Nikon D800E

[V-Spec]

So.

I've not really been posting much in here recently, mainly because i've been out and about so much - getting shots rather than really thinking about gear and such - i've used the same setup (large format 5x4) for about 4 years now, and i've just been busy using it wherever possible..

I've just discovered that my main camera (Technikardan 45S) has developed a rather annoying problem and has resulted in the shots from the last outing (9 days in Scotland and various islands) as being totally written off, due to light leakage inside the bellows.

I've really enjoyed shooting 5x4 velvia 50 but my supply of quickload is rapidly running dry (it's no longer produced) and I was looking into moving to a digital medium format rig, such as a second hand Phase One P45+ or a second hand Mamiya/Leaf system..

However - the new Nikon D800 series seems to look pretty awesome, with some of the comparisons showing hardly any real world difference between the D800 or a phase one rig. When I consider that my existing setup with all lense weighs in excess of 65lb, I could get rid of all that.... it's quite tempting lol.

Does anyone here have any experience with the new D800 or have any knowledge recommendations? I used to shoot a 1DS MkIII and that was pretty good, my only real worry is the lenses - coming from large-format the lenses are all absolutely immaculate, and i'd most likely go for a zoom....

basically any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated..

 

[GTRacer]

There's no disputing the quality of the D800e, but wouldn't you miss the movements that LF gives you? Sure you can get a PC lens but it wouldn't be the same.

 

[D.P.]

The fact of the matter is the d800e gets results that are extremely close to the absolute best of the newest digital medium formats and results that surpass older generation MF backs. You also gain far superior high ISO ability and also better dynamic range, especially in the shadows.

The smaller sensor will limit what lenses can achieve but in general modern SLR lenses have astounding sharpness with large improvements in design. You will have to choose carefully, use immaculate technique and try to use optimal apertures to get the best out of the d800. That being said the pixel density is lower than many other crop cameras. 36Mp sounds if on a 35mm full frame only because it is significantly more than other FF cameras. The 24Mp APS-c crop cameras would yield a 35mm equivalent of nearly 60Mp and good Nikon a d Sony lenses are happilly resolving enough detail on those sensors (but not the cheap kit lenses obviously).

So I wouldn't be too worried about the pixel density. In fact the latest MF back with the High pixel counts have a pixel density not so different.



The Nikon D3x converted a lot of MF users, the d800/e is converting even more. The small light weight, low cost more versatile setup offers lots of advantages. The small image unity differences are only seen on very, very large print outs.

It is also relatively easy to do high Quality stitching these days, especially with a PC lens, so it is possible in landscape work to pull out 200Mp + images of outstanding detail.
With the money saved you might consider buying a proper pano head setup that will allow precise alignment and rotation around the lens nodal points avoiding parallax errors. 2-4 d800e photos stitched together will out resolve a MF back.

Adslr will also open up possibilities for wildlife etc.

 

[Auraomega]

With digital medium format these days your main advantages are better quality glass available and getting shallow depth of field even on wide angle shots, how much use the latter will be is debatable.

With digital full frame you get a massive size and weight reduction, more availability and some kit that you'll likely use more because you're not struggling to lug it around.

You can use medium format lenses on a digital 35mm with the correct adaptor, so that's no longer a real advantage.

The 24Mp APS-c crop cameras would yield a 35mm equivalent of nearly 60Mp and good Nikon a d Sony lenses are happilly resolving enough detail on those sensors (but not the cheap kit lenses obviously).

Not entirely true, Sony's 24mpx Nex-7 makes their E and A mount lenses struggle, ironically for most shots the Nex-5 produces a better image.

I too used to think if a lens can resolve enough for a 16mpx APS-C sensor it can do fine on a 36mpx full frame, but again it's not entirely true, as soon as you move out from the centre you start to lose detail and towards the outside it becomes smudgy on most Nikon lenses. This is why the D4 has a 1.2x crop mode.

We have a customer (pixel peeper) who owns a D800e and has found that most Nikon lenses struggle, there are a few surprises with some of their cheaper glass resolving better than more expensive glass, but he's taken to using medium format lenses on there and the difference is stunning, in fact it's the only way he's been able to 'excite' moiré.

The difference between the D800 and D800e when using Nikkor glass isn't huge without peeping, but put a good medium format lens on there and the difference in sharpness is instantly noticeable.

Horses for courses and all that, but if you're used to using manual focus, don't mind planning and setting up a shot and will be looking for the best, most exceptional quality, then the D800e is the obvious answer.

 

[V-Spec]

Thanks guys

Tbh, the D800E is very tempting, but it's all a bit weird having shot 5x4 religiously for the last 3-4 years, where the quality and sharpness is beyond anything i've ever seen.. However on the flipside nobody really cares that my images are 100 megapixels because I'm normally only printing on A2 maximum, and an ordinary person isn't pixel peeping.

One of the reasons I liked 5x4 so much was because of the way you make pictures, composing upside down, the aspect ratio and of course the movements, but there comes a time where it's costing me around £150 to have a bunch of shots processed, and meanwhile the rest of the world is digital... AND i'd like to get back into all the wildlife stuff I was doing.... hmm...

I've thought about going to medium format film, with a mamiya 7ii or something along those lines, but there doesn't seem any point when you look at the D800e - which seems to be resolving more detail and comes with all the obvious conveniences.


All in all I could get setup with a D800e and a lens or two for around £3.5k.. a second hand Phase One P45+ along with a suitable body and 1 lens, will set me back around £8-10k if I get everything second hand off ebay, and maybe £7-9k if I go with a mamiya/leaf setup...

at the end of the day, if the best digital MF backs (iq160 etc) are barely better, then I doubt a P45+ is going to be any better, certainly not 2.5x the cost better... hmm

 

[D.P.]

With digital medium format these days your main advantages are better quality glass available and getting shallow depth of field even on wide angle shots, how much use the latter will be is debatable.

With digital full frame you get a massive size and weight reduction, more availability and some kit that you'll likely use more because you're not struggling to lug it around.

You can use medium format lenses on a digital 35mm with the correct adaptor, so that's no longer a real advantage.



Not entirely true, Sony's 24mpx Nex-7 makes their E and A mount lenses struggle, ironically for most shots the Nex-5 produces a better image.

I too used to think if a lens can resolve enough for a 16mpx APS-C sensor it can do fine on a 36mpx full frame, but again it's not entirely true, as soon as you move out from the centre you start to lose detail and towards the outside it becomes smudgy on most Nikon lenses. This is why the D4 has a 1.2x crop mode.

We have a customer (pixel peeper) who owns a D800e and has found that most Nikon lenses struggle, there are a few surprises with some of their cheaper glass resolving better than more expensive glass, but he's taken to using medium format lenses on there and the difference is stunning, in fact it's the only way he's been able to 'excite' moiré.

The difference between the D800 and D800e when using Nikkor glass isn't huge without peeping, but put a good medium format lens on there and the difference in sharpness is instantly noticeable.

Horses for courses and all that, but if you're used to using manual focus, don't mind planning and setting up a shot and will be looking for the best, most exceptional quality, then the D800e is the obvious answer.

The Nex-7 certainly out resolves cheap kit lenses but the high end lenses keep up ok. On the Nikon D3200 most pro Nikon lenses are absolutely fine, especially at optimal apertures. What you do notice on these high pixel density bodies is wide open is relatively soft, as everyone knows anyway, and diffraction will hit you after f/8,which is what you expect anyway.

It is incorrect to say the nex5 produces better images than the nex7. Yeah, if you grab 100% pixel crop the nex5 may appear sharper, but over the same scene the nex7 will happilly out resolve the nex5. It is critical with these new high res sensor to view output at Normalised sizes rather than 100% crops.

With the d800 even lenses like the 28-300 will yield more detail than on a d3x. Again, a 100% crop may show a softer image than when on a d3x but if our printed both to A2 the d800 will be much sharper. With lenses like the new 1.4 and 1.8 primes, the new pro zooms, the PC lenses etc, there is enough resolution of most of the frame when stopped down a little. There are also new lenses like the zeiss line for high res sensors.

Do you get the exact same resorts as medium format? No, but you get pretty damn close. As I said in the previous post, a decent pano head and some stiching will yield images that far out resolve anything from a single MF digital back.

What you gain is a heap of money to spend on the best 35mm lenses and a much more versatile camera setup that will allow you to do wildlife, sports, street, wedding, etc. that MF backs struggle with.

If money is no object then an phase IQ180 etc are superb resolution wise, and have very clean pixels. But the DR s actually lower tan a d800!

 

[Auraomega]

With the d800 even lenses like the 28-300 will yield more detail than on a d3x. Again, a 100% crop may show a softer image than when on a d3x but if our printed both to A2 the d800 will be much sharper.

Not necessarily, similar to how moiré works if you're lens isn't resolving fine enough detail it gets smudged over 2 pixels and thus you lose that sharpness that you might have achieved with a single, larger pixel. With moiré the higher the pixel density the less like it is to occur for the reasons above.

 

[An Exception]

Not necessarily, similar to how moiré works if you're lens isn't resolving fine enough detail it gets smudged over 2 pixels and thus you lose that sharpness that you might have achieved with a single, larger pixel. With moiré the higher the pixel density the less like it is to occur for the reasons above.

AA filters etc. aside. A high mp sensor will not give you a softer image than a lower mp sensor, even if the lens cannot fully resolve the sensor.

For example, 1 large pixel will not provide more contrast than 4 much smaller pixels assuming these pixels use the same sensor area as the 1 large pixel.

Instead the 1 large pixel will be an average of the 4 much smaller pixels. Downsize the high mp image to the same dimensions as the larger pixel sensor and you will get the same sharpness as the larger pixel sensor.

High mp sensors reduce moire not just because glass with limited resolution effectively becomes an aa filter, but also because repeating patterns need to be incredibly small within the frame.

 

[D.P.]

As An Exception says, Signal processing theory proves that oversampling a signal beyond the nyquist frequency s not detrimental to the signal fidelity. Heck, you actually want to sample at twice the nyquist frequency to guarantee correct sampling of the signal. DSP theory also proves that you can reconstruct entirely a signal with a lower frequency from a signal sampled at a higher frequency.

I will save everyone the maths.