D810 to ??? with great AF-S collection

[robert_bouknight1]

I had a D810, and found it to be a well rounded performer.  I used it regularly for indoor sports (basketball) at with good results at ISO's in the 3200 range.

For a trip that I would have to carry the camera gear many hours per day, I bought a Z6 and assembled a system significantly lighter than an F mount equivalent.  On the trip, I found that the AF accuracy for static and slow moving objects seemed better than the D810, and the Z6 seemed better at ISO's in the 6400-8000 range which was necessary in dark cathedrals.  The in body stabilization helped, also.  The improved high ISO results are not dramatically better than what I could have gotten from the D810, IMO, though.

So, the Z6 replaced the D810 as my "daily" camera.  I sold the D810 since I also had a D3s that I could use for sports.

Since that trip in 2019, I have added a Z7 and an inexpensive high mileage D850 to the equipment shelf.  Most of the time I grab the Z7 as first choice, though the 45mp files are a bit of a mixed blessing.  I use the D850 for sports (not shooting much these days) and for a few screw drive lenses I still have.

The OP indicated that the D810 lacked in tracking?  I have pretty good luck/results with Nikon bodies from the D700 on including the D810 using AFC-D9.  I do think the D3s and D810 were a little better than the D700 in acquisition response.  The D850 does seem to have a better AF system, and probably a bit better high ISO, so maybe the D850 would be a good choice for the OP as others have mentioned.

 

[ShunCheung]

2 hours ago, za33photo said:

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.

 

At least in my case, I have gone from essentially 100% still to maybe 70/30 or 60/40. Cost aside, it is difficult to carry and travel with two sets of cameras. It is great to be in a small boat packed with passengers and can switch between still and video while holding the same camera. My wife used to shoot a lot of video with a dedicated video camera in the $2000, $3000 range, but those still have very small sensors. The FX sensor on a Z6, Z9 is a good advantage, and they use the same set of lenses. However, my wife now uses no more than an iPhone for video. Except for long teles, it is good enough for her, as she no longer wants to carry a tripod.

[rodeo_joe1]

On 3/14/2023 at 1:27 PM, florian_lauffer said:

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.

That's not true. I immediately noticed a great improvement in my D800 over the D700 shooting handheld at dusk and in low light. 

The dimmest area I could find at short notice was the inside of my kitchen food cupboard with the room lights turned off. Exposure was 1/50th @ f/2.8 and an ISO of 12800 (Hi 1.0) - 

Here's a 100% crop from the D800 -

And from my D700 with the same settings - 

It seems obvious to me that the D800 not only has better resolution but far lower noise. I would expect even better performance from a D810. 

To be honest, I'm not sure what you're expecting. Because a few years back this is what you'd be getting from 400 ISO film at a similar enlargement - 

The D810 will be giving you between 16 and 32 times more light sensitivity for a similar amount of noise. 

Flash silly? Depends how you use it. Bounced it can give results much better than ambient artificial light. Not only that, but because its CT is close to daylight, you're not increasing noise by boosting the blue channel to neutralise an orange incandescent lighting cast. So for situations where flash is permissible or practical, a powerful speedlight (=> 75 watt-second) is worth more than a more expensive camera. 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[Dieter Schaefer]

1 hour ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

I would expect even better performance from a D810.

You mean D850? And yes, the D850 does better at higher ISOs than the D810 - by about a stop.

Like others, my FX path has been D700, D810, D850. I only purchased the latter for wildlife photography, the D810 is still my goto camera for general photography. 

Like Ilkka, I don't think it is worthwhile getting a Z body and use F-mount glass on it - except (like in my case) for special applications. I use the 500PF on a Z9 for bird photography - it is by far the best performing Nikon camera for that purpose and does very well with the F-mount 500PF on a FTZII adapter. I only have one Z-mount lens (24-70/4) - mostly so that I have a native lens to mount when setting up the camera and familiarizing myself with its operation. I have currently no plans to replace my F-mount cameras and lenses with Z-mount as the cost for the exchange is prohibitive. Parallel to my Nikon DSLR system, I build a small Sony mirrorless system; initially with manual focus adapted lenses but now with native E-mount glass to create a 4-lens system for travel. Swapping that one for a Z-mount system also does not make financial sense at this point in time. Awaiting the appearance of the Z8 before making any decisions regarding system consolidation.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Dieter Schaefer

[rodeo_joe1]

7 hours ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

You mean D850?

No, I definitely meant the D810, which the OP has. It was introduced 2 years after my (totally adequate IMO) D800, so I'd expect some improvement in performance; even if that's only a better software noise-reduction algorithm. 

If I was to recommend a camera upgrade it would probably be to a lower pixel count 'sports' body - like the D780. If low light performance is all that matters.

[Dieter Schaefer]

3 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

No, I definitely meant the D810

I only had a D800 beater for a short period and never compared it to the D810 in terms of noise performance. Even though it appeared to be a minor upgrade to the D800, it handled and performed better in every aspect.

[florian_lauffer]

I suppose Rodeo Joe's direct comment of "I'm not sure what you are expecting" is the most important.

Perhaps my expectations are too high.

Here is a snip at ISO5000 at 1/10s from a great night out at dusk. I guess what I am looking for is close to ISO 400 performance through to ISO 6400. As you can see this is too grainy, but then again I spend no time with post processing ever, and perhaps that's where I should focus my efforts in the odd situations where it is required.

Thanks for your comments everyone.

Edited March 16, 2023 by florian_lauffer

[rodeo_joe1]

1 hour ago, florian_lauffer said:

Here is a snip at ISO5000 at 1/10s from a great night out at dusk. I guess what I am looking for is close to ISO 400 performance through to ISO 6400. As you can see this is too grainy.... 

Nope. At the maximum zoom on my phone, I can't see much grain at all. The sea, sand and skin tones all look smooth enough to me. A tiny bit speckly, but about what's expected when there just aren't that many photons hitting the lens. 

What I can see though, is some terrible decentring of the lens used. With the lefthand-top side of the image having coma streaking that's not present on the righthand side.

Is that the 14-24? It shouldn't be that 'streaky' and not in only one corner. My priority would be to repair/replace that lens, rather than buy a new camera body. 

A good, quick and easy test for decentring is to shoot a scene normally, with the focus and exposure locked on manual. Then shoot the same scene and framing with the camera turned upside down. All 4 corners should look practically identical when both frames are compared. It's actually a pretty harsh test that only a really well-adjusted lens will pass. OTOH there shouldn't be a gross difference between opposite corners either. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[ShunCheung]

Modern high-ISO noise reduction capability has improved a lot. If the main concern is noise, I would look into post-processing technique.

A relative of mine is a Canon DSLR user. He used to shoot some weddings on the side and has spend over US$10K on some very nice Canon EF lenses, including the 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 ... with a couple of bodies. He is reluctant to move/add mirrorless equipment because of his heavy investment on EF (DSLR) lenses, although he can also use adapters as we can with the Nikon FTZ. However, his DSLR bodies are old enough that none can shoot anything higher then 1080 HD video.

The problem with any past investment on DSLR lenses is that it is like buying stocks. It is mainly the current value that matters, not really what you might have spend 5, 10 years ago. The transition from film to digital as well as from DSLR to mirrorless both happened very quickly, quite to my surprise. As far as new product introduction goes, I am sure the the F mount has come to an end in 2020. Nikon went from introducing 5, 6 new F-mount lenses a year in 2016, 2017 to just 2 in 2018 (when they introduced Z), none in 2019 and one final 120-300/2.8 in 2020, plus the D780 and finally D6, all in the first two months in 2020. Would I be happy to use my D5, D850, D750, and D500 plus a bunch of F-mount lenses for the rest of my life? Probably, at least for still photography, but not so much for video.

If the OP is happy to continue using DSLRs, I think the D850 is still a fine camera today, but it will be 6 years old later on this year. And I wouldn't expect any new F-mount products. For some, that is totally fine. However, if one is interested in newer technologies, mirrorless is definitely the future. I too wouldn't only adapter F-mount lenses on a Z body, but it is also not necessary to replace all F-mount lenses, at least not all at once. I started in 2018 with a Z6 and a 24-70/4 S and gradually add to that system.

[rodeo_joe1]

I'm still not sure why everyone is plugging the D850, when (on paper) the D780 has at least a one stop advantage in low light capability. 

It seems to me that the OP is after cleaner pixels, not more of them.

WRT post-processing: that can indeed make a big difference - provided you shoot RAW. Because there's not much you can do with a JPEG that's already been mangled by bit-reduction, with default sharpening, applied tone curve and compression artefacts added. 

[ShunCheung]

30 minutes ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

I'm still not sure why everyone is plugging the D850, when (on paper) the D780 has at least a one stop advantage in low light capability. 

It seems to me that the OP is after cleaner pixels, not more of them.

WRT post-processing: that can indeed make a big difference - provided you shoot RAW. Because there's not much you can do with a JPEG that's already been mangled by bit-reduction, with default sharpening, applied tone curve and compression artefacts added. 

Since the OP has a D810, the D850 is the natural successor with considerably better AF, more pixel count, and a newer memory cards type (CFexpress B) .... Whether one wants more pixels and the more expensive CFx cards is another question. The D780 is a lower-end body more in line with the D750 and the earlier D600/D610. The D780 has good high-ISO results because Nikon is essentially reusing the Z6's 24MP sensor on a DSLR, but in a lot of sense it is a downgrade to a new model in a lower-end series. However, that may be a good approach for the OP. That is something only the OP can decide.

Back between 2014 and 2017 or so, I actually prefer to use the D750 over the D800 since I would rather have fewer pixels in most cases. After that, the Z6 became my general camera. Today, I am so used to XQD/CFx cards that I would rather stay away from SD cards. But those are merely my preferences. Your mileages may very well vary.

[ilkka_nissila]

It is true that the D780 (which I believes shares the sensor from the Z6) has better high-ISO image quality than the D850, but the latter has a better AF system with more coverage of the frame and a separate AF processor which speeds up operations. There are also many more cross-type AF sensor points in the D850. If one wants to photograph in low light and needs high ISO, I assume also they're interested in having good autofocus capabilities, which is why I would recommend the D850 for F-mount lenses. If you have a really high priority for high ISO and can accept a bit lower AF performance and AF points more clustered around the center of the image, I do believe the D780 would be a good choice though. It has LV PDAF so one can shoot it using the LCD and get good AF as well which is not the case for moving subjects with the other Nikon DSLRs. It's the only Nikon camera which has PDAF in LV and which supports screwdriver AF lens autofocus, so for users of those lenses it may be the camera of choice in some situations (awkward angles etc.) I would have preferred to see Multi-CAM-37k in a D850 series camera along with live view AF similar to D780 to make the best feature set in a DSLR, but will make do with the D850 and other cameras that exist for my F-mount use. I have no issues with its age (to me it is still very new) and enjoy the experience of the optical viewfinder giving no processed image or delay that adds a curtain of a sorts between photographer and the subject.

 

[tonybeach_1961]

On 3/14/2023 at 7:46 AM, ShunCheung said:

I use ISO 3200, 6400 fairly regularly indoors.

Add fast moving subjects and even at f/2.8 or wider I find myself pushing the development past ISO 10000 equivalent.

FWIW, using Topaz software I often get what I consider astounding results with my D500 which does a better job of focusing than my D800 and can make a bigger difference in the final result.

For instance, here is a photo I did last year with my D500 for a friend (not taken with a "full-frame" camera, but I wanted to show the full frame capture prior to processing):

As you can see, in addition to pushing the conversion of a shot taken at ISO 6400, there was cropping too, so the equivalent ISO is well above 10000.

As for the D700 being as good as the newer, higher pixel density cameras at high ISOs, that's not really true. If you are viewing both at 100% then you could argue that, but if you view the higher pixel density file at the same effective viewing distance as the lower pixel density file then the former is a noticeable improvement over the latter.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there's nothing wrong with the high ISO capability of the D810, and (FWIW) I get by quite well (IMO) with my D500 under reasonably challenging lighting.

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't quite agree - in low-K artificial light (e.g. candle lighting, tungsten bulbs) at ISO 6400 if the lens used produces some vignetting and the white balance is set for correct color of the human skin, the D810 can exhibit considerable distortion of the colors towards the corners and increased blue channel noise. This is absent in the family of sensors in the D5/6 for example, the Z6 II and my recollection is that it is also absent in the D850. The D800 and to a lesser extent the D810 display this problem which they seem to have been able to rectify in the newer 45 MP sensor to the point where ISO 12800 is safe to use which is was not the case in the 36 MP models. Even the D700 handled this scenario better than the D800/810 though there was noise at 6400, it did not introduce obvious problems with uneven color.

 

In natural light even the D800/810 sensors can often handle better as there is typically a lot of blue in dim natural light, and so the blue channel gets a lot of light and doesn't produce a strong problem. So it really greatly depends on what type of lighting one is referring to, whether a particular camera does well in low light.

 

The D810 is otherwise an excellent camera; I quite like its quieter operation compared to many other models. But both in high ISO image quality and autofocus, the D850 is better.

[rodeo_joe1]

16 hours ago, tonybeach_1961 said:

FWIW, using Topaz software I often get what I consider astounding results... 

I've just tried Topaz De-noise AI, and am impressed. The detail retention is far better than what's possible with the chroma and luma noise-reduction sliders in ACR (and ACR exceeds a SOOC Jpeg by quite a way). 

The only quibble I have is with Topaz's rendering of reflective highlights. These sometimes have the appearance of being 'drawn on' and a bit artificial. But overall an impressive piece of software. 

15 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

if the lens used produces some vignetting and the white balance is set for correct color of the human skin, the D810 can exhibit considerable distortion of the colors towards the corners and increased blue channel noise.

There's always going to be an increase in blue channel noise when the subject is lit with a low Kelvin light source. The blue channel has to be boosted to bring the CT back in line with daylight, for which the sensor is designed. And vignetting effectively further underexposes the corners of the image. 

I'm wondering if the effect you're seeing is down to micro-lens array geometry making lens vignetting worse? 

It seems to me that no-one has compared the degree of vignetting with the same lens(es) across different sensors/camera models. Not counting DX versus FX sensors of course. 

[Albins images]

Over Xmas holidays, I bit the (financial) bullet and bought the Z6II with Z50/2.8. To complement my D800, with AFS and AIS lenses. A cheap second hand F>Z adapter made sure that now I have 2 camera's that:

- can use all my old(er) lenses

- use the same SD cards

- use the same batteries

- use the same flashes

[ben_hutcherson]

Last summer, I upgraded from a D810 as a primary camera to a D850.

In all honesty, it COULD be the last camera I needed to buy, and it was for a while although I recently turned some liquidated excess into a D5 that still intimidates me a bit.

The D850 is just that good. The extra resolution to me isn't a big deal as the D800 and D810 I have are plenty in that department. The incredible AF(not as good as the D5 despite having the same AF module) combined with the frame rate and high ISO performance make it such a great all around camera for me. AF has been a big deal in particular as I've been photographing a squirming baby a lot lately who will all too soon be a crawling/walking toddler. Yes they're what some would call boring family snaps but to me they're a big deal, and it's great to have a camera I can use there and turn around for any other type of photography I wanted.

I find the D800 and D810(which are very similar in ISO performance) get pretty rough around ISO 3200. 1600-6400 are common indoor ISOs for me. Even though for the past few years I've HEAVILY used the 24-70mm f/2.8G, f/2.8 still gives unacceptably low shutter speeds even in decently lit evening home interiors and sometimes f/2.8 just doesn't give enough DOF for me. I'd often switch to the Df, which has the incredible 16mp D4 sensor and is at least one stop better in ISO performance, or really more like 1 1/2, in use. The D850 gives me more like D3s ISO performance, which is a high mark to beat(despite that being a 13? year old body now). I know the D5 is an even better high ISO camera-I'll see when I get it from the mailroom at work on Monday. Now my Df is mostly sidelined unless I want to play with old lenses.

More recently too I've upgraded to the 24-70 f/2.8E VR, which gives me an extra stop or two handheld if the subject is still, but that's also only useful in limited circumstances.

So, again, for me the D850 is nearly perfect and it could be the only camera I owned. The D800 and D810 are no slouches. I'll also mention that the D800 still very much hold its own, and despite a slight theoretical advantage in sharpness(that you need good glass+a sturdy tripod to see) and also a very, very slight noise at base ISO advantage(that evaporates once you go above base, and at moderately low ISOs the D800 is a tiny bit better like-for-like and not enough on either for me to get worked up) to me the real reason to use the D810 are the quieter shutter and slightly improved ergonomics. Since getting the D850, I've seriously debated selling my D810.

[ben_hutcherson]

On 3/15/2023 at 6:00 PM, rodeo_joe1 said:

It seems obvious to me that the D800 not only has better resolution but far lower noise. I would expect even better performance from a D810. 

I can shoot comparisons later if you'd like but having shot the D800 and D810 side-by-side for a couple of years now, I would say above ISO 400 the two are effectively identical.

The only real place where I see the D810 holding a slight but noticeable advantage is at base ISO, which is 64 vs. 100. A D810 at 64 is certainly cleaner than a D800 at 100.
 

With that said, it seems that Nikon played with the amplifiers/ADCs to optimize base ISO on the D810, and as a consequence the D800 is actually a tiny bit cleaner at ISO 100 and it holds that advantage in the moderately low ISO range. It's subtle and in real world, non-pixel-peeping you won't see it. I had unilaterally considered the D810 better but someone pointed this out to me and I was able to replicate it myself. I consider output from the two cameras equivalent, but the only time to me where the D810 holds a marked advantage is if I know I can use base ISO.

The D850 is a different beast and as I said in my previous post I can see about a one stop advantage at higher ISOs.

[tonybeach_1961]

On 3/18/2023 at 7:56 AM, ben_hutcherson said:

...it seems that Nikon played with the amplifiers/ADCs to optimize base ISO on the D810, and as a consequence the D800 is actually a tiny bit cleaner at ISO 100 and it holds that advantage in the moderately low ISO range. It's subtle and in real world, non-pixel-peeping you won't see it. I had unilaterally considered the D810 better but someone pointed this out to me and I was able to replicate it myself. I consider output from the two cameras equivalent, but the only time to me where the D810 holds a marked advantage is if I know I can use base ISO.

It was a curious move by Nikon. Looking at graphs and such from DXO et al (as opposed to real world use) it appears that to get a third better S/N out of the base ISO 64 the shot has to be exposed two thirds of a stop more, and that the same exposure for both cameras at anything above ISO 64 on the D810 is a pixel peeping win for the D800. There are a lot of better reasons to choose a D810 over a D800, and I don't think image quality minutia is a useful consideration. FWIW, I would save the money (a D800 costs less than a D810) and apply it to a D850 or a better l lens instead.

[mike_halliwell]

13 hours ago, tonybeach_1961 said:

FWIW, I would save the money (a D800 costs less than a D810) and apply it to a D850 or a better l lens instead.

+1

[John Crowe]

D850 is the logical choice.  It will compete for at least five more years, even longer!

[ben_hutcherson]

On 3/24/2023 at 4:26 PM, tonybeach_1961 said:

It was a curious move by Nikon. Looking at graphs and such from DXO et al (as opposed to real world use) it appears that to get a third better S/N out of the base ISO 64 the shot has to be exposed two thirds of a stop more, and that the same exposure for both cameras at anything above ISO 64 on the D810 is a pixel peeping win for the D800. There are a lot of better reasons to choose a D810 over a D800, and I don't think image quality minutia is a useful consideration. FWIW, I would save the money (a D800 costs less than a D810) and apply it to a D850 or a better l lens instead.

I agree it really isn't all that much of a real world advantage. I honestly tried to replicate it myself to show here and the results were so close that I had trouble doing it.

There are a lot of reasons to like the D810, although the D800 is a sentimental favorite of mine(and one of the last I'd get rid of if push came to shove) as my first "good" DSLR and one that I'd not be ashamed to use in 2023 as my only camera.

To me the tangible advantages of the D810 are the much quieter/more refined shutter and the more comfortable hand grip. I didn't buy mine until used prices were around $1K, and bought it with the justification that I could use a very familiar camera along side my D800(not necessarily as a backup, but to for example avoid changing lenses in the field). The D810 became my main camera for the above mentioned reasons, but my D800 has never really gone out of use. I agree that it's worthwhile giving the D800 a serious look for cost savings, especially if you can find a lightly used one.

The D850 knocked both more or less out of rotation back in August when I got mine. IMO, it's possibly one of the best all around, well rounded DSLRs ever made. It is noticeably less noisy than D800/D810 and gets even better if I downsample it to 36mp. The AF is superb(nearly D5 levels of performance, although my D5 seems to lock easier and track a tiny bit better esp. in 3D tracking). It's a do it all camera with a more than acceptable frame rate for most uses with the grip+EN-EL18. I don't notice an image quality difference most of the time since I handhold a lot, although it did push me over the edge on buying the newer 24-70 f/2.8E. If I didn't have one and wanted to buy a DSLR in 2023, I'd pick a D850 again.