jerrykur wrote:
Add me to the list of people that use LV when shooting landscape. I like checking every corner of the image before shooting and prefer using the LCD. I would really like to have a tiltable LCD for those low angle shots.
First a disclaimer - for my age, I'm probably one of the least knowledgeable on this site. And my age is approaching ancient. I have some catching up to do.
I suppose I'm in the same camp about LV. I tried to shoot some very small flowers this afternoon that were at the edge of a concrete patio I was working from; they were a bit higher than the concrete. Had a terrible time getting my head onto the concrete to see the non-tiltable LV on the 5Dii.
Mostly I never had too much use for LV until I added a TS lens to my bag. It's probably my lack of technical know how, but I don't know how I'd quickly and easily get the correct tilt and shift without LV. I've looked at and printed all the online published tables for tilt angles, but after the sun has set, I have trouble reading the tables, and interpreting them (chalk this up to eyesight and age). I realize that in the hands of a pro, they work fine.
But for me, LV solves all the problems, and makes it simple to get everything from my feet to infinity in focus even with the lens wide open - which is f/3.5. (Note that I assume that the ocean where I live is relatively flat and level and thus is a plane).
jerrykur wrote:
Add me to the list of people that use LV when shooting landscape. I like checking every corner of the image before shooting and prefer using the LCD. I would really like to have a tiltable LCD for those low angle shots.
I have an aftermarket LCD with 800X1280 resolution and can be set tp 1:1, meaning one pixel on the camera HDMI output = 1 pixel on the 5.6" LCD. Thus excellent resolution. I will write a review sometime soon. Its called DP6 from Small HD.I purchased it as a large, angled LCD primarily for low angle Tilt Shift use.
Mike K
For the purpose of this test, my files were normalized in order to compare them on a monitor screen. It's unfair to downsize the D800 36MP file to 22MP in order to compare the advantage of higher resolution. Doing so, would throw away detail from the higher resolution file. Instead, I interpolated the 22MP file to 36MP. I believe this is a fair comparison because both files will be printed at the same paper size. Since I can not demonstrate print detail on the web, I will show 100% magnification crops displaying identical size dimensions for both cameras.
Downsizing 36MP to 22MP is considered unfair because it would throw away details right? But isn't upsizing 22MP to 36MP also unfair because it's adding pixels that weren't there in the first place?
I mean, you wouldn't print larger than the maximum resolution of your camera because it wouldn't look sharp anymore, just as you wouldn't print too small because a lot of the details you see wouln't show up, am I right?
So I don't see the point of comparing the details that these two cameras can capture because I think it's safe to say that more MP = more details.
Another thing I'm not too sure about is showing 100% crop details on a computer monitor. Different monitors have different pixel pitch which means what I see on my monitor wouldn't necessarily look the same as what other would see on theirs.
Downsizing 36MP to 22MP is considered unfair because it would throw away details right? But isn't upsizing 22MP to 36MP also unfair because it's adding pixels that weren't there in the first place?
I mean, you wouldn't print larger than the maximum resolution of your camera because it wouldn't look sharp anymore, just as you wouldn't print too small because a lot of the details you see wouln't show up, am I right?
So I don't see the point of comparing the details that these two cameras can capture because I think it's safe to say that more MP = more details.
Another thing I'm not too sure about is showing 100% crop details on a computer monitor. Different monitors have different pixel pitch which means what I see on my monitor wouldn't necessarily look the same as what other would see on theirs....Show more →
But isn't that the point here. You have to add more pixels to the 5d3 image to make a 30x24 print, so comparing the two at 36 mpix makes perfect sense. Actually the best comparison is making large prints from each as that is your intended output from these cameras. But since it is hard to compare prints on the web, uprezing and pixel peeping is the next best alternative. I'd love to see both cameras uprezed to make a 30x24 print at 300dpi and compare those images at 100%.
brian_sp wrote:
some of you canon shooters are truely pathetic, you call the D800 a show stopper cause of the live view but marvel the lovely banding in your canon, what is the bigger show stopper for you?
if you can't live around live view then you are nothing more than a picture taker and all the landscape images from years gone by before there even was such a thing as live view must be garbage because they weren't taken by relying on live view.
now back to your regular scheduled praising of your lovely noisy banding 5m3, wonder what little feedings canon will dribble out for they're next upgrade for the canon lemmings...Show more →
Nice to see the Nikon fanboys are still trolling the Canon forums...
Fortunately, the "banding" phenomenon is easily avoided by simply metering and exposing correctly. On the other hand, it will take a firmware upgrade (and ultimately a new lens mount) to completely fix Nikon's crippled Live View.
I agree that worse LV is not a show stopper if you are a nikon guy willing to upgrade from D700... but if you have a Canon legacy and are evaluating a shift to Nikon, I think that worse LV (and, let me add, worse AF and Focus confirmation) can foster your doubts.
Moreover IMHO the EF lens lineup, combined with the ZE lenses, makes the Canon offer difficult to leave ... think about 70-200/4, 85/1.2, the TSEs, 135/2 ... with 36MP the days of the bulky 14-24, full of focus shift and in love with flare, are over
"all the landscape images from years gone by before there even was such a thing as live view must be garbage because they weren't taken by relying on live view."
Well, lots of famous landscape shots of the past were taken with view cameras focussed on their ground glass screens using a loupe or magnifier. Process felt alot like DSLR live view IMHO. In that sense live view is a very established landscape technique.
I think that live view is one of the really great DSLR features. Put it like this, I expect my next DSLR (which won't be released for years yet!) will have a superb up to date sensor with few artifacts, AND excellent, easy to use LV.
As a long-time user of both Nikon and Canon systems, I'm once again profoundly disappointed that Nikon packed such a great sensor in a flawed package. It's not like Live View technology is new or revolutionary, it just seems to be one more thing that Nikon can't figure out what it could be used for... but had to throw it in anyway because everyone else's cameras have it.
Confession, I haven't read every post in this thread, but the shadow noise difference between these two cameras looks way off to me. This was much larger of a difference than I expected. I saw more noise in the Nikon sample images (correctly exposed) than I'm seeing in the pushed shadows of these images. Where did the noise go? Is NR being applied somewhere?
Cliff, it is just the implementation of the Liveview on the D800 that leaves something to be desired, the actual resulting image is just fine. For somebody that has both systems like you, it shouldn't be a deal breaker though. It would not for me if I am a Nikon shooter or at least, a dual system user.
As a side note, Liveview is appreciated tremendously now but I remembered just a few years back when people used to pooh pooh that feature and claimed it as useless.
molson wrote:
As a long-time user of both Nikon and Canon systems, I'm once again profoundly disappointed that Nikon packed such a great sensor in a flawed package. It's not like Live View technology is new or revolutionary, it just seems to be one more thing that Nikon can't figure out what it could be used for... but had to throw it in anyway because everyone else's cameras have it.
I do not believe Nikon did not figure out the usefulness of live view. I suspect the refresh rate of their LCD could not keep up with the 36 MP sensor. In fact, this may very well be the reason Canon and Sony have yet to introduce 36 MP sensors.
molson wrote:
Fortunately, the "banding" phenomenon is easily avoided by simply metering and exposing correctly.
Only for scenes with narrow dynamic range is it simple and easy! See this discussion? What constitutes a "narrow range" depends on the subject range and the image the photographer wishes to present.
AGeoJO wrote:
As a side note, Liveview is appreciated tremendously now but I remembered just a few years back when people used to pooh pooh that feature and claimed it as useless.
So true. Yet, I remember when I wanted to upgrade my camera around the time live-view first showed up, it was one of the most important features on my shopping list.
Now that Canon has introduced pro AF in their 5d3, they should know they won't be selling many more cameras if they refuse to invest more efforts in their low ISO dynamic range.
I think I am too old school, because I have three bodies with live view, and I never use it for critical focusing. I tried using it for landscapes, and moon shots - but what I call shimmer (probably caused by motion occurring within the landscape) made it hard to choose which had the best critical focus. I found it is faster, and simpler to just shoot an image....hold the +zoom button down after waiting 2-3 seconds for the image to write to the CF card -and then check critical focus at whatever magnification you want (I think 16x is the max). I do this for both my Nikon bodies, as well as my Canon bodies. This way the image isn't squirming on the LCD. The only time I use the rear LCD for focusing is when shooting video, and that isn't being magnified at all.
Makes me want to do the switch to Nikon. But glass is really important to me. Still.... The D800 is a game changer when shooting landscapes.. by a long shot. Thanks for the write up Fred.
CurtPick wrote:
Makes me want to do the switch to Nikon. But glass is really important to me. Still.... The D800 is a game changer when shooting landscapes.. by a long shot. Thanks for the write up Fred.
+1 !!!!
AJSJones wrote:
Only for scenes with narrow dynamic range is it simple and easy!
No. The issue is when a user decides to try and force the camera beyond it's limits.
If you accept that the camera has a similar DR to slide film you just expose for that. It's when you piss about with the shadows the issue (can) surface. Don't do that and you won't have a problem at all.
When was the last time you looked at a picture in a magazine or a print on a wall and said, confidently, "that was taken with a Nikon because the DR is so much greater"?
dhphoto wrote:
No. The issue is when a user decides to try and force the camera beyond it's limits.
If you accept that the camera has a similar DR to slide film you just expose for that. It's when you piss about with the shadows the issue (can) surface. Don't do that and you won't have a problem at all.
When was the last time you looked at a picture in a magazine or a print on a wall and said, confidently, "that was taken with a Nikon because the DR is so much greater"?
How about taking a shot with a Nikon that everyone thinks could have been done with either Canon or Nikon, when in truth the file required a level of alteration that only a Nikon could do without IQ loss?
timpdx wrote:
What I want to know was Tioga pass now open to get over to Mono Lake? It was open a crazy amount for this almost non-winter in California. (For those who don't know, its usually closed late Oct. To June, a rare year would see it open for Thanksgiving or Memorial Day, but this year was unheard of, open at Christmas and and apparently in mid April)
As for the cameras, thx for posting. In South America and all I brought for this trip was a NEX 5 and left the heavy 5dii kit and lenses at home. Even if i had a D800, I would probably still pack the Sony. This trip is about urban photography, but if I were hitting Patagonia, well, then the SLR would make the trip. Alas, photography is all about compromises, and I want an urban friendly small kit this time. For tripod landscape work, well, then color me impressed with the Nikon, the shadows are insane. It comes down to the glass, hope to see your pce24 review/pics soon. ...Show more →
Tioga pass was closed as well as most easier routes to Mono Lake. I decided to test my luck and took the 88 during a snow storm. After I passed, they closed the road. It was definitely not a fun ride. Normally a 2-hour drive using the Tioga route literally took me the entire day instead. Lucky for me, I was able to enjoy both locations even during this time of year.
dhphoto wrote: No. The issue is when a user decides to try and force the camera beyond it's limits.
If you accept that the camera has a similar DR to slide film you just expose for that. It's when you piss about with the shadows the issue (can) surface. Don't do that and you won't have a problem at all.
When was the last time you looked at a picture in a magazine or a print on a wall and said, confidently, "that was taken with a Nikon because the DR is so much greater"?
But surely you would agree a camera that extends these limits is better and allows the photographer more creative freedom no?
Not too long ago ISO 1600 was tops, now we are much beyond that. Look at what improvements to ISO has done to the creativity of photos as well as the ability to use the camera in situations where you could only dream about a few years ago.
Yet, I remember when I wanted to upgrade my camera around the time live-view first showed up, it was one of the most important features on my shopping list.