# D800 - Sample Photos



## RedEye (Feb 7, 2012)

Guessing by the slow downloads from the Nikon site that at least 50K people are busy downloading the sample photos right now after midnight. 

Would be interested to hear peoples reaction of the sample photos. They're claiming detail like a medium format, and possibly so; depth of color, we'll see.

Feedback welcome.

Reddy.


----------



## poias (Feb 7, 2012)

The samples are incredible! Even the ISO 640 sample looks amazing.


----------



## RedEye (Feb 7, 2012)

I admit. I googled every Hassy image sample I could find. I have two 23" HD monitors, and so with photos side by side, I could not tell the difference between the sample and the Phase One 40ish MP back.

I'm sastified, I'll take one. For the price, maybe two or three. The only thing now is fitting it with the new canon glass  

If only we didn't have to shoot through air... ... ..


----------



## CrimsonBlue (Feb 7, 2012)

I think there is a lot of lighting help in making those photos look good. Great lighting can make even poor photographers look skilled. 

There does seem to be a drop off in quality after ISO 1000. That's not good...

Prepare ye hard drives for massive files too -- these 36MP RAW images aren't going to be small!


----------



## RedEye (Feb 7, 2012)

On the Hard Drive issue. I'm guessing that once the production lines are rebuilt from the flooding that they'll be even more cost effective to purchase, or else it will for the hand of industry and everyone will go SSD, which is great for video work.


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 7, 2012)

Storage is nothing if you can afford a FF system. 
Those sample images are truely impressive!!


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2012)

Am I the only one who thinks we need to see images at ISO 3200 and 6400 to really see how this thing competes? The ISO 640 image is amazing (I think more because of the beautiful woman than anything else , but it is only ISO 640. ISO 640 looks pretty darn good on the 5D II as well, albeit with a tad more read noise. I think the frontier of competition is at high ISO...1600, 3200, 6400...and beyond.


----------



## torger (Feb 7, 2012)

jrista said:


> Am I the only one who thinks we need to see images at ISO 3200 and 6400 to really see how this thing competes?



A 36 megapixel camera will not excel at low light, so if you're a low light shooter then a 36 megapixel camera is not the thing to have. However, perhaps it is "good enough" for those of us that mainly shoot base ISO from tripod but occasionally do some casual hand-held shooting. I don't think this is a "wedding photography" camera though.


----------



## RedEye (Feb 7, 2012)

jrista said:


> Am I the only one who thinks we need to see images at ISO 3200 and 6400 to really see how this thing competes? The ISO 640 image is amazing (I think more because of the beautiful woman than anything else , but it is only ISO 640. ISO 640 looks pretty darn good on the 5D II as well, albeit with a tad more read noise. I think the frontier of competition is at high ISO...1600, 3200, 6400...and beyond.



Agreed. I'm hoping for a total confidence usability at 3200. If 6400, that's a plus. No matter what, I'm sure it won't be worse than it is now, and I want the pixels.


----------



## tt (Feb 7, 2012)

torger said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one who thinks we need to see images at ISO 3200 and 6400 to really see how this thing competes?
> ...



http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/07/joy-ride-the-nikon-d800-promo-video-is-out.aspx/ Maybe they just want them to go to videography with it instead? Doesn't look too shabby no? Or would the 5D Mk II have done a better job?


----------



## tt (Feb 7, 2012)

It's not just the sample shots too - maybe others with more skill can say, but isn't the footage from Joy Ride look pretty awesome? Joy Ride


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 7, 2012)

The veil in the photo sample of the bride is just amazing. My 7D can't capture detail like that and my 1D4... I don't know. Maybe? I tend to doubt it. All of the "you don't need 36MP" doubters should look at this image.

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_02_l.jpg


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 7, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> The veil in the photo sample of the bride is just amazing. My 7D can't capture detail like that and my 1D4... I don't know. Maybe? I tend to doubt it. All of the "you don't need 36MP" doubters should look at this image.
> 
> http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_02_l.jpg



But those fingers are a bit noisy...


----------



## Old Shooter (Feb 7, 2012)

torger said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one who thinks we need to see images at ISO 3200 and 6400 to really see how this thing competes?
> ...



Exactly! If you look at a Hassy H4D-40 you'll see the ISO range is 100-1600...

Weddings! LOL! How many of you old-timers shot VPS160 exposed at 125 ASA for best negative density? That's why I was always a disciple of fast glass and powerful strobes! 

With detail and flesh tones like that, I'm sure this camera will find it's way into many wedding photographer's kits...


