Get Nikon D810 at B&H Photo.
Reader Bjørn J writes:
Thank you for your ongoing review of the D810.
I trust your reviews because of your extremely thorough real-world approach to practical use of camera equipment. Your example photos are worth far more than any lab-testing.
DIGLLOYD: Though I can’t think of everything, my core operating premise is “what would I want to know about this gear for my own work in all sorts of conditions before I plunk down my money”.
Reader Herb S writes:
I am happy to have renewed my subscriptions. The quality of your reviews has always been to a high standard and it is still improving regarding your effectiveness to show us all the relevant issues with the gear involved.
Might I suggest a good compact standard lens for the D810? It is the Voigtlander 40 mm SL-II. Of course it is not a Zeiss Otus. But good and compact it is.
Now we have to know how effective the D810 ground glass is for manual focus lenses not of the Otus calibre.
DIGLLOYD: [If I can’t do it a little better each year, I’d get bored.] Like the Nikon 45mm f/2.8P, the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2 SL II is a diminutive option for a “light carry”. It is a good optic but like all other small lenses has various compromises to be that small. See the review coverage of the Voigtlander lenses in DAP.
Peter W writes:
I've never been more gobsmacked in my life as by your 5.5 stop push from nothing - nothing! - to a totally acceptable image. Absolutely incredible!
D810 ETTR and pulling up the shadows offers tremendous appeal and usefulness.
It's incomprehensible why Canon continues to bring out inferior sensors (noisy, banded blacks) when the Nikon benchmark is in plain sight.
I would be very interested in your comparison of the Sony A7/s/r sensors with their D810 counterparts.
DIGLLOYD: Canon has insisted on building their own sensors, and this has hurt them so far. But maybe Canon has something really great coming at Photokina. As for pattern and streaking noise in particular, this is a Canon thing for sure: Nikon D800E vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III as well as the Canon 5D Mark III noise pages and Canon EOS 1D Mark IV noise pages in DAP.
As for Sony, I’m done with the Sony A7R, having borrowed one 4 times now (I won’t waste my money on a $2000 camera which can’t make a sharp image at some shutter speeds and will rapidly decline in value—it has ruined far too much work from its shutter vibration, making it a frustrating PITA in spite of its helpful EVF. Moreover, the Sony 11+7 bit compression just doesn’t cut it and the too-thick sensor cover glass just kills it for Leica M wide angle short of at ƒ/8 or even ƒ/11 (and it affects even 50mm). The Nikon D810 is a solid and robust workhorse with good controls that takes a wide range of lenses with no adapters—and no goofy tripod mount workaround needed for heavy lenses and it won’t be worth 1/2 or 1/3 of what I paid for it in 6 months.
John W writes:
Hello, again. I've now had my D810 for 48 hours, and I don't have anything to report that is inconsistent with or materially adds to what you have published so far, so I'll keep this short. But, I did want to say three things at this point:
1. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your ongoing, detailed D810 analysis and review. In addition to providing reassurance that my early purchase of the camera was not a mistake, it has also already given me several tips and ideas that will help improve my own photography. And, I know that there is much more to come. Great stuff.
2. Different things are important to different people. For me, the quieter shutter and improved LCD and Live View alone are definitely enough to justify the upgrade costs. I do a lot of work inside cathedrals and churches. In those environments, the shutter noise of the D800 was frequently an issue and sometimes inhibited me from taking a shot at all. So, the quieter D810 shutter is much more than a minor improvement for me.
3. I replicated your 5.5 stop push test and got essentially the same results you did. Wow!
DIGLLOYD: my main issue with the D810: it’s very good but falls short of greatness due to some really dumb mistakes in various places (nothing fundamental, but like having a good dinner with bad wine and no dessert).
John H writes:
Just sending a thanks about your detailed and continuing coverage of the 645Z- being a 645D owner with a number of compatible lenses (67, 645, and other brands with adapters) I greatly appreciate the information and critical testing you’ve been doing- it’s part of what makes your subscriptions so valuable compared with the limited depth of conventional photography sites.
While upgrading to the 645z soon is likely a given, your reviews and comments will go a long way towards boosting me up the learning curve of getting the most out of this new model, and help me make constructive decisions about what additional lenses to consider (such as the 90mm macro) to expand the shooting and usability envelope.
DIGLLOYD: more coming, though I might have to ask B&H Photo for an extension of the loaner camera time.
Sebastian B writes:
First, many thanks for your fine work on the 645Z, Sigma Quattro, and D810 (and countless others as well). Your reviews are so concise that I have virtually stopped reading anything else.
I observed with the D810 and also the 645Z and A7s noise series that you seem to leave chroma noise (at least partially) uncorrected. I don’t object to this per se, but it’s not very helpful for me from a practical point of view since chroma noise with modern sensors is corrected so easily. For example, when playing with a 645Z RAW ISO series provided by Ming Thein, I discovered that, in Lightroom, a color noise setting of just 8 (out of 100) sufficed to eliminate the chroma noise component at all ISOs (up to 204.800), without any detrimental effect on acuity — which is the same thing I see with my Pentax K-5 and just about any recent camera I have had a chance to test. (Actually, Lightroom is even shipped with a default of 25, so that is what many users are using anyway.)
I assume the correction is just as trivial to accomplish in ACR, so I was wondering if you might consider adding a “chroma corrected” series to the respective pages (or future pages, for that matter). I feel this would be of considerable practical value for many readers.
As an aside, are you planning to review the Sony FE 70-200/4?
Sony FE 70-200mm f/4: I am not planning to review at this time. Given the shutter vibration of the Sony A7R, it is a nightmare job to test, where any results are suspect, especially with the lens mounted in seesaw fashion on the tripod. I will wait until Sony delivers a 36MP camera (or higher) free of the work-destroying vibration. That said, the Sony A7R and A7s have vibration free options (electronic first curtain) and the lens is better suited to those cameras.