I've bounced around a number of formats over the last decade. I even had a Olympus PL-1 for a while. I took it on a trip with no other camera and honestly it did a heck of a job. I DO print 13x19's regularly and did with that camera. It rendered superb results at that size (12mp). If did NOT of course equal the results of a D700 or D7000 or not even a NEX-5N that sit next to it on the wall. But many don't even notice the difference. On another note I find the average viewing distance of shots on a wall at least 3-4 feet. NOBODY ever went right up to it to pixel peep. I am sorry but I think you're a wack job if you think sticking one's nose up to a print is how most people view it. That's not dealing with reality
traveler wrote:
On another note I find the average viewing distance of shots on a wall at least 3-4 feet. NOBODY ever went right up to it to pixel peep. I am sorry but I think you're a wack job if you think sticking one's nose up to a print is how most people view it. That's not dealing with reality
Personally, I can't help myself from looking at a print at various distances, including walking right up to it at a distance of about 18" away to see how it changes. As a previous gallery owner as well as someone who has been to a lot of Museums/ Galleries and who has taught a lot of photography students, I can tell you "NOBODY ever went right up to pixel (grain) peep" is incorrect.
Jman13 wrote:
A few other people disagreed with my assertion that modern Lotus said that he was annoyed by this whole 'viewing distance thing' was rubbish, and then later went on to say that these arguments were just attempting to rationalize the limitations of our gear. Many people in the thread agreed.
Then, what I found humorous, is that after you posted the 100% crops, many people, including Lotus, talked about how good they looked.
I think your equating 2 different things. I said, it looked pretty good, and based on the context, for 6400 ISO. People were suggesting that it the 36mp sensor would be horrible as higher ISO, and that does not appear to be the case. But this is completely a different issue from people wanted the highest possible IQ for large prints and using the sensor's base ISO to achieve it.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I think your equating 2 different things. I said, it looked pretty good, and based on the context, for 6400 ISO. People were suggesting that it the 36mp sensor would be horrible as higher ISO, and that does not appear to be the case. But this is completely a different issue from people wanted the highest possible IQ for large prints and using the sensor's base ISO to achieve it.
Wow! Again. I don't see any moire problems where I would expect to see them. I would be curious to find out if there was moire which was removed in post processing. I read somewhere also that NIkon is partially dealing with moire in the D800E with in camera firmware before the raw file is written. Hmm.
Edit: I'm noticing that the hair looks like it has been burred/ smoothed a bit on the right side.
bluetsunami wrote:
Yeah, that's a bit odd considering the midsection is so sharp (mainly the fabric).
If this effect is the result of some soft of in-camera firmware to take care of moire, it sort of makes me wonder if it's worth going with the D800E over the regular D800. I think there is still a lot we need to learn and see regarding the actual differences between these two cameras when used in different shooting situations. Just like the NIkon full size sample of the Kimono from the D800E which showed no moire (yet they used the same sample to show how bad moire could look!), I really want to know what's going on. IF it's moire reduction via post processing, it should be stated with each example.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Here is the hair section that looks blurred to me. I don't think it's a matter of dof/ oof because other areas at this distance are sharp.
Not sure what lens or aperture was used for the shot but could it be an optical issue? A drop off of optical resolution as the edge is approached?
plubbry wrote:
Not sure what lens or aperture was used for the shot but could it be an optical issue? A drop off of optical resolution as the edge is approached?
The file info shows a 70mm lens at F9. I don't think it's a lens issue but one of processing. The smearing sort of reminds me of what early digital sensors + AA filters did to hair to avoid moire. I'm just curious what the actual cause is here - post processing, firmware control of moire or something else.
Yeah, that smearing looks pretty bad. My guess is that it is in the moire processing in their latest Nikon RAW converter software. Didn't they say their software would have special moire processing for D800E?
wayne seltzer wrote:
Yeah, that smearing looks pretty bad. My guess is that it is in the moire processing in their latest Nikon RAW converter software. Didn't they say their software would have special moire processing for D800E?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The file info shows a 70mm lens at F9. I don't think it's a lens issue but one of processing. The smearing sort of reminds me of what early digital sensors + AA filters did to hair to avoid moire. I'm just curious what the actual cause is here - post processing, firmware control of moire or something else.
Post processing.
Hair (under studio strobes) is one of the few things that will cause you trouble at apertures over F8.0 in this camera.
theSuede wrote:
Post processing.
Hair (under studio strobes) is one of the few things that will cause you trouble at apertures over F8.0 in this camera.
Thanks. So, do you think with this particular subject matter the regular AA filtered D800 would have represented the hair more accurately? I guess another way to put it is: would a properly calibrated AA filter do a better job than trying to take care of moire after it occurs?
Images made through a properly implemented low-pass filter are always more accurate, meaning a truer representation of reality. Problem is people like false data, so give the people what they want. I view the 800E as pure marketing - shrewd Nikon!
The MFDB fashion shooters deal with this all the time right? I thought Hassy has special software to handle removing moire? Why only apertures smaller than f8 are a problem? Or did you mean apertures larger than f8 and that is because diffraction kicks in blurs the detail? I guess the software has to detect high frequency edges which are replilcated at a spacing close to the sensor pixel spacing and then fill in gaps in these sets of parallel edges? How do they remove it?
