> show the E's resolution advantage, I persuaded myself it might sometimes matter. Accepting that there's a difference, however minor, I'm not really a believer in buying the second-best thing you can afford, if there's doubt and if the difference is managable (which may explain why my credit cards aren't empty). I didn't think of it as a £300 premium - I thought of it as a percentage one, and getting more out of the other two and a half grand factored in to whether to spend the rest. In contrast, given a smaller difference between a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S and a 50mm f/1.4, I went for the f/1.8 lens - because the premium doubled the price, and to me that wasn't worth it. Separate improvements in the product range by small enough steps, and I'll talk myself into spending a lot of money; put a big gap in the way, and I'll convince myself it's not worth it.<br />

<br />

Still, it could be worse - given a choice of opals for my crystal anniversary with my wife, I ended up going for the one that cost more than twice what the other options did, again on the grounds of "I'll always think I should have got the other one". (I did at least ensure that it was her preferred one first...) And it's not like I paid extra for a 5D3 just because it cost more - though I maintain that for many users who aren't after a dedicated high resolution/dynamic range device, it may be a better camera than the D800.<br />

<br />

But my psychology may not match that of the populace as a whole. :-)</p>

<p>Eric: I think that's true. To me, the question is how many people are going to buy a 36MP camera and <i>not</i> want to get the best out of its resolution by printing large/cropping tightly, or pixel-peep at the results? A D4E would be pointless, to me - it's not for the pixel junky market.<br />

<br />

Now, it may be that a lot of people <i>do</i> buy D800s because they're "good" (and attention-grabbing) rather than because of the resolution, in which case the "E" <i>would</i> be a bad idea. But arguably, so is <i>any</i> D800, and a 5D3 or the mythical D600 - or a D700, or a D7000 - would be a better idea.</p>

<p>D800E is 10% more expensive then regular D800. Are images taken with it 10% better or at least sharper?</p>

<p>Thomas: No. (Well, it's hard to quantify, obviously - perhaps the difference is noticable in 10% of images...) Is a 10% premium small enough that I'll pay it to get the best possible photos if I can see <i>any</i> difference? Yes, especially if I've already spent D800 money towards that goal. I pixel peep - so sue me; this is the internet: I never claimed to be a real photographer, worried about artistic merit. :-)</p>

<p>The D800E 'anti-anti-alias' seems too elaborate to me. I wouldn't be surprised if a more elegant solution appears with the next model. I'm more than happy with the D800.</p>

<p>Andrew it may be that the receptionist isn't aware of the left autofocus issue because most returns (like mine) are probably sent by post and she/he doesn't get to chat with the customers. Nikon paid for postage by the way.</p>

<p>Hey Thomas, Probably not, but in some categories paying 10% more for only 5% improvement may be worth it if it gets you more work. On the surface your comment sounds good but you really can't dummy down the issue to bumper sticker level (have you thought of a working for one of the presidential campaigns? :) ). I make most of my photo income from events, weddings, journalism, etc... where such detail, sharpness and such is really not an issue. But I enjoy macro photography as personal projects and one day may look into studio/product photography. In those fields you're competing with MF and LF images where every little bit helps. So the percentage analogy doesn't apply. MF cameras and digital backs are way more than 10% more expensive than a D800/E but the difference is no longer as great as your percentage "new math." I'm not cutting down your point, I'm just saying it doesn't apply to everyone. The people who have either 800 seem to be happy with it, but the people who don't, like me, are a little hesitant about plunking down $3K and we'd like to get every penny's worth.</p>

<p><em>To me, the question is how many people are going to buy a 36MP camera and not want to get the best out of its resolution by printing large/cropping tightly, or pixel-peep at the results? </em></p>

