OK, I'm no where near as technical and experienced as what seems to be the majority around here so please take the following question with that grain of salt and IMHO attached...
So much talk about noise / clean image / shadows...and understandably given where that was a serious achilles for digi cameras over their short history and also where so many of the users, esp working pros need the low light capacity and clean imagery.
For me I am curious as to what I perceive to be the other weakness of digi and more severe one...loss of highlight detail and the gradation of tone and range etc (pardon the lack of tech talk here) and how much improvement there may be in the d800 or d4 and which may be the better of the two.
The only talk Ive really come across regarding this is Moose Peterson's initial observations on the D4 and some of McNallys early D4 comments (either could be taken with marketing/sponsorship taint grains of salt). Moose even writes about not having to use neg exp comp to hold highlights.
As a landscape shooter (currently D3x and D3s) this is more important to me than the already pretty darn excellent shadows and noise...heck, dropping shadows into black is often a better artistic tool than blending every darn shadow into the image (though I do dig plenty out of the shadows too when needed or appropriate...so no complaints there). Just think Id rather have improvements in gradient in highlights and colors (ie a sun or sunset) than better noise than I have already.
Frankly I never had one of Galen Rowell's images not take my breath away or make my hair stand on end because there is obvious grain from a 35mm size orig...but his use of blacks (and of course many other artistic stylings) on the other hand often do (sort of a tangential topic here I realize, of what is art versus the tech).
So question is what are people thoughts or experience with the D800 or D4 in that? Or which may be the superior?
If this has been covered somewhere, apologies, I keep current on the posts here but it is possible I've missed something.
All those questions aside, would you, as a landscaper, actually take a D4 over the D800 for what would be, if it even exists at all, a minute difference in highlight rolloff? Just curious.
I do know what you are asking, though. The 5D2 had a pretty harsh rolloff p, especially with speculars. Unsure how the newer Nikons handle, though. Good luck with your search.
I've been studying the differences between lossless NEF and lossy NEF, 12-bit NEF and 14-bit NEF, lossless DNG and lossy DNG, etc. One thing I have noticed is that the D800 in combination with ACR 7.0 (or LR 4.0) and PV2012 can bring back about 2 full stops of highlight detail, with usable colour information (and not simply being burned out). More amazingly, I am able to pull at least 5 stops of useful detail from the shadows (the limit on ACR 7.0 before I start faking it with the Curves tool). That's a fantastic amount of latitude.
I won't say this is the end of having to bracket shots, but if you really must get it in a single shot (e.g., because of moving subject matter or other issues), then I would suggest erring on the side of underexposure, since it appears from my tests that there is more headroom in the shadows than in the highlights.
rarrace wrote:
The only talk Ive really come across regarding this is Moose Peterson's initial observations on the D4 and some of McNallys early D4 comments (either could be taken with marketing/sponsorship taint grains of salt). Moose even writes about not having to use neg exp comp to hold highlights.
As a landscape shooter (currently D3x and D3s) this is more important to me than the already pretty darn excellent shadows and noise...heck, dropping shadows into black is often a better artistic tool than blending every darn shadow into the image (though I do dig plenty out of the shadows too when needed or appropriate...so no complaints there). Just think Id rather have improvements in gradient in highlights and colors (ie a sun or sunset) than better noise than I have already. ...Show more →
Dynamic range is the the number of photographic stops between shadow clipping and highlight clipping for which discernible detail can be obtained. The D800 has 14+ stops at base ISO, minus any effect of veiling glare. You as the photographer decide which of those 14 stops are "highlights" and which are "shadows". The dividing point is arbitrary, generally established first by the camera's meter but ultimately under the control of you.
The D800 has higher base ISO DR than the D4. They both have nearly identical tonal range at the image level (not pixel level), as tested by DxOMark.
Someone said recently on a forum that the 800 has less capability to recover highlights than what the D700 has so you really gotta watch it with the 800 in the highlights that you're not going much over. I think the guy said there was about 2/3 of a stop less highlight recoverability than the D700.
Thanks for the replies folks, I want to also be clear that I am not trying to start a "whats wrong with" thread, simply open a line of discussion (that will surely help me learn and hopefully all/others) that seems neglected in relation to the discussions of the other end of the range.
Andy,
thanks for the shot you posted...funny enough that one was one of the first D800 examples I recall seeing posted and was indeed looking at it within this context.
And if you don't sell the camera to utildayael I will take it
cputeq,
I actually have a d800e on preorder (even if the D800/e were a D3x in D700 body I would do so just to shave the weight and space out of the backpack...though I LOOOOVE the feel of a full size body when hand holding) so that should answer that question. I really included the d4 in the discussion simply to add breadth to the discussion. That said, to directly answer...yes I would if there were a significant difference, however in the embarrassment of riches that is the current world of digi photog I don't think that would be the defining characteristic between the two and, as you said, a minute difference.
taob, definitely reinforces the capabilities of the sensor and yes I have read the advantages of LR4, to which I have not as yet made the upgrade, though intend to. It does add depth to this topic that processing is a significant element in what can be extracted from a sensor.
snapsy, understood and agreed with the desire to yet understand how the highlights curve off (comparing somewhat unscientifically...please acct for the MHO in the IMHO...to film for example...which did have what?...100 years of development before the digi sensor really began to be explored)
D. Diggler,
This info I had not come across (assuming you are not pulling anyone's legs), if you recall, could you point to where you read it?
D. Diggler wrote:
Someone said recently on a forum that the 800 has less capability to recover highlights than what the D700 has so you really gotta watch it with the 800 in the highlights that you're not going much over. I think the guy said there was about 2/3 of a stop less highlight recoverability than the D700.
Doesn't matter a whit, really. You learn your tools and adjust to get the results you want. In my first few casual outings with the D800, I think that I'm tending to use slightly less positive EC than I did with the D3s and D3x... about 1/3 stop. But that number is a personal choice, and once I learn my new tool I'll be able to use the right amount of EC to get it to start clipping where I want it to, and in the same way that I did before. The number in the little EC box will change, probably, but the result will be the same.
rarrace wrote:
D. Diggler,
This info I had not come across (assuming you are not pulling anyone's legs), if you recall, could you point to where you read it?
No, I'm not pulling anyone's leg.
Not sure if it's appropriate for me to post a link to a competing forum.
D. Diggler wrote:
I think the guy said there was about 2/3 of a stop less highlight recoverability than the D700.
Hrm, I don't know about that. They seem to be about the same to me. Of course, the problem with digital is that when you can't really tell how far past the white clipping point you've overexposed. But just by gut feel, I'm not noticing a significant advantage between the two as far as highlight detail recovery. I still have a D700 not yet sold, so I should do a few tests.
i will wait with judgement of dynamic range until capture one will support it,
even though i am amazed, at this moment all my files i have seen from my shoots have been passed through adobe converter which based on my experience is alwasy worse then capture one
Kittyk wrote:
i will wait with judgement of dynamic range until capture one will support it,
even though i am amazed, at this moment all my files i have seen from my shoots have been passed through adobe converter which based on my experience is alwasy worse then capture one
Have you tried either ACR 7.0 (part of the Photoshop CS6 beta) or Lightroom 4.1, using Process Version 2012? Among other things, highlight recovery is vastly improved from PV 2010 (used by ACR 6.x and Lightroom 3.x). You get actual colours now instead of grey burned out areas.
yes i did but, not in a mood of testing so many cameras and situations after so many years they ignored clipped highlights and shadows. I use now C1 and not expecting to switch any time soon.
Capture one can recover as much as NX2 can and does it nicer (curved instead of linear). That means sometimes over 1,3 stops in case of D700.
Adobe also never fixed vignetting which is desaturated in compare to real image and so on.
Thank you Rarrace for posting this thread. While I can't add much, at this time, the responses and Andreas' "horrible" photo just sealed another D800 deal. WoW! Even if my technique isn't quite up to this camera yet, one day I may be able to post a photo as "horrible" as yours, Andreas. Wow. Just wow.
