Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on June 26, 2014, 12:11:06 am
-
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d810
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hello,
Where’s the Global shutter I wanted. Bad Nikon!
Heck if the Australians can put a Global shutter in a Black Magic video camera then it can't be that hard to do.
Cheers
Simon
-
Interested.
In truth though, the camera being made in Thailand and not Japan gives me pause.
Maybe it no longer matters ?
Certainly the new Chinese Nikon lenses I have seem just fine.
-
Title says it. Agreed.
-
Title says it. Agreed.
Yep, boring but probably very effective. ;)
I had been hesitating all along to add an E to my D800 since I have been running without a back up DSLR for almost a year, this comes at the perfect timing for me.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Am I the only one who thinks that sRaw is worthless? When I heard about a reduced size raw file, I was thinking in something along the lines of Phase one's Sensor +, but the way it is implemented in Nikon does not make any sense.
There is an in depth analysis of Nikon sRaw here (http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/nikon-small-raw-internals)
-
Am I the only one who thinks that sRaw is worthless?
No, there are at least two of us!
There are some useful improvements in the D810. An extra persuasion for those that don't have a D800/e, but not enough for me as an amateur photographer to consider upgrading.
Just doing the sums: in UK ££s, the going rate for a D800 on ebay at the moment is around £1,400 if you're lucky, and will probably drop quite a bit now the D810 is announced. A D810 is £2,699. To upgrade would cost at least £1299 (probably more), which is not worth it to me as an amateur (and occasional professional) photographer.
-
Whew! That's a relief. Now that the specs are released I don't have to worry about upgrading. I think my D800 will soldier on quite gracefully.
Note to Nikon: Where's the FX mirrorless with F-mount? Or maybe a carbon-fibre body? The D800 was a game changer, Nikon needs to move to the next level. These minor upgrades will not get my money.
-
Maybe the S raw would be good for jobs where you want all the processing benefits of Raw but not the big files ?
On-line only stuff ?
5x7's ?
-
If sRAW is like the one in the D4s then you don't really get the benefits of Raw:
- color data in YCbCr, not RGB (as in a JPG)
- white balance baked in the data
- tone curve applied to the data
- color information shared between two adjacent pixels
It looks more like a half-way through JPEG and apparently there is not much gain in reduced file size compared to a lossy compressed 12 bit full size RAW.
If sRAW were similar to Phase one's Sensor +, then it would really be worth.
Regards
-
If the AF is more consistent than in my D800, that alone will make me buy it.
I would really like to have a better keeper rate, at wide open apertures.
Other things that come to mind:
- Bigger grip,
- Better live video,
- Smoother shutter
Markus
-
Clearly someone was asking for an sRAW format implementation.
I can see the following uses for sRAw:
- photos that will only be used online for news and celebrity "paparazzi" purposes - where photos need to be transmitted quickly.
- Some Catalog photography, particulalry of small items that will be reproduced on lien and in print, particulary of small items.
For general purpose photography, particularly for landscape, wildlife, and general nature photography - it isn't meant for that.
-
Whew! That's a relief. Now that the specs are released I don't have to worry about upgrading. I think my D800 will soldier on quite gracefully.
Note to Nikon: Where's the FX mirrorless with F-mount? Or maybe a carbon-fibre body? The D800 was a game changer, Nikon needs to move to the next level. These minor upgrades will not get my money.
While I'm a bit disappointed along the same lines, the EFCS alone will make me upgrade, and -- hope springs eternal -- maybe they've fixed live view so that it looks like the LV on the a7R.
Jim
-
How is the canon sRAW in comparison? Is it closer to a real raw?
-
I would like sRAW for timelapse and such, but this implementation seems lacking...
A great camera made better. Electronic fist curtain is a welcome update. But I won't be upgrading the E any time soon.
-
Very surprised to see no WIFI included. Pretty much standard feature with all digital bodies now.
Paul
-
Very surprised to see no WIFI included. Pretty much standard feature with all digital bodies now.
Me to, slightly, but typical wifi throughput is a bit slow for 36M pixel raw files. Great if you've got a 300 Mbit wifi link, but more typical is 54 Mbit or less. That gives you around 22 Mbit throughput (wifi protocol overhead takes the rest), which is around 2.2 Mbyte/s throughput. And D810 raw files can be 50 Mbyte or more...
Good for jpeg, or at home with a fast wifi router, if you don't mind the battery hit.
I upgraded the house Ethernet to 1G once I had to move D800 raw files about.
-
Wifi for me would mainly be for remote control of the camera and a preview jpg. Basically what camranger allows. Just need to go ahead and get one.
Paul
-
Integral GPS would have been nice.
-
Initial specs had a built in GPS. I guess it didn't make the cut.
Paul
-
Some nice tidbits:
Base ISO 64
Split-screen - I'm interested to see how usable/configurable this is for focusing tilt/swing movements
Electronic first-curtain shutter
Highlight-weighted metering (ETTR mode?)
Vibration improvements?
Will be interesting to see if live view has improved in low light, as well as the purple amp-glow.
-
First hands out reports seem to indicate they have made live view sexier. I hope it won't be a functional regression compared to the D800 that I continue to find very effective in live view.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ya know, I've seen the early tests and all the usual hype which comes along with a new body, but I'm still not upgrading. The rush for this camera body has made the D800 virtually worthless in the after market. My D800 is still working perfectly for my usage. Since I already have all the best glass for the F mount I think I'm done for the next couple of years. Still waiting for Nikon to introduce something mind boggling for digital photography...
-
Ya know, I've seen the early tests and all the usual hype which comes along with a new body, but I'm still not upgrading. The rush for this camera body has made the D800 virtually worthless in the after market. My D800 is still working perfectly for my usage. Since I already have all the best glass for the F mount I think I'm done for the next couple of years. Still waiting for Nikon to introduce something mind boggling for digital photography...
Totally understandable John. The D800 remains an amazing camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just bought a D800 used 2 months back, low shutter count and still in good cosmetic condition. I don't know why but I do feel gutted with the release of the D810.
-
Just played with a D810. The live view is probably going to meet the expectations of all.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard
What aspects of live view have improved? I'm of the same view as others, I love the D800 and bought a new D800E a couple of months back not worrying about new models because I love the files. I do use live view fairly regularly, it's great but no doubt it could be better when zoomed in, especially in lower light situations, is that side of things where the improvements lie?
Mat
-
Hi Bernard
What aspects of live view have improved? I'm of the same view as others, I love the D800 and bought a new D800E a couple of months back not worrying about new models because I love the files. I do use live view fairly regularly, it's great but no doubt it could be better when zoomed in, especially in lower light situations, is that side of things where the improvements lie?
Mat
Yep, the pixelization at 200% magnification is gone. It feels less noisy also, but that would require more thorough testing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sounds good, did you like using it overall? Buying one? I think for me, it will be a natural upgrade when I need to replace what I currently have but not enough of an improvement to warrant selling to upgrade, I think because the D800 is just a fantastic camera. I'm happier spending the money on an Otus instead, I honestly think my talents are the weakest link rather than the equipment I use! All good fun.
-
Am I the only one who thinks that sRaw is worthless? When I heard about a reduced size raw file, I was thinking in something along the lines of Phase one's Sensor +, but the way it is implemented in Nikon does not make any sense.
There is an in depth analysis of Nikon sRaw here (http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/nikon-small-raw-internals)
Having smaller raw isn't useless there are many applications where 36mp is massive overkill (weddings for one)
The problem is that Nikon didn't seem to implement something half way like a m raw 18mp setting, this would be ideal for many tasks, instead the s raw 9mp which is ok to have as an option, is a half way house and a missed opportunity.
-
Sounds good, did you like using it overall? Buying one? I think for me, it will be a natural upgrade when I need to replace what I currently have but not enough of an improvement to warrant selling to upgrade, I think because the D800 is just a fantastic camera. I'm happier spending the money on an Otus instead, I honestly think my talents are the weakest link rather than the equipment I use! All good fun.
Yep, I'll get one. Need to compensate skills shortcomings with the best equipment! ;)
The value I expect to find is:
- even higher image quality at base ISO,
- improved Live view (effective today but not very sexy),
- much more discrete shooting in live view,
- hopefully a bit more consistent AF at f1.4 (it is already manageable with the D800 but a slighly higher hit ratio would be welcome),
- slightly brighter viewfinder should help with manual focus with the Otus.
I won't try to convince anyone that it makes it worth the cash.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nice to hear!
BR Erik
Just played with a D810. The live view is probably going to meet the expectations of all.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Having smaller raw isn't useless there are many applications where 36mp is massive overkill (weddings for one)
The problem is that Nikon didn't seem to implement something half way like a m raw 18mp setting, this would be ideal for many tasks, instead the s raw 9mp which is ok to have as an option, is a half way house and a missed opportunity.
The issue is not having a smaller raw, it would have been useful actually. The problem is that it is not raw at all, it should be called something like semi-jpg or unfinished-jpg. Use compressed 12 bit raw and you have real raw the same size of this whatever format.
-
Hello,
I will be getting one based on the points Bernard made. As a working photographer these cameras are cheap as chips compared to the money they make.
Cheers
Simon
-
Hello,
As a working photographer these cameras are cheap as chips compared to the money they make.
Cheers
Simon
I tend to agree with you. The standard for professional advertising work really is the 5d whatever or the d800.
I guess I only have two complaints about the 810 and that's I hate all of these incremental upgrades. You know they test these things before they hit market and to have an iffy live view really isn't cool, but I guess we're in the 18 month upgrade cycle forever and really as you mentioned $3200 for a professional camera is less than the viewfinder on my REDs.
I also wish that when they tethered you could see the lcd. Going back and forth to the monitor is a drag.
OK one more "wish". I'd love it if Nikon really gave more attention to video. A form factor of the 810 with an apsc format and a robust codec along with some form of autofocus or at least touch screen would make buying into the 800 series a snap, which kind of surprises me with Nikon as unlike Canon or Sony they have no upline video market to protect.
But you are right, the cost to earn ratio of these cameras is very high.
IMO
BC
-
Just played with a D810. The live view is probably going to meet the expectations of all.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
When you hit live view is it instantly on? Also, how long is the "Black period" after taking an image. Seems like 20-30 minutes on the d800(closer to 1.5 secs) but thats a lot when shooting people.
Thanks
-
Yep, the pixelization at 200% magnification is gone. It feels less noisy also, but that would require more thorough testing.
Cheers,
Bernard
The removal of the pixelization at 200% will be great if view at 200% allows for the ability to really use the view at that level of Magnification. I have never found the D800e or 800's 200% view much help at all.
If Nikon found a way to reduce the LV noise also especially in low light focus, then that will be a real plus.
Paul
-
The issue is not having a smaller raw, it would have been useful actually. The problem is that it is not raw at all, it should be called something like semi-jpg or unfinished-jpg. Use compressed 12 bit raw and you have real raw the same size of this whatever format.
I'll wait for a comparison of the s raw and to see what it can do
But we had the same debate with Lossy DNG, yet I tested it out v uncompressed raw and found there to be virtually no perceptual difference in output. And I pulled those files around heavily, 5 stops at least and saw basically no difference.
I routinely now convert many files to Lossy DNG to save space and they are very satisfactory for post processing workflow, and a good alternative to jpeg...and certainly good enough for working environments too.
-
When you hit live view is it instantly on? Also, how long is the "Black period" after taking an image. Seems like 20-30 minutes on the d800(closer to 1.5 secs) but thats a lot when shooting people.
I didn't really pay too much attention to this aspect, but:
- Live view seemed to engage faster (pretty fast in fact),
- It did seem to give the hand back a bit faster, but still probably too slow. Would have to measure that one to be certain.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is my question also to Bernard or anyone who can test it. With Canon 5D's you can tether with USB to a PC and 'live view' with HDMI to an external monitor simultaneously, you cannot with a D800.
I also wish that when they tethered you could see the lcd. Going back and forth to the monitor is a drag.
-
This is my question also to Bernard or anyone who can test it. With Canon 5D's you can tether with USB to a PC and 'live view' with HDMI to an external monitor simultaneously, you cannot with a D800.
Sorry, I will probably not be able to test that until I get my D810 and that may not be until early August. I am sure others will get theirs long before mine.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
When you hit live view is it instantly on? Also, how long is the "Black period" after taking an image. Seems like 20-30 minutes on the d800(closer to 1.5 secs) but thats a lot when shooting people.
Thanks
Rogan, my understanding is that the reason for this "Black period" is that the D800/e does not use the camera buffer when LV is being used. Rather, it writes straight to the memory card and we have to wait until that process is finished to make the next shot (unlike non-LV shooting where the data is offloaded from the sensor immediately to be temporarily stored in the camera's buffer to be written to the card at the it's leisure making the sensor ready immediately to receive the next shot). So unless you are using the fastest of memory cards it can seem very slow in comparison to non-LV shooting.
I would be very surprised if they have changed this arrangement on the D810 (but of course I do get surprised from time to time!).
Regards, Alistair
-
Some full size samples have been uploaded by Nikon:
http://www.nikon-asia.com/en_Asia/product/digital-slr-cameras/d810#gallery
Taking into the count the fact that they were probably converted with Nikon Capture XXX and the typical slightly painterly rendering of small details/sharpening, I find these samples pretty impressive.
When converted with Capture One or Raw Developper, combined with the best lenses such as the Otus, this should deliver a file significantly superior to that of the D800.
This one in particular shows things I have personally never seen in a DSLR file, even the D800E.
http://www.nikon-asia.com/tmp/Asia/4016499630/3857477713/365508689/3015334490/1054978028/4291728192/4044060355/779504016.jpg
This is shot with a 24mm lenses whose peak resolution is lower than that of the best glass, but still, the combination of detail, lack of artifacts and lack of noise is pretty impressive in absolute terms and even more so for a 13 seconds exposure.
What do you guys think?
It is starting to look like Nikon may have been better off called this a D900... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't see anything particularly impressive in that photo, but I'm sure that the file quality of the new camera is better than that of the old... (Monsieur de La Palice and the Battle of Pavia ...)
-
I don't see anything particularly impressive in that photo, but I'm sure that the file quality of the new camera is better than that of the old... (Monsieur de La Palice and the Battle of Pavia ...)
Cool, you are not easily impressed. ;)
I have shot similar images from roughly the same location in Tokyo with a variety of cameras (including a Mamiya ZD without AA filter) and lenses typically superior to the 24mm used here... and none of these were close to having this level of fine detail rendering on a pixel per pixel basis.
Now it does of course not make much sense to shoot such a scene as one single shot when stitching could very easily multiply the level of details by 3 or 4, but as a sensor test, I am personally impressed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
it looks o.k in the centre, nothing special in the corners. I’m not seeing anything that makes me go WOW :-\
-
He he he, it must be my eyes then. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
it looks o.k in the centre, nothing special in the corners. I’m not seeing anything that makes me go WOW :-\
I agree to some point: it is the 24mm 1,4 lens used at d5.6 - it is a very good lens but it needs d8 for the corners...( and its made to use wide open)
Also in this image i see the ugly noise reduction/ jpeg blurring - so we loose all the nice details.
I opened the file in Photoshop and the dynamic range is impressive.
Still I would have liked it if they provided a sharp NEF for download made with the 85mm at 64 asa...
For somebody like me with a d800E i do not see any reason to upgrade with these kind of samples
-
Comparison now available here, I believe done on jpg for now. Let the pixel peeping start! :)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
The D810 seems visbily sharper than both the D800E and D800 on these comparisons. I would say that the gap between D810 and D800E is clearly larger than the gap between D800E and D800.
There is also a bit more moire in the D810 image in the sticker of the right most bottle although the pattern is so fine it's hardly visible.
The DP2 quattro seems a bit sharper than the D810 still, although it does only have 19mp, but I am not sure what lens was used on the Nikon.
It looks like I may have the opportunity to check all that myself this weekend. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Red colour is much improved on the D810... Sadly HL DR extension holds up clearly better with the "E" file... There also seems to be some visible colour noise improvement at 6400 Iso, but it is clearly accompanied with serious detail loss... I think I'll stick with the "E" and the DF...
-
Red colour is much improved on the D810... Sadly HL DR extension holds up clearly better with the "E" file... There also seems to be some visible colour noise improvement at 6400 Iso, but it is clearly accompanied with serious detail loss... I think I'll stick with the "E" and the DF...
Sticking to the D800E is a very reasonable option, but how are you able to assess highlight extension looking at a jpg file?
That is of course if we forget for a second that highlight extension doesn't exist in the first place with linear digital sensors. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sticking to the D800E is a very reasonable option, but how are you able to assess highlight extension looking at a jpg file?
That is of course if we forget for a second that highlight extension doesn't exist in the first place with linear digital sensors. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Highlight extension is different to HL DR... HL DR does exist, it's valued by the exposure required for it to clip up to an unrecoverable level... A JPG file, if it is the outcome of an unprocessed Raw, is a good hint for the behaviour of a sensor if HLs clip on one sensor while hold up on another for the same exposure... "Linearity" of modern sensors is also questionable... None knows how makers "filter" (in the A/D conversion) the output voltage from the sensor transistors... we presume it's linear, but ...is it? :-X
-
Highlight extension is different to HL DR... HL DR does exist, it's valued by the exposure required for it to clip up to an unrecoverable level... A JPG file, if it is the outcome of an unprocessed Raw, is a good hint for the behaviour of a sensor if HLs clip on one sensor while hold up on another for the same exposure... "Linearity" of modern sensors is also questionable... None knows how makers "filter" (in the A/D conversion) the output voltage from the sensor transistors... we presume it's linear, but ...is it? :-X
There is for sure a limit to the amount of illumination a sensor can absorb before saturating (is it called well saturation?), but:
- there is absolutely no way to measure this looking at the 255 discrete values cooked into a jpg file. The only aspect you can assess is the exposure relative to this threshold, meaning that you can at best get some visibility about the way the ISO value was set relative to the saturation threshold mixed with the curve that was applied by the jpg conversion engine,
- linearity has been proven time and again,
- none of that determines the range of illuminations between which the sensor is able to capture useful imaging information, which is called the dynamic range.
So, would it only be because the R in DR is range, highlight DR does, by definition, not exist.
But who am I to object if your equipment purchase strategies are set based on jpg analysis of highlight DR. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But who am I to object if your equipment purchase strategies are set based on jpg analysis of highlight DR. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
You brought it up... 8) Another thing, how has the linearity of sensors output "proven"? What has been proven is that what we get is linear, there is no way for one to judge if it is linear or linearised....
-
Another thing, how has the linearity of sensors output "proven"? What has been proven is that what we get is linear, there is no way for one to judge if it is linear or linearised....
Hi,
Shot noise analysis will prove (within statistical limitations) whether signal and noise have an 'exact' Sqrt() relationship (as expected for a Poisson distribution), which they apparently do for those cases I and others have studied.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just got my D810.
I am glad to report that with 2 fast media in back up mode the black out time shooting raw in live view is now very short (perhaps 1/2 sec), which will make it possible to shoot stitches while staying in live view.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just got my D810.
I am glad to report that with 2 fast media in back up mode the black out time shooting raw in live view is now very short (perhaps 1/2 sec), which will make it possible to shoot stitches while staying in live view.
