D800 issues?

treeman

treeman

Messages
4,094
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
I'm sure I've read on a couple of blogs about the need to use a tripod with the D800 to get the most out of it, unfortunately I don't recall any explanation as to why.

Why the need for a tripod with this camera as opposed to any other?

Or is it just "Internet experts"?
 
A tripod with any camera will obviously create a more stable platform so, all other things being equal, a better image quality and the D800 is no exception.
I think I have only used a tripod twice with mine, for some landscape work, otherwise everything is hand-held and I am more than happy with the results - so much so that it is now my most used camera.
 
So far I have never use a tripod with my D800 and IQ is great. I have even got sharp images taken by my other half from the first time she has used it and she is not a camera person.
 
I've only used the tripod with mine when doing long exposures. Hand-held every other time, and I find it no harder to control than my old D90. Don't believe the hype ;)
 
treeman said:
I'm sure I've read on a couple of blogs about the need to use a tripod with the D800 to get the most out of it, unfortunately I don't recall any explanation as to why.

Why the need for a tripod with this camera as opposed to any other?

Or is it just "Internet experts"?
Click to expand...

36 MP sensor resolves more detail (down to about 10 microns, I believe) than cameras with lesser sensors therefore in order to capitalise on that the camera has to be very stable.
Can you get sharp detailed pictures hand holding the camera - yes you can (took me a little while to brush up my holding technique to do so), but you said "to get the best out of it". If you want the best then a tripod will help.

Having said that, the camera handles high ISO exceptionally well therefore it is easy to push that up in order to use very fast shutter speeds.
 
AchimT said:
For me, the D800 is none different from other cameras in this respect.
Click to expand...


^This. It's something you should do with ANY camera if you want the sharpest images. Why? Because it completely mitigates against any camera movement adding softness. It's not exclusively a D800 thing. The higher resolution just makes it more likely to be noticeable is all.
 
treeman said:
Why the need for a tripod with this camera as opposed to any other?

Or is it just "Internet experts"?
Click to expand...

I suppose it's down to the resolution as with the resolution offered you'll be able to print very big images and view them with a magnifying glass and of course you can view them at very high zoom on your pc screen too and when you do either you'll see the results of any camera movement... hence the advice to use a tripod to get the best out of it.

However, if you only print "normal" sized images and can resist the temptation to view them though a magnifying glass or on screen at 400%+ zoom then I'd imagine that the D800 can be used just like any other camera.
 
Pookeyhead said:
^This. It's something you should do with ANY camera if you want the sharpest images. Why? Because it completely mitigates against any camera movement adding softness. It's not exclusively a D800 thing. The higher resolution just makes it more likely to be noticeable is all.
Click to expand...

100% spot on, David.
To my mind, if you get a D800 you do so because you want the gains that a high resolution camera brings (and, of course, the super high dynamic range and high ISO performance.)
That may be because you want huge prints or, in my case, because I want be be able to crop and produce good results from a relatively small part of the captured picture. The D800 excels at these things.
All I would say to a prospective D800 user is this:-
Be wary of the usual advice on shutter speed (traditionally this has been to use at least 1/50th sec with a 50mm lens, and 1/300th sec with a 300mm lens etc. etc.). Treble these speeds with the D800.
Also, bear in mind that sharpness loss through diffraction is generally considered to be noticeable at f11. The D800 will reveal it at f8. That is not a D800 sensor problem. Diffraction is entirely a lens issue, but the D800 will reveal it at larger f stops than other cameras.
 
I haven't had mine on a tripod yet but I will.

It captures so much detail in a huge file so when viewing at 100% it can look a little softer than my lower mp camera.

Shrink the image down to the same size and it goes away.

I am no expert but I think it resolves so much detail that the slightest flaws show up which aren't apparent on other bodies.
 
arclight said:
100% spot on, David.
To my mind, if you get a D800 you do so because you want the gains that a high resolution camera brings (and, of course, the super high dynamic range and high ISO performance.)
That may be because you want huge prints or, in my case, because I want be be able to crop and produce good results from a relatively small part of the captured picture. The D800 excels at these things.
All I would say to a prospective D800 user is this:-
Be wary of the usual advice on shutter speed (traditionally this has been to use at least 1/50th sec with a 50mm lens, and 1/300th sec with a 300mm lens etc. etc.). Treble these speeds with the D800.
Also, bear in mind that sharpness loss through diffraction is generally considered to be noticeable at f11. The D800 will reveal it at f8. That is not a D800 sensor problem. Diffraction is entirely a lens issue, but the D800 will reveal it at larger f stops than other cameras.
Click to expand...


I don't agree that you need to treble anything just because it's a D800. I think too many people are too hung up on the fact it's got all those megapixels tbh. treat it like any other camera and you'll be fine. I don't think "I better be 3x more careful with this shot because it's a D800" when I'm out shooting.

