Nikon D810 hands-on review: “The highest image quality in a Nikon DSLR to date”

On 2014-06-27 01:57:11 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014062618352740413-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Sounds a bit unlikely, given the fact that it has a low pass filter,
right?
I mean, even if the processor is a lot better, the D800E still has the
resolution.

there is no anti-alias filter at all on the d810.

the d800e had a 1d anti-alias filter followed by an unalias-filter to
keep the autofocus compatible with the d800.

since there is just one d810, they no longer have that design
constraint.

Check your attributes. Here you were replying to Sandman, not me. In
your snipping fervor you managed to wipe out the attributes for the OP
& Sandman.

i was replying to both what he said and what you said rather than two
separate posts.

the versus is a clue as to who said what.

What ****in' versus ?
Do you see a "" or "" anywhere other than the last three lines?

We wouldn't need clues if you didn't unnecessarily snipped the actual
name of the individual you are replying to.
Just leave the attributes intact.


Read the review. Their conclusion is current D800/D800E owners will not
gain anything by upgrading. The D810 is a logical move for those moving
from a D700, or who are tired of waiting for a successor to the D300S.

they will get a lot of features by upgrading.

What is a lot?

the list below is a lot. five lines of stuff!

Oooh! Five lines of stuff!

In actual fact there are not too many new features which will really
matter to a current D800/D800E owner. They might well push a D4 owner
into a second body, or a D700 owner to make the upgrade move. I don't
really see it as a target for impatient D300S given the price point,
and the fact the sRAW format is 9MP. It would be nicer to see that at
12-16MP.

it might matter and it might not. that's for each person to decide.

As is the usual vetting plan for most discerning buyers.

whether any of them are worth it to someone is another story. for some
people it will be and for others it will not.

Yup!

here's a comparison:
http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/o/...vKoNmM/PDF/D81
0-D800-D800E_Comparison_Sheet_en.pdf

the differences include:
expeed 4, wider iso range both lower as well as higher, raw s, more
picture controls, highlight weighted metering, face detection toggle,
spot white balance, more white balance presets, group area autofocus,
higher frame rate, unlimited continuous shooting, redesigned shutter
and the *long* overdue electronic first curtain.

...but nothing to push the current D800/D800E owners over the edge.

you speak for all d800 owners?

Nope, just the ones who aren't insanely wealthy.

the electronic first curtain by itself is enough to push many people
over the edge, since it's something canon has had for a decade or so
and *extremely* useful.

....and the guy who sees the cost feature benefit of that will buy one.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Please ignore this Canadian hack. He can do without the attention.

The D800/E has been out for 2.5 years. It's a virtual certainty Nikon will
release a completely new model in the next six months. Buying the new D810
one likely makes little sense.

wtf are you smoking?

nikon is not going to replace the d810 in six months.

they might update some of the *other* models in the lineup, but not the
d810.

It was like the D300s, unless you had to have
video in that model, no point in changing. The only good thing is that the
D800 series, despite its horrific and long-focus-related problem has
held its pricing on the used market well..

more idiocy.

On 6/26/2014 11:42 PM, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, June 26, 2014 7:30:12 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-26 23:24:24 +0000, RichA said:



On Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:44:45 AM UTC-4, David Taylor wrote:

Nikon D810 hands-on review: �The highest image quality in a Nikon

DSLR to date�



http://www.wexphotographic.com/blog/...image-quality-

in-a-nikon-dslr-to-date



Also notified r.p.d.slr-systems





"Please buy this warm-over, Nikon needs the money!"



Please ignore this Canadian hack. He can do without the attention.

The D800/E has been out for 2.5 years. It's a virtual certainty Nikon will release a completely new model in the next six months. Buying the new D810 one likely makes little sense. It was like the D300s, unless you had to have video in that model, no point in changing. The only good thing is that the D800 series, despite its horrific and long-focus-related problem has held its pricing on the used market well..


The focus issue in the D800 has long since been fixed. Rant on.

--
PeterN

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:


Resolution is the same either way.

the number of pixels is the same either way, but that is *not* the same
as resolution.

the resolution of the two cameras will be different since one has an
anti-alias filter attenuating high spatial detail and the other does
not. whether that's noticeable or not is questionable.

The anti-alias filter on a D800 does not attenuate high
spatial detail enough to affect resolution. (Proof of that
is the fact that on occasion moire effects can be seen in
images shot with the D800.)

an anti-alias filter does not guarantee no moire unless it's unusually
strong.

Both the D800 and the D800E have resolution limited by
the sampling frequency, not by the filtering.

for the sensor alone, that's true, but the camera is more than just a
sensor.

the d800 *camera* will have slightly lower resolution because of the
band-limiting of the filter. on the other hand, the d800e *camera* will
have more alias artifacts. it's a tradeoff.

the differences are generally minor and likely not all that noticeable
without pixel peeping and/or knowing what to look for. typically, other
factors will eliminate any difference, such as focus errors, camera
shake, etc.

Even if one knows exactly what to look for, it isn't
something that pixel peeping makes visibly distinct.
All that changes is the type of noise and its
distribution in the frequency spectrum.

it depends on the subject. if you shoot resolution charts, it's
probably noticeable. if you shoot landscapes, probably not.

That does not change resolution unless it is rather
extreme, which is not the case with these cameras.

nobody said the difference is extreme.

On 27/06/2014 2:44 a.m., David Taylor wrote:
Nikon D810 hands-on review: “The highest image quality in a Nikon DSLR
to date”

http://www.wexphotographic.com/blog/...n-dslr-to-date


Also notified r.p.d.slr-systems

A list with some comments on the new features in the link below.
It is more than a mid-product cycle "S" type revamp. I guess many
people expect more megapixels with new models - as that's the way it's
been. I expect some of the new features (shutter / mirror assembly)
will (if working as claimed) make more difference to practical image
quality than more pixels would.
Increased frame rate and larger buffer are a bonus, as is the suggestion
that the faster image processor will give improved AF-C performance
(along with new group area AF).
As an overall package compared to D800/E, it's quite a significant
upgrade IMO.
http://photographylife.com/24-things...new-nikon-d810

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:


Resolution is the same either way.

the number of pixels is the same either way, but that is *not* the same
as resolution.

the resolution of the two cameras will be different since one has an
anti-alias filter attenuating high spatial detail and the other does
not. whether that's noticeable or not is questionable.

The anti-alias filter on a D800 does not attenuate high
spatial detail enough to affect resolution. (Proof of that
is the fact that on occasion moire effects can be seen in
images shot with the D800.)

an anti-alias filter does not guarantee no moire unless it's unusually
strong.

So just why are you then claiming that it reduces
resolution?

It won't "unless it's unusually strong".

Moire is a clear demonstration that resolution is
limited to the Nyquist frequency, because it is the
artifacts from higher frequencies, above the Nyquist
Limit, that cause it.

Both the D800 and the D800E have resolution limited by
the sampling frequency, not by the filtering.

for the sensor alone, that's true, but the camera is more than just a
sensor.

If filtering were the limit there could not be aliasing
to cause moire.

the d800 *camera* will have slightly lower resolution because of the
band-limiting of the filter. on the other hand, the d800e *camera* will
have more alias artifacts. it's a tradeoff.

The difference is not lower resolution. It's just a
matter of the amount and spectral distribution of noise.

the differences are generally minor and likely not all that noticeable
without pixel peeping and/or knowing what to look for. typically, other
factors will eliminate any difference, such as focus errors, camera
shake, etc.

Even if one knows exactly what to look for, it isn't
something that pixel peeping makes visibly distinct.
All that changes is the type of noise and its
distribution in the frequency spectrum.

it depends on the subject. if you shoot resolution charts, it's
probably noticeable. if you shoot landscapes, probably not.

In no case is it what you have claimed. The resolution
is the same either way.

That does not change resolution unless it is rather
extreme, which is not the case with these cameras.

nobody said the difference is extreme.

You said it changes the resolution, which would only be
true if the filtering is extreme. As noted, that is not
the case with either the D800E or the D800.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Resolution is the same either way.

the number of pixels is the same either way, but that is *not* the same
as resolution.

the resolution of the two cameras will be different since one has an
anti-alias filter attenuating high spatial detail and the other does
not. whether that's noticeable or not is questionable.

The anti-alias filter on a D800 does not attenuate high
spatial detail enough to affect resolution. (Proof of that
is the fact that on occasion moire effects can be seen in
images shot with the D800.)

an anti-alias filter does not guarantee no moire unless it's unusually
strong.

So just why are you then claiming that it reduces
resolution?

because it does.

It won't "unless it's unusually strong".

the amount it reduces depends on its strength.

Moire is a clear demonstration that resolution is
limited to the Nyquist frequency, because it is the
artifacts from higher frequencies, above the Nyquist
Limit, that cause it.

antialias filters are not perfect.

if it completely eliminates moire, it will reduce detail that otherwise
would have been resolved properly.

it's all a tradeoff.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Resolution is the same either way.

the number of pixels is the same either way, but that is *not* the same
as resolution.

the resolution of the two cameras will be different since one has an
anti-alias filter attenuating high spatial detail and the other does
not. whether that's noticeable or not is questionable.

The anti-alias filter on a D800 does not attenuate high
spatial detail enough to affect resolution. (Proof of that
is the fact that on occasion moire effects can be seen in
images shot with the D800.)

an anti-alias filter does not guarantee no moire unless it's unusually
strong.

So just why are you then claiming that it reduces
resolution?

because it does.

Not unless the filter is "Unusually strong", which is
never the case.

It won't "unless it's unusually strong".

the amount it reduces depends on its strength.

And there is no DSLR today with an AA filter so strong
that the filter limits resolution as opposed to the
Nyquist limit. Not one.

Moire is a clear demonstration that resolution is
limited to the Nyquist frequency, because it is the
artifacts from higher frequencies, above the Nyquist
Limit, that cause it.

antialias filters are not perfect.

Which is exactly why there are none that limit the
resolution before the Nyquist limit.

if it completely eliminates moire, it will reduce detail that otherwise
would have been resolved properly.

it's all a tradeoff.

But it is *never* set up to be strong enough to limit
resolution to less that the Nyquist filter.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Resolution is the same either way.

the number of pixels is the same either way, but that is *not* the same
as resolution.

the resolution of the two cameras will be different since one has an
anti-alias filter attenuating high spatial detail and the other does
not. whether that's noticeable or not is questionable.

The anti-alias filter on a D800 does not attenuate high
spatial detail enough to affect resolution. (Proof of that
is the fact that on occasion moire effects can be seen in
images shot with the D800.)

an anti-alias filter does not guarantee no moire unless it's unusually
strong.

So just why are you then claiming that it reduces
resolution?

because it does.

Not unless the filter is "Unusually strong", which is
never the case.

it's strong enough to have an effect, otherwise why include it at all?

It won't "unless it's unusually strong".

the amount it reduces depends on its strength.

And there is no DSLR today with an AA filter so strong
that the filter limits resolution as opposed to the
Nyquist limit. Not one.

there are many. in fact, just about all of them do.

it's not possible to make an anti-alias filter (for cameras anyway)
that eliminates aliasing *without* affecting real detail.

Moire is a clear demonstration that resolution is
limited to the Nyquist frequency, because it is the
artifacts from higher frequencies, above the Nyquist
Limit, that cause it.

antialias filters are not perfect.

Which is exactly why there are none that limit the
resolution before the Nyquist limit.

wrong.

if it completely eliminates moire, it will reduce detail that otherwise
would have been resolved properly.

it's all a tradeoff.

But it is *never* set up to be strong enough to limit
resolution to less that the Nyquist filter.

it happens.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Resolution is the same either way.

the number of pixels is the same either way, but that is *not* the same
as resolution.

the resolution of the two cameras will be different since one has an
anti-alias filter attenuating high spatial detail and the other does
not. whether that's noticeable or not is questionable.

The anti-alias filter on a D800 does not attenuate high
spatial detail enough to affect resolution. (Proof of that
is the fact that on occasion moire effects can be seen in
images shot with the D800.)

an anti-alias filter does not guarantee no moire unless it's unusually
strong.

So just why are you then claiming that it reduces
resolution?

because it does.

Not unless the filter is "Unusually strong", which is
never the case.

it's strong enough to have an effect, otherwise why include it at all?

Of course it has "an effect". The effect is not a
reduction in resolution.

It won't "unless it's unusually strong".

the amount it reduces depends on its strength.

And there is no DSLR today with an AA filter so strong
that the filter limits resolution as opposed to the
Nyquist limit. Not one.

there are many. in fact, just about all of them do.

it's not possible to make an anti-alias filter (for cameras anyway)
that eliminates aliasing *without* affecting real detail.

You can't name a single model where the filter reduces
resolution. (Because there are none!)

Of course it will be "affecting real detail", but not by
reducing resolution.

As has been brought up multiple times now, the fact that
moire patterns can be seen is *proof* that there are
spatical frequencies above the Nyquist Limit being
recorded by the sensor. They are aliased to a lower
frequency. The resolution is limited by the Nyquest
Limit of the sensor, not the AA filter.

Moire is a clear demonstration that resolution is
limited to the Nyquist frequency, because it is the
artifacts from higher frequencies, above the Nyquist
Limit, that cause it.

antialias filters are not perfect.

Which is exactly why there are none that limit the
resolution before the Nyquist limit.

wrong.

Except when it is actualy right, which is always the
case for optical filters use in cameras.

if it completely eliminates moire, it will reduce detail that otherwise
would have been resolved properly.

it's all a tradeoff.

But it is *never* set up to be strong enough to limit
resolution to less that the Nyquist filter.

it happens.

Maybe in a lab, but no manufacturer sells a camera
with an AA filter that strong. None, zilch...


Whatever, if you can't carry on a useful discussion and
say something the is at least valid, I won't be replying
again.


--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)