Nikon D810 update does not feature 4K video

[Zach Ashcraft]

We under expose on Nikons to save highlights and can then easily recover shadows or back lit subjects. In real world practice it makes a real difference. I work with a lot of canon fans and when it comes to the raw files out of the d800 or A7R it really shows the weakness in canon sensors.

Yup, I do this on my 5D3 too. Perfectly common practice in the world of digital photography!

[Husah]

We have to keep in mind that the Sony doesn't record 4K either, unless you strap a huge, bulky $2000 external recorder (Shogun) to it.  It will be interesting to see how the d810 compares at 1080p.  The d810 does have the Expeed 4 processor, which is used in the 7000 series that has pretty decent video, although not at the level of the GH4 obviously.

 

Michael

 

 

D810 is not going to match A7s for video quality, even in 1080P, as A7s does full sensor readout. D810 (like other DSLRs) will skip pixels for video 

[Rob Bannister]

Yup, I do this on my 5D3 too. Perfectly common practice in the world of digital photography!

Then extra DR in the shadows becomes useful no? At 14+ stops it's right up there with the Alexa (for stills) and its awesome to work with in post. Also its not bad for video either i get pretty good results with it.

[Michael1]

D810 is not going to match A7s for video quality, even in 1080P, as A7s does full sensor readout. D810 (like other DSLRs) will skip pixels for video 

I've never seen anything from Sony saying that it does full sensor readout for anything other than 4K.  Where did you see that?  If it does full sensor readout in 1080p, then I am surprised that I saw aliasing on a video shot with the A7S in 1080p.

 

Michael

[Husah]

I've never seen anything from Sony saying that it does full sensor readout for anything other than 4K.  Where did you see that?  If it does full sensor readout in 1080p, then I am surprised that I saw aliasing on a video shot with the A7S in 1080p.

 

Michael

 

It does full sensor readout at then properly downsamples it to 1080P. This was all covered extensively at NAB by newshooters,com in interviews with Sony and other reviews. 

 

There is no way in hell D810 will match A7s video quality. I would be surprised if it can even match RX100 III (or GH3) 

[gnwlrd]

All of these weak camera releases, I think we should all know by now that Nikon has no interest in video, and will have no part in the future.

[Husah]

Then extra DR in the shadows becomes useful no? At 14+ stops it's right up there with the Alexa (for stills) and its awesome to work with in post. Also its not bad for video either i get pretty good results with it.

 

 

There are hundreds of studio shots on imaging-resources and really I don't see any advantage unless a shot is underexposed by a lot (more than 3 stops) and someone is pulling the shadows.. Even then only if shooting at lower ISOs. 

 

This extra DR (only in shadows) isn't there in video. That's only for stills when shooting raw and and at base ISO

[gethin]

  Most of it this "DR" is in shadow and only matter if someone has  underexposed a shot (by three or more stops)  while shooting at base ISO and needs to lift the image. 

 

There is no practical real difference in real life images when shot with either Canon or Sony/Nikon. 

 

 

Having shot with both I can say that for what I do, you are wrong.  

 

At least once a week I thank the dynamic range gods that I dont have to combine exposures or HDR to get a shot I want.  But anyhoo Its all a bit off topic isn't it?  Its a great stills camera. 

 

Have you seen the price of the d810? Holy moly

[leeys]

Why not just use an A7R? Same sensor.

Purely from a stills perspective:

 

1. Nikon has a proper lens lineup, with a much better AF system.

2. Nikon 14 bit RAW loseless vs some weird semi-lossy RAW format Sony uses

3. Much better ergonomics on the Nikon.

[Husah]

Purely from a stills perspective:

 

1. Nikon has a proper lens lineup, with a much better AF system.

2. Nikon 14 bit RAW loseless vs some weird semi-lossy RAW format Sony uses

3. Much better ergonomics on the Nikon.

 

 

Red seems to do fine with compressed raw. Compressed raw is actually better as it has no visible impact on image quality but yet procuces smaller files., as shown by paper here http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html

 

The right here is " "visually lossless"" as the "data"  that is removed has no visual information. (it's random noise)

[leeys]

Possibly due different algorithms? I find the A7R images slightly worse than the D800's.

[Husah]

Possibly due different algorithms? I find the A7R images slightly worse than the D800's.

 

 

 

Are they jpegs or raw? Dxomark couldn't find these "differences"

[dfreerider]

The D810 has it traditional video feature online, shot by Sandro who also did the one for the D800

According to B&h the D810 have a few video improvements like a flat picture profil, zebras for exposure control, and simultaneous recording to hdmi and internal card. Nikon has also said that the new expeed processor should help to further reduce moire.

[Nikkor]

The A7R is only good for small lenses, primes like 35,50. With bigger lenses the angles on the body will kill you when changing settings on the camera while you try to prevent the camera from tilting forwards. In fact the sonys need bigger buttons.

 

And obviously 11bit raw is a bummer, why would you go for 36MP into medium format territory but then just use 11bit cooked raws. They had to save bandwidth somewhere to keep down the processor need (It just takes 300 pictures with one baterry...)

[Husah]

And obviously 11bit raw is a bummer, why would you go for 36MP into medium format territory but then just use 11bit cooked raws. They had to save bandwidth somewhere to keep down the processor need (It just takes 300 pictures with one baterry...)

 

It's 14-bit raw with visually lossless compression that does not effect image quality, as shown by dxomark. There is no difference in raw image quality between A7R and D800 

 

Red Dragon scores higher than both with compressed raw. It's a big plus. 

 

"36MP " 

 

MP and raw bit has  no relation. In fact if anything higher MP sensor can use lowers bits due to smaller pixels that would require less bits due to more noise that visually lossless compression could ignore without any negative con on image quality 

[Nikkor]

Sure Husah, I guess you have never used any of them.

[hmcindie]

Destroys 5D Mark III  DR wise and 36mp flat out kills.

 

I also had one, preferred the 5d. Isn't that weird?

 

Yeah I guess the D800 raw files were pretty good. 5d starts to show pattern noise when bringing up the shadows. Though I've never really been bothered much with it, 12 stops has been good to me. And in very lowlight the 5d catches up with the D800 DR wise anyways (if maybe goes ahead by a smudge)

 

Took this photo with ISO 6400 and 30s exposure:

 

http://hmcindie.deviantart.com/art/Milky-Way-Caged-417917237

 

5d was usability wise WAY better especially when shooting movies and stills. After the Magic Lantern hack came out the choice was even more obvious (though I chose the 5d couple of years ago because the h264 files were better than the D800, especially with compression and 720p - 720p is USELESS on the D800 and pretty ok with the 5d)

[hmcindie]

Yup, I do this on my 5D3 too. Perfectly common practice in the world of digital photography!

 

I disagree vehemently and I expose to the right (even with the Sony nex7 which has a pretty good sensor DR wise). I always tend to get better results that way.

[Quirky]

Why get so upset over this? Nikon cameras will never be incredibly desirable for video, as you can only use their lenses on that mount. We'll always have more flexibility with Sony and canon. Why not just let a stills camera be a stills camera :)

 

Yeah, it's just an incremental, yet clear upgrade to a DSLR. Not something a keen cinematographer would kill for in the first place.

 

As for the the question why some people might get upset, apparently it's psychology. Apparently some people are projecting their egos onto their Nikons, and/or expect a brand to conform to their will.

 

On the other hand, looks like most people in this thread are excited rather than upset. Whether they want or like the D810 or not. 

After all, any new high megapixel Nikon is a feast for the gadget geeks, a one that will keep them busy for weeks. The D810 means a new bonanza of nerdy-nam-nam, and since it's about Nikon, this thread alone is likely to get at least ten pages of it in no time, and probably a couple of other similar threads, too. That's just how the cookie crumbles. It has little to do with actually shooting/making video.

 

/snarkasm alert  ;)

[hmcindie]

 

And obviously 11bit raw is a bummer, why would you go for 36MP into medium format territory but then just use 11bit cooked raws. They had to save bandwidth somewhere to keep down the processor need (It just takes 300 pictures with one baterry...)

 

But is it visually visible even in heavy processing? Probably not.

 

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/raw-vs-craw_topic66231_post745209.html#745209

 

"all in all, cRaw is a very smart and efficient (nearly loss-less) encoding of Raw files. For almost all images, there is no difference at all with the Raw file. And based on the technical algorithm, I agree that there will be perhaps 1 in a 10.000 images where a difference might perhaps be noticable -- perhaps"

 

Dxomark also agrees and based on their measurements there is not much difference (though I don't consider DXOMark to be 100% accurate always anyways. For example, the Sony nex-5n vs canon 7d results do not - in any way - match my photographic experience with both cameras). I also do not consider the nex7 a match for the 5d eventhough DXOMark thinks ;)