Nikon D810

[Wilky]

D800E @ 12,800
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23953768/D800E ISO12800.tif

D810 @ 12,800
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23953768/D810 ISO 12800.tif

Not really any different.

The D810 seems to have less moiré and aliasing issues, but that's because the 810 has genuinely had all that crap removed whereas the 800E has a corrective system. Differences are incredibly minor if you ask me, and in real world use, would present no tangible difference in ISO performance.

Martin was suggesting it was amazing at high ISO. If meant it's as amazing as the D800/E then I agree, but there's certainly no improvement over the 800/E

Sorry but again in real world photography shooting you are again wrong there is a big difference in iso capabilities between the D800E and D810 I know this as I shoot both. How do you base your above assumption? by online reports or actual experience with the two cameras curious as to your response...
Wilky

 

[Cagey75]

In Ireland they allow flash without hassle, the few weddings I've done I approached the priest about it before the ceremony. They said 'fire away' so long as you don't blind anyone

I was mainly bouncing light flash - no direct, and shooting at ISO 400-800 to allow some ambient light mix.

Anyway, on the equipment side, I'd not say no to a D810, but I can't see me trading up to one anytime soon. It's not enough of an improvement for me to do so. Maybe next one up.

Gary, calm dooon! You're not letting a few posts on a forum stress you out are ya?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Sorry but again in real world photography shooting you are again wrong there is a big difference in iso capabilities between the D800E and D810 I know this as I shoot both. How do you base your above assumption? by online reports or actual experience with the two cameras curious as to your response...
Wilky

By looking at RAW files from both cameras. It's not an assumption. It's a fact. How is examining the actual RAW files from each camera an assumption? Sorry.. not sure I understand.

 

[psenior1]

Why does it make you laugh?, getting a clean image in a dark church at iso10,000 with the D810 as apposed to an under exposed iso6400 from the D800e to me warrants an upgrade on that basis alone so yes you will see the one stop improvement.
Wilky

Just because you can up the ISO doesn't mean its the best solution. Are you shooting fast lenses? 1.4, 1.8? Ive never had to go beyond ISO6400 and f/1.4 in a church.

 

[Wilky]

By looking at RAW files from both cameras. It's not an assumption. It's a fact. How is examining the actual RAW files from each camera an assumption? Sorry.. not sure I understand.

Again an arm chair response after probably looking at set piece studio shots, I only came on here to say about my own real life experience of how the D810 worked, now you can pontificate all you like and twist things but the facts are that I am a fair photographer with a few skills who shoots upwards of 40 weddings a year so I might just be able to know how the camera's that I used worked, so you carry my son prating about how the D800E and D810 are the same and I will keep taking pictures with my real camera's all the time laughing at your inane comments

Have a nice day

Wilky

 

[Wilky]

Just because you can up the ISO doesn't mean its the best solution. Are you shooting fast lenses? 1.4, 1.8? Ive never had to go beyond ISO6400 and f/1.4 in a church.

Staple lens for church 70-200 2.8 and 85 f1.4 BUT the big problem is getting everyone on the same plane so that when you shoot f1.4 both are in focus, but if you go say f4 at a higher iso you have a better chance of doing this, I see all the time brides sharp groom blurred and it is not what I want my brides to see so now you can see my reason for using high iso, after all its there it looks great so why not use it?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Again an arm chair response after probably looking at set piece studio shots, I only came on here to say about my own real life experience of how the D810 worked, now you can pontificate all you like and twist things but the facts are that I am a fair photographer with a few skills who shoots upwards of 40 weddings a year so I might just be able to know how the camera's that I used worked, so you carry my son prating about how the D800E and D810 are the same and I will keep taking pictures with my real camera's all the time laughing at your inane comments

Have a nice day

Wilky

I'm sorry.. you've not answered the question.

How is examining the actual RAW files from each camera an assumption?

What exactly do you feel the difference would be in "real life".

Also... why so disparaging towards anyone who shoots in a studio?

 

[psenior1]

Staple lens for church 70-200 2.8 and 85 f1.4 BUT the big problem is getting everyone on the same plane so that when you shoot f1.4 both are in focus, but if you go say f4 at a higher iso you have a better chance of doing this, I see all the time brides sharp groom blurred and it is not what I want my brides to see so now you can see my reason for using high iso, after all its there it looks great so why not use it?

fair enough, good answer, different styes and all that. Sometimes I forget not every likes to shoot wide open all of the time!

 

[SFTPhotography]

So in short, the D810 has an extra stop which can be useful in certain situations, a lower base ISO which can be useful and better AF. What isn't to like.

 

[Cagey75]

The extra mooolah you'd have to pay to upgrade!

 

[psenior1]

So in short, the D810 has an extra stop which can be useful in certain situations, a lower base ISO which can be useful and better AF. What isn't to like.

the price!

 

[SFTPhotography]

the price!

It will drop. It's the newest model, leave it a few months or go grey.

Plus, who it is aimed at, serious ameratures, pro's, will be able to afford it. It's not aimed at D3200 users aiming for an upgrade, but D700/D6X0/D3(s) users etc who had the money to buy expensive bodies before and who have the means for expensive lens like 24-70 14-24 70-200 24 TSE etc. Not 18-200 super zoom users

 

[psenior1]

Calumet have them in-stock if anyone is looking...

 

[psenior1]

It will drop. It's the newest model, leave it a few months or go grey.

Plus, who it is aimed at, serious ameratures, pro's, will be able to afford it. It's not aimed at D3200 users aiming for an upgrade, but D700/D6X0/D3(s) users etc who had the money to buy expensive bodies before.

I have one, just need to sell my D3's's before picking up another, I think I will give Panamoz a go...

 

[SFTPhotography]

The extra mooolah you'd have to pay to upgrade!

quality costs, wait a bit/go grey. You don't have to upgrade, I won't as I took a new D800 a few months back, but had I not, I'd have taken a D810 for sure.

 

[Cagey75]

Don't I know it! I bought the D800E when it was just released. It's dropped a fair chunk since. Say if i did want to trade it in for a D810, I'd lose way too much to make it worth it IMO. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to though, who doesn't want the latest and 'greatest'?

But, honestly, anyone with a D800/E is lucky as is, I know I feel privileged to have one as I'm no pro, just a photography lover who does the odd job on side If I never made a cent from it I'd still want to have thee best.

 

[Pookeyhead]

In a few months you'll be able to get one grey for around £1700. The D800E was £2400ish at launch. I bought mine grey for £1600. In fact, I sold my 12 month old D800 for more than I paid for the D800E.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Don't I know it! I bought the D800E when it was just released. It's dropped a fair chunk since. Say if i did want to trade it in for a D810, I'd lose way too much to make it worth it IMO. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to though, who doesn't want the latest and 'greatest'?

But, honestly, anyone with a D800/E is lucky as is, I know I feel privileged to have one as I'm no pro, just a photography lover who does the odd job on side If I never made a cent from it I'd still want to have thee best.

Same as me, my images that come off my D800 are no less good because the D810 came out. I mainly do landscapes so find the 800 fine and ISO100 very clean. I will keep it for ages.

 

[Ozei]

DP Review now have RAWs up for downloading.

They've messed it up again.

Re the 'IN' NEFs: the D810's files are with a 60mm Nikkor and the D800E's are with a 70mm Sigma. Why on earth use two different lenses .

 

[psenior1]

if thats the 70mm Sigma macro, it's the sharpest lens I've owned, sharper than the (very sharp) 60mm Nikkor.

 

[Pookeyhead]

They've messed it up again.

Re the 'IN' NEFs (IN means Indoor New): the D810's files are with a 60mm Nikkor and the D800E's are with a 70mm Sigma. The files have the same shhoting date so why on earth use two different lenses .

The images above were to compare the noise at high ISO. The lens won't have any effect on that. We established pages ago that the image quality is pretty much the same.

No idea what indoor new is, but if it's one of the new picture controls.. they aren't applied to RAW files.

 

[Wilky]

I'm sorry.. you've not answered the question.

How is examining the actual RAW files from each camera an assumption?

What exactly do you feel the difference would be in "real life".

Also... why so disparaging towards anyone who shoots in a studio?

Tell you what just leave it shall we, you obviously get a strange kick out of ripping peoples comments to shreds and from what I can see have a long history of doing so, I have a studio that I own, comparing stage set raws is not real life shooting, and to answer this question from you "What exactly do you feel the difference would be in "real life"." get out and shoot a fast moving scenario where lighting changes by the second and you will realise the advantage of auto iso that works to 12,800 and a dynamic range, with fast af that works every time not like the D800E that can be a bit hit and miss.

Wilky

 

[Pookeyhead]

Tell you what just leave it shall we, you obviously get a strange kick out of ripping peoples comments to shreds and from what I can see have a long history of doing so, I have a studio that I own, comparing stage set raws is not real life shooting, and to answer this question from you "What exactly do you feel the difference would be in "real life"." get out and shoot a fast moving scenario where lighting changes by the second and you will realise the advantage of auto iso that works to 12,800 and a dynamic range, with fast af that works every time not like the D800E that can be a bit hit and miss.

Wilky

Auto ISO works up to 12,800 on the D800. You can set it to use whatever range you want... right up to HI2 (25,600) if you want.

 

[Wilky]

Auto ISO works up to 12,800 on the D800. You can set it to use whatever range you want... right up to HI2 (25,600) if you want.

What is your point to this conversation...... any 6 yr old who can read knows auto iso works on the d800 to what ever you set it at, NOW sit down, concentrate, and think about this simple bit of type you are about to read....... all settled.... now then, once upon a time nikon made the D800 with a native iso of 6400 NOW what you must realise is that it gave a good image to iso6400 BUT it would go muchhhhhh higher than that at a price of speckly bits called noise!........ Now nikon have brought out the D810 to succeed the D800/D800E and its native iso is 12,800 but again it will go muchhhhhhh higher. Now then nikon tells you that its good to go to iso12800 for nice images where as they recommended 6400 for the old camera's..... have a think now and stop fidgeting....... has it sunk in yet?...... no.... oh dear never mind some people get it and some stay at the back of the class

Wilky

 

[Pookeyhead]

What is your point to this conversation...... any 6 yr old who can read knows auto iso works on the d800 to what ever you set it at, NOW sit down, concentrate, and think about this simple bit of type you are about to read....... all settled.... now then, once upon a time nikon made the D800 with a native iso of 6400 NOW what you must realise is that it gave a good image to iso6400 BUT it would go muchhhhhh higher than that at a price of speckly bits called noise!........ Now nikon have brought out the D810 to succeed the D800/D800E and its native iso is 12,800 but again it will go muchhhhhhh higher. Now then nikon tells you that its good to go to iso12800 for nice images where as they recommended 6400 for the old camera's..... have a think now and stop fidgeting....... has it sunk in yet?...... no.... oh dear never mind some people get it and some stay at the back of the class

Wilky

The images from both cameras look identical at ISO 12800 though, so your point is?

Who cares if it's "native" or not? You're not fooled by a firmware hack are you?

 

[Ozei]

No idea what indoor new is........

It's nothing technical - it's just to identify that particular setup (actually I think it's INB - for indoor or incandescent balance). They've got two mannequins - one sitting at a table (incandescent lighting setup) and another one holding a bunch of flowers (simulated sunlight setup).

D800EINBI00100 - camera / mannequin at table / incandescent white balance / ISO

SL - still life setup (bottles, wool, fabric, etc.)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/TESTS/LADIES.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/TESTS/INBGUIDE.HTM

 

[Pookeyhead]

It's nothing technical - it's just to identify that particular setup (actually I think it's INB - for indoor or incandescent balance). They've got two mannequins - one sitting at a table (incandescent lighting setup) and another one holding a bunch of flowers (simulated sunlight setup).

D800EINBI00100 - camera / mannequin at table / incandescent white balance / ISO

SL - still life setup (bottles, wool, fabric, etc.)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/TESTS/LADIES.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/TESTS/INBGUIDE.HTM

So they've just renamed the RAW? How's that messing up then?

You linked to Imaging Resource. My RAWs came from DP Review.

 

[Ozei]

So they've just renamed the RAW? How's that messing up then? .

When I said they'd messed up again I was referring to the use of two different lenses.

The bit about the file names was merely an attempt to figure out what 'IN' meant. I originally said it was an abbreviation of 'Indoor New' - it's not, so I corrected myself in post 346.

You linked to Imaging Resource. My RAWs came from DP Review.

I know - I made a mistake and got the links mixed up, thereby confusing posts about DP Review RAWs with posts about Imaging Resource RAWs. (304 & 306) (217 & 220).

 

[Pookeyhead]

When I said they'd messed up again I was referring to the use of two different lenses.

Ahhh.... I see. Thanks. No idea why they did that, no. Does seem a stupid thing to do as it's a variable that casts doubt on the rest results. Fortunately not for noise though.

 

[Wilky]

The images from both cameras look identical at ISO 12800 though, so your point is?

Who cares if it's "native" or not? You're not fooled by a firmware hack are you?

Sir I bow to your superb wisdom and have to admit you are the fountain of all knowledge pertaining to these camera's and as Basil's side kick liked to say........ I know nothingggggg........ I will now go and throw my D810 into the local river so that it never crosses my door step again..... be gone you impostor.....you thing of false truths.... Now then sir what do you know of the D4 as I found that was superb at high iso but again when I f**ked up it went blocky do you think that was because it shared the same chip?

Yours grovelingly

Wilky

 

[Pookeyhead]

Sir I bow to your superb wisdom and have to admit you are the fountain of all knowledge pertaining to these camera's and as Basil's side kick liked to say........ I know nothingggggg........ I will now go and throw my D810 into the local river so that it never crosses my door step again..... be gone you impostor.....you thing of false truths.... Now then sir what do you know of the D4 as I found that was superb at high iso but again when I f**ked up it went blocky do you think that was because it shared the same chip?

Yours grovelingly

Wilky

The D4 does not share the same sensor with the D810. It doesn't even share the same image processor. The D4 is Expeed3, the D810 is Expeed4.

Were you shooting JPEG with the D4 as well? That's a probable reason. Can you post an example of this blockiness you're talking about in a new thread? Maybe we can help you identify what the cause is.

I will now go and throw my D810 into the local river

Why are you behaving as if I have something against the D810?

 

[Wilky]

The D4 does not share the same sensor with the D810. It doesn't even share the same image processor. The D4 is Expeed3, the D810 is Expeed4.

Were you shooting JPEG with the D4 as well? That's a probable reason. Can you post an example of this blockiness you're talking about. Maybe we can help you identify what the cause is.

lol Obviously not because they shared the same chip, pmsl Oh another question sir, what does the abbreviation RAW stand for?

 

[Pookeyhead]

lol Obviously not because they shared the same chip, pmsl

Then why ask if it's because they share the same chip? You feeling OK?

Raw doesn't stand for anything... it's not an acronym, despite the common tendency to write it as such.

Dude.. you really need to get over me.


[edit].. I gave a probable explanation for your blockiness ages ago. Maybe you didn't read the thread properly.

 

[Cagey75]

Over here, people are known to use raw when describing straight alcohol, like 'raw vodka'

I have given up asking them "would you normally cook it first?"

Ok, back to your argument ...

 

[Chris Wilson]

Well at least we've learnt that the "standard" jpegs from the D810 are usable.

Let joy be unconfined...................

cheers, cw

 

[maninsuitcase]

DXo results are out. Seems to roughly tally with what many have said. By most metrics it's roughly the same as the D800E, bar ISO which is identical to the D800.

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/07/24/nikon-d810-sensor-new-dxomark-leader.aspx/

 

[Ozei]

... By most metrics it's roughly the same as the D800E, bar ISO which is identical to the D800.

So what they're saying is the D810 and D800 are slightly worse than the D800E in Low-Light ISO*

(* Definition: "the highest ISO that can be used and still achieve an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits" )

D800E - 2979 ISO
D810 - 2853 ISO
D800 - 2853 ISO

A difference of 4.42%

 

[Pookeyhead]

Nah.... forget those figures... they're not "real world". Some bloke posted some JPEGs in here earlier to show how all of this is rubbish.

 

[maninsuitcase]

So what they're saying is the D810 and D800 are slightly worse than the D800E in Low-Light ISO*

(* Definition: "the highest ISO that can be used and still achieve an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits" )

D800E - 2979 ISO
D810 - 2853 ISO
D800 - 2853 ISO

A difference of 4.42%

Yeah there's not a lot in it and I know a few people using the D800(E) well past those numbers who are happy with the results. I am sure in practice whilst no D4s ISO wise, it's not awful either. Guess we will see over the coming weeks as people start posting real experience of the camera (and once Adobe release a final version of ACR).

 

[Ozei]

I don't think ACR 8.6 final will be any better than using NX-D v1.0.0 - just one less step to get from NEF to Photoshop.