Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: H4d40 vs D800  (Read 6010 times)
alan_b
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74


WWW
« on: April 19, 2012, 02:01:46 AM »
ReplyReply

By The Camera Store:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 02:12:16 AM by alan_b » Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2012, 02:30:59 AM »
ReplyReply

To be fair, they should have tested the D800E rather than the D800 - after all, the H4D-40 doesn't have an AA filter either.

Dynamic range looks similar - Hasselblad has a bit more in the highlights, Nikon a bit more in the shadows. Solution? Expose the Nikon for the highlights, since the shadows can be recovered to a greater extent than the Hasselblad. And the DR values on DxO reflect the similarity in dynamic range between the two sensors.

The fact that Nikon persisted in using a 14-bit A/D converter rather than moving to a 16-bit version seems to have cost it in the tonality department. 14-bit may have been sufficient when CMOS sensors were still lagging CCDs in tonality and dynamic range, but, now that they have caught up, a 16-bit version might make more sense. Hopefully, Canon include a 16-bit converter in their next high-resolution body.

For landscape photography, however, I think the trump card is lens selection. Hasselblad doesn't have a real UWA, which is so commonly used in landscape photography, and its tilt-shift adaptor also acts as a 1.5x TC - which is fine if you have an ultra-sharp, wide lens and want to do some stitch some shifted images to really push the megapixel count (I wish Canon or Nikon produced a tilt-shift teleconverter, to stick on certain Zeiss lenses), but, without a wide enough lens in the first place, is of limited value when shooting landscapes.
Logged
alan_b
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2012, 02:40:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, the only things I can take away given the unknowns/video quality:
1. Don't overexpose the Nikon
2. Watch out for falling mics!

Would be interesting to see a more precise skin tone comparison with better exposure and some profiling exploration.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2012, 02:47:30 AM »
ReplyReply

With the D800, expose to the right and recover the shadows. With the Hassy, expose to the left and recover the highlights...
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 831


« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2012, 05:52:55 AM »
ReplyReply

With the D800, expose to the right and recover the shadows. With the Hassy, expose to the left and recover the highlights...
How does one recover highlights, unless one has already reserved the headroom for it?
Logged

nazdravanul
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81


« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2012, 02:13:43 PM »
ReplyReply


Would be interesting to see a more precise skin tone comparison with better exposure and some profiling exploration.

Yeap, and a decent lens on the Nikon - preferably a Zeiss 50 (MP ) prime instead of the 50 1.4 G which is awful in terms of tonal gradations and color rendition.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2012, 03:05:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The lens is not at all involved in tonal gradations, it's mostly raw converter, although sensor noise characteristics may play in. Regarding color rendition the effect of the lens is in probability negligible. Color renditions depends on  the color grid array in front of the sensor and on the raw processor.

Best regards
Erik

Yeap, and a decent lens on the Nikon - preferably a Zeiss 50 (MP ) prime instead of the 50 1.4 G which is awful in terms of tonal gradations and color rendition.
Logged

nazdravanul
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81


« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2012, 03:20:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The lens is not at all involved in tonal gradations, it's mostly raw converter, although sensor noise characteristics may play in. Regarding color rendition the effect of the lens is in probability negligible. Color renditions depends on  the color grid array in front of the sensor and on the raw processor.

Best regards
Erik


That is not at all my experience, with Zeiss lenses compared to their Nikon counterparts (including the Zeiss 50 MP and Nikon 50 1.4 G on my D3x), processed primarily through Capture One.
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 831


« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2012, 03:50:51 PM »
ReplyReply

... processed primarily through Capture One.

Ah, Capture One, I remember it well.  It used to work with cameras that I owned.  They still don't have an update that works with the D4/D800. 
Logged

Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2818


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2012, 05:43:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah, Capture One, I remember it well.  It used to work with cameras that I owned.  They still don't have an update that works with the D4/D800. 

...The D800 shipped four weeks ago no? "Still" is a bit harsh a word in that context to me. But I suppose it's open for debate.
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8088



WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2012, 06:02:57 PM »
ReplyReply

...The D800 shipped four weeks ago no? "Still" is a bit harsh a word in that context to me. But I suppose it's open for debate.

A plan would be great though.

But I guess they have decided to only support the D800 on V7 which is going to be a paid upgrade?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 2416



WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2012, 06:10:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The lens is not at all involved in tonal gradations, it's mostly raw converter, although sensor noise characteristics may play in. Regarding color rendition the effect of the lens is in probability negligible. Color renditions depends on  the color grid array in front of the sensor and on the raw processor.

Best regards
Erik


Erik,
I'm wondering about this.  Probably that's true if one thinks that the RAW file so long as not being clipped can be manipulated to fit any lens character, however it does seem like some lenses do affect contrast in different ways that give the RAW file a different starting point that are hard to duplicate.
Eric
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 831


« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2012, 06:17:07 PM »
ReplyReply

...The D800 shipped four weeks ago no? "Still" is a bit harsh a word in that context to me. But I suppose it's open for debate.

Hopefully you were catching the wistful, maudlin tone.  There might be a range of degrees in the word "still" here, some humorous.  But consider.  

In a month where Nikon and Canon both replace their flagship cameras, for a few of us, we have no cameras that currently work with Capture One.

So there's the degree of "still" when you download the competitor's software because it works and Capture One doesn't.

There's the degree of "still" after you come to actually like the competitor's software.

There's the degree of "still" where you come to the end of the competitor's trial period and have to pay for the competitor's software.

And there's the degree of "still" where you buy the competitor's software because you have to, and by now actually like it, and because Phase One did not see fit to save you that forced expense.  

For all we know, Nikon forgot to send Phase One a production unit.  But all else being equal, I'd think all of these degrees of "still" are too much if I were Phase One.  For me, once I get to the forced expenditure, then my relationship with Phase One is damaged. [Added: And I know that Phase One will also want more money to get V7 now, since they did away with their one-version-free upgrade.  Do I want to give it to them after being forced to buy LR4?]  Sound fair?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 11:38:20 PM by LKaven » Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8088



WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2012, 10:06:51 PM »
ReplyReply

There's the degree of "still" after you come to actually like the competitor's software.

There's the degree of "still" where you come to the end of the competitor's trial period and have to pay for the competitor's software.

And there's the degree of "still" where you buy the competitor's software because you have to, and by now actually like it, and because Phase One did not see fit to save you that forced expense.  

Yep, I didn't expect to have to spend so much time with LR4, but it really is an excellent piece of software.

It will take something good from C1 to convince me to purchase C1 Pro 7.0.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 831


« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2012, 10:59:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Yep, I didn't expect to have to spend so much time with LR4, but it really is an excellent piece of software.

It will take something good from C1 to convince me to purchase C1 Pro 7.0.

I was thinking the same, and not out of spite.  Some of the facilities in LR4 work remarkably well.  The noise reduction facilities are much cleaner, and more surgical.  The clarity filter seems to work without halos.  The highlight and shadow adjustments work better.  These things just feel more "photographic" in the way a musical instrument can be said to sound "musical."  Even the Adobe profiles are improved to my eye.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2012, 11:32:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Lens flare matters a lot, but I'd expect that modern high end lenses from Nikon have low flare. One thing I have seen is that all lenses have some vignetting and that may actually enhance an image. So would a lens have a lens profile in Lightroom and correct for vignetting and another lens would be not corrected there would be a lot of difference.

If we compare two lenses I'd suggest that we would need to include a color checker in the image and select correct color balance on the light gray patch and adjust "white" and "black" patches to have the same density. That would leave the playing field pretty much level.

I don't have any Nikon to compare with, just two Zeiss lenses for my Sony, so I cannot really make the experiment.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
I'm wondering about this.  Probably that's true if one thinks that the RAW file so long as not being clipped can be manipulated to fit any lens character, however it does seem like some lenses do affect contrast in different ways that give the RAW file a different starting point that are hard to duplicate.
Eric

Logged

nazdravanul
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81


« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2012, 09:08:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Ah, Capture One, I remember it well.  It used to work with cameras that I owned.  They still don't have an update that works with the D4/D800.  

Nope, they don't. Nothing unusual here : for most DSRLs (5d2, d3x included) Capture One takes the longest time to complete development for raw support. Once it's done, it's the best there is (at least so far), and the differences tend to be really significant compared to all other raw converters (including OEM). The 5d2 looked quite decent in Capture One only, as opposed to ACR / Lightroom and Aperture, for example, where it would have significantly less details, messier reds, and up to 1 stop less room for pushing the shadows. Achieving the same image quality that came out of the box in C1  through Canon's native converter, DPP, meant anywhere between 5 min to 30 min worth of massaging the same files and the results weren't always guaranteed.  Same thing for the d3x - working on those files, particularly in terms of colors, through ACR / Lightroom was incredibly messy and unpleasant but Capture One really made that sensor shine. So yes, it takes time, but usually it's well worth the wait.
Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #17 on: April 20, 2012, 09:42:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Couldn't disagree more. LR 3 was better than the competing version of C1 on the cameras you mentioned, plus most others, and LR4 leaves C1 way behind IMO.

Noise reduction, rendition of detail, color control, highlight and shadow control, all demonstrably better in LR 4 than the current C1. But the ultimate test, for anyone who wonders which is best, is quite simple: try them bOth.
Logged
nazdravanul
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81


« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2012, 09:50:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Couldn't disagree more. LR 3 was better than the competing version of C1 on the cameras you mentioned, plus most others, and LR4 leaves C1 way behind IMO.

Noise reduction, rendition of detail, color control, highlight and shadow control, all demonstrably better in LR 4 than the current C1. But the ultimate test, for anyone who wonders which is best, is quite simple: try them bOth.

I still have to respectfully disagree. I've tried every single LR3 version, from beta to the latest updates, and on my Zeiss / 5d2 - D3x files, C1 always managed to do a better job, on all areas you have mentioned. LR4 is better on certain areas, but Capture one 7 should be out soon so that should make the comparison worthwhile ( in the meantime my D3x files still look better, for me, in c1 6.3.5) . I totally agree everyone should try both.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2012, 10:03:16 AM by nazdravanul » Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2012, 09:27:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Nazdravanul

No problem. I expect we can agree on one thing: neither of them is bad! And it's good to have competition as we all benefit from that.

Cheers
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad