[jsherman999]

-Noise performance is pretty amazing. The nikon rep said that it's 2-3 stops better than the D800

.

Your Nikon rep was blowing a whole bunch of smoke



D810 does look like a fantastic camera, though.

.

[Kayaker-J]

I wouldn't draw an inference from your post that we ought to take DxO's methodology and quantitative-&-arcane scoring conclusions too literally... as they have their own particular biases. That is, I don't think that's what you meant. I have a lot of confidence, personally, in the conservatively stated, real world situation report I sent along above.

There were just too many little things about the D800/D800E for a $3.3K camera to ever stir my own excitement. Tentatively, the D810 sounds to me like the beta or market research testing of what loose ends you can push past well-heeled enthusiast or ostentation-minded consumers (behind the inherent hype factor of the internet) is history in this case. The D800 was a good camera with some disconcerting flaws for the price; but the details, cumulatively and interactively, seem to add up better now. You can't honestly say that about an A7R. Yet. Nikon's credibility as a *photographers* kind of company remains rather doubtful, however, recent history highlighting the point.

Nice, but still too huge in body, system bits [plus system "philosophy"], and cost to appeal without some significant reservations to most thoughtful Pentaxians, I might conjecture. Pro requirements may be different, of course. Not that I think Nikon is anything like the pro-oriented company they used to be... some time ago.

[neostyles]

You're right my mistake. But have you tried shooting your Azr at ISO 12,800? Even with that aside, i would say the nikon images still look better..

[Kayaker-J]

You're right my mistake. But have you tried shooting your Azr at ISO 12,800? Even with that aside, i would say the nikon images still look better..

Clarification, please? I don't follow -- that was a summary critique of the A7R for not having it all together. "The worst sounding shutter of all time" may be someone's slight hyperbole, but there's really little excuse for what seems like a contradiction to the camera's basic rationale. And regarding shutter shock, something like "I just don't shoot between 1/30 of a second and 1/250th" is hardly a ringing endorsement, coming from an A7R owner. Compression of RAW files has been an issue. And so on... I should think getting better images out of a D810 more often -- without thinking much about it -- would be the more likely case.

I'd have an A7 at some evolving price, at a slightly-out-of-fashion point in time before I'd ever want an A7R, just speaking for myself and being practical. I note that a K3 excels in the respects specifically mentioned, making some small allowance for its nature as a DSLR.

---

Last edited by Kayaker-J; 07-27-2014 at 02:32 PM.

[rawr]

In looking at the DxOMark test results, the D810 vs D800 differences are totally miniscule.

For some reason the D810 has slightly worse dynamic range than the D800/E between ISO 100 and ISO 1600, but other than that across all measurements everything is practically identical.

But I note that DxOMark have now promoted the D810 to being a 'Professional' camera in their 'Specs' section, rather than being a 'Semi-Pro DSLR' type camera like the D800/E.

[Kayaker-J]

In looking at the DxOMark test results, the D810 vs D800 differences are totally miniscule.

For some reason the D810 has slightly worse dynamic range than the D800/E between ISO 100 and ISO 1600, but other than that across all measurements everything is practically identical.

But I note that DxOMark have now promoted the D810 to being a 'Professional' camera in their 'Specs' section, rather than being a 'Semi-Pro DSLR' type camera like the D800/E.

I noticed that DxO also seems to rate the performance of the D3300 and D7100 a "wash" overall as far as IQ is concerned -- see the recommended lenses section. Shades of Ken Rockwell. I don't really know what they mean to say, since noticeable performance tiering from high-$ to low in the DX camera line (otherwise known as "marketing" or "crippling with intent") has been characteristic of Nikon's strategy -- rather unlike Pentax, at a certain recent point in time. Actual IQ, irrespective of some similar numbers, is what I'm referring to.

Others on the Forums have commented with more insight into DxO's methods and what the consequent results might mean (I don't claim to have investigated deeply). The take away message for me is to be skeptical about how well DxO's published results correlate with what you'll see in actual photo files. In other words, your results with a D810 could be effectively different in some important respects -- either way, I suppose -- from what a miniscule difference in DxO's figures might suggest without looking further. Key componentry is different, and not in merely minor respects; and different approaches to in-camera processing complicate the guessing game. It does not look as if anything like full evaluations by demanding pro users and bloggers such as Hogan, Chambers, and Thein are in yet. So I figure, it's watch and wait, for those so inclined.

[Christine Tham]

Friend of mine just upgraded to the D810 from the D800e. He says it's NOT "2-3 stops" better but there seems to be an improvement. It's also NOT noiseless above ISO 3200 - no camera is.

The main reason for the upgrade was to get rid of the focusing problem on the D800e - sometimes the shutter won't fire after focus lock, because it keeps hesitating whether lock has been achieved or not - tends to happen when trying to focus on relatively smooth surfaces.

The D800e was a bit of a kludge (AA and anti-AA filter stack) - the D810 fixes most of the issues.

[Kayaker-J]

Your friend's take sounds remarkably similar to my friend's, Christine. He just mentioned another kind of D800 focusing issue to me. Only an hour ago I received an email describing some problems he had with the group focus mode on the D810 at a gathering last night. It's a new feature adapted from the D4, I think, so it could simply just be him at this point. We're looking at that.

[Christine Tham]

Your friend's take sounds remarkably similar to my friend's, Christine. He just mentioned another kind of D800 focusing issue to me. Only an hour ago I received an email describing some problems he had with the group focus mode on the D810 at a gathering last night. It's a new feature adapted from the D4, I think, so it could simply just be him at this point. We're looking at that.

A lot of focusing issues are operator dependent. Sometimes it could be the composition, sometimes it's the experience of the photographer.

For example, I have zero problems focusing on my A7r, but recently I had the experience of lending the camera to someone, and that person kept getting back focus, Eye AF not working etc. etc. When the camera was handed back to me, I took exactly the same shots with no problems whatsoever.

[JohnBee]

A lot of focusing issues are operator dependent. Sometimes it could be the composition, sometimes it's the experience of the photographer.

For example, I have zero problems focusing on my A7r, but recently I had the experience of lending the camera to someone, and that person kept getting back focus, Eye AF not working etc. etc. When the camera was handed back to me, I took exactly the same shots with no problems whatsoever.

Experience is a virtue

[neostyles]

In looking at the DxOMark test results, the D810 vs D800 differences are totally miniscule.

For some reason the D810 has slightly worse dynamic range than the D800/E between ISO 100 and ISO 1600, but other than that across all measurements everything is practically identical.

But I note that DxOMark have now promoted the D810 to being a 'Professional' camera in their 'Specs' section, rather than being a 'Semi-Pro DSLR' type camera like the D800/E.

There is a lot that Dx0mark doesn't say. Plus, in some cases dx0 mark can be borderline misleading. I dont know why people put so much stock in them. For instance, i am starting to question their noise tests. It says that the d600 has better noise performance than the 5dmkiii when, having used both cameras i can say that this is pretty obviously not the case. Although there are other reasons why i like the d600 better, namely dynamic range.

Clarification, please? I don't follow -- that was a summary critique of the A7R for not having it all together. "The worst sounding shutter of all time" may be someone's slight hyperbole, but there's really little excuse for what seems like a contradiction to the camera's basic rationale. And regarding shutter shock, something like "I just don't shoot between 1/30 of a second and 1/250th" is hardly a ringing endorsement from an A7R owner! Compression of RAW files has been an issue. And so on... I should think getting better images out of a D810 more often -- without thinking much about it -- would be the case.

I'd have an A7 at some evolving price, at a slightly-out-of-fashion point in time before I'd ever want an A7R, just speaking for myself and being practical. I note that a K3 excels in the respects specifically mentioned, making some small allowance for its nature as a DSLR.

Point being that ive actually used this camer and seen - first hand- what it is capable in terms of noise performance. In fact, i recently saw a video review of the A7r when it lost out to the d600 for noise performance.


I think moire can sometimes be overrated. Yes, if you shoot something with repeating patterns this can be a problem, but this only comes into play into some cases. More often then not, you wont even have to worry about it. Heck, ive neen shooting quite a few movies with my d600 ever since i got it and havent even noticed it!

[Kayaker-J]

Well, I'm not invested in any way in these full frame debates right now. I'm not in the market for a $1800+ body, and I chose the K3 (as an all-arounder) over any "bargain" D600 example I could have found for a variety of solid reasons of my own. My working hypothesis was and is that all the existing 24mp full frame sensors to date are handicapped by the anti-aliasing filter [Leica RF excepted...?]. I assume that the reasoning of Sony, et.al., is that 24mp occupying the larger real estate is too vulnerable to moire effects without a bang up to date anti-moire program in the processor. I don't know why Sony didn't get there with the A7... or the A6000, for that matter. A more advanced 24mp FF sensor/processor combination might start to draw my attention.

As it is, the more attention given to 36mp FF, the more you might expect fickle public opinion to regard the first generation A7 as a "weak sister" model, the internet and manufacturers' hype being what they are. Which might turn out to be helpful, from a self-interest perspective! Anyway, I'm much more involved with lens kit anxiety at present than sensor envy 😄.

[jogiba]

There is a lot that Dx0mark doesn't say. Plus, in some cases dx0 mark can be borderline misleading. I dont know why people put so much stock in them. For instance, i am starting to question their noise tests. It says that the d600 has better noise performance than the 5dmkiii when, having used both cameras i can say that this is pretty obviously not the case. Although there are other reasons why i like the d600 better, namely dynamic range.


Point being that ive actually used this camer and seen - first hand- what it is capable in terms of noise performance. In fact, i recently saw a video review of the A7r when it lost out to the d600 for noise performance.


I think moire can sometimes be overrated. Yes, if you shoot something with repeating patterns this can be a problem, but this only comes into play into some cases. More often then not, you wont even have to worry about it. Heck, ive neen shooting quite a few movies with my d600 ever since i got it and havent even noticed it!

The D600 ?
Nikon sets aside 1.8 billion yen to cover D600 warranty repairs: Digital Photography Review

The A7r is the best still camera for me because I wanted the smallest full frame 36mp camera on the planet with sharp Zeiss primes and there is nothing close to it. I don't shoot high iso over 3200 so I don't need the A7s.

[neostyles]

I met a dude at the event who said that he sent in his d600 for repair but then the problem came back a few thousand shots later. But to be honest, i havent really noticed the problem. Since i got it, ive probably shot over 5k shots and havent even noticed the dust. It was only when we did a sensor check for class then i was like "waaittt whats going on." The image quality has blown me away frankly on my d600. The only thing though is the autofocus isnt perhaps as capable as i hoped it would be. I did a lot of shooting with models during the year and it wasnt a problem but now that im trying to do fast moving shots of things like birds, i find that i am missing some shots. I recently saw this too

You Tube

You Tube

[Christine Tham]

I did a lot of shooting with models during the year and it wasnt a problem but now that im trying to do fast moving shots of things like birds, i find that i am missing some shots.

That is not the camera's problem. I have over nine bodies (I was going to say 10 but my Spotmatic isn't working anymore - I checked) and 40 lenses - bird shots can be taken on any of them, even the manual focus ones. Photographers were taking shots of fast moving objects (like wildlife, sports etc.) long before AF was even invented.

Here's a bird shot I took on World Pentax Day, on my K-01 (which most will agree does not have the fastest AF in the world):