Nikon D810....

[elementgs]

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]

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

 

[elementgs]

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]

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]

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

 

[elementgs]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

View attachment 85549

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

 

[elementgs]

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]

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

 

[Forkie]

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

 

[elementgs]

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."