Some (possibly) good D800 info

[drjoder]

<p>I don't see this posted yet, but here is a great 20-minute interview with Jim Brandenburg (former Nat'l Geo photographer, nature) about his one month with the D800:<br>

<a href="http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/videos/reviews/532147/a-month-with-the-nikon-d800-exclusive-interview-with-jim-brandenburg.html">http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/videos/reviews/532147/a-month-with-the-nikon-d800-exclusive-interview-with-jim-brandenburg.html</a><br>

Also, ran across this essay about the D800 v. D800e, which one is for you:<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_or_d800e.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_or_d800e.shtml</a><br>

In the latter essay, he hasn't actually had hands on yet with the D800 but he does have a whole lot of medium format experience (non-AA filter tools).<br>

I have always secretly wanted to move into medium format for landscape and even cityscape stuff, but I was always turned off by cost and size/weight, but the resolution and dynamic range of those "big" tools I have always found to be impressive. It seems, though, that as medium format starts to move into stratospheric megapixel ranges so, too, the 35mm format has starting to move into what used to be the medium format region...Thus, I suppose, all this attention to watching your technique when shooting the D800 which is standard medium format procedure. From what I am seeing, it looks like the D800e may be the tool for me (along with a small mirrorless for those backpacking trips and bike rides). I'll keep squeezing the juice out of my D90 for another year or so, though, and watch as the reports come in from all of you lucky folks as you get your new D800s. For awhile I'll need to do some serious saving anyway what with the lenses that one will need for hi-res FX (looking at the 16-35 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII and a 1.4 teleconverter). This is a great time to be doing digital photography--what tools we have now!</p>

 

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Note that the only difference between the D800 and the D800e is that the "e" model does not have a low pass anti-aliasing filter. - Luminous Landscape</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It would be even better news if bloggers would check their facts before posting erroneous information. Both models contain AA filters. The D800e contains a second layer of filtering that attempts to reverse the effect of its AA filter. It remains to be seen how closely this effect resembles that of a filter-free sensor.</p>

[drjoder]

<p>Yeah, I have seen a number of folks get that wrong. Jim Brandenburg seems pretty darn enthusiastic with the D800...and I'm curious to see how the conclusions in the LL article will hold up (like, for example, moire not being a big factor at higher resolutions and that it can be somewhat controlled by f/stop).</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>200 MB RAW picture size...<br>

40" tall pictures printed...<br>

shooting technique changing experience...<br>

medium size camera quality...</p>

 

[chrisnielsen]

<p>I thought we had established long ago that LL is not to be trusted...</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Luminous Landscape... the halfwits that announced to the world that the Canon EOS D30 had a greater resolution and superior image quality than that of 35mm film. If LL tells you it's 2012, check your calendar.</p>

[mac_hordam]

<p>Dan South quote :-<br>

"It would be even better news if bloggers would check their facts before posting erroneous information. Both models contain AA filters."<br>

Luminous Landscape article quote :-<br>

"why has Nikon chosen to produce a second model, the D800e, effectively without an AA filter? (<em>I write effectively, because Nikon hasn't just removed the AA filter. They have modified the sensor's light path such that intentional blurring is removed, but otherwide the path is unaffected</em>)"<br>

<br /><br>

Even, even better news would be if the whole article were read before jumping to a conclusion about someone's lack of knowledge/accuracy on a topic.<br>

To all, -- Try reading Luminous Landscape without the angry glasses on.</p>

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

<p>Some of the other sites have actual images up, with RAW files available for download.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>In defense of the LL:</p>

<p>LL does make the statement above, once, as the lead in to the article , but if you read the article, they state 1 paragraph down "(<em>I write effectively, because Nikon hasn't just removed the AA filter. They have modified the sensor's light path such that intentional blurring is removed, but otherwide the path is unaffected</em>).</p>

<p>I am in the publishing business and writers often make errors. We all do. I don't often use their site but they do have some good information on it. They do clearly explain in several places the correct description of the D800e, including:</p>

<p>"Nikon D800E - Bayer Pattern Sensor, "Optical Low Pass Filter Without Anti-Aliasing Properties",</p>

<p>"...or, in Nikon's case, using a system that is supposed to do the equivalent)"</p>

<p>They have an interesting article on some history regarding cameras and AA filtering here:</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_naked_sensor.shtml</p>

<p> </p>

[ann_overland]

<p>In D800 the low-pass filter has a blurring effect, caused by the layers in the filter splitting the light rays into four light rays before hitting the sensor. This causes both optical transformation (loss of fine details) and loss of brightness.<br /> <br /> There is a low-pass filter on the D800e too, but it has almost no blurring effect. The layers of the filter have been re-arranged relative to each other, resulting in just one light ray hitting the sensor. There is almost no optical transformation and loss of brightness with this filter.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>The effect of the low-pass filter in D800e, is that D800e has a higher resolution and sharper rendering of depth than D800. But D800e is more prone to producing images with moiré and false color than D800.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I think the whole problem is terminology/design. Having a kinda <em><strong>anti</strong> </em>anti-aliasing filter seems an odd way of going about things but we'll have to wait and see how it works in real life comparisons, side by side. </p>

<p>I wonder what the actual Dynamic Range differences will be?</p>

<p>I'm looking forward to seeing the star fields the D800E makes.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>I think I'll wait for a 16-bit camera.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>16 bits cameras already exist. Check Phase One, Hasselblad and the likes.<br>

Whether it's needed and a real world advantage, is a second thing. I've so far not yet managed to hit visible problems with 12 bits RAW files; comparing 12 bits to 14 bits RAW, I never saw a real-world difference. But I do not edit my photos that heavy, maybe that makes a difference. </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>LL article: </strong>Note that the only difference between the D800 and the D800e is that the "e" model does not have a low pass anti-aliasing filter.</p>

<p><strong>LL (same) article: </strong>why has Nikon chosen to produce a second model, the D800e, effectively without an AA filter? (<em>I write effectively, because Nikon hasn't just removed the AA filter. They have modified the sensor's light path such that intentional blurring is removed, but otherwide the path is unaffected</em>).</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Mac H: </strong>To all, -- Try reading Luminous Landscape without the angry glasses on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who's <em>angry</em>? I have a lot of respect for The Luminous Landscape I've enjoyed their articles for year. However, this particular article is, sadly, an example of inadequate research (or poor editing) coupled with confusing double-speak.</p>

<p>The confusion continues:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>LL (same) article:</strong> Why Prefer the D800? The answer is again simple. You shoot subjects such as architecture, fashion, weddings, portraits and the like where man-made patterns are found. ... Now, if I was regularly shooting architecture, fashion, weddings... anything that contained fabrics or fine man-made patterns, I might avoid the 800e and any other back or camera without an AA.</p>

<p><strong>LL (same) article:</strong> But, even then, Pros shoot with MF backs all the time for advertising, fashion layouts, etc. The rule of thumb is, the higher the resolution of the sensor the less likely it will be that one will encounter artifacting, because the sensor grid is so very small that only <em>very</em> fine patterns at very precise distances can cause it. In a fashion shoot even moving the camera an inch or two can reduce or eliminate fabric moiré.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's think this through for a moment. The article implies that fashion and architecture can be shot effectively with medium format sensors that have no AA filters, but that those same subjects won't work well with a D800e. The rationale is that the "higher resolution" of MF sensors will hide moiré problems. However, the MF sensors used for this type of shooting up until a couple years ago were spec'd in the 22 - 39 MP range. The D800e's resolution is on the high end of that same range, so the argument about higher resolution making it possible to shoot these subjects falls on its face.</p>

<p>Will the D800e deliver acceptable results for fashion, weddings, and architectural photography? We'll have to wait and see until real photographers are using the camera in real situations. In the meantime, articles such as the one quoted have the potential to mislead camera buyers by presenting inaccurate information and well-meaning but poorly qualified conclusions.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>A 16-bit Nikon camera, off course, Wouter! :-)<br>

<br /> I want to take full advantage of the 16-bit Gimp when it finally arrives. I am waiting for that to happen, too. So I might as well sit on the fence and listen to all of you guys bragg about the new D800 and D800e's that you soon have bought. I am quite sure you will be more than satisfied with the quality, whatever you choose.</p>

[rossb]

<p> It sounds like a great camera for NG pro's and such. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ann, I might not get a D800 ;-) I'll wait for what replaces the D300s and then make up my mind....and I won't care if it would still be a 12-bits RAW file coming out of it. What is the advantage of 16-bits editing, if there is no visible advantage? Photoshop can handle 16-bits already for ages, giving it a 12-bit RAW to chew on, still gives you full advantage of everything photoshop.<br>

<br>

Point is: you may wait quite long, for something that has very very little real world advantage. </p>

[ann_overland]

<p>If it is a fact that there will be no visible advantages, then there would be no point in having 16-bits RAW files. I do agree with that. But I am not sure that it is a fact. Are YOU sure, Wouter?</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>In the system chart for D800, only R1C1, SB-400, SB-700 and SB-910 speedlights are included. I wonder if this means that SB-600, SB-800 and SB-900 are not compatible with D800? Does anyone know for sure? Or did they just not have room for them all in the chart?</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>I'm gonna answer my own question above. I just found out that you can use all the speedlights.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ann, as said in an earlier post: I compared 12-bits RAW versus 14-bits carefully on my (calibrated) computer screen. And I could not find any difference at all. These were normal landscape shots with decent dynamic range. There are very little computer screens displaying more than 8 bits per colour channel (max I've seen is 10-bits, still less than 12!). Normal prints don't come close to needing that amount of colours either. <br>

As said, I do not edit my files heavily, so I never ran into posterisation issues on my 12 bits files. If you perform significant post-processing, the advantage may exist. But already with 14 bits, the editing has to be extreme to cause visible problems.<br>

<br>

So - am I sure, well: never for 100%. But for most people, in nearly all normal circumstances, I am reasonably sure 16-bits RAW over 14-bits RAW is an insignificant advantage.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>As to flashes, ... they only listed models that are currently in production.<br>

Older flashes like SB900, SB800 SB600 are compatible with D800/D800E.<br>

To some initial and incomplete knowledge, there are NO new D800 camera flash related features that would make older CLS Nikon flashes obsolete.</p>

[ae_ingveld]

I tested this beauty last friday. Better than I imagined. I am in the canon system but am going to Nikon. Each RAW file is

about 75mb :)

[drjoder]

<p>Some great discussion of the LL article, thanks. I'll have plenty of time to get feedback from D800/800e users as I save my pennies and continue to squeeze the juice out of my D90. How about Jim Brandenburg's glowing words? Does he have a vested interest in any way? Ae Ingveld...did you have enough time with it to form a solid opinion?</p>