Nikon D810 vs D750

[ajohnw]

another working pro's view:

https://www.thedynamicrange.com/niko...vs_nikon_d810/

Nice to see one that mentions the penalties associated with smaller pixels and relating to the camera change. The D8xx may cure the camera aspects.

Actually camera manufacturers have always driven themselves up a cul de sac especially in the pixel count area. It's now possible to read reviews that mention a sensible number of pixels in one style of camera. They pretty clearly still have too many in some ways but too large a drop would worry the buying public especially at that end. This end too really. Cameras are still sold on the basis of this one has so and so number of pixels so it can produce photo's of this size. Less common now but can still be heard in camera shops. Clearly that is incorrect. It depends on the subject, conditions and setting but there are dof holes in that argument as well. The blur at the same viewing distance does increase with image size. Then there is the aliasing aspect. It's pretty obvious what is going on when that correction has been removed from sensors. It's probably been done on compacts and others at that end for donkey's years. Probably because it's cheaper.

John
-

[Manfred M]

John - you must deal with a different type of camera store than I do. Yes, I see what you do when looking at cameras primarily aimed at the entry level amateur market, but get a far broader perspective when dealing with gear positioned at enthusiasts or pros.

I went camera shopping with the son of a family friend earlier this year who was out to get his first "serious camera. Megapixels came up right away, however, the moment the sales clerk realized I might know a thing or two about photography, the conversation got into the nitty gritty on features rather than megapixels.

Megapixels seems to be similar what the computer manufacturers ran with for years, when clock speed (MHz) was all the rage. And yes, when you get the tiny sensors on the point and shoots, the only way you can get decent images is through heavy duty noise reduction through pixel smearing. I agree with you, that this is a pretty common practice across the board with the low end stuff.

[NorthernFocus]

another working pro's view:

https://www.thedynamicrange.com/niko...vs_nikon_d810/

I'm typically not fond of reviews but this one is quite sensible and focuses on the practical aspect of things. Thanks for sharing.

It is interesting that a wedding photographer who uses the D810 specifically for portraits has never experienced moire issues. I've never seen it specifically mentioned in an article (though I don't read exhaustively) but I suspect at higher pixel densities moire simply doesn't occur or is extremely rare.

The author's experience with the 810 starting to get noisy above ISO1600 is consistent with my own results. She mentions is still being usable up to ISO6400 which I suspect in those cases she's downsizing for 8x10 or smaller prints.

I'm surprised to see her comparing the ISO performance of the D750 to that of the D4s. For wildlife shooting that would ice the decision for me. Unfortunately my locker is already full

[ajohnw]

I'm typically not fond of reviews but this one is quite sensible and focuses on the practical aspect of things. Thanks for sharing.

It is interesting that a wedding photographer who uses the D810 specifically for portraits has never experienced moire issues. I've never seen it specifically mentioned in an article (though I don't read exhaustively) but I suspect at higher pixel densities moire simply doesn't occur or is extremely rare.

The author's experience with the 810 starting to get noisy above ISO1600 is consistent with my own results. She mentions is still being usable up to ISO6400 which I suspect in those cases she's downsizing for 8x10 or smaller prints.

I'm surprised to see her comparing the ISO performance of the D750 to that of the D4s. For wildlife shooting that would ice the decision for me. Unfortunately my locker is already full

You need a D4s for wildlife Dan.

The pixel thing seems to still crop up when salespeople are dealing with people who may not be aware of the complications. Manfred. Also the fact that there may be something around that they would rather sell for all sorts of reasons, I talked camera to a man in Jessops not all that long ago. He promptly served a man who walked in with something neither of us would buy. We had been comparing certain Panasonic and Olympus cameras. He shot Panasonic and was interested in Olympus because of the shots their rep showed when he called in. Also neglected pointing out an absolute bargain they had on display.

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

You need a D4s for wildlife Dan.

I do shoot a D4 when I'm serious. Can't justify upgrading. But a smaller, lighter body with comparable ISO performance would be nice. I nearly always shoot with fps turned down to 7 or 8. So 6.5 would do fine. Plus that was always adequate with other bodies until the D4 joined the inventory.

...A D810 does not have full Auto mode...

Not sure what you mean by that one, Andre. What's missing that constitutes "full auto". It would be nice if the AF system had the equivalent of radar target lock. Still waiting on that feature...

[AB26]

Dan,

I do shoot a D4 when I'm serious. Can't justify upgrading. But a smaller, lighter body with comparable ISO performance would be nice.

Get a Nikon Df.

Not sure what you mean by that one, Andre. What's missing that constitutes "full auto".

P Mode does not constitute Full Auto.

It would be nice if the AF system had the equivalent of radar target lock. Still waiting on that feature...

Try 51 point Dynamic Area AF in AF-C.

[Manfred M]

P Mode does not constitute Full Auto.

Well, the D800(E)/D810 don't have full auto; BUT you are definitely splitting hairs here. The only thing that full auto "adds" over "P" mode is the inability to change the camera's recommended settings and it won't pop up you flash automatically. That of course assumes your lens is a short one and won't block the flash.

Try 51 point Dynamic Area AF in AF-C.

But only when it chooses the focus points you want. In something like wildlife work; I find it does not work as the camera seems to think that I want to take a shot of the tree or grasses, rather than the animal. If you have a clear view of the subject, yes, then it works well.

Like any other camera setting; you have to know when to use it and when it won't get you what you are trying for.

[NorthernFocus]

I thought about the Df, Andre, but I don't look good in a fedora and refuse to go back to a canvas backpack. As Manfred pointed out you're splitting hairs on the full auto description and in any of the dynamic focus modes the camera tends to focus on what it thinks is interesting in the frame rather than what I want in focus. Dynamic area AF looks great on paper but until we all get our WiFi chip implant so the camera can read our thoughts it still leaves a lot to be desired for wildlife shooting. I think many of the AF features are geared more for sports etc.

[richer]

I do prefer choose of D810, high quality image and video

[richer]

Here is a comparison http://thedigitalcamera.net/nikon-d7...-vs-d4s-vs-df/