D800E User Thread

[neoro]

you are already estimating using the depth of field calculator in subject distance,
using the markings on the lens gives a reasonable estimate on the minimal distance where subjects start to appear in focus.
I.e. Its easier to estimate 3-5meters at the minimal then 15-25-100-200m to subject on the calculator right? unless we have our handy laser rangefinder with us.

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.

TLR - 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.

 

[rawNature]

can anyone confirm this:

"2. The 800E is not a camera without an AA filter. It is a camera with an additional filter that tries to reverse the loss of resolution created by the AA filter installed in all the 800 models. It is obvious that having two filters can never be as good as having no filter at all. You have 4 air to glass (or other material) surfaces with their inherent reflections, refraction inside the media and all that. Furthermore, nothing is perfect, so the "reversal" filter will never be a perfect opposite match to the original filter (which is not perfect either). So, while the 800E certainly gets closer to a camera without an AA filter, it cannot possibly be quite the same."
(extracted from:"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_embarrassment_of_riches.shtml"

800E has AA filter & a reversal filter to cancel out the AA filter on sensor??

 

[neoro]

Yeap,

Just take it as the 800E has 1 extra piece of Filter ontop on the 800

can anyone confirm this:

"2. The 800E is not a camera without an AA filter. It is a camera with an additional filter that tries to reverse the loss of resolution created by the AA filter installed in all the 800 models. It is obvious that having two filters can never be as good as having no filter at all. You have 4 air to glass (or other material) surfaces with their inherent reflections, refraction inside the media and all that. Furthermore, nothing is perfect, so the "reversal" filter will never be a perfect opposite match to the original filter (which is not perfect either). So, while the 800E certainly gets closer to a camera without an AA filter, it cannot possibly be quite the same."
(extracted from:"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_embarrassment_of_riches.shtml"

800E has AA filter & a reversal filter to cancel out the AA filter on sensor??

 

[sfoto100]

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.

TLR - 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.

hi

don't quite get you. what is the difference between using hyperfocus and using real depth of field calculator? i thought they are the same?

 

[recap]

you are already estimating using the depth of field calculator in subject distance,
using the markings on the lens gives a reasonable estimate on the minimal distance where subjects start to appear in focus.
I.e. Its easier to estimate 3-5meters at the minimal then 15-25-100-200m to subject on the calculator right? unless we have our handy laser rangefinder with us.

It is indeed an estimate. But this depends on lens to lens. You have to take into account lens design characteristics such as field curvature. The Zeiss 21/2.8 has a lot of field curvature, bowing outwards, so even at f/8 you may get the central distant part of the frame nice and sharp, but the corners show noticeable softness. Even at f/8. Likewise, the Leica 21/3.4 is a very flat field, so this is less of a case in the long run - which is perhaps why, to the untrained person, they can "sense" that the Leica 21 has more overall sharpness than the Zeiss, even though at a micro contrast, contrast and central portions of the frame they are almost evenly matched. The depth of field calculator is a guide. But its not a definitive certainty. Another good example is the Leica 35/2 summicron vs the Zeiss 35/2 ZM, the leica one suffers from a lot of field curvature - great for street portraits where at f/2 you can "slice" through multiple randomly positioned persons on the street, but the Zeiss excels in the flat field landscape photography.

 

[recap]

you are already estimating using the depth of field calculator in subject distance,
using the markings on the lens gives a reasonable estimate on the minimal distance where subjects start to appear in focus.
I.e. Its easier to estimate 3-5meters at the minimal then 15-25-100-200m to subject on the calculator right? unless we have our handy laser rangefinder with us.

The truth is that when you are constrained by both the need to stop down for depth of field, and the limits of diffraction, you're basically stuck at f/5.6 to f/7.1 on the d800e for optimal resolution ability. I assure you that f/8 alone in itself will not render the entirety of an entire scene in perfect corner to corner sharpness. Of course, less you have a lens with no field curvature, which is common amongst basically all wide angle lenses and a perfectly planar subject along with ideal positioning of the camera.

But I'd like to think of myself more as a photographer, not a technical field specialist intent on extracting every ounce of resolution in a scene. What counts is when people see stuff on the wall and go ooh and ahh for me, not technically perfect but souless images. As ansel adams said - worst picture there is, is a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept. I am very well aware of these technical gobbledygook that everyone likes to debate to death about here. But I assure you, most of us will not see the full potential of the 36 megapixel sensor. Unless maybe you are using the Jenoptik/Coastal Optics 60mm f/4.0 UV-VIS-IR-APO lens.

 

[recap]

I guess I am bad at explaining these things in a clearer fashion:

basically, for the given constraints on aperture that maximizes resolution ability with respect to diffraction limits, we are not really able to stop down very far.

And even if we attempt hyperfocal focus within the constraints of these apertures, for a given average scene that can achieve hyperfocal focus. if you want true sharpness at infinity, your focus point at X meters away will likely render the rest of your foreground somewhat out of focus.

hopefully this helps. you can see this in large prints.

 

[neoro]

I would think before most of us reach or our lens diffraction limits, we may have faulted the user limits line - sometimes a blurry image could have been caused by a smudgy UV filter or even a lil' foggy condensation in the morning deep in the jungle (guilty of both)

To understand what we our gear is able to produce along with its limitations will make working around things easier.

 

[recap]

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?

The long answer short - Use a tilt shift lens. I know its not a very satisfying answer, but that's the answer if you want "a lot of depth of field" - 24 T/S anyone?

Ok, gonna take a break from this thread and go shooting. cheers everyone.

 

[tengk]

The long answer short - Use a tilt shift lens. I know its not a very satisfying answer, but that's the answer if you want "a lot of depth of field" - 24 T/S anyone?

Ok, gonna take a break from this thread and go shooting. cheers everyone.

Look forward to more pictures.

 

[Kit]

Got mine yesterday evening. Initial impression was that it was less hefty than my D700. It also felt like there was "less metal" in it but nonetheless, everything was a good fit. Felt that the grip of the camera is deeper and more comfortable to hold.

I hated the built-in flash on the D700 because the housing was in the way of my tilt/shift lenses, particularly the PC-E 24mm. Though the housing did not obstruct any movement, it did made locking the shift movement in portrait orientation very difficult. After shifting, I had to rotate the lens to 45 deg position to lock it and that would usually means inducing minute movement. Well, the D800/E still came with the built-in flash but from what I see, its not protruding as much as the D700's and this is a good thing. I can now lock the shift movement. Still a little difficult but possible.

Mirror slap is definitely softer that the D700 and D3 series and sounded "hollow". Reminds me of 5D and 5DII. Did a few shot in the shop with a 50mm and there was no way I could have gotten a good shot without using 1/50th or faster. Its that unforgiving! This will probably be mounted on the tripod most of the time.

The RAW files definitely slowed down my computer by quite a bit and I'll probably need a new machine in the near future. 16GB cards can only allow 199 shots so definitely more cards on the way. You do have to get "prepared" for this camera I supposed. As of now, I will not be using this camera for my work yet. Still got to get a better feel of the images it produce and determine if I need to tweak my workflow. If I can squeeze out some time this weekend and give it a run....... cityscapes maybe.

 

[neoro]

800E 50mm

 

[avsquare]

Got mine yesterday evening. Initial impression was that it was less hefty than my D700. It also felt like there was "less metal" in it but nonetheless, everything was a good fit. Felt that the grip of the camera is deeper and more comfortable to hold.

I hated the built-in flash on the D700 because the housing was in the way of my tilt/shift lenses, particularly the PC-E 24mm. Though the housing did not obstruct any movement, it did made locking the shift movement in portrait orientation very difficult. After shifting, I had to rotate the lens to 45 deg position to lock it and that would usually means inducing minute movement. Well, the D800/E still came with the built-in flash but from what I see, its not protruding as much as the D700's and this is a good thing. I can now lock the shift movement. Still a little difficult but possible.

Mirror slap is definitely softer that the D700 and D3 series and sounded "hollow". Reminds me of 5D and 5DII. Did a few shot in the shop with a 50mm and there was no way I could have gotten a good shot without using 1/50th or faster. Its that unforgiving! This will probably be mounted on the tripod most of the time.

The RAW files definitely slowed down my computer by quite a bit and I'll probably need a new machine in the near future. 16GB cards can only allow 199 shots so definitely more cards on the way. You do have to get "prepared" for this camera I supposed. As of now, I will not be using this camera for my work yet. Still got to get a better feel of the images it produce and determine if I need to tweak my workflow. If I can squeeze out some time this weekend and give it a run....... cityscapes maybe.

Bro, what's your current specs (com)? Are you shooting uncompressed, or lossless compressed?

 

[Kit]

Currently using my old desktop with 2.8ghz processor and 8gb of ram = slow.

I think a macbook pro with 16gb of ram is in order.

 

[avsquare]

Currently using my old desktop with 2.8ghz processor and 8gb of ram = slow.

I think a macbook pro with 16gb of ram is in order.

whoa.. so jia lat meh.. I shall see how my 8GB perform then :embrass:

 

[rain5533]

whoa.. so jia lat meh.. I shall see how my 8GB perform then :embrass:

Wah bro @ avsquare

How many DSLR do you owning now?

I knew is 1Dx & D600 with D800?

 

[Kit]

Mine is an old system showing its age but I think having 16gb is a safer bet.

BTW, anyone using their D800/E as a DX camera at times when you don't need that high res? Do you then keep a set or one DX lens just for this purpose?

 

[wolfton]

Wah bro @ avsquare

How many DSLR do you owning now?

I knew is 1Dx & D600 with D800?

Lol bro Rain and Avsquare should become marketing ambassador for Nikon and Canon. I believe there are many lurkers in CS who contracted Bbb virus after seeing all your posts maybe should contact both companies to collect royalties

 

[Dfive]

Currently using my old desktop with 2.8ghz processor and 8gb of ram = slow.

I think a macbook pro with 16gb of ram is in order.

whoa.. so jia lat meh.. I shall see how my 8GB perform then :embrass:

16GB on my Retina is what I got... no point going lower.

 

[rain5533]

Lol bro Rain and Avsquare should become marketing ambassador for Nikon and Canon. I believe there are many lurkers in CS who contracted Bbb virus after seeing all your posts maybe should contact both companies to collect royalties

Oops don't count me, I AM Nikon