Nikon D810 iso 12,800

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wilky

Suspended / Banned
Messages
166
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
Its a long story but basically I dropped my D800 and it then shot soft so I chopped it in against a D810, is it better than the D800E... yes I have a D800E and the 810 is better.

The shutter is so quiet its zzzzzz inducing, the AF just works, bright contrasty light ... no problem, 1st dance dark... superb, and group AF is fantastic. ISO native 12,800! well some well respected people said it was not worth it, had they used the camera who knows, but I have sent several thousand clicks through it... and here is ISO12,800, 200mm, f4.0, 1/125 in a dark s***ty church
p933422716-4.jpg


The only thing I don't like is ISO below 200 it looks soft to me but it could be I have something set wrong, image sharpness... well put it this way the 85mm f1.4 for make up shots turns the brides skin into the surface of the moon and looks like she has a months beard
smiley-laughing014.gif


So am I happy with the camera...yes... any major faults... non yet

Wilky
 
There's already a D810 thread... in which you've already said all this... why start another?
 
Joeturner11 said:
You haven't seen anything till you visited the birding section ;)
Click to expand...

I find it sad that a few members can only see there view as being the right view...... in real life you would probably smack em one, oh well back to editing todays real wedding that was shot on a real D810 all 1,200 images PMSL...
 
Wilky said:
I find it sad that a few members can only see there view as being the right view...... in real life you would probably smack em one, oh well back to editing todays real wedding that was shot on a real D810 all 1,200 images PMSL...
Click to expand...

I find it quite amazing what happens when you give some people a keyboard and how arsey they get...:rolleyes::D:D:D
 
Wilky said:
Nope not at all, but in saying that why post anything at all about a new camera? quite a stupid comment really, and I suppose a stupid post by myself about the D810 I can see why this forum has such a reputation!
Click to expand...

Relax Dude.

I was merely commenting on the advance of technology and not having a dig at you, your thread or your camera. Sorry if that's how it came across.
 
I think its more to do with the d810 thread than this.. as per normal over the past few years every nikon thread seems to descend into c*ck waving, insults and peoples views being the only possible view.
Kind of sad really, the canon threads seem to be so much more pleasant. From the d800 and on nikon seem to have rocked the boat in there own camp, especially on here.
 
F4 in a really dark church? Why not stop down your aperture and bump the ISO less?

*gets popcorn, awaits response* ;)
 
those "blown" highlights spoil the image for me
 
pmac said:
I think its more to do with the d810 thread than this.. as per normal over the past few years every nikon thread seems to descend into c*ck waving, insults and peoples views being the only possible view.
Kind of sad really, the canon threads seem to be so much more pleasant. From the d800 and on nikon seem to have rocked the boat in there own camp, especially on here.
Click to expand...

Just tells me the Nikon users are more passionate ;)

I agree that the image posted could easily have been shot at 2.8, and lower ISO. But as is, it's a good example I guess. It does seem a little over exposed too, so I'm thinking 2.8 @ 3200 would have achieved same without the slight 'bloom' look.

Pretty sure the D800 would produce the same result too.

But the quiet shutter does sound ideal for the likes of a wedding. I remember during silent stages at the ones I shot, and the 'Click' from the D800E echoing around, seeming to magnify to jack hammer levels! :D
 
Nothing like a Jack Hammer to get ones attention though....
 
The D810 thread already irrefutably demonstrates with raw files that there's no discernible difference in ISO performance between the 800 and 810... apparently though, I didn't take them, so they're invalid :)
 
Gets the whole congregation's attention :D

It's the only downer for me with the camera. The 'boing clack' shutter noise.
 
Gotta agree... the 800 is a noisy git.
 
Cagey75 said:
Just tells me the Nikon users are more passionate ;)

I agree that the image posted could easily have been shot at 2.8, and lower ISO. But as is, it's a good example I guess. It does seem a little over exposed too, so I'm thinking 2.8 @ 3200 would have achieved same without the slight 'bloom' look.

Pretty sure the D800 would produce the same result too.

But the quiet shutter does sound ideal for the likes of a wedding. I remember during silent stages at the ones I shot, and the 'Click' from the D800E echoing around, seeming to magnify to jack hammer levels! :D
Click to expand...


Again I did not want to shoot f2.8, it would seem your all convinced that I am a psychotic nutter who has no knowledge and can't take a picture...... fine just seems strange that all the arm chair specialists have not used the D810, oh begging your pardon they have observed raw files and studio set images and passed judgment based on this! Myself I don't give a rats turd what they might think, I have shot the D800 from the first day they came out, the D800E for 16months and now the D810, the D800 I would never go back to, the D800E is amazing, the D810 builds on that. My past camera's D4 very nice but a brick, D3's fantastic, D700 solid work horse, 1Dmk111 crap, 5D11 mirror kept fall apart,crap, 50D nice, 30D nice, 350D good for the time it came out. Sorry never shot film in anger :)

Wilky
 
Last edited:
Wilky said:
? I suppose your on about the waist coat? I suppose I could wave the exposure brush over that area but what the hell lets just annoy you more by leaving it as it is shall we?
Click to expand...

Except that you shoot in JPEG, and as it's a bit-mapped 8bit format, R255, G255, B255 will mean there's nothing to recover. There MAY just be enough detail to deal with it in this case, but it's touch and go if you ask me. Whole shot looks over exposed to me though.

Whether we've used a D810 or not doesn't mean we don't realise that shooting this wide open would have improved the shot for the better in two fundamental ways: 1. You wouldn't have needed ISO12,800, and 2. You'd have isolated him from the background more (and blurred the OOF foreground distractions more).


You're far too obsessed with gear though... as the above crit hopefully demonstrates... camera's don't really do much to improve your photography.
 
Last edited:
Wilky said:
Again I did not want to shoot f2.8, it would seem your all convinced that I am a psychotic nutter who has no knowledge and can't take a picture...... fine just seems strange that all the arm chair specialists have not used the D810, oh begging your pardon they have observed raw files and studio set images and passed judgment based on this! Myself I don't give a rats turd what they might think, I have shot the D800 from the first day they came out, the D800E for 16months and now the D810, the D800 I would never go back to, the D800E is amazing, the D810 builds on that. My past camera's D4 very nice but a brick, D3's fantastic, D700 solid work horse, 1Dmk111 crap, 5D11 mirror kept fall apart,crap, 50D nice, 30D nice, 350D good for the time it came out. Sorry never shot film in anger :)

Wilky
Click to expand...

That's some rant there.

I was merely giving an opinion on the image.

I have no interest in the rest of what you spewed there ... Nobody here is calling you anything, bar yourself :D
 
Pookeyhead said:
Except that you shoot in JPEG, and as it's a bit-mapped 8bit format, R255, G255, B255 will mean there's nothing to recover. There MAY just be enough detail to deal with it in this case, but it's touch and go if you ask me. Whole shot looks over exposed to me though.

Whether we've used a D810 or not doesn't mean we don't realise that shooting this wide open would have improved the shot for the better in two fundamental ways: 1. You wouldn't have needed ISO12,800, and 2. You'd have isolated him from the background more (and blurred the OOF foreground distractions more).


You're far too obsessed with gear though... as the above crit hopefully demonstrates... camera's don't really do much to improve your photography.
Click to expand...


Um, when the D810 first came out Adobe and Lr5 did not support RAW, now they have remedied that fact and I have always shoot RAW for weddings. As for how I shoot that is always subjective to my personal tastes don't you think? And in all honesty whats wrong with my photography? have a look at my web site I don't think the images are that bad. as for looking at the image I posted its been through Lr and Adobe cc so whats left is what I have put there you don't honestly believe that image was sooc do you? and how much more do you want him to jump out of the image? You might know it all but where are your images of perfection sir?

Wilky
 
Wilky said:
And in all honesty whats wrong with my photography? have a look at my web site I don't think the images are that bad. as for looking at the image I posted its been through Lr and Adobe cc so whats left is what I have put there you don't honestly believe that image was sooc do you? and how much more do you want him to jump out of the image? You might know it all but where are your images of perfection sir?

Wilky
Click to expand...


I'm, just referring to this image you posted. I don't recall making a general comment about your photography... certainly not in this thread anyway. If you've edited it, why is his waistcoat burned out, and why does it look about half a stop over?

You really need to learn how to take crit.

Where are mine? Spread in a variety of posts in many forums on here.. do a search... and there's probably a bunch in my gallery on here. Feel free to crit them as you wish.
 
Last edited:
:thinking:
 
Wilky said:
? I suppose your on about the waist coat? I suppose I could wave the exposure brush over that area but what the hell lets just annoy you more by leaving it as it is shall we?
Click to expand...

I was only pointing this out

Any image I post on here I try to give it my best shot, even if it is "just for illustration purposes" - you were praising the 810 high ISO abilities which I am interested in as I shoot "nature".

I was just interested to know why you felt that the "whites" or highlights were blown
 
Joeturner11 said:
You haven't seen anything till you visited the birding section ;)
Click to expand...
I dunno, this thread is beginning to make the bird section look like kindergarten !

A few useful posts interspersed with the personal grudges grievances and willy waving.
Enough already!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top