Good news, Bernard.
Looking forward to your findings, since you can compare with the previous version.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Looking forward to your findings, since you can compare with the previous version.
A lot has been written already.
In terms of image quality a comparison will have to wait till support in C1 Pro.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In terms of image quality a comparison will have to wait till support in C1 Pro.
Latest ACR RC has support...
-
Latest ACR RC has support...
I know, but I am not familiar with ACR/Lightroom conversions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just got my D810.
I am glad to report that with 2 fast media in back up mode the black out time shooting raw in live view is now very short (perhaps 1/2 sec), which will make it possible to shoot stitches while staying in live view.
Cheers,
Bernard
Congratulations, How is Live view? Has it improved (less line skipping) compared to the D800?
-
Congratulations, How is Live view? Has it improved (less line skipping) compared to the D800?
I was always of the opinion that live view on the D800 was usable enough, but yes it has improved on the D810:
- sharp at 200%
- delay after exposure is much shorter when using fast media (around 1/2s when writing raw in back up mode).
I have not shot enough to form an opinion about the amount of noise.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
+1
sRaw, nothing more than a check-box feature IMO.
-
I have been shooting a D800E for a little over a year and it works ok in live view. It is nice that it automatically stops down to the f-stop you will shoot at without pushing a button as on the Canons. But it is annoying that you cannont go into LV or out until all images has been written to the card(s). So I'm certainly curious if this has gone away. It seems to me such a trivial thing to do! The EFC nice but I have found that the D800 is pretty eell damped when shooting in LV which I always do when MUP otherwise would be needed. I sometimes use MUP with LV for long focal lengths to make sure there is no vibrations coming from the double movement of the shutter when starting the exposure. It has become less of an issue though after I got the RRS BH55 head for my RRS tripod.
-
I received my D810 yesterday and after comparing it to my D800e in a few side by sides, I came away with these thoughts:
1. Live View at max, not sure if the view is now 200% or just 100%, Unlike the D800e, when you max out the LiveView all the way, you can still see the image to determine critical focus. However the view to me seems more like a 100% view, not the 200% view the D800e has when maxed.
2. Noise, up through 6400 iso, the D810 and D800e are so close, I really couldn't see any difference. This did surprise me a bit.
3. Noise at base iso 64 on the D810 and base iso 100 on the D800e are pretty much identical
4. Shutter noise is different and considerably quieter, I assume this is due the Electronic First Curtain on the D810
5. Layout of buttons and menus is pretty much the same, so no problem in transfer to the newer body
6. In very low light, live view is a bit better than the D800e, (not as much noise on the screen) and easier to get critical focus but still not as clean as say a
Canon 6D in low light.
7. AF pretty much the same characteristics. D810 has a bit of trouble in low light locking subjects.
Net, to me not as big a upgrade as I had hoped, and does show I guess just how good the first generation of this camera was, as the new one doesn't seem to improve on image quality very much. May return mine, but will shoot it a bit more.
Paul
-
I downloaded the manual for the D810 and the only reference to EFC was using it with MUP. In other words no mention if EFC is effective shooting in LV. Can somebody shed any light on this?
It is easy to check: Take off the lens and set the camera on e.g. 5 seconds shutter speed in manual mode and see if the front curtain moves in live view mode. Doing this on a Canon 5D mkIII one sees only a movement of the shutter at the end of the exposure. I had hoped the D810 had implemented the same in LV. Also I'd be grateful if somebody could test the following: Shoot a sequence of shots e.g. 10 in a row and then try to activate LV while the images are still being written to the card(s). Is this possible or not? On the D800(E) it is not possible as LV is locked while the emptying of the buffer is going on.
Notice also that EFC only works if it is enabled via d5 enabled.
-
4. Shutter noise is different and considerably quieter, I assume this is due the Electronic First Curtain on the D810
Did you remember to enable EFC?
-
I received my D810 yesterday and after comparing it to my D800e in a few side by sides, I came away with these thoughts:
1. Live View at max, not sure if the view is now 200% or just 100%, Unlike the D800e, when you max out the LiveView all the way, you can still see the image to determine critical focus. However the view to me seems more like a 100% view, not the 200% view the D800e has when maxed.
2. Noise, up through 6400 iso, the D810 and D800e are so close, I really couldn't see any difference. This did surprise me a bit.
3. Noise at base iso 64 on the D810 and base iso 100 on the D800e are pretty much identical
4. Shutter noise is different and considerably quieter, I assume this is due the Electronic First Curtain on the D810
5. Layout of buttons and menus is pretty much the same, so no problem in transfer to the newer body
6. In very low light, live view is a bit better than the D800e, (not as much noise on the screen) and easier to get critical focus but still not as clean as say a
Canon 6D in low light.
7. AF pretty much the same characteristics. D810 has a bit of trouble in low light locking subjects.
Net, to me not as big a upgrade as I had hoped, and does show I guess just how good the first generation of this camera was, as the new one doesn't seem to improve on image quality very much. May return mine, but will shoot it a bit more.
Paul
Any DR difference observations Paul?
-
A few comments:
- it is possible to select either 100% or 200% zoom both in live view and in replay,
- the AF seems to be a very different beast than the D800 and it will take some time to learn it. My very early findings shooting with the 85mm f1.4 AF-S outdoors and in pretty dark rooms at f1.4 are:
- AF-S mode seems much more dicerning when deciding whether the subject is in focus or not,
- the accuracy of AF-C on subjects not moving much seems much better,
- group AF seems like a huge improvement with a success ratio close to 100% in those early tests.
- I have the feeling that colors may be richer and better differentiated than on the D800.
- the body feels better in my hand with the re-designed grip.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A few comments:
- it is possible to select either 100% or 200% zoom both in live view and in replay,
- the AF seems to be a very different beast than the D800 and it will take some time to learn it. My very early findings shooting with the 85mm f1.4 AF-S outdoors and in pretty dark rooms at f1.4 are:
- AF-S mode seems much more dicerning when deciding whether the subject is in focus or not,
- the accuracy of AF-C on subjects not moving much seems much better,
- group AF seems like a huge improvement with a success ratio close to 100% in those early tests.
- I have the feeling that colors may be richer and better differentiated than on the D800.
- the body feels better in my hand with the re-designed grip.
Cheers,
Bernard
Any comments on my questions in previous post?
-
Any comments on my questions in previous post?
Hi Hans,
I think that I may have already clarified this in a previous post, but the black out time in live view when shooting in raw back up mode to 2 fast media is around 1/2 sec, so much shorter than on my D800.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Hans,
I think that I may have already clarified this in a previous post, but the black out time in live view when shooting in raw back up mode to 2 fast media is around 1/2 sec, so much shorter than on my D800.
Cheers,
Bernard
The questions were if the camera will allow you to go into or out of LV while still writing to the cards or not. Not a question about how fast. The second was if the EFC works with LV.
Both are easy to test. I would appreciate if you did do that. Thanks.
-
The questions were if the camera will allow you to go into or out of LV while still writing to the cards or not. Not a question about how fast. The second was if the EFC works with LV.
Both are easy to test. I would appreciate if you did do that. Thanks.
The first one appears to be yes. When in live view, clicking on the live view button when the card led is still blinking enables you to exit live view.
For the second one, my very quick test seems to indicate that the behavior differs in live view depending on whether MLU is activated or not. When MLU is activated in live view the first shutter click results in live view going black, the second shutter click generates a lot less noise than when MLU is not active. So I would say that the answer is yes too.
Does that answer you question?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A few comments:
- it is possible to select either 100% or 200% zoom both in live view and in replay,
- the AF seems to be a very different beast than the D800 and it will take some time to learn it. My very early findings shooting with the 85mm f1.4 AF-S outdoors and in pretty dark rooms at f1.4 are:
- AF-S mode seems much more dicerning when deciding whether the subject is in focus or not,
- the accuracy of AF-C on subjects not moving much seems much better,
- group AF seems like a huge improvement with a success ratio close to 100% in those early tests.
- I have the feeling that colors may be richer and better differentiated than on the D800.
- the body feels better in my hand with the re-designed grip.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks for the updates. Besides the improvements in the AF, it is very likely that the D810 uses a different CFA, based on the changes observables in the Raw files. It might actually be the case why the base ISO is 64 and not 100. Could it be that Nikon favoured color response in this camera? If this is the case, it may be the end of the argument of CCD vs CMOS.
-
The first one appears to be yes. When in live view, clicking on the live view button when the card led is still blinking enables you to exit live view.
For the second one, my very quick test seems to indicate that the behavior differs in live view depending on whether MLU is activated or not. When MLU is activated in live view the first shutter click results in live view going black, the second shutter click generates a lot less noise than when MLU is not active. So I would say that the answer is yes too.
Does that answer you question?
Cheers,
Bernard
For the first one it indicates that the problem has been fixed.
For the second one. Did you have EFC enabled in d4? The behavior you describe is the same as on the D800(E). Try and do the test I suggested. Take off the lens and set the shutter speed to 5 seconds and then see what happens. Just look at the shutter.
-
For the first one it indicates that the problem has been fixed.
For the second one. Did you have EFC enabled in d4? The behavior you describe is the same as on the D800(E). Try and do the test I suggested. Take off the lens and set the shutter speed to 5 seconds and then see what happens. Just look at the shutter.
Hans,
I have just performed your test, the shutter only moves at the end of the exposure.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hans,
I have just performed your test, the shutter only moves at the end of the exposure.
Cheers,
Bernard
Great and thanks, that's what I had hoped for, but the manual and all info I have seen has been more than unclear about this.
-
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
The D810 seems visbily sharper than both the D800E and D800 on these comparisons.
The lighting has changed between the two shoots (May 2012 & July 2014) - therefore it's not a valid comparison.
-
The lighting has changed between the two shoots (May 2012 & July 2014) - therefore it's not a valid comparison.
I checked also and I see the D810 image as slightly sharper, but not by much. As if a fine haze has been removed. I think the difference is so small that it does not really matter.
-
I checked also and I see the D810 image as slightly sharper, but not by much. As if a fine haze has been removed. I think the difference is so small that it does not really matter.
The D810 lighting is slightly harsher than the D800E lighting (look at the shadow on the background between the two bottles on the right) - that would help the labels look sharper on the D810. The only way to compare the two cameras is under identical lighting - these setups aren't identical.
-
The D810 lighting is slightly harsher than the D800E lighting (look at the shadow on the background between the two bottles on the right) - that would help the labels look sharper on the D810. The only way to compare the two cameras is under identical lighting - these setups aren't identical.
I converted the D810 NEF file to DNG using the beta DNG converter. Comparing the ISO 64 shot from the D810 and the ISO 100 from the D800E are very very close in my opinion. But the D810 is slightly clearer and detailed. That's what I see. I used the same sharpening on both which is my default sharpening parameters: Amount=50, radius=0.8, detail=70 and masking=30 (set to 0 in my comparison). But I agree the lighting is different and the white balance is different too. Even balancing WB through the second grey patch on the color checker the colors don't match.
-
I converted the D810 NEF file to DNG using the beta DNG converter. Comparing the ISO 64 shot from the D810 and the ISO 100 from the D800E are very very close in my opinion. But the D810 is slightly clearer and detailed.
I agree Hans - I can see little or no increase in sharpness. The D810 is a bit brighter and the D800E needs a slight boost to equal it - I think it's about +12 on the slider in Photoshop.
Here's what I did to match them (using the two 100 ISO shots from here http://photographylife.com/nikon-d810-vs-d800e-iso-comparison#comment-115810 (http://photographylife.com/nikon-d810-vs-d800e-iso-comparison#comment-115810)):
1. Load the D810 100 ISO file & the D800E ISO 100 file into the same Photoshop document (as two layers - 810 above, 800E underneath).
2. Line up the two layers vertically using a DVD spine as a reference point.
3. Add a layer mask to the 810 layer and erase a slim vertical strip using the rectangular marquee tool. (I placed the strip midway horizontally along the DVD spines).
4. Add a brightness/contrast adjustment layer above the D800E layer (and below the D810 layer).
5. Adjust the brightness slider until the vertical strip disappears.
The strip becomes more or less invisible when the brightness slider is at +12 (out of 150). So to match the two cameras, the D800E would need a brightness boost equivalent to +12 in PS. This probably translates to something like +1 brightness in the camera’s picture control settings (perhaps less).
(PS. I’m using a hardware calibrated monitor – the +12 figure could vary slightly on other monitors that are calibrated differently).
-
I am just back from a 3 days family trip during which I had the opportunity to shoot the D810,
In short, I am impressed. I was shooting with the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and Nikon 85mm f1.4. What struck me:
- the colors are clearly richer and better differentiated compared to the D800,
- the auto white balance seems much better,
- the ability to shoot hand held with live and EFC activated increases the ratio of critically focused and tack sharp hand held images,
- operations are very significantly smoother, it feels like a totally different camera. Live view is one aspect, but it is true from pretty much everything I tried (handling, sound,...),
- AF in AF-C mode is much more reliable, especially when using group mode,
- detail is simply amazing, and I didn't have the Otus that is still under repair. It is very clearly sharper than the D800 (non E),
All in all it feels that Nikon could have called this a D900 without over selling the progress.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am just back from a 3 days family trip during which I had the opportunity to shoot the D810,
In short, I am impressed. I was shooting with the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and Nikon 85mm f1.4. What struck me:
- the colors are clearly richer and better differentiated compared to the D800,
- operations are very significantly smoother, it feels like a totally different camera. Live view is one aspect, but it is true from pretty much everything I tried (handling, sound,...),
- AF in AF-C mode is much more reliable, especially when using group mode,
- detail is simply amazing, and I didn't have the Otus that is still under repair. It is very clearly sharper than the D800 (non E),
All in all it feels that Nikon could have called this a D900 without over selling the progress.
Cheers,
Bernard
Nikon has no intension of calling any FF model a D900... It is a clear naming policy (after D3000 was first introduced and the new naming policy was applied) of them that DX products have four digits and odd starting number, while FX products have three digits and even starting number and special products (like DF or top of the line series) have their own naming... There will never be an FF D900 and (off course) D400 -if it will ever be introduced- will be an entry product to the FX line of products... The replacement of D810 will obviously be D820...
Never the less, I would like to hear your impressions on the DR of the new camera and how it compares (IYO) with D800's DR... particularly in its ability to "protect" HLs for the same exposure...
-
Nikon has no intension of calling any FF model a D900...
Who told you that?
-
Ok used the new nikon Raw beta file on a new Macpro 6 core with 64 gig of memory. The new Nikon Raw beta kept crashing. So used the new ACR beta on the 810 files and they were very impressive in areas in New Orleans shot in the Quarter in shadow areas. But not THAT IMPRESSIVE over the 800E. Will have to play around more with settings and all. Forgot how heavy the darn 800E was since using the Olympus EM1 a lot. For just street shooting I think I will stay with, dare I say it, the Olympus. If I do go some great areas to take photos then out will come the 800E or the 810. Just some opinions of an old man.
-
Who told you that?
15 consecutive models over 6 years... Who told you different?
-
Nikon has no intension of calling any FF model a D900... It is a clear naming policy (after D3000 was first introduced and the new naming policy was applied) of them that DX products have four digits and odd starting number, while FX products have three digits and even starting number and special products (like DF or top of the line series) have their own naming... There will never be an FF D900 and (off course) D400 -if it will ever be introduced- will be an entry product to the FX line of products... The replacement of D810 will obviously be D820...
I agree with you, but they have started this new numbering scheme the worst possible way with the D610 that was basically a non upgrade compared to the D600.
Since, in typical Nikon marketing disaster way, they have not communicated about their new numbering scheme, they have generated a perception that the D810 may be a minor upgrade, while facts show it to be very significant.
Calling the D600s a D610 may prove to be a very expensive mistake for Nikon. Knowing what was coming a few months down the road with the D810, I am simply puzzled by the incompetence of the guys who took the decision to give the same naming to 2 upgrades with such different natures.
Never the less, I would like to hear your impressions on the DR of the new camera and how it compares (IYO) with D800's DR... particularly in its ability to "protect" HLs for the same exposure...
The D800 had zero highlight recovery capability, like all digital capturing devices (including digital backs). The D810 is the same.
If your question is about DR, then we will have to look at how clean the shadows are. On that one, there is impact from the raw developer, but let's say for now that 64 ISO looks extremely clean. To my eyes, it seems cleaner than ISO100 on the D800, but I'll trust DxOMarkon that one.
If your question is about the accuracy of the exposure, then it seems pretty accurate in standard mode. I have not tried yet the new highlight protection exposure mode.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The D610 fixed problems which eventually Nikon were forced to admit to (being honest they did themselves huge damage by taking so long to do that)
I've no experience of the D800 series though I see some incremental updates on paper like smaller raw and faster fps few bits like that.
I did have a few friends who tortured themselves with Nikon's AF problems on the D800 (early models) I've personally never been that impressed with the consistency of Nikon's AF so my brief encounter with Nikon was ruined purely on that basis. Nice flash system though..but AF is important and should be mature.
That's just my own take..regarding the "recent updates" on cameras I think the question is.."what did you expect"? Bar new sensor technology there wasn't a lot of room for beefy upgrades. Same applies to the Mark III, mostly the AF got souped up on that model (to be fair by a good bit), but then so did the price (it remains somewhat overpriced if we're honest)
Cameras are like cars you can re-paint them and put a few power bulges on the body work, new set of rims but under the bonnet the stuff is pretty much the same.
-
I've no experience of the D800 series though I see some incremental updates on paper like smaller raw and faster fps few bits like that.
Cameras are like cars you can re-paint them and put a few power bulges on the body work, new set of rims but under the bonnet the stuff is pretty much the same.
True, but the again from that standpoint a 40,000 US$ IQ280 is pretty much identical to its predecessors and awfully similar to a D800. ;)
Having used Nikon bodies for years, my current impression after a few hours of usage is that I find the improvements from D800 to D810 to be more significant that the jump from D3x to D800 for example.
Btw, the 2 points you mention are, relative to my needs, the least relevant of the improvements I see in the D810.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
15 consecutive models over 6 years... Who told you different?
You said that "Nikon has no intension of calling any FF model a D900." You don't what their intentions are unless you work for them, you've seen an official statement, or they told you themselves.
-
A couple of images captured with the D810.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5563/14736803513_7ed5498cbe_o.jpg)
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2913/14530282749_19eeee24be_o.jpg)
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2931/14716934765_0852b59f43_o.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3914/14530283228_f6043f72bf_o.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3877/14736799643_6c55408992_o.jpg)
A few more after the link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/72157645832791611/
Captured with the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and Nikon 85mm f1.4 AF-S. First 3 are small pano stitches.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You said that "Nikon has no intension of calling any FF model a D900." You don't what their intentions are unless you work for them, you've seen an official statement, or they told you themselves.
Not unless they change their naming policy... which isn't any where near... It seems to work great for them, definitely the best naming policy out of all makers.... 8)
-
A couple of images captured with the D810.
A few more after the link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/72157645832791611/
Captured with the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and Nikon 85mm f1.4 AF-S. First 3 are small pano stitches.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm glad to hear that you like the camera, but quite frankly these pictures could have come from the D800 with no visible difference, especially at the size they can be seen here. Your pictures are generally quite oversharpened in my view. E.g. this one https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/14736801243/in/set-72157645832791611/lightbox/ and several others. The best is this one https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/14736803513/in/set-72157645832791611/lightbox/ but still oversharpened. They look a bit harsh which is a pity. I'm still waiting for my D810 :)
-
I'm glad to hear that you like the camera, but quite frankly these pictures could have come from the D800 with no visible difference, especially at the size they can be seen here. Your pictures are generally quite oversharpened in my view. E.g. this one https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/14736801243/in/set-72157645832791611/lightbox/ and several others. The best is this one https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/14736803513/in/set-72157645832791611/lightbox/ but still oversharpened. They look a bit harsh which is a pity. I'm still waiting for my D810 :)
Hans,
I guess we have different taste in terms of the amount of sharpening required for web sized images.
These images were shot with the D810, but my intention has never been to use them to prove the superiority of the D810 over the D800.
I frankly don't care whether people share my views or not. Good for those who will, too bad for those who won't, their loss. ;)
If I were to do some comparisons, I would do them with the Otus. My copy is coming back tomorrow from a trip to Cosina for repair btw. But then again, life is too short to waste time doing that. The only thing that is relevant for me is to optimize the usage of the D810 with my set of lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hans,
I guess we have different taste in terms of the amount of sharpening required for web sized images.
These images were shot with the D810, but my intention has never been to use them to prove the superiority of the D810 over the D800.
I frankly don't care whether people share my views or not. Good for those who will, too bad for those who won't, their loss. ;)
If I were to do some comparisons, I would do them with the Otus. My copy is coming back tomorrow from a trip to Cosina for repair btw. But then again, life is too short to waste time doing that. The only thing that is relevant for me is to optimize the usage of the D810 with my set of lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
Then it wasn't clear to me why you posted the pictures in this thread. If you don't agree with me on the sharpening, no problem, your choice, but I do hope you value feedback.
And I don't see a reason for you to do a comparison. There are plenty out there already. But congratulations with the new camera which I'm sure you will be happy with and most importantly, enjoy on your photo trips.
-
Then it wasn't clear to me why you posted the pictures in this thread. If you don't agree with me on the sharpening, no problem, your choice, but I do hope you value feedback.
Yes, sure.
This thread is about the D810, it seems reasonable to post here images shot with the camera?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You can't please all the people all the time Bernard! I like the shots, nice and rich and it's obvious to me you are just showing some images, not offering any comparisons and thanks for doing so, we all know that a web jpeg is unlikely to have any real meaning. Hans, pretty much any camera you can buy now will provide a nice jpeg at this size so pointing out that they could have been taken with the D800 is sort of a mute point.
I'm looking forward to seeing what the Otus does, I am saving for one as I really love the Zeiss 135 f2 and would like the same image qualities in a standard focal length. I'm not swapping to a D810 from the D800/E but will buy as a natural upgrade when I need to replace.
-
Hans, pretty much any camera you can buy now will provide a nice jpeg at this size so pointing out that they could have been taken with the D800 is sort of a mute point.
Well, that was my point! Basically what I meant to say was that the images provided no value in the discussion although I didn't express it quite like that ;)
-
No you didn't Hans but if that were the case there'd be no point for images on any thread discussing cameras! I just appreciate the effort and nice images and make my own mind up on equipment based on how it suits me.
-
No you didn't Hans but if that were the case there'd be no point for images on any thread discussing cameras! I just appreciate the effort and nice images and make my own mind up on equipment based on how it suits me.
I don't agree on that. The pictures were posted without any context and reference to the discussion. But as you said, small jpg's does not show much about the equipment, so how could it help you make up your mind on equipment?
-
We can agree to disagree Hans, they are images taken with a D810 in a post about the D810 and as Bernard is the only person so far to post images from the camera in the thread then they have merit, they are certainly more relevant than pictures taken with any other camera. At least they are decent shots, the amount of threads about other cameras with average shots is incredible. Maybe the secret is to not bother commenting on images you don't appreciate, accept that they have merit to the photographer who shot them and just move on? Failing that just do what you like, it's not life and death, it's a new camera.
Mat
-
Bernard - where is that waterfall?
-
We can agree to disagree Hans, they are images taken with a D810 in a post about the D810 and as Bernard is the only person so far to post images from the camera in the thread then they have merit, they are certainly more relevant than pictures taken with any other camera. At least they are decent shots, the amount of threads about other cameras with average shots is incredible. Maybe the secret is to not bother commenting on images you don't appreciate, accept that they have merit to the photographer who shot them and just move on? Failing that just do what you like, it's not life and death, it's a new camera.
Mat
Hi Mat,
Please go back to my comments on Bernards pictures and tell what you feel is wrong with my feedback!
-
Maybe it's your tone? Your feedback is relevant in that it relates to how you view the image although it's clear it doesn't relate to how Bernard views them as he processed them to his own taste. Feedback in general I think is warranted in posts where it's asked for, like in user critiques for example but elsewhere it's reasonable to expect that the image is how the photographer intends it to look, just my view of course.
I think you questioning what relevance they have to the thread is the problem for me, you don't think they were worth posting because they could have been taken with any camera, but as Bernard explained, they were not meant to provide a comparison, he has a new camera and posted images from it in a thread about the camera, one where people have expressed interest in how it performs. Like I said, we can disagree, it really doesn't matter to me at all!
Mat
-
Well, that was my point! Basically what I meant to say was that the images provided no value in the discussion although I didn't express it quite like that ;)
Hans,
Who is the OP here? According to the accepted web etiquette, you are not authorised to come an tell me what bring value to a discussion I started. :P
But since you asked, the stitch below is now visible in 15,000 pixel wide size at the following link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/14744788653/
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3888/14744788653_69741fa410_h.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What i suspect might be happening here is that Bernard was initially undecided whether to get the D800 or D800E. He chose the D800, presumably on the basis that the D800E had only a marginal increase in resolution but also an increase in aliasing artifacts which he thought was more significant than the increase in resolution.
I think Bart has tested that the D800E has only a 1% increase in resolution, over the D800, after appropriate sharpening has been applied to the images from both cameras.
The disturbing issue about the D800E is that it has unnecessary AA filters, which cancel each other. The light signal from the lens is therefore passing through an unnecessary process which might degrade the signal to some extent, depending on quality-control variations.
Since the D810 has no AA filters at all, it's quite likely that on average, the D810 will have a greater than 1% increase in resolution, compared with the D800, in relation to Bart's methodology. In fact, if Bart had tested a few other copies of the D800E, he might have found that some of those copies had a greater-than-1% increase in resolution compared with the D800.
-
Bernard,
The most prominent feature in your panorama, which catches the eye, is the whitish tree trunk on the far right. It's out-of-focus. ;)
-
Bernard,
The most prominent feature in your panorama, which catches the eye, is the whitish tree trunk on the far right. It's out-of-focus. ;)
Isn't that ironic? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hans,
Who is the OP here? According to the accepted web etiquette, you are not authorised to come an tell me what bring value to a discussion I started. :P
But since you asked, the stitch below is now visible in 15,000 pixel wide size at the following link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/14744788653/
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3888/14744788653_69741fa410_h.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
Let's be clear: I commented on your pictures and you gave a rather arrogant response. That's it. Again I'd like to know what you want to convey with your pano in this discussion about the D810. Are we supposed to look at the details that are sharp or the details that are not sharp? Regarding the sharpening on the details that are in focus they look good to me. But was it intentional to include the unsharp tree to the right?
-
Well, let's refocus here (no pun intended) on the specificities of the D810. Is the 1-st curtain shutter a real improvement, that is, does it really help reduce vibration? Thanks in advance, Marie
-
Let's be clear: I commented on your pictures and you gave a rather arrogant response. That's it. Again I'd like to know what you want to convey with your pano in this discussion about the D810. Are we supposed to look at the details that are sharp or the details that are not sharp? Regarding the sharpening on the details that are in focus they look good to me. But was it intentional to include the unsharp tree to the right?
Hans,
I am glad you understood the joke(s).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Maybe it's your tone? Your feedback is relevant in that it relates to how you view the image although it's clear it doesn't relate to how Bernard views them as he processed them to his own taste. Feedback in general I think is warranted in posts where it's asked for, like in user critiques for example but elsewhere it's reasonable to expect that the image is how the photographer intends it to look, just my view of course.
I think you questioning what relevance they have to the thread is the problem for me, you don't think they were worth posting because they could have been taken with any camera, but as Bernard explained, they were not meant to provide a comparison, he has a new camera and posted images from it in a thread about the camera, one where people have expressed interest in how it performs. Like I said, we can disagree, it really doesn't matter to me at all!
Mat
Mat, the following was exactly what I wrote as feedback. I did not say they could have been taken with any camera. I mentioned the D800! I mentioned the sharpening and mentioned which picture I felt was the best. What tone are you referring to here? Mine or yours? I see absolutely nothing in the following comment that was not reasonable feedback.
I'm glad to hear that you like the camera, but quite frankly these pictures could have come from the D800 with no visible difference, especially at the size they can be seen here. Your pictures are generally quite oversharpened in my view. E.g. this one https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/14736801243/in/set-72157645832791611/lightbox/ and several others. The best is this one https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/14736803513/in/set-72157645832791611/lightbox/ but still oversharpened. They look a bit harsh which is a pity. I'm still waiting for my D810 Smiley
-
Bernard - where is that waterfall?
In Japan, Norikura Kougen.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, let's refocus here (no pun intended) on the specificities of the D810. Is the 1-st curtain shutter a real improvement, that is, does it really help reduce vibration? Thanks in advance, Marie
Hi Marie,
It clearly does reduce the perceived level of movement when exposure starts. Now I personally never experienced much of a negative impact without it on my D800.
Considering my view that the D810 resolves better fine details than the D800 it may be more critical on the D810. I am sure Lloyd will compare the sharpness with and without it. I'll personally probably always shoot with EFC when using MLU.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In Japan, Norikura Kougen.
Cheers,
Bernard
Ok, thanks. I thought it was Europe - Switzerland or Austria perhaps.
-
Hans, I have already commented on your feedback and my views on feedback in general as well as your comments on the relevance of the images in the thread.
Mat
-
DxO results for D810 are out. They basically confirm the findings of Lloyd. Best DR and at ISO64 by a comfortable margin.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D810-sensor-review-New-DxOMark-leader/Nikon-D810-versus-Sony-A7R-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-D810-has-slight-advantage-over-nearest-rival
They don't assess resolution, so we'll have to wait till they test with the best lenses to figure out whether my eyes are misleading me or not. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thank you Bernard for your feedback. Your comments are really important for people like me who are still debating whether to buy a(n other) D800/E or the new D810. Sure, we can always read the reports like the DXO one, but the input of "real-life" professionals is invaluable.
-
The 810 has only half a stop more DR than the 800E - and it's less than half over the 800.
The 800E has the best Low ISO score of the three cameras.
-
Thank you Bernard for your feedback. Your comments are really important for people like me who are still debating whether to buy a(n other) D800/E or the new D810. Sure, we can always read the reports like the DXO one, but the input of "real-life" professionals is invaluable.
It really depends how important an expense the delta of cost is for you in the grand scheme of things.
Honnestly, the D800 remains an amazing camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 810 has only half a stop more DR than the 800E - and it's less than half over the 800.
The 800E has the best Low ISO score of the three cameras.
Yes. Now look at what Canon did over the last 6 years.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-6D-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II___836_795_483
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Now look at what Canon did over the last 6 years.
Not as well as Nikon judging by those figures. :o
-
but what about these figures? ::)
(http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Nikon-financial-results.gif)
-
I don't think any of these charts talk about image quality as much as market penetration.
Canon had a full frame camera way before Nikon, way before anyone and if you were a professional 8 years ago, it was Canon or medium format or both.
It took Nikon forever to come out with a full frame camera and when they did, it was aimed more at the sports photographer than the general advertising market.
Consequently a lot of people have a lot of legacy Canon glass.
Also Canon jumped on the low cost video bandwagon early with the 5d2, continued on with the Canon mount on the 1dc, the c100 to 500 and most third party cameras like RED have a Canon mount solution.
Nikon is just beginning to start promoting video and now offers a "kit" with the d810, along with a marketing campaign, which in 2014 is kind of like someone at Nikon said, "you know video might be a big market", which kind of makes you wonder what they were thinking in 2009.
Once again, I'm not judging usability, color, detail, image quality, just market density and Canon had a very long head start.
In fact Nikon had a leg up in cinema and video in the adoption of their lenses. For decades the only still camera lenses used for cinema and video were basically Nikon and older Nikon lenses like the 50mm 1.2 still go for a decent price.
Why Nikon didn't capitalize on this is confusing, especially since they had no ENG camera market to protect.
So bottom line, of the image makers I know that shoot combination projects, few don't leave the door without some kind of Canon product, whether it be cameras and bodies or tilt shift lenses.
Canon covers a lot of territory and once again this isn't meant to start flaming any other brand because I own both and don't sell cameras for a living.
IMO
BC
-
The only reason why I linked to those Canon data is to highlight the fact that increasing DR by half a stop when Nikon/Sony was already this far ahead of their main competition on that indicator is a pretty impressive technological feat. This was just a reaction to the "only 1/2 stop?... :(" comment.
It doesn't mean that Canon cameras aren't great tools or that Canon is going bankrupt. It was not meant to be about Canon. They were just meant to be a data reference point.
I do hope as much as anybody else that Canon will come up with a revolutionary sensor technology at the Kina putting Nikon years behind. That would be a perfect base for my collection of lenses. One can of course wonder whether that would have any practical value considering where Nikon is today relative to actual needs. At 14.8 stops DR at base ISO with 36mega very sharp pixels and great colors, most architecture/landscape contrast handling needs are covered very well but more DR at higher ISO would help in many situations such as wildlife, concert photography,...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A half stop improvement in DR is considered by DXO to be the minimum improvement that has significance.
I recall when Nikon brought out its first full-frame DSLR, the D3, almost everyone raved about its high-ISO performance, which was claimed to be significantly better than any other DSLR on the market. However, DXOMark test results later showed that the D3 had just a 1/2 stop DR advantage at ISO 1600 and above, compared with the older Canon 5D model with similar pixel count.
If one adds up all the incremental improvement in the D810, such as electronic first curtain which should improve image quality at slow shutter speeds, more accurate autofocussing, faster frame rates, slightly higher DR at base ISO, better implementation of LiveView, and possibly a slightly sharper image due to the complete absence of any AA filter components which otherwise might introduce some degree of image degradation, which is a possibility in the D800E, then the sum total of all the minor improvements could represent a sound reason for buying a D810, especially for someone who has had an eye on the D800E but has resisted buying one.
-
Hello,
In the comparison test chart at the link below.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d810/7
When I look at side by side images of the new Nikon D810 and Nikon D800E in Raw and 100 ISO what I see is the the D800E is equal and in some chases sharper than the Nikon D810.
Just my point of view.
Cheers
Simon
-
The image quality differences are fairly slight, and I suspect that the size of some of the differences may well be comparable with sample-to-sample variation and measurement error. Looking at the dpreview raw test images and the DXOMark tests, the only noticeable difference seems to be better DR at ISO 64, and perhaps slightly lower chroma noise (amp noise?) above ISO 3200.
But I guess few people will change a D800/e for a D810 for image quality - it would be the other improvements that would attract.
-
Hello,
In the comparison test chart at the link below.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d810/7
When I look at side by side images of the new Nikon D810 and Nikon D800E in Raw and 100 ISO what I see is the the D800E is equal and in some chases sharper than the Nikon D810.
Just my point of view.
Cheers
Simon
I agree. The D800E 100 ISO looks better than the D810 100 ISO - it's got smoother detail.
If you blow them both up to 200% and look at the centre circle on the chart, the D800E NEF is fine but the D810 NEF is littered with artefacts. I'm not sure if they're moiré or something else.
Here's the centre circle at 200% - D800E is on the left, D810 on the right. NB. The D800E NEF is lossless compressed because it's only 43.6MB whereas the D810 NEF is uncompressed at 74.2MB. Both have picture control sharpness at +3 in camera and both were shot using manual focus.
-
I agree. The D800E 100 ISO looks better than the D810 100 ISO - it's got smoother detail.
If you blow them both up to 200% and look at the centre circle on the chart, the D800E NEF is fine but the D810 NEF is littered with artefacts. I'm not sure if they're moiré or something else.
The D810 seems much sharper here, doesn't it?
We have typical images with a (weak) AA filter on the left and without one on the right. This is the closest thing to a MFDB I have seen from a DSLR.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
duplicated post
-
The D810 seems much sharper here, doesn't it?
It does but only at the expense of artefacts. To get rid of them, the D810's in-camera sharpening would probably have to be zero (instead of +3) and that might make it softer than the D800E.
I'd like to test the 800E and 810 myself though - you can never be certain about focussing when looking at someone else's pics.
-
I got mine this afternoon. I did some test shots and calibrated it too. A few comparison shots shows to very little difference. It is nice with the EFC, but I don't get the way it is implemented. In live view where this should be the obvious place to use it, I cannot shot continous and I need to set it to MUP and even click the shutter twice for each picture! Compared to the Canon implementation this is really clumsy. The bottom line is that I will live with it. It is nice too that the camera now uses the buffer when shooting in live view!
-
Sadly the dark frame processing is still done without moving it to the buffer so the camera is locked out until the dark frame is done. Canon figured out how to do this years ago.
Paul
-
I believe EFC does work in Live View, not just MU. Pressing the "i" button while in live view brings up the option to activate EFC. It makes sense since the mirror is locked up in LV.
Dave Jolley
-
I believe EFC does work in Live View, not just MU. Pressing the "i" button while in live view brings up the option to activate EFC. It makes sense since the mirror is locked up in LV.
Dave Jolley
EFC does work with live view when you also have set the wheel to MUP! Otherwise not.
-
Sadly the dark frame processing is still done without moving it to the buffer so the camera is locked out until the dark frame is done. Canon figured out how to do this years ago.
Paul
Dark frame requires another exposure with the same shutter speed as the previous image, I cannot see how you can do this in the buffer since it requires the sensor. After the dark frame is captured, the "processing" is just a simple substraction that does not impact performance.
-
I got mine this afternoon. I did some test shots and calibrated it too. A few comparison shots shows to very little difference. It is nice with the EFC, but I don't get the way it is implemented. In live view where this should be the obvious place to use it, I cannot shot continous and I need to set it to MUP and even click the shutter twice for each picture! Compared to the Canon implementation this is really clumsy.
I wonder how Canon does it. My understanding is that EFC means that the sensor has the ability to stop/start recording information at a certain point of time, right?
This would mean that it must first be told to shut down before being told to start recording. If the order to take the image is implemented on the Canon as both the shut down and shoot orders, doesn't that induce some delay for the start of the actual capture?
But, regardless, the UI chosen by Nikon to switch to this double click capture in live view (need to activate MLU) is somehow debatable, although I don't find to have any impact on shooting experience. It is just something to get used to, isn't it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wonder how Canon does it. My understanding is that EFC means that the sensor has the ability to stop/start recording information at a certain point of time, right?
This would mean that it must first be told to shut down before being told to start recording. If the order to take the image is implemented on the Canon as both the shut down and shoot orders, doesn't that induce some delay for the start of the actual capture?
But, regardless, the UI chosen by Nikon to switch to this double click capture in live view (need to activate MLU) is somehow debatable, although I don't find to have any impact on shooting experience. It is just something to get used to, isn't it?
Cheers,
Bernard
I don't believe there is any difference in how Canon and Nikon does it. The EFC works by the sensor doing a reset to start the exposure without the first curtain moving at all. The MUP in live view is not moving the mirror which you can assure yourself about when doing what I suggested some posts above, take off the lens and use a long shutter speed and see what's going on with the shutter. In live view the first click of the shutter does absolutely nothing the second starts the exposure. In fact on the D800(E) what happens in live view with MUP is that the first click on the shutter button closes these first curtain and the second click opens it for exposure. They just kept the same functionality with no reason since the shutter does not move at all with EFC.
On Canon live work works with EFC and you can do continous shooting with only the second curtain moving. That's what I had hoped Nikon would have done with the D810. But not. As I said it's something one can get used to, but ..... it in my view this is a bug in the implementation.
-
I don't believe there is any difference in how Canon and Nikon does it. The EFC works by the sensor doing a reset to start the exposure without the first curtain moving at all. The MUP in live view is not moving the mirror which you can assure yourself about when doing what I suggested some posts above, take off the lens and use a long shutter speed and see what's going on with the shutter. In live view the first click of the shutter does absolutely nothing the second starts the exposure. In fact on the D800(E) what happens in live view with MUP is that the first click on the shutter button closes these first curtain and the second click opens it for exposure. They just kept the same functionality with no reason since the shutter does not move at all with EFC.
On Canon live work works with EFC and you can do continous shooting with only the second curtain moving. That's what I had hoped Nikon would have done with the D810. But not. As I said it's something one can get used to, but ..... it in my view this is a bug in the implementation.
You don't appear to have understood my comments Hans.
My point is that the instructions to reset the sensor and to take the image are implemented as 2 different steps on Nikon and as one single step on the Canon.
I question the possibility to have accurate capture timing on the Canon, but this depends on the implementation in terms of time needed to reset the sensor vs others delays occuring at exposure.
As I wrote, I fully understand that there is no mirror movement and that the decision to use MLU function as a second trigger to be able to use EFC in live view is debatable.
Clear now?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You don't appear to have understood my comments Hans.
My point is that the instructions to reset the sensor and to take the image are implemented as 2 different steps on Nikon and as one single step on the Canon.
I question the possibility to have accurate capture timing on the Canon, but this depends on the implementation in terms of time needed to reset the sensor vs others delays occuring at exposure.
As I wrote, I fully understand that there is no mirror movement and that the decision to use MLU function as a second trigger to be able to use EFC in live view is debatable.
Clear now?
Cheers,
Bernard
What reason could there be to have to clicks on the shutter to start the exposure in live view with MUP active and EFC active? Well not real good reason except to be consistent with the behavior when EFC is not active!
-
What reason could there be to have to clicks on the shutter to start the exposure in live view with MUP active and EFC active? Well not real good reason except to be consistent with the behavior when EFC is not active!
But on your question. In my view there is value in not having to go to a menu to switch between EFc and non EFC modes in live view. I like that part about the Nikon implementation.
There is also value in the user controlling the exact exposure timing when EFC is engaged. I like this part as well.
Once you know that you need 2 clicks to achieve this, the remaining question is about the best way to implement these 2 clicks. MLU is present in the muscle memory of many photographers as one mode of camera operation that requires double shutter action, but it would be possible to do it other ways too. That's why I write it is debatable.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But on your question. In my view there is value in not having to go to a menu to switch between EFc and non EFC modes in live view. I like that part about the Nikon implementation.
There is also value in the user controlling the exact exposure timing when EFC is engaged. I like this part as well.
Once you know that you need 2 clicks to achieve this, the remaining question is about the best way to implement these 2 clicks. MLU is present in the muscle memory of many photographers as one mode of camera operation that requires double shutter action, but it would be possible to do it other ways too. That's why I write it is debatable.
Cheers,
Bernard
On the Canon e.g. 5D mkIII the EFC option is set in the live view menu. In fact you can always shoot with EFC on the Canon in live view. It is not coupled to mirror lock up.
On the Nikon it is fine that EFC is coupled with MUP outside of live view. In live view I had hoped that there was an option for EFC for live view only, but there is not unfortunately.
Having EFC locked to MUP is inelegant as one has to turn the wheel to MUP for shooting in live view with EFC and it is not possible to shoot continous for bracketing. On top of that one has to click twice with the shutter for each picture. My experience is that do not seem to be shutter shake shooting in live view without EFC up to between 100mm and 150mm focal length. So when EFC is deemed necessary one has to turn to MUP and double click the shutter for each picture in the bracket sequence.
As mentioned one can get used to it and every camera has it quirks for sure, but I had hope for a more elegant solution. Everything is debatable....
Clear?
-
Yes
-
I don't think any of these charts talk about image quality as much as market penetration.
Canon had a full frame camera way before Nikon, way before anyone and if you were a professional 8 years ago, it was Canon or medium format or both.
It took Nikon forever to come out with a full frame camera and when they did, it was aimed more at the sports photographer than the general advertising market.
Consequently a lot of people have a lot of legacy Canon glass.
Also Canon jumped on the low cost video bandwagon early with the 5d2, continued on with the Canon mount on the 1dc, the c100 to 500 and most third party cameras like RED have a Canon mount solution.
Nikon is just beginning to start promoting video and now offers a "kit" with the d810, along with a marketing campaign, which in 2014 is kind of like someone at Nikon said, "you know video might be a big market", which kind of makes you wonder what they were thinking in 2009.
Once again, I'm not judging usability, color, detail, image quality, just market density and Canon had a very long head start.
In fact Nikon had a leg up in cinema and video in the adoption of their lenses. For decades the only still camera lenses used for cinema and video were basically Nikon and older Nikon lenses like the 50mm 1.2 still go for a decent price.
Why Nikon didn't capitalize on this is confusing, especially since they had no ENG camera market to protect.
So bottom line, of the image makers I know that shoot combination projects, few don't leave the door without some kind of Canon product, whether it be cameras and bodies or tilt shift lenses.
Canon covers a lot of territory and once again this isn't meant to start flaming any other brand because I own both and don't sell cameras for a living.
IMO
BC
My impression is, that Nikon has been affected by Sony's FF mirror less cameras much more than Canon... Those that don't care on having an OVF, or those that video is important to them, would prefer a Sony mirror less than a mirror box Nikon... Some still life pros that work tethered in studio and perhaps use their FF camera as a back on a shift/tilt device (like an old view camera) would clearly prefer a mirrorless Sony than Nikon... Also... very few videographers use Nikon... Nikon has to work on that... it's a huge market segment.
-
It seems that DR range is clearly better with the D800E at comparable ISO... D810 scores higher at ISO64 which is sensible since the sensor is less sensitive... This can be important for people (mostly studio pros or those who use tripod often) that can use 64 ISO often, but it may not be good news for other users that are equally important for the camera's sales numbers. Mind you that the obvious advantage of D800E's DR at comparable ISO was mentioned earlier (it was obvious through the JPEG comparisons) but Bernard thought it could be the other way around when DXO would publish the (obvious) results... well, it's not!
-
My impression is, that Nikon has been affected by Sony's FF mirror less cameras much more than Canon... Those that don't care on having an OVF, or those that video is important to them, would prefer a Sony mirror less than a mirror box Nikon... Some still life pros that work tethered in studio and perhaps use their FF camera as a back on a shift/tilt device (like an old view camera) would clearly prefer a mirrorless Sony than Nikon... Also... very few videographers use Nikon... Nikon has to work on that... it's a huge market segment.
Perhaps, but all the a7x owners I know are migrating from Canon or adding a Sony to use their excellent Canon lenses on a higher DR sensor.
The key factor is sensor to mount distance.
The shorter, the more you sell body, the longer the more the mount sells lenses.
Who is in the middle? Canon.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Perhaps, but all the a7x owners I know are migrating from Canon or adding a Sony to use their excellent Canon lenses on a higher DR sensor.
The key factor is sensor to mount distance.
The shorter, the more you sell body, the longer the more the mount sells lenses.
Who is in the middle? Canon.
Cheers,
Bernard
Most I know (probably we know different people) use Nikon lenses (especially older AI & AI-S) on their mirror less... some are using them on their ...Canon's too! I've many times said that Nikon's biggest marketing mistake is that they abandoned the aperture ring from their lenses... If they bring it back, not only they'll sell much more many lenses (some of them to people with other maker's camera), but they'll create an easier path for people to jump on their boat, or even people that will have different bodies with Nikon lenses and are regular customers of Nikon camera bodies whenever there is something that interests them...
P.S. Thanks for explaining the mount to light sensitive area distance to me... :o I bet it was "news" to most of us here... ;) ...I always wondered why my 17-35 Nikkor won't fit my C645&back... now "thanks to you" I know... :P
-
Most I know (probably we know different people) use Nikon lenses (especially older AI & AI-S) on their mirror less... some are using them on their ...Canon's too!
We are saying the exact same thing here...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We are saying the exact same thing here...
Cheers,
Bernard
No we don't... you say Sony mirrorless affects negatively Canon sales, while I say that it affects Nikon sales more! ...I even suggest a way of Nikon to avoid that happening... To bring the aperture ring back! ...Maybe a large sensor mirrorless of their own would help even more... Clearly the sales of Nikon are affected by Canon's/Sony's tradition with video and a new mirrorless mount (with future hi-end video cameras in mind like the NEX mount) could be very beneficial under the circumstances...
-
A mirrorless mount in combination with a shift/tilt adapter would additionally be very beneficial for studio pros that would then keep their series of lenses for their still life photography... Now they are loosing those customers to Sony...
-
My impression is, that Nikon has been affected by Sony's FF mirror less cameras much more than Canon... Those that don't care on having an OVF, or those that video is important to them, would prefer a Sony mirror less than a mirror box Nikon... Some still life pros that work tethered in studio and perhaps use their FF camera as a back on a shift/tilt device (like an old view camera) would clearly prefer a mirrorless Sony than Nikon... Also... very few videographers use Nikon... Nikon has to work on that... it's a huge market segment.
You talk to anyone that sells cameras on the medium to high end for motion and they all scratch their head why Nikon doesn't/didn't make a killer combo stills or motion camera.
Obviously Nikon is smart, sees the advantage in motion imagery, (hence the big advertising push for motion and their "video kit" for the d810).
They could have made a super 70d, with an apsc (super 35mm) 4k crop in camera for motion and full frame 35mpx stills all in the same body, with decent preamps, touch screen the while 9.
Most people assume it has something to do with their contract arrangements, maybe with Sony, or maybe they just fell asleep at the wheel and didn't think they needed it.
All the Japanese companies do some silly things, or protect market share.
I just bought a 70d for a production that needed touch screen focus and a decent 2k file and the 70d is pretty amazing in that regard and produces a somewhat hefty file, with an all intra 1 minute clip is about 400mb so it grades well, focus tracks well, is sturdy and aps c is the perfect size for motion, which somewhat parallels, super 35mm in crop and mindset, but then there is the things Canon leaves off.
Like a headphone jack (which isn't a deal breaker with an external recorder), but if you use the hdmi out, the touch screen lcd on camera blanks out (which is really unforgivable). Also 2.5 K capture and then downsampling to 2k (like the Arri) is about the minimum to cut alaising and moire which the 70d sensor could do, though probably would need some heavy horsepower to process.
If the 70d had the features mentioned, or even 4k they could ask double, triple the price and nobody in the motion world would blink, but I guess Canon, like Sony thinks about protecting market share on their higher end cameras.
In other words, I feel it's either marketing, or some kind of agreements that hobbles innovation as much if not more than available science.
IMO
BC
-
Well... certainly a D810 won't add them extra customers over D800/E sales... but the same technology over a mirrorless would... and if they brought back the aperture ring it would create them a wider range of future customers too... There is nothing in your statement I disagree with, only that I don't believe that Sony prohibits Nikon from bringing a (real) mirrorless into the market... I don't believe they depend on Sony for their sensors, their best sensor (for photography) is their own (the 16.2mp one) and they raised production of it considerably with the DF...
-
No we don't... you say Sony mirrorless affects negatively Canon sales, while I say that it affects Nikon sales more!
I am saying it is clearly affecting both. Without the shadow of a doubt Canon because I know many first hand examples of people using Canon lenses on Sony ax bodies.
So Sony has been able to sell bodies to people pre-owning Canon lenses. This hurting Canon sales directly because Canon was obviously hoping these people would naturally upgrade to a Canon body. It is hurting Nikon sales only as a missed win back opportunity.
I also know examples of people pre-owning Canon bodies with Nikon lenses (the 14-24mm f2.8 is a clear example)s. So Nikon has been able to sell lenses to Canon body owners.
I don't know any example of people having replaced their Nikon bodies by a Sony ax body, but even if there were people would still be continuing to use their Nikon lenses with these just like they are using their Canon lenses on their ax bodies. The reason why few Nikon users have bought ax bodies is that the main advantage they have over Nikon DSLRs is compactness. Some people may prefer EVFs, but their main value of EVFs is ease of focus with manual lenses coming from other makes, which doesn't impact most Nikon owners already benefiting from excellent AF. On all other metrics the Nikon DSLRs are superior or on par to the equivalent Sony ax body, are they not?
There are obviously no examples of Canon/Sony selling any lens to Nikon body owners because they just cannot fit Nikon bodies.
Which is why I am saying that the sensor to lens flange distance is very critical. I was of course not trying to teach you that these distances were different, just why the difference is relevant to the point you were making.
So I fail to see the rationale of Nikon beeing hurt more globally.
What exactly are you disagreeing with here?
...I even suggest a way of Nikon to avoid that happening... To bring the aperture ring back! ...Maybe a large sensor mirrorless of their own would help even more... Clearly the sales of Nikon are affected by Canon's/Sony's tradition with video and a new mirrorless mount (with future hi-end video cameras in mind like the NEX mount) could be very beneficial under the circumstances...
Which supported my proposal that Nikon is well positioned to sell lenses to other shorter flange distance mount owners... but there are adapters enabling the usage of Nikon G lenses on Canon bodies, right?...
I don't disagree that Nikon mirrorless strategy doesn't have big holes, but I disagree that Sony ax is hurting them more than Canon because this is not backed up by facts nor by logic.
The influence of video is tiny in my opinion.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am saying it is clearly affecting both. Without the shadow of a doubt Canon because I know many first hand examples of people using Canon lenses on Sony ax bodies.
This would only be hurting Canon's sales if people who do this are buying the Sony instead of a Canon. In my experience, and based on what I've seen of online discussion, it's almost invariably that people are buying an AX in addition to their Canon bodies, because Canon doesn't have an "equivalent" horse in the race.
-
This would only be hurting Canon's sales if people who do this are buying the Sony instead of a Canon. In my experience, and based on what I've seen of online discussion, it's almost invariably that people are buying an AX in addition to their Canon bodies, because Canon doesn't have an "equivalent" horse in the race.
Don't you think that the timing of their next Canon body purchase is going to be affected by them having bought a Sony a7r?
I think that, average, if you own a 5DIII and an a7r you will not buy a 5DIV.
Based our world's quarterly paced business, any delay longer than 3 months has an impact.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't see why Nikon users should switch to Sony. Beside the fact they are a very loyal user base, the differences in the output of a A7r and a D800 are very little. And I guess this goes for the D810, too, beside the fact, that DXO proves a little advantage for the Nikon.
I switched from a 5DMKIII to a Sony A7r.
-
So far I have had 3 on my workshops this year with a Sony A7R, two of them were already D800 users and one Canon and Olympus user (so 3 out of 29 so far this year). Too little to build statistics on, of course. I think it is reasonable to expect that a number of Canon users will add a Sony since it is easy to share Canon lenses. I think only a few will switch but we will see. I also only saw a few switching from Canon to Nikon (or the other way) and I saw almost all the 5D mkII upgrade to 5D mkIII. A number have bought a Olympus OMD and some Fuji. Besides all this serious landscape shooters are a minority among the customer base of both Canon and Nikon. So I don't believe that the A7R will change much, if anything for Canon or Nikon.
-
Clearly this is a discussion between marketing "experts" that ignore the majority of the market (which buys cameras based on their hybrid (photo-video)[/i] specification and abilities) and think like they (and their priorities on choosing products) is the centre of the universe... :P Well, let me inform you guys that this crucial part of the market that does its filming along with its photography through a camera... They do it in MF ...and they (by far) prefer lenses that have an aperture ring... :-* ...they also prefer (guess why...) a mirrorless product. Mind you that I (this is personal) find an EVF inadequate for creative photography (other than tethered) ...but this is only to declare the side of the river I prefer... it doesn't make me blind!
-
Clearly this is a discussion between marketing "experts" that ignore the majority of the market (which buys cameras based on their hybrid (photo-video)[/i] specification and abilities) and think like they (and their priorities on choosing products) is the centre of the universe... :P Well, let me inform you guys that this crucial part of the market that does its filming along with its photography through a camera... They do it in MF ...and they (by far) prefer lenses that have an aperture ring... :-* ...they also prefer (guess why...) a mirrorless product. Mind you that I (this is personal) find an EVF inadequate for creative photography (other than tethered) ...but this is only to declare the side of the river I prefer... it doesn't make me blind!
If I may, where do you get these obvious marketing facts from?
I have done some basic video shooting with my D800 for some internal corporate applications and it was perfect for that, way too good in fact. The low end video segment seems very well covered by DSLRs, whatever the brand.
On the other hand, the real video guys shooting for an audience seem to be shooting from blackmagic and up in raw. Even the a7s is pretty much described by those guys on this very forum as a toy lacking some key capabilities both standalone and when used in a video rig.
So I am not sure who are these people representing the majority of the market who would buy millions of newly designed manual aperture nikkors? My view is that there are already literally millions of excellent and cheap second hand nikkors out there that cover this market well, not to mention the fact that Nikon still manufacture some manual lenses (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/All-Lenses/index.page) nor that Zeiss has a full line of those with aperture rings in F mount.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If I may, where do you get these obvious marketing facts from?
The sale figures, where Nikon sales much less than what their product worth... As you said: "Obvious marketing facts"... :D
So I am not sure who are these people representing the majority of the market who would buy millions of newly designed manual aperture nikkors?
Cheers,
Bernard
Who said anything about "newly designed" lenses and "manual" apertures? I only suggested that they should "bring the aperture ring back"... :P
-
Let's take this thread back in the right direction with some pictures! ;)
Our daughter this past weekend.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3881/14771635335_abd1dec477_o.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5583/14771299402_a5a0c8d26e_o.jpg)
Otus 55mm f1.4 on D810, natural light.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't know about the D810 but your daughter is beautiful Bernard :)
-
I don't know about the D810 but your daughter is beautiful Bernard :)
Thanks, I'll tell her. :)
Cheers,
Bernard