Wetpixel D800 review

Hi folks,

Just to let you all know that I have published the final part of the D800 review onto the front page.

The entire review is here:

http://wetpixel.com/i.php/full/wetpixel-d800-camera-review/

Many thanks to all of you who have responded with questions and ideas for the review. I hope it (and this excellent thread) answer most of them. I have avoided reviewing the cameras video performance as yet. I think that this will merit a separate (smaller) review.

Enjoy!

Adam

Has anyone said yet, that its a Sony Sensor?

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/08/29/confirmed-the-sensor-inside-the-nikon-d800-is-made-by-sony.aspx/

Oh, that reminds me. I have created a gallery on my website of some of the shots I have done with the D800.

To see the pictures larger, run them in slideshow mode with the thumbnails hidden.

Alex

p.s. Sony make many of the sensors in current and past Nikon SLRs.

It appears that, when you set Image Area on the D800 to 1.2X crop, the Tokina 10-17mm lens can be used with no vignetting from about 13.5mm to 17mm, providing a nice wide-angle (not fisheye) zoom, without the need for a teleconverter, which inevitably degrades image quality. You should get an image with a lot more pixels than a DX (1.5X) crop, and a larger viewfinder area to work with. You would also get faster shooting speeds and write-to-card speeds than in FX mode, plus up to 1/400 sec. flash sync. Has anyone tried this? And checked image quality vs. a Nikon 16mm, Nikon 14-24mm, or Sigma 15mm? When you go to DX mode with the 10-17mm, you get the full range of the lens from fisheye to 17mm, but also a very small viewfinder. It has been noted that there is an advantage to the cropped viewfinder in that you can see subjects approaching from the edge of the frame, but this advantage disappears at the fisheye end of the zoom, as the area outside the DX crop is vignetted black by the lens shade. Shooting at 1.2X crop seems like it could be a useful compromise, for shooting fast-moving subjects that beg for a high frame rate and high sync speed.

This was taken by a D700 in Sipadan in June, using Tokina 10-17mm FE as FX lens without cropping.

This was taken by a D800 in Kashmir in August, again using Tokina 10-17mm as FX lens without cropping.

Sorry the second shot is not underwater, haven't dived with my D800 as yet.

In both cases the lens set at 16mm (EXIF shows 15mm) covered FX, and used as a prime lens. There is no need for a TC.

Haven't pixel peeped yet, happy enough that it works. Did a 100% crop and the details are still quite awesome.

Tried using the Tokina 10-17mm on the D800 underwater yesterday for the first time. It's hard to judge absolute quality or make valid comparisons, because I was photographing moving subjects under changing conditions of light, visibility, etc. However, results seemed pretty good using it in DX mode, with the expected increase in resolution when I switched to 1.2X crop mode. It didn't occur to me until I got back to try it in FX mode. As Diediealsomustdive points out - this also works! Testing in air, I see that the range of about 14.5 to 17mm is usable in FX without vignetting. And, at 14.5mm in FX, the field of view is actually marginally wider than at 10mm in DX mode. So, by putting the 10-17mm directly on an FX camera (without the 1.4X converter), you have the option of shooting fisheye to superwide in FX and 1.2X crop modes, or using the full range of the zoom in DX mode when you want to get a higher frame rate and/or higher sync speed. Unresolved question for me is how the 10-17mm in FX compares in sharpness to a Sigma 15mm or Nikkor 16mm when used underwater, on the same camera. Maybe one of you guys with a pool and resolution charts can do a comparison? Note that the Tokina has the advantage of a slightly closer minimum focus distance than either of the other lenses. The advantage of faster strobe sync speeds in DX or 1.2X mode is lost when using fiber optic triggering, as this depends on the built-in camera flash, which automatically limits the camera to a shutter speed of 1/320 or less when the strobe is popped up. Has anybody found a way around this? Otherwise, it's necessary to use electronic sync, with only 3 active pins, in order to fool the camera into thinking there is no strobe attached. Doug

I was able to use those faster synch speeds (1/400th and 1/500th) with 1.2x and 1.5x crops without modifying the housing or connector. Although maybe the Nauticam housing came as standard with just three pins connected? I don't know?

Alex

Yeah, I don't know how they wired the Nauticam, but the electronic flash sync works fine with no need for blocking discs or taping contacts on the hot shoe. Did my first trials underwater today using the Tokina 10-17mm on the D800 in FX mode. Results seems perfectly acceptable. I'm not able to do a side by side comparison with the Sigma 15mm, but looking at the images I shot with that lens a few days ago, I'm not seeing a huge difference. I think the area of blurring in the corners is smaller with the 15mm, but sharpness in the center looks pretty similar. Again, different locations, different subjects, different days, different water. Will be nice if someone can do a side by side under controlled conditions. I'd definitely advise people not to sell off their 10-17mm just because they bought a D800. Doug

I think you need 2 active pins instead of 3 to fool the camera.

Another thing, the other day I had a chat with a topside photographer and we talked about FF, DX etc... and I told him about the DX advantage on depth of field for macro and bla, bla... and he told me it was nonsense and that DOF depended on ratio (1:1, 1:2...) and aperture (f16, 22...) and it was sensor size independent... I didn´t believe him but went to www.dofmaster.com and did an example using two real life camera and combinations with the same angle of view:

canon 7d, canon 100mm at 1:1 (30,48cm), f22: DOF= 0.54cm

canon 5dII, sigma 150mm at 1:1 (38,10cm), f22: DOF= 0.53cm

So my friend was right!

Does this mean that if I get a D800 and start using the 150mm, pictures will be more or less as easy/difficult to take as with D700 - 105mm? where is the claimed macro difficult FF DOF capacity?

...as with D7000 - 105mm... not D700....

I've used both D7000 and D800 for supermacro side by side and it is much more difficult with the D800. I think in the above example, DOF is the same but FOV will be different. Holding FOV constant, the DOF will much much narrower on the D800. The more I read about the issue more confused I get by the physics behind it, but in practice I don't think there is much question.

I've used both D7000 and D800 for supermacro side by side and it is much more difficult with the D800. I think in the above example, DOF is the same but FOV will be different. Holding FOV constant, the DOF will much much narrower on the D800. The more I read about the issue more confused I get by the physics behind it, but in practice I don't think there is much question.

FOV is where the trick is: we can fill the whole image in a 7D with a 23mm shrimp at 1:1, but that shrimp in FF camera at 1:1 will have a lot of surrounding area. In order to get the same image of the SAME subject we have to go 1.5:1 and that will reduce the depth of field...

Also if the DX shooter attaches the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 then the FX shooter can't really respond without having to go with a slower lens.

I am a big fan on the Sigma 150mm f/2.8, as is well documented. But I do think that the 105mm VR is a better lens on DX than the 150mm Sigma is on FX. Especially as the former can be used with Nikon's excellent AF-S teleconverters.

Alex

But I do think that the 105mm VR is a better lens on DX than the 150mm Sigma is on FX. Especially as the former can be used with Nikon's excellent AF-S teleconverters.

Have you used the 105mm VR with a teleconverter on FX?

The whole idea using the D800 and not the D700 underwater is that we can take the shot from a bit farther (which will expand the dof) and than croop.

If we"ll add the fact that we can shoot 1.2X or 1.5X, we actually have 2 cameras in the price of one - ff and crop.

I used the D300 underwater like most of us and crooped the 12.1 when I needed it - we can still print it with fine results.

Have you used the 105mm VR with a teleconverter on FX?

Yeah, Tim.

I have used the 105mm VR with the 2.0 TC III (that you also have) on the D800, D4, D700 and D7000 in the last couple of months.

Before that I used the 1.7x TC II. Which I still rate, but I have not travelled with as much recently.

Alex

Hi Alex,

do you favour the TC or the close up lenses for macro???

Rob

Hi all,

Not a plug per se, but I bought Thom Hogan's Guide to the D800/800e. I am really impressed with the amount of information about not just the D800, but the technology that it contains in more general terms as well.

If you own the camera (or are thinking of getting one) I would suggest a getting a copy!

http://www.bythom.com/nikond800guide.htm

Adam

Hi,

 

I made my tests with the dome positioning and found out it works much better with my calculated Dome positioning.

 

Every Ikelite user with the Nikon 16-35mm and the 8" Dome should not use the #5510.28, but the #5510.22 + #5510.58. With that combination the port is further away from the camera. The angle of view is wider, the corners are much sharper and there is no vignetting anymore. Especially at f4 you can clearly see the difference.

 

It´s still not perfect, but much better and at least usable. On the last pic I made an exmaple with f14 and there it looks pretty good.

 

Here you can find all the pics at f4 and f9 and judge by yourself:

 

http://uw-digi.de/dometest/

 

Regards René

Thanks Rene for taking the time out to look further into this, and help those Ikelite users out there. I currently have a d90 in a Ikelite housing, and whilst it's going great, I will soon be buying a FX camera to begin with for land use, however in time for UWP too.

My set up was going to be the 60mm for macro/portraits and the 16-35mm for WA.The likes of Alex M and many others seem to really like this lens. It's also gained significant reviews for it's land use too, and was looking to use this on land for WA to pair up with my Lee 77mm filter collection.

Now, having read your experiences, i'm a little worried. I have already the 8 inch dome, and was hoping the 16-35mm would work nicely underwater.

It really bugs me that the OEM's can't get this type of information correct!!

Do you have any further images out in the field?

thanks in advance.

Hi,

as Ikelite ruined my annual divetrip with the wrong port recommendation I have only some pool shot examples.

The results are much better and quite acceptable with the Ike 8"dome and my calculated dome positioning. But probably with a 9" dome it might be even better.

Here are some examples:

Some more pics of this shooting you can find here:

http://www.rene-zuch...s-11/index.html

What really pisses me of is that Ikelite is still recommending the wrong port, eventhough I provided my informations to them and they told they might update the port chart. This is ingnoring the customers and will lead to the fact that everybody with a Nikon FX + 16-35mm will be dissapointed. I really don´t get it. It costs them 5 min to update the port chart.

Kind regards

René