You've lost me there. Surely all D810 ISOs between 64 and 12800 use analogue amplification - and only the Lo and Hi ISOs are expanded digitally?
Ditto for the D800 (100 to 6400 = analogue, Lo & Hi = digital).
Last edited:
Nikon D810
- Thread starter Pookeyhead
- Start date
You've lost me there. Surely all D810 ISOs between 64 and 12800 use analogue amplification - and only the Lo and Hi ISOs are expanded digitally?
Ditto for the D800 (100 to 6400 = analogue, Lo & Hi = digital).
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I think we're in danger of making too much of file sizes. Once again this weekend, my computer was out action due a memory issue, and was editing D800E raw files on my wife's 7 year old i7-920 with 6GB of RAM. Absolutely no issues whatsoever. That's not one of the new i7s... not Haswell.. not even Sandybridge, but the original Nehalem 920 CPU.. MUCH slower than even sandybridge. No SSDs... just SATAII mechanical drives... basically, a very old PC. It was fairly high end when built, but totally outclassed by even decent laptops these days. It felt no different than using my hexa-core 5GHz monster.
Making focus stacks and large panos/stitches will stress even high end machines out when using files from lesser cameras. If it was a 8GB file using D800 raws, then it would have probably still been 6GB with D610 raws.
Talking of large files, I when I used to do most of my shooting on a IQ180 (80MB raw files) I was still using what is now my wife's machine listed above. No issues whatsoever. You're having issues because your working with a 8GB file, not because you're shooting on a D800.
Regardless.... no bloody difference between to the two cameras in terms of noise, so who cares
Last edited:
Did you download ACR 8.6 from here? I just installed that one and the ACR interface is still showing as 8.6 beta.**
(Photoshop's Help>About plug-in>Camera Raw shows version 8.6.0.250).** Before today I was on ACR 8.6 Release Candidate (the beta).
Last edited:
- Messages
- 103
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Did you download ACR 8.6 from here? I just installed that one and the ACR interface is still showing as 8.6 beta.**
** Before today I was on ACR 8.6 Release Candidate (the beta).
No, on my work machine I received the Camera Raw update via Adobe Updater (Windows 8.1 running Photoshop CS6). Camera Raw is Version 8.6.0.254. Lightroom (which is my own personal copy) also popped up and update when I opened it. When I've clicked Help>About in Lightroom I shows Version 5.6 and Camera Raw 8.6.
I do have Photoshop CS6 running the Beta's on one of my VMs but I've yet to check that!
Aha, 254 - the download link must still be the beta because it's 250 (Adobe must have the wrong file on the 8.6 page).
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
I just go into CS6 > Help > Updates... It's all automatic after that, just say yes or apply to everything.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 16,744
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
That is one thing I always wish the D800/E included.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,674
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nope. If you go to the link and select a D800/E it will show the "reported ISOs." The open circles are the ones using analog gain (determined by direct measurement of the circuitry/output). They've lied to us. Unfortunately the D810 isn't listed yet.
Last edited:
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,674
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
With the capabilities of modern machines, and the low cost of storage these days, it's fair to say that the file size is not much of a "negative."
But if you're having to "downsample" to get to about the same result then it's not much of a "positive" either.
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
why are you down sampling?
I'm not an electronics engineer so I don't know what t "Read Noise (fig) log2 electrons" and "Read Noise (fig) electrons" mean.
Since 80 ISO is solid red and 100 ISO is open, he must be saying that analogue amplification changes to digital somewhere between 2.08/4.228 and 2.059/4.167.
I have no idea how or why he's arrived at this conclusion.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,674
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's just displaying/printing at "the same size" ("normalizing"...DXO uses an 8MP 300dpi 8x10 for comparisons).
All of the performance benefits of the huge files (DR/Color bit/ISO performance/etc) are due to using the huge file at sizes smaller than it's capable of ("oversampling") and if you don't do that it's performance degrades very quickly. i.e. a DX crop from my D800 looks just like a D7000 image. And if you push a D800 (and the D810 by DXO's measurements) very far it falls short of other cameras (D3s/D4) even for a normalized image (even the D3/D700 comes very close/equals it in some aspects at some ISO's).
So, if the 8x10 IQ of the 36MP D810 is going to be equal/worse than a 12MP camera; what's the point of recording such huge files?
There are many times when used *incorrectly* where it makes even less sense. I.e. IME a D800 *requires* a higher SS and if you don't use it the image is likely to suffer significantly. And sometimes the higher SS requirement means using a higher ISO which means the D8xx is operating w/ a comparative handicap. And we shouldn't forget the lens MTF "equalization" consideration either.
But there are times, when used *correctly*, where the D8xx can excel and outperform the other cameras and that's when it makes sense.
If you want to make the choice based on budget, or the fact that it *can* outperform other cameras and that when it doesn't it's not performing worse/much worse, then fine. I get it.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to "bash" the D8xx. I have one and I'm happy with it (but it's not usually my first choice). These considerations always play in when comparing/choosing cameras, and it's true of all of the high MP bodies (D8xx, D6xx, D7100, etc).
All of the performance benefits of the huge files (DR/Color bit/ISO performance/etc) are due to using the huge file at sizes smaller than it's capable of ("oversampling") and if you don't do that it's performance degrades very quickly. i.e. a DX crop from my D800 looks just like a D7000 image. And if you push a D800 (and the D810 by DXO's measurements) very far it falls short of other cameras (D3s/D4) even for a normalized image (even the D3/D700 comes very close/equals it in some aspects at some ISO's).
So, if the 8x10 IQ of the 36MP D810 is going to be equal/worse than a 12MP camera; what's the point of recording such huge files?
There are many times when used *incorrectly* where it makes even less sense. I.e. IME a D800 *requires* a higher SS and if you don't use it the image is likely to suffer significantly. And sometimes the higher SS requirement means using a higher ISO which means the D8xx is operating w/ a comparative handicap. And we shouldn't forget the lens MTF "equalization" consideration either.
But there are times, when used *correctly*, where the D8xx can excel and outperform the other cameras and that's when it makes sense.
If you want to make the choice based on budget, or the fact that it *can* outperform other cameras and that when it doesn't it's not performing worse/much worse, then fine. I get it.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to "bash" the D8xx. I have one and I'm happy with it (but it's not usually my first choice). These considerations always play in when comparing/choosing cameras, and it's true of all of the high MP bodies (D8xx, D6xx, D7100, etc).
- Messages
- 661
- Edit My Images
- No
There are a couple of things I don't understand Steven.
Surely a dx cropped D800 image still benefits from the advantages of IQ that the D800 offers - it's just had the stuff round the outside removed leaving the bit in the middle.
Also why should you need to use a higher SS?
Just askin'
cheers, cw
Surely a dx cropped D800 image still benefits from the advantages of IQ that the D800 offers - it's just had the stuff round the outside removed leaving the bit in the middle.
Also why should you need to use a higher SS?
Just askin'
cheers, cw
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,674
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That guy is way smarter/more technical than I am...
But from reading his information, Log2 is the measured variance of the noise level in measured electrons and the other is the peak noise level.
The determination of analog vs digital gain is based on direct measurements from the ADC (where electrons are converted into digits).
Essentially, a sensor has only one sensitivity to light (ISO)... whatever the sensor collects can be amplified (analog gain) or digitally manipulated after converting to digits (digital "gain" and "low" ISO's).
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
Nikon D810 - Sensitivity wise the native range is ISO 64-12800. Thereafter, it expands from ISO 32 - ISO 51,200. That's an extra stop at each end of the scale. That is the range - Ipso facto !
I don't understand your statement "They've lied to us" ?
The fact that you don't always need 36 million-pixels with massive files which is great for landscape and studio work and have the option to shoot 9 million-pixels in sRaw, combined with the new processor to reduce noise across the ISO range, and up to 7 FPS in DX mode or 5 FPS which js equally good for fast moving subjects make this a very versatile camera, a good all-rounder or as I said a good "GP camera". (Good for landscapes, studio, weddings and action) - It's the gap in the Nikon Professional range that people have asked Nikon for !
You say you don't consider this to be a general purpose camera. Why do you not think that - what make / model would you consider a to be a good general purpose camera ?
Last edited:
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,674
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
With the D800 (not necessarily the E/810 due to AA differences) what you are left with after the DX crop is basically identical to the D7000 image. The pixels are the same size, the amount of light collected/remaining is the same, the ISO noise is the same (no "normalizing advantage), the detail is the same, etc. etc.
Because "blur" is caused by a point of light crossing multiple pixels during the exposure. For any level of motion a point of light will cross more pixels if they are smaller and more closely spaced.
- Messages
- 661
- Edit My Images
- No
So I don't need a D800 in dx mode, just a D7000 cos the image will be the same?
No ISO advantage, no DR advantage?
OK........
cheers, cw
No ISO advantage, no DR advantage?
OK........
cheers, cw
Yes, but that doesn't explain why the amplification would switch from analogue to digital at the two points he's shown on the graph. Without an explanation (in simple English!), the graph is just an irrelevant bunch of measurements. The answer might be somewhere in this lot but I'm not an engineer and I can't find it.
I think I'll take Nikon's word for it instead of his.
Last edited:
Neither do I.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,674
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Because the ISO range is *supposed to be* analog gain and the expanded range is *supposed to be* digital gain/manipulation... that's the way it's always been, that's the way it is with most of their other cameras. But direct testing (not by me) has shown that it is not true for the D8xx. The D8xx sensor's ISO is 200. Analog trimming gives 100, and analog amplification goes to 1000. Everything else is digital manipulation... With the D8xx (and probably others) what they are essentially saying is "useful range" vs useless.
Does this really matter? Maybe; and maybe not. But it is quite possible that you can get equivalent or even *better* results by doing the digital manipulation yourself... at least it gives you some control over "how" it's done.
sRAw is worse than 12bit compressed NEF and the same size... why would you want to use it?
Right, in camera noise reduction applied to raw files? That's a good thing?
Well, it's only one better than the D800/E and I would find it limiting at times ("fast moving" means a whole different thing when talking small birds in flight). Plus, if you're using DX mode you might as well be using a DX camera... the D7000 does the same 6fps (w/grip) and delivers the same image as my D800 (w/grip) in DX mode.
Because of all of the things I've listed... it's a more demanding camera to use well. It requires better technique, lenses, etc to get the performance from it. And it doesn't *always* outperform other cameras even when used optimally. If I were choosing what *I* think would be a great general purpose camera it would probably be something like a used D700 in the Nikon line. VERY similar performance in many/most situations, easier to use well, higher frame rate, less demanding of lenses, cheap.
My ideal GP camera hasn't been made... but they came real close w/ the Df. If I were buying new, it would have to be a serious contender even though there's a lot about it I don't particularly like (styling/handling). I would probably choose one over the D8xx.
Last edited:
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,674
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The amplification switches over to digital whenever the signal amplifier has reached the limits of it's adjustment range... that just happens to be where it is for the D8xx (100/1000). For the D700 it's 200/6400, D4 it's 100/12,800, D4s it's 100/25,600... and for all of those cameras (and almost every other Nikon) that's also the "normal" ISO range. But for the latest multi digit nikons (i.e. D6xx but not the D4/s) it seems they have changed how they are labeling the ISO range and what they are calling "normal ISO."
It's determined by direct measurement of when the amplifier stops affecting the signal... exactly how he tests that I don't know (probably by comparing at/after the ADC).
It would be nice if we could... and what's annoying is that we always could before and now we can't. If we could, then the ISO performance of the D810 would actually have improved, and it hasn't.I think I'll take Nikon's word for it instead of his.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
So basically, your motive was to come on here, tell us it's no good and in summary say we might as well all be using D7000s !
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,674
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So basically, your motive was to come on here, tell us it's no good and in summary say we might as well all be using D7000s !
Nope.
But I am saying that if you are using the D800 (and similarly the E/810) in DX mode you might as well be using a D7000 (I do use my D800 in DX mode). Personally I would prefer the D800 in DX mode simply because I find it easier to get fast subjects in the FOV when there's "extra" FOV to work with. But I don't think that could possibly justify the price difference.
Personally I went from the D7000/D4 combination to the D800/D4 combination. I did that because the D800 can do for me what the D7000 did (lighter/smaller/DX) and because it *can* give better/larger images than my D4 can in certain situations (but not many). Was it a "good decision"? IMHO it was an extra $2k for benefits that mostly goes unused.
- Messages
- 661
- Edit My Images
- No
So to go back to my earlier post - there would appear to be no advantage to using the D800 cropped over the D7000 as the image is identical.
I know - I just wondered if you were going to perpetuate the myth that the D800 requires a higher shutter speed - D7100 users cope
Just my 2c
cheers, cw
Last edited:
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,674
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes. Having used both side by side that is my firm opinion.
Well, at a 1:1 magnification the D800 does require a higher SS (or greater/better elimination of camera shake) for the same level of sharpness. And the D7100 is worse in this respect. But then we get back into the "normalization" situation and much of the "additional blur" is hidden by printing/displaying it at a smaller size than 1:1.
A lot of people think that 1/FL is a good/ideal minimum SS; it's really not. With lower MP cameras (~12MP DX, 16MP FF) I can reliably handhold down to 1/FL (and sometimes lower) and get acceptably sharp images. At 16MP DX and 36MP FF (I don't know exactly where the transition is) 1/FL is marginal at best. But even with the lower MP cameras I get consistently sharper images using SS's 2-3x FL.
I think a lot of people may misunderstand the whole "normalization" thing. Most of the data/comparisons etc are for the same size final image...and that's a very reasonable/fair way to compare two cameras *doing the same thing.* But I think a lot of people think that they are recording huge images *with* those downsampling/normalizing benefits as integral characteristics, and it's not that simple.
Just like a D800 DX crop is (essentially) identical to a D7000 image, a 1:1 300ppi print of a D800 image will look just like a 1:1 300ppi print from a D7000. It will just be twice as large (granted, it will look better than the D7000 image printed at 150ppi).
Where the D800 starts falling back and other cameras can match/exceed it's IQ the other camera's image will look equal/better for ANY print/display size. If you hadn't used the D800 optimally (i.e. faster SS) it's image will be worse yet. And the moment you crop a D800 image it's advantage diminishes in comparison to another camera's uncropped image. You would probably be WAY better off buying a longer FL lens for your D700 than you would be in using a D8xx image cropped w/ your existing shorter FL.
There are advantages to the D8xx, but IMHO they are far fewer/smaller than Nikon and the hype would have us believe.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,388
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I lost the will to live about five pages ago...
- Messages
- 661
- Edit My Images
- No
So good technique will get the best from this camera or you can just raise the shutter speed - OK
cheers, cw
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
Tedious beyond belief...........
However, interesting article in AP this week on the D810. Lucas Gill, John Wright and Natalie Dybisz are all saying in real terms that the IQ exceeds all expectations and is an excellent performer.
However, interesting article in AP this week on the D810. Lucas Gill, John Wright and Natalie Dybisz are all saying in real terms that the IQ exceeds all expectations and is an excellent performer.
- Messages
- 661
- Edit My Images
- No
Possibly - but I'm still intrigued as to why an image from a D800 suddenly loses IQ when you use crop mode.
I was under the possibly misguided impression that all crop mode did was to switch off the unused pixels leaving a chunk in the middle active.
However in order for the image to be identical in every aspect to one from a D7000 as sk66 suggests, it must surely lose aspects of IQ.
Unless of course I'm doing the D7000 a dis-service and it is a better camera than I thought.
This seems to form the basis of sk66's opinion and would suggest that anyone not needing the "width" that full frame gives would be much better advised to spend their money on a used D7000 and blow the change on (insert own indulgence here).
cheers, cw
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't believe it does, I just think that the information has been taken out of context, misinterpreted or misunderstood by the poster. The sensor and processor does not change. The D7000 is acutely a very good camera I still have mine in the back of the cupboard.
- Messages
- 661
- Edit My Images
- No
But in the thread Full Frame Questions sk66 is offering "A dx crop from the D610 will be a smaller image than the D7000 (10Mp vs 16MP). Additionally you loose a lot of the sensor performance (ISO noise, color, DR, etc) by cropping instead of down-sampling."
The first part is obviously true but the second part concerns me.
This is of course in no way personal but I feel that opinions should be offered as opinions and advice should be based on fact.
cheers, cw
- Messages
- 2,038
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
In the end I went with a UK supplier for my 2nd one, after reclaiming the VAT there wasn't going to be enough of a benefit. However, if I couldn't reclaim the VAT and at current prices Panamoz seems like a no-brainer.
- Messages
- 84
I'd argue re the sports capability of the D810. I have both the D810 and D4s
View attachment 17118
Believe me, the D810 still doesn't hold a candle to the D4s in fast action sports.
Even with the Exceed 4 processor, the D4s still locks on and holds far better than the D810.
Don't know why, but this weekend past at Croft circuit, the D4s still blew the D810 out of the water.
- Messages
- 84
I need to add, it's close, very close. But the D4s still has the edge in very low light conditions and fast sports.
Lucas Gilman is a Nikon ambassador, so perhaps a little bit bias otherwise he wouldn't get his kit from Nikon at a very good, if not free, price.
Lucas Gilman is a Nikon ambassador, so perhaps a little bit bias otherwise he wouldn't get his kit from Nikon at a very good, if not free, price.
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks for that, very helpful. I wasn't seriously expecting the speed to be as good, because of the cost difference. So in real terms how good is it ?
Last edited: