The "New Gear/Willy Waving" thread

An Exception said:
2x D810's incoming...
Click to expand...

Nice.

You expecting a big difference to justify change cost?

I'm still looking for good side by side comparisons. There are some hints that images a marginally sharper than the E, there is a modest DR boost at low ISO and slightly cleaner high ISO although the latter is hard to confirm.

If there is significant (1 stop or so) more DR at ISO 64 then I may put my mint barely used D800 on Craigslist for a nearly new price and see if there are any takers. I wouldn't want to loose too much retail value though.


Before buying the D800 recently I knew the D810 was immanent and got some inside info from someone under NDA but still made the decision that the D810 is unlikely a significant upgrade for me.

However I see all the smaller bits and pieces add up to make a better camera, little more speed, little better sensor, little better AF, slightly tweaked here and there.
 
I started off with a 500D, then bought the wife a 600D, I sold my 500D and used teh 600 for a while then I bought myself a 5D1 and had that for a year. Found myself not using the 5D much due to size and weight so though I would sell everything and put towards stuff for the kids and got myself a 600D again (bad move) but stuck with it for a year or so but got a good offer on it on ebay and got the 60D without losing any money :) so couldnt say no.

As I said if I had known more about SLR's when I started out (only used as a point and shoot for the first 2 years) I would have saved and invested better and earlier, now I know I have a decent SLR and lens ready for a a FF upgrade again later on :)
 
D.P. said:
Nice.

You expecting a big difference to justify change cost?
Click to expand...

I'm expecting a modest difference overall in the camera for Joe Phoblographer, but a largish difference for how I personally shoot.

Why I'm upgrading.

1) 50% approx. less mirror/shutter noise without sacrificing response time.
2) ISO 64 - I like to drag the shutter from time to time. Also good for Landscapes.
3) Little better AF sensitivity and speed. Looking forward to trying out group AF mode. One area I sometimes have problems with, is when the subject is relatively small and the background is high contrast. I'm really not a fan of missing great expressions/moments due to focus errors, whether it's either down to me or my equipment.
4) FPS + Buffer. At certain points during a wedding (confetti) I'll hit a buffer wall. At times like this having good FPS + Deep buffer can make the difference between a great moment and a near perfect one.
5) Supposedly improved ISO. Doubt I'll see much difference in grain if any, but red blotching seems less of an issue. This should reduce fake/muddy colour pollution, if this is actually the case it may mean more of my pictures can stay in colour rather than going to B&W out of necessity rather than choice.
6) Better battery life.
7) Apparently handling is improved.
8) Good live-view.
9) Better video. May have an important video project coming up if I have the time to devote to it and 60 FPS will make the world of difference. + other improvements would be handy.
10) 810 is 10 more than 800.

If I wasn't earning a living with shooting weddings and didn't have OCD tendencies, I wouldn't have upgraded tbh, especially as in the long term, I'm looking to ditch DSLR's all together and probably go with something with an FE mount further down the road. This will likely be my last Nikon Camera.
 
Last edited:
Why do I get a feeling that Point No. 10 and OCD plays a bigger part than 1-9 put together :p

I am only jossing. I would grade on Point number 4 alone and the focus/background thing. I hate that.
 
/armchair psychology random thinking out loud moment coming up….

In respect to the moving to mirrorless camera argument….narh, I doubt you will.

Put it this way, you want the best tech in your camrea, your OCD can't stop you having the best, as illustrated just now.

Also, the current crop of mirrorless is streets ahead most and equal or better than than some DSLR was 10 years ago and photographers back then shooting great wedding photos. I would say the latest Fuji XT1 is as on very close performance as the 5D in ISO performance (I am just making a educated guess)
, even the 5Dii, I doubt any average Joe Blogg can tell a web shot or in print.

Both camps will always move the tech forward, Mirrorless is playing catch up, and will conintue to be, for it not to, DSLR will need to stop moving…that aren't happening. What I am trying to say is, if you are going to do it because of size reason, you would've done it already, instead of the D810, you would've got a Sony full frame mirrorless or something. There isn't this abatory line where "this quality is good enough" or "when they can do ISO 3200 this clean is good enough" so when mirrorless get there and I will jump camp. To say that it means your D800 is never good enough because if the D800 is the line where if a mirrorless gets to where you would jump ship then you wouldn't have got the D810. And it also means that the D700 that you had wasn’t good enough. The fact that you upgraded to the D810 means you are on a continueous chase for better tech. There is no shame in that, I too want the latest and greatest and proud of it.

One need to let go of the tech, accept that it'll be behind DSLR, embrace the size is the main advantage and forget about all that tech stuff in order to be happy about mirrorless. With all the stuff you mentioned in the past few years on charts and tech….I apologise for jumping to a conclusion but you do not come across as someone who can just let that go so I do think you will continue to be a DSLR shooter.

On the other hand, I have a photographer friend whom I KNOW he will, he still shoots D700, that is good enough for him, he gets great shots. In fact, he has been shooting it with a Fuji X-100S for the past year or so alongside his D700. He absolutely loves it. He doesn't care for the D800, its ISO and all that basket of goodies, he simply adores the size of the Fuji, embraces what it offers and don't compare his kit to others and enjoy what he has and the beautiful phots that it produces.

So the question is, can you ever place size and convenience above tech spec?

/armchair moment.
 
An Exception said:
I'm expecting a modest difference overall in the camera for Joe Phoblographer, but a largish difference for how I personally shoot.

Why I'm upgrading.

1) 50% approx. less mirror/shutter noise without sacrificing response time.
2) ISO 64 - I like to drag the shutter from time to time. Also good for Landscapes.
3) Little better AF sensitivity and speed. Looking forward to trying out group AF mode. One area I sometimes have problems with, is when the subject is relatively small and the background is high contrast. I'm really not a fan of missing great expressions/moments due to focus errors, whether it's either down to me or my equipment.
4) FPS + Buffer. At certain points during a wedding (confetti) I'll hit a buffer wall. At times like this having good FPS + Deep buffer can make the difference between a great moment and a near perfect one.
5) Supposedly improved ISO. Doubt I'll see much difference in grain if any, but red blotching seems less of an issue. This should reduce fake/muddy colour pollution, if this is actually the case it may mean more of my pictures can stay in colour rather than going to B&W out of necessity rather than choice.
6) Better battery life.
7) Apparently handling is improved.
8) Good live-view.
9) Better video. May have an important video project coming up if I have the time to devote to it and 60 FPS will make the world of difference. + other improvements would be handy.
10) 810 is 10 more than 800.

If I wasn't earning a living with shooting weddings and didn't have OCD tendencies, I wouldn't have upgraded tbh, especially as in the long term, I'm looking to ditch DSLR's all together and probably go with something with an FE mount further down the road. This will likely be my last Nikon Camera.
Click to expand...

It does seem like lots of small bits and pieces that add up but overall much the same camera.
#2 would be the big catch for me, I hate fighting contrast. But it would need to be at least 1 stop. I've yet to see any good compariosn but have some hope because Nikon apparently did a fairly large change to the ADC to allow more DR with a deeper electron well:
http://www.nikon.es/tmp/EU/24198652...88362553/2027325250/4291728192/4102963099.pdf (page 10)

This wont affect high ISO performance or DR beyond the base ISO but for landscape use could be quite dramatic. The shadow performance is already exquisite (and fairly close to theoretical limits) but there is always more space for highlight headroom. Highlights are actually technically easy to maintain, you just need to make the photo-diodes less sensitive (The Fuji S series had small photodiodes alongside the large ones to capture highlights) or increase electron capacity. What the D810 has effectively done is use a larger capacitor for each pixel - it takes longer to fill up to line voltage so can differentiate high levels of electrons before saturating. What would be really nice is to use logarithmic amplifiers, then we would regain film like highlight latitude but with way less noise and much cleaner shadows.
 
Nikon 810


Surprised how much has changed from the 800e will do some comparison shots next week. First impression is that the shutter damping is much better and that the viewfinder information is white.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Snip..
Click to expand...

Yup that all makes sense. I'm just operating under the assumption mirrorless is progressing at a faster rate than DSLR's, so at some point a compromise won't have to be made. I'll be buying the best tech when I switch to mirrorless.
If I was a video guy, the best tech (at sane pricing as far as I can tell) would already be a mirrorless a7s.
I'm waiting for the photography equivalent to the a7s relative to the DSLR's to arrive.

I'm also not necessarily even looking for a tiny camera/lens setup. I'm looking for a camera that people will naturally react kindly to. A big DSLR can be intimidating and looks too 'professional' for my taste. The X100s would be a camera that people would react kindly to. I imagine the camera alone would have people coming up to you at a wedding just to talk about it. It's also one that's very near silent, which compliments the loud D700 for when you need to be discrete. I can see why someone would pair them.
 
Raymond Lin said:
/armchair psychology random thinking out loud moment coming up….

In respect to the moving to mirrorless camera argument….narh, I doubt you will.

Put it this way, you want the best tech in your camrea, your OCD can't stop you having the best, as illustrated just now.

Also, the current crop of mirrorless is streets ahead most and equal or better than than some DSLR was 10 years ago and photographers back then shooting great wedding photos. I would say the latest Fuji XT1 is as on very close performance as the 5D in ISO performance (I am just making a educated guess)
, even the 5Dii, I doubt any average Joe Blogg can tell a web shot or in print.

Both camps will always move the tech forward, Mirrorless is playing catch up, and will conintue to be, for it not to, DSLR will need to stop moving…that aren't happening. What I am trying to say is, if you are going to do it because of size reason, you would've done it already, instead of the D810, you would've got a Sony full frame mirrorless or something. There isn't this abatory line where "this quality is good enough" or "when they can do ISO 3200 this clean is good enough" so when mirrorless get there and I will jump camp. To say that it means your D800 is never good enough because if the D800 is the line where if a mirrorless gets to where you would jump ship then you wouldn't have got the D810. And it also means that the D700 that you had wasn’t good enough. The fact that you upgraded to the D810 means you are on a continueous chase for better tech. There is no shame in that, I too want the latest and greatest and proud of it.

One need to let go of the tech, accept that it'll be behind DSLR, embrace the size is the main advantage and forget about all that tech stuff in order to be happy about mirrorless. With all the stuff you mentioned in the past few years on charts and tech….I apologise for jumping to a conclusion but you do not come across as someone who can just let that go so I do think you will continue to be a DSLR shooter.

On the other hand, I have a photographer friend whom I KNOW he will, he still shoots D700, that is good enough for him, he gets great shots. In fact, he has been shooting it with a Fuji X-100S for the past year or so alongside his D700. He absolutely loves it. He doesn't care for the D800, its ISO and all that basket of goodies, he simply adores the size of the Fuji, embraces what it offers and don't compare his kit to others and enjoy what he has and the beautiful phots that it produces.

So the question is, can you ever place size and convenience above tech spec?

/armchair moment.
Click to expand...


Eventually we all will. Mirrored cameras will almost certainly stop being produced for a variety of reasons:
  • Mechanical Complexity. The whole mirror assembly adds a lot of cost, complexity, manual manufacturing and failure risks. Mirror-less cameras are incredibly simple in comparison and much less likely to fail (given the same electronics). General costs can be reduced a lot.
  • Speed. The mirror can only move up to a certain speed. For series sports people the future is likely to move more into a kind of video world where you just capture a scene at 30/60FPS or more. You cna already do this with a 4K camera getting nice 8MP frames. Nikon 1 cameras go along way in this direction
  • Instantly get rid of mirorslap, vibration and noise. Although one has to be careful of aggressive shutters like the A7R has which adds its own vibrations. Electronics shutters are really the future , again further remove a mechanical part and increase speed. Again, Nikon 1 does well with an electronic shutter. Some sensors are required to have a mechanical shutter (they basically are always switched on) which is why it is not done now by standard.
  • Obvious size weight thing. Although this is a bit grey because for pros with large lenses the size of a 1Dx or D4 is quite preferable and the small mirrorless bodies are hard to hold with no grip. So it is likely that many of the high end mirroless systems will come with a similar size to current DSLRs.



There are still technical hurdles to get over. Optical viewfinders are still preferable in most circumstances, and the AF performance is still a long way behind the dedicated phase detection of DSLRs. The on sensor phase systems are good but not good enough yet, and have issues scaling to larger sensor or smaller pixels.

It is just a waiting game really.
 
What is strange is that mirrorless actually got bigger, compare what the Olympus is and the size of the new Fuji XT1. It is almost the same size as an entry level DSLR. And the lens is not exactly tiny either, some of these lenses are not exactly compact either so you still have something that looks like a DSLR.


But shooting 2 systems meaning carrying more gear, you would still need 2 main DSLR, the bridal time prep, church, speeches etc it makes no difference how big or small your camera is in terms of not getting noticed. What I would like is something to compliment the DSLR, something like the Fuji X-100S with a small prime. Like you said, use it amongst the crows to draw less attention, this is generally in the day time reception so you don't need uber ISO and often in bright daylight anyway. In the evening they are merry and dancing and I find they don't care whether you have a DSLR in front of their face or not, they embrace is.
 
D.P. said:
Eventually we all will. Mirrored cameras will almost certainly stop being produced for a variety of reasons:
  • Mechanical Complexity. The whole mirror assembly adds a lot of cost, complexity, manual manufacturing and failure risks. Mirror-less cameras are incredibly simple in comparison and much less likely to fail (given the same electronics). General costs can be reduced a lot.
  • Speed. The mirror can only move up to a certain speed. For series sports people the future is likely to move more into a kind of video world where you just capture a scene at 30/60FPS or more. You cna already do this with a 4K camera getting nice 8MP frames. Nikon 1 cameras go along way in this direction
  • Instantly get rid of mirorslap, vibration and noise. Although one has to be careful of aggressive shutters like the A7R has which adds its own vibrations. Electronics shutters are really the future , again further remove a mechanical part and increase speed. Again, Nikon 1 does well with an electronic shutter. Some sensors are required to have a mechanical shutter (they basically are always switched on) which is why it is not done now by standard.
  • Obvious size weight thing. Although this is a bit grey because for pros with large lenses the size of a 1Dx or D4 is quite preferable and the small mirrorless bodies are hard to hold with no grip. So it is likely that many of the high end mirroless systems will come with a similar size to current DSLRs.



There are still technical hurdles to get over. Optical viewfinders are still preferable in most circumstances, and the AF performance is still a long way behind the dedicated phase detection of DSLRs. The on sensor phase systems are good but not good enough yet, and have issues scaling to larger sensor or smaller pixels.

It is just a waiting game really.
Click to expand...

They say film camera will die when digital was invented.

Meh, that was like 25+ years ago.

SLR didn't kill large format.

Mirrorless won't kill SLR.

Mirrorless may become the mainstream but it won't "stop production" so to speak.

Besides, didn't we read an article where the entire mirrorless camera market was losing money??? And only the DSLR was making money ? It was around that time of that massive Fuji lens promotion thing.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
They say film camera will die when digital was invented.

Meh, that was like 25+ years ago.

SLR didn't kill large format.

Mirrorless won't kill SLR.

Mirrorless may become the mainstream but it won't "stop production" so to speak.

Besides, didn't we read an article where the entire mirrorless camera market was losing money??? And only the DSLR was making money ? It was around that time of that massive Fuji lens promotion thing.
Click to expand...


Well, it depends on your definition of kill.
Large format photography barely exists, film photography barely exists. In fact, it is getting incredibly hard to even buy film (especially for large format) and most manufacturers have stopped producing any.
Some film types are basically gone forever now - that was why Vspec decided to drop his LF gear and move digital.


So like film cameras now, in the future some people will still use mirrored cameras and some might still be manufactured but a majority of people will be using mirror less. The technology will continue to improve in mirror-less camera, with sensor produce 100MP, 22stop DR, ISO 512K images at 60FPS with incredibly advanced autofocus and metering. The mirrored camera will be a long way behind and will probably appeal to the same kinds of togs who use film and large format now (who don't care about AF for example)


yep, pretty much all mirrorless camera manufacturers are loosing loads of money on photography. Only Canon and Nikon have any real profit, even Sony is mostly loosing money. But that isn't anything to do with the lack of mirror but economics, marketing, reputation and the current immaturity of mirrorless systems (it is certianly not pro level yet).


I could never go full mirrorless with the current technology, the viewfinders are still behind and their AF poor. Once that is settled then mirrorless will be profitable because Canon and Nikon will have both reverted to being mirror less manufactures. It wont be a quick process though.
 
D.P. said:
Well, it depends on your definition of kill.
Large format photography barely exists, film photography barely exists. In fact, it is getting incredibly hard to even buy film (especially for large format) and most manufacturers have stopped producing any.
Some film types are basically gone forever now - that was why Vspec decided to drop his LF gear and move digital.
Click to expand...

Ilford is still kicking and making ultra-large format stuff, Kodak Alaris is still producing Tri-X, Portra, and Ektar in varying sizes, I believe Ferrania is restarting production of film, last I hear the Impossible Project is still going strong, Fuji just released a new Instax camera, Hollywood has a fair bit still film-based, and my local film shop moved premises to an even larger location. I haven't heard of any of the surviving film stores in the UK shutting down either, most of them have actually expanded their operations from just selling film to developing it now. And judging from Metro Print's Instagram feed, quite a few pros still use film for commercial/editorial work, and a large contingent of the art photography world uses film - this year's Deutsche-Borse winner used film for his exhibition. For photojournalism and sports, yeah film is dead, but the bleak picture you paint is far from the truth.
 
GTRacer said:
Ilford is still kicking and making ultra-large format stuff, Kodak Alaris is still producing Tri-X, Portra, and Ektar in varying sizes, I believe Ferrania is restarting production of film, last I hear the Impossible Project is still going strong, Fuji just released a new Instax camera, Hollywood has a fair bit still film-based, and my local film shop moved premises to an even larger location. I haven't heard of any of the surviving film stores in the UK shutting down either, most of them have actually expanded their operations from just selling film to developing it now. And judging from Metro Print's Instagram feed, quite a few pros still use film for commercial/editorial work, and a large contingent of the art photography world uses film - this year's Deutsche-Borse winner used film for his exhibition. For photojournalism and sports, yeah film is dead, but the bleak picture you paint is far from the truth.
Click to expand...

And i can easily list all the films that are no longer made, film manufacturers that are bankrupt or no longer make film, the number of camera manufactures that only sell digital cameras, the number of LF manufactures that no longer exist. V-Spec from this forum has had to move to digital because the velvia 50 5x4 he likes is no longer produced.



Anyway, i never said film was dead. I said that mirrored cameras will no long be made, which was later l later refined to no longer manufactured in the mainstream, the same with 35mm film camera are no longer the norm and LF cameras are no longer the norm. Sure, some eople will hang on to the SLRs for the rest of their lives.
Film will take a long time before it completely disappeared purely because Hollywood has still not fully switched to digital due to costs. And there are always niche markets.



My claim is merely that both Nikon and Canon will eventually drop the mirror from their entire line up of cameras. Sony more or less already has, Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic already have. It is quite likely the next Pro body from Canon or Nikon will be the last to have a mirror (there are even some who think the current 1DX and D4s will be the last, that i doubt since Canon and Nikon are way too cautious). Some a data around 2020 will see all or almost all of Canon and nikon cameras without mirrors. The more interesting question is when the first FF prsoumer level mirrors form either company is released.


To be clear I love optical viewfinder and could never use a mirrorless camera int heir current state for anything serious but to think camera manufacturers will continue to add expensive fragile prisms in to cameras when the technology will some day be clearly inferior (wrt speed, vibration, size, weight, durability) is very naive.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom