Nikon D820 (more convincing rumor)

[Jim Kasson]

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.

I haven't had only one camera since the 1950s. I don't even think that, if you're not forced to use only one camera, it even makes sense to think about what one camera would have the biggest use footprint if you had to pick only one.

In my testing, the Otus 55 and 85 performed better on the GFX than they did on the the a7RII, let alone the D810, which was another step down, for aspect ratios of 4:5 and squarer, which is where I like to work.

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a7rii-gfx-on-axis-sharpness-w-otus-85/

But one of the great things about the GFX -- maybe the greatest -- if the Fuji lenses. The 120 macro is a marvel. The 63 is merely excellent. It is sharper on-axis than the Otus 55 on the a7RII. Again, the differences are small.

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a7riiotus-55-vs-gfxfuji-63/

I am currently testing the 23, and it looks like a winner. I have the 110, and will be testing it more soon.

The 120 macro on the GFX outperforms the Otus 85 on both the a7RII and the D810, in my tests, although the differences are small:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/otus-85-on-the-a7rii-fuji-120mm-macro-on-the-gfx-50s/

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.

So-so, huh? As I said, not my experience. BTW, there are aspects of the Fuji lenses that I don't like, such as FBW.

Michael and I have different goals, and quite different experiences. We have communicated about this before, and I don't believe have any miscommunication on our approaches. One of the big differences between us is that the print is my final goal, and I'm interested in how equipment affects my prints. If I remember right, Michael is not interested in prints at all. Michael, please correct me if I'm wrong here.

By the way, the above links don't explore a lot of the important aspects of lens performance. That doesn't mean that they don't interest me. Ijust don't hav space or time here to post links to all my tests.

Jim

[JKoerner007]

Thanks for your input.

I will let Michael discuss his own findings, but will add that your previous graph is comparing a 3 year old, $2700, 36pmx DSLR to a brand new, $6500, 51mpx medium format camera ... and the D810 is still right there with it at Base ISO

If you have to advance 3 years, step up in class, and double the price ... only to be able to "split hairs" with the Nikon D810, at Base ISO, this goes back to the quote: "(the D810 produces) the cleanest, crispest images south of medium format ..."

What can you do with your GFX 50S if you see a bird 100 yards away. Care to list the high-end options you have with Fuji?

To me, the fact that you're splitting hairs with the 3-year-old, 36mp D810, with a modern 51mp medium format camera,  only makes the anticipation of what an upgraded, 46mp D850 will be able to do.

[Michael Erlewine]

I am not interested in prints, only in close-up work that I like to do. I am not a professional photographer, because that is a hard way to make a living. I have been a content aggregator (and systems programmer) for major film and music sites (which I founded) and worked as a senior consultant for NBC for years. I do photography for the joy of the process, and not for the results, although the two are linked.

When I say I like the D810, it does not mean I don't like other equipment. I would like to have all of the cameras and all of the lenses, if I could afford them. I like the X1D, the GFX, even the Pentax K1, but the particular group of lenses I like to use work best with the Nikon D810. I tried to leave the D810 behind, but none of the above (including the A7RII) could match the combination of lenses and the D810 IMO. My kind of photography is a very narrow band of what others can do with a camera.

I like this site and some of the photographers that post here, but am not willing to tolerate a lot of the BS that goes on here of putting others (or equipment down) down, so I have been staying away. I actually purchase and use all my equipment because it does what I want.

If the X1D could take the Oti and other fine lenses, I would probably have that camera as a keeper. And I may revisit the GFX after I try out the D820...if the D820 does not have the wonderful ISO 64 we find in the D810. My needs are pretty simple.

This is the kind of photography I like, this shot with the D810 and the El Nikkor 105mm APO.

[Jim Kasson]

Thanks for your input.

I will let Michael discuss his own findings, but will add that your previous graph is comparing a 3 year old, $2700, 36pmx DSLR to a brand new, $6500, 51mpx medium format camera ... and the D810 is still right there with it at Base ISO

If you have to advance 3 years, step up in class, and double the price ... only to be able to "split hairs" with the Nikon D810, at Base ISO, this goes back to the quote: "(the D810 produces) the cleanest, crispest images south of medium format ..."

What can you do with your GFX 50S if you see a bird 100 yards away. Care to list the high-end options you have with Fuji?

To me, the fact that you're splitting hairs with the 3-year-old, 36mp D810, with a modern 51mp medium format camera,  only makes the anticipation of what an upgraded, 46mp D850 will be able to do.

As I said, I'm not a believer in one camera do try to do everything. "Jack of all trades..." and all that.

WRT the generations of the sensors, the sensor in the GFX first shipped in the 645Z, announced 4/14. The D810 was announced 6/14.

I am looking forward to the GFX 100S. We already have the rough outline of that that sensor will be thanks to the Sony sensor roadmap.

I am also looking forward to the D8x0.

It's a great time to be a photographer. My only regret is that more people don't want large prints. Oh, and that maybe that keeping up with the pace of camera tech is cutting into, you know, actually making art.

Jim

[Christopher]

Why do u want to know what we do with the GFX if there is a bird far away ? Nothing, as I wouldn't choose it for that purpose. I could ask i the same dump question, what do u do with your d810 if it really rains hours after hours ? Oh yes correct nothing as it just dies of bad weather sealing...


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[JKoerner007]

Why do u want to know what we do with the GFX if there is a bird far away ? Nothing, as I wouldn't choose it for that purpose.

Why? To underscore the limitations of the GFX.

Thank you for admitting the point (without realizing it).

I could ask i the same dump question,

Yours isn't the same question, and (speaking of) dumb; it has a 'b' at the end of it not a 'p' ...

what do u do with your d810 if it really rains hours after hours ? Oh yes correct nothing as it just dies of bad weather sealing...

What do they say about turkeys and the rain?

That might be your solution ... mine, however, would be to retreat to cover and continue to capture images that would be impossible to capture with the GFX.

Hope this clarifies.

[hogloff]

Why? To underscore the limitations of the GFX.

Thank you for admitting the point (without realizing it).



Yours isn't the same question, and (speaking of) dumb; it has a 'b' at the end of it not a 'p' ...



What do they say about turkeys and the rain?

That might be your solution ... mine, however, would be to retreat to cover and continue to capture images that would be impossible to capture with the GFX.

Hope this clarifies.

Well I wouldn't luv around the 810 with the behemoth lenses for a month throughout hot, muggy crowded SEA...a limitation of the 810.

[JKoerner007]

Well I wouldn't luv around the 810 with the behemoth lenses for a month throughout hot, muggy crowded SEA...a limitation of the 810.

1) Thomas Marent lugged heavy Nikon gear around in rainforests worldwide, for over 16 years, back when they were film cameras ... and when AI-S lenses weighed a ton;

2) 99.99999999999999% of professional photographers documenting wildlife in jungles, oceans, and deserts worldwide use DSLR cameras and 'behemoth' lenses ... exactly zero use the A9.

.a limitation of the 810.

Sounds like the only limitation is in your own body strength (or tolerance for work, effort) ... everybody else seems to be fine with these tools.

[hogloff]

1) Thomas Marent lugged heavy Nikon gear around in rainforests worldwide, for over 16 years, back when they were film cameras ... and when AI-S lenses weighed a ton;

2) 99.99999999999999% of professional photographers documenting wildlife in jungles, oceans, and deserts worldwide use DSLR cameras and 'behemoth' lenses ... exactly zero use the A9.



Sounds like the only limitation is in your own body strength (or tolerance for work, effort) ... everybody else seems to be fine with these tools.

First of all keep your ignorant comments about body strength to yourself as I believe those types of comments got you banned from FredMiranada.

Secondly, have you lugged your huge DSLR system through SEA for a month. Seems like you can rattle off all these figures...but have YOU actually lugged your system for an entire month? I'd love to hear your experiences and see some of your photos.

See, I speak from experience as before digital I shot with a Pentax 6x7 system and a full set of lenses and did haul that kit up the Canadian Rockies so I know exactly what I'm talking about. I've also spent 4 weeks in Vietnam, 3 weeks in Cuba, 4 weeks in Mexico and months in Kauai and I know the pain of hauling big and heavy gear around. I much appreciate the smaller and lighter setup afforded by mirrorless.

[JKoerner007]

First of all keep your ignorant comments about body strength to yourself as I believe those types of comments got you banned from FredMiranada.

My comments to you are pretty tame compared to yours towards me.

I much appreciate the smaller and lighter setup afforded by mirrorless.

Really? If that's the case, here is another great lens from Nikon: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Lens

For the photographer who wants reach ... but wants to travel light. It is the lightest pro-quality 300mm lens in existence (755 g compared to Sony's 2340 g behemoth).

You might want to try it ...

[hogloff]

My comments to you are pretty tame compared to yours towards me.



Really? If that's the case, here is another great lens from Nikon: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Lens

For the photographer who wants reach ... but wants to travel light. It is the lightest pro-quality 300mm lens in existence (755 g compared to Sony's 2340 g behemoth).

You might want to try it ...

Sorry...I don't shoot with telephotos. My travel kit is extremely light and compact, but delivers great results. You can cherry pick a lens here and there...but just the weight of the 810 off your wrist or neck for the day will quickly see what I'm talking about. Forget about putting any behemoth lens onto the 810.

I came from shooting DSLR for many years...I know their bulk and weight and I know the pains of carrying them for days on end. Been there, done that...not a chance going back. So how much experience do you have with a full frame mirrorless system?

[JKoerner007]

Sorry...I don't shoot with telephotos. My travel kit is extremely light and compact, but delivers great results. You can cherry pick a lens here and there...but just the weight of the 810 off your wrist or neck for the day will quickly see what I'm talking about. Forget about putting any behemoth lens onto the 810.

Sorry, but I do. Your kit wouldn't accomplish my goals.

You also don't have to tell me about lenses, cameras, and weight: I carry 2 DSLRs, a super-telephoto lens (+ tripod), plus 5 smaller lenses, when I hike. It's not a big deal to me.

You keep trying to prescribe 'your' kit for my needs, which is a bit daft IMO.

I am here trying to talk about the upcoming D820 ... and, if you could kindly refrain from preaching Sony products here, I could get back to the original thread topic.

I came from shooting DSLR for many years...I know their bulk and weight and I know the pains of carrying them for days on end. Been there, done that...not a chance going back. So how much experience do you have with a full frame mirrorless system?

You keep talking about the 'bulk and weight' of the D810.

Let me give you the following Reality Check:

The Nikon D810 is only 880 g (your Sony A7rII is 625 g). That is only a 255 g (half-lb) difference.

Now the real real irony is this:

A Nikon D810 (880 g) + the Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4E PF ED (755 g) = 1635 g

Your Sony A7rII (625 g) + the Sony 300mm f/2.8G SSM (2340) = 2965 g, which is nearly double the weight a light-traveling Nikkor user can enjoy.

Now then, if you try to buy the Nikon lens for your Sony, the Metabones Adapter you need to use, in order to implement Nikon's lens, weighs 193 g (6.8 oz), so even here (forced to use a Nikon product, just to keep talking), the real-world difference in weight is only 62 g (2 oz)

So, basically, you're going to spend $479 to add-back nearly all that weight with an adapter ... lose lens acuity + AF function in the process ... not to mention Base ISO supremacy ... just to say "you have a Sony mirrorless"?

No thanks, pal. I'd rather just use a Nikon camera, save myself the money on an adapter, enjoy the full-functionality of the Nikkor lens, and enjoy my Nikon ownership experience.

Another example: Sony's new 85mm f/1.4 lens weighs 820 g compared to Nikon's 85mm f/1.4, which weighs only 595 g. That is a 225g difference.
Add that back to the total weight of "your system," and you have exactly a 30 g (1 oz) "advantage"

Therefore, in the end, all the crying you do about "the weight difference" really is nonsense ... and there is almost ZERO advantage to owning a Sony.

If anything, it's a pain and a disadvantage, all the way around ... to spare yourself an ounce or two of weight

[davidgp]

I am not interested in prints, only in close-up work that I like to do. I am not a professional photographer, because that is a hard way to make a living. I have been a content aggregator (and systems programmer) for major film and music sites (which I founded) and worked as a senior consultant for NBC for years. I do photography for the joy of the process, and not for the results, although the two are linked.

When I say I like the D810, it does not mean I don't like other equipment. I would like to have all of the cameras and all of the lenses, if I could afford them. I like the X1D, the GFX, even the Pentax K1, but the particular group of lenses I like to use work best with the Nikon D810. I tried to leave the D810 behind, but none of the above (including the A7RII) could match the combination of lenses and the D810 IMO. My kind of photography is a very narrow band of what others can do with a camera.

I like this site and some of the photographers that post here, but am not willing to tolerate a lot of the BS that goes on here of putting others (or equipment down) down, so I have been staying away. I actually purchase and use all my equipment because it does what I want.

If the X1D could take the Oti and other fine lenses, I would probably have that camera as a keeper. And I may revisit the GFX after I try out the D820...if the D820 does not have the wonderful ISO 64 we find in the D810. My needs are pretty simple.

This is the kind of photography I like, this shot with the D810 and the El Nikkor 105mm APO.

Hi Michael,

Lovely work, continue posting it here.

Yes, I totally understand your comment about BS...

Regards,

David

[davidgp]

It's a great time to be a photographer. My only regret is that more people don't want large prints. Oh, and that maybe that keeping up with the pace of camera tech is cutting into, you know, actually making art.

+1

[Chairman Bill]

... You keep talking about the 'bulk and weight' of the D810.

Let me give you the following Reality Check:...

... Therefore, in the end, all the crying you do about "the weight difference" really is nonsense ... and there is almost ZERO advantage to owning a Sony ...

And that is the crux for me. It seems that a 'full-frame' sensor on mirrorless cameras requires much bigger (and therefore heavier) lenses, something that doesn't seem to apply to the smaller formats. I suspect it's to do with the physics of light, glass and larger sensor, so not easily amenable to change.

[kers]

And that is the crux for me. It seems that a 'full-frame' sensor on mirrorless cameras requires much bigger (and therefore heavier) lenses, something that doesn't seem to apply to the smaller formats. I suspect it's to do with the physics of light, glass and larger sensor, so not easily amenable to change.

As i understand the idea is to point the rays of light as straight as possible to the sensor to have little difference in performance from center to corner.
The outcome is lenses have become longer - a good example is the new 14. 35mm zeiss lens.
So you can make the distance from sensor to the bayonet smaller, as is done with Mirrorless, but then you need even longer lenses to compensate.
A good thing would be for companies like Zeiss to bring out some high quality f2.8 lenses; cheaper, smaller, lighter.
I know lloyd Chambers as well as Ming Thein have proposed that when they visited Zeiss.  (After test using the bulky 1.4 28mm Otus)

[Michael Erlewine]

It seems that we are discriminating here between lenses that are light enough for backpack and travel as distinct from those that are harder to move around, but despite their weight are not simply confined to the studio.

I appreciate lightweight lenses and cameras, but not at the expense of correction and IQ. I will (and do) haul large lenses like the Zeiss Otus 28mm APO f/1.4 lenses around in the outdoors, despite their weight.

I only post this remark to make it clear that when we specify lenses for hiking and travel, and they are not necessarily the fastest or most corrected, we are doing this for our convenience in carrying them. It can be important.

I am sure that some of you don’t need or use fast lenses, and perhaps f/1.4 is not important to you. I get that and agree. But please let’s not ignore that there are some of us, I for one, that greatly value the speed, accuracy wide open, and degree of correctedness that we find in lenses like the Zeiss Otus series and other lenses.

Photo below taken with Nikon D810, Zeiss Otus 28mm APO

[hogloff]

Here is my travel setup and the weight of the system. I always travel with a backup so the A6000 makes a perfect backup as it uses everything the A7R2 does including batteries and charger...so the only thing I need to throw into the bag is the 344gm A6000 and I have a full backup.

A7R2 - 625gm including battery
A6000 - 344gm including battery
Loxia 21mm - 394gm
Batis 25mm - 335gm
Sony 35mm - 120gm
Sony 55mm - 281gm
Batis 85mm - 452gm

That's a quality travel system with great glass in a compact format. There is no way a DSLR based system with comparable glass would even come close to the bulk and weight of this system.

 

[BernardLanguillier]

Nice images, thanks for sharing!

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Here is one taken yesterday with a 3 years old D810.



Cheers,
Bernard