Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is the D800E expected to have noticeable better IQ than the D800?  (Read 13320 times)
hasselbladfan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« on: February 10, 2012, 04:36:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I am not sure how much this filter will influence the final print?

Will it be noticeable?
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2012, 05:21:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I am not sure how much this filter will influence the final print?

Will it be noticeable?

It depends who you ask. Some MF back owners will tell you that the lack of AA filter makes a huge difference... one of an amplitude such that the limited vocabulary currently available in this planet's languages can't really describe it accurately.  Grin

More realistically, the main difference is in the satisfaction one has when looking a the files at 100% on screen in terms of "feeling" sharpness.

From what I have seen, the actual impact in prints is limited and corresponds to 10-20% additional pixels.

This being said, my current intend is to get the D800E.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: February 10, 2012, 05:23:55 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2012, 05:46:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Im with Bernard on this: I think the removal of the AA filter is probably the icing on the cake, or the last 5% - dam nice to have.
Logged

rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 772


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2012, 06:01:09 PM »
ReplyReply

From my experience,when a file hits the press,the limits are set by the paper stock , how many dpi etc.

However,it's a different story ,when printed on a large format printer,especially at close up viewing.

Otherwise?
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2012, 08:50:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Having owned a 5D with the AA filter removed and several digital backs w/o AA filters, it is well worth it. remember moire is only present when there is a pattern that "interferes" with the bayer pattern so for landscape use where there are rarely patterns the increase in pixel level sharpness is noticeable.
The word I use to describe it when printed is more "palpable" cant put a persentage improvement on it but your images just have more "pop" and realism. sometimes small details in digital look like a painting not a photograph, these fine details look more realistic.
I'm on my photographic knees praying that Canon has an equivalent!
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2012, 10:47:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think there will actually be an answer until these cameras are tested side-by-side. I was looking at the Nikon sample images on the Nikon site and I could not see anything that would suggest the difference is really significant. But as other pointed out, the samples may not give a clear impression of the performance. Perhaps it will be down to the optics you use, only the sharpest lenses will benefit from no AA filter.

I print regularly on 44" wide printers. I am not really sure not having an AA filter is a significant spec on my camera (Pentax 645D). The printing process adds softness and it can't render all the detail in my files already, even at 44x58. I have not found a 100% monitor view is a real world viewing condition for any display condition.

I would just buy the model you want. I am sure this is going to be a fine camera and give great results. I your gut says no AA, go for it--it is only an extra 10% and you will always be wishing you did if you buy the other model.
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 934


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2012, 11:54:20 PM »
ReplyReply

If I was to buy this Nikon, I would buy the non E. I've seen pictures from hotrod 5D2's and the difference is hard to see at first glance. An extra 5% in resolution is not worth to have to worry about moire. Workflow is more important. imho. The exception would be of course to get this camera for photographing natural content only.
Eduardo
« Last Edit: February 10, 2012, 11:56:46 PM by uaiomex » Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 774


« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2012, 12:09:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone noticed a certain amount of halo artifacts in the D800E samples, or is it just me?  I wonder if that is due to oversharpening, or if a straight capture shows up that way?
Logged

Pingang
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2012, 02:31:05 AM »
ReplyReply

The real question is moire exist, with LPF blurring it and non-LPF sensor seeing it easier. Perhaps LPF applied in a time when moire surpression software is not available or not effective, and now it is. I shot many camera, from P65+ to 1DsII to Sony Nex5, moire is sometimes here and there, I would rather have a camera without it and with a build-in software embedded on the processing chip of the camera that can be turned-on to avoid moire by user choice. 

Pingang
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5086


« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2012, 07:02:11 AM »
ReplyReply

On general principal, my goal for high res photography would be to push sensor resolution beyond what I want and what is delivered to the sensor by the rest of the "image forming chain", meaning everything from subject motion through atmospheric effects and on to abberations and diffraction. And in that strategy, the best a to get both high true resolution (not just aliasing enhanced "accutance") and freedom from aliasing artifacts is to push sensor resolution high enough ("over sampling") that the OLPF filter still leaves you all the useful and desired resolution.

And 36MP might be close! Or look at it this way: the D800 is probably as sharp as with about 30MP and no OLPF filter, so well ahead of any previous Nikon or Canon DSLR even with OLPF removed, and into the territory where many MF users in this forum have said is enough resolution.


P.S. has anyone in the digital audio field advocated removing the LPF in A/D conversion, complaining about he loss of high frequency response cause by the LPF? Maybe that would happen if audio had the equivalent of 100% pixel peeping, which would be playing music back at half speed or less, and then complaining about the muddy highs caused by the LPF.
Logged
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2012, 01:10:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Nikon has just one example of the same image taken with the 800 and the 800E here:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/features01.htm

It is the stones and moss in the picture with the path.

They also have an example of moire in the kimono shot with the 800E.
Logged
hasselbladfan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2012, 10:14:11 AM »
ReplyReply

The side by side from Nikon looks really too good to be true. Surprising difference.
Logged
Scott O.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2012, 10:51:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Realistically, I think the most anyone can say at this point is that they both will be pretty darn sharp.  The differences won't really be known until production samples can be tested head-to-head.  The rest is just speculation, and is not helping me make a choice...I have ordered both and am getting a headache thinking about it!!!  Huh
Logged

David Watson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 393


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2012, 12:27:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that a lot of people will suddenly become unhappy with some of their Nikon lenses when they take delivery of either one of these cameras. 
Logged

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

Posts: 5086


« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2012, 01:54:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that a lot of people will suddenly become unhappy with some of their Nikon lenses when they take delivery of either one of these cameras. 
That is the way it should be. Each new generation of sensor can improve resolution over the previous generation with little or no increase in unit cost, while improving lens resolution is likely to increase unit manufacturing costs. So the cheaper upgrade should run ahead of the more expensive part: sensors should become good enough that lenses are the dominant limiting factor in resolution. Sort of like the way that speakers should be the main limits to sound quality in a digital system, since improving the performance of the electronic parts before them is less expensive.)
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2012, 02:04:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

It's just a 22% improvement in resolution. I don't think it will change the world.

Best regards
Erik


I think that a lot of people will suddenly become unhappy with some of their Nikon lenses when they take delivery of either one of these cameras. 
Logged

Steve_Townsend
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2012, 02:10:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that a lot of people will suddenly become unhappy with some of their Nikon lenses when they take delivery of either one of these cameras. 

I think that is very true!

Zeiss glass ok and the 14-24 will pass but a lot won't ....... certainly of the kit I have!
Logged

kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2012, 05:48:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Zeiss glass ok and the 14-24 will pass but a lot won't ....... certainly of the kit I have!

I have here the Nikon 24mm 1,4G- the 24mm PCE and the 14-24mm d2,8
The clarity of the 24mm 1,4G and sharpness is on a whole new level compared to the 14-24 on 24mm.
The 24mm PCE is also very good and has better corners as one can suspect..
If you look at the library sample picture; The 14-24 does a very good job but it is not 36MP. I would like to see this picture from the d800e
Logged

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

Posts: 406


« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2012, 09:49:59 AM »
ReplyReply

If someone is unhappy with their Nikon gear, I still have some old Leica R lenses for sale Smiley.
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2100


« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2012, 12:27:21 PM »
ReplyReply

P.S. has anyone in the digital audio field advocated removing the LPF in A/D conversion, complaining about he loss of high frequency response cause by the LPF? Maybe that would happen if audio had the equivalent of 100% pixel peeping, which would be playing music back at half speed or less, and then complaining about the muddy highs caused by the LPF.

BJL:  In audio D/A conversion one has similar choices to make with regards to frequency response (for audio, this would be the time domain, rather than spatial domain for still photography).  You can use a classic sinc filter for reconstruction of the analog signal, but then you get ringing and other artifacts.  You can choose other filters, which minimize ringing, but then you'll have lowered frequency response and some aliasing.  Some D/A converters even offer user-selectable filter choices for this reason.  There's no perfect solution -- just tradeoffs and preferences.

The choice of low-pass vs no lo-pass for the D800 vs D800E is not that different.  They are really two discrete options on a continuous scale of possible choices (imagine a user-tunable filter!).  Someone else posted recently in this forums that you can either start with a lower frequency response (give you a cleaner starting point) and then try to get back some of the highest frequencies with deconvolution / sharpening ... or you can start with a higher frequency response then deal with aliasing artifacts when/if they arise.  I think that's a very sensible way of looking at it.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad