 |
| Five Frame Panorama of Sedona, Arizona (click to enlarge) Unfortunately, Blogger only allows a maximum 1600 pixel wide image so you can't see the extreme detail. This was made form five images with the Nikon D810, Nikon 24-120mm lens @ 50mm; 1/500th sex. @ f/8 handheld and rotated, no tripod |
First, I found when editing my images from the D810, I had to do very little to optimize them. This is unlike other digital cameras I have owned and used where one gives the images a little "help," These images looked stunningly sharp, stunningly detailed, beautifully colorful and perfectly contrasty. Just to my liking in every way. Maybe not to your liking, but it is to mine.
Second, the camera focuses as sure as a M4/3 camera. Now, you may think that a strange statement as phase detection autofocus is still considered better than contrast detection auto focus, but it is not. Mirrorless cameras seem to lock on quickly and perfectly. No hunting. My other digital SLRs, including the D800E, seemed to hunt just a little bit at times before locking on. Not the D810. It is a sure-focusing as a mule is sure-footed walking down the Bright Angel trail into the Grand Canyon. It is extremely fast and accurate in its focus. The best I've ever used.
-.jpg) |
| Here is a 100% cropped section from the image above (click to enlarge) I'm really pleased with the resolution and detail. If I were to have put the camera and lens on a tripod, then rotated it around the lens' nodal point, it would have been even higher quality. |
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis Mook
Many of my images can be found at www.dennismook.com. Please pay it a visit. I add new images regularly. Thank you.
All content on this blog is © 2014 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or image.
Hei Dennis
ReplyDeleteFirst I would like to thank you for all your posts, which are of very practical value for my photography too, especially regarding the always heatedly debated question, which equipment is appropriate for which purpose.
Two years ago I changed horses, by replacing my heavy FX Nikon D700- gear with Panasonics Lumix GH-system, at present I work exclusively with the GH4, which is the direct rival to the E-M1 of Olympus.
And I never looked back, I never would have thought that a sensor four times smaller could produce such high quality images!
In a previous article you have demonstrated that between the outputs from Olympus E-M1 and Nikons D800E there ist no "practical difference", as least not up to prints of 50x60cm.
So here is my question: If this is true, why did you hit the road again with a heavy and clumpy Nikon D810, do you really think it's additional value concerning image quality outweighs its evident backdraws regarding weight and bulk?
Thank's in advance and kind regards from Switzerland
Markus
Markus, thank you for your kind words. I've been passionately photographing for over 45 years and I'm always happy to share whatever knowledge and experience I have gained with anyone who wants to learn. If you ever have any questions which I can answer for you, please ask.
DeleteYes, my tests indicate that, at that size and smaller, my photographer friends and I could see no difference in resolution, detail, contrast, saturation or sharpness between the two formats. My E-M1 could have made any of the images that I took on my recent road trip, even the difficult ones such as showing the dark inside and bright outside of the church I posted the other day.
Sometimes I question myself and my motivations. In this case, I wanted to really see if carrying a full frame outfit was as burdensome as I had remembered it and am I really missing something in using M4/3 gear. The answer is yes and no. Carrying the heavy, bulky, expensive but at the same time, excellent D810 is more than I care to carry and No, I can do everything I need to do with M4/3 gear. I'm not missing anything.
I plan on keeping both systems. Not sure why, other than I am psychologically having a difficult time parting with my "old ways." There will come a time, in the near future, that I will part with the big guns and just have one system. Just not sure when.
That being said, there are times when I will use the Nikon gear. For example, I will be out this weekend with some photographer friends photographing migrating birds, snow geese, eagles, etc. It is still difficult to consistently successfully catch a bird in flight with the focusing systems of M4/3, but they are catching up quickly. Another use would be high ISO. Full frame still beats M4/3 for high ISO work. But less than 5% of my images are made at ISOs greater than 1600. So that is a minor reason. But, M4/3 is catching up there also.
Thanks for asking and I hope I have clarified things for you.
Dennis
Dennis, many tanks for your quick reply, which indeed clarifies things for me!
DeleteI understand that in specific shooting situations a rapid DSLR has still the edge over even the best EVIL camera, especially when tracking fast moving animals is important, or high ISO ist inevitable.
Indeed it is hard to believe that there is no visible difference between the two sensor formats even when printed up to 50x60 cm! Maybe when printed larger, at A0 for example (84,1 x 118,9cm) there should be a difference, I assume.
In German EVIL forums the discussion about FX versus mFT very often ist reduced to the question if one needs frequently shallow depth of field, which is easier to achieve with a bigger sensor, resp. with longer focal lengths.
After analysing the images in Edition 09/13 of the National Geographic Magazine, which fo me is still the state of the art in reportage photography, I can give an answer to this question: At least for this kind of photography shallow depth is not important, as 53 out of 64 pictures were in focus over the hole image area, and therefore could have been made with any M4/3 camera as well!!
But I understand the fascination of a technical masterpiece like the D810 - this morning I took one into my hands, and it really seems to be the most sophisiticated DSLR ever made by NIKON.
I could imagine to buy one especially for my forest- and landscape photography, where resolution, dynamic range and color depth are essential.
But should we not await the follwers of the sony A7-family, maybe a A8, which features the same big Sony sensor in a much lighter and smaller package?
Best regards
Markus
Markus, the two prints I compared were made under daylight conditions, which allowed each camera's sensor to record the image under the best conditions. I suspect, if I really taxed the sensors to make images under less than ideal conditions, the differences would become more apparent. But that wasn't my test. After all, it has to do with the laws of physics, which we really can't do a lot to alter. Large pixels can gather many more photons in any given time frame than smaller pixels. The mitigating factor here is how good the manufacturers' are in creating algorithms that assist in reducing noise or other artifacts. The M4/3 gear is right up there with the big boys, in my opinion.
DeleteAs far as shallow depth of field is concerned, you know that there are certain times when a very shallow depth of field is advantageous, such as in portraits, wildlife, etc. But that, indeed, can be easily achieved with some of the M4/3 and 4/3 lenses that are on the market. For example, the 75 f/1.8, as well as the 40-150 f/2.8 and my own 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 at their longer focal lengths. With any of those you can carve a nice slice of "in-focus" area that surely would satisfy almost all needs.
Dennis