This topic is in the 2012 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 20125Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
p.1 #15Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
A friend of mine just received his D800 and offered me to test it against my 5DmkII.
I'm very interested in this Nikon camera and although I prefer Canon glass (I used Nikon for many years, in film days - F5 - and digital -D3) I also use Zeiss glass which is available in both mounts so I could keep the same fingerprint on some lenses.
For the test I used my 5D2 with the ZE 50 f/2 Makro Planar, since my dealer kindly lent me a used 50 Makro-Planar in ZF.2 mount so I could compare both cameras with pretty much identical glass.
I also compared a so-so zoom on the D800 (28-300VR) with a nice prime on the 5D2 (90 TSE) throwing in also my Leica M9 with a 90 Macro-Elmar.
5Dmk2 vs D800 shootout
I can make all the Raw files and many more up to 6400 ISO available if any kind soul could point me to a free cloud server to upload them (over 3 Gb!!)
In the end the D800 is amazing, but I'll keep my 5DmkII and be happy saving for some new lenses, like the 24 TS-E II
I'm very interested in this Nikon camera and although I prefer Canon glass (I used Nikon for many years, in film days - F5 - and digital -D3) I also use Zeiss glass which is available in both mounts so I could keep the same fingerprint on some lenses.
For the test I used my 5D2 with the ZE 50 f/2 Makro Planar, since my dealer kindly lent me a used 50 Makro-Planar in ZF.2 mount so I could compare both cameras with pretty much identical glass.
I also compared a so-so zoom on the D800 (28-300VR) with a nice prime on the 5D2 (90 TSE) throwing in also my Leica M9 with a 90 Macro-Elmar.
5Dmk2 vs D800 shootout
I can make all the Raw files and many more up to 6400 ISO available if any kind soul could point me to a free cloud server to upload them (over 3 Gb!!)
In the end the D800 is amazing, but I'll keep my 5DmkII and be happy saving for some new lenses, like the 24 TS-E II
Apr 18, 2012 at 08:23 AM
p.1 #25Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
So i guess if anyone wants to know the difference between 21MP and 36MP under ideal conditions, this is a good test.
What would be more interesting to see is to see the actual difference in resolving power under less than ideal conditions (ie: non-Zeiss lenses, larger apertures, higher ISO, etc)
What would be more interesting to see is to see the actual difference in resolving power under less than ideal conditions (ie: non-Zeiss lenses, larger apertures, higher ISO, etc)
Apr 18, 2012 at 08:56 AM
p.1 #35Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
IMHO 28-300 VR is not a good lens .. you might want to use similar quality lenses.
Apr 18, 2012 at 09:03 AM
p.1 #45Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
deepbluejh wrote:
So i guess if anyone wants to know the difference between 21MP and 36MP under ideal conditions, this is a good test.
What would be more interesting to see is to see the actual difference in resolving power under less than ideal conditions (ie: non-Zeiss lenses, larger apertures, higher ISO, etc)
For me, looking at landscape photography, this is more of an ideal test. Good glass, stopped down...churning out big prints. Gives me a little peak into how much more detail the D800 can generate.
So i guess if anyone wants to know the difference between 21MP and 36MP under ideal conditions, this is a good test.
What would be more interesting to see is to see the actual difference in resolving power under less than ideal conditions (ie: non-Zeiss lenses, larger apertures, higher ISO, etc)
For me, looking at landscape photography, this is more of an ideal test. Good glass, stopped down...churning out big prints. Gives me a little peak into how much more detail the D800 can generate.
Apr 18, 2012 at 09:03 AM
p.1 #55Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
kewlcanon wrote:
IMHO 28-300 VR is not a good lens .. you might want to use similar quality lenses.
I used the Zeiss Makro-Planar 50 f/2 for any comparison saved one. The 28-300 VR (at 90mm f/8, so maybe in its sweetest spot) was used to see how much good glass matter compared to Mp. As anyone know, it matters MUCH more
IMHO 28-300 VR is not a good lens .. you might want to use similar quality lenses.
I used the Zeiss Makro-Planar 50 f/2 for any comparison saved one. The 28-300 VR (at 90mm f/8, so maybe in its sweetest spot) was used to see how much good glass matter compared to Mp. As anyone know, it matters MUCH more
Apr 18, 2012 at 09:37 AM
p.1 #65Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
deepbluejh wrote:
So i guess if anyone wants to know the difference between 21MP and 36MP under ideal conditions, this is a good test.
What would be more interesting to see is to see the actual difference in resolving power under less than ideal conditions (ie: non-Zeiss lenses, larger apertures, higher ISO, etc)
Resolving power isn't really much more if you don't use perfect technique (tripod, MLU, LV) and good glass at sweetest spot.
What the D800 improves, in any way you use it, is dynamic range and overall "smooth" rendering.
So i guess if anyone wants to know the difference between 21MP and 36MP under ideal conditions, this is a good test.
What would be more interesting to see is to see the actual difference in resolving power under less than ideal conditions (ie: non-Zeiss lenses, larger apertures, higher ISO, etc)
Resolving power isn't really much more if you don't use perfect technique (tripod, MLU, LV) and good glass at sweetest spot.
What the D800 improves, in any way you use it, is dynamic range and overall "smooth" rendering.
Apr 18, 2012 at 09:40 AM
p.1 #75Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
Wow, I wish I could get that D800 sensor in a camera body with Canon or shorter register distance! It's not just the difference in resolution from the extra pixels, but the low-ISO per-pixel quality seems significantly better on the Nikon; much like comparisons between smaller sensor and full-frame crops.
Apr 18, 2012 at 09:47 AM
p.1 #85Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
Marco wrote:
What would be more interesting to see is to see the actual difference in resolving power under less than ideal conditions (ie: non-Zeiss lenses, larger apertures, higher ISO, etc)Resolving power isn't really much more if you don't use perfect technique (tripod, MLU, LV) and good glass at sweetest spot.
What the D800 improves, in any way you use it, is dynamic range and overall "smooth" rendering.
Where are these dynamic range improvements you are seeing? The pictures don't show much (if any) difference.
And dynamic range should NOT be confused with a contrasty default tone curve.
deepbluejh wrote
So i guess if anyone wants to know the difference between 21MP and 36MP under ideal conditions, this is a good test.What would be more interesting to see is to see the actual difference in resolving power under less than ideal conditions (ie: non-Zeiss lenses, larger apertures, higher ISO, etc)
What the D800 improves, in any way you use it, is dynamic range and overall "smooth" rendering.
Where are these dynamic range improvements you are seeing? The pictures don't show much (if any) difference.
And dynamic range should NOT be confused with a contrasty default tone curve.
Apr 18, 2012 at 10:01 AM
p.1 #95Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
With DR I mean shadow recovery.
With the D800 you can expose for the highlights and then recover the shadows in post without loosing much informations. Something you can't say for the 5Dmk2 (don't know about the new mk3 but it doesn't seem much improved in this area, save for eliminating the horizontal banding).
I posted an example at the end of the second page at the pbase link above.
Having said that with some care in exposure I don't find the 5D2 so limiting, also because I don't like an unnatural dynamic range. And btw with bracketing exposures you still get better results compared to D800 one shot. For static subjects, that is.
But the D800 sensor is amazing, no doubt about it.
Oh, and as far as shadow recovery look at the M9 crop I threw in... sorry, no match for any CMOS it seems.
With the D800 you can expose for the highlights and then recover the shadows in post without loosing much informations. Something you can't say for the 5Dmk2 (don't know about the new mk3 but it doesn't seem much improved in this area, save for eliminating the horizontal banding).
I posted an example at the end of the second page at the pbase link above.
Having said that with some care in exposure I don't find the 5D2 so limiting, also because I don't like an unnatural dynamic range. And btw with bracketing exposures you still get better results compared to D800 one shot. For static subjects, that is.
But the D800 sensor is amazing, no doubt about it.
Oh, and as far as shadow recovery look at the M9 crop I threw in... sorry, no match for any CMOS it seems.
Apr 18, 2012 at 10:11 AM
p.1 #105Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
deepbluejh wrote:
So i guess if anyone wants to know the difference between 21MP and 36MP under ideal conditions, this is a good test.
What would be more interesting to see is to see the actual difference in resolving power under less than ideal conditions (ie: non-Zeiss lenses, larger apertures, higher ISO, etc)
Why would that be "more" interesting? People who are interested in fine detail and resolving power want to see what the full potential of a camera is. It'd be like testing a Porsche against a Honda Civic and saying "Well, it's fine that you tested them on the Autobahn, but it'd be more interesting to see how they perform when you drive them down neighborhood streets with speed limits."
Are we so insecure with our chosen brand that we need to think up test scenarios to handicap the D800? "Well sure the D800 has more resolving power, but if you handhold it at 1/60 and shoot wide open with a crappy lens it'll won't look any better than a 5DIII..."
Let's get real, product comparisons have always been about seeing what the products can do at their best. It should be obvious by now that for people who want more resolution and understand the shooting techniques required to get it, the D800 can deliver it. I do find comparisons like this very interesting because they quantify the difference and help people judge for themselves if that difference is substantial.
(Of course, the dynamic range issue is a different story altogether..... )
So i guess if anyone wants to know the difference between 21MP and 36MP under ideal conditions, this is a good test.
What would be more interesting to see is to see the actual difference in resolving power under less than ideal conditions (ie: non-Zeiss lenses, larger apertures, higher ISO, etc)
Why would that be "more" interesting? People who are interested in fine detail and resolving power want to see what the full potential of a camera is. It'd be like testing a Porsche against a Honda Civic and saying "Well, it's fine that you tested them on the Autobahn, but it'd be more interesting to see how they perform when you drive them down neighborhood streets with speed limits."
Are we so insecure with our chosen brand that we need to think up test scenarios to handicap the D800? "Well sure the D800 has more resolving power, but if you handhold it at 1/60 and shoot wide open with a crappy lens it'll won't look any better than a 5DIII..."
Let's get real, product comparisons have always been about seeing what the products can do at their best. It should be obvious by now that for people who want more resolution and understand the shooting techniques required to get it, the D800 can deliver it. I do find comparisons like this very interesting because they quantify the difference and help people judge for themselves if that difference is substantial.
(Of course, the dynamic range issue is a different story altogether.....
)Apr 18, 2012 at 10:43 AM
p.1 #115Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
mpmendenhall wrote:
Wow, I wish I could get that D800 sensor in a camera body with Canon or shorter register distance!
Yeah, D800 sensor + Canon glass seems to be a common wish list :-)
Sony just might oblige us if it decides to put a FF EXMOR sensor into a NEX successor...
Wow, I wish I could get that D800 sensor in a camera body with Canon or shorter register distance!
Yeah, D800 sensor + Canon glass seems to be a common wish list :-)
Sony just might oblige us if it decides to put a FF EXMOR sensor into a NEX successor...
Apr 18, 2012 at 10:56 AM
p.1 #125Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
KaaX wrote:
Yeah, D800 sensor + Canon glass seems to be a common wish list :-)
Who said anything about Canon glass?
mpmendenhall wrote
Wow, I wish I could get that D800 sensor in a camera body with Canon or shorter register distance!Who said anything about Canon glass?
Apr 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM
p.1 #135Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
mpmendenhall wrote:
Yeah, D800 sensor + Canon glass seems to be a common wish list :-)Who said anything about Canon glass?
A *common wish list* -- not necessarily yours :-P
Many people have explicitly said that for them the D800 is a great camera with a crippling flaw -- lack of the EF mount.
KaaX wrote
mpmendenhall wrote
Wow, I wish I could get that D800 sensor in a camera body with Canon or shorter register distance!A *common wish list* -- not necessarily yours :-P
Many people have explicitly said that for them the D800 is a great camera with a crippling flaw -- lack of the EF mount.
Apr 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM
p.1 #145Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
mpmendenhall wrote:
Yeah, D800 sensor + Canon glass seems to be a common wish list :-)Who said anything about Canon glass?
I've wished for it a few times
I've also wished there was a place I knew of that would custom modify TS-E lenses to fit on Nikon mount.
KaaX wrote
mpmendenhall wrote
Wow, I wish I could get that D800 sensor in a camera body with Canon or shorter register distance! I've wished for it a few times
I've also wished there was a place I knew of that would custom modify TS-E lenses to fit on Nikon mount.
Apr 18, 2012 at 11:28 AM
p.1 #155Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
Marco, please for the sake of your family and YOURSELF do attend your daughter even if your wife is NOT sick. All the best to you all and happy recovery.
Thanks for the work!
Thanks for the work!
Apr 18, 2012 at 02:44 PM
p.1 #165Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
te4o wrote:
Marco, please for the sake of your family and YOURSELF do attend your daughter even if your wife is NOT sick. All the best to you all and happy recovery.
