Can you share your lens / exposure settings for this photo, and the colours ? edit or not ?
D800E User Thread
- Thread starter Tachyon
- Start date
Can you share your lens / exposure settings for this photo, and the colours ? edit or not ?
Another one from Night Festival 2012. Nikkor 16-35 f/4 VR at 18mm
Colors of the Night | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Colors of the Night | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
zoom3
New Member
Another one from Night Festival 2012. Nikkor 16-35 f/4 VR at 18mm
Colors of the Night | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Pretty colours. Did you have to do much to correct the barrel distortion?
Not really. I set the D800E's Lens Correction to ON or AUTO (forgot what the setting is called). After that in Adobe Camera Raw 6.7, just a matter of checking the box under Lens Correction. One tick and it's done. The lens profile is already in there. I did however have to do the vertical perspective correction which is also done quite quickly via ACR 6.7.
Scintillation
Senior Member
Wreckoning by Scintt, on Flickr
3-tile vertical panorama. Taken with a Tokina 11-16mm at 16mm in FX mode. Yeah, I know it's not a 'worthy lens' for such a camera, so bite me! :bsmilie:
Last edited:
DemonicAngelz
New Member
Wreckoning by Scintt, on Flickr
3-tile vertical panorama. Taken with a Tokina 11-16mm at 16mm in FX mode. Yeah, I know it's not a 'worthy lens' for such a camera, so bite me! :bsmilie:
All your buildings seem to be "leaning backwards" due to the lens distorsion+perspective. Perhaps you might consider correcting for that cause its quite obvious.
Scintillation
Senior Member
Yeah I know. I left the perspective distortion there on purpose as it complements the cloud movement. If I had corrected it, it would have made for a less dynamic image. But nevertheless, thanks for the suggestion.
Last edited:
Scintillation
Senior Member
Haha, yeap! Was way too poisoned by all the reviews by Luminous Landscapes. Now I need to properly christian it using it for some seascapes!
Scintillation
Senior Member
Reflectory by Scintt, on Flickr
85mm 1.4D @ ISO 3200. The low light performance on this camera is astounding.
Scintillation
Senior Member
so a personal update, if it matters to anyone, as i did contribute quite a number of posts early on.
I sold off my D800E. For a variety of reasons.
- 36 Megapixels is great to have. It is very nice to have this insane level of resolution ability, and then to down sample to cut off noise or for a higher print quality. But I think it was just too many megapixels for me to handle when I took a lot of pictures with. I came back from a wedding with 2000+ images, and even with a Mac Pro outfitted with 32GB ram, SSDs and an Accelsior (800MBs+ PCIE SSD) my goodness was it slow to render, slow to output. I don't mind slow, since I regularly handle 50MP Hasselblad files for myself. But over 2000+ images. Oh my goodness. All that time really adds up.
- Having shot the Nikon D3S and the D3X for 2+ years before selling them off and owning this D800E. I must say that at 24 megapixels, the D3X was already stressing much of my photographic technique - whether handheld, tripod. Along the lines it demanded well calibrated lenses, near flawless technique and really pushed lenses to their resolution limits. A few lenses still do very well on the D3X and the D800E resolution wise, but for the most part, the D800E basically washed out half of my kit without even trying - 28/1.4 AF-D, 35/1.4 AF-S, 50/1.4 Sigma, 135/2.0 DC were decimated and showed all sorts of hitherto unknown flaws unseen on the D3X. My 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 II, was also struggling at the near limit, requiring stopping down to gain optimum detail without diffraction kicking in at f/7.1. Unless one is shooting very detailed landscapes. I am going to heretically declare and say that most folks only really need a camera between 12-24MP, so d700 to d600 range for the average person.
- A few lenses still performed exceptionally well. The D800E was the reason why I invested a huge sum of money into Zeiss Primes. Then realized that unlike the Canon 5D2, which offers the option of a high precision focusing screen, no such thing on the Nikon. Plus the electronic rangefinder is not exactly super accurate or super practical for general hand held manual focus photography. 36 Megapixels also means every slight mistake made with manual focusing would be amplified like crazy. In this respect the 12MP D700/D3 is obviously much more forgiving. Lenses that came out strong with more to offer on the D800E: 24/1.4 AF-S, 200mm f/2.0 VR, Leica 100/2.8 APO, Leica 70-180/2.8 APO, Zeiss 100mm f/2.0 Makro Planar. Zeiss 21mm/2.8 Distagon, Zeiss 50/2.0 Makro-Planar. Zeiss 25mm f/2.0 Distagon. The Zeiss 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 both suffer from focus shift issues between f/1.4 to f/2.0, so you'll never be able to fully optimize their abilities. The Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon is soft at maximum aperture, as it was designed for bokeh at that level, beyond f/4.0 it becomes super ultra sharp.
- So I also shoot a Nikon D4. And I will say that under the same lighting conditions, with the same lenses. The D4 wins hands down in autofocus. It is easily 2 times faster and significantly more accurate. My ratio of keepers on the D4, even though both systems are running the same AF system indicates that I have much more sharp in focus shots on the D4 than on the D800E. I shot the D3S for 2+ years and feel that 12MP is plenty enough, so the 16 on the D4 allows for slight cropping or rotating and still being able to yield great 12+ Megapixel files for the most part. The D800E wins for dynamic range at the lower ISOs, though at the higher ones, the D4 definitely takes the cake and overtakes. AF Tracking is also significantly better on the D4/D3S than on the D800E.
- After carefully looking at files under the same light, same lens but different bodies. I will say that the D3S natively still beats the D800E downsampled. That is just how good the D3S sensor really is. For me, I see a certain noise that does not go away even with downsampling, and the D3S gives a very smooth look to its files even at high ISO.
- Quibble: I preferred the grip on the D3/D4. At the end of the day, the somewhat shallower grip on the 800E sorta felt cramped for my fingers.
Other than that. These are personal, dumb reasons. I plan to continue using a D4 and may invest in the D600 just for fun, since it is like owning a cheap trick D3X basically. I suspect its the same sensor re engineered for better performance. But oh well. Enjoy everyone! I'm not knocking on your choice of an 800E, but for me personally I think I'll use a D4 (the elitist scumbag I am) and shoot my H4D-50 for stuff that requires more than just resolution. It is a brilliant camera for many reasons outlined in this thread. Its just that despite my best love for it, and acquiring it very very early on after its release and buying the Zeiss primes for it, I am naively disappointed and will prefer to indulge in 16 megapixel shots with all my lenses functioning great like they were on the D3S.
I sold off my D800E. For a variety of reasons.
- 36 Megapixels is great to have. It is very nice to have this insane level of resolution ability, and then to down sample to cut off noise or for a higher print quality. But I think it was just too many megapixels for me to handle when I took a lot of pictures with. I came back from a wedding with 2000+ images, and even with a Mac Pro outfitted with 32GB ram, SSDs and an Accelsior (800MBs+ PCIE SSD) my goodness was it slow to render, slow to output. I don't mind slow, since I regularly handle 50MP Hasselblad files for myself. But over 2000+ images. Oh my goodness. All that time really adds up.
- Having shot the Nikon D3S and the D3X for 2+ years before selling them off and owning this D800E. I must say that at 24 megapixels, the D3X was already stressing much of my photographic technique - whether handheld, tripod. Along the lines it demanded well calibrated lenses, near flawless technique and really pushed lenses to their resolution limits. A few lenses still do very well on the D3X and the D800E resolution wise, but for the most part, the D800E basically washed out half of my kit without even trying - 28/1.4 AF-D, 35/1.4 AF-S, 50/1.4 Sigma, 135/2.0 DC were decimated and showed all sorts of hitherto unknown flaws unseen on the D3X. My 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 II, was also struggling at the near limit, requiring stopping down to gain optimum detail without diffraction kicking in at f/7.1. Unless one is shooting very detailed landscapes. I am going to heretically declare and say that most folks only really need a camera between 12-24MP, so d700 to d600 range for the average person.
- A few lenses still performed exceptionally well. The D800E was the reason why I invested a huge sum of money into Zeiss Primes. Then realized that unlike the Canon 5D2, which offers the option of a high precision focusing screen, no such thing on the Nikon. Plus the electronic rangefinder is not exactly super accurate or super practical for general hand held manual focus photography. 36 Megapixels also means every slight mistake made with manual focusing would be amplified like crazy. In this respect the 12MP D700/D3 is obviously much more forgiving. Lenses that came out strong with more to offer on the D800E: 24/1.4 AF-S, 200mm f/2.0 VR, Leica 100/2.8 APO, Leica 70-180/2.8 APO, Zeiss 100mm f/2.0 Makro Planar. Zeiss 21mm/2.8 Distagon, Zeiss 50/2.0 Makro-Planar. Zeiss 25mm f/2.0 Distagon. The Zeiss 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 both suffer from focus shift issues between f/1.4 to f/2.0, so you'll never be able to fully optimize their abilities. The Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon is soft at maximum aperture, as it was designed for bokeh at that level, beyond f/4.0 it becomes super ultra sharp.
- So I also shoot a Nikon D4. And I will say that under the same lighting conditions, with the same lenses. The D4 wins hands down in autofocus. It is easily 2 times faster and significantly more accurate. My ratio of keepers on the D4, even though both systems are running the same AF system indicates that I have much more sharp in focus shots on the D4 than on the D800E. I shot the D3S for 2+ years and feel that 12MP is plenty enough, so the 16 on the D4 allows for slight cropping or rotating and still being able to yield great 12+ Megapixel files for the most part. The D800E wins for dynamic range at the lower ISOs, though at the higher ones, the D4 definitely takes the cake and overtakes. AF Tracking is also significantly better on the D4/D3S than on the D800E.
- After carefully looking at files under the same light, same lens but different bodies. I will say that the D3S natively still beats the D800E downsampled. That is just how good the D3S sensor really is. For me, I see a certain noise that does not go away even with downsampling, and the D3S gives a very smooth look to its files even at high ISO.
- Quibble: I preferred the grip on the D3/D4. At the end of the day, the somewhat shallower grip on the 800E sorta felt cramped for my fingers.
Other than that. These are personal, dumb reasons. I plan to continue using a D4 and may invest in the D600 just for fun, since it is like owning a cheap trick D3X basically. I suspect its the same sensor re engineered for better performance. But oh well. Enjoy everyone! I'm not knocking on your choice of an 800E, but for me personally I think I'll use a D4 (the elitist scumbag I am) and shoot my H4D-50 for stuff that requires more than just resolution. It is a brilliant camera for many reasons outlined in this thread. Its just that despite my best love for it, and acquiring it very very early on after its release and buying the Zeiss primes for it, I am naively disappointed and will prefer to indulge in 16 megapixel shots with all my lenses functioning great like they were on the D3S.
Also, a quick note, regarding this D800E and medium format. I've owned both the Hasselblad H4D-31 and the H4D-50. One reason why I upgraded to the 50 was because I felt that the 31 would not be able to keep up or readily distinguish itself in a world with 36 MP dSLRs.
I would say now in retrospect, that I was wrong. They are systems targeted at very different markets, with very different shooting philosophies and very different overall outputs. The D800E wins in terms of practical useability, size, portability, blong attery life, fast autofocus, live view and a wide variety of lenses.
The Hasselblad however, and perhaps I can say from my experience with other medium format backs (I used to shoot Phase One/Mamiya for professional studio stuff), I believe that this camera does not replace medium format. In the same way when the 24MP D3X came out and everyone thought it would displace 22MP digital backs, and it did. There is a few things that still stand head and shoulder above in comparison to medium format:
- dynamic range. The d800e is amazing. possibly the best dynamic range of any small frame DSLR ever in the last decade (I've shot since the Canon 1D and Nikon D1, so I know this...) The medium format still wins in highlight retention in the brightest highlights and shadow recovery in the deepest blacks. But a medium format digital back is better. I know that DXO measures the 800E to be superior to virtually everything else. But to my eyes at least, the Phase One, Hasselblad, Mamiya systems at medium format level do have better highlight retention for a given scene. An IQ 180 file at ISO 32 is virtually the gold standard for these things.
- 16 bit raw files. A true 16 bit file that has virtually no posterization whatsoever under intense post processing that would drive most other raw files mad. Medium format files hold up significantly better than D3X/D800E files. This is difficult to fully comprehend until you have had a very difficult shoot under very challenging light conditions and the files turn up to be less than ideal. Post processing in this case can save the job, literally, as the files are able to withstand a lot of work in post production.
- Stunning color fidelity and accuracy. The D800E is very very very good. But medium format just renders human skin tones across the board better and much more accurately. Likewise, color fidelity is stunning. As I use a Hasselblad, the Hasselblad Natural Color Solution is quite possibly the most amazing color profile/management thing I've ever used. It can take in very difficult scenes and render everything looking amazingly natural without the need to individually select for a profile. Its like one amazing universal profile for all scenes.
- The large sensor "look" - shallower depth of field from the use of longer focal lengths to achieve similar fields of view. The difference in perspective, difference in overall image dimensionality, difference in lens design philosophies (though the Hassy system only has so many lenses in its stable..) My friends who are not photographers can readily tell an image taken on a medium format camera over one taken with any one of my small frame cameras - X100, OMD EM-5, S5 Pro, D700, D800E, 5D2/3, NEX, Leica etc. Yes, I do shoot 7 systems, though I am in the process of getting rid of half of them.
So my opinion is that it does not replace medium format, film or digital. But its resolution abilities do pose a serious challenge to the medium format manufacturing crowd.
I would say now in retrospect, that I was wrong. They are systems targeted at very different markets, with very different shooting philosophies and very different overall outputs. The D800E wins in terms of practical useability, size, portability, blong attery life, fast autofocus, live view and a wide variety of lenses.
The Hasselblad however, and perhaps I can say from my experience with other medium format backs (I used to shoot Phase One/Mamiya for professional studio stuff), I believe that this camera does not replace medium format. In the same way when the 24MP D3X came out and everyone thought it would displace 22MP digital backs, and it did. There is a few things that still stand head and shoulder above in comparison to medium format:
- dynamic range. The d800e is amazing. possibly the best dynamic range of any small frame DSLR ever in the last decade (I've shot since the Canon 1D and Nikon D1, so I know this...) The medium format still wins in highlight retention in the brightest highlights and shadow recovery in the deepest blacks. But a medium format digital back is better. I know that DXO measures the 800E to be superior to virtually everything else. But to my eyes at least, the Phase One, Hasselblad, Mamiya systems at medium format level do have better highlight retention for a given scene. An IQ 180 file at ISO 32 is virtually the gold standard for these things.
- 16 bit raw files. A true 16 bit file that has virtually no posterization whatsoever under intense post processing that would drive most other raw files mad. Medium format files hold up significantly better than D3X/D800E files. This is difficult to fully comprehend until you have had a very difficult shoot under very challenging light conditions and the files turn up to be less than ideal. Post processing in this case can save the job, literally, as the files are able to withstand a lot of work in post production.
- Stunning color fidelity and accuracy. The D800E is very very very good. But medium format just renders human skin tones across the board better and much more accurately. Likewise, color fidelity is stunning. As I use a Hasselblad, the Hasselblad Natural Color Solution is quite possibly the most amazing color profile/management thing I've ever used. It can take in very difficult scenes and render everything looking amazingly natural without the need to individually select for a profile. Its like one amazing universal profile for all scenes.
- The large sensor "look" - shallower depth of field from the use of longer focal lengths to achieve similar fields of view. The difference in perspective, difference in overall image dimensionality, difference in lens design philosophies (though the Hassy system only has so many lenses in its stable..) My friends who are not photographers can readily tell an image taken on a medium format camera over one taken with any one of my small frame cameras - X100, OMD EM-5, S5 Pro, D700, D800E, 5D2/3, NEX, Leica etc. Yes, I do shoot 7 systems, though I am in the process of getting rid of half of them.
So my opinion is that it does not replace medium format, film or digital. But its resolution abilities do pose a serious challenge to the medium format manufacturing crowd.
Blur Shadow
Senior Member
Wow. Thanks for sharing. Some insightful thoughts there.
thanks for sharing these useful insights.
I have a question for landscape D800E users:
Many say with the high resolution sensor, users should not stop down their lens to beyond F11 or F16, as diffraction may kick in.
If this is so, how do landscape shooters shoot to achieve great depth of fields?
I have a question for landscape D800E users:
Many say with the high resolution sensor, users should not stop down their lens to beyond F11 or F16, as diffraction may kick in.
If this is so, how do landscape shooters shoot to achieve great depth of fields?
Hyperfocal rule will kick in...
There is a lot of misconception about the concept of a hyperfocal rule. For the most part, these are based in the days of film, where most folks didn't enlarge beyond 8x10 (oh Americans...) and the general rule of thumb was "f/8 and be there" or "f/5.6 and 1/125s"
Truth is, we are constrained in a few ways.
- stopping down too much and diffraction kicks in. For the D800E, the diffraction limit if f/7.1. You may be able to wing f/8, but by f/11 and smaller it becomes readily visible. I wager that the very first images shared in this thread, shot at f/16 would be significantly sharper if taken at f/5.6. Also, the 14-24 suffers from focus shift problems, inherent in its lens design that actually kills off a third of detail across the central part of the frame going from f/2.8 to f/4.0
- performance at maximum aperture is usually less than ideal. This applies to pretty much all system, save the Leica M primes that are engineered to be as optically ideal as possible - hence you end up with $5000+ manual focus 50mm lenses and $7000+ manual focus 35/1.4 lenses. So some degree of stopping down is required. We are basically shut in between the need to stop down for increasing resolution and depth of field and not stopping down so far as to see the limiting effects of diffraction. Its a quandrary. F/11 will give you more depth of field, but also kill micro contrast across the frame.
- hyperfocal and even those depth of field markings on the older lenses were for the time of film. those equations need to be thoroughly reconsidered in an age where film grain no longer "hides" mistakes and it is easier to make "everything" look sharp on a 8x10 enlargement vis-a-vis a 36x24 photograph - whether film or digital. Large format folks are acutely aware of these things, hence the use of lens movements to optimize both depth of field and the ideal set aperture for their photography.
TL
R - in short. don't count on hyperfocal focus for a very high resolution digital SLR. use a real depth of field calculator, being mindful of the limits of diffraction and the lens you are shooting with.Similar threads
