Nikon D810

[Chris Wilson]

="sk66, post: 6648179, member: 62098"]Careful. If you crop a D8xx/1600 image to DX the results will be about identical to your D7000 images. The MP "cropability" is really a fallacy. it doesn't matter what camera it is, if you crop in you loose overall IQ/performance. And the high MP cameras are *more dependent* on all of that data in order to achieve good IQ.

I still disagree with you Steven - you don't lose dynamic range by cropping - therefore the dx portion of a D8xx image isn't the same as the whole of an image from the D7000 - how can it be?

cheers, cw

 

[Joeturner11]

The MP "cropability" is really a fallacy

Disagree completely aswell, here is a image taken with a D800 showing the 'cropability' my D3 couldn't dream of doing anything like this...
View attachment 27904

Larger version of the final edit to view here if want to have a look : https://www.flickr.com/photos/joeturnerimages/15594941822/

 

[sk66]

Have you used a D8xx ... for wildlife, for example?

Yes. I used to have a D800 and now I use a D810 and a D4.

In fact, on a per pixel basis smaller pixels have less capability in every aspect (DR/Color/ISO/etc). Compare the specs of a D7000 with those for a D4 (both 16MP) and it will be lower in every aspect. What the smaller pixels do give you is a potential greater resolution (pixels/area).

But that doesn't mean that you might not have "more than you absolutely need" with a high MP/small pixel (or any) camera. When you have more than you need you can crop and still have good IQ. Don't forget that you are taking all of the camera's capabilities and compressing it out for 8bit display/print...you may not need 14bit/EV from the camera (many record in 12bit for file size because they never see the need/benefit). The D7000 is capable of producing very good images, just as a D8xx crop can.

However, as you increase ISO (reduce light) you get less of every factor (per pixel) regardless of the pixels size. For me, by ~ ISO1600 the D8xx is no longer producing "more than I need" and the ISO noise makes cropping a negative. So when I get to ISO1600 I switch to the D4 if I have it available. At ISO 1600+ the D8xx isn't necessarily "worse" than the D4 on a per sensor/image basis, there's just no real benefit to it.

The "sensor ratings" are based on the whole sensor and having all of the data collected to generate a "normalized" image. If you crop and throw away data the resulting IQ will be lower. That shouldn't surprise anyone... it's not a sensor specific characteristic.

 

[Chris Wilson]

"If you crop and throw away data the resulting IQ will be lower"

To me that's a bit like saying "if you peel an orange you somehow affect the taste of the orange" and I just don't understand.

However, neither do I care that much, so tra for now!

cheers, cw

 

[sk66]

I still disagree with you Steven - you don't lose dynamic range by cropping - therefore the dx portion of a D8xx image isn't the same as the whole of an image from the D7000 - how can it be?

cheers, cw

You are correct regarding DR only in that cropping doesn't change the "DR recorded" in that area. But the "DR capability" of the smaller area *is* reduced.
However there is very little difference in DR capability between the D7000/D8xx (and you may not be using 15EV).

 

[sk66]

"If you crop and throw away data the resulting IQ will be lower"

To me that's a bit like saying "if you peel an orange you somehow affect the taste of the orange"

Have you ever eaten orange peel?

 

[gramps]

For me the 'proof of the pudding is in the eating', not in pixel comparisons ... the D810 allowed cropping with excellent IQ, making images available that otherwise wouldn't be, especially in wildlife scenarios.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

I've still got a D7000 in the back of the cupboard. The D810 image quality blows it out of the water, on maximum quality you can make massive crops. One of the advantages of wildlife photography. Combine that with 1/8000 and a very quiet shutter and fast AF and it's ideal for wildlife photography.

 

[sk66]

For me the 'proof of the pudding is in the eating', not in pixel comparisons ... the D810 allowed cropping with excellent IQ, making images available that otherwise wouldn't be, especially in wildlife scenarios.

I guarantee you Joe's example photo was taken at a low ISO and the same image could have been taken w/ a D7000. I also used to own a D7000. If you do own a D7000 and are thinking of buying a D8xx *only* for the "cropability" then I'm saying it's a waste of money. If you own a D8xx, then just use it.

Here's a 100% comparison of the D800/D7000 at ISO3200 (DPR studio shot comparison thing). With slight downsizing of the D7000 selection to match (D8xx DX crop is actually 15.something MP). Can you tell which is which?

View attachment 27936

the D800 is on the right...
(I'm not responsible for the WB/perspective differences. If I had fixed the WB/Exposure to match it would probably be a bit worse)

I've still got a D7000 in the back of the cupboard. The D810 image quality blows it out of the water, on maximum quality you can make massive crops. One of the advantages of wildlife photography. Combine that with 1/8000 and a very quiet shutter and fast AF and it's ideal for wildlife photography.

The D800e/810 has the advantage of no AA filter... but if you really want the most resolution/pixels per area get a D7100.
I own the D810, I like the quiet shutter and the AF accuracy/tracking is better. But I'm not about to say it's the greatest camera ever for every situation/use. And I don't consider it great for wildlife unless the light is quite good.

 

[gramps]

Like I said, my experience comes from usefulness in the 'field' not by photographing playing cards

 

[sk66]

Like I said, my experience comes from usefulness in the 'field' not by photographing playing cards

So does mine...

 

[Joeturner11]

I guarantee you Joe's example photo was taken at a low ISO

The image was taken at ISO 640, I can post another example like that tomorrow if you really want at ISO 2000? As Roger said its what the camera performs like in the field and can get you the shot rather than counting pixels on tests shots on your computer screen...

 

[c22w1]

Please don't fall out over this, of course I wouldn't be buying the camera just for its cropability but the option is obviously handy to have. It was a simple question and I have my answer. Thank you to all that have replied.

 

[Joeturner11]

Please don't fall out over this

No ones falling out over this, just a simple discussion which rarely happens on here these days without escalating into madness

 

[mpe]

My view is that all these pixels make the D8xx a very versatile wildlife camera:

- you can crop if needed (not necessarily to DX, most of my WL crops are to 20-26mpx just to correct composition)
- you can downsample to lower res. Then the noise performance almost rival D4.
- you can get class-leading resolution if you manage to fill the frame at lower ISO and have absurdly large prints.
- if you don't do large prints, you can still downsample and get better acuity than lower res cameras.

None of the other cameras can do all of these at the same time. Yes, D7100 or Nikon 1 cameras have even higher pixel density and D4S is even better at high-ISO, but the D8XX has a bit of everything. That's why so many wildlife photographers love it.

 

[sk66]

The image was taken at ISO 640, I can post another example like that tomorrow if you really want at ISO 2000? As Roger said its what the camera performs like in the field and can get you the shot rather than counting pixels on tests shots on your computer screen...

I have my own examples from use in the field, thanks.
There are other considerations as well... If you want to crop a D8xx image hard (or use a D7000/7100 well) you need to have adequate (extra) support/stability/SS/aperture relative to a lower/larger MP camera. The smaller pixels are more sensitive to subject/camera movement and go into diffraction limiting earlier. (actually affects full frame images as well, but "less.")

One day I was sitting watching a snowy owl that was too far away, so I decided to do a test to demonstrate the various considerations. I used a 400mm f/2.8 +2x and a 14MP V2 un-cropped, a D800 (cropped), and a D4 (cropped harder). And I used the best support/technique I could manage. In the end, the SOOC images are fairly well interchangeable, but for different reasons. Still, the larger pixel sensor was/is more forgiving and easier to use.

Here's the article if anyone cares: http://photographic-academy.com/camera-basics/84-camera-basics/141-mp-s-detail-contrast

 

[sk66]

My view is that all these pixels make the D8xx a very versatile wildlife camera:

- you can crop if needed (not necessarily to DX, most of my WL crops are to 20-26mpx just to correct composition)
- you can downsample to lower res. Then the noise performance almost rival D4.
- you can get class-leading resolution if you manage to fill the frame at lower ISO and have absurdly large prints.
- if you don't do large prints, you can still downsample and get better acuity than lower res cameras.

None of the other cameras can do all of these at the same time. Yes, D7100 or Nikon 1 cameras have even higher pixel density and D4S is even better at high-ISO, but the D8XX has a bit of everything. That's why so many wildlife photographers love it.

I can agree with this in general. Some of this depends on the subjects situations you tend to shoot the most. If it's smaller/faster/lower light I would go for the D4/D3 types; and if it's good light/slower I would definitely go w/ the D810. That's why I own both, and why I would choose the D750 instead if I had to pick a single camera as the best balanced for all of the considerations.

 

[Joeturner11]

Here's the article if anyone cares: http://photographic-academy.com/camera-basics/84-camera-basics/141-mp-s-detail-contrast

A good read thanks for sharing the link!

 

[sk66]

Two recent examples:

D810, 800mm, 1250, 1/1000, *handheld, little harder than DX crop (~ 40m distance). Pretty nice result considering...

SGK_1342-Edit.jpg by skersting66, on Flickr

D4, 800mm, 6400, 1/250, *handheld, ~DX crop and downsized. It's not fantastic, but it's adequate for web/smaller print. I don't believe I would ever have been able to pull this off with a D8xx and those settings, and I doubt anyone else could either.

Yummy by skersting66, on Flickr

Obviously being *handheld is a significantly limiting factor... I hate tripods for wildlife/action and only use them when absolutely necessary or particularly convenient (i.e. seldom).

The D810 is a great camera and I'll use it first whenever there is need/benefit. But that's not all of the time; it's not even most of the time *for me*.

 

[mpe]

Two recent examples:

D4, 800mm, 6400, 1/250, *handheld, ~DX crop and downsized. It's not fantastic, but it's adequate for web/smaller print. I don't believe I would ever have been able to pull this off with a D8xx and those settings, and I doubt anyone else could either.
Yummy by skersting66, on Flickr

Steve, why do you think it wouldn't be possible to make a similar picture with a DXXX? It is a great shot, but still . It is a perched bird, 3 megapixels, relatively good light, slow shutter time. I don't see anything impossible for a D800. Especially when using a stopped down 400 2.8G

Take a look at the following hi-ISO D800 tightly cropped pictures. Both are approximately DX crops (16mpx). The deer is taken at normal light ISO6400, the fox was taken at almost no-light situation (ISO12800 + 1.2 EV pulled in post).

_MPE4277
_MPE4848

 

[sk66]

Steve, why do you think it wouldn't be possible to make a similar picture with a DXXX? It is a great shot, but still . It is a perched bird, 3 megapixels, relatively good light, slow shutter time. I don't see anything impossible for a D800. Especially when using a stopped down 400 2.8G

Had the bird been not eating(tearing at the fish) and if I had used a tripod for the slow SS then I could have gotten closer w/ a D8xx.

I don't want to be harsh or anything, but when I say I consider the image suitable for web and smaller prints, I didn't mean at even smaller sizes such as shown here... I meant at 100%.
Your first image is also at 6400 and of a very comparable crop. It was also taken in better light than my image was which produces fewer issues at higher ISO's. So it actually has an advantage.

Here's a 100% grab from each. I grabbed a larger section from my image in order to include the fine feathers on the rt comparable to the hairs on the deer.

View attachment 27981
View attachment 27982

IMO, they're not even close...
With some careful editing they could probably be brought closer, but the D4 image would still win out IMO. (And the D4 image might be possible to improve with better editing)

 

[mpe]

Perhaps I should have posted the next cropped frame in the sequence if I knew you like the hairs . It is a bit better focused and apply a little bit PP (I don't like NR artefacts so the luminance slider is at 5/100 and colour slider 15/100 in Lightroom). So there is very little NR if any.

It is OK for me. Sure. It is not D4S-like clean if pixel peeping at 1:1. But pretty good considering it is ISO6400 from 4.8µm pixel camera with very little NR. The best thing about it is that I have a plenty of pixels to work with so the noise is almost always masked by downsampling and never see it in prints.

_MPE4278-2

1:1 crop: (yes, there is some luminance noise, but I like it
View attachment 27987

 

[sk66]

Perhaps I should have posted the next cropped frame in the sequence that is a bit better focused and apply a little bit PP (I don't like NR artefacts so there Luminance slider is at 5/100 and colour slider 15/100 in Lightroom). So there is very little NR if any.

A much better result...

I have never said that the D8xx is not a great camera or that it's "unusable" in any situation. Quite the contrary, that's why I own one. And if it's all I owned I would use it for everything. I just find the huge files, greater demands, and slower performance more of a negative in many situations (or at least of no benefit if not a negative).

My problem isn't with the camera as such, it's with people suggesting it's "better" for everything/every situation and it simply isn't.
I can agree that the overall IQ of the D8xx is *generally* not significantly worse than any other camera in any situation, and it has the potential to be significantly better in some situations. The D810 is usually the camera I take if I'm only taking one... (or my V2 kit )

 

[sk66]

Ok, I did kind of say that it was "unusable" for the eagle shot. But that limitation was imposed by me and how I was using the camera (*handheld w/ ISO limited) and not by the camera itself as such.

 

[Laudrup]

Why don't you use a monopod for support instead of hand holding?

 

[sk66]

Why don't you use a monopod for support instead of hand holding?

I actually use the SharpShooter Camera Mount for handholding (that's why I asterisk "handheld")... sometimes I use it combined with a monopod or tripod. But that day I had been down amongst rocks/boulders trying to photograph eagles catching fish, and tripods/monopods are quite hindering in that situation. The reason I used neither for that shot is that I didn't have one with me... it was an opportunity that presented itself as I was walking back to my vehicle at the end of the day.

 

[Dmax]

I still got my D810 and I still love it

 

[Pookeyhead]

I guarantee you Joe's example photo was taken at a low ISO and the same image could have been taken w/ a D7000. I also used to own a D7000. If you do own a D7000 and are thinking of buying a D8xx *only* for the "cropability" then I'm saying it's a waste of money. If you own a D8xx, then just use it.

Here's a 100% comparison of the D800/D7000 at ISO3200 (DPR studio shot comparison thing). With slight downsizing of the D7000 selection to match (D8xx DX crop is actually 15.something MP). Can you tell which is which?

View attachment 27936

the D800 is on the right...
(I'm not responsible for the WB/perspective differences. If I had fixed the WB/Exposure to match it would probably be a bit worse)



The D800e/810 has the advantage of no AA filter... but if you really want the most resolution/pixels per area get a D7100.
I own the D810, I like the quiet shutter and the AF accuracy/tracking is better. But I'm not about to say it's the greatest camera ever for every situation/use. And I don't consider it great for wildlife unless the light is quite good.

There are some flaws with the DP review images. On the D800 RAW files (in fact, all DP Review FF test images) the playing card is not actually in focus Steven.

Look... look at the fibres and the pin in front of it compared to the card itself.

This is the danger of trusting what's on the web, and why I always test things myself.


Now lets look at those two cameras again with parts of that flawed test that are actually in focus. (these are the same test files) but ISO100

D7000

D800

Here are the exact same ISO3200 files you used.

D800

D7000

Differences are clear and pronounced, even before you click to show the original size in the forum.



Having said this.... unless you print really big you'll probably not notice a difference between either, or the D810.

However.... your test images were flawed Steven.

 

[dragonfly]

Isn't the D800 image down-sampled? If so, then this isn't a like for like (pixel to pixel) comparison, surely? Sorry, but am never very good at understanding lab tests...

 

[Pookeyhead]

Isn't the D800 image down-sampled? If so, then this isn't a like for like (pixel to pixel) comparison, surely? Sorry, but am never very good at understanding lab tests...

My images were not down sampled, no. The D7000 images we're up-sampled with bi-cubic.. so no aliasing re-sampling has been applied. Stephens D800 images WERE down-sampled, yes, but that wasn't the issue. He was using a portion of the images that weren't even in focus!

 

[dragonfly]

OK, but I thought if the discussion was about the usability of an D810 cropped image vs. an un-cropped D7000 file for example, then surely we must compare pixel to pixel. Any resampling of pixels (up/down) will have an effect on an image.

Saying this, I do think that at pixel level, a correctly exposed D810 image, at low ISOs certainly, is no different to a similar sized image captured from a lower MP camera, after cropping. Of course at higher ISO, the latter always win, purely and simply because there's less noise generated by a low pixel camera (i.e. D3/s).

 

[redhed17]

Saying this, I do think that at pixel level, a correctly exposed D810 image, at low ISOs certainly, is no different to a similar sized image captured from a lower MP camera, after cropping. Of course at higher ISO, the latter always win, purely and simply because there's less noise generated by a low pixel camera (i.e. D3/s).

I think you have to be a bit careful in making blanket statements when comparing sensors, as technology continues to give better dynamic range and better high ISO performance, with higher pixel counts. The 12mp sensor in my D300S is out performed in almost every way by the current Sony / Nikon 24mp sensors. A much older, lower resolution sensor may not be as efficient, and so as good, as a much more modern higher resolution sensor. Time is big factor as far as sensors are concerned, not just pixel counts.

 

[dragonfly]

I think you have to be a bit careful in making blanket statements when comparing sensors, as technology continues to give better dynamic range and better high ISO performance, with higher pixel counts. The 12mp sensor in my D300S is out performed in almost every way by the current Sony / Nikon 24mp sensors. A much older, lower resolution sensor may not be as efficient, and so as good, as a much more modern higher resolution sensor. Time is big factor as far as sensors are concerned, not just pixel counts.

With respect, I was referring to D7000 & D810 & D3s.

 

[Pookeyhead]

OK, but I thought if the discussion was about the usability of an D810 cropped image vs. an un-cropped D7000 file for example, then surely we must compare pixel to pixel. Any resampling of pixels (up/down) will have an effect on an image.

If you want to shoot on a D7000 with a 300mm lens (400 effective) and print at A3, then compare how shooting with a D810 and same lens compares when cropped, then both resulting images need to be printed, or presented at the same size to make a like for like comparison, so one or the other will need to be scaled so that they are both presented at the same size in order to make that comparison.

 

[dragonfly]

Maybe I'm not understanding you. This is how I look at it. Area A represents 16MP (full frame) captured by the D7000. If we're saying a cropped image of a D810 (say to 16MP also), then surely we must also look at the same area as that of A (cropped out of B).

If we use a longer lens, or walk closer using the same lens with the D810 in order to attained the same field of view of that of a D7000 (thus using all 36MP), then down-sample (or up-sample if you want to reverse the scenario), you have then lost the advantage that's being discussed here.

For me, like for like means 16MP of the D7000 vs. a 16MP cropped area of an original 36MP D810 file. If the cropped, 16MP image of the D810 is the same or better than that of the D7000, we can then say that the D810 offers the advantage of heavy cropping. Otherwise I cannot see this as being having the 'ability to crop'.

Just to reiterate, I do see that at low ISOs at least, the cropped file is easily as good, and therefore my feeling is that the D810 do offer an advantage in cropping with its high MP count.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Ahhh... OK.. I get where you're coming from now.

I did such a test last year sometime if I recall. I posted up images too, but not sure that even if you find the thread whether the images are still going to be live on Imgur.

As I recall there was not much to choose between the two and the consensus that a D800 in DX mode was pretty much identical to the D7000. However, that was not a high ISO test.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

According to a leaked press release from Nikon USA, Nikon will announce a new firmware updates program called “I AM Advancing” on January 19th, 2015. This “I AM Advancing” firmware update program will allow you download new firmwares for Nikon DSLRs for free for first three years. On January 19th, there will be firmware updates for 6 FX cameras (D750, D810, D800, D800E, D610, D600). The new website for “I AM Advancing” will be located at http://imaging.nikon.com/advancing (not yet active).

Below are new features for these firmware updates:

New White Balance update, containing Nikon’s latest algorithms for high-quality color balance in any light.

New “Metallic” Picture Control option, providing photographers with a unique high-contrast setting which is both natural and eye-catching.
New RAW Histogram. This feature displays impressive full-screen histograms for all 3 color channels (red, green and blue) simultaneously, based on data directly from the image sensor. The new feature allows advanced photographers to fine-tune perfect exposure for each shot

 

[Paul Richards]

Having just acquired the D810, I am well impressed, I use a D4 for low light high speed and the D810 for large prints A1. There are a lot of subtle changes to the old models and Nikon have done a great job in making some major and minor changes.
Prices have dropped to £2000 in the Uk with the part exchange deal £300 on any camera so now the D810 is looking great value. and thats from official sources.
Love been able to look at images at 400% magnification without any loss of quality on a big screen.
The Nikon D810 must be the best value for money camera for the serious photographer.

 

[chou]

hi all,

i am very seriously considering getting a d810 and just hoped if anyone could post their experience with the sigma 35mm art? I've got the sigma 35mm art already and have been using it on my 6d and love it, and would definitely pickup one for the d810.

However a few of the older threads from when the d810 first came out a few people had focussing issues, i therefore just wondered if anyone could post up their experience now the camera has been out for a bit longer with potentially new firmware on both sides.....

 

[Blank_Canvas]

hi all,

i am very seriously considering getting a d810 and just hoped if anyone could post their experience with the sigma 35mm art? I've got the sigma 35mm art already and have been using it on my 6d and love it, and would definitely pickup one for the d810.

However a few of the older threads from when the d810 first came out a few people had focussing issues, i therefore just wondered if anyone could post up their experience now the camera has been out for a bit longer with potentially new firmware on both sides.....

I haven't seen a single report on focussing issues for the D810 it's very fast and accurate.

The D800 had some focusing issues, are you mixing the two up ?