• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Are those reviewers nuts ...or are they just trolling?

Kept the D800E and replaced both the D800 and D700 for a D4... I wonder what are those reviewers smoke or drink... All the reviews I've read are saying that the camera's IQ is as good as D3s and if you have that, there is no point of upgrading...
I used to own a D3S and D3X combination until 16 months ago and can say for sure that the D4 beats them both at what they are best for!
The D4 will print at base ISO at the same size as D3X having no difference in detail, but with more DR and more natural colour, it also lucks colour shifts (that the D800 has to an annoying degree) and although its DR seems slightly less than D800 when capturing the image at basic ISO, when processing you get about a stop more DR than D800...! (unless if you want your D800 image to look like a jerk's photo than a photographer's one - what I call usable DR)
Besides..., the only comparison with D3s is the high ISO performance... in anything else comparison with D3S is simply laughable... The best IQ I've seen yet from a DSLR... (haven't tried 1DX yet, which some say is a great competitor)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Kept the D800E and replaced both the D800 and D700 for a D4... I wonder what are those reviewers smoke or drink... All the reviews I've read are saying that the camera's IQ is as good as D3s and if you have that, there is no point of upgrading...
I used to own a D3S and D3X combination until 16 months ago and can say for sure that the D4 beats them both at what they are best for!
The D4 will print at base ISO at the same size as D3X having no difference in detail, but with more DR and more natural colour, it also lucks colour shifts (that the D800 has to an annoying degree) and although its DR seems slightly less than D800 when capturing the image at basic ISO, when processing you get about a stop more DR than D800...! (unless if you want your D800 image to look like a jerk's photo than a photographer's one - what I call usable DR)
Besides..., the only comparison with D3s is the high ISO performance... in anything else comparison with D3S is simply laughable... The best IQ I've seen yet from a DSLR... (haven't tried 1DX yet, which some say is a great competitor)

Well, Theodorus,

I checked with Ken rockwell, and he also raves at the D4's 16MP performance too, essentially saying that it leaves the D800 and the 5D Mark III in the dust. Well, what about detail rich images when the pixel count might matter more?

Asher
 
Well Asher..., pixel count is the least part I would consider, clearly D800 "plain" has no more detail than D600 when printing at equal size and anyway the detail of the D4 at near base iso is more than enough to print huge at at least 1x1.5m size!
Actually if one knows what he is doing, the D4 is among the very few DSLRs that can print at sizes that come out originally at below 72ppi (!!!) if the outcome is treated properly... Yes, the per pixel quality is that good!
The camera is clearly adequate to do landscapes and studio a little better than D3X was... as well as (of course) do what D3S was doing... As of Ken, I remember him too claiming that D4 is no more than D3s when he reviewed the camera..., now if he found things that he missed letter on, this means that he rushed on his original review, ...doesn't it? ...that's not a very responsible thing to do (rush to have a review out and then realise that there things that you missed).
Anyway, D4's IQ is hard to blame by any standard... what's more, processing of Adobe RGB profile RAWs is much easier (thus workflow is much faster) and its colour is much more accurate and stable than D800...
 
Last edited:
Also, how does IQ compare to your MF digital setup?

Now that's the best part... If processing is done using Capture One with Adobe 1998 shooting profile, the usableDR is clearly up there with MFDBs! As of colour... well, it isn't as good but I bet you will find it having the behaviour that reminds of (more Kodak than Dalsa) CCD sensor than the CMos the camera has, it's clearly way better than any other DSLR I've tried though... some MF users may find it close enough to use that instead. Clarity and micro contrast are again much better than the other DSLRs (but the D800E) a clear difference with MFDBs here though... I am under the impression that when you open the Raw (especially with C1-P1 but with ACR or LR too) there is less linear part to the curve and HL or LL compression starts earlier but with less curvature (much like MF).... which of course helps to keep much smoother tones (much more gradual) from darker ones to the lighter ones, I can't find any other explanation for its amazing usable DR that leads to "film like" appearance of the processed file with enough "weight" in both HLs and LLS like it happens with MF...
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Theodorus,

Can you repeat pictures of the painted iconic panels in the church using the D4 so we can see the differences. This to me would be a major test as previously your pictures were phenomenal, after all, you did it with a Kodak sensor and multishot. If one can approach that capability with the D4 and make similar 8x10 prints at large sizes of some challenging detail and colors, then that would be amazing.

Asher
 
Theodorus,

Can you repeat pictures of the painted iconic panels in the church using the D4 so we can see the differences. This to me would be a major test as previously your pictures were phenomenal.

Asher
But Asher... I have to post the images first on my web site, you haven't add the ability for one to post an unpublished image yet... have you?
Besides, the assignment I've posted, it was paid and done with... I don't have the originals to reshoot them under the same circumstances...
OTOH..., these where done in 16x microstep mode using a multishot capable MFDB... they won't even compare with the highest resolution MF for colour or detail... you don't really believe that a Cmos DSLR will ever be able to come even close ....would you? The outcome would be ridiculous if one would dare to compare the incomparable... there is no way that one can compare a 16x microstep image with even the best single shot MF... how can he even think to compare it with "mortal" Cmos sensor of less than half the size?

With the OP Asher, I tried to communicate my thoughts on the progress that has been achieved with modern FF sensors when compared to previous generations... I did this because I believe that there is a lot of intentional misinformation going on on the web which serves questionable ethics and business...
I also tried to communicate the irrelevance of pixel density to sensor quality and I was glad of your quote which gave me the ability to talk (yet again) about the MF quality which remains unsurpassed... but 16x microstep is not MF... it is true colour ultimate resolution scientific photography of still subjects that needs absolute profiles and perfectly calibrated labs to serve art reproduction, museums, painters, or demanding still life promotion photography...

I have a project coming on that it will be ...shooting luxury coffins!!! ...the shooting is too demanding since the varnishing on them is ultra enhanced and dark colour accuracy and wood detail is of major importance, ....surely you don't want me posting this ...would you?

Yet... I won't be doing weddings with my multishot MFDB, as I won't be doing paintings with any of my DSLRs... some portraiture I may do with both!
 

Ben Rubinstein

pro member
I did a recent test with our new D800e with 60mm macro vs our Leaf Aptus II-8 40 megapixel back. Test was with our repro copy setup. Resolution was pretty much a wash, you can see the 4 megapixels difference but only just, the differences in contrast and bite are IMO more the lenses than the chip. Colour and tonal separation clearly went to the digital back but then I'm comparing in Capture One with the 'Product 4' profile for the back, all I have is a generic profile for the D800e and I have a feeling that I cannot pronounce judgement until I have custom profiles for both. Again this is only for repro, no idea what the difference will be with portraiture where tonality plays such a big part. I have a feeling the Leaf will cream the smaller sensor. Of course I can get that kind of resolution at iso 400 with the D800e, on the Leaf, well it's a base iso shooter, in this case iso 80. I can't really test DR, repro lighting is flat by definition.
 
I did a recent test with our new D800e with 60mm macro vs our Leaf Aptus II-8 40 megapixel back. Test was with our repro copy setup. Resolution was pretty much a wash, you can see the 4 megapixels difference but only just, the differences in contrast and bite are IMO more the lenses than the chip. Colour and tonal separation clearly went to the digital back but then I'm comparing in Capture One with the 'Product 4' profile for the back, all I have is a generic profile for the D800e and I have a feeling that I cannot pronounce judgement until I have custom profiles for both. Again this is only for repro, no idea what the difference will be with portraiture where tonality plays such a big part. I have a feeling the Leaf will cream the smaller sensor. Of course I can get that kind of resolution at iso 400 with the D800e, on the Leaf, well it's a base iso shooter, in this case iso 80. I can't really test DR, repro lighting is flat by definition.
The thing is Ben, that there is much ignorance around about the values of MF..., people (are made to) think that MF is all about more pixels and that if a FF has many of them, then it is comparable... This is clearly trolling and it's all over the web, which in return creates more ignorance.

The purpose of my OP is to discuss that matter, since the D4's sensor and imaging electronics is clearly better than D800's and different to D800E's... Asher, did well asking about how it relates with MF, his quote made possible to discuss how much better MF is for what it is designed to do... Obviously your quote also helps on the subject... I believe that most of those "reviews" or "comparison reviews" articles that are published on web, are "fictitious creations" done in purpose... there is no other explanation on how some "reviewers" lie so much, ...unless of course if they smoke "something strange" or drink heavily before they write... or they are just trolls!
 

Ben Rubinstein

pro member
All reviews are subjective, there is no such thing as objective press. As such each site and reviewer brings their own set of prejudices and requirements to the table. Reviews are good to read but they can only be used in parallel with ones own testing, shooting the way that one shoots. Just as a landscape photographers review will tell me nothing about how a camera shoots a wedding and a fashion photographers review will tell me nothing about repro work, so to IMO, once you have the experience to know your own needs, no review will be anything more than deposit of information gleaned from sifting a review for what is relevant to yourself. Such is life I'm afraid. I don't let it get to me.

I think that when we get to this level of camera and imaging requirements, screw the internet. Nothing is going to tell you what you think on the subject other than using the equipment for your own purposes, in the way you work and only then making a judgement. When I was setting up the studio I did ask for advice on the web to get an idea of direction and then went with my dealer to a repro studio they knew which was dedicated to shooting documents and saw the equipment in use for the same kind of thing I would be doing. Took home the files and worked them for a week at home till I had a feel for what the equipment would bring to the table for my uses. When I tested the D800e I did it with my lighting, the software I use and the subjects (books in my case) that I shoot. Only then can I make a decision as to comparison for my own needs. Who cares what a fashion photographer or landscape photographer thinks? Who cares even what another repro photographer who shoots different stuff for clientele who have different requirements thinks? At this level it is and can only be personal.
 
Yet..., you assume that all those reviews are "personal opinion" ...while I think that the "mistakes" (or what is "personal opinion") is minority... the rest (IMO) is intentional trolling...

P.S.: Haven't you have notice cases that the "reviewer" might have never tried the camera he is posting the "test" for...?
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Theodoros
You may see here (more in the very near future) another kind of "reviews"…
The ones we enjoy in OPF… real life tests!

_N000072.jpg
 
I remember when I first tried the D4... (it was March/2012 - a preproduction camera that was "test drive" of the importers) the IQ was no where near what I am experiencing now... at the days, I used to own D3X and D3S (sold them both for D800/D800E combination) and D4 was clearly not as sharp as D3X... So, I've checked with some friends on the matter that have their D4 from last year, they all said that the latest firmware (1.05) made the camera significantly sharper, the colour better and DR was noticeably improved!

Why is it then that the "reviewers" don't update their reviews? ....The D4 is clearly better than D800 in both colour and DR, while sharpness is as good as it was with D3X... if one adds to this the other (well known) advantages of its sensor and the "perfect" file sizes for working with tons of workflow, it makes it a near perfect DSLR, that not only doesn't have a disadvantage, but it is among the "better best" in each and every aspect of IQ that even the most demanding DSLR user may require!
Nicolas, I think you have to try one.... I think it's sharper than your (ex) 1DSiii, yet much better in everything else!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well Asher..., pixel count is the least part I would consider, clearly D800 "plain" has no more detail than D600 when printing at equal size and anyway the detail of the D4 at near base iso is more than enough to print huge at at least 1x1.5m size!
Actually if one knows what he is doing, the D4 is among the very few DSLRs that can print at sizes that come out originally at below 72ppi (!!!) if the outcome is treated properly... Yes, the per pixel quality is that good!

Well, Theodoros,

Pixel count of the higher sensel arrays of the D800 must be reflected in more lines/mm discerned in objective tersts such as DXOmark and Imatest. I have no doubt that you'd find that the D4 would capture less lines on the Imatest chart.

I do not have a current copy, but if you posted your results, doubtless they could be analyzed by someone who has the software up and running. I believe you could even get a trial version for free.

As to printing size, one can use a 3 Megapixel camera to print perfectly good billboards to be viewed at a substantial difference over a freeway. It's all a matter of the angle subtended by the detail in your eye and what's needed to discern the picture content.

Subjectively, I too have been surpassed by people's skin color with some cameras when there are a mix of skin types including the red skin of alcoholics, the red skin of Rosacea or odd makeup or skin oils that show metamorism.

As to color, there's a lot beyond the standard test charts to consider. Some colors, appearing to us as pink, for example, might have a lot of other components we don't appreciate and so the camera might be fooled. I've a pink-orangy flower which never comes out right on my Ricoh GR at sunset! Now that's the only occasion it gives weird colors. If your camera is more sensitive to UV or IR reflections in your environment, these factors can also skew the subjective results.

Frankly at party receptions with varied light, I will take multiple gray card pictures all around the room as light can vary within a few feet sometimes.

Now why your D4 behaves like magic, I have no idea, but likely as not, there's some systematic error with your D800 because of they were off as you describe all around the world, folk would not be quiet and DXOmark results would be abysmal.

I believe your experience with the D800 has been less than you want but I'd rely on objective measurement for resolution and look for the missing factor that makes the color odd.

Asher
 
Well, Theodoros,

Pixel count of the higher sensel arrays of the D800 must be reflected in more lines/mm discerned in objective tersts such as DXOmark and Imatest. I have no doubt that you'd find that the D4 would capture less lines on the Imatest chart.

I do not have a current copy, but if you posted your results, doubtless they could be analyzed by someone who has the software up and running. I believe you could even get a trial version for free.

As to printing size, one can use a 3 Megapixel camera to print perfectly good billboards to be viewed at a substantial difference over a freeway. It's all a matter of the angle subtended by the detail in your eye and what's needed to discern the picture content.

Subjectively, I too have been surpassed by people's skin color with some cameras when there are a mix of skin types including the red skin of alcoholics, the red skin of Rosacea or odd makeup or skin oils that show metamorism.

As to color, there's a lot beyond the standard test charts to consider. Some colors, appearing to us as pink, for example, might have a lot of other components we don't appreciate and so the camera might be fooled. I've a pink-orangy flower which never comes out right on my Ricoh GR at sunset! Now that's the only occasion it gives weird colors. If your camera is more sensitive to UV or IR reflections in your environment, these factors can also skew the subjective results.

Frankly at party receptions with varied light, I will take multiple gray card pictures all around the room as light can vary within a few feet sometimes.

Now why your D4 behaves like magic, I have no idea, but likely as not, there's some systematic error with your D800 because of they were off as you describe all around the world, folk would not be quiet and DXOmark results would be abysmal.

I believe your experience with the D800 has been less than you want but I'd rely on objective measurement for resolution and look for the missing factor that makes the color odd.

Asher
But Asher... I never said that my (new) D4 behaves like magic... I said "it performs better than any other DSLR that i've used..." By DSLR, I by no means include MF in the comparison.

Coming to resolution, I believe that you are well aware that it is not totally depended on pixel count... no?
I mean, if it was, some cell phones would be able to print as large as 22 mpx MFDBs, which of course is far from truth... Compared to the D800, D4 has insignificantly so less resolution at base ISO, that no reasonable photographer would care about with only the most resolving of lenses, while with the rest of good (and expensive) FF dedicated Nikkor glass, there is none that could see a difference no matter what the size of print... Obviously the resolving power of modern lenses is not as capable as we think...

OTOH, with D4, (if you know what you are doing - which I know you do) you can print at 36ppi output, ...while with D800 there is no way that you can print below 72... As for colour, ...forget it! D800's sensor has many colour shifts (but again most DSLRs do - D700 is one of the few that has very little), there is no way that one can have a group of people with different skin and get a decent appearance with D800... D4 is much-much better, better than any FF DSLR i've tried yet, but still, no where near to an MFDB (where the task is simple)...

By the way, D4 is (at least) as sharp as D3X with both 50/f1.4 and 105/f2.8vr at f5.6 (their best f-stop) and it does exceed D800's (plain) sharpness above 800 iso... as of DR and micro contrast, D4 is insignificantly better at base ISO and up to Iso400, ...but leaves D800 into dust thereafter.
Mind you that (as I said in the OP) I am talking about real DR, not what the sensor can record (which seems to be equal at base ISO) ...in other words, I am talking about DR that one can turn into a print...

By the way, you call DXO results "respectable" but I've yet to see the 2 stops DR advantage that D800 has over 5Diii and more so than P45+... I guess they have to show us what they mean by "print" and "screen"... not to mention the "colour advantage" that they claim D800 has over the P45+ MFDB... To me this sounds (only to be polite) laughable! ....certainly not "respectable" anyway...
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
OTOH, with D4, (if you know what you are doing - which I know you do) you can print at 36ppi output, ...while with D800 there is no way that you can print below 72... .


Theodoros,

It all depends on where you stand! After all, billboards are printed at 15 pixels per inch! Source.


So you need to specify what you are trying to print, for who's eyes and for what viewing distance.

For weddings, the images do not need to be detail rich.

Asher
 
Theodoros,

It all depends on where you stand! After all, billboards are printed at 15 pixels per inch! Source.


So you need to specify what you are trying to print, for who's eyes and for what viewing distance.

For weddings, the images do not need to be detail rich.

Asher
My point Asher, is not that one would print at ultra low ppi when using the D4, but rather that the 50% resolution advantage of the D800 because of its pixel count, shows only marginally (to a degree that a reasonable photographer wouldn't consider it) and only with some of the best lenses at their best performing aperture when at near base Iso... with anything else it doesn't show. Clearly the D4 is capable to even do landscapes and studio if one can't have MF to do it. Additionally, D800's (slight) advantage at base ISO is at resolution only, D4 has better (usable)DR, better colour and better micro contrast and the advantage increases the higher the sensitivity used...
OTOH, the O/P is clearly for "reviewers" that have compared D4 with D3s and have come to the conclusion that "if one has a D3S, then there is no point to upgrade to D4..." clearly this is a lie, since D4 smokes D3S out significantly and in every aspect of IQ (DR, colour, microcontrast) in anything below 3200 Iso and betters even D3X at near nominal sensitivity at what D3X was considered "the best DSLR around" until only 18 months ago.... Now that's not (the reviews) a fair treatment of the D4, ...is it?
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
OTOH, with D4, (if you know what you are doing - which I know you do) you can print at 36ppi output, ...while with D800 there is no way that you can print below 72... As for colour, ...forget it! D800's sensor has many colour shifts (but again most DSLRs do - D700 is one of the few that has very little), there is no way that one can have a group of people with different skin and get a decent appearance with D800...

Could you give us some examples of these colour shifts? What is the problem with the D800 and a group of different people?
 
Could you give us some examples of these colour shifts? What is the problem with the D800 and a group of different people?
To give you some examples it will be very difficult now that I've been got rid of it Jerome..., I also believe that web "results - examples" can't give you the answer you want... there are some reasons for that:
1. I work in Adobe 1998 profile and print with it.... Web works in S-rgb which is totally different....
2. Web has a different gamma curve than Adobe RGB...
3. My profile of prints is incompatible with web... It's the same profiles (on the same materials) I do painting reproduction with... It does affect (of course) DR too...
4. Converting from one profile to another doesn't mean you retain the profile properties... it simply means that you can have pictures posted on web to promote/advertise your work... (notice that on my web sites there are many images that appear wrong - I am working on this currently by developing the raws at S-rgb profile too for web purposes only - not that they will look as they should... but it will improve web communication). S-rgb profile is inappropriate to show you a sensor's DR...

Anyway, by "group of people", I mean that it is very rare to have people with same skin reflections/colour into the group.. (Asher made a comment on this earlier), one may have pale skin... another may be working in the fields and be sunburned, another may be darker due to excessive melamine or others may have different characteristics... With D800, when developing with LR or ACR, (as most pros do in order to have workflow efficiency) I have to "jump" into the "individual colours" page (the one you convert in B&W too) trying to get a proper colour balance to satisfy all skin tones in the picture (and still have complains on the outcome), while with an MFDB or (to lesser extend) with D700 and (even more) with D4, this is rarely a case... simple WB is enough! ...now imagine if you have to process 1000 images with groups of people involved... and this is different to the (unnecessary) huge file that D800 has anyway...
But yet again..., the problem here is not what D800 is better or worst at... (it's a fine camera anyway for amateur all around use where one has the time to "play" being Alain Briot or Nicolas Claris or Cem Usakligil or Ansel Adams...), the problem is rather why reviewers treat the D4 as only how it betters D3s in high sensitivities or not... while the camera is one of the best around for everything else...
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Anyway, by "group of people", I mean that it is very rare to have people with same skin reflections/colour into the group.. (Asher made a comment on this earlier), one may have pale skin... another may be working in the fields and be sunburned, another may be darker due to excessive melamine or others may have different characteristics... With D800, when developing with LR or ACR, (as most pros do in order to have workflow efficiency) I have to "jump" into the "individual colours" page (the one you convert in B&W too) trying to get a proper colour balance to satisfy all skin tones in the picture (and still have complains on the outcome), while with an MFDB or (to lesser extend) with D700 and (even more) with D4, this is rarely a case... simple WB is enough! ...now imagine if you have to process 1000 images with groups of people involved... and this is different to the (unnecessary) huge file that D800 has anyway...


I still do not understand what you are trying to achieve. You have a group of people with different skin colours. So far, this is perfectly normal. Do you want all of them to look as if they had the same skin colour?
 
I still do not understand what you are trying to achieve. You have a group of people with different skin colours. So far, this is perfectly normal. Do you want all of them to look as if they had the same skin colour?
LOL...., No Jerome, I want each one of them to look as natural as possible... It seems though that some DSLR sensors have a mind of their own with interpolated colour... Do you use any MF Jerome? If you do, try for yourself... you'll find that as long as you get the desired WB anything else just falls into place no matter if it is fluorescent, or artificial, or tungsten, or any other light... Heck, with some DSLRs (not all of course) one can't get the sky right in a simple landscape unless if he treats it individually than the rest of the picture.
 
Top