Thanks for the work!
That's for sure mate! I'm trying to concentrate the jobs at work just to have enough time to spend with her and my lovely wife.
I know that she's growing fast and these days won't repeat anymore.
A big kiss to the wonderful down under... we spent our honeymoon there and it remains deep in our heart.
Marco, please for the sake of your family and YOURSELF do attend your daughter even if your wife is NOT sick. All the best to you all and happy recovery.
Thanks for the work!
That's for sure mate! I'm trying to concentrate the jobs at work just to have enough time to spend with her and my lovely wife. I know that she's growing fast and these days won't repeat anymore.
A big kiss to the wonderful down under... we spent our honeymoon there and it remains deep in our heart.
Apr 18, 2012 at 03:05 PM
p.1 #175Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
KaaX wrote:
Sony just might oblige us if it decides to put a FF EXMOR sensor into a NEX successor...
And run it at 12bit and force noise reduction to be on...
Sony just might oblige us if it decides to put a FF EXMOR sensor into a NEX successor...
And run it at 12bit and force noise reduction to be on...
Apr 18, 2012 at 03:12 PM
p.1 #185Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
KaaX wrote:
Many people have explicitly said that for them the D800 is a great camera with a crippling flaw -- lack of the EF mount.
You wouldn't be able to tell the difference in IQ between high end Nikon glass and high end Canon glass. The EF mount just gives a few more lenses to choose from (and really, not all that many). So hardly a crippling flaw unless you shoot tilt shift all the time.
Many people have explicitly said that for them the D800 is a great camera with a crippling flaw -- lack of the EF mount.
You wouldn't be able to tell the difference in IQ between high end Nikon glass and high end Canon glass. The EF mount just gives a few more lenses to choose from (and really, not all that many). So hardly a crippling flaw unless you shoot tilt shift all the time.
Apr 18, 2012 at 05:50 PM
p.1 #195Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
daskibum wrote:
You wouldn't be able to tell the difference in IQ between high end Nikon glass and high end Canon glass. The EF mount just gives a few more lenses to choose from (and really, not all that many). So hardly a crippling flaw unless you shoot tilt shift all the time.
Um. Nikon has no 85mm f/1.2. It has no counter to the excellent 70-200 f/4. No equivalent to the highly useful 100-400mm. I don't shoot the very long glass, but it's my impression that Canon is solidly in the lead there. Does Nikon have something that's as good as 135 f/2?
I don't think it's just a matter of TS-E lenses.
You wouldn't be able to tell the difference in IQ between high end Nikon glass and high end Canon glass. The EF mount just gives a few more lenses to choose from (and really, not all that many). So hardly a crippling flaw unless you shoot tilt shift all the time.
Um. Nikon has no 85mm f/1.2. It has no counter to the excellent 70-200 f/4. No equivalent to the highly useful 100-400mm. I don't shoot the very long glass, but it's my impression that Canon is solidly in the lead there. Does Nikon have something that's as good as 135 f/2?
I don't think it's just a matter of TS-E lenses.
Apr 18, 2012 at 06:35 PM
p.1 #205Dmk2 vs D800 shootout with Zeiss Makro-Planar
KaaX wrote:
Um. Nikon has no 85mm f/1.2. It has no counter to the excellent 70-200 f/4. No equivalent to the highly useful 100-400mm. I don't shoot the very long glass, but it's my impression that Canon is solidly in the lead there. Does Nikon have something that's as good as 135 f/2?
I don't think it's just a matter of TS-E lenses.
They do have the 14-24. My understanding the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 are just as good as Canons. I also understand their consumer grade glass is better than Canon's. Overall, given another year or two, I don't think you'll see any difference. I've seen wonderfull images shot with both systems....I don't see the glass being the determining factor in the images.
daskibum wrote
You wouldn't be able to tell the difference in IQ between high end Nikon glass and high end Canon glass. The EF mount just gives a few more lenses to choose from (and really, not all that many). So hardly a crippling flaw unless you shoot tilt shift all the time.I don't think it's just a matter of TS-E lenses.
They do have the 14-24. My understanding the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 are just as good as Canons. I also understand their consumer grade glass is better than Canon's. Overall, given another year or two, I don't think you'll see any difference. I've seen wonderfull images shot with both systems....I don't see the glass being the determining factor in the images.
Apr 18, 2012 at 06:55 PM