D800 Softness, Grain & CA!!!

olyflyer · Oct 29, 2013

Grevture said:
SushiEater said:

RudivanS said:

'Film is actually higher in resolution than any digital right now'

baloney

Click to expand...

A high resolution film like Fuji Velvia is rated at anywhere 90-150mp.Google it.

Click to expand...

A lot of baloney can be found using Google. That seem to be pretty good example

Even the very best 35 mm films have a hard time displaying more detail then a good 12 megapixel camera. Most color films have trouble enough keeping up with a 6 megapixel camera.

Exactly. The high pixel count of film "resolution" is a myth and comes from some scanners creating huge files and with it, huge number of pixels. But those pixels don't really represent individual pixels like in a DSLR, so that's just false data. Real resolution is around 6, topping maybe 16MP and that's already very near to impossible. There is no way that any 35mm film could have corresponding 90-150MP resolution, not even at the finest possible grain, it is simply unbelievable.

olyflyer · Oct 29, 2013

Grevture said:
SushiEater said:

primeshooter said:

Doublehelix said:

Actually, the D4 has larger photosites on the sensor (which can collect more light), and has better low light performance than the D800... every time.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

olyflyer · Oct 29, 2013

Testing123 said:
In the following YouTube video, Joe McNally gives some insights as to how he achieves steady hand-held shots:

Well, I am sure he knows how to talk... over seven minutes for a simple one or two sentence instruction... that must be world record. That's why I hate instruction videos. Those are for the illiterate and for people with a lot of time to waste.

olyflyer · Oct 29, 2013

SushiEater said:
Thanks for nothing!!! :-(

I was going to charge him when he comes for a lesson.

But basically it is the same technique with slight modification of holding the right elbow with my right hand to make even tighter stance. My arm are not long. If your arms are long you can hold your right shoulder instead of the elbow. And don't drink coffee before your shoot.

That must be very tight indeed.

I can't hold my right elbow with my right hand. Perhaps you mean right elbow with left hand. ;-)

pcm81 · Oct 29, 2013

SushiEater said:
Thanks for nothing!!! :-(

I was going to charge him when he comes for a lesson.

But basically it is the same technique with slight modification of holding the right elbow with my right hand to make even tighter stance. My arm are not long. If your arms are long you can hold your right shoulder instead of the elbow. And don't drink coffee before your shoot.

The bolded part. I'd love to see how that is at all humanly possible.

Hasa · Oct 29, 2013

Hi,

The D800 has taught me to be humble - I simply cannot afford the glas that outresolves this sensor.

The good news is you just got the worlds best camera in terms of resolution and dynamic range at ISO 100.

The bad news is that almost none of the lenses available either of Nikon or Zeiss or Sigma or whatever make outresolves this sensor. Most expensive lenses will be far from that target. Cheaper lenses will be even further away.

Meaning any 100% pixel peeping will confirm what? that I just got another lens that is far from outresolving the D800 sensor.

The good news is that I can take sharpening to "100" in Lightroom without getting a lot of artifacts - just remember to mask out the sky!

I got the 70-200mmF4 & the Zeiss 35mmF2 that I consider fit for D800. Today I would probably have preferred the Sigma Art 35mm F1.4. But the diff is tiny on photozone.de. More diff at DxOmark.

Looking at DxOmark.com shows that the excellent 70-200mm F4 or the xx-200mm F2.8 (various versions) stop at around 21 PMpix which is a no doubt contentious measurement of "equivalent resolution". But to me it is a relative measure giving just an idea of relative sharpness nothing more.

Compare to the Nikon 200mm F2.0 AFS VR that scores 28 PMpix. I would expect 28Pmpix to be close to the limit of the D800. Perhaps the D800E pulls a few more PMpix out of that lens - it does in the case of a few other lenses. The resolution cannot be "true" 36Mpix because of the Bayer filter interpolation.

Most great lenses score 13 - 16 PMpix.

APS-C mostly score below 10 PMpix with a few exceptions - Sigma Art being one.

