D810 successor in the pipeline?

[Erik Lund]

That's probably the reason why all PJ's are now switching for Sony .... 

Not 

[Erik Lund]

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!

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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.

[Akira]

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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[bjornthun]

Here is a new sensor patent, 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.

[Akira]

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.

[Akira]

Is the camera in the pipeline a D750 successor?   

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

[Erik Lund]

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,,,

[JohnBrew]

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.

[Akira]

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?

[Frank Fremerey]

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

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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