Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon D800E - Amazing Resolution ...but "Houston, We Have A Problem!"  (Read 17424 times)
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« on: May 30, 2012, 08:55:39 PM »
ReplyReply

http://www.australianlight.com.au/blog/post/nikon_d800e/

I won't repost the text and samples as you can read it and see if for yourselves. But I will say from my own testing of the D800E that I ran into exactly the same problems with the resolution in the corners (and in my own tests I used Zeiss Glass).

Ps. Please don't shoot the messenger!  Grin

-Edit -Corrected typo in Houston - was originally misspelled on the website; subsequently corrected.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 10:00:01 PM by Josh-H » Logged

Ligament
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2012, 09:35:55 PM »
ReplyReply

It is spelled Houston. No "e." Thanks for the post!
Logged
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2012, 09:38:47 PM »
ReplyReply

It is spelled Houston. No "e." Thanks for the post!

Sorry, I just cut and pasted the title from the website - its not my own. Grin
Logged

Ligament
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2012, 09:50:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, I just cut and pasted the title from the website - its not my own. Grin

I apologize.  Smiley
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7763



WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2012, 11:01:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah corners... I vaguely remember those being troublesome before the stitching days...  Cheesy Wasn't there also something called light fall off?



Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2012, 11:35:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ah corners... I vaguely remember those being troublesome before the stitching days... 

Great.. so we have to stitch because the lenses aren't up to the task in the corners.... makes sense... Huh

I appreciate the benefit of stitching (I truly do) - but some of us (myself  included) don't want to have to stitch. I'm old school - I like to try and capture my images in a single frame.
Logged

LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 415


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2012, 11:36:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ah corners... I vaguely remember those being troublesome before the stitching days...   Wasn't there also something called light fall off?
Right on! But only if you didn't use the center filter.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2012, 01:14:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps what has not been mentioned here is that a 100% crop of a D800 image on a 24" HD monitor (1920x1080 pixels) represents a close-up view of a 6ftx4ft print, approximately, (perhaps a slightly larger print at 2 metres x 1.33 metres). If the HD monitor is larger than 24", or the resolution of the monitor is less than 1920x1080, then the 100% crop represents an even larger print than 2mx1.33m.

Nevertheless, I can't argue that corner sharpness is not a problem. Here is one of the first few shots I took with my D800E using the Nikkor 14-24/F2.8 at 24mm and F5.6.

I think the100% crop of the bottom edge, in the middle, would be quite acceptable on a 6ftx4ft print, but the corners do seem a bit too degraded for close inspection on a very large print.

However, I can't vouch that I've got the best result in the corners using F5.6. According to Photozone's tests, this lens at 24mm has better corner performance at F8.
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2012, 02:46:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I did a little testing on my Leica R's the other day and from f5.6 to f8.0 is the sweet spot no difference between the 2, softer above f8 and below 5.6 so for sharp corners I'll be using f8 same is true for the IQ180/Rodenstocks lenses get better at f8, sensor is better at f5.6
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2012, 05:39:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I did a little testing on my Leica R's the other day and from f5.6 to f8.0 is the sweet spot no difference between the 2, softer above f8 and below 5.6 so for sharp corners I'll be using f8 same is true for the IQ180/Rodenstocks lenses get better at f8, sensor is better at f5.6
Marc

Marc,
With my 14-24/2.8, I'd expect F11 to produce even better corner resolution than F8 as a result of its greater DoF, but with the trade-off of slightly less sharpness in the centre.

I've searched through my initial test shots and found one of the same scene as above, taken on a different day and at 21mm instead of 24mm, but at F11.

Here are the results. I think you'll agree the corners are better. However, the light in the corners was also better. Good light and F11. Be there!  Grin

Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2012, 06:10:58 AM »
ReplyReply

The other corners and centre, at F11.
Logged
arlon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2012, 07:28:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that's an issue with wide angles on ANY FX camera. It's just that the D800 has enough resoultion to really bring it out. Anyone remember the corner softness of their 25 ASA slides? I think it was an issue then too and the slides had enough resolving power to make it obvious, nothing has changed really. My D700 has the same problem it's just that the resolution in the center of the frame isn't good enough to make the corners look a lot worse, it's not totally sharp anywhere on the frame. It's a relativity thing I think. For my panos, I'll just give a little more overlap and crop if I have to. The sweet spots for the D800E are so good that I'll just have to learn to use them. Maybe they should have made a D7000E that would only capture the sweet spot with FX lenses. That would solve some issues for panoramas. OH wait, they did. They just called it a D800E in DX mode. I'm not too concerned but I also don't have my D800E yet and I don't sell pictures for a living (D800E scheduled for delivery tomorrow). Personally I consider this issue a good thing, it means I have a killer sweet spot to work with! (-:}
Logged

Honey, did you bring an extra battery?
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1376


« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2012, 09:00:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Corners, shifting and the love of the one-shot image was one of the reasons I chose a 33 megapixel MF tech camera instead of D800. However I couldn't do it unless I bought all gear second hand... MF pricing is a killer.

I've seen samples from the 85mm/1.4 on the D800, it has very good corners. For us landscape photographers it would be nice to know which lenses that truly excel over the full sensor area and which that don't. Almost all lenses have great centers that can swallow even higher pixel counts, so if you don't desire sharp corners the D800 lens lineup is already great. But if you do want sharp corners, what do you get? Time will tell I guess...
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2012, 09:33:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Translation: the improvement in resolution (lp/mm or whatever) near the corners is less than the improvement near the center, but nowhere in the image is the resolution worse than when the same lens is used with a lower resolution sensor. However, if we enlarge the higher resolution image more, by viewing at 100% pixels on screen, the limitations of the lenses are more visible.

How is this a problem?

And how long will it take 100% pixel peepers to realize that it is utterly stupid to imply that the solution to this "problem" of lens resolution limits by restricting oneself to a senor whose resolution everywhere is no better than the resolution of the lens in worst-case scenarios, like in corners or at small apertures where diffraction effects are strong?

Have some people forgotten that with film, the performance differences of lenses were made clear, especially near the corners, and more so when one used a higher resolution, finer grained film and printed larger. No one suggested that new higher resolution films therefore had a "problem", or that they exceeded some inherent resolution limit of the 35mm format.
Logged
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1376


« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2012, 10:23:54 AM »
ReplyReply

How is this a problem?

It is not a problem if you are a Nikon shooter and intend to stay in the Nikon system. More sensor resolution is never a problem as you say, it just lets you max out the lens investment - great. In the future sensor resolution will be so high that it becomes irrelevant, we'll be talking about lens performance only.

However if you like me want to make large high resolution prints I cannot just look at the sensor megapixel and go from that, resolution is now so high that it is more relevant to look into how lenses for the system performs. My conclusion was that for my application a 36 megapixel Nikon camera with Nikon lenses does not produce as high resolution pictures as 33 megapixels on a Tech camera with Schneider or Rodenstock lenses, and the tech lenses can swallow more and still deliver good corner performance (if I ever afford a back upgrade).

Actually I'm even a bit concerned that the available focal lengths in the Nikon system that deliver all the way to the corner are rather few, but I don't know that for sure.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 10:35:12 AM by torger » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2012, 10:35:13 AM »
ReplyReply

However if you like me want to make large high resolution prints I cannot just look at the sensor megapixel and go from that, resolution is now so high that it is more relevant to look into how lenses for the system performs. My conclusion was that for my application a 36 megapixel Nikon camera with Nikon lenses does not produce as high resolution pictures as 33 megapixels on a Tech camera with Schneider or Rodenstock lenses.
That makes sense if one is comparing also to MF options, not just to other 35mm format options. What I would like to see is something like resolution measurements (maybe by the standard of 50% MTF) for center and corner performance of various lens-body combinations --- and this will become easier as the sensor resolution gets so high that the measurements are primarily about lens performance.