There is no reason why APS-C 24 Mpix bodies should not be able to score closer to 20 than 10 - I guess the good reason might be that CaNikon try to keep lens prices down for APS-C to match their perceived expectations of the smaller format in the market.

Now look up the price and weight of the 200mm F2.0 and know what you have to pay and carry to reach the quality that will allow you to pixel-peep happily at 100%

Use live-view + loupe in your testing to manually focus lenses to truly know what you are focusing at.

Congratulations with your new camera! Have fun!

primeshooter · Oct 29, 2013

anotherMike said:
"To suggest the OP change cameras because of an incorrect assumption about the d800s andD600 high ISO ability seems extreme. There won't be all that much difference between theD800 and D600 in the final prints or web galleries."

You're misinterpreting. My reading of his post was that among SEVERAL things he mentioned, the OP was under the assumption that the D800 was a body known to be great for low light. Nope - sorry, it's a body known for amazing potential image quality at the more base ISOs. Doesn't mean it's BAD for low light, but that's NOT what it was designed to. As for your statement about "incorrect assumption" and quoting DXO scores, you should know I've shot live stage dance/theater performance for 25 years and have shot the D100, D70, D2X, D80, D300, D90, D3, D3S, D700, D800, D800E, D7000 and D7100 bodies. You sure you want to keep on assuming I don't know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to real life (as opposed to DXO score) low ISO performance?

The whole point of my response to the OP was to provide a compendium of things that might be working against him, including BUT NOT LIMITED TO the idea that the D800 is this magical super great high ISO body. You seem to have chosen one item from my list and made it your argument, which is not the way it goes. Understand I'm not knocking the D800E I currently shoot with; it's by far my favorite camera, any brand, any format, film or digital, I've ever shot with in over 30 years shooting, no question, but I also know that no single camera is perfect at everything, and for low light stage work, I'll take a D3S and a D600/D610 and probably a D700 every day of the weak.

My argument for the OP stands; it's not likely the body, but most likely the OP's craft/technique that is the problem, combined with improper expectations and some bad lens/aperture/shutter speed choices. So in that way, no, going to a D610 won't fix things either.

-m

Mike...whilst i gt what you are saying...why do u consider the d600 or d3s better in low light? Obviously downsizing.and comparing there is little difference,,you seem to agree. Obviously this is a camera thar excels at iso 100 but if it almost matches a d3s when downsized what exactly are you getting at?

anotherMike · Oct 29, 2013

All I can say is go shoot the three bodies in dim stage light sometime and get back to me when you're done with the adventure. I'm not the only one. I personally know a somehwhat "known" (in this narrow niche) dance photographer who recently evaluated ALL offerings for high ISO work, from both Nikon and Canon camps, and she chose the D3S as her body. It's not just the level of noise, but the way the colors and tones are rendered when the light is heavily incandescent and/or mixed (stage lighting is often both). One could argue how much the difference is between the D600/610 and the 800, but the D3S is a clear winner to my eyes.

-m

u007 · Oct 29, 2013

SushiEater said:
So what you guys are saying is that larger pixels in D4 don't produce cleaner images than smaller pixels in D800?

Very much depends on how you compare "cleaner images"

If you look at 100%, the D4 will look better

If you export the file at a certain size - say 16mp or 12mp, the D800 will look just as good as the D4.

If you print an A3 size print, the D800 will probably look just as good as the D4.

The D800 only really starts to look worse above ISO6400, where it starts getting funny colours, loses some saturation etc.

primeshooter · Oct 29, 2013

anotherMike said:
All I can say is go shoot the three bodies in dim stage light sometime and get back to me when you're done with the adventure. I'm not the only one. I personally know a somehwhat "known" (in this narrow niche) dance photographer who recently evaluated ALL offerings for high ISO work, from both Nikon and Canon camps, and she chose the D3S as her body. It's not just the level of noise, but the way the colors and tones are rendered when the light is heavily incandescent and/or mixed (stage lighting is often both). One could argue how much the difference is between the D600/610 and the 800, but the D3S is a clear winner to my eyes.

-m

That is fair enough, and i tend to agree. I think you have said exactly what I am thinking, it's not really the amount of actual noise in the image, when you compare the different image resolutions fairly (ie the same size) I don't really see anything to get in a flap over, infact the details are cleaner in the D800 when down sampled compared to the lowly 12MP sensor. I am irked reading people going on about the D800 having a lot more noise than the other bodies as it's clear they do not understand what magnification is. Look at the amount of noise comparing a D800 image to a D3s both viewed at 12MP there is little difference in terms of amount of noise...That aside, their is a better rendering of tones especially at very high ISO on the D3s. I don't really agree on the D600 /10 being better, if it is it's so subtle I don't care too much...that said I am mainly at ISO 100 for my landscapes, and say up to a max of around 1600 for portraits. I never go beyond 1600 as I can simply bump the exposure in post if the light is really that terrible as we know the camera simply does the same thing we do in post to lighten the image, beyond the 1600 ISO boundary.

--
facebook https://www.facebook.com/stevenrphotographs
flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/steverphotographer/
google + https://plus.google.com/u/1/110463150518351139559

SushiEater · Oct 29, 2013

olyflyer said:
SushiEater said:

Thanks for nothing!!! :-(

I was going to charge him when he comes for a lesson.

But basically it is the same technique with slight modification of holding the right elbow with my right hand to make even tighter stance. My arms are not long. If your arms are long you can hold your right shoulder instead of the elbow. And don't drink coffee before your shoot.

Click to expand...

That must be very tight indeed. I can't hold my right elbow with my right hand.

Not even if you wrap around your body? :-D

olyflyer said:
Perhaps you mean right elbow with left hand. ;-)

Yes.

SushiEater · Oct 29, 2013

Grevture said:
SushiEater said:

RudivanS said:

'Film is actually higher in resolution than any digital right now'

baloney

Click to expand...

A high resolution film like Fuji Velvia is rated at anywhere 90-150mp.Google it.

Click to expand...

A lot of baloney can be found using Google. That seem to be pretty good example

Even the very best 35 mm films have a hard time displaying more detail then a good 12 megapixel camera. Most color films have trouble enough keeping up with a 6 megapixel camera.

Baloney!!!!! Test the low ISO slide film.

Grevture said:
Grevture said:

Grevture said:

1/2 a second hand held - more baloney or you just got lucky kid.

Click to expand...

I have more than 40 years experience in photography and I will gladly share it with you if you come to Los Angeles. I sometimes can shoot 1 second shots if I really want to. D800e has too much mirror slap but I can do it with Canon 5D III in silent mode and with battery grip attached. I have battery grip on D800e too.

Click to expand...

Ok, I only have 34 years of experience in photography,

And don't you forget it !!!!!! :-D

Grevture said:
so obviously I am not nearly as qualified as you are, and sure, I can also get a 1 second exposure sharp 'sometimes'. That is, if 'sometimes' means something like once in a few hundred attempts

No, I can do it a lot better. Maybe 1 in 3 attempts as long as I am not tired. My favorite shooting time is actually shooting at night so I do long shutter speeds lots of times.

Grevture said:
Depending on focal length, camera, and lens combo (it's all about balance), I can get away with pretty long exposures. Like reasonably good yields with 1/60, D3 and a 300/2.8 (without stabilization). Or fairly often 1/10 or even a tad longer with a 35 mm lens. But one second ... Sorry, just don't really believe that, not with any reasonable yields.

The key is wide fatty lenses like 14mm or Sigma 12-24mm and either 1D series camera or 5D with a grip.
BTW, even if you have stabilization in your lens at such a low shutter speeds it does not matter. In fact stabilization can will ruin the picture because it is like shooting from tripod.

Grevture said:
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

SushiEater · Oct 29, 2013

olyflyer said:
Grevture said:

SushiEater said:

primeshooter said:

Doublehelix said:

Actually, the D4 has larger photosites on the sensor (which can collect more light), and has better low light performance than the D800... every time.

--
James

Click to expand...

Go and get yourself a D800 and a D4. Take two pictures, one with each camera in the same settings and same light conditions. Downsize the d800 image to 16mp to match the D4. You will be very very hard pushed to notice the difference noise wise...infact you are likely to see a little more detail on the D800 shot.

Click to expand...

What happens when instead of downsizing D800 you upsize D4 to 36mp.

Click to expand...

On low iso, the D800 image will look clearly better then the upsized D4 image. Then as you increase the iso, the difference will shrink and at some point and onwards the images will be fairly similar.

Click to expand...

No, at ANY ISO the up-sized image will look worse than the one in original size, just like the down-sized image will look better if the images are not different in any other way, i.e. same lens, same exposure, same scene, same light.

Totally disagree!!! The downsized image "looks" better because while downsizing you also removing some noise. So it is not actually better but looks better. The noise to pixel ration stays the same.

Upsizing does not make picture look any worst then it was before for the same reason. In fact the process of upsizing actually blurs the noise a little. If you upsize and then look at the picture at the same proportions as before it will actually "looks" smoother.

I have done it many times before printing large 40x60 images.

olyflyer said:
olyflyer said:

Now, the D4 sensor is in some ways more optimized for being used at higher iso. Like having slightly different color filters. The means it will have a slight edge at high iso. But this has very little, if anything at all, to do with the pixel size.

Click to expand...

The higher number of pixels contain more information and more detail at any ISO if compared in equal sizes and nothing else is different.

If someone has both cameras I would love to get two RAW files taken at the same time with the same lens. The key here at the same time because samples posted elsewhere are not taken at the same time.

SushiEater · Oct 29, 2013

You can't do 1 second shots after reading forums on Dpreview!!!! :-(

In the mean time here is 1/4 second at 120mm

Tommot1965 · Oct 30, 2013

look at the CA around the tops of those building..the D800 is truly useless

shigzeo · Oct 30, 2013

Hasa said:
Hi,

The D800 has taught me to be humble - I simply cannot afford the glas that outresolves this sensor.

The good news is you just got the worlds best camera in terms of resolution and dynamic range at ISO 100.

The bad news is that almost none of the lenses available either of Nikon or Zeiss or Sigma or whatever make outresolves this sensor. Most expensive lenses will be far from that target. Cheaper lenses will be even further away.

Meaning any 100% pixel peeping will confirm what? that I just got another lens that is far from outresolving the D800 sensor.

The good news is that I can take sharpening to "100" in Lightroom without getting a lot of artifacts - just remember to mask out the sky!

I got the 70-200mmF4 & the Zeiss 35mmF2 that I consider fit for D800. Today I would probably have preferred the Sigma Art 35mm F1.4. But the diff is tiny on photozone.de. More diff at DxOmark.

Looking at DxOmark.com shows that the excellent 70-200mm F4 or the xx-200mm F2.8 (various versions) stop at around 21 PMpix which is a no doubt contentious measurement of "equivalent resolution". But to me it is a relative measure giving just an idea of relative sharpness nothing more.

Compare to the Nikon 200mm F2.0 AFS VR that scores 28 PMpix. I would expect 28Pmpix to be close to the limit of the D800. Perhaps the D800E pulls a few more PMpix out of that lens - it does in the case of a few other lenses. The resolution cannot be "true" 36Mpix because of the Bayer filter interpolation.

Most great lenses score 13 - 16 PMpix.

APS-C mostly score below 10 PMpix with a few exceptions - Sigma Art being one.

There is no reason why APS-C 24 Mpix bodies should not be able to score closer to 20 than 10 - I guess the good reason might be that CaNikon try to keep lens prices down for APS-C to match their perceived expectations of the smaller format in the market.

Now look up the price and weight of the 200mm F2.0 and know what you have to pay and carry to reach the quality that will allow you to pixel-peep happily at 100%

Use live-view + loupe in your testing to manually focus lenses to truly know what you are focusing at.

Congratulations with your new camera! Have fun!

Grevture · Oct 30, 2013

SushiEater said:
olyflyer said:

No, at ANY ISO the up-sized image will look worse than the one in original size, just like the down-sized image will look better if the images are not different in any other way, i.e. same lens, same exposure, same scene, same light.

Click to expand...

Totally disagree!!! The downsized image "looks" better because while downsizing you also removing some noise. So it is not actually better but looks better. The noise to pixel ration stays the same.

Just out of curiosity ... What is the normal purpose of images you take?

I would argue, that if an image - look - better, it indeed - is - better. What other purpose does an image serve then being looked at?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

Grevture · Oct 30, 2013

SushiEater said:
Grevture said:

SushiEater said:

RudivanS said:

'Film is actually higher in resolution than any digital right now'

baloney

Click to expand...

A high resolution film like Fuji Velvia is rated at anywhere 90-150mp.Google it.

Click to expand...

A lot of baloney can be found using Google. That seem to be pretty good example

Even the very best 35 mm films have a hard time displaying more detail then a good 12 megapixel camera. Most color films have trouble enough keeping up with a 6 megapixel camera.

Click to expand...

Baloney!!!!! Test the low ISO slide film.

We actually did a rather extensive test some years ago, back when 10, 12 and not to mention 18 megapixel DSLR's were still considered high resolution. And no matter how we processed film, no matter what film we used, we had to go to medium format film to clearly outresolve a 12 megapixel camera.

If you want to check out the methodology, it is in a old issue of 'Proffsfoto' a Swedish magazine for professional photography.

Member said:
Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

1/2 a second hand held - more baloney or you just got lucky kid.

Click to expand...

I have more than 40 years experience in photography and I will gladly share it with you if you come to Los Angeles. I sometimes can shoot 1 second shots if I really want to. D800e has too much mirror slap but I can do it with Canon 5D III in silent mode and with battery grip attached. I have battery grip on D800e too.

Click to expand...

Ok, I only have 34 years of experience in photography,

Click to expand...

And don't you forget it !!!!!! :-D

I was about to write my usual phrase of '30 years of experience', but realized I have been saying that for four years now ... Reluctantly I must admit I am actually getting older

Member said:
Member said:

so obviously I am not nearly as qualified as you are, and sure, I can also get a 1 second exposure sharp 'sometimes'. That is, if 'sometimes' means something like once in a few hundred attempts

Click to expand...

No, I can do it a lot better. Maybe 1 in 3 attempts as long as I am not tired. My favorite shooting time is actually shooting at night so I do long shutter speeds lots of times.

Same here, but I usually end up hugging lamp posts, leaning on rails, walls etc.

Member said:
Member said:

Depending on focal length, camera, and lens combo (it's all about balance), I can get away with pretty long exposures. Like reasonably good yields with 1/60, D3 and a 300/2.8 (without stabilization). Or fairly often 1/10 or even a tad longer with a 35 mm lens. But one second ... Sorry, just don't really believe that, not with any reasonable yields.

Click to expand...

The key is wide fatty lenses like 14mm or Sigma 12-24mm and either 1D series camera or 5D with a grip.

It is indeed a delicate matter of balance. Back when I used the D70s and later the D200 (small body cameras) I loved using the 135/2.0 fro night shots. Could use very long exposures. But with the large body cameras like the D2H or later the D3 that lens just did not work for me at longer exposures. With those bodies I actually prefer the short and stubby lenses like the AF-S 35/1.8 or the AF 50/1.4.

Member said:
BTW, even if you have stabilization in your lens at such a low shutter speeds it does not matter. In fact stabilization can will ruin the picture because it is like shooting from tripod.

Well it matters a great deal at times like 1/60 which was what I was referring to.

With stabilization I have gotten decent images hand holding a 400/2.8 at 1/30 ...

olyflyer · Oct 30, 2013

SushiEater said:
olyflyer said:

Grevture said:

SushiEater said:

primeshooter said:

Doublehelix said:

Actually, the D4 has larger photosites on the sensor (which can collect more light), and has better low light performance than the D800... every time.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

SushiEater · Oct 30, 2013

Grevture said:
We actually did a rather extensive test some years ago, back when 10, 12 and not to mention 18 megapixel DSLR's were still considered high resolution. And no matter how we processed film, no matter what film we used, we had to go to medium format film to clearly outresolve a 12 megapixel camera.

If you want to check out the methodology, it is in a old issue of 'Proffsfoto' a Swedish magazine for professional photography.

I am not going to waste my time looking for your article but if you used a scanner and enlarger you should see that enlarged photo (using loupe) will have more details than the scan.

Grevture said:
Grevture said:

Grevture said:

Grevture said:

Grevture said:

1/2 a second hand held - more baloney or you just got lucky kid.

Click to expand...

I have more than 40 years experience in photography and I will gladly share it with you if you come to Los Angeles. I sometimes can shoot 1 second shots if I really want to. D800e has too much mirror slap but I can do it with Canon 5D III in silent mode and with battery grip attached. I have battery grip on D800e too.

Click to expand...

Ok, I only have 34 years of experience in photography,

Click to expand...

And don't you forget it !!!!!! :-D

Click to expand...

I was about to write my usual phrase of '30 years of experience', but realized I have been saying that for four years now ... Reluctantly I must admit I am actually getting older

Same here, it is more than 40 years but I wanted to stay that way to hide my age. :-(

Grevture said:
Grevture said:

Grevture said:

so obviously I am not nearly as qualified as you are, and sure, I can also get a 1 second exposure sharp 'sometimes'. That is, if 'sometimes' means something like once in a few hundred attempts

Click to expand...

No, I can do it a lot better. Maybe 1 in 3 attempts as long as I am not tired. My favorite shooting time is actually shooting at night so I do long shutter speeds lots of times.

Click to expand...

Same here, but I usually end up hugging lamp posts, leaning on rails, walls etc.

Must be very windy where you live. :-D

Grevture said:
Grevture said:

Grevture said:

Depending on focal length, camera, and lens combo (it's all about balance), I can get away with pretty long exposures. Like reasonably good yields with 1/60, D3 and a 300/2.8 (without stabilization). Or fairly often 1/10 or even a tad longer with a 35 mm lens. But one second ... Sorry, just don't really believe that, not with any reasonable yields.

Click to expand...

The key is wide fatty lenses like 14mm or Sigma 12-24mm and either 1D series camera or 5D with a grip.

Click to expand...

It is indeed a delicate matter of balance. Back when I used the D70s and later the D200 (small body cameras) I loved using the 135/2.0 fro night shots. Could use very long exposures. But with the large body cameras like the D2H or later the D3 that lens just did not work for me at longer exposures. With those bodies I actually prefer the short and stubby lenses like the AF-S 35/1.8 or the AF 50/1.4.

The bulk of the camera makes a big difference unless the shutter button is so light you can trigger it by breathing on it. If you use light camera you are pushing the camera instead of just the shutter button and your wrist might twist too. But for whatever the reason the only way I can do it on D800 or 5D3 is with battery grip and holding my elbow with the left hand.

Grevture said:
Grevture said:

BTW, even if you have stabilization in your lens at such a low shutter speeds it does not matter. In fact stabilization can will ruin the picture because it is like shooting from tripod.

Click to expand...

Well it matters a great deal at times like 1/60 which was what I was referring to.

With stabilization I have gotten decent images hand holding a 400/2.8 at 1/30 ...

Oh yeah I can do it too with stabilization at fast shutter speeds like that but not at 1/5 or slower.

Grevture said:
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

D800 Softness, Grain & CA!!!

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

SushiEater

Guest

SushiEater

Guest

SushiEater

Guest

SushiEater

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

SushiEater

Guest

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts