ilkka_nissila

<p>The highlight metering mode seems to work very well when in an environment that is predominantly dark but has some spot-lit area. It exposes for this light area quite accurately and I think it may turn out useful for stage photography.</p>

<p><em>in order to take full advantage of 36MP, I want to use the D800/D810 on a tripod as much as I can anyway, with shutter delay. So in reality, the electronic front curtain won't make any difference at all.</em></p> <p>EFCS vs. no EFCS does make a difference to sharpness on solid tripod (with M-UP and delay, or with M-UP+MC-30) with many telephoto lenses at many shutter speeds.<br> http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6658<br> http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6650</p> <p>Kasson used a rather substantial tripod and head in his experiment. I think this feature will be standard in new higher end cameras because of the obvious benefits. What Nikon should do next is incorporate the ability to use high frame rate together with EFCS in live view operation, as the 5D Mk III allows this, facilitating the use of automatic bracketing for exposure blending in landscape photography.</p> <p>I tested EFCS with my 120mm Apo Rodagon on my tilt/shift bellows (at about 1:1.5 magnification) and the image with EFCS was clearly sharper, but in my case it was a studio shot with continuous lighting and 1/20s, so arguably these settings are on the difficult side. Nevertheless for winter landscape and ice detail photography it is a typical shutter speed in my latitudes, if a bit on the fast side. This is a relatively short lens obviously; greater differences are expected at longer focal lengths. Notice also that in Kasson's testing, the fast speeds (1/500s) are not immune to shutter induced shake with the 400/2.8.</p>

<p>The choice of equipment is the photographer's decision and it is only a small part of the process. What is important is that you're familiar with and comfortable with the gear and that its use eventually becomes second nature so that you don't have to think about the operation. It should not get in the way of getting the picture, or fight the photographer's will. Of course budget concerns are always present and affect the decisions we make. Thankfully it is the photographer's personality and ability to interact with subjects that plays the most important part in the results of portrait shoots. At weddings it is a little different as today it is usually not expected that the photographer is the conductor or director at the event, rather an observer (outside of the formal photography).</p> <p>I'm curious about your preference for continuous lighting. I can understand that in the studio it allows you to see exactly what you're photographing and how it will look, the light and the shadows, and the continuous lighting doesn't cause eye blinks like flash can (especially TTL flash). But on the road, at events, flash gives more light per weight and it mixes with daylight better in terms of colour than continuous artificial light does. I found myself mixing flash with videographer's halogen lights and I used CTO on the flash to fit the two together without substantial casts. This worked well I think, and the (mostly bounced) flash allowed me to improve upon the continous lighting where it was a bit on the dull side by itself. I don't think it would have been possible for me to set up my own continous lighting and roam with it in the crowds of relatives friends and other guests in a somewhat chaotic party. Also I think that the use of any artificial lighting that is moved around with the photographer will change the people's behaviour, flash in particular can make the subjects more aware that they're being photographed and change their behaviour towards a more posed shot. I still use flash at weddings when the quality of the existing light is poor and to get better colour (more easy to correct skin) on the main subjects. I would rather not use it, in situations which are candid in nature, as opposed to posed formals where it is obvious that the subjects are being photographed.</p> <p>Still I know some portrait photographers who use continuous lights very effectively and beautifully. I just think the flash is more adaptable in terms of the light it emits (the cone of light can be adjusted using modifiers and the zoom head, the colour can be adjusted easily with filters, and there is a huge range of output flash energy levels that can be selected, and other flashes can be controlled from the controller panel; with continuous lights adjusting the lights on the go would involve going to the light itself). But perhaps in this world where flash is omnipresent at events, and the half closed eyes triggered by preflashes and red eye reduction lights, a continuous light approach would be refreshing in that it is stable and consistent and people get used to it. What about heat? Halogen lights give great colour but they run very hot. I guess there may be a nonzero risk of fire hazard if someone bumps into stand and it falls. LEDs are cooler but I think creating a lot of light through high quality LED patterns is expensive. I would be interested to know what your approach to continous lighting is and how you use them at weddings outside of the portrait context. Thanks.</p>

<p>Narrower focal range zooms of similar price class tend to be better quality than wide focal range zooms. I think that the Nikon 24-85 VR is better value than the 24-120/4 even though neither lens is perfect in terms of corner sharpness. I have not used the Sigma 24-105/4.</p>

<p>EFCS visibly improves the sharpness of macro shots made in dim continuous light, and I would expect it to help a lot when doing telephoto landscape photography.</p> <p>The automatic orientation based switching of the active AF point (selected manually in each orientation) is great and I think it will save me a lot of time and frustration in event photography. The D810 is the first camera which focuses my 24/1.4 accurately and reliably in dim(ish) indoor light. The variation in AF finet tune required by my D800 was considerable from lens to lens (standard deviation 9; previous cameras were more consistent with much less variation) and while I haven't yet done systematic testing of my D810 from lens to lens, at least initial results are promising. One area where the D800 had difficulty in particular was when photographing people indoors at wide apertures; the colour of the light affected focus error and this was sometimes annoying in concert lighting as the lighting can be so dim that manual correction is difficult or impossible (AF was especially erratic when combining artificial lights with skylight at dusk because a part of the light was very high K and a part very low KI). This has been fixed in hardware of the AF system according to the designer's of the D810.</p> <p>I like the thicker grip it fits my hand much more comfortably, if only they could do the same to the MB-D12. The viewfinder seems slightly more clear and contrasty. The sound is more elegant due to the slowing down at the end of the movement of the mirror. Live view now displays a high resolution image when zoomed in.</p> <p>To me, any of the changes (except the AF system which to my way of shooting appears to be a considerable improvement) could be considered minor but together they make the camera easier to use to get consistent results. </p>

<p>Third.</p><div></div>

<p>Second.</p><div></div>

<p>First. </p><div></div>

<p>A few pictures from the Rock Garden in Chandigarh, India.</p>

<p><em>Adobe camera shake tool does not correct subject movement caused by too slow of shutter speed. <br /></em><br> It doesn't matter to the algorithm whether the subject moves or camera moves, it is their relative movement trajectory that is being estimated and a correction is then attempted. I have tried this and it seems to work in situations where you might not have expected. The user can point to an area where the estimation is to be made (i.e. in this case, the subject).</p>

<p><em>But the multicam 3500 is getting quite long in the tooth despite software updates.</em><br /> <br /> Obviously the changes are not just software. The D810's developers stated in an interview published in Japanese and kindly translated by a native speaker at fotozones.com that state that the sensitivity of AF to the colour of the light was corrected in the D810 including hardware changes. Quoting Akira's translation<br /> "7. The AF is improved both on the hardware and the algorithm levels. Further details are classified.</p> <p>8. The AF inaccuracy problem under incandescent/tungsten lightings is mitigated on the hardware level. Further details are classified."</p> <p>"3500" in the module name to my understanding refers to the number of sensels (or that's the way it was in the early days) and it is not a part number; there are several different Multi-CAM 3500's units with different behaviour. </p>

<p>I would recommend you to Jim Kasson's blog:</p> <p>http://blog.kasson.com/</p> <p>Among the latest several dozen blog entries he has written a lot of articles on the D810/D800E noise characteristics. I think you will find his analysis comprehensive. What is happening is that the "raw" file isn't really "raw" but processed information and the different cameras process the data in different ways, which can confound simplistic analysis of noise. </p> <p>Anyway, I would highly recommend that you try the camera out. My experience is so far (first day) overwhelmingly positive, but I'm mostly interested in the performance of the AF system with fast primes in indoor low light situations and not concerned about minutia about subtle changes in noise characteristics. It is possible the new sensor's long exposure noise may be worse than the old one's but there are many improvements that matter to me more than this slight drawback.</p>

<p><em>My kid's iPhone's can do this, why can't my D7100.</em></p> <p>Well the integration of mobile phone technology into a camera would necessarily make it somewhat larger and heavier and most people probably don't use a DSLR that way. I for example may post images online but they go through a rigorous editing procedure and the resulting images are very small compared to the information captured by the camera. So it's like using huge freight ship for the task of a small boat. To me a great part of the creative process in photography is in the post-processing and image selection so I wouldn't normally be posting anything online without going through a critical analysis. There is also a technical issue: high end DSLRs have a metal chassis that gives them some strength which is necessary for the precise relative alignment of the mirror, viewfinder, mount, AF sensor and main imaging sensor. If you want good wireless functionality the circuits relative to that would have to be outside of this chassis. In practice reports suggest that wifi functionality integrated into DSLRs (such as the D5x00) functions less well than that in mobile phones or point and shoots which do not require a metal chassis. The metal chassis attenuates or even blocks transmission of radio waves. Thus Nikon's more common solution is add-on wifi devices which you can use together with a mobile phone or tablet to post pictures online, if you must do this without a computer. Personally there is no situation where I would want to post images online without having gone through a proper computer. I understand that newspaper photographers would need to do that sometimes though, or at least send images to the office.</p> <p>As for the relative popularity of the D800 family vs. D700, I agree with Shun; in my circle of photography-interested friends the D800 family has been much more popular than the D700 which most people saw as very low resolution for a full frame camera. It basically captures only a fraction of the detail that our lenses that we have paid for can render. The D800(E)/D810 are big improvements in that respect and the resolution is very useful for many practical situations. Of course high fps rates are also another feature of interest, though I never found much use for it since I normally photograph people at large apertures where the depth of field is so shallow that no AF can keep up with at 9fps. 5fps is much more realistic to use at f/2 or f/1.4. For stopped down photography, and some action-oriented lenses such as 70-200/2.8 II or 300/2.8 I suppose high fps and wide open usage can still be compatible but it never was my cup of tea.</p> <p>That said, I fully support the idea of a versatile FX camera with 24MP and 8fps, I believe it would be a perfect balance of detail and speed for many users. I purchased the D810 and so I am not going to get a D750 (if realized along these specifications), however that is not because I don't like the rumoured specifications but simply because I need to work with a camera that exists today instead of something that may or may not exist in the future.</p> <p>While I prefer the shallow depth of field and robust AF and detail of FX combined with fast lenses, I have applications where I use the D7100 in combination with a 200mm lens to record extra detail and perhaps better wide open image quality than a 1.4X TC could give with an FX camera. It works nicely for those situations (mainly photography of stage music and dance outdoors) but I wouldn't want to purchase a DX camera that is more expensive than the D7100 for these situations since it can not be my main camera for the shorter focal length work (due to absence of wide aperture DX wide angles mainly, but also for other reasons). So I appreciate that this camera, which I use for tele shots, is light weight and affordable. I do recognize the limitations of the D7100's buffer, but I think this will be remedied soon with an update, it is such an obvious feature to improve upon to beef up further sales. Otherwise I think it is close to being a perfect camera for the task, when combined with a high quality fast telephoto lens. If I were a high fps shooter I would work with the D4s (or D4, or D3s) and get the new TC-14E III, or a longer lens to get access to long focal lengths with the 9-11fps functionality of those cameras. However as I explained high fps is not a priority for me, and so I can work with the 5-6fps cameras that I already own, without experiencing much limitations. I am not interested in using DX for short focal length work at this point in development of the DSLRs, though if a nice lens to cover this need existed 5-10 years ago, I might have found it to work well enough to my needs. As things are I like the fact that Nikon is emphasizing the development of FX products since they are compatible with the kind of aesthetics that I like to strive for in my photos, and I like the big optical viewfinder image that FX DSLRs provide. However I absolutely think DX DSLRs are a great choice for photographers on a budget who do not have specific preference for shallow depth of field in conjunction with wide angle of view. The D7100 is light weight and feels very comfortable in my hands and I have used it more than other cameras this past summer. However, the detail from the D8x0(E) family and the tonal quality are in another class in my experience. And even if you don't make huge prints you can use it in action photography by framing with safety margins around the subject while shooting and then finishing up the composition in post processing. This I find to be a highly effective method for capturing action. I appreciate that for other types of work such as bird photography a DX DSLR can be preferred (especially since birds tend to be small and often there is need of more, not less depth of field) and I think the solution will be in the form of upgrades to the D7100 rather than to the D300s.</p>

<p>You could try Adobe Photoshop CC's camera shake reduction tool, it estimates movement trajectories and tries to unblur them by a sophisticated method. I have found it to be effective when the shutter speed wasn't fast enough to freeze movement.</p>

<p>Product prices are high on introduction, when the demand is the greatest, and they are gradually decreased to allow less wealthy people to buy them at a later stage of their product life. This is nothing new. </p>

Obviously it is the customers who set the budget, according to the price they want to pay, and the compromise between up to date feature and level of testing. If you want to pay 8000€ there was always the D3X. It is clear that a compromise has to be made between cost and timeliness. If you have never designed and built new technology then of course it is expected that you wouldn't know how it is with schedules and expectations. Comparing this minuscule hot pixel mapping issue to the D600 dust is pretty tasteless in my opinion. I think the very reason that Nikon has traditionally prefer to fix things quietly is because on the internet a molehill becomes a mountain. Judging from responses to the current service advisory I am leaning towards the quiet approach.

<p>I would recommend the 80-400 (or another native 300/400mm solution) if you specifically intend to shoot at lot in the 300mm-400mm range, and only occasionally zoom back to shorter focal lengths. If you shoot any indoor concerts, or other indoor events (weddings etc.), the 70-200/2.8 is better. For studio portraits I tend to use 105mm, 45mm and 24-70mm most of the time; I don't really use the 70-200 for that. If I did, my choice would be the 70-200/4 as it can zoom in for a tighter shot than the f/2.8 II and is lighter to hold in a long session. The 80-400 would be a good choice for concert photos at a huge arena, but I tend to prefer wide apertures even in that case. For landscape the 70-200/2.8 is better quality in its range. If you use the 80-400mm at 300-400mm for landscape, it is difficult to get good sharpness due to reasons of stability at slow speeds on tripod, at least with cameras that do not support electronic first curtain shutter (EFCS). With an EFCS camera such as the D810 I would expect better results with long lenses in landscape photography.</p> <p>So, in summary: general event/portrait photography including indoor and outdoor work: 70-200/2.8 or 70-200/4 (f/4 is ok if the indoor is with lights; f/2.8 if in available light). Indoor concerts: 70-200/2.8. Outdoor concerts: 70-200/2.8 with and without 1.4X TC (there is a new TC-14E III coming to the market in a month or so), or in case of huge stages, 80-400 (but I would still want faster lenses as option). If you can only have one, I would take the 70-200/2.8 with the upcoming 1.4X TC (after testing that it works as well or better with this lens than the TC-14E II does). Finally, another option for 300mm range is the AF-S 300/4D which is an excellent lens, but doesn't have VR. It is especially good for close-ups (and goes to 1:4). </p>

<p><em> But can shutter mechanisms withstand the increase in mechanical wear and tear? </em><br> <em> </em><br> Those cameras which support such frame rates (i.e. D4s) are designed to be use that way. The main reason for fast cards is that the pixel count of cameras has been rapidly increasing, so now the files are quite large. D810 lossless compressed NEF files are about 50MB per file (from what I have heard; I do not have that camera) so extended shooting at 5 fps (beyond the buffer) would require about 250MB/s for writing. I imagine there will be faster versions of the same resolution in the future, so there is some pressure to keep increasing the transfer speed. Fast cards are quite expensive and most of my cards are some years old and in the 60-95MB/s ball park. <br> <br> To me the main problem with SD is that the container of the card is fragile and easy to break. But it is the most widely used card type so it will remain at least for the time being. The main problem with CF is that it is a bit on the physically large side for compact cameras and so it is mainly used in higher end cameras, another problem is that some people have experienced broken pins in cameras / readers (I have not). XQD has neither of these problems: there are no pins to break and the shell is hard. However it is only used to my knowledge in the D4, D4s and one Sony video camera so far. Low sales volume means it is expensive. So some standardization effort from the camera manufacturers would be welcome.</p>

<p>CIPA publish reports of camera and lens sales but not by brand. Some brand-specific data can be seen in annual reports of each company.</p>

<p>I determine the optimal fine tuning setting for each end of the zoom range then set the value at a value intermediate between those two.</p> <p>Nikon authorized service centers have the equipment and software to calibrate autofocus in a more sophisticated way than just by the single-parameter fine tune that users have available. Thus if you have a big discrepancy between optimal fine tune settings between the different zoom settings you should probably contact service. The drawback is that you have to give both the cameras and lenses that you want calibrated to them. At least for me this can present some difficulty since I'm always using my cameras and lenses. </p>

<p>In this chart</p> <p>https://www.nikonusa.com/en_INC/IMG/Assets/Common-Assets/Images/Teleconverter-Compatibility/EN_Comp_chart.html</p> <p>the 300/4 AF-S is listed as compatible with the TC-14E III. Interestingly it seems to be the only lens with an aperture ring that is said to be compatible.</p>

<p>This article shows the difference between the two in terms of MTF:</p> <p>http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/D800AA/D800AAFilter.html</p> <p>Although both cameras show colour artifacts (the D800 AA filter is not as strong as it should be to get perfect colour), the D800 is the more accurate of the two. With the Bayer array you have the problem that if you apply a full strength AA filter to distribute colour evenly in the 2x2 array, you lose resolution. If you don't apply a filter you get wild colour. So a compromise is made between resolution and artifacts. Personally for me it is obvious that the no filter solution is not the better of the two, but equally it is obvious that not everyone has the same opinion. ;-)</p> <p>http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6078</p> <p>2.5 micron pixels correspond to an FX sensor with about 140MP. 1.5 micron pixels would lead to a 550MP FX sensor.</p>

Focusingscreen.com modify and sell the canon super precision screen for the D800. It gives better in/out of focus contrast for manual focus with fast lenses.

<p>Ordinarily I would advice people to upgrade in roughly 4 year intervals, if you want the purchases to count. In this case it seems the D810 has a particularly rich set of improvements, no doubt Nikon feels the pressure to improve their financial performance and are trying very hard to solve customer issues.</p> <p>One feature that I believe the D810 has that could very well make a big difference to my people photography is the automatic switching of active AF point when the camera is rotated between horizontal and vertical shooting. I find myself constantly jiggling the AF point around because I am switching the orientation of the camera and must get the AF point as close to the main subject's face as possible. This slows down my photography, and the new automatic feature should be a big help. Autofocus has reportedly also been significantly improved in other respects. The camera is said to be quieter and better damped, which should help when working in quiet interior spaces e.g. funerals, weddings, etc.</p> <p>Many other features of the D810 seem to be geared towards maximizing the image detail in tripod based photography. These include the electronic first curtain shutter, improved damping of the shutter and mirror, which together should help achieve sharp results in more situations on tripod. Live view resolution has been improved, which helps in meticulous focusing when working on tripod. These things should be useful to landscape and macro photographers.</p> <p>For me, I am not yet decided on the D810. I would prefer a slightly faster, slightly lower res camera (24MP, 7-8fps) for my people photography, but it has to come with Multi-CAM 3500 for me to be able to use the off-center AF tracking effectively.</p> <p>Personally I think if you are not sure you need the D810, I would stick to what you have for now. If you do find that you want the improved AF, the quieter shutter and mirror, etc. you will know that you want it and likely not listen to anyone of the contrary opinion. ;-)</p> <p>With regards to the optical low pass filter, my personal opinion is that 36MP is too small a pixel count to justify leaving the OLPF out, as lenses produce a lot of spatial content beyond the Nyquist frequency of this sensor. But it seems I am in the minority. </p>

<p>Wide apertures give a different look where the subject is highlighted by the gradation in sharpness, giving a 3D feeling and it also nicely cleans up superficial details that could otherwise clutter the images. Zooms can be safer in that you don't need to be concerned about changing lenses as often, or the limitations that a particular angle of view imposes. I can't speak for why someone else chooses a particular set of lenses for a given day, but for me personally it depends on what kind of images I want, what kind of lighting exists and how important the freedom of choice of the aperture is vs. freedom in the choice of angle of view in a given situation. Generally I find using a 24-70 less stressful but primes let me emphasize and stylize the images more.</p>