Photo

Nikon D800/D800E official


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#61 AAC7man

AAC7man

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 02:41 PM

I am curious how many Nikon lenses can match the 36MP resoluion on D800. My impression was that many (or some?) lenses already struggled a lot on the 24MP D3x.

Another question is on the lens diffraction. For a 36MP FX, at f5.6 the diffusion circle of red light is already larger than the sensor pixel size; while for the blue light the diffusion circle starts to become larger than the pixel size from around f10.

Frank



Nikon USA website now has a 'D800/D800E Technical Guide' to view/download

It is designed to show people how to get the most out of the 36MP sensor. Most of it is pretty obvious to an experienced photographer.

VERY interestingly Nikon list 'lenses to use for enhanced sharpness'

Well, usual suspects, including the exotics. 16 FX lenses in all, all AFS

Clearly it cannot be exhaustive, there are lots of pre-AFS lenses which would do the job, they are just not current. Interesting, nonetheless

#62 Frank

Frank

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 622 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 02:54 PM

Nikon USA website now has a 'D800/D800E Technical Guide' to view/download

It is designed to show people how to get the most out of the 36MP sensor. Most of it is pretty obvious to an experienced photographer.

VERY interestingly Nikon list 'lenses to use for enhanced sharpness'

Well, usual suspects, including the exotics. 16 FX lenses in all, all AFS

Clearly it cannot be exhaustive, there are lots of pre-AFS lenses which would do the job, they are just not current. Interesting, nonetheless


Yes, I have read it. It appears that lens choices for D800/800E are not that difficult, both the 16-35mm f4 and 24-120mm f4 are contained in the list.

I also noticed that the effect of diffraction starts to be noticible from f11 for the 14-24mm f2.8 lens.

Frank

#63 PuxaVida

PuxaVida

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • LocationIstanbul

Posted 18 February 2012 - 04:52 PM

Yes, I have read it. It appears that lens choices for D800/800E are not that difficult, both the 16-35mm f4 and 24-120mm f4 are contained in the list.

I also noticed that the effect of diffraction starts to be noticible from f11 for the 14-24mm f2.8 lens.

Frank


On the last page the remark tells that the sailboat image was taken with the D800. I believe that the same image taken with the D800E at F11 or F16 would be sharper compared to the D800. OTOH, it sounds reasonable that the reduction of defined details in D800E from F4 to F16 could be more noticable compared to the D800...

Serkan

#64 youpii

youpii

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • LocationParis/France

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:17 PM

When looking at PZ Canon APS-C 8M vs 15M, there is a linear resolution improvement for most lenses, even cheap ones, at usual apertures.
Shouldn't it be the same for FF lenses moving from 24M to 36M?
  • BG_Home and Brightcolours like this

#65 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 838 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 19 February 2012 - 01:22 AM

When looking at PZ Canon APS-C 8M vs 15M, there is a linear resolution improvement for most lenses, even cheap ones, at usual apertures.
Shouldn't it be the same for FF lenses moving from 24M to 36M?

What do you mean by linear? Square root of the factor? It doesn't work entirely that way, for photographic images anyway, because system resolution, the resolution ending up in the image, is dependent on the general resolution formula. Based on my calculations, keeping everythign else the same, at apertures where the lens is diffraction limited, resolution should be between 10% and 17 % higher, depending on aperture, and maybe a few percent more for the D800.

Effectively not really linear, IOW, even if it is for the sensor height (or width).

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: 5D Mk II, 1D Mk III, with a solitary zoom, a gaggle of primes, an accesory plague, and a Panasonic GF-2 with 3 primes, 3 zooms, and some alternative lenses ....

#66 youpii

youpii

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • LocationParis/France

Posted 19 February 2012 - 04:15 AM

What do you mean by linear? Square root of the factor? It doesn't work entirely that way, for photographic images anyway, because system resolution, the resolution ending up in the image, is dependent on the general resolution formula. Based on my calculations, keeping everythign else the same, at apertures where the lens is diffraction limited, resolution should be between 10% and 17 % higher, depending on aperture, and maybe a few percent more for the D800.

Effectively not really linear, IOW, even if it is for the sensor height (or width).

Kind regards, Wim


I meant that the PZ graphs are almost the same, except the scale which is higher.
  • Brightcolours likes this

#67 Frank

Frank

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 622 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 04:52 AM

I meant that the PZ graphs are almost the same, except the scale which is higher.


This is not true even for the stellar Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 on DX, check the resolution graphs tested on D200 and D7000.

#68 AAC7man

AAC7man

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 07:06 PM

This is not true even for the stellar Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 on DX, check the resolution graphs tested on D200 and D7000.



Yes, very different. I wonder why the difference is SO big?

As the tests are 3 years apart I assume they are different lenses and not the original sample retested?

#69 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 838 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 19 February 2012 - 10:18 PM

Yes, very different. I wonder why the difference is SO big?

As the tests are 3 years apart I assume they are different lenses and not the original sample retested?

Because at higher resolution sensors, the system resolution comes into play more, amongst others. This is no longer obfuscated by the AA-filter, which just cuts off real resolution at a specific point anymore.

When you check the different reviews, you will likely find that this happens probably around 12-14 MP for APS-C, and 16-18 MP for FF.

Furthermore, with twice the number of pixels, one only gets a maximum increase in resolution of about 40% (square root of two, - 1 of course) at most, as MPs increase with area, two-dimensional IOW, and resolution is expressed as a linear, 1-dimensional parameter. However, that si just the sensor. System resolution still is the inverse of (the inverse of lens resolution plus the inverse of sensor resolution) by formula.

Essentially, MTFs start looking more like MTFs obtained with film with higher resolution sensors, be it at about twice the resolution obtained with (colour negative) film.

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: 5D Mk II, 1D Mk III, with a solitary zoom, a gaggle of primes, an accesory plague, and a Panasonic GF-2 with 3 primes, 3 zooms, and some alternative lenses ....

#70 AAC7man

AAC7man

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 12:18 AM

Because at higher resolution sensors, the system resolution comes into play more, amongst others. This is no longer obfuscated by the AA-filter, which just cuts off real resolution at a specific point anymore.

When you check the different reviews, you will likely find that this happens probably around 12-14 MP for APS-C, and 16-18 MP for FF.

Furthermore, with twice the number of pixels, one only gets a maximum increase in resolution of about 40% (square root of two, - 1 of course) at most, as MPs increase with area, two-dimensional IOW, and resolution is expressed as a linear, 1-dimensional parameter. However, that si just the sensor. System resolution still is the inverse of (the inverse of lens resolution plus the inverse of sensor resolution) by formula.

Essentially, MTFs start looking more like MTFs obtained with film with higher resolution sensors, be it at about twice the resolution obtained with (colour negative) film.

Kind regards, Wim



Yes, thanks Wim, I understand your logic.

What we see, however is that in moving from 10MP to 16MP the centre performance improves but the edges/corners do not. It's not a small difference. It's not like moving from DX to FX as there is no physical effect from sensor size and a deterioration in the telecentric efficiency of the lens. It does in fact LOOK like a comparison of DX and FX! ? ? ?

#71 Frank

Frank

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 622 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 02:35 AM

Yes, thanks Wim, I understand your logic.

What we see, however is that in moving from 10MP to 16MP the centre performance improves but the edges/corners do not. It's not a small difference. It's not like moving from DX to FX as there is no physical effect from sensor size and a deterioration in the telecentric efficiency of the lens. It does in fact LOOK like a comparison of DX and FX! ? ? ?


I am also surprised by the test result of the 14-24mm on D7000. Althoguh I understand that as the sensor resolution increases (but the sensor size does not change) the system border/corner resolution becomes worse relative to the center resolution (at the same aperture and focal length) since at higher sensor resolution the system resolution resembles more the lens resolution, the border/corner relative to center resolution is worse on D7000 (DX) than the same lens on D3x (FX). Is this related to the magic "12-14MP" or "16-18MP" mentioned by Wim?

Frank

#72 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 838 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 20 February 2012 - 03:54 AM

Yes, thanks Wim, I understand your logic.

What we see, however is that in moving from 10MP to 16MP the centre performance improves but the edges/corners do not. It's not a small difference. It's not like moving from DX to FX as there is no physical effect from sensor size and a deterioration in the telecentric efficiency of the lens. It does in fact LOOK like a comparison of DX and FX! ? ? ?


I am also surprised by the test result of the 14-24mm on D7000. Althoguh I understand that as the sensor resolution increases (but the sensor size does not change) the system border/corner resolution becomes worse relative to the center resolution (at the same aperture and focal length) since at higher sensor resolution the system resolution resembles more the lens resolution, the border/corner relative to center resolution is worse on D7000 (DX) than the same lens on D3x (FX). Is this related to the magic "12-14MP" or "16-18MP" mentioned by Wim?

Frank


This is exactly the effect I am talking about. If you look at tests done on film, you'll find that the corners are always lagging behind the centre, resolution wise. The curve for the corners generally follows the same form. but just lies lower in the graph. Occasionally it tails off more, especially wide open, and occasionally they get very close together at some point.

With digital, if you look at some of the older reviews here, with, e.g., 6 and 8 MP cameras, you will find two things:
1) the edge and centre curve are often quite close together
2) there seems to be a clear flat top to the curve at apertures from, let's say, F/2.8 to F/8
Also, when you do the maths, you'll find that the difference between system resolution at MTF-50 and the Rayleigh criterion, which from a lens diffraction POV is more than a factor 2 different, in system resolution results in only a few line pairs per mm difference in this aperture range.

With the newer cameras with higher MP-counts, and a good example is the 5D II, where one sees that the curves now form more of a parabola rather than a rounded block wave curve, and that often edges start at much lower resolution. However, the resolution is still above analog levels.

Coming back to point 1), I think that is caused by the fact that a sensor doesn't have the emulsion effect of film, which enhances a parabolic curve, and that the resolution is still relatively low and of little influence, relatively speaking, to system resolution. When you do the maths, you'll find that there is really only a few line pairs per mm difference at lower sensor resolutions for relatively high lens resolution figures.

Point 2 is caused, IMO, by the effect of a sharp limit to resolution of a sensor, essentially because of zero thickness of the sensor (no emulsion effect) and because of the AA-filter, which acts as a cut-off filter.

Of course, at apertures of F/5.6 and larger, optical aberrations tend to play a very large role, which is in principle also an equalizer for apertures up to about F/5.6 quite often, except for the very best lenses out there, and with APS-C bodies, because they grab the sharpest part of the image, the fall-off is less with those. Hence the reason why with APS-C bodies this seems to happen only at relatively high MP-counts vs FF, which records the extreme corners of a lens formed image after all.

Finally, on some review sites, this is more clear than it is here, not only due to the different way in which test results are obtained, but also because of processing and number crunching differences. If you have a look at traumflieger.de or lenstip.com, you will find resolutions which actually relate to system resolution at MTF-50 rather than the numbers you will find here on PZ, where they are crunched to get the absolute maximum out of each lens at each point. However, for photographic use one really needs Rayleigh criterion numbers, but that is something no review site currently provides, unfortunately.

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: 5D Mk II, 1D Mk III, with a solitary zoom, a gaggle of primes, an accesory plague, and a Panasonic GF-2 with 3 primes, 3 zooms, and some alternative lenses ....

#73 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2760 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 09:05 AM

The 14-24mm f2.8 is not a good example. There is clearly going on more than just a higher pixel pitch between reviews. The difference in edge/corner resolution can only be explained by not too accurate testing procedures and/or probably two different lens samples.
Of course, one will expect lower values in areas where the lens was not stellar with the lower resolution camera in the first place, but not a difference like this.

You only have to take another lens as example to see that there is more going on with the two 14-24mm f2.8 tests than different res. sensors. Take for instance the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non-VC).
Its performance wide open at for instance 17mm is comparable to the performance of the 14-24mm wide open at 14mm, both on D7000. But... different story on D200. There, the 14-24mm f2.8 tested there performs way better. The Tamron performs as one would expect.

It is safe to conclude then that what we see with the 14-24mm f2.8 reviews, there is something else in play. Youpii's remark is not too far from "reality"... only when you already get very bad results on the lower res. sensor, you do not get kind of similar results on a higher res. sensor. Most lenses with perform well on the 24mm D3X will perform very well (and deliver extra resolution in images) on a D800.

We can observe another oddity too, but that in my opinion almost certainly has to do with the testing procedure. The "measured" CA is twice as high with the D7000 values than with the D200 values. But this matches the odd calculated values in other tests.. not a reliable method to determine CA amounts.

#74 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1758 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 20 February 2012 - 11:02 AM

The difference in edge/corner resolution can only be explained by not too accurate testing procedures and/or probably two different lens samples.


Allow me to disagree. The D7000 results have been verified by two additional copies of the lens, just to be sure it's not a bad sample.

The D7000 generally shows a tendency to give weaker results towards the borders (which may be a common problem with high density sensors, see the Nex-7 issues Klaus is facing). Compared to the D200 tests, some things have changed, for example we (have to) use a different RAW converter. The higher pixel density means that we measure at a different frequency and different lenses may behave slightly differently here (compared to the lower res D200).

We can observe another oddity too, but that in my opinion almost certainly has to do with the testing procedure. The "measured" CA is twice as high with the D7000 values than with the D200 values. But this matches the odd calculated values in other tests.. not a reliable method to determine CA amounts.


We believe it's a results of the different RAW converters used for different systems. The different demosaic algorithms may lead to slightly different amounts of CAs by emphasizing the issue or by including a small amount of default CA correction.

In any case: from the very first beginning Klaus has always emphasized that the results are not comparable across different test systems. There are simply too many parameters that have an influence on the measured values to allow direct comparisons.

-- Markus
Editor (Nikon, Leica, Samsung reviews)
photozone.de

#75 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2760 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 11:32 AM

Allow me to disagree. The D7000 results have been verified by two additional copies of the lens, just to be sure it's not a bad sample.

The D7000 generally shows a tendency to give weaker results towards the borders (which may be a common problem with high density sensors, see the Nex-7 issues Klaus is facing). Compared to the D200 tests, some things have changed, for example we (have to) use a different RAW converter. The higher pixel density means that we measure at a different frequency and different lenses may behave slightly differently here (compared to the lower res D200).



We believe it's a results of the different RAW converters used for different systems. The different demosaic algorithms may lead to slightly different amounts of CAs by emphasizing the issue or by including a small amount of default CA correction.

In any case: from the very first beginning Klaus has always emphasized that the results are not comparable across different test systems. There are simply too many parameters that have an influence on the measured values to allow direct comparisons.

-- Markus

You can't just disagree just to disagree though... I understand that you have verified additional copies of the lens. Apparently you too felt something more was going on.
You skip my point though.... Just look at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 example I gave. Same D7000, same RAW converter, I suspect?
Yet it gives the results compared to the D200 we would expect, the 14-24mm f2.8 D200/D7000 reviews do not.
So, my point remains, there is something else going on.

The CA issue... It is always an issue. I remember an MFT test, where the amount of CA "measured" in pixels did not at all correspond to the much higher CA clearly evident in the images, which spread over a lot more pixels. I remember a Zeiss prime test from the same lens sample, where the D3X with a bit higher pixel pitch "measured" quite a bit lower CA than the 5D mk II test "measured".

That is not your guys fault, though, I have to presume it is the software test suite you use which gives such "unreliable" results regarding CA.

Anyway.. the CA oddity I pointed out is not very important. What is, in my opinion, is the weird difference between the D200/D7000 14-24mm f2.8 results, and for instance the D200/D7000 tamron 17-50mm f2.8 results.
Or take another lens tested on both, like the Nikon 35mm f1.8 for instance. On D200 and D7000, it shows what we expect. Now compare that to what the 14-24mm results show. Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR, same story.

I stay with my point that the 14-24mm f2.8 is NOT a good example, and that something more is going on there between those two reviews.

#76 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1758 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 20 February 2012 - 11:52 AM

You skip my point though....


No, I don't. See my remark about the frequency. That might explain the differences.

But I can only guess here, too.

-- Markus
Editor (Nikon, Leica, Samsung reviews)
photozone.de

#77 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2760 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 01:45 PM

No, I don't. See my remark about the frequency. That might explain the differences.

But I can only guess here, too.

-- Markus

I do not totally get this concept, though... a different sample frequency from the sensor throwing the measuring software off, only in the case of the 14-24mm f2.8 Nikkor, but other results remain unaffected, even though the sampling frequency remains the same?

#78 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1758 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 20 February 2012 - 02:44 PM

Not throwing the software off, but different glass performing differently at higher frequencies.

-- Markus
Editor (Nikon, Leica, Samsung reviews)
photozone.de

#79 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2760 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 03:22 PM

Not throwing the software off, but different glass performing differently at higher frequencies.

-- Markus

Don't different frequencies measure different things (like resolving power or contrast) of a lens? A lens either is sharp or not, not depending in the pattern one is shooting... :unsure:

And those frequencies then are different because a different target is used, not because the sample frequency of the image capture device is different?

#80 Laurent

Laurent

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • LocationBucuresti

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:48 PM

I am curious how many Nikon lenses can match the 36MP resoluion on D800. My impression was that many (or some?) lenses already struggled a lot on the 24MP D3x.

Another question is on the lens diffraction. For a 36MP FX, at f5.6 the diffusion circle of red light is already larger than the sensor pixel size; while for the blue light the diffusion circle starts to become larger than the pixel size from around f10.

Frank

My D7000 has smaler pixel size than D800 and is doing a great job within ISO 100-3200 and f-stops from 1,4 to 11 and even to 16 or 22 (rarely used, only with macro). Few times I printed up to 75/50cm and were no such side-effects.

Laurentiu
Laurentiu Zolotusca
Email me




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de