Nikon D820 (more convincing rumor)

[Paul2660]

Not true for me.

As I stated ISO 800 and up the Sony had more noise. Considerably.

Which surprised me due to the sensor.

Paul Caldwell

[Guillermo Luijk]

Show RAW files taken in identical conditions and I will believe you. Meanwhile I'll believe DxO measurements rather a single user perception with no proof available to analyse.

Regards

[Paul2660]

Raw files for me are long gone.

You can easily see similar results on the dpreview comparison tool or on imaging reasources test pages.

Results are very close I won't disagree.  I tend to shy away from DxO and use tests where you can download the test images and test them for yourself.

The noise plus loss of AF (I would have been using Nikon glass), along with increased noise as the camera got hot and the horrible long exposure noise issues were the reasons I chose to return the Sony.

I am sure it works fine for others.

Paul Caldwell

 

[Guillermo Luijk]

I haven't been able to see any Dpreview comparison where the A7R II has excesive noise at ISO800 compared to the D810 as you claim. Probably you are based on user perception rather than on real facts.

Regards

[Paul2660]

Guillermo,

I am sorry you feel it necessary to call me out on this.  It's your call.  I will assume you are an expert on the matter, and you thus  have all the facts.  I will stand down on my opinion.   You are correct the A7rII is superior to the D810 totally, and I guess I am just ignorant on how to use these cameras since I found different results than those that you found.    Net, the A7RII for me was not what I expected, and I returned it.    However that fact that your opinion varies from mine, IMO is no reason to assume I am not able to test such cameras on my own and thus don't have all the facts.  That is a bit of an insult. 

Enjoy the A7RII.

Paul Caldwell

[Michael Erlewine]

Guillermo,

I am sorry you feel it necessary to call me out on this.  It's your call.  I will assume you are an expert on the matter, and you thus  have all the facts.  I will stand down on my opinion.   You are correct the A7rII is superior to the D810 totally, and I guess I am just ignorant on how to use these cameras since I found different results than those that you found.    Net, the A7RII for me was not what I expected, and I returned it.    However that fact that your opinion varies from mine, IMO is no reason to assume I am not able to test such cameras on my own and thus don't have all the facts.  That is a bit of an insult. 

Enjoy the A7RII.

Paul Caldwell

I have used and compared the A7RII to the D810 and agree with you Paul. The A7RII in my work is not as useful as the D810. Just look at the blacks and the power of the ISO 64 on the D810. Others agree on this point. For me, I had and sold the A7RII, and bought one again, mostly to use on the Cambo Actus for bellows work, but I never thought of it as offering better IQ than the D810.

[kers]

Nikons former D800e had better low light than the d810.. By a margin but a clear difference.
The d810 - at least the one i have shows white noise pixels in the blacks from asa 1600 and higher, did niot have that with the d800e.

[Michael Erlewine]

Nikons former D800e had better low light than the d810.. By a margin but a clear difference.
The d810 - at least the one i have shows white noise pixels in the blacks from asa 1600 and higher, did niot have that with the d800e.

That may be. I almost always just use ISO 64.

[JKoerner007]

Nikons former D800e had better low light than the d810.. By a margin but a clear difference.
The d810 - at least the one i have shows white noise pixels in the blacks from asa 1600 and higher, did niot have that with the d800e.

The whole, exemplary point about the D810's peerless ability is ISO 64 ... not ISO 1600.

Its image quality, even today, is unmatched at Base ISO.

[JKoerner007]

Benchmark Performance (2 Year Later): Nikon D810 Review (DP Review, May 2016)

• Two years after Nikon shook up the high-end DSLR market with the 36MP D800 and D800E, it consolidated the 800-series with the release of a new camera, the D810. The D810 replaced both previous 800-series models, and took the D800E's 'AA filter cancellation' trick one step further by dispensing with an AA filter entirely ...

...

• Anti-aliasing filter aside, the D810 is not by any means a reinvention of the popular D800/E concept, but the handful of major changes do make the new camera more capable than its predecessors. The D800/E were known for their massive Raw dynamic range, and the D810's ISO 64 mode improves on this ...

...

• ...The D810 isn't a camera that you should necessarily sell your D800 or D800E for, but it's a better camera than both older models in almost every respect.

...

• Sure a Canon 5DS/R out-resolves the D810, with the proper glass, but at ISO 64 the D810 has industry-leading noise performance. That means the cleanest, crispest images south of medium format, and dynamic range that matches even the Pentax 645Z. The D810 is able to pull off this little trick by extending its ability to capture light at ISO 64: it can tolerate up to nearly 0.7 EV more light before clipping the same highlights a traditional camera with base ISO 100 might. Assuming you can give the D810 that 60% extra light, it can compete with the 645Z's 66% greater sensor surface area, especially since its sensor noise floor is similar in performance to that in the 645Z. Indeed, we found it to match the 645Z's dynamic range in our real-world dynamic range shootout, beating even Sony's excellent a7R II, and handily crushing the Canon 5DSR.

[Michael Erlewine]

Benchmark Performance (2 Year Later): Nikon D810 Review (DP Review, May 2016)

• Sure a Canon 5DS/R out-resolves the D810, with the proper glass, but at ISO 64 the D810 has industry-leading noise performance. That means the cleanest, crispest images south of medium format, and dynamic range that matches even the Pentax 645Z. The D810 is able to pull off this little trick by extending its ability to capture light at ISO 64: it can tolerate up to nearly 0.7 EV more light before clipping the same highlights a traditional camera with base ISO 100 might. Assuming you can give the D810 that 60% extra light, it can compete with the 645Z's 66% greater sensor surface area, especially since its sensor noise floor is similar in performance to that in the 645Z. Indeed, we found it to match the 645Z's dynamic range in our real-world dynamic range shootout, beating even Sony's excellent a7R II, and handily crushing the Canon 5DSR.

From what I have read (and I am not a techspert in these matters), the ISO 64 is somehow specially hard-wired for this low value. But I can say that I have never used a camera with better lo ISO and that includes the X1D and the GFX, IMO. I believe that Lloyd Chambers has commented about all of this, but I don't have time just to check it out.

[hogloff]

810 might be the cat's meow uf you have the right conditions...but the A7R2 sure sings when you have to handhold at ISO 1600 and up with it's great image quality, light body and lenses and IBIS. Hard to beat the A7R2 for a walk around system during travels. Used the A7R during a month long trip throughout Vietnam and it lightness and compact lenses...was a joy to use. Lugging a 810 for a month along with the big DSLR lenses would have been a disaster.

So the 810 might be a great one trick pony, the A7R2 has much more flexibility and still delivers superb results and I would venture a lot that the majority ( if not all ) could not consistently pick which print was shot with which camera. To me...that's the bottom line, large prints and flexibility in the camera.

[Michael Erlewine]

So the 810 might be a great one trick pony...

Hardly a one-trick pony! This is a good example why I don't spend much time here lately.

[JKoerner007]

810 might be the cat's meow uf you have the right conditions...but the A7R2 sure sings when you have to handhold at ISO 1600 and up with it's great image quality, light body and lenses and IBIS. Hard to beat the A7R2 for a walk around system during travels. Used the A7R during a month long trip throughout Vietnam and it lightness and compact lenses...was a joy to use. Lugging a 810 for a month along with the big DSLR lenses would have been a disaster.

So the 810 might be a great one trick pony, the A7R2 has much more flexibility and still delivers superb results and I would venture a lot that the majority ( if not all ) could not consistently pick which print was shot with which camera. To me...that's the bottom line, large prints and flexibility in the camera.

With the finest prime lens portfolio, and the finest base ISO performance, the D810 is (in fact) a more all-around tool than the A7R II.

Hog, we get it: you love Sony/hate Nikon.

Why don't you go back to the Sony thread you started? (Oops! No one cared enough to respond )

[hogloff]

With the finest prime lens portfolio, and the finest base ISO performance, the D810 is (in fact) a more all-around tool than the A7R II.

Hog, we get it: you love Sony/hate Nikon.

Why don't you go back to the Sony thread you started? (Oops! No one cared enough to respond )

Jonhy boy...seems like from your viewpoint, everything Nikon touches is gold...far from it. If one loves to lug around a brick all day, the 810 is your camera...but from a portability and joy to travel with...you can keep that brick in it's box on the shelf. With the IQ so close between the 810 and A7R2, it's really not a choice when it comes to comfort when traveling and the ability to handhold in dim light.

Oh by the way Johny, nice move over on FM creating another account after you got locked out...for being a Nikon fanboy...

[JKoerner007]

Jonhy boy...seems like from your viewpoint, everything Nikon touches is gold...far from it. If one loves to lug around a brick all day, the 810 is your camera...but from a portability and joy to travel with...you can keep that brick in it's box on the shelf. With the IQ so close between the 810 and A7R2, it's really not a choice when it comes to comfort when traveling and the ability to handhold in dim light.

It seems the only way you can make a point is to insult, exaggerate, and claim quotations that never were said.

Can you reference the line of any post where I said, "Everything Nikon touches turns to gold?"
Can you cite any reference where the D810 is classified as "a brick?"

I said the Nikon D810 has the best base ISO performance of any DSLR and cited my references. I also said the D810 has more high-end-primes available to it than any other FF body.

Logic would hold that, if the D810 can produce the cleanest images, if it has more available lens options, that this would make it the more all-around-useful tool.
The truth is your preference (A7rII) is only optimal within a much smaller parameter, given its available-lens limitations.

Hog, why do you feel the need to pollute every Nikon thread with your derision and exaggeration? Is it because you realize that, if you stuck with the truth, then you'd have nothing to say?

Oh by the way Johny, nice move over on FM creating another account after you got locked out...for being a Nikon fanboy...

I haven't 'moved over' from anywhere; I am a paying member of FM Forum as well.

Do you think it's possible for you to be civil?

Do you think it's possible for you to stick to facts when you post (and resist your penchant for derision, exaggeration, and lies)?

I suppose it would be best for me to put you on my ignore list. After all, if one plays with hogs they cannot help but get filthy.

[Jim Kasson]

I said the Nikon D810 has the best base ISO performance of any DSLR and cited my references.

Uh, maybe not:

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D810,Phase%20One%20IQ3%20100MP

Did you mean FF DSLR?

I also said the D810 has more high-end-primes available to it than any other FF body.

I use Nikon, Leica-M, Leica-R, Coastal, Zeiss F-mount, Zeiss E-mount, Sony E-mount, and Sony A-mount lenses on my a7RIIs. If I wanted to, I could use Canon lenses as well. In the past I've used Hassy V-mount and H-mount lenses on them.

Logic would hold that, if the D810 can produce the cleanest images, if it has more available lens options, that this would make it the more all-around-useful tool.

Ultimately, what camera body is best depends heavily on the photographer. I will say that I have a D810 that I hardly ever use, and am planning on selling. I find the things that it does better than the a7RII and the GFX, the D5 does even better. My usefulness Venn diagram doesn't have much room for the D810. Others with different goals and different camera choices, may come to different conclusion.

Jim

[JKoerner007]

Did you mean FF DSLR?

Yes.

I use Nikon, Leica-M, Leica-R, Coastal, Zeiss F-mount, Zeiss E-mount, Sony E-mount, and Sony A-mount lenses on my a7RIIs. If I wanted to, I could use Canon lenses as well. In the past I've used Hassy V-mount and H-mount lenses on them.

Not without an adapter, which limits performance.

I should have said, "Most available high-end native primes."

Ultimately, what camera body is best depends heavily on the photographer. I will say that I have a D810 that I hardly ever use, and am planning on selling. I find the things that it does better than the a7RII and the GFX, the D5 does even better. My usefulness Venn diagram doesn't have much room for the D810. Others with different goals and different camera choices, may come to different conclusion.
Jim

Yes, but the subject was optimal Base ISO DSLR performance; in that case, there's only one choice: the D810.

If you need high ISO (or action), I agree, the choice would change to the D5.

[Jim Kasson]

Not without an adapter, which limits performance.

I have found no degradation in IQ whatsoever that comes from using an good adapter. Some features may not work. In the case of MF lenses, I have not found any important feature to not work. These are corner cases, but there are some Nikon lenses that will work on the a7x with an adapter but not on the D810.

Yes, but the subject was optimal Base ISO DSLR performance; in that case, there's only one choice: the D810.

If base-ISO DR is the most important thing, I use my GFX.

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%2050S,Nikon%20D810

Admittedly, it's not a DSLR. But neither is an a7RII.

Jim

[JKoerner007]

I have found no degradation in IQ whatsoever that comes from using an good adapter. Some features may not work. In the case of MF lenses, I have not found any important feature to not work. These are corner cases, but there are some Nikon lenses that will work on the a7x with an adapter but not on the D810.

You forgot the modifier, high-end Nikon lenses.

Certainly, an adapter doesn't "improve" any lens ... it is always an extra expense; it is always an impediment to use one.

No one would use an adapter ... unless they had to.

If base-ISO DR is the most important thing, I use my GFX.

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%2050S,Nikon%20D810

Admittedly, it's not a DSLR. But neither is an a7RII.

Jim

Cute. However:

1) The A7rII is in the same class (FF 35mm) as the D810;
2) The D810, likewise, has more high-end lens choices than the GFX (making it the overall more useful tool);
3) With the best prime lenses in the world (Otus, and other) the D810 is a better performer than the GFX.

You might want to revisit some of Michael E's posts, where he rejected both the Hassy X1D and the Fuji GFX MF backs precisely because of their lens limitations ... and because, with the best optics in front of the D810, it outperforms these backs (with their limited so-so lenses) at Base ISO.

However, if you're satisfied with what you have, I agree that's all that matters.

Which brings us back to the point of the thread: an eager anticipation to see the improvements of the D820/50.