kurt_story1

<p>I've had my D810 for a week now, replacing my D300. What an incredible upgrade! Here are my first impressions:</p> <ul> <li>The form-factor was immediately more comfortable; the improved handgrip in particular feels more secure and therefore steadier in shooting. It's no surprise that button/control operation feels more sure and durable too.</li> <li>At 36 megapixels, the D810 effectively functions as a medium-format digital, but at a fraction of the price. I can crop down to ~30% of full-frame and get a photo quality 8" x 10" print.</li> <li>I <em>love</em> shooting in ISO 64 whenever possible! High ISO noise levels are vastly superior over the D300, which would degrade images markedly by ISO 800.</li> <li>AF in single-point mode is considerably quicker and more precise; my D300 seeks more and does not adjust focus with slight camera movement on macro shots.</li> <li>The monitor is noticeably brighter even in daylight, which should be especially useful in Live View.</li> <li>The D810 has fantastic color rendition, especially at lower ISO. I find that "flat picture control" is excellent for shooting subjects such as polished metal in bright sunlight, without blowing-out the highlights.</li> <li>The quieter/softer shutter produces noticeably less shake. I already see the benefits in hand-held shooting, feeling less jar when I focus/shoot on close subjects. Moreover, the electronic front curtain shutter should reduce shake to nothing in macro photography.</li> <li>The D810 not only produces 3X the image information, but much better image quality when down-sampled to the 12mp resolution of the D300. Obviously, the D810 is making far better use of max. resolution of top lenses such as the 105mm VR micro, the 24-70, and the 70-200.</li> <li>Uploading my full-format NEF files off the card takes about 50% more time than my D300. That's no surprise, but I haven't seen much if any delay in opening/processing NEF files in Photoshop. Granted, my computer is a bit of a beast--an HP Z420 workstation w/ quad processors and 32gb ram, running a 1 TB scratch disk just for Photoshop files.</li> <li>And I appreciate the fact that Adobe was quick to release the D810 DNG converter, Camera Raw upgrade 8.6, as well as the codec that makes D810 NEF files viewable within Windows Explorer.</li> </ul> <p>I have also seen a lot of discussion that moving up to a 36mp camera would require more tripod use and/or improvement of hand-held technique. Therefore, I wondered how slow I could go with hand-held shots before the image degrades noticeably? To find an answer, I took a series of hand-held macro shots at a highly detailed subject: George’s eye on the US $1 bill. Here I am using the Nikkor 105mm (VR on) at approximately 1:1.1 magnification. Three shots were taken at each shutter speed, picking the sharpest one; the full-size images below are at 100% crop. There is no sharpening applied or post-processing other than adjusting contrast to ease comparison. Admittedly <em>not a technically perfect test</em>, I gleaned some insight about my shooting style. Obviously, 1/80 shows the effects of hand-held movement at 100%; at ISO 1250 and above, the IQ starts to degrade from noise. While the best result may be @ 1/400, I think I <em>could be</em> satisfied with hand-held results as low as 1/250--especially with a little sharpening applied in Photoshop. Since that’s only about 2/3 stops faster than shooting on my D300, I suspect that <em>no big adjustments</em> on my part will be needed to capture quality images. Full-resolution can be seen <a href="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3857/14773748973_29c8d50365_o.jpg">here.</a><br /> <img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3857/14773748973_29c8d50365_o.jpg" alt="" width="3620" height="2161" /></p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p><br /> You never really own it. You have a license. Have you read the terms of every software license carefully? I don't know anyone who has, except maybe in the government.</p> </blockquote> <p>I've used PS for 20 years--I know this; splitting semantic hairs is besides the point, right? I think I explained what I meant by <em>owning</em> it--ie I purchase a license for a <em>self-standing copy</em>--once paid,<em> no monthly fees. Big difference</em>--my post above clarified why I prefer single-payment licensing.</p>

<blockquote> <p>With Photoshop going online with subscription only I won't be updating or upgrading any longer.</p> </blockquote> <p>As one who has used Photoshop for 20 years in a professional capacity, I would have to agree--and many other creatives feel the same way. Whether I am purchasing software for a company* or for my own contract work, when I pay for software I want to own it. I don't want Adobe as my digital landlord, holding out their hand every month. There are critical budget considerations, ie deciding when to upgrade, the ability to access files anytime--whether or not I pay Adobe's rent, and backwards compatibility/legacy issues too.</p> <p>Needless to say, I'm glad I bought CS6, and will use it for as long as possible.</p> <p>*Back when I worked for a company...If I had to submit a budget for software for myself, my assistant, and the workstation for outside contractors--all on a monthly payment schedule--my boss would freak out! Nobody likes to get hit every month if they can help it.</p>

<p>Thanks Cara...I thought the subject was intriguing, since I plan to get a D810. Thanks for the welcome too!</p>

<p><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3860/14607151862_c34e1a2570_z.jpg" alt="" /><br> <strong>ice cube macro, Nikkor 60mm micro, f7.1, 1/500</strong></p>

<blockquote> <p>Kent I only paid about $360 for it.</p> </blockquote> <p>I see that price on KEH...it strikes me as rather high, given your description of the condition. Did you test the shutter activations? I bought my D300 with only <em>6400</em> activations for $395--maybe a LN- grade by KEH standards. All said, I've found KEH customer service to be fantastic--no doubt they'll resolve this issue to your satisfaction. As I'm upgrading to the D810 in a few weeks, looks like I'll get an OK resale on my D300.</p>

<p>Having been active on Photo.net just a couple weeks, I'd like to say the experience so far has been very positive. When I mentioned <a href="/new-user-introductions-forum/00cf7g">a problem I was having with color profiles on uploads</a>, members here were welcoming and helpful. But the true test of a forum is <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cggz">posting a topic that's possibly controversial</a> from a noob like me. I've been called all sorts of things for asking about Nikon sRAW elsewhere. That everyone was cool and polite was noticed by me--and I think in fact promotes fruitful discussion. So thanks to everyone here--I will stick around! :)</p>

<blockquote> <p>So I'd expect 12-bit small raw to be half the byte count of uncompressed 12-bit full-size raw (a quarter the pixel count, but twice the size per pixel). That tallies with the 25MB and 13MB file sizes you linked to.</p> </blockquote> <p>I do understand the implications of bit depth, whether expressed mathematically by 2^8, 2^12, 2^14 or 2^24. But I'm not going to delve into the minutiae of encoding on file size--I lack experience there. As you say--I should report back when I have the camera in hand and actual files to compare. I will report whatever I find--and happily learn/correct myself at that point. :)</p>

<blockquote> <p>The D810 <a href="http://www.nikon.es/tmp/EU/2419865273/3760176746/2327365364/27184057/1391280926/2780083465/688362553/2027325250/4291728192/4102963099.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">brochure</a> (no idea why Google found it on Nikon.es...) says "a quarter of the resolution and half the size").</p> </blockquote> <p>This may be where some of the confusion is originating. When Nikon says "half the size", I believe they mean <em>half the dimensions</em>, ie 7360 x 4912 (L) becomes 3680 x 2456 (S). And just like resolution, when you half the dimensions, the file size is <a href="http://web.forret.com/tools/megapixel.asp?width=3680&height=2456%20">roughly 1/4 the original</a>.</p> <blockquote> <p>small raw is encoding chroma with 4:2:2 downsampling - so high frequency colour edges are losing more information than the mere resolution drop would suggest</p> </blockquote> <p>So far I have not measured any difference in those files I linked, but when I get my D810, I'm going to see if I can 'break' the quality of sRAW format in my shooting situations--if only to satisfy my curiosity.</p>

<p>Interesting problem...I'm curious to see if you can repeat it outdoors at higher shutter speeds.<br> I'm seeing directional displacement of pixels vs 'circles of confusion' ie blurriness. I see this when I try to a hand-held macro shot at too slow a shutter speed--camera motion during the release.</p>

<blockquote> <p>It is 12-bit compressed. The is according to Steve Heiner of Nikon in a pre-release discussion of the D810.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's interesting...perhaps the sRAW for the D810 will be around 8MB then? We'll see I guess.</p> <blockquote> <p>Worse yet, since you cannot shoot RAW + RAW small, shooting RAW small is a capture-time decision and you are throwing away pixels (and details) that will never be recoverable.</p> </blockquote> <p>With a 36 mpx sensor, you lose a lot of information by shooting in this mode. This feature intrigued me, but I honestly don't yet know when I'll use it. However, it might save myself if I find myself shooting somewhere without enough memory cards. Thanks for sharing your experience here!</p>

<blockquote> <p>For me, the main thing with these sRAW files is that (from all I've cared to read *) they actually aren't much smaller than the normal losless compressed NEF file</p> </blockquote> <p>I gleaned all I could from the above article, and that point caught my attention too.<br />Comparing a full-size 12-bit uncompressed D4 RAW @ 25MB against the 12-bit sRAW @ 13MB, one might conclude the savings in terms of memory is not that great. However, a <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/en/About-Nikon/Press-Room/Press-Release/hwuezq15/The-Power-to-Create-the-Compelling%3A-The-Nikon-D810-is-the-HD-SLR-that-Delivers-Unmatched-Image-Quality-and-a-Truly-Cinematic-Experience.html">Nikon press release </a>states the following:</p> <blockquote> <p>For full workflow versatility, the D810 also gives users the option to shoot in full resolution 14-bit RAW/NEF file format or the new RAW Size Small format. This 12-bit file format is half the resolution and <em>approximately 1/4 the file size</em> of full RAW files</p> </blockquote> <p>While Nikon doesn't state if D810 sRAW is 12-bit uncompressed or uncompressed, generally speaking 1/2 the resolution produces a file 1/4 the size, or 36mpx reduced to 9mpx. With all things otherwise equal, we might arrive at the following estimates:</p> <ul> <li>If 12-bit uncompressed RAW in the D810 is 57MB, then uncompressed 12-bit sRAW would be 14.25MB. Or...</li> <li>If 12-bit lossless compressed RAW in the D810 is 32.4MB, then lossless compressed 12-bit sRAW would be 8.1MB.</li> </ul> <p><br />Naturally, there will be a lot of speculation until we can get our hands on a D810 and generate image files for ourselves.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks Mark for your input. It's good to hear some hands-on experience! When I get my D810, I suspect I'll have use for sRAW too--and will push the format and see if I can break it.<br> I am not disputing the findings in the article, only in practical terms I can't see it those files. This topic has gotten rather contentious in other forums--unsure why--so I'm glad we can discuss this amicably here.</p>

<p>Over the past week, I have been reading up on the Nikon sRAW format. I have seen a lot of discussion denouncing the sRAW format as not "true RAW" or a "glorified JPEG", <a href="http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/nikon-small-raw-internals">citing this article</a> as evidence. Even with my background in digital imaging and multimedia, there are details in that article which go clear over my head, such as encoding color data YCbCr vs RGB. I'm not a computer scientist; I won't dispute that which I don't understand.<br> <br /> Yet--over my career, I have spent a lot of time on print and multimedia projects, which included ensuring that images were optimized to their output, whether to print or the Web. So I know how to tell if an image is blown out, noisy from high ISO or compression, or has a compromised gamut.<br> <br /> Rather than simply conclude that sRAW would give me poor results, I decided to compare output from a D4, linked below. In my analysis, I compared a 12-bit full-size RAW against a 12-bit sRAW file. I then opened each file in ACR and modified numerous parameters (but in equal amounts for each file). Finally, the files were studied in Photoshop in the 16-bit LAB color space, where I compared the histogram, gamut, and color data between files--rather than simply trusting my eyes. After 4+ hours of studying these images, I could not <em>find</em> any proof that the sRAW either had less color or tonal data than the 12-bit full RAW, or responded differently to adjustments in ACR. Judging by the sRAW file’s response in ACR and the color/tone numbers, it appears to be <em>very similar</em> to RAW, albeit smaller size—the one difference I saw.<br> <br /> Perhaps there is is data loss somewhere--but I don't see it with the tools I'm using. Nor am I denouncing the writer of the article, who is obviously very smart. I only suspect those who might find sRAW useful won't be making any noticeable compromises by using this reduced format--except of course in resolution.<br> <br /> But try it out for yourself; here are two files to open in ACR and compare:<br /> <a href="http://updates.rawdigger.com/data/D4s/_DSC0151.NEF">_DSC0151.NEF FX (36x24) 4936 3288 12 Uncompressed 25 MB</a><br /> <a href="http://updates.rawdigger.com/data/D4s/_DSC0163.NEF">_DSC0163.NEF FX (36x24) 2464 1640 12 Small 13 MB</a></p>