Nikon D800E sees in the dark!

[gregbradley]

I just did a photoshoot of my daughters newborn whilst still in hospital.Yeaahh I'm a granddad! The room was quite dark with no lights on except ambient light from the corridor and perhaps a few dim ones next room across.

I tried to shoot with my trusty Canon 40D but it was way too dim and I wasn't able to use live view.

My D800E live view lit up beautifully at ISO6400 and above and took photos like it was brightly lit!

I am amazed by these new breed see in the dark low noise high ISO megaimaging machines.

I took a photo of flames from a fire a few weeks back in the dark at high ISO and I had to shoot 1/8000th of a second to get a correct exposure! Wow. The flames are frozen in motion with a jet black background.

Incredible technology.

Greg.

[RickS]

Congrats on the new addition to the family, Greg :thumbsup:

Very happy with my D800E too. I really like the Zeiss lenses with it so far (21mm f/2.8 Distagon and 100mm f/2 Makro Planar) but I haven't done any proper comparison tests against my Nikkor lenses yet.

Cheers,
Rick.

[Mighty_oz]

That fire one sounds great can u post a pic of it here ? Thanks
Marcus.

[gregbradley]

Sure.

I'll process one. I took quite a few in line with my photographic philosphy of taking lots of photos in order to a few good ones.





Cheers Rick.

I am intrigued by Zeiss lenses and they often get a good rap. The 21 being the classic and the 100mm F2 often touted as the best Zeiss.

I am interested in your comparison with Nikkors. My main concern with Zeiss lenses is the fact they are only manual focus. I find live view tricky to use in bright daylight to see the object in focus clearly or not. I usually get it right but the LCD screen could be better for live view in bright light. My 40D was much the same. Perhaps the 5Ds are better in live view.
Greg.

[RickS]

Greg,

Have you read any of the Zeiss lens reviews by Diglloyd? They're not free unfortunately, but I thought they were very good: http://zeissguide.com/

You can still use the camera focus indicator to focus with the Zeiss lenses. You have to turn the lens manually but the autofocus system still updates the indicator. I'm going to have a go at using a loupe with Live View too.

Cheers,
Rick.

[Octane]

Congrats on the newborn. :)

Lloyd Chambers has a very emotional connection to Zeiss lenses. Anything that isn't Zeiss is no good as far as he is concerned.

He is also not a photographer.

Try Photozone for non-biased lens reviews/comparisons.

Also, the Nikon live view implementation is something that gets a fair amount of flak (ref: DPR and FM's 5D Mark III/D800 field report). Something about interlacing? The Canon Live View implementation seems to get the kudos all round.

I have also been very impressed by the contrast detect focus on my 5D Mark III; focusing in ISO-12,800-16,000, f/2.8 light (dimly-lit wedding reception) not being a problem at all. It is nuts!

H

[RickS]

That's a bit harsh, H. Lloyd likes Leica lenses too :lol: He's also willing to point out that some of the Zeiss lenses have warts.

The reviews are more detailed and analytical than I've seen elsewhere with lots of comparison images (with crops from centre and corners) at different f-ratios. He may not be a photographer but he appears to know a thing or two about optics.

If anybody is thinking about dropping the sort of dollars that these lenses cost it's worth checking out a bunch of different reviews...

Cheers,
Rick.

[gregbradley]

The newborn is fantastic.

5D3 sounds great. I am enjoying my D800E as well. Autofocus on that is very good as well. I did not get one of the dud autofocus ones which apparently is a result of faulty callibration. I find though AF has hunted in low light though. I did not expect that, the reviews indicated the opposite.

The Live View has been criticised for being not sharp enough and it is a point in favour of the 5D3. I have not seen one to know. I should check one out in a camera store now they are on the shelf.

Greg.





I haven't read DigLLoyd's reviews as you mention that are paid for. That goes against the grain these days on the internet.

There are plenty of free reviews and also lots of responses to these sorts of questions on DPreview.

From that I get that the 21mm F2.8 and 100mm F2 are the 2 hot lenses.

Also that the Nikon 14-24mm is superior to its Zeiss equivalents.

Other Zeiss lenses are less clear cut. Those who like them prefer the overall look of the images, colour, and sharpness and perhaps an X factor.

Images I have seen posted though don't show that extra something to me so far. In fact most seem underwhelming compared to their Nikon equivalents. But I would like to try some myself before making any uninformed opinion. The 100mm uniformly gets a rave review. The 21 sounds great but not as useful as the Nikon 14-24 which is one reason I went with Nikon in the first place. The Nikon 14-24 is exceptional and well suited for widefield DSLR astro work and has no superior, prime or zoom.

Greg.

[Marke]

Greg agree with the 14-24 had mine since they first came out and I use it more for close-up than anything else , its has a great short min focus distance.

[RickS]

I have the Nikon 14-24 too. My main reason for getting the 21mm Zeiss was to have a wide lens that takes filters. BTW, the 14-24 performed very well in the Diglloyd comparison with the Zeiss. There wasn't a clear winner.

[gregbradley]

Its a super lens.

I am interested in the new Nikkor 28mm F1.8.




Good point, the 14-24 can take filters but it requires an external bracket setup that a few companies sell specifically for that lens. But they aren't cheap.

I definitely want to check out the Zeiss lenses one day at one of the camera shops in Sydney.

Greg.