However if one is wiling to deal with the cost and complications of "a Tech camera with Schneider or Rodenstock lenses", the D800E should be evaluated with the best available lenses. So I look forward to that site's testing with the Zeiss 21mm and Nikon 24/1.4G.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 10:40:04 AM by BJL » Logged
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1376


« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2012, 10:40:30 AM »
ReplyReply

That makes sense if one is comparing also to MF options, not just to other 35mm format options. What I would like to see is something like resolution measurements (maybe by the standard of 50% MTF) for center and corner performance of various lens-body combinations --- and this will become easier as the sensor resolution gets so high that the measurements are primarily about lens performance.

I'd love that too. Info is so scarce now so my D800 vs MF comparison I did was half guessing... I won't cry though if the D800+lenses turns out better than I thought Smiley since it is so much more to a system than just raw resolution

If you'd do a test of the type "Can D800E replace a tech camera system?" you'll need to consider only the tilt-shift lenses available. I use tilt and/or shift in almost every picture, it is a specific way of working that some landscape, architecture and still-life shooters like. My tech camera totally sucks at wildlife photography though Smiley
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 10:45:07 AM by torger » Logged
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1641


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 31, 2012, 02:53:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually no real surprise.  Especially with the 24mm Nikon TS-E.  This particular lens seems to be full of sample
variation.  Some people report very good results:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/36870-d800e-24mm-pc-e.html

others show the results obtained in the original Australian blog. 

I have found that with ultra wides, you may have some work to do to find a good one.  The 14-24 is an example, Lens number 3 I received was
very good.  Even with that I found that it need AF micro adjustment.  Micro adjustment on the D800 is very critical, it was critical on the 5D MKII and
is even more now on the D800. 

Where I have trouble is finding a good lens/ultra wide that is good wide open, or even close.  The 14-24 on the D800 (nonE) from F2.8 to about F5.6 is not really
good at all and even shows some of the detail smearing you tend to see with a MF back and a tech camera lens shifted too far past the effective image circle. 
However this same lens when set to F 7.1 to F 11 is excellent corner to corner.  I have yet to try the Zeiss 21 or 18 (shying away from the 18mm due to it's unique flare issues).  I hope to be able test out a 21mm next week. 

As has already been mentioned, Nikon has the glass, in the 24mm range, with either the 24 1.4 or 1.8.  Both seem to do very well, but I 24 is not wide enough
for where I need to work. 

But it's not just a Nikon issue.  Canon has the same issue.  They have been busy reworking a lot of their glass (which may be a better approach), The new 24 TS-E for example on a 21mp Canon is a truly wonderful lens.  You can take it to a full shift and you will see very little smearing and no CA.  The older 24mm TS-E can't come close.  However I wonder right now if Canon brought out a 36mp or higher 35mm sensor just how many of their current ultra wides would hold up to the full resolution of the sensor.  For me the decision wasn't the resolution it was the DR of the D800.  If anything the resolution is a bit of problem since you have to really be selective on lenses if you want to get the full benefit of the sensor. 

Paul
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1787



WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2012, 04:36:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Imagine a wine lover who scores, at great cost, an old bottle of Chateau Margaux. He lovingly carries it home and POURS IT INTO HIS ANALYSIS MACHINE. C'mon, people, are you photographers or equipment wieners? Take photos, make art, enjoy yourself.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7763



WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2012, 05:17:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Great.. so we have to stitch because the lenses aren't up to the task in the corners.... makes sense... Huh

I appreciate the benefit of stitching (I truly do) - but some of us (myself  included) don't want to have to stitch. I'm old school - I like to try and capture my images in a single frame.

I guess you want to discuss this solenmly again, don't you?  Grin

Following your comments about an - imaginary - lack of weather seals and worst camera body... today's D800 issue is the wide angle lenses?

Perhaps you can start by clarifying at what f stop these Australian 24mm "tests" were performed?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad