New Nikon D810 DSLR

Two or three years ago we were all wondering why Nikon didn't come out with a true video camera, something that could kill everything in the $5K-$15K range for a fraction of the price. And still they didn't, even though they would have become a major player in the video market if they had followed that route. See all the people stuck with Canon glass in a world where Canon is now far from the leader? There's a lot of inertia in this market and they could have benefitted from that if they jumped in soon enough.

And still, they didn't do anything really meaningful: they have really great DSLRs right now, with the D7100 and D5300, but they still have a weak consumer codec, and much less DR in video than in RAW stills.

If they didn't jump in in 2010, I doubt they'll do anything meaningful now that competition is fierce and we are already seen pro codecs and features in DSLRs.
 
The Nikon D810, like the D800E and the D3x before it are for still photography, although it is clear their video quality is creeping forward with 60fps in 1080p. Introducing a flat picture profile, which can be used in raw for stills or video, is very interesting for my work (mostly close-up nature), something like raw-squared – a flatter raw, whatever that means.

Stereo audio inputs and no optical low-pass filter whatsoever, compared the cobbled no-low-pass filter in the D800E are also signs of gradual quality improvement, not to mention that a lot of focus improvements are taken from the new Nikon D4s. For folks like me, moving the low ISO to 64 is remarkable and the ISO can now range from 32 to 51,000 in the D810.

I wish it were 54MP and had a really good EVF, but I have a D810 on order and will sell my D800E as soon as I verify that it is a worthy successor.

I have tried and returned any number of mirrorless cameras, including the Sony A7r because of its shutter-vibration focusing problem (I stack focus), plus a Merrill Sigma DP3, Nikon V1, and others. Not ready for prime time IMO.

My video work is done with an FS700/Odyssey7Q, the GH4, and Blackmagic Pocket Camera. My Sony A7s (I am told) will be shipped today or tomorrow, and I expect to be using it a lot.

I also will use the Nikon D810 for large stills that I can pan & zoom in. I don't use much Nikon glass anymore for stills, but mostly all APO lenses like the new Zeiss 135mm and Otus 55mm, plus the older Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar.

The D800 series is perfect for close-up and macro work that I do.
 
Mirror-less, no matter how good, will never feel like an SLR. something nice about having that direct connection to the light. A Nissan GT-R is nice, but so is a BMW 2002. Doesn't matter how slow or clunky the 2002 is, it is all car.

Professionals will have to adapt to the better cameras, but as a user, I really love being able look into a giant mirror+prism through the lens. In my work, I want to go mirror less, in my personal life, I enjoy the optical VF. Wish they could fit a rotating mirror like on cinema cameras. haha. That would be the dream. Who wouldn't love a camera that purrs?
 
Well, I really love being able to look into a screen that shows me how the recorded image will look like, and also has a histogram and zebras :)

Soon, EVFs will be better than OVFs. But we're not there yet, I'll give you that.
 
TFilipiak said:
Lee Saxon- "I'm certainly open to a Cxxx competitor from Nikon, but personally I wouldn't bat an eye if they dropped video from the stills cameras all together. Since they're, you know, stills cameras. I wonder how much lighter or cheaper the D810 might be without the heat dissipation demanded by 1080p60 .I think you guys are drastically overestimating how many people there are like yourselves (video shooters serious/rich enough to buy something even close to this big and heavy [or even something with interchangeable lenses] but not serious/rich enough to get something with motion-focused sensor design and ergonomics). My impression was that it was a very vocal but very small minority."

Sniff? Do I smell bile? Lee, why the disdain for video on 'stills cameras'? They've been a boon to the industry. And you wrongly assume that I'm a "rich" DSLR video shooter. Personally, I'm not a big fan of them. I was truly bummed when Panasonic abandoned the AF100 in favor of the GH4. My incredulity concerning Nikon not taking video serious, is not borne of my own personal wants or desires. It's Business 101: As a company you are either leading or you are playing catch-up. Competition forces you to keep up or wither on the vine. It's no secret Nikon is hurting. They are in the midst of a major re-organization. Their stock has declined 3 years in a row . (to be fair, cell phone cameras have taken a huge chunk out of camera makers lucrative 'point and shoot market')

So I re-iterate; "I don't understand Nikon's reluctance to embrace video." It could only help their 'bottom line'. I'd imagine Canon and Sony are benefitting from Nikon's half-hearted attempt in the video market right now. Competition is a great thing. Look at all the amazing cameras now available. And at every price point. I'd just like to see Nikon throw their hat into the ring. Who knows; maybe they'll come out with 'next-big-thing'. We'd all benefit from that!

Side note: If you want Full Frame DSLRs to be lighter and cheaper, then they need to ditch the mirror. Plain and simple. Talk about the vestigial tail. The mirror is no longer necessary on modern digital cameras. They would probably already be gone but unfortunately the perception that Mirror = Professional, still exists.
Click to expand...

First of all, I didn't mean the "serious/rich" thing in a derogatory way. I was saying that very high-end motion cameras are bought by working cinematographers who really need them AND by ... well ... the people who bought the Hasselblad Lunar. I wasn't accusing you of being in the second group.

My point was, I guess I didn't word it well, that despite the all publicity surrounding the VDSLR "democratization of moviemaking" thing, I suspect people happy with VDSLR are a vocal minority. I think most of the motion market is (1) working cinematographers who need more motion-focused ergonomics motion-focused sensor (2) idiots posting their stunts to YouTube who want something smaller/cheaper/lighter like a GoPro and (3) soccer moms who want something smaller/lighter/more-automated like a camcorder.

In other words, I think video on stills cameras were a boon to the industry by coincidence - that the DSLR form factor has been a downside/limitation, not a feature. (Relatively) good video on large-enough-sensor-for-shallow-"movielike"-DoF cameras with affordable pricetags are what has been a boon to the industry, and I believe they might've been even more so without the DSLR form factor.

So I totally agree with you that Nikon needs motion products. I just think the smart move would be to make them separate products with motion-focused sensors and form factors. In fact, even if the R&D of separate sensors and related internals was more than Nikon felt the size of the market justified, they could make a huge splash just by putting the internals of the D810 successor in two bodies (one DSLR-shaped, one motion-camera-shaped). I bet the market would be much bigger than they expected and for the generation after that they could build two genuinely separate cameras.

(PS - I think you're spot-on about the mirrors which is why I replaced by D700 with an A7 instead of a D800)
 
Last edited:
Samuel H said:
Two or three years ago we were all wondering why Nikon didn't come out with a true video camera, something that could kill everything in the $5K-$15K range for a fraction of the price. And still they didn't, even though they would have become a major player in the video market if they had followed that route. See all the people stuck with Canon glass in a world where Canon is now far from the leader? There's a lot of inertia in this market and they could have benefitted from that if they jumped in soon enough.

And still, they didn't do anything really meaningful: they have really great DSLRs right now, with the D7100 and D5300, but they still have a weak consumer codec, and much less DR in video than in RAW stills.

If they didn't jump in in 2010, I doubt they'll do anything meaningful now that competition is fierce and we are already seen pro codecs and features in DSLRs.
Click to expand...

Are you joking like your picture? Stuck with Canon glass? The c500 is the best 4k camera on the market. Far from the leader? What world do you live in?
 
Samuel H said:
Well, I really love being able to look into a screen that shows me how the recorded image will look like, and also has a histogram and zebras :)

Soon, EVFs will be better than OVFs. But we're not there yet, I'll give you that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but when you are not working for a client, shooting with feeling can be more rewarding. And even when the Evf is better (as it is in low light already), it will be hard to replace the fact that you are looking at a glowing screen and not through optics. Evf has always been more practical for video. But imagine you are shooting with the dragon, generally a stop under or over isn't going to hurt as much as it would on an a7. So, just as evf will improve, so will image capture. At the end of the day most will probably want the security of an evf, but nothing will ever replace the feeling of an ovf.
 
lightstrum said:
Are you joking like your picture? Stuck with Canon glass? The c500 is the best 4k camera on the market. Far from the leader? What world do you live in?
Click to expand...
Are you saying the C500 is the best 4k camera because the f65 is 8k, the dragon is 6k, and the f55 is a sony? C500 is a fine camera, but best is too subjective in this situation.
C300 is everywhere. And though late, the 1DC and C500 have been gaining traction. The 1dc is under rated because of its price. Will be interesting to see how the sony A7s compares, but so far rolloing shutter on 1dc looks better. 1dc also does 4k in camera.
The gh4 is a more exciting camera because of the price and specs, but the 1dc seems the best of the 4k cine hybrid cameras, and the only one that addresses most of what i want out of a camera.
Anyway, i ask a out the c500 because i am also genuinely curious about your opinion.
 
"Best" is so hard to identify. Some people will give you the camera with the highest performance (which is itself subjective) and some will tell you the camera with the highest price/performance ratio. By the latter, I think you'd have to call the GH4 the best 4K camera.
 
lightstrum said:
Are you joking like your picture? Stuck with Canon glass? The c500 is the best 4k camera on the market. Far from the leader? What world do you live in?
Click to expand...
I live in a world where I can't justify paying more than $3000 for a camera body. And in that world Canon is old news.
 
Lee Saxon said:
"Best" is so hard to identify. Some people will give you the camera with the highest performance (which is itself subjective) and some will tell you the camera with the highest price/performance ratio. By the latter, I think you'd have to call the GH4 the best 4K camera.
Click to expand...
The GH4 is one of the most exciting cameras out there, as it is nearly pocketable and for very little investment one has an a cam for news and doc that can handle indie film look and once technology moves on, it will always make a great crash cam. I've been using an hdx900 the last couple days, and i appreciate whatis possible with it, but then i think about what is possible with the gh4, and i wonder why i don't have one yet! Haha.

But back on topic, the d810, is tempting too, since it will let me have that old school slr connection, with some of the best images ever digitally produced ...and the video has come a long way since d90. But yeah, i would not choose it for the video, but if i were buying it for its main use (duh), it is comforting to know the video is not that far behind the competition, and that may be all nikon needs or cares about: photographers and hybrid photographers

been looking for some examples of flat (sad they didn't name it flaat).
 
I feel like, even though they started the video DSLR craze, Nikon's idea of "improved for video" will be 2012-acceptable at best.
 
From the Brochure linked in my previous post:

"Shooting movie footage on a camera as powerful as the D810 is an enriching and liberating experience. Surpassing the video quality of its predecessors, the D810 employs an entirely new method of video signal processing to record Full HD (1080p) movies at 50p/60p frame rates (up to a maximum of 20 minutes4) with markedly reduced noise,
moiré, and false colour. The camera’s EXPEED 4 image- processing engine delivers smoothly rendered exposure transitions and beautiful tones, with fewer gradation steps in uncompressed HDMI output."


Makes me wonder if they fixed the banding issue that was visible below 400 ISO.
 
Three scenarios:
* they made the sensor readout a lot faster so they can read more lines and then downsample, maybe at the cost of rolling shutter
* they made some changes in the debayering or downsampling algorithms with the new expeed4, and these make somewhat of a difference
* they made some changes in the debayering or downsampling algorithms with the new expeed4, and these won't make a difference

I'd say the first one is unlikely (the change seems to be in the new expeed processor, not in the sensor), and I'd have to see proof before I think it's the second one and not the first one.
It's entirely possible that they have really improved things a lot (e.g. if in the D800 the sensor was read completely and then most data was discarded because the processor couldn't cope with it), but I've seen these claims before and they didn't mean much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top