D800 Vs. D800E

[scooter0071]

<p>I have been looking to upgrade from my D300 and I am looking towards the D800/e I see a price difference between the /e and non /e version but the compare on B&H does not show any other differences. Can someone in the know tell me the differences?</p>

<p> </p>

[henryp]

<p>Perhaps you'll find <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth/photography/hands-reviews/discerning-differences-between-nikon-d800-and-d800e">Discerning the Differences between the Nikon D800 and D800E</a> useful.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

[m_tt_donuts]

<p>The D800e is sharper, but supposedly produces more Moire. However, no one seems to find that it produces Moire where the D800 does not. If you want to see how much sharper the D800e is this is a good site.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_d800e_first_comparison.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_d800e_first_comparison.shtml</a><br>

I personally think the difference is very noticeable, some say it's hardly a difference. </p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>There are also many recent threads about the topic, with comments from first hand users. Search for them in this forum.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Please see photo.net's article on this topic: <a href="../equipment/nikon/D800/d800-vs-d800e-which-to-choose/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D800/d800-vs-d800e-which-to-choose/</a></p>

<p>The difference between the two is very small; I would say they are 98%, 99% the same camera.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Personally I think the tester at Luminous Landscape should learn the difference between pure <em>resolution</em> and <em>contrast</em> (or MTF). Even with that critical banknote test the D800 can still be seen to <em>resolve </em>the finest hatched engraving lines just as well as the D800E, except at a slightly lower contrast or MTF. And restoring contrast is exactly what digital sharpening excels at.</p>

<p>My view is that the D800 is undoubtedly more than good enough for the most serious professional work - easily outperforming a medium format film camera. Does it need another couple of line-pairs/millimetre squeezing out of it? Probably not. Does the D800E need the very best of lenses used at their optimum aperture and near-perfect technique to show its superiority? Absolutely! So if all your work is taken under tightly controlled conditions where you have the time (and dim lighting) to use Liveview for bang-on manual focus, and you always use the best (cherry picked) glass at apertures between f/4 and f/8, and your camera is always solidly bolted to a really good tripod, and you always shoot RAW and process it optimally, and all of the foregoing really matters to you or your client - then maybe the D800E is more the camera for you.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Agree with Rodeo. My impression: I think Nikon were ingenious in getting people to shell out a few hundred more for a camera that is essentially the same - sold on the "better resolution" line and covering themselves by saying it may have more moire. They probably should have charged more to maximize the price "gauging". I think the difference for most is largely in their heads. But I only speak from what I have read as I have neither!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>RJ - I think you're over-stating it a bit, not that I have a non-E D800 to compare against. Yes, by f/8 the difference is hidden in diffraction (good to know if you want the moiré to go away). Many lenses are appreciably sharper on the D800 series stopped down to f/4-6.3 range. There are lenses that don't get sharp until f/8 or lower, and if you're using them then an E may be a waste - it <i>is</i> worth assuming that you're going to need some decent glass, but "cherry picked" might be over-stating it. The D800 <i>is</i> more prone to showing vibration than "common" cameras, but not every user of a digital medium format back has felt the need to be bolted on a tripod the whole time: bright-ish light, a flash, or good VR will do as much good as spending your time welded to a Burzynski. Several of Nikon's sample images were flash lit and hand-held. Yes, you have to be careful about depth of field and exact focus points, but it's not like the autofocus system is fundamentally broken.<br />

<br />

My feeling: Get an E if you want to pixel-peep and like post-processing everything to get the best out of them (so you'll be able to fix up any additional moiré and aliasing). Get the plain D800 - <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00amgz">if you really want the resolution and dynamic range</a> - if you are prepared for a small drop in sharpness/microcontrast in return for the images being less likely to need processing. I got an E, because I pixel peep and felt that this was the reason I got a 36MP camera in the first place - but I don't shoot much video, and usually do everything in raw anyway. Nobody pays me to make images - and certainly not to do it quickly. If workflow speed or annoyance factor might be concerns to you, and if you spend a lot of time shooting repeated patterns in man-made objects that might hit the sensor frequency, the E may be the wrong camera for you.<br />

<br />

As for the resolution thing, yes - both cameras have the same sensor resolution, they're going to resolve the same level of detail. The LL tester points out that the non-E image can be sharpened, but that this tends to introduce ringing (and the E image can be sharpened too). I'm prepared to believe that increased input microcontrast can be beneficial, although there comes a time when it's aliasing instead. Bottom line: lots of users of sensors without low-pass filters seem to get on with them, and I don't think they can all be kidding themselves.<br />

<br />

But, again, I've not used a non-E D800, so maybe my subconscious is justifying my purchase.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>So, Shun, since you got to evaluate them both pretty closely... was coming out with two models, in your estimation, a waste of effort? Or was it worthwhile, even though they're virtually the same camera...?</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p><a href="http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-equipment-reviews/34-equipment-reviews/512-ej-peiker">http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-equipment-reviews/34-equipment-reviews/512-ej-peiker</a><br>

Read this article. E. J. Owns both bodies.</p>

<p>Joe Smith</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>So, Shun, since you got to evaluate them both pretty closely... was coming out with two models, in your estimation, a waste of effort? Or was it worthwhile, even though they're virtually the same camera...?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't take the percentage too literally, but as I wrote earlier, the differences between the D800 and D800E are very small, and they are 98%, 99% the same camera. Most people who have used both have come to that same conclusion.</p>

<p>In other words, if Nikon never introduced a separate D800E, I am sure that almost everybody who is happy with the D800E would have been happy with the plain D800 as well. However, in my case, after reading some of the initial test reports, I decided to get a D800E to get that tiny bit more sharpness and I am happy with that decision.</p>

<p>I do wish that Nikon had never put so much emphasis on the moire issue when they introduced the D800E. It certainly generated a lot of totally unnecessary concerns in my part. Now that I have had the D800E for close to 3 months, as Rob Galbraith says, I too have all but forgotten about the moire issue on the D800E.</p>

<p>Whether it is worthwhile to get the D800E for the tiny gain in sharpness is up to each individual to decide. Back in 1998 I paid like $4000 for the 300mm/f2.8 AF-S and then a few years later $1000 for the 300mm/f4 AF-S; at the time neither one had VR. You pay 4 times as much money and a lot of extra weight to gain one stop. In photography and a lot of other things, you do pay a lot more for some small to moderate gain.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>In photography and a lot of other things, you do pay a lot more for some small to moderate gain.</blockquote>

 

<p>I sort of formulated a theory that I should never buy a lens that costs between £500 and £1000, a while ago. I'm still trying to work out how valid my reasoning is. My argument is that cheap lenses tend to be designed with small apertures and other limitations - but within those limitations, they're often quite good, and at least you didn't spend a lot of money on the compromise. Very expensive lenses (like the current pro zooms and the big telephotos) are designed pretty much free of compromise - at best they've got very few problems, and at worst you at least know there wasn't a better option. Lenses in the middle are the ones I've had problems with - enough cost to go for an exotic specification, constrained enough that they don't do it perfectly.<br />

<br />

I formulated that theory based on some of my Nikon lens collection:<br />

8mm Sigma: cheap(ish), good [considering]; 28-200: cheap, good [considering]; 50 f/1.8: cheap, good [considering]; 85 f/1.4 Samyang: cheap, good; 90 Tamron cheap, good; 135 f/2.8 AI: very cheap, good<br />

135 f/2 DC: moderately expensive, disappointing; 150-500 OS: moderately expensive, disappointing; 80-200 f/2.8: moderately expensive, a little disappointing (but at least I knew that when I got it)<br />

14-24: expensive, good; 200 f/2: very expensive, epic; 500 f/4 AI: pretty expensive even used, not bad<br />

<br />

It's hardly definitive, but I bear it in mind. There's no doubt that the differences are certainly incremental (the intermediate lenses aren't exactly bad, and I'm not saying that just because I'm selling them), and the price step from my 80-200 to even my old 200 f/2 is enormous - but it's clear to me what I paid for. To be fair, the 300 f/4 is by all accounts a bargain for its quality (although you should then compare it with a 70-300 VR for price), so the 300 f/2.8 looks slightly worse in comparison than it deserves to.<br />

<br />

I have the same theory for tripods. Cheap = poor, but at least disposable. Expensive = good. Intermediate = waste of money. (I'm still trying to work out which category my 055 CXPro3 belongs in - but my <i>technique</i> is probably at the intermediate stage.)</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Andrew, my experience with Nikon lenses is that they not make "cheap" lenses (in general - I can think of one exception, the old 70-300mm non-VR lens). But they do make affordable inexpensive lenses. And for the most part, their inexpensive lenses offer the same IQ as their pro lenses. The main differences aside from build quality typically is they are slow aperture wise and they may not focus as quickly.</p>

<p>With regard to the D800/D800e differences in IQ, the difference is subtle at best out of the camera with no post processing. After [proper] post processing, the difference is negligible, if any. Out of the camera, you would need to be viewing a 6' print from 6" away, side-by-side, to notice any difference. From normal viewing distances, you would not be able to see a difference. After [proper] post processing, you would likely not see a difference in a 6' print unless you used a magnifying glass to check details, and even then, the differences would be minuscule, if any.</p>

<p>Perhaps someone who has both can post sample crops of both out of the camera images and their post processed counterparts. I did this prior to purchasing my D800 and chose it over the D800e because I could not see a real difference after post processing [with DXO software which automatically corrects for lens softness]. As these are not my images (downloaded off the internet), I cannot post the results.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Andrew, I like your theory about lenses... I have always had a similar thought :)<br /> But I have a slightly different one on tripods and many other accessories as well; good ones are designed without compromise, or to work as expected. Intermediate and cheap ones are basically the same design but "degraded", with replaced parts (usually plastic), that affect performance. The more replaced parts, the worst performance and cheaper price. Here <em>only</em> the expensive ones are really worth it (for serious use, I mean); <em>tripods</em>, bikes, hardware tools, skis, fountain pens, sport shoes, etc. etc.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Andrew, the only reason I mentioned "cherry picked" with regard to lenses is that some, if not many, lenses suffer from some degree of decentring or axis tilt. In its mildest form this just means that the lens isn't optimally sharp in the centre, but somewhere else in the frame. At worst it leads to a directional smearing of the image and makes it impossble to get a plane that's parallel to the camera back all in focus at once.</p>

<p>The main reason I've stuck with Nikon is that their lenses are better QC'd than A N other famous brand, but the odd one does slip through, and the likes of Sigma, Tamron, Samyang and Tokina really can't be trusted to come up with the goods without "end-user final inspection".</p>