D800 continued problems. Going to return

[Heitz]

Ive been dissapointed with my D800 focusing in low contrast scenes / near dark but other than that its been doing great. Hopefully a software update fixes that.

All cameras struggle in low light low contrast scenes
What you need there is a speedlite flash with an AF assist beam

Unfortunately for us D800 owners, using a nikon speed light with AF assist will only make matters worse. I really hope they fix that.

 

[manaheim]

I think thinking of it like golfballs and waterglasses is just going to make a lot of confusion

But think of it like this. If you take a 100mm and a 50mm lens - you can see far more shake on the 100mm than on the 50mm at the same shutter speeds whilst they are below around 1/100sec. The same is true of the MP - if you magnify the final resulting image twice as much you'll see far more blur to the edges.

You can easily see the reverse of this yourself, just downsize photos and you'll see details get the chance to become sharper and less blurred as images get smaller and smaller. Heck take a semi-blurry shot at fullsize and by the time its avatar for a forum size it would be plenty sharp enough .

Yeah that still doesn't make sense to me. The 12mp image should be just as blurred as the 36. The only difference should be the number of pixels in the blur... Basically a more detailed blur, but the resulting image viewed at the same size should basically look identical.

 

[Overread]

Yeah that still doesn't make sense to me. The 12mp image should be just as blurred as the 36. The only difference should be the number of pixels in the blur... Basically a more detailed blur, but the resulting image viewed at the same size should basically look identical.

This is true - if you view both at a print size they should look about the same with regard to handheld blur (or lack thereof). The points regarding increased blur are valid only when viewing at the 100% crop size, because of the enlarged view. You could probably simulate this easily by upscaling a 12mp photo to 24mp in size without running strong sharpening codes during the resizing.

Again its more about comparing 100% crops and, thus, has less effect unless you are printing to a very large scale as your primary output size.

 

[matthewo]

well i have never had a problem with getting blury pictures no mater using my d7000 or my d800 or any other camera when used correctly. so whats the problem

 

[manaheim]

This is true - if you view both at a print size they should look about the same with regard to handheld blur (or lack thereof). The points regarding increased blur are valid only when viewing at the 100% crop size, because of the enlarged view. You could probably simulate this easily by upscaling a 12mp photo to 24mp in size without running strong sharpening codes during the resizing.

Again its more about comparing 100% crops and, thus, has less effect unless you are printing to a very large scale as your primary output size.

Actually, I think the trick is really the AA filter... At 100% with no AA filter on either camera (12 or 36mp) a slight camera shake would be more noticeable on the 36 as it would hit more pixels, but with the AA filter a slight shift bleeds on either camera....

In either case you need to just pick a shutter time appropriate for your focal length and it's a non-issue.

 

[HallieD]

Yeah, glass make much more of a difference on this camera than on say the D90. Especially in DX mode. I put the 18-200 on it for a family event at church- trying to get my plenty of practice with working around new camera with no pressure), and image quality was ok, not great, but even the difference between the quality of that lens and another DX lens I have, teh 17-55 2.8 was very obvious to me, with the better quailty lens, even in DX mode. But with a FX lens, even a simple 50mm 1.8, was very nice. Hang on to the camera, I don't much about the 5100, but I started with the 3100, then to D90, and borrowed a D7000 for awhile before deciding to make the leap. Not sure what other glass you have, but maybe rent a few of the "trinity" see if it helps things out?

 

[spicyTuna]

Good analogy Overread. With 36 mp the image at 100% is much larger basically magnifying any blur more than having lower mp.

 

[Markw]

Ok ok you are all right. I made a very rookie mistake. When I compare the d800 in fx with a 50mm and the d5100 with a 35mm (a fairer comparison) the d800 slams it. I'm embarrassed for the rant now.

