dpreview directly compares D800 and D800E...

[Deep]

I note much of this discussion is only relevant when photographing either a fairly flat subject or when sharpness is only required in part of the scene.  For many shots, stopping down significantly past any diffraction limit will give an apparently sharper image to the viewer (not pixel-peeper!) simply because more of the subject is in focus.

High pixel-count cameras like the Nikon D800 twins are no less sharp than low pixel-count cameras stopped way down so give the best of both worlds.

Personally, nothing I do benefits from even the 18 good megapixels of my current SLR so I'll save on computer space and processing time for now, though I do get the interest and will watch to see if the benefits of these complex sensors prove real over time.

Don

[torger]

The resolution of D800 is similar to that of 4x5" film. For landscape photography I think that with that amount of resolution you really need tilt/swing to be able to optimize your depth of field. High resolution opens up for a whole different shooting style.

I don't see a move towards traditional view camera techniques though, and there are not too many tilt/shift lenses to choose from either. Shooting ultra-wides with distorted perspectives and not care seems to be the modern style of landscape photography :-)

[Hans Kruse]

I downloaded the RAW files from the comparison and processed a crop in Lightroom 4.

http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/144023796/original
http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/144023797/original

I guess it should be easy to tell which is which?

[Hans Kruse]

Another pair of the same crop:

http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/144024484/original
http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/144024482/original

Again which one is D800 and which one D800E?

[uaiomex]

Patrick diFruscia, landscape photographer extraordinaire, usually shoots at f16 and sometimes even more.
Eduardo

The lens they used in the test don't really peak at f/4.5. Center sharpness is at peak yes, but if you look at the edges there's plenty sharpness falloff.
Some will probably prefer having supersharp center and somewhat fuzzy edges like dpreview, but for landscapes I prefer having a more even edge-to-edge performance, and for many that is f/8 (there are exceptions though). There will also be depth of field issues, having larger aperture than f/8 will be problematic in many landscape scenes.

[arlon]

I got the D800E, I like the pictures, haven't gotten moire despite trying. I use a lot of old MF lenses and this may be the best camera ever for them. Lot of bang for the buck.

[shadowblade]

The resolution of D800 is similar to that of 4x5" film. For landscape photography I think that with that amount of resolution you really need tilt/swing to be able to optimize your depth of field. High resolution opens up for a whole different shooting style.

I don't see a move towards traditional view camera techniques though, and there are not too many tilt/shift lenses to choose from either. Shooting ultra-wides with distorted perspectives and not care seems to be the modern style of landscape photography :-)

Just out of interest, where did you get the data that the resolution of the D800 is similar to 4x5 film?

I definitely wish there were more ultra-wide tilt-shift options, though. 24mm, with 12mm of shift, is great for stitching, but, when you want everything in a single frame, I'd prefer a 12-14mm tilt-shift lens - a bit of forward tilt to align the plane of focus closer to the ground plane, and a bit of upward shift to keep trees vertical. Zeiss or Leica, where are you?!

[HarperPhotos]

Hi Shadowblade,

Check out the link below

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/27/nikon-patents-for-17mm-f4-tilt-and-shift-10mm-f4-16-30mm-f4-5-5-6-and-28mm-f1-4-lenses.aspx/

Your wish might come true.

Cheers

Simon

[torger]

Just out of interest, where did you get the data that the resolution of the D800 is similar to 4x5 film?

It is quite subjective of course, it depends on how much grain you can accept. Thing with film is that detail is resolved way past the grain size. If you don't mind grain you'd probably need 100+ megapixels to match 4x5", but if you do mind grain then ~40 megapixels is around the tipping point when digital starts to perform better. From stuff I've read here and there P45+ (39 megapixels) was the tipping point for many large format photographers to abandon 4x5" film.

This camera test is good for coming to your own conclusions:

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

[Petrus]

Was there not a comparison recently which showed that IQ180 back beats 8x10" quite handily? Now we have seen also here that D800 is almost as good as IQ180, so to me it seems believable that D800 would equal or beat 4X5", easily.

[Kerry L]

It is quite subjective of course, it depends on how much grain you can accept. Thing with film is that detail is resolved way past the grain size. If you don't mind grain you'd probably need 100+ megapixels to match 4x5", but if you do mind grain then ~40 megapixels is around the tipping point when digital starts to perform better. From stuff I've read here and there P45+ (39 megapixels) was the tipping point for many large format photographers to abandon 4x5" film.

This camera test is good for coming to your own conclusions:

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

It's all well and good to say that backs out res LF film etc, the main point of the DPreview is that DLSR sensors are out resolving the stable of lenses available. Most lenses are still based on optics designs from the 80's.

The camera manufacturers need to take up the challenge of producing better lenses.

[Petrus]

The camera manufacturers need to take up the challenge of producing better lenses.

Diffraction is getting a big problem if we want more pixels from small sensors. There is nothing optical companies can do about that. There really is no substitute to square inches...

[kers]

Was there not a comparison recently which showed that IQ180 back beats 8x10" quite handily? Now we have seen also here that D800 is almost as good as IQ180, so to me it seems believable that D800 would equal or beat 4X5", easily.

hello Petrus,
no the opposite...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60589.0

and 36mp is not 80mp   so there you have the difference...
still with 36mp of good information you can do a lot ( and if you go stitching you can do a lot more )

[Petrus]

hello Petrus,
no the opposite...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60589.0

and 36mp is not 80mp   so there you have the difference...
still with 36mp of good information you can do a lot ( and if you go stitching you can do a lot more )

It was another comparison, not this one. But fine with me. If IQ180 is almost as good as 8x10 and D800 almost as good as IQ180, that makes D800 just about the same as 4x5. No? 

[uaiomex]

A luxury home just 300 yds behind will never equal beach front property. Never.  
Eduardo

It was another comparison, not this one. But fine with me. If IQ180 is almost as good as 8x10 and D800 almost as good as IQ180, that makes D800 just about the same as 4x5. No?  

[luxborealis]

Diffraction is getting a big problem if we want more pixels from small sensors. There is nothing optical companies can do about that. There really is no substitute to square inches...

Then I guess our route to higher quality is software – Adobe: Bring deconvolution sharpening to Lightroom!

[jeremypayne]

Adobe: Bring deconvolution sharpening to Lightroom!

It is already there in Lightroom (since LR 3 I think) ... if you jack the detail slider to 100% you are then utilizing deconvolution.

[jeremypayne]

A luxury home just 300 yds behind will never equal beach front property. Never.  
Eduardo

Formulating irrelevant analogies won't win arguments.  Ever.

[Hans Kruse]

It is already there in Lightroom (since LR 3 I think) ... if you jack the detail slider to 100% you are then utilizing deconvolution.

That's what Schewe says in the Lightroom 4 tutorial, but I'm not sure if this was added in LR4 or in LR3.

[jeremypayne]

That's what Schewe says in the Lightroom 4 tutorial, but I'm not sure if this was added in LR4 or in LR3.

99.999% sure it was in LR 3 ... just not sure if it was there in a 2.X release.