Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: "Nikon D800 / D800E First Comparison"  (Read 50829 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7405


WWW
« Reply #60 on: April 22, 2012, 11:43:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Imaging resource used to publish downloadable raws with patterns usable for SRF/MTF. I'm doing that test once images are available.

Best regards
Erik

Bart,

Agreed. Your sine-radial modified Siemens star chart provides an excellent means of quickly and objectively comparing and evaluating a wide range of sensor/lens characteristics. However, I would also very much like to see the full suite of SRF/MTF test results from Imatest---run by someone who is thoroughly familiar with the proper Imatest methodology to make valid comparisons between the D800 and the D800E. This should include using a lens that substantially out-resolves the 36MP sensor (one of the better Zeiss offerings that performs well at f/4 to f/5.6 should work well here, at least in the center of field). A plain vanilla raw converter like Dave Coffin's DCRaw would provide a pure linear conversion and eliminate possible bias in the raw converter.

Further, the tests could be performed with a combination of no sharpening, optimized ACR/Lightroom sharpening and, as suggested, with a top Deconvolution sharpening algorithm (preferably optimized based on a careful evaluation of the PSF of each lens/sensor system). The charts could be either a well made sine pattern or slant-edge patterns with low to high contrast elements. If the same lens is used on both cameras and since these are essentially identical sensors at heart (except for the AA filters), the results should be quite relevant in isolating the effect of the AA filter difference.

I think seeing the entire SRF/MTF plots for each of these cases, especially the response for both sensors at spatial frequencies near Nyquist (and at medium frequencies where the apparent "3D" effect is seen), would make clear any advantages the D800E might have over the D800. Specifically, if optimized sharpening performed on the image from D800 sensor is able to boost the response curve at and below the Nyquist cutoff enough to substantially match the response curve from the (optimally sharpened) D800E image, then the D800 may be the better choice. It would also be interesting to see the response curve above Nyquist on both sensors to show the likelihood of aliasing, although the radial pattern of your star chart might better illustrate this if the resolution of the test lens is not symmetrical.

I'm sure one of the commercial sites will eventually perform MTF/SRF testing with Imatest or DxO software---but the near total lack of published testing methodology on these sites (raw conversion?, chart contrast?, sharpening?, focus distance?, etc.) has rendered me highly skeptical of their results. Undecided

EDIT: The robust Imatest noise module might also objectively answer the difficult question of how much the relative noise levels suffer on the D800, due to more aggressive required sharpening, compared to the D800E.

Kind regards,
Bob

Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637


« Reply #61 on: April 23, 2012, 07:13:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bart,

Restoring an image using deconvolution needs a decent PSF (Point Spread Function), and I'm not sure we have it. The article you refer to was about restoring an image with diffraction, and it seems that using a gaussian (bell curve) as PSF yields decent results, but I don't know what happens with an image formed by an AA-filter.

Hi Erik,

I don't think it's that useful to characterize the PSF of the AA-filter in isolation. We will always have a mix of PSFs in our optical system. The lens with its residual aberrations, (de-)focus, the aperture, IR-filter / OLPF package, microlenses, Bayer CFA, and sensel aperture size and shape, they all add something to the combined PSF and resulting MTF. Fortunately that combined PSF can be approximated quite well with a Gaussian like PSF. Theoretically we might be able to design an even more accurate PSF, but in practice we are confronted with too many variables (such as defocus) to deal with, and the optimal PSF would not be that useful anymore. Only in a laboratory situation would it make sense to devise an optimal PSF for a given lens/camera/subject combination.

As we speak, I'm preparing to launch a free web-based tool that will allow to exploit the slanted edge feature which is present on some test charts, in order to generate a Gaussian PSF kernel. Even though there are not many applications that allow the direct use of a user generated PSF kernel, at least it will allow to calculate the optimal radius setting for capture sharpening of a well focused shot.

One could assemble a personal collection of radius settings for one's own camera/lens combinations at various aperture settings, and use those radii for e.g. Lichtroom or ACR. Maybe the differences between the lenses are small enough to use the same settings for different lenses at various apertures. Alternatively one could, for a specific circumstance, build a specific kernel for a specific situation or shooting scenario.

An example could be a security camera image that needs to be enhanced. One can after the fact record an image of a slanted edge target with that specific camera and use the resulting PSF information to enhance the earlier recordings of an event at the same shooting distance / focus quality. Or one can envision a scenario where e.g. the near end of the DOF zone for a hyperfocal landscape shooter is analyzed, and the radius parameter we find will enhance both the near and the far end of the hyperfocal DOF zone.

Of course we can also use it to determine the actual resolution difference between the D800 and D800E after using the optimal radius settings for capture sharpening in various applications ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #62 on: April 23, 2012, 02:52:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm going to get one of these two cameras, but which one is something of a head-scratcher.

After looking at the second set of photos (the Canadian currency), and the exceptional conditions under which the test was shot (no wind, super-rigid set-up, concrete slab, mirror LU, etc.), it seems to me that almost any shots taken under less rigorous conditions would probably not show any difference at all. That is, if you were shooting at the Grand Canyon with a little wind with a lighter tripod & head on a dirt pathway, that you might degrade the quality enough that any detectable differences would depend more on outside factors than on the sensor. And that would certainly be the case with ANY hand-held shots; the mirror vibration alone might be enough to do that.

And if, given even slightly variable conditions, there is no practical difference (that is, you really couldn't predict which one would give you a better shot), then perhaps it would be better to go with the 800...because despite Michael's inability to find moire, it does exist, and the 800 helps lessen that effect, as is demonstrated in some of Nikon's own illustrations.

Maybe the question comes down to this: do near-perfect conditions occur more often than moire?

Goofy as it sounds, I think I'm working my way around to a complaint that is exactly the opposite of the complaints about test conditions that he referred to -- the test conditions are too good for me. I'd actually like to see a test in which Michael shoots, say, six different handheld views, in matching pairs with each of the two cameras, does his best to sharpen them, and then see if Jeff Schewe can pick out the 800e shots.

(I'd also like to see a test in which Michael has four margaritas, jogs down to to the lakefront, and then takes a couiple of handheld shots while being taunted by clowns, so it'd more closely resemble my own photography; but I doubt we'll see that.) Grin
Logged
RobertCubit
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16



WWW
« Reply #63 on: April 23, 2012, 03:02:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Imaging resource used to publish downloadable raws with patterns usable for SRF/MTF. I'm doing that test once images are available.

Best regards
Erik


Hi Erik,

Thanks for reminding me to recheck the Imaging Resource site! I downloaded some D800 raw files of general images a few weeks ago, but did not find any raws of the usual test patterns. The raws of resolution charts have since been posted:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A7.HTM

Nothing yet on the D800E and they have not yet posted the full review of the D800, but Imaging Resource is usually the last to provide their complete review.

I'm still wishing they would update their ancient resolution chart to allow better MTF testing in Imatest. But this should be a good start for comparing the two sensors as long as they are 100% consistant with their methods when testing both the D800 and D800E. The Sigma 70mm macro (at f/5.6) used for the D800 tests looks like a pretty good choice, although I can think of lenses with better center resolution to help reduce the effect of the lens on MTF. When I get a chance, I'll also try running the Imaging Resource slant-edge sample from the D800 through Imatest. I'll be interested to see your results when the D800E images are posted.

Kind regards,
Bob
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #64 on: April 23, 2012, 03:14:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael's initial comparison was startling because it showed a greater difference between the two cameras than many would have expected. Not exactly sure what the explanation is there, but the second comparison is more in line with what I'd have expected.

I tend to fall on the side that AA filters are a good thing to have in cameras. I understand the reasoning behind them and I personally find the aliasing that often occurs in AA-free images objectionable. I'm primarily a landscape shooter so moire isn't much of a concern for me, but color aliasing and edge aliasing are. So I'm inclined to go with the D800.

The only thing that gives me some doubt is whether you really need to be shooting at f/4-f/5.6 for aliasing to show up in any quantity on a 36mp 135-format sensor. Even with T/S lenses I'm more likely to be shooting at f/8 than f/4, and f/11 is not unusual for me. So for now I'm waiting for more tests/comparisons to become available before I decide.



Logged

RobertCubit
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16



WWW
« Reply #65 on: April 23, 2012, 04:20:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bart,

Hi Erik,

As we speak, I'm preparing to launch a free web-based tool that will allow to exploit the slanted edge feature which is present on some test charts, in order to generate a Gaussian PSF kernel. Even though there are not many applications that allow the direct use of a user generated PSF kernel, at least it will allow to calculate the optimal radius setting for capture sharpening of a well focused shot.

That sounds very interesting. I can imagine X-Rite adding a slant-edge pattern to their ColorChecker Passport so one could simultaneously profile a custom PSF along with the custom color profile!  Grin

Quote
Of course we can also use it to determine the actual resolution difference between the D800 and D800E after using the optimal radius settings for capture sharpening in various applications ...

That's all I'm really expecting/hoping from this exercise.

Kind regards,
Bob
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1678


« Reply #66 on: April 24, 2012, 02:11:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think it's that useful to characterize the PSF of the AA-filter in isolation. We will always have a mix of PSFs in our optical system. The lens with its residual aberrations, (de-)focus, the aperture, IR-filter / OLPF package, microlenses, Bayer CFA, and sensel aperture size and shape, they all add something to the combined PSF and resulting MTF. Fortunately that combined PSF can be approximated quite well with a Gaussian like PSF. Theoretically we might be able to design an even more accurate PSF, but in practice we are confronted with too many variables (such as defocus) to deal with, and the optimal PSF would not be that useful anymore. Only in a laboratory situation would it make sense to devise an optimal PSF for a given lens/camera/subject combination.
I see your points.

I still think it would be interesting, perhaps even useful, to estimate the true total PSF for a variety of aperture, distance/focus, etc settings. Perhaps this set of PSFs can be analyzed to extract a constant component (stuff that does not change, such as AA-filter), along with a convolved variable component (function of aperture, focus, distance). Separating a constant function from a variable component in a set of convoluted responses sounds complex, but perhaps the frequency-domain (multiplication) is suitable?

This could (among other things) allow us to predict the system PSF of a Sigma 10-20mm mounted on a Canon 50D, based only on a) measurements of a 10-20mm mounted on a Nikon D7000, and b)measurements of a 17-55mm on a Canon 50D. It might also be easier to predict the performance of a given lense on future, high-resolution sensors before they are available (such as, until recently, the D800).

Do you have example images showing the visual difference between using the true PSF (or an accurate estimate) vs using a quickly estimated gaussian for deconvolution?

-h
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1678


« Reply #67 on: April 24, 2012, 02:18:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Of course we can also use it to determine the actual resolution difference between the D800 and D800E after using the optimal radius settings for capture sharpening in various applications ...
I imagine that the "optimal radius setting" will be a function of visible/annoying image noise, meaning that "ISO" setting, scene, print size/viewing distance, curves/levels usage and viewer preferences all affect the optimal radius. I don't think there will be a number saying something ala: "the D800 has 0.8x the resolution of the D800E after optimal sharpening".

If anything, I would guess that in somewhat ideal settings, the D800 resolution would be approx. 1.0x the D800E resolution, both optimally sharpened. But in e.g. low-light conditions, the number would be smaller than 1.0.

-h
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637


« Reply #68 on: April 24, 2012, 03:39:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I still think it would be interesting, perhaps even useful, to estimate the true total PSF for a variety of aperture, distance/focus, etc settings. Perhaps this set of PSFs can be analyzed to extract a constant component (stuff that does not change, such as AA-filter), along with a convolved variable component (function of aperture, focus, distance). Separating a constant function from a variable component in a set of convoluted responses sounds complex, but perhaps the frequency-domain (multiplication) is suitable?

This could (among other things) allow us to predict the system PSF of a Sigma 10-20mm mounted on a Canon 50D, based only on a) measurements of a 10-20mm mounted on a Nikon D7000, and b)measurements of a 17-55mm on a Canon 50D. It might also be easier to predict the performance of a given lense on future, high-resolution sensors before they are available (such as, until recently, the D800).

Hi h,

I agree that there are uses for the characterization of the individual optical components, but I'll move the discussion about such laboratory conditions to another thread in a more appropriate place on LuLa.

Quote
Do you have example images showing the visual difference between using the true PSF (or an accurate estimate) vs using a quickly estimated gaussian for deconvolution?

A comparison between a quick-and-dirty and a more fine-tuned kernel will be addressed in another thread where I'll introduce my tool.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637


« Reply #69 on: April 24, 2012, 04:00:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I imagine that the "optimal radius setting" will be a function of visible/annoying image noise, meaning that "ISO" setting, scene, print size/viewing distance, curves/levels usage and viewer preferences all affect the optimal radius. I don't think there will be a number saying something ala: "the D800 has 0.8x the resolution of the D800E after optimal sharpening".

Hi h,

It's 'simpler' than that. The deterioration of the perfect (because it exceeds the resolving power of our optics and sensor) slanted edge by the optical system (and Raw converter) can be expressed in an Edge Spread Function (ESF). This will allow to calculate a PSF. Deconvolving the blurred edge with that PSF should reconstruct the original edge (within practical limits). The Gaussian 'radius' or sigma that best describes the 2D PSF is the optimal radius to use in capture sharpening. The only thing I'm not 100% sure about is whether the radius parameter in e.g. Lightroom, is identical to the sigma of a Gaussian. Afterall, a Gaussian doen't have a real radius because it has infinite dimensions.

Quote
If anything, I would guess that in somewhat ideal settings, the D800 resolution would be approx. 1.0x the D800E resolution, both optimally sharpened. But in e.g. low-light conditions, the number would be smaller than 1.0.

Indeed, since the sampling density is identical, the Nyquist frequency is also identical. Only the amplitude of the MTF at Nyquist will be different (before sharpening), and therefore micro-contrast at the limiting resolution, and aliasing. Proper sharpening will level the playing field.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1678


« Reply #70 on: April 24, 2012, 04:20:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi h,

It's 'simpler' than that. The deterioration of the perfect (because it exceeds the resolving power of our optics and sensor) slanted edge by the optical system (and Raw converter) can be expressed in an Edge Spread Function (ESF). This will allow to calculate a PSF. Deconvolving the blurred edge with that PSF should reconstruct the original edge (within practical limits). The Gaussian 'radius' or sigma that best describes the 2D PSF is the optimal radius to use in capture sharpening. The only thing I'm not 100% sure about is whether the radius parameter in e.g. Lightroom, is identical to the sigma of a Gaussian. Afterall, a Gaussian doen't have a real radius because it has infinite dimensions.
Is the edge spread function equivalent to a 1-d step function? If so, the relation between a 1-d step-function and a 1-d impulse (and corresponding system responses) is well-known, and probably extends nicely to the 2-d case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_response#Linear_dynamical_system

If the total system PSF deviates significantly from a gaussian, deconvolving using a gaussian should produce "significant" errors, irrespective of choice of sigma.

-h
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #71 on: April 24, 2012, 06:07:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Ray for suggesting this test. I was about to suggest the same. Unless you provide such a double blind test no human being can escape from the confirmation bias we all suffer from Wink

Yes, Hans. I think we're both in agreement here. Confirmation bias is a huge problem in science, in general. My suggestion that Michael hand over the RAW D800 file to Jeff Schewe to do his best to match the resolution of Michael's D800 print, is probably flawed.

Jeff is probably also biased in favour of 'no AA filter'. To get him to do his best, Michael might have to offer an inducement along the lines, "If you succeed in restoring the lost detail in this D800 image, Jeff, so that it looks just as sharp and detailed on your print as it does on my print of the D800E image, I shall reward you by presenting you with a free Nikon D800E." (I have to tread carefully here. This is tongue in cheek.  Grin )

What might be a better idea, is for Michael to send the RAW D800 file, together with the printer profile that Michael used to produce his own print from the D800E file, to Bernard or Bart.

Bernard would do his best to prove to himself, if no-one else, that he had made the right decision in choosing the D800 over the D800E, and Bart would do his best to demonstrate that his knowledge of Point Spread Function and Deconvolution processes are unparalleled.

However, even if Bart, or Bernard, or both of them, were to succeed in matching the resolution and sharpness of Michael's  D800E image, from which he made the D800E print, the matter would still not be settled.

We have to consider the amount of time spent, and the difficulty incurred, in processing that D800 file to match the D800E file. It might be huge, involving arcane processes not readily available to the general public, and involving considerable expertise, whereas Michael's general processing and sharpening of the D800E image may be basic, standard, and easy. That in itself may be considered as an advantage.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1678


« Reply #72 on: April 24, 2012, 06:50:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray:
What about using an automated algorithm to match one output to the other, using a limited (sensible) set of parameters? If we are to believe that the only difference between the D800 and the D800E is the presence of an (effective) AA filter, then one would expect to find a relatively simple relationship between their raw files to be reasonably accurate for identical conditions.

Find an estimate to this relationship, and you can debate its form and the remaining residue.

-h
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 705



WWW
« Reply #73 on: April 24, 2012, 10:01:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, Hans. I think we're both in agreement here. Confirmation bias is a huge problem in science, in general. My suggestion that Michael hand over the RAW D800 file to Jeff Schewe to do his best to match the resolution of Michael's D800 print, is probably flawed.

<snip>

We have to consider the amount of time spent, and the difficulty incurred, in processing that D800 file to match the D800E file. It might be huge, involving arcane processes not readily available to the general public, and involving considerable expertise, whereas Michael's general processing and sharpening of the D800E image may be basic, standard, and easy. That in itself may be considered as an advantage.

What about a single blind test where Michael prepares X number of pictures of different scenes and shoot each with both cameras (identical setup on tripod). Use identical pp except optimized capture sharpening for each shot. Then print  them in the largest size possible at 300PPI and mark them with encoded names on the back that only he knows about. Then a second person brings these photos into a gallery and ask a number of people to review the prints and say which is the sharpest looking and which has the best details (maybe even at close inspection and at a defined viewing distance). Then gather the results and do a statistical analysis on the data and determine if there is a statistically significant difference in either case (close inspection and normal (defined) viewing distance. 

Well, I guess this is too much effort, but it could be fun to see the results.
Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1242


« Reply #74 on: April 24, 2012, 10:21:43 AM »
ReplyReply

What about a single blind test where Michael prepares X number of pictures of different scenes and shoot each with both cameras (identical setup on tripod).
...

Sure, if someone tapes up the cameras first so that Michael doesn't know if he's shooting with the D800 or D800E.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5882


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #75 on: April 24, 2012, 11:01:46 AM »
ReplyReply

... We have to consider the amount of time spent, and the difficulty incurred, in processing that D800 file to match the D800E file. It might be huge, involving arcane processes not readily available to the general public, and involving considerable expertise, whereas Michael's general processing and sharpening of the D800E image may be basic, standard, and easy. That in itself may be considered as an advantage.

Very good points, Ray.

Furthermore, given that we are talking about reverse engineering, its algorithm has to be 100% correct in order to reduce the initial D800e advantage to zero. Again, I am not a scientist or software developer, so I do not know how possible it is to achieve 100% reverse engineering (the only bragged-about case I know of is in Iran currently Wink)

My further assumptions would be that, for a perfect  reverse engineering (i.e., deconvolution sharpening), one needs to know the exact algorithm of AA blurring, and that would be only Nikon engineers, I presume.

Also, even if the algorithm is 100% successful (in restoring lost detail) it is not inconceivable that there could be some "collateral damage" along the way, i.e., unwanted side effects or artifacts.

In other words, unless all the conditions above are met with 100% success, the initial advantage of D800e would remain, however imperceptible it might be, in print or otherwise.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637


« Reply #76 on: April 24, 2012, 02:20:59 PM »
ReplyReply

To end the speculation, let's look at an actual conversion I made from 2 files, one from the D800, and one from the D800E.
Michael made sure that the test chart was perfectly focused, selecting the best from a focus series for each camera. The same 85mm f/1.4 lens was used at f/4 on both cameras.

For this pair I used Capture One Pro v6.4, set to a linear filmcurve, shifted the exposure up a bit, and I only corrected for Chromatic Aberration (to compare with other converters, more on that later), and applied no sharpening at all. The sharpening was skipped to avoid speculation about the effect of different types of sharpening, and it wouldn't have made any difference to the actual limiting resolution anyway. It also allows to determine the best capture sharpening settings.
 
Here are the cropped results, 8-b/ch JPEGs at 100% quality converted to sRGB, at 100% zoom without resampling.
Remember, these are without sharpening.

First the D800:

Click here for a 16-bit/channel PNG version, AdobeRGB as source, Gamma 2.20

Next the D800E:

Click here for a 16-bit/channel PNG version, Adobe RGB as source, Gamma 2.20

I'll elaborate a bit more on the relevant parts in subsequent posts, but I'll already tell that the D800 shows a limiting resolution of 93.9 cycles/mm or 92.0% of Nyquist, and the D800E shows a limiting resolution of 94.9 cycles/mm or 92.9% of Nyquist. In other words, their limiting resolutions are virtually identical which makes sense because the sampling density is also identical. The OLPF in the D800 only reduced the amplitude of the MTF, which helped to reduce aliasing and demosaicing artifacts.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #77 on: April 24, 2012, 02:24:42 PM »
ReplyReply

... the D800 shows a limiting resolution of 93.9 cycles/mm or 92.0% of Nyquist, and the D800E shows a limiting resolution of 94.9 cycles/mm or 92.9% of Nyquist. ...
So a 1% difference in resolution: whether that matters probably depends on whether you are part of the "photographic 1%", or the 99%.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637


« Reply #78 on: April 24, 2012, 03:05:12 PM »
ReplyReply

And here are some details, zoomed to 200%, with a red circle (92 pixel diameter) drawn at the Nyquist frequency, and a green circle at the limiting resolution. Any detail within the red circle is pure aliasing, the sensor cannot resolve detail which is smaller than a single sensel.

The D800 :



And the D800E :


The false color artifacting which is common for Bayer CFA sensors, the Nikons are no exception, can be removed by Capture One Pro's Moiré tool, but the luminance aliasing is too complex to solve. Fortunately we're looking at a torture test, so it's not too common to face such challenging subjects. Having said that, it does send a warning to look out for potential trouble.

It looks like the OLPF of the D800 is very well designed, it will reduce most of the common difficulties, false color artifacting, jaggies, and moiré.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 05:53:05 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5882


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #79 on: April 24, 2012, 04:58:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Bart,

How do you explain those areas in D800 I pointed to? Some kind of green/orange amebas, blots? Those do not exist in D800e.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad