Nikon Introduces D810, $3299.95

georges_pelpel · July 1, 2014

The above is as compared to the D800, of course.

donbright · July 2, 2014

What is the D810 not good for? Other than someone not happy with large file sizes. Seem to me the refinement are well taken by everyone, its just that the issue of cost, and this release so soon after the D800 & E, kind of leaves a strange taste by the ones already owning D800s. Don't know what a good used D800 is worth today, but still at $3300.00 minus what? $1000? that's $4400.00 for a camera. Anyway, as of today as I see it the D810 is a pretty neat package, and what it can't do, I'll leave up to others to explain.

edwardchen · July 2, 2014

Andrew, d800 sensor is nothing but a breakthrough technology in digital imaging but sadly nikon doesn't develop many

lenses to support this demanding feature. I can only pick less than 5 nikon lenses that really push d800 sensor to its

maximum capacity. Such a waste. As far as nikon's optics concerned, nikon has a lot to catch up.

edwardchen · July 2, 2014

Don, 36mp spoils my eyes. I love it. Getting satisfaction to view images via my 30" monitor is atreat. I am totally lost

when zooming in for 100% and seeing all the details. Insane. Nothing like it. I cant even get the same result from my

5d3.

mike_halliwell · July 2, 2014

From what I read on other sites the D810 should be a worthy upgrade for anybody shooting action

What is the D810 not good for?

</blockquote>

The easiest answer is anyone needing anything over 5fps in FX format.

The 6 yr 'old' D700 + grip will do 8fps.

mike_halliwell · July 2, 2014

but sadly nikon doesn't develop many lenses to support this demanding feature

</blockquote>

Too True!

If you look at any of the 'Best Lenses' section in DxO, whether it be DX or FX, Nikon is pretty absent.

Nuff said.

donbright · July 2, 2014

Ok, So this lens issue regarding the D800s. Specifically what happens when using so called, inferior lenses with the D800s sensor? Does the image suffer? lets say verses using a lessor sensor with the same lens, or is there just a better result regardless. It's entirely conceivable that todays lens tech verses lens tech from 30 years ago has evolved, but what about AIS lenses with a D810? How much suffering is there with this? Would the 810 sensor using AIS lenses squeeze out obvious deficiencies that would ruin the picture? or would the sensor add to the combination.

ilkka_nissila · July 2, 2014

Don, basically all lenses produce better results on the D800(E) and the D810 than on lower resolution camera (at low to intermediate

ISO, and if detail is concerned also high ISO). But sometimes people zoom in to 100% and see problems and do not see that they would

constitute negligible part of the final print, and so there is sometimes an impression that the 36 MP sensor is "more demanding". When

evaluated in prints of equal size (two different cameras, the same lens and settings) the opposite is found: the quality from the 36 MP

sensor is superior or equal, with any lens. Several lenses that disappointed me on 12MP FX now produce very good image quality with the 24 and 36 MP FX cameras (in the print or final application). So here there is nothing to worry about.

Nikon doesn't design their lenses to win test chart contests but for subjective, pleasing overall image quality including careful design of

aberrations to make pleasing results to the human eye and brain. For copying test charts or flat text, do choose one of those top lenses

from DXO's list. I find only low correlation with real world findings and preferences of photographers. I have some of the top ranking

lenses and wle they're sharp, of these only the 200/2II actually passes the test that I like the images from it. I have e.g.the 135mm f/2 apo

sonnar and I thoroughly dislike the double lines it produced in out of focus areas of some f/2 shots that I made recently. None of my fast

Nikkor primes produce such ugly results in similar context. I also find the Zeiss cold and technical, and lacking the kind of emotional

quality that many Nikkors produce. But indeed the 135/2 Zeiss is extremely sharp, and it doesn't always produce poor out of focus

rendering; t is just that that's not enough for me to quality as a lens that I want to pick up. I want a lens that gives a bit of magic to the

image; a signature of its own. Of course, the Zeiss is a manual focus lens which limits its usefulness for the photography of moving

subjects at f/2 or even f/2.8. I'm actually very eager to see Nikon's update of the 135/2 to AF-S.

I have similar issues with the out of focus rendering of the 50/2 Makro Planar, again an extremely sharp lens, but at mid distances I find

these double lines in out of focus backgrounds. Not so with the superb AF-S 60mm Micro-Nikkor, one of my very favorite lenses. Perhaps

one of these days I have time to make and post a comparison to illustrate why mostly the Zeiss lenses mostly just sit in my closet while the Nikkors go with me everywhere. There are exceptions, of course, and sometimes I do use the Zeiss lenses for some landscape or macro subjects, but with recent Nikon primes, and also the 14-24/2.8, my impression of the results has been very positive and I use the Nikkors mostly now.

mike_halliwell · July 2, 2014

My view of lens 'sharpness' is that you can make it as soft as you like in post....

...but the opposite is NOT TRUE...if you take a soft pic, you're lost. You can make something sharp enough for web use, but try a 20 x 30 and it's painfully obvious.

dan_south · July 2, 2014

As far as nikon's optics concerned, nikon has a lot to catch up.

</blockquote>

Here's something to ponder. If Nikon released a 50 MP camera next year, and you used those same lenses, would the resolution improve? If you answered yes, then how can the lenses be the bottleneck?

dan_south · July 2, 2014

If you look at any of the 'Best Lenses' section in DxO, whether it be DX or FX, Nikon is pretty absent.

</blockquote>

If I recall correctly, two of the highest rated lenses on those lists are Nikon's 85mm 1.4G and 1.8G.

That said, those lists are full of hype. I've tested some of those hot, must have lenses. I must own the best 24-70 f/2.8G and 70-200 f/2.8G VRII that Nikon ever manufactured, because the lenses that win those glorified popularity contests are no sharper than the venerable Nikon zooms of the last five years.

Yes, I'll agree that the 70-200 VRI was a turkey for full frame - it was designed when Nikon was making DX cameras only - but that's a glaring exception.

If you can't get sharp photos out of Nikon's f/2.8 zooms, G primes, and the PC-E trio, check your camera stability and focus accuracy. Because honey, it ain't the lenses.

edwardchen · July 2, 2014

Ikka, I have seen results from a friend using his Zeiss 55/1.4 Otus with D800e. It's just out of this world. Like Nikkor, not all Zeiss' optics are great. The main reason I am not using Zeiss is because it is i have to focus manually. It really limits its usefulness.

Don, if i can put it into an analogy: say you buy a high powered engine block but then you feed it with low octane gasoline. It is still performing but not to its maximum potential.

Dan, from my experience, I endorse these lenses for D800e:

Zoom:

AFS 14-24/2.8G

AFS 80-400/4.5-5.6G VR (the new one)

Prime:

AFS 35/1.8G

AFS 58/1.4G

AFS 85/1.8G & AFS 85/1.4G

AFS 200/2.0 VRII

I haven't personally used 300, 400, 500, 600. But according to my wildlife photography friend, those lenses are nowhere close to what he expects as optical excellence.

Mary Doo · July 2, 2014

Bottom line: Do you think it is worth upgrading from D800 to D810? (Didn't read every post).

edwardchen · July 2, 2014

I'm actually very eager to see Nikon's update of the 135/2 to AF-S.

</blockquote>

Ikka, yes true! You may not believe it but the only reason why I keep my canon 5d3 (and eventually build around it) is Canon's version of 135/2.0. It's just mind-blowing sharpness corner to corner wide open and it produces the nicest bokeh I have ever seen. Nikon 135/2.0 DC needs to be upgraded. And probably add VR too. That would be nice.

edwardchen · July 2, 2014

Bottom line: Do you think it is worth upgrading from D800 to D810? (Didn't read every post).

</blockquote>

For me i have to wait and see for actual reviews. I am expecting an improvement in autofocusing. D800/e autofocusing is crappy. If it shows improvement, for me, it is worth upgrading.

dan_south · July 2, 2014

Do you think it is worth upgrading from D800 to D810? (Didn't read every post).

</blockquote>

It all depends on your financial situation and your needs. The resolution and high ISO improvements have yet to be demonstrated. If you need a higher resolution LCD with split screen, potentially improved autofocus features, 60p movies, or if the new shutter and mirror would help stabilization issues that you have been having, and if the price isn't going to cause issues, then it's probably worth it.

My D800E is about a year-and-a-half old. I can't imagine a project that I have on my RADAR that will fail if I don't replace my E with the D810. So, I don't feel as though I have to rush out and buy one from the first batch that rolls off of the assembly line.

That said, I first bought a D800 because it was available. The D800E, in my opinion, offered better image quality. If the D810 offers a similar jump in sharpness and detail, it would definitely be worth it.

D800/e autofocusing is crappy.

</blockquote>

I'm not always happy with the D800's autofocus capabilities, but I wouldn't call them "crappy." If you use a D800 or a D800E for events or sports, the AF is probably going to cause you to miss some shots, but you'll catch a lot of shots, as well. However, compared to the 5D Mark III, the AF in the D800 series is less responsive and less reliable.

On the other hand, the contrast detection autofocus in Live View on the D800 series is an absolute marvel of accuracy (for non-moving subjects). This is the D800 family's most important strengths, IMO.

So, I wouldn't make blanket statements, positive or negative, about the D800's ability to autofocus accurately. Some features work better than others, that's true, but they all work to some degree. The improvements in the D810's AF have not been fully demonstrated in the hands of users yet. Maybe the D810 AF will be on par with the D4S and the 5DIII, but that's still an open question.

Landrum Kelly · July 3, 2014

If you look at any of the 'Best Lenses' section in DxO, whether it be DX or FX, Nikon is pretty absent.

</blockquote>

My D800E sensor definitely out-resolves some of my best f/2.8 lenses at least some of the time, or in some portion of the photo. Stopping down helps, of course. Mine are not the latest versions, however, and so I don't know if the latest lenses would do better. Frankly, I don't have the money to find out.

I wonder how existing Canon lenses would do on a 36-mp Canon sensor, if there were one. That's just an idle thought. . . .

--Lannie

donbright · July 3, 2014

My D800E sensor definitely out-resolves some of my best f/2.8 lenses at least some of the time, or in some portion of the photo. Lannie, What are the tel tales. Obviously if two pictures side by side, one known optically high corrected lens, and one not so, one could see the difference, I understand that, but if you are doing a so called blind view, not knowing the lens selected, how would you know. What are the markers translated to the image by a lens rendered inferior by a high resolution sensor like the one in a D810, or 800E. I know, I'm asking for some patience, I have 8 AIS Nikkors in mind, and I don't like surprises, especially at $3400.00.

mike_halliwell · July 3, 2014

If you look at any of the 'Best Lenses' section in DxO, whether it be DX or FX, Nikon is pretty absent.

</blockquote>

For the D800E Best Standard & Short Telephoto Prime....4 out of the top 10

For the D800E Best Wide Primes for Landscape.......3 out of the top 10

They do make good short zooms though.. 5 out of the top 8 (they only had 8!)

I'm not saying Nikon lenses are bad, so very far from it, but they not the best especially when it comes to innovative focal lengths and value for money.

For DX, they're just way out there, lost in the wilderness and don't seem to be trying very hard.

Andrew Garrard · July 3, 2014

Ooh, the thread woke up...

<blockquote>its just that the issue of cost, and this release so soon after the D800 & E, kind of leaves a strange taste by the ones already owning D800s</blockquote>

? It's been two years, and the D810 is clearly an incremental refresh (though I happen to like the sound of several of the increments). Since then, we've had the D3200, D600, D5200, D7100, D610, D5300, Df, D3300 and D4s - plus mirrorless and compact refreshes. It's not like they turned around an immediate update (like the D610) and devalued the model that people bought at launch. Sure, the D700 never got an update (which caused a lot of complaints - or it took four years if you count the D800 as a D700 update, obviously), but the D3s was just over two years behind the D3 (I'll ignore the D3x) and the D4 was about two and a half years behind the D3s. We're kind of on schedule.

We'll have to await reviews, but, as others have said, this isn't a speed camera - it's just less of a bottleneck than current D800s (though fixing the live view wait-for-write would be the biggest win for me). I'd be surprised if it's anything like as good as an A7s at very high ISOs. While I expect improved autofocus, it's still unlikely to be as good as the 5D3 (which has a newer AF module) and still can't hit the 5D3's 6fps (unless you 1.2x crop to 24MP), so the 5D3 is probably still the (slightly) better "D700 successor". It's not going to interest any D4 owners. And it doesn't have the pixel density of the 24MP bodies, if you need that. Oh, and it doesn't shoot 4K. I'll be interested to see if they've fixed the low-light thermal issues.

I agree with Ilkka that there's more to rendering than sharpness. The 85 f/1.8 AF-D is sharp, but the bokeh is ugly enough that I never wanted one. I'm not all that happy with the LoCA on the AF-S version (Nikon seems poor at addressing this in general), but at least the bokeh is smooth. If anything, I'm not that impressed by the bokeh or LoCA handling of the Otus, even though it claims to be apochromatic. However, I'm also with Mike that I don't favour lenses that are deliberately soft in order to be "flattering to skin" - it's easier to blur than to sharpen. I have a 200 f/2 because the 135 DC was such a disappointment to me - if Nikon do update it, and do a good enough job, I'll probably be tempted.

There are lenses that actively look worse on a higher-res camera. My 28-200 - which isn't stellar, but is better than you'd expect if you given it a hand in the aperture department - is very useful on a D700. On a D800, you can see every aberration - and you can if you print small, though obviously not if you actually smooth and downscale. It's also the case that some lenses have uneven sharpness, which can make them look worse on a higher-res camera because they effectively provide their own reference - as others have said, it's hard to judge whether something is "sharp" without a reference.

Most lenses are pretty sharp at f/8. The issue with the D800 sensor there is where diffraction starts to kick in - reviewers have found that the sharpness advantage between a D800 and a D800e disappears somewhere around f/5.6, so if your lens isn't sharp by then, you're not resolving all the information that the sensor can provide. (Which may or may not remotely matter, depending on the image.) Post-sharpening helps, but also worsens noise and tends to add rings to bokeh - better for the lens and sensor to be sharp in the first place. Whatever Nikon says, I don't imagine much difference between the D800e and the D810 for sharpness - getting rid of the self-cancelling low-pass filter really shouldn't do much, because reducing the glass in front of the sensor would actually <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter">make things worse</a> (for a well-designed lens).

Lenses I'm happy with on my D800e, since we're listing endorsements: 200 f/2, though down a stop helps sharpness. 70-200 VR 2, though again I aim for the f/4-f/5.6 range where possible. Sigma 35 f/1.4, though until I play with the AF my biggest problem is focus missing - so I just use live view. 14-24, but mine seems to have field curvature that keeps me around f/7. Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro OS - slightly soft at range, but otherwise very good. 300 f/4. 85 f/1.8 AF-S - but mind the LoCA. I'll add a 400 f/2.8 FL if anyone wants to donate! 90mm Tamron macro (old version).

Lenses I use on my D800e despite concerns: 50 f/1.8 AF-S (preferably around f/2.8) - though I'm seriously considering the Sigma, and would probably get one soon were it not for saving up for the D810. 135 f/2.8 AI-S - much better at f/4. Samyang 85 f/1.4 - but for the bokeh, not for sharpness. 8mm Sigma fish-eye. TC-14E on the 200 f/2 - somewhat hurts the optics wide open, though.

Lenses use on my D800e but only under extreme conditions: 500 f/4 AI-P (not too bad at f/6.3 and below, though the TC-16A really doesn't play well with it on the D800). 28-200 AF G (convenient, but optically not good enough any more without a lot of post-processing).

I also have a 28-85 (plastic wonder) that I keep forgetting to test.

Andrew Garrard · July 3, 2014

<blockquote>Bottom line: Do you think it is worth upgrading from D800 to D810? (Didn't read every post).</blockquote>

Belatedly: I think it probably is, for me (when the UK price drops a bit). But that's because there are a number of minor things that the D810 improves on that coincide with my needs (especially the split live view and highlight priority metering). The sensor advantages remain to be seen, as does things like whether live view still line skips.

For most people, I think the differences would be small. For me, any one difference is small - it's the combination that I care about. Whether it's worth the upgrade depends how much value you give to the combination. Sadly, it's a case of "read every post". (Or at least, wait for reviews.)

donbright · July 3, 2014

So there is validity to the issue that, a high res camera will squeeze out deficiencies in a lens that has deficiencies, where as a lower res sensor will be more forgiving by not exposing lens deficiencies. Seems though, what lenses? It's conceivable no one really knows. Testing would have to be done on a one to one basis. I certainly don't expect to get an answer as to how my Nikkor 105 2.5 AIS is going to perform on a D810. It's kind of a shoot and see. The lenses I own have garnered great reviews with film camera's, but it seems up in the air as to what their value would be on a D810. Maybe it would be best to focus on the DF, verses an 810.

Andrew Garrard · July 3, 2014

Don: Yes, that's valid (though as others have said, the absolute resolution will be higher for the higher-res sensor - the question is whether that makes the image look better or worse). I'd be astonished if a 105 f/2.5 AIS behaved very differently on a D810 than it does on a D800e, although I've no idea where one would find that combination tested. There are issues with film lenses on digital cameras - telecentricity, reflections off the sensor (and back), sensor stack thickness compared with film thickness, the unforgiving nature of digital extinction resolution on a digital sensor compared with a slow drop-off on film, the tendency not to peek at film at the kind of magnifications where people stare at pixels because you just see massive grain - but some film lenses remain decent. Bjørn seems to have recommended the 105mm on a D3x, which is not so far behind a D810.

The D810 and Df are very different cameras from a handling perspective (and to an extent for internal technology). If the lens doesn't look good on a D810, you can always reduce the image resolution (automatically, if you use small raw...) - shrinking the image down to Df size should give a result no worse and probably better than a Df image, except possibly in low light (to be determined!) My concern with showing up lens artifacts only applies if you retain the original image resolution. While the 36MP Nikons do a good job of showing that the lens isn't giving you everything that the sensor can deliver, I don't buy into the argument that you need to replace all your lenses to use one.

edwardchen · July 3, 2014

Nikon should eliminate built-in flash from d810. It's nice to have, but I get some trouble when using with a PC lenses. I can't fully shift the lens upward because it get stuck to the flash hood. Whereas canon 5d3 doesnt' have one, so canon PC lenses work well with 5d3.

Speaking of PC lenses, nikon need to upgrade all PC lenses.

kurt_story1 · July 3, 2014

If you look at any of the 'Best Lenses' section in DxO, whether it be DX or FX, Nikon is pretty absent.

</blockquote>

That's interesting...because I myself have 4 Nikkor lenses that perform (by Dxo's tests) to be within 20-30 P-Mpx.

Sign In

Nikon Introduces D810, $3299.95

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in