Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
when you take in jpeg you just have to little underexpose for the high ligths questions.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
same thing is ALSO often true in raw - try it with an overexpose goelan photograph (in raw)!!! impossible to restore the nuances whatever...
I think my thread has been hijacked!
Oddly enough, I have been wondering about recording Jpegs just to see how good they are from the D800. At 15-20 Mb per image, they must have something. What really intruiges me is whether a Jpeg from the D800 would be higher quality than a Raw from the D3s?
However, being a Scotsman, I have an aversion to paying a couple of grand for a camera and then throwing away half of the data it records!!
....and just another example from our American tour. The Hoodoos of Bryce Canyon, Utah.
1/125th at f/8. ISO 100. 28-300mm lens at 160mm.
What I found interesting in the test of the D800 in this month's Photography Monthly is that the D800 sensor has a dynamic range of 14.4EV compared to 12.2 in the D700 or 11.7 in the Canon 5DMk3.
Perhaps, for most applications, that may actually be a more significant advance than the simple Mp count. Certainly in the image above, I would have had to use HDR from a bracketed sequence in the D3s to cope with the very strong highlights and shadows, whereas the image you see is a straight single exposure, with no jiggery-pokery, from the D800.
In fact, I have not yet tried the built-in HDR feature of the D800 (mainly because it can only be used in Jpeg and not in Raw).
Because the small image above does not allow you to really see the shadow areas, here is a heavy crop of a central area:
Quote: Almost professional printers only use actually jpeg/adobe colorimetry nowadays.
in press photography we almost record in jpeg because the only effective difference is 8 bits instead of 16. no absolutly no others.
but so many people are considering quality only with "how many money does it cost?", storage also!
And since when have the press been concerned with ultimate quality? Also bear in mind that jpegs need little or no processing but RAW needs converting etc - and that takes too long for a newspaper newsdesk who want to get the file, crop it and put it in the layout.
I totally agree with what I understand you are saying that a well-exposed jpeg is as good as a RAW but the RAW has more latitude for processing and cropping - and some people want that comfort blanket. It is different tools for different jobs
I'll say nomore, LF
I'll say nomore, LF
Two LFs on this thread now, Mike. I take out you are referring to our Gallic cousin.
I was referring to you - I don't want to hijack the thread any further.
As someone who uses a Canon (7D) your images and crops from the D800 are truly remakable. As someone else has mentioned, it is great to see "real" results from this camera.
Keep up the good work
mikehit: yes surely press photography never reedit more than 2 hours (maximum: almost 5 minutes!) before final editing. But I also think it's the case for almost the camera users in this forum. Only few few few people ask more to them photography than giving them a spontaneous satisfaction.
Quote: But I also think it's the case for almost the camera users in this forum. Only few few few people ask more to them photography than giving them a spontaneous satisfaction.
I think that you may have misjudged the type of photography enthusiast who inhabits this forum.
Your comments are probably valid in relation to the great mass of camera users but I suspect that you will discover that, for the majority of the serious enthusiasts who belong here, pressing the shutter button is only the first step in a fairly long process. Just have a look at the "Computer" and "Digital Imaging" sections of the Forum to see what I mean.
Impressive than there's so many "enthousiasts" users!!!
Surely not representative for:
- the mass of users who search some information on the www...
- also the motivate photographers, like me, which not so often considering so many technical aspects!!!
I photography professionaly before few years, and ... ok I read some books about Photoshop CS... but... It interest me few, in reality. Perhaps because I am also an "old way argentic" photographer before a so longer time!!!???
Take a look on my topic about "Art" - choosing the best camera...
Quote: I photography professionaly before few years
In which case you should be highly enthusiastic about a 36Mp DSLR like the Nikon D800 from which, as has been shown, you can crop quite severely and still retain good detail.
Quote: Perhaps because I am also an "old way argentic" photographer before a so longer time
If a General Electric digital compact is the only digicam you have used then maybe you don't know what you are missing!
LF how are you finding it regarding low light levels/noise? This camera has me completely intrigued. I have been looking longingly at the D3x but the weight of that little beauty is a real consideration. Could the D800 be the better compromise? (Should mention I am completely broke at the mo as well so could be a while!!! )
Quote: LF how are you finding it regarding low light levels/noise? This camera has me completely intrigued. I have been looking longingly at the D3x but the weight of that little beauty is a real consideration. Could the D800 be the better compromise? (Should mention I am completely broke at the mo as well so could be a while!!! )
I think the first thing to say is that the D3x was always a poor compromise and is now fairly "old" technology. It never achieved anything like the popularity of the D3s except with a few studio photographers doing industrial/commercial work. Nikon wanted a higher-res option to begin to challenge medium format in the studio but never really dented that market with the D3x.
Regarding low light/high ISO and noise, I changed from a D3s to a D800.
I did this for three main reasons.
1. Although the D3s was the world leader for lowish noise at very high ISO, I never/rarely used any ISO setting over 6400 on it.
2. The D3s is a heavy/bulky camera, especially unwelcome as I do a lot of travelling.
3. Purely from a "technology junkie" point of view, I was intrigued by the possibilities presented by the 36Mp sensor of the D800.
To make direct comparisons of noise at higher ISO settings (within the limits that I regularly use), my impression is that the D800 equals or betters the D3s at all ISO settings up to 6400 but falls a wee bit behind at higher settings and, of course, does not have the very high settings of the D3s (and now D4). What the D800 does have, of course, is the ability to auto-focus in lower light than any previous Nikon (apart from the D4).
The other thing that the D800 has is a sensor with a far higher dynamic range than any previous Nikon (and any Canon). 14.4EV against 12.2 in the D700 and 11.7 in the new Canon 5DMk3.
I think that you can assume that the D800 beats the D3x out of the park in every regard except battery life!
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Are you a Nikon owner? Check out Nikon Nation to find the latest Nikon news, reviews, discussion and photos on ePHOTOzine.
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar