More 800D vs 810D comparison pics?

[sim_jo]

<p>Why is it that some sample pics of the 800D vs 810D show dramatic difference like this one:<br>

http://www.danvojtech.cz/blog/2014/06/nikon-d800-vs-nikon-d810/</p>

<p>while other comparisons like this one show no difference at all:<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d810/7" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d810/7</a></p>

<p>Anyone have any more comparison links to suggest? </p>

 

[georges_pelpel]

<p>Most of the reviews so far are poorly made or from the pre-production units. The Adobe Camera Raw software is not optimized yet so most reviews are from jpegs.</p>

<p>Here are a few reviews you can start making a judgment from:<br>

http://photography[REMOVE]life.com/nikon-d810-wedding-photography#more-78104<br>

http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/07/29/nikon-d810-vs-d800e-to-upgrade-or-not/<br>

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-d810-initial-impressi.html</p>

<p>The consensus so far is that the 64 ISO provides a wider dynamic range then the D800/D800E at 100 ISO and probably half a stop improvement in high ISO performance. But this can be upped a notch with the proper RAW file conversion. As of now the best RAW conversion are from Nikon Capture NX-D or after converting the file to DNG using the Adobe DNG Converter.</p>

<p>From my own little test I find the high ISO noise to be easier to get rid of than from the D800 files. (6400 ISO treated images are actually very good). I cannot tell you why.</p>

<p>I was very satisfied with the D800 images so I didn't expect much improvement aside from the sharpness increase due to the AA filter removal. For D800E the sharpness difference might not be much to brag about but for D800 owners it's visible. If I can get a full stop high ISO improvement once the correct RAW converters are released I will be very happy. Aside from image quality the other 'little' upgrades are very welcomed especially the AF accuracy and the larger/faster buffer.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>You can expect a bit of a difference in IQ from the D800 (notso much from the D800e) to the D810 (mainly with regard to overall sharpness), but not so much/as much between the D800e and D810. But it is small and if images are shot in RAW and properly processed, there might not be any real differences after post processing.</p>

<p>With regard to all other attributes, I think it would be difficult to see any differences after post processing identical RAW files.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I really don't see why there should be a difference between the self-cancelling AA filter in the D800E and none at all in the D810 - there still needs to be the same optical thickness of cover glass present, or lenses will misbehave. Nikon did tweak the sensor - so we may se some more dynamic range and slightly better noise handling, though DxO suggest that's marginal (though they only measure the presence of noise, not its characteristics).</p>

[richard_driscoll]

<blockquote>

<p>DxO suggest that's marginal (though they only measure the presence of noise, not its characteristics).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.... and they assume that the effects are uncorrelated when estimating the results of downsizing etc. That is not always true as exemplified by the banding reported for the 24 MP DX Toshiba sensor.</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Have Canon got as far a 810D with their model numbering then?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>No - Canon seem to have been happy to increment in 50s, so we're avoiding about half of the conflicts. I doubt many will confuse the 700D and D700, though the timing might have been closer if there'd been a Df sensor in a "D750". I'm not sure what Canon will do after the 950D, though.<br />

<br />

It could be worse. They did <i>both</i> make a D60 (Canon first, but then they switched their names - though oddly, the original 1D predates it).</p>