Nikon D800 or D800e - which one to choose?

From Luminous Landscape,

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...or_d800e.shtml

Worth a read, and seems fair and balanced to me.

Cheers,
David

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:06:34 -0000, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

From Luminous Landscape,

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...or_d800e.shtml

Worth a read, and seems fair and balanced to me.

To me also. But all those "must have AA filter or disaster will ensue"
sheep won't be able to pass up the opportunity to point out how the
digital cameras out there right now without AA filters are total crap
and can not take a picture without moire. Crappy cameras such as the
Leicas, Phase Ones, Hasselblads and Mamiyas that just seem to squeak
by in the doldrums of cameradom because they chose not to include the
holy grail, an AA filter.

Steve

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
[]
I also find it fair and balanced ...

... because, given that the article says exactly what I have been
saying on this newsgroup for some time, I could hardly disagree with
anything it said.

Obviously, those who have been spooked by the online trolls who know
less than nothing about the practicalities, and argue solely from a
theoretical standpoint, would be best served by a D800. Then they
would never have to lose any sleep about the very slight possibility
of moire. But they would be denying themselves the significant extra
resolution and detail that the D800E will provide in 995 out of 1000
shots, just to avoid the risk of moire in the other 5.

What it says includes that in many cases, the 36 MP sensor resolution will
exceed that of the rest of the system (including out of focus, camera
shake etc.), reducing the likelihood of moiré, and that both cameras have
their place amongst users. It also notes that software to reduce some of
the visibility of moiré artefacts is included with the D800E.

David

"TheRealSteve" wrote in message
...
[]
To me also. But all those "must have AA filter or disaster will ensue"
sheep won't be able to pass up the opportunity to point out how the
digital cameras out there right now without AA filters are total crap
and can not take a picture without moire. Crappy cameras such as the
Leicas, Phase Ones, Hasselblads and Mamiyas that just seem to squeak
by in the doldrums of cameradom because they chose not to include the
holy grail, an AA filter.

Steve

Simply because the sensors on those cameras have a resolution exceeding
the image resolution, unless extreme care is taken with the taking of the
photograph (very best optics, tripod, exact focusing etc. etc.).

The D800/e hands the choice of AA filter or not to the user, which might
reduce the complaints from those who have previously missed that extra
"sharpness".

David

I'l like to point out that moire can even happen
with a camera with an AA filter.

I just got a Canon 7D ... and can easily see moire
if I look for it! The pixel spacing of the 7D is similar to the
Nikon D800/D800E.

I see it only in two places:

1) test shots of resolution targets: ALL my lenses,
including the 17-55 that came with my 30D kit are quite
capable of resolution beyond the Nyquist frequency of the 7D.

2) photos of my LCD TV screen. Really obvious and quite
obnoxious moire can be seen in these .. but as mentioned
as nauseum, getting it requires really critical
adjustments, and easy changes to the composition get rid
of it.

Its not a problem. But having resolution all the
way to Nyquist is nice.

Doug McDonald

"RichA" wrote in message
...
[]
Years ago, they tested SLRs and found most (except for Olympus OM)
cameras actually suffered from sharpness loss at suggest hand-held
shutter speeds because of vibration. This even happened on lesser
tripods. That was 35mm film whose resolution = about 5mp in digital
terms. It's likely that some resolution loss will happen because of
less than perfection conditions (heck, use any telephoto over 200mm
and you are always at the mercy of heat waves that your eye can't
even detect) but, if this negates any resolution gain from the lack of
functioning AA filter, it remains to be seen. Based on samples from
D200's and other cameras with and without AA filters, it is likely
that not having one is going to make a noticeable difference on that
camera. Why sacrifice that?

Now that you have the choice, I don't see it as a sacrifice. You can have
the higher apparent sharpness accompanied by aliasing artefacts if you
prefer that look (and you have the lenses and technique to produce that
sharpness in the first place. If your optics, techniques, images, or
conditions don't contain enough information near or above half the
sampling frequency to produce problems, then you can live without the AA
filter. However, if you have a lower resolution sensor, and better
quality optics, then you may prefer not to take the risk.

As there is a subjective element involved, I would not expect agreement,
but I would hope that people have an understanding of the choices they are
making. Images presented here show that aliasing can produce
unpleasant-looking artefacts, which are difficult or impossible to remove.

Cheers,
David

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:13:26 +0000, Bruce wrote:
: "David J Taylor" wrote:
: From Luminous Landscape,
:
: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...or_d800e.shtml
:
: Worth a read, and seems fair and balanced to me.
:
:
:
: I also find it fair and balanced ...
:
: ... because, given that the article says exactly what I have been
: saying on this newsgroup for some time, I could hardly disagree with
: anything it said.
:
: Obviously, those who have been spooked by the online trolls who know
: less than nothing about the practicalities, and argue solely from a
: theoretical standpoint, would be best served by a D800. Then they
: would never have to lose any sleep about the very slight possibility
: of moire. But they would be denying themselves the significant extra
: resolution and detail that the D800E will provide in 995 out of 1000
: shots, just to avoid the risk of moire in the other 5.

Buy one of each, and use them interchangeably, unless you're photographing
repetitive patterns (in which case you should use the D800) or pictures to be
used on billboards (in which case you should use the D800E).

If you don't need, or can't afford, or can't be bothered with, two cameras,
buy a D7000 or its current successor. You'll probably be just as well
satisfied, and you'll save some money. If you like, you can blow the savings
on a new speedlight, or a better tripod, or whatever.

But if you're a professional, a semi-professional, or a very serious amateur,
you'll need two cameras anyway. The rationalization that your (now) backup
D700 is just as good if not better because it has bigger pixels, will work for
at most a few months. And at $3000 each, you probably won't feel that you're
being robbed. And think of the time you'll save by no longer having to argue
with the newsgroup's pixel peepers over how many times out of 1000 you'll have
a shot ruined by moiré patterns. ;^)

Bob

"RichA" wrote in message
...
[]
Nikon is not exactly an "avant garde" company. I don't see them
releasing some kind of experiment that will simply backfire and not
sell. Apart from a few design or quality problems, they are pretty
conservative. But then maybe the whole 36 megapixel thing is a signal
they are changing their outlook?

They obviously think there is a market for replacing very expensive
medium-format kit (and selling top-end existing lenses), and have very
cleverly been able to satisfy those who believe that lack of an AA filter
is an advantage, at very little extra cost. Having 36 MP puts them at the
top end of the 35mm DSLR market, although I see the resolution as a
somewhat specialist field. Doing it at the price they have is rather
aggressive, don't you agree, and I wish them the best of success.

David

"David J Taylor" wrote in
:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
[]
Nikon is not exactly an "avant garde" company. I don't see them
releasing some kind of experiment that will simply backfire and not
sell. Apart from a few design or quality problems, they are pretty
conservative. But then maybe the whole 36 megapixel thing is a
signal they are changing their outlook?

They obviously think there is a market for replacing very expensive
medium-format kit (and selling top-end existing lenses), and have very
cleverly been able to satisfy those who believe that lack of an AA
filter is an advantage, at very little extra cost. Having 36 MP puts
them at the top end of the 35mm DSLR market, although I see the
resolution as a somewhat specialist field. Doing it at the price they
have is rather aggressive, don't you agree, and I wish them the best
of success.

David



I'd say the price is aggressive, given their pricing of the overpriced
D3x.

I've been looking at samples from D800 and D800E, especially the images
from this site:

http://www.fotopolis.pl/index.php?n=14580&p=0

Some of the RAW files from that article are comparisons of the same
subject matter, shot on both cameras. They are not perfectly controlled
tests (some of the pairs vary slightly in ISO, exposure settings, etc.).

But, quite frankly, I was surprised to see how minimal the differences
were between the D800 and D800E shots. If I applied a bit of capture
sharpening to the D800 shots, I could make them virtually
indistinguishable from the D800E shots. The same amount of sharpening
yielded diminishing returns for the E files. ACR 6.7rc1 was used for
the conversions - I don't know if NX2 would do a better job.

Perhaps better tests would show bigger differences. Some of the people
who are drooling over the E are claiming to see huge advantages. But I
certainly don't, and based on what I've seen so far, I am puzzled as to
why Nikon is making two versions of this camera.

--
Julian Vrieslander