I'll never get this hype. Just use the camera like any other.
 
Cagey75 said:
I think too many people are too hung up on the fact it's got all those megapixels tbh.
Click to expand...

I was thinking along the same lines.

I understand the argument about the greater sensor resolution making the camera more prone to the effects of camera shake. I'm not saying I agree with it - I don't understand the physics of the phenomenon well enough to be sure. But I can see how having smaller pixels *might* mean that the image is disturbed at the pixel level by smaller camera movements.

However - the pixels on the D800 aren't especially small. The D3200 has a pixel density which would scale up to 60 MP on a sensor the size of the D800. So if we need to take special measures to avoid the effects of camera shake on the D800, and throw away the old reciprocal-of-the-focal-length rule, surely we should be doing the same with the D3200 (and every other modern DSLR)?

EDIT: It occurs to me that the science behind the reciprocal-of-the-focal-length rule isn't at all well understood. I'm going to start a new thread about that.

EDIT 2: Thread about the rule is here.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I don't agree that you need to treble anything just because it's a D800. I think too many people are too hung up on the fact it's got all those megapixels tbh. treat it like any other camera and you'll be fine. I don't think "I better be 3x more careful with this shot because it's a D800" when I'm out shooting.

I'll never get this hype. Just use the camera like any other.
Click to expand...

+1
 
It has always been the case that to get the best possible image quality you should use a tripod, mirror lock up, cable release, a good lens, low ISO/ASA etc etc etc, this did not suddenly happen with the advent of the D800.
I use mine quite happily hand held and the only way you can tell the difference is with some serious pixel peeping.
If you have a D800 just use it like you would any other camera and don't worry about it. :nikon:
 
sponner said:
I haven't had mine on a tripod yet but I will.

It captures so much detail in a huge file so when viewing at 100% it can look a little softer than my lower mp camera.

Shrink the image down to the same size and it goes away.

I am no expert but I think it resolves so much detail that the slightest flaws show up which aren't apparent on other bodies.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a very reasonable assessment.

Some people on here conclude differently and that is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, I tend to be of the view that unless these opinions can be definitively shown to be be more valid than what Nikon have to say about the D800/E then they are, suspect.

Nikon say:-

"At the high resolutions offered by the D800/D800E, even the slightest camera motion can result in blur. The technique revealed in this section minimizes blur through a combination of live view photography and a tripod."

Nikon go to say a lot more including advice on using the camera (advice I do not see about any of their other models):-
http://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d800_d800e_tips/shooting_techniques_static_subjects/

The OP (treeman) asked a question. Mark - why not ignore what we all have to say. Read what Nikon say about their camera. Probably sound advice.
 
I reckon Nikon only gave that statement to cover themselves in case of D800 users in droves coming back to complain that they can't get sharp images from it.
 
I reckon Nikon only gave that statement to cover themselves in case of D800 users in droves coming back to complain that they can't get sharp images from it.
Click to expand...

Which surely indicates that Nikon think there may be an issue. I have been happily using it as a camera for family snaps etc. and achieved some good shots so I'm not saying you can't use it like any other camera, for pixel peeping it is so detailed it just emphasises any flaws.
 
No, it indicates that Nikon caught wind of all the moaners and made a statement to cover their asses. or, that's what I reckon.

I have a D800E, I bought one just after they came out, I have never once felt that it was harder to hold or control than my D90.
 
^This... Much the same as McDonalds having to put "Caution: Contents will be hot" on their products.. just to cover themselves against Darwin Awards nominees hurting themselves :)

Much the same... Nikon just making a generic statement for the benefit of stupid people.

A camera is a camera. If you want the maximum sharpness from it... stick it on a tripod, get to know your lenses, and fully understand shutter speeds.
 
Pookeyhead said:
^This... Much the same as McDonalds having to put "Caution: Contents will be hot" on their products.. just to cover themselves against Darwin Awards nominees hurting themselves :)

Much the same... Nikon just making a generic statement for the benefit of stupid people.

A camera is a camera. If you want the maximum sharpness from it... stick it on a tripod, get to know your lenses, and fully understand shutter speeds.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:
 
I have no issues with my D800, any flaws in shots taken with it are down to me, not the camera.
 
arclight, I think nobody denies the merits of using a tripod. I got my first tripod 40 years ago and since then have been using them whenever I could carry one, and it made sense to do so.

But the question of the thread starter was whether the D800 is more critical than other cameras in terms of getting sharp images, and IMHO it is not. IMHO I'm getting handheld just the same sharpness as I get with another camera.

This does not mean that in some cases using a tripod would be beneficial - it would IMHO be just as beneficial as with any other camera. But not more than with any other camera as well.

