Hamd800: I need help making sure my D800 is not defective. Because full crop is very bad.I tried three different lenses 24-70mm 2.4, 80-120mm f4.0 and second 24-70 f2.8 to make sure it is not the lens. I shot with different iso and numerous focal lengths . From a 10ft distance shot a book cover, not impressed at all..:(Called Nikon they asked me to put AF tuning on default and try, I did . Still the same, so they asked me to send it in.I want to make sure they aren't all like that..PlZ help
I am assuming you are shooting hand held. Have you tried the lens with manual focus. Also try the auto focus but shoot on a tripod. If this gives the same results then you can be reasonably sure it's the camera, if not it may be your shooting as with the extra megapixels you will have less tolerance for focus errors. I hope this helps
Sara80: Instead of looking at the individual pixels try to leave home and go to watch an exhibition of Cartier Bresson, Robert Doisneau, Yousuf Karsh, Robert Mapplethorphe (he started with a Polaroid camera!) and many others. You do not like? Then look at the contemporary photos athttp://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/index.jsphttp://www.worldpressphoto.org/ there are also some photos taken with old D70 or analog equipment!NEXT
Yes well said. People get hung up on the pixel count or what ever the marketing gurus tell us is important but actually forget about the art of the image. Maybe some should spend less time on the computer and more time out in the real world taking photos. Welcome sarah80. The camera does not make the photographer but perhaps it makes the blogger... I look forward to more of your posts :)
FranciscoJG: Pity that not even this time that NiKon made the perfect machine. It seemed that this Nikon was such, with its high-resolution 36Mp and quality at high ISO D3s's near. But the pixels of the NiKon D800 are smaller, this is the only way to put so many, and this has a price. Up to ISO400 the NiKon D800 is peerless nowadays. It is a fact that nobody can deny. From this value, the advantages disappear, and above ISO800 other have better sensors, even if slightly. For who makes sports photography in low light conditions, the D800 isn't the best purchase. I fully agree with those who have already verified that the D800 is optimal up to ISO800 I would say, but I can't deny that from that point on, many are similar and some are better. I need to work at high ISO and the D800 isn't the best in this situation. And that is a scientific fact, which is easily confirmed in photos. There was still at this time that the best of both worlds met in one machine: high resolution and high ISO capabilities.
you make a good point. There is no perfect camera and certainly no perfect camera for everyone. I think that the truth is that both the D800 and the 5D3 are very good cameras and are clearly improvements on their respective predecessors (although in different ways) and BOTH manufacturers should be congratulated on two very fine cameras. Which one you choose would depend on a variety of factors including what and how you shoot and also your current lens investment.
One think that I would add - For my use and standards, the D800 at ISO 400 needs improving for noise let alone ISO800 and that is the main drawback on such a densely populated sensor (and why full frame is taking over from APS cropped sensors as time goes on).
Lensflair: An interesting article on cameralabs.com comparing the D800 and 5D3 and confirms in a real life situation what would be expected and what has been the general feedback on these cameras in relation to noise/performace at higher ISO settings - except of course if you only see a DXO score of course in which case you will begin seeing little trolls instead of noise elements.
"At 400 ISO though, those noise textures on the D800 have become a little more obvious..., the Canon is definitely cleaner at this point."
"With the sensitivity doubled to 800 ISO, the D800's noise textures are becoming increasingly apparent, while the Mark III is managing to keep them under control."
"At 1600 ISO, the noise has become more obvious on the D800"
"At 6400 ISO the gap widens as the D800 becomes very noisy viewed at 1:1, with edges becoming quite poorly defined. The Mark III certainly isn't noise-free at this point, but remains much cleaner and better-defined."
Also it concluded "So the decision between them on image quality should be influenced by the range of ISOs you typically shoot at. If you shoot mostly below 400 ISO and can use a tripod for most of your work, then you will enjoy a visible resolution benefit with the D800. But if you regularly shoot above 800 ISO and in particular in the 1600-6400 ISO range, then you'll prefer the cleaner output of the Mark III."
There are a series of interesting image samples for each camera at each ISO setting which is interesting. I would suggest that at ISO 400 the D800 is lagging behind the 5D3 which is what you would expect given the size of the pixels on the D800's sensor. The D800 is a good camera but it is far from a perfect camera. If you shoot in 'perfect' conditions - ISO 100 with either studio light or tripod use in landscapes then teh D800 is better than the 5D3. But in the 80% of other situation in the real world, it is less clear. So, a DXO score alone is not the full story
An interesting article on cameralabs.com comparing the D800 and 5D3 and confirms in a real life situation what would be expected and what has been the general feedback on these cameras in relation to noise/performace at higher ISO settings - except of course if you only see a DXO score of course in which case you will begin seeing little trolls instead of noise elements.
geordie5858: Cant wait till the Sony version comes out next year :-)Well it is their sensor in there!
Yes indeed, it will be interesting to see how they choose to work with the same sensor and who does the better job, how they both tweak it and what they choose to focus on in the camera's themselves.
spoke to an avid Nikon pro shooter today who has been using the D800 quite extensively. His comments were a little mixed but in a positive way. To him the resolution and the ability to drill down and see detail was the biggest feature of the camera and he was very impressed. he was however unhappy with both the amount of noise and the rendition of colour. He thought the noise was a lot more than he had been told and that the colours were not up to standard. He stated that in these two areas he felt his D700 was better but it couldn't compete with the D800 in the image detail of course. He is a 'real world' photographer who does use higher ISOs, less than perfect light etc. The noise was less of an issue but he was not happy with the colours that the camera produced and this was his main concern.
I thought it an interesting observation from someone who has been shooting with the D800 since the first day it came out. he also has a D3 as well as the D700 and now the D800
Lensflair: Adler1970, may you might understand this...
When trolls talk about scores only they sink like the corupt Titanic. Only DXo trolls have no cast and auto focus when the truth is that you should only read internets scores and not shoot with a camera despite pixel lies from Nikon trolls. It should be talked about like madmen despite medication needed to get from A to B without need to actually use a camera that you as a troll ok Nikon have not used. You are a Nikon boy troll with less talk than Neanderthal. Don't live the Nikon marketing troll boy because all you type is marketing from the Internet like you prefer Internet sexuals to real sexuals with a real woman not Internet woman who has a score by Internet trolls that are under the bridge in secret. Time passes and you talking does not grow but sinks like troll titanic with Nikon marketing lies? You have 23456 words of troll stupid that translate to 0 sense. You are Neanderthal with autofocus that has been held back. Nikon troll boy
Rambler1970 - no, what I actually have a problem with is your moronic rambling, bewildering assertions and lack of productive contribution to the forum. I only have one account and I am not paid by canon. I am a professional photographer who actually takes photos, uses cameras and looks very closely at what I shoot and what others shoot. I have the intelligence to look beyond one simpleton sensor score. At no stage have I said the D800 is not a good camera. You on the othe hand have not shown that you are a photographer, that you have even handled any of the cameras that you mention, have nothing positive to add to a comparison to any camera, speak absolute dribble, assume things about other posts that are not true and seriously should try to take your medication a lot more regularly than you currently have been. Enough of your dribble, contribute something constructive instead of being a total F$&?witt all the time. Is the D800 better than the 5D3? Nothing you have said has helped...
Adler1970, may you might understand this...
john maitland graves: I have no preference, though I think Nikon is, overall better. For the best possible quality (without all the bells and whistles,) please consider the 46mp Sigma cameras. I have the latest DP1 and 2 as well as an SD15.
Both the Nikon and Canon use the Bayer color filter system and anti-alias (blurring) screen. The 36 mp layout has 50% green 25% red and 25% blue. The missing red and green information must be interpolated (guessed). The 46 mp Sigma Foveon provides full color information at each (larger) pixel without loss by filters or algorithmic estimations. The Sigma is dedicated to producing suburb still photography.
The Nikon is certainly a marvel, but its physical limitations limit rendition of images. Note that there are to types of movie sensor systems. One is like the old Technicolor system the uses three sensors and a color separation system. which provides quality similar to the Foveon and produces color like color film. The other uses the faster Bayer system.
Well you would know about being a Neanderthal wouldn't you?
So you don't actually shoot and you have not used these cameras then??? In other words you are fullofshit
Lensflair: 4) Which ever camera is the best seller on Amazon is a totally stupid argument for which one is technically better5) I wouldn’t put too much faith in DXO either. You are getting a small insight into a larger picture and can be very misleading. Of course if you don’t really know about sensors you will throw around scores as though that says it all.6) “If you need higher fps then get a video camera” come on get real. There are lots of people that need high frame rates – sports photographers put your hand up.
My advice would be for those out there go and hire a 5D3 and a D800 and compare them in the real world instead of just talking crap. I think you will find it hard to split these two very good cameras once you get past the marketing hype of my sensor has more of those pixel thingos than your camera so it must be better???
The D800 might not in your words have anything to prove but with your tirade of ramblings rubishing Canon and Phase I would suggest that you do have something to prove. I am sure many on this forum would like to know if you are just a run of the mill nut job or is you actually know something apart from ONE thing yo have read on the net. So...1) Have you used the 5D2, 5D3 and D8002) What camera system do you OWN - body and lenses?Have you personally compared the D800 against the 5D3 and the Phase1 of even the Blad H4D (which does not appear on DXOmark)?3) can you contribute anything of analytical value to the debate between the two cameras? so far you have contributed NOTHING of analytical value apart from a DIATRIBE of obtuse, incoherent ramblings of a madman...PLEASE show us that you have something more to contribute. PLEASE try to appear intelligent and informed. I challenge you to do this.
Lensflair: To highlight my allegiances, I have a 5D2 (only because I have canon glass and not Nikon glass and don’t see the point in changing) and a Blad H4D-40 and I have always thought that Nikon and Canon are both very good camera manufactures. Both the 5D3 and D800 are good cameras that tackle things a little differently and have pros and cons. If pixel count is important and you have a lot of disc space and idle RAM in your desktop then get the D800. If file size, speed and noise is more important then get the 5D3. Either way 99% of people who have ranted and raved on this post wont see a difference in the photos at all. And too be honest I think the 5D3 is a more usable camera overall for 98% of amateurs - and pros will go the D4 without regrets.
Oh, and lastly, I have never had a problem with the auto focus on the 5D2 (except in sports situations) and don’t see the point of face detection and other gimmicks – they are designed for people who don’t know how to shoot properly.
Coreection, DXO consider the results of teh sensor, not the final image output which becomes more subjective, something they can not measure. They also measure a "best Case" not the performance in aninfinite number of real world situations. They quote "DxOMark does not address such other important criteria as image signal processing, mechanical robustness, ease of use, flexibility, optics quality, value for money, etc. While RAW sensor performance is critically important, it is not the only factor that should be taken into consideration when choosing a digital camera"
Again, Answer the following1) Have YOU used a medium format Phase 1?2) Have YOU used a Phase and D800 to take the exact same photo and compared the two?3) What cameras have YOU used, how much photography experience do YOU have?
you my fine fool are the one that lacks critical sense. All you talk about is a lot of fluff, a sensor score number an nothing else of substance. GO BEYOND THE SCORES AND LOOK IN DETAIL AT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. Critical sense is looking at the details, something YOU HAVE NOT DONE. Stop carrying on and rambling on and on and on and actually provide some objective analysis
I would like to know the following from you, simple yes and no will be fine...1) Have you used the 5D2 auto focus?2) Have you used the 5D3 auto focus?3) What conclusions can you draw from this "hands on" comparison?
Lensflair: Seems to me that there is a lot of hot air getting blown around by people that haven’t gotten their hands on any of the cameras in question are just blowing a trumpet because they like canon or Nikon, and if they were honest have hardly even used the “other” brand of camera in their lives.
I think most people are caught up on a numbers game or only look at one aspect of a comparison between the D800 and 5D III.
When you have a closer look at the pro’s and con’s of each it is actually pretty close. So the real FACTS are as follows
Dynamic Range – This can vary across various test sites. If you look at techradar.com and look at the RAW DR, it is pretty clear that there is not a huge difference between the D800 and 5D3 and past ISO 800 the 5D3 is actually better than the D800. The 5D3 is a significant improvement over the 5D2.
Are you actually capable of making even a little sense?
Adler, how can you say the 5D3 is just a 5D2 with better auto focus? you dont knwo your facts and again you show your lack of understanding.
Go to techradar.com and see the camera performance between the 5D2 and 5D3 and tell me why if they are the same camera how can the 5D3 perform significantly better than its predecessor? Tell me that!
You are just thinking that it has the same MP so there is no improvement - you couldn't be more wrong. support your disheveled ramblings with facts and figures. The 5D2 revolutionized that segment of the market and really had to make Nikon rethink. Canon have refined and improved an already great camera. You cant see that because YOU HAVE NOT EVEN SHOT WITH BOTH CAMERAS so you dont know.
Cadri, I would demo both if you are unsure, see the results for yourself. If you have Nikon lenses, then changing to canon will be a big step if you cant use your old glass. There is nothing like using each camera for a day or so and then print out the images and see the results for yourself. It also depends what you want each camera for. I would suggest that the D800 is good in more of a controlled environment and the 5D3 better out in teh real world. either way you should be happy.
I am not afraid of a comparison, in fact I think that the more comparisons we see above a very limited 95 vs 81 arbitrary score is important. compare based on output and final image quality not on some score that DOES NOT give a true reflection of image quality or camera performance. I could be as short sighted as yourself and say that the Canon is better than the Nikon purely because it shoots at a higher frames per second than the Nikon does. My number is bigger than yours so mine must be better? how silly is that? that is what you have been doing.
Again, go and test the D800 and the 5D3 yourself and in the real world and then come back and tell us what you have found.
How would I know what canon has noticed? How would that be important
DXO gives a limited insight into a sensor but is only a guide and its score that you seem so focused on only tells part of the picture.
If you look at performance graphs on techradar.com, look into the actual test results on DXO, not just the score that you wet your pants over, you will see there is more to the two cameras then some arbitrary scoring process. each camera outperforms the other in "tests" in different shooting scenarios. If you look at the two sensors in real world shooting situations (That means go and use the cameras in the field before you rant and rave) you will see that these two cameras are actually a lot closer than the MP count would suggest.
The final say is on the quality of the image that you get at the end of the process and there is not much difference between the two cameras. you cant see that. you are obsessed with a score you have seen on the net and don't really see anything else.
Lensflair: In reality, Nikon and Canon both make very good cameras. Both have pros and cons but either way you will get good images from either camera. There is a reason that there is a difference in fps between the cameras and is mainly due to the image size difference and highlights that it is important to look at the whole package including processor, lenses etc.
In relation to a few previous posts I think the following is probably more accurate.1) you will notice a big burden in processing because of the 36MP especially if you shoot in RAW. It is surprising how much hard drive space is taken up and how quickly you run out of room.2) The smaller the pixel pitch the more the noise – that is a fact. There is a reason why most medium format cameras have around 6um and canon seem to be sticking to that on their 35mm sensors.3) Most lenses will not be able to exploit the increased Mp of the D800 chip, especially if you use pro-sumer lenses instead of more expensive pro lenses.
You still cant see the difference between an arbitrary sensor score and image quality. Have you ever shot on a Phase or Blad - Obviously not. I would also say that you haven't even picked up the D800 or the 5D3 (or even the 5D2) for that matter. Go and test outcomes for yourself and contribute something positive to the knowledge base on these cameras instead of carrying on and showing how short sighted you are with each post you make.
Pixel density issues are real. Look at the noise you get on point and shoot sensors as an example.
Lensflair: Second on first glance the D800 appears to be a huge technical leap because it is 36MP on a full frame sensor. But as many have pointed out on the forum, pixel density is comparable with cropped sensors such as the 7D. So in reality from a pixel density point of view it is more of a huge marketing leap that will appeal to those who don’t really understand sensors and think that the bigger the number the better. Thirdly I don’t think Canon have been left behind, but rather they have chosen a different path that in reality you cant say is better or worse than Nikon, it is just different. Canon appears to value sensitivity and noise over shear pixel count on their full frame sensors. Fourth, I would suggest that the majority of people would not notice a real difference in an image from the D800 vs the 5D3.
When DXO take a score they take it at one point of a sensors range. To give a score they have to be arbitrary, and that is what you have to get through your head, it is arbitrary, not definitive.
Take a car for example, one has 400HP, one has 350HP, which is best? you have to look at the whole package, how it drives, how it transfers power, how it handles, build quality, price etc. in the end you have to assess the driving experience. I suggest you take the same approach. ONE ARBITRARY NUMBER DOES NOT REFLECT THE WHOLE STORY.
ASLO, DXO does not judge "the final quality of the pictures" as you allude to, it rates a range of sensor attributes.