Well, that's really not all that fair, either. At least not for focusing. They may give relatively equivalent effective FOVs, but a 35mm is not a 50mm. Especially when comparing different sensor sizes. A longer focal length lens will always yield a shallower DOF when compared to a shorter lens when shot at the same aperture. So, shooting a 50mm F/1.8 @1.8 on your D800 will yield a shallower DOF than your 35mm F/1.8 @F/1.8 on your D5100, when shot from the same distance away from the subject. Be careful. You could easily mistake an OOF photo for one with a shallow DOF when comparing this way.

this just isnt true. if you are coming from a d700 then i could see you could say this, but if your using any of the newer DX cameras suchs as the d7000 with pretty much the same pixel density then blur or small movement wouldnt be any different and require the same level of lenses(other then needing to work well on FX) and user ability


Nikon D800

• 24 X 35.9mm sensor hosting 36.3 mega pixels
• Sensor is 861.6mm squared
• Pixel Pitch is 4.88 microns

Nikon D800 in DX shooting mode

• 24 X 16 sensor hosting 15.4 mega pixels
• Sensor used is 384mm squared
• Pixel Pitch is 4.88 microns

Nikon D7000

• 23.6 X 15.6mm sensor hosting 16.2 mega pixels
• Sensor is 368.16mm squared
• Pixel Pitch is 4.78 microns

so as you can see, even in DX mode the pixels are bigger than the d7000. thus the d800 is only using the center of the sensor and cropping it. also iso sensitivity on the d800 kills the d7000, so why even use a dx body for wildlife / sports.

I've been wondering the same thing. Why everyone MUST have a DX camera for wildlife, when the D800 is still 15MP in crop mode. But, with the D3200 being 24MP, if the future (if there are still more) DX cameras are that, or more than that, the reach and cropability will be incredible. The only thing is watching out for that ISO. It's not great on the D3200. But,

I couldn't give a toss about all your maths i'm going on what a top UK pro magazine where a top pro said what i posted

Facts are facts, opinions are opinions. If the math is correct, you could have half the world thinking it's wrong, and it will still be correct. Scroll down. Overread explains it perfectly.

maybe they where compairing FX to FX, cause pervious FX was 1/3 the pixel density. but a lot of people here have DX cameras also or before so probably most of us on here dont just deal with FX cameras. like me im sure a lot of people went from d90, d7000, d5100, d300s, etc to a d800 FX.

and its not my maths, it was pulled from a website. but it makes sense, pixel density is the import part

Its shooting in the real world that matters, not in a lab

This is true. But, even in the wild world, pixel density is still relevant.



Anywho, as for your test, you really need to get that 35/1.8 off your D800. It was never intended for that. It is going to be impossible for you to test the two cameras for sharpness against one another if you don't have a lens that will hold up to both cameras. You're not only going to need a lens that will hold up to the size of an FX sensor, but also the incredible resolution of said FX sensor (by the way, I wouldn't quite call the 85/1.4D the glorious one of the bunch..). You REALLY need to beef up your lens collection if you really want to get the best from your D800. Sell that damn D5100, and the 35/1.8, and the 18-55, and, if you really feel good about it, the 20-35, and pick up a 24-70/2.8. It would be the best move you can make now that you have the D800. Use the extra $300ish to save for another FX lens. Once you learn how to get the best out of your camera, you'll realize why the D800 is many times the price of the D5100. You just need the means.

Mark

 

[cgipson1]

Mark (and others) are correct! You need better glass. With good glass, you can get unbelievable shots that look good even with a major crop.

 

[Markw]

While we're on the subject, I find it a bit, I don't know, peculiar, I suppose, that, before the D800, when the main decision was "D300s or D700?", everyone harped and harped about upgrading lenses before body. Hardcore. And people listened. But, now with the D800, at 36MP, when it's needed more than ever before, we have people coming out of the woodwork everywhere I frequent shooting it with DX lenses, or lenses that are seriously subpar. It's a bit shocking, and a tad disheartening. But, that's for another day, at another time, I suppose. Just thought I'd put it out there.

Mark

 

[cgipson1]

While we're on the subject, I find it a bit, I don't know, peculiar, I suppose, that, before the D800, when the main decision was "D300s or D700?", everyone harped and harped about upgrading lenses before body. Hardcore. And people listened. But, now with the D800, at 36MP, when it's needed more than ever before, we have people coming out of the woodwork everywhere I frequent shooting it with DX lenses, or lenses that are seriously subpar. It's a bit shocking, and a tad disheartening. But, that's for another day, at another time, I suppose. Just thought I'd put it out there.

Mark

I agree! I also feel that the D800 requires a good bit more experience and better technique, than any body that has gone before it. When you combine those lacks, with poor lenses... it turns a wonderful body into something that will not even achieve the quality a lesser body would.

 

[Markw]

Bingo.

Mark