I think Nikon writes this advice into the manual because it is good advice in general. A tripod and a remote control will get you sharper images - no matter which camera you use.
 
kevin obrian said:
Interesting indeed what springs to my mind is the talk of a 75mp sensor from canon around the corner,
Click to expand...

Unless it's a bigger sensor or they release some radical new lenses that's just playing a numbers game. The D800 is lens limited now.. Going beyond the 36MP of the D800 will yield precisely nothing in terms of image quality unless they do either, or both of those things. The D800 is slight overkill, as my D600 is approaching the limits of what the lenses can deliver... the D800 just gives a nice amount of headroom. If I want more detail, I'll use something with a bigger sensor, or large format film.

I'm surprised at Canon for being such a mega-pixel whore, as they've stubbornly refused to play this game up to this point.

Can anyone really explain what 75MP in a 24x36mm sensor will actually give anyone if using current EF lenses? I'm at a loss to understand the logic.
 
Thanks David, I recall a similar thought process with my current set up, wanted to purchase the D800 for my landscapes but would have to settle with a lens I knew would annoy me, so decided to invest in glass first 24-70 and a used D700 until the bank balance says I can have my D800 body lol
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Unless it's a bigger sensor or they release some radical new lenses that's just playing a numbers game. The D800 is lens limited now.. Going beyond the 36MP of the D800 will yield precisely nothing in terms of image quality unless they do either, or both of those things. The D800 is slight overkill, as my D600 is approaching the limits of what the lenses can deliver... the D800 just gives a nice amount of headroom. If I want more detail, I'll use something with a bigger sensor, or large format film.

I'm surprised at Canon for being such a mega-pixel whore, as they've stubbornly refused to play this game up to this point.

Can anyone really explain what 75MP in a 24x36mm sensor will actually give anyone if using current EF lenses? I'm at a loss to understand the logic.
Click to expand...

I can explain it, though there's not much real-world logic involved. I test a lot of lenses for magazine reviews (Advanced Photographer and Digital SLR Photography in the main) and use a modified Nikon V1 camera with custom adapter, and Imatest MTF software. In FF terms, the V1 has the equivalent of 74mp.

Some of the best lenses, at optimum aperture, can hit Nyquist on the V1 at 147 lines-per-mm with MTF at 20%. At 20%, detail is visible, if not very clearly. Notably a group of 85mm primes I did last month that were amazingly sharp - sharper than any macro or 50mm prime, or anything else this side of a £5k mega-prime.

What was even more significant was a big bulge in the 85's MTF curves around the 70-100 lpmm level at 50%-ish MTF, which is where the D800's 36mp maxes out. So in theory, the D800 has some good and usable resolution potential if a) you print big, b) have a very sharp lens, and c) your technique hand-holding/tripod etc is immaculate. Not easy though.

Going any higher than that asks more questions about real-world relevance, but from a manufacturer's point of view, and from a marketing perspective, it's a fact that megapixels grab headlines and sell cameras. The whole 'sharpness' thing is widely misunderstood (ie, it's much more about MTF lens contrast than resolution) but on the other hand, if you can have loads of pixels and other aspects of sensor performance are not compromised, as seems to be the case with the D800, then why not?
 
StewartR said:
I was thinking along the same lines.

I understand the argument about the greater sensor resolution making the camera more prone to the effects of camera shake. I'm not saying I agree with it - I don't understand the physics of the phenomenon well enough to be sure. But I can see how having smaller pixels *might* mean that the image is disturbed at the pixel level by smaller camera movements.

However - the pixels on the D800 aren't especially small. The D3200 has a pixel density which would scale up to 60 MP on a sensor the size of the D800. So if we need to take special measures to avoid the effects of camera shake on the D800, and throw away the old reciprocal-of-the-focal-length rule, surely we should be doing the same with the D3200 (and every other modern DSLR)?

EDIT: It occurs to me that the science behind the reciprocal-of-the-focal-length rule isn't at all well understood. I'm going to start a new thread about that.

EDIT 2: Thread about the rule is here.
Click to expand...

I put some comments on the other thread Stewart, but in a nutshell it's about magnification first, and then also about pixels and hand-holding limits in a bit of a chicken and egg scenario.

There is no point in having a huge pixel count unless you output/print large, as you just won't see them. Eg, an A4 print at 300dpi is only 8mp, but as you go larger to A3 and A2, that doubles each time and the megapixel demands ramp up. On say a Nikon D700, at 300dpi you don't have quite enough pixels for A3 at max resolution so anything larger won't show any more detail and that also sets the hand-holding rule at a certain level.

With the D800 though, you can go at least another size larger before running out of pixels, but for there to be any significant detail visible you also need a very sharp lens and to also work to a higher hand-holding threshold.

