Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The D800  (Read 5239 times)
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5715



WWW
« on: August 09, 2012, 08:21:35 PM »
ReplyReply

It's impossible to show what the D800 really can do by posting a compressed jpeg, but here are a couple files that can give you a rough idea. The first one's a 100% crop from a shot of the remnants of the Vindicator goldmine processing plant. It's a tiny segment of part of the left side of the original 7360 x 4912 pixel raw file, shot from a tripod with a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. The Victor, Colorado bar was shot with the same rig, but handheld. 17 x 22 inch prints from this thing are astonishing, and it's obvious that wall-size prints would be even more astonishing.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6891


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2012, 11:29:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for sharing!

Erik

It's impossible to show what the D800 really can do by posting a compressed jpeg, but here are a couple files that can give you a rough idea. The first one's a 100% crop from a shot of the remnants of the Vindicator goldmine processing plant. It's a tiny segment of part of the left side of the original 7360 x 4912 pixel raw file, shot from a tripod with a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. The Victor, Colorado bar was shot with the same rig, but handheld. 17 x 22 inch prints from this thing are astonishing, and it's obvious that wall-size prints would be even more astonishing.
Logged

wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5560



WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2012, 01:22:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Indeed!

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2012, 03:31:32 AM »
ReplyReply

17 x 22 inch prints from this thing are astonishing, and it's obvious that wall-size prints would be even more astonishing.

Thanks for sharing.

Yep, the D800 is a pretty amazing camera at a great price point.

I guess it is going to be the final stop for a long time for many of us, I have a hard time imagining what more we could really need for landscape work, especially with stitching as a possible option for prints larger than 30 inches.

Add a few Zeiss ZF (50 and 100 f2.0) and Leica R lenses (180 f2.8 APO) on top of the best Nikkors (24 f1.4, 85 f1.4, 300 f2.8,...) and you have a system able to deliver extreeeeeemely sweet images.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3007


« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2012, 04:23:12 AM »
ReplyReply

The first one's a 100% crop from a shot of the remnants of the Vindicator goldmine processing plant. It's a tiny segment of part of the left side of the original 7360 x 4912 pixel raw file, shot from a tripod with a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8.

Hi Russ,

That's a nice example of the capabilities of the D800, but I'm not too pleased with the sharpening halos. Are you sure this is a straight crop from a Raw file, and not one prepared/sharpened for print? If you could post the same crop but unsharpened, even as a JPEG, I'll show you how the image looks after proper deconvolution capture sharpening. You may be even more pleased with the camera.

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

Posts: 5715



WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2012, 03:06:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Bart, You're absolutely right. I keep forgetting to go back and start over from the raw file for a post. I always sharpen for printing and then forget that for anything else the shot's over-sharpened.

But here are two more. Neither has had any sharpening. One is the full, un-cropped shot. The other is as close as I can get with the 100% crop on my laptop. This morning my main machine -- my desktop -- failed completely. Monday there'll be a Dell technician on my doorstep with a hard drive, a motherboard, and a rear fan. Of course, it's the C drive that failed, so I'm going to have to reinstall a bunch of software and convince outfits like Adobe and Nik that I had a hard drive failure and that I'm not trying to rip them off.
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3007


« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2012, 05:04:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Bart, You're absolutely right. I keep forgetting to go back and start over from the raw file for a post. I always sharpen for printing and then forget that for anything else the shot's over-sharpened.

But here are two more. Neither has had any sharpening. One is the full, un-cropped shot. The other is as close as I can get with the 100% crop on my laptop. This morning my main machine -- my desktop -- failed completely. Monday there'll be a Dell technician on my doorstep with a hard drive, a motherboard, and a rear fan. Of course, it's the C drive that failed, so I'm going to have to reinstall a bunch of software and convince outfits like Adobe and Nik that I had a hard drive failure and that I'm not trying to rip them off.

Attached is my guess at deconvolution capture sharpening of the 100% crop. Of course a JPEG is not the best working material, but it should give an idea.

Good luck with rebuilding your system.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: August 10, 2012, 05:15:31 PM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2012, 05:19:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I am impressed somewhat by the 'Bar' image (and it makes me want to meet a laughing Lab!).

Without a comparison pic of the old industrial site I have trouble getting too enthused.  I think I might lean towards 'disappointed'.  I know that there is a big difference in price but I think a 36mp back on MF gets closer to justifying the exercise.

Nevertheless, I wish you much joy and success with your new kit Rus.

Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2662


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2012, 01:14:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Some nice WPA shots there Russ, Paul Strand is jealous!

Pay no attention, I'm jealous too.

Slap an old manual Micro Nikkor 55mm on that thing if you wanna see some REALLY sharp shots.

Or shoot a 2 x 2 stitch and call it 110+ MP.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2012, 01:45:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I just don't get it.

Of all the folks here, I'd have thought Russ would have stood aside from the race to megas and geegaws of one sort or another. Yet, that bloody D800 twin has affected him too!

It's not even as if it were the most expensive camera in the world - nowhere near that; so what's the craze about? I read some of the posts a while back when the thing was hot, but never felt any inclination to buy, despite the repeated publicity from my Nikon dealer that lands in the postbox and then leaps almost unread into the recycle bag. (The recycle bag itself gets recycled, so yes, I care, I care!)

Once you have something that gives you what you need, I believe that's when you should stop; your actual needs - not just Russ's needs, everyone's needs probably - are usually far short of what they are imagined to be. In film days it was easy: you  bought the best that your work dictated you buy, and that was that - until it wore out from use, or stayed pristine on your shelf and you went broke. This commonsensical approach appears to have been swept into oblivion and advertising rules. What a shame; I'd rather relax and enjoy the cellphone and just play. I really wouldn't want any of these things other than - possibly - a Leica that works and is lighter than what I have from Nikon. But I sure don't think it's worth the money and even though I could buy it, I won't.

I think that getting hung up on equipment is perhaps the worst fate that can befall a photographer other than losing his vision. In a way, it's the same thing.

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5715



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2012, 02:34:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Until after Monday, when I get a new C drive, motherboard, and rear fan for my main machine, and then reinstall all the drivers and software, convince Adobe and Nik that I'm not trying to rip them off with another activation, etc., etc., I'm not in a position to do extended responses. But, first, let me tell you that you have to see the prints to understand why the D800 is so "hot." According to various testing outfits, in some ways the D800 can beat medium format digital backs that start at about ten times the price of the D800.

I haven't given up my other cameras, Rob. I carry what's appropriate for the job. Yesterday one of my granddaughters got married, and I shot the wedding with my good old D3. Unless you have difficulty reasoning, you don't go out and shoot a couple hundred pictures with the D800. 200 D800 shots will give you roughly10 gigabytes to manage and store. To me, the D800 is for landscape and for the abandoned farmhouses and dying prairie towns I love to shoot. I almost never shoot the D800 handheld. It occupies roughly the space in my equipment lineup that my 4 x 5 view camera used to occupy.

I should add that I'm not at all happy with the last two posts I made on this thread. Trying to do serious photographic work on a laptop is an exercise in futility. I'll probably go back to this picture once my system's back in order.

Can't leave, though, without posting one shot from the wedding. As I said, this isn't a D800 picture, but I almost wish I'd shot it with the D800.
Logged

bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2662


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2012, 09:56:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Come on Rob, you're making us dinosaurs look old!

In the development of film cameras we reached a plateau somewhere around the early 60's where we had excellent, affordable cameras like the Nikon F, Rollei, and such.  They did everything useful thing a camera could do within the constraints imposed by film technology.  Most subsequent film cameras were merely a matter of gilding the lily with questionable improvements not really having to do with image quality, except perhaps for lenses.

It seems possible that the D800 may be one of the first affordable cameras to reach a similar digital plateau.

The 5D2 was almost there, but still needed just a little more image quality for really big prints.  Whereas the 5D2 was just a little shy of the plateau the D800 is sitting up on the top edge.  It is capable of producing large fine art prints and commercial print imagery that require no apologies or footnotes or special circumstances.  It is not limited to images that satisfy near horizon requirements like "good enough for the web" or "good enough for magazines."  It's good enough for anything!  A compact, cheap, one-size-fits-all miracle.

Yes I know this has all been said before about every previous digital camera, but IMHO this D800 may mark the first instance where the hype meshes with the reality.  I have personally reached these conclusions by making some 29 x 43's from D800 files.  Provided the images are technically perfect at button-pushing time, and gently processed, they are a wonder to behold as large, rich looking, information-full prints.

And this is from a guy who used the same Nikon Photomic FTN for 35 years.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608



WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2012, 03:59:28 AM »
ReplyReply

There are photographers - here and elsewhere - who I respect and who tell me the D800/E is very capable and because I respect their opinion I tend to believe them. Imagine my confusion then when virtually every example I see that is posted with an aim to show that same capability just doesn't.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 04:55:05 AM by KLaban » Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5715



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2012, 06:59:24 AM »
ReplyReply

You're never going to see it in a post. You need to see the prints.
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608



WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2012, 07:28:54 AM »
ReplyReply

You're never going to see it in a post. You need to see the prints.

Then why post?
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608



WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2012, 07:42:27 AM »
ReplyReply

As an aside, we seem to hear that file comparisons between low end MFD and high end FF are visible on screen - pixel peeking - but not evident when comparing prints?

Folk seem to want it both ways?
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3007


« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2012, 10:06:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Then why post?

Because most people will understand that our low resolution displays only show a small 100% zoom crop from a file. When printed at the same resolution, say 100 PPI, we do get more or less the same result but we'd need paper of roughly 74 x 49 inches (6 x 4 feet, or 1.87 x 1.25 metres).

I don't know about your printer but I usually print smaller, and thus at higher resolution, than what my display is capable of. Yet, I have no difficulty in making the mental connection between what I see on display, and how that would look on paper. The relatively enlarged screen display also makes it easier to spot sharpening or aliasing issues that might be easier to overlook in prints (until the moment you sell the print, which is when the shortcomings start staring you in the face).

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

Posts: 1608



WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2012, 10:32:54 AM »
ReplyReply

The relatively enlarged screen display also makes it easier to spot sharpening or aliasing issues that might be easier to overlook in prints (until the moment you sell the print, which is when the shortcomings start staring you in the face).

I was responding to the OP who suggested "you're never going to see it in a post".

I'm saying you can see the qualities that matter in a post.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 10:46:54 AM by KLaban » Logged

Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1623


« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2012, 11:31:05 AM »
ReplyReply


Slap an old manual Micro Nikkor 55mm on that thing if you wanna see some REALLY sharp shots.


bill, I bought one of those Nikkor 55 F3.5's  from KEH on a whim a few years ago.  When I saw the results on my D300, I immediately ordered another one as a backup.  An absolutely amazing optic.

On my D800 it is just beyond description.  My Epson 9800 is positively drooling with anticipation.

The other day, shooting with a friend who also has a D800, I said "Y'know?  This might just be my last camera."  He agreed.

Welcome to the Golden Age of Photography.  We are truly blessed.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 11:32:45 AM by Peter McLennan » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2012, 02:50:23 PM »
ReplyReply

That amazing D800.

I penned a reply to Russ this morning, but as seems to happen quite a lot these days, the effin’ screen froze and I had to switch off by, literally, pulling the plug on it. So it’s all lost.

Anyway. Let me get back to the point I thought I’d made. The D800 and its half-twin may well be the best things in photography since Victor dreamed up the 500; I even accept that they are, if I must, just to keep you happy. But it doesn’t matter. What matters is the use you owners actually make of it, made of all your other, previous cameras, and why or where changes are gonna happen by this purchase.

(Jeez! Now the bloody font keeps changing on me!)

I think that nothing’s going to change, that you’ll go on making the same images you always have, that the same subjects will enthral you as ever they did, that the difference will be that your imagination will believe that you can and will climb new mountains and face fresh pastures. I predict you won’t. Photography’s a strange beast. It’s a mistress, a whore, a saviour and even a friend in need, But it never changes you into somebody else. And that’s a huge problem for photographers who hope that it can and, perhaps, will.

As some may know, I’m reading (avidly, as it turns out) a collection of Ansel Adams' letters (from and to) and it’s amazing to see how common photographic ills are, how so many of us suffer from the same questions of worth, doubt, and anxiety about pretty much everything; we set up windmills for ourselves, fight giants who aren’t even aware that we exist. I seem to deduce a sea change in his attitude and priorities; from a young chap concerned with cameras, lenses, papers and developers etc. he later ceases reference to any of that stuff, delving ever more deeply into the reasons why for a photograph, of its purpose and even, sometimes, of its validity in the greater scheme of things. Politics, both environmental and photographic, seems to become more the focus of his letters than does photography itself; format, too, concerns him: he states at one point that he might well turn to 10x8s and abandon the practice of ‘large’… in other words, and relevant to this topic here on LuLa, the idea of making bigger and bigger prints, though he always could, fails to be an answer to the emotional man. I don’t think much has changed. I think anything that gives what the late D700 can give is all any amateur need aspire to own. And that was available several years ago. Why did I buy? FF and low-light friendly. It never occurred to me that I might desire to make prints bigger than A3+ - I still wouldn’t really want to and even the size I can make has ground to a halt after the realisation of what running a goddam printer really means: you work to use up the ink so as not to allow the thought that you’ve bought into another form of yacht!

If you make real money from your photography, that’s another matter entirely; if you don’t, then buy the boat instead. At least you’ll get to attract some girls. Cameras only impress other cameras.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad