Leitax users - consider the "ante" well and truly "upped" - D800 specs

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 5D samples look really quite average. They don't look that different from the the 5D 2 or even that far different from the 5D 1. The colour and tonality still has the same flat look and the detail and micro contrast is severely lacking. It still has that Canon look which I have gladly left behind. The Nikon is better but still looks mushy. I think the current M9 which is 3 years older is going to still give these newer cameras a run for their money.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[mmradman]

The 5D samples look really quite average. They don't look that different from the the 5D 2 or even that far different from the 5D 1. The colour and tonality still has the same flat look and the detail and micro contrast is severely lacking. It still has that Canon look which I have gladly left behind. The Nikon is better but still looks mushy. I think the current M9 which is 3 years older is going to still give these newer cameras a run for their money.

 

No surprise, both Canon & Nikon are using own lenses for marketing shots.

[Sp12]

The 5D samples look really quite average. They don't look that different from the the 5D 2 or even that far different from the 5D 1. The colour and tonality still has the same flat look and the detail and micro contrast is severely lacking. It still has that Canon look which I have gladly left behind. The Nikon is better but still looks mushy. I think the current M9 which is 3 years older is going to still give these newer cameras a run for their money.

 

Online Jpegs are never the answer. Maybe they can tell you a bit about bokeh signature and dynamic range but besides that have no information at all about the true resolution/color/contrast/accutance (microcontrast for you true believers) of the sensor/lens combo.

[Paul J]

Online Jpegs are never the answer. Maybe they can tell you a bit about bokeh signature and dynamic range but besides that have no information at all about the true resolution/color/contrast/accutance (microcontrast for you true believers) of the sensor/lens combo.

 

You can download full size jpgs. They are very average. Even if they were compressed to jpg 7, which I very much doubt, they would still show a reasonable amount of detail. The main 100 ISO portrait is flat in colour, tonality, amateurish looking uneven saturation and completely lacking in detail despite a lot of sharpening. It looks like a 6 or 8MP file that has been uprezzed. It looks the same as any Canon and Nikon file. The other portrait with the girl in the jacket is worse, the distortion from the lens on her face is woefully average. The landscape image has heavy processing and they didn't bother to darken the sky correctly just a rough lasoo and feather. Terrible and falsifying. I know what I'm looking at, these are the same reasons I recently left Canon and they haven't changed. To try and be balanced it looks like there is a bit less noise.

[ThorkilB]

I have just ordered a 5d Mark 3. I plan to use my remaining R lenses on it with the latest focus-confirming MF adapters; my 35 f2, 50 f2 and 1.4 and 80R Lux will all clear the mirror evidently.

 

I think you might be a lot better of with a D800E without AA-filter, looks like more crispnes, and might even fall better in your hands.

[Jamie Roberts]

I think you might be a lot better of with a D800E without AA-filter, lokes like more crispnes, and might even fall better in your hands.

 

Believe me I'm still thinking about it, and I've never second-guessed myself so much over a business camera decision. So if you can put up with the long-ish reply, I'll try to explain my reasons. It might help other R users looking for a home.

 

I can live with an AA filter on a dSLR. I love my M9 and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. And Canon has evidently some software stuff to "remove" the effect of the AA / low pass filter in DPP.

 

But to be blunt, if Leica had an M10 on offer I'd be suspending purchase considerations till I saw what I could get. And if Leica had a real R solution that would also change the equation.

 

But the M10 is a rumour and the Leica R solution, well, let's call it a ghost at this point. We'll see what happens there, but it's not likely to do what I want it to...

 

And I can't afford an S2. That would be the system I would use, and I'd even sell my remaining R lenses to get it, but it's out of reach. I can't even rent one, locally.

 

So I need another camera with a stop more ISO performance than the M9, and I need it now-ish (weddings you know) and so it's down to Nikon or Canon.

 

I just came from over three years of shooting a D3 and it was an excellent--really excellent--camera. Except for colour: I don't know what colour mojo Nikon and Sony dreamed up but I've never fought with a system more for decent skin tones (colour, not texture), which are very important to me.

 

In fact, good skin tones are a make-break post proposition for me, since if I have to spend time on each file to get it "in the ballpark" then I'm losing money. With a DMR, with an M9, this is a "one click" operation. With a Nikon, it's many, many minutes.

 

So: I love everything about the Nikon except for the colour. It's a deal breaker for me at this point.

 

As for Canon, they've always had more easily fixed skin tones, and the latest stuff I've seen from Canon on the 5d3 and 1dx has, actually surprisingly good skin colour. Now, I don't know if that's DPP or JPEGs or even post, but it's very encouraging.

 

And, as I mentioned, I miss Canon's own 50 1.2L and 85 1.2L lenses. They are no slouch, and I like to shoot them at the wide end.

 

Nikon has nothing--nothing--like those lenses.

 

So: Nikon is out for me. If I was a zoom shooter, or shot at f8 all the time, or could stomach their colour, then Nikon would still be for me.

 

As it stands, Canon looks set to deliver something better than my DMR in the areas that are important to me. The one question mark is their new focusing screen and how bright the new finders are in the 5d3 and 1dx. They're both 100% and the magnification level is around .75, so that's all fine--on paper.

 

I'll know if I can focus it when I get it my hands

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You can download full size jpgs. They are very average. Even if they were compressed to jpg 7, which I very much doubt, they would still show a reasonable amount of detail. The main 100 ISO portrait is flat in colour, tonality, amateurish looking uneven saturation and completely lacking in detail despite a lot of sharpening. It looks like a 6 or 8MP file that has been uprezzed. It looks the same as any Canon and Nikon file. The other portrait with the girl in the jacket is worse, the distortion from the lens on her face is woefully average. The landscape image has heavy processing and they didn't bother to darken the sky correctly just a rough lasoo and feather. Terrible and falsifying. I know what I'm looking at, these are the same reasons I recently left Canon and they haven't changed. To try and be balanced it looks like there is a bit less noise.

 

Where are you seeing this? Care to supply a link? Thanks.

[stephan_w]

Hello

 

I don't want to temper all the enthousiast who are expecting a miracle from a 36 mp camera.

 

Having used and compared almost all R lenses on a D3x without AA-sensor, I can tell you that only 3 lenses are up to a more than 24 mp sensor: The Elmarit 28, the 90 and 180 Cron AA and the 100 Macro-Elmarit and the 80-200/4 (I din't had the 60 and the 30-70/4 though). All the Cron 35 and 50 are not up to the task. This doesn't mean that you cannot take pictures with them, of course.

 

And btw, none of them can compare with a M9 and a Summilux 50 ASPH (except maybe the 28 Elmarit)

 

Also, what you will see is that focus becomes an issue with that resolution. Yes, you can use the AF-point of the Nikon, but this is IMHO a less than perfect help.

 

The only good news of those new camera generations is not resolution, but higher ISO, (which you can get as well on a D700 or a D3s). This will allow to use the R-lenses more often wide open.

[ThorkilB]

well, downloading this picture

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_01_l.jpg,

with the remarks that I'm no Pro, it seems like pretty sharp for a picture that on my screen is about 215 cm wide, and this is the 800. The 800E will turn out sharper.

Well colour-fringing at the upper left corner, but...

and I'll use that lens, so I might get satisfied compared with 4 years with the super-well working D3(and awful big and heavy), which even though got this unsatisfying touch of unsharpnes

at this link

Nikon D800 D800E Digital SLR Hands-On Review

one get an idea of what might be the difference to the 800E

Jamie, what about using C1pro?, better handling of raw-files?(sharper more 3-dimensionel, better colours?) and perhaps better skin tones-adjusting?

Thorkil

[Paul J]

Where are you seeing this? Care to supply a link? Thanks.

 

High Res Sample Page

[Jamie Roberts]

High Res Sample Page

 

Thanks for the link; I was looking at other stuff to tell the truth.

 

But anyway, I don't agree with you on this in terms of detail (even though I do agree that a lot of those shots are uninspiring to say the least). I don't really know what you're seeing there in portraits in terms of lack of detail that isn't explained by the fact these are full res, 22mp shots compressed to 5mb of JPEG data for web deliver! Even with that, the images I see there are actually improved over previous Canons I've had before, in terms of detail, and much better than the D3 (but that could be because Nikon doesn't have a lens equivalent to the 50 1.2L either IMO).

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

Jamie, what about using C1pro?, better handling of raw-files?(sharper more 3-dimensionel, better colours?) and perhaps better skin tones-adjusting?

Thorkil

 

Thorkil--all my remarks on Nikon colour vs Canon colour vs Leica colour and skin tones were based on using C1 Pro (though of course I've checked out Capture NX and DPP too)

[ThorkilB]

Thorkil--all my remarks on Nikon colour vs Canon colour vs Leica colour and skin tones were based on using C1 Pro (though of course I've checked out Capture NX and DPP too)

Ok..and by this you confirm that it might be the best program by the way(?)

Could you just size the 800E down to 30mp, 25mp if one got problems with lack of dof, to much blur etc. doing handheld and hasty hipshots?

Thorkil

Ps I'll stick to the 800E(used Nikon+Hassy+M6 all my life so wouldn't go for Canon anyway even if colours could be better) and the 14-24mm which I use all the time, and its not bad. And perhaps a used M9 when the M10 comes

[Paul J]

Thanks for the link; I was looking at other stuff to tell the truth.

 

But anyway, I don't agree with you on this in terms of detail (even though I do agree that a lot of those shots are uninspiring to say the least). I don't really know what you're seeing there in portraits in terms of lack of detail that isn't explained by the fact these are full res, 22mp shots compressed to 5mb of JPEG data for web deliver! Even with that, the images I see there are actually improved over previous Canons I've had before, in terms of detail, and much better than the D3 (but that could be because Nikon doesn't have a lens equivalent to the 50 1.2L either IMO).

 

It has only been compressed, it looks, to jpg level 10. The amount of visual detail lost and viewable onscreen is minimal if noticeable at all. You can test this out in photoshop when saving and toggling the jpg preview.

 

I do disagree with the level of detail. I think it is lacking and the images still have the soft look canon files have always had. It's a waxy hazy layer and it's present in the Nikons too. I've always thought it was the AA but it's present in the 800e also.

 

I'm not saying they are bad. Even the original 5D was good. But I don't see a that much improvement in image quality except for lower noise over the 5D2, and even a significant amount over even the 5D1. They are bigger, yes, lower noise too but the amount of detail is not greater and IMO, it's lacking and more-so than the Nikon 800/e.

[jaapv]

There are a few more- all the Apo-Telyts, for example, and the newest Vario lenses, at least at their optimum focal length...

Hello

 

I don't want to temper all the enthousiast who are expecting a miracle from a 36 mp camera.

 

Having used and compared almost all R lenses on a D3x without AA-sensor, I can tell you that only 3 lenses are up to a more than 24 mp sensor: The Elmarit 28, the 90 and 180 Cron AA and the 100 Macro-Elmarit and the 80-200/4 (I din't had the 60 and the 30-70/4 though). All the Cron 35 and 50 are not up to the task. This doesn't mean that you cannot take pictures with them, of course.

 

And btw, none of them can compare with a M9 and a Summilux 50 ASPH (except maybe the 28 Elmarit)

 

Also, what you will see is that focus becomes an issue with that resolution. Yes, you can use the AF-point of the Nikon, but this is IMHO a less than perfect help.

 

The only good news of those new camera generations is not resolution, but higher ISO, (which you can get as well on a D700 or a D3s). This will allow to use the R-lenses more often wide open.

[mmradman]

Hello

 

I don't want to temper all the enthousiast who are expecting a miracle from a 36 mp camera.

 

Also, what you will see is that focus becomes an issue with that resolution. Yes, you can use the AF-point of the Nikon, but this is IMHO a less than perfect help.

 

The only good news of those new camera generations is not resolution, but higher ISO, (which you can get as well on a D700 or a D3s). This will allow to use the R-lenses more often wide open.

 

Miracle is possible with the right lenses, as long as this is understood there should be no problem. Nikon published list of own recommended lenses, add selected Zeiss and R and there is a fantastic focal length range to choose from 14 - 600mm even 800mm if you consider APO Telyt Modular.

 

Thanks to after market KatzEye split screen manual focusing on my D700 is more accurate than camera's own electronic rangefinder. Hopefully it will be possible to replace focus screen on D800 and we ought to see alternatives for sale soon. Personally D700 is more than enough for my needs.

 

High ISO is big deal and hopefully M9 successor will address this.

.

.

.

Note, I am off to Focus on Imaging.

[Jamie Roberts]

It has only been compressed, it looks, to jpg level 10. The amount of visual detail lost and viewable onscreen is minimal if noticeable at all. You can test this out in photoshop when saving and toggling the jpg preview.

 

I do disagree with the level of detail. I think it is lacking and the images still have the soft look canon files have always had. It's a waxy hazy layer and it's present in the Nikons too. I've always thought it was the AA but it's present in the 800e also.

 

I'm not saying they are bad. Even the original 5D was good. But I don't see a that much improvement in image quality except for lower noise over the 5D2, and even a significant amount over even the 5D1. They are bigger, yes, lower noise too but the amount of detail is not greater and IMO, it's lacking and more-so than the Nikon 800/e.

 

Interesting... we still disagree on detail, still. But I totally know what you mean about "hazy" or "waxy" look from Canon or Nikon (and Nikon more so than Canon, till the 800/e anyway) and that, to me, is a product of the different contrast signature of CMOS vs CCD sensors...at least the ones I've used, and not just the AA filter.

 

I also think that at least a couple of the wedding portraits at the site you showed me have been taken with--I don't know--tungsten video light or a severely gelled flash or something? They are seriously lacking in overall colour spectrum, which I find contributes to "haze" (usually because there's not very much blue channel information).

 

But apart from that, I don't find them particularly un-detailed (for a Canon or Nikon )

[Jamie Roberts]

Ok..and by this you confirm that it might be the best program by the way(?)

Could you just size the 800E down to 30mp, 25mp if one got problems with lack of dof, to much blur etc. doing handheld and hasty hipshots?

Thorkil

Ps I'll stick to the 800E(used Nikon+Hassy+M6 all my life so wouldn't go for Canon anyway even if colours could be better) and the 14-24mm which I use all the time, and its not bad. And perhaps a used M9 when the M10 comes

 

Well, I think C1 is currently the best overall raw processor and my tool of choice for most of the production I do. Though to be fair, Canon's own DPP delivers extremely good colour from Canon cameras... and with the 5d3 they're saying it will "undo" some of the AA filter-ness in the software itself (which I find interesting).

 

It's true, too, that depending on what you're printing, you can "get away" with some camera shake due to increased resolution. So sure: downsizing a D800 file will give you lots of leeway with "focus stability" issues. I mean, for a lot of prints 12mp is all you need. For 4 * 6s, all you need is 1200 * 1800 pixles

 

But having better colour, especially, to me is the tradeoff I'd rather make against resolution. It's something I still miss from the DMR, and while I'm not saying Canon is likely to deliver that, it's closer to my eyes than the Nikons.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ThorkilB]

Well, I think C1 is currently the best overall raw processor and my tool of choice for most of the production I do. Though to be fair, Canon's own DPP delivers extremely good colour from Canon cameras... and with the 5d3 they're saying it will "undo" some of the AA filter-ness in the software itself (which I find interesting).

 

It's true, too, that depending on what you're printing, you can "get away" with some camera shake due to increased resolution. So sure: downsizing a D800 file will give you lots of leeway with "focus stability" issues. I mean, for a lot of prints 12mp is all you need. For 4 * 6s, all you need is 1200 * 1800 pixles

 

But having better colour, especially, to me is the tradeoff I'd rather make against resolution. It's something I still miss from the DMR, and while I'm not saying Canon is likely to deliver that, it's closer to my eyes than the Nikons.

 

God to hear. Well, living in a small country, I can’t avoid being a little proud, while the Danish Phase One a doing so well J And the DMR was developed by another Danish company Imacon, which Hasselblad bought, and perhaps therefore the cooperation with Leica ended there. Don’t know, but a shame.

But, back to the issue, I might end up being rather confused these days. By this tread and another tread (http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/02/nikon-d800-criticisms-refuted.aspx/)

After coming over being a little offended by my Nikon-enthusiasm I must admit:

Colour issues means also a lot to me. AND the way a picture is living or just how authentic the pictures passes the real life further on to me. And by this I must admit, following: My D3 pictures are dull, boring, a bit flat and uninspiring, compared to my previously Hassy SWC and my M6 pictures carefully proscanned, and not the least by the M9 pictures I’ve seen here and there. But Thorsten Overgaard’s DMR pictures also nearby blow the M9’s away. But he is also an expert in processing etc. I’m not.

And looking at the library pictures, mentioned above, from the D800, with the splendid 14-24mm, these looks ok for me, BUT I don’t want to use tripod all the time. I want the 800E to be just as forgiving in taking pictures while one self are moving, hipshot, stretched out in an arm etc. But if this well-proportioned and almost certainly well-grapped 800 can’t do more than 800 ISO without hefty grains (as it seems in some examples) and if it will have problems with blur and diffraction and what its all called….AND if the pictures at the 800E just look as dull as my previously D3, and this is unfortunately suggested by the official samples specially by that with the autumn trees, take a look at the leaves in the upper left corner…then I’ll have to reconsider the whole game.

And for that sake I, perhaps, would be open towards Canon or perhaps selling my 14-24 and buy a mint used M9 when all you others, hopefully soon, are buying the new M10, and then totally switching to rangefinder where I’m used to a lot of zone-focusing anyway, and then have the Ricoh GXR with the upcoming 16mp M-module as a pocket-camera.

But Jamie (and all others who might know) does this scaling down in picture-size that one perhaps can avoid blur or diffraction. It’s the same sensor. But will it then act like a 30, 25 etc. Mp sensor. I guess not?

Hhhhmmmmm, what a mess…

Best Thorkil

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

But Jamie (and all others who might know) does this scaling down in picture-size that one perhaps can avoid blur or diffraction. It’s the same sensor. But will it then act like a 30, 25 etc. Mp sensor. I guess not?

Hhhhmmmmm, what a mess…

Best Thorkil

 

So I don't think the D800 is going to be plagued with noise, and I've already seen samples from the D800 to prove that (though it's early days yet). In any case, per pixel, the D800 will be nosier than the D3 at higher ISOs, for sure, but you have so many more pixels that for a print of equivalent size the D800 will actually give you more detail with less apparent noise!

 

This is the same for the M9 over the M8; in practice the M9 has nearly a 2 stop noise advantage in printing by doubling the resolution (and it has that over the DMR too. Also--Thorsten's great stuff notwithstanding, the M9 is no slouch with colour).

 

But I wouldn't worry about the D800 being noisy, in particular. The same goes for blur... Yes a higher resolution sensor is more prone to showing blur at 100%, but then again, how big will you print?

 

If you print down (in other scale down) the results will be actually better than a lower resolution camera, scaled up. So in that sense, yes, you're not losing anything by going with a D800.

 

Now--for colour--it's early days yet, but given I don't care about the D800's resolution, and given that I like what I've seen so far on the Canon, and given there are Canon lenses I'd like to use very much in addition to my Leica R ones (and some Oly OM ones too), I'm leaning that way for now.