< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon D810 sample images

Nikon-D810-sample-photo
Nikon-D810-camera-100-crop-sample-photo
35 full resolution images from the new Nikon D810 camera (pre-order options) are available for download on flickr:

Additional sample images can be found on Nikon USA and Nikon Europe websites.

This entry was posted in Nikon D810. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://www.davidiam.com/ davidiam photo

    Judging by that first photo…. Any green color cast is gone! Lol :)

    • silmasan

      Because green is so 2012… Magenta is the craze now!

      • doge

        You joke, but Radiant Orchid is the Pantone color of 2014. It’s definitely not magenta, but to a layperson, they wouldn’t know the difference.

        Emerald was the color of the year last year.

        • silmasan

          On a related note, I wanted to fit Fuchsia into the comment but couldn’t come up with something clever =)

      • http://www.depoveste.eu Alex Neagoe

        I find magenta cast quite cute :)

    • genowordprocessor

      It’s obvious that you haven’t given this any thought. On the other hand, I have given it a great deal of thought, more thought than you have. You might not be aware of the amount of thought I’ve given to it, but if you visit my blog, you can see that I think about things like this a great deal.

    • neonspark

      it was an LCD cast, not a RAW color cast silly.

      • http://www.davidiam.com/ davidiam photo

        It was a joke. Thanks for catching that. :/

  • reignoffire

    I AM big eyes

  • drasko
    • drasko
      • Marcelo Tezza

        Drasko, i don’t know how much time you take photos with dslr but this is dust and probably at f/20 if there is any dust in your sensor it will appear, and with the high mp count is very likely to be more visible, i think nikon shown this photos because this is what in real life you will get from it, proably are jpegs from the camera, i dont know.
        But in my humble opinion, if you want to sell a 36mpx camera they should have been more carefull with this images. many of them have camera related problems and bad user problems too. take a look carefully at this images with the original size, many of them “shaked” badly focused or at least wrong aperture used, dust spots strange sharpening i would even say some wb are incorrect…

        • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat

          That actually points out something very useful, though perhaps unintentional from Nikon. If you use a 36 megapixel camera improperly, you will have some problems that some people will find in your images. A small pixel size DSLR requires a bit more care in usage, in order to get the most out of it.

          • Marcelo Tezza

            Well Gordon, that’s obvious and should not be presented in the first 35 photos exposed to the media as an example of what you can achieve with this new camera, it could be presented in another moment or article. hahaha!

            • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat

              LOL. Maybe next time Nikon brings out a new DSLR, they will send an example to both of us first. Then we can show how proper images are made. ;)

    • Skaarj

      Yep. There is dust in the sky. The data shows the photo was taken at f20. I hope it is from careless lens swapping. If not a D820 will be out next year to fix the shutter splatter.

      • drasko
        • UA

          Both photos are taken very close to a water. Especially this latter one. So easy to have some drops of water on your lens. Considering how much the D600 problem costs to Nikon, I highly doubt they will make the same mistake again.

      • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat

        f20 is way past the diffraction limit. Complete waste of all those extra megapixels. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

        • joec

          I assume that at 1/250th the aperture was chosen to allow the flash to overpower the sun. I agree that it’s not at maximum sharpness, but I think the real point of this image is something else. It’s a shame that the with the electronic first shutter they weren’t able to do a faster flash sync. *that* could have been a big deal.

          • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat

            That’s what makes the Coolpix A so interesting. Reliable trigger sync at 1/1000 sec, and pixel sizes nearly the same as a D800. However, as I stated above, there are other ways to accomplish that shot, without stopping way down.

        • http://molnarcs.500px.com Csaba

          1/250 looks like the max sync speed of the strobes the photographer is using. The only other way to underexpose the sky creating a cinematic look is to close down the aperture.

          Not everything’s about crazy sharpness and MTF charts. This image would still make a nice 36×24 inch print.

          • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat

            An ND could’ve provided that effect without moving towards diffraction. Another way to do that would’ve been to use a continuous light source. Agree not everything is about sharpness, but why bother with a D810 when you’re killing the image with diffraction.

            • Joven

              So diffraction bothers you, but not adding another piece of glass/resin that wasn’t built to work with that particular lens? So the reduced sharpness, color casts, and increased chances of flare, and darker viewfinder don’t bother you?

              C’mon, man….

            • fred

              Working that close to salt water waves I’d put at least a Neutral or UV filter to protect the surface of my lens from dried salt. Those fancy nanocoatings might react with NaCl (care to test?) and I’d rather wipe that salt off a filter (repeatedly) than the lens surface.

            • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat

              Apparently you’ve never used really good filters. ;) Yes, the loss from diffraction is worse than the loss from a high quality filter. Also, the reduction in image quality from hand held shooting is worse than using a heavy and stable tripod, though I would bet many using a D800/D810 use it more often hand held than on a tripod.

              On the viewfinder, there are two work-arounds. One is a variable ND filter, and moving to dark after locking focus. Another is to pre-focus a distance, much like is done in motion imaging, then have your talent move within your range of focus, after which your regular ND darker image will be less of an issue.

              Don’t ever take mine, nor anyone else’s, opinion on this. I encourage you, or anyone else, to try this on your own, and compare the results. Unless you are using really cheap NDs, you are more likely to find better results than simply stopping down.

              If you shoot professionally, then you need to be able to change the lighting to suit any time of day. This is especially true in corporate shooting, because the subjects will not always be available at a time when the light is optimal. So to get day for night, when you want it, will take some testing.

              Here is Mark Wallace explaining one method. There are many more of these on YouTube. http://youtu.be/yjhqWStGQsw?t=4m50s

            • Joven

              LOL, yeah, my LEE and Hitech Filters are trash ;-). My point is that there is always going to be a trade offs to each method, especially with variable ND filters. To get hung up on diffraction as if using an ND filter doesn’t present issues is ludicrous.

            • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat

              So you would rather kill your image with diffraction?

            • Joven

              I just don’t caught up in one method, nor believe my shot is “killed” b/c there’s diffraction. I’m also seldom shoot at f/22…. almost never. I also don’t think an image is ruined b/c of diffraction, just like I don’t think it’s ruined if it’s shot at 1.4. I don’t run around shooting at 4-5.6 all the time b/c that’s where my lens is sharpest. If it’s out of focus, then yeah, that’s an issue. If it’s not shot at the sharpest aperture, then I’ll live.

              Bryan Peterson, who is also an AdoramaTV instructor, like Mark Wallace, has said that he’s never had a client complain about diffraction.

            • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat

              I think we are running into topic drift at this point. The surfer image in question was shot at f22. Here is a study of filters and resolution.

              http://photographylife.com/filters-affect-resolution-lenses

              On the topic of diffraction, here is a helpful guide from Cambridge Color.

              http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

              Obviously none of us is fixed in one method. If you shoot professionally, outside of a studio, then you need to be flexible. I probably shoot just under a third of my images from a tripod. Anyway, if I understand what you are saying, then you don’t have concerns about diffraction. That’s your choice.

            • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat

              Obviously there are trade-offs. We make them every day. The point, and my question for you, is what trade-off would you choose? I choose an ND filter. Apparently you prefer stopping down?

  • Moar?

    Are there any more high-ISO shots? The two with the tent are hard to judge in terms of noise, DR, detail …

  • Frank Cava

    I understand that anyone who shoots a lot, whether they be a pro or not, will find themselves in a whole slough of different types of lighting conditions. So I get why high ISO performance is important – especially in the 1600 – 6400 range which seems most likely to be the sweet spot for anyone shooting in low light (sports in gyms, stage work, etc..).
    But I’m wondering just how many of you actually regularly shoot beyond ISO 1600 and if all of this talk about ultra-high ISOs is just that, talk.
    I remember in the film days shutter speed & frames per second was a big deal – “My camera does 6 frames per second at 1/8000!” – big deal if you never use it.
    Is it the same with high ISOs? So what if your camera can go up to ISO 12,800 or beyond. It doesn’t really matter if you never use it. My one and only digital camera only goes up to ISO 1600, and the fastest lens that is available for my system is f/2.8. Even with this seemingly restrictive limitation of my Pentax, I’m usually at ISO 100 and rarely ever shoot beyond ISO 400, but I have shot several times at 1600.
    Just wondering what has been your personal experience – Thanks

    • UA

      I have shot ~50% of my stuff at ISO3200-6400. It really depends what you do. I shoot moving people in dark conditions (stage performances). Unfortunately, it seems that this D810 is actually worse than D800(e) what comes to ISO performance :(

      • UA

        Gonna hold back with that ISO -part. Have to see well exposed pics before judgement. The ISO6400 sample has astonishing amount of detail on the well exposed tent, although the shadow detail fails, but that’s typical (they cannot break laws of physics).

        • Allen Wicks

          ISO has always been just an arbitrary number referencing light capture. My D3 is competent at much higher ISO than my D2x (which falls apart quickly above base ISO). Simple. No laws of physics were required to be broken (at least not yet at today’s state-of-the-tech).

          • Global

            Which is fairly ironic, since ISO is supposed to mean “standardized” — but every single sensor’s ISO is different from every other sensor.

            I would complain that these old terms based on analog and film days really break down, but in general the manufacturers push the technological so hard that we really can’t complain, even if no one born in this generation actually understands what ISO could even mean between two different sensors let alone two different sensor manufacturers.

          • guest

            ISO was NEVER arbitrary. “ISO” isn’t even arbitrary but an acronym. It’s not the Past’s fault that the digital image capture cognoscenti appropriated a certain vocabulary to describe what is essentially a completely different technology. It was done to establish a bridge between halide and digital capture; and also a marketing move. It’s very hard to quantify exactly what is a “digital image” but until they do they still have to sell cameras to Joe Blow.

        • Global

          Anyway, its basically the same sensor generation (similar sensor with different modifications). It would definitely be too much to hope for it to be much significantly better or significantly worse than the D800.

          We should fully expect it to perform like the D800E. A bit more detail, a bit more moire, and not particularly revolutionary in ISO at the current moment.

          Ah well, it sad that we measure things by “5 year gaps” — but this camera is still to be compared to the D700, not the D800 (too close). Its a shame a new significantly new generation comes along only every 5 years, because human life spans are so short! But good for the wallet, I guess!

    • Thomas Schlorke

      If you are doing reportage, nighttime events oder indoor sports on a daily basis – this is essential. Don´t see youself as a norm.

      • neonspark

        or you. different needs different cameras. D800 is a landscape and portrait studio camera. if you’re doing freaking sports lol. WTF. get a D4.

        • yep

          D4 too expensive. Sooner or later the cheaper options will step on to flagships toes. Look at Sony’s A7s . Imagine if that could take 6fps or 8fps. It would kill 1dx and d4s

    • ckoerner

      I rarely go over 1600 if I can help it as well. As Thomas noted, I do not shoot in low-light situations very often.

      I think any attribute or capability of a given camera can be seen as ‘just talk’ from perspectives where folks really don’t use it. My camera shoots HD video, but I never use it so improvements there don’t interest me. However, if you use a feature, and it’s improved, then great!

      If I can ask you a question, what kind of photography do you shoot where you’re at ISO 100? Mainly well lit situations? Outdoors?

      • fred

        Time exposures using tripod and ND filters, any landscape shot dawn + dusk, silhouettes. I rarely ever go over ISO800 with D7100.

    • Sleeper

      For me it’s not about high/low ISO, but rather about keepers. I see something I like, I shoot. You can’t compromise minimum shutter speed, can’t make aperture any bigger. Noisy photo is better than blurry photo.

      If ISO goes to 51200, so be it. I will evaluate if the image is worth keeping and if I can get something out of it. Might make a decent 4×6 print, might be good enough for a 1mp fb post. Thing is, 10 years ago, you won’t even so much as have a high iso noisy pic but rather just a black frame.

      That’s no substitute for tripod tho.

    • Jon McGuffin

      For many, getting a quality image when using something in the ISO 3200-6400 range is very important for the type of work THEY do. Wedding photographers shooting evening ceremonies inside churches for examples. Or a lot of sports work where you require a 1/1000th or faster shutter speed. There is only so much aperture available so the only variable to give is in ISO.

      For me, personally, I’m not as much of need of good ISO pics at 12,800+ as much as I’d like GREAT pics at 6400. That seems to be the kind of sweet spot where once beyond that you probably have enough latitude in shutter & aperture to get the pic you need unless you’re filming inside a movie theater with no light ;)

      • Jon McGuffin

        To clarify my point here to the extreme. I’d rather have a camera that delivered ISO 6400 images comparable to ISO 800 images now and then stop there with no ability to go higher than have a camera that can shoot something at ISO 256,000. Does that make sense?

        • Michiel953

          Of course it does Jon. That’s exactly my line of thought. I’m only really interested in performance up to 6400; over that is irrelevant. Shot graduation of my stepson this evening, horrible lighting, auto-ISO maxed at 3200 with my D800, 85 and 58, and would have welcomed the same performance at 6400. I have only looked at the raw images though.

    • JXVo

      Birding with a 500 f4VR….Birds mostly active early morning and late afternoon and the shy ones skulk in the underbrush so shooting conditions are often darker than I would like.
      Even when wide open one is often forced into a compromise between high ISO noise and fast enough shutter speed to freeze movement. With the D800 my noise tolerance is about ISO 2000. below this I can process the shot and get a nice result without a lot of noise reduction effort. Anything over ISO 2000 is going to need a lot of noise reduction and downsampling to look good. Downsampling and NR reduces detail and limits the amount of cropping that is possible. Anything below ISO 800 pretty much requires little or no NR with the D800.
      So I often shoot above ISO 800 with this combo but I always try to keep it below if I can

      • Jon McGuffin

        My *hope* thought I’m pretty sure it won’t be the case is that with the 810, that threshold for you will move to ISO 3200. That would be a 2/3rd stop improvement in that range and that would be exciting.

        • JXVo

          Agreed Jon. 2/3 to 1 stop would be great! This is the difference between 1/500 and 1/1000 (blur) or F4 and f5.6 (with a 500mm this is enough extra depth of field at close range to fit the whole head of a small bird instead of just the beak or eye).

    • Martin

      I have a D600. I do a lot of family pictures. Most of them are indoors so lighting conditions is a challenge. I used to have a D90 and the acceptable ISO for me was 1600. With D600 ISO 5000 is OK for me. I better have a noisy photo than a blurred one. =)

    • Michele Perillo

      just think about birds on a clear but not radiant sunlight. They move at amazing speed even when just turning head. to be sure you get a clean shot when not using tripods, to be able to go over 1k iso is a big plus

    • Allen Wicks

      Actually, higher ISO capability is potentially helpful to almost _every_ photog. It means on any given pic one can reduce the effects of camera & subject movement by increasing shutter speed, compensating with ISO changes.

      On some pix the benefits are not so visually obvious but some are more obvious:
      - More available DOF on macros
      - Less captured camera/subject movement on tele
      - Far more potential fully-naturally-lit shots available
      - The magic dawn/dusk lighting time is expanded

    • Global

      Hi Frank — I am not a tripod user and I prefer low light photography handheld. High ISO is a godsend for handheld night, indoor available light and lowlight photography on the move.

      While its true I wouldn’t ordinarily go above the ISO 1,000, and keep it pretty fixed at ISO 400 in daylight — in practice ive found that ISO 800-2000 keeps my images sharp and quite reasonably good looking. But I often find myself wanting a cleaner ISO 4000 or higher. Afterall, we don’t always want to be shooting at f/1.4… Just because that’s what we were forced to do, doesn’t mean thats where we should be stuck at. We often want f/4 or f/5.6 or even f/8. Especially for those sweet spots in the lens.

      So yes — I will be requesting more lowlight capability until shooting ISO 4,000 at f/1.4 looks like the D700′s ISO 400 at f/1.4 handheld. If its possible, “some day,” then why shouldn’t we hope to shoot f/8 at a clean ISO 51,200 handheld? We certainly don’t need more megapixels — the glass can barely support the ones we have (any variable zoom is proof of that). I think ISO is the laggard here (now that we’ve gone past 36 megapixels).

      So glad to see the bump in ISO and any clean up possible.

    • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat

      I’m usually at ISO 100 or ISO 200, depending upon the camera. Quite often there is artificial light involved, so no need to crank the ISO gain. There are times when artificial light is not the best idea in an image, and that’s when higher ISO capability can make a difference. During those types of shoots, I may go as high as ISO 3200, but rarely above that. Rather than just high numbers, I look more at how a camera sensor responds in mixed lighting. This is where the D3 and D3S are still quite good, though the D4 and D4S should be very similar.

      Skin tone response is another issue. Here it is more of a colour balance issue, in that ideally minimizing time in post processing improves profit margins. So for many pro it’s a workflow issue. Obviously large files slow down the process a bit, but it depends upon what sort of work one is doing. Large printed output usually means bigger files are desired. Where I don’t like to high more megapixels is in people photography, because it exposes too many skin issues, causing more time in post processing. While some photographers do like the hyper-realistic affect, not all clients will want to appear that way.

    • Carleton Foxx

      I shoot at both ends. Theater, museums, and music are usually 3200 or 6400. Portraits and food at 100. I don’t shoot much in the middle however, it could be because the typical ambient light levels where I work are pretty low. I just couldn’t get by indoors with ISO 800, shutter speeds would be too long. And I could be wrong but it seems to me that interiors in general are more dimly lit because of energy conservation regulation and modern tastes.

    • BIF + low light

      out of 6092 pictures in my lightroom, 2598 are of ISO 1600 and higher. So no, it’s not something I use rarely.

  • tyler durden
    • UA

      Well, it’s taken in very dark and underexposed. No camera makes a good quality there and that is about the same quality than Canon 5dmk3. However, seems to be a bit worse than D800(e), which is interesting. Does this have a Nikon made sensor instead of the Sony one? Or does Nikon try to make more room for D4s in professional field? I have been waiting for this camera, but if ISO3200 is worse than old one, I am going to pick D800e instead.

      • UA

        OK, I’ll take some of my words back. ISO6400 https://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/14510072822/sizes/o/ the detail on the tent at correctly exposed areas is astonishing. This will do great with well exposed high ISO pics.

        • Colormenotimpressed

          The D4s, D4, Df, D3s, D700, D600, D610, A7, A7s, 5DIII, and 6D would all be cleaner.. but if by ‘great’ you mean it cleans up well for a 36mp high-ISO detail eating noise machine, sure, they look great.

      • O.o

        You realize that ‘Nikon Sensor’ just means they specified that Sony physically remove the low pass filter.. it is still the same sensor as the D800.. The alleged improvement in ISO performance is due to the cpu and different noise reduction process, not new tech in the sensor…

        • Thom Hogan

          No, it is not the same sensor as the D800. It’s the same sensor as the A7r.

          • O.o

            Which is the same sensor as the D800, with the OLPF removed……………..

            • Thom Hogan

              No, it is not. The original D800 sensor was 36 x 23.9mm, the Sony A7r and the D810 sensor are 35.9 x 24mm. They have different part numbers, and there are a few underlying differences, as well.

          • Eric Calabros

            A7r is 36.2 mp

            • Thom Hogan

              Nikon has always masked differently than Sony suggests, which gives them a different effective pixel number. Curiously, Nikon used to mask more aggressively, now it’s masking less aggressively.

              I should point out that even when Nikon uses a Sony sensor, they tend to have a special part number, which indicates that something is changed, most likely the filtration/microlens layers as I noted first with my D3x review.

    • UA

      Also the surfer pic is quite bad quality for ISO500 https://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/14324877767/ This seriously raises some questions that the sensor is not based on the old one or this is purposefully hindered by Nikon.

      • Maor?

        Plus, it is f/20 …

      • neonspark

        realistically, if you don’t have a comparison with the D800 next to it, you’re just blowing smoke.

    • http://artificialflight.org/ Julian H.

      Consider that the main subjects are out of focus, the focus is on the waves.

      Also, judging ISO performance from photos of a non-standard scene is quite risky (if not pointless). Anything other than a scientific measurement can’t possibly produce a useful comparison, especially since this and the D800/E are probably different by not more than a few percent.

      Add to that that this photo was edited and sharpened by an unknown amount:

      Sharpness – User
      Contrast – +16
      Brightness – -124
      Saturation – +4
      Hue Adjustment – -124

    • saywhatuwill

      Wow, if that’s what you call “so bad” it’s a wonder anyone even liked the D700. Being a shooter of the D700 for years the photo looks similar to what I’ve experienced with that camera. Since I came from the film era where Kodachrome 200 had worse grain structure than the photo above, I guess I’m just thankful we can get photos like the above. Heaven forbid the day you ever need to use film, which will probably be never.

    • Matt

      What is the small green “+” right behind guy with surfboard when zoomed in 100%? I have seen that on some of the nikon shots. IS that a Dead pixel that needs to be mapped out?

  • drasko

    clarity and details are amazing but if theres a dust issue again, then its a very expensive dust cam https://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/14511269935/sizes/k/in/set-72157644962114060/

  • JXVo

    Need to see a comparison against D800: Same pic with same settings and lenses……

    These pics are great but lack a frame of reference

    • neonspark

      realistically there will be little difference. if you the want studio and landscape goddess, the 800, any model will be the best. I don’t honestly understand why anybody would pick a 5DMKIII unless you’re invested in the lenses. It is too low res to hang around in the detail challenge, and too slow to be a 1DX alternative.
      The D800 is great because it didn’t try to be everything to everybody, thus being mediocre at both things. It is a camera sure of itself and doesn’t really pretend to be anything else.

  • TeaBreak

    Finally! Thanks NR much for posting the link!

  • sensorking

    my d800e saw these pics and peed its pants.

    • O.o

      Peed its pants laughing…
      Seriously, ‘these’ samples actually look worse – but some concession can be given for not being a controlled comparison..

      • O.o

        …and what is with the 10,000 hot pixels at 6400….

    • http://molnarcs.500px.com Csaba

      Really? So you think the camera takes the pictures, right? Why am I not surprised :D

  • Dazed&Confused

    I would have to agree with the growing consensus, and say that most of the sample images are not that impressive. Unfortunately many of them look worse than I have seen from random shots posted by the public from the D800/E.
    It is understood that these are not clinical, scientific, evaluation samples but they are images being put out to the public as ‘look what the new D810 can do’ in which one would assume they would be the best samples available to support the marketing. If these are the best of the shots taken then there has been no improvement – and possibly gotten worse.

    The video improvements on the other hand are in the workflow and methodology realm where they will surely provide great benefit to those in that genre.. Still imagery-wise, there does not appear to be anything to support a new model.

    • http://www.davidkasman.com/ David Kasman

      You’re right, but I’m sure it’s a damn good camera, regardless.

    • David&Conchita

      I just took a look at the NR post about the D800 sample images and plenty of people were whinging that the images weren’t sharp, out of focus etc.

    • neonspark

      but let’s face it, when have you seen a sample image from nikon that is impressive ;)

  • broxibear

    Here’s the first side by side comparison I’ve seen, not stills but video.
    Nikon D810 vs Canon 5D Mark II…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDrUlZYvgdE

    • broxibear

      Sorry, that should be Canon 5D Mark III.

    • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

      Any experts opinion? I know crap about video but they both look nice to me.

      • ArrGeeBee

        Dear Canon apologist, nice try. The difference is night and day…5D looks like VGA cr@p.

        • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

          What are you talking about? I shoot Nikon, but never video.

          It was a serious inquiry.

    • Holy 810 sharpness Batman!

    • Northerntrumpeter

      The sharpness is incredible. It’s easier to see the difference at the end of the video with the guy on the park bench. The detail in his hair and his skin makes the Canon look smudged!

    • neonspark

      the problem I have with these cameras, is that with 4K cameras out there that cost less, nobody should really care about this type of comparison any longer.

      BTW vimeo link? f’in google’s youtube is a cancer for video quality. f google.

  • John

    Hmm…makes you wonder how long it will be before this camera will have problems, and a another new camera rollout will be in the works…;-(

  • MrLee

    Is it just me or are these photos Extremely Soft/Out of focus ?

    • Spy Black

      It’s just you.

    • Steel

      It’s not just you, the pictures do not satisfy me at all when I zoom them beyond 100%. I have a D800 recently purchased at it’s sharper than the D810 I’ve seen so far in these pictures

    • Iagreee

      Yup, They must have taken the pictures down because of the Soft/Out of Focus/Potential Dust/High Iso comments. I’m shocked at how bad they were really. Expected much better considering how good the D800e already is. Not necessarily much better than the D800e, Just better quality images to show off such an expensive spec monster of a camera.

  • Tabish Anwar Shaikh
    • phosgene

      Thanks for posting. The hi-ISO noise doesn’t seem to have improved. I think Nikon is pitching the camera as a dynamic range monster, though, rather than a low light shooter.

      • neonspark

        I sure hope so because if I want to shoot inside a closet with the lights off, I don’t need 36.6 MP to do this.

  • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

    Did you guys watch the making-of?

    These are all unedited, JPEGs straight out of camera. No adjustments, no post processing.

    It’s Nikon’s rule that I can respect.

  • Peter

    Hm, pics are gone. Why?

    • JoCarpenter

      The pictures are gone, I’m guessing cause sharp eyed Nikon Rumors readers spotted dust spots.

      • JoCarpenter

        Not to worry Nikon, I still want me one.

    • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

      Strange.

      I still want one too.

  • FDF

    All but first 2 images say
    This is not the page you’re looking for.

  • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

    All the sample photos have been removed?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Typical Nikon…

      • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

        I did download them, by the way. Not sure if I should post them somewhere, or not.

        • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

          Better not, the Nikon police will get you :)

  • neonspark

    who gives a crap about high ISO. it is always DR compromised and horrible looking. I want to see lots and lots of that new 64 base ISO. Low ISO is the new high ISO!

  • Watter102

    Pictures removed due to proprietary algorithm encryption in the files not licensed for release just wait. DataRock24 supposedly.

  • zeb

    Bryan Peterson, who is also an AdoramaTV instructor, like Mark Wallace, has said that he’s never had a client complain about diffraction.

    gorden is right about http://www.mp3skull.berlin

  • Back to top