D810 vs D4s

[nicole_weingart]

<p>I have read all the reviews for the D810, seems great except for high iso, but I can't seem to tell at what iso the difference comes into play. I am wondering if anyone has shot stills with it like I plan to?<br>

Depending on the tv show, I am often shooting low light, average 3200 iso, at night 4x times that, usually with movement.<br>

deciding btwn D810 or D4s<br>

the iso benefit when I upgraded from the D3s to the D4s (currently renting) was phenomenal difference, wondering if the D810 is a downgrade in quality?<br>

thanks!!</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>If you need the high ISO, the D4s is the way to go. If not, you can save some cash by going with the D810.</p>

<p>Was in a similar situation a couple years ago, deciding between the D4 and the D800. For my work, the high ISO is most important, so I had to go the extra cash and buy the D4. A decision I do not regret.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Nicole:</p>

<p>I agree with Tim. I own the D810 and the image resolution is beyond belief. I have been getting superb results at ISO 3200 and very good results at 6400. I have never shot with the D4s but have been told by professional shooters that the Low light performance of the D4s is simply the best there is. For me, I am happy with excellent results at 1600-3200 with superb resolution but it sounds like low light performance is your highest priority. You could always buy both ;=))).</p>

<p>You have a tough decision, good luck.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you shoot at ISO 3200 (and above) often, I don't think it makes sense to get 36MP. The biggest advantage for the D810 (and D800) is high resolution, and you achieve that at base ISO or at most 200 to 400. You can certainly use the D810 at high ISO occasionally, but if you use high ISO a lot, I would get a 24MP or 16MP DSLR.</p>

<p>Since you are familiar with the D3S, the D4/D4S' size shouldn't be an issue. Cost is another matter.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The D4s and D810 will give pretty much the same results at any ISO if you are making 8 x 10s prints and smaller. As you go to larger sizes, the D4s will have a slight advantage. The larger you go, the more the D4s has the advantage.</p>

<p>Downsampling is specifically what gives the D800/D810 bodies a tremendous advantage over other bodies.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I did ISO testing of the D810 for myself last night, processing the 14 bit lossless NEFs inLightroom 5.6. I did not use

noise reduction in LR and as LR/ACR cannot see Nkon's NR settings (I tested with all of them as well as off) the high ISO and long

exposure noise settings were not applied either.. I tested at whole increment settings starting at ISO 100, 200, 400,800, 1600...12800,

as well as Hi1 and Hi2, ISO 64, and Lo1. I set up a subject where black, darks, and dark mid tones predominated and the light was to put

mildly, bad.

Focusing on iso800 and above:

 

Up to 1600 the results are incredibly clean. In out of focus areas the noise was more apparent but still clean,

 

At ISO 3200 the results are very clean. the noise has a little grain but it didn't interfere with the texture of black speaker

cloth.

 

At ISO 6400 the noise started to interfere with the detail of the speaker cloth but was still acceptable in middle and

brighter tones.

 

ISO 12800 was usable but marginal.

 

Unless you are a masochist or desperate I'd avoid the hi settings. A kind of bluish (thermal?) noise becomes visible

across the entire photo and is increasingly strong along the bottom (if the camera's base is horizontal) of the photo.

 

I'll post examples later.

 

The results are not quite as clean as the D4s , but then no other has the ultra-high ISO characteristics of that camera.

 

A couple of things to keep in mind:

 

scaling down from full size full resolution reproduction to a smaller size will take care of a lot of noise issues.

 

Retouching can be a lot more precise and therefore less obvious when starting with a 36mp image instead of a 12, 16, or 24 mp one.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>For still subjects and landscapes, resolution is probably the most important parameter. In that respect, the D810 has only 1.5x the resolution of a D4s. In general you can up-res a good digital image by a factor of two, which translates to a good 16"x24" print from the D4s, and 24"x36" from the D810. If your taste runs larger or smaller, the comparison is still proportional to resolution.</p>

<p>For journalism and event photography, high ISO and speed of operation are probably more important, at which the D4s excels. All of the most used controls are on the camera, not in the menu. The battery life is phenomenal. The downside is that all Nikon DSLRs are noisy (loud), and the camera and (zoom) lens are large and heavy. Resolution is almost a non-issue for newpapers, brochures and publicity shots.</p>

<p>For specialized needs, like a sound stage (TV?), a quiet camera is highly desirable. A number of mirrorless cameras come to mind, like the Sony A7s, which can be operated completely silently, using an electronic shutter. The A7s is also very small and unobtrusive, and can be used with a wide variety of lenses of various brands, including Leica and Zeiss ZM. Although only 12.1MP, the ISO extends to 406,000, and is quite usable at 25.6K. For the price of an D810 body, you could have the A7s and a 24-70 Zeiss zoom. Downside - it's slow to turn on, has a noticeable lag, and poor battery life (but extra batteries are only $50).</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>maybe its helpfull to look at <a href="http://www.sensorgen.info/">http://www.sensorgen.info/</a></p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>The rumour sites are getting very excited about a 24Mp FX 'D750', supposedly speed-oriented and ready for Photokina next month. If this checks out it'll be interesting to see how it performs at high ISO...</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

"has a noticeable lag"

 

Whether shooting production stills or specials on a TV/Movie production set, that is a significant deal killer.

