Wetpixel D800 review
Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:46 PM
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:
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.
Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:30 PM
To see the pictures larger, run them in slideshow mode with the thumbnails hidden.
p.s. Sony make many of the sensors in current and past Nikon SLRs.
Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:08 PM
Posted 06 September 2012 - 10:03 PM
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.
Edited by Diediealsomustdive, 07 September 2012 - 07:29 PM.
D800 hasn't gone diving yet.
Posted 08 September 2012 - 01:48 PM
Posted 08 September 2012 - 06:28 PM
Posted 09 September 2012 - 07:23 PM
Posted 09 September 2012 - 11:43 PM
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?
Posted 11 September 2012 - 03:28 AM
Posted 11 September 2012 - 10:16 AM
Edited by ToddB, 11 September 2012 - 10:22 AM.
Posted 11 September 2012 - 01:13 PM
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...
- tdpriest likes this
Posted 11 September 2012 - 02:07 PM
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.
Posted 11 September 2012 - 03:21 PM
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?
Posted 12 September 2012 - 04:10 AM
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.
Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:16 AM
Have you used the 105mm VR with a teleconverter on FX?
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.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:47 AM
do you favour the TC or the close up lenses for macro???
Nikon D800 in Seacam D800, Nikon 16mm, 16-35mm, , 60mm, 105mm,1.4 and 2x TC, 2x Sea&Sea 110a, 2x Seacam Seaflash 150
Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:27 AM
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!
Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:03 PM
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:
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.
Posted 13 October 2012 - 12:21 AM
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:
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.