Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising
DiamondPhotography

UK
233 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
DiamondPhotography Registered since 29th Dec 2010
Mon 20-Feb-12 02:26 PM

After reading the D800 technical guide I am very worried about image blur.

They go to great lengths about how you should be using a tripod, don’t do this, don’t do that. Sounds as though this 36MP sensor may be very tricky to use and any advantage of the increased file size is lost because the image is not sharp.

Just wondering what others think about this?

North East Wedding Photographer

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

mikesrc

OKLAHOMA CITY, US
299 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#1. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 0

mikesrc Registered since 03rd May 2009
Mon 20-Feb-12 01:58 PM

Grab a D7000 and you have the same problems. When I first got mine I was ready to throw it in the lake UNTIL I changed a bunch of my shooting skills.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Pookoo

Houston, US
90 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#2. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 1

Pookoo Registered since 08th Dec 2010
Mon 20-Feb-12 05:52 PM

>Grab a D7000 and you have the same problems. When I first got
>mine I was ready to throw it in the lake UNTIL I changed a
>bunch of my shooting skills.


Can you please elaborate on the above comment mikesrc?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

kentak

US
952 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#3. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 1

kentak Silver Member Nikonian since 03rd Jul 2010
Mon 27-Feb-12 02:42 PM

>Grab a D7000 and you have the same problems. When I first got
>mine I was ready to throw it in the lake UNTIL I changed a
>bunch of my shooting skills.

Isn't there a practical difference, though? If a D7000 and a D800 are each used to make identical portraits, for example, won't the D800 shot have many more pixels on the subject than the other? And, by the same token, many more pixels on any "faults?" If identical large prints are made of each image, wouldn't the faults be less visible on the D7000 image?

I'm asking because I don't know what the answer is for sure. What I said above, seems logical, but I certainly could be thinking about it from the wrong angle.

Kent

gpoole

Farmington Hills, US
4133 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#4. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 0

gpoole Platinum Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit. Awarded for his very generous support to the Fundrasing Campaing 2014 Writer Ribbon awarded for his article contributions for the Articles library and the eZine Nikonian since 14th Feb 2004
Mon 20-Feb-12 02:06 PM

If you shoot the same way as you do on your D700, your images will be as good as or better with the D800 when viewed at the same image size. The high pixel count allows you to get better large images if your technique is good.

The Guide helps you take full advantage of the high resolution sensor. Following it's recommendations could improve your D700 or other camera body shots too.

Gary in SE Michigan, USA.
Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the camera.
D4, D810, D300 (720nm IR conversion), D90, F6, FM3a (black), FM2n (chrome)
YashicaMat 124, Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5
My Nikonians Gallery & Our Chapter Gallery

MotoMannequin

Livermore, CA, US
8582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#5. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 0

MotoMannequin Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography Registered since 11th Jan 2006
Mon 20-Feb-12 02:50 PM

Their instructions have been standard operating procedure for anybody trying to capture the highest quality images long before the D800 was announced.

If what they describe is not your shooting style, it's not like the D800 will degrade your images, but you might not get the return on investment you're hoping for.

The D800 sensor has about the same pixel density as the D7000 and less than the V1. The handling requirements for these cameras will therefore be the same if not more rigorous, so this variable is not unknown. Indeed, visit the D7K forum and you will find people unhappy with the camera compared to e.g. D90, and you will find people very happy with the camera, arguing with them.

The advantage of FX over these cameras is that you'll be able to print the same size with less enlargement, or a greater size with comparable enlargement. For those that believe the greater pixel count will allow more cropping, those cameras already exist and are a great deal cheaper than D800.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

PerroneFord

Tallahassee, US
2817 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#6. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 5

PerroneFord Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011
Mon 20-Feb-12 02:56 PM

I hope that at some point in my life journey, I get to meet you. I'd like to buy you a beer.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

MotoMannequin

Livermore, CA, US
8582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#7. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 6

MotoMannequin Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography Registered since 11th Jan 2006
Mon 20-Feb-12 03:09 PM

>I hope that at some point in my life journey, I get to meet
>you. I'd like to buy you a beer.

I'll buy you one as well Mr. Ford. I've been spending more time on this forum since D800 was announced, and I've enjoyed reading your posts.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

DiamondPhotography

UK
233 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#8. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 7

DiamondPhotography Registered since 29th Dec 2010
Mon 20-Feb-12 04:14 PM

I would have expected them to emphasize the quality of the camera not potential problems.

Did you know the word "Blur" appears 19 times the technical guide...

North East Wedding Photographer

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

PerroneFord

Tallahassee, US
2817 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#9. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 8

PerroneFord Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011
Mon 20-Feb-12 05:39 PM

>I would have expected them to emphasize the quality of the
>camera not potential problems.
>
>Did you know the word "Blur" appears 19 times the
>technical guide...

I bought my D7000, and on it's maiden shoot, I proceeded to shoot some of the best images of my life. That was repeated over the next several months.

It wasn't until I joined Nikonians that I found out people were struggling with the camera. The high pixel count was being blamed. I found that very odd after having most previously shot on Canon's entry level T2i at 18.2 megapixels, and formerly playing with some medium format.

The D800 is no different than any other camera. Decent technique and a bit of practice, and all will be fine. But if your technique is bad, then by all means, put the camera on a tripod and use mirror up.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

RRRoger

Monterey Bay, US
3373 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#10. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 8

RRRoger Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his long history of demonstrated excellence and helping other members with equipment, technique and DSLR video in the true Nikonians spirit. Charter Member
Mon 20-Feb-12 05:53 PM

What Nikon is doing is to prepare in advance for the new users.
And it gives us something to do while waiting for our cameras.
They want us to get the most out of the D800, rave about it, and sell more cameras.

When I got my D7000, I soon realized how sloppy my shooting style had gotten.
The D3 Sensor is so forgiving and the AF so fast that I was used to a >95% keeper rate for Event Photography,
where the pictures that sell "capture the moment" but are not necessarily Art objects.
I imagine that a lot of D800 buyers will be coming from a D3 or D700.
They will soon find out that Higher resolution shows user error more better.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

villageradical

US
2 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#11. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 10

villageradical Registered since 03rd Mar 2012
Tue 06-Mar-12 07:54 PM

I suspect it is a preemptive move to avoid the PR problems Canon had when the 1DMkIII wouldn't focus. Bad press is bad press whether it is justified or not so it makes sense to be upfront with folks who may be expecting the camera to magically create outstanding images.

>What Nikon is doing is to prepare in advance for the new
>users.
>And it gives us something to do while waiting for our
>cameras.
>They want us to get the most out of the D800, rave about it,
>and sell more cameras.
>
>When I got my D7000, I soon realized how sloppy my shooting
>style had gotten.
>The D3 Sensor is so forgiving and the AF so fast that I was
>used to a >95% keeper rate for Event Photography,
>where the pictures that sell "capture the moment"
>but are not necessarily Art objects.
>I imagine that a lot of D800 buyers will be coming from a D3
>or D700.
>They will soon find out that Higher resolution shows user
>error more better.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#12. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 0

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Mon 20-Feb-12 09:00 PM | edited Mon 20-Feb-12 09:01 PM by nrothschild

For the same composition/framing, in order to get equivalent pixel level sharpness you will need to reduce camera shake by 33%, relative to the D7000. That because the angular diameter of each pixel is about 33% less.

That is a mathematical fact. What is needed to make any particular person happy is another matter and quite subjective.

Nikon knows what's ahead in terms of "my new D800 isn't sharp" complaints. Given the volumes of calls they probably get about sharpness problems due to camera movement, and the stats they likely compile from it, they probably have the estimated volumes of complaints honed to 3 significant figures

I'm sure the jump to 10-12 mpx precipitated a spike, and then another with the D7000.

I'm very interested in seeing comments here about all this from such a large spectrum of shooters after they've had a chance to work with it for awhile and we get to see real world sample images. The "real answer" in terms of user satisfaction and the skill needed when not using a tripod is murky indeed, despite the incontrovertible math.

You should not be "worried" but you should be prepared to deal with everything that comes with this huge jump in total resolution.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

PerroneFord

Tallahassee, US
2817 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#13. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 12

PerroneFord Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011
Mon 20-Feb-12 09:08 PM

Mathmatically, what is the difference between my D2H and my D7000? I've never had my D7000 on a tripod. I do use a monopod when I have the 300/2.8 on, but I shoot all my other glass handheld. Even the 70-200 with an extender. I've used that rig at the beach working with models and still am able to see individual eyelashes when I do my retouching.

Surely my technique is not THAT good. I guess VR lenses are really about to come into their own.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

KnightPhoto

Alberta, CA
4971 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#14. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 12

KnightPhoto Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Dec 2006
Sun 26-Feb-12 02:04 AM

I'll take that to mean, shoot the D800 at 1/(2 x focal length). I find it good practice to approach that ratio with my D7000 already. The D7K is not a forgiving camera, but it produces some great images.

I accept you at your word, but what is that pixel "angular diameter" metric you are talking about?

Also as an aside, has anyone else noticed, D800 pixels ARE NOT 3 times smaller than D700/D3/D3S pixels. They are around 5/8 the size aren't they?

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

km6xz

St Petersburg, RU
3576 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#15. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 14

km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009
Sun 26-Feb-12 10:12 AM | edited Sun 26-Feb-12 10:16 AM by km6xz

Nikon is doing some preemptive product support after learning a lesson from the massive complaints about the D7000. The complaints primarily were from the very people Nikon targeted with their ads.....everyone who ever thought about getting a camera. They stressed scene modes and automation to widen the customer base. Unfortunately few of those new customers knew anything about images, light, and viewing scale.
The camera was capable, but also required a little bit more from the user than buyers were used to in their other consumer products like cell phones and TV sets.
This new model, even if not aimed in ads, towards the newcomers or even experienced but less knowledgeable, is still attracting them. 50% of pre-orders are likely placed by video only shooters. A high percentage of still shooter pre-orders are being made by those with entry level cameras now or moving from iPhones. Lots of questions on DPR about how good their 18-55 or 18-200 will work since it is their only lens. For a large portion of buyers of this new camera will need somebody adding a dose of reality. This time, Nikon decided to do it, after not doing it with the D7000. Nikon probably never thought that would need to give Basic Photography 101 classes to buyers of their flagship products before.

I came from film and got my first DSLR, a D90, when it was first introduced. I was amazed by how easy it was to get nice images. I shot everything and ranked up 80,000 frames with very satisfactory results. When I moved to the D7000, I had accumulated a lot of nice glass, I found that I shot a lot less. I took more time, had to, thought about the shot more because that planning paid off more with the D7000. I now shoot much less, a small fraction of frames compared to before but the results are even more gratifying, which I attribute to having to think through a shot, scene, lighting and stability more. I am shooting a lot less but enjoying it more. Thinking about shots in a deliberate way is something Nikon is trying to get people to do with their new super high performance camera.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

stve10

UK
28 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#16. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 15

stve10 Registered since 17th Feb 2012
Sun 26-Feb-12 11:44 AM

Imagine moving up to the D7000 if your only previous experience was with the iPhone or those tiny compact cameras with no viewfinder you hold at arms length while taking the shot.

kentak

US
952 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#17. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 12

kentak Silver Member Nikonian since 03rd Jul 2010
Mon 27-Feb-12 02:57 PM

>For the same composition/framing, in order to get equivalent
>pixel level sharpness you will need to reduce camera shake by
>33%, relative to the D7000. That because the angular diameter
>of each pixel is about 33% less.

Ah ha. That *seems* to support what I was asking in my reply (#21). I hadn't read through the whole thread, so I hadn't seen this post before asking. Would it be correct, then, to say that for equivalent output, the D800 is likely to be "less forgiving" than the D7000 (assuming, as you stated, same composition/framing)?

Getting philosophical, how much longer can the pixel counts go up if it means that successive generations of cameras become more demanding of ever more careful technique and with increasing need for "super" glass? Just thinking.

Kent

PerroneFord

Tallahassee, US
2817 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#18. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 17

PerroneFord Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011
Mon 27-Feb-12 03:51 PM

>the D800 is likely to be
>"less forgiving" than the D7000 (assuming, as you
>stated, same composition/framing)?

Seems a reasonable assumption...

>Getting philosophical, how much longer can the pixel counts go
>up if it means that successive generations of cameras become
>more demanding of ever more careful technique and with
>increasing need for "super" glass? Just thinking.

The glass will get better, VR will get better, pixel counts will continue to rise. The only question, is will photographer skill levels rise, or continue to fall as they have over the past 20 years or so.

I still find it fun to put my 1980's era lenses on and go have a shoot. And come back with nice stuff. I posted some stuff here where I had 900mm (equivalent) of manual focus glass on my D7000 with a monopod and got some nice stuff.

I think if people spent 1/10 the amount of time working on their skills as they do fretting over how their cameras looked at ISO 6400, or whether the new camera could shoot at 10fps or only 8, we'd see a lot better stuff.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

kentak

US
952 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#19. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 18

kentak Silver Member Nikonian since 03rd Jul 2010
Mon 27-Feb-12 06:57 PM

Good points, Perrone.

Kent

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#20. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 17

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Mon 27-Feb-12 04:08 PM | edited Mon 27-Feb-12 04:46 PM by nrothschild

Hi Kent,

Increasing sensor density makes more demands on the glass, as well as shooting technique. You would see this moving from a D200 or D300 to a D7000, for example.

Increasing the size of the sensor (DX-->FX) while maintaining the same pixel density does not increase the demands on the glass (in the centers common to both sensor sizes), but it DOES create more demands on shooting technique.

So you are correct, the D800 will create even more demands on shooting technique than the D7000.

The effect is mathematical and certain. The perception depends on a lot of things that will vary among different people.

>> Getting philosophical, how much longer can the pixel counts go up if it means that successive generations of cameras become more demanding of ever more careful technique and with increasing need for "super" glass? Just thinking.

Technique isn't the problem with further increasing sensor density. You can easily solve that with the tripod you should be using anyway to take advantage of this resolution, as well as, in many cases, lesser resolutions.

The primary and insurmountable problem is the diffraction limits of light. A 24mpx DX or ~52mpx FX sensor would start to soften between f/6 and f/7. Shooting smaller apertures would produce nice images, but no nicer than could be done with the now current 16(DX/36(FX) mpx sensors.

I think it would take a 24mpx DX or 50ish mpx FX sensor to make a meaningful increase since meaningful increases require comparable percentage increases. So you end up in a situation where these huge file sizes become bigger and help fewer and fewer imaages, and in this case just images shot between f/4 and f/7 or so, even with the best glass. That leaves out a lot of shooting situations .

But I was wrong about this camera- I didn't think Nikon would do a 3x leap in resolution in one model evolution - so don't listen to me

I could see small (essentially meaningless) incremental jumps just to satisfy the market, which has been well trained to expect and therefore demand ever more megapixels. That would result in reaching those crazy resolutions via the "boiling frog" method

Edit: there is also the issue of glass quality, and the fact that even the finest glass needs to be stopped down in order to resolve at or near "diffraction limited" performance does create a problem with the intersecting line of diffraction limits.

Your fast f1.4 lens likely won't fully resolve further increases in resolution when shot at or near wide open (and may have enough trouble with this sensor). But stopping down past f/8 becomes a problem due to diffraction. So you are left with a narrow aperture range between the lens's widest diffraction limited aperture and f/6 to f/8 or so. All the more reason why I think we are at or near the wall. But I already said I'm expecting to be proven wrong on that point

I have a few lenses, such as my 35mm f/1.4 Ai, that would be fun to test on such a hypothetical future lens. Not worth buying a camera by my way of thinking, but a fun test nonetheless on some cold winter night while fighting late winter cabin fever

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

kentak

US
952 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#21. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 20

kentak Silver Member Nikonian since 03rd Jul 2010
Mon 27-Feb-12 06:49 PM

Thanks, Neil, for the very informative reply.

My butt is firmly planted in the DX world, with a D90 and D7000. My interest in the D800 is just technical curiosity and I enjoy reading the many threads it has inspired here, even before its general release.

Cheers!

Kent

Jim Pearce

Grimsby, CA
4397 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#22. "A simpler way of looking at this..." | In response to Reply # 12

Jim Pearce Silver Member Nikonian since 02nd Mar 2004
Wed 29-Feb-12 11:52 PM

Is that the D800 has about 100 pixels per degree (horizontal), versus 67 for the C7000 - and D4. The usual 12 MP suspects D3S/D3/D700/D300/D300s are about 58 pixels per degree. The D70 was about 41, so relatively speaking the 50% jump from say a D700 to a D800 is a little more than it was for those of us who jumped from a D70 to a D2X. By comparison, the D7000 move is a piece of cake.

Jim

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Fabien65

FR
144 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#23. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 0

Fabien65 Registered since 19th Jan 2012
Sun 26-Feb-12 04:55 PM | edited Sun 26-Feb-12 05:06 PM by Fabien65

>After reading the D800 technical guide I am very worried
>about image blur.
>
>They go to great lengths about how you should be using a
>tripod, don’t do this, don’t do that. Sounds as though this
>36MP sensor may be very tricky to use and any advantage of the
>increased file size is lost because the image is not sharp.
>
>Just wondering what others think about this?

Because I got a few difficulties When I got my D7000, when I read this technical guide, I thought the same thing!
The more cameras are improving, the more we are struggling with them to get sharp pictures..

but that's a good way to improve our skill!

mrkinyo

US
7 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#24. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 23

mrkinyo Registered since 26th Dec 2008
Mon 27-Feb-12 01:27 PM

This forum is very interesting to say the least. As with any unknown, there are many questions to be asked and many concerns that more often then not become overstated. I am no different from many of you Nikonians, having concerns of my own. Like many of you, I have pre-ordered the D800 hoping that it will compliment both my D700 and my video cameras.

While I am not the best photographer, I can understand, or at least I think I do, what will be required of me to maximize my investment. For me, this is time, patience and practice. I believe that like anything else, there will be a learning curve; hopefully a big one because that would possibly suggest more in terms of what I got for my money. Now all of that being said, this camera is said to be for wedding photographers too. What I'm wondering is if this camera will need to be shot in DX mode to get the low light moving shots of the wedding party. I'm also wondering how good is the video out of the box if the sensor is 36MP. Logically, it just doesn't seem possible that great stills and great video can coexist. I've considered the D4 as an alternative to the D800 but then again, I've also considered the 2012 Maybach neither of which I can afford. So D800 it is until the camera has lived it's life and needs to be replaced.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

DiamondPhotography

UK
233 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#25. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 24

DiamondPhotography Registered since 29th Dec 2010
Mon 27-Feb-12 01:34 PM | edited Mon 27-Feb-12 07:02 PM by DiamondPhotography

DX mode will use smaller portion of sensor, this will not change lighting capabilities of camera. When you refer to wedding party, changing to DX mode will not improve ISO performance and will also not help with image blur.

North East Wedding Photographer

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

mrkinyo

US
7 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#26. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 25

mrkinyo Registered since 26th Dec 2008
Mon 27-Feb-12 01:36 PM

Is it safe to say that the low light should be the same as the D700 but with technological advances, possible better given the improved sensor.

DiamondPhotography

UK
233 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#27. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 26

DiamondPhotography Registered since 29th Dec 2010
Mon 27-Feb-12 01:46 PM

Only time will tell for sure but most people are saying it will be comparable to D700, or better if you down sample.

North East Wedding Photographer

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#28. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 24

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Mon 27-Feb-12 02:11 PM

>> What I'm wondering is if this camera will need to be shot in DX mode to get the low light moving shots of the wedding party.

Just like your D700, or any FX camera, for high ISO shots your final output will look better if you shoot in FX mode and crop as little as possible.

Shooting any FX camera in DX mode just forces you to more greatly magnify the recorded image, adding noise to the final output image, however large that will be.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

villageradical

US
2 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#29. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 28

villageradical Registered since 03rd Mar 2012
Tue 06-Mar-12 08:10 PM

The mode won't matter. The pixel size is the same regardless of how you crop it and whether you do it in camera or in PP. The smaller files may make a difference in ultimate print quality (but you'd have to be printing very large to see them) but I suspect that the bigger downsize is having to work with the smaller VF area when in DX mode.

>>> What I'm wondering is if this camera will need to be
>shot in DX mode to get the low light moving shots of the
>wedding party.
>
>Just like your D700, or any FX camera, for high ISO shots your
>final output will look better if you shoot in FX mode and crop
>as little as possible.
>
>Shooting any FX camera in DX mode just forces you to more
>greatly magnify the recorded image, adding noise to the final
>output image, however large that will be.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#30. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 29

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Tue 06-Mar-12 09:44 PM

Hi Henry,

The mode does matter if your objective is to get the best quality (lowest noise) shot at high ISO's. It is better to shoot it FX - framing as fully as possible, without cropping except to final aspect ratio. Shooting DX will cost a stop, regardless of the final output size.

Maurice said nothing about needing to crop. I'm not sure exactly what he was thinking but you may have misunderstood him.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

AreBee

Inverness, UK
531 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#31. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 24

AreBee Registered since 27th Apr 2008
Mon 27-Feb-12 08:44 PM

>Logically, it just doesn't seem possible that great stills and great video can coexist.<

Why ever not? Video is, after all, nothing but a series of stills.

Rob
www.robbuckle.co.uk

PerroneFord

Tallahassee, US
2817 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#32. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 31

PerroneFord Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011
Tue 28-Feb-12 05:44 PM

>>Logically, it just doesn't seem possible that great
>stills and great video can coexist.<
>
>Why ever not? Video is, after all, nothing but a series of
>stills.

Precisely. It seems to run counter to logic that they would NOT coexist.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#33. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 0

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Tue 28-Feb-12 05:36 PM

I have read those 'image blur' warnings from Nikon regarding the critical focusing and rock steady platform requirements of the D800. Here's what I think:

Camera shake:

For most shooting: jack up the ISO until camera movement is not an issue. I do this all the time using my D700 with a 70-200 VR2 plus a 2X tel-extender (400mm) and get tack sharp results. If it's hand-held, the VR lets me shoot at even slower speed. If I use a tripod, I turn off the VR and use live mode to keep the mirror up. For long exposures, a steady tripod and mirror up is called for anyway. Maybe camera movement will be a greater concern with the D800, but the solution is the same.

Critical focus:

The D800 should focus no differently than other cameras do. When a lens is focused accurately on the sensor plane, why should the number or density of the pixels matter? It's either in focus or out. So, I can only speculate as to the reason Nikon attaches so much importance to critically focusing the D800 compared to other lower pixel cameras. My thought is that with 36.3 MP, you can view such fine structure in images that even the slightest out-of-focus detail will now become apparent. Just think of what goes on with high-def TV, where the slightest flaw in a performers makeup stands out like a sore thumb. No one ever saw these faults with low res TV, but they were there. Then there's DOF considerations that Nikon warns about. Isn't that just the focus issue at the limits of the DOF? Having said all this re focus, I still don't know what to do about it on the D800 other than to be as careful as heck. I'm not about to lug around a tripod for all of my shooting or even most of it. Perhaps manual focusing is the answer or perhaps just taking more time with each shot will do. Or maybe if it becomes such a big deal, I'll just return the D800 and be happy again with my D700.


briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#34. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 33

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Tue 28-Feb-12 06:46 PM

>The D800 should focus no differently than other cameras do.
>When a lens is focused accurately on the sensor plane, why
>should the number or density of the pixels matter? It's either
>in focus or out.

I don't think it's about focus, but resolution.

Any given lens has a maximum possible resolution (the amount of fine detail it can show). Optical resolution is generally lower towards the corners of the frame, and a high-density sensor may make this fall-off more visible than one with lower pixel density.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#35. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 34

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Wed 29-Feb-12 12:26 PM

>I don't think it's about focus, but resolution.
>
>Any given lens has a maximum possible resolution (the amount
>of fine detail it can show). Optical resolution is generally
>lower towards the corners of the frame, and a high-density
>sensor may make this fall-off more visible than one
>with lower pixel density.

I am aware of edge focus softening though it's minimal with the Nikkor glass I shoot. I also try to further minimize this by keeping around f/8 for high-detail work. This still doesn't explain why Nikon indicates a potential 'critical focus' issue with the D800 as compared to other cameras. The focal plane is the focal plane. Why should the D800 sensor be any different regarding edge fall-off? The D800's sensor occupies the focal plane just like any other sensor. More megapixels or a higher megapixel density shouldn't change the geometry.

Perhaps with 36.3 MP the potential to see slight focus errors in zoomed-in screen views and enlarged/cropped prints is increased so much, such inaccuracies are made dramatically obvious. Since many photographers (myself included) will purchase the D800 for doing just such enlarged/cropped editing, I can see where 'focus' becomes critical.

Nikon should explain this rather than attributing the D800's focus sensitivity to either lens quality or something mysterious about the sensor. Are they trying to warn us that perhaps the AF will not be up to the task?


KnightPhoto

Alberta, CA
4971 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#36. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 35

KnightPhoto Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Dec 2006
Wed 29-Feb-12 12:47 PM

Aha, are you currently an AF tuner? Maybe Nikon is telling us we better be prepared to do so

(I haven't read the tech guide yet)

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#37. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 36

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Wed 29-Feb-12 02:33 PM

>Aha, are you currently an AF tuner? Maybe Nikon is telling
>us we better be prepared to do so
>
>(I haven't read the tech guide yet)
>
>Best regards, SteveK

Thanks for the thought.

By AF tuner I assume you mean tweaking my individual Nikkor lenses for focal point. I do always check the focus on new lenses and have yet to find a Nikkor that needed any in-camera adjustments.

I became concerned about the AF on the D800 when the 20-page 'manual' I downloaded from Nikon said that the best way to critically focus and avoid out-of-focus problems was to do so via live view (I think it also said zoomed in on details). I don't generally focus this way - preferring to use the viewfinder - except when using a micro lens. This would be a game-changer for me. I don't love lugging around and using a tripod either, even if I do use one occasionally. My preference is to hand-hold and to use manual focus in difficult situations.

RRRoger

Monterey Bay, US
3373 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#38. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 35

RRRoger Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his long history of demonstrated excellence and helping other members with equipment, technique and DSLR video in the true Nikonians spirit. Charter Member
Wed 29-Feb-12 12:54 PM

>Quote
>Nikon should explain this rather than attributing the D800's focus sensitivity
to either lens quality or something mysterious about the sensor.
Are they trying to warn us that perhaps the AF will not be up to the task?
>Quote<<<
>
>
I expect the D800 AutoFocus to be faster and more accurate than anything but a D4.

Nikon wants to avoid the negative feedback caused by user error by educating buyers in advance of purchase.
They will sell lots more cameras if they avoid what they got on the D7000
when users were unprepared for the higher resolution.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#39. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 38

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Wed 29-Feb-12 02:39 PM

>I expect the D800 AutoFocus to be faster and more accurate
>than anything but a D4.
>
>Nikon wants to avoid the negative feedback caused by user
>error by educating buyers in advance of purchase.
>They will sell lots more cameras if they avoid what they got
>on the D7000
>when users were unprepared for the higher resolution.

I hope you're right about 'more accurate' auto focus.

I've heard a little about that D7000 negative feedback. Do you think that's why they devoted so much space to the focus warning issue in the D800 manual?

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#40. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 35

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Wed 29-Feb-12 05:11 PM

>Why should the D800 sensor be any different
>regarding edge fall-off?

I thought I explained why. It's not about focusing accurately, it's about whether the D800's higher-density sensor can show up the deficiencies of lower-resolution lenses.

>Are they trying to warn us that
>perhaps the AF will not be up to the task?

No.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#41. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 40

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Wed 29-Feb-12 07:17 PM


>I thought I explained why. It's not about focusing
>accurately, it's about whether the D800's higher-density
>sensor can show up the deficiencies of lower-resolution
>lenses.

Thank you for the feedback.

I agree with you that Nikon wants us to use very sharp lenses (preferably Nikkors) with this camera because of the higher pixel density. However they also warn about the D800's high resolution sensor being able to discern even small errors in focusing that wouldn't be as noticeable at a lower resolution.

When I get the camera, I'll see if these concerns are real or just Nikon's efforts at a disclaimer before the product hits the shelf.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#42. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 33

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Wed 29-Feb-12 02:33 PM | edited Wed 29-Feb-12 02:37 PM by nrothschild

>> It's either in focus or out.

Very technically speaking that is far from true. And in fact most images are probably "out of focus" to some extent.

The corollary is Depth of Field (DOF). Technically speaking, an image is only in perfect focus at a single distance. All other distances, including those well within standard Depth of Field tables, are at least slightly out of focus.

The Depth of Field tables are based on the Circle of Confusion (COC) concept, where the computations are based on what the eye can resolve within a certain sized image displayed at a certain viewing distance.

When you display a 36 mpx image on screen at 100% pixels, or print it 4x6 foot and then examine it from a foot or less you are effectively using a much tinier COC and your image will not necessarily appear in focus at the margins of the standard DOF, for example.

Autofocus is a very imperfect tool. Standard phase detection AF (used in normal shooting modes) uses a system of very limited hysteresis where an approximation of the distance the focus helicoil must move is made, and then executed, and maybe one further iteration is performed. The result is an approximation. The result is also typically well within reasonable COC's.

Nikon could make phase detection AF more accurate but at the expense of focus speed. LiveView contrast detection performs many more iterations and is one reason why it is slower to focus (and some believe to be more accurate).

There are other compromises to the AF process inherent in most scenes. Less than ideal light, less than ideal scene contrast or other qualities, that can result in tiny errors we don't usually see because we usually examine our images from the perspective of a reasonable COC.

The higher the system resolution the easier it is to examine images at ever tinier COCs and then pick apart all these tiny errors. I suspect that is the point Nikon is trying to make. They are intentionally vague because their marketing people won't let them couch it in terms of imperfections in the technology .

And, of course, there is all sorts of potential user error too, and user error is likely a bigger problem than minor imperfections in technology or the physics.

>> If I use a tripod, I turn off the VR and use live mode to keep the mirror up.

Be aware that on your D700, LiveView mode results in more, not less, mirror slap than normal shooting mode. That is because the mirror is dropped and then returned when the shutter is fired, resulting in two mirror slap impulses rather than just one impulse in normal shooting mode.

It does this to reevaluate the exposure, which must be done with the mirror down, and it does that even in manual exposure mode where it is completely unnecessary.

The D300 LiveView works the same way. Some day Nikon will fix this problem so I won't say it is true for all later Nikon cameras.

You can confirm this by using LiveView and then listening for the clackety-clack of the mirror when you fire the shutter, which sounds more complicated than a normal mirror up operation. If you run through a LiveView operation with the lens removed, looking into the mirror box, you will see it happen. That is how I confirmed the double tap.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#43. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 42

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Wed 29-Feb-12 03:45 PM | edited Wed 29-Feb-12 05:12 PM by briantilley


Thank you for the detailed technical answer. I fully appreciate your treatment of lens focus - including CoC.

Clarifying:

I realize that 'in focus' does not really mean that everything in the 3D object field is actually focused at the focal plane. That would be impossible as you indicated since there is no such thing as a perfect lens. I use the phrase 'in focus' in the common sense as a general approximation only meaning what is acceptably sharp to the eye. Also, the DOF is really only a range of that 'acceptable sharpness' - as you indicate - as opposed to an actual range of object points in exact (or close to exact) focus.

AF:

I am aware of 'phase detection' AF - used by Nikon in TTL viewing, and 'contrast detection' - used in live view. But, I had no idea of that double-mirror drop during exposure! I took off the lens on the D700 in live view mode and saw it for myself. I also felt the camera vibrate as the mirror banged twice. Once is bad enough for vibration, but twice? Why bother with a tripod?

I have been using live mode for tripod micro shots thinking that the mirror would be up during exposure for reduced vibration, but that is obviously incorrect. From now on, I'll pre-focus in live view (probably manually) and then use mirror up for the shot. Or I'll shoot higher shutter speed/ISO sans tripod TTL for more dynamic shooting micro situations.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#44. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 43

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Wed 29-Feb-12 03:58 PM

I used Depth of Field only as a more easily understood analogy.

Many or most people that have tried to calibrate AF with a lens alignment tool have discovered that AF is not always 100% repeatable and consistent, even in test conditions as idealized as possible. That is why I took some issue with your black and white statement that " It's either in focus or out."

Might be nit picking minute errors but so is looking at 36 mpx 100% pixel displays and so, arguably I guess, is the need to go to those lofty heights of resolution

It will be interesting to see the results of lens alignment tests done with this camera and evaluated at 100% pixels.

Lens Alignment tests, using diagonal image subjects, are probably the most severe test possible of any focusing system. It clearly shows minute errors that typically just aren't as obvious in real world 3D images.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#45. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 44

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Wed 29-Feb-12 06:54 PM

>I used Depth of Field only as a more easily understood
>analogy.
>
>Many or most people that have tried to calibrate AF with a
>lens alignment tool have discovered that AF is not always 100%
>repeatable and consistent, even in test conditions as
>idealized as possible. That is why I took some issue with
>your black and white statement that " It's either in
>focus or out."
>
>Might be nit picking minute errors but so is looking at 36 mpx
>100% pixel displays and so, arguably I guess, is the need to
>go to those lofty heights of resolution
>
>It will be interesting to see the results of lens alignment
>tests done with this camera and evaluated at 100% pixels.
>
>Lens Alignment tests, using diagonal image subjects, are
>probably the most severe test possible of any focusing system.
> It clearly shows minute errors that typically just aren't as
>obvious in real world 3D images.

Thank you for your response. My 'black and white' treatment of focus was not intended for someone as knowledgeable as you. In the future, I'll shade my optical pronouncements using a proper gray scale .

I often question the accuracy of AF, especially in low light and low contrast situations. I almost always switch to manual focus for important work - a throwback from days-of-old but I'm comfortable with it. If however, the action is moving, I rely on the AF and lots of DOF.

I most often print out at 13" X 19" cropped images. Since I'm using a D700 I have to enlarge(CS5 or LR4) quite a bit. This is why I ordered a D800e. I want to view and print with real live pixels rather than interpolated ones.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#46. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 45

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Wed 29-Feb-12 07:09 PM

>> I most often print out at 13" X 19" cropped images. Since I'm using a D700 I have to enlarge(CS5 or LR4) quite a bit. This is why I ordered a D800e. I want to view and print with real live pixels rather than interpolated ones.

A 12 mpx image will print a 13x19 at just about 300 DPI at native resolution. Why are you interpolating your D700 images for those prints?

I'm asking not to argue but I am curious about the specific reasons people have for going past 12 mpx, which are rarely discussed except in general terms. And given the apparent interest in this camera there seem to be a lot of people with that very need .

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

KnightPhoto

Alberta, CA
4971 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#47. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 46

KnightPhoto Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Dec 2006
Wed 29-Feb-12 11:24 PM

I believe he indicated he is cropping...

Also BTW I believe in the D4/D800 announcement materials Nikon indicates they have eliminated the silly mirror banging that was going on in Live View shooting. And Hayo Baan has some info in his blog on it.

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#48. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 47

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Thu 01-Mar-12 03:09 PM

>Also BTW I believe in the D4/D800 announcement materials Nikon
>indicates they have eliminated the silly mirror banging that
>was going on in Live View shooting. And Hayo Baan has some
>info in his blog on it.

Re: Double Mirror Bang in Live View on the D800

I called Nikon regarding the double mirror bang but the tech who answered had no knowledge about this issue on the D800. He also had no access to the camera since Nikon hasn't seen fit to provide one to Nikon USA! I'll continue looking for references to this problem.

I went to the Havo Baan site you referred to and it looks great. I'll be exploring it soon.

Thanks

DigitalDarrell

Knoxville, US
5987 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#49. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 48

DigitalDarrell Team Member Founding Member of the Nikonians writer Guild. Author of most of the NikoniansPress books. Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2015 Charter Member
Tue 10-Apr-12 09:16 PM | edited Tue 10-Apr-12 09:42 PM by DigitalDarrell

>Re: Double Mirror Bang in Live View on the D800
>
>I called Nikon regarding the double mirror bang but the tech
>who answered had no knowledge about this issue on the D800. He
>also had no access to the camera since Nikon hasn't seen fit
>to provide one to Nikon USA! I'll continue looking for
>references to this problem.


The Nikon D800 raises the reflex mirror in Live View mode and does not lower it during exposures, unlike previous Nikons. It does use the normal shutter during exposures, which blocks the sensor briefly, blackening the monitor. There is no double mirror banging on the D800, in fact, no mirror banging at all in Live View mode.

I verified this in every available Live View mode with my own D800 by setting the camera to M mode, removing the lens, and watching what happens during an exposure cycle. No mirror movement!

==============================================
Darrell Young (DigitalDarrell) www.pictureandpen.com
"Better too many words than not enough understanding."
==============================================

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#50. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 46

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Thu 01-Mar-12 02:29 PM

>A 12 mpx image will print a 13x19 at just about 300 DPI at
>native resolution. Why are you interpolating your D700 images
>for those prints?

A 12.1 MP image will load into CR/PS (and I assume LR) at 4256 X 2832 pixels at 300 ppi. That works out to a 14.187" X 9.44" image. I think the native resolution (D700 .nef raw) is 240 ppi, but that still doesn't give you sufficient size for a 13" X 19" print without enlargement/interpolation/cropping.

You have to enlarge the native image to get it to cover 13" X 19". In Photoshop I use Image > Image Size > Bicubic Smoother and set the width to 20 with all boxes checked and 300 ppi. This yields a 20" X 13.308" enlarged 300 ppi interpolated image. I then crop back the image to 13" X 19" and edit it. The final print is then 13 X 19 @300 ppi - which is ideal for my printer (HP b9180).

You could also set Camera Raw so it exports to PS at 6144 X 4088 pixels @300 ppi. This gives an image size of 20.48" X 13.672" to start with, but that image is then already interpolated as it is exported into PS. In PS, you can then crop it back to 13" X 19". The difference here is that the enlargement/interpolation is done by Camera Raw - and I have no idea whether it's the same bicubic smoother algorithm or not. I've tried both ways of enlarging/interpolating but can see no difference on the screen or in the final print.

Lightroom:

Whereas you can control this enlarging/interpolation process and resolution in Photoshop/CR, Lightroom just loads the image at its native resolution of 4256 X 2832 pixels (14.187" X 9.44" image @ 240 ppi). You can see this in the metadata but have to infer that it's at 240 ppi. You then have to crop it to 13" X 19" with no way to choose the resolution of the final crop. That is, until you get to the Print Module. Here you can set what LR calls the print resolution to 300 ppi (or whatever you want). This is curious since printers print in dpi, not ppi - so I don't know what's really going on re resolution in LR. The bottom line however is that I get beautiful prints from both PS and LR.

With the D800 at 36.3 MP, a 300 ppi image should yield an size slightly larger than 16" X 24". No interpolation is required to crop (without further enlarging) to 13" X 19".

Having said all of the above, I regularly enlarge and crop my D200 and D700 images - sometimes quite severely. The prints come out nice and sharp - interpolation notwithstanding - so I can hardly imagine how they'll look with the D800.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#51. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 50

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Thu 01-Mar-12 02:57 PM

How Lightroom does that is entirely logical, because a NEF image file has no "native resolution" associated with it, just its actual pixel dimensions (4256 x 2832 in this case).

Any resolution figure you see when opening the image (through ACR) in Photoshop comes from the software itself.

PPI (or DPI) means nothing until you come to choose a print size.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#52. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 51

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Thu 01-Mar-12 03:45 PM

>How Lightroom does that is entirely logical, because a NEF
>image file has no "native resolution" associated
>with it, just its actual pixel dimensions (4256 x 2832 in this
>case).
>
>Any resolution figure you see when opening the image (through
>ACR) in Photoshop comes from the software itself.

Why does ACR show - and export into PS - different file sizes depending on your choice in the Workflow dialog box? Choose a larger (+) 'size' and you get a larger (MB) PS file. Isn't that interpolation going on?

>PPI (or DPI) means nothing until you come to choose a print
>size.

Ppi and dpi are different things. Ppi refers to pixel density in an image (in this case) while dpi refers to dots of ink per inch on a print. Or, do I have that wrong? In any event, LR refers to the print resolution in ppi units, which I think should read dpi.

Thanks for the info even if I'm still a bit confused

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#53. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 52

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Thu 01-Mar-12 04:45 PM

PPI (pixels per inch) means NOTHING for a digital image. When viewing on a screen, it has no effect. A 3000 x 2000 pixel image will display exactly the same whether its PPI is 300, 200, 100 or any other value.

I don't use ACR, so can't answer that part of your question.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

AreBee

Inverness, UK
531 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#54. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 50

AreBee Registered since 27th Apr 2008
Thu 01-Mar-12 04:13 PM

>...I regularly enlarge and crop my D200 and D700 images - sometimes quite severely.<

You have mentioned many times in this thread that you crop images you have shot. Why are you not framing the scene correctly at the outset?

Rob
www.robbuckle.co.uk

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#55. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 54

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Thu 01-Mar-12 05:15 PM

>>...I regularly enlarge and crop my D200 and D700 images -
>sometimes quite severely.<
>
>You have mentioned many times in this thread that you crop
>images you have shot. Why are you not framing the scene
>correctly at the outset?

I try to use glass to frame properly but often don't succeed. For example I photographed a moose with her yearling last Spring but the action was so quick I couldn't always position the shot the way I wanted to, nor could I get close enough - even with 200mm. Enlarging and cropping saved the day for me.

In general I enlarge many of my D700 images since the raw files don't contain enough megapixels to cover the 13" X 19" prints I make. Although I get sharp prints this way, I am hopeful that the D800 will allow me to simply frame or frame and crop without resorting to interpolation.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#56. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 55

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Fri 02-Mar-12 09:10 AM | edited Fri 02-Mar-12 09:55 AM by nrothschild

>I try to use glass to frame properly but often don't succeed.
>For example I photographed a moose with her yearling last
>Spring but the action was so quick I couldn't always position
>the shot the way I wanted to, nor could I get close enough -
>even with 200mm. Enlarging and cropping saved the day for me.

You only discuss the D700 here and only list that DSLR camera in your profile. Have you shot wildlife with DX cameras? And if so, which cameras?

I shoot wildlife with a D300 and D700, and a 500/4. I also have a 70-200 and a 300/4 AFS but for my birding that is rarely enough focal length for my primary work. There are at least 3 others in this thread (Brian, Jim and Steve) doing more or less the same thing I am doing, with roughly the same gear (long focal length and some with FX/DX depending on the circumstances).

The short story is that I think it is a mistake to try to overcome a lack of reach by increasing sensor density in the case where it is easy and relatively cheap to simply increase focal length.

Edit: In addition to the above is the fact that, all else equal, you are always, always better off with a longer native focal length and a less powerful TC. Or in other words, to achieve a certain focal length you are always better off with a longer native focal length and a TC14, verses using a too short focal length and making up for it with a 2x TC.

Now put that together: If you are using a 2X TC with too short a lens and you try to make up for it by depending on increasing sensor density you may not always like the result.

I think that, the slower frame rate notwithstanding, the D800 will make a great wildlife camera. For me it would be like having the best of the D300 and D700 (but even better), in the case where I am basically already at the focal length wall (shooting up to 850mm with TC's).

In your case I think you would do better to add a 300/4 AFS (plus TC14 or TC17)or something equivalent, like the 80-400 or a Sigma 150-500, or even better a super-tele like a 300/2.8 or 500/4 (but then at generally far greater cost and inconvenience than a D800).

In order to go into more detail I would need to know what DX cameras you may have used in the past, especially with the 70-200 and "2x TC". Also which TC you are using- the TC20-EIII or TC20E-II, or some other 3rd party TC?

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#57. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 56

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Fri 02-Mar-12 02:52 PM

>You only discuss the D700 here and only list that DSLR camera
>in your profile. Have you shot wildlife with DX cameras? And
>if so, which cameras?

My response:
Yes, I've shot wildlife with a D200, both with a DX 18 - 200 Nikkor and a 70 - 200 FX GII ED (with and without a TC-20EII extender). This includes birds, bears, and moose.

>The short story is that I think it is a mistake to try to
>overcome a lack of reach by increasing sensor density in the
>case where it is easy and relatively cheap to simply increase
>focal length.

My response:
I couldn't agree more. Glass is preferable to both sensor density and interpolation any day. That is, good glass if you can afford it.

>Edit: In addition to the above is the fact that, all else
>equal, you are always, always better off with a longer native
>focal length and a less powerful TC. Or in other words, to
>achieve a certain focal length you are always better off with
>a longer native focal length and a TC14, verses using a too
>short focal length and making up for it with a 2x TC.

My response:
I've been successful with the 2X tel-extender on the 70-200 using the D700. The D700 allows me to pump up the ISO to counteract the 2-stop loss. Then using either Lightroom or NIK Dfine 2.0, I can remove the noise with little or no sharpness loss - even at very high ISO settings. The VR on the 70-200 is icing on the cake. I photographed a deer just before dusk at 250 feet - hand held - and it came out sharp.
>
>Now put that together: If you are using a 2X TC with too
>short a lens and you try to make up for it by depending on
>increasing sensor density you may not always like the result.

My response:
I agree. I only can use the extender with the 70-200 anyway.

>In your case I think you would do better to add a 300/4 AFS
>(plus TC14 or TC17)or something equivalent, like the 80-400 or
>a Sigma 150-500, or even better a super-tele like a 300/2.8 or
>500/4 (but then at generally far greater cost and
>inconvenience than a D800).

I wish for 600mm or better all the time - even if it means lugging a tripod. Maybe someday?

I no longer have the D200 and all my lenses are FX. The only non-Nikkor lens I have is a Sigma 70mm micro - which I really like but only for micro work.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#58. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 57

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Fri 02-Mar-12 05:17 PM

OK, Rob. I have a couple of thoughts.

First, my experience with high ISO and everything technical I have read on the subject suggests that increasing ISO results in lower resolution. They are more or less inversely proportional but not necessarily perfectly linear in that way.

Therefore the idea of "pumping up ISO" with the immense resolution of the D800 does not seem to be a good idea on that point alone, forgetting any noise you may see at any given output size. Assuming you are after ultimate resolution for deeper cropping. Plus, I've always found that trying to add noise reduction to any finely detailed image (where D800 resolution might be needed) is usually a hopeless battle against sharpness.

In particular with my heavily cropped birding images.

That is just my experience and the experience of others I've seen, to some greater or lesser degree.

I own the TC20E-II and the 70-200 VR1. Personally I won't even use that combination. We've talked about this 400mm problem so much over the years that I put this comparative test together, pitting the 70-200 + TC20E-II against the 300/4 + TC14E-II. And I've done that a couple of times over the years with the same results. Despite tongue in cheek selection of a quasi real world scene, I believe the test is accurate and repeatable, at least with my samples of this gear.

This all makes perfect sense because progressively stronger TC's simply magnify any defects in the parent lens. Zooms are inherently less sharp than primes, all else equal, and in that way the 70-200 and 300/4 are quite "equal". The 300/4 is an inherently sharper lens, especially wide open with a TC.

While I would never shoot the 70-200 wide open with that TC20E-II, I have no qualms about shooting the 300/4 wide open with the TC14, and that is the reason I kept that lens even though the 70-200 is a more versatile lens and I have a 300/2.8 AFSII and the 500/4 AFS to get out that far and way beyond, in a far superior way.

The only downside to the 300/4 is that, without VR, it absolutely needs serious support in order to get *all* it has to deliver, especially at the resolution you will be working on the D800.

I love my 70-200 and would never sell it, but it has been a poor way (for me!) to get to 400mm and my experience is consistent with almost all the comments I've seen over the years regarding this 400mm issue and these lenses (and there have been untold dozens of threads on this).

Your samples may give better results for you, but I suspect you will not be happy with the results on the D800, with an equivalent 16 mpx DX size image area, verses the 10 mpx you used previously and the 5.1 mpx you get now with the D700. One of the many nice things about the D700 is that the pixel pitch makes these things easier to deal with, although we always want more resolution to get back into that high density trap .

You will also find that the "magical" high ISO performance being touted for the D800 is based on un-cropped images. Just like your D700, as you crop deeper and deeper that magic progressively diminishes. That's why I do not tend to try to use the D700 in low light conditions that require high ISO *AND* heroic crops. Those are what I call images that were never meant to be taken .

Now put the two together and and you find that the D800 will make for a more severe test of your core optics (in particular your TC20E-II). Shooting at high ISOs will diminish your resolution somewhat, and the camera may not be as noise free as you think.

(mitigating that is the fact that the D800 may be about a full stop better in inherent high ISO performance than your 700 so you may get an interesting sideways trade there to some extent- a bit of a free lunch. But the deeper potential cropping you can do will eventually bring the noise out)

I suggested the 300/4 because it is half the price, more or less, of a D800, where a super-tele would be twice to three times as much or more, so not a fair solution to the problem.

I would suggest at a minimum considering the new TC20E-III, which some think is significantly better on the 70-200. It's still a 2x TC though, and it won't likely outperform or even equal a 300/4 with a TC14E-II.

I've made some predictions here. I don't want to argue them- we can't at this point without real world experience with the D800. I'll just be interested in your views on this matter, as well as the preponderance of the opinion of other early D800 adopters, 3-6 months after putting the camera through it's paces. And it will take that long for most people to figure a lot of this out.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

AreBee

Inverness, UK
531 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#59. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 58

AreBee Registered since 27th Apr 2008
Fri 02-Mar-12 06:03 PM

Neil,

>...my experience with high ISO and everything technical I have read on the subject suggests that increasing ISO results in lower resolution...<

>Therefore the idea of "pumping up ISO" with the immense resolution of the D800 does not seem to be a good idea on that point alone...<

I would add to the above that increasing ISO decreases dynamic range. Of course it is always possible that the dynamic range of the scene is less than the reduced dynamic range capable of being captured by the camera at higher ISO setting. However, considering that resolution and, I suspect, dynamic range are the principal features of the D800, it seems to me that cropping images shot at high ISO runs counter to the use for which the camera is intended.

Rob
www.robbuckle.co.uk

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#60. "RE: High ISO, Noise, and Telephoto" | In response to Reply # 58

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Fri 02-Mar-12 06:53 PM | edited Fri 02-Mar-12 06:54 PM by robosolo

It's hard to know just where to begin , so let's start with my practice of pumping up the ISO and the use of noise reduction.
I've spent years testing various noise-reducing products and here's what I've discovered. Most editing programs (PS, LR) suffer from that trade-off you pointed out, namely losing sharpness at the expense of reducing noise. Of all the plug-ins I've tested, NIK's Dfine 2.0 was the best. It maintains real sharpness while reducing (or almost eliminating) noise significantly. Lightroom 3 is fair at doing this and Lightroom 4 Beta has really improved in noise reduction sans loss of sharpness, but Dfine 2.0 still rules for above 1600 ISO noise reduction. Try the plug-in if you don't believe me. They have a 30-day free download. I'm certain you will see what I have seen. As for that inverse noise-resolution relationship you've read about, it may be there but I'm not seeing it with the D700 at moderate ISO (read below 1600) but it is not a significant factor even at higher ISO settings as far as I can see. I promise to scrutinize my images further for it thoug .
Having said all the above, this stuff works fantastically with the D700 but not nearly as well with the D200. BTW, on the WEB I came across some comparison high ISO shots between the D700 and the D800. I can't verify the voracity but they show the D800 beating the D700 hands-down for low noise at extremely cropped and very high ISO.

Just to clear up something: I use the newer 70-200 with the improved VR(AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm 1:2.8GII ED) and the TC-20E III, not the II.

Primes vs Zooms: I've always found primes to be sharper, just like everyone writes. The Nikkor 70-200 is scary sharp but I don't yet own any long fixed glass to compare it to. So I take your word for it that a 300mm with a 1.4 teleconverter will be sharper - at least on a tripod.

Re: 300mm f/4: Not too bad if it's under $2000. If I put my TC-20E III
on it I'll get 600mm. That's tripod territory anyway so no VR would be OK. And, with an effective max aperture of f/8, I'll just have to pump up the ISO whenever I need more speed or don't have enough light:).

Now for that darn D800:
I have a D800E on pre-order through Crutchfield and will test it thoroughly (I have 60-days) before deciding whether or not to allow it to replace (or just augment) my venerable D700. If I find it wanting, I'll return it. But, you probably have a better approach in waiting those 3 to 6 months. I once raised several chickens and told this farmer how smart I thought one of them was. This 'smart' chicken was always the first to try something new, whether it be a different brand of feed or a new hen house. A real leader! That farmer set me straight. He said that a truly smart chicken is always last to try something new. That way it can see who survives .

I really appreciate your input (even if we disagree on ISO pumping and noise reduction) and thank you for your insights and suggestions.



nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#61. "RE: High ISO, Noise, and Telephoto" | In response to Reply # 60

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Fri 02-Mar-12 07:51 PM

I got the impression you were using a TC20E-II here in reply #66:

>> Yes, I've shot wildlife with a D200, both with a DX 18 - 200 Nikkor and a 70 - 200 FX GII ED (with and without a TC-20EII extender). This includes birds, bears, and moose.

Don't misunderstand me... the D800 will be a fine camera and I already said it will be a fine wildlife camera. I doubt you will return it. It will provide the resolution many of us D700 shooters would like to have, and when compared at a standard output size it will be almost a stop less noisy. For high ISO it should perform comparably to a D3s (maybe even better in some ways, as you suggest) so you get that upgrade for almost half the price.

I mentioned waiting 3-6 months only in the context of fully understanding all the implications of the huge resolution jump in the context of how the typical shooter will fare with it. The "physics" are known and easily understood. Guessing at people's perceptions- a different and very fuzzy matter

I'm not a smart chicken. I'm a poor chicken. If I were a well heeled chicken I would already have a deposit down on one

(In truth I just don't think I need one for my work, but that does not mean I don't want one)

The main reason I started this was not to talk you out of the D800 but to try to talk you into more focal length because then I think you would be solving the reach problem the right way and your results will reflect it. You will do well with the optical gear you have; you will do far better with a longer lens - if I am correct in my assessments.

I am confident I am right enough such that in any event you will do better with a new lens - it is only a matter of degree. That assumes that the 70-200 VRII performs about comparably as the VR1 version with any given 2x TC (it is not some magical combination with the TC20E-III).

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#62. "RE: High ISO, Noise, and Telephoto" | In response to Reply # 61

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Sat 03-Mar-12 12:07 PM

Neil,
I'm not really a rich chicken either, or I would own some long Nikkor glass already.

The AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED looks like what I can afford. With a 2X teleconverter I will get to 600mm. The 2-stops and f/4 penalty (f/8) should be offset by the D800's (and D700's) superior higher ISO/low noise. I would tend to stop down for better IQ anyway so I can live with the slowness. The lack of VR doesn't bother me since this will be -for me - strictly a tripod lens. Oh well, I guess I'm going to be lugging around one of my tripods again. But, the compensation will be all the great critter shots I can capture.

Thanks for your advice. This lens is already on my shopping wish list. I'll get one as soon as my wife forgets about the cash I spent on the D800.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#63. "RE: High ISO, Noise, and Telephoto" | In response to Reply # 62

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Sat 03-Mar-12 01:55 PM | edited Sat 03-Mar-12 02:01 PM by nrothschild

Just be aware that working the 300/4 (or any lens) at f/8 will likely result in very marginal AF, which is one reason I don't use a 2x TC very often on my f/4 lenses.

A lot of us have had good results using the TC17 on that lens, resulting in 500mm f/6.8. The ability to push the AF envelope by splitting those two stop TC options with the TC17 is one of the benefits of that lens (or the other f/4 longer super-telephotos).

If I were asked to pick which is the most important TC with that lens - TC14 or TC17, I would pick both . They are equally important to me. If I really had to pick I would settle for the TC14 because the resulting AF is more reliable on that lens and therefore usable in more situations.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#64. "RE: High ISO, Noise, and Telephoto" | In response to Reply # 63

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Sat 03-Mar-12 03:11 PM

I only own the 2X now, so that's what I'll try first - that is whenever I get that lens.

The marginal AF concerns me a bit. I can see myself using MF most often at 600m on a tripod, but would certainly like it better if the AF worked well. Question: Would the AF function the same on all cameras using that 300mm + 2X setup? Or, would the D700 and the D800 do a better AF job than -let's say - a D200? (I realize the lens contains the AF motors.)

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#65. "RE: High ISO, Noise, and Telephoto" | In response to Reply # 64

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Sat 03-Mar-12 04:20 PM

I've never compared the D200 vs D300 AF performance with that lens and 2x TC. I don't think it would be a game changer. Only the new D4 is really designed for f/8 and I suspect that for some people that alone might be worth the price of admission.

The 300/4 and 70-200 have almost the same "Light Gathering Power" (LGP), which is a measurement of the diameter (or area) of the front lens. LGP tells you how long you can go before your aperture is so small that it creates problems. (LGP has different meanings and contexts but that is good enough for our context here).

The right solution is a bigger front element but the next step up in Nikkor glass is $6K and up for 4" of glass, compared to the ~3" of the two lenses in question here.

It's a huge price gap there, and the only thing in between is something like the Sigma something-500 f/6.3 lenses, which are only 1/6 stop faster in total LGP, and you would never be able to use a TC on them because you'd be around f/10 with a 1.4x (plus some quirks related to Sigma restrictions on TC's on those lenses).

The only remotely "economical" approach is a non-VR 300/2.8 or 500/4, which is what I did - my 300/2.8 AFSII and 500/4 AFS were bought with economy in mind.

Used 300/2.8 AFS models go for very roughly the $3K range, and a 500/4 AFS *might* be had as low as $4K, maybe $4.5K average? I have not looked at these used prices for a couple of years now.

Here is an interesting set of choices:

1. D700 + 300/2.8 AFSII + TC20. For about $3K that gets you long the Right Way, to 600mm, working a fully "legal" f/5.6. Although I didn't like my TC20E-II on my 300, I suspect the TC20E-III may do better and that is consistent with many user reports.

In terms of pixels across the target, this is equivalent to about 352mm on the D800, or slightly less than what you would get with your 70-200 with TC20, or about the same as you would get with the TC17.

It has the benefit of having you working with a much more forgiving (D700) sensor. You would eventually want more TC's to make up for the lack of zoom in those longer focal lengths.

The 300/2.8 AFSII is also simply a truly amazing lens, especially when used without a TC. I've gotten some absolutely amazing candid portraiture at 300/2.8 (and some sports). It's something you just can't do with a 70-200, as good as that zoom is. You may or may not have a use for that type of work or something similar.

2. D800 + 70-200 + TC20E-III. Same $3K cost

3. D800 + 300/4 AFS + TC17. This will run you about $5K. You get a somewhat marginal but probably mostly usable 500mm f/6.8.

4. D700 + 500/4 AFS. This would run you $5K or less. For mammals it might be overkill. The guy that sold me his 500/4 AFS lives in the Rockies, shoots mammals, not birds, and basically traded his 500 in for a 200-400, which he thought was a better focal length for large mammals. It's also quite a load to carry and needs some very good support since it doesn't have VR and can handle quite wildly on a less than fully beefy tripod.

5. D800 + 300/2.8 AFS + TC? or maybe 200-400. That would probably be nirvana for you, at a cost of $6K

My camera evolution looked like this: D2h-->D200-->D300-->D700. I retained all 4 cameras (to this day). When I got the D200 it supplemented the D2h because the D200's AF was not nearly as good, nor the frame rate.

The D300 instantly retired the D2h. Now I shoot a D700 for all my shorter focal length work, and the D300 or D700 for long focal length work (700-850mm). I tend to favor the D300 because I am a birder and a birder never has enough focal length. Period.

The D300 is 3x the pixels of the D2h, or exactly the ratio of the D700 to D800. My experience has been that it was not at all easy to actually fully utilize the additional pixels. The extra pixels are a good placebo and make you feel good but when critically comparing images at 100% pixels I found it far, far easier to get razor sharp images (at 100% display) on the D2h. I was using longer focal lengths than you do now- at the time the 300/2.8 working 500mm.

The D700, at 5.1 mpx DX, is actually only slightly higher resolution than the D2h (when cropping down to or below the DX image frame size). So the D2h-->D300 is actually very comparable to D700-->D800 in terms of the decision between increasing reach by sensor density or focal length.

Faced with the choice, I don't think there is any question I would rather shoot the D2h + 300/2.8 than the D300 + 70-200 (plus whatever set of TC's I prefer). The best way is the 300/2.8 (or longer) + D300 of course, but I'm trying to prioritize a limited budget here.

Realistically the choice for me in the hypothetical above would be 300/2.8 this year, D300 next year (or D800 in your context).

As a mammal shooter, no matter how you try to extend your "reach", as you move past 400mm FX or try to get a sharper 400mm FX, you will find air turbulence is a problem, and at a given time of day an insurmountable problem, especially shooting large mammals because it entails long distances. Because of this I don't like shooting deer at 700mm or more, for example, unless it is within a half hour of sunrise. You will find all your best long range mammal shooting is within a half hour of sunrise. And of course that will coincide with low light.

Because of the relative scarcity of good used long glass, that alone may reverse the sequence but I'm just trying to give you various ideas of how best to push past the 70-200 focal length barrier.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#66. "RE: High ISO, Noise, and Telephoto" | In response to Reply # 65

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Sat 03-Mar-12 06:59 PM

That AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II alone is almost $6K. I can afford a AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED at around $1500.

Where's the Lottery when you need it?

Thanks for all that valuable big glass info. I don't get an opportunity to do much large animal photography except when I'm out hiking or when the occasional bear wanders through my land. Lots of wild turkeys and other birds around my house though. I think you've made me want to do more.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#67. "RE: High ISO, Noise, and Telephoto" | In response to Reply # 66

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Sat 03-Mar-12 07:09 PM

Wildlife photography is a disease, it is a sickness. And finally, it is a money pit.

I never recommend anyone contract that disease, having it myself, but if they insist...

Once you are headed down that path there is only one solution, and anything short of that is a huge compromise. That solution is a 600/4 VRII and the Uber Camera De jure, currently either a D3x, D3s, D4 or D800, depending on things, and having them all in your bag wouldn't hurt. Figure 20K. If you go spartan.

Since the 600 is not a zoom you may need one or more intermediate super-teles too, especially if you shoot mammals. If you shoot birds, don't bother with anything shorter and just weld on the TC of your choice so it won't wobble and you won't be taking it off anyway.

That's why I didn't actually utter the words "300 f/2.8 ED VRII". I took pity on your plight and suggested a nice used 300/2.8 AFS or AFS II . And seriously, that is the only way to split the difference between the $1500 300/4 and the $6K next in line above that big gap.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#68. "RE: High ISO, Noise, and Telephoto" | In response to Reply # 67

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Sun 04-Mar-12 01:01 PM

Don't blame yourself entirely. Moose Peterson's book contributed to my interest too. Since I live in a wooded area and hike in The Whites of NH, I come across (and photograph) critters - both large and small - pretty often.

Fovea

Colombo, LK
3653 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#69. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 0

Fovea Gold Member Nikonian since 26th Sep 2002
Wed 29-Feb-12 01:36 PM

5600dpi negative scanners used to cough out 7650 px x 5100 px files when we used to shoot something called film!!!

Neither the cameras nor the scanners came with tech manuals addressing "image blur"!!

Just don't worry about it!
Higher pixel count, larger sensors, long lenses and teleconverters all magnify flaws in technique

Regards
Dinil


Struck by Light - Blog & Gallery
Visible Range - Commercial photography & digital imaging solutions

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#70. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 69

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Wed 29-Feb-12 02:17 PM | edited Wed 29-Feb-12 05:13 PM by briantilley


I also come from the Days of Film and the wet darkroom. Now I'm all digital except for scanning all those thousands of 35mm negatives and slides that I still have.

I think you're right on target regarding the focus issue. All the things you mention literally magnify the problem, and now we add 36.3 MP to the mix.

I still wonder why Nikon didn't just say it like you did (and I was trying to). Instead they chose to scare everyone with those dire warnings about the critical focus disposition of the D800's sensor.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#71. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 70

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Wed 29-Feb-12 05:17 PM

>Instead they chose to scare everyone with
>those dire warnings about the critical focus disposition of
>the D800's sensor.

I've not seen anything from Nikon that warns about focus being more critical with the D800/E...?

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#72. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 71

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Wed 29-Feb-12 06:58 PM

>I've not seen anything from Nikon that warns about
>focus being more critical with the D800/E...?

Download the 'D800/E' 20-page manual from Nikon's site.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#73. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 72

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Wed 29-Feb-12 08:25 PM

I already downloaded Nikon's D800 Technical Guide. I think you may be misinterpreting some of the guidance therein - possibly because of its slightly sloppy use of terms

The Guide talks about "focus blur" being potentially more visible in D800 images, then suggests using a faster shutter speed to compensate. They obviously mean blur due to movement - shutter speed can't affect whether an image is sharply focussed.

The Guide also mentions that the D800 has shallower Depth of Field "than some cameras" - and that careful focus is required. I see this as generic good practice advice - full-frame images from a D800 and D700, printed to the same size, will in fact have the same DoF. A difference will only be seen by those who insist on viewing their images at the same pixel magnification (say, 100%).

Basically, there are enough people worrying (needlessly in some cases) about whether their skills and lenses are good enough for a D800 without adding focusing to the list

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#74. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 73

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Thu 01-Mar-12 04:59 PM | edited Thu 01-Mar-12 05:01 PM by robosolo

>I already downloaded Nikon's D800 Technical Guide. I think
>you may be misinterpreting some of the guidance therein -
>possibly because of its slightly sloppy use of terms
>
>The Guide talks about "focus blur" being potentially
>more visible in D800 images, then suggests using a faster
>shutter speed to compensate. They obviously mean blur due to
>movement - shutter speed can't affect whether an image is
>sharply focussed.
>
>The Guide also mentions that the D800 has shallower Depth of
>Field "than some cameras" - and that careful focus
>is required. I see this as generic good practice advice -
>full-frame images from a D800 and D700, printed to the same
>size, will in fact have the same DoF. A difference will only
>be seen by those who insist on viewing their images at the
>same pixel magnification (say, 100%).
>
>Basically, there are enough people worrying (needlessly in
>some cases) about whether their skills and lenses are good
>enough for a D800 without adding focusing to the list

You're right, it's rather sloppy phraseology on Nikon's part but the Technical Guide still implies that photographers need to be more careful when holding, focusing, and stopping down - to say nothing of considering lens quality - with a D800.

I don't think I've 'misinterpreted' anything I've read in the guide. Page 10 refers to photos as seeming to have less DOF, not actually having less DOF than other cameras. It makes sense considering that DOF is a function of lens focal length, aperture, and sensor dimensions. That perception must be due to the D800's ability to generate very large images, where extremely small differences in focus could become apparent. It also explains why focusing in general becomes more critical as well as why motion blur on the D800 could raise a red flag.

As for 'worrying' about the potential shortcomings of a camera that isn't even on the shelf yet, that's understandable for some since you have to pre-order these things and may have to lay out a lot of money. I myself am not worried since I can just return the D800 if it doesn't meet my expectations. Till then, I still love my D700.

BTW, I'm one of those fellows who insists on viewing images at 1:1 (100%) when I'm editing. I even go to 200% for some .

stve10

UK
28 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#75. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 74

stve10 Registered since 17th Feb 2012
Thu 01-Mar-12 07:51 PM | edited Thu 01-Mar-12 07:58 PM by stve10

This link may be of help
http://bythom.com/hyperfocal.htm
Also the Depth of field calculatorhttp://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

If using the calculator would the best camera to select be the D7000 as the closest match to the D800 ?

RRRoger

Monterey Bay, US
3373 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#76. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 75

RRRoger Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his long history of demonstrated excellence and helping other members with equipment, technique and DSLR video in the true Nikonians spirit. Charter Member
Thu 01-Mar-12 09:25 PM

>This link may be of help
>http://bythom.com/hyperfocal.htm
>Also the Depth of field
>calculatorhttp://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
>
>If using the calculator would the best camera to select be the
>D7000 as the closest match to the D800 ?
>

for DOF probably the D3x

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#77. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 76

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Fri 02-Mar-12 02:11 PM | edited Fri 02-Mar-12 03:02 PM by robosolo

That was a fantastic article on hyperfocal focus distance hype. The calculator link was neat even if - according to Thom Hogan's article - its use should be limited to wide-angle lenses (assuming the intention is to get 'everything' in acceptable focus). I like lots of bokeh anyway.

From Thom Hogan's article:

"Based upon my experience, for discerning users printing big the circle of confusion should probably be between the photosite size and about 1.5x the photosite size. Smaller than that doesn't get recorded. Larger than that starts to put the blur deeply into adjacent luminance values."

I wonder about the sensor photosite size compared to the COC. With the D800 those photosites are going to be smaller than on the D700. Is there going to be more potential for the COC to exceed the limits of 1 to 1.5 times the photosite size for the D800 sensor? I print big, often with cropped enlargements, so this stuff matters to me.

Edit: What about the decreased photosite pitch in the D800. Won't that also affect the COC bleed-over?

I also have a question about enlarging/interpolation. Since interpolation algorithms create pseudo pixel data (based on adjacent actual pixels) how will that fit into the mix?

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#78. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 75

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Fri 02-Mar-12 08:17 AM

>This link may be of help
>http://bythom.com/hyperfocal.htm
>Also the Depth of field
>calculatorhttp://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
>
>If using the calculator would the best camera to select be the
>D7000 as the closest match to the D800 ?
>

The selected camera determines the Circle of Confusion (COC) used in the DOF computation. COC is dependent solely on sensor format, not resolution. If you select various camera bodies with different resolutions but similar sensor formats the computation will use the same COC. For example, the 4mpx D2h and the 16 mpx D7000 use the same COC.

The dofmaster link uses 0.02mm COC for DX and .03mm COC for FX. It's that simple

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

stve10

UK
28 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#79. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 78

stve10 Registered since 17th Feb 2012
Fri 02-Mar-12 02:25 PM

Thanks for clarifying it for me I mistakenly thought it had more to do with pixel pitch.

Jim Pearce

Grimsby, CA
4397 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#80. "Well, not quite Neil..." | In response to Reply # 78

Jim Pearce Silver Member Nikonian since 02nd Mar 2004
Fri 02-Mar-12 02:55 PM

A corollary to this approach to DOF (which I agree with you on) is that if we crop about the point of focus we increase DOF. So, for instance, a D800 in DX mode has the same DOF as a D7000 (or any other DX camera). Here resolution can come into play as the minimum CoC is two pixel widths.

Jim

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#81. "RE: Well, maybe, or maybe not :-)" | In response to Reply # 80

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Fri 02-Mar-12 04:11 PM

I'm going to disagree with you, Jim, at the risk that we are talking past each other by using different contexts .

It is generally said that FX has thinner depth of field (DOF) than DX. That is true in the context that you are framing the same scene equally (in terms of field of view) and *NOT CROPPING* (for simplicity).

Frame a scene with a DX camera and take an image from a certain distance and focal length, resulting in some certain field of view in the resulting image.

Switching to FX, with the same focal length you must move 33% closer to maintain the same field of view (FOV). Or you must increase the focal length about 50%, maintaining the same working distance. Either method of maintaining the same FOV will have the effect of decreasing DOF.

If, however, you just shoot any given FX image and then start progressively cropping it down further and further, with each successively deeper crop your perceived DOF will decline, assuming the original image and each of these ever deeper crops are reproduced to some constant output size and viewed from a constant distance.

The same would be true with a DX image or any image from any particular sensor or film size. Deeper crops increasingly decrease perceived DOF when the final output and viewing distance remain constant. And this is actually one of the subtle (and little discussed!) dangers of using sensor density as a proxy for longer focal lengths in order to increase "reach".

I have observed this while heroically cropping bird images that were never meant to be . If is a particular problem cropping long 500-850mm focal length images of birds shot wide open. The DOF looks fine in the un-cropped version but not in the final severely cropped version.

I may or may not be agreeing with you, depending on the precise context of the crop you discussed. We have to be very careful here

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

Jim Pearce

Grimsby, CA
4397 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#82. "Think about it this way Neil..." | In response to Reply # 81

Jim Pearce Silver Member Nikonian since 02nd Mar 2004
Fri 02-Mar-12 04:48 PM

You shoot the same scene with a D7000 and D800 in DX crop mode: same focal length, same distance. Are you going to argue that the DX crop shot from the D800 will have less DOF? Now continue the thought experiment, and shoot in FX on the D800, but crop in post processing. Won't the image be identical to the DX crop mode shot? The problem with extreme crops is lack of resolution (this is where the minimum CoC comes in).

Jim

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#83. "RE: Think about it this way Neil..." | In response to Reply # 82

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Fri 02-Mar-12 05:25 PM

>> You shoot the same scene with a D7000 and D800 in DX crop mode:
>> same focal length, same distance.
>> Are you going to argue that the DX crop shot from
>> the D800 will have less DOF?

No, of course not

If you stand in the same place, with the same focal length, the D7000 and D800 (in DX crop mode) will deliver identical depth of field. If you stay in the same place, with the same focal length, and shoot the D800 in FX mode, and crop down in post processing to DX mode you will get a 3rd identical DOF shot.

I did not previously suggest anything to the contrary. If you thought so then you misunderstood me and I did the best I could to carefully explain my comparison and what I thought you might be suggesting.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

Jim Pearce

Grimsby, CA
4397 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#84. "So, we can conclude..." | In response to Reply # 83

Jim Pearce Silver Member Nikonian since 02nd Mar 2004
Fri 02-Mar-12 05:35 PM

That a judicious crop about (meaning including) the point of focus, will increase DOF - as in cropping from FX to DX (about one stop increase). However, at a certain point - due to loss of resolution - cropping will decrease the DOF.

Jim

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#85. "RE: So, we can conclude..." | In response to Reply # 84

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Fri 02-Mar-12 06:52 PM | edited Fri 02-Mar-12 06:55 PM by nrothschild

>That a judicious crop about (meaning including) the point of
>focus, will increase DOF - as in cropping from FX to DX (about
>one stop increase). However, at a certain point - due to loss
>of resolution - cropping will decrease the DOF.

No, that is not what I said. What you said that I quoted just above ("a judicious crop...") in this reply is not the same example you gave.in reply #69. You are completely changing the context of "equal distance and focal length" when you phrase it in terms of "a judicious crop" to any given single image.

If you take any given image and start progressively cropping it down, starting at the most minor crop and progressing to ever deeper crops, you will further decrease depth of field with each crop, including the first most minor crop.

Obviously the effect from a tiny crop is insignificant and we would likely not notice the equally tiny reduction in depth of field. And this assumes that all these crops are then printed or displayed at identical output sizes.

I'm going to try a slightly more mathematical approach.

Let's start with an FX image. Conventional rule of thumb suggests that a standard depth of field table, computed with a 0.02mm Circle of Confusion (COC) will accurately depict everything within that computed depth of field as in focus when the image is displayed at a standard output size at a standard viewing distance.

The actual numbers (and they are set in stone I think, and based on average vision acuity) are close enough for this example.

You print the 8x12 from the un-cropped FX image and at arms length everything appears in focus within the computed DOF. That is mainly because your eyes can't resolve details - at that print size and distance - that are smaller than 0.02mm relative to the image as impressed on the sensor.

You now crop the original image and print it 8x12 and view at the same arm's length distance.

Now details smaller than 0.02mm are resolved by your eyes because any crop of the original image will proportionately increase the magnification of the original image relative to that 8x12 print. And the more you crop the image, the more magnification occurs.

The more you crop an image, the smaller the COC you need to use in a DOF computation in order to get the computed distances to appear in focus at that standard print size and viewing distance.

To put this in perspective, 0.02mm = 20 microns.

The pixel pitch of the D700 is 8.4 microns. The pixel pitch of the D800 is 4.9 microns.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

Jim Pearce

Grimsby, CA
4397 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#86. "Yes, I see what you're saying Neil..." | In response to Reply # 85

Jim Pearce Silver Member Nikonian since 02nd Mar 2004
Fri 02-Mar-12 08:54 PM

That the DOF of the DX crop is less than the original FX shot, even though the DOF of the crop is greater than the FX image of the cropped scene using a longer lens or moving closer would be.

Jim

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#87. "RE: Yes, I see what you're saying Neil..." | In response to Reply # 86

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Fri 02-Mar-12 10:06 PM

You got it:-)

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

Jim Pearce

Grimsby, CA
4397 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#88. "We were indeed talking past each other..." | In response to Reply # 87

Jim Pearce Silver Member Nikonian since 02nd Mar 2004
Fri 02-Mar-12 10:26 PM

Which is, as you mentioned, so easy to do. I was talking about cropping as a strategy, you cropping as a practice. Using DOFMaster:

1. FX camera, 200mm f8 at 10' DOF= .34'
2. DX camera or DX crop, 200mm f8 at 10'= .23'
3. FX camera, 300mm f8 at 10'= .15'

Jim

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

elec164

US
2600 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#89. "RE: We were indeed talking past each other..." | In response to Reply # 88

elec164 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009
Sat 03-Mar-12 01:06 AM

>1. FX camera, 200mm f8 at 10' DOF= .34'
>2. DX camera or DX crop, 200mm f8 at 10'= .23'
>3. FX camera, 300mm f8 at 10'= .15'

Yes, but you must remember that f-number does not an aperture make. Most DOF tables and calculators use an 8x10 print viewed at about 18 inches for their reference.

In scenario 1 and 2 they are capturing the same focal points on the imaging plane regardless of the sensor format, but a different FOV. The reason FX provides a greater DOF than DX is because you are using less enlargement to create the same print size (about 8 times for FX and 13 times for DX). But if you use the same enlargement factor for both with the same viewing distance, then they will appear to have similar DOF (granted you will have a bigger print from the FX then the DX unless you crop for same FOV).

In scenario 3 you have the same FOV, but less DOF with the FX than the DX because you are using a larger aperture for the same subject distance. If you stop down the FX with the 300mm to provide the same aperture as the DX with 200mm, you will then have similar DOF.

Pete

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

MotoMannequin

Livermore, CA, US
8582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#90. "RE: We were indeed talking past each other..." | In response to Reply # 89

MotoMannequin Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography Registered since 11th Jan 2006
Sat 03-Mar-12 04:00 PM

>>1. FX camera, 200mm f8 at 10' DOF= .34'
>>2. DX camera or DX crop, 200mm f8 at 10'= .23'
>>3. FX camera, 300mm f8 at 10'= .15'
>
>Yes, but you must remember that f-number does not an aperture
>make.
>...
>In scenario 3 you have the same FOV, but less DOF with the FX
>than the DX because you are using a larger aperture for the
>same subject distance. If you stop down the FX with the 300mm
>to provide the same aperture as the DX with 200mm, you will
>then have similar DOF.

Indeed and if the apertures are written correctly as ratios such as "f/8" not as "f numbers" or "f8" then this becomes more apparent. f = focal length. 200mm f/8 = 25mm aperture (exit pupil actually for the terminally pedantic) and 300mm f/8 = 37.5mm. 300mm/12 = 25mm so 300mm f/12 should provide similar DOF in the above example.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#91. "RE: We were indeed talking past each other..." | In response to Reply # 90

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Sat 03-Mar-12 04:28 PM

>> 200mm f/8 = 25mm aperture (exit pupil actually for the terminally pedantic)

For the truly terminally pedantic, isn't that "entrance pupil", not exit pupil?

- -

(The aperture diaphragm could be placed on the outside front of the front element - a 25mm aperture mask in this example - resulting in more obviously a 25mm entrance pupil, and optically it is identical to an internal diaphragm.)

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

MotoMannequin

Livermore, CA, US
8582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#92. "RE: We were indeed talking past each other..." | In response to Reply # 91

MotoMannequin Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography Registered since 11th Jan 2006
Sat 03-Mar-12 05:54 PM

I'll withhold judgement until someone more pedantic either confirms or contradicts your statement

I'll stand by my hatred of "f8" though. f/2 is bigger than f/4, the same way 1/2 is bigger than 1/4. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

AreBee

Inverness, UK
531 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#93. "RE: We were indeed talking past each other..." | In response to Reply # 92

AreBee Registered since 27th Apr 2008
Sat 03-Mar-12 06:07 PM

Larry

>I'll withhold judgement until someone more pedantic either confirms or contradicts your statement<

Neil is correct.

Rob
www.robbuckle.co.uk

MotoMannequin

Livermore, CA, US
8582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#94. "RE: We were indeed talking past each other..." | In response to Reply # 93

MotoMannequin Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography Registered since 11th Jan 2006
Sat 03-Mar-12 06:28 PM

>Larry
>
>>I'll withhold judgement until someone more pedantic either
>confirms or contradicts your statement<
>
>Neil is correct.

http://www.smtexas.net/faculty/jackson/CAPPS61011/CAPPS6T2I/Reddy/Webpage/Images/homer-doh-square.jpg

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

AreBee

Inverness, UK
531 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#95. "RE: We were indeed talking past each other..." | In response to Reply # 94

AreBee Registered since 27th Apr 2008
Sat 03-Mar-12 06:55 PM

Larry,

>D'OH!<

Oh please.

Rob
www.robbuckle.co.uk

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#96. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 74

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Thu 01-Mar-12 09:46 PM

Viewing at 100% or 200% can be useful for some types of editing, such as the clone tool, but is completely pointless for judging sharpness.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#97. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 96

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Thu 01-Mar-12 10:20 PM | edited Thu 01-Mar-12 10:26 PM by robosolo

Perhaps you should. I use 1:1 and 2:1 to check for artifacts in sharpening (really edge contrasts) and for halos. I also use these higher settings to identify and remove noise. You sometimes just can't see these things clearly at lower zoom settings but they do affect the overall image.

I'm talking about LR here but the same should apply to PS.

MotoMannequin

Livermore, CA, US
8582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#98. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 97

MotoMannequin Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography Registered since 11th Jan 2006
Sat 03-Mar-12 08:46 PM | edited Sat 03-Mar-12 08:47 PM by MotoMannequin

I find sharpening at 50% zoom generally gives a good impression how the result will render in print. Sharpen at 100% after resize for web posting.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#99. "RE: LR View and Sharpening" | In response to Reply # 98

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Sun 04-Mar-12 01:41 PM

I do the same regarding sharpening - keeping to Fit or Fill (50%). As you point out, it's actually easier to see the effects (of the edge contrast added) at that enlargement level. I generally view at 100% or higher (LR) for noise removal, artifact and halo reduction. I also sometimes use the higher magnification views with the brush tools to achieve accuracy. LR4 Beta seems to have gotten a lot better than LR3 in this respect.

robosolo

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#100. "RE: LR View and Sharpening" | In response to Reply # 99

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Sun 04-Mar-12 02:34 PM

So it seems we agree - viewing at 100% or greater is useful for some types of editing but not for sharpening purposes.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#101. "RE: LR View and Sharpening" | In response to Reply # 100

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Sun 04-Mar-12 05:47 PM

Brian,

You originally stated - and I reacted to - the following:

>>"Viewing at 100% or 200% can be useful for some types of editing, such as the clone tool, but is completely pointless for judging sharpness."

We don't quite agree but it's my fault for not describing my own sharpening process in more detail, so here goes.

The bottom line for sharpening for me is how my final 13"X19" print looks. I think that at around that 50% (fit view in LR) I get somewhat of a preview. If it doesn't look good there, I don't think it will look good in print. I think we agree here.

Having said that, I still view the image vis-a-vis sharpness at those higher magnifications. I'm looking for artifacts introduced by the sharpening such as increased noise and excessive halos (as a result of the sharpening). At the higher levels of view (100% or 200%) I tweak the Amount, Radius, and Detail sliders to reduce or eliminate these factors. In this sense, I am making slight adjustments at these higher magnifications. But, as I've said before, 50% view must still look good.

I should have restricted my disagreement with your statement to the part about the usefulness of viewing at 100% or 200% being limited to clone tool use in editing. I apologize for that.

Isn't it amazing that we're discussing 'sharpening' when you can't actually sharpen a digital image. All that the sharpening algorithms in LR and PS (and all editing programs) do is to play with edge contrasts by inventing and manipulating thin edge halos. Of course this does make the image appear to the eye to be sharper.

Adobe shocked the PS world with the demonstration of a real deblurring plug-in just a few months ago. It can take focus and motion blurred images and make them truly sharp. When it's finally ready maybe we'll have a real sharpening tool available for post. And, of course, lots to argue about.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#102. "RE: LR View and Sharpening" | In response to Reply # 101

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Sun 04-Mar-12 07:03 PM

>I should have restricted my disagreement with your statement
>to the part about the usefulness of viewing at 100% or 200%
>being limited to clone tool use in editing. I apologize for
>that.

No problem! But you will notice that I did originally use the words "...such as..." - I suggested the clone tool as one example of editing that benefits from viewing at high magnifications. We've been saying the same thing all along

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#103. "RE: LR View and Sharpening" | In response to Reply # 102

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Mon 05-Mar-12 02:56 PM

Great minds think alike.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#104. "RE: LR View and Sharpening" | In response to Reply # 101

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Sun 04-Mar-12 08:06 PM

Just one further point, if I may...

The reason for my original post was to help avoid disappointment when members start receiving their D800's. When the D7000 was released - with a much smaller increase in pixel density over the D90 than the D700-D800 jump - we saw quite a few posts where people were viewing at 100% or greater and expressing disappointment over the apparent sharpness.

I understand that there are many possible workflow options, for sharpening and everything else, so thanks again for explaining yours

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

jsfoster

US
33 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#105. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 0

jsfoster Registered since 19th Apr 2011
Sat 03-Mar-12 06:27 PM

Visit my Nikonians gallery.



Hi Diamond,

I was an early user of the D7000 which has the same amount of MP/sqin as the D800. I didn't know about these problems people were having at the beginning because I was out of the country for 6 months immediatley following getting that great camera. I had leapt to it from a D70 which I barely used. But I spent time learning the camera, but my automatic reflexes in using it where honed in the 1960's with my great Nikkormat. Hold the camera steady firmly press the shutter, don't jiggle... and so forth. So, if I had a problem, it was mine and I concentrated on the technique that I had learned that long ago time.. I got great pictures. And I am going to get great ones with the D800, because it follows in the large footsteps of the D7000. Plus, I got a tripod

best wishes, Jon

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#106. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 105

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Sat 03-Mar-12 07:05 PM

Jon,
I remember the Nikkormat. I still have an original F (without the meter head), so I can appreciate where you're coming from. Do you seriously think you'll need to tripod everything with the D800?

robosolo

jsfoster

US
33 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#107. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 106

jsfoster Registered since 19th Apr 2011
Sat 03-Mar-12 09:26 PM

>Jon,
>I remember the Nikkormat. I still have an original F (without
>the meter head), so I can appreciate where you're coming from.
>Do you seriously think you'll need to tripod everything with
>the D800?
>
>robosolo

Not at all, I got the tripod because i want to do work which requires a tripod, architecture, landscape studies and some still lifes or people studies. what a great camera for that, image twice the size of the D7000, with more sophisticated everything. For what I was doing before, it should be fine hand held. Its not an 8x10 view...


Visit my Nikonians gallery.

DiamondPhotography

UK
233 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#108. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 107

DiamondPhotography Registered since 29th Dec 2010
Sat 03-Mar-12 09:46 PM

I am wedding photographer so the only time I can use a tripod is during the ceremony. I do like the look of D800 but will wait to see how others fair with it. Have got D4 on pre-order though...

North East Wedding Photographer

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

wooster

UK
120 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#109. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 108

wooster Registered since 02nd Nov 2011
Mon 05-Mar-12 11:19 AM | edited Mon 05-Mar-12 11:20 AM by wooster

Well I haven't used a D800 but when I shot Canon, I did move from a 20D 8mp crop frame to a 5D 12mp FF and then a 5DmkII 21 mp FF. At no time did I notice a loss of image quality ( in fact it increased greatly ) and my shooting style didn't alter much. I can't help feeling there's an awful lot of hoohah about this sensor TBH.

The difference between 21 and 36 mp isn't that great really and I don't expect I'd have to start doing an awful lot of things differently if I used a D800.

Surely if you used a D800 the exact same way as you use a D700 you will get at least as good a result and probably a bit better? If you use a tripod in optimal lighting etc etc etc then the camera is capable of rewarding that extra effort in a way which cameras with lesser resolving power could not. (umm assuming your lenses and post processing are up to it)

Willie

robosolo

Canaan, US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#110. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 109

robosolo Registered since 28th Feb 2012
Mon 05-Mar-12 03:55 PM

Willie,

Thanks for the input on your experience with IQ and Canons.

Going from my D200 to a D700 only increased the resolution slightly. I'd say 5% - 7%, or so. The IQ for the D700 was much better than the D200 but I think that did not have a great deal to do with the small resolution bump. Going from the D700 (12.3 MP) to a D800/E 36.3 MP should give a resolution increase of around 70%. That should be quite noticeable in my work, since I routinely print 13" X 19" photos and more than occasionally crop them.

As for all that sensor brouhaha, its probably due to Nikon's introduction of such a revolutionary change.

When I get the camera, I'll test. If it doesn't shoot a lot better and produce a significantly higher IQ than my D700, I'll return it and spend my money on longer glass instead. But knowing Nikon, I think that means I'll probably love it and keep it.

robosolo

wooster

UK
120 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#111. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 110

wooster Registered since 02nd Nov 2011
Tue 06-Mar-12 04:39 AM

Personally I'd take the risk of all the extra pixels too

Clint S

Chula Vista, US
460 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#112. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 0

Clint S Silver Member Nikonian since 02nd Jan 2011
Tue 06-Mar-12 05:08 AM

I do not know how many have actually read the D800 Technical Manual - but I suspect few from the number of post. In the technical manual Nikon uses photos as examples and then provide some lessons.

The first photo is the immense library, shot at 1 second, f/8 with a 14-24mm f/2.8.
Lesson 1- use a tripod to reduce blur
Lesson 2- Use Live View, raising the mirror prior to shooting to reduce bluer
Lesson 3 - Do not stop aperture down too far

The second example is the bride with the wedding veil
Lesson 1 - Choose the right focus settings
Lesson 2 - Choose the right exposure settings, choose a wide aperture for a softer feel, choose a speed a bit faster than with other cameras
Lesson (3) from failure - changing the focus point even slightly can blur important details (perceivd DOF issues)

And then there is a section on tips and the suggestions for the best lenses to produce what the camera is capable of.

IMO Bottom line - Nikon is saying that you need to use the best shooting techniques and the proper gear to get the best that camera is capable of. The poorer the technique or gear, the less IQ of shots.

If this camera is similar to the D7000 (IMO it wil be some aspects based on pixel density) then those that do not have good shooting techniques, or are using less than pro gear may very will be disappointed.

Visit my Nikonians gallery - my Spare Time gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

RRRoger

Monterey Bay, US
3373 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#113. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 112

RRRoger Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his long history of demonstrated excellence and helping other members with equipment, technique and DSLR video in the true Nikonians spirit. Charter Member
Tue 06-Mar-12 01:53 PM

Quote>IMO Bottom line - Nikon is saying that you need to use the
>best shooting techniques and the proper gear to get the best
>that a camera is capable of. The poorer the technique or gear,
>the less IQ of shots.
>
>If this camera is similar to the D7000 (IMO it will be some
>aspects based on pixel density) then those that do not have
>good shooting techniques, or are using less than pro gear may
>very will be disappointed.<Quote<<<

I would agree except the D800 has an Expeed 3 Processor, better AF and metering.
It also has slightly larger pixels than a D7000.
Because of this processor and faster, more accurate focus
I am able to get sharp images with my V1 which has even greater pixel density.
So, I expect the D800 to be easier to use,
even if higher resolution does show user error more better.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

SRoss43

US
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#114. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 113

SRoss43 Registered since 10th Apr 2012
Tue 10-Apr-12 01:32 PM

I am trying to figure what the fuss is all about. The D800 was not supposed to be an action camera - the D4 is. I rarely worry about resolution in the corners because my subject of interest is rarely on the edge of the photo. I take macro photos with manual-focus lenses or I turn AF off. I had to spend a good deal of time developing technique and adjusting to a D300. My decision to upgrade from DX to the D800 was not based on everything being better, but the things that were important to me being better - low light, AF improvement, FX, and better resolution when I want it. My TC20eIII which was not very good at DX on a 70-200 will probably be really good on a D800.

The only real deficit I see with the D800 is switching AF, indoor vs. outdoor, etc. It will just be something I will have to get used to.

AreBee

Inverness, UK
531 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#115. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 114

AreBee Registered since 27th Apr 2008
Tue 10-Apr-12 03:57 PM | edited Tue 10-Apr-12 03:58 PM by AreBee

Steve,

>My TC20eIII which was not very good at DX on a 70-200 will probably be really good on a D800.<

If the TC was poor on a DX body using an FX lens then why do you consider that it will be improved when mounted on an FX body?

Rob
www.robbuckle.co.uk

DigitalDarrell

Knoxville, US
5987 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#116. "RE: D800 Image Blur" | In response to Reply # 0

DigitalDarrell Team Member Founding Member of the Nikonians writer Guild. Author of most of the NikoniansPress books. Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2015 Charter Member
Tue 10-Apr-12 11:38 PM

Don't worry so much about blur:

https://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=226&topic_id=41285&mesg_id=41285&page=

==============================================
Darrell Young (DigitalDarrell) www.pictureandpen.com
"Better too many words than not enough understanding."
==============================================

G