Jump to content

Nikon D810 update does not feature 4K video


Andrew Reid

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators
Nikon D810

Source: Trusted Reviews

So far, so predictable.

Like the Sony A7R the D810 will feature 1080/60p.

And you may as well stop reading now!

For all the claim to 'go after video pros' after the dramatic improvement we saw with the D800, the new D810 does the absolutely minimum to excite us. I really don't see the point of buying one, especially with the A7S release next week!

I do currently have a Nikon D600 which satisfies my needs for stills and Nikon lenses. Video is terrible on that too. I think Nikon really need to up their game.

I don't feel the need to add much more information at this time.

Check back later for the official announcement and sample videos.Read the full article here
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 co

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

I am overflowing with glee.

Too many pixels to do full sensor readout at 30 fps.  The video camera only needs 12 MP for 4K like A7s.  It's a conflict between still and video requirment. 

 

There will always be cameras that target still photographers i(50MP in a couple of years, if not next year). 

 

You can't expect Nikom to give up still customers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had one for a week for stills. Sent it back. Ergonomic issues and preferred the 5D Mark III.

Destroys 5D Mark III  DR wise and 36mp flat out kills. At least for static type shooting... I shoot landscapes and easily the best tool in its price range.

 

If you're into people photography moreso, run and gun, then I see the 5D Mark III being more competition. (but no way I'm going back from 36mp... much more flexible files for post processing)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The data behind Derek Weston's post.  Like he said, if you're shooting people the 5Ds are fine.  But if you want to extract every last piece of usable DR then Nikons deliver.  If anyone on this forum thinks Nikon full-frame cameras are bad cameras because they stink at video they are very mistaken ;)

 

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR_Landscape_scatter.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

The data behind Derek Weston's post.  Like he said, if you're shooting people the 5Ds are fine.  But if you want to extract every last piece of usable DR then Nikons deliver.  If anyone on this forum thinks Nikon full-frame cameras are bad cameras because they stink at video they are very mistaken ;)

 

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR_Landscape_scatter.htm

 

 

Sony sensors have  low read noise and usually score very high DR at base ISO on dxomark.  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. 

 

In every day regular usage there is no advantage to Nikon/Sony over Canon as far these "DR" numerical graphs would leave some to believe.  There are just numbers that in actual practice might be irrelevant (unless someone is constantly underexposing  shots by 3 stops at base ISO, in which case they need to find a new day job). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sony sensors have  low read noise and usually score very high DR at base ISO on dxomark.  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. 

 

In every day regular usage there is no advantage to Nikon/Sony over Canon as far these "DR" numerical graphs would leave some to believe.  There are just numbers that in actual practice might be irrelevant (unless someone is constantly underexposing  shots by 3 stops at base ISO, in which case they need to find a new day job). 

Ehm no, I guess you haven't really tried.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

In my eye there's not that much difference in dynamic range, or color, between a Canon and a Nikon, the difference really lies in resolution. These 36 megapixel images just sing. I have never seen anything like the images I can get out of a d800 outside the medium format world.

Megapixels do seem to matter and I believe Canon must have at least one ultra-high megapixel count body for fashion/landscape photographers.

After shooting with a d800 every other camera looks a generation behind in comparison.

And the D810 seems an improvement in every way. It may even have a good 1080p video mode. We don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After shooting with a d800 every other camera looks a generation behind in comparison.

And the D810 seems an improvement in every way. It may even have a good 1080p video mode. We don't know.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sony sensors have  low read noise and usually score very high DR at base ISO on dxomark.  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. 

 

In every day regular usage there is no advantage to Nikon/Sony over Canon as far these "DR" numerical graphs would leave some to believe.  There are just numbers that in actual practice might be irrelevant (unless someone is constantly underexposing  shots by 3 stops at base ISO, in which case they need to find a new day job). 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

 

 

If I buy Nikon glass I can actually mount it on almost anything. This is why I stuck with F mount. Its the other way around if I bought canon glass it wont fit to F mount. F mount is a crappy mount for the cameras but on Lenses its great. I rent out my Nikkors and Fmount lenses for use on Emount, EF mount, PL mount Cameras...Its actually made my whole system very configurable. So with a D800 and Kinemini I can use every lens I own on both cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...