Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Archive 2012 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on ...
  
 
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


woos wrote:
*whistles innocently*. You know those 16-bit raw files aren't really 16-bit, right...*whistles innocently*. They just add 2 unused marketing bits. So sure, the file format is 16-bit...but in reality, the raw data inside is 14-bit. ;-)

Rumor is that the Leica DMR actually had true 16-bit raws (but not relevant, anything over 12 bits was probably pointless for that sensor). Edit: supposedly the S2 has 16-bit raw, as well. If that's true, who knows. If it IS true, it's sort of like the Canon 14-bit raw...pointless for the sensor. The extra bits will gain you nothing as they will be indistinguishable
...Show more

Leica DMR actually had 16-bit. And it used it fully (but only if you developed RAW via Imacon/Hasselblad convertor). Pics from that are pretty close to what you can expect from MF camera. S2 pics does have MF look, but it doesnt seem much as 16-bits. Rather like upsized and smoothed M9 output.

Btw. those bits are not about shadow end, but that properly exposed one.

I suspect quite a bit of that "cant see difference" might be tied to RAW developing SW.



Dec 03, 2012 at 01:03 AM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


roman.johnston wrote:
I see the difference in skies easily. It is why I only shoot in 14bit. Transitions are much nicer. And I have played with enough MF files to know that the highlights are amazingly smooth...even more than from my D300.

Roman


Thats exactly what should be visible difference. I saw few pics from D700 and it didnt seem theres difference between 12 and 14bits. D300 was Sony tech, so maybe its tied to Sony sensors? Truth is that I was few times "decieved" by D300 when I thought "this must be D3X" and it wasnt. Guess you are right.



Dec 03, 2012 at 01:07 AM
woos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


Yeah, I don't know that the D300 really benefits from 14 bits vs 12. Might, might not--not sure--there's also raw compression stuff on Nikon that I don't know much about except for on the D800. The D800, D7000, etc, will benefit from 14-bit, absolutely. There is a point where adding more bits is pointless--depends on the sensor. Ie, you get to a point where if you took in and just threw random data into those bits it would be the same quality. For Canon 12 bits is enough at this point, the 14-bit is essentially marketing bits ^_^. The new exmor type sensors might actually be the first around that'd benefit from a true 16-bit raw file, imho (course ther isn't a dslr with 16-bit yet). Maybe. lol

Edit: and yeah, what makes MF good isn't the megapixels, though more is obviously better, at least until it gets up into the hundreds for a MF sized sensor. Or the number of bits. It's the rockin' huge size advantage of the sensor. You just can't get around that. Same reason why the old 1Ds and 5D classic hold up so well to the newest crop sensors that are generations ahead in the tech world. Bigger is better (of course there are portability and pocketability arguements but sure sure..hehe).



Dec 03, 2012 at 02:28 AM
Dustin Gent
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file



roman.johnston wrote:
Yeah....and I would never give up digital. Once the gear is paid for I can shoot as much as I like without other costs...and more importantly I like to confirm I got everything perfect before I leave the scene....

Why? Because that moment in time will never happen again. Small adjustments in the field are invaluable.

Now give me a scan back for that large format and I might be convinced. But I will never go back to film.

Roman


You know, that is one of the reasons I WANTED to shoot film . I wanted to see if I could rely more on my skill than on the technology, so to speak. It was more satisfying shooting film, because when you finally get the scans back and after processing them, and they look amazing - you have a feeling of accomplishment that I haven't felt with digital (yet).

I agree with you about the costs fully. A guy I ran into shooting LF at Lower Lewis (I had my F5) said that it cost him like $10 a shot for Velvia (which they are discontinuing in March I heard). Pretty daunting ..



Dec 03, 2012 at 07:48 PM
Jan Brittenson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


Believing that 16 vs 14 bit quantization has anything to do with color reproduction is to believe in magic. Might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Color reproduction depends on: the spectral attenuation of the CFA, any transforms during debayering (secret sauce), and the saturation model of the processing software. Adobe has notoriously poor saturation control (simple RGB pivot) in all its software, that makes hues strongly tend toward RGB primaries. It's mathematically correct, but looks like crap visually.



Dec 03, 2012 at 08:41 PM
roman.johnston
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


Jan, I processed both using Lightroom and Photoshop. So they were on the same playing field.

Roman



Dec 03, 2012 at 08:42 PM
Ben Horne
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


mshi wrote:
Here is a 40MP (H4D-40) raw test shot that was converted to tiff using only default settings in Phocus, Hassel's raw converter.

100% crop jpeg:


It looks like the file has received some noticeable sharpening in the RAW conversion. If not, I would say that it is "too sharp" in a not so good way.



Dec 03, 2012 at 11:08 PM
mshi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


Ben Horne wrote:
It looks like the file has received some noticeable sharpening in the RAW conversion. If not, I would say that it is "too sharp" in a not so good way.


You're absolutely right since I opened up the tiff in Photoshop and ACR applied its default sharpening to the image before the crop. But the tiff file itself has no sharpening applied.


full image:







Here is another crop with the sharpening settings all set to ZERO.








Dec 04, 2012 at 01:43 AM
zesto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


Absolutely beautiful mshi. I'm looking at this on a NEC PA271W and I'm sure there is no way my D800E could match the natural colour, micro contrast and clarity of your image.





Dec 04, 2012 at 10:47 AM
S Dilworth
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


With a good enough lens and a Profoto Giant Reflector, you might be surprised what your camera would do. The crop above isn’t a 100 % crop (neither did mshi claim it to be, but people make assumptions).

Medium-format comparisons with 135-format nearly always end up comparing lenses. There aren’t many duff medium-format prime lenses out there, especially modern ones. They perform much better than a typical ‘pro zoom’ for 135-format, and better than most prime lenses too.

The larger medium-format sensors do have substantially less noise than even a D800 (except perhaps in the very deepest shadows), so they can be fairly mangled in post without falling apart. When it all clicks they deliver stunning performance, undoubtedly, but you pay tens of thousands of dollars and a great deal of in-use convenience (e.g. focusing) for that last ounce of technical quality.



Dec 04, 2012 at 12:08 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



roman.johnston
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


All I know is, that if money was not an object (and at this time in my life it IS an object that I wish I had a bit more of) But if it were no object, I would have both a MF kit, like the phase one with the IQ 180 back AND the D800E.

My only realization was even at close to the same MP, there is a difference that I can see....not that the D800 is ANYTHING to sneeze at mind you.

Roman



Dec 04, 2012 at 12:38 PM
Alan321
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


I'd like to know how a D800 viewfinder can be appreciably different from a 1Ds3 viewfinder or any other "full frame" viewfinder, given that they have very similar magnifications of a sensors that are very similar in size. The only likely ways that I can think of are:

1. A different focus screen, which offers other pros and cons

2. A less reflective main mirror, if it were letting more or less light through to the AF system
Neither of these are directly down to the viewfinder as such and could well be justified (or not) depending on the lenses you use and your demands of the AF system in low light.

3. An LCD panel is blocking some light, but that LCD panel is what gives you optionally selectable features like grid lines and framing boundaries. Once this LCD is used there is no removing it but the usefulness could well outweigh a slight drop in brightness for many users.

If the sensor sizes are different and the viewfinders scale up or down accordingly then the impact is very noticeable because one is presenting a whole lot more light and image detail than the other.


In more general MF vs D800 terms, it was my understanding that once you needed ISO 800 or higher, or needed more than a shot every second or two, then the MF cameras were quite inferior to the likes of the D800.


And for the OP, did you happen to use a tripod with the MF camera and no tripod for the D800 ? The D800 and the 24-70 lens are good enough to show you a noticeably better image if you do use a tripod. I expect that goes for a decent MF camera and lens too.

- Alan



Dec 04, 2012 at 01:26 PM
mshi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


zesto wrote:
Absolutely beautiful mshi. I'm looking at this on a NEC PA271W and I'm sure there is no way my D800E could match the natural colour, micro contrast and clarity of your image.



The TIFF file directly out of the RAW conversion is also available, and here is the link for the file:

http://dl.dropbox.com/s/ymqyp31vgvwg6y3/Job_0004.tif

16-bit files can give much more room for retouching too.







Dec 04, 2012 at 03:02 PM
bpark42
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


roman.johnston wrote:
My only realization was even at close to the same MP, there is a difference that I can see....not that the D800 is ANYTHING to sneeze at mind you.
Roman


A couple people have already said it, or at least alluded to it, but the differences you are seeing in your apples to oranges test here are far more likely to be attributable to the lenses used. That doesn't mean that the test itself was without merit, but it does probably mean that you should not be drawing any conclusions about the relative merits of the cameras/sensors themselves.

If you really want to test the sensors you need to use the best lenses possible for each system, followed by optimal processing tailored to each camera's RAW output. I have no idea what lens that would be for the Hassy, but something like the Zeiss 100/2 MP on the Nikon would be suitable.



Dec 04, 2012 at 05:43 PM
Chaz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


Question regarding IQ on D800/D800E.

Where and when should I expect to see any measurable or perceived difference in IQ when setting the D800/D800E Image Quality to "14-Bit NEF Lossless-Compressed" versus "14-Bit NEF Uncompressed" ?

Is difference in real or perceived IQ worth the saving in file size?



Dec 04, 2012 at 06:32 PM
roman.johnston
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


Chaz. If I have uncompressed option I use it...just because it makes me warm and fuzzy to know I have all the data with zero manipulation. I shoot landscapes so it isn't that big a deal as my methods are slow and deliberate. If I were shooting a race or something where more frames would be taken, then I might explore options.

I guess part of the decision is how fast you shoot FPS, and how often you get out there and shoot.

Roman



Dec 04, 2012 at 07:57 PM
Chaz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


Roman - Agreed. Count me in the "warm and fuzzy" camp for having ALL data. I, too am mostly landscape, slow and deliberate. I was weaned on 4x5 in the late 60s and am just loving the digital revolution. If only Nikon would give us landscapers the T/S we crave with independent axes like Canon has done!

I have greatly admired your work here over the years!



Dec 04, 2012 at 08:04 PM
S Dilworth
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


Nothing wrong with warm and fuzzy – I quite like it myself – but there’s no perceived or measurable difference in image quality between Nikon’s ‘Lossless compressed’ and ‘Uncompressed’ options. There may be a minor difference in raw-file opening speed, depending on your workflow and your computer’s disk and CPU speed. (These things don’t matter to me: any recent computer’s far faster than I am!)

Nikon describes ‘Lossless compressed’ like this: “NEF images are compressed using a reversible algorithm, reducing file size by about 20–40% with no effect on image quality.”

Even the ‘Compressed’ option, i.e. lossy compression, has no practical effect on image quality in most cases. Nikon on the ‘Compressed’ option: “NEF images are compressed using a nonreversible algorithm, reducing file size by about 35–55% with almost no effect on image quality.”

People talk a lot about Canon’s sRAW, but Nikon’s ‘Compressed’ raw option is far cleverer and more useful. Scroll down to “An aside on "lossy" NEF compression” on this page for a good explanation of how it works and why it works so well.



Dec 04, 2012 at 09:46 PM
bpark42
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


roman.johnston wrote:
Chaz. If I have uncompressed option I use it...just because it makes me warm and fuzzy to know I have all the data with zero manipulation. I shoot landscapes so it isn't that big a deal as my methods are slow and deliberate. If I were shooting a race or something where more frames would be taken, then I might explore options.

I guess part of the decision is how fast you shoot FPS, and how often you get out there and shoot.

Roman


There is really no reason for you to use uncompressed. You are just wasting memory card and hard drive space. Any lossless compression algorithm is by definition reversible. No data is lost in the process.



Dec 05, 2012 at 12:51 AM
roman.johnston
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · I was just looking at a D800 vs a MF 40MP shot I have on file


bpark42 wrote:
There is really no reason for you to use uncompressed. You are just wasting memory card and hard drive space. Any lossless compression algorithm is by definition reversible. No data is lost in the process.


And that does not give me warm fuzzies. I do technology for a living and understand what your saying. My instincts tell me to stick with uncompressed. And because I shoot landscapes, I have no problems with space. I have shot less than 30,000 shots since 2004....thats less than some put on one camera in a year. So not really an issue with me.

Roman



Dec 05, 2012 at 01:28 AM
1      
2
       3       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password