tonybeach_1961

The DPR forums were a disaster -- good riddance to that. I stopped missing the place after a couple of weeks of "detoxing."

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.

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.

I would choose the D750 over a D4, but would take a low shutter count D800 over that.

These are outstanding contributions from everyone this week.

Three more D800 photos from my trip to Maui: It's not apparent here, but the above was taken with my 55mm T/S lens and everything is in-focus from near to far thanks to the tilted focus plane, which is one of the things I like about this photo. Yet another tilted focus plane (with my 55mm T/S lens); stayed dry for this shot. Another tilted focus plane here, shot with my 24mm T/S lens. I waited around for the sun and the crashing waves to both happen at the same time -- consequently, the camera, the lens, and I got soaked.

The D300 displaced the D2Xs, decisively; though some will argue ad nauseum about "better" colors from the older D2Xs, D200, etc. (Nikon's older cameras with Image settings instead of Picture Controls). The D300s was a modest update to the D300. The D500 is far and away the best Nikon DX camera, and arguably the best DX/APS-C camera you can buy -- I would say it's well worth the price and actually I favor it most of the time over my D800 and if I could only have one it would be the D500. If I were you I would sell all the D1x cameras, save or otherwise supplement the difference if necessary, and buy a D500. Having used a D70, D200, D300, Sony A850, and a D800; the D500 is the best camera I've ever handled by a surprisingly wide margin.

I was in Maui for a few days last week: The above photo was shot with a Laowa 15mm shift lens (not 24mm that shows in the EXIF because I forgot to change that setting on my D800).

Wild horses in Reno, Nevada: D500 and Tamron SP 150-600 VC G2.