[mee]

You don't even have to go with refurb. to get some great deals out there. If and when the D820 is released you will more than likely see the D810 discounted, over the winter you could have picked up a D810 along with the older 24-70 F/2.8 G and the tamron 15-30 F/2.8 for only $500 more over the K1 15-30 and 24-70 here in Canada. When the D820 is released Nikon will bundle the D810 in a package at attractive prices. When the D810 was released I picked up a D800 for around the price of the K1 and that was when the D810 was a more expensive body to the older D800.

That is really nice! I'm waiting 6 or 7 months to see what Ricoh offer (and also give current FF options a time to relax in price). I don't mind buying used to decrease price further, especially buying from a retailer such as B&H or KEH where there is still a (limited) return policy.

Maybe. Using a 42 megapixel sensor in a sports camera seems brutal from a number of standpoints. There is a reason why most of those cameras run around 20 megapixels and it isn't because they have better high iso performance. It is because sports shooters don't need the extra resolution and don't want to wade through 12 frames per second of 40 megapixel images. Limiting it to seven or eight frames per second probably would be adequate for most folks shooting this style of camera and would make the buffer size a little more reasonable too.

Yes and the D500 (for example since 20MP sports crop) has a buffer that can hold 200 RAW shots at 10 fps. It is almost a movie mode. 20MP is pretty decent for the types of media sports images go into (news/sports magazines and websites as well as consumer grade posters).

The Nikon D800/810, specifically, though have the ability to crop the resolution/image size which actually increases framerate and number of shots in buffer. That's a nice touch.

[normhead]

The DxO mark ratings show the Sony A7rII so close in score to the K-1, it wouldn't be worth buying a new camera for unless your old one broke. The forum consensus at one point was that about 5 marks on the DxO scale was needed to even see a difference.

Until a camera hit's 102 on the DxO scale, you'd be wasting money to switch, if IQ was your only criteria.

And, I get really tired of comparisons between WR lenses and non WR lenses. It get's old. WR lenses cost more because they are useful in more situations. For people like me who are often days away from their car, it doesn't matter how cheap non-WR equipment is, I'm not buying it or using it... doh.



For me, I'd only willingly use a non-WR lens if no WR lens was available in the focal length.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

That is really nice! I'm waiting 6 or 7 months to see what Ricoh offer (and also give current FF options a time to relax in price). I don't mind buying used to decrease price further, especially buying from a retailer such as B&H or KEH where there is still a (limited) return policy.

If Nikon uses the same AF that is found in the D500 and D5, this seems more than likely then there might be a few D810 and D800 flooding the market this could reduce the price of the D800/810 if you are looking for a camera

[Rondec]

The DxO mark ratings show the Sony A7rII so close in score to the K-1, it wouldn't be worth buying a new camera for unless your old one broke. The forum consensus at one point was that about 5 marks on the DxO scale was needed to even see a difference.

Until a camera hit's 102 on the DxO scale, you'd be wasting money to switch, if IQ was your only criteria.

And, I get really tired of comparisons between WR lenses and non WR lenses. It get's old. WR lenses cost more because they are useful in more situations. For people like me who are often days away from their car, it doesn't matter how cheap non-WR equipment is, I'm not buying it or using it... doh.



For me, I'd only willingly use a non-WR lens if no WR lens was available in the focal length.

Well, the DXO Mark score doesn't take into account frame rate or video performance and both of those are clearly better with the A7r II sensor.

The performance as measured by DXO Mark is quite different. The A7r II sensor is much better with regard to dynamic range in high iso situations, but isn't as good at iso 100 and 200. If you are a landscape photographer, you would probably prefer the K-1, if you shoot shows and night photography, the A7r II is probably to be preferred.

[D1N0]

The A7r II sensor is much better with regard to dynamic range in high iso situations, but isn't as good at iso 100 and 200. If you are a landscape photographer, you would probably prefer the K-1, if you shoot shows and night photography, the A7r II is probably to be preferred.

There isn't that much difference
When you are able to use pixel shift it will be quite another story. The D5 and 1Dx Mk II lead in high iso DR.

[mee]

If Nikon uses the same AF that is found in the D500 and D5, this seems more than likely then there might be a few D810 and D800 flooding the market this could reduce the price of the D800/810 if you are looking for a camera

Yes.. depends on where they are at price-wise in 6-7 months versus where the K-1 is.

For me it is a case of going with a Nikon FF and immediately needing a new set of lenses or going with a K-1 and only needing a standard zoom while using the rest of my crop lenses until more fitting replacements can be acquired.

That is what Nikon has for me.. better lens selection (and much better AF). While I like what Pentax does in the handling department (solid feeling cameras in hand) and sensor bells and whistles (astrotracer and pixelshift are rather nice). IBIS is also nice..

Now that FF is rather decent even in the 'old' bodies, I think we'll see them in the hands of people whom we might not have 3 to 5 years ago.

[normhead]

You guys do realize that having more lenses available that you don't own, is not an advantage? Most of my Nikon shooting compatriots don't own nearly the lens selection I do. My Canon and Nikon bodies do a double take when I pull out the little Pelican case that fits in my pocket with the 21 ltd. and 40 XS primes in it. Lens selection means nothing by itself. It only matters if they have the lenses you want. Repeatedly extolling the virtues of "better lens selection" is crazy. For light weight portable APS-c lenses, Pentax has the best lens selection.

But of course the Nikon and Canon fan boys won't ever be acknowledging that. Just "Nikon as better lens selection, Canon has better lens selection ... blah, blah blah.

Who has the better lens selection depends on whether or not the company has what you need. It's not some kind of absolute to judge camera companies. So please, cut the blah, blah, blah, we're tired of it,

[MJSfoto1956]

It could also give the D820/850 12fps. It would become a real alternative to the D5 if Nikon would also implement the same AF system.

um no. One can only achieve those kinds of numbers on mirrorless and with huge buffers.
They will be lucky if they can keep the same fps as the current D810.

Michael

[D1N0]

um no. One can only achieve those kinds of numbers on mirrorless and with huge buffers.
They will be lucky if they can keep the same fps as the current D810.

Michael

Um yes! The D5 and 1Dx MkII do 14 fps. The sensor technology is clearly the limiting factor, not flapping the mirror.

[Wired]

The successor to the D810 is going to have to be pretty spectacular to get me to want to upgrade. The D800-D810 jump took me a year to finally pull the trigger, and I only did so when it was on a stupid good sale price of $2800 CAD. It goes for almost $3700 now! I would not spend that much now to upgrade from a D800-D810.

The D810 was worth upgrading too, don't get me wrong. It's an amazing camera and probably the best camera I've ever owned. So versatile, comfortable, and it helps create some beautiful images. It's so good! I have no wish list that would get me to drop $3500+ on a new D8xxx series body when it comes out....

most likely upgrades;

Video package gets a strong boost - no interest for me
mega pixels! MORE MEGA PIXELS!!!! - 36 is enough! My hard drives and computers are already waving the white flag.
deeper and faster buffer - well who doesn't want that....
faster FPS - this camera is not designed for FPS... but its always nice if you want to fill those cards even faster.
better AF system - wouldn't be bad to have more points... but not a biggie for me.

[biz-engineer]

You guys do realize that having more lenses available that you don't own, is not an advantage? Most of my Nikon shooting compatriots don't own nearly the lens selection I do.

That also like the AF performance that so many envy but never actually use.

---------- Post added 03-02-17 at 21:14 ----------

Um yes! The D5 and 1Dx MkII do 14 fps. The sensor technology is clearly the limiting factor, not flapping the mirror.

I think there's also a mechanical limitation. We rate technologies by using figures of merit (something that account for all parameters together) and those factor of merit progress very slowly, versus design tradeoff that can be very quickly done. That applies to a lot of technologies. Take camera AF performance, you can't have a tiny AF module fitted into the bottom of the K1 body and the short integration time of the 4 times larger AF sensor of a D5 or 1D. Remember, if you want less noise you can only either increase space or increase the integration time of the sensor, therefore, if you use a small AF sensor and AF lenses, you can't have a fast AF tracking. Another example with semiconductor CPU chips: you can't have high instant computing power and low power consumption. Increase clock speed and you need to allow more energy consumption. Now, you could still increase speed without increasing power consumption, but then you'd need to use smaller gates, which would make the system less immune to noise. Typically, for an light sensor of an AF module, you could increase speed and limit power but than you'd have more noise etc... You could also stretch your system for performance only (like they do for F1 cars), but then you'd have an issue with durability, and ability to manufacture at target cost and quality level ... and so on, it's always the same story.

[mee]

Then there are those of us wanting more lenses and improved AF because we would use the improvements and enjoy the selection...

Which is probably why there is such an interest about the tweaks done to the K-3 II AF system in the KP right now in the News and Rumors side. Many queries because any improvements would be welcome for functional usage. It isn't like we all sit around wishing we had better features just to say we have them... come on. We want the improvements to make use of them.

Ricoh seem to be listening and enhancing their platform slowly but surely.. for those who are happy, there is nothing to discuss, go take pictures and be happy and leave us to discuss.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

and sensor bells and whistles (astrotracer and pixelshift are rather nice).

If you are interested in pixel shift for higher resolutions you can also increase the resolution with the D810 and D800 with photo stacking and also decrease noise



The one on the left is taken with pixel shift and the other on the right is using a photo stack using 4 shots. ISO 100, 200, 400 and iso 800 from the K1



here they are output to the same size. While it was not ideal using different iso ( I need 4 photographs for stacking and those are the only available) to stack images from you can see benefit from using stacking.

There are benefits to using stacking, with stacking it is beneficial if there is movement in between shots as this is how stacking works you need some movement. With pixel shift there can be no movement in between each exposure.
Another benefit is you can take as many frames as you want and pick the better of the lot to use in the stacking and ignore the ones you don't want to use.

[mee]

Cool! Many thank yous for sharing this with us (or at least me - I'm grateful). Is there a particular process that needs to be involved in this stacking to obtain the extra detail? I'd really like to try this!

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Then there are those of us wanting more lenses and improved AF because we would use the improvements and enjoy the selection...

When that selection and improved AF performance allows you to use cheaper and lighter F/4 lenses and seeing a gain if performance helps in the pocket book at the end of the day.

---------- Post added 02-03-2017 at 06:40 PM ----------

Cool! Many thank yous for sharing this with us (or at least me - I'm grateful). Is there a particular process that needs to be involved in this stacking to obtain the extra detail? I'd really like to try this!

A Practical Guide to Creating Superresolution Photos with Photoshop

I mainly use PhotoAcute PhotoAcute Studio Example

---------- Post added 02-03-2017 at 07:03 PM ----------

Here is the full image from the K1 stacked image



Its large 14720 pixels on the long side