<p>The 36MP is incidental. If you want the dynamic range and SNR of the D800, which you can enjoy also at small print sizes, and cannot afford the D4, then there is no camera that will match the D800. From my point of view the 36MP is an unfortunate side effect of a design which achieves superior image quality in as a whole. Pixel peep? I pixel peep to check which of the frame is in best focus, but that's about it. What interests me is the emotional impact of the image which really is visible only when one sees the whole image at the same time. What doesn't affect the image's emotional impact is just a distraction from what is really important.</p>

<p>As for the D800E, from my point of view the problem is that it achieves slightly improved definition at the (mostly irrelevant) very high spatial frequencies and sacrifices the integrity of the image (at the all important low frequencies which are the foundation of the image). But it seems there are quite many people online who are not bothered by it at all, which is puzzling to me. </p>

<p><em>Now, it may be that a lot of people do buy D800s because they're "good" (and attention-grabbing) rather than because of the resolution, in which case the "E" would be a bad idea. But arguably, so is any D800, and a 5D3 or the mythical D600 - or a D700, or a D7000 - would be a better idea.</em></p>

<p>The 5D Mk III is of a different brand, and most people who are in the market for a camera in this class are long ago married to one system or the other, so it's rather academic to talk about comparing cameras across brands. As for the D700 or D7000, neither camera can match the D800's signal to noise ratio in the final print (neither can the 5D Mk III at the low end of the ISO range), nor has quite the same AF performance. Thus there are many reasons to buy a D800. As for the "D600", most people are best served by using real cameras today than dreaming about possible future cameras and not shooting at all.</p>

<p>I purchased the "E" and am happy I did. While I suspect the differences are subtle, (I photograph things I enjoy, not test charts), it seemed a simple decision to get the higher quality camera. I came to the "E" from the world of medium and large format film and am an admitted detail oriented person, (otherwise why shoot 4x5). Many people, and I know some, have a D800 and shoot jpegs, and/or never print but show only on the web. For that, my old 6MP D70 would work just fine. I have seen no moire, just LOTS of lovely detail in my images, and that pleases me no end. If the "E" did not exist, or if it were twice the price rather than a 10% premium, I likely would be totally happy with the D800, even with the filter. As it is, Nikon did something quite remarkable, something that no other camera manufacturer has ever done. They offered an excellent camera both with and without an anti-aliasing filter. For that they are to be commended, and no, I do not work for Nikon, but am a happily retired bum from a totally different profession.</p>

<p>The differences out of the camera with no post processing is subtle (everyone seems to be in agreement with this). After post processing of identical D800/D800e RAW files using DXO software [with its lens softness correction feature], it is extremely difficult if not impossible to see any differences.</p>

<p>Simply put, two reasons for me. First, by mid-July I was becoming quite concerned that I would not receive the D800E I had placed on order prior to the vacation that I just returned from. Of course, I wound up having to return the first D800 I received, but as far as I can tell, the version I got as a replacement is fine. Second, I do intend to use the camera, at least somewhat, for video and became quite concerned that I would be impacted by moire using the D800E - I was never concerned about still images, but I did get a bit skittish about video.</p>

 

<p>Alastair: You may be right. I'm just surprised, given that a relatively large proportion of D800s seem to have shipped at one point with the autofocus problem and a larger proportion of forum posters seemed to <i>think</i> they had it, that it wasn't a common topic. I brought it up only to ask whether they had a quick test rig set up to confirm that my camera seems to be without this problem (while they had it anyway). Maybe I'm just being unduly cynical about how Nikon treated this problem... or maybe lots of people are waiting for Nikon to do a recall.<br />

<br />

Ilkka: I sympathise - I bought the D800E partly on the basis of a dynamic range comparison with a 5D3 (not that I was considering the latter), and it's not <i>just</i> the silly resolution that appealed to me. I appreciate that you'd have been happier with 18MP and 16 bits of accurate dynamic range. Still, I suspect - again cynically - that dynamic range does not factor heavily into the purchasing decisions of the majority of photographers, even for the D800 category; the press has all been about the resolution. And I concur that moiré issues can affect larger areas of the image than any sharpness benefit - but the evidence is that the plain D800 isn't completely free of these (possibly Nikon over-compensating for the very strong AA filter on the D700-vintage cameras), and that it tends to be unusual for a problem to appear. I took into account a lot of reviews and my style of shooting before plumping for the E, and I don't suggest every D800 owner should have made the same decision. Still, there are a lot of medium format and Leica shooters who also seem to cope without an AA filter.<br />

<br />

As you say, the 5D3 is a different brand - but I switched from Canon to Nikon when the D700 came out, after months of waiting for a 5D2. For people jumping up from a crop sensor (who may need to buy new glass anyway), or for people wanting to put down a lot of money for a high-end DSLR to replace their old 35mm or medium format solution, there may still be a system choice to be made. I get the impression that Nikon are doing better with the D800 than Canon are with the 5D3, which suggests that people are actively choosing to go with the Nikon (I don't think all the Canon owners can be deciding not to bother upgrading).<br />

<br />

From the reviews I've read (I'm waiting for a friend to buy one so I can play with it), the 5D3 is better at high ISO, probably has a better autofocus system (except at small apertures and possibly in low light), and is definitely a little faster than the D800. It's also fixed a few of Canon's handling snafus (notably DoF preview). It's a very good, general-purpose, camera. I don't happen to want one, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to a lot of people, admittedly with a degree of "the grass is always greener on the other side" going on. It's true that, for dynamic range at low ISO, the D800 has no competition (certainly not from the 5D3) - but for many users who never go near RAW, that doesn't make so much difference. The D700 remains a very good, fast camera with a less annoying autofocus configuration, no moiré problems, a sensible RAW resolution, autofocus that is very nearly as good as the D800's (and works at the left focus point), and a currently reasonable price; for many, it's "good enough" - as is the much cheaper and more portable D7000 (or any "D400" that may turn up). No, they're not "better" than the D800, but they're much less of a waste of money if you were only buying a D800 because someone told you that more megapickles is good.<br />

<br />

I'm cynically (again) assuming that not every sale of a D800 went to an experienced photographer who knew what he or she was getting. I often quote dynamic range along with resolution as a reason to get a D800, but if you care about neither, I'm really not sure the D800 is a good investment. A D600 <i>if</i> it appears with the expected specifications may well be better (I hope it turns up, because it'll help me to recommend cameras to friends); otherwise I've listed some pretty good alternatives for the "I just want a good camera and I've got three grand to spend" brigade, and they won't fill a memory card in three shots. On the other hand, those on this forum probably <i>did</i> know what they were getting, and probably - like me - really wanted it (or some of it, in Ilkka's case). I claim the D800 and D800E are niche cameras - for those wanting to be in that niche, they're epic; I'm just suggesting that not everyone trying to squeeze themselves into the niche because it's cool really ought to be there.<br />

<br />

Eric: I'm glad you're happy, and interested to hear a 5x4 shooter coming to the fold. Much as I like large Velvia transparencies, I'm expecting the D800 to remove most of my need to shoot with my Pentax 645, especially once I save up for a 21mm Zeiss. I'm still thinking that 5x4 ought to be a sufficiently large step that it would be worth investigating, though. (I've still not entirely established whether Fuji are killing 5x4 Velvia 100, or just 50 and 100F, and whether that bothers me - the disappearance of Portra does, just to prove to Ilkka that I, too, like dynamic range.)</p>

<blockquote>but I did get a bit skittish about video</blockquote>

 

<p>Good point, Joel - I worried about that as well, now you remind me. I eventually decided it probably wouldn't come up all that often, since I don't do much video shooting - but if you do, you're quite right that it might be a good reason to go E-less.</p>

Because I got tired of waiting for the E and bought the other one when it became available. (Both of them seem to be in

relatively good supply now.)

 

Also, because I shoot people frequently, and I want to be able to control the amount of sharpness applied in post

processing. Using a D800E for portraits of women, for example, was a scary proposition. More resolution is not

necessarily better in every circumstance.