# Nikon D810....



## elementgs (Sep 29, 2014)

I'm not getting the quality from the Nikon D810 like I had hoped..... the detail just isn't there.

This typically means I'm doing something wrong.

Shouldn't I have seen a substantial difference between my Nikon D3200 and my D810?

Anyone have any tests I can perform and post back here so we can study the detail on this thing and figure out what I'm doing wrong?

I'm not happy personally.  I am really not happy.  I need to get the bottom of this soon.


----------



## ruifo (Sep 29, 2014)

Try to describe it a bit better. What is that it you like on the D3200 image that you deslike in the D810?


----------



## elementgs (Sep 29, 2014)

Well, here's an example I took today.  This is cropped in quite significantly, intentionally.  The first one is unedited, the second is with a few edits to clean it up.


 

 

These look good in the details and I'm sure I could take it better if I tried.... but what I'm finding is that images like this next one are lacking in detail entirely and I'm honestly not entirely sure why.  I'm thinking I messed up on the hyperfocal distance a bit...

 

Maybe it's the raw import?  I just feel like I'm not getting everything out of it and I want to stop that.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 29, 2014)

Yep, more detail and example images explaining where you see the detail lacking.  That said, under decent conditions, 2-400 ISO, mid-range aperture and 1/250+ shutter-speed and medium focal lengths, I wouldn't expect to see a lot of difference.  Extreme ISO/low-light, close crops, etc, is where the '810 will show its stuff.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 29, 2014)

I don't see anything that jumps out at me as being 'wrong'.  What lens on the '3200 and which on the '810?


----------



## elementgs (Sep 29, 2014)

Here is a shot with the D3200, Nikon 18-140 lens.

I think I'll spend some time tomorrow trading tripods in a static environment so I can do direct comparisons.

I'm just finding that I'm lacking detail in my landscapes and I'm not entirely sure why.  I can seriously only imagine I'm doing something wrong.

As for the above, the wave was with the Nikon 70-200 f2.8.  The landscape was with the 24-70mm f2.8.


----------



## ruifo (Sep 29, 2014)

I see lots of details in these images.

Remember that the pixel density in the D3200 is higher than in the D810. Is that what you're missing?

For your comparison, this is the link for some sample shots of mine with the D810: Nikon D810 - an album on Flickr

And this is the link for sample shots with the D5200 (same 24MPix sensor of the D3200): Nikon D5200 - an album on Flickr

Both produce amazing images, if used correctly, but no doubt that the D810 can achieve much more in more challenging conditions, with way more versatility. With the right technique you can always reproduce the same image (or very very similar images) with both cameras, but the D810 will be usually much easier than the D5200, to get the same results, or even better better results. Both require the right lenses, of course, and I know you have the holy trinity, which are more than enough.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 29, 2014)

Hyperfocal distance is sort of a myth in the era of huge, almost door-sized images seen at 100% pixels. There is only ONE really truly sharp focus distance and everything else is only "acceptably sharp"--and that is at "appropriate viewing distance". Which is going to be like 10 feet or more for a full-resolution D810 file...if you're sitting AT the computer and looking at a section of a D810 file at 100%, you're wayyyyy too close to be at appropriate viewing distance. Also, in the sunset shot, that's a fairly slow speed shot I would think; the water is moving, a little bit. And the beach sand is close, but the sky is at Infinity. Your camera technique needs to be close to perfect to get the utmost out of a 36MP sensor. Sometimes on wet sand, the tripod is ever-so-slowly sinking in the sand...did you use mirror delay or mirror lockup and a remote release? But, again, back to hyperfocal distance focusing: it only works when the appropriate viewing distance rules are observed. If you want CRITICALLY sharp near-to-far depth, focus stacking is the surest way to get that. Otherwise, you kind of have to learn to live with the way a lens records a deep scene.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 29, 2014)

What were your settings? I find the D800 to be a little more sensitive to camera shake than my D300. Also, your image looks a hair overblown, which could wipe out some detail.

All in all, the D8xx takes a while to get used to. My first images were far from stellar.


----------



## Forkie (Sep 30, 2014)

The D810's very high resolution is amazing, but can come back to haunt you.  You need to really make sure you nail your focus points, if using a slow-ish shutter, use a tripod - if on a tripod, turn VR off, don't use a higher ISO than necessary, etc.

If you make a mistake with the D810, the D810 will point at it and tell everyone about it.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 30, 2014)

elementgs said:


> Here is a shot with the D3200, Nikon 18-140 lens.
> 
> I think I'll spend some time tomorrow trading tripods in a static environment so I can do direct comparisons.
> 
> ...


I was about to say this looks great, then i saw D3200


----------



## elementgs (Sep 30, 2014)

Damnit!

This has to be it....






Almost everything I'm doing is with tripod right now and that's exactly the quality problem I'm having.  That video shows a side by side comparison of VR on and off and the shots with VR on look exactly like whats wrong with my shots....

I need to take some more shots today....  I had no clue it was that much worse.  Ugh.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 30, 2014)

that can do for sure, you don't need VR/VC/IS for stationary tripod work or shutter speeds over 1/400-500sec


----------



## Forkie (Sep 30, 2014)

Looks like that could have been your issue then!  ;-)


----------



## elementgs (Sep 30, 2014)

I want to use this line in my signature....   It's just so true... "If you make a mistake with the D810, the D810 will point at it and tell everyone about it."


----------



## ruifo (Sep 30, 2014)

elementgs said:


> I want to use this line in my signature....   It's just so true... "If you make a mistake with the D810, the D810 will point at it and tell everyone about it."




The D3200 will do just the same, and even more, given the higher pixel density rate.
You'd need a 54 MPix FX sensor to match the pixel density of the 24 MPix DX sensor.
The D810 can photograph in DX mode at 16 MPix, not 24 MPix.


----------



## wezza13 (Oct 1, 2014)

elementgs said:


> Damnit!
> 
> This has to be it....
> 
> ...



Glad you seem to have discovered the problem.

Let us know how you get on, good luck!


----------



## Vince.1551 (Oct 1, 2014)

You cannot compare low light images with brightly lit images. And you cannot compare the 70-200 with the 24-70 simply because the 70-200 is much sharper. It's not a correct way to make comparisons. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## greybeard (Oct 1, 2014)

To me, this proves that the jump from a d3200 to a d810 isn't as dramatic as most might think.  What it does prove is that at medium aperture, low ISO, relatively fast shutter speeds and similar glass the 2 cameras are almost indistinguishable.  The big differences are at the higher ISO noise levels and in the D810 ability to recover a lot more shadow detail.  Kind of like comparing 2 trumpets, one a student line and the other a professional.  A good player using the same mouthpiece playing Mary Had a Little Lamb would sound pretty much the same on each horn but, playing the Haydn Concerto would probably show some differences.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 1, 2014)

All cameras today are good.  Some are just more gooder than others.

It's not just about IQ--the DX 32MP sensor is great--but I'd personally never go back to an entry-level body.


----------



## ruifo (Oct 1, 2014)

It's much more than the final IQ.
It's also about the process to get to such final IQ. In better cameras, the process to get there is so much easier.


----------



## TWright33 (Oct 1, 2014)

I thought everyone already knew that at low ISO whether it's a $400 camera body or $3200 camera body the IQ is VERY similar.

It's when you get into high ISO the image quality begins to have a bigger gap.

You also get faster and more accurate AF with the 810.
You get a physically bigger body with a more tailored grip.
You get a built in AF motor.
You get a top screen LCD display.
You get dedicated buttons to important settings.(ISO, WB QUALITY, AF-ON)
You get an extra command dial. 
You get a bigger eyepiece.
You get a bigger screen in the eyepiece.
You get a higher resolution screen on the back of the camera.
You get more programmable buttons.
You get a faster buffer.





People have to realize you are not simply upgrading for IQ when you go to a more expensive camera.


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 1, 2014)

greybeard said:


> To me, this proves that the jump from a d3200 to a d810 isn't as dramatic as most might think.  What it does prove is that at medium aperture, low ISO, relatively fast shutter speeds and similar glass the 2 cameras are almost indistinguishable.  The big differences are at the higher ISO noise levels and in the D810 ability to recover a lot more shadow detail.  Kind of like comparing 2 trumpets, one a student line and the other a professional.  A good player using the same mouthpiece playing Mary Had a Little Lamb would sound pretty much the same on each horn but, playing the Haydn Concerto would probably show some differences.




False. The differences are staggering. Even between my d7000 and D800. Night and day. I've had the D800 for almost two months now and am still blown away by its imaging abilities.


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 1, 2014)

TWright33 said:


> I thought everyone already knew that at low ISO whether it's a $400 camera body or $3200 camera body the IQ is VERY similar.
> 
> It's when you get into high ISO the image quality begins to have a bigger gap.
> 
> ...



Exactly. It's about handling and use. I can shoot on the fly and not have to take my eye off the viewfinder for shots with the D800. With the D3200 I do. You can't just change settings easily with those bodies. It's not all about IQ.


----------



## sashbar (Oct 4, 2014)

greybeard said:


> Kind of like comparing 2 trumpets, one a student line and the other a professional.  A good player using the same mouthpiece playing Mary Had a Little Lamb would sound pretty much the same on each horn but, playing the Haydn Concerto would probably show some differences.



Well said. Problem is, vast majority of us know only Mary Had a Little Lamb..


----------



## Vince.1551 (Oct 4, 2014)

I don't agree with IQ being similar. I've D5300, D610 & D810. IQ differs drastically under controlled conditions. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PaulWog (Oct 4, 2014)

Vince.1551 said:


> I don't agree with IQ being similar. I've D5300, D610 & D810. IQ differs drastically under controlled conditions.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Could you provide an example?


----------



## elementgs (Oct 5, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> False. The differences are staggering. Even between my d7000 and D800. Night and day. I've had the D800 for almost two months now and am still blown away by its imaging abilities.



This is my problem.

My D3200 is outperforming my D800 under even the most controlled environments.

I'm very agitated by it.  I am not getting quality photos.

I know I'm not a master photographer but I'm not horrible either and this camera is producing absolute **** images.

I've literally invested the whole week into solving this problem and tried every single thing I can think of to tune it and make it better and it's just not happening.

I hate blaming the camera for something like this but I'm at a loss otherwise.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 5, 2014)

go get your money back.


----------



## elementgs (Oct 6, 2014)

Just got off the phone with Nikon.  After an hour and a half, literally doing everything he told me to do, exact distance from the camera, shutter speed, lighting etc, all perfect, he responded, "Yes, I see a problem, these images should be MUCH sharper than they are" and then proceeded to tell me how to get my camera serviced.

Sigh.

It's a relief to know it's not just me being dumb but at the same time I'm going to have to deal without a camera for a week.  At least I qualify for Nikon's professional services tier.  Halves the time I'll be down but still.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 6, 2014)

crazy.


----------



## ruifo (Oct 6, 2014)

elementgs said:


> Just got off the phone with Nikon.  After an hour and a half, literally doing everything he told me to do, exact distance from the camera, shutter speed, lighting etc, all perfect, he responded, "Yes, I see a problem, these images should be MUCH sharper than they are" and then proceeded to tell me how to get my camera serviced.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> It's a relief to know it's not just me being dumb but at the same time I'm going to have to deal without a camera for a week.  At least I qualify for Nikon's professional services tier.  Halves the time I'll be down but still.




Too bad to hear your unit has an issue, but it's good to know that you finally found out about the problem.
Good luck! Hope all goes well with the service. May it be quick.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Oct 6, 2014)

PaulWog said:


> Vince.1551 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't agree with IQ being similar. I've D5300, D610 & D810. IQ differs drastically under controlled conditions.
> ...


My test samples was trashed when my MacBook went trashed :-/. I'm too lazy to redo it tbh it takes hours. I'll post it here if I ever decide to do it again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kdthomas (Oct 8, 2014)

I want to hear how this turns out. I am considering a D810 myself


----------



## bribrius (Oct 8, 2014)

elementgs said:


> Just got off the phone with Nikon.  After an hour and a half, literally doing everything he told me to do, exact distance from the camera, shutter speed, lighting etc, all perfect, he responded, "Yes, I see a problem, these images should be MUCH sharper than they are" and then proceeded to tell me how to get my camera serviced.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> It's a relief to know it's not just me being dumb but at the same time I'm going to have to deal without a camera for a week.  At least I qualify for Nikon's professional services tier.  Halves the time I'll be down but still.


frig that. didn't you just buy this?

I would either go get my money back or ask them for the insurance plan then run it over with my truck and send it to them.


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 8, 2014)

Well at least you found the reason. Hopefully you they will fix it and you'll be problem free!


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## elementgs (Oct 13, 2014)

Ya, I just bought this.  They are saying it isn't a manufacturer's deficiency.  I'm with you though, I'm thinking I need to toss this camera off a cliff.


----------