[dan_brown4]

<p>Strictly amateur and not a high volume user, I have had several months of side-by-side experience with the D800 and Df (D4 sensor and processor).<br>

Nearly all of the D800 shots are done a ISO 100, and up to 400. And, generally shot under a couple Alien Bees strobes (or daylight) in the f8-16 range, and here the 36MP really shines, as do the Nikkors, there is little more to want.</p>

<p>I haven't done careful analysis like Ellis, but for me, when ISO dial gets up to 1600, I definitely prefer the Df. Not that the D800 doesn't do good at 3200, but there is the build-up of noise, and to me this simply means the resolution is dropping. The resolution advantage then tips to the 16MP sensor.</p>

<p>So, up there, the Df really does as well as any camera on the market, and ISO 12,800 is still pretty decent. And, I really prefer shooting with the Df over the D800 (again, low volume amateur use).</p>

<p> </p>

[nicole_weingart]

<p>Thank you all so much for such great info! Really I am floored by all the in depth responses. You helped me so very much.<br>

I heard from my editor that a main still photog for one of the major networks just switched from using a Jacobson blimp to a mirrorless camera, although the lag would ruin what I shoot (lots of reality tv, so unscripted and unpredictable.) I am going to find out in a week which camera she bought and look into that as well but for now with a lag, that does not work for what I am shooting.<br>

I am using the blimp so sound is not an issue, but I love the idea of ditching the huge box blimp. <br>

I am also not paid for retouching or post work and have a very quick turn around, so for me the more I can get in camera while shooting with less post is also a plus (thus downsizing from the D810).<br>

Ellis, your testing is exactly what I needed, thank you!<br>

Seems like the census from everyone is that I should do the D4s then for the iso low light and since I am not printing anything (if they run anything it is in 8.5 x 11 mags, nothing large)<br>

maybe someday in the near future get the D810 to use for portraits and stuff and as a backup camera (instead of my D3)....<br>

thanks again,<br>

Nicole</p>

 

[luke_kaven]

<p>For on-set work, where you have to turn around clean JPEGs on the spot, the D4/s is the only choice. I know DPs are using extreme low light with their Alexas these days. </p>

<p>The only real difficulty using the D800 at high gain settings is the intrusion of thermal noise due to the amount of active electronics on the sensor itself. You'd see this as a bluish-magenta cast over the image taking out your blacks, with some local hot spots. Not good for your purposes. </p>

<p>You can mitigate the thermal noise in the D800 with a manual dark frame subtraction. It's a lot of extra work that pays off in certain conditions, but is completely impractical for the demands of your assignment.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>I do not have the D4s. I have a D4. I vote for the D4s. I don't think the low light stuff is going to make all that much difference nor is the resolution for you. Certainly if you are shooting JPEG it will not matter.</p>

<p>The voice memo (D4s) could be a Godsend if you are creating cut-lines or placement. No more little notes in a book. It could be a super way for you to communicate with whomever is doing post for you as well. </p>

<p>I assume that not all of your shots will be low-light. For the times that you are shooting action in good light the D4s is the only choice. The D810 is, well, slow. 11 FPS versus 5 when shooting action is significant. When you occasionally rip an action sequence the D4s will give you more than twice the opportunity to get the better shot. </p>

<p>The D4s is more durable when not in the blimp. It may be that whoever is doing your post will be very happy for the smaller file sizes. If I tried to use the D800 for PJ work, and turned in Raw files to them, the layout guys would have me neutered.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The D4s and (probably) the D810 allow you to save a JPEG simultaneously with a RAW file. You have the best of all worlds with a digital "negative" for your archives and a much smaller JPEG file for instant distribution. The color, quality and size of the JPEG files are adjustable.</p>

<p>The Sony A7s, among others, has built-in Wi-Fi, which can be used to store or distribute images. I am interested in this camera because it can use Leica lenses. While a Leica M is quiet, it is not exactly silent. (Native A7 lenses are mostly Zeiss, the quality of which relative to Leica can be debated, outside of the Leica forum anyway.)</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

The D810 has the JPEG+NEF option.

[owen_omeara]

<p>The D810 not only has the JPEG+NEF option but also allows. for resolution options with JPEG.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[issac]

<p>Hi,<br>

<br />I have used D810 at 12800 ISO & have printed it out to 24"x16" (native size of D810). Images are extremely good and retains depth, tonality & good colors - of course not like at low iso images but it is excellent. Grain is not bothersome. Oh! the printed images were shot in available mixed lighting too. Make sure the exposure is accurate though.<br>

<br />I have also briefly shot using the D4S which seems to have similar quality one stop higher at 25600 ISO. I did not print the images though.<br>

Regards<br />Issac</p>