54 mentions of video vs 32 of photos in Nikon D810 press release

[Quirky]

So I was shocked :) that Dave's very next video (about dropping GH4 4K video into 1080p timeline) addressed certain skeptics who think he is receiving money from Panasonic. 

 

I haven't seen the video you mentioned. In fact, I haven't even watched his GH4 and 'coming out' video yet. I'm not one of those sceptics, I don't do that kind of stuff. Quite frankly I don't give a toss about what he's shooting with. Whatever makes him happy.

 

And if it's free advertising for Panasonic, so much the better: 

 

Yes, exactly, just like I said.

I am sort of positively amused that he (too) has now switched away from the Canikon camp. Maybe it becomes a bigger trend soon.

 

 

on the one hand, you claim that you weren't referring to Dave Dugdale - and on the other hand, you insinuate he is being paid by Panasonic. Which is it??

 

Neither.

I'm sorry, but you still seem to be missing the point. 

 

I was not referring to Dave. I was referring to people who act like lemmings and let online celebs tell them what to buy and what to shoot with (a slight exaggeration, but still valid). 

You can replace Dave Dugdale's name with any other recent switcher, it's totally irrelevant! It could have been Andrew Reid or whoever blogger/YouTuber, it doesn't matter. The only reason I mentioned Dave's name is because Michael Strip used him as an example of being "shocked" by some YouTube celeb's recent switch of brands. The sponsorship was only a reference to Michael's "drumbeat for Panasonic" which I used in a broader sense. The drumbeat is working in more ways than one.

 

I never said Dave Dugdale is being paid by Panasonic. That is your own false interpretation. Worse still, looks like now it has become a new silly meme. 

 

Sigh... people don't read too good any longer.

Or maybe my writing is very very bad. Or maybe a little bit of both. But not necessarily in equal proportions, surely my writing is not quite that bad, is it. 

Well, whatever, carry on.  

[Michael1]

The discussion I was having was about reality.  You can insult people with their iphones but the fact of the matter is you don't become the number one camera company in the world by selling $3,000 36 megapixel cameras to pros in 2014.  The megapixel race was in full swing in the 5 megapixels days and Canon ruled the roost with its 16 megapixel full frame Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II and bumping up the megapixel count every year in its consumer lines.  But times have changed.  You simply can't move bodies nowadays by simply increasing the megapixel count.  Yes there are landscape photographers out there that can't get enough of the megapixels but as this site has shown other things are occupying the thoughts of consumers and pros.  I certainly would take a more restrained megapixel count in exchange for better video.  I think a lot of people on this forum would.

Is the iPhone your tool for shooting video?  You seem a little sensitive about this.

 

I'm really not following where you are coming from at this point.  It sounds like you believe higher megapixels=worse quality.  To each his own.  The future is going to be higher megapixel sensors, and more processing power.  It will trickle down to the less expensive cameras, as it has in the past.  That's just technology moving forward.  There will be diminishing returns, but we are not even close to that, because the in-camera processing has been pretty weak.

 

Higher megapixels are moving bodies in the pro and prosumer video world.  Look at the sales of the GH4.  It's backordered for a month.  It's using 8MP to create 4K video.  People are shooting 4K, and downsampling it to 2K.  I don't think anyone thought this many people would be shooting in 4K, even when the delivery medium was 2K.

 

Michael

[Damphousse]

I'm really not following where you are coming from at this point.  It sounds like you believe higher megapixels=worse quality.

 

No that is what you are hearing.  That is not what I am saying.  I am saying the Sony a7s is 12.2 megapixels for a reason.  This is a video forum.  Understand?

 

 

 

 

Higher megapixels are moving bodies in the pro and prosumer video world.  Look at the sales of the GH4.

 

 

And Canon Rebels outsell it.  What is your point?

 

This thread is about Nikon.  And my comment was 36 megapixels is a niche product.  The average DSLR consumer doesn't need it and videographers are doing much better with lower megapixel cameras.  Again, see the Sony a7s.

 

Comparing an 18 megapixel Canon rebel of today with a 5 megapixel camera from yesteryear is totally ignoring the law of diminishing returns.  Again Canon has proved with their sales numbers year after year that 18 megapixels is plenty for most people.  If you can't make the cover of a magazine or newspaper with 18 megapixels the problem is not with the camera.

[Michael1]

No that is what you are hearing.  That is not what I am saying.  I am saying the Sony a7s is 12.2 megapixels for a reason.  This is a video forum.  Understand?

 

 

 

 

 

And Canon Rebels outsell it.  What is your point?

 

This thread is about Nikon.  And my comment was 36 megapixels is a niche product.  The average DSLR consumer doesn't need it and videographers are doing much better with lower megapixel cameras.  Again, see the Sony a7s.

 

Comparing an 18 megapixel Canon rebel of today with a 5 megapixel camera from yesteryear is totally ignoring the law of diminishing returns.  Again Canon has proved with their sales numbers year after year that 18 megapixels is plenty for most people.  If you can't make the cover of a magazine or newspaper with 18 megapixels the problem is not with the camera.

You keep going back to "most people".  I'm not talking about "most people".  I'm talking about pros and prosumers.  A Canon Rebel is not in that category.

 

As long as there is a debayer, there will be a need for high MP sensors.  The 12MP sensor in the Sony is a stopgap measure.  That's the best they can do right now, and hit their ISO targets.  That sensor only has 6MP of green, and 3MP of blue and 3MP of red.  I guarantee in 10 years, the replacement model will have far more than 12MP.

 

Michael

[Michael Scrip]

My point was in the notion that many people seem to form their opinions and choose their gear based on the antics of celebs, rather than try out things and think for themselves. The brands themselves have nothing to do with it, it could be any of the major brands.

 

I was not referring to Dave. I was referring to people who act like lemmings and let online celebs tell them what to buy and what to shoot with (a slight exaggeration, but still valid). 

You can replace Dave Dugdale's name with any other recent switcher, it's totally irrelevant! It could have been Andrew Reid or whoever blogger/YouTuber, it doesn't matter. The only reason I mentioned Dave's name is because Michael Strip used him as an example of being "shocked" by some YouTube celeb's recent switch of brands. 

 

I don't know why you keep going on and on about "Youtube celebs" and "lemmings"

 

There are dozens of Youtube channels that do camera reviews.  They present the information and end up with some sort of conclusion. Isn't that the point of a review?

 

Not many of us can spend a month with multiple cameras to do rigorous comparisons between them. Fortunately... Youtube reviewers can do that for us.  

 

If they were presenting wrong information... then I'd be wary of taking their advice. That's not usually the case though. They list facts, pros/cons, etc after spending a considerable amount of time with the product.

 

Yes... you should do as much research as you can before you drop $2000 on a camera.  But it doesn't make someone a "lemming" if they end up following the advice of Youtube reviews.

 

Here is a list of the "Youtube celebs" or channels I personally use to learn about cameras and other new products:

 

AbelCine, ArtoftheImage, B&H, Basic Filmmaker, Blunty, CameraRec Toby, Chad Soriano, Chase Jarvis, Curtis Judd, Dave Dugdale, DigitalRev TV, DSLR Video Shooter, Fenchel & Janisch, Frederick Van Johnson, Griffin Hammond, imagingresource, Jared Polin, LearningCameras.com, Lon Seidman, Philip Bloom, Philip Johnston, TheCameraStoreTV, Tony Northrup

 

How many opinions should be taken into consideration before you buy something?

[jonpais]

@Michael Scrip +1

[noone]

 

 

Not many of us can spend a month with multiple cameras to do rigorous comparisons between them. Fortunately... Youtube reviewers can do that for us.  

 

If they were presenting wrong information... then I'd be wary of taking their advice. That's not usually the case though. They list facts, pros/cons, etc after spending a considerable amount of time with the product.

 

 

 

How many opinions should be taken into consideration before you buy something?

The thing is though that many many people buy their camera and THEN read the reviews!

 

And a fair number of them then visit internet forums to argue WHY reviews are wrong.

[jonpais]

@Quirky I'm still trying to figure out whether it would have made me a lemming had I purchased the Canon MKIII; or if I'm a lemming because I purchased the GH3. Perhaps sheep would be more apt, since lemmings are people who follow a movement, usually to their detriment (like the stock market).

 

/edit/and if you're not referring to EOSHD readers, why bring it up in the first place?

[Quirky]

I don't know why you keep going on and on about "Youtube celebs" and "lemmings"

 

Well, in that case, perhaps you should have considered ignoring those comments entirely. 

 

 

 

There are dozens of Youtube channels that do camera reviews.  They present the information and end up with some sort of conclusion. Isn't that the point of a review?

 

That much is screamingly obvious. But I wasn't talking about reviews.  

 

 

How many opinions should be taken into consideration before you buy something?

 

As many as you wish. It's entirely up to you. Your money, your internal wiring, your decision.

 

 

 

Yes... you should do as much research as you can before you drop $2000 on a camera.  But it doesn't make someone a "lemming" if they end up following the advice of Youtube reviews.

 

I have never suggested that. But you can of course keep telling yourself whatever you want. As one does. 

[Quirky]

I'm still trying to figure out whether it would have made me a lemming if I had purchased the Canon MKIII; or if I'm a lemming because I purchased the GH3. 

 

Well, keep on trying. You're the only one who can figure that out. After all, it's your meme, your straw man.

Maybe you'll figure it all out, eventually. Or not. It's up to you. 

 

 

Either purposefully or willy-nilly, people tend to take certain words and phrases out of their original context and turn them into their own straw men, which they can then attack and burn with righteous fervour. After a while, everyone is so worked up about the heat of the bonfire that no one cares about the truth any longer. Let alone the original message, which often was nothing to get worked up about in the first place. 

 

That's how memes work, that's how they're been used, and that's how the game is being played online and in world politics, too. Decade after decade, century after century. Whether or not the distraction was purposeful or not, it doesn't really matter.

 

Therefore I have no interest in carrying on with this particular thread any further. The original remark was not worth it, and it was slightly OT to begin with. But by all means do carry on burning your straw man. Have fun.

 

FWIW, I do blame myself, too. I forgot The Curse of the N-word in the Header. Looks like it never fails.

[jonpais]

I look at it from a totally different perspective. I've never been one to follow the crowd. And if anything, I see owning a Panasonic as something unique here, because, as I've said, I have only seen one person using a Panasonic G camera in the two years I've lived in this city of 8 million.

[maxotics]

Quirky, Bill Maher said something politically incorrect on "Politically Incorrect" and was hounded off the air. You're in good company :)

[Quirky]

I look at it from a totally different perspective. I've never been one to follow the crowd. And if anything, I see owning a Panasonic as something unique here, because, as I've said, I have only seen one person using a Panasonic G camera in the two years I've lived in this city of 8 million.

 

Good for you, but as I've said, my original comment (which you probably misunderstood) had nothing to do with Panasonic or your owning one. Or even with Nikon, which actually is the original topic of this thread. 

But nevermind, carry on. 

[Quirky]

Quirky, Bill Maher said something politically incorrect on "Politically Incorrect" and was hounded off the air. You're in good company :)

 

I've been a Mac user for ages, and I still have an old bumper sticker decorated with a fruit that says "Un-PC and proud."  B)

 

S'pose I'm ageing myself with that comment. Apparently these days you need to be 'old enough' to get the joke.  ;) 

[Damphousse]

You keep going back to "most people".  I'm not talking about "most people".  I'm talking about pros and prosumers.  A Canon Rebel is not in that category.

 

 

Yes "most people."  Another name for "the market."  A Canon 5D MK III isn't a rebel and doesn't have 36 megapixels.  I'm pretty sure plenty of what you consider "pros" and "prosumers" use it.

 

 

 

 

As long as there is a debayer, there will be a need for high MP sensors.  The 12MP sensor in the Sony is a stopgap measure.  That's the best they can do right now, and hit their ISO targets.  That sensor only has 6MP of green, and 3MP of blue and 3MP of red.  I guarantee in 10 years, the replacement model will have far more than 12MP.

 

Michael

 

I have plenty of photographic tools.  And certain tools are great for certain jobs.  But it is painfully obvious with Nikon's moire/aliasing problems with their 36 megapixel sensors that they are just not optimally suited for video.  It is not about "hitting ISO targets."  Its the fact its much easier to do a full sensor readout from a lower megapixel sensor.  If you use a 36 megapixel sensor you are stuck with line skipping or pixel binning and thus increase moire/aliasing.  A Nikon 810 looks like a wonderful tool to shoot landscapes for garganutun prints, but it falls flat when compared to cheaper lower megapixel video options.  Not sure how this can be made any clearer.

 

And it is perfectly fine if Nikon wants to go for the 36 megapixel lanscape shooter market.  But don't tell us it's a video centric camera.  It's not.

 

It's all about trade offs.  No one is saying 36 megapixels is useless.  It's just if you also want to have a video shooter the compromises particularly for the price are unacceptable to some people.  I would not be on a photo forum knocking the D810, but by the same token don't come on a video forum and tell us it is ideal or even close to ideal when cheaper lower megapixel cameras are blowing it out of the water.

[Michael1]

Yes "most people."  Another name for "the market."  A Canon 5D MK III isn't a rebel and doesn't have 36 megapixels.  I'm pretty sure plenty of what you consider "pros" and "prosumers" use it.

 

 

 

I have plenty of photographic tools.  And certain tools are great for certain jobs.  But it is painfully obvious with Nikon's moire/aliasing problems with their 36 megapixel sensors that they are just not optimally suited for video.  It is not about "hitting ISO targets."  Its the fact its much easier to do a full sensor readout from a lower megapixel sensor.  If you use a 36 megapixel sensor you are stuck with line skipping or pixel binning and thus increase moire/aliasing.  A Nikon 810 looks like a wonderful tool to shoot landscapes for garganutun prints, but it falls flat when compared to cheaper lower megapixel video options.  Not sure how this can be made any clearer.

 

And it is perfectly fine if Nikon wants to go for the 36 megapixel lanscape shooter market.  But don't tell us it's a video centric camera.  It's not.

 

It's all about trade offs.  No one is saying 36 megapixels is useless.  It's just if you also want to have a video shooter the compromises particularly for the price are unacceptable to some people.  I would not be on a photo forum knocking the D810, but by the same token don't come on a video forum and tell us it is ideal or even close to ideal when cheaper lower megapixel cameras are blowing it out of the water.

I think we are in agreement then.

 

Michael

[dahlfors]

Right now A7S and GH4 certainly looks like better options if video is the only thing someone wants in a camera.

 

But, if someone shoots stills AND deliver video for online use as well, I think the D810 has the chances to deliver good enough video.

 

Considering D810 video quality, there's a few facts one can look at:

- Redesigned sensor

- Newer faster chip for image processing

 

When D800 came out, every Nikon camera had a lot more moiré & aliasing. It wasn't until D5200, D5300 and D3300 came out that they managed to minimize that - with a combination of new sensors and the faster Expeed 4 chip.

 

Chances are, there's less moiré and aliasing in D810, even though it's more complicated to do full sensor readouts on a 36 Mpixel sensor. Still, probably wouldn't be impossible with proper sensor design and dedicated chips.

 

Until there's proper reviews/tests for the video in D810, guesses and assumptions are all we have on this camera.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Right now A7S and GH4 certainly looks like better options if video is the only thing someone wants in a camera.

 

But, if someone shoots stills AND deliver video for online use as well, I think the D810 has the chances to deliver good enough video.

 

Considering D810 video quality, there's a few facts one can look at:

- Redesigned sensor

- Newer faster chip for image processing

 

When D800 came out, every Nikon camera had a lot more moiré & aliasing. It wasn't until D5200, D5300 and D3300 came out that they managed to minimize that - with a combination of new sensors and the faster Expeed 4 chip.

 

Chances are, there's less moiré and aliasing in D810, even though it's more complicated to do full sensor readouts on a 36 Mpixel sensor. Still, probably wouldn't be impossible with proper sensor design and dedicated chips.

 

Until there's proper reviews/tests for the video in D810, guesses and assumptions are all we have on this camera.

I am optimistic for the D810 in terms of video quality. I can't see why it wouldn't have better low-light performance, reduced moire and aliasing like the D5300, coupled with a detailed image and wide DR and Nikon's appealing color science, and full frame 36 megapixel stills of course. 

Plus you can through a little Ninja on the hot shoe, have a bigger screen and record ProRes and Avid DNxHD whilst also recording proxies to internal cards. 

My only problem with the D800 video image was that aliasing and low-light performance, if they fixed these twol it can be a killer fullframe hybrid. 

[Michael1]

Right now A7S and GH4 certainly looks like better options if video is the only thing someone wants in a camera.

 

But, if someone shoots stills AND deliver video for online use as well, I think the D810 has the chances to deliver good enough video.

 

Considering D810 video quality, there's a few facts one can look at:

- Redesigned sensor

- Newer faster chip for image processing

 

When D800 came out, every Nikon camera had a lot more moiré & aliasing. It wasn't until D5200, D5300 and D3300 came out that they managed to minimize that - with a combination of new sensors and the faster Expeed 4 chip.

 

Chances are, there's less moiré and aliasing in D810, even though it's more complicated to do full sensor readouts on a 36 Mpixel sensor. Still, probably wouldn't be impossible with proper sensor design and dedicated chips.

 

Until there's proper reviews/tests for the video in D810, guesses and assumptions are all we have on this camera.

Well said.

 

Michael

[neon]

I mostly lurk but I couldn't let this go. For the most part I respect the author's POV and attempts to sound impartial, but I think he's showing a bit too much bias this time.

 

We all know this is a D800s. It is just a mild update based on a sensor designed for stunning still photography (which to date, no 35mm digital sensor matches it, and this further improves it). So all the 4K gear we see today was designed from the ground up to support this feature. The D810 sensor is a refinement of the stellar 2 year old sensor.

 

Therefore I don't think Nikon is really behind, or any more behind than other big names, such as canon, to bring 4K to a truly affordable entry point in their DSLRs. In this regard, I don't think Nikon deserves to be blamed for trying to do a press releases that hypes the video so much. Canon would do the same thing if they released a 5DmkIII refinement which had the same sensor with similar tweaks but no 4K since it wasn't designed to do that.

 

Marketing is supposed to be like this, and I find it rather disappointing the author can't see past it. We all know press releases always stretch the truth don't we? The 5DMkIII press release surely didn't tell you about the soft video output. Yet do we blame canon as being deceptive? When sony released the A7R with the alleged 36MP sensor which didn't quite achieve the same still qualities of the D800, in particular in its inability to deliver true 14bit quality, were they lying? Where was the eoshd's article then?

 

These are not lies or deception. They are being a typical business. So let's not pretend that when Nikon does whate everybody else does: stretch the truth, they are some how deceiving people, or at least anymore than all the other companies are. So until we get a 5DmkIII that really shot 14 stops of DR (it doesn't), an A7R which really shoots 14 bit worth of image data in its files (it doesn't), I think all cameras have strengths and weaknesses and marketing's job is to try to pretend they don't.

 

Ultimately the problem, as I see it, and based on the number of cameras the author uses is that there is no one perfect camera. Unlike the Author stills comes first to me so something like the sony A7s is immediately a non starter. I suspect that is where the Author's other camera's come in? but yet none of these really match the D800, or presumably the D810s, even if as the author puts it "it is the same old camera". Well the same old camera still better than all of those image quality wise. We've all seen the specs. Base 64ISO on top of the already legendary DR and color depth, and the removal of the AA filter should deliver quite simply the best stills seen in a full frame camera in the world. THIS is what Nikon is selling today while the other guys are still trying to catch up to them with sony being close but ultimately dropping the ball with the strangely crippled A7r sensor.

 

So yes, the current iteration of the 800 line is probably behind video specs. And with rumors from both canon Nikon and sony's camp of 50+MP sensors in the works, the video story isn't going to get better. High resolution sensors just aren't friendly to low resolution video, including what videographers refer to as 4K, sorry but that is a joke for still imaging resolution. For Sony to provide a similar experience to the A7s on current resolution still image devices, they would have to capture at least 8K video which is a few MPs shy of the 36.6 the D810 already has. But then even that won't be good enough if we're in 50MP territory in a few years.

 

And before you all jump on me to say nobody needs more than 12MP, I tell you nobody really needs more than 1080p, yet you're all drooling at 4K and if you could 8K. It's the same thing with stills guys. we're just higher in the numbers game but the same arguments apply, and I in fact agree that 1080p isn't enough and would off course love a D800 with a full sensor 8K readout. Yet I know this is technically not possible today, at least at the price point of 3-4 thousand USD.

 

IMHO, if you want really good stellar video you're going to have to sacrifice stills resolution. At this point that isn't much of a problem because only the D800 line can really offer a preview of what is to come: the revenge of the MP wars. So ultimately and unfortunately you'll be stuck with cameras which are a non starter for serious stills, or non starter for serious video. Unless off course you can go back to convincing still photographers that 12MPs ought to be enough for everybody, yeah, good luck with that.