----------



## EchoLocation (Feb 7, 2012)

outside of the 36mp, lack of AA filter(on the e version) and video, what exactly makes Nikon users want to upgrade from a D700 to D800. I'm considering switching to Nikon mainly because i'm sick of the Canon autofocus. The D700 is sounding better and better everyday. Any educated Nikon users have a say on this? Obv I will be waiting until after the 5DX to make my decision... I really hope it has the 1DX's AF... should be fun


----------



## te4o (Feb 7, 2012)

The resolution is stunning, the moire is not an issue here, textures are fine and flawless, detail is impressive - from here there is only 'real life' or a microscope. Just look into the mouth of the cat...
On the ONLY ISO 640 shot (highest I could spot) - the lady with the white veil: while the lit up parties are stunning, the black hair shows quite a big amount of patchy noise (red & green chroma, just like the 5D2 for which I hate it and haven't bought it yet)
Interesting to see how the higher ISO shots get accepted. I mean it's quite ridiculous to give us 90% ISO100 shots to preview. But everything else in these samples is BETTER than all of the Canon DSLRs up till now. Well, interesting times, I am very curious about the reply from Canon to this Nikon product.


----------



## Ivar (Feb 7, 2012)

As for higher ISO-s, downsizing a big file into a smaller one will also help with the noise, meaning on the same size A4 print an ISO6400 (native maximum for D800) might look as good as corresponding D4 or 1Dx shot at ISO6400. Give it a try, take a noisy shot produced by your camera and downsize it twice.


----------



## Old Shooter (Feb 7, 2012)

te4o said:


> The resolution is stunning, the moire is not an issue here, textures are fine and flawless, detail is impressive - from here there is only 'real life' or a microscope. Just look into the mouth of the cat...



Cat?!? There's a cat in that photo?!?  ;D ;D :


----------



## Astro (Feb 7, 2012)

CrimsonBlue said:


> I think there is a lot of lighting help in making those photos look good. Great lighting can make even poor photographers look skilled.



lol given that photography is all about lighting your comment makes no sense.

what makes a photographer really good if not his lighting skills?
choosing the right iso, gently pressing the button?


----------



## Astro (Feb 7, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> outside of the 36mp, lack of AA filter(on the e version) and video, what exactly makes Nikon users want to upgrade from a D700 to D800. I'm considering switching to Nikon mainly because i'm sick of the Canon autofocus. The D700 is sounding better and better everyday. Any educated Nikon users have a say on this?



this is a canon forum if you did not notice.. i think you can carry any such nikon discussion to a nikon forum?


----------



## ereka (Feb 7, 2012)

This is from the viewpoint of someone who photographs mainly portraits. Landscape shooters, for example, might have a very different take on it. Maybe my eyes are going wonky with old age, but I've taken a quick look at the D800/D800E portrait samples and to be honest can't see any useful improvement in detail over and above my 8mp 1DMkII. Even if there is detail that I'm missing, all the emphasis in portrait retouching seems to be on blurring or 'smoothing' the skin so why would we need more detail there? Anyway, in the real (non pixel-peeping) world, do portrait or wedding clients usually examine their pictures through a loupe? There might be other advantages to the D800 (e.g. the face recognition feature that allows automatic exposure of the face in backlit situations with no need for the photographer to think about exposure compensation seems quite convenient for fast moving situations when you don't really have time to think, whenever those might be) but for pure resolution seems like overkill. Also, as someone else has pointed out, how does it perform in low light situations e.g. weddings? Possibly not a wedding photographer's dream camera? The 1Dx is looking more attractive by the minute. Canon had better hurry up if it's going to announce a 5DMkIII/5Dx though, before a lot of rich amateur/semi-pro camera users jump ship? Just a thought.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 7, 2012)

ereka said:


> Even if there is detail that I'm missing, all the emphasis in portrait retouching seems to be on blurring or 'smoothing' the skin so why would we need more detail there? Anyway, in the real (non pixel-peeping) world, do portrait or wedding clients usually examine their pictures through a loupe?



and how many couples order billboard prints?

if i read here in this forum i wonder how there can be room on this little planet for all the big prints people do.


----------



## Flake (Feb 7, 2012)

RedEye said:


> I admit. I googled every Hassy image sample I could find. I have two 23" HD monitors, and so with photos side by side, I could not tell the difference between the sample and the Phase One 40ish MP back.
> 
> I'm sastified, I'll take one. For the price, maybe two or three. The only thing now is fitting it with the new canon glass
> 
> If only we didn't have to shoot through air... ... ..



Perhaps you should do a bit more reading and a bit more comparing of images? People can't tell the difference between a Hassleblad and a Canon G10 ! We're not talking Joe public here, this is industry professionals.

However take the MF format camera and photograph a really contrasty scene, then the D800 and I can guarantee you'll see a huge difference in the histograms, with the Phase one showing a steady rise & fall with the peak around the centre, and the DSLR with the peak over to the right, sky blown out & little shadow detail.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

If you want to read the test which was done.

The spec which I find interesting about the D800 is the Iso which maxes at just 6400 I do wonder what the noise performance and the dynamic range is going to be like.

And I'm sure we're all looking forward to the Nikonistas who were not so long ago telling us that 12MP was enough and endlessly extolling the virtues of low noise low light performance etc etc, suddenly reversing everything and telling us that more MP is the way to go regardless of noise!


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 7, 2012)

wrong froum.. maybe this should be moved to the 3party forum.


----------



## justsomedude (Feb 7, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> I'm considering switching to Nikon mainly because i'm sick of the Canon autofocus.



Don't get me started on Canon AF. :-\


----------



## justsomedude (Feb 7, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> and how many couples order billboard prints?
> 
> if i read here in this forum i wonder how there can be room on this little planet for all the big prints people do.



I regularly print 62" wide fine art landscapes - and sometimes bigger - for gallery and corporate sales. I use PrefectResize/Genuine Fractals to get the image sizes I need... but I'd prefer to have more pixels provided natively out of camera and less stretching to do in post.

Because of this I, for one, see a huge need for 36MP+ in a FF sensored body, so long as the quality isn't compromised and I'm sure many other fine art landscape photographers agree. Now Nikon is proving it can be done. 

My curiosity is certainly piqued.


----------



## justsomedude (Feb 7, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> But those fingers are a bit noisy...



That hand is outside the DOF... look at the hand on the opposite side of the frame. Tacky sharp.


----------



## Astro (Feb 7, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> Because of this I, for one, see a huge need for 36MP+ in a FF sensored body, so long as the quality isn't compromised and I'm sure many other fine art landscape photographers agree. Now Nikon is proving it can be done.



is proving it...? mhm well.... the landscape images i saw look not better then the ones from a 5D MK2.

so im still skeptical.....


----------



## justsomedude (Feb 7, 2012)

Astro said:


> the landscape images i saw look not better then the ones from a 5D MK2.
> 
> so im still skeptical.....



I don't think you're understanding my argument...

It's not about being "better", it's about pixel density and DPI. Stretching a 22MP image to a 6-foot wide print is worlds away from stretching a 37MP image to a 6-foot wide print. The less stretching required, the better clarity on the resultant print.


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 7, 2012)

Astro said:


> CrimsonBlue said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is a lot of lighting help in making those photos look good. Great lighting can make even poor photographers look skilled.
> ...



Yeah, sure. Go shoot some sports and let me know how much time you spend working on the lighting. ???


----------



## ghosh9691 (Feb 7, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > But those fingers are a bit noisy...
> ...



Outside the DOF? At 10ft subject distance, the DOF would be 0.3ft for this lens and I'm sure both hands are within that DOF. I doubt that the result of the right hand (the model's) being a bit less sharp is due to DOF. It is more likely due to the limitation of the lens - i.e. lens is less sharp at the edges of the frame than at the center. Keep in mind that this was at 160mm focal length at f/4.5, therefore the camera must have been at least 10ft away if not more.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 7, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> Astro said:
> 
> 
> > CrimsonBlue said:
> ...



well sports photography is like journalism photography not about ART. 
it´s more about reporting what happens.
even my grandma has a few good pictures when she shoots 9 FPS bursts all day..... 

landscape photography is about "waiting for the light", portrait photography is about light, fashion.. even wildlife photography needs an EYE for good light.


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 7, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> The veil in the photo sample of the bride is just amazing. My 7D can't capture detail like that and my 1D4... I don't know. Maybe? I tend to doubt it. All of the "you don't need 36MP" doubters should look at this image.
> 
> http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_02_l.jpg



Nice picture - but woooaaaahhhhhh, way toooooo much detail.
Honestly - how many brides want to be able to literally count those lovely blond hairs we're not supposed to see?

You can't just see the spot under the make up, you can see what pores are blocked. Good for product, landscape, industrial and architectural - extremely bad for portrait and weddings.

The Nikon people seem to have got it right. A D4 working in tandem with a D800.
As for that video clip, very nice. All the same things said about the 5D2 video when that came out. I suppose we'll see an episode of *House* filmed using it so they can make positive comparisons?

It is a very nice camera for an awful lot of people - but i'm not one of them.

I like the AF and dual card slot and erm - no that's it!

Let's be honest and admit that Nikon have made an extremely nice and desirable camera that will certainly be grabbing the money off the new entrants to the serious DSLR market. This camera really does put Canon on the spot to release their offering some time very soon.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 7, 2012)

Picsfor said:


> Nice picture - but woooaaaahhhhhh, way toooooo much detail.
> Honestly - how many brides want to be able to literally count those lovely blond hairs we're not supposed to see?



yep it´s like pron in HD... you don´t want to see that...


----------



## weixing (Feb 7, 2012)

Hi,


justsomedude said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > and how many couples order billboard prints?
> ...


 36MP+ FF sensor... no problem to Canon as they already had a 120MP APS-H sensor 2 years ago... 

Anyway, just wonder how long will the user willing to wait for the photo to be written to the card before removing the card? At 36MP (74MB RAW file), shoot continous for 1s @ 4FPS = 4 x 74MB = 296MB and will took the DSLR at least another 1.96s to write to the cards if you use the US$800++ (100MB/s write speed) SanDisk Extreme Pro CompactFlash Card... SanDisk must be very happy now! 

Have a nice day.


----------



## SeanL (Feb 7, 2012)

Astro said:


> .... the landscape images i saw look not better then the ones from a 5D MK2.
> 
> so im still skeptical.....



This was also my observation from looking at the two outdoor images. I would go further to say I get clearly better results with my 5D MkII with files viewed at 100%, IQ/sharpness. When I say this I mean that if I shot these with the Canon I would be concerned that the camera was malfunctioning.

Ok, so these were shot at f/8, but I still can't find anything clearly resolved in the images.

The indoor files are better so maybe the landscape images are not representative?

I should say that I have zero Nikon experience.

EDIT: Ok, maybe I went a little overboard in this post with the malfunctioning part. Still, I was surprised to view the two files at 100%.


----------



## psolberg (Feb 9, 2012)

SeanL said:


> Astro said:
> 
> 
> > .... the landscape images i saw look not better then the ones from a 5D MK2.
> ...



technique is important. honestly for real samples read on Lloyd Chambers blog once get gets one. he knows how to get the most out of any body as the ultimate pixel peeper that he is. So he'll judget it better than anybody. but IMO from what I seen is that the D800 is indeed going to show more detail, and produce superb results when you look that close. It is mind blowing but if you take a step back....it is sort of the problem I have because the difference over 20mp is really visible only by obsessing over pointless highly zoomed crops...I mean WTH, are people going to look at prints with electron microscopes next?. you won't see much difference in real work. to quote Ken Rockwell, this is all just measurebators with a magnifying glass.



> It's not about being "better", it's about pixel density and DPI. Stretching a 22MP image to a 6-foot wide print is worlds away from stretching a 37MP image to a 6-foot wide print. The less stretching required, the better clarity on the resultant print.



big prints are viewed farther way so this is a road to nowhere. A 10 foot billboard isn't going to be seen at 1 feet. true more is better but the law of dinishing returns applies quickly and factors liek viewing distance and print medium will have a far greater effect than a mere 10MP.


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 9, 2012)

Pixel count aside, the dynamic range in these files, particularly the library shots, is stunning. The books in shadow are clearly visible, yet the light coming through the ceiling doesn't blow out the highlights.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 9, 2012)

Soooooo... 

where did all the Oh no current lenses cant resolve more than 20MP crowd go to?
looks to be resolving plenty fine to me. Nikon on are going to stuggle to keep up with demand on these for a year i think the waiting list is going to be Loooooong


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 9, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Soooooo...
> 
> where did all the Oh no current lenses cant resolve more than 20MP crowd go to?
> looks to be resolving plenty fine to me. Nikon on are going to stuggle to keep up with demand on these for a year i think the waiting list is going to be Loooooong



When the 1DsII came out, people said: "16.7 MPs is too much, it's going to take up too much card space, the lenses can't keep up." Somehow the photographic world managed. 

When the 1DsIII came out, people said: "21.1 MPs is too much, it's going to take up too much card space, the lenses can't keep up." Somehow the photographic world managed. 

I have a hunch that history will repeat itself with the D800.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 9, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Soooooo...
> ...



pffft that image is a fake it was made in ms paint, no camera can take a picture like that


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 9, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> pffft that image is a fake it was made in ms paint, no camera can take a picture like that



IPhone could!


----------

