D810 to ??? with great AF-S collection

[florian_lauffer]

Dear team,

I am an amateur photographer that enjoys taking pictures of just about everything. No money to be made. 13 years of travel and family and my d90, became a D700 which became a D810. Even back then, the extra mega pixels of the d810 were presented as having no better high ISO than the D700 due to the increase in pixels. These cameras were great for quality pictures, but required a tripod for anything resembling dusk if you didn't want grain.

It should be noted that I have alot of terrific lenses, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-500, Micro 105mm, etc and I really don't feel like upgrading glass given that the lenses are still in incredible condition.

Sorry for the long preamble, but here is my question:

My D810 is lacking in high ISO performance and the tracking isn't that great either (or my technique is not good). If you were in my position, and wanted to keep the glass, what would be the best upgrade options for Nikon bodies, to keep my investment in lenses extended forward? Or is the improvement in lenses worth the sale at half price of all gear to welcome the new? Hoping not.

Thanks for your time!

[Sanford]

Personally, I'd keep the D810, nothing of any real substance to be gained by an upgrade. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who's newest camera is ten years old. Proud D300 owner.

[ilkka_nissila]

33 minutes ago, florian_lauffer said:

Dear team,

I am an amateur photographer that enjoys taking pictures of just about everything. No money to be made. 13 years of travel and family and my d90, became a D700 which became a D810. Even back then, the extra mega pixels of the d810 were presented as having no better high ISO than the D700 due to the increase in pixels. These cameras were great for quality pictures, but required a tripod for anything resembling dusk if you didn't want grain.

It should be noted that I have alot of terrific lenses, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-500, Micro 105mm, etc and I really don't feel like upgrading glass given that the lenses are still in incredible condition.

Sorry for the long preamble, but here is my question:

My D810 is lacking in high ISO performance and the tracking isn't that great either (or my technique is not good). If you were in my position, and wanted to keep the glass, what would be the best upgrade options for Nikon bodies, to keep my investment in lenses extended forward? Or is the improvement in lenses worth the sale at half price of all gear to welcome the new? Hoping not.

Thanks for your time!

The D850 has improved AF capabilities, and there is also some improvement in high ISO image quality. It's a very good choice for F-mount lenses. In Z mount the other bodies than the Z9 currently would not be a great choice for action subjects, but this is subject to change as Nikon rolls out replacements to the current Z line of cameras.

 

The D780 has better high ISO than the D850 but the AF system of the D780 is lower tier and has smaller coverage.

[ShunCheung]

The logical successor to the D810 would be the D850, better AF, CFexpress Type B cards, and generally newer. But even the D850 is 5.5 years old.

I wouldn’t invest further in the F mount/DSLRs any more. I would try a Z6ii mirrorless or wait for its successor if you are not in a hurry. Video capture is a new frontier and you may find Z lenses such as the 24-120/4 S superior to those F lenses. For example, the Z 14-24/2.8 lens is literally half the weight of the F version.

[Sanford]

I can't conceive of any situation where I would need an ISO of over 800 on a regular basis. Ultra high ISO is a rarely used gimmick, like fish eye lenses.

[ilkka_nissila]

3 minutes ago, Sanford said:

I can't conceive of any situation where I would need an ISO of over 800 on a regular basis. Ultra high ISO is a rarely used gimmick, like fish eye lenses.

Well, different photographers have different needs. I just photographed some kids' skating and outdoor winter activities and ISO was 25k-100k. The lighting was what it was, and I had to work with that. I can't imagine going back to a time when this wasn't possible with quite acceptable results (I did apply noise-reduction).

[Sanford]

I photographed a lot of concerts at ISO 400, but I will admit, they were very well lit and the performers were continuously striking poses.

[ShunCheung]

I use ISO 3200, 6400 fairly regularly indoors.

[florian_lauffer]

Impressive response times on this forum! Thanks, helpful comments. I was aware of the d850 but it didn't tantalize me with mind blowing leaps forward in either area.

 I regularly am in indoors situations often where ISO 1600 is at 1/10th s an just isn't enough. The d810 is just no good at this. Flash is just silly.

Not really interested in video. Have a gopro for what I need video wise.

Z does sound tempting, but as a non-professional its quite the layout of cash if I replace everything. I am leaning towards keeping the d810 with specialty lenses like the macro, and 70-500mm range as this is all I need in good light, nor can I concieve a reason to use them in the dark. Perhaps I will see what my 14-70 lenses would fetch and see what the cost difference for a new 14-24 and 24-120 Z with perhaps the Z6II. I could see myself using both F and Z bodies in mutually exclusive scenarios, and this will perhaps start a move towards some sort of future proofing.

Anyways, thanks for the response. This is a tough one.

 

[ShunCheung]

As long as all of your lenses are AF-S, you can get 1 or 2 FTZii adapters and all of your lenses will work and continue to auto focus on any Nikon mirrorless Z body. I would make sure to get an FTZii instead of the first version FTZ, which has an annoying tripod foot sticking out. (I have both versions myself.)

The big advantage is that all FX Z bodies have IBIS. That works really well with shorter lenses using slower shutter speeds, but of course subject motion will still limit how slow a shutter speed you can realistically use. IBIS can also work very well in conjunction with optical VR.

The bad news is that essentially all F-mount lenses are now out of favor (perhaps except for some collector's items) and their used values are low. That would be great if you are a buyer but not a seller. However, you can continue to use your F-mount AF-S lenses and selectively add 1 or 2 Z-mount lenses as you see fit, but pretty much all Z lenses are superior to their F counterparts.

The Z6 and Z6ii are great for low light situations. They both use the same EN-EL15 family batteries as your D810 (newer A, B and C versions are now available, but they are all interchangeable), but the Z6 requires XQD or CFexpress cards. The Z6ii has an additional SD slot. Just keep in mind that even the Z6ii has been out for almost 2.5 years and a lot of people expect a newer version any time now. In fact, plenty of people thought new cameras would be out in 2022, but they are still waiting impatiently.

[mike_halliwell]

4 hours ago, Sanford said:

I can't conceive of any situation where I would need an ISO of over 800 on a regular basis. Ultra high ISO is a rarely used gimmick, like fish eye lenses.

Lucky you!

No it isn't.

Maybe.

😉

[ed_farmer]

I wouldn't jump into the mirrorless system until you are sure that it offers you something more than extra battery consumption.  

Go get a used D850 and see if it meets  your needs.  High ISO acceptability is VERY subjective and you are the only one who can say what will meet your needs.  

Plus, if it doesn't work for you, you will not take a bath if you decide to sell for another choice. 

[ShunCheung]

Ever since the first couple of times I went to this concert hall, I always wanted to take a picture of the rims of those empty seats under the light in a empty hall. I was slightly late the other day as this person in that blue jacket sat down before I could take some snaps, and there was another person in the front row, right. Unless I can get permission to take pictures during off hours, setting up a tripod is out of the question.

I had my Z6 with the old 24-70mm/f4 S lens @ 32mm, f5.6 for some depth of field, 1/30 sec and ISO 3200. There is no optical VR on those short Z lenses but IBIS makes the slower shutter speed possible. I'll post more pictures from that day in the next Nikon Wednesday.

 

[mike_halliwell]

15 minutes ago, ShunCheung said:

this person in that blue jacket sat down before I could take some snaps, and there was another person in the front row, right.

In the days of film they would be a right PITA...😱

But I'd guess with digital in less than 60 seconds.......... they're gone 🙂

1/15 would have got you at/below the magic ISO 1600...😉

I know the old 1/focal length rule is a bit dated, but i guess I'd have tried 1/5.

IBIS should have got you that much at least?

[joseph_smith3]

My thoughts parallel Shun's and others:

1. When I had my D810 I did not experience any obvious ISO issues at high ISOs. It was a very capable camera for me.  I often shoot nature work at ISOs up to and exceeding 20,000 and that includes images on the D810 at its max ISO of 12,800. 

