Comparing the Nikon Z9 & D800 using the same Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4 D ED AF Lens on both. WOW!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лис 2022
- (#NikonZ9 #wildlifephotography #natrephotography)
Affiliate link to Lensrentals - www.pjtra.com/t/8-11625-28277...
Diffuser I use - amzn.to/3SQDXKA
Reflector I use - amzn.to/3U7teMW
Godox flash I use - amzn.to/3sQqfgf
Search John Michael Knowles on your favorite streaming station
Or
direct links to the album
Pandora - www.pandora.com/artist/john-m...
Apple Music - music.apple.com/us/album/dand...
Amazon Music - music.amazon.com/albums/B09ZY...
Spotify - open.spotify.com/artist/4uPlW...
My photography playlist -
• Camera stuff
My latest album
Search John Michael Knowles on your favorite streaming station
Or
direct links to the album
Pandora - www.pandora.com/artist/john-m...
Apple Music - music.apple.com/us/album/dand...
Amazon Music - music.amazon.com/albums/B09ZY...
Spotify - open.spotify.com/artist/4uPlW...
I am on...
instagram johnmknowles65
And yeah, Face Book too! John Knowles A Cyclist / jonnypinkpro. .
Email johnmknowles65@gmail.com
just say NO to Twitter...
A JonnyPink production
Shot and edited by John Knowles
Music
Silver Waves - TrackTribe
Golden Cage - Jimena Contreras
Nice. You're illustrating two of my pet peeves. Or recurring rants. (1) Megapixels are an area unit and we - humans - perceive sharpness (detail resolution) along linear lines. That's like square feet versus feet. If we want to see something twice as sharp, we need twice the linear unit (like feet) and that means four times the area unit (like square feet or MP). Mathematically, to get - ceteris paribus with lenses that can resolve both - this means, to double from a sensor of X*Y=MP we need 2X*2Y=4MP.
This explains why a 12MP camera's images still look great today and why we may have been disappointed by how much better a 36 or 46 sensor is over a 24. So if we compare - ceteris paribus - the sensors on paper, by specification, we must look at the X versus 2X (or Y versus 2Y), if the aspect ratio of both is the same. If the aspect ratio differs (like between full frame and APS-C), then we compare the Pythagorean diagonal.
(2) Chromatic aberration (CA), glare, flare. Very long telephoto lenses may generally suffer less from this and hence relatively "old" lenses still do fairly well. As they are - generally - never shot with the light source (sun) hitting the front element, glare (the haze from backlight) or flare (sun and aperture trails), are rarely experienced. This is where the Z "S" class lenses shine to the point that people now might complain that it is difficult to get flare with these lenses (they should learn to add the effect in Photoshop ;) as adding is easier than removing).
There another recurring rant in my other comment. Nothing bad about the video, just an explanation.
This was so awesome to watch John, thank you. Comparing the Z9 and D800 it goes to show the D800 still can put out quality colors and images. But obviously as you pointed out the Z9 has the modern tech in terms of faster focus and FPS. Nikon are catching up to the competitors, albeit slowly. I see Canon have the R5II coming out next year and had a look at the rumored specs. Seriously impressive bit of kit. But I also know Nikon have a couple of cams coming out next year also that have some tech from the Z9 in them. Decisions, decisions! Thanks for sharing John. It doesn't matter what cam you've got in your hands my friend, you'll always get the shot. Cheers buddy 🙏
Thank you Adrian!!! I was excited looking at the two side by side. I watch on out big TV before it goes live, and I am really impressed. The lens I rented was the Nikon 200-500 and I think I am going to buy that. It was pretty awesome on the Z9 and on the D800. I don't think the Z9 will go down in price and since I am a gear whore......... I have been thinking about it non-stop since I had to return it. I still have two days worth of photos to process with a comparison of the video to the Canon system and the the hummingbirds using the R5 and the Z9..... The Z9 is..... AMAZING. Oh, and when I say it has what the D800 has..... for sunsets, the D800 was always my favorite in how it processed color and the creamy look it had. No other Nikon for me had that exact same thing, although the D3200 was close. THIS ONE DOES!!!! And that is what gets me excited all over again. Thank you, thank you for letting me share this. Now, back to editing. 🤗💖🙏
Adrian, Nikon have caught up, you need to give credit where it due
Awesome little comparison mate! Z9 is a beast but those images with the D800 shine too! That Z9 is gonna be yours I can feel it!:)))
Bahahahahahah! Peter..... it is in my cart....... I was watching on our big screen with my wife - I watch everything before I make it live, and the D800 is still amazing. It does not have some of the sharpness, but it DOES have something that I did not get with other Nikons. They came close, but not the same. Where I noticed it the most was sunsets. The Z9 HAS it! I still love Canon and will be out tomorrow with the R5 and 500 F4 - maybe a tele as well but as I have said - I am a gear whore. It is my addiction and this one hit so many spots for me. Thank you Peter. Now, to edit shoot, edit and keep going!! Yeah, Ill sleep some time. 🙏💖🤗
Great video John! 👏
Thank you Bill!!! 🙏💖🤗
A fellow rock & roller who's from my area and into photography, Nikon, long lenses and birding. Interesting. Hello John. Rock on man.
Vahagraphy - I am honored!!! I have watched so much of your stuff and I thank you!!!! Rock on brother - thank you, thank you, thank you!!! I am blown away you have seen my stuff. 🤗🙏💖
@@JonnyPink65 brother, thank you too. thank you for enjoying the content and keep doing what you do. I enjoy your videos very much. Let's talk soon. 🤘🏼🤘🏼
Thanks for sharing 👍🏽
Thank YOU for letting me share. 🙏💖🤗
Hello! Extraordinary beautiful pictures of birds. It's what I like. I'm currently taking some pictures with a phone. With the 100 MP camera, I only get beautiful pictures of landscapes, not animals. One day maybe I'll buy him at least an R10 It's clear that you like photography a lot-Congratulations!
Thank you!! I take pictures with my phone too, but there are so many things you can do with a "real" camera that a phone can not. The R10 is a great camera, but I would spend a little more and get the R7. You cold also rent a camera and lens and try different set ups until you find something that works for you. In the end, if you find your phone is the perfect camera for you, then by all means take photos and enjoy. It is all about having fun and just getting out there. 🙏❤🤗
You said you hit the camera buffer pretty quickly on the Z9, just curious, were you using the XQD cards or the newer CF Express B cards?
Hi there. I had it on full size and the cards I rented were Sony 128GB CFexpress Type B TOUGH Memory cards. I could have slowed the rate down and probably not hit the buffer, but it was not a big deal. In many ways, I prefer a slower FPS and was always used to my older DSLRs. But yes, I did hit the buffer. I do not with my Canon R5 or R7, And since it was a rental I did set it up enough to go out and shoot with a general set that would work for me. When I do buy it, I will go through it and figure out where I went wrong. If you have suggestions, please let me know. And when I do get mine, I will either use the card from my R5 or buy the newest card with the fastest write speed at that time. 🙏🤗💖
@@JonnyPink65 With my Z9 I use Angelbird AV PRO SX CF Express B and if I shoot at 15fps I never hit the buffer at 20fps I hit it at about 6 sec but that is usually more than enough. Thanks for the video.
@@keoni37 Thank you for the information - will try that next time I am able to go out with that beast. I had it set ion max for everything to see what it would do. I forget what cards I got, but I think it is the same as in my R5. 🤗
A great video!
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! 💖🙏🤗
Great Video!
Thank you for sharing👍
I'm pretty close to buy this lens second Hand and don't know, should i buy it or not, because the VR is not build in.
You don't miss it?
Greetings from Switzerland✌️
Having VR is one thing I wish that lens had - I kept the shutter speed high, but VR is a better option. The lens I thing is actually better is the 500 PF. A little slower but a much better option in my opinion. 🙏🤗💖
Oh ok👍
Thank you very much.This helps a lot👌
Keep it up 🤟
@@MrKillerkeks82 Go with VR! 💖
loved the woodcock photo .
Thank you, thank you for letting me share!! 🙏💖🤗
Is this the VR II version of the 500 f4? Wondering if I should buy it as a lower cost version relative to other lenses in the same category. How does the AF perform on Z9?
The 500 F4 I had, did not have VR. I kept the shutter speed high to compensate 🙏💖🤗
@@JonnyPink65 Thanks. Great Videos btw ! Thanks for reminding everyone that it's really about the fun and joy of the experience !
@@mazenhamdoun8448 Thank YOU. It is all about the fun. The best photos come from the person behind the camera!!! 💖🤗
Awesome work we should collab John.
I would love that!!! 🤗💖🙏
It is also :
Lowpass fiter versus no lowpass filter.. without the filter , mini , finest details are a bit better and every tinge is gone, white is more CCD like instead of CMOS, contrast is a bit more "deep"..
D800E vs D800, there is a diference.. diference in "realism" captured 2D image vs , it is not a picture i am looking "live" throug a telescope.
no Lowpass filter gives an other experience, and I did not know untill I switched , is my lens that good ? 😁
Great video.. thanks for sharing
Ka Ak, thank YOU for letting me share. I dont use filters.... I should since I shoot here under the lights LOL. I have them, but dont use them. I have to say that when I am out under the stars, I am just happy to be out!!! The BEST camera on the back of a telescope I have personally found was Sony. I may have to get another just for that. 🤗💖🙏
@@JonnyPink65
What I did try to say is , you almost always use a filter with a lot of camera's but you do not know it.. there is a anti alias filter ON the sensor.. that degrades some of the finest details.. where the z9 does not have this filter , so besides the more Mp only that must be some reason to get more details at all times. (
In DX the z9 is 19,5 where the D800 is 15.3.. a 4.2Mp deference does not make the better shot, it is the dulling/blurring ant alias filter)
The D800E does have a adjusted (lowpass/ani alias) filter that neutralizes the function of anti alias filtering.. why is it in the camera anyway man could say?
It is becouseoff the design of the AF system of the D800 , the extra layer/filter is neccesary for the AF system to work , you can not rip it out , the Nikon had to redisign the whole AF system just for the D800E.. now they use the "original" design and get a camera with NO anti alias characteristics .
At the end , the D800E images have more fine structures then the D800.. better deep blacks, clearer whites , less tinge, more realism
@@kaak4737 Thank you for the info - I did not know that. I only know that I really like the D800 and the Z9 🤗💖🙏
how is the autofocus on the lens? im contemplating this vs the g series
I had no problems with just the lens or even with the 1.4 teleconverter on there - it was awesome. So is the 200-500. When I had my Z9, I was never able to get my hands on any long Z glass so I have nothing like that to reference too. The latest firm ware was not out when I had the Z9 so F glass was all I could use. It was fantastic. You can always rent and see if what might work best for your needs!!! 🙏🤗💖
@JonnyPink65 not a lot of places have the lenses. Actually not a lot of info on them in general. I'm trying to save up for the 600mm f4
@@kaplandg As I said, I loved the 500 PF and the 200-500 as well. I was madly searching for the 800 Z PF or the other one I wanted was the Z 600mm F4 with built in TC - they were all backordered..... and still are LOL. I reached out to Nikon and they sent me a link that was....... wait for it....... backordered. I had switched a while back to Canon when the R5 came out so in truth, and partly out of disgust, I got rid of everything Nikon except my all time favorite D800 and a 40+ year old 300 F2.8 that is simply amazing. It works perfectly but would not communicate with the Z9. It did on the rental, but when I got mine and did the latest firmware at that time, it would not work on the Z9. Again, something that set me off. The final straw for me was waiting for swallow that kept going to the same place for nesting material - I waited. I had prefocused, like I do with Canon for dragonflies in flight, and when it landed I fired away. It REFOCUSED on the grass behind the bird. I also saw wandering focus for video when shooting birds on the shore. That was it - I got rid of all of it. I bought the Canon 600 F4 with the money from everything I sold. Nikon focus is good and I can not speak to the latest firmware that everyone says is great, but it does not compare to what Canon and Sony are offering. I do wish I still had the 500 PF and I would still go out with it on the D800, but as I said, I got rid of all of it out of disgust. I was a life long die hard Nikon shooter....... until the R5. 💖🤗
@@JonnyPink65 hahah the nikon z mount is trash. hard pill for some to swallow. im trying to build a super telephoto set up i can pull out when i need more reach. i was thinking the 600mm f4 with a 2x teleconverter on a d500 but im not sure the focus would be fast enough
@@kaplandg I have to admit that the old school in my has never tried the 2X - always been afraid of how it will effect the image but many do use it with the mirrorless bodies and have no problems with it. I like a lot of reach as well but depending on the heat, it does become limiting with atmospheric distortion due to the distance. And for the D500 - my friend James still uses his and is happy with it - I never liked it and thought the sensor was too small. Again, I cant comment on the Z mount other than the adapted lenses I used. I love the 200-500 and the 500 PF with the 1.4, They worked on my old D500 (favorite camera of all time), and the Z9.... to a point!! 🤗
This Nikkor is haevy like a russian tank, but is amazing! The shoot of Pelican - Masterpiece!
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! It is an amazing lens and set up!! 🤗❤🙏
Nice. See my other comment with two of my pet peeves - you're not illustrating a third of my pet peeves, recurring rants. The "fuzzy filter".
Up to a point, digital cameras have a "fuzzy filter" - that's my nickname for a filter over the sensor with that effect. It may be called Anti-Aliasing filter (AA filter) and may include the side-effect of a low pass filter.
As the sensor in a digital camera is colorblind - the MP do not reference RGB pixels but rather the photodiodes with a C-MOS circuit connected that are called "photosites" - we get color from filtering the sensor down from seeing the entire humanly visible spectrum to a single color band per photosite. This is done in three bands: red, green, blue. So while the naked sensor "sees" the entire spectrum (maybe more), in old Black & White terms it therefor is "panchromatic" (pan=all, chromatic=colors). With the filter layer over the sensor, in those old B&W terms, each photosite only sees one color and therefor is "monochromatic" (mono=one, single).
This now defines the raw file: each data element is monochromatic - an exposure value (EV) in either red, or green, or blue.
If we could depict such a raw file "as is" then that would bring tears in our eyes - it is 100% color noise and we might argue 100% luminance noise too.
Between this raw file and a normal RGB rendering of it, there is a process called "raw processing" where each raw monochrome photosite value is turned into RGB. While that process may be mathematically precise and repeatable, it still is a form of wild-assed guessing. And the amount of MP in our sensor, hence data elements in the raw file, predict the processing required for that wild-assed guessing. More MP not only means larger files but also more processing. And in a digital camera that (also) shoots movie, this may have to be done in real time. In a camera that gives SOOC JPEG, same story. In a camera that has Live View (as in an eVF), it happens for each and every viewfinder update. If an eVF is run at 30 FPS, then it happens 30 times per second for the viewfinder only, and then the full size image. And there will be image size reduction (down-scaling or down-sampling) and/or data compression (JPEG, MPEG).
And this all means that more MP is a lot more processing per second (and I/O). In the evolution of digital cameras, two things went hand-in-hand: higher resolution sensors and more powerful processors - actually both facilitated by Moore's Law.
What is the relation between the "fuzzy filter", raw processing and "more MP"? In absence of brute force processing power, raw processing needs help to be successful and this help is in the fuzzy filter. As the raw processing must (a) do the color guessing, it (b) also needs to deal with lines, edges, gradations that do not align to the sensor grid (so could cause jagged edges or banding). The fuzzy filter actually makes both (a) and (b) easier. The idea to solve a lack of processing power (because of limited budget or space) with a hardware solution, already existed in the Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscopes (STEM) of the 1970s.
Just by dispersing light traveling to photosite [X,Y] so a fraction also hits the neighbors thereof, raw processing (a) and (b) become easier.
But in doing so, we loose a bit of dynamic range, color space, and low light performance.
Up to the Nikon D800E - where the fuzzy filter is Eliminated - all digital color cameras (AFAIK) relied on the fuzzy filter.
Removing that fuzzy filter now meant that the wild-assed guessing needed to be altered - or run with different parameters if the wild-assed guessing algorithm had been anticipating absence of the fuzzy filter.
For in-camera JPEG (hence MPEG) and in-camera Live View, this adaptation to the absence of the filter layer became a necessary condition.
This is why Adobe needed considerable time to come up with support for the D800E.
The absence of the fuzzy filter is a photosite density thing, not an absolute MP thing. While in the Z cameras we find one in the Z 5 and Z 6(ii), it is absent in the higher photosite density cameras. Absent in the D800E, present in the D800, it is absent in the D500. The turning point for Nikon is "above the photosite density of a 24MP full frame camera" - apparently.
Removing the fuzzy filter makes our lenses look sharper, because less obstruction is in the way.
And removing the filter also removes some sensitivity to glare at the sensor level from total reflection between the filter layer and the sensor in strong backlit cases.
In a way the removal also makes the tiny tunnels of the filter layers shorter and this removes a bit of one of the causes of vignetting.
Will we perfectly see the impact of the removal of the fuzzy filter? It depends. What we see on our displays, in pixel peeping, is the result of raw processing. So we actually see an impression of what the camera can do - and we have no clue how "ceteris paribus" plays out here.
Between a Z 9 and a D800, the presence of the fuzzy filter in the D800 may be seen as breaking the "ceteris paribus" requirement of comparison.
But we are also stuck with raw processing that may do one image type fundamentally better than the other. I am personally not convinced that Adobe has adapted to the absence of the fuzzy filter well enough. If I need a better image, I have to run it through one or more of Topaz's apps. These help Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) to do a better job (ACR is the "plugin" that does all the raw processing in both Photoshop (Ps) and Lightroom Classic (LrC) - visibly as plugin in Ps but seamlessly integrated into LrC). Topaz's Sharpen AI and DeNoise AI make it look better at pixel peeping level and so does Nikon NX Studio (free) or DxO PhotoLab (or its derived standalone PureRAW plugin). In a raw-to-raw conversion these apps play with ACR's weaknesses. How well Adobe's algorithms do in interpreting raw images is implied by how well they can reveal detail from the raw images and how they scale an image up to more MP. This is done a lot better by e.g. Topaz's Gigapixel AI.
These raw processing algorithms have evolved a lot, in the past decade. Some ten years ago, we would see cross-bleeding along a separating edge between two blobs of different color. That was not a phenomenon of data compression phenomenon but of failed raw processing. It is basically in the same category as Moiré. Now this can failed raw processing can happen at a very low level too and when that happens we see grain or noise and blame the sensor or the camera. But it is failed raw processing for anything within the camera's dynamic range. We have to understand that film has grain and this becomes visible in enlargement because we start to see the empty space between the grains. Digital and sensors have no empty space.
So the images we see and compare are the result of raw processing that may be fundamentally flawed. Good enough prima facie for the family album, but to the scientist prima facie far from good enough.
As you consider the Z 9 to be so good, note that you may not need its speed for most of your shots. Only the most unexpected and fastest moving birds in flight shots will need that.
As you are pixel peeping like all birders (and others are culpable of that too), and may want more sharpness, first consider replacing the raw processing software you use, second see if you can replace the D800 by a D800E and what the effect would be - provided you try different raw processing apps to make the comparison. The step from 36MP to 46MP is almost insignificant in this whole story. See my other comment.
For full transparency, I shoot a Z 7ii after a Z 7 and have all the Z 1.8S primes, a Z 28/2.8, plus the Z MC 105/2.8S macro lens (wow!).
These are extremely sharp, have no noticeable CA, no glare or flare, and let's face it, these 7 primes are cheaper than a zoom trinity.
The Z zooms however are on a different level and about as good as the primes. "About" being the keyword. I got fed up by the CA of the 1.4G lenses and total reflection over the sensor of my 24MP Nikon DSLR. Moved to the Z system when its firmware was at version 2 (as, before, it was not good enough IMO) for the Mk 1 and at version 3 moved over to the Z 7ii. Version 3.4 might have prevented me from making the switch, but, Mk 2 has a few things it does better - and I still expect Nikon to make improvements to the firmware that really utilize the second processor (note to self: keep on dreaming).
OK, both of these took a while to read and a lot of it went over my head!! I will say this - when the mirrorless came out, I was not a fan of the high frame rite - the 4 FPS of the D800 works perfectly find for me. But what I look for in a camera, and I like to crop, is.... this sounds funny, but the depth of the color in the image. I do not like Sony because to my eyes it is flat and has no depth in their color science, or the way the processor interpolates the data from the sensor - and yes that is a real thing. The D800 always had a magic in the raw images in the depth of color that speaks to me. The D3200 had it but no other Nikon did ...... until the Z9. I like shoot and using the tech that Canon has and it is close, but going back to the D800 (with a Sony sensor), made me realize what I loved about it and what I was looking for. Lenses play into it too, but no matter what I put on this, is always makes me happy. I look at it as speaking to the artist in my. Guitar were like that for me too. I HATED the sound of Martin guitars - HATED, but others love them. A guitar had to speak to me even if was a cheap one. A great photo come from the person - the passion behind the lens. I can shoot anything and have fun, but this speaks to me. And as far as Sensor size..... well, I think that makes a difference too when you crop in, although the D5 with its 20 MP was awesome, but for me the D500 was not my cup of tea, I shoot for the love of shooting, but it has to speak to me and really make me happy to spend the money on i t!! 🤗💖🙏
PS - there are many that talk technical, but I just try to speak from the heart at those that want to try this gear, maybe just starting out, or just like my photos. Heck, I am happy I get to share them! 😊
@@JonnyPink65 - I totally appreciate the "feel" side of the color rendition, John. To me it works the same, even when the nerdy analysis is there. Two notes. (i) Chips, including sensors, are designed by the clients ordering them from the "foundry" (basically a "foundry" in this context is like a chip-print-house that you send your logical design to - a CAD file - and that they turn 1:1 into a physical printable design while reviewing potential issues). The Sony Semiconductor operating company is a foundry and Nikon has been developing and making the "printers" in the past, before the Sony Camera operating company was founded out of KonicaMinolta. Even when a sensor is "printed" at Sony Semiconductor it still was designed by the client - Nikon in our case, or Sony Camera in another case. The foundry teams working opposite a client in Semiconductor will have very tough Standards of Business Conduct & Ethics with "Chinese Walls" between them. If Semiconductor cannot deliver on such ethics then they will loose foundry business from all over the world. In the early 2000s Canon and Sony lost their leading position in making and selling these "printers" to a Dutch startup "ASML", as the Japanese could not keep pace with the demands of Moore's Law. The best example of chip design and foundry workings is ARM - the CPU brand. ARM since their first CPU in the 1980s, never made one chip themselves, but designed all of them. Their market presence is billions: in almost all smartphones; and now Apple has tweaked the ARM design and started to include their processors in desktop and notebook systems too.
Relative to the step-size (resolution) of today's "printers", the photodiodes of a sensor are huge and such a layer does not need 5 nanometer and the old Canon (used by Canon, we can assume, to print their own sensors) and Nikon ones may still be used today (at Semiconductor?). In inches: 5 nanometer is 0.00000019685 inch, meaning 1/0.00000019685 = 5.08 million of these unit sizes fit in one inch (4.78 million of these units on the 23.9mm side of a full frame sensor). Major Players in the foundry market (NASDAQ 2021): (1) Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) Limited; (2) Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (Samsung Foundry - Korea); (3) United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC - Taiwan); (4) GlobalFoundries (USA - spun out of AMD); (5) Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC - China - 4% market share).
(ii) Differences that you perceive between images from different cameras (make/model/firmware) may for a large part be down to raw processing. For Lightroom Classic, on a Windows PC, you'll find your Z 9 "Adobe Standard" raw processing profile "Nikon Z 9 Adobe Standard.dcp" in the folder "C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Lightroom Classic\Resources\CameraProfiles\Adobe Standard\" next to "Nikon D800 Adobe Standard.dcp" and "Nikon D800 Adobe Standard.dcp", or Canon and other brand variants.
Simply put, if you "feel" that images from one camera are nicer in your eyes than other ones', then there's merit in looking deeper to see how come. It can just be a clumsy default profile in LrC. For Nikon, I'd say always compare using Nikon NX Studio. Stil, there are differences between sensors that follow from their design, the generation of photodiode, the amplification behind the analog diodes, the analog to digital conversion, etc., all before data end up in the raw file. And we can perceive differences that are hard to pinpoint.
@@jpdj2715 That is some amazing knowledge and thank you for sharing. I am going with feel. Each of all my Nikons, all set the same, same lenses and me, all had a slightly different look and feel to the raw files. The Z9 has that same little spark I see in the D800 or I was just really excited shooting it. My next time out, I have cards that write at 1700 instead of the 1400 I rented. And you know, if I only get the same FPS I get with the D800 - then I am still happy. It just feels right to me! 💖🤗
@@JonnyPink65 - the feel is very important, John. If you ever studied the psychological side of decision theory, then you know this academically too. Feel. I felt the F mount lenses all had different tint and other characteristic impact in my photos. That was a lot more than I felt from the Hasselblad's Zeiss lenses that I used for years, professionally. With the "S" class Z primes that uneasy feeling is totally gone for me. They are extremely balanced. Between a Z 6(ii) and Z 7(ii) there is a serious tint difference, though. The Z 6(ii) is way more yellow in the same extremely neutral overcast NW European sunlight. Here the Z 7(ii) is very neutral and has more pop - likely the Z 9 has the same characteristic (feel).
To share more in-depth, I calibrate my displays/monitors with a calibration device by X-rite (they have seem to have moved the prosumer stuff to Calibrite). Also, I use displays that have no "dynamic contrast" where the backlight in the display is varied in strength in order to enhance the suggestion of contrast, however the backlight has much less resolution and so dynamic contrast changes can raise the illusion that something is wrong with our images, locally. Here the OLED technology is an alternative as we no linger would have a transparent LCD slide with backlight, but rather a grid of colored LED lights - one per sub-pixel, meaning one red, one green, one blue in each and every pixel of the display. OLED can give more contrast maybe, but easily burn in and has a red shift over time, so calibration is very important. My displays are Eizo 4K ones - really excellent and stable (and relatively expensive).
As I have this calibration device, my more expensive version than basic can also calibrate prints (i.e. the combination of drivers on my computer, the printer's engine, the printer's ink and the paper). These two calibrations reduce the need to make test prints repeatedly and help me understand the difference between a backlit image and a reflected light image (in a room with constant illumination and white balance).
This then leaves us with a couple other calibration options. I have a ColorChecker Passport (CCP) that I shoot frequently, on location. This is a color reference card with both grey scale and color patches so it can be used to "expose" tint differences: between combinations of cameras, lenses, and light sources. The simple approach of the CCP is to use LrC's eyedropper in a neutral patch and so it will adjust WB and Tint. A more complex approach is to run a shot of the CCP through the matching app so the app will generate an ICC profile file for the camera/lens/light combination. Note here that different ISO settings and aperture values in theory can impact tint as well, or feel.
Finally, I still have and use a lightmeter (a rather expensive Sekonic 758) that can be used to calibrate a camera's exposure (using test shots of a Sekonic color and grey scale reference card) and then running the test shots through Sekonic software. The result can then be installed into the meter that from there on "knows" how to expose properly and also the camera's dynamic range which it indicates on the display. But we have the camera's meter and histogram, you say. And we can bracket-shoot, you say.
Yes, that's true, and we, at least I in my Z 7ii, also have "highlight-weighted" metering where the camera picks the brightest value of the histogram's X-axis and makes that pure white (11,111,111,111,111 in 14 bits digital). But it's hard to assess "proper" exposure on the tiny display and we are often in situations where the light does not change, but when we change frame (cut out, perspective, angle) the camera changes exposure while we do not want that.
There are cases where bracketing and its time parallax may not work or would put us to work in Photoshop for a considerable time. With the spotmeter in my Sekonic I could - I'm not a birder - measure the white feathers of a heron or pelican and choose an exposure that places the white at the top end of the camera's usable dynamic range. Set manual, fixed ISO, fixed WB, the camera has less to calculate per frame and I have less to do in post. All images are in tune and if I want to make a correction to one, I probably need to copy that identically to other shots as well.
As exposing for the highlights drives exposure down and we never loose detail in the highlights, we may see a loss of detail in what LrC (ACR) calls "the blacks" - in physics and color theory there is only one "black": no light and no color.
In a YT video, I saw a series of shots from a white heron (it may be called differently in biology or among birders) in a brook with water running through almost black rock, partially in the sun (the bird), partially in the shade (part of the rock background, surrounding). Here it does not help to have 15 EV of dynamic range, as exposing to retain the details in the "whites" (in physics and color theory there's only one "white": no color and 100% reflectance, i.e. reflects all colors equally and fully) will cause loss of details in the blacks.
Shooting a series of the bird in its environment, the bird in a static position, moving its head from that position to pick for snacks in the water, assuming the use of a tripod and fixed position, it is easy to shoot a shot that exposes for the blacks and using that in post to add black detail to the images exposed for the white bird.
I can do this approach with the camera's meter too, but would feel less secure than with my handheld meter. In the film days we would waste film and processing costs if we had to go back. In digital we only reduce the universe's enthalpy - wasting bits, and clicks in the case of a mechanical shutter.
Yes, the feel is extremely important, but understanding all this may enable us to equalize between different ones. Will it equalize completely? I don't think so. But it gets close.
So we can get to extremely neutral images with all this. Is that what we want? Does that feel right? That's personal.
A birder will want realistic colors and may want vivid pop to them. Maybe wants more vivid pop from a bird in overcast light than was humanly visible in real life at the time.
So why bother about all that neutrality?
Simple. It gives an equalized starting point to which we can apply our artistic vision.
If we want to desaturate our shots by 10% then it helps to apply that to a range of equalized images. Or else we have to go through each of them separately to make them look similar. Then we can create our "signature palette" - compare art painters who may have their specific "palette and style" periods (see Picasso, who started painting in a muted naturalistic way, then had an episode of vivid caricatures, then cubist, then childish primary bright gouache).
@@jpdj2715 I think you have more knowledge and understanding that I ever will and I am fascinated reading your replies. For video, I do my best to make it all match but in the end for me, it all comes down to - do I like the way it looks. and for birding, macro and landscapes - I prefer my colors a bit more vibrant that realistic. I go out, I have fun, and if I dont like it, I dump it!! 🤗💖
HAHA -- the 4 seconds burst rate of the D800 was never revolutionary at all. But creamy looks of the photos it has indeed !
Dont forget the buffering to where it goes click.............click................................................click...................................................................................................click 🤣😅😂 It was actually on par for the time and the tech, but to my eyes, it is still the benchmark in cameras. It just has a look about it - the creaminess.. still unmatched!!! 🙏🤗💖