ilkka_nissila Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p><em>Theoretically, we could get one extra stop by averaging four pixels to halve the noise, but in practise there simply aren't sufficient digital bits defining the lowest shadow levels for that to work. </em></p> <p>First, in the raw file you have 14 bits for each pixel and when you calculate the RGB image it will be 16 bits per color. The resampling occurs after that. In the RGB image there are 3*16 bits per pixel (originally 14 bits in the NEF); there would seem to be ample bit depth to show the improved dynamic range in the final resampled image. If you're making a large print, so that the image is not downsampled for printing, the averaging occurs visually in the human brain when the viewer looks at the print from a distance (unable to see the pixel level detail it gets averaged by the eye and brain). I recall DXO have written an article about why the DR is enhanced in high pixel count cameras - you might take a look if you don't trust my intuitive explanation.</p> <p><em>Are you saying that those lenses are diffraction-limited wide open? And that there's no discernible improvement in image quality on stopping down?</em></p> <p>No, obviously not diffraction limited but good enough for any conceivable practical application (ok, the 24 and 35 might need to be stopped down to f/2, but the 85 is good to go wide open). What limits use is the depth of field, not sharpness in the focused parts of the image. This is my personal view - of course an individual might be pickier than I am but then they'd have been using medium format digital for a long time if they aren't satisfied with approximately 3500 line widths per image height in the center of the image and 3100 in the extreme corners wide open (photozone MTF50 on D3X). There are other examples of this level of performance in the Nikon lineup as well. The 200/2 gives 3700 lwph in the centre and Mk II is supposed to be still better. Yes, the contrast is lower wide open than stopped down - this is a typical Nikkor characteristic and it fits well in the application of the lenses in low light photography where the lighting contrast can be extremely high (stage light, indoor available light), rendering people more gently than ultra high contrast Zeiss lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p>Besides, dynamic range is not always defined by SNR = 1 or some really low value; it could be SNR = 100 in which case the bit depth would be far below affecting the DR.</p> <p>For visual averaging the DR might be meaningless if the printer makes it all black but using tonal mapping frequently used by landscape photographers to bring shadows into light and map the full tonal range onto the dynamic range of the paper, the shadows see the light so to speak, and often they are noisier than one would like (unless multiple images at different exposures are used, in which case the problem of inconsistent subject content (position of the subject may move, trees and water move with wind etc.) comes into play, so I don't much like this). Improvement in the sensor quality helps work with one exposure in more situations. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p>Photographers will not have to follow the recommendations to get good results. But to get great results (the best the camera/lens combo is capable of producing), special care may be be needed. Implementation of those 'tips' will benefit many photographers regardless of the body they are using.</p> <p>It will be interesting to read user experiences once the d800 comes out and is actually used!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studio460 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p>Joe said:</p> <blockquote> <p>BTW, large aperture lenses are no real substitute for a tripod. You'll simply be swapping fuzziness due to camera-shake for fuzziness due to lens aberrations.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not sure if you're referencing my post, but I never said they were. All I meant was that faster maxiumum-aperture lenses can afford higher shutter speeds, when desired, all caveats acknowledged. Any optical compromises shooting wide- or near-wide open on a quality lens will far outweigh a completely ruined shot due to motion-blur caused by camera shake.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_brooks Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Skyler, kudos for your original points. Looks like a lot of people want to show off their academic acumen, with discussion about rotation of the earth and all... That was just a nice touch of sarcasm on your part and I got it. I hope a few people, like me, heard your excellent message. My D800 order stays active. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjmurray Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p>There is an awful lot of pixel peeping talk here, but isn’t the end result for most photographers going to be how large is your print and what are the qualities of the print that you are trying to achieve? Back in the 70’s I routinely shot available light documentary portraits with my trusty Yashicamat twin lens reflex (120 format) wide open (f 3.5) and 1/30 sec using Plus-x film (iso 125). From this thread you would think I was wasting my time with such a combination and get nothing but worthless mushy images. In fact, this combination gave me very smooth, grainless, acceptably sharp prints with a total look and “feel” very different from what I would have achieved with 35mm and Tri-X. My 70’s folder here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=405901 is full of such images. My prints typically were 8x10 to 11x14 range. When I wanted the most detail I could get in a landscape I switched to a 4x5 camera, tripod, etc. It seems to me a 36 mp digital ff camera can be used for both purposes: hand held to get large, smooth prints, even using wide apertures and slow shutter speeds, and then on a tripod with low ISOs and optimal apertures for maximum depth of focus. Again, it’s all about the end result, the print, and the overall qualities of the print, and, how you like to work, your style, and so forth.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrus_procter Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p>I like your response Steve, well said. Your technique is much more important in relation to your final output than it is to your camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studio460 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p>Joe said:</p> <blockquote> <p>Otherwise we'd all have to take pictures of totally static subjects on those few perfect (but boring) days when there's no wind, dust or mist in the air and when it's also cool enough to prevent heat turbulance. Then we set our (very expensive and cherry-picked) lenses to their boring optimum aperture of around f/5.6, adjust our compendium hood for optimum flare reduction, throw another sandbag on the near-impossible-to-carry tripod and shoot our totally boring pictures.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well, that's exactly what I'm planning to do with the D800, compendium hood and all (although I own two of 'em, I'm usually actually <em>trying</em> to introduce some lens flare). But that's precisely the kind of "boring" photography the D800 was made for. I have a pretty lightweight carbon-fiber tripod, but a 15-lb. shotbag hung from its center-column steadies that sucker up pretty good. A small, 18" x 24" solid would suffice to shield the camera from the wind.</p> <p>And, it's true, most of the images I would photograph with the D800 wouldn't benefit from either VR lenses or fast apertures. Most of these exposures I would iris anywhere from f/5.6-f/11 anyway. I would also love to pair the relatively slow, PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5 tilt-shift lens with the D800 for some hot Scheimpflug action. At least for my purposes, the majority of my D800 photography <em>would</em> be on a tripod.</p> <p>Architecture, interiors, cityscapes . . . are all excellent candidates for careful, precision photography with the D800. The fast and furious photojournalism-oriented shots (or, slow and careful, high-ISO shots), I'll shoot with a D3s.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawsonPointers Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p>Didn't Adobe recently demonstrate a possible addition to PS that will fix motion blur? On a 70MB RAW file, it may take a week unless you have IBM's Watson at your disposal; but,....... ;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrus_procter Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p>Ralph, although I've never shot photojournalism style professionally, my vast experience in shooting on location with film cameras tells me the biggest obstacle to over come on location is lighting. High dynamic range is critical in uncontrollable lighting scenarios, something the D800 is going to be head and shoulders over the D4, D3s and D3 cameras because its dynamic range is going to probably be at least 2 stops greater than those cameras (judging that the D3x is already 1.7 stops greater than the D3s). To me the dynamic range is reason enough to shoot the D800 over the D3s on location. Not to mention the D800 has a far superior matrix meter, critical for getting correctly exposed shots in challenging lighting, its AF system is 1 more stop sensitive in low light and has been considered to in general be better than the D3s's. My point is, these are compelling arguments of reasons to use the D800 over the D3s in a PJ scenario. Oh and don't forget that you can go into DX mode to nab that far-away-shot and still have a 15MP image.</p> <p>Why does everyone get this idea that high MPs equal tripod hugging super detail shots only? Does anyone think the D700 is a bad PJ camera? Does anyone treat the D700 like a tripod hugging detail only camera? The D800 is superior in every way than the D700, from the larger viewfinder, same High ISO performance (According to Cliff), lighter body, faster AF better in low light, better matrix meter, I think most people would agree better layout of buttons, multiple card options, useful DX crop (15MPs vs 5MPs) better dynamic range and color depth of and it just happens to have more Megapixels. But nobody looks at the first at the half a dozen features that have been improved, they go straight for the MPs and judge the camera on that alone. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djolk Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p>I wonder by how much the announcement of a new camera affects forum traffic? I wonder how that increase compares to when the previously announced camera is actually released?</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamie_robertson2 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p>What a load of utter cobblers! If I can hand hold my Bronica SQ-A and 80mm at 1/30s then D800 owners have nothing to worry about. When my Bronica shutter fires it's like an explosion, more akin to a large rat trap triggering. If I can get sharp images at 1/30 then what's all the fuss about? All this nonsense is discussed every time a new megapixel barrier is broken. Move on people...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sunley Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <blockquote> <p>But nobody looks at the first at the half a dozen features that have been improved, they go straight for the MPs and judge the camera on that alone.</p> </blockquote> <p>I thinks it's more like they looked at the price first and went "gaaaack" I can't afford it and try and find a reason to justify not buying it. BTW, they are being preordered like there is no tomorrow. :)</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrus_procter Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p>The D700 is $2700. The D800 rumors had pegged it at $4000. You mean to tell me that people didn't expect it to be that much? What did they think Nikon was going to release the D800 at a D7000 price?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_south Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 This has to be the most overblown and misunderstood issue of the year. I'm glad that people took the time to read what the Nikon manual had to say about tripods. However, if I recall correctly, they were talking more about focusing accuracy (using live view) than camera stability. Kudos to Nikon for adding 23x magnification in live view, an excellent feature. But apparently, no one noticed the photo of Cliff Mautner in the manual. Cliff was handholding his sample D800. Yes, go back and look at the brochure. And then go to Nikon's site and look at Cliff's super sharp handheld images. IMHO his handheld portraits look sharper than the library photo taken from the tripod. Oops! How can that be? I read on the Internet that cameras always performed better on tripods, and the Internet is always true, right? Try using a tripod on a windy day. Try using a tripod in a moving vehicle. Try shooting a wedding or a sports event from a tripod. Cameras and tripods are only tools, and we can use tools in a variety of ways. No matter what the prevailing Internet wisdom might suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p>The D800 is $2999.00 and the D800E is $3299.00 at BHPhoto. Tripods extra for those of you that are buying the fish story. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <blockquote> <p>But apparently, no one noticed the photo of Cliff Mautner in the manual. Cliff was handholding his sample D800. Yes, go back and look at the brochure. And then go to Nikon's site and look at Cliff's super sharp handheld images. IMHO his handheld portraits look sharper than the library photo taken from the tripod. Oops! How can that be? I read on the Internet that cameras always performed better on tripods, and the Internet is always true, right?</p> </blockquote> <p>That reminds me a Nikon V1/J1 video demo a Nikon rep showed me about 2, 3 months ago. That video is quite short, maybe 15 to 20 seconds and the purpose was to deminstrate how good face detection AF on the V1 is. Of course I know it is very good since I got to test a J1 last year.</p> <p>In the video, a woman was dancing with two people standing far behind in the background. So when the dancer's back is towards the camera, the V1 would focus on the faces in the background. When the dancer turned around, the V1 immediately focuses on her with perfect AF. I recall it went back and forth a couple of times.</p> <p>The video demo is certainly impressive. What we don't know is how many takes they did before they got that perfect video. Nikon wants to leave you the impression that the V1's AF works so flawlessly every time. In reality, at least I don't know it works that well 50% of the time or it might be once out of 100 takes.</p> <p>Likewise, we only get to see Cliff Mautner's final product. We don't get to see all the rejects. That is the magic of advertising. Maybe his hand held shots were that sharp 100% of the time, maybe 50% of the time or perhaps 5% of the time. We simply don't know.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_south Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <blockquote> <p>High dynamic range is critical in uncontrollable lighting scenarios</p> </blockquote> <p>Really? I shot slide film for years in "uncontrollable lighting scenarios." I managed to get some pretty nice shots with five stops of dynamic range.</p> <blockquote> <p>The D800 is going to be head and shoulders over the D4, D3s and D3 cameras because its dynamic range is going to probably be at least 2 stops greater than those cameras.</p> </blockquote> <p>Do you have a link to back up that claim? I find it very difficult to believe that the D800 would exceed the dynamic range of the D4.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrus_procter Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p>While what you say is true Shun, I actually spoke in person with someone who has shot the D800 camera. When I told him what those here on photo.net had suggested, that a tripod was necessary to get the most out of the D800's sensor, he got a puzzled look on his face and then said he saw no evidence what so ever to support that. He shot the D800 hand held at low shutter speeds, then put the images on a 30" monitor and at 100% things were still razor sharp.</p> <p>Dan, why is it so hard to believe? According to DxO Mark the D3x has 1.7 more stop of latitude than the D3s and 1.5 more than the D3\D700. In this case I do believe its a result of a higher density sensor. The D7000 has almost 2 more stops than the D3s and 1.7 more stops than the D3\D700. On the contrary, I would be surprised indeed if the D4 has more dynamic range than the D800.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 <p>I'm able to shoot medium format hand held sometimes in fairly low light with a normal lens. I suspect people will find that for those photos you've always needed tripods for you will still need them and for the rest you will hand hold just fine. Lens length to shutter speed along with the mitigation of VR will determine if you need a tripod much much more than the pixel count or density. Lets get some cameras in hand and take some photos before making unqualified statements about how the camera will perform in theory.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_stark1 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 <p>Given that the larger the print size, the greater the distance at which a photo is comfortably viewed, I also wonder if a bit too much is being made about the resolution of the D800 when used without a tripod. Of course super fine detail becomes more important if one crops the image but then other issues, such as the depth of field and perspective, come into play. </p> <p>Obviously, the degree of fineness desired in the detail is an aesthetic choice. This has always been the case in art -- Jan van Eyck painted with great precision and detail while Rembrandt van der Rijan did not.<br> <br /> In short, I agree with those who believe there are many reasons to own a D800 other than the 36 megapixels. I for one want a digital camera that is at the level of my lenses, which are all prime FX. For me, it's a replacement more for my F6 than for my D90.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_johnson6 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 <p>I've shot a D200 and D3x side by side now ever since the D3x came out. I would have to say that on average, yes, your slight errors in focus or stability do show up more on the 24MP image. I would think that 36MP would be the same.<br> I shoot a lot of action where using a tripod is not practical. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raczoliver Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 <blockquote> <p>I shoot a lot of action where using a tripod is not practical.</p> </blockquote> <p>If I understand correctly, that is pretty much the only type of photography that the D3X and D800 are explicitly <strong>not </strong>recommended for, even by Nikon. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the results may not be the best, although I think the D800's autofocus system will make it ahem... much less unsuitable for these type of shots than a lot of people imagine.</p> <p>I am quite excited about the D800, I think size matters. Yes, you need more attention to get fine detail <strong>on the pixel level</strong>, but I think for most people, the aim is a certain print size, in which case the higher pixel count can only have benefits on image quality.</p> <p>When I was shooting black and white film, I preferred medium format for all applications (I don't shoot action/sports). Even handheld in lower light, the results compared to 35mm were always obviously superior. And when I did have the time and conditions to slow down and use a tripod, I enjoyed putting a bit more thought into the shot. With medium format, I was taking less pictures, but a higher percentage turned out good. I was missing the "medium format experience" from digital, and I am expecting the D800 to somewhat bring that feeling back at an acceptable price.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_south Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 The D3X sensor was made by Sony, right? Maybe that explains the differences. Perhaps I'm not confused about the definition of dynamic range. I would think that a D3X would hit a noise floor sooner than a D3S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrus_procter Posted February 28, 2012 Author Share Posted February 28, 2012 <p>I actually think all of Nikon's sensors are made by Sony. Or at least as far as I know, but don't quote me on that.</p> <p>Dynamic range is basically the light range a camera can capture detail prior to blowing to white and crushing to black. So if your sky is X exposure and your subject is Y and there is a 10 stop difference, then a camera like the D3s which has 12 stops of range, will be able to capture 100% detail in the subject and the sky (in theory at least). but lets say the difference was 14 stops, either your subjects face will go to black or your sky will go to white and there should be no detail what so ever (in theory). So a camera with greater dynamic range can capture a greater range of light than a camera with less dynamic range. A similar principle applies to color, and usually goes hand and hand with dynamic range.</p> <p>What you are thinking of is signal to noise ratio, which means at higher ISOs the more noise that shows up in the image, and yes, the D4 will be superior than the D800 in this area.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now