Reading mode: Light Dark

D800 and X-T2

Go to last post
A

a_c_skinner

Forum Pro
Messages
15,906
Solutions
16
Reaction score
13,206
Location
Cumbria and Northumberland, UK
The slightly wider framed is X-T2 with the 60mm macro, the other is D800 with the 70-200 f4 at about 100mm. Both at f11, 5600K, OOC JPGs.

So has the X-T2 made the D800 redundant in my hands?

I've not bothered to strip the EXIFs despite my normal position on blind viewing.

I took these for my own interest, nothing more. I took them because I'm considering selling the Nikon stuff and rounding out my Fuji clobber.


D800


X-T2

--
Andrew Skinner
 

Attachments

  • 3712877.jpg
    3712877.jpg
    10.8 MB · Views: 0
  • 3712878.jpg
    3712878.jpg
    9.2 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Even though the Fuji's shutter speed is substantially longer, the Nikon shot has the better color. Full disclosure, I'm a FF fan, and were I not a Canon shooter, I'd be shooting Nikon.

David
 
Actually, sitting here the background is closer to the Fuji, on my MacBook Air at least but it is down to preference. Fuji is sometimes said to be optimistic with its ISO ratings.
 
a_c_skinner said:
The slightly wider framed is X-T2 with the 60mm macro, the other is D800 with the 70-200 f4 at about 100mm. Both at f11, 5600K, OOC JPGs.

So has the X-T2 made the D800 redundant in my hands?

I've not bothered to strip the EXIFs despite my normal position on blind viewing.

I took these for my own interest, nothing more. I took them because I'm considering selling the Nikon stuff and rounding out my Fuji clobber.


D800


X-T2

--
Andrew Skinner
Click to expand...
A full frame camera for most is for shooting in low light situations, requiring more dynamic range ( for me this is landscapes ), and large prints. Portrait and macro photographers ( macro for me here also ) at times want the easier to achieve blur/bokeh as well.

You know what you like to shoot so this should be a simple question. I think both pictures look great for what they are.

--
Common sense is common knowledge; not everyone's common knowledge is the same.
 
a_c_skinner said:
I took these for my own interest, nothing more. I took them because I'm considering selling the Nikon stuff and rounding out my Fuji clobber.
Click to expand...
Creating a topic with embedded images suggests that's not quite truthful [grin-duck].
 
In all honesty, it's not just the Nikon D800 that faces obsolescence; it's the entire company itself.

You agree?
 
a_c_skinner said:
The slightly wider framed is X-T2 with the 60mm macro, the other is D800 with the 70-200 f4 at about 100mm. Both at f11, 5600K, OOC JPGs.

So has the X-T2 made the D800 redundant in my hands?

I've not bothered to strip the EXIFs despite my normal position on blind viewing.

I took these for my own interest, nothing more. I took them because I'm considering selling the Nikon stuff and rounding out my Fuji clobber.


D800


X-T2

--
Andrew Skinner
Click to expand...
If you have the setup to be able to shoot the Fuji at 2.5", then you could have shot the Nikon at 3". Instead you chose to cripple the Nikon by shooting 1.7 stops above its base ISO.

You gave the Fuji 1.5 stops more exposure, although there was no apparent need to do so. This should lead to slightly less noisiness and slightly more DR for the Fuji.

The white balance on the Nikon is set (inappropriatley, IMO) to a warmer value than on the Fuji.

Despite all this, the Nikon shot looks sharper.

If you are not going to use the D800 at its full potential, then you have no reason to keep it. I'll be happy to help you with the decluttering.
 
I took the two images in a way that is for me completely comparable, the balance of speed, light and aperture works in the D800 at 200 ISO. I cannot see any difference in the finfished images by going to 100 ISO and usually want DoF and hand holding, so that is how I've been using it. You can always argue what and what is not true comparability, if the D800 had been 100 and Fuji 200 people would say that detracted from comparability. I've seen enough of these tests to know that it is always possible to argue that tests were not comparable.

The shutter speeds intrigue me. Fuji may be being optimistic about its ISOs, I've heard that before, so assuming the aperture callibrations of the lenses are right it may be the Fuji is closer to 100 ISO!

Is there a place in the images where you can point out a signigifcant difference in sharpness? I put these up in a genuine spirit of enquiry and in truth I cannot see enough difference to justify the bulk and weight and money tied up in keeping the Nikon system.
 
That is off topic, but yes, one of the things in my mind is to move the Nikon stuff on while it has value. I think Nikon is likely to end up as a more minority player with top end stuff only, but they've a way to go on QC and service to manage that. Nikon has been good for me, from an FM2 or two in 1985, I'm loathe to think this.
 
the only real difference I see is that the Nikon used a lower exposure giving the flowers a deeper richer colour, which wouldn`t take 2 minutes to adjust the Fuji to look the same.
 
Burnt to a Crisp said:
In all honesty, it's not just the Nikon D800 that faces obsolescence; it's the entire company itself.

You agree?
Click to expand...
Haha, don't think so. Love my Nikon ecosystem. Just look at the d850! I'm not going to be upgrading to it anytime soon, but when I do, I can guarantee that it's not gonna be "obsolete"
 
I brought both images into Elements and took the liberty of editing them in the same way. IMHO the Nikon is much better.

Peter Del
 
Go on... In what way? Not arguing, just want to know what you see.
 
a_c_skinner said:
The slightly wider framed is X-T2 with the 60mm macro, the other is D800 with the 70-200 f4 at about 100mm. Both at f11, 5600K, OOC JPGs.

So has the X-T2 made the D800 redundant in my hands?

I've not bothered to strip the EXIFs despite my normal position on blind viewing.

I took these for my own interest, nothing more. I took them because I'm considering selling the Nikon stuff and rounding out my Fuji clobber.


D800


X-T2

--
Andrew Skinner
Click to expand...
I think you can get better results with your D800 in this particular instance - ISO100, longer exposure, more careful focus etc. etc. But is it worth it to you?
 
I see what you mean, but it brings me back to is it worth keeping a second outfit that is bigger and heavier.

Walking over to the plant it looks more like the Fuji image as regards the veination on the tepals (not petals it turns out, 3 are sepals, 3 petals but being the same tepals is the correct term - my basic botany and Wikipaedia).
 
Yes, the Fuji one is a bit paler, I don't think either has lost highlights or shadows, so 100 ISO wouldn't gain any DR and I've failed to see worthwhile differences between 100 and 200 ISO before. Focus, perhaps but I'm not sure.
 
a_c_skinner said:
Yes, the Fuji one is a bit paler, I don't think either has lost highlights or shadows, so 100 ISO wouldn't gain any DR and I've failed to see worthwhile differences between 100 and 200 ISO before. Focus, perhaps but I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
I think you'll see less grain in the ISO100 version, no? You really have to expose it to the right a good bit to make that ISO200 grain match the base ISO grain. But I've seen way too many results from D800/D810 to not realize the advantage.

But focus is a good one to consider. While I don't have access to the highest resolution versions (not asking for it), I have to think a little more work could have yielded that famous D800 look. However, there is a huge advantage for critical focus with the Fuji and that's the focus magnification. So for close work like that, the ability to achieve critical or even super critical focus (as if there is such a term) may cause the XT2 to win out.
 
Last edited:
FingerPainter said:
a_c_skinner said:
The slightly wider framed is X-T2 with the 60mm macro, the other is D800 with the 70-200 f4 at about 100mm. Both at f11, 5600K,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It is interesting that the two cameras produce different colours despite having the same Kelvin value set. Without a colour checker or similar in frame, it is not possible to judge which camera has produced more accurate colour. Of course colour accuracy could also be down to what settings the photographer has selected for in-camera JPEG processing: Picture control, film emulation, etc.
FingerPainter said:
FingerPainter said:
OOC JPGs.

So has the X-T2 made the D800 redundant in my hands?

I've not bothered to strip the EXIFs despite my normal position on blind viewing.

I took these for my own interest, nothing more. I took them because I'm considering selling the Nikon stuff and rounding out my Fuji clobber.


D800


X-T2

--
Andrew Skinner
Click to expand...
If you have the setup to be able to shoot the Fuji at 2.5", then you could have shot the Nikon at 3". Instead you chose to cripple the Nikon by shooting 1.7 stops above its base ISO.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I'm wrong here. Now that I'm awake I seem to recall the D800 has base ISO of 100, not 64, so you were only 1 stop above base.
FingerPainter said:
You gave the Fuji 1.5 stops more exposure, although there was no apparent need to do so. This should lead to slightly less noisiness and slightly more DR for the Fuji.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, there is probably no need to shoot the Fuji at f/11 if f/11 is good enough for the Nikon. That could get back the stop of difference you should have in ISO.
FingerPainter said:
The white balance on the Nikon is set (inappropriatley, IMO) to a warmer value than on the Fuji.

Despite all this, the Nikon shot looks sharper.

If you are not going to use the D800 at its full potential, then you have no reason to keep it. I'll be happy to help you with the decluttering.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
a_c_skinner said:
That is off topic, but yes, one of the things in my mind is to move the Nikon stuff on while it has value. I think Nikon is likely to end up as a more minority player with top end stuff only, but they've a way to go on QC and service to manage that. Nikon has been good for me, from an FM2 or two in 1985, I'm loathe to think this.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top