i shoot 8 captures on my D3X and resolution stack to 100MP. with the D800E, i would end up with 150MP RAW files after stacking, just where i want to be.
Herb...
cohenfive wrote:
the high end pc/hd makers and gpu makers must be loving this...must be massive file sizes on this camera!
I will most likely go with the D800E - I want the FULL resolution of that sensor, fully knowing the advantage of shooting without an AA outweighs the risks associated with having one in place.
jph1 wrote:
What I don't understand is, when most camera companies complain of having to use an 'expensive' AA filter, why does it cost $300 more?
Ostensibly because production numbers of the 800E are much lower than the regular 800. Though going be the responses I've seen interest in the 800E is strong.
pookipichu wrote:
The forest scene looks brilliant, crisp and 3D. The fabric shot is cringe inducing,
In real world terms ... except for the moire sample ... the difference between the 800 and 800E is negligible. And if one is shooting for magazines, even 300dpi printing, the difference will hardly show up if at all. Yes, the fabric shot shows the ills of moire pretty clearly.
- Steve
veroman wrote:
In real world terms ... except for the moire sample ... the difference between the 800 and 800E is negligible. And if one is shooting for magazines, even 300dpi printing, the difference will hardly show up if at all. Yes, the fabric shot shows the ills of moire pretty clearly.
- Steve
Steve, if the differences were so negligible why would they release two versions? Just looking for an educated debate that may help steer some in the right direction in what to order.
Some of the crops show a big difference in detail and sharpness.
Another example of the difference between the 800e and 800. The difference is no more negligible than using the 24-70G vs. a Quantaray. Both will render the image, one less smeared than the other. That difference is $$$$.
veroman wrote:
In real world terms ... except for the moire sample ... the difference between the 800 and 800E is negligible. And if one is shooting for magazines, even 300dpi printing, the difference will hardly show up if at all. Yes, the fabric shot shows the ills of moire pretty clearly.
- Steve
I ordered the D800E. I've always preferred files from cameras that don't have an AA filter. They have a "snap" to them that looks honest. As a result I've always loved photos from the D70 (weak AA), M8 and M9, Kodak SLR/n, Fuji X100, etc. I can't wait to marry the sensor of this camera with a good Zeiss lens.
Two23 wrote:
That is totally incorrect. I've been asking a couple of digital MF shooters who know about this and deal with it daily and they say if moire shows up in your photo, you are screwed. Period. I'm thinking that as a "general outdoor phtographer," I'd be much better off with the filter. If I were a studio photographer it might be different. I want to see actual prints made with the camera at ISO 3200, 6400, and read some real user reviews before making any decisions if I'm buying either.
Why are people suggesting the D800E is more suitable for studio or portrait work? I would think that is a bad area to use it if Moire pattern is a consideration because of all the clothing. Isn't clothing the biggest culprit of Moire?
D800E - Looks like ACR will have Moire control built in so this addresses my issues. I'm an image quality freak so I'm only holding out on ordering until I've seen high iso samples compared to the D700 and the D3s. 85% of what I do is under low light conditions.
I will however regret my recent D3s purchase if these high MP shots are clean at ISO 6400. I gambled that the D3s will be clearly better in the high ISO department; hope Im right!
I took a reach hit with the D3s and Im cropping more than Id like with FX. Different lens wont fix it - I need a 100mm to 300mmish 2.8 zoom. My 70-200 was a bit short on my D300; im finding it more short on FX (of course). I prefer DX reach but need to shoot at 6400 +/-. FPS is a plus, but reach is a bigger plus.
ISO performance at 6400 being equal, Id take the MP over the FPS. Lets see how that shakes out.
domdog31 wrote:
Steve, if the differences were so negligible why would they release two versions? Just looking for an educated debate that may help steer some in the right direction in what to order. Some of the crops show a big difference in detail and sharpness.
You will always see "big" differences when you pixel peep. But looking at prints shrinks those differences. I'm not saying there aren't any differences. There are. But do these differences matter all that much? In my experience, no. I loved my filter-less Kodak SLR/c, but my 1Ds II does the job equally as well and in most instances better ... and, quite frankly, with good glass, proper post processing and large-ish print sizes, I don't think anyone could tell the difference between my filter-less Kodak and my rather heavily filtered Canon.
So why did Nikon release two versions? For the same reason they released a 36MP camera. They're in business to sell stuff and to make a profit. It makes great marketing sense. I'm not sure it makes good photographic sense. I feel the same way about 36MP, ie lots of tiny 4.88 micron pixels. I don't think that average size to large prints under 16" X 20" will see the benefit. Larger than that probably will. What about noise? Jury is still out. We'll have to wait and see.
I will admit that a 36MP camera at $3,000 is pretty tempting and quite a coupe for Nikon. But my 1Ds II is doing just fine, thank you ... as is my 5D Classic. With either of these cameras plus my best lenses, I'm getting all the detail and resolution I need and could hope for.
