[Livewireshock]

Comparing the Nikon D800E to any Medium Format camera, including the Pentax 645, is ridiculous. Just look at the countless forum threads on an infinite number of forums arguing about how inferior APS-C cameras are compared to Full Frame sensors. I doubt the next Nikon Dx model will be released and proclaimed to be the end of all 35mm cameras.

[Digitalis]

Is there a straightforward way to get a good lens? They talked about center alignment. I was thinking that if it's repairable, I could simply send the lens into Tokina the moment I receive it and tell them to optimize it, even if there's no problem. Is that possible?

Think for a moment, if that was possible everyone who has ever bought a Tokina lens would be doing it. Tokina aren't exactly that great with QC - Nikon tends to be much more consistent, which is why I personally recommend the 14-24mm f/2.8G - though be warned it is very prone to flare. The nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR* is also a good alternative, for landscape work lenses do not have to be all that fast anyway and being an f/4 lens means it is possible to use screw-on filters.

Do you know of any other super-wides (20mm and below) that can be used with Nikon that matches teh 14-24mm.

not really, Even the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 can't compete with the nikkor in terms of resolution in the corners - It isn't often when a prime with a zeiss optical design gets beaten by a nikkor zoom lens.

The only superwides that can really beat the nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED by any meaningful margin are all RF lens designs, the short back focus on M mount cameras makes designing wide-angle lenses much easier and they often have superior performance to their SLR counterpart lenses** personally I find using rangefinders for landscape work just feels fundamentally wrong to me - Landscape has always involved SLR cameras or view cameras, where you get to see the result in the viewfinder before you press the shutter.

if Photozone does things by the numbers, the opposite seems to be Ken Rockwell who essentially takes real world pictures and compares the centers and the corners at various f-stops. What do you think of that approach? Is there an obviously flaw? He's also claiming that the Tokina is better optically, but he's literally looking at it from a completely different point of view.

you know, whenever I hear the name Ken Rockwell I think of the phase "Fools and money will soon be parted" I wouldn't trust that moron to test a circuit breaker properly let alone a lens worth several thousand dollars. Sure he "tests" the lenses but his testing methods are far from scientifically rigourous and he provides web-compressed images as proof of his findings instead of un-processed full sized jpgs - or raw files as some reviewers do.

*Though according to my own tests, corroborated by Photozone the 16-35mm f/4G ED VR has perhaps the most spectacular amount of barrel distortion in a lens I have ever owned - 4% but this sharply improves at the longer focal lengths down to a respectable 0.8% barrel distortion at 35mm

**the Leica 21mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH beats the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 by a considerable margin, and also the Leica lens is substantially smaller than the Zeiss SLR lens despite there being a two stop difference in lens speed. It is important to note the Leica 21mm f/1.4 ASPH costs around $3500 more than the Pentax DFA 25mm f/4 ED ASPH so taking that into account, is the pentax lens really that overpriced? (i'm working from current Australian prices mind you.) I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentax 645 lens matches the performance of the Leica lens on the M9.

[Makten]

Comparing the Nikon D800E to any Medium Format camera, including the Pentax 645, is ridiculous.

In my opinion, NOT comparing them would be ridiculous. The D800(E) is one fourth of the cost of a 645D with almost as large sensor and almost as many pixels, PLUS a huuuuge range of lenses that are also much faster (shorter DOF, et cetera).

[Yamanobori]

In my opinion, NOT comparing them would be ridiculous. The D800(E) is one fourth of the cost of a 645D with almost as large sensor and almost as many pixels, PLUS a huuuuge range of lenses that are also much faster (shorter DOF, et cetera).

One third the cost.

More lenses, but is that a real benefit? For some it will be important, for others it will not be a factor.

And the DoF is a relative problem. An f/2 43mm lens will give me the same DoF as the f/2.8 55mm lens and the same angle of view.

But I agree, there are important comparisons that can be made. The D800 is going to be a very good camera. I am really interested to see how much of an influence the AA filter will have; I suspect a lot less than folks imagine.

[Makten]

One third the cost.

Not over here, but one third is still an extremely large difference.

More lenses, but is that a real benefit? For some it will be important, for others it will not be a factor.

Of course it is, as it increases the chances for you finding the lenses you want, even if it might just be one.

And the DoF is a relative problem. An f/2 43mm lens will give me the same DoF as the f/2.8 55mm lens and the same angle of view.

Exactly, but there are plenty of f/1.4 lenses in the Nikon lineup. I wouldn't call it a problem; it's about possibilities.

But I agree, there are important comparisons that can be made. The D800 is going to be a very good camera. I am really interested to see how much of an influence the AA filter will have; I suspect a lot less than folks imagine.

Personally, I'd choose the one with AA filter because of "smoother" look, even if I'd lose some resolution. I don't like the artefacts (aliasing) that are often produced by AA-less cameras.

I'm not saying that the D800E will be as good as the 645D, but still it would be really, really stupid not to compare them.

[normhead]

The simple fact is, the closer you squeeze those little pixels together, the more your image degrades. I expect that in my point and shoot, I don't expect it in a DSLR. These are exactly the issues I wondered about when I saw that pixel count. Here's the thing, from what I've seen there is some photographic image evidence and some formulas that suggest that suggest "your worst lens on a FFis better than your best on an APS-c." Old evidence but still evidence. The first thing I'd like to see would be that a an APS-c has caught up to FF in at 16 Mp, because of advances in sensitivity. Right now there is nothing I can't do in APS-c that I need to do, but you know, you see that little extra bit of clarity and you think, that would be good, too expensive to justify from a cost benefit analysis, but good. RIght now I'm not thinking beyond 16 mp. So someone coming out with a 36 Mp camera to me is just a gimmick. If they came out with a 36 mp camera with the same IQ, that would be an advance. A small high density sensor with average IQ, we already have lots of those.

What these guys are not realizing is that, I will pay for that increased file size in computer performance and hard drive space needed for storage. Going to 36 Mp will cost me hundreds of dollars. And what will I get for that? At 14 Mp I blow my prints up to 20x30, and I don't see a need to go larger than that. For that my K20D and K-x work fine. So, you gotta ask... who needs this camera. My guess is that reduced to 18 Mp it's just as good as an 18 Mp camera in terms of sharpness... effective 18 Mp with a 36 Mp footprint. That could be an absolutely huge waste on money , time for processing and other resources.

[Yamanobori]

Not over here, but one third is still an extremely large difference.


Of course it is, as it increases the chances for you finding the lenses you want, even if it might just be one.


Exactly, but there are plenty of f/1.4 lenses in the Nikon lineup. I wouldn't call it a problem; it's about possibilities.


Personally, I'd choose the one with AA filter because of "smoother" look, even if I'd lose some resolution. I don't like the artefacts (aliasing) that are often produced by AA-less cameras.

I'm not saying that the D800E will be as good as the 645D, but still it would be really, really stupid not to compare them.

No disagreement from me. Like I said, it is a valid comparison. And the price is really attractive.

[Yamanobori]

The simple fact is, the closer you squeeze those little pixels together, the more your image degrades.

That is a really broad brush that would work if everything were equal. But there is nothing equal here. I am not saying the D800 and 645D are going to give the same image, but it is a lot more complex than that.

[Makten]

The simple fact is, the closer you squeeze those little pixels together, the more your image degrades.

It's the other way around. You are confusing high pixel pitch with small sensors. Or are you seeing "image degradation" in every new camera with more pixels than its predecessors?

[normhead]

It's the other way around. You are confusing high pixel pitch with small sensors. Or are you seeing "image degradation" in every new camera with more pixels than its predecessors?

I'm not seeing anything because I don't have a lot of sensors... my point is you haven't seen anything either. When we aren't seeing anything either way, the last comparison was, that an 10 mp full frame out performed a 10 mp APS-c shooting approximately the same frame with the FF shooting an 85, the APS-c with a 55. Now that's old evidence, from 2007.. but from my way of thinking, if you're going to claim things are different.. prove it, until them excuse me if I go with the last presented evidence.


I haven't seen one comparison that shows that in 1 to 1 pixel peeping, any smaller format camera out performs any larger format camera for the same pixel count... have you?

but it is a lot more complex than that.

Ya, so complex that I ignore the math and compare images.. there's just no other way to do it.

[Makten]

I'm not seeing anything because I don't have a lot of sensors...

Still you claim that small pixels "degrades the image". Interesting.

my point is you haven't seen anything either.

Please, don't speak for me, will you?

When we aren't seeing anything either way, the last comparison was, that an 10 mp full frame out performed a 10 mp APS-c shooting approximately the same frame with the FF shooting an 85, the APS-c with a 55. Now that's old evidence, from 2007.. but from my way of thinking, if you're going to claim things are different.. prove it, until them excuse me if I go with the last presented evidence.

That difference is because of the sensor size increase, not because of larger pixels. Now, if that FF frame was 20 mpix and you scaled it down to 10, most likely it would have been even better.

I haven't seen one comparison that shows that in 1 to 1 pixel peeping, any smaller format camera out performs any larger format camera for the same pixel count... have you?

When did I mention "1 to 1 pixel peeping"? You said smaller pixels are worse, I said they are not. Now you are into comparing different pixel sizes without considering the sensor size.
Just to prove you are wrong: How about making a sensor with only one, large pixel. Would that be better than let's say 100 pixels? No, of course not.

Smaller pixels give more noise per pixel, but also less readout noise. And smaller pixels means more pixels and thus more signal, more information per image height. In the end you get something that is fairly equal but with a little bit of different look. There's no reason for pixel peeping if you don't know the total amount of pixels, whatever size they have.

Ya, so complex that I ignore the math and compare images.. there's just no other way to do it.

You can do both, but you don't seem too interested, right?

[normhead]

Read over what I said, over and over until you get it. I can't argue with what you posted , because it doesn't make any sense. When you get it, maybe we can have a conversation. Until then, I'm out. Have a good day.

[Yamanobori]

I don't get this hostility...

[Ristretto]

No scientific review, but I downloaded some of the official D800E-samples from the nikon website and compared it with similar images from my 645D (only outdoor/landscape because I dont't have a studio...). At 100% there is a great difference between D800 and 645D in favour of the Pentax. I suppose it might be the bigger sensor. When I upgraded my Nikon D90 to a D700 (both 12MP) a noticed a equal difference in IQ in favour of the bigger sensor.

[Makten]

Read over what I said, over and over until you get it. I can't argue with what you posted , because it doesn't make any sense. When you get it, maybe we can have a conversation. Until then, I'm out. Have a good day.

I know what I wrote so I don't have to read it. If you don't want to discuss, don't start with claiming things you don't know anything about.

No scientific review, but I downloaded some of the official D800E-samples from the nikon website and compared it with similar images from my 645D (only outdoor/landscape because I dont't have a studio...). At 100% there is a great difference between D800 and 645D in favour of the Pentax. I suppose it might be the bigger sensor. When I upgraded my Nikon D90 to a D700 (both 12MP) a noticed a equal difference in IQ in favour of the bigger sensor.

Yeah, but it could also be better lenses, better de-Bayering interpolation, or a combination of lots of things. Comparing images from different sources is seldom fair.