NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Frank Fremerey on December 12, 2016, 12:10:36
-
This might be a long shot, yet, I share what I have: Just now I noticed that amazon.de and amazon.co.uk do not list the D810 any more, only market place listings.
Amazon.com lists the D810 but only the "Black Friday Bundle" with grip for ~2500 US$.
I hope the D850 will be there soon. A D500 with FX recording chip and 42 or more MP? I would not hesitate to buy her right away.
Who listens to the rumour mill? Are there more sign of the times? Or is someone here under NDA secretly testing the machine and might oracle a bit?
-
"Or is someone here under NDA secretly testing the machine and might oracle a bit?"
You might not understand what an NDA entails ...
-
Just follow NikonRumors they have an remarkable track record of pinpointing dates and specifications.
Currently I have no idea how to handle more pixels or High ISO than the D810 but I could wish for the sensor in a D5 body but never heard that rumour,,,
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You might not understand what an NDA entails ...
Good one...
-
Currently I have no idea how to handle more pixels or High ISO than the D810 but I could wish for the sensor in a D5 body but never heard that rumour,,,
I like to see the D500 electronics & ergonomics combined with a high pixel count high iso super tonality chip like the one from the Apha 7 R2
-
Please just go and get the D810 Frank ;) You will love it, they are identical down to about 1mm,,,
Don't really know why you would like to have such a thick sensor glass to ruin the resolution,,,
-
Please just go and get the D810 Frank ;) You will love it, they are identical down to about 1mm,,,
I tested the D810 in parallel to the D600 and D750 and did not like her. Sure. If I did not own and love the D600 I would go get the D810 immediately. The D810 with the D500 electronics would be great also
-
Wow, you did like most the D600 instead of the D810...
Can you elaborate?
-
Pedro: if I was still in the 3rd generation with a D3 and a D7000 I would not hesitate to buy the D810. She is 4th generation but the best of the three current offerings D610, D750, D810 if only by a small margin. 610 and 750 are slightly better in HighISO. 750 and 810 are better in AF. The sound design of the 750 is ugly she feels more plasticky than the D600. The 810 feels better in the hand leads in ergonomics. If I was on a budget I would still choose the D600 I bought in Spring 2013 as a second body to replace the D7000 which always was unloved because her AF did not work with my fast primes.
Current used price for a next to unused D600 is between 600 and 700 Euros and you can still get the shutter replaced for free if you want. Current used price of a next to unused D810 is between 2200 and 2300 very close to the cheapest new offers at 2400 to 2500 Euro.
I still think the technological difference between a D600 and a D810 is not worth that price difference AS An UPGRADE.
I'd rather get a D500 at that point. She is phantastic. Nikons best new offering curently when it comes to price / Performance relation. I paid the early adopter premium in May so the price with grip was the new price of the 810 without grip at that time.
What I decided instead was to buy new lenses. A new lens on the D600 gives me more joy than the old lenses on a new D810. I can wait for the successor and put the 2500 aside.
Does that answer your question?
-
Frank your entitled to keep you D600 ;)
But it is beaten in all aspects by the D810 and by a fair margin, what ever generation you call it or whatever you add up the apples or oranges upgrade or not. The D810 is in whole other league of cameras.
-
Just stating a old wish, that the New Model has a full support for a SD UHS II Card.
-
Does that answer your question?
Thanks for answering, but as Erik said, they cannot be compared.
Never mind, use what serves you best, and I do agree, the D500 is something... get it!
-
Frank your entitled to keep you D600 ;)
Thank you & you are entiteled to love your D810!!!
I want XQD cards, two of them
I want the D5/500 AF
I want The D5/D500 WB
I want D5/D500 ISO performance
I want native ISO 25
I want a decent microphone decoupling
I want the F6/D500 ground glass to focus MF lenses like in the old times
I want a stunnig tonality in soft light, esp. for purple flowers and very soft gradients in blueish greens
In short: I want a 5th or 5th & a half generation FX camera
-
I do agree, the D500 is something... get it!
I got the D3, the D600 & the D500. I am pretty well served for the moment.
-
You forgot 42MP ;)
-
Thank you & you are entiteled to love your D810!!!
I want XQD cards, two of them
I want the D5/500 AF
I want The D5/D500 WB
I want D5/D500 ISO performance
I want native ISO 25
I want a decent microphone decoupling
I want the F6/D500 ground glass to focus MF lenses like in the old times
I want a stunnig tonality in soft light, esp. for purple flowers and very soft gradients in blueish greens
In short: I want a 5th or 5th & a half generation FX camera
I think you want a D5X.
-
Please Nikon not more than 42MP!
The specs are surely already set. What they do is what they believe will sell considering the needs buyers and more. Some really need more MP(s) other want them and I fear them from a processing and storage perspective.
Dave Hartman
-
Got the D800E (amongst others) and am satisfied. Dont know whether a D820 can make me go for leap-frogging the D810. Having a faster camera with more modern AF would be fine. But i definitely won't need more than 36 MP. Given the higher pixel density of the D500 and the revived pixel-race of the opponents there will be definitely more pixels in a D810 successor
-
I want a D5x 😎
-
I want a D5x 😎
+1
-
I got the D3, the D600 & the D500. I am pretty well served for the moment.
Different approach here...
D4s, D810 & D500
8)
-
Waiting for the D5S
-
You forgot 42MP ;)
54 would also be OK, but MP are not the important part for me
-
54MP?
I can almost smell the magic smoke pouring from my hard drives.
Dave Hartman
-
I want 96 MPix.
-
Just bought a used D800 on black friday to complement my D500 and D700, so I will not wait for a new D810, got pixels enough ;D
-
I think you want a D5X.
Yes, many of us want a D5x. IF they don't price it US$2000 over the D5, as they did with the D3>D3x relationship.
-
If I learn anything here on NikonGear, it is how we each value cameras and lenses differently. Why I LOVE the D810 is because of two main reasons:
(1) A true ISO 64. The enhanced blacks were, IMO, a great move forward for my work and probably what inspired me to want to segue into MF range.
(2) A useable LiveVIew. It is not all that I really need, but unlike the D800 and D800E, which were not really usable, the LiveView on the D810 has been useable enough that I have yet to even use the OVF, except to verify that it works.
So yes, I look forward to the specs on the D910 (or whatever name it will bear), but it would have to have at least what I outlined above, plus more megapixels. If I could afford it, I would have 100 Mpx, for sure, not because I want to make billboards, but because of all the advantages of large sensors, which I won’t repeat here.
It will be interesting to compare what the FF sensor can do compared to the new small MF cameras like the Hasselblad X1D and the Fuji GFX.
-
would be nice to have a higher MP camera.
D8xx - high resolution studio camera
D7xx - general purpose camera
D??? - high speed/performance low MP sensor (FX missing)
i will admit that the D500 scratched a big itch (D300s), so I hope that they make one for the D700 :o :o :o
-
Just get rid of those stupid pro controls or at least have a lock on the settings menu ...54 MP + and for gods sake a quartz controlled clock in the thing .
-
I am with Bjørn on 96mp. Seriously.
-
I am with Bjørn on 96mp. Seriously.
:o :o :o
-
I want a D5x 😎
yes, this makes perfect sense :o :o :o
sorry for being off topic ::)
the D3x still fetch a good price
-
I want 96 MPix.
Pardon me for being slow but do you really want 96MP or was this a bit of tongue-in-cheek?
Dave Hartman
-
I want 96 MPix.
+1
-
Just get rid of those stupid pro controls or at least have a lock on the settings menu ...54 MP + and for gods sake a quartz controlled clock in the thing .
I love the possibility to lock time or aperture or both
I love the possibility to record a short audio note with my picture
All that and more is missing in the lower incarnations
-
Pardon me for being slow but do you really want 96MP or was this a bit of tongue-in-cheek?
Dave Hartman
Dunno about him but I do :)
-
Pardon me for being slow but do you really want 96MP or was this a bit of tongue-in-cheek?
Dave Hartman
Of course. It is the double of today's "standard" 24 MPix in terms of resolution. Makes a lot of sense. Plus we certainly could forego any AA filter.
My network storage capacity won't have any problems were such models to materialise in the future.
-
I would prefer to stay away from further increases in pixel count since I have no practical use for the additional information and it would increase needs to storage and computational resources. I'm very happy to have a camera now which can mostly handle the focusing requirements of its sensor (D5) even at wide apertures and a computer which makes it practical to edit those files without waiting. A D810 NEF converted to TIFF and edited normally (two additional layers) is about 600MB on the disk. Going to 96MP would push that to 1.6 GB per image. Most such images would likely be slightly out of focus because of this I can't see how there would be perceptible gain on image quality at least in my own applications. A much larger sensor size (such as 6x4,5cm full frame or bigger) would make sense if you need such resolutions and I would imagine the benefits would be much more tangible.
I like the D810 body a lot and would like to get the Multi-CAM 20k and Nikon's radio flash control added to it, as well as XQD card support (maybe SD UHS-II in the second card, though I would prefer two XQD, since SD UHS-II seem just as expensive as XQD but more fragile, and I don't want to invest in a huge variety of expensive high speed cards that are incompatible with each other). Canon has the sense to put a practical resolution (30MP) in their mainline 5D Mark IV (they usually have the pulse on what most photographers need; shouldn't be surprising that their market share is increasing even though they're already no 1). If Nikon wants to make an ultra high resolution variant, by all means, as long as other customers who specifically don't want it are given reasonable options to choose from as well.
-
I like the D810 body a lot and would like to get the Multi-CAM 20k and Nikon's radio flash control added to it, as well as XQD card support (maybe SD UHS-II in the second card, though I would prefer two XQD, since SD UHS-II seem just as expensive as XQD but more fragile, and I don't want to invest in a huge variety of expensive high speed cards that are incompatible with each other).
!
& a better AF, fine tuned 20k?
-
a tilt screen would be nice :o :o :o
for landscape photographers ::)
i think adding MP is inevitable. they have to have an answer to the new canon high MP camera...
-
I'm not after a high Mpx camera either.
D500 camerabody and D5 sensor would be my ideal camera (AKA real D700 successor :D).
An upgraded D750 sensor would be fine as well.
-
I'm not after a high Mpx camera either.
D500 camerabody and D5 sensor would be my ideal camera (AKA real D700 successor :D).
I must admit that this may also make me get some GAS again ???
-
i think adding MP is inevitable. they have to have an answer to the new canon high MP camera...
