D800 image sensor - is it really that good?

[steve_congrave]

<p>I own a D800 and some mediocre and some pro glass - I am happy with it and am getting better and better at realizing just how nice a camera it is to use.<br>

As I experiment more and more and process in PS and zoom into the pixel level, when I compare it to other lower resolution cameras that I own and have borrowed, I am seeing a significant difference in pixel quality.<br /><br />Would others agree that the 36MP sensor still has some way to go? - I think it has 36 million 'mediocre' pixels - which in itself is pretty amazing but I believe that as the technology improves we may find new cameras having 36 million 'good' pixels and eventually 36 million 'amazing' pixels.<br>

Could it be the physical limitations of the tiny pixel size necessary by cramming 36 million of them onto the die? <br>

Would Nikon have been better buying a 24MP sensor rather than a 36MP one for the D800?<br>

Of course I purchased the D800 because of the 36MP sensor and I do love the camera - but I am just wondering whether it is just too high a resolution for the physical die size of a FF camera?</p>

[wogears]

<p>Want to improve your photography? STOP PIXEL-PEEPING! Then go to (say) Flickr and do a tag search for images from the D800 and one (or more) of your lenses. Some will be beautiful and some will not. Try to make yours like the beautiful ones--it's NOT the camera.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>By far the biggest limitation is the gray matter behind the camera, not inside the camera. Other than that, you need very good optics set to their optimum apertures, frequently f4, f5.6, to take full advantage of those 36MP.</p>

<p>Personally, other than their AF module, I would be perfectly happy with the 24MP D600 or D610 with their construction and controls. However, while I am happy enough with the Multi-CAM 4800, the additional AF points on the D800 (Multi-CAM 3500) are better. In fact, I wouldn't mind further improvements from those 51 AF points: more cross-type AF points and more spread out.</p>

[jared_youtsey]

<p>"I am seeing a significant difference in pixel quality."<br>

What does that mean? A pixel is simply a color value. How can pixel quality vary when all pixels are equal?<br>

Honestly, are your shots not sharp enough? Detailed enough? Maybe you want a D800E instead without the AA Filter? <br>

Honestly, my D800 produces fantastic results time after time. I certainly never blame the camera when my final image doesn't pass muster.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>From the signal-to-noise perspective, D800 photosites are excellent. However, contrast of the fine detail projected by lenses is reduced when viewing the image at smaller and smaller scales. Thus the image quality at the level of individual pixels can never be as good as it can with some lower resolution cameras. However, if you resample the D800 image to 12MP or 16MP, it most likely excels in comparison with 12MP and 16MP cameras. And since in normal use print size is not that large, this is how many D800 images end up being printed; either the user manually resizes the file or the printing software or driver does it. Although D800 images may not look that spectacular at the level of individual pixels, at the final print or display size they are excellent.</p>

<p>In practice I currently have about 2TB of files from the D800 that need to be culled down and stored for the longer term. Most of those images are of people subjects at wide apertures and I believe they would in no way be worse if they had been shot with the 24MP sensor in the D610 (but the storage demands would be significantly easier). However I need the focusing point array of the D800 so that's why I don't use the D610.</p>

 

[steve_congrave]

<p>OK, I think you might be right and it was my mistake - I just realized that I was shooting at ISO 1600 after some evening shooting, so it was noise at the pixel level that I was seeing.<br>

<br />I must remember to write myself a checklist that I should use before going out on a shoot.<br>

<br />Sorry guys, as I said, I do love my D800 :)</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"I think it has 36 million 'mediocre' pixels"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I kind of agree. I would prefer to call them 'typical' pixels. Most cameras today give similar results with regard to IQ (at the pixel level). But it is the size of the sensor that gives it an advantage over other bodies with smaller sensors. Through down sampling, you get amazing results where other cameras would only produce typical results. </p>

<p>As to whether 24mp is better than 36mp or vice versa, the answer is it doesn't make much of a difference. When it comes to IQ, the D600/D610 and D800 basically delivery the same results.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>This thread just made me think, never a good idea, but when I moved from 12MP to 36MP and saw my first 100% crops, usually in the sharpening box, I was a bit alarmed at how ordinary it looked - I rationalised that 100% of 12 covers a much bigger area than a 100% of 36.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>The D800 has to be amazing (I've never used one). My D7000 keeps me happy at my hobbyist level. I'm stunned by how good it is on a well exposed and properly held shot.</p>

<p>Below is a quick <strong>snapshot</strong> of my grandkid (I had 3 minutes to take the costume shots of the kiddies). Onboard flash (yikes, I know), handheld, 55mm old Ai micro lens, 5.6 at 1/60th. Had I used a tripod and took more time & used off camera strobes, the results come out even better.</p>

<p>Jim</p><div></div>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Mediocre pixels? you're joking right. There are agreed upon ways of quantifying image quality, and by that measure the D800 surpasses every other full frame dslr.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>A pixel is a dimensionless, and some would say shapeless, blob of colour or tone that in isolation can't be seen to be either good or bad. Conventionally displayed as a square and, due to current technology limitations, usually being one of 16.7 million colours; a pixel needs to be seen next to a host of other pixels in order to be judged, and then you're looking at <em>image quality</em>. Talking about individual pixel quality is almost completely meaningless.</p>

<p>If you shoot RAW, use good lenses, stick to sensible ISO speeds and expose and process properly, then the D800 can provide you with (a collection of) pixels that are at least the equal of any other DSLR on the market. And if their owners were honest with themsleves, probably the equal of a good many MFD cameras as well.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>The camera is challenging more so than any other DSLR, but which can deliver the best image possible in any DSLR available. For some, the D800/e camera is too much to deal with. For others, it is a wonderful tool with lots of room to grow into.</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

You're not supposed to look at the pixels, you're supposed to look at the image formed by all the pixels together. The

D800 is capable of outputting amazing images when used correctly.

[dan_south]

<p>I have used both the D800 and the D800E extensively. Both bodies produce stunning photos that are almost always sharp even when viewed at 100 percent. </p>

<p>These cameras do not have "mediocre pixels" - they have state of the art pixels. If your D800 photos are not sharp, then they are suffering from the effects of camera shake, improper focus, soft lenses, or some combination of the above.</p>

<p><strong>Remedies for Camera Shake </strong></p>

<p>If you are shooting handheld, I recommend a shutter speed of 1/320 second or faster for focal lengths under 100 mm and faster still for longer focal lengths. Always use VR when shooting hand held (if it's available).</p>

<p>Otherwise, shoot from a high-quality tripod and head with a custom quick release camera plate or L-bracket from companies such as Kirk Enterprises or Really Right Stuff. Use a Nikon cable release for every tripod-based shot. No exceptions.</p>

<p><strong>Remedies for Inaccurate Focus</strong></p>

<p>You might need to micro-tune your lenses with your body. My D800 needed a lot of tuning; the D800E less so. And no, it has nothing to do with the sensor. This reflects the engineering tolerances in my particular cameras. Yours may vary. Images from the D800 were much sharper after I tuned it properly.<br>

<br />The D800 and D800E will auto focus with great accuracy in Live View mode. Live View is best used when the subject is stationary and the camera is mounted on the solid tripod and head mentioned above. Micro tuning is not required for Live View contrast detection auto focus, so this would be a good way to test your camera and lenses prior to micro tuning. </p>

<p><strong>Remedies for Soft Lenses</strong></p>

<p>Buy better glass, or your D800 purchase was a waste of money. Most Nikon lenses won't cut it with this camera. The 70-200 f/2.8G VR II (with Really Right Stuff tripod quick release plate) is very sharp, and the 24-70 f/2.8G AF-S is quite good edge to edge.</p>

[lwg]

<p>Even at 100% the D800E produces sharp and detailed images with good lenses at optimal apertures and no movement. The fact that they are low noise at low ISO, and there is almost no pattern noise across the sensor give me almost nothing to complain about. About the only issues are the sensor still uses a Bayer array and surely loses some color resolution because of it, and high ISO noise could be better. </p>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>I'm fortunate enough to own a D800 and a 24mp body and the detail in the 36mp images blows away the 24mp images of my a77. </p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>There are some interesting comments and opinions and I appreciate all of them.<br>

The conclusion seems to be<br>

1. Buy the best glass <br>

2. Shoot fast or use a tripod<br>

3. Keep the ISO low<br>

For those of you who are old enough to remember, it's like owning a 1980's Italian Supercar LOL<br>

It's expensive to own, it needs the best, it is intolerant of anything less but it can produce amazing results when treated right :)</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Steve - I'm bit confused - by "it's expensive to own". I've actually found it to be the opposite, I got very good advice from this forum about the lenses (primes) I should get. I'd not shot Nikon before. The advice was so good that I haven't felt the need to buy any more stuff - hence very cheap to run.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Would others agree that the 36MP sensor still has some way to go? - I think it has 36 million 'mediocre' pixels"

 

I have to disagree with you but I have no idea how you set your camera up, whether you tune the autofocus system to

each lens you use, and how you process your raw files including capture sharpening.

 

The D800 will reveal flaws in your technique flas faster than any 35mm based DSLR I've ever worked with. You have to

bring your "A" game to get the most out of it.

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>For those of you who are old enough to remember, it's like owning a 1980's Italian Supercar LOL</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The D800 is not nearly that exotic or challenging. Just exercise good shooting discipline and avoid old or cheap lenses, and the camera will reward you with amazing resolution.</p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>Clive, I simply meant that when I had my D90 I had 4 lenses that cost me probably less than $1000 all in - now I find myself buying good or pro glass and I have over $6000 invested in it plus the $3000 for the camera - so it's costing me $10,000 so far :)<br>

<br />I just hope that if I die, my wife doesn't sell it all for what I told her it all cost me :)</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>My D800 sensor has better highlight recovery potential compared to my former D3. The fine detail recording capability of the D800(E) is amazing, but as the others have said, you won't see that detail if your shots are made with a crummy lens. <br>

But, what I'm seeing in my use is that the Fuji X sensor in my Fuji XE1 has <em>way better</em> highlight recovery than my D800!<br>

Of course, there is no Fuji "full professional" style body-- and may never be-- who knows? </p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Ha Ha - "I just hope that if I die, my wife doesn't sell it all for what I told her it all cost me :)"<br>

<br>

Unfortunately she who holds the purse strings in my existence knows to the last cent what I spend on camera gear - except when I trade out stuff on that auction site!<br>

<br>

I guess if I'd bought top of the range zooms my investment would be very similar to your's. But instead I went 24/2.8,45 pce, 50/1.8, 58/1.4, 85/1.8 & 180/2.8 and am very content, even had change left over from trading in my Leica M8 and Olympus E3 systems.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Would Nikon have been better buying a 24MP sensor rather than a 36MP one for the D800?"

 

It's called the D3X.

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"But, what I'm seeing in my use is that the Fuji X sensor in my Fuji XE1 has <em>way better</em> highlight recovery than my D800!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't that just called 'underexposure'?</p>