D810 what do you think about it?

I use live view a good 75% of the time, so the LCD screen improvements are attractive to me. Of course this assumes that the spec improvements translate to a better user experience.

Also I like the deeper grip -- I mean, I think I'd like it.

Lucky for me, there's a decent camera store only 90 miles away, so at some point I can go and hold one.

monokakata said:

I use live view a good 75% of the time, so the LCD screen improvements are attractive to me. Of course this assumes that the spec improvements translate to a better user experience.

Lucky for me, there's a decent camera store only 90 miles away, so at some point I can go and hold one.

Click to expand...

I reckon I use live view about 5% of the time. What makes you use it so much?


Also 90 miles from your closest store? I've got two closer than that. Not sure how that makes you lucky.

Much of my shooting is on a tripod -- nature, landscapes. Although years ago I learned to look through a viewfinder and "flatten" what I see, with age this is increasingly more difficult. I prefer to compose on a screen, much as my friend with his 4x5 view camera does.

I live in Hilo, Hawai'i (Hilo's on an outer island). "Lucky" because if there weren't a store over on the Kona side, I'd have to fly to Honolulu ($200 return unless I catch a deal) just to be able to go to a store that would have a D810. The only way to get to Honolulu is by air (or, I suppose, one's own boat . . . but I don't have one).

That's how it is here. Same (fly to Honolulu) if I wanted to go to an Apple store, although at least in Hilo we have small dealer that stocks Apple equipment.

monokakata said:

Much of my shooting is on a tripod -- nature, landscapes. Although years ago I learned to look through a viewfinder and "flatten" what I see, with age this is increasingly more difficult. I prefer to compose on a screen, much as my friend with his 4x5 view camera does.

I live in Hilo, Hawai'i (Hilo's on an outer island). "Lucky" because if there weren't a store over on the Kona side, I'd have to fly to Honolulu ($200 return unless I catch a deal) just to be able to go to a store that would have a D810. The only way to get to Honolulu is by air (or, I suppose, one's own boat . . . but I don't have one).

That's how it is here. Same (fly to Honolulu) if I wanted to go to an Apple store, although at least in Hilo we have small dealer that stocks Apple equipment.

Click to expand...

Okay that sounds worth putting up with the miles to the store!

The UK may be made up of islands, but the main ones are a whole lot bigger than our islands. Not taller, though -- I have two 4200 metre mountains on my island.

Got it last Thursday! First impressions!

.... uhhhhh, seems fine? Nikon camera bodies I've owned over time have been:

D80
then D300 (until shutterlock)
then D7000

Nikon cameras I've _rented_ over time for work include:

D700
then D4
then D800

So it's not like this is an entirely unfamiliar experience. But nice to finally have a new one of my own. I'm a sucker for the pro build, and rubber grip. That was totally worth the $3.3k. ;-)

Differences:

- Holy moly, quiet shutter mode sounds _entirely_ different. Big fan, as one who has to shoot dead quiet events/lectures more often then not.

- ISO 12,800 looks incredibly solid for my purposes. (Not like I need it often, but I do.)

- Cache still fills up super quickly, which makes occasional chimping basically not-an-option in an active situation. (When you shouldn't be chimping anyway, so I suppose it's a bad-habit breaker.)

- Uhh... yeah. That's all I got for now. Looking forward to testing out all the misc. autofocus settings.

If anyone else has one of these things and would like to chime in, comments more than welcome also.

Shacklebolt said:

Got it last Thursday! First impressions!

.... uhhhhh, seems fine? Nikon camera bodies I've owned over time have been:

D80
then D300 (until shutterlock)
then D7000

Nikon cameras I've _rented_ over time for work include:

D700
then D4
then D800

So it's not like this is an entirely unfamiliar experience. But nice to finally have a new one of my own. I'm a sucker for the pro build, and rubber grip. That was totally worth the $3.3k. ;-)

Differences:

- Holy moly, quiet shutter mode sounds _entirely_ different. Big fan, as one who has to shoot dead quiet events/lectures more often then not.

- ISO 12,800 looks incredibly solid for my purposes. (Not like I need it often, but I do.)

- Cache still fills up super quickly, which makes occasional chimping basically not-an-option in an active situation. (When you shouldn't be chimping anyway, so I suppose it's a bad-habit breaker.)

- Uhh... yeah. That's all I got for now. Looking forward to testing out all the misc. autofocus settings.

If anyone else has one of these things and would like to chime in, comments more than welcome also.

Click to expand...

Don't have one Shacklebolt but I'm interested in your thoughts so keep'em coming.

Thanks,
Peter

Shacklebolt said:

Differences:

- Holy moly, quiet shutter mode sounds _entirely_ different. Big fan, as one who has to shoot dead quiet events/lectures more often then not.

- ISO 12,800 looks incredibly solid for my purposes. (Not like I need it often, but I do.)

- Cache still fills up super quickly, which makes occasional chimping basically not-an-option in an active situation. (When you shouldn't be chimping anyway, so I suppose it's a bad-habit breaker.)

- Uhh... yeah. That's all I got for now. Looking forward to testing out all the misc. autofocus settings.

If anyone else has one of these things and would like to chime in, comments more than welcome also.

Click to expand...

As a D800 owner, the difference really don't do a whole lot for me. Especially the AF since I shoot cityscapes and landscapes and I manually focus all my lenses. Although the LCD is supposedly better, along with the built in feature for star trails. But I'll probably stick with my D800 for now at least. Nice quick write up.

I thought I was going to miss and regret selling my D800 setup when I went to Fuji. Suprisingly, I don't. It was just too heavy, costly, big, and RAW files were murder on my iMac (I had an excuse to update my iMac ) for the type of photography I do. Perhaps if I become a full fledged paid portrait photographer, I'd reconsider it, but the Fuji is much more suited to walking the streets.

Hmmm. Issue #1 surfaces.

This isn't major -- however, this is a similar issue to one I once noticed with a D800 camera body I rented as well. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

I have four Nikkor lenses at my disposal, currently: 17-55 f/2.8G (DX), which I have no need to use on my D810; 24-70 f/2.8G; 50 f/1.4G; 70-200 2.8 VR (I, not II)

I noticed looking through the viewfinder that that the 24-70 looks somewhat dim. I took two test shots, one with my 50 and one with my 24-70.

Settings were exactly the same for each, same lighting conditions:
50 mm (obv), f 2.8, 1/60, ISO 320. I uploaded to CS6 in RAW, opened at default, exported at the same settings.

The 24-70 is indeed somewhat dimmer.

50


24-70


To avoid showing you all of my subsequent samples with various lens configurations and settings, I'll leave it at this:

I went through my four lenses, and found that, with the same settings, the 17-55 and 50 were brighter (and in fact, roughly the same brightness) than the 24-70 and 70-200 (which were roughly the same dimness). (I'm confident that I repeated this enough times to determine that this is actually the case, and not some fault of the testing.)

So basically, what's going on? Is this a body issue, or a lens issue? For certain though, even looking through my viewfinder with the 24-70 and 70-200, it's clear that they're dimmer than the ambient light, and it's translating to the images too.

Shacklebolt said:

Hmmm. Issue #1 surfaces.

This isn't major -- however, this is a similar issue to one I once noticed with a D800 camera body I rented as well. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

I have four Nikkor lenses at my disposal, currently: 17-55 f/2.8G (DX), which I have no need to use on my D810; 24-70 f/2.8G; 50 f/1.4G; 70-200 2.8 VR (I, not II)

I noticed looking through the viewfinder that that the 24-70 looks somewhat dim. I took two test shots, one with my 50 and one with my 24-70.

Settings were exactly the same for each, same lighting conditions:
50 mm (obv), f 2.8, 1/60, ISO 320. I uploaded to CS6 in RAW, opened at default, exported at the same settings.

The 24-70 is indeed somewhat dimmer.

To avoid showing you all of my subsequent samples with various lens configurations and settings, I'll leave it at this:

I went through my four lenses, and found that, with the same settings, the 17-55 and 50 were brighter (and in fact, roughly the same brightness) than the 24-70 and 70-200 (which were roughly the same dimness). (I'm confident that I repeated this enough times to determine that this is actually the case, and not some fault of the testing.)

So basically, what's going on? Is this a body issue, or a lens issue? For certain though, even looking through my viewfinder with the 24-70 and 70-200, it's clear that they're dimmer than the ambient light, and it's translating to the images too.

Click to expand...

I believe it's a lens thing.

I have four Nikon lenses that I use on a D600. Each has a unique personality that equates to different exposure results under similar lighting conditions. It's tricky at times but I'm careful to watch my exposures for clipped highlights and try to expose at bit to the left.

The quirkiest lens personality I deal with belongs to the 500mm f/4.0. I always compensate exposure by at least -1/3 of a stop and at times as much as -1 2/3 of a stop...far more than the other lenses.

Of course this does mean I chimp a lot.

[QUOTESo basically, what's going on? Is this a body issue, or a lens issue? For certain though, even looking through my viewfinder with the 24-70 and 70-200, it's clear that they're dimmer than the ambient light, and it's translating to the images too.[/QUOTE]

I'm no physicist, I just play one on the internet, but could it have something to do with the fact that the 70-200 has 21 elements (24-70 has 15) and the 50 only has 8 (shorter barrell as well?). Perhaps the 810's ability to record the slightly dimmer image is better than any other camera before it. Just shooting in the dark (pun...) here.

Maybe it's not that the zoom lenses are dimmer on the 810...but the prime is brighter? mind=blown

Is the 1.4G lens a DX lens (I should know, but I don't).

Because if it is, then the bright/dim difference can also be breaking along DX/FX lines.

I can't think of a reason for that, either, though.

A friend had my D300 and 18-200 for many months, but now that it's back I can put the 18-200 on my D800 and see if I notice any difference. True, to account for observer bias I should really ask someone else to assess any brightness differences.

Shacklebolt said:

So basically, what's going on? Is this a body issue, or a lens issue? For certain though, even looking through my viewfinder with the 24-70 and 70-200, it's clear that they're dimmer than the ambient light, and it's translating to the images too.

Click to expand...

Most likely, what you're experiencing is the difference between an F-stop and a T-stop.

The F-stop is a calculated value of the focal length of the lens divided by the size of the entrance pupil of the lens. Since it's calculated from the lens physical dimensions, it doesn't take into account the loss of light from the properties of the lens elements, associated filters, the optical formula or focus.

A T-shop is calculated by taking the F-stop and accounting for light lost during it's travel through the lens.

More simply stated, an F-stop value is a best-case calculation based on sizes, so it's not as apples-to-apples as it could be when comparing between different lenses since it doesn't account for internal differences in light transmission.

Paul

Padaung said:

It's a far more significant update than I was expecting. Looking forward to reading reviews about it.

I just wish that they would build a simple wi-fi module into the camera for quick and easy transfer of an image to a tablet or phone. The camera could still be used with Nikon's sophisticated (and expensive) wi-fi adaptor for those who need all the extra features.

For example, only last night I was asked by a client to immediately send an image to them so they could tweet it. Thankfully I have the little wi-fi adaptor for the D600 which allows me to send images to my phone or tablet (where I can then do a quick edit of the image using Snapseed before emailing the client). I don't carry a laptop with me any more, just a phone and tablet - it saves a lot of space and weight!

Click to expand...

This. Even when I'm out and about shooting I'll be like, "that was a really great shot" and I'll wish I could somehow transfer it to my iPhone and do a quick edit with the (now brilliant) Flickr app and post it right to my photo stream...within minutes of taking it.

This looks like a nice camera for sure and the sensor looks like a force to reckon with.

I am currently shooting an a7 with a few manual lenses, so not a huge interest for me, but I enjoy watching tech progress.

the nikon Df would be the only nikon camera I would ever buy.

hope this helps the discussion

I got a D810 a few days before hurricane Iselle hit Hilo (yesterday and into today). I like it a lot.

Here's what it did for me today, inside a rain cover, at two spots near my house along the Wailuku River. Early morning for the last (Rainbow Falls) series; midmorning for the first (Boiling Pots). I got into the Rainbow Falls viewing area before the police closed it off.

I grew up playing all along this river, including both sites I photographed today, so I know it very well; it's about 300 meters from my house. The fact that I'm still alive tells you that I've always been very, very careful around the Wailuku, which in Hawaiian translates to "Dangerous Waters."

D810, 70-200 f/2.8, ISO 400. Tripod at Rainbow Falls, monopod at Boiling Pots.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gvxgu1zlgzznrho/AACBgfuDLWC9yBfYpGUQEH3ta

needfx said:

the nikon Df would be the only nikon camera I would ever buy.
hope this helps the discussion

Click to expand...

the df is quite amazing, but overpriced imo.

Meister said:

the df is quite amazing, but overpriced imo.

Click to expand...

Also for a very niche market IMO. I'd be interested in a stills only FF from Nikon, but the styling (and price) of the DF is not to my taste.

Should be a new FF at Photokina in September. Either the D710 or D620. I might be tempted depending on specs and price (but don't tell the wife!).

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/08/08/another-full-frame-nikon-dslr-camera-coming-for-phiotokina.aspx/

Apple fanboy said:

Should be a new FF at Photokina in September. Either the D710 or D620. I might be tempted depending on specs and price (but don't tell the wife!).

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/08/08/another-full-frame-nikon-dslr-camera-coming-for-phiotokina.aspx/

Click to expand...

I'll be following this closely. 810 performance without the monster files. :fingers crossed:

Cheese&Apple said:

I'll be following this closely. 810 performance without the monster files. :fingers crossed:

Click to expand...

That's what I'm hoping for. Would work well with these lenses I've got. Mind you, I'd have to wait until next year to get it, as I think I've spent all my photography money this year.

Apple fanboy said:

That's what I'm hoping for. Would work well with these lenses I've got. Mind you, I'd have to wait until next year to get it, as I think I've spent all my photography money this year.

Click to expand...

Obviously way too early to tell but it could be worth the wait. I think a lot of people shy away from the 810 file size so, IMO, this would fit nicely in the Nikon lineup if priced right.

Cheese&Apple said:

I think a lot of people shy away from the 810 file size so, IMO, this would fit nicely in the Nikon lineup if priced right.

Click to expand...

I hear and read this all the time. I don't see what the problem is. I shoot RAW 14-bit lossless compressed and my image files are 40-50 mb, and even using USB2 for transfer I don't feel as though anything in the chain (shoot, transfer, process, store, backup) is being stressed.

Sure, I can see how many big files might be problem for somebody with an older Mac and a small hard drive.

Maybe somebody can explain what the perceived problem is. I suppose you're just reporting what you hear, Cheese&Apple, but if you've experienced it as a problem I'd like to know the nature of that problem.

monokakata said:

I hear and read this all the time. I don't see what the problem is. I shoot RAW 14-bit lossless compressed and my image files are 40-50 mb, and even using USB2 for transfer I don't feel as though anything in the chain (shoot, transfer, process, store, backup) is being stressed.

Sure, I can see how many big files might be problem for somebody with an older Mac and a small hard drive.

Maybe somebody can explain what the perceived problem is. I suppose you're just reporting what you hear, Cheese&Apple, but if you've experienced it as a problem I'd like to know the nature of that problem.

Click to expand...

My primary interest is wildlife and at times that translates to a lot of shots...at times too many. I found the D800 file size unnecessarily large for my needs. I'm taking about storage space and slower processing time.

Btw, congrats on your new 810...by all accounts a great camera.