Nikon D800

[HoppyUK]

Well according to various sources, which I cannot claim are correct, the higher the resolution, the more problematic hand holding becomes. Perhaps this is ONLY in the world of pixel peeping, and the reality is different. I read that the camera should be treated almost like a medium or large format camera in terms of principles.

I have noticed that my hand held shots and even some TRIPOD shots seem to suffer from what looks like camera shake - even when all the "normal" rules are followed.

I might do more reading

Good to see most of you have geld onto your manners

Yes, only pixel peeping In the images I've seen, the upside of 36mp is invisible when looking at anything less than an image the equivalent of four feet wide, minimum, compared to say the 5D3's 23mp.

But when you do enlarge things that much, and view from close range, everything else gets magnified too, like diffraction issues and camera shake, so the benefits become increasingly harder to realise. DoF parameters go out of the window, too.

Medium format and large format don't suffer these effects to the same extent, for a given ouitput size, because the enlargement multiplication is lower*. A tripod is needed for other reasons, but yes, similar kind of discipline needed.

Edit: lenses perform better at lower relative resolutions, too (basic MTF theory).

 

[gramps]

I see we have the 1st one up in the classifieds.

 

[arclight]

I see we have the 1st one up in the classifieds.

Yes, Terry (TTK) at 2022 yesterday. Worth a read and his pics on flickr are worth a look - sharp.

Anyone else with a D800 care to say how the camera feels in their hands.

I tend to prefer the feel of larger cameras and holding my D700 feels more comfortable than the D300, but the difference is not great enough to make me dislike the D300.

 

[gramps]

The size thing is what holds me back, somehow the larger bodied D3 series just feels balanced.

 

[Noblebenj]

Anyone else with a D800 care to say how the camera feels in their hands.

LARGE but you soon get use to it and after holding it for a while anything you touch feels like a toy. However, I do think they made a mistake but not including the raised thumb rest.

 

[gramps]

LARGE but you soon get use to it and after holding it for a while anything you touch feels like a toy.

What did you use before?

 

[EdinburghGary]

I prefer the larger bulkier feel of the D3 which to be fair, is a tank. Add a battery grip to this, I'm sure it will make up the difference.

Hey Hoppy How are you?

Gary.

 

[Noblebenj]

What did you use before?

D90, I do like the idea of the grip and would make portrait shooting a little easier, its just the overall size, weight puts me off (had a D3S for a weekend once with my 24-70mm it was to much).

 

[AshleyC]

As it stands it feels fine in my hands, coming from a D300 so its not that much bigger. Although i had a feel of someones D700 with a grip the other day and it just felt perfectly balanced. Loved it. I dont want to spend 300+ on a nikon one but has anyone used some of the cheap grips off ebay? How do they work out, safe? wont knacker kit?

 

[HoppyUK]

I prefer the larger bulkier feel of the D3 which to be fair, is a tank. Add a battery grip to this, I'm sure it will make up the difference.

Hey Hoppy How are you?

Gary.

Hi Gary, very good thanks mate. I've been following your adventures now and then in the business section. I see you've made a complete hash of it. Knew you would

 

[redhed17]

I dont want to spend 300+ on a nikon one but has anyone used some of the cheap grips off ebay? How do they work out, safe? wont knacker kit?

I've a copy, made by Meike, and it works perfectly when I use it on my D300S.

Not as solidly built as the Nikon grip, (from what I have read) but then it was a fraction of the cost of the original Nikon grip, at less than £50. And for something I use rarely, cheap enough for me.

I haven't heard of any grips damaging cameras, but there are so many different copied grips that there will be someone somewhere that has I'm sure, same as with an original. There are so many grips that go beyond the original, adding integrated battery charging and extra features that will only complicate things.

 

[redhed17]

I've just read a very long, but very interesting review of the D800/E by Thom Hogan. He mentions some things which I don't think have been mentioned in the reviews I've read.

I have great respect for his opinions on Nikon gear, as he is the author of some very good camera guide books that I've read, though he is not afraid to be critical.

Worth a read.

 

[Wail]

Here's a video of the 24mm PC-E on a D800: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nehkWWCRWZE.

I wonder if the PC-E mod would solve it (maybe, can't get my brain round it at the moment) https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com...tion-of-tilt-and-shift-mechanism-of-pc-e-lens.

(PS. You're right about the pesky pop-up flash - I hate them).

Yup, thank you . I've seen that YouTube, and if you look at around the 1 minute mark you'll see that there is an issue with rotating the lens.

As for the modification you're referring to, if I understand you correctly, then it would only make matters worse, since you'd be looking to shift and tilt along the same plane.

But thank you for the link.

 

[EdinburghGary]

Hi Gary, very good thanks mate. I've been following your adventures now and then in the business section. I see you've made a complete hash of it. Knew you would

Ha It's mental. Taking a well deserved rest - have a few wars on the way - I need to prepare for them, some of them rather big

We have halted at five studios and a hair salon, any more and the loony bin would be my final destination!

Missed this place but it seems to be completely different now...

G.

 

[HoppyUK]

Ha It's mental. Taking a well deserved rest - have a few wars on the way - I need to prepare for them, some of them rather big

We have halted at five studios and a hair salon, any more and the loony bin would be my final destination!

Missed this place but it seems to be completely different now...

G.

And I seem to recall your first plan was just to do a dozen £10k weddings a year, and spend the rest of the week messing about...

 

[EdinburghGary]

And I seem to recall your first plan was just to do a dozen £10k weddings a year, and spend the rest of the week messing about...

Really? Can't stand weddings

We are fairly high volume and lowish average spend, which is a difficult animal to keep feeding. We have made a LOT of changes recently and in our two largest studios we have managed to increase our average sale by an additional £80 ish.

It's been really hard work and it floored me literally a few times.

The fact that I no longer need to go in shows how much my team have worked too - they are mostly a great bunch.

G.

 

[HoppyUK]

Really? Can't stand weddings

We are fairly high volume and lowish average spend, which is a difficult animal to keep feeding. We have made a LOT of changes recently and in our two largest studios we have managed to increase our average sale by an additional £80 ish.

It's been really hard work and it floored me literally a few times.

The fact that I no longer need to go in shows how much my team have worked too - they are mostly a great bunch.

G.

It's an interesting story Gary. Good luck with the rest of it

 

[gman]

I've just read a very long, but very interesting review of the D800/E by Thom Hogan. He mentions some things which I don't think have been mentioned in the reviews I've read.

I have great respect for his opinions on Nikon gear, as he is the author of some very good camera guide books that I've read, though he is not afraid to be critical.

Worth a read.

Cheers for the link, some interesting reading in there

 

[ShawWellPete]

I took some photos at Wimbledon final some of which are here. I have also put a full sized version of one of the shots of the crowd here.

 

[AshleyC]

has anyone sent theirs in for the focus fix and if so how long was the turn around? I just sent mine off this morning and am on holiday in 3 weeks so would be nice to get it back by then.

 

[HoppyUK]

I took some photos at Wimbledon final some of which are here. I have also put a full sized version of one of the shots of the crowd here.

Yes, interesting shot Pete, and a nice set from the day (shame AM didn't get a couple more ).

I think it also shows how hard it is to max out the resolution from that amazing sensor. There's a lot of CA in your crowd shot, and purple fringing around bright shirts and tops. Exif says 200mm at f/5.6, so I'm assuming your 70-200 2.8 VR - hardly an unsharp lens, but the sensor can clearly resolve more than it's giving.

 

[ShawWellPete]

Yes, interesting shot Pete, and a nice set from the day (shame AM didn't get a couple more ).

I think it also shows how hard it is to max out the resolution from that amazing sensor. There's a lot of CA in your crowd shot, and purple fringing around bright shirts and tops. Exif says 200mm at f/5.6, so I'm assuming your 70-200 2.8 VR - hardly an unsharp lens, but the sensor can clearly resolve more than it's giving.

Yes, I guess so, looking at it some of the white shirts are a bit over exposed at 100% so I may have got a better JPEG out of the RAW. I was the VRII at 200mm.

 

[Moreorless]

But when you do enlarge things that much, and view from close range, everything else gets magnified too, like diffraction issues and camera shake, so the benefits become increasingly harder to realise. DoF parameters go out of the window, too.

Medium format and large format don't suffer these effects to the same extent, for a given ouitput size, because the enlargement multiplication is lower*. A tripod is needed for other reasons, but yes, similar kind of discipline needed.

Edit: lenses perform better at lower relative resolutions, too (basic MTF theory).

The impression I'd gotten from the thread I posted here a few months ago was that the effects of diffraction really won't change that much between different formats for shots with the same angle of view and the same DOF.

Also as far as hand holdability goes the D800 is going to have the advanatge of both faster lenses and stabalisation over medium format aswell as better high ISO performance on medium format aswell.

 

[Ozei]

I prefer the larger bulkier feel of the D3 which to be fair, is a tank. Add a battery grip to this, I'm sure it will make up the difference.

The D800 with grip is even bigger than the D3 series - side by side pic here: http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/D800_D3s_D7k_MainImageSmall2.jpg

 

[Laudrup]

I'm reading an ongoing review and the conclusions drawn so far are that the Nikon lenses aren't showing what the sensor is fully capable of. Anyone using this with the Zeiss 100mm f/2?

 

[gman]

Would MF lenses be able to resolve better? If so is there any way to use one with the D800?

 

[Ozei]

Would MF lenses be able to resolve better? If so is there any way to use one with the D800?

http://www.slrlounge.com/nikon-d800-with-medium-format-lenses-and-setup

 

[gman]

Very interesting and I suspect Nikon may be furiously working on some new lenses - just for the D800/D800E! (and future high res. models)

 

[gramps]

http://www.slrlounge.com/nikon-d800-with-medium-format-lenses-and-setup

Had to check when I saw the pics ... thought it was April 1st!

 

[Laudrup]

Would MF lenses be able to resolve better? If so is there any way to use one with the D800?

From tests I've seen the Zeiss 100mm f/2 or Leica R lenses like the 100mm f/2.8 APO are leading the way. The Nikon lenses are supposedly lacking the high micro contrast. MF lenses looks like a massive hassle from that earlier link. If you could adapt Leica S lenses like the 120mm f/2.5 that would be good although not economical, but to get the absolute best from the sensor looks like the Zeiss glass is the way to go for now.

 

[HoppyUK]

Would MF lenses be able to resolve better? If so is there any way to use one with the D800?

Not sure you can generalise like that, but as a rough rule of thumb, I would say no.

Smaller formats like 35mm film and now even smaller digital of course, have always placed higher demands on lenses, because they have to resolve more to achieve the same level of sharpness at a given final output size And they've been developed accordingly, while medium format lenses have not.

Then there is the sad fact that medium format manufacturers simply cannot afford to invest in R&D at anything like the same level as the many major smaller format brands, and optical technology has moved on.

If you take something like the lenses for Leica's new S system, then yes, at the price, you would hope that they're pretty damn good. But a 20 year old Zeiss Sonnar off a Hasselblad, then no.

Most medium format lenses around today are closer to the latter. They would come nowhere near macthing the best Nikon lenses on a D800.

 

[gman]

What's your thoughts on this?

http://www.slrlounge.com/nikon-d800-with-medium-format-lenses-and-setup

 

[HoppyUK]

What's your thoughts on this?

http://www.slrlounge.com/nikon-d800-with-medium-format-lenses-and-setup

To be blunt, a pointless experiment with some extremely expensive toys that proves nothing. I don't know why you would want to do that, when Nikon makes some very nice P&C lenses that fit straight on, as do others. And it certainly starts with a nonsense: "What’s great about the medium format lenses, besides their higher resolving capability..." which is simply untrue.

They've done another inconclusive test of a D800 against a Leica S2, billed as a Nikon vs medium format comparison. It's hard to make these things meaningful and relevant, for some of the reasons I've mentioned, but in that particular case, what is medium format? I would say the Leica S2 barely qualifies.

Medium format has always been a bit of a moveable feast, but it basically means 120-size film. The classic is probably 6x6cm, the old two-and-a-quarter-square in inches, that was actually 58x58mm. Or you could have '645' (6x4.5cm) or 6x7cm, even 6x9cm. But let's take 645 as a reference, ie 2,700mm square, vs full frame 24x36mm and 864mm square.

That makes 645 medium format 2.7x larger than full frame, which is a heck of a lot. But the Leica S2 is only 1.6x larger than full frame, Pentax 645D is only 1.7x larger. The smaller Hasselblad digital backs are 2.1x larger, and even the biggest is only 2.5x larger than full frame.

So what does it all mean? Not a lot to me really. I would expect the D800 to give a Leica S2 a very close run. The Leica's sensor is a bit bigger, and the lenses must surely be quality, but the best Nikon primes are, I would say, at least as good and the sensor is much better in terms of ISO and noise. Plus it's a fraction of the price, much smaller and does so many more things.

Bit of a non-contest really. Sorry to say, but medium format is a dead end street these days. Firstly, nobody has the money to develop medium format to the same level as full frame and other smaller formats. And secondly, if they did, the quality would be so much higher than anybody realistically needed, and the cost would be (even more) astronomic. Who would buy a real 645 format digital with 98mp (same pixel density as the D800) costing something on the far side of £50k?

Sorry to ramble...

 

[arclight]

To be blunt, a pointless experiment with some extremely expensive toys that proves nothing. I don't know why you would want to do that, when Nikon makes some very nice P&C lenses that fit straight on, as do others. And it certainly starts with a nonsense: "What’s great about the medium format lenses, besides their higher resolving capability..." which is simply untrue.

They've done another inconclusive test of a D800 against a Leica S2, billed as a Nikon vs medium format comparison. It's hard to make these things meaningful and relevant, for some of the reasons I've mentioned, but in that particular case, what is medium format? I would say the Leica S2 barely qualifies.

Medium format has always been a bit of a moveable feast, but it basically means 120-size film. The classic is probably 6x6cm, the old two-and-a-quarter-square in inches, that was actually 58x58mm. Or you could have '645' (6x4.5cm) or 6x7cm, even 6x9cm. But let's take 645 as a reference, ie 2,700mm square, vs full frame 24x36mm and 864mm square.

That makes 645 medium format 2.7x larger than full frame, which is a heck of a lot. But the Leica S2 is only 1.6x larger than full frame, Pentax 645D is only 1.7x larger. The smaller Hasselblad digital backs are 2.1x larger, and even the biggest is only 2.5x larger than full frame.

So what does it all mean? Not a lot to me really. I would expect the D800 to give a Leica S2 a very close run. The Leica's sensor is a bit bigger, and the lenses must surely be quality, but the best Nikon primes are, I would say, at least as good and the sensor is much better in terms of ISO and noise. Plus it's a fraction of the price, much smaller and does so many more things.

Bit of a non-contest really. Sorry to say, but medium format is a dead end street these days. Firstly, nobody has the money to develop medium format to the same level as full frame and other smaller formats. And secondly, if they did, the quality would be so much higher than anybody realistically needed, and the cost would be (even more) astronomic. Who would buy a real 645 format digital with 98mp (same pixel density as the D800) costing something on the far side of £50k?

Sorry to ramble...

A sensible input, as always, Richard

 

[HoppyUK]

A sensible input, as always, Richard

 

[gman]

Cheers Richard, I always enjoy learning about new stuff

 

[Laudrup]

The Leica S and R APO and top Zeiss lenses are better than the Nikon primes, but you'll pay handsomely for the privilege. I'd say MF still has its place for those who want or need the top quality. The D800 is good to keep others on their toes though.

 

[HoppyUK]

The Leica S and R APO and top Zeiss lenses are better than the Nikon primes, but you'll pay handsomely for the privilege. I'd say MF still has its place for those who want or need the top quality. The D800 is good to keep others on their toes though.

Well maybe, or maybe not, but either way it's a close run thing.

Let's say a moot point, because what's coming out of this for me is just how much sharpness do you need? I guess we may all draw the line at different points, but take the example Pete posted on the previous page (Wimbledon final) that I was rude enough to suggest was showing up some lens weaknesses.

Okay, so it was, the lens being a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR (the kind of spec that Leica and medium format users can only dream of, at any price ). All in all it's damn good lens for a fast zoom, and in order to see its shortcomings I was looking at a section from an image over 2m wide on my monitor.

By rights, I should be looking at something that size from about 8ft, not 18in! The length of the diagonal, across a print 2m wide in this case, is the accepted international standard for viewing (and also the basis for all DoF calculations). Which begs the question, when was the last time anyone made an actual print 2m wide, and when they did, were they daft enough to look at it that closely and still expect everything to be perfect?

I think the the line has already been drawn very high!

 

[Laudrup]

There's no question the Leica/Zeiss trump the Nikons, but they are more expensive using better corrected glass. The 70-200 seems more at home on a D3 or D4 as it isn't a lens that will test this sensor. The Leica Vario-Apo-Elmarit-R 70-180mm F/2.8 is superior, but again prohibitive to most in cost and availability. From the tests I've seen a lot of the glass isn't doing the sensor justice, and if you want the top quality don't use the Nikons, which to me is disappointing.

 

[gman]

This is becoming very interesting, are there any sites which show the quality and performance of all these lenses?