M8 vs my old Nikon D100 (pics)

[4season]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

More than anything else, I guess this demonstates how far digital cameras have come since early 2002, when the D100 was first introduced. Photos were shot within minutes of each other, handheld, from same location. Top photos are at 100%, bottom ones have been enhanced to show shadow detail, if any.

 

D100

ISO 200

NEF (raw) output

24-85 f/2.8-4 AF-Nikkor at 85mm

f/16 @ 1/1250 sec (I don't know why there's such a big exposure discrepancy, but I had a heck of a time getting the D100 to render the moon as anything but a featureless white disk)

 

M8

ISO 160

DNG (raw) output

135mm f/4 Hektor screw mount lens

f/8 @ 1/500th sec

M8 renders the moon samon-pinkish as in lower left. I've monkeyed with the white balance in the uppper lefthand photo.

 

The sky was lightly overcast, with a very visible glow around the moon, and probably a fair amount of particulate matter in the air.

 

I'd like to try this test again with a much newer DSLR like Fuji's S5 Pro--after I make the last payment on the M8

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[johnjs]

Jeff,

Appreciate the effort, but what your test really shows is that the moon, full-disk, near the horizon and on somewhat hazy night is a tough subject for astrophotography, except in the context of a landscape photo like in your full versions. I don't think it says anything about the relative merits of either camera. Try spot-metering if you wish to shoot the moon at full or gibbous phase - or wait for the terminator detail at more waning phases. I just went outside and shot this with the D100 with the 18-200VR, full auto, spot-metered and shadow detail enhanced in Photoshop (JPEG). Nearly full moon near the zenith, 100%. Best-John

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[4season]

John, lovely, crispy moon photo! But what I'm not seeing in your D100 photo either is any tonality in the sky whatsoever. In my D100 photo, I don't see the glowing haze, I don't see the tree branches, all I see is a glowing disc on an inky-black background, and if I attempt to dig down into the shadow detail, all I come up with is colorful bands of noise. I admit I'm kind of puzzled about why my D100 came up so short; I'll probably do some followup tests as time allows.

[bayerische]

I don't know much about the D100, but from John's picture it looks like a capable camera.

 

Should have tried with a 1Ds.

[macusque]

I guess what Jeff is showing here is M8's wider dynamic range and abilty to render smoother tone gradations.

 

John image is very nice, but Jeff was trying to achieve a complete rendition of the scene, including moon glare, color of the sky and branches in the foreground.

Something the M8 did amazingly well indeed.

[rvaubel]

John, lovely, crispy moon photo! But what I'm not seeing in your D100 photo either is any tonality in the sky whatsoever. In my D100 photo, I don't see the glowing haze, I don't see the tree branches, all I see is a glowing disc on an inky-black background, and if I attempt to dig down into the shadow detail, all I come up with is colorful bands of noise. I admit I'm kind of puzzled about why my D100 came up so short; I'll probably do some followup tests as time allows.

 

The moon is illuminated by the sun, just like the earth. In order to capture a sunlite moon and the dark side of the earth at the same time would be impossible without considerable manipulation.

When the moon is very low on the horizon, its brightness is significently attenuated by the atmosphere, as is the resolution. Thats why astronomers never try to take shots near the horizon.

 

Rex