D810 Build quality - Warning

[bjornthun]

The price difference between the D810 and a Sony A7R II is 5%, so for all practical purposes same price in Norway. 5% amounts to about 175 USD, i.e. quite a bit less than "several houndred dollars". Considering that the original first gen Sony A7 is full frame, it's one heck of a deal right now, if you can live with some "plastic" parts. Full frame doesn't get cheaper than this right now. Btw. I don't think sales figures for individual camera models are publicised.

I, as already known, much prefer EVFs, but that is not the subject up for discussion, rather build quality is. The first generation A7 uses plastic parts and is cheap, so you get what you expect. The expensive A7R II uses a metall construction and you again get what you expect. If I had liked OVFs, the D810 would look like a great camera for me, and for the price I would expect it to have a metal construction, particularly the supporting structure around the lens mount. I really thought that the D810 was just an update to D800 electronics + fixing the bottom frame structure.

Sony surprised me by seriously enhancing the build quality of the second generation A7 models, though they still have a way to go regarding the user interface. I did not expect to see Nikon change the build quality the other way around going from metal to "plastic".

If Nikon releases a mirrorless FX format camera in the future, better build quality than Sony would be a key factor for luring me away from Sony.

[bjornthun]

I found lensrentals.com teardown of the 24mp, second generation Sony A7II, which cost half the price of the Sony A7RII or Nikon D810. This is what they write about the lens mount: "The mount is now directly screwed into the magnesium frame of the camera with no plastic spacers, all metal to metal, with just the metal lock spring in between the mount and camera frame."

Here is the link, https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/the-a7ii-teardown-a-look-inside-sonys-new-camera/

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The price difference at B&H Photo-Video is currently about $400. It is the largest camera store in the world and widely regarded as the reference for prices and service. At verkkokauppa.com, a large Finnish online store, it is 500€. Of course, the prices may be different in other places.

[Akira]

The A7 is cheap because it is an old model and doesn't sell.

The A7R II is the "real deal" (the Sony which is in high demand) and costs several hundred dollars more than the D810.

I know I'm generalizing a bit but from discussions with Sony users, many of the early problems were solved in the A7RII. I can't deal with the EVF but perhaps the majority of users (which I'm not) don't take it so seriously. The EVF is a huge distraction for me because of artifacts (e.g jaggies) that are seen when turning the camera following a moving subject. But others have stated they like the VF.

I don't think the D810 construction is a problem in normal use and if dropped, any camera is likely to require repair.

Over the years, I have learned that the first generation of Sony's new product line should be avoided.  There will be fatal problems along with the exciting features.  They will solve many of these problems in the 2nd generation or later.

[ColinM]

Would Bjorn or Erik care to comment on which part could end up being more expensive to repair if an accident did happen:

• A broken lens mount in the camera, due to the use of plastic?   or
• A broken lens, as a result of the camera's mount being strong enough not to break under impact?

Once we get beyond 70-200mm F2.8 or the 300mm P, the value of some of the bigger/heavier telephotos exceeds that of many camera bodies. But what about the most common types of repair costs when a catastrophic fall happens & damage occurs?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Any damage to the camera is likely to be much more costly to repair. For pro lenses such as the 24-70 and its ilk, the repair facilities have stockpiled replacements. The lenses with a designated 'breakage' zone is a 20 min job to bring back to life. I have witnessed this process myself a couple of times.

[Erik Lund]

You raise a very valid point. IMHO the camera should be able to take a beating without needing repair beyond a new mount from time to time and re-calibrations. So far this has been the case for my gear.
The solution with the break away rear lens part is an reasonable economical solution.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Of the many cameras used by me over the years, the robust Nikon F2 Titan and the humble D40X have survived most impacts inflicted to them. Thus plastic in itself might not be the problem, rather the way the material is arranged in the construction.

I must admit having seen the ease with which my first Df demolished itself has left me being [a little] more cautious in the handling of the gear. Just a little.

Pro lenses breaking into halves along the designated break line has occurred several times and apart from any personal pride being hurt, my ribs tend to have taken the beating more adversely than the lenses. After a quick fix at my local Nikon repair facility they have been revived and function as before the incident. Waiting for my body to heal its broken bones takes much longer

[MFloyd]

I went over the topic. Can we say that Nikon's statement with regard to the D810 magnesium alloy body is a LIE?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

No. There is metal in the body.

[Erik Lund]

Nikon says that it's a magnesium body and it is,,, no direct lie there, just omitting the mirror box design choice...
Usually Nikon post an image of the Body shell design - So far I have not seen any of the D810,,,

[MFloyd]

Nikon says that it's a magnesium body and it is,,, no direct lie there, just omitting the mirror box design choice...
Usually Nikon post an image of the Body shell design - So far I have not seen any of the D810,,,

I agree, my quest for D810 body frames has also been unsuccessful. I have noting against synthetic plastic materials - sometimes they are more noble than some metal alloys - just that I do not like lies by omission, and emphasizing at the same time "magnesium alloy", even if the result, in the end, is better.

[Jan-Petter Midtgård]

I found a picture of the complete mirror box. The price on Aliexpress is US $325.

[Les Olson]

[...] Thus plastic in itself might not be the problem, rather the way the material is arranged in the construction.

You have to have realistic expectations about how severe an impact a camera can be expected to survive.  A camera is a box with very fragile contents (not all that different from a human head, and we know a lot about head injuries that we can apply to cameras).  A 2kg camera+lens dropped from 1.5 m - lens changing height - hits the ground at 20 kph and with a kinetic energy of 30N - like dropping a 10kg weight on the camera from a third of a meter.  Your brain will not survive that fall uninjured, and it is just not realistic to think that a digital camera could be designed to reliably survive it unscathed. 

To the extent that construction makes a difference, it is a common mistake, for both the brain and the camera, to suppose that the contents are better protected if the container is stronger and more rigid.  On the contrary: the contents are better protected if the container deforms so as to absorb some of the impact.  When a camera or a human head comes to an abrupt stop the kinetic energy has to go somewhere, and if it is not dissipated deforming the container it is dissipated on the contents rattling around inside.  If protecting the contents from impact is the issue, polycarbonate is a much better choice for the camera shell than metal - small children suffer much less severe brain injuries from falls because their skulls are flexible.   

[Jakov Minić]

Les, what you are saying makes sense completely and I am all for flexible materials taking care of our camera bodies.
I cannot help myself but asking a simple question: Why is the D5 all metal then? If as you say: "polycarbonate is a much better choice for the camera shell than metal."