D
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D810 handheld shooting? Why is it even an issue?
- Thread starter creativedogmedia
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d810
T O Shooter
Veteran Member
larrywilson
Veteran Member
T O Shooter stated:
Used in a nice situation as well. I picked up a decent CF monopod a year or so ago, but wasn't overly crazy about being tied to that either. Put it back in the vehicle on that day, and pulled out the tripod and gimbel. Haven't used it since. Maybe I should try it again. I really need to get a ballhead dedicated to the 'pod I guess.
-- hide signature --
A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
The trouble with normal is it always gets worse - Bruce Cockburn
I also have tried monopods with my Nikon 500mm lens for birds and quickly put it back into my closet. I shoot birds and bif almost always with a tripod and gimbal head this works well for me.
To me, nothing wrong with using a tripod for landscapes and is a necessity for close up stuff such as macro photo work or anything I can take my time with. Of course needed for moving water.
Larry
Used in a nice situation as well. I picked up a decent CF monopod a year or so ago, but wasn't overly crazy about being tied to that either. Put it back in the vehicle on that day, and pulled out the tripod and gimbel. Haven't used it since. Maybe I should try it again. I really need to get a ballhead dedicated to the 'pod I guess.
-- hide signature --
A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
The trouble with normal is it always gets worse - Bruce Cockburn
I also have tried monopods with my Nikon 500mm lens for birds and quickly put it back into my closet. I shoot birds and bif almost always with a tripod and gimbal head this works well for me.
To me, nothing wrong with using a tripod for landscapes and is a necessity for close up stuff such as macro photo work or anything I can take my time with. Of course needed for moving water.
Larry
Qwntm
Veteran Member
All hand held. All will print 20x30 no problem.
Ask yourself this, could you handhold a film medium format camera? Or a 4x5 film camera? Especially with a low noise 6400 speed film?
Answer: Press guys were handholding 4x5's with 100 speed film in the 50's and they're laughing now.
It's not about the megapickles, it's about the technique and photographers knowledge about phtography. There's a lot of people out there that can't handhold a point and shoot.
The rules still apply. In daylight at F5.6 and 1/125 second with a 50mm lens, you don't need a tripod. It won't make any difference.
--
Edward
www.youtube.com/photouniverse
www.edwardthomasart.com
www.pbase.com/edwardthomas
Last edited:
Karl Persson
Well-known member
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 228
Absolutely.
But there is no law of nature that says that a high Mp camera will have more mirror and/or first curtain slap than a low Mp camera.
Ceteris paribus the high Mp camera will never have worse motion blur at the same output size.
It may be more visible at some point but that is a different matter, more to do with less resolution of the low Mp camera.
Last edited:
If we hold sensor size constant, I don't disagree with anything you just said. Was there something in my post that made you think I did?
If we take into account the fact that larger sensors tend to have more MP, I have a H2D-39 that has monster mirror slap.
Jim
Karl Persson
Well-known member
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 228
No, it was more directed at those who do (and there are a few in this thread).
My bad.
Marianne Oelund
Veteran Member
Which of course has everything to do with differences in technology of the subject D700 and D810, and nothing to do with their resolution - which was supposed to be the topic here.
If you still insist on comparing color accuracy and DR, how about comparing the D810 to the Sony A7s?
Unlikely that the 360 hp car would produce 120 hp at 20% throttle, but in any case, relative fuel efficiency at a specified power output, is driven primarily by engine displacement - given similar technology. Since no displacements were specified, how did you come to your conclusion?
Karl Persson
Well-known member
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 228
It has everything to do with their resolution.
Higher sampling rate give higher accuracy.
The sampling rate is involved in color accuracy, but is by no means the long pole in the tent.
The first consideration for color accuracy is the spectral response of the filters in the color filter array (CFA). If they were a 3x3 matrix multiplication away from the response of a standardized human trichromat (beings that see with three classes of color receptor, unlike 8% of the men, who see with fewer, a small percent of women who have similar deficiencies, and some women who see with four sets -- tetrachromats), then they'd be as accurate as we need them to be. But they're not, in any commercially available camera. They're not even close. But we can come up with compromise matrices that sorta kinda get close, or we invent nonlinear mapping techniques to do better. Those things are in raw developers. But the camera sees some colors that you and I see as different as the same color. There's no way a profile or a compromise matrix can sort that out. The camera also sees some spectrally-different colors, that you and see as the same, as different colors. That's not impossible to sort out, merely very difficult. The name for these kind of inaccuracies is capture metameric error.
Then there's noise. Photon noise that's due to the nature of light. Non-uniform response of the pixels to that light, although that's becoming less important with modern cameras. Noise that occurs whether the camera is seeing any real light or not, which can have components that vary from frame to frame whose spectrum is usually close to white, and fixed (pattern) noise, usually with strong low spatial frequency components. All that noise affects color accuracy, and the errors are worst for the dimmest colors. There are also errors introduced by the camera as it turns the charge on the capacitors in the pixels into numbers. They are called quantization errors, or quantizing noise. There are various ways that relate the brightest colors the camera can distinguish (full scale) to the dimmest ones that meet some quality metric, and what they measure is called dynamic range (usually photographic dynamic range or engineering dynamic range).
So we've got a lot of errors already and we haven't yet talked about resolution. Resolution figures into some of the errors above, but, when images are converted in post to the same resolution, only in a weak way.
Where resolution and color accuracy combine is for subjects with high spatial frequency. Higher resolution sensors will in general have fewer errors for these subjects. But the eye's sensitivity to the part of color that's independent of brightness -- chromaticity -- rolls off at a lower spatial frequency than the eye's sensitivity to brightness -- luminance, so, ignoring obnoxious things like false-color aliasing errors, even that is usually not very important.
And, by the way, I'd be careful arguing with Marianne. She is extremely knowledgeable.
Jim
--
http://blog.kasson.com
Last edited:
zzzzzzzzzzz
Veteran Member
I've have an early D800 and had not had any trouble getting it to focus with both old and new lenses. It focuses better than the D50, D90, and D7000 that it replaced.
bmcdad
Forum Enthusiast
Marianne Oelund
Veteran Member
The term "color accuracy" refers to the accuracy of hues, measured by their RGB or LAB components, for example, over a macroscopic patch or image area where those values are constant, such as within a single tile in a color chart. In making the measurements, borders, edges and transitions are avoided.
It is not related to how well the camera records color transitions or fine color detail, thus has nothing to do with sampling period. If your intent is to refer to color detail, then you are using the wrong terminology.
Karl Persson
Well-known member
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 228
So in essence you agree, the high Mp camera gives higher accuracy.
Those are the most important people to argue with!
M says that downsampled to the lower MP output there is no advantage for the high Mp camera.
I argue that it is.
just someone
Active member
- Messages
- 74
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 28
just someone
Active member
- Messages
- 74
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 28
T O Shooter
Veteran Member
I was out shooting today and came across only the second snowy owl I'd seen in Ontario. He had other thoughts on getting photographed and preferred to fly to a barn a 1/2 km away. However I saw this Bell box and thought about this thread.
It was cold at -4 degrees Celsius and a light wind, a little light snow, and I had jumped out with only a fall jacket on, but here's a 1/FL taken with the D810 and 300 2.8VR and TC1.7II so 500mm FL. Certainly one of the harder handholdable lenses to try 1/FL with but here it is anyway. One of one shot taken.
Sign and lettering is weathered - shot at ISO 1800
--
A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
The trouble with normal is it always gets worse - Bruce Cockburn
It was cold at -4 degrees Celsius and a light wind, a little light snow, and I had jumped out with only a fall jacket on, but here's a 1/FL taken with the D810 and 300 2.8VR and TC1.7II so 500mm FL. Certainly one of the harder handholdable lenses to try 1/FL with but here it is anyway. One of one shot taken.
Sign and lettering is weathered - shot at ISO 1800
--
A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
The trouble with normal is it always gets worse - Bruce Cockburn
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum