NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on June 11, 2016, 21:42:17
-
IMO, the Nikon D810 is the best camera I have ever had the opportunity to work with. Period. The reason, aside, from 36 Mpx, is the true ISO 64 and the usability (barely) of Live View. But there are other cameras inching up and they have features of their own.
Currently I am looking at the Nikon D810, the Pentax K1, and the Sony A7rII. For sure, the D810 is easiest for me to use, partially because I am so used to it. However, the reason it’s so used by me is because it’s so damn good for the close-up work I do, and ad infinitum.
For sure, the Pentax K1 is the most difficult to use IF I want to use all of the non-Pentax glass I have collected over the years. Trying to photograph with lenses “adapted” to the K1 is possible, but no real fun, except in the results. The K1 is 36 Mpx.
And the Sony A7rII, perhaps the best mirrorless I have used, is pretty easy to use, as well, and boasts 42 Mpx. What I wanted to know is: If I bend these cameras to one lens, in this case the Zeiss Otus 55mm APO, with a tiny bit of extension (5.8 mm), how do they compare?
And “Yes....” it is hard to compare cameras (for me at least), and the color is not perfect, and the images are different sizes, etc., and so on. Also, what I can show here in .JPG format is nowhere near what I am seeing in the original images on my NEC MultiSynch PA302w monitor. So, this is case of your getting the soup of the soup of the soup – trickle down.
To my old and weary eyes, they all look pretty good and more than usable. Certainly the Pentax K1 punches purity right at you, at least looking at the originals. The A7rII is right there with it, and believe it or not, the Nikon D810, Bayer filter and all, perhaps has less noise of them all.
You can look these over for yourselves. Keep in mind that you are looking at very dumbed-down images, but hopefully something comes through.
Not stacked, high aperture, f/16
-
I don't know which of the three cameras is best, but I do like the images.
-
The blown or nearly highlights are minor annoyances that detract from otherwise fine presentations. Their colour spaces are not properly tagged tagged either. These issues, plus not knowing whether files are processed under similar conditions in a common RAW conversion software, makes direct comparisons difficult.
In terms of colours, evaluated from these downscaled jpgs with uncertain colour space lineage, the Sony is the bluest and the D810 the most yellowish, with the Pentax in a middle position. I cannot observe any supremacy in colour purity for the Pentax, at least from these samples. Micro details are apparently ever so slightly better with the Sony although minute variations in focusing accuracy could have produced a different ranking.
In short, either of these cameras could be seen as a foundation for high-quality work.
-
I'm not a tester. I should just do this for my own understanding, and not try to share it. The cameras are each different. The Pentax is the most remarkable for the moment, but I'm a long way from learning how to get the best of it. The Sony is somewhere in the middle, easy to work with a larger image, but nothing very exiting IMO. The Nikon is the Nikon, something I am used to. I could use any of these. As for gut feeling, I don't see myself using the Sony much, but it does give infinity on a bellows. I will continue to use the Nikon, and I will further pursue the Pentax, to see what can be done with it. However, the Pentax does not take to alien lenses and is a read pain to use. Still, an alternative to Bayer interpolation deserves some attention.
One surprise for me was to realize that the D810 Nikon has probably lower noise than the other two! I love the ISO 64, so it makes sense.
IMO, what is happening is that Canon and Nikon have been slow to deliver something really new. Other companies are moving into the passing lane, and, as usual, those of us interested will have to work it all out as we always have.
-
Thanks Michael, for the effort and sharing it here. Too bad the whitebalance is so different.
Indeed all three seem to deliver well and IMHO the Sony A7RII really shines, but the visible
differences are very small.
-
I very much like the warmer tone of the Nikon D810 shot you show here. When it comes to clarity and details the Sony and Pentax seem to beat her.
Noise levels are best contained in the Pentax, the image is soooo smooth. Wow.
-
Interesting - thanks for sharing
-
Considering it's a test, but i think they look awful, so untrue to real poppies.
Sorry didnt want to spoil the party.
-
Sorry Fons, your evaluation is false. These are Romneya coulteri (Californian Tree Poppies) and they in fact look exactly in this manner. Petals are paper thin and semi-transparent.
-
This is a tough "choice". I add the quotes to indicate some irony because who could choose here?? It looks to me like any one of the 3 would be an excellent choice for close work. Especially if one has that Zeiss Otus/55. "-)
Least noise in the Pentax image - for whatever reasons.
An interesting demo. Thanks Michael for posting.
-
Sorry Fons, your evaluation is false. These are Romneya coulteri (Californian Tree Poppies) and they in fact look exactly in this manner. Petals are paper thin and semi-transparent.
I know Romneya, so my mistake for that, still..
-
Maybe it's just me, but the perception of depth is quite different in the K1 image, compared to the Sony and Nikon. To my eyes the K1 delivers a more "3D" image. Is that just tiny focusing differences, software magic in the camera or pixel shift? I don't know.
All three deliver excellent results, and I wouldn't buy a K1 if I had D810 with the lenses I need. The difference isn't that big.
-frank-
-
I don't think that the flowers shown here are Romneya coulteri (Californian Tree Poppy). The tree poppy has stamen filaments which are the same deep orange-yellow colour as the anthers. That is not the case here. The flowers shown here have hairy stems. The stems of the tree poppy are different.
Michael (the OP) has started several threads which appear to show pictures of the same plants detailed here. My best guess would be Papaver nudicaule (Iceland poppy). Perhaps Michael could tell us what the plant label says.
John Maud
-
Papaver nudicaule is glabrous or nearly so and the plants depicted here are decidedly hirsute. It also lacks the semitransparent papery thin petals.
My identification as to Romneya was from own pictures that show essentially the same kind of flower. However, as I only saw it once I could be mistaken, no problem with that. However, P. nudicaule is a very common ornamental plant in my country and occurs in the wild all over the country, so that particular species I'm very familiar with and this is not what M. Erlewine has photographed.
Whatever verdict the final identification turns out to be, we are dealing with a member of the Papaveraceae. That narrows the field as it were.
In the future, presenting some indication as to the photographed subject's size or image scale would be helpful.
Added: further research indicate Romneya species are glabrous as well, thus we probably should look into the main genus Papaver for a candidate. I apologise for putting the wrong name on the plant.
-
The flower is a P. nudicaule cultivar. P. nudicaule can have hairy stems.
See eFlora reference:http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=233500851
for the wildflower Papaver nudicaule subsp. americanum Rändel ex D. F. Murray, Novon
from which we have this excerpt -- Inflorescences: scapes erect, hispid.
-
Scary stuff these Papaver species, apparently. I stand corrected. All my P. nudicaule photos show glabrous stems and foliage. As stated earlier, they all originate from cultivated stocks as the P. nudicaule is not native to the Nordic countries and probably not even to Iceland, its vernacular name notwithstanding.
Now, as the identity matter appears to be solved, time has come to address the three cameras under investigation. I expect the handling behaviour of the trio might differ more than the output image quality, which should satisfy most nitpickers. There is also the question of lenses. The Sony due to its short register of course can use a wealth of lenses through the appropriate adapters, but all automation we have come to rely on is lost unless stock Sony lenses are deployed with it. This might not be critical for studio work in the close-up range though. The Pentax has to be even more susceptible to camera and tripod vibrations than the two others because the need for taking 4 perfectly aligned images. I fail to see why ISO 64 as a baseline ISO should be an advantage for the D810, as we are dealing with a digital system and the relationship between image quality and ISO from the film days are no longer in existence. The camera maker sets a baseline ISO value for which the camera is optimised in quality terms. However, using the "Low" settings will produce less noise, but the dynamic range is compromised. For critical studio work with full control of lights, this might not be as big a disadvantage as it is under field conditions.
-
As for the why of the ISO 64 on the D810 being helpful, I am not a technician, but I do have eyes. IMO, the blacks and shadows at ISO 64 on the D810 are “better.” I felt the same way when the D3x first appeared. I find the “LO” settings on cameras, which I imagine are some kind of electronic baseline, are not helpful in my work. Show me how they are, please.
The Pentax K1 on Pixel-Shift is VERY touchy. In fact, it is a joke to take a landscape shot in that mode in my experience. You don’t just get some vague movement artifact, you get really ugly artifacts, which I am sure some one of you can explain why. I will try it again, just in case I missed the boat on this.
The K1 has a mode for pixel-shift that attempts to compensate for motion, but it is NOT supported by Adobe Camera Raw, and the Silkpix software shipped with the K1 is perhaps the worst software I have ever attempted to use, like out of the 1980s or something. As a systems programmer, I know a little about software design, and this is atrocious. However, some who have learned it (not me) say that it does do something useful with the Pixel-Shift Mode that includes movement.
My biggest gripe with the K1 is how difficult they make it to use LiveView and see (in real-time) changes (via dials) you make with the shutter and aperture. It kind of can be done, sort-of, but obviously no thought was put into making ease of use for fine focusing a priority. Their approach is itself a workaround for the fact that they did not consider this aspect of photography.
I also find Pentax camera supporters fierce and unrelenting, so just comments like these can upset them. This has been my experience. I kind of see what they are about, because the K1 is an interesting camera, with lots of thought put into the features. And they are well built and water resistant. I watched a video of someone holding at K1 under the waters of a rushing stream, etc. The Pentax support forums are anxious to help and knowledgeable. It is almost as if they hearken from a bygone age on the Internet.
-
I fail to see why ISO 64 as a baseline ISO should be an advantage for the D810, as we are dealing with a digital system and the relationship between image quality and ISO from the film days are no longer in existence.
The lower native ISO means (requires) higher full-well capacity, specifically 78083 electrons (D810) vs. 48818 electrons (D800). One can use more exposure and therefore one obtains a higher signal-to-noise ratio, everything else equal.
Michael, if you find ISO 64 a dramatic improvement over ISO 100, I hope you are using ETTR. That can give you a couple of stops of the same kind of improvement, depending on the scene contrast you are dealing with. The half-stop 2/3stop (thanks Bjørn) improvement of ISO 64 vs ISO 100 is comparatively tiny.
-
To elaborate on your ISO statement: the ISO 64 of D810 *is* the baseline. The lower settings, to L1 (approx. 32 ISO) has lower noise, (in my experience) slightly better defined blacks, and clipped highlights. The meaning of this is the dynamic range is more restricted so the scene should be lit for a lower contrast.
I feel a basic point must be missed if a camera capable of better defined image quality (according to the maker) apparently lacks a commensurable improved capability of precise focusing. A camera should be seen as an entity including its lenses and accessories and the weaker points, if relating to important handling or performance aspects, always lower the overall value of the system.
ISO 64 is 2/3 stops 'slower' than ISO 100, by the way.
-
ISO 64 is 2/3 stops 'slower' than ISO 100, by the way.
Correct.
Was the rest of your post directed at Micheal?
-
Romneya is often referred to as Californian treepoppy with large paperlike white flowers the size of small saucers, their grey leaves suggest hot and dry conditions.
It can be acquired from specialist breeders here in Holland.
-
...
Was the rest of your post directed at Micheal?
I pondered on the ramifications of his observations, that's all. It is surprising to learn some of the experiences he has had with the K1.
-
There is also the question of lenses. The Sony due to its short register of course can use a wealth of lenses through the appropriate adapters, but all automation we have come to rely on is lost unless stock Sony lenses are deployed with it. This might not be critical for studio work in the close-up range though.
Metabones makes a Canon EOS to Sony E adapter that retains AF as well as all the usual exposure modes, PASM, and that adapter is by now mature. There is also an adapter for Nikon F mount to Sony E that gives AF as well as PASM exposure modes, but that adapter is by no means a mature product. Of course Sony also makes adapters for their own DSLR lenses to use AF as well as exposure automation. In essence there are many more lenses than Sony E mount lenses that can be used and retain full automation on Sony's A7 series cameras.
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8234/8466974464_6b4e6d8be0_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/dUcswm)20130210-2013.02.10 michelle 003 (https://flic.kr/p/dUcswm) by (https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8517/8466983664_dd2c267f69_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.[url=https://flic.kr/p/dUcvfY)20130210-2013.02.10 michelle 003-2 (https://flic.kr/p/dUcvfY) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickrcom/photos/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr. With all due respect, but I used to work or tried everything (or most mentioned) from above. And I think, nothing is close to D800-810 in department of DR. Even D810 is a hair - I mean a HAIR - less competent of DR, than D800, due to its higher resolution/absence of LP filter. So the image and crop, ISO 1600. I am not able to see any significant difference to ISO 100. THX! LZ
-
The Otus lens does not come in the Pentax K mount.
Unless Michael had it "Leitaxed", I suspect that the Nikon to Pentax K adapter that he used "had glass in it". If so, the adapter's glass would have degraded the Pentax K1 images.
-
The Otus lens does not come in the Pentax K mount.
Unless Michael had it "Leitaxed", I suspect that the Nikon to Pentax K adapter that he used "had glass in it". If so, the adapter's glass would have degraded the Pentax K1 images.
I only do close-up, so I knocked out the glass because it is cheap and only ruins the image. The Oti lenses do not come in Pentax, although the Zeiss Distagon 28mm ZF lens (not Otus) comes in Pentax. I am selling one on Ebay now.
-
Metabones makes a Canon EOS to Sony E adapter that retains AF as well as all the usual exposure modes, PASM, and that adapter is by now mature. There is also an adapter for Nikon F mount to Sony E that gives AF as well as PASM exposure modes, but that adapter is by no means a mature product. Of course Sony also makes adapters for their own DSLR lenses to use AF as well as exposure automation. In essence there are many more lenses than Sony E mount lenses that can be used and retain full automation on Sony's A7 series cameras.
I'm aware of the existence of adapters, but that does only reduce the problem, not solving it. Adding an adapter means more lens/camera interfaces and less stability, and the potential for introducing more issues. A native lens format eschews these issues.