# D800 continued problems.  Going to return



## Heitz (Jul 1, 2012)

Hey all -- I've been experiencing so many problems with the D800, all of which are focus related.  Just about *every* lens I have back-focuses, and even when I take the time to carefully calibrate, the image quality of the D800 is really not much better than the D5100 (when in DX crop mode).  Sure, the D800 gives me lots of options and controls that I sorely need, but if it can't produce superior image quality at several times the cost of the frick'n D5100, what's the point?  This is not user error - I've been working at this extraordinarily carefully for weeks.  I've used test charts, systematic AF-Fine tune changes, over 6 different lenses at a variety of focusing distances and focal length and ISO settings.  Here's just one example.  This is a 100% crop of admittedly crappy lens (35mm 1.8G), but just look at how much better the D5100 is at 1.8. (D5100 on left ; D800 on right)







Ok Fine, it back focuses.  So suppose I relent to Nikon's screw-up and take the time to carefully calibrate each and every lens I have.  Well, even when I've done this, The D800 really does not look better than the D5100.  Even at Highish ISOs, the difference is NOT that great.  here's the same comparison at f/5.6. (again, D5100 on left, D800 on right)








Lenses I have tried that produce these problems:
35mm 1.8G
50mm 1.8G
20-35 2.8D at 20mm vs 18-55 kit lens at 20 mm (yea -- the kit lens is far superior to the older 'professional' D lens even after calibration)



Not only this, but even after Fine-tuning, using any Nikon speedlight with AF-Assist once again screws up the autofocus.  This is all pretty disgusting, and I never thought I'd say this, but I would consider switching to Canon over this.  I have no viable upgrade path from the D5100 at this point (I want video + full frame + an AF system that you know...works.).


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 1, 2012)

D7000 FTW. thats what I want to get anyway. only 39 point autofocus compared to 51 but...still a nice upgrade to my D90.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 1, 2012)

odd... I don't have that issue with my D800!  But I don't own any kit lenses either. And I haven't tried DX crop mode.. why have all that glorious resolution, and try and turn the camera into a DX?  My "Cheapest" lens is the Nikon 28-300... and it does very well on the D800. Even my "infamous" Sigma 50mm 1.4 does very well ( I have been to lazy to even test calibration... although I probably should! But images are crystal sharp!) 

What focus mode are you using in these shots?


----------



## greybeard (Jul 1, 2012)

So you are upset because the D800 in crop mode is not appreciably better than the d5100 with the same lens?  I would have e surprised if it was sense they are the same pixel density.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 1, 2012)

Return D800, invest $3k in non-DX lenses. 

I personally think you made the wrong move switching to a 36mp body with your current lens lineup. With half of your lenses, it's a glorified crop frame body. If you get some good glass, and maybe a D90/D7k, you'll notice a big difference.


----------



## Heitz (Jul 1, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> odd... I don't have that issue with my D800!  But I don't own any kit lenses either. And I haven't tried DX crop mode.. why have all that glorious resolution, and try and turn the camera into a DX?  My "Cheapest" lens is the Nikon 28-300... and it does very well on the D800. Even my "infoamous" Sigma 50mm 1.4 does very well ( I have been to lazy to even test calibration... although I probably should! But images are crystal sharp!)
> 
> What focus mode are you using in these shots?



I only put it in to DX-Crop mode to make a fair comparison with the D5100.  Obviously keeping it in Fx-mode wouldn't allow me to evaluate the performance while holding lens constant.


----------



## Heitz (Jul 1, 2012)

greybeard said:


> So you are upset because the D800 in crop mode is not appreciably better than the d5100 with the same lens?  I would have e surprised if it was sense they are the same pixel density.



Well actually, only 2 of those lenses are DX-Only, but in fact I actually have several FX-lenses I didn't mention (including the glorious 85 1.4D), but since I can't test those on a D5100, it was kinda pointless.


----------



## Mach0 (Jul 1, 2012)

Heitz said:
			
		

> Well actually, only 2 of those lenses are DX-Only, but in fact I actually have several FX-lenses I didn't mention (including the glorious 85 1.4D), but since I can't test those on a D5100, it was kinda pointless.



Try it in fx mode.
See how you like it


----------



## SCraig (Jul 1, 2012)

Heitz said:


> I only put it in to DX-Crop mode to make a fair comparison with the D5100.  Obviously keeping it in Fx-mode wouldn't allow me to evaluate the performance while holding lens constant.


I agree with Mach0.  Don't try and compare it to a 5100, it isn't one.  The whole point to getting a D800 was, presumably, to improve over a D5100 so use it to it's best capabilities and then compare them that way.  If you want similar framing a 100% crop on the D5100 and a 225% crop on the D800 should be comparable, but I wouldn't even do that.  Take the ENTIRE frame with each and reduce it to, say 1024 x 678 or something like that and compare them that way.  You are trying to compare apples to oranges by using DX mode on the 800 and that isn't fair. The whole frame is what is important so use that D800 to it's full capabilities and stop trying to cripple it to match a less-capable body.


----------



## Overread (Jul 1, 2012)

Just a point - if its constant miss-focusing chances are it might just be manufacture tolerances not an inherent camera/lens fault. It might just need a minor recalibration to correct the issues you are experiencing with your lenses. Also make sure you're reading 100% crops correctly; different MP values will mean that cameras with a high MP rating will appear softer than those with a lower MP when compared at 100% - this is because the more MP you have the more pixels there are; thus the image at 100% is far more enlarged.


----------



## Mach0 (Jul 1, 2012)

Overread said:
			
		

> Just a point - if its constant miss-focusing chances are it might just be manufacture tolerances not an inherent camera/lens fault. It might just need a minor recalibration to correct the issues you are experiencing with your lenses. Also make sure you're reading 100% crops correctly; different MP values will mean that cameras with a high MP rating will appear softer than those with a lower MP when compared at 100% - this is because the more MP you have the more pixels there are; thus the image at 100% is far more enlarged.



X2. Also, somewhere, I remember reading that the d800 owner needs to have good camera handling skills. Not saying you don't but ANY mistake will show at such a high resolution camera.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 1, 2012)

Mach0 said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



aaaaaaaand this is EXACTLY why its the D7000 for me   :mrgreen:


----------



## manaheim (Jul 1, 2012)

Like some of the others said, I think you're sort of doing a weird thing... you're trying to compare the two cameras by deliberately hobbling the crap out of the better one, and then comparing it.  That's just odd.

I mean... a 1920 Ford Model T beats the crap out of a 2012 Porsche 911 if you just remove three of the wheels from the 911, right? 

All that said, the D800 is also 36 MP... you need to be running very good glass on that thing or you're going to have some grumpy results.  Putting a kit lens on it is just asking for trouble.

I've run about 1200 pictures through my D800 and the focus is a little grumpy... I think Nikon just needs to update the firmware, and I'm sure we'll see some changes from them sometime soon.  If you can be a bit patient, I'd say stick with it.  (that's assuming those other lenses you have are decent quality FF lenses... I don't really know... if you have no good glass, then yeah... go buy a D7000 or spend the money on some better glass and come back to the big camera when you're better setup)

Also you could consider waiting to see what this D600 is going to be, but that's a ways off.


----------



## Heitz (Jul 1, 2012)

Ok ok you are all right. I made a very rookie mistake. When I compare the d800 in fx with a 50mm and the d5100 with a 35mm (a fairer comparison) the d800 slams it.   I'm embarrassed for the rant now.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 1, 2012)

Heitz said:


> Ok ok you are all right. I made a very rookie mistake. When I compare the d800 in fx with a 50mm and the d5100 with a 35mm (a fairer comparison) the d800 slams it.   I'm embarrassed for the rant now.



Much better to find out here that you made a mistake, then to return a perfectly good  D800.  =)


----------



## manaheim (Jul 1, 2012)

pixmedic said:
			
		

> Much better to find out here that you made a mistake, then to return a perfectly good  D800.  =)



+1

Don't worry about it.  If you're like me, you're super apprehensive after buying something expensive, wondering if you did the right thing.

It's easy, when in that state, to jump to alarming conclusions.


----------



## orb9220 (Jul 1, 2012)

*"It's easy, when in that state, to jump to alarming conclusions" 						*

Yep do that myself every morning when I get up and look in the Mirror! 

But glad you resolved it. And don't be so quick to condemn a whole model based on one camera? As no matter what the price there can be lemons out there in the wild. So I always buy from a reputable dealer with excellent Return/Exchange policies.
.


----------



## Eireann (Jul 2, 2012)

My D800 backfocuses sometimes but mostly not. I do have problems though with close objects.
Another problem I have with the D800 is oil splatter on the sensor which I accidentally discovered in a photo with a lot of blue sky in it. I increased the contrast and there were suddenly all those darkish round patches, all in the top left quarter of the photograph.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 2, 2012)

All the test i have read any small movement with thar much resolution you will get a bit of blur one test said high shutter speeds are needed and top quality lenses


----------



## matthewo (Jul 2, 2012)

gsgary said:


> All the test i have read any small movement with thar much resolution you will get a bit of blur one test said high shutter speeds are needed and top quality lenses



this just isnt true. if you are coming from a d700 then i could see you could say this, but if your using any of the newer DX cameras suchs as the d7000 with pretty much the same pixel density then blur or small movement wouldnt be any different and require the same level of lenses(other then needing to work well on FX) and user ability


Nikon D800

24 X 35.9mm sensor hosting 36.3 mega pixels
Sensor is 861.6mm squared
Pixel Pitch is *4.88 microns*
Nikon D800 in DX shooting mode

24 X 16 sensor hosting 15.4 mega pixels
Sensor used is 384mm squared
Pixel Pitch is *4.88 microns*
Nikon D7000

23.6 X 15.6mm sensor hosting 16.2 mega pixels
Sensor is 368.16mm squared
Pixel Pitch is *4.78 microns*
so as you can see, even in DX mode the pixels are bigger then the d7000.  thus the d800 is only using the center of the sensor and cropping it.  also iso sensitivity on the d800 kills the d7000, so why even use a dx body for wildlife / sports.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 2, 2012)

matthewo said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > All the test i have read any small movement with thar much resolution you will get a bit of blur one test said high shutter speeds are needed and top quality lenses
> ...




I couldn't give a toss about all your maths i'm going on what a top UK pro magazine where a top pro said what i posted


----------



## matthewo (Jul 2, 2012)

maybe they where compairing FX to FX, cause pervious FX was 1/3 the pixel density. but a lot of people here have DX cameras also or before so probably most of us on here dont just deal with FX cameras. like me im sure a lot of people went from d90, d7000, d5100, d300s, etc to a d800 FX.

and its not my maths, it was pulled from a website.  but it makes sense, pixel density is the import part


----------



## gsgary (Jul 2, 2012)

matthewo said:


> maybe they where compairing FX to FX, cause pervious FX was 1/3 the pixel density. but a lot of people here have DX cameras also or before so probably most of us on here dont just deal with FX cameras. like me im sure a lot of people went from d90, d7000, d5100, d300s, etc to a d800 FX.
> 
> and its not my maths, it was pulled from a website.  but it makes sense, pixel density is the import part



Its shooting in the real world that matters, not in a lab


----------



## manaheim (Jul 2, 2012)

I've seen some top minds say the whole mp/have to be super careful thing is pretty much bunk.

If it'll blur at 36, it'll blur at 16.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 2, 2012)

manaheim said:


> I've seen some top minds say the whole mp/have to be super careful thing is pretty much bunk.
> 
> If it'll blur at 36, it'll blur at 16.



It must be all down to user error


----------



## Overread (Jul 2, 2012)

Here the thing - if you're comparing a 100% crop from a 12MP camera to a 24MP camera you basically have to double your min shutter speed for a sharp shot with the 12MP camera for the 24MP camera. 

This is ONLY when comparing the 100% crops - because the double MP value means that the image is that much more enlarged when viewed at 100%. In short you're looking at a much more magnified photo and thus the chances for showing up blur and other errors is that much greater. This doesn't take into account resizing for prints or web display or any other real world normal output of a photo and is only talking about 100% crops. 

100% crops are great, but you've got to learn how to read them and how to judge what they are showing you will mean to your real output size. Myself moving from a 400D to a 7D I tend to view more at around 60% instead of 100% on the 7D because the results I see are about in line with what I was used to at 100% with the 400D


----------



## spacefuzz (Jul 2, 2012)

Ive been dissapointed with my D800 focusing in low contrast scenes / near dark but other than that its been doing great. Hopefully a software update fixes that.


----------



## Overread (Jul 2, 2012)

spacefuzz said:


> Ive been dissapointed with my D800 focusing in low contrast scenes / near dark but other than that its been doing great. Hopefully a software update fixes that.



All cameras struggle in low light low contrast scenes 
What you need there is a speedlite flash with an AF assist beam


----------



## manaheim (Jul 2, 2012)

Overread said:


> Here the thing - if you're comparing a 100% crop from a 12MP camera to a 24MP camera you basically have to double your min shutter speed for a sharp shot with the 12MP camera for the 24MP camera.
> 
> This is ONLY when comparing the 100% crops - because the double MP value means that the image is that much more enlarged when viewed at 100%. In short you're looking at a much more magnified photo and thus the chances for showing up blur and other errors is that much greater. This doesn't take into account resizing for prints or web display or any other real world normal output of a photo and is only talking about 100% crops.
> 
> 100% crops are great, but you've got to learn how to read them and how to judge what they are showing you will mean to your real output size. Myself moving from a 400D to a 7D I tend to view more at around 60% instead of 100% on the 7D because the results I see are about in line with what I was used to at 100% with the 400D



That doesn't make sense to me, though...

Imagine we have 100 golf-ball diameter water glasses glued to a table, all right up against each other in a grid pattern (10x10).  Imagine I have 100 golf balls hanging directly above those glasses.  If I bump the table as I drop the golf balls, they will all miss.  The same thing happens if I have 2x as many water glasses and 2x as many golfballs.

Shake is shake.

If you think about it, you could _actually _argue that with 36MP you can down-sample to hide some of the camera shake, thus making the 36MP camera SHARPER than the 12MP one with the same amount of shake at the same amount of pixels.  But let's not be silly.  Shake is shake.

Yes?


----------



## Overread (Jul 2, 2012)

I think thinking of it like golfballs and waterglasses is just going to make a lot of confusion 


But think of it like this. If you take a 100mm and a 50mm lens - you can see far more shake on the 100mm than on the 50mm at the same shutter speeds whilst they are below around 1/100sec. The same is true of the MP - if you magnify the final resulting image twice as much you'll see far more blur to the edges. 

You can easily see the reverse of this yourself, just downsize photos and you'll see details get the chance to become sharper and less blurred as images get smaller and smaller. Heck take a semi-blurry shot at fullsize and by the time its avatar for a forum size it would be plenty sharp enough .


----------



## Heitz (Jul 2, 2012)

Overread said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> > Ive been dissapointed with my D800 focusing in low contrast scenes / near dark but other than that its been doing great. Hopefully a software update fixes that.
> ...




Unfortunately for us D800 owners, using a nikon speed light with AF assist will only make matters worse.  I really hope they fix that.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 2, 2012)

Overread said:
			
		

> I think thinking of it like golfballs and waterglasses is just going to make a lot of confusion
> 
> But think of it like this. If you take a 100mm and a 50mm lens - you can see far more shake on the 100mm than on the 50mm at the same shutter speeds whilst they are below around 1/100sec. The same is true of the MP - if you magnify the final resulting image twice as much you'll see far more blur to the edges.
> 
> You can easily see the reverse of this yourself, just downsize photos and you'll see details get the chance to become sharper and less blurred as images get smaller and smaller. Heck take a semi-blurry shot at fullsize and by the time its avatar for a forum size it would be plenty sharp enough .



Yeah that still doesn't make sense to me.  The 12mp image should be just as blurred as the 36. The only difference should be the number of pixels in the blur... Basically a more detailed blur, but the resulting image viewed at the same size should basically look identical.


----------



## Overread (Jul 2, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Yeah that still doesn't make sense to me.  The 12mp image should be just as blurred as the 36. The only difference should be the number of pixels in the blur... Basically a more detailed blur, but the resulting image viewed at the same size should basically look identical.



This is true - if you view both at a print size they should look about the same with regard to handheld blur (or lack thereof). The points regarding increased blur are valid only when viewing at the 100% crop size, because of the enlarged view. You could probably simulate this easily by upscaling a 12mp photo to 24mp in size without running strong sharpening codes during the resizing.

Again its more about comparing 100% crops and, thus, has less effect unless you are printing to a very large scale as your primary output size.


----------



## matthewo (Jul 2, 2012)

well i have never had a problem with getting blury pictures no mater using my d7000 or my d800 or any other camera when used correctly.  so whats the problem


----------



## manaheim (Jul 2, 2012)

Overread said:
			
		

> This is true - if you view both at a print size they should look about the same with regard to handheld blur (or lack thereof). The points regarding increased blur are valid only when viewing at the 100% crop size, because of the enlarged view. You could probably simulate this easily by upscaling a 12mp photo to 24mp in size without running strong sharpening codes during the resizing.
> 
> Again its more about comparing 100% crops and, thus, has less effect unless you are printing to a very large scale as your primary output size.



Actually, I think the trick is really the AA filter... At 100% with no AA filter on either camera (12 or 36mp) a slight camera shake would be more noticeable on the 36 as it would hit more pixels, but with the AA filter a slight shift bleeds on either camera....

In either case you need to just pick a shutter time appropriate for your focal length and it's a non-issue.


----------



## HallieD (Jul 5, 2012)

Yeah, glass make much more of a difference on this camera than on say the D90.  Especially in DX mode. I put the 18-200 on it for a family event at church- trying to get my plenty of practice with working around new camera with no pressure), and image quality was ok, not great, but even the difference between the quality of that lens and another DX lens I have, teh 17-55 2.8 was very obvious to me, with the better quailty lens, even in DX mode. But with a FX lens, even a simple 50mm 1.8, was very nice.  Hang on to the camera, I don't much about the 5100, but I started with the 3100, then to D90, and borrowed a D7000 for awhile before deciding to make the leap.  Not sure what other glass you have, but maybe rent a few of the "trinity" see if it helps things out?


----------



## spicyTuna (Jul 6, 2012)

Good analogy Overread.  With 36 mp the image at 100% is much larger basically magnifying any blur more than having lower mp.


----------



## Markw (Jul 7, 2012)

Heitz said:


> Ok ok you are all right. I made a very rookie mistake. When I compare the d800 in fx with a 50mm and the d5100 with a 35mm (a fairer comparison) the d800 slams it.   I'm embarrassed for the rant now.



Well, that's really not all that fair, either.  At least not for focusing.  They may give relatively equivalent effective FOVs, but a 35mm is not a 50mm.  Especially when comparing different sensor sizes.  A longer focal length lens will always yield a shallower DOF when compared to a shorter lens when shot at the same aperture.  So, shooting a 50mm F/1.8 @1.8 on your D800 will yield a shallower DOF than your 35mm F/1.8 @F/1.8 on your D5100, when shot from the same distance away from the subject. Be careful.  You could easily mistake an OOF photo for one with a shallow DOF when comparing this way.



matthewo said:


> this just isnt true. if you are coming from a d700 then i could see you could say this, but if your using any of the newer DX cameras suchs as the d7000 with pretty much the same pixel density then blur or small movement wouldnt be any different and require the same level of lenses(other then needing to work well on FX) and user ability
> 
> 
> Nikon D800
> ...



I've been wondering the same thing.  Why everyone MUST have a DX camera for wildlife, when the D800 is still 15MP in crop mode.  But, with the D3200 being 24MP, if the future (if there are still more) DX cameras are that, or more than that, the reach and cropability will be incredible.  The only thing is watching out for that ISO.  It's not great on the D3200.  But,



gsgary said:


> I couldn't give a toss about all your maths i'm going on what a top UK pro magazine where a top pro said what i posted


Facts are facts, opinions are opinions.  If the math is correct, you could have half the world thinking it's wrong, and it will still be correct.  Scroll down.  Overread explains it perfectly.



gsgary said:


> matthewo said:
> 
> 
> > maybe they where compairing FX to FX, cause pervious FX was 1/3 the pixel density. but a lot of people here have DX cameras also or before so probably most of us on here dont just deal with FX cameras. like me im sure a lot of people went from d90, d7000, d5100, d300s, etc to a d800 FX.
> ...



This is true.  But, even in the wild world, pixel density is still relevant. 



Anywho, as for your test, you really need to get that 35/1.8 off your D800.  It was never intended for that.  It is going to be impossible for you to test the two cameras for sharpness against one another if you don't have a lens that will hold up to both cameras.  You're not only going to need a lens that will hold up to the size of an FX sensor, but also the incredible resolution of said FX sensor (by the way, I wouldn't quite call the 85/1.4D the glorious one of the bunch..).  You REALLY need to beef up your lens collection if you really want to get the best from your D800.  Sell that damn D5100, and the 35/1.8, and the 18-55, and, if you really feel good about it, the 20-35, and pick up a 24-70/2.8.  It would be the best move you can make now that you have the D800.  Use the extra $300ish to save for another FX lens.  Once you learn how to get the best out of your camera, you'll realize why the D800 is many times the price of the D5100.  You just need the means.

Mark


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2012)

Mark (and others) are correct! You need better glass. With good glass, you can get unbelievable shots that look good even with a major crop.


----------



## Markw (Jul 7, 2012)

While we're on the subject, I find it a bit, I don't know, peculiar, I suppose, that, before the D800, when the main decision was "D300s or D700?", everyone harped and harped about upgrading lenses before body.  Hardcore.  And people listened.  But, now with the D800, at 36MP, when it's needed more than ever before, we have people coming out of the woodwork everywhere I frequent shooting it with DX lenses, or lenses that are seriously subpar.  It's a bit shocking, and a tad disheartening.  But, that's for another day, at another time, I suppose.  Just thought I'd put it out there.

Mark


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2012)

Markw said:


> While we're on the subject, I find it a bit, I don't know, peculiar, I suppose, that, before the D800, when the main decision was "D300s or D700?", everyone harped and harped about upgrading lenses before body.  Hardcore.  And people listened.  But, now with the D800, at 36MP, when it's needed more than ever before, we have people coming out of the woodwork everywhere I frequent shooting it with DX lenses, or lenses that are seriously subpar.  It's a bit shocking, and a tad disheartening.  But, that's for another day, at another time, I suppose.  Just thought I'd put it out there.
> 
> Mark



I agree! I also feel that the D800 requires a good bit more experience and better technique, than any body that has gone before it. When you combine those lacks, with poor lenses... it turns a wonderful body into something that will not even achieve the quality a lesser body would.


----------



## Markw (Jul 7, 2012)

Bingo.

Mark


----------

