Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review

Live view subject tracking on the 80D is fantastic. Doesn't quite give you the precision of 3D tracking (the AF area you can choose is still quite large), but it's generally very accurate (on par with, or maybe even sometimes better than, 3D tracking?), unlike subject tracking in viewfinder shooting on the 80D.

Generally, you'd expect subject tracking in live view implementations to be better than viewfinder implementations, because the former is working with image data right off the image sensor, as opposed to via a proxy low resolution metering sensor. Of course, this doesn't always hold true - we're impressed by just how much Nikon gets out of their metering system, as it's better than the accuracy we generally get with, say, Sony's Lock-on AF system despite the latter using the image sensor.

So, in a nutshell, YMMV. :)

I don't like colors at all.

And I like Nikon black and whites more than Canon black and whites.

How so? You'd select ISO and shutter speed exactly as you do today at the time of shooting - whatever you feel gives a "correct" exposure. The only difference is that the camera would not apply the ISO gain to the RAW file; in fact the only reason to do so today is to amplify the signal over the noise of the downstream electronics; in the process, you potentially lose highlights of a large DR scene due to the finite bit depth available in digital form. In the case of the D810 and the Sony DSLRs, this downstream noise is very low, so little reason to amplify the signal. You'd store the sensor data digitized at base ISO along with your selected ISO value in the raw file, then choose to apply it (or not) in post. This gives you the full sensor DR at all ISOs.

Thanks... I fully understand the concept behind ETTR and clearly, it is foolish to deliberately underexpose.

Perhaps I can better express what I am trying to say; shoot exactly as you would in a "regular" camera; use ETTR, or whatever you feel is the right technique. Even set an ISO as you would before. At a sensor pixel level, the only thing that matters is the number of incident photons, which is dictated solely by aperture and shutter speed, ISO gain is applied after the fact.

In a camera with low downstream noise, there is little reason to apply this gain in camera, because all this does is throw away the top end of the signal-which probably matters in a high dynamic range scenario. Once you have the ISO you chose at shooting time, plus the raw sensor data, you can do anything you want with it in post - including applying a custom gain and a nonlinear tone curve, etc.

Oh, no, you linked the dreaded Adobe article that completely misses the fact that shot noise dithers most of those tones, so you don't need more bit-depth precision.

We should really chat with Adobe about potentially taking that article down.

While it's generally true that you want to give your camera more light than less, it has nothing to do with digital capture, and everything to do with shot noise.

Once you've captured X amount of light given a certain shutter speed/aperture, low noise cameras show no benefit to amplifying that in-camera vs. in post processing, which itself proves that many cameras have just enough bit-depth to quantize all the data properly - because any more quantizing would just over-sample shot noise.

The D810, of all cameras, might be the exception, because I still think that at ISO 64, its 14-bit ADC is leaving information on the table by only counting every 5 photoelectrons. But again, this doesn't affect most tones.

I always found Nikon raws (treated in LR; camera standard profile) to be slightly greenish. I'm not averse to that, lends character and green works well with human skin tones.

Canon's colours are too warm for my taste.

You do have a point, even in this digital age. Bodies come and go, lenses remain. It was like this with film, there's no reason why it should be any different now. We all know bodies become obsolete quite soon nowadays, which implies replacing them every three or four years. So yes - we'd be wise to be spending more on lenses than in cameras.

@M1963 Lenses also come and go these days and often don't last any longer than camera bodies. Just in the past ten or twelve years there's been three 70-200 f/2.8 Nikkors and that doesn't consider a couple of 80-200 f/2.8 and one 70-200 f/4. People swap them as regularly as camera bodies.

Moreover, modern lenses also have built in computers and software the same as cameras. Many want to stay on top of the technological curve. The facts just don't bear out both of your suggestions. Just a cliche.

Nothing wrong with your advice, just that it's old advice and no longer is supported by what is actually happening in the marketplace, nor should it.

Tried it. Doesn't work.

"The Nikon simply doesn't look well focused and with greater CA in the shot - What's left to compare in the shot?"

Uh, noise levels perhaps, which I think is the purpose of the particular test you are referring to.

The "lack of focus" you are seeing is the six megapixel advantage that the Sony has over the Nikon.

So, what do you prefer, the slightly sharper, higher resolution image or the cleaner, lower noise one?

Well it's really hard to shoot without VR/IS in some low light conditions, as it would mean ISO increase in favor of keeping shutter speed at usable values. Some people don't like to carry tripod either.

i agree it is amazing camera but i meant that it is 2 years old or more .

Um, technologically is 2 years old. My 20D is 11 years old still doing great pictures. (PS not in low light).

The fact that the K-1 coming out "late" does not make the D810 "old." A classic has a very long existence.

"So the D810 may not last..." Hmm, I suppose things can be used and treasured in different ways. I still have some outstanding Nikkor AI and Takumar SMC lenses that were released decades ago.

Kaso, have tried but can't quite find your point. READ UP THREAD.
This is consumer driven content - Or more clearly manufacture and sales driven web site. Antique cameras are nice, but simply not relevant in this context.
You did realize this is a two year over due PRODUCT REVIEW offered as 'News' didn't you?
So context, DPReview is so slow as to almost be irrelevant to the consuming experience it drives!
- and -
Nikon, like the rest of them, have adopted a product replacement cadence which has little to do with the functionality of the gear it 'replaces'...This is more of a 'Market Place' driven presentation, which pretty much excludes 'used' gear from the discussion.

I wonder why more cameras don't try to go 64 or lower ISO. It will be very nice if someday we get ISO 10 cameras.

Also, how do these very expensive cameras and their batteries do in temperature extremes.

Ergonomics is huge. To its credit, preview does at least discuss control layout and menus in considerable depth. Actually discussing the stuff that really impacts photography (vs technical minutiae) is why I like photozone's lens reviews. E.g. They take a lot of standardized real world photos (deliberately chosen for challenging attributes, such as corner sharpness, distortion, and so on), discuss differences in samples, show fore and aft bokeh and focus transitions, and so on.

Dpreview has gotten better over the years' the quality of the photography is hugely improved and discussion of important stuff improves all the time. I remember when we used to whine about the lack of low light sample shots, now they always take care to include them.

It's all what you are used to. I shot Canon for years and preferred it to Nikon. After shooting Canon from the days of an EOS-3 up to my last body the 5D2 I really couldn't stand Nikon ergonomics, others prefer Nikon.//no big deal. It comes down to personal preference.

@Tonio - you totally mistaken. Do you want to say that D810 or d750 are not best sellers? Do you want to say that it's better to criticize nikon and praise canon instead of praise both as does rest of the internet reviews? I just don't see any logic in what you say. Besides, what is strange that Rockwell liked better one system than another and then, after new better models and better glass was released, he changed his mind? That just proves he's not a fanboy that likes one system forever and regardless.

Rockwell started writing that he soured on Nikons when they changed the AF selector on the bodies to the far superior button/dial approach (on all Nikon pro and semi-pro bodies since the D7000) from the original thumb lever (as on the D700). He claims not being able to change his focus modes one-handed makes the Nikons inferior to the Canons, despite the fact that he has to menu dive in the Canons to achieve the same results. It all sounded pretty nonsensical to me.

Also, he claimed the D7000, D800s, and subsequent Nikons had a green cast in his photos (he shoots jpeg), and that the minimum magenta tweak he could do made the photos too magenta. I've never heard it anywhere else.

I believe Tonio.

I have no idea why anyone should give any credence to anything Ken Rockwell says; he is just someone that happens to run a popular website, not a professional photographer. As such, his opinion matters just about as much as the average Joe on the street.

Any of the photographs accompanying this article, or Rishi's photographs in the D810 review far surpass anything I've seen from Ken Rockwell.

If you can review Sony almost immediately, why wouldn't you review much more popular Nikon?

Really? Three months for dedicated 'professionals' working in teams sounds pretty easy.
You don't reinvent the wheel for each review, the relevant questions are pretty standard.
What on earth could justify TWO YEARS, if I may ask?