Nikon D810

I don't get why they use 2 different formats. I have a CF card and SD in my cam, but find I very rarely ever use the CF [I have it set as back up] , as my laptop has an SD slot, just so much easier to upload. For the CF card I have to use an external card reader or find the usb cable ... I know I have that ... somewhere
 
Maybe David will be along in a bit and explain the facts behind the two differing card formats - I would suspect one is better for video, the other other for stills but I haven't had time to research it.
 
CF cards are usually faster than SD cards (which is fairly important with a 36MP sensor). They're also tougher and less prone to data corruption.
 
Can't say I've noticed any difference speed-wise between cards. Maybe because the CF I have is 60mb/s and the SD 95mb/s?

I'd prefer CF too, if there was a reader for it built into my lappy, it's just about convenience.
 
I suppose laptops have SD readers because they take up less room. I don't use a laptop so the size of the reader doesn't matter.

My desktop has been through a few internal readers though - e.g. the Akasa All-in-One (useless thing!). I use this now - it's virtually impossible to bend the CF pins.
 
As someone else posted further up, I'd rather have 2x CF slots. CF cards are faster. I've no definite answer as to why they choose one of each, but I suspect 2x CF cards would add expense, and the choice of two increases the likelihood of having a spare card if needed. One of them would have been CF because of the extra bandwidth required for video.. especially as the D810 can write clean higher bitrate to the card now, as opposed to only HDMI with the old D800/E
 
Last edited:
Initially the CF + SD slots were in the D300S. I think idea of CF slot was for the D70/D200 upgrader's whose cameras had CF cards, and those with 'Pro' cameras, who also had CF cards. It was also designed to appeal to those who had lower level cameras who maybe were tempted to upgrade, but maybe a load of (then expensive) SD cards. CF cards were always the faster, more robust format favoured by Pro's, but the speed advantage has started to disappear to the more ubiquitous SD card. The D800/810 also bridges the gap between Pro level cameras (D3/4, 1DX etc) with CF cards and those upgrading from lower level cameras with SD cards. It is not a huge expense to have both formats, especially if you don't need a fast card and/or large capacities. : -/
 
Last edited:
Ozei said:
I suppose laptops have SD readers because they take up less room. I don't use a laptop so the size of the reader doesn't matter.

My desktop has been through a few internal readers though - e.g. the Akasa All-in-One (useless thing!). I use this now - it's virtually impossible to bend the CF pins.
Click to expand...

That's the exact one I have too. It's great, but it's another cable hanging about, maybe I just suffer a little OCD :D
 
I use this internal one.

C6iJ5rp.jpg


Reads anything, and it's USB 3.0. It was £13 from Scan, and it's been flawless.
 
lifted from FM forums….

Imaging Resource has posted their first D8100 raws. I processed them Capture NX-D 1.0.0. I tried matching the WB but after setting the gray patch and trying to adjust it the beta program kept crashing so I gave up. I changed the settings for both NEFs to match (neutral profile, NR disabled, etc..). The D810 processes just a little brighter, not sure if IR didn't match the lighting or if it's a nominal ISO output brightness difference between the bodies. It's also unclear what the lighting intensity differences are and how they relate to the absolute exposures so take these with a grain of salt.

D8100 on the left, D800E on the right. Note that the yellowed circular scale is not a WB issue but aging of the scale itself.

100% Crop #1
100% Crop #2


doesn't seem like any difference in iso performance at 6400 and to me the E actually looks sharper, if this is the case nikon have severely sh*t the bed, another minuscule upgrade.
 
I'd like to get my hands on one to test myself, as I don't trust anything I read on the net, but those do suggest that there's sod all difference in image quality.
 
Just downloaded the RAW and will process myself to rule out any shenanigans.

Uploading to a dropbox now.... will take a while, so will post up links when done.

Interestingly, when I process them there is a slight improvement in ISO with the D810 @ 6400.

I am processing them with absolutely everything switched off except CA removal. So zero sharpening, zero noise reduction.. nada... zip....


The other interesting thing is that they do not provide to a ISO12800 RAW... only a JPEG which has CLEARLY had noise reduction added, so I'm discounting it utterly as blatant cheating.


I'd have liked to have seen the ISO12800 RAWs from both, as the slight improvement in the D810's ISO6400 image maybe indicating an even greater one at 12,800. We'll never know until I can get PFD to loan us one.... but that won't be until Sept.. so possibly a moot point by then.

As for sharpness however, I think the D800E fies have it. However... they were not shot at the same time, so may not be the exact same lens. The differences are extremely minimal, so I would discount them as inconclusive.
 
Last edited:
LOL.. 3hrs to upload. DSL sucks for uploads.
 
pmac said:
D8100 on the left, D800E on the right.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure these two shots can be taken as 100% like-for-like.

According to the metadata, the D800E shot was taken in May 2012 and the D810 shot was taken yesterday. For a precise comparison, there would have to be no change at all in the light booth lamps between the two dates (which is highly unlikely). The shutter speeds are different (1/1600 vs. 1/1250) so something has changed.

Also, the D810 has the clarity slider set to +1. The D800E doesn't have a clarity slider so it should probably have had a higher contrast setting and a higher sharpening setting to make the comparison more accurate. Alternatively, they should have switched clarity to 0 on the D810.

Then there are these:

The D800E has high ISO NR switched on and the D810 doesn't.
The D800E has exposure compensation at -0.3EV while the D810 is at 0EV.
The D800E has vignette control off and the D810 has it on normal.

5875-1405595104-a2ae239ff0a6723d0a9462fab8319e72.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ozei said:
I'm not sure these two shots can be taken as 100% like-for-like.
Click to expand...

Don't worry... I'll be posting up 16bit TIFFs that I've processed from the RAWs myself. They were meant to be ready now, b ut I went out and switched the computer off, forgetting that I was uploading to dropbox.. Doh! Will upload as soon as dropbox has synced.

I can't do anything about the -3 EV though.. that's the fault of the idiots at Image Resource... clearly don't know what they're doing. Apart from that though, the ones I'm about to post are identical.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I can't do anything about the -3 EV though..
Click to expand...

Or anything about High ISO NR, which may or may not (I'm not sure) have an effect on sharpness & contrast. They should have switched it off in both cameras, or on in both cameras - not off in one and on in the other.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure I read somewhere that the extra stop in ISO was gained through a software improvement, which I find a little confusing - I'm guessing that means it only applies to JPEG's (via processing engine), not RAW files...
 
Last edited:
Ozei said:
Or anything about High ISO NR, which may or may not (I'm not sure) have an effect on sharpness & contrast. They should have switched it off in both cameras, or on in both cameras - not off in one and on in the other.
Click to expand...

That has no effect on RAW files... only TIFF and JPEG.
 
OK.. here's my processed RAWs.

D800E - ISO 50
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23953768/D800-vs-D810/D800E-ISO50.tif

D810- ISO64
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23953768/D800-vs-D810/D810-ISO64.tif

D800E - ISO100
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23953768/D800-vs-D810/D800E-ISO100.tif

D810 - ISO100
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23953768/D800-vs-D810/D810-ISO100.tif

D800E ISO6400
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23953768/D800-vs-D810/D800E-ISO6400.tif

D810 - ISO6400
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23953768/D800-vs-D810/D810-ISO6400.tif

All 16bit TIFF files.

No sharpening, no NR. I did apply lens profiles though.

They're taking a lot of space in my dropbox so I'll have to remove them next time I need to use it, so grab copies if you want to keep them for anything.
 
Last edited:
Camera has arrived, not had chance to shoot much with it yet but first impressions are good, feels much more comfortable in my ape sized hands and button layout redesign seems well thought through. Love the highlight weighted metering and group AF. Uses the same batteries as the D610 so won't have to pick up any spares for now. As reported in the media, definitely feels like a subtle upgrade with a few tweaks.

I'm not expecting to see an improvement in IQ, the only reason I can see for anyone with a D800e to upgrade would be if the AF is vastly improved, which I won't know until I have chance to shoot with it for real. I use a lot of OCF in bright conditions so the drop to ISO 64 is a welcome one, especially as I'm stuck at ISO200 with the D3s's at the mo. The buffer is awesome, especially considering the file sizes.

Has anyone been using the DNG converter (8.6 RC supports D810) with D800 files long term? I'll be using the D810 on a shoot tomorrow, converting the files to DNG and then opening in a RAW converter seems to work OK and I can't see any difference in IQ when compared to NXD. I won't get around to processing these pics for a month or two so hopefully by the time I do C1 will support the D810, just want to ensure I have a viable alternative!
 
Last edited:
psenior1 said:
I'm sure I read somewhere that the extra stop in ISO was gained through a software improvement, which I find a little confusing - I'm guessing that means it only applies to JPEG's (via processing engine), not RAW files...
Click to expand...

I don't think it's software - the three Lo. speeds are, but not the base 64. It should apply to all file formats.
 
Ozei said:
Well done. I'll have a peruse.
Click to expand...

So far I've looked at the two base ISOs (100 on the D800E / 64 on the D810) and sharpness-wise I can see little or no difference. If I was forced to pick one, the D800E might edge it but it's far too close to say for certain.

The D810 might have a tad more contrast in some areas (e.g. the bottle labels) but I still think the clarity slider is the most likely reason (apart from a change in the lamp bulbs between May 2012 and July 2014).

EDIT: Actually the more I look, the more I think it's a lighting change. Look at the wall between the neck of the Hellas bottle and the neck of the Sam Smith bottle. The D810 shot has a distinct shadow - the D800E shot doesn't. So the D800E lighting was more diffused at least in this area. That would reduce the contrast.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Thats applying it in post.. if set on camera it has no effect on RAW, which is why it says "The setting can later be changed using Capture NX 2 (available separately) for images recorded in NEF (RAW) format."

Only Long Exposure NR effect RAW files. All other NR does not (in camera).
Click to expand...

Yes, I found it after making post 228. I looked in the Nikon manual first and it doesn't say one way or t'other :banghead:. Then I looked in Thom Hogan's guide and it says on p310 ".... the in camera High ISO routine is not applied to NEF (RAW)". He also says it kicks in (at a minimal level) at anything from 1600 ISO upwards, even if it's turned off.
 
Ozei said:
Yes, I found it after making post 228. I looked in the Nikon manual first and it doesn't say one way or t'other :banghead:. Then I looked in Thom Hogan's guide and it says on p310 ".... the in camera High ISO routine is not applied to NEF (RAW)". He also says it kicks in (at a minimal level) at anything from 1600 ISO upwards, even if it's turned off.
Click to expand...


It may do, but only on JPEG/TIFF. I only shoot in RAW so can't confirm that though.
 
Seem's to be quite a lot of US owners now on the FM boards.
I know its still early days but it really does seem like a pointless upgrade, for 90% of people the d800/E will do the same at a lot less of the cost(while you can still get them anyway)
Early reports on there have shown so far that IQ isn't improved much if at all, ISO performance seems no different until over 12800 where the d810 takes a slight and only slight lead, One user says that in low light it actually locks focus slower and not as well as his D800E.

Up points seem to be the silent shutter is even quieter than the 5dmk3, there doesn't seem to be any amp glow with long exposures(not sure about hi iso) and this might also mean hot pixels are better(I've asked someone to test this).
 
pmac said:
Seem's to be quite a lot of US owners now on the FM boards.
I know its still early days but it really does seem like a pointless upgrade, for 90% of people the d800/E will do the same at a lot less of the cost(while you can still get them anyway)
Early reports on there have shown so far that IQ isn't improved much if at all, ISO performance seems no different until over 12800 where the d810 takes a slight and only slight lead, One user says that in low light it actually locks focus slower and not as well as his D800E.

Up points seem to be the silent shutter is even quieter than the 5dmk3, there doesn't seem to be any amp glow with long exposures(not sure about hi iso) and this might also mean hot pixels are better(I've asked someone to test this).
Click to expand...


Hot pixels are a non-issue. Just shoot a dark frame as reference. Loads of software can remove them easily. To a certain extent they're automatically removed in Lightroom anyway.

A quieter shutter would be welcome though. The D800 has a NOISY mirror.
 
Who's writing it off? I'm certainly not. It's certainly not worth upgrading from a D800E though. If you were buying new and didn;t already have a D800E then it looks like a superb camera. It IS a superb camera. What's all this writing it off nonsense?
 
If anyone thought it was worth it they'd be daft. It's always worth skipping a generation. At least.

I'm talking about the usual sky is falling BS in places like DP review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top