- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Not really, no. It just looks sharpened.. not sharper.
Nikon D800......
- Thread starter cowasaki
- Start date
Not really, no. It just looks sharpened.. not sharper.
I read the luminous landscape comparing the 800E and 800 and the sharpened files are at the bottom:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_d800e_first_comparison.shtml
D800 unsharpened: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/MR28/800-unsharpened.jpg
D800 sharpened: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/MR28/800-sharpened.jpg
I can definitely see a difference, not mind blowing, but it is there which I assume it wouldn't be if I left it at default.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_d800e_first_comparison.shtml
D800 unsharpened: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/MR28/800-unsharpened.jpg
D800 sharpened: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/MR28/800-sharpened.jpg
I can definitely see a difference, not mind blowing, but it is there which I assume it wouldn't be if I left it at default.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh yeah... there's a difference... but that's a massively zoomed in image. You;d have to print MASSIVE to see that in a print. If it's for screen, then you'll never see it unless you pixel peep. As sharpening adds other unwanted artefacts, I'd rather just not bother.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I've not taken a photo with my D800 for 3 months (the joys of no longer earning my main living with a camera is that I can shoot what I want, when I want.. I'm just not in a creative spell at the moment). I hardly ever walk around taking shots, and when I do I usually take the D600... or D610 now I've replaced it. Almost everything I shoot is planned for, and project based, or commissioned. On that basis, it's all printed.. occasionally at A3, but the vast majority at A2. Since I've bought it, I've no idea what percentage was printed... but definitely more than 50% including all the "snapshots".
Even if they weren't printed though... that's even less of a case to sharpen. If they're not printed, they're being looked at on a screen. I would argue anyone who doesn't print, or have a real commercial need to shoot to that resolution doesn't need the resolution of the D800 (unless you regularly crop your images a great deal.. which is the only other reason I can think of). There are other advantages to it of course... dynamic range springs to mind, but I've no idea why people spend such a long time sharpening their full resolution images, only to post them online (Sharpening the reduced size screen version, yes.. of course.. that's when sharpening should be used). It makes no sense.... unless you post them online at full resolution... but even then, it can't be viewed as a whole on a screen. Not even my 2560x1600 screen gets close to the D800's resolution. What's the point?
Sometimes I've sharpened files from the D800 though. Some subjects can stand more than others, but it's rare I'll use more than +30 sharpening in Lightroom. Just no point. Even at A2 you can't really tell the difference in sharpness (unless you go mad with it, and then it looks pants), so, you've no chance on a screen.
I'd only shaprne if reducing for screen res, or printing REALLY big.
[edit]
Just to clarify... I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with owning a D800 if you don't actually need one.. before anyone accuses me of elitism. If I didn't... I'd still probably WANT one, and still probably have one... they're awesome considering the relatively small sensor size.
Even if they weren't printed though... that's even less of a case to sharpen. If they're not printed, they're being looked at on a screen. I would argue anyone who doesn't print, or have a real commercial need to shoot to that resolution doesn't need the resolution of the D800 (unless you regularly crop your images a great deal.. which is the only other reason I can think of). There are other advantages to it of course... dynamic range springs to mind, but I've no idea why people spend such a long time sharpening their full resolution images, only to post them online (Sharpening the reduced size screen version, yes.. of course.. that's when sharpening should be used). It makes no sense.... unless you post them online at full resolution... but even then, it can't be viewed as a whole on a screen. Not even my 2560x1600 screen gets close to the D800's resolution. What's the point?
Sometimes I've sharpened files from the D800 though. Some subjects can stand more than others, but it's rare I'll use more than +30 sharpening in Lightroom. Just no point. Even at A2 you can't really tell the difference in sharpness (unless you go mad with it, and then it looks pants), so, you've no chance on a screen.
I'd only shaprne if reducing for screen res, or printing REALLY big.
[edit]
Just to clarify... I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with owning a D800 if you don't actually need one.. before anyone accuses me of elitism. If I didn't... I'd still probably WANT one, and still probably have one... they're awesome considering the relatively small sensor size.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 16,782
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I have only used mine for family snaps recently, over Christmas and a few family visits since. I did one paid shoot in November, that was about it serious-use-wise for the past few months. Not even my walks down the river in search of nature or landscape shots. Then the weather has been just horrible here. I know the urge will return, always does, I don't force it.
I get a spell like this every year, where I just cannot motivate myself to go shoot. But yeah, it's still useful for casual use, you don't have to be doing serious work to warrant using a good camera
I get a spell like this every year, where I just cannot motivate myself to go shoot. But yeah, it's still useful for casual use, you don't have to be doing serious work to warrant using a good camera
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,754
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
No man's land by Peter McCullough Photography, on Flickr
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Sometimes yes. Sometimes no
What makes you think the only way to have fun shooting is by doing it a lot? I get a great deal of fun from shooting. What I don't get fun from is taking images with no clear goal in mind, because I rarely come home with anything. If I don't see anything worthy in the viewfinder, I don't press the shutter.
I find it fun when I'm working on something planned... the fun for me is finding creative ways to realise a vision or idea. I've got bored of just taking random pictures for the sake of it. I mean.. what am I going to do with them all? After 30 years of doing this, as amateur, professional and teacher... the novelty of just taking pictures for the sake of it wore off a long time ago, as I realised I was wasting time, effort and film
When I do just randomly go snapping, I've stopped using the stupidly heavy and cumbersome D800 anyway. I still rarely come back with more than 5 shots though.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
No man's land by Peter McCullough Photography, on Flickr
Interesting. Why use centre weighted metering for something with a bright highlight in the centre of the frame? I'm assuming you used it to meter off the ground or a grey card?
Looks soft. What lens?
This is a killer example of the D800's awesome dynamic range though.
Last edited:
Sometimes yes. Sometimes no
What makes you think the only way to have fun shooting is by doing it a lot? I get a great deal of fun from shooting. What I don't get fun from is taking images with no clear goal in mind, because I rarely come home with anything. If I don't see anything worthy in the viewfinder, I don't press the shutter.
I find it fun when I'm working on something planned... the fun for me is finding creative ways to realise a vision or idea. I've got bored of just taking random pictures for the sake of it. I mean.. what am I going to do with them all? After 30 years of doing this, as amateur, professional and teacher... the novelty of just taking pictures for the sake of it wore off a long time ago, as I realised I was wasting time, effort and film
When I do just randomly go snapping, I've stopped using the stupidly heavy and cumbersome D800 anyway. I still rarely come back with more than 5 shots though.
The unknown is more fun to me, going somewhere new looking for that shot. If it was all planned I'd theoretically only need to hit the shutter once and go home which wouldn't require a D800 rated for 200,000 acctuations.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I agree... love travelling. You can do that without taking photographs you know
Oh... you edited your post... hang on.... I clearly need to edit mine now.
The D800's only advantage is the fact that it's rated at 200K shots? So because I will only take 10 shots where you'd take 500.. I don't need a D800?
What a baffling way of thinking
Oh... you edited your post... hang on.... I clearly need to edit mine now.
The D800's only advantage is the fact that it's rated at 200K shots? So because I will only take 10 shots where you'd take 500.. I don't need a D800?
What a baffling way of thinking
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,754
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
The Sma' Glen by Peter McCullough Photography, on Flickr
I agree... love travelling. You can do that without taking photographs you know
Oh... you edited your post... hang on.... I clearly need to edit mine now.
The D800's only advantage is the fact that it's rated at 200K shots? So because I will only take 10 shots where you'd take 500.. I don't need a D800?
What a baffling way of thinking
You can do most things without taking photographs, but your memories will long since have faded before the photos. As for the D800 if you are shooting everything planned with 10 shots and don't actually press the shutter you 'see the image' then why use a D800 and not medium or large format film or hire a digital back with a larger sensor and better lenses? As you say if I shot 500 shots regularly then it makes no sense to me as that's a whole mess of film or hiring costs.
Or do you actually shoot more 'snapshots' than you are letting on? Show us some.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I know... which is why, like all of us do, I take snapshots. I don't show them though, or do anything with them normally. They're just for me, as memories. It's rare I get anything worthy that way. They'll usually just be boring scenery shots, or buildings etc. and I'd rather not schlep a heavy bag of DSLRs and lenses around just to capture memories. Lately, I've just been using my wife's iPhone5 for snapshots that are taken purely to capture a memory. I do take images with the D800 that aren't planned though... just not very often: They're usually taken while I'm out shooting something else I have planned for. They rarely result in anything that spectacular though... they're still snapshots.. just bigger, sharper snapshots
Like you... I'm concerned about film costs and processing costs. I still do use medium format film in the studio on occasion, and I still use Large format film on occasion... but those times are getting fewer and fewer in between, and to be honest, I'm not seeing the benefit. The D800 isn't really much different from 120 film in terms of sharpness and resolution. The only time I'd use large format film now, is if I have a real need for the movements.
Show you what? Snapshots?
You act is if I'm somehow being sneaky
Of course I do... I take lots of them. I just don't see the point n going out with all my gear just to do that. They're just snapshots.... I can use a phone. The only time I'd use the D800 for snapshots is if I'm already out shooting something else and it happens to be in my hand/around my neck.I'm not sure I'm understanding you. My point is I never go out with a bag full of DSLRs and lenses unless I pretty much know what I want to shoot, because otherwise, I get home, and end up with nothing of any worth... just a bunch of generic landscapes or buildings etc. If I go out shooting, I pretty much already know what I want to achieve, and as a result take very few shots when I finally get to where I'm going. It's just the way I work. It's efficient. I can look through the viewfinder and think.. "nope... that's sh1t", and not press the shutter. What would be the point if I know it's sh1t?
I like stepping into the unknown and not knowing what I'm going to get, if that means carrying a few kilos on my back then so be it. I'd get bored easily if it was so regimented that I basically saw the shot in my head and just stood there, pointed and shot. I'd probably just sell the photo kit and learn to paint if that was the case.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
But you don't just point and shoot do you. That's what separates a photographer from someone with a point and shoot
There's more to photography than just taking landscapes you know I often light a scene.. need models, props... I need time to set up... meter, shoot... then edit. Then there's the logistics of getting there, getting what else you need there (models, props etc).What is this point and shoot you speak of?
Even if you do shoot landscapes... you just point and shoot? You don't wait for the light? use filters?.. set up a tripod... ??
You plan a decent landscape. You go there... you assess the light... you make a decision on what would be the best time to shoot it... morning, evening... clear sky, clouds... Then you decide if you want to press the shutter or not. If you're not happy... you come back when the light is with you. The best landscape shots are by those who know the area intimately, and revisit it regularly... get to know it.. it's moods... how light affects those moods.
I don't take many landscapes, but when I do, I often come back with not a single image. If it looked sh1t... why take it? You'll only be unhappy, and end up going back again.
Anyway..... this is getting way off topic. Start a new thread if you want to discuss this.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I said start a new thread. Stop trying to get the last word in
I said start a new thread. Stop trying to get the last word in
Lol you're not my teacher and I'm not your pupil, save your condescension for them.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Stop answering me then.
Answer his questions..... get accused of being condescending.
LOL
You do your thing, I'll do mine, OK?
Answer his questions..... get accused of being condescending.
LOL
You do your thing, I'll do mine, OK?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,754
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 822
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
......well timed. The light is just right on all of those pics IMHO, were they taken on the same day?
JohnyT
JohnyT
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd love to live there!!.. After windows had been fitted....
- Messages
- 6,754
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
For that landscape image, if you drive out from Crieff and take the road for Aberfeldy, then take the sign post for Glen Quaich which is a single track road, this road eventually takes you into Kenmore.
But as it's was a very frosty morning I could only get half way up this road as I had black ice and the odd bit of snow to contend with, I attempted three times to reach the top of this tight/winding road but virtually nearly lost the car over the edge as I hit the brakes and slid backwards outta control, I had to use the handbrake to try control the out of control icy slide, scary scary times....
A local farmer had to come and help me turn and go back it was that dangerous. In the summer I ride my motorcycle along those roads, totally awesome scenery, mind blowing!
Here's the actual road sign you need to take to find this beautiful landscape scenery above;
Glen Quaich, central Scotland by Peter McCullough Photography, on Flickr
But as it's was a very frosty morning I could only get half way up this road as I had black ice and the odd bit of snow to contend with, I attempted three times to reach the top of this tight/winding road but virtually nearly lost the car over the edge as I hit the brakes and slid backwards outta control, I had to use the handbrake to try control the out of control icy slide, scary scary times....
A local farmer had to come and help me turn and go back it was that dangerous. In the summer I ride my motorcycle along those roads, totally awesome scenery, mind blowing!
Here's the actual road sign you need to take to find this beautiful landscape scenery above;
Glen Quaich, central Scotland by Peter McCullough Photography, on Flickr
- Messages
- 6,754
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
To be honest I wasn't sure which metering mode to use, so I kept it on centre weighted. Would spot metering have helped in this situation ??
I shot this with the Zeiss 21mm lens around f/5.6 from memory.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Nope... spot wouldn't have helped at all if you wanted the best single exposure.. matrix would be best for this. Spot or centre weighted would be useful if you metered off the ground for one exposure, then metered off the sky for another in order to blend them in Photoshop (tripod essential for this, but still tricky as you'd need to move the camera to meter off each part), but with bright skies like that, Matrix with a touch of + exp comp would be best if you just want to take one single shot.
You've recovered detail well with it though, thanks to the D800s dynamic range. It's best features if you ask me.
You've recovered detail well with it though, thanks to the D800s dynamic range. It's best features if you ask me.
Last edited:
I am quite amazed at the high iso capability of the camera as well. this was at iso 3200 (I used a D300 before and so was amazed at the D800)
Space - Ships by NGUSS, on Flickr
As for tilt shift lenses, I have found that the Samyang 24mm is not too bad.
Every time I use the D800 I wonder about whether medium format film is worth it, but for the moment anyway I will keep on with both and large format where weather permits.
Space - Ships by NGUSS, on Flickr
As for tilt shift lenses, I have found that the Samyang 24mm is not too bad.
Every time I use the D800 I wonder about whether medium format film is worth it, but for the moment anyway I will keep on with both and large format where weather permits.
Last edited:
The Zeiss 21 does benefit from f/8 I find. Lightroom does a lens profile as well for the lens which is useful in case you don't use it already. Are you going with a tripod etc?
I am quite amazed at the high iso capability of the camera as well. this was at iso 3200 (I used a D300 before and so was amazed at the D800)
Space - Ships by NGUSS, on Flickr
As for tilt shift lenses, I have found that the Samyang 24mm is not too bad.
Every time I use the D800 I wonder about whether medium format film is worth it, but for the moment anyway I will keep on with both and large format where weather permits.
Nice image. The Samyang 24 I was looking at, but lukewarm reviews about IQ and operation put me off it. Did you have any issues? The Nikon PC-E range looked uninspiring compared to Canon's.
Thank you. I have used the 24mm Samyang and found it quite acceptable at f8 ish but I have nothing to compare it to to be honest. It is also a bit clunky to use in that when tilt is unlocked it just drops straight down as there is no tension in it and the unlocking knobs are quite small. I also looked at the Nikon 24mm PC-e for ages but was not entirely sold on the reviewsand having to have it modified when buying it didn't appeal either. I have read that the Canon tilt shifts are superb however.
I do like the Nikon 28 1.8 however, a totally different lens but probably one of the sharpest that I have used.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,754
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes I'm using the lens profile ok in LR5. Been playing about with aperture settings ok, you think f/8 is the Zeiss's best sharp setting then ?
Yes I'm tripod bound ok, mirror lock-up setting etc.
Regards;
Peter
Yeah the sending it to Nikon to be modified and the reviews didn't convince me to buy, yet. Schneider do a new 28mm f/4.5, but it is mega money, their 50mm Tilt shift or even the 90mm looked interesting, but not really the focal length I was looking for. The Sony A7R and Canon 17mm TS-E I've seen some nice results from.
I looked at the Schneider but they were, by my standards anyway, insanely expensive. I held off for ages to see if the 24 would be updated as I have heard nothing but good things about the 45 and 85 PC-e's so was a bit disappointed that the 24 which is the one I wanted most, had the most mixed reviews and ultimately that, and the price along with factoring in sending it for modification, put me off in the end.
I found f/8 probably optimal. Are you using any filters?
The only IQ for tilt shifts I've seen better than the Schneider on a Nikon are the Hartblei SuperRotators that use Zeiss glass that covers 6x6, although they are massive and expensive and only come in 40mm, 80mm and 120mm. The 24mm Nikon might be worth renting for a week? Might save a costly mistake.
I had a look into renting one at one stage, but the waiting list was quite long on lensesforhire and I managed to try the Samyang in the end which is overall not too bad though I forgot to mention earlier, seems to have a vastly different colour rendering to the Nikon lenses that I own.
Lenspimp have them in stock if you are ever curious although reading the reviews the Samyang seems to control lateral chromatic aberration even better than the Nikon 24. I have the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 so I know what you mean about the colour rendering. Maybe the lens coatings are not as good as the Nikon, but for the price it's a nice little lens. I'd really love Sigma to do an Art tilt shift 24mm or even a 17mm, that would be excellent.