Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon D800 is outed with pics and specs. 36 MPX  (Read 28817 times)
Dan Berg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534



WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2012, 05:19:20 AM »
ReplyReply

The question was asked. "Will the D800 kill medium format"
For me yes.
I was looking closely at the 645D. With a couple of lens was going to be every bit of 20k.
Since I already have the Nikon lenses it's now a very affordable body only purchase.
I cannot wait to shoot the  D800 with my 200 f/2.

Will it kill medium format,never. Will it affect sales? You betcha?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 08:27:44 AM by Dan Berg » Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2012, 05:38:26 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm curious how pixel quality will compare to the magic of the D3X ...
Logged

jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2012, 05:56:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm curious how pixel quality will compare to the magic of the D3X ...

I don't think you need to wonder much ... the D7000 is basically a cropped version of this sensor.
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2012, 06:26:41 AM »
ReplyReply

So is this the beginning of the end of medium format?


Medium format digital began with around 6MP sensors..., with cellular phones now having X MP exceeding early DSLRs... then why would there be an end to medium format??? It is not mere pixels. The sensors and image quality are designed for different purposes (base ISO, high ISO capability etc). The cameras and systems themselves are different. In respect to the question it may interest to read of Leaf's history, recent posted elsewhere here on LuLa; http://thedustylenscap.com/2012/02/04/from-science-to-art-the-story-of-leaf/

During history of course, customer base may have changed. So what? I shot Nikon before. Will I buy the D800 and give up medium format? Nope. Why? I have different requirements now. Those who do buy the D800 or are interested in it, ENJOY, it is great news for DSLR users.

Best regards,
Anders
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 06:31:58 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 07, 2012, 06:29:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I just printed some of the D800 samples and as a D3x owner the choice will be the d800e.
It is a mayor step forward in better microdetail and microcontrast. + silent mode+ 1 pound less weight + video+ little (commander) flash + 6400 asa(?)
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 06:51:06 AM by kers » Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7988



WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2012, 06:38:29 AM »
ReplyReply

During history of course, customer base may have changed. So what? I shot Nikon before. Will I buy the D800 and give up medium format? Nope. Why? I have different requirements now. Those who do buy the D800 or are interested in it, ENJOY, it is great news for DSLR users.

Actually it is a great news for photographers for whom the technical quality of images is important. I am not sure how relevant the size of the sensor really is even if there are other reasons to prefer a MF camera as discussed in another thread.

In terms of quality, my view is that, judging from the current samples, the output of the D800E is in the very same ball park as the S2, 645D and P45+, Leaf, H4D40... I am 99% sure that they would be impossible to distinguish at any print size.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 06:56:02 AM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2012, 06:51:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Medium format will probably move to CMOS in the future. At that point, the marketing machine will tell us that it is a giant leap forward and that it will definitely beat the "better pixels" of the previous generation. That doesn't negate the need for MF tough, but maybe it will be time to go back to basics and not try to attribute magical properties to those things to some kind of amazing sensors.

There was a need for large and medium format in the era of film, no one disputed that, and that need wasn't based on the properties of films used in those cameras. Why should it be different now?
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2012, 07:08:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Anders,
I would guess that the D800 sensor will outperform current MF sensors even at low ISO speeds, with greater dynamic range at minimum ISO due to the far lower read noise of current CMOS designs. If so, apart from the inertia of photographers who own gear of a certian brand and format and out of familiarity can work better with it, the longer term future of formats larger than 36x24mm probably relies on two things:

1. Even higher resolutions (serving the needs of an ever smaller proportion of photography)

2. Better lenses, both to keep up with ever higher resolution and with better control of distortion, corner performance, bokeh, etc.

The comparisons I am most curious about are not yet more pixel-peeping studies of resolution and "micro-contrast", but of lens performance, particularly under the challenge of images displayed big and viewed close. And there, I mean bokeh (boke actually) in the proper sense of the _qualities_ of OOF rendering, not just the sheer quantity of blurring: the harshness or otherwise of OOF elements, the presence or absence of annoying bright double lines along OOF lines that go with aperture designs that produce bright circles at the edge of the circle of confusion, and so on.
Logged
aaron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2012, 07:12:52 AM »
ReplyReply

So the 300 dollar question is D800 or D800E. That decision is going to cause a lot of pain if you go for the E version and start seeing moire a lot. Certainly if you want it for landscape ONLY work then it makes sense but if you plan on doing studio work or wedding/portrait also then its a bigger decision.

If moire wasnt going to be an issue on a 36 meg sensor then why offer the aliased version at all.....
Logged
ihv
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2012, 07:27:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks like Nikon was also struggling with the same question and they decided it is up to customer to decide.

The fact there are two versions shows that moire can be an issue. To what extent it is unclear, but big enough for Nikon not to take any risk.

P.S. I don't believe it means only premium vs standard option (too small price differentiator), but rather professional capabilities (knowledge of moire & handling it) are needed for the expensive one, yet possibly more rewarding by better end results.

So the 300 dollar question is D800 or D800E. That decision is going to cause a lot of pain if you go for the E version and start seeing moire a lot. Certainly if you want it for landscape ONLY work then it makes sense but if you plan on doing studio work or wedding/portrait also then its a bigger decision.

If moire wasnt going to be an issue on a 36 meg sensor then why offer the aliased version at all.....
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 07:33:33 AM by ihv » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7988



WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2012, 07:36:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks like Nikon was also struggling with the same question and they decided it is up to customer to decide.

The fact there are two versions shows that moire can be an issue. To what extent it is unclear, but big enough for Nikon not to take any risk.

Assuming it works well, the question is how much resolution you loose when applying the moire removing tool.

The samples are encouraging but we will need more, like your typical urban landscape,...

Now moire was never really a huge issue with the ZD so I am currently leaning towards the E version.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2012, 07:40:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I sold my D700 last quarter of 2011 thinking the D800 was right around the corner, I actually sold the camera and 4 pieces of Nikon glass for more than what I paid for them.  I had wondered if I needed or even wanted a 24MP camera, now that I know it's 36MP, it's a no-brainer, I preordered mine this morning..!!! :-)
Logged
jalcocer
Guest
« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2012, 07:52:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Now lets see what canon brings to the table, but I don't know if it would be as impressive.
Logged
natas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 256


« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2012, 08:45:21 AM »
ReplyReply

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_01_l.jpg

I took a look at this sample and while the image size, color and tone are impressive I can't help but think this shot looks plastic. I'm sure this file will do good printed at 16x20, but it really seems to lack detail to my eyes. It looks like texture was removed from everything

Don't get me wrong....I'm sure this camera is awesome. I just hope the example posted above was a high iso shot that had noise reduction turned on. I often see the same result with my 5D MKII when shooting at iso 800 and running it through noise reduction software.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 08:47:40 AM by natas » Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2012, 09:20:03 AM »
ReplyReply

In terms of quality, my view is that, judging from the current samples, the output of the D800E is in the very same ball park as the S2, 645D and P45+, Leaf, H4D40... I am 99% sure that they would be impossible to distinguish at any print size.

While not all can be seen by JPGs... the D800E is of a different design than S2, 645D and all you mention. Thus there will be differences no matter what, and with benefit to the larger formats, but of course depends on light and subject and more. The JPGs are not bad, but there is no way I can see image quality (low ISO) being better than even the 28MP Leaf which I prior owned. Yet, they are different tools. Looking at the samples I frank believe the image quality from 22MP Leaf Aptus 22 is very easily capable of higher image quality at low ISO, but of course with lesser pixels. DR/NR, for DSLR that is also performed inside the camera in a black box. How well? Actual comparisons will tell later...

Anders,
I would guess that the D800 sensor will outperform current MF sensors even at low ISO speeds, with greater dynamic range at minimum ISO due to the far lower read noise of current CMOS designs. If so, apart from the inertia of photographers who own gear of a certian brand and format and out of familiarity can work better with it, the longer term future of formats larger than 36x24mm probably relies on two things:

1. Even higher resolutions (serving the needs of an ever smaller proportion of photography)

2. Better lenses, both to keep up with ever higher resolution and with better control of distortion, corner performance, bokeh, etc.

Oh dear... D800 outperform current MF sensors even at low ISO speeds... Nope, nope, nope. Doubtful at best, if not impossible. Sample are very far from it (+1 on plastic, lack detail).

It is not only about pixels folks, although the more pixels are part of the equation.

1. Yes more pixels, but also further improvements in image quality. That go for all medium format, DSLRs and cellular phones!

2. Lenses of all current medium format systems more or less already have the better lenses. The more critical will be for DSLR lenses, since the format is smaller.

Above said, it is really good news for DSLR users with the D800 / E, congrats  Cool

Best regards,
Anders
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 09:24:00 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
David Watson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 395


WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 07, 2012, 09:58:37 AM »
ReplyReply

The big question will be how the existing lineup of Nikon lenses will fair on this body.

Recommendations and opinions of the best choice of lenses up to 200mm would be appreciated.
Logged

David Watson ARPS
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #36 on: February 07, 2012, 10:07:23 AM »
ReplyReply

The DR argument in favor of the larger but far noisier CCDs in DMF has been lost long ago: that contest will probably only be worth reopening if and when when a good CMOS sensor is offered in a format larger than 36x24mm. A comment like "if not impossible" seems to be assuming comparable technologies, instead of acknowledging the huge technological lead that Nikon, Sony and Canon have taken in recent years over the Dalsa and Kodak CCD divisions.

The few publicity JPEG's we have seen so far are no basis for IQ judgements, especially went comes to DR: let us wait for comparisons of well-processed raw files. Criticisms like "plasticy" can only relate to how the JPEG conversion was done, not the raw sensor performance; at least when the OLPF filter effect is not involved as with the D800E and the DMF alternatives.

I agree with
"... The more critical will be for DSLR lenses, since the format is smaller." --- Anders_HK
and
"The big question will be how the existing lineup of Nikon lenses will fair on this body." --- David Watson

Of course, it is enough that the best, most expensive primes and maybe a couple of the very best Nikon zooms do well, since primes are what the MF alternatives are offering for the most part.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 11:01:22 AM by BJL » Logged
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1801



WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2012, 10:29:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Canon shooters have their own glass.  Seems to me it's the D4 owners who will be upset.

Mike.

If you bought a D4 thinking it was not targeted directly at sports and action shooters and was the highest resolution camera Nikon makes , you didn't do your homework regarding the D3X.

Meeting with Nikon's Lindsay Silverman in the weeks prior to the official announcement I asked why a smaller body than the D3 series. "user feedback" was the answer. Most people wanted a smaller than D3 / D4 /1Ds /1D body size. Does that mean a D4X  with a higher frame rate and larger buffer  isn't in the offing? I didn't bother to ask. If enough demand is there, my guess is it will come.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1801



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2012, 10:51:26 AM »
ReplyReply

"http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_01_l.jpg

I took a look at this sample and while the image size, color and tone are impressive I can't help but think this shot looks plastic. I'm sure this file will do good printed at 16x20, but it really seems to lack detail to my eyes. It looks like texture was removed from everything"

I just opened the image in Photoshop to see the Camera Data. See the attached screen shot.
At this point we don't know if the photo was shot as a JPEG (and was what compression level, color space, etc.)  or as non-compressed, lossly compressed, or lossy compressed  12 bit or 14 bit per channel NEF file, and if it was originally a NEF, how it was processed and what software was used to process it with (although a good bet is that an alpha version of the soon to be release update of Nikon Capture NX2 was used) and what level of JPEG compression (or possibly multiple JPEG compressions were used to prep the file for internet distribution.

For Epson printers: At 360ppi the non-interpolated print size is 20.444 x 13.644 inches, but as been proven to most people's satisfaction the Epsons can do a damn fine job with Luster and gloss papers with files @ 180ppi and that yields a 40.889 x 27.289 inch print - but of course how good the print is will depend on the skills of the person making the print.

If you print at 300 dpi (Canon and I believe HP) you get a 24.533 x 16.373 inch print. With my Canon iPF 6300 imagePROGRAF I feel the bottom limit before  start to see printing process artifacts is in the 200-225dpi range.
At 300ppi the

Edit:
Looking at the File Info tabs in PsCS 5 again, according to the info under the Description tab, The file was originally processed in Capture NX 2.3.0 W software
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 10:57:28 AM by Ellis Vener » Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7417


WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 07, 2012, 12:10:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I don't see the step going from 24 MP to 36 MP as a giant step. It is a 22% increase in linear resolution, exactly corresponding to what we already have in the D7000. So I'd say that it is slightly more demanding on lenses.

The major benefit, as I see it, is that Nikon users now have an economically much more attractive alternative to the D3X and directly competing with Canons offering, the venerable 5DII. The other benefit is that the smaller pixels probably reduce the thickness of the OLP filter. Nikon will also have a non OLP filtered version of the camera. That development should keep everyone happy.

Best regards
Erik



The few publicity JPEG's we have seen so far are no basis for IQ judgements, especially went comes to DR: let us wait for comparisons of well-processed raw files. Criticisms like "plasticy" can only relate to how the JPEG conversion was done, not the raw sensor performance; at least when the OLPF filter effect is not involved as with the D800E and the DMF alternatives.

I agree with
"... The more critical will be for DSLR lenses, since the format is smaller." --- Anders_HK
and
"The big question will be how the existing lineup of Nikon lenses will fair on this body." --- David Watson

Of course, it is enough that the best, most expensive primes and maybe a couple of the very best Nikon zooms do well, since primes are what the MF alternatives are offering for the most part.

Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad