V1, D800, D4 & 80-400 @ 390'

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
billslatteryjr
Regular MemberPosts: 100Gear list
Like?
V1, D800, D4 & 80-400 @ 390'
4 months ago

Here's 3 photos taken from 3 different cameras mounted on a tripod using the new 80-400 lens at a distance of 390 feet in upper right center. All were taken at 400mm in 5.6 aperture mode with ISO set at 400. There was an overcast sky with no shadows at 1PM. The V1 shot at 1/640sec while the D4 & D800 shot at 1/500 sec. The V1 with FT-1 adapter was shot with +.7 exposure compensation. So the exposure on the photo here was lowered -.6 in Lightroom. The D4 had +.3 exposure compensation so it was lowered -.24 in Lightroom. The D800 was left as is. Other than cropping the D4 and D800, no other adjustments were made. V1 was not cropped. I'd very much appreciate any feedback.

 billslatteryjr's gear list:billslatteryjr's gear list
Nikon D800
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D4 Nikon D800
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Scott McMorrow
Regular MemberPosts: 354
Like?
Re: V1, D800, D4 & 80-400 @ 390'
In reply to billslatteryjr, 4 months ago

Magnification is not the same in each of these photos.  If you zoom in on the umpire's circular patch you'll see that the V1 shows higher magnification than the D800, than the D4.  As a result, the V1 looks to have more blur.  However, if you look at the grass near the fence, the V1 photograph has higher resolution, as there is more texture shown in the grass than on the other two photos.  The appearance of a slightly blurrier V1 photo may be because of unequal magnification, or may be due to a bit more motion blur with the V1.

After final sharpening and PP, I would say it's close.  I'd like to see a comparison with optimal sharpening and resizing to the same magnification.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pcm81
Contributing MemberPosts: 506
Like?
Re: V1, D800, D4 & 80-400 @ 390'
In reply to Scott McMorrow, 4 months ago

On my screen V1 looks a bit underexposed as compared to d800 and d4. Strange, since shutter speeds would suggest the opposite.

Overall, images as a whole, i see no appreciable difference. Goes to show that difference between $500 camera and $6,000 camera boils down to functionality, not IQ.

-- hide signature --

1. D800 is the first camera with resolution so high that it simply does not matter.
2. Most people who do not own/shoot d800 misunderstand it. Color depth and accuracy in addition to resolution is what makes d800 great. Resolution alone is over rated.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David314
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,611
Like?
Re: V1, D800, D4 & 80-400 @ 390'
In reply to billslatteryjr, 4 months ago

billslatteryjr wrote:

Here's 3 photos taken from 3 different cameras mounted on a tripod using the new 80-400 lens at a distance of 390 feet in upper right center. All were taken at 400mm in 5.6 aperture mode with ISO set at 400. There was an overcast sky with no shadows at 1PM. The V1 shot at 1/640sec while the D4 & D800 shot at 1/500 sec. The V1 with FT-1 adapter was shot with +.7 exposure compensation. So the exposure on the photo here was lowered -.6 in Lightroom. The D4 had +.3 exposure compensation so it was lowered -.24 in Lightroom. The D800 was left as is. Other than cropping the D4 and D800, no other adjustments were made. V1 was not cropped. I'd very much appreciate any feedback.

I guess I would say the D800 has the most detail

The V1 at ISO 400 looks very good, better than I expected.

of course dropping it down by .7 is like shooting ISO 250

I would like to see the V1 in sunlight with shadows, where noise can be very visible in shadows

impressive how similar the umpire and catcher are in each image

I would for one would like to see the three raw files through a drop box link

thanks for sharing

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
j_photo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,077Gear list
Like?
Re: V1, D800, D4 & 80-400 @ 390'
In reply to billslatteryjr, 4 months ago

This is interesting. The V1 certainly does a good job in comparison.I compared the three images all at the same size (different magnifications). Some thoughts:

You don't say what you focused on, which would be helpful to know.

I'm seeing more DOF in the V1 shot, which is to be expected (note differences in the sharpness of the chain link fence).

When I look at the referee's patch, the D800 looks a bit sharper to me.

Also in the D800 shot, the batter's face appears to me a little sharper and more nicely rendered, though this may also be due to differences in how the light is striking the face.

On the other hand, when looking at the insignia on the catcher's vest, the V1 shot looks a bit sharper.

I wonder a bit about the chosen shutter speed. At this focal length and for action sports perhaps a higher shutter speed would better avoid issues of possible camera shake or player motion blur? If so, that could tilt the advantage toward the FX sensors with their better high ISO performance.

 j_photo's gear list:j_photo's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon Df
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
billslatteryjr
Regular MemberPosts: 100Gear list
Like?
Re: V1, D800, D4 & 80-400 @ 390'
In reply to billslatteryjr, 4 months ago

Focus point was on the catcher's head. Matrix.

Post processing really made the cropped D800 shine. I couldn't get the V1 to sharpen any good and Lightroom's noise reduction made the V1 postcard like waxy. So I liked the PPed D800 the best.

I'm asking for help with V1 PP in the Nikon1 forum. But haven't got any tips yet.

Here's the original D800 shot at 1600max. The cropped shot is 3.06mp while the full shot is 20.9mp. So I'm thinking I can get 7 better D800 photos for every V1. LOL

 billslatteryjr's gear list:billslatteryjr's gear list
Nikon D800
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
michaeladawson
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,481Gear list
Like?
Re: V1, D800, D4 & 80-400 @ 390'
In reply to billslatteryjr, 4 months ago

billslatteryjr wrote:

Focus point was on the catcher's head. Matrix.

Post processing really made the cropped D800 shine. I couldn't get the V1 to sharpen any good and Lightroom's noise reduction made the V1 postcard like waxy. So I liked the PPed D800 the best.

I'm asking for help with V1 PP in the Nikon1 forum. But haven't got any tips yet.

Here's the original D800 shot at 1600max. The cropped shot is 3.06mp while the full shot is 20.9mp. So I'm thinking I can get 7 better D800 photos for every V1. LOL

I don't understand.  The cropped shot is 3 MP and the full shot is 21 MP?  But the D800 is 36 MP.  What do you mean "the full shot is 20.9mp"?

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

 michaeladawson's gear list:michaeladawson's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Nikon D200 Nikon D4 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
j_photo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,077Gear list
Like?
Re: V1, D800, D4 & 80-400 @ 390'
In reply to billslatteryjr, 4 months ago

billslatteryjr wrote:

Post processing really made the cropped D800 shine. I couldn't get the V1 to sharpen any good and Lightroom's noise reduction made the V1 postcard like waxy. So I liked the PPed D800 the best.

--

http://billslatteryjr.smugmug.com/

There are other threads were posters argue FX has more to work with that can be brought out in PP. Maybe this is an example of that. Nice post. Thanks.

 j_photo's gear list:j_photo's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon Df
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
billslatteryjr
Regular MemberPosts: 100Gear list
Like?
Re: V1, D800, D4 & 80-400 @ 390'
In reply to michaeladawson, 4 months ago

michaeladawson wrote:

billslatteryjr wrote:

Focus point was on the catcher's head. Matrix.

Post processing really made the cropped D800 shine. I couldn't get the V1 to sharpen any good and Lightroom's noise reduction made the V1 postcard like waxy. So I liked the PPed D800 the best.

I'm asking for help with V1 PP in the Nikon1 forum. But haven't got any tips yet.

Here's the original D800 shot at 1600max. The cropped shot is 3.06mp while the full shot is 20.9mp. So I'm thinking I can get 7 better D800 photos for every V1. LOL

I don't understand. The cropped shot is 3 MP and the full shot is 21 MP? But the D800 is 36 MP. What do you mean "the full shot is 20.9mp"?

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

The full JPG converted from RAW by Lightroom is 20.9mp. So 17mp were cropped away to make the 3mp D800 photo in the original post.

So if you were photographing individual pictures of a team, you could space 7 kids out on the bleachers and crop out 7 photos that'd be better than doing each kid by themselves with a V1.

 billslatteryjr's gear list:billslatteryjr's gear list
Nikon D800
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
michaeladawson
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,481Gear list
Like?
Re: V1, D800, D4 & 80-400 @ 390'
In reply to billslatteryjr, 4 months ago

billslatteryjr wrote:

michaeladawson wrote:

billslatteryjr wrote:

Focus point was on the catcher's head. Matrix.

Post processing really made the cropped D800 shine. I couldn't get the V1 to sharpen any good and Lightroom's noise reduction made the V1 postcard like waxy. So I liked the PPed D800 the best.

I'm asking for help with V1 PP in the Nikon1 forum. But haven't got any tips yet.

Here's the original D800 shot at 1600max. The cropped shot is 3.06mp while the full shot is 20.9mp. So I'm thinking I can get 7 better D800 photos for every V1. LOL

I don't understand. The cropped shot is 3 MP and the full shot is 21 MP? But the D800 is 36 MP. What do you mean "the full shot is 20.9mp"?

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

The full JPG converted from RAW by Lightroom is 20.9mp. So 17mp were cropped away to make the 3mp D800 photo in the original post.

So if you were photographing individual pictures of a team, you could space 7 kids out on the bleachers and crop out 7 photos that'd be better than doing each kid by themselves with a V1.

Still trying to make sure I understand the cropping involved.  So the "full jpeg" has already been cropped by almost half, correct?  That's what confuses me.  The "full jpeg" in my mind should be 36 MP.

So the wider angle view you call the "full jpeg" is already a 3/5 crop.  You then further cropped the photo down to 3 MP for the tight crop.  Is that correct?

In any event, your comparison does seem to demonstrate that a cropped D800 photo stands up very well to a V1 uncropped image.

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

 michaeladawson's gear list:michaeladawson's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Nikon D200 Nikon D4 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
billslatteryjr
Regular MemberPosts: 100Gear list
Like?
Re: V1, D800, D4 & 80-400 @ 390'
In reply to michaeladawson, 4 months ago

Here's 3 more. These have no correction to them at all. Just converted from RAW to JPG by Lightroom and the D4 & D800 were cropped to approx. the same view as the uncropped V1. The catcher in most of these photos is as still as a model would be. I zeroed in on the print on the catchers right knee to check the quality. The V1 seems the easiest to read out of camera. But after processing the D800 comes out best. The 16mp D4 is worst.

I used ISO 400 because the V1 is known to be pretty bad at 800 and with the light that was there 400 seemed the best. 5.6f was the widest the lens does. So the SS is as fast as it could go.

D800 RAW images converted to JPG do not come out as 36mp. They vary depending on subject. The RAW images out of the camera of these shots ran around 43.4 -43.8 mp. And they're only that close to each other in size because the subject is so similar.

 billslatteryjr's gear list:billslatteryjr's gear list
Nikon D800
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
michaeladawson
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,481Gear list
Like?
Megabytes vs. Megapixels
In reply to billslatteryjr, 4 months ago

billslatteryjr wrote:

D800 RAW images converted to JPG do not come out as 36mp. They vary depending on subject. The RAW images out of the camera of these shots ran around 43.4 -43.8 mp. And they're only that close to each other in size because the subject is so similar.

I'm sorry Bill but that makes no sense.  I believe you are confusing mega bytes with mega pixels.  Converting a 36 MP RAW file to JPEG does not lower the number of megapixels (MP).

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

 michaeladawson's gear list:michaeladawson's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Nikon D200 Nikon D4 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
billslatteryjr
Regular MemberPosts: 100Gear list
Like?
Re: Megabytes vs. Megapixels
In reply to michaeladawson, 4 months ago

michaeladawson wrote:

billslatteryjr wrote:

D800 RAW images converted to JPG do not come out as 36mp. They vary depending on subject. The RAW images out of the camera of these shots ran around 43.4 -43.8 mp. And they're only that close to each other in size because the subject is so similar.

I'm sorry Bill but that makes no sense. I believe you are confusing mega bytes with mega pixels. Converting a 36 MP RAW file to JPEG does not lower the number of megapixels (MP).

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

You're right Mike I was quoting MBs. Sorry for the confusion.

 billslatteryjr's gear list:billslatteryjr's gear list
Nikon D800
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David314
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,611
Like?
Raw Files?
In reply to billslatteryjr, 4 months ago

billslatteryjr wrote:

michaeladawson wrote:

billslatteryjr wrote:

D800 RAW images converted to JPG do not come out as 36mp. They vary depending on subject. The RAW images out of the camera of these shots ran around 43.4 -43.8 mp. And they're only that close to each other in size because the subject is so similar.

I'm sorry Bill but that makes no sense. I believe you are confusing mega bytes with mega pixels. Converting a 36 MP RAW file to JPEG does not lower the number of megapixels (MP).

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

You're right Mike I was quoting MBs. Sorry for the confusion.

I know it is bit of trouble on your part, but would it be possible to see the raw files?

if you go to yousendit or drop box or even Nikon image space you can upload and share a link by emailing it to yourself and pasting here.

if not that is ok,

thanks for sharing the images

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Hogan
Senior MemberPosts: 3,640Gear list
Like?
Re: V1, D800, D4 & 80-400 @ 390'
In reply to billslatteryjr, 4 months ago

There is some obvious barrel distortion on the pitcher in the D4 image

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
billslatteryjr
Regular MemberPosts: 100Gear list
Like?
Re: Raw Files?
In reply to David314, 4 months ago

David314 wrote:

billslatteryjr wrote:

michaeladawson wrote:

billslatteryjr wrote:

D800 RAW images converted to JPG do not come out as 36mp. They vary depending on subject. The RAW images out of the camera of these shots ran around 43.4 -43.8 mp. And they're only that close to each other in size because the subject is so similar.

I'm sorry Bill but that makes no sense. I believe you are confusing mega bytes with mega pixels. Converting a 36 MP RAW file to JPEG does not lower the number of megapixels (MP).

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

You're right Mike I was quoting MBs. Sorry for the confusion.

I know it is bit of trouble on your part, but would it be possible to see the raw files?

if you go to yousendit or drop box or even Nikon image space you can upload and share a link by emailing it to yourself and pasting here.

if not that is ok,

thanks for sharing the images

Give this a try. I've uploaded 6 RAW files (2 from each camera) to this dropbox file.

https://www.dropbox.com/home/V1%20D4%20D800%20BB%20RAW%20files

Please LMK if it works for you and what you find out from these files. I've gone from being 75% sure I was going to buy a V3 and the new 70-300 lens to being 75% sure I'm not.

 billslatteryjr's gear list:billslatteryjr's gear list
Nikon D800
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
michaeladawson
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,481Gear list
Like?
Re: Raw Files?
In reply to billslatteryjr, 4 months ago

billslatteryjr wrote:

David314 wrote:

billslatteryjr wrote:

michaeladawson wrote:

billslatteryjr wrote:

D800 RAW images converted to JPG do not come out as 36mp. They vary depending on subject. The RAW images out of the camera of these shots ran around 43.4 -43.8 mp. And they're only that close to each other in size because the subject is so similar.

I'm sorry Bill but that makes no sense. I believe you are confusing mega bytes with mega pixels. Converting a 36 MP RAW file to JPEG does not lower the number of megapixels (MP).

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

You're right Mike I was quoting MBs. Sorry for the confusion.

I know it is bit of trouble on your part, but would it be possible to see the raw files?

if you go to yousendit or drop box or even Nikon image space you can upload and share a link by emailing it to yourself and pasting here.

if not that is ok,

thanks for sharing the images

Give this a try. I've uploaded 6 RAW files (2 from each camera) to this dropbox file.

https://www.dropbox.com/home/V1%20D4%20D800%20BB%20RAW%20files

No, that link doesn't work.  Notice how it takes you to dropbox.com/home.  That is the home directory of my own dropbox account.  Go to the folder where the files are and click on the "Share link" icon.  In the pop-up click on "Get link".  Then you can paste that in here.

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

 michaeladawson's gear list:michaeladawson's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Nikon D200 Nikon D4 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
billslatteryjr
Regular MemberPosts: 100Gear list
Like?
Re: Raw Files?
In reply to michaeladawson, 4 months ago
 billslatteryjr's gear list:billslatteryjr's gear list
Nikon D800
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David314
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,611
Like?
Not shared
In reply to billslatteryjr, 4 months ago

billslatteryjr wrote:

David314 wrote:

billslatteryjr wrote:

michaeladawson wrote:

billslatteryjr wrote:

D800 RAW images converted to JPG do not come out as 36mp. They vary depending on subject. The RAW images out of the camera of these shots ran around 43.4 -43.8 mp. And they're only that close to each other in size because the subject is so similar.

I'm sorry Bill but that makes no sense. I believe you are confusing mega bytes with mega pixels. Converting a 36 MP RAW file to JPEG does not lower the number of megapixels (MP).

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

You're right Mike I was quoting MBs. Sorry for the confusion.

I know it is bit of trouble on your part, but would it be possible to see the raw files?

if you go to yousendit or drop box or even Nikon image space you can upload and share a link by emailing it to yourself and pasting here.

if not that is ok,

thanks for sharing the images

Give this a try. I've uploaded 6 RAW files (2 from each camera) to this dropbox file.

https://www.dropbox.com/home/V1%20D4%20D800%20BB%20RAW%20files

Please LMK if it works for you and what you find out from these files. I've gone from being 75% sure I was going to buy a V3 and the new 70-300 lens to being 75% sure I'm not.

I think you need to share the link by emailing to yourself and then clicking on that link, copy, and embed here.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David314
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,611
Like?
that works
In reply to billslatteryjr, 4 months ago

billslatteryjr wrote:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b7ekmvnd26n4wj0/7cAmcVWkR9

????

nicely done, how did you find that?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads