Nice post, thanks for sharing - question...was white balance on Auto for those ? Any Post production sharpening ?
It seems the 800 shots have less magenta and maybe a bit more green - similar to what I get out of my D2Xs. I cant wait to try an 800 to see what the colors are like, it always felt to me the latest versions of Nikons are a bit magenta hued as compared to the D200/D2Xs generation which i prefer for color rendition.
Nice test comparisons. I don't think anyone can argue that the D800 ISO performance is worse than the D700. It may be slightly better. My criteria for buying this camera, long before it came out, was "give me the same ISO performance as the D700, plus a higher pixel count (I was thinking 16 to 24mgpx) and it would be worth the purchase. They did that, plus the video.
Sun 25-Mar-12 12:44 AM | edited Mon 26-Mar-12 11:54 AM by Fovea
Sure When Nikon first introduced video in a D-SLR with D90, which was followed by Canon's 5D that ended up becoming the 'standard', the only thing that changed was the ability to use a 'still camera' for high quality video capturing.
This "new ability" did not change the art, science or the craft of capturing motion graphics, which of course has it's roots in photography. As a keen student of the art and science of photography I have an immense respect for motion graphics. There are times I sit down and advance Kurosawa's Seven Samurai and Bergman's Seventh Seal, frame by frame, to get inspiration for my still graphics and to try and understand how a master goes about practicing his craft!
When it comes to motion graphics, the extra dimensions added by motion, sound and the extraordinary teamwork that is needed to pull off a project, have not changed simply because camera manufacturers added video recording to D-SLRs.
Thanks for helping with your well thought out analysis.
I initially was upset about how different the D800 was from the D4, but thanks to posts like this I feel confident that the D800 will work for me with no D4 regrets and 3000 extra dollars in my pocket.
Now if Nikon would only give me a 21st century 16mm FX full frame fisheye. I will be a happy man.
Mon 26-Mar-12 07:47 AM | edited Mon 26-Mar-12 07:52 AM by andersnordh
Hi, as I understand you first down sample the image to D700 size before cropping to 100%? If so I kind of think that you loose the possibility to use the nice high resolution of the new pixel monster while shooting at high ISO or at least the comparison will be wrong. What does it look like straight out of the D800 without any re-sampling? Maybe you could give us an example of that as well?
All the images from the D700 are 4,256 pixels x 2,832 pixels on a 36.0mm x 23.9mm sensor. The D800 has an image measuring 7,360 pixels x 4,912 pixels on a sensor 35.9mm x 24mm. Both are FX sensors so there is no crop factor as there would be on DX. The DX crop on the D800 is to the DX sensor size - 4,800 pixels x 3,200 pixels.
The framing of the image through the lens on a D700 is the same as the D800, so to get a smaller crop of an image using a D700 you need to move closer or change lenses.
If you want to look at the performance of individual pixels, essentially you are wanting to look at something smaller than a DX crop on the D800.
Perhaps Anders is talking about the magnification level on the monitor as opposed to magnification due to sensor size?? Assuming that is what he is referring to, the larger D800 file at same pixel dimensions at the same shooting distance should yield a smaller crop compared to D700!
But that is what you've mentioned in your last sentence, and I have intentionally avoided going there thinking it wouldn't make any real world difference.