2. A used D850 would be a good upgrade for the reasons already posted by others. 

3. If you were to jump into mirrorless, a Z9 might be overkill, but since it is the only Nikon mirrorless body I have ever used, it is an upgrade for sure. I use a lot of Nikon F mount lenses on my Z9 with the FTZ ii adapter, especially my Nikon 105mm f2.8 G and 200mm f4 AF-D and my Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf lens. I own just two Z mount lenses, the 24-120 f4 S and the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6  

 

[jerry_rogers2]

I wonder how much cheaper mirrorless would be if a model without video was offered? 

[ShunCheung]

4 minutes ago, jerry_rogers2 said:

I wonder how much cheaper mirrorless would be if a model without video was offered? 

Likely to be more expensive because the market would have been narrower. Ever since I bought the Z6 in 2018, I have been shooting a lot more video. It is great to be able to flip a switch and change between still and video. For something like a Z6, the cost for adding video should be next to zero. The Z9 may be different because the need for heat sink and faster electronics for 8K.

[John Di Leo]

@ OP my exact situation.  I went from a D200->D700->D810, and liked them all. For me, each was a noticeable improvement.  I will hop on the Z8 when released. I often shoot at night, especially night parades at Mardi Gras, dimply lit clubs, and street night in NYC. I often have to go to iso 2000 and 3200. Yes, noisy, but Topaz Denoise usually can handle that. I need that speed to have a manageable shutter speed. Setting exposure in an EV is the lure, and much improved low light is icing on the cake. The Z9 is too big for me and screams "steal me," while the Z7 just didn't feel right in my hand.

I will use all my compatible old F glass on the Z—when it FINALLY comes.

[CvhKaar]

If interested in one of the Z-series, be it Z6, Z6II or any other one, why not just rent one for a weekend, with a FZC adpter of course or so, and judge for yourself?

[mike_halliwell]

Regarding low light use, the Z6ii has the best high ISO behaviour of all Nikon bodies to date. 

It's unlikely the expected Z8 will challenge it, simply due to physics, unless it's a special 12MP throw-back.

With shorter, ie. less than 150mm, lenses the Z6ii fits my hands OK.

[ilkka_nissila]

33 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

Regarding low light use, the Z6ii has the best high ISO behaviour of all Nikon bodies to date. 

I agree that the Z6 II does very well in high ISO applications, and its use is further enhanced by the in-camera VR which can be used both with VR and non-VR lenses, including primes like the f/1.8 series and faster. I've really been surprised how much easier it is to work in indoor available light with this camera (due to the in-camera VR and EFCS operation). However, if the subject is moving towards the camera, the Z6 II doesn't handle such situations as well as a D850 or D6.  Also the combined shutter + EVF delay is about twice as long as on a DSLR which throws off my timing and has lead me to have to shoot a lot of extra frames to get enough well-timed ones and it has caused confidence issues that I didn't have when only shooting one type of camera. The timing is my main issue with the Z6 II. I would not purchase this camera and intend to use mainly with F-mount lenses, though, as the algorithms of the Z mount camera and the type of information it gets on focusing don't work all that well with DSLR lenses and there is a lot of fine jitter in the focusing when using adapted lenses especially in low light. From what I've read the Z9 does do better with F-mount lenses which I haven't yet had the chance to test. I have only seen daylight tests which do give the nod to the Z9, but I'm curious about focusing in very low light indoors with adapted lenses.

 

If going with Z mount, I would budget what it takes to exchange your current F-mount equpiment with Z mount replacements and then make the move when you can afford to get everything you need. If it is not feasible financially to make such a move then I would wait until it is. Being in transition is kind of being in a limbo where you can't mix and match lenses and bodies as needed but you have to sort of plan on what type of shot you need from what type of lens and whether it is feasible to do with a Z mount camera or DSLR. Given the timing chaos and different autofocus methods it really adds to a situation that leaves the photographer uneasy. I do mix DSLRs and Z6 II but I generally use F-mount lenses on DSLRs and Z-mount lenses on the Z6 II and rarely do I mount an F-mount lens on the Z camera. I plan on replacing the Z6 II quite soon with something that has a faster viewfinder so I don't have to shoot extra frames to get the timing right and hopefully this will end my frustration with EVFs. I still am and plan to continue using DSLRs for the foreseeable future in areas where I either have more suitable lenses for a task or when I find myself enjoying the OVF more than I enjoy the benefits of mirrorless cameras (which for me are the quieter operation, eye AF, and in-camera VR).

Edited March 15, 2023 by ilkka_nissila

[ilkka_nissila]

7 hours ago, jerry_rogers2 said:

I wonder how much cheaper mirrorless would be if a model without video was offered? 

The issue is that for a mirrorless camera to be suitable for action, it needs to process the sensor data quickly and once that capability exists, producing video files is a minor addition. Of course it is likely that Nikon has to pay for license fees for the video formats it is using and these add to the cost of the camera and in some cases can cause considerable additional expenses (such as if RED wins their lawsuit probably Nikon would have to pay a lot of money for every Z9 sold in the US market). Note that I'm not saying whether RED's claim is legitimate (I think it's not as it never presented anything but a trivial change to technology that already was used by others, and it has been generalized to be ridiculously broad). They could still win as the purpose of the US patent system could be seen mainly to support US companies.

 

However, once the fast readout sensors and eye AF is implemented, people do enjoy the silent photography and pin-sharp focusing on the eye in still photography, and so the technology development that may have started from the requests to integrate video into still cameras has brought benefits to the still side as well.

 

Video does mean there is suboptimal use of real estate in the cameras. There are microphones (which provide poor-quality audio), speakers, microphone, HDMI, headphones connectors and probably in the future Nikon will have to redesign the flash shoe to take input from digital microphones as well. These components and the video encoding chips take up space in the camera and restrict the placement of physical controls on the camera surface so the ergonomics for still photography are not as good as they could be. It may also lead to the need to use flash adapters when using older flashes in the new multifunction hot shoes and this means accessory cost increases.

 

The menus contain a lot of video options which can slow down the access to still camera features and users can end up accidentally in the video shooting or video custom function menus.  This has happened to me many times.

 

Finally, the hybridisation of video and still cameras has lead to cameras that aren't all that good for many things that people use video cameras for. The image quality can be excellent and better than traditionally available in consumer-priced video cameras. There is access to shallow depth of field and high quality low light recording. However, many of the hybrid cameras have a lot of rolling shutter which leads to distortion of the image in video. Cameras purpose-made for video didn't conventionally have such an issue (CCDs to my knowledge don't have rolling shutter). In video recording, the purpose-made video cameras tend to have less rolling shutter and higher dynamic range than those cameras which are primarily still cameras but have video added to the design as a secondary consideration. Okay, so you want to do a bit of live streaming. If you have a video camera made for the purpose, you turn it on, select the platform for the streaming (i.e. youtube, facebook etc.) and then take a picture of the pattern shown on the LCD of the video camera with your phone. It connects to the site and streaming can begin. To do this with a hybrid camera you need additional hardware and it can be difficult even for professionals to get it working. How about audio recording? I have managed high-quality recording by using an external recorder (Zoom H6), and connecting the recorder's stereo microphone to a shotgun microphone in the hot shoe and basically passing the on-camera microphone's audio through the audio recorder and finally the mixed output to the in-camera microphone connector. In this case I was able to record a concert to fidelity that was very good but without the audio recorder's capabilities it would not have worked out well. So even though some audio capabilities are there in a hybrid camera it's a hassle to actually get good audio in conjunction with these cameras. Are there physical audio controls on the hybrid cameras? In most cases there are not, and the accessory audio recorder has to provide those. Where do you mount the microphones and audio recorders? A lot of camera-specific cages and rigs have been made to the hybrid video camera market to make still cameras more suitable for the practical needs of video recording. Many of the hybrid cameras produce line-skipped video which has a lot of artifacts and this is very distracting when viewing the final result. The Z6 II is an exception and does produce high-quality video without line-skipping. To process a good quality video from a high-resolution still camera sensor there needs to be a lot of processing that would not be needed in a video camera that starts from a sensible sensor resolution to begin with. Does the hybrid camera's stabilization capabilities work well for hand-held video recording? I think most people would say they do not and hand-held use leads to video that jumps around a lot. A gimbal can be used to rectify this to some extent but it weighs quite a lot and has to be used at arm's length and one has to walk and move in a specific way to steady the footake so that it doesn't look weird. In purpose-made video cameras, it is typical that they are supported on a shoulder or against one's stomach as the shape of the camera is long rather than short like hybrid cameras are. There can be stabilization rigs which allow the operator to move more easily while steadying the footage. The still camera doesn't really solve this issue in a satisfactory way so again one needs to purchase additional hardware. For tripod use, still photographers typically use ball heads for short to medium focal length work and gimbal heads (not the same as gimbals used for video) for long-focal length action work, while videographers typically use fluid heads. Do fluid heads use the same kind of quick-release plates that are used for still photography heads? No, typically they have their own systems designed for the shape of video camera bodies. Purchase additional hardware to make the hybrid camera fit on a video head.

 

So ultimately the hybrid camera only provides partial video capabilities that one would actually find pleasure to use and a lot of additional hardware is needed in many cases to use these cameras for typical applications of video I think the idea of merging video and still cameras into the same unit is not a good idea and leads to a lot of extra investment and hassle in setting things up, and no doubt has lead to enormous expense on the part of the camera companies and users have to battle in getting things working which would not be the case with dedicated cameras. I don't believe it's practical for the same person to do both photography and video on the same day, either as the mindset involved in doing each is different The motivation behind the hybridisation of cameras is the naive assumption that the media companies could save costs by sending out one person to do everything rather than sending out separate video, stills and writing personnel. At the same time they laid off staff photographers and required people to work as freelancers who have to purchase their own gear (required by law, so pool lenses cannot be used as it would be considered taxable benefit). So it's all about large companies making low-level employees to work harder for less net income. Sorry, I just don't see a silver lining in all this.  What's more on the publishing platform side the stills and video get all mixed up making it harder to focus on looking at still images properly.

 

[jose_angel]

23 hours ago, florian_lauffer said:

My D810 is lacking in high ISO performance and the tracking isn't that great either (or my technique is not good). If you were in my position, and wanted to keep the glass, what would be the best upgrade options for Nikon bodies, to keep my investment in lenses extended forward? Or is the improvement in lenses worth the sale at half price of all gear to welcome the new? Hoping not.

I had the same dilema as you. My AFS lens collection is huge and first class, in perfect working shape.

So I bought the best available DSLR (D850) for the future to come and I keep shooting without looking to the sides... very likely the Z system is better overall (really... ?) but actually the improvement is clearly not worth the huge expense of getting the equivalent gear I already have (at least to me). I bet nobody cannot tell if my images are taken with my DSLR camera or with the latest&best&most expensive Nikon (Z or no Z). Pro AFS lenses retain a big quality value but with a descending monetary value. 

Yes, some of the latest DSLR Nikons are not capable of Z camera features... and viceversa. Live with it. Who cares. Why not a MF digital camera? Why not another much better, or much bigger or whatever? NAS is a bad thing... There is always time to spend money. I prefer to spend it when I really need.

My D850 is still as best as it was five years ago; and still is amongst the highest scores today. When Z quality really doubles D850 quality, I'll think it again.

Just IMHO.

Edited March 15, 2023 by jose_angel

[jose_angel]

"There is always time to spend money". Not sure if it is the right english... I wanted to mean that -there will always be an opportunity to spend money-.

[za33photo]

If video is so important , and you REALLY want it , why not invest in a dedicated Video Camera , it should give superior results , not so ? 🙄.

One size does not fit all.