The comment about pixel density being higher on the D3200 than the D800 simply means that the lens will reach its limit sooner on the D3200, and also you can't print as large before hitting the pixels ceiling. Hope that makes sense.
 
Although there are slight differences of opinion the main thing is it is a great camera, to paraphrase hoppy if you can afford it, "why not".

Price v performance is another can of worms but I love mine, just got to be as good as my camera now.
 
HoppyUK said:
I can explain it, though there's not much real-world logic involved.
Click to expand...


You're right, there wasn't :) ....unless they're developing it as a lens testbed.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Can anyone really explain what 75MP in a 24x36mm sensor will actually give anyone if using current EF lenses? I'm at a loss to understand the logic.
Click to expand...

"its got a bigger sensor an that , so it must be better innit"

same logic people apply to choosing 36mp over 25 or whatever now

that aside the only thing I can think of is greater cropping potential if you are taking massively long range shots - like surveillance work and such
 
big soft moose said:
"its got a bigger sensor an that , so it must be better innit"
Click to expand...


But it won't have... it will be the same size.

big soft moose said:
same logic people apply to choosing 36mp over 25 or whatever now

that aside the only thing I can think of is greater cropping potential if you are taking massively long range shots - like surveillance work and such
Click to expand...

You won't though.. have more cropping potential I mean... as the sensor size is the same. The D800 allows cropping potential, but only to the same extent as you would if you were shooting in a 16mp DX camera.

Once you crop in to the limits of the lens resolution, that's it... extra pixel resolution on the sensor gives you nothing.

I've read it will not be a bayer sensor... so there may be a slight advantage, but 75MP on a 35mm size sensor is pointless. I've already said the D800 is overkill. 24MP isn't though... that's about right for the sensor size... the D800 just gives some wiggle room is all. Besides, like most people who know what they're doing... I don't think the 36MP is the main reason for buying the D800... it's the dynamic range, and the fact that it's the best FF SLR Nikon make at the moment. The only other pro FF camera is the D4.. which for my uses... the 16MP doesn't cut it, and I'm paying for things I will never need or use - and the D3X.. which again, price taken into account, is basically still not in the same league in terms of image quality. I'll not mention the D3s as that is clearly a niche product for press and sports. The D800 would still kick ass if it was 24MP. In terms of horizontal/vertical pixel count, the difference between 24 and 36MP is actually quite small... 150 pixels or something like that. The fact is, you will not be able to print any larger from a 75MP 35mm sensor. The non bayer sensor will be interesting... but it would have been just as interesting at 30MP.
 
Last edited:
+1 on that David.

My main regret with this wonderful D800 is that this great technology has been used to add resolution rather than increasing the Dynamic Range. If the D800 sensor technology had been applied to a 5.9µ pixel pitch sensor like the D600 has it, we'd might be seeing 24MP with a Dynamic Range of 16 EV (or am I being unrealistic?) and even more cracking low ISO capability than what those two cameras are already doing.

The 36 is nice to have for the cropping, but personally I would have preferred to use all that technology towards EV and even better low ISO performance.

Mind you, the D800 has quite a few advantages the D800 over the D600 which have absolutely nothing to do with resolution - a considerably better AF, more buttons and knobs for quicker access to functions you need frequently, a viewfinder which - although I think it is a tad coarser - shows you a really good preview of what will be sharp or blurred, and many more.

My two other gripes are - it is big :) - and when you set it to auto-shutter mode, why do they use the secondary dial to set the aperture. It's just not ergonomic. I know, they use it to remain consistent because in another place you also use that secondary dial, but I wish they'd use the primary dial :)

Edit: What you outline above is btw the reason for me trying to find the sharpest lens possible in that other thread. I'm trying to actually use as many of those pixels as possible. My current 24-85 works fine, but I guess it does not capture all the detail the sensor is capable of.
 
Last edited:
The cropping ability of a FF camera with very high pixel count is something that I think could be made more use of, eg the Nikon D800 is effectively two cameras in one, and you get a D7000 for free.

It's a FF with 36mp (and a great camera regardless of that, as mentioned above) but its cropping potential is something that seems to get a bit overlooked, especially with a battery grip attached. With that rig, you get the potential reach advantage of a 16mp APS-C camera that can also run at 6fps, making quite a handy sports and action camera.
 
Pookeyhead said:
But it won't have... it will be the same size.

.
Click to expand...

My bad i meant " it'll have more of those mega pixel things an tha, innit bro, so like the camera will be well phat "

(ie Canon are making a higher mp sensor because the market thinks it matters and they currently lose market share to the D800 )

that aside theres also the engineer - because we can thing - R&D has to justfy itself , and some engineers just want to try anything thats not been done before , and to be fair some useful tech may result as a spin off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top