D800 - few observations and 2 questions

[sam_puri]

<p>Hi,<br>

I had been using D700 for the last couple of years and thoroughly enjoyed it. Then came D800 followed by Canon 5D Mark-III. </p>

<p>I had an opportunity to play with both Canon 5D MK-III (1 month) and D800 (5 days) and have following observations/questions:<br>

(Kindly note, I am no expert, just love photography with whatever skills I have acquired by shooting by kids and my family. So please don't be harsh).</p>

<p><strong>OBSERVATIONS</strong><br>

Canon 5D MK-III<br>

1. Excellent camera. Auto focus much faster/accurate than anything I have used before (including D700 and D800).<br>

2. Insane high ISO capabilities. Didn't feel the need for flash that much when shooting casual.<br>

3. Even at 23 Megapixels, there was no need for any special handling (like D800) such as: tripod, faster shutter speed to compensate for slight camera shake (or probably my inferior photography skills :)).<br>

4. I like Nikon colors very much, and was trying to make the colors on Canon look more like Nikon's, but failed to do that. Red channel is still a bit over saturated for my taste, which doesn't do any good for skin tones.<br>

D800<br>

5. Using same skills (skills = my skills) as when using D700 and Canon 5D Mark-III, D800 produced blurry images. I struggled to take any sharp pictures without the aid of tripod. 100% accurate AF, and faster shutter speeds was must for a normal (normal as in kind of pics I would get from D700 and Canon 5D Mark-III). In other words, I had to put a lot more thought/effort into taking a picture with D800 as compare to other 2 cameras. I will not qualify D800 as a walk around type of camera. I was using a cheap (this is what I use on D700) 24-85 lens on D800 and couldn't get many sharp pictures (even with manual AF).</p>

<p>Not caring about more megapixels, if I was able to get Nikon colors with Canon, I would rate Canon 5D Mark-III notch higher than my D700. (I am sure there is some utility/software which can do this).<br>

<strong>Question:</strong><br>

1. Does that mean Canon has found a sweet spot for megapixels for a full-frame (22 mp) camera to be used as hand held and 'on the move' type of photography. ?<br>

2. Since medium format (assume 36 mp camera) has bigger sensor area and hence bigger sized pixels (as compare to D800), will it be more forgiving than D800 for camera shakes, and AF accuracy?</p>

<p>Thanks & Regards<br>

Sam</p>

<p> </p>

[Jerry_]

<p>No one on Photo Net can judge how steady your hands are when operating a camera. Question: did the Canon body have a IS lens attached? If so, the test seems a bit slanted. I, with a D3 or a D700, can hold fairly steady when needed. If you used a tripod and a D800, something else in the camera settings may be where your trouble lies.</p>

<p>Software to get Nikon colors after taking a image with a Canon body?</p>

<p> </p>

[johnw63]

<p>Sam,</p>

<p>Given your major issue with the D800 was blurry shots, I don't think the camera is at fault. What lens did you use on the Canon ? Since you said the Nikon lens, even with manual focusing couldn't get sharp shots, I think you have an issue with the lens, some how. I'm guessing the 24-85 was not a VR lens, and perhaps the Canon was. Just a guess. Nikon would not put out a camera that could not focus without a tripod. </p>

<p> </p>

[lornesunley]

<p>The D800 is fairly unforgiving about camera shake ... with the D700 I have it was relatively easy to hand hold with most lenses, with the D800 you have to be more careful with bracing the camera (hand under the lens, elbow braced on chest) when you are using slower shutter speeds. Other than that, with higher shutter speeds 1/500 and up I have little problem with hand holding the D800 even with a 300 mm lens.</p><div></div>

[lornesunley]

<p>I also have a 24-85 (the f/2.8-4 version) and I did a couple of test shots handheld and at 1/100 shutter speed at f/4 and the lens set to 85mm I can see the effect of slight camera motion, at 1/160 the effect of camera motion is much much less.</p>

[georges_pelpel]

<p>Recently moved from a D300/D300s to a D800. No issue with sharpness. It's just fantastic with or without tripod.<br>

I think the requirements for special care in handheld shooting is greatly exaggerated. Remember than the pixel density of the D800 is just a tad lower than on the D7000. Have you heard about extra care while shooting with the D7000? I have not.<br>

If you get soft photos with a D800 you will get soft images with a D7000 as well. So the problem is not with the camera but rather with either your lens or technique. By technique I mean how steady you hold the camera as well as in your choice of shutter speed, or what AF settings you used.</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>I have a D800 and have had no issues with soft or blurry images. I have used it handheld on multiple jobs with the 24-70mm f/2.8 (doesn't have VR) with no issues, even at 1/60 sec. I use the same technique that I have used with the D7000 and D3s. I agree with those above that Sam's problem probably lies with the lens. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>1. Does that mean Canon has found a sweet spot for megapixels for a full-frame (22 mp) camera to be used as hand held and 'on the move' type of photography. ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I think your test is not proving much, since it does not sound you actually tested side by side, controlled conditions. You use a relatively mediocre lens on the D800 (yes, the resolution will show any flaw relentlessly). And indeed, which lens was on the Canon?<br>

If you checked the images at 100% to check for blur, also remember that you're looking at a larger file with the D800. Downsample the D800 to 22MP, and compare to the Canon. That's apples with apples.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> 2. Since medium format (assume 36 mp camera) has bigger sensor area and hence bigger sized pixels (as compare to D800), will it be more forgiving than D800 for camera shakes, and AF accuracy?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hardly. Focus accuracy on medium format might even be more problematic, as the depth of field is less too. Camera shake... well, most MF gear I saw was on a tripod always anyway, but here consider that MF bodies are larger and heavier. They're less "walk around" than DSLR.</p>

<p>I think your test does prove one thing, and that is that indeed the D800 isn't for everyone. I'm sure it's a great camera, but it's a camera that does require a bit more thought, good hand-holding technique and good lenses to get the best out of it. And/or you need to accept that photos aren't pin-sharp at 100%, but if the 6"x4" prints of family photos still come out perfectly fine, how is that a problem?<br>

The real question is: do you need the higher resolution? Is 12 megapixels too little for the size of prints you want to make? It sounds to me that otherwise, the D700 is a camera that does exactly what you want.</p>

[evannorth]

<p>i have moved up from the d90 to the d7000, and yes, at first i noticed that you do need to take a little bit more care when hand holding due to the extra pixel density, it will also show the limitations of your lenses. i would imagine the d800 being 36mp would need top quality glass and a very steady hand before you see ultimate results. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Just replacing a 22MP sensor with a 36MP one will not degrade image quality; it makes images slightly more detailed or in the worst case, equal. However, the D800 obviously has different AF behaviour to Canon's product and the weight of the body as well as which lenses you use play a role. Which lenses did you use on the two cameras?</p>

[Caledonia]

<p>I pretty much agree with most of what has been said,having had the d800 for about 3 months I have found you really cant take quick grab shots as I would have with the d700,certainly not at the slower shutter speeds and get the sharpness you would want. But why would you expect to get amazing results shooting at 36 megs handheld at 100/200 iso, this camera is not an all rounder,but shooting with what I normally do anyway ie tripod remote release and mirror lock this camera in my humble opinion comes into it's own,when you see your first 20x30 inch or larger print, the well worn saying you WILL be blown away comes to mind,it truly is capable of fantastic results. I can honestly say apart from a few little quirks this is the Landscape camera I have allways waited for.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>" I struggled to take any sharp pictures without the aid of tripod" "I was using a cheap (this is what I use on D700) 24-85 lens on D800 and couldn't get many sharp pictures (even with manual AF)." </em>Did you use an equally cheap lens on the Canon? (Which lens did you use?) Its no wonder why you didn't get good results.</p>

<p>Both cameras have advanced AF systems with many advanced AF options. Depending on how you have them set, you could easily have the impression that one is faster than the other. For example, the 'Focus Track with Lock-On' feature is on by default with the D800 and can easily give the impression that AF is slow under many shooting conditions where moving subject are involved. Turning that feature off greatly affects the perception of the D800's AF speed when shooting a moving subject. Using a lens like Nikon's 70-300mm VR can also give a false impression of slower AF. Put on a 70-200mm VR lens and you have a totally different 'camera' AF speed wise - the camera focus instantly instantly and maintains AF even with fast moving subjects.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that when it comes to IQ, both cameras will give the same results if you are using equal quality lenses. And when it comes to AF speed and accuracy, both are more than adequate to shoot just about anything.</p>

<p>By the way, to get the best results out of a 22mp camera, or a 36mp camera, you typically need to use the same good technique.</p>

[kari_oinonen]

<p>One note on comparing cameras of different sensor densities:<br>

More Mpixels do no make blurrier images - like Ilkka wrote.<br>

It is too easy to compare 16M sensor image with 36M sensor image at 100% and see a difference in image sharpness. <br>

When comparing A to B the image viewed size should be equal. It is not equal if one compares 16 with 36 at pixel level - 100%.<br>

Viewpoint.</p>

[Andy Murphy]

<p>In addition to brilliant large prints from the D800, I see particular value in the 36.3 pixel sensor for picture agency submissions. I contribute to Alamy images, and they, as other agencies, require larger files that are scaleable for sales of different sizes of images. And, so far, Nikon's the only 36.3 MP camera I am aware of for the price being asked. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Even at 23 Megapixels, there was no need for any special handling (like D800) such as: tripod, faster shutter speed to compensate for slight camera shake (or probably my inferior photography skills :)).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really serious photographers use a tripod and good technique as much as possible with 35mm film SLRs and 12MP DSLRs. That is nothing new. I am surprised that you think 23MP does not need careful handling.</p>

<p>When you pixel peep at 100%, 36MP means a much larger magnification than 24MP, which in terns means a much larger magnification than 12MP. Those huge magnifications reveal a lot more flaws from your technique and your lenses. 36MP does not make any lens worse, but it is much easier to separate good and bad lenses with 36MP than with 12MP.</p>

<p>I haven't used the 1DX and 5D Mark III, but I like Canon's AF point layout with more cross-type AF point towards the far end. Nikon's Multi-CAM 3500 has all 15 cross-type AF points in the center. I have pointed that out when I reviewed the original D3 back in early 2008. Unfortunately, Nikon has not improved that in the current generation of D4 and D800 so that we are stuck with the Multi-CAM 3500 for a few more years.</p>

[lwg]

<p>For my use with the D800 I have found the Auto ISO set all the way to faster more than compensates for the extra pixels when hand holding the camera when compared to the D300 (12MP) or the D7000 (17MP). In other words I get sharper pictures from the D800 than I did from the lower pixel cameras when shooting with auto ISO because the camera can be set to pick a higher shutter speed. If you then downsize the image to 12MP it is very very sharp, and the noise almost disappears. In my mind it's a most welcome compromise.</p>

<p>I find the same thing is true with my medium format film cameras. They can record more information, but sloppy hand holding technique will reduce the output to no better than 35mm at a particular print size. To truly get the most out a higher resolution system you need good technique, and "1/focal length" does not cut it.</p>

<p>I've never shot the Canon 5D3 so maybe it's magically better, but I doubt it will look sharper at any particular print size than the D800.</p>

[dan_south]

"Really serious photographers use a tripod and good technique as much as possible"

 

Does this mean that people who shoot football games, basketball games, tennis matches, the Olympics, weddings,

events, and just about every news story ever published are NOT serious photographers?

 

Edit: Let's add the majority of fashion and lifestyle photographers while we're at it.

[dan_south]

I've had the chance to use both cameras. I agree that the 5D3 is slightly more forgiving. That said, criticism of the D800 as creating

fuzzy images might be based on the temptation to view images at 100 percent. If you viewed a 5D3 image at the same

linear dimensions (which is probably about 170 percent), I think it might look equally fuzzy.

 

To get the best out of the D800's many pixels, use a tripod or flash or shoot in a well lit environment. But it you shoot a D800 hand

held in less than perfect conditions, the files should still look fine at 12x18 inches. Maybe 20x30. Enormous

magnification is always going to show defects.

 

Both cameras are extremely capable. I wouldn't hesitate to use either one for just about any assignment.

 

The one comment that I don't understand is the one regarding "Nikon color". If you took photos of the American flag with a Nikon

and a Canon, with correct exposure and white balance and post processing the images should look identical. Both cameras use

the same color spaces (Adobe RGB, etc.).

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Sam, if you feel happier and more confident with the Canon, then that's what you should get. If you haven't got a substantial investment in Nikon lenses or accessories, then you won't take a big hit to the pocket by changing system. However I can't at all agree that the D800 is no use as a "walk around" camera. I've just come back from a short holiday trip and used the D800 almost exclusively handheld. It's high ISO ability obviates the need for a tripod in many situations and enables you to get pictures that would otherwise have been lost while setting up a tripod. Below is a sample from the D800 taken handheld at twighlight with camera settings of 1/320th @ f/5.6 and 400 ISO. Inset is a 100% detail from the prow of the nearest boat. I was still shooting handheld an hour later just after sunset with the ISO raised to 1600 ISO, with more than acceptable results. </p>

<p>WRT the "sweetspot" of pixel numbers against format size, I don't think that Canon has it right at all. A while ago I crunched some numbers based on the resolution figures that you could reasonably expect from the centre of a decent pro-quality lens. And guess what I came up with? A figure somewhere between 35 and 40 Megapixels for the 24x36mm format. I've since seen that sort of number mentioned quite frequently by others on PN as the optimum for the FF format.</p>

<p>As for the difference in colour rendering between Nikon and Canon. That should be a fairly easy fix using a custom setting in whatever RAW converter takes your fancy. You could probably cook JPEGS from the Canon to get a close match, but then I think you'd be throwing away a lot of potential image quality.</p><div></div>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Oh yes. In answer to the OP's second question. Contrary to popular belief, larger formats are no more immune to camera shake than smaller formats.</p>

<p>Simple geometry shows that a given amount of shake (i.e. linear motion normal to, or any angular movement of, the lens axis) results in a similar amount of blur in the final image, regardless of the format size. Always provided that final images are of equal size and the angle of view remains the same. There will be a <em>very</em> slight difference because it's not possible to scale both the lens focal length and subject distance while maintaining the same perspective and thereby have the exact same final image, but any difference is pretty insignificant at "normal" subject distances.</p>

<p>I suspect that the perceived immunity of larger formats to camera shake comes from a) greater mass of the camera and its inertia, and b) generally better technique by users of medium and LF cameras.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>"Really serious photographers use a tripod and good technique as much as possible"<br>

Does this mean that people who shoot football games, basketball games, tennis matches, the Olympics, weddings, events, and just about every news story ever published are NOT serious photographers?<br>

Edit: Let's add the majority of fashion and lifestyle photographers while we're at it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan, if you quote what I wrote, I expect you to actually read it and try to understand it.</p>

<p>I make it very clear that serious photographers use a tripod "<strong>as much as possible</strong>," but not "all the time." Sometimes a tripod is not possible as in some of the situations you mentioned. It that so difficult to understand?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I've been happy with hand-holding my D800E, although I certainly have to be a bit careful if I want the results to be sharp at the pixel level. I find I fiddle more than with my D700, because I want the extra dynamic range available; with the D700 I tended to feel there wasn't as much to be gained by sticking to lower ISOs, so I didn't pay so much attention to where the auto-ISO had gone, whereas with the D800 I keep aiming as near to ISO 100 as I can. I need to play with the aperture priority auto-ISO behaviour and see whether I can become more automated.<br />

<br />

Opinion: Is the 5D3 a better all-round camera? Probably. The D800 solves a particular weakness with the D700 (resolution) along with a number of other benefits, but it's certainly the case that 36MP is often overkill (where's the small FX raw format?) and getting the best from the resolution is unforgiving. The 5D3 is faster, and Canon showed that 22MP was good enough in the days of the 5D2 and probably still good enough now; Canon fixed the speed and autofocus "issues" with the 5D2. Nikon has been left with a specialist high-resolution/dynamic range camera (D800) and a specialist fast/low light camera (D4), with the D700 hanging on as the middle ground. Canon "fixed" the 5D2 to make the 5D3 decent (5D2-grade) resolution and a lesser 1Dx in speed and autofocus. That probably makes the 5D3 the better Jack-of-all-trades; however, I didn't want an all-rounder, I wanted the best camera I could get to complement the weaknesses of my D700, and that's the D800(E).<br />

<br />

Nikon don't have a direct competitor to the 5D3... although there are a <i>lot</i> of rumours about a D600, which (if rumours are true) sounds like a far closer match to the 5D3's market position. Exactly what it may be capable of will, I'm sure, depend on how much Nikon want to avoid stealing D800 sales.</p>

 

<blockquote>I suspect that the perceived immunity of larger formats to camera shake comes from a) greater mass of the camera and its inertia, and b) generally better technique by users of medium and LF cameras.</blockquote>

 

<p>It might be that, say, an 85mm lens on a 645 camera will show less camera shake than an 85mm lens a 135 camera, because of the reduced enlargement (assuming the same final print size); switch the lens for the same angle of view and it probably balances out. I'm pretty sure my F5 is heavier than my Pentax 645 - it's certainly heavier than a friend's 5x4 field camera - but then the 645 has a lens clap that can scare small children. I agree that weight (the camera's, not mine) seems to help - I found even a 135 f/2 to be surprisingly easy to hold still, and the VR is almost superfluous on my 200 f/2 because it's so heavy that you can't shake it.</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>Really serious photographers use a tripod. . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Shun, really? We must look at completely different photographers. Generally, most documentary, street, and photojournalist (excepting sports) don't use tripods. Many fashion photographers don't use them, though many do. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Barry Fisher, please read my response at 5:18pm to Dan South above. And if you want to quote me, quote the entire sentence. You know that you are not going to get away with chopping off the latter part of a sentence and changing what I meant. I don't appreciate that kind of practice.</p>

<p>This was what I wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Really serious photographers use a tripod and good technique as much as possible with 35mm film SLRs and 12MP DSLRs. That is nothing new.</p>

</blockquote>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I'd like to point out an observation that I made some time ago (but should have made earlier): on the Internet, for some reason, people are too quick to respond to a statement without contemplating it first. I'm beginning to think that all responses to PN posts should have to be written with a manual typewriter and then scanned as an image before posting. There is also the issue of asking clear questions and giving clear answers, but that is another matter.</p>

<p>The short version: <strong>measure twice, cut once</strong>.</p>