Comparing the Nikon D810, Sony A7rII, and the Pentax K1

[Michael Erlewine]

IMO, the Nikon D810 is the best camera I have ever had the opportunity to work with. Period. The reason, aside, from 36 Mpx, is the true ISO 64 and the usability (barely) of Live View. But there are other cameras inching up and they have features of their own.

Currently I am looking at the Nikon D810, the Pentax K1, and the Sony A7rII. For sure, the D810 is easiest for me to use, partially because I am so used to it. However, the reason it’s so used by me is because it’s so damn good for the close-up work I do, and ad infinitum.

For sure, the Pentax K1 is the most difficult to use IF I want to use all of the non-Pentax glass I have collected over the years. Trying to photograph with lenses “adapted” to the K1 is possible, but no real fun, except in the results. The K1 is 36 Mpx.

And the Sony A7rII, perhaps the best mirrorless I have used, is pretty easy to use, as well, and boasts 42 Mpx. What I wanted to know is: If I bend these cameras to one lens, in this case the Zeiss Otus 55mm APO, with a tiny bit of extension (5.8 mm), how do they compare?

And “Yes....” it is hard to compare cameras (for me at least), and the color is not perfect, and the images are different sizes, etc., and so on. Also, what I can show here in .JPG format is nowhere near what I am seeing in the original images on my NEC MultiSynch PA302w monitor. So, this is case of your getting the soup of the soup of the soup – trickle down.

To my old and weary eyes, they all look pretty good and more than usable. Certainly the Pentax K1 punches purity right at you, at least looking at the originals. The A7rII is right there with it, and believe it or not, the Nikon D810, Bayer filter and all, perhaps has less noise of them all.

You can look these over for yourselves. Keep in mind that you are looking at very dumbed-down images, but hopefully something comes through.

Not stacked, high aperture, f/16

[Jakov Minić]

I don't know which of the three cameras is best, but I do like the images.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The blown or nearly highlights are minor  annoyances that detract from otherwise fine presentations. Their colour spaces are not properly tagged tagged either. These issues, plus not knowing whether files are processed under similar conditions in a common RAW conversion software, makes direct comparisons difficult.

In terms of colours, evaluated from these downscaled jpgs with uncertain colour space lineage, the Sony is the bluest and the D810 the most yellowish, with the Pentax in a middle position. I cannot observe any supremacy in colour purity for the Pentax, at least from these samples. Micro details are apparently ever so slightly better with the Sony although minute variations in focusing accuracy could have produced a different ranking.

In short, either of these cameras could be seen as a foundation for high-quality work.

[Michael Erlewine]

I'm not a tester. I should just do this for my own understanding, and not try to share it. The cameras are each different. The Pentax is the most remarkable for the moment, but I'm a long way from learning how to get the best of it. The Sony is somewhere in the middle, easy to work with a larger image, but nothing very exiting IMO. The Nikon is the Nikon, something I am used to. I could use any of these. As for gut feeling, I don't see myself using the Sony much, but it does give infinity on a bellows. I will continue to use the Nikon, and I will further pursue the Pentax, to see what can be done with it. However, the Pentax does not take to alien lenses and is a read pain to use. Still, an alternative to Bayer interpolation deserves some attention.

One surprise for me was to realize that the D810 Nikon has probably lower noise than the other two! I love the ISO 64, so it makes sense.

IMO, what is happening is that Canon and Nikon have been slow to deliver something really new. Other companies are moving into the passing lane, and, as usual, those of us interested will have to work it all out as we always have.

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Thanks Michael, for the effort and sharing it here. Too bad the whitebalance is so different.
Indeed all three seem to deliver well and IMHO the Sony A7RII really shines, but the visible
differences are very small.

[Frank Fremerey]

I very much like the warmer tone of the Nikon D810 shot you show here. When it comes to clarity and details the Sony and Pentax seem to beat her.

Noise levels are best contained in the Pentax, the image is soooo smooth. Wow.

[elsa hoffmann]

Interesting - thanks for sharing

[Fons Baerken]

Considering it's a test, but i think they look awful, so untrue to real poppies.
Sorry didnt want to spoil the party.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Sorry Fons, your evaluation is false. These are Romneya coulteri (Californian Tree Poppies) and they in fact look exactly in this manner. Petals are paper thin and semi-transparent.

[Andrea B.]

This is a tough "choice". I add the quotes to indicate some irony because who could choose here?? It looks to me like any one of the 3 would be an excellent choice for close work. Especially if one has that Zeiss Otus/55. "-)

Least noise in the Pentax image - for whatever reasons.

An interesting demo. Thanks Michael for posting.

[Fons Baerken]

Sorry Fons, your evaluation is false. These are Romneya coulteri (Californian Tree Poppies) and they in fact look exactly in this manner. Petals are paper thin and semi-transparent.

I know Romneya, so my mistake for that, still..

[frankv]

Maybe it's just me, but the perception of depth is quite different in the K1 image, compared to the Sony and Nikon. To my eyes the K1 delivers a more "3D" image. Is that just tiny focusing differences, software magic in the camera or pixel shift? I don't know.

All three deliver excellent results, and I wouldn't buy a K1 if I had D810 with the lenses I need. The difference isn't that big.

-frank-

[JohnMM]

I don't think that the flowers shown here are Romneya coulteri (Californian Tree Poppy). The tree poppy has stamen filaments which are the same deep orange-yellow colour as the anthers. That is not the case here. The flowers shown here have hairy stems. The stems of the tree poppy are different.

Michael (the OP) has started several threads which appear to show pictures of the same plants detailed here. My best guess would be Papaver nudicaule (Iceland poppy). Perhaps Michael could tell us what the plant label says.



John Maud

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Papaver nudicaule is glabrous or nearly so and the plants depicted here are decidedly hirsute. It also lacks the semitransparent papery thin petals.

My identification as to Romneya was from own pictures that show essentially the same kind of flower. However, as I only saw it once I could be mistaken, no problem with that. However, P. nudicaule is a very common ornamental plant in my country and occurs in the wild all over the country, so that particular species I'm very familiar with and this is not what M. Erlewine has photographed.

Whatever verdict the final identification turns out to be, we are dealing with a member of the Papaveraceae. That narrows the field as it were.

In the future, presenting some indication as to the photographed subject's size or image scale would be helpful.
Added: further research indicate Romneya species are glabrous as well, thus we probably should look into the main genus Papaver for a candidate. I apologise for putting the wrong name on the plant.

[Andrea B.]

The flower is a P. nudicaule cultivar. P. nudicaule can have hairy stems.

See eFlora reference:http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=233500851
for the wildflower Papaver nudicaule subsp. americanum Rändel ex D. F. Murray, Novon
from which we have this excerpt -- Inflorescences:  scapes erect, hispid.