Given the D810's superior dynamic range (from ISO 64 to 400, but especially at base ISO, photographic DR difference 1.7 stops, engineering DR difference 2.4 stops), I don't think Nikon has to respond to the 5Ds (R) in any way, in so far as the landscape photographers are concerned. I personally think that photography is much more about light, shadow, colour and tones, and the macroscopic visual content of the image that one can see at all scales of display rather than small differences in microscopic detail that you need a wall sized print and a magnifying glass to see. I'm not saying that additional detail isn't of value, but 50 MP vs. 36MP is a small difference. If you need more detail, a 6x4,5cm sensor with 100 MP or 200MP would seem to be the next logical step up from 35mm. For me the fact that I don't have to capture a series of exposures to make a decent image of a landscape and spend a long time merging those exposures with hand painted masks and wondering what looks least wrong (and realizing that elements of the landscape have moved between exposures, again leading to decisions to avoid apparent conflict) is of much greater value than a small difference in detail especially at such small scales that we're talking about. I think in the D810 Nikon really got it when it concerns how to make a camera that produces beautiful images. But for some reason I see that a lot of people missed the event ...
-
I'm in on the 96mp 35mm format sensor idea, definitely a good idea.
-
I would prefer to stay away from further increases in pixel count since I have no practical use for the additional information and it would increase needs to storage and computational resources. I'm very happy to have a camera now which can mostly handle the focusing requirements of its sensor (D5) even at wide apertures and a computer which makes it practical to edit those files without waiting. A D810 NEF converted to TIFF and edited normally (two additional layers) is about 600MB on the disk. Going to 96MP would push that to 1.6 GB per image. Most such images would likely be slightly out of focus because of this I can't see how there would be perceptible gain on image quality at least in my own applications. A much larger sensor size (such as 6x4,5cm full frame or bigger) would make sense if you need such resolutions and I would imagine the benefits would be much more tangible.
I like the D810 body a lot and would like to get the Multi-CAM 20k and Nikon's radio flash control added to it, as well as XQD card support (maybe SD UHS-II in the second card, though I would prefer two XQD, since SD UHS-II seem just as expensive as XQD but more fragile, and I don't want to invest in a huge variety of expensive high speed cards that are incompatible with each other). Canon has the sense to put a practical resolution (30MP) in their mainline 5D Mark IV (they usually have the pulse on what most photographers need; shouldn't be surprising that their market share is increasing even though they're already no 1). If Nikon wants to make an ultra high resolution variant, by all means, as long as other customers who specifically don't want it are given reasonable options to choose from as well.
Amen.
-
Given the D810's superior dynamic range (from ISO 64 to 400, but especially at base ISO, photographic DR difference 1.7 stops, engineering DR difference 2.4 stops), I don't think Nikon has to respond to the 5Ds (R) in any way, in so far as the landscape photographers are concerned. I personally think that photography is much more about light, shadow, colour and tones, and the macroscopic visual content of the image that one can see at all scales of display rather than small differences in microscopic detail that you need a wall sized print and a magnifying glass to see. I'm not saying that additional detail isn't of value, but 50 MP vs. 36MP is a small difference. If you need more detail, a 6x4,5cm sensor with 100 MP or 200MP would seem to be the next logical step up from 35mm. For me the fact that I don't have to capture a series of exposures to make a decent image of a landscape and spend a long time merging those exposures with hand painted masks and wondering what looks least wrong (and realizing that elements of the landscape have moved between exposures, again leading to decisions to avoid apparent conflict) is of much greater value than a small difference in detail especially at such small scales that we're talking about. I think in the D810 Nikon really got it when it concerns how to make a camera that produces beautiful images. But for some reason I see that a lot of people missed the event ...
Could be, but a couple of years ago people swear about the 12MP as the holly grail...
-
I must say that I find Lloyd Chambers recent blog (today) of using the new Nikkor 19mm PC-E Tilt/Shift lens with the D810, which he claims is an incredible lens, using shift, to get a 73 MPx image, which he says is says is pristine and the equivalent of a MF camera/Lens. Check it out. I also read his complete description of the process in the expanded version and it is very enticing.
https://diglloyd.com/
It is very clear that 2017 is going to be the year we have been waiting around for.
-
Given the D810's superior dynamic range (from ISO 64 to 400, but especially at base ISO, photographic DR difference 1.7 stops, engineering DR difference 2.4 stops), I don't think Nikon has to respond to the 5Ds (R) in any way, in so far as the landscape photographers are concerned. I personally think that photography is much more about light, shadow, colour and tones, and the macroscopic visual content of the image that one can see at all scales of display rather than small differences in microscopic detail that you need a wall sized print and a magnifying glass to see. I'm not saying that additional detail isn't of value, but 50 MP vs. 36MP is a small difference. If you need more detail, a 6x4,5cm sensor with 100 MP or 200MP would seem to be the next logical step up from 35mm. For me the fact that I don't have to capture a series of exposures to make a decent image of a landscape and spend a long time merging those exposures with hand painted masks and wondering what looks least wrong (and realizing that elements of the landscape have moved between exposures, again leading to decisions to avoid apparent conflict) is of much greater value than a small difference in detail especially at such small scales that we're talking about. I think in the D810 Nikon really got it when it concerns how to make a camera that produces beautiful images. But for some reason I see that a lot of people missed the event ...
The D810 might be the best 24x36-camera in the world for now and for me as told above it is certainly the best 4th generation Camera Nikon makes. She is still one step in a longer development. For me as owner and extensive user of a 2nd (D70s), 3rd (D3), a 4th (D600) and a 5th (D500) Generation Nikon DSLR a lot is left to be desired for the "next D810". That lot was listed here by several people.
-
I dont recall seeing this link posted here
new model registered?
http://www.lightnfocus.com/new-nikon-digital-camera-registered-indonesia/
-
I must say that I find Lloyd Chambers recent blog (today) of using the new Nikkor 19mm PC-E Tilt/Shift lens with the D810, which he claims is an incredible lens, using shift, to get a 73 MPx image, which he says is says is pristine and the equivalent of a MF camera/Lens. Check it out. I also read his complete description of the process in the expanded version and it is very enticing.
https://diglloyd.com/
It is very clear that 2017 is going to be the year we have been waiting around for.
Thank you for the heads up! Very positive review I must say :)
-
96MP?
I remember how I was wrong about higher Megapixels when the D3X (24MP) came out. I already had some trouble with my new higher resolution lens AF-S 60mm Macro and the D3, needing 1/200 of a second to gain critically sharp shots handheld. I thought: for 24 Megapixels I will need 1/500 of a second. But then, in 2011 with the D7000 and more in 2013 with the D600, I learned I have to apply better shooting technique, more practice and multiple shots at the same settings or BKT to secure critically sharp shots with the higher pixel density cameras.
The results I got with the D800E were stunning when I had a lot of light, but focussing was hard manually, esp with the super high res on my Sinar Setup. Also the files had some rough and technical feel on the pixel level just like the D7000 files that required a lot of post processing which I did not like, while the D600 files only needed a little RAW conversion to be ready for delivery. I could even take the JPEGs in many cases and I do not have to drop dead if I accidentialy switched quality from RAW to "JPEG Fine L" which happens ... The D810 has much nicer files, very similar in character to the D600 ... but not worth the upgrade in my book.
The D500 has a significantly higher pixel density than the D600 and I see that I learned in the last 3 years how to tackle that problem, So I guess I am now ready for the fifth generation High Desity Camera.
More for the wish list:
?
-
Re. the PC 19mm...the price ought to reflect the optical performance...which it seemingly does 8)
-
One feature from the D810A which I would like to see in the D810's successor is extended exposure times in the live view; when the light is low, the quality of the live view image is significantly reduced in the "normal" D810. By allowing lower frame rates and longer exposure times for each frame, one could get a higher quality image which is updated less frequently. This would be very useful for photography in low light.
-
I'd like to see the very useful IR remote release that is present in the cheaper bodies to reappear in the big ones. It is a really good implementation.
Lose the Picbridge Crap. Please!
-
I'd like to see the very useful IR remote release that is present in the cheaper bodies to reappear in the big ones. It is a really good implementation.
Lose the Picbridge Crap. Please!
Oh, I took it granted that it has the IR sensor for the remote shutter. That's not nice. :(
-
Akira. No. The D5 and D810 and D500 "professional" Line of Cameras all work with Cable Release. And the cable release features a combination of screw and spring that caused a lot of swearing since I first found it on my D3 after enjoying tge IR solution on my D70ies
-
The IR remote introduces a random delay between button press and shutter opening. I find this to be annoying and I prefer the precise timing given by the use of the 10-point connector.
-
The IR remote introduces a random delay between button press and shutter opening. I find this to be annoying and I prefer the precise timing given by the use of the 10-point connector.
If you need to capture critical moments, the random delay imposed by IR remote is indeed annoying. For the static subjects like landscapes, the absence of the cable prone to be blown by the wind gives me some mental sanity. It works really nicely for closeups, too.
-
Lose the Picbridge Crap. Please!
I would not hold my breath waiting for that to happen. You can argue about Nikon's implementation of this feature, but it's pretty much here to stay, in some form.
-
The IR remote introduces a random delay between button press and shutter opening. I find this to be annoying and I prefer the precise timing given by the use of the 10-point connector.
I experience the non reaction due to non IR contact sometimes, but when it has IR contact I experience no delay at all. I never shoot time critical stuff with the IR control, I use the release buttons on camera.
-
Well, the D5 didn't get Snapbridge so perhaps the D810's successor won't, either. It doesn't seem like a good solution for high resolution files.
Rather than hope that Nikon stop Snapbridge development, I hope they get it to work decently within its limitations soon. Many people would benefit from having automatic, seamless access to screen size versions shot on DSLRs on mobile phone. For example, wedding photographers may want to be able to show some images quickly on social media. I don't do this but I know that many couples are anxious to see photos. A few highlights may be enough.
If I shoot static subjects and don't need EFCS, I often use exposure delay mode rather than a remote release.
-
WiFi tethering is no rocket science, there are working solutions like camranger on the market.
Also USB-C-cable tethering should be fast enough for a usable Smartphone or Table tethering. I use USB to connect smartphone (and PC/Notebook) and camera all the time
-
If SnapBridge is abandoned, all the current SnapBridge-compatible cameras including D500 will lose their wifi capability altogether. According to the explanation on the airnef website, their wifi can be switched on only through the bluetooth connection via SnapBridge.
http://www.testcams.com/airnef/
I briefly tried the airnef on a Win10 tablet with the "SnapBrige" orphaned D750. It worked just nicely.
-
A lot of things are missing from fluid, seamless connectivity. When I shoot a wedding, I use 2-3 cameras. I am not going to have extra cables coming off the cameras and dongles hanging during the day of the shoot; it is complicated enough as it is without tripping hazards. A single phone should handle the small jpgs from all the cameras simultanously without requiring any settings/wifi/make a connection menu jumping and be connected to the internet at the sime time. I turn my cameras on and off hundreds of times during the 15-hour shoot. The connection should be unfazed and continue without interruption despite this. If I need to connect a cable to the camera, some moment will come when someone pulls from it and the camera drops off the table or similar. It is simply something I will not accept. Nikon's professional wifi accessories (WT-6A etc.) could be used but at least in the previous generation (D4/WT-5) the connection is cut off if the camera goes to standby. If the standby timer is turned off then it might work but likely battery will run out quickly, on either camera or phone or both. I totally understand what Nikon is trying with Snapbridge; to avoid all these problems of having to reconnect all the time. None of this stuff that is available today would work for me. I just use the card reader and PC.
-
Snapbridge is a good idea; now they have to make it work. And everybody should already know that neither Bluetooth or WiFi are bulletproof solutions, and not just with Snapbridge.
-
Snapbridge is a good idea; now they have to make it work.
Yes, they do. Otherwise, they will also ruin the KeyMission line.
-
On the positive side, I find XQD such a huge improvement in transfer times to computer (even though my SDD limits the speed to 250MB/s, not the card). I guess that's a lot of catching up to do for wireless transfers using any technology. ;)
I think the SD UHS-II + XQD mixed slot combination is likely to be found in the D810's successor. Mixed slots has the advantage that any SD card can be used and many of us have those in cameras and other devices. However, I by far prefer the XQD card's rugged housing, and I'd rather not have to invest in expensive SD UHS-II cards when I'm already committed to XQD.
It would be great if the dual area split screen LV zoomed in view that is currently only selectable if the two windows are in the same axis, would be more freely selectable so that I could use it to focus tilt shots in any axis. Currently it is very useful for adjusting focus and tilt when tilting vertical landscape shots, but not useful for horizonals. Any improvement in the live view image quality would be beneficial of course. Currently it is very useful but could be better especially in low light. I would imagine improvements would transfer to video image quality as well.
Some people like a lot of custom buttons on the camera. I find the DOF preview, Fn1, Fn2, on the front side a little too much; the buttons are not in the same relative position when doing vertical shots so I have to search for the right button to find the functionality, unless I basically map Fn1 and Fn2 to do the same function, which I have in fact done. In my D5 setup, both reset the focus point to the preselected focus point of that orientation. I guess for consistency it is best if the D810's successor has the same custom buttons as the D5 so that interoperability is made easier. But I think there can be such a thing as too many custom buttons ... but this is better than none. ;)
-
As for the buttons, the "i" button doesn't make sense to me, as the items in the "My Menu" can be customized and it can be assigned to one of the programmable buttons.
-
So now we are talking. The D810 is the best Nikon for slow photography for now but there is a lot to be desired. I wait and buy when I feel I was heared
-
The D810 is plenty-full fast and agile even for fast paced PJ style shooting, there really is no slow anywhere.
The camera is responsive and is even capable of showing the 36 mp images on the display in a snap.
Sorry but there really is no excuse for not buying it.
-
i love my d810. i love my d500 but maybe a bit less.
my wish list for the d820, or whatever they decide to call it :
- 54 or 96 mp. storage is as near to free as possible these days, but it would be nice if there was a PROPER small raw mode.
- no less DR than the current camera
- AF module similar to the d500, but with as much spread on FX as possible (this is tough)
- 5 FPS or better
- flip-out touch screen with further improvements in CDAF speed
- i'd prefer they lose the flash and put in it's place some type of optional EVF. i personally don't like EVFs, but i think nikon needs to do this to start exploring the future of the f-mount. i think this will likely be the last generation to be only "optical" in their finders.
- one XQD, one SD UHS-II
- built in GPS. (yeah right....)
- a version of snapbridge that actually works quickly enough to use.
- a tiny bit smaller and lighter would be OK with me
as long as it checks a couple of those boxes, i'd pay $3999 USD for it, but would be happier to pay $3499 USD.
i would add unreasonable things like user replaceable finder screens for MF, fast lenses, etc, but i don't think that's in the cards for this section of the lineup.
-
And why not a 96Mp sensor with a possibility of 24Mp pixel binning ? The latter, to increase low light performance and / or frame rate. http://www.photometrics.com/resources/learningzone/binning.php and for persons who want to dig further into this vast matter, they should look into Nyquist frequency or even Schrödinger's cat 🐱
(https://aheinakroon.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/schrdi1.jpg)
-
What a super photo, but he has his eye on you!
-
OK since it is Christmas time;
Whish for: D5X - Should have D5 body with all electronics from D810 as is.
-
Bump!
I dont recall seeing this link posted here
new model registered?
http://www.lightnfocus.com/new-nikon-digital-camera-registered-indonesia/
Could be a D610 successor, though?
-
Adding to the above ..making the camera quiet would be good and if we cannot have built in GPS a quartz clock would be nice
-
Radio or GPS controlled clocks that automagically synchrknize all of my cameras. I have it so often coming back from a shooting with two or three bodies that the clocks are not synchrknized or if they are they tend to desynchronize or on one I got UTC +1 on the other UTC +2
Orth error above intentionally uncorrected. Looks funny
-
my wish list for the d820, or whatever they decide to call it :
- 54 or 96 mp. storage is as near to free as possible these days, but it would be nice if there was a PROPER small raw mode.
My feeling is that 96MP is a step too far at this stage. Historically, resolution has tended to increase by about 1.5x with each generation, so 54MP (6000 x 9000 pixels) would seem to be the most likely step up from 36MP. 96MP with binning to 24MP would be an interesting option, but medium format sensors have only just hit that mark, so it's unlikely we will see it in FX-sized sensors so soon.
-
Considering the marginal step-up shown on Canon 5D MkVI from MkIII, the high-res sensor on the D810 successor would be more likely to be the 42MP one. It performs admirably on Sony A7RII and better than even Canon's 30MP sensor on MkVI does.
The AF unit should be the same as that of D5/500.
And, of course, the SnapBridge! :D
-
36 to 42MP is equivalent to going from 6 to 7MP ... a 17% increase in pixels, only about 8% increase linear. I'm not sure that would keep Nikon fans happy when Canon have a 50MP camera. The Sony 42MP sensor was released mid-way through the D800-810 cycle, so when the D810 is replaced, it will won't be a new sensor - my feeling is that Nikon will want something new.
-
Tge 42 Sony sensor is still the answer to all questions.
1. It outperforms the D5 in low an high ISO
2. In Sony's new half mirror incarnation it even outperforms the D5 in speed
Only problem might be it is too good for Nikon kicking her Majesty's a** too hard.
-
Tge 42 Sony sensor is still the answer to all questions.
1. It outperforms the D5 in low an high ISO
,,,,
Well please enlighten us,,, I think you are mixing up the 24 and the 42 MP Sony A7 models,,,? Or what are you thinking?
-
The A99 II seems about 0.7 to 1 stop behind the A7RII in various dxomark measurements. The high speed (as usual) comes with a penalty in image quality. In this case a part of the story is the light diverted by the semitransparent mirror, but likely also fast sensor reads cause a penalty in dynamic range.
-
Well please enlighten us,,, I think you are mixing up the 24 and the 42 MP Sony A7 models,,,? Or what are you thinking?
The Sony 24mp 35mm format sensors may outperform the D5 at base ISO, but no way will it do so at higher ISO. There is more than one version of it, AFAIK, so which is compared to the D5 sensor?
I think Frank refers to the 42mp sensor, but the version in the A7RII is two years old now. The one in the A99II may be a newer version, but as Ilkka says, it's behind a mirror that take 1/3-1/2 EV of light. So the real performance of the sensor in the A99II isn't fully known.
I think that Nikon will go for more than a small bump (42mp - 36mp = 6mp) in megapixel count, and thus they will want something like a 60-70mp sensor for a D810 successor.
-
Well please enlighten us,,, I think you are mixing up the 24 and the 42 MP Sony A7 models,,,? Or what are you thinking?
We mean the fourty-two MP sensor on Sony A7 "RII".
The D800 was replaced by D810, there was no increase of pixels. Only the construction of the sensor and image processor has been changed. The Sony 42MP sensor is of backlit type AND some more pixels even marginally, which is larger step than the one between D800 and 810, I think.
Also, as always, the sensor will be customized specifically for Nikon.
-
Tge 42 Sony sensor is still the answer to all questions.
1. It outperforms the D5 in low an high ISO
2. In Sony's new half mirror incarnation it even outperforms the D5 in speed
Only problem might be it is too good for Nikon kicking her Majesty's a** too hard.
That's probably the reason why all PJ's are now switching for Sony .... :o
-
For base ISO dynamic range, the A99 II is about 1.4 EV behind the D810 and the A7R II is 0.8 EV behind the D810. (Part of this difference is the difference between ISO 64 ISO and 100, but for low ISO subjects often this difference in sensitivity doesn't matter much; for tripod based landscape you can select ISO 64 unless there is a lot of wind movement effects). At lowest equal ISO settings (nominal 100 for the D810 and A7R II; for the A99 II one has to interpolate to find the matching measured ISO which is maybe 125 to 160), the D810 is about 0.46 EV ahead of the A7R II and about 1.6 EV ahead of the A99 II. In fact the effect of the semitransparent mirror on light loss is evident in DXOMark's "measured vs. manufacturer ISO", about 0.40-0.5 stops. The rest of the differences in the measurements between the two Sony 42MP cameras are likely to be related to high speed reads.
From 3200 to 51200 the D5 is about 1 to 1.3 EV ahead of the A99 II in dynamic range at equal measured ISO settings. For many high fps applications, high ISO is needed because long lenses are limited in f-stop, a fast shutter speed is needed to freeze the movement of the main subject, and the photography may take place in an indoor venue where artificial lights typically require boosting of the weakest (blue) channel leading to stringent test of the dynamic range of the sensor.
Either for fast or slow photography, Nikon has a very competitive solution as it is today (they also have intermediate variants such as the D750, Df). Yes, there will be new cameras in the future. However, Sony's 42MP sensor doesn't really appear to be ahead of the competition in dynamic range, either for high fps high ISO or low to medium fps, low ISO photography. I would expect Nikon to use something else for the D810's successor. If they stay true to the strengths of this line it will be optimized for low ISO image quality and still reasonably good at mid to high ISO. For obvious reasons Nikon should not make a D810 successor with reduced dynamic range at base ISO.
-
Also, as always, the sensor will be customized specifically for Nikon.
Yes, I think this is the most important thing to keep in mind. Nikon got 36mp sensor first and so is likely to continue that trend, imo, and I believe what we will see is 54mp. Although there should be more important improvements with which to sell the camera to existing D800/810 owners. So far the D810 is the perfect camera for me but what I would like to see is expanded AF points, the present ones are much too tightly grouped.
-
We mean the fourty-two MP sensor on Sony A7 "RII".
The D800 was replaced by D810, there was no increase of pixels. Only the construction of the sensor and image processor has been changed. The Sony 42MP sensor is of backlit type AND some more pixels even marginally, which is larger step than the one between D800 and 810, I think.
Also, as always, the sensor will be customized specifically for Nikon.
Simply not true IMHO There where plenty other changes to the 810 also the AA filter in Sony is thick as a bottle bottom.
-
That's probably the reason why all PJ's are now switching for Sony .... :o
Not :o
-
For base ISO dynamic range, the A99 II is about 1.4 EV behind the D810 and the A7R II is 0.8 EV behind the D810. (Part of this difference is the difference between ISO 64 ISO and 100, but for low ISO subjects often this difference in sensitivity doesn't matter much; for tripod based landscape you can select ISO 64 unless there is a lot of wind movement effects). At lowest equal ISO settings (nominal 100 for the D810 and A7R II; for the A99 II one has to interpolate to find the matching measured ISO which is maybe 125 to 160), the D810 is about 0.46 EV ahead of the A7R II and about 1.6 EV ahead of the A99 II. In fact the effect of the semitransparent mirror on light loss is evident in DXOMark's "measured vs. manufacturer ISO", about 0.40-0.5 stops. The rest of the differences in the measurements between the two Sony 42MP cameras are likely to be related to high speed reads.
From 3200 to 51200 the D5 is about 1 to 1.3 EV ahead of the A99 II in dynamic range at equal measured ISO settings. For many high fps applications, high ISO is needed because long lenses are limited in f-stop, a fast shutter speed is needed to freeze the movement of the main subject, and the photography may take place in an indoor venue where artificial lights typically require boosting of the weakest (blue) channel leading to stringent test of the dynamic range of the sensor.
Either for fast or slow photography, Nikon has a very competitive solution as it is today (they also have intermediate variants such as the D750, Df). Yes, there will be new cameras in the future. However, Sony's 42MP sensor doesn't really appear to be ahead of the competition in dynamic range, either for high fps high ISO or low to medium fps, low ISO photography. I would expect Nikon to use something else for the D810's successor. If they stay true to the strengths of this line it will be optimized for low ISO image quality and still reasonably good at mid to high ISO. For obvious reasons Nikon should not make a D810 successor with reduced dynamic range at base ISO.
I completely agree!
The Sony A-series are wonderful small cameras! Just no match for the Nikon Lineup!
-
The Multi-CAM 20k module expands AF point coverage along the long axis quite a bit, to the point where I often find the outermost columns to be too far out for safe use in photographing moving subjects (cropped tops of heads etc. can result). However, in the short dimension of the frame, the rows are limited and not always reaching far enough for some subjects and cropping may be sometimes needed to finalize the framing. It is not what I would consider a problem for what I do; the improvement from early AF systems is already considerable. I suspect it will take several years before we can expect further increases in AF system area of coverage in this type of cameras. For me it is more important to focus on accuracy in the D810's successor's AF system (while maintaining the low light sensitivity and hopefully most of the D5's AF speed). A high resolution camera needs focusing accuracy beyond the usual. Bothed up assembly and/or calibration can ruin a camera's reputation and frustrate users. So above all I hope Nikon gets it right.
-
The AF module size is limited by the physical size of the complete design of the AF module, this is also the reason for the f/5.6 and f/8 restrictions, pure mechanical limits.
-
Simply not true IMHO There where plenty other changes to the 810 also the AA filter in Sony is thick as a bottle bottom.
I think Nikon finally decided to remove the AA filter altogether on D810 because they were confident with the anti-aliasing algorithm.
D800 released in March 2012 had wider dynamic range (although marginally) than A7R released one and a half year later, according to DXOmarks comparison. D800 used the customized 36MP sensor. I wouldn't be surprised if the 42MP sensor in the D810 successor would offer wider dynamic range than that of A7RII.
Nikon engineers said that it is very difficult to expand AF area, especially vertically.
-
It's not like Nikon just buys a Sony sensor and sprays magic DR dust on it. Likely it involves redesigned electronics on the sensor and years of development to achieve something like the D810. Whether the same technology works for a BSI sensor, how can we know? If it were easy, every manufacturer would be matching D810 dynamic range at base ISO.
I would prefer if Nikon put back in the filter in the D810's successor (but I guess I'm in the minority). I tend to nowadays shoot with two approaches: one is to photograph people in available light with the lens wide open, where the aberrations reduce the risk of aliasing, and most of the image is out of focus which further limits the problem. However, sometimes gross aliasing occurs with the 20/1.8 wide open - it has enough depth of field wide open for shirt patterns to be incorrectly rendered. Black and white conversion is the destiny of such images in my case; suits the 20mm lens well since it's a great indoor available light lens. The 105/1.4 is annoying also, it is so sharp wide open that I get moire in hair and beards a lot - solution: do not use it with the D810. Mostly I shot with the 105/1.4 using the D5 and there is no problem; the most striking difference when using the D810 with this lens for the first time was the aliasing in hair. I use fast shutter speeds; a second technique to avoid moire and other aliasing phenomena is let the subject be blurred by a slightly too slow shutter speed.
The third approach is to use a tripod and shoot at around f/11 (in my case it is likely landscape, macro or architectural subject) and here the diffraction reduces the resolution of the lens sufficiently to avoid aliasing, and random subject detail structure also helps.
In the studio I use a camera which has the filter in place. I typically use the range f/5.6-f/11 for studio portraits (f/5.6 to f/8 for whole body; f/8 to f/11 for head and shoulders) and flash freeezes most of the movement so it's good to have the filter. Notice that Canon offers the 5Ds with the filter in place as well although it is with 50MP.
I think rather than rely software algorithms, most photographers can handle AA filterless cameras by using some of these techniques: (a) wide aperture which is aberration limited, (b) small aperture which is diffraction limited, (c) slower shutter speed which blurs the image sufficiently to avoid aliasing.
-
Here is a new sensor patent, http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sonys-new-cmos-sensor-incorporates-polarizer/ (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sonys-new-cmos-sensor-incorporates-polarizer/).
There is talk about the sensor, but doesn't the signal processing also play a part, i.e. Nikon Expeed.
-
Ilkka, thanks for sharing your experience with the moire. So, there still are many circumstances for the moire to appear.
Leica M digital bodies have had no AA filter since M8. I would like to know if Erik or any Leica users share the same experiences.
I realize that Canon is very reluctant to remove AA filters. Their APS-C 24MP sensors still have AA filters, unlike those of Nikon.
-
Is the camera in the pipeline a D750 successor? :o
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/12/20/pictures-reportedly-taken-with-a-new-nikon-d7xx-full-frame-dslr-camera-with-incredible-low-light-capabilities.aspx/#more-109617
-
Sure moire is a real problem or positive side effect with sharp lenses both on Leica M9 and D810 so one has to be aware of it and work around it, I much prefer the lack of AA filter and enjoy the crisp images,,,
Changing light or angle of light is often enough to avoid it, or a slight change in aperture up or down,,,
-
Akira, I've had all the M digital bodies and don't remember any problems with moire' which couldn't be dealt with in pp.
On the D810 I've actually had moire' show up on a plant of all things, but it seemed to disappear or at least minimize in a print. And it was only with the Zeiss 135/2, which is a wicked sharp lens. No problems with my 55 Otus.
Added: Erik may have encountered this situation more because of shooting conditions where he lives? I don't have any answers for others for whom it was a problem.
-
Erik and John, thanks for sharing your experiences!
I think the moire is more of a problem when the images are browsed on computer screen. The interactions of different resolutions (of the sensor, lens, image in various magnification and monitor) should make the matter more complicated.
The randomness of the ink particles might help mitigate the moire on the prints?
-
Well please enlighten us,,, I think you are mixing up the 24 and the 42 MP Sony A7 models,,,? Or what are you thinking?
I remember this:
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RII
And my thoughts were that the super High ISO above 100k is not really useful in practice
-
Ilkka: Yes, the Sony interface sucks and press photographers are invested in either Canon or Nikon, not Sony. The latter is due to several reasons we discussed before, reliable, fast SERVICE to start with.
-
Akira, I've had all the M digital bodies and don't remember any problems with moire' which couldn't be dealt with in pp.
On the D810 I've actually had moire' show up on a plant of all things, but it seemed to disappear or at least minimize in a print. And it was only with the Zeiss 135/2, which is a wicked sharp lens. No problems with my 55 Otus.
Added: Erik may have encountered this situation more because of shooting conditions where he lives? I don't have any answers for others for whom it was a problem.
Leica M8 or M9 shoot with a 35mm 1.4 FLE at f/2.8-f/5.6 and you instantly get moiré in for instance a jacket any row or pattern like brick walls or facades for street shooting if they happen to be in the zone of focus. I have also seen it in plants.
On the D3X or D810 shoot with 85mm 1.4 AFS same issues.
But as I said just work around it
-
Erik and John, thanks for sharing your experiences!
I think the moire is more of a problem when the images are browsed on computer screen. The interactions of different resolutions (of the sensor, lens, image in various magnification and monitor) should make the matter more complicated.
The randomness of the ink particles might help mitigate the moire on the prints?
I am refereeing to moiré that show at 100% on a screen and in the images when it is printed.
Sometimes it's impossible to mask or remove other times it's easy,,,
-
Erik, thanks for the clarification.
-
Getting rid of moiré in the printed image can be painstakingly difficult. I much prefer the issue not to be manifested in the first place.
-
A properly implemented browser (such as Nikon ViewNX-i or 2) will lowpass filter the image before sampling in the viewing resolution. What moire there is in the original will show on the screen but it does not add further moire or other aliasing effects to the images displayed. A badly implemented browser such as Adobe Bridge does the resampling without lowpass filtering which can result in rather gross artifacts in patterns. This is why I don't use Bridge. Quite frankly I think it is an embarrasment to Adobe.
-
A properly implemented browser (such as Nikon ViewNX-i or 2) will lowpass filter the image before sampling in the viewing resolution. What moire there is in the original will show on the screen but it does not add further moire or other aliasing effects to the images displayed. A badly implemented browser such as Adobe Bridge does the resampling without lowpass filtering which can result in rather gross artifacts in patterns. This is why I don't use Bridge. Quite frankly I think it is an embarrasment to Adobe.
I didn't know about the automatic low-pass filter in the Nikon software. But that would be only beneficial when you appreciate the images in the ViewNX, I guess? I wonder if the web browsers offer such a function which is more beneficial?
-
So no announcements of interest in Las Vegas earlier this week at CES:
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/6/14183134/canon-nikon-sony-cameras-photography-ces-2017
So, we keep waiting until later in the year, Photokina perhaps, or even near the end of 2017...
If Nikon are set to upgrade the D810, let us hope the successor has U1, U2, U3 as with the D7200, to archive alternative menu configurations. And that this "D850" also includes the option for an audio focus indicator too. Small additions that are so invaluable to those of us who actually work a camera for more than a test drive.
This is in addition to the hopes already on this Thread for improved AF of the calibre of the D5/D500!
Oh yes, an articulating LCD, aka that of the D500, will be wonderful, not least for close-up work. And why add the availability of a FX split-ring focusing screen for the D850?
In other respects, adopting the ergonomics of the D500 will be a big positive - including the position of the ISO button next to the shutter release
-
For my taste the touch screen is okayish, the articulating screen is okayish, but I do not use both very much. I do not need them.
I miss the IR remote on the D500, have to use my MC-36 again. Bullocks
I can wait. I am very happy with the D500 and D600, they are great tools and I can do more or less everything I need with them.
D500 electronics with a capable recording chip like the D600 has or the A7R2 is a dream come true but not a necessity.
-
I recently got a used D810 for a bargain, only 3000 actuations too. Had to go on a 20-hour round trip (23 actually, NSW trains are an abomination :'() to a remote town. A shame I didn't stay there for another night. This town is truly beautiful, it's called the Sapphire Village -- Inverell. The sellers were the nicest I've ever met!
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/1/275/32019719121_30f24616f0_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/QMtqWM)Inverell Sunrise (https://flic.kr/p/QMtqWM) by Daniel Han (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/), on Flickr
I still prefer the ergonomics of my D750, that being the deep grip and the flippy screen I always use. I don't think we well get a replacement till early next year, since Nikon usually start their new replacements from the cheaper models.
Anyway, this is a list of things I'd like to see in the D850 or whatever arbitrary number Nikon goes with:
42mp, I honestly don't need anything above 24.
7fps in Ch mode with a D5 battery installed in the grip
x2 XQD cards YES XQD
Ergonomics of the D500/D750
Faster and better AF, allow f8 AF
Flippy Screen
I'd like to see focus peaking too... focus peaking for liveview anyone? :D
And some other things that I personally don't care that much about:
4k
wifi+GPS
-
How much was the D810 with 3k actuations?
24 megapixels is a sweet spot. Sure. I'd like to see tonality and resolution which does not necessarily mean megapixels. When I did my first shots with the D3 and an Apo Macro Large Format lens my eyes were popping in joy. 12 Megapixels seemed to be so much more just by better lens. Yet. If I compare these shots today to 24 Megapixel work they look low res. I am spoiled. I did some Architecture with the D800E and these shots are still impressive today.
Technology moves on and it does not seem it moves to lower pixel counts. So. If higher pixel count comes with better tonality and resolution in a sturdy body with better AF, better WB, better ISO performance low and high like real ISO25 for bright light situations and 25k shots with rich details and fine tonality, I take the extra pixels as collateral damage pumping my HDs full even faster
PS phantastic shot. Superb colors and lighting
-
The same camera probably won't have optimal high and low ISO image quality. Nikon likes to optimize their professional cameras to specific areas of use, i.e. D810 is optimal at 64, D5 at very high ISO. I would expect this trend to continue in the next generation.
-
The same camera probably won't have optimal high and low ISO image quality. Nikon likes to optimize their professional cameras to specific areas of use, i.e. D810 is optimal at 64, D5 at very high ISO. I would expect this trend to continue in the next generation.
If so, this is a marketing decision, not a technical necessity, see the chart in #102...
BTW: Happy New Year to you, we did not have the chance...
-
If so, this is a marketing decision, not a technical necessity, see the chart in #102...
In DXOMark's measurements, the D810 maintains a clear lead (0.86 EV) in dynamic range at base ISO over the A7R II, but the latter is better at high ISO (by approximately 1 EV). This illustrates that different cameras are optimized for different applications and there is definitely a tradeoff that must be made. Which tradeoff is preferable to an individual user varies from user to user; it is nice that the manufacturers offer options.
The D5 may not do as well as the A7R II because the D5 is a fast camera. Fast sensor reads put it at a disadvantage against slower cameras and it should really be compared with cameras offering comparable fps and autofocus performance. If we do this kind of a comparison:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-SLT-Alpha-99-II-versus-Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D5___1120_1071_1062
we can see that the D5 leads the A99 II and Canon 1DX II at 3200-102400 (in dynamic range), so it does quite well among cameras designed for a similar purpose. It also leads in color sensitivity and tonal range over a wide range of ISO settings, on the other hand, the 1DX II is slightly better at midtone SNR, according to these measurements.
Yes, the SLT design puts the A99 II at a slight disadvantage (0.4EV I believe), but the difference between the D5's dynamic range at high ISO and the A99 II's is greater than that. Again Nikon has gone for a sensor which is optimized for greater ISO settings than the Sony A99 II since they assume that action photographers are more likely going to be using high than low ISO and acceptable quality must be reached in extreme conditions.
Nikon offers a more "allaround" sensor in the D750 which shows good dynamic range across a wide range of ISO's but doesn't match the D810 at base ISO nor the D5 at high ISO. I do not believe Nikon would go for such a sensor in either the D5's successor or the D810's, simply because these cameras are expected to be the best at their primary specialty.
-
BTW: Happy New Year to you, we did not have the chance...
Happy New Year
Ilkka
-
Nikon offers a more "allaround" sensor in the D750 which shows good dynamic range across a wide range of ISO's but doesn't match the D810 at base ISO nor the D5 at high ISO. I do not believe Nikon would go for such a sensor in either the D5's successor or the D810's, simply because these cameras are expected to be the best at their primary specialty.
To add for clarity, I don't have anything against general purpose cameras or cameras optimized for a wide range of ISOs. I think most photographers most of the time are shooting somewhere in the middle of the ISO range and most cameras do well in this area, so there isn't perhaps room for enough of a competitive edge that can be attempted by the engineers. In my work in biomedical optical imaging, we have to make compromises in instrument design between low light SNR, bright light SNR, dynamic range, speed, accuracy, coverage etc. There is no way to build one instrument which is best at all desirable properties and quite a lot of pressure to design an instrument which is best in a specific application, to push what is possible in that field, and make new discoveries. I would imagine this to be true of many areas of engineering actually. Whether it is best for an individual photographer, I couldn't say. Two bodies which both work well in the middle and excel at different extremes seem to work well for me. What direction Nikon will take in the next generation is impossible to know.
-
I love your insight and that you share it with us, thank you!
-
Congratulations on your new D810.
Inverell, and indeed the entire New England region (located in the North of North East of Australia's State of New South Wales) has a lot of interesting scenery, history, and old buildings that are still largely intact. Inverell has a lot of old Art Deco stuff. Getting there and back by country train is no mean achievement!
I recently got a used D810 for a bargain, only 3000 actuations too. Had to go on a 20-hour round trip (23 actually, NSW trains are an abomination :'() to a remote town. A shame I didn't stay there for another night. This town is truly beautiful, it's called the Sapphire Village -- Inverell. The sellers were the nicest I've ever met!
............................................................
I still prefer the ergonomics of my D750, that being the deep grip and the flippy screen I always use. I don't think we well get a replacement till early next year, since Nikon usually start their new replacements from the cheaper models.
Anyway, this is a list of things I'd like to see in the D850 or whatever arbitrary number Nikon goes with:
42mp, I honestly don't need anything above 24.
7fps in Ch mode with a D5 battery installed in the grip
x2 XQD cards YES XQD
Ergonomics of the D500/D750
Faster and better AF, allow f8 AF
Flippy Screen
I'd like to see focus peaking too... focus peaking for liveview anyone? :D
And some other things that I personally don't care that much about:
4k
wifi+GPS
-
recent synopsis fyi of Nikon and more
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/2017-glass-filling-or-empty/
-
The first DSLR to be updated in 2017 should be D610 which is essentially D600 released four and a half years ago. D6X0 model is a main player for the potential Chinese market where a DSLR is considered as status symbol. Might be announced at CP+ 2017?
The successor of D810 should come next and will followed by a D750 successor. I don't expect any new DX models this year. The Nikon 100-year-anniversary model should be a Df successor.
All models should employ the monocoque construction.
The hardware aside, I think Nikon is seriously in need of improving the SnapBridge software.
Allegedly Canon will release a full-frame mirrorless body that has EF mount (its concept is similar to that of Sigma sd Quattro).
-
I wouldn't be surprised if there is one new DX model this year - an update to the D7200 (probably with Snapbridge etc) This series has been refreshed roughly every two years and the D7200 was launched in Feb 2015 so an update later in 2017 seem reasonable. The "problem" for Nikon is how to separate this model from the D500.
-
The next DX body to be updated will be D7200 for sure, but the update should be very major. The construction should be designed from ground up (much like D750). Considering that D7200 is still an excellent DX body in today's standard, and the need for the high-end DX body has been largely fulfilled by D500, Nikon would take some time to design the D7200 successor. 2017 will be the year of full-frame bodies.
I think the major problem in the DX line is if or how to develop higher-end lenses.
-
So you think the D7300 will be a bigger update than the D5600 or D3400 were?
Yes the DX lens lineup needs filling out, but that's an old story...
-
So you think the D7300 will be a bigger update than the D5600 or D3400 were?
Yes, because of the employment of the monocoque construction. The weight reduction of D5500 compared to D5300 was significant, which would happen in the D7X00 line. D500 is about 10% lighter than D300S of the almost same size.
-
2017 will be the year of full-frame bodies.
...I think the major problem in the DX line is if or how to develop higher-end lenses.
Agreed! And your diagnosis WRT replacements for D810 etc makes sense together with centenary revision of the Df. All eagerly awaited
...the major problem in the DX line is if or how to develop higher-end lenses.
Judged by the trend last sampled in 2016, Nikon seems to be investing in FX. Perhaps counter to many opinions here, I'm more than happy to have traded in all my DX models (10-24, 18-200 etc) As of early 2016, I only invest in FX lenses (my Zeiss 15 f2.8 does a more than a superlative job on my D500).
I agree with Thom Hogan that the priority for Nikon is to revise its many FX lenses that are long overdue for upgrades. This will consolidate on the highlights of 2016 > "we only got an incredible D5; an incredible D500; the incredible 19mm f/4 PC-E, 105mm f/1.4, and 70-200mm f/2.8E FL lenses..." and one can add the 300 f4E PF and 200-500 f5.6 Nikkors of 2015
this is one of the best diagnoses i've read in months http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/focal-length/missing-nikkors-2013-editio.html
-
It wouldn't take much for Nikon to make DX more attractive to FX users. I'd like to add DX body to complement my FX kit. It would be my small kit for everyday and would also extend the reach of my 300mm PF.
So a small DX 23mm f/2.0 would make me drop the Fuji as it would make more sense to have a compatible camera rather than two systems.
Or Nikon could bring a mirrorless DX system which can use F mount lenses with an adapter and would also support CLS flashes.
If Nikon really develops a APS-C mirrorless system the lack of DX DSLR lenses could be understandable.
-
I'm more than happy to have traded in all my DX models (10-24, 18-200 etc) As of early 2016, I only invest in FX lenses (my Zeiss 15 f2.8 does a more than a superlative job on my D500).
I saw DX as transitional from the beginning and though I used DX-bodies a lot I only once bought a DX-lens and that was as a present to a friend.
If you have a set of FX lenses and bodies already, the acquisition of an additional body like the D500 makes perfect sense though, giving any lens a second "meaning". I love e.g, to shoot portraits with the 1.8/85G mounted on my D500. Now the D500 is as heavy and bulky as a FX body, all weigh roughly 1.4/1.5 Kilos gripped. So the argument of "light travel kit" does not appeal to me. "Light" is defined as "I can take two bodies and the necessary lens set with me and do not get charged overweight on the airport".
2.0/16mm DX would be something I would contemplate buying if the lens was light weight small and high resolution. Currently all wide angle work is done in FX.
-
If you have a set of FX lenses and bodies already, the acquisition of an additional body like the D500 makes perfect sense though, giving any lens a second "meaning".
2.0/16mm DX would be something I would contemplate buying if the lens was light weight small and high resolution. Currently all wide angle work is done in FX.
Absolutely. With the D500 I carry MF wides 20 f4, 20 f3.5 and the 45 f2.8AIP Nikkor with addition of either the 55 f2.8 or 60 AF Micro-Nikkor + 300 f4E PF with TCE14. Often fit the 28-105 AFD Nikkor.
The 18-35 G Nikkor qualifies being light in mass (381 g) This is an attractive option i've yet to try
2.0/16mm DX would be something I would contemplate buying if the lens was light weight small and high resolution.
Agree :-) should be significantly lighter than 16-35 f4G VR ED or the 15 f2.8 Zeiss
-
Another feature in the focus system of forthcoming Nikon DSLRs is to improve the focus indication system. Why not have the indicators light up "in" the focus screen when locked on? This cannot be difficult to modify on the existing AF system of the D5 / D500, surely? Unless the concept is already patent-protected?
And supply the Df upgrade with a split-screen focusing screen, please. An the situation stands, this is an glaring gap in the Nikon inventory. It is inexcusable given the legacy of the F mount with so many MF lenses still in active use
Option to fit a Nikon split-prism Focus screen should be not just a standard feature of the Nikon System, but a flagship benefit in the 21st Century :-) And it will save all the hassles those of us encounter locating and fitting older or 3rd party focus screens.....
-
I agree alternative focus screens would be a useful addition and Nikon should attend to this.
I always use continuous AF when using AF and would not find focus beeps or lights useful, but I do not have anything against them if others find them useful. The beep I do not like as it is distracting and brings too much attention to the camera and photographer IMO. Same with autofocus assist lights, red eye reduction etc. An optical indicator of focus would probably be better for most.
-
2.0/16mm DX would be something I would contemplate buying if the lens was light weight small and high resolution. Currently all wide angle work is done in FX.
Samyang makes the very 2.0/16 for DX, but it is big and heavy even though it is a simple MF lens. Apparently the smaller format isn't much of a help to make the retro-focus optics smaller, so long as the flange back is long. Remember the short-lived 4/3 format whose flange back was 38mm. Nikon could make a DX 2.0/16 much lighter, but not much smaller. I guess that the D500 and AF-S 16/2.0 combo could be bulkier than the D750 and AF-S 24/1.8 combo.
-
Early DX cameras still had FX size mirrors, so there was no possibility of making DX lenses with a shorter back-focus, which would also allow the lens to be more compact. I suppose the long back focus was also retained to ensure the lens was more telecentric - digital sensors perform best if the ray angle is close to perpendicular. However I think modern DX now use smaller size reflex mirrors, and DX lenses with enough back-focus to clear a DX-size mirror would be no worse than an FX lens on an FX camera.
DX lenses with a shorter back-focus would of course be incompatible with FX cameras - when the picture is taken the reflex mirror would hit the rear of the lens. Users could be prevented from mounting DX lenses by modifying the mount so they wouldn't fit (in a similar way TCs have an extra tab so they only fit big telephoto lenses). Maybe Nikon thought it would be useful if DX lenses could mount FX cameras in DX mode. I'm not sure how useful this feature is, I suspect most owners of FX cameras rarely use DX lenses.
If DX lenses could be made with a shorter back-focus and the aperture was dropped from f/2 to f/2.8, a DX 16mm lens could easily be made much more compact. Even without a shorter back-focus, it should be possible to make DX primes which are relatively compact if the maximum aperture is not too fast. For example, the DX 16-80/2.8-4 already has a smaller filter size (72mm) than the Samyang 16/2 (77mm), a prime 16/2.8 would be smaller still.
-
The smaller (and thus shorter) mirror indeed allows shorter back focus, and Canon uses this very method to offer EF-S linup which is incompatible with full-frame models.
A DX lens on an FX body would be handy for the video when you want larger DOF. D750 allows videos of the same formats both for FX and DX formats to choose from. The problem of Nikon cameras is the substandard AF speed in the live view and video modes.
-
fyi https://photographylife.com/nikon-d820-wishlist
https://photographylife.com/nikons-100-year-anniversary-what-i-hope-to-see-in-2017#more-138420
-
EFCS does work with live view (in M-UP mode) and the shutter is open in Live view and doesn't close before the shot is taken if you have EFCS in use (it does close and open after). With the D810 you do need to press the remote release button twice; in the D5 one press does it if EFCS is used in Live View. Still, the point is that the shutter doesn't close and open unnecessarily in either camera. The reason for restricting the user to M-UP mode for activating EFCS is likely that Nikon doesn't want it to be used casually for every shot since there are issues like uneven exposure (with some lenses such as PC-E) and rolling shutter (and possible other issues we may not be aware of) which the user would encounter and possibly complain about if EFCS were always in use. Tying it to M-UP suggests to the user that the camera should be on tripod and a cable or radio remote control should be used to trigger the shot (with mirror up on the first press) to get the most benefit from EFCS and reduce the likelihood of problems at fast shutter speeds since one typically uses M-UP at relatively slow speeds and tripod. At fast speeds you don't necessarily need to use mirror lockup and so the artifacts of EFCS use at fast shutter speeds are naturally avoided by using other release modes. EFCS might be useful for some hand held photography as well and there it would be useful to allow its use in S mode for example, but then you'd run into rolling shutter etc. I think Nikon's design makes some sense, they are just being careful. It might annoy some though.
And given the history of Nikon's built in wifi, maybe it's best to leave it out of a serious camera such as the D810's successor.
I believe the sensor moving image stabilization causes heat issues in the sensor (there is no way to efficiently transfer heat off the sensor if there is no fixed assembly with large effective heat transfer area) and additional noise. Many cameras who have this type of technology are reported to have additional noise at long exposures at night, and some user reports suggest the heat during 4K video recording can cause shutdown.
-
(...)
And given the history of Nikon's built in wifi, maybe it's best to leave it out of a serious camera such as the D810's successor.
(...)
Such a generalising statement could be misleading.
I heard from D500 users how badly Wifi was implemented in their cams.
On the other hand I couldn't be happier with the D750 style of implementation.
Of course satisfaction with this feature depends on your requirements.
I don't to tethered shooting but I enjoy the ability of my D750 to share some shots quickly via Wifi to smartphone.
I just scroll through the pictures and easily select those pictures I want to transfer via info button.
Upon connecting cam and smartphone by wifi all pictures previously marked for transfer are being sent to the smartphone, couldn't be easier.
For serious editing of pictures I need the RAW files and I wouldn't want to transfer files of that size (RAW @36 MP!) via Wifi.
Did you mean that aspect?
-
Such a generalising statement could be misleading.
I heard from D500 users how badly Wifi was implemented in their cams.
On the other hand I couldn't be happier with the D750 style of implementation.
I found the D750 wifi useless to my purposes since it disconnects if the camera is turned off and is turned back on, the connection has to be re-established from the phone (settings / wifi etc.). IMO the connection should be established once and then the devices should stay paired until the user explicitly request disconnection (data doesn't necessarily have to be transferred while the camera is off but it should start transmitting when the camera is turned back on). I don't want to select images to transmit; I need to have the latest images transmitted in the background so I can always show and evaluate them as soon as possible. Furthermore the mobile device should preferably stay connected to the internet at the same time and this connection should not be affected by the connection to camera. If I connect the mobile device to D750 wifi all internet access from the phone or tablet seems to be lost.
I do not need transfer of high resolution or raw files to the phone or tablet; what I want to do is shoot in the studio and display the images at the same time on a larger screen (iPad, 2K images suffice or slightly bigger would be fine, but not full resolution if it slows the transmission) so that I can evaluate the lighting when setting up and doing test shots and also so that the subject or client can see the images with a good display (the iPad retina display may not be calibrated but it's close enough to do this job better than using the LCD on the back of the camera). I don't want a wired connection since my experience is that tripping from cables is more likely than not and it could lead to substantial damage. I just need the connection to be totally transparent when I'm shooting and it must not be disconnected if I turn the camera off for a while.
I have read that Android devices are capable of automatically reconnecting to the phone if the camera power is recycled. However, this doesn't seem possible on iOS devices which is what I use.
Nikon is trying to solve these problems with the Snapbridge implementation where the bluetooth is supposed to stay active and trasmit (if slowly) small images while the camera is off. The faster wifi is reported to be disconnected but since I do not need high res images on the mobile device this would be fine. What's crucial to me is that I don't have to explicitly go to the device menus to reactivate the connection all the time. This totally kills the user experience for me. The images should simply appear on the mobile device while I use the camera normally.
If I want high resolution images then I would use a laptop and a cabled connection and inform the people at the shoot how important it is not to touch the cable when moving around at the set at any time. However, I don't typically need to see fine details at this point. I have a Manfrotto digital director which is great for using an iPad as a live view screen (e.g. for video) but I find usability problems with that as well. The camera controls do not work if the digital director is active. With Camranger I find the screen lag to be too long. None of the solutions for the tethered display I've worked with have been good, to be honest. For camera remote control, several products seem to work well though, but this is not my main interest in tethering. I have not tried WT-6A for the D5. I read that on the D4 the WT-5 connection is not only lost if the camera is turned off, but also if the camera goes into standby mode! (I'm rolling my eyes.)
-
When I had iPad Air 2, I tried to transfer JPEG files of my D750 to iPad with the Nikon Mobile Uility installed. I was totally disappointed by their (low) quality. They suffered from the mosquito noise caused by the excessive compression. The image taken with my iPhone SE offers noticeably better quality.
The airnef I briefly tried on a Win10 tablet was much better.
-
Such a generalising statement could be misleading.
I heard from D500 users how badly Wifi was implemented in their cams.
On the other hand I couldn't be happier with the D750 style of implementation.
Not being a Nikon D500 owner I could be mistaken here but isn't the Snap Bridge WiFi intended for social media where a computer cannot be used to upload images?
My understanding is that for serious WiFi the D500 user needs to use the Nikon WT-7A Wireless Transmitter.
To sum this up the users complaining about the Snap Bridge WiFi are probably trying to use a cellphone like toy implementation for serious WiFi and they need to belly up to the bar and buy the WT-7A.
Dave Hartman
-
Not being a Nikon D500 owner I could be mistaken here but isn't the Snap Bridge WiFi intended for social media where a computer cannot be used to upload images?
Yes and no. A computer can be used to upload images on most social media sites i.e. facebook etc., also e-mailing small jpgs is a very common way of privately sharing images meant for viewing on a screen and file sizes often need to be small. The 2K images should be fine for both facebook and e-mail in many cases if the intention is not to print the images. If the quality is poor then it is a question of Nikon developing its firmware to give proper results.
My understanding is that for serious WiFi the D500 user needs to use the Nikon WT-7A Wireless Transmitter.
I understand but the discussion was about built in wifi and its usefulness in Nikon cameras, not the expensive professional add on wifi systems that Nikon also makes available. WT-7A is also quite large and it seems to require a USB cable on the left side of the camera to operate. "The camera connects to the WT-7A Wireless Transmitter via the supplied USB cable. " This may be fine if the camera is on a stand and used for remote photography at a large stadium but for hand held everyday photography, the cable is likely to get in the way and again if set on a table, it will be easy for someone to accidentally pull from the cable.
The WT-6A offered for the D5 seems a much more sensible option as it uses its own port, doesn't require a cable and is small. Again I don't have experience using the WT-6A but the wireless connection being shut off if the camera goes into standby seems very inconvenient and disruptive, if it is true of the D5+WT-6A as is reported for the D4+WT-5A.
For me the cable free operation is important for safety reasons in the studio. The D810 can use the WT-5A through the UT-1. Likely its successor will be able to use the faster WT-6A. This would be something I could consider for studio use if they solve the standby issue (I suppose I could turn the standby timer off while working in this way but I dislike modal operation as the modes tend to be forgotten in the wrong setting). However, this means two additional (expensive) units are needed.
-
With the Nikon Centenary Year and a Centenary being a celebration of a significant event,
maybe with the entry into the second Centenary period, there will be by a surprise offering to surprise us all.
Hoping there are some free models for a few lucky Nikon Devotees.
-
The airnef I briefly tried on a Win10 tablet was much better.
Airnef is the way to go if you fast access to the RAW-files.
-
... I understand but the discussion was about built in wifi and its usefulness in Nikon cameras, not the expensive professional add on wifi systems that Nikon also makes available. WT-7A is also quite large and it seems to require a USB cable on the left side of the camera to operate. ...
I just downloaded the manual and the WT-7 doesn't appear to have a tripod fitting?? The manual shows a cable in the side of the D500 and WT-7 in all configurations. These oddities weren't apparent or noticed by me in a quick look at B&H Photo. A quick look at Nikon USA and again at B&H and there is only one photo of the back of the unit. One would need to find a review of the WT-7 with photos to see more. Not too appealing to me.
Dave
-
I just downloaded the manual and the WT-7 doesn't appear to have a tripod fitting??
That would be quite amazing as Nikon advertises wireless remote control as one of the features. How does one mount the camera with WT-7 attached if there is no tripod socket? :o
Can someone who has seen the unit confirm this? Thanks.
At least the WT-6 doesn't interfere with tripod use, requires no cable and seems to cost about 50% less than the WT-7 in Finland ...
-
Here is a review. The only one on page one of Google...
https://www.truetoad.com/Reviews/ArtMID/414/ArticleID/2172/Nikon-Wireless-Transmitter-D500-WT-7 (https://www.truetoad.com/Reviews/ArtMID/414/ArticleID/2172/Nikon-Wireless-Transmitter-D500-WT-7)
I haven't read this review, just looked at the photos. No tripod fitting on the bottom. This is what I expected after looking at the manual illustration. This to me is incredible (as in lacking credibility).
Dave
The cable arrangement is really bad. Nikon should re-brand these WT-7(s) and sell them on eBay.
I'm really disgusted and I wish I'd never mentioned the WT-7. I had too much faith in Nikon.
-
Earlier add-ons for wireless communication to FTP server (for the D2) had a tripod mount ? I feel utterly amazed that such a vital feature is removed.
-
Just downloaded the manual. No tripod mount for WT-7. :o
-
Just downloaded the manual. No tripod mount for WT-7. :o
The WT-7 over 1200€ in Finland and now it appears to be only suitable for hand held use (okay, with a sufficiently large telephoto you can attach the lens to the tripod and this solves the problem). But it seems like a major oversight since remote cameras can also be used with wide angle lenses, e.g. inside hockey goals and other such locations. Perhaps Nikon didn't think the D500 as a DX camera would be used for wide angle in these applications, or it would be used without live view using WR-1/WR-T10/WR-R10 type remote triggering. But I would think it would be nice to be able to check and verify focus using a live view image.
I certainly hope Nikon does something different for the D810's successor, even if it is the expensive UT-1 + WT-6. I can't help but think that remote cameras should be of less expensive variety since they could potentially be damaged or even stolen if unattended. Sometimes you'd probably want to use the 10fps feature of the D500 in remote operation when photographing sports. Camranger is of moderate cost and should work with most cameras for remote control and live view, although I was put off by the delay in the live view image. I should probably get one since it's so much less expensive than Nikon's high end offerings and is not as device specific. Currently I can trigger remotely my cameras using WT-R10 and WT-A10, without LV. Since the WT-R10 works as a flash control unit as well for the D5/SB-5000, I felt it was worth the cost.
-
Well the D810 successor might be approaching the end of the pipe. According to rumours at Nikonrumours and Dpreview the D850 will be announced soon. No specifications are available yet, so there might not be much meat on this bone, but it is said the the production of D810 has ended. If so, a successor could emerge in the coming weeks.
-
Well the D810 successor might be approaching the end of the pipe. According to rumours at Nikonrumours and Dpreview the D850 will be announced soon. No specifications are available yet, so there might not be much meat on this bone, but it is said the the production of D810 has ended. If so, a successor could emerge in the coming weeks.
I want ISO 25 to shoot @f/1.4 in bright sunlight without the fuzz of a ND filter
-
Oh dear. A voluntary return to the headaches of Kodachrome II or 25 with their glacially slow speeds??
I don't think so. An ND filter is the better answer.
-
Well, if the lower base ISO means a substantial improvement in dynamic range, there will be those who want it. It is a way for Nikon to compete with medium format.
Personally I use the ISO 64 quite often on the D810, and find it works great in combination with M-UP and EFCS on tripod. Also for sunlight summer event photography outdoors, it gives extra flexibility in dealing with high contrast lighting. However, I don't think ISO 25 is for me personally. :o I shot a little Kodachrome 25 and Ektar 25 and felt those materials were impractical. But on a ISO 25 base ISO digital camera it is a different situation as one can adjust the ISO when needed and there is a large range of flexibility. Also it is easier to check if things are working or if there is vibration or other source of blur.
I personally think ISO 64 is a good practical compromise for base ISO, it gives the D810 an edge in certain applications. However, a lot of the time even in landscape photography I may need to increase the ISO to 200 or 400, e.g., when photographing floating ice sheets. With digital you don't have to be "locked in" at the base ISO setting.
What I really want to see in the D810's successor is Multi-CAM 20k from the D5. This AF system is excellent. I just shot an outdoor event with the 105/1.4 and even though it involved moving subjects and low light, I had an extremely low rate of out of focus shots, and excellent image quality. Now, I would like to see a low to medium ISO optimized camera with this autofocus system.
-
All points checked for me too, Ilkka!
Bjørn: Auto ISO has become practical with the newer cameras because the higher ISO settings are much more than only an emergency setting today. A camera with a usable range of 25 to 25k is no science fiction at all and will allow for motion blur and wide open shooting even in bright sunlight AND on the other end shots at 25k with 1.4 aperture at the edge of light without much fuzz in post. The high ISO end has been wonderfully catered too with the D5, the extreme lower end shall have a counter part.
-
I have been stubbornly using the D800 in my landscape photography. It served me well (kind of) for my senior exhibit at school. However, I have become increasingly disenchanted with it (and Nikon). The shutter slap produces vibration even when the camera is anchored to a sturdy tripod. Since I have to produce large prints [5 ft. (150 cm) on long side] sharpness is important.
I had purposely avoided the D810 because of my increasing dislike of Nikon as a company and developed a plan to acquire the Sony A7r2 and a smaller DX type camera as a “walk-around” companion.
I justified the Sony because of the large file size, light weight, ability to use my existing Nikon glass, and good reports from associates and a few top pros. With the smaller camera I vacillated between Sony, Fuji, and even the D7200 or its successor.
However (you know things are going to get complicated when a sentence starts with however), Fuji threw a monkey-wrench (spanner) into my plans when they announced the GFX50s at Photokina. Dreams of medium format began floating through my head. Would this be a good camera? It is new to the market and this company!
My research began again. Seems the D810 was a pretty good camera after all. Then I came across this forum thread and have been following you people. There seems to be little anger at Nikon for poor Manufacturing QA, bad customer service, or stubborn secrecy. Rather, there is much anticipation of a great successor to the D810.
I will continue reading and learning as I decide what to do. Thanks to you all.
-
I am quite satisfied with my D800E. So I decided to wait for a more advanced upgrade than the D810 would be, maybe the D820.
-
I have been stubbornly using the D800 in my landscape photography. It served me well (kind of) for my senior exhibit at school. However, I have become increasingly disenchanted with it (and Nikon). The shutter slap produces vibration even when the camera is anchored to a sturdy tripod. Since I have to produce large prints [5 ft. (150 cm) on long side] sharpness is important.
The vibration from the D800 with long lenses is pronounced. The D810 is said to be improved in this respect.
I have, this year, discovered that mirrorless, if you can live with it's various annoyances, largely solves the camera-generated vibration issues.
I like and use large Sachtler tripods/heads at work (TV), but for the small amount of long lens stills shooting I do, right now mirrorless is the better anti-vibration solution compared to purchasing $10,000 worth of tripod.
Oh, and welcome to Nikongear.net.
-
The D810 has electronic first curtain shutter (EFCS) so almost all of the shutter vibration is absent when using this feature. It is mainly intended for tripod based operation and works in M-UP mode only (likely because Nikon wants to limit its use to carefully chosen situations (such as photography at slow shutter speeds) where it is likely to help and not cause problems such as uneven illumination or rolling shutter effects). I have been very happy with the D810; not at all a minor upgrade. I think of the D800 as a prototype and the D810 the finished product with a great deal of refinement. Today of course we are expecting it to be replaced with a new model as the D810 is approaching three years on the market by summer. I would expect the new model to catch buyers' interest as this camera family tends to do.
The D5 and D500 also have EFCS.
-
I have been stubbornly using the D800 in my landscape photography. It served me well (kind of) for my senior exhibit at school. However, I have become increasingly disenchanted with it (and Nikon). The shutter slap produces vibration even when the camera is anchored to a sturdy tripod. Since I have to produce large prints [5 ft. (150 cm) on long side] sharpness is important.
I had purposely avoided the D810 because of my increasing dislike of Nikon as a company and developed a plan to acquire the Sony A7r2 and a smaller DX type camera as a “walk-around” companion.
Turn your anger and dislike at yourself, for not using a remote switch and mirror-lockup (LiveView). That is how people who are serious avoid camera shake ;)
....
My research began again. Seems the D810 was a pretty good camera after all. Then I came across this forum thread and have been following you people. There seems to be little anger at Nikon for poor Manufacturing QA, bad customer service, or stubborn secrecy. Rather, there is much anticipation of a great successor to the D810.
The D810 is arguably one of the great(est) single cameras of our time ...
Also, its shutter is really smooth and quiet.
I will continue reading and learning as I decide what to do. Thanks to you all.
Again, use a remote switch on a tripod if you're concerned with camera shake.
As a macro shooter, who uses slow shutter, and natural light, I understand how the slightest vibration can ruin a shot ... esp when some of my subjects are the size of a pinhead ... any "vibration" is amplified a thousand times more than photographing a building or landscape :D
Shooting on a tripod, with LiveView and a remote, is the only way I would ever consider taking shots.
-
EFCS in M-Up and not in liveview? If so, they've limited it's usefulness severly.
-
EFCS in M-Up and not in liveview? If so, they've limited it's usefulness severly.
It works in live view as well but you need to have the drive mode in M-UP. Since electronic shutter produces a rolling shutter effect and Nikon also mentioned uneven exposure with some lenses at fast shutter speeds, I can understand they wanted to play it safe and put it together with M-UP which is typically used for slow shutter speeds on tripod. This is where EFCS can also contribute the most to image sharpness.
I understand that EFCS could also help with hand held operation but hand holding with arms extended to see the LCD doesn't seem like a very good application for EFCS since there will likely be a lot of shake from the extended arms. Personally I do hand held shots of living subjects (using the OVF) and use a tripod for static subjects so Nikon's configuration works fine for me and I'm not limited by the coupling of EFCS to M-UP.
-
With (long) tele lenses EFCS is very useful up to 1/250 sec. At faster speeds it's not necessary. At 1/30 it will radically improve the successrate with lenses like 300/4 and 400/5.6 on a tripod.
Handheld operation is simplified by EFCS on a mirrorless camera and you avoid double lines when you view at 100% zoom at shutter speeds about 1/60 and slower. You gain 0.5-1 stop due to less vibrations.
EFCS is thus helpful at the shutter speeds where there is no danger of provoking rolling shutter or uneven exposure. At 1/1000 sec EFCS has no real advantage over a mechanical shutter, since the shutter speed is fast enough to avoid the ill effects from shutter bounce anyway.
A fully electronic shutter will give a rolling shutter with current technology, EFCS will not under 1/2000 sec. I guess that tripod mounted live view is used mostly for slow paced subjects anyway.
With my Sony A7 II I use EFCS and IBIS and achieve much better results handheld than I did with a DSLR with mirror slap and shutter bounce and without IBIS.
-
Well the D810 successor might be approaching the end of the pipe. According to rumours at Nikonrumours and Dpreview the D850 will be announced soon. No specifications are available yet, so there might not be much meat on this bone, but it is said the the production of D810 has ended. If so, a successor could emerge in the coming weeks.
I just saw that at NR. My hunch is it will be an incremental improvement on the order of the move from 800 to 810. We might see some variation of the Sony 42.4 MP sensor. My D800 is getting beat up, this might be something I would like to buy.
-
The shutter shock of D800/800E would be problematic, but the faster shutter response compared to D810 with the reduced shock (44msec vs 54msec) can be beneficial to shoot BIF...
-
I think of the D800 as a prototype and the D810 the finished product with a great deal of refinement.
Just from the brief moments of handling the D810, I have had the same thought.
I have resolved to be wary of 'prototypes'---first generation models---in the future.
-
The shutter shock of D800/800E would be problematic, but the faster shutter response compared to D810 with the reduced shock (44msec vs 54msec) can be beneficial to shoot BIF...
Actually I successfully used D800E to shoot BIF, was not aware of response time differences
-
I understand that on a mirrorless camera, EFCS has a broader range of uses.
-
Actually I successfully used D800E to shoot BIF, was not aware of response time differences
The shutter delay in viewfinder photography is a bit longer in the D810 because the mirror slows down before hitting the end of its travel, reducing the sound and vibration that it creates. I think the delay was just perceptible when first going from the D800 to D810 but I doubt it impacts my photography in any practical way. I recall when I got a used F-801s, I noticed the pronounced shutter delay, I don't recall the details but I think it was 250ms and was affected by whether automatic exposure was used or not and whether the exposure meter is active (by half-pressing the shutter before going all the way). Here we are talking about a difference of the order of 10ms.
This is an interesting report on the D5
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d5/nikon-d5A6.HTM
Nikon has been able to slightly reduce the shutter lag with prefocused lens in viewfinder photography (39ms vs 43ms, D5 vs. D4s), much more significant differences were found when autofocus were used (132ms vs. 204ms; 60 AF-S Micro used as lens) or in live view mode (95ms vs 239ms). I think the 10ms difference between D810 and D800 is something easily accommodated for in my photography. In live view, the D810 has less shutter lag than the D800 (158ms vs. 184ms) and the delay between shots before is much shorter in the newer camera when using LV. So overall there is some improvement and Nikon live view is getting better.
-
Ilkka, thanks for the report !
-
This is an interesting report on the D5
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d5/nikon-d5A6.HTM
Thanks for the information and the link
-
I would say that the 10msec (roughly 20 percent) difference of shutter lag could be perceivable. If I remember correctly, Canon EOS RT offered the mode in which the shutter responded at the same lag as then-flagship EOS 1 model which was slower than the normal lag of RT. Professional sports shooters learned to release the shutter precisely with the shutter lag in mind.
-
The EOS 1N RS can achieve just a 6ms shutter lag, much shorter than normal SLRs where the mirror goes up before the shutter opens.
The 10ms difference between D810 and D800 is perceptible but I don't see how it could result in a practical difference in timing accuracy since the processing of information and preparation of motor action in the brain takes some time as well. It should be easy to get used to a small (but consistent) change in shutter lag considering that the delay in the brain also needs to be compensated for by anticipating the subject. Assuming of course that one does not mix cameras with different delays. It is just a question of a slight adjustment in the brain. And 10ms is a very small change compared to what kind of timing accuracy can be expected from most users quite frankly. I certainly cannot achieve that kind of precision.
-
The first rumors are out; 46 MP for the D810 successor,,, a small step up nothing earth shattering ;)
-
The first rumors are out; 46 MP for the D810 successor,,, a small step up nothing earth shattering ;)
Most contemporary Nikkors will survive that 46 MP, but what about DR? Canon's 50 MP is very detailed, but simply disaster with its narrower DR... Let us wait and see.
-
I think 42.4 MP is more likely because Sony already manufactures one. It would be unique to Nikon in any case.
-
DR at base ISO increases with increasing pixel density given equal tech, because read noise is at photosite level and each photosite in a higher density sensor contributes a smaller area so at the image level (per area) there is less noise. However at high ISO things may not follow this. 5Ds has more DR at base ISO than 5DIII or 6D.
The Sony 42 MP sensor is several years old now. Nikon will not use old sensor tech in their best image quality camera. They will use something new that they designed or co-designed with their collaborating partners, be it Sony or someone else. Probably Sony.
-
According to DXOmark test, Sony A7RII with the 42MP sensor shows excellent performances in terms of the low-light performance (DR) and the color sensitivity. Well above D810.
Considering that Nikon has been using customized Sony sensors, the 42MP sensor should be customized for better performance with wider DR at lower ISO settings.
-
According to DXOmark test, Sony A7RII with the 42MP sensor shows excellent performances in terms of the low-light performance (DR) and the color sensitivity. Well above D810.
Considering that Nikon has been using customized Sony sensors, the 42MP sensor should be customized for better performance with wider DR at lower ISO settings.
It's possible all Nikon would use is the mask for the substrate. Materials going into the semiconductor could be different and all the other layers of the sensor could be different. At least the AA filter bugaboo is gone.
-
If Sony can make a 46MP BSI recorder I do not care. Since my computer is already upgraded to 64GB RAM and 32 threads from 16 cores in 2 Xeons I will hardly see the difference. Only thing that will badly hit me is the TIFF size.