Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Nikon D800 or D800e - which one to choose?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Nikon D800 or D800e - which one to choose?

 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-16-2012
"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>From Luminous Landscape,
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...or_d800e.shtml
>
>Worth a read, and seems fair and balanced to me.




I also find it fair and balanced ...

.... because, given that the article says exactly what I have been
saying on this newsgroup for some time, I could hardly disagree with
anything it said.

Obviously, those who have been spooked by the online trolls who know
less than nothing about the practicalities, and argue solely from a
theoretical standpoint, would be best served by a D800. Then they
would never have to lose any sleep about the very slight possibility
of moire. But they would be denying themselves the significant extra
resolution and detail that the D800E will provide in 995 out of 1000
shots, just to avoid the risk of moire in the other 5.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-17-2012
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:13:26 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >From Luminous Landscape,
: >
: > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...or_d800e.shtml
: >
: >Worth a read, and seems fair and balanced to me.
:
:
:
: I also find it fair and balanced ...
:
: ... because, given that the article says exactly what I have been
: saying on this newsgroup for some time, I could hardly disagree with
: anything it said.
:
: Obviously, those who have been spooked by the online trolls who know
: less than nothing about the practicalities, and argue solely from a
: theoretical standpoint, would be best served by a D800. Then they
: would never have to lose any sleep about the very slight possibility
: of moire. But they would be denying themselves the significant extra
: resolution and detail that the D800E will provide in 995 out of 1000
: shots, just to avoid the risk of moire in the other 5.

Buy one of each, and use them interchangeably, unless you're photographing
repetitive patterns (in which case you should use the D800) or pictures to be
used on billboards (in which case you should use the D800E).

If you don't need, or can't afford, or can't be bothered with, two cameras,
buy a D7000 or its current successor. You'll probably be just as well
satisfied, and you'll save some money. If you like, you can blow the savings
on a new speedlight, or a better tripod, or whatever.

But if you're a professional, a semi-professional, or a very serious amateur,
you'll need two cameras anyway. The rationalization that your (now) backup
D700 is just as good if not better because it has bigger pixels, will work for
at most a few months. And at $3000 each, you probably won't feel that you're
being robbed. And think of the time you'll save by no longer having to argue
with the newsgroup's pixel peepers over how many times out of 1000 you'll have
a shot ruined by moiré patterns. ;^)

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-17-2012
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 10:13:09 -0400, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:13:26 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: >From Luminous Landscape,
>: >
>: > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...or_d800e.shtml
>: >
>: >Worth a read, and seems fair and balanced to me.
>:
>:
>:
>: I also find it fair and balanced ...
>:
>: ... because, given that the article says exactly what I have been
>: saying on this newsgroup for some time, I could hardly disagree with
>: anything it said.
>:
>: Obviously, those who have been spooked by the online trolls who know
>: less than nothing about the practicalities, and argue solely from a
>: theoretical standpoint, would be best served by a D800. Then they
>: would never have to lose any sleep about the very slight possibility
>: of moire. But they would be denying themselves the significant extra
>: resolution and detail that the D800E will provide in 995 out of 1000
>: shots, just to avoid the risk of moire in the other 5.
>
>Buy one of each, and use them interchangeably, unless you're photographing
>repetitive patterns (in which case you should use the D800) or pictures to be
>used on billboards (in which case you should use the D800E).


If you want, or can afford, one but not both, look into renting them
both first so you can try them out for yourself with your lenses,
shooting style, & subject matter. Why argue or theorize and think you
have the answer when you can test and know?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bryan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2012
Bruce wrote:
> Obviously, those who have been spooked by the online trolls who know
> less than nothing about the practicalities, and argue solely from a
> theoretical standpoint, would be best served by a D800. *Then they
> would never have to lose any sleep about the very slight possibility
> of moire.


Anyone paying attention could post an equally-valid insult of the
"trolls" on the other side. Slight as the possibility of Moire may be,
what is the chance of one's 36MP image being spoiled or rejected
because of the A.A. filter?

"Practicalities"? Seriously? The D800(e) isn't for sale yet. None of
us have any practical experience with a 36MP 36mm sensor (with the
possible exception of reviewers lurking here).

-Bryan



*But they would be denying themselves the significant extra
> resolution and detail that the D800E will provide in 995 out of 1000
> shots, just to avoid the risk of moire in the other 5.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2012
On 3/18/2012 4:50 PM, Bryan wrote:

>
> "Practicalities"? Seriously? The D800(e) isn't for sale yet. None of
> us have any practical experience with a 36MP 36mm sensor (with the
> possible exception of reviewers lurking here).
>
> -Bryan
>


But we have plenty of experience with crop-sensor
cameras with essentially the same pixel pitch (with AA filters).
As far as moire goes, crop or full fame does not matter ...
just pixel pitch.

Doug McDonald

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bryan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2012
Doug McDonald wrote:
> But we have plenty of experience with crop-sensor
> cameras with essentially the same pixel pitch (with AA filters).
> As far as moire goes, crop or full fame does not matter ...
> just pixel pitch.


That's naive in multiple ways. People with crop-sensor cameras do not
take crop-pictures. They use a shorter focal length to get a roughly
equivalent angle of view. The detail in an image gets projected on
fewer sensor cells.

As resolution increases, chances for moire decrease, because there are
fewer cases where the lens out-resolves the sensor. On the other hand,
there is also less loss of resolution from the A.A. filters, because
the strengths of the filters are tuned to the sensors.

-Bryan
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2012
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:48:04 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Doug McDonald wrote:
>> But we have plenty of experience with crop-sensor
>> cameras with essentially the same pixel pitch (with AA filters).
>> As far as moire goes, crop or full fame does not matter ...
>> just pixel pitch.

>
>That's naive in multiple ways. People with crop-sensor cameras do not
>take crop-pictures. They use a shorter focal length to get a roughly
>equivalent angle of view. The detail in an image gets projected on
>fewer sensor cells.
>
>As resolution increases, chances for moire decrease, because there are
>fewer cases where the lens out-resolves the sensor. On the other hand,
>there is also less loss of resolution from the A.A. filters, because
>the strengths of the filters are tuned to the sensors.


Actually, I believe his point is that, with a given lens & focal
length, a crop sensor with pixel-pitch X will experience the same
moire (or lack thereof) as a higher-resolution FF sensor with
pixel-pitch X. And the point of *that* is that it gives us insight
into what kind of moire to expect from said FF sensor. And it is a
valid point. Would you expect moire to change in any way if you took a
shot with said FF sensor and cropped it to the smaller sensor's
resolution?

Your counterpoint is valid too. When viewing the whole
higher-resolution image so as to cover a given angle of your field of
vision, any moire will be more finely textured and thus more likely to
blend together into one color in your eye.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bryan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2012
John A. wrote:
> Actually, I believe his point is that, with a given lens & focal
> length, a crop sensor with pixel-pitch X will experience the same
> moire (or lack thereof) as a higher-resolution FF sensor with
> pixel-pitch X. And the point of *that* is that it gives us insight
> into what kind of moire to expect from said FF sensor. And it is a
> valid point.


Sure. Theoretical points can be valid, and at present they're all we
have on this topic.

> Would you expect moire to change in any way if you took a
> shot with said FF sensor and cropped it to the smaller sensor's
> resolution?


Assuming you crop to keep the center, no. Since lenses tend to resolve
best in the center of their image circles, I'd say you'd be more
likely to be keeping areas that show moire than cropping out moire. At
the edges the sensor is more likely to out-resolve the lens,
eliminating moire.

> Your counterpoint is valid too. When viewing the whole
> higher-resolution image so as to cover a given angle of your field of
> vision, any moire will be more finely textured and thus more likely to
> blend together into one color in your eye.


That's your own point.

Mostly I think that as sensor resolution increases, the presence or
absence of an AA filter makes less difference. Sensors will eventually
out-resolve lenses generally, making the filter both mostly useless
and mostly harmless.

-Bryan
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2012
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:05:15 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>John A. wrote:
>> Actually, I believe his point is that, with a given lens & focal
>> length, a crop sensor with pixel-pitch X will experience the same
>> moire (or lack thereof) as a higher-resolution FF sensor with
>> pixel-pitch X. And the point of *that* is that it gives us insight
>> into what kind of moire to expect from said FF sensor. And it is a
>> valid point.

>
>Sure. Theoretical points can be valid, and at present they're all we
>have on this topic.
>
>> Would you expect moire to change in any way if you took a
>> shot with said FF sensor and cropped it to the smaller sensor's
>> resolution?

>
>Assuming you crop to keep the center, no. Since lenses tend to resolve
>best in the center of their image circles, I'd say you'd be more
>likely to be keeping areas that show moire than cropping out moire. At
>the edges the sensor is more likely to out-resolve the lens,
>eliminating moire.
>
>> Your counterpoint is valid too. When viewing the whole
>> higher-resolution image so as to cover a given angle of your field of
>> vision, any moire will be more finely textured and thus more likely to
>> blend together into one color in your eye.

>
>That's your own point.
>
>Mostly I think that as sensor resolution increases, the presence or
>absence of an AA filter makes less difference. Sensors will eventually
>out-resolve lenses generally, making the filter both mostly useless
>and mostly harmless.


And they do that via dot-pitch.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2012
Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> If you don't need, or can't afford, or can't be bothered with, two cameras,
> buy a D7000 or its current successor. You'll probably be just as well
> satisfied, and you'll save some money. If you like, you can blow the savings
> on a new speedlight, or a better tripod, or whatever.


DX and FX don't mix that well; a lot of lenses aren't really applicable
to both (wide to normal). It's nice to have the extra reach on
telephotos, though.

> But if you're a professional, a semi-professional, or a very serious amateur,
> you'll need two cameras anyway.


I got into that in film cameras in 1982 (two cameras *from the same
system*; I'd had multiple unrelated cameras earlier). But except for
some overlap between my D200 and D700, I haven't felt I could afford two
decent bodies.

The basic arguments for two bodies were lens changes, film changes, and
backup. These days zooms are a lot more prevalent, which reduces the
need for lens changes; and digital doesn't require me to change rolls of
film to change from color to B&W or low speed to high. (And I do a lot
less B&W; back then most publications needed B&W, now it's just used for
artistic purposes.)

Which leaves backup. I don't do enough even semi-pro work to really
need backup at my current quality level, and the bodies are so expensive
these days that I can't really bring myself to own two. My need for
additional bodies is rather lower, and the cost of having them is rather
higher.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon D800 DSLR with 36 MP to be announced on February 7, 2012 Bruce Digital Photography 0 02-03-2012 01:08 PM
Re: Nikon D800; it's going to be fascinating Tim Conway Digital Photography 2 12-26-2011 03:30 PM
Nikon D800 24 MP DSLR due by February 2011? - Amateur Photographer Bruce Digital Photography 67 10-11-2010 07:43 PM
Rumours of Nikon D800 at Photokina - 24 MP and 1080P video Bruce Digital Photography 11 08-28-2010 06:59 AM
Nikon D700x may see the light of day as D900 (D800??) Tony the insider Digital Photography 5 11-28-2008 06:27 PM



Advertisments