Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: D800 and E... poor for landscape use?  (Read 19087 times)
tony@tonyhowell.co.uk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2012, 05:11:45 AM »
ReplyReply

One thing you haven't mentioned is that the smaller sensor 35mm format has more DOF to start with, so in a way this makes it more suitable for landscapes than medium format?

I sold my Phase One 645AF/P45 back and now use D800E; it's near enough in image quality to the Phase One and a heck of a lot easier to use. I use the 70-200mm f2.8G VR which
is terrific, a Voigtlander 40mm f2 and Macro 105mm VR, also brilliant. I bought the 16-35mm G f4 VR though, and the edges aren't good.

Nikon have applied for a patent for a 17mm PC-E so we can look fwd to that!
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2012, 06:02:41 AM »
ReplyReply

One thing you haven't mentioned is that the smaller sensor 35mm format has more DOF to start with, so in a way this makes it more suitable for landscapes than medium format?
I believe that by adjusting focal length, aperture and sensor size appropriately, "equivalent" images can be taken. I.e. images that have similar perspective, field-of-view, DOF and diffraction. (you can of course not do f/45 if your lense only does f/32, but that is a property of one particular lense, not the sensor-size in itself)

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#3

I believe that many "rules of thumb" breaks down for extreme macro work, but that is probably not relevant in the context of landscape photography.

-h
« Last Edit: June 28, 2012, 06:04:18 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
free1000
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 407


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2012, 06:05:19 AM »
ReplyReply

One thing you haven't mentioned is that the smaller sensor 35mm format has more DOF to start with, so in a way this makes it more suitable for landscapes than medium format?

I sold my Phase One 645AF/P45 back and now use D800E; it's near enough in image quality to the Phase One and a heck of a lot easier to use. I use the 70-200mm f2.8G VR which
is terrific, a Voigtlander 40mm f2 and Macro 105mm VR, also brilliant. I bought the 16-35mm G f4 VR though, and the edges aren't good.

Nikon have applied for a patent for a 17mm PC-E so we can look fwd to that!


Another very good point. I'm glad to hear your experience with the 70-200VR is good, I'll hire one and check it out.  I'm also hiring the 14-24 this weekend since I discovered a hire company just down the road in Maidenhead.

Heartening news about the 17mm PC-E.  It will probably be the only reason I hang onto the Canon at this point, the 17 is such a fabulous thing. Having said that I haven't tried the 24-PC but again, my discerning friend isn't happy with it.  Also the new 24-TSE on Canon is an incredibly good lens, hard to beat I'd think. I use it all the time.

Logged

@foliobook
Foliobook professional photography folio for iPad
www.foliobook.mobi
stevesanacore
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2012, 10:09:01 AM »
ReplyReply


I'm not sure I see the problem. I have been using my Leica R's on my Canon's for landscape work and have always shot at 4-5.6-8 for the best results. It's true that once you get past f11 I have seen detail get softer quickly. Unless you need to carry focus very close to the camera, these apertures work great with short focal lengths. I also think your problems would be much greater with an IQ180 and it's equivalent focal lengths...
Logged

We don't know what we don't know.
muntanela
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259



« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2012, 11:46:00 AM »
ReplyReply

On D800E my 16-35 is slightly better at F11 than at F5.6 my 50 1.4 AF-S is much more better at F11 than at F5.6, the corners of my 70-200 VRI are tragic enough around 200mm.
Logged
collum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 189


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2012, 01:44:10 PM »
ReplyReply


Not yet, but I will go bigger than that to satisfy my curiosity. I fixed on 50"x40" for the Aptus 75 as a size where I could enjoy the experience of getting closer to the print  to reveal more detail, yet be large enough to look good in a gallery.  

I base viewing distance on a rule of thumb that I should stand at least as far as the diagonal of the print. The bigger the print the further away.  It is nice to approach a print and see more detail revealed,  not all of us have as young eyes as we'd like.


I think in this situation ... 40x50 from an Aptus 75 (printing at about 125ppi), or the D800E at 30x40 ( about 160 ppi).. diffraction isn't going to be the limiting factor in the quality of your print. .. you should be looking at 20x30's from the D800E or 20x27's from the Leaf as the largest if actual output print quality is a concern... much more than diffraction of a lens

      jim
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2012, 02:38:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Funny, I print 44x56 quite often with my 645D. I wonder why the D800 files are so poor?
Logged
collum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 189


WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2012, 02:49:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Funny, I print 44x56 quite often with my 645D. I wonder why the D800 files are so poor?

poor is relative

there's a difference in  a print  output at 125ppi vs 360ppi.  If I were interested in the highest quality output i wouldn't be printing at 125ppi.  How much degradation in print quality that is acceptable is a personal choice.  The OP mentioned Gallery quality.. which in my experience means more than just hanging on a wall.. The potential customer will either be holding the print in hand.. or it will be laid out on a table under lights for inspection.  At that distance, there's a quality difference. Once the print is home, and hanging on a wall, there's seldom a 'nose-to-print' inspection done.

my point is that if you're close enough to a print to notice diffraction quality issues, you're also close enough to notice digital printing artifacts.

Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2012, 02:59:25 PM »
ReplyReply

But the image does not change because you print it large--the same information is there. I really don't see a 125ppi print not passing muster at that size. Even with a close inspection. And I agree, diffraction is not worth bothering about.
Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2012, 03:09:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not saying this ...

Really?  Then who wrote this?

The conclusion ... that I'm coming to is that the fine pixel density of the sensor compromises the usefulness of this camera.

Do your tests, wring your hands ... but you can't change the laws of physics .... nor should this trouble you.

An imaging devices whose resolution is limited by diffraction is a good thing, not a bad thing.

 
Logged
Brad Barr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2012, 08:50:00 PM »
ReplyReply

bahhh you're probably right.  Its no good.

Send it to me, and I'll muddle thru with its shortcomings  Cheesy
Logged

Brad
www.bciphoto.com
www.bci-sports.com
www.sportsshooter.com/photobrad

D3s, D3, D300, Nikon: 14-24 2.8, 24-120 f4VR 70-200VRII, 300 2.8, 400 2.8VR; 1.7-TC2, Siggy 50 & 85 1.4's + Spiderholster, D300 IR just for grins.
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 850


« Reply #31 on: June 29, 2012, 02:22:38 AM »
ReplyReply

... If I could live with the 24 PC,  then the ability too shoot HDR in camera and save as TIFF would speed up my workflow for some of my less exacting commissions considerably.

I believe the D800 does in-camera HDR with JPG only. 

Considering that read noise is optimal at base ISO, you can lift the shadows 3-4 stops without a trace of pattern noise.  You can expose for the highlights and boost the shadows in this camera as with no previous camera. 
Logged

Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 544


« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2012, 03:12:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I believe the D800 does in-camera HDR with JPG only.  

Fortunatelly I did not believe the same, but switched the camera to TIFF and shot HDR, lo and behold: HDR TIFF files were turned out.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8387



WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 29, 2012, 05:35:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I believe the D800 does in-camera HDR with jpg only.

No, it works in tiff also, and frankly, I find the in-camera results superior compared to those of the HDR soft I superficially tried.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 1713


« Reply #34 on: June 29, 2012, 07:45:01 AM »
ReplyReply

No, it works in tiff also, and frankly, I find the in-camera results superior compared to those of the HDR soft I superficially tried.
If Nikon really did something clever with HDR/tonemapping, then I am sure that they are able to offer the same in a PC/mac application?

I am deeply sceptical about doing the development while trying to do all of the things that I try to do when using my camera. I would much rather do any fiddling with tonemapping safely at home in front of a computer, with dry clothing and a cup of coffee :-)

-h
Logged
free1000
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 407


WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 29, 2012, 07:52:56 AM »
ReplyReply

No, it works in tiff also, and frankly, I find the in-camera results superior compared to those of the HDR soft I superficially tried.

Cheers,
Bernard


Its very natural output.  The problem with the post-tonemapping is that its too easy to make choices that one should not. :-)   Fiddling with even such a good program like Photomatix can waste huge amounts of time that could be better spent drinking wine etc.

I'd probably use this for a commercial production where I have 100 files to get out in a day.  This saves me four hours in front of the computer that I can use to play with the RAW conversions for my personal files.

Logged

@foliobook
Foliobook professional photography folio for iPad
www.foliobook.mobi
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #36 on: June 29, 2012, 08:25:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Its very natural output.  The problem with the post-tonemapping is that its too easy to make choices that one should not. :-)   Fiddling with even such a good program like Photomatix can waste huge amounts of time that could be better spent drinking wine etc.

I'd probably use this for a commercial production where I have 100 files to get out in a day.  This saves me four hours in front of the computer that I can use to play with the RAW conversions for my personal files.
But then you would be just as happy with a PC/mac application that had no buttons and "one-size-fits-all" processing? I believe that such a program exists, but cannot remember the name of it.

-h
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 850


« Reply #37 on: June 29, 2012, 10:25:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Fortunatelly I did not believe the same, but switched the camera to TIFF and shot HDR, lo and behold: HDR TIFF files were turned out.

Thanks for the correction.
Logged

PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 667



« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2012, 01:54:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Since my D800 arrived towards the end of March, I have made around 3500 exposures (I am strictly an amateur hobbyist, you understand), including 2800 on a 7-week vacation taking in half a dozen National Parks in western USA. So I have done a lot of landscapes.

I don't normally print larger than A3+ but I do sometimes make that size of print from very tight crops (maybe only 10% of the total image area at times).

Like you, I had read all the scare stories on here and elsewhere but I have to say that I have personally found no problems at all. The images are certainly far sharper, with a range of good lenses, than anything I could produce in similar circumstances with the D3s I replaced with the D800 or the D700 before that. Naturally I use Aperture Priority or, more often, Manual for landscapes and, by a large margin, my most commonly used aperture is f/11. No problems at all at that aperture. Possibly haven't used f/16 - f/22 enough to comment meaningfully.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1157


« Reply #39 on: June 30, 2012, 05:39:40 PM »
ReplyReply

No, it works in tiff also, and frankly, I find the in-camera results superior compared to those of the HDR soft I superficially tried.

Cheers,
Bernard


Is that a full 16 bit tone mapped file? That's a huge feature not available on other cameras.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad