Rumors: Nikon D810 no longer in production


I received some information that the Nikon D810 camera will no longer be in production in 2017.

Given previous release patterns, Nikon tend to announce cheaper cameras first (D610/D750) and then follow up with a higher-end, more expensive model (D810).

The Nikon D810 body is currently $200 off. I expect another price drop in February/March.

There still no changes to the what to expect list I did back in December.

This entry was posted in Nikon D820. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • TinusVerdino

    Wondering about the new sensor Will it be the 42mp we haven’t seen outside Sony yet? The D800 was announced 5 years ago, The D810 2,5 Years ago but it had a different version of the same sensor in it. Time for an new one. 54mp would be viable with a more modern cmos sensor BSI or not. Same pixel size as a 24mp aps-c. Because full frame has less noise magnification and more pixels it would score better than a 24mp cmos sensor using the same tech.

    • peter w

      ? less noise magnification on same pixel density.
      I did physics for quite some time, and I would love to understand this.

      • TinusVerdino

        Full frame has 2.25 times more surface than aps-c so from the point of view of the viewer the noise in a full frame picture is less than half the size than a similar picture taken with aps-c (similar meaning the same FOV and framing under equal lighting conditions)

        • peter w

          You mean in the end. The noise is the same in the pixels, but if you print both photos as a hole on the same size, the image with more pixels will be better, since the pixels are smaller, and thus the detail with noise is smaller.
          Thanks, I am with you now.
          (If you would crop images to the same size, as bird-photographers tend to do, you don’t win a thing.)

          • Max

            Exactly. And downsizing the images also isn’t effective for reducing noise

        • Allen_Wentz

          However someone like me who uses both kit and chooses between FX & DX is usually NOT at the same FOV or at the same framing or at the same lighting conditions (faster DX lenses per dollar at the tele end, better FX at the WA end).

          • TinusVerdino

            Those are your choices. They are not inherent

            • Allen_Wentz

              They are relatively inherent for many shots. Obviously all photography is about choices, but as I shoot a critter at distance for instance I may get a 600mm FOV from a $2k 80-400mm on my DX D500 but I get 400mm on my FX body. Reality is that (+5 pounds and +$10k) 600mm on FX is not really a choice I can readily make.

              Similarly I can get 300mm f/2.8 out of my 70-200mm on DX but to achieve 300mm on FX at similar price/weight I must use my slower 300mm f/4.

              My point is that even if we did have every lens choice readily available (which no one does) FOV, framing and lens speed (i.e. effective lighting) usually do vary by DX versus FX. That is an observation, not a complaint (I shoot both DX/FX).

  • TwoStrayCats

    Now this is the way to set a thread on fire!

  • Taki

    I really don’t care how many pixels they go for, so long as they improve focus to D5/500 level, increase image quality over the D810 (i.e., dynamic range, color etc) and bring the flash system into the 21st century with radio control…

  • DafOwen

    Exciting!

  • DafOwen

    I find this graphic/table handy for comparing release times + models
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nikon_DSLR_cameras

    • peter w

      Somewhat strange model
      I’d say D700 was a way more serious camera as Df was. Certainky in its time.

      Further, I would not consider a D300, D700 D800 or for that matter an FM (or FM2a, FE, etc) ‘advanced’ camera’s, but rather light professional models, in which professional would stand for the consistent way the handling is organised. Direct control.

  • Bob Cozzi

    Maybe I’m remembering wrong, but isn’t their pattern to announce the D5, then the D850, then a D750-follow on? Highest end to lowest.

    • I think the same, because, the D750 was the true successor of the D600. The D610 was in fact a D600 with SAV fix.
      All story about “D700 successor” is marketing.
      If we look on the launch date, each time we have D4, D800, D600 and D4s, D810, D750.
      Now, we can wait for a D850 and D750 replacement.

    • Wade Marks

      Yes, makes more sense to do higher end first. Let’s take the case of the D810 and D750 successors.

      If Nikon were to release the D750 successor (call it D760) first, and presuming some nice improvements, then for a time it may look better in some ways than the D810, and those itching for a new FF will go the D760.

      Then when the successor to D810 comes out (call it D850) many will pass, having already the D760.

      If you release the D850 first, many of those looking for new FF will gravitate to that. Those that didn’t want it/couldn’t afford it, etc will wait for D760.

      There is a subset of buyers who will buy the next FF from Nikon, be it D850 or D760. Better for Nikon for it to be the D850.

      Also, arguably the next FF from Nikon will attract a lot of buzz and attention, since it will be the first new FF from Nikon in a while at the enthusiast/pro level, not the astronomically priced D5. Better for Nikon for it to be the higher priced D850 than the D760.

  • Wade Marks

    Hugo is a great movie, a very touching one. Thanks for pointing that out.

  • Wedding tog here..
    Skip D850, get me a D760:
    1/8000 shutter
    Touch screen
    AF-ON button
    Round eyepiece like D800/D810 line
    KEEP MP THE SAME!! 24MP IS AWESOME!

    • Banan Tarr

      The 8xx series isn’t just for “wedding togs” kthx

  • mas921

    with all seriousness, would Nikon care for better video features?

    I shoot racing events, a D500 user, and will jump to the next FF with the D500 AF system (I need every bit of ISO performance; can’t afford D5), but I also shoot a lot of video’s for my youtube channel too, and am seriously excited by the GH5, but two systems…argh!

    Is there ANY chance we would get better video features? you know, focus peaking, zebra’s, and the friggin Video AF…I don’t need more than 6-7FPS if the AF is as good as the D500’s (the idea is to capture “good” shots, not “a lot of” shots), I don’t mind the higher MP as i tend to crop, so it’s an -not required- plus, but…. Video!! I really need better Video! but I have feeling am in a minority within Nikon shooters.

    • Sports

      How about buying a video camera?

      • mas921

        “Not sure if serious”….

      • Allen_Wentz

        Personally I seldom shoot video, but mas921’s comments are important because there are lots of folks buying DSLRs who DO shoot video. Nikon really, really should be providing what mas921 is asking for. [The idea is _not_ to send your customers to other platforms!]

        Except of course Nikon marketing’s arrogance means they do not hear what consumers are saying..

      • Carleton Foxx

        For the last six months I have been on the verge of buying a Canon C100 and a couple of Nikon to Canon adapters. I don’t know what is stopping me.

    • Wolf33d

      Agree with you. I would like good video on Nikon bodies.
      So far I think the best they will give is a bad 4k with big crop like on the D5. So I am resigned to get a GH5 for video + Nikon body for photo …. It is a shame to have 2 bodies when we could have one but it also has advantages. Sometimes having both on the same body is not convenient (for exemple I use the photo body for a timelapse with a particular lens and then use at the same time the video body with a different focal lens to shoot some stuff…)

      • Allen_Wentz

        Anyone working for pay pretty much needs a minimum of two bodies on a platform anyway. Video competence on a new D8xx would be welcomed.

    • ashleylamb

      Nikon Expeed 6A has focus peaking,it is in
      the manual for the new DLs whenever they arrive

  • ITN

    The opposite is actually true; the D810 was announced and brought to market first, then the D750. In 2012, D800 and D800E came before the D600. The D610 is not really a planned distinct model of its own but a way to clean the reputation after the oil problems of the D600.

  • Tristan Jones

    Couldn’t come sooner for me. I’m in need of a new body, and keep looking
    at the D500 or D810 and thinking ; the moment I buy one, Nikon are
    gonna release something new (in the D810/750 case) and I’m gonna be
    pissed.
    Nothing out of the Nikon camp at the last two big expos…
    I’ve been back here regularly checking for new because my gut feeling
    was wait it out.
    So maybe by the end of Feb there will be news from the Japan expo…. Then a few more months for production and stock.
    Just
    hope as others have also said, that this is a decent update, not
    another marginal improvement, would love to get into the 50mp range,
    alreayd got two core lenses I’m confident will benefit significantly
    from that sort of update (50mm art, 24mm nikon 1.8G) even if only to
    80-85% of sensor resolution, that would still give 40mp+, which for my
    landscapes and stitched panoramas is a huge improvement.
    Bring it on Nikon!

    • Michael Cary Arellano

      What do you need additional MP for with landscapes that the 37MP D810 does not provide? Genuinely curious.

      • Tristan Jones

        1. I don’t have the D810 (I have a D800)
        2. i shoot mega and gigapixel panoramas, more resolution = less need for FoV e.g. using a 14mm is no good for a stitched panorama as all detail is miniscule and you only use 4-5 frames. Thus I shoot 24-90mm depending on the scene.
        A higher resolving sensor means I can use wider lenses and get the same detail level per shot, or it can mean, vertically, I can take a single row rather than two to make a panorama (non 360) … I’m not a nutjob… there is a practical use.
        If I could afford a 100mp body I would buy one in a split second, 100mp = 2 rows of d810 horizontal shooting in 1 shot at equivalent focal length.
        Now to broaden this, consider…. if I have to shoot 80 shots…. and clouds, water, trees, light, people…etc.. are all moving… anything that reduces my frame count need is a bounus, I get the job done quicker, there are less abberations to clean up and I get the light eqaully….

        And that is just for starters¬!

        • manattan

          The biggest difference between the 800 and the 810 sensor is not the absence of the aa filter but the lower native base iso. It gives you even more DR to get you to near MF levels.

          • Tristan Jones

            Actually it is the combination of both. If you have aa, it reduces sharpness gained by lower iso, so native iso and no aa combined yeild higher MFT than say having a d800 with aa and base iso 64.

            AA is an incidental blur not a post blur so it affects all light before it hits the sensor, therefore it lowers MFT regardless

  • eric

    I think they should remove this thread!! The server of nikon rumors seems to be really slow since this thread show up!! I have never seen a thread with so many replies in such a short time period! I guess lots of folks are waiting for an affordable Fx body with the new exspeed processor(D5)

    • Oh, we had posts with way more comments than that.

      • eric

        I was just kidding around! I forgot to put smily emoticon!! 🙂 I am not gonna get the new D850 but Im also curious to see what Nikon will bring to the table.

    • animalsbybarry

      SAR had over 1000 comments on one article

  • DonD

    As a landscape photographer, Someone please give me the name of ONE Nikon lens in the 14-20mm range that will resolve to 36mpx on the D810, then I might believe it can do better on a 48+mpx body.

    • Carleton Foxx

      The 20mm 1.8?

      • DonD

        Thanks, but not great according to Dx0mark numbers and lenstip review.

        • DaveR43

          Maybe this quote from a well-respected contributor to dpreview will help in your dilemma over a wide angle landscape lens:

          “To me, the [Nikon] 20/1.8G succeeds (and is my choice at this range, over the Sigma, even over the Zeiss 21) because *it does the least harm over the widest set of circumstances*. By that I mean since no wide angle is perfect (far from it – there is work to be done here), I found the evenness of sharpness across the frame better with the 20 in more scene type than the Zeiss, the Sigma, any of the Nikon or Tamron zooms, etc. So it comes down to whether you personally value center zone superiority (at the expense of edge/corners) or even performance, in addition to your own thoughts on flare resistance and filter capability.”

          The contributor goes under the id anotherMike, and this comment was posted in the Nikon SLR lens Talk forum, within a thread called “20mm Nikon vs 20mm Sigma art”, six months ago.

        • Allen_Wentz

          I do not own a D8xx yet, but the 20mm f/1.8 is a good lens. Perhaps lose the inclination to go by DxO and Lenstip analyses and instead rent the lens or test it in a store.

        • Carleton Foxx

          Bummer. I had high hopes for that lens. It seems like it would be the solution to a lot of problems.

  • Pardal Linho

    Nikon has become officially the most boring and idealess company in the history of photography. The one thing that surprises me is how they they are still in business and manage to sell any of their overpriced and innovation depleted merchandise. I for one, have been waiting for more than ONE YEAR for a DL18-50, announced February last year and yet to be seen. My order of course cancelled long ago but I keep laughing. This is after I had D800 that had endless problems that were never properly repaired and a D600 that I better not even start talking about it.. no comments. This is all I have to say, a Nikon fan for 30 years that already sold all his gear and switched to other people that actually innovate and deliver products.

  • DonD

    I’m not an optics engineer, but someone help me understand how a lens than can not resolve to a relative Dx0 Sharpness on 36mpx on a D810, is somehow magically going to jump to anywhere near 48mpx on a higher mpx body. IF it can resolve to say, 42, then why can’t the 36mpx body with no filter see at least that much, WHEN, that same body is capable of seeing 36 on other brands (I’m assuming they are resolving above 36mpx

    • Fdfas Jlkjl

      OMFG how many times must you repeat this garbage?

      • DonD

        TI’ll I get a scientific answer.

        • DaveR43

          As per my answer about six hours ago, you will have a much better understanding if you read the articles by H H Nasse, “How to read MTF Curves?”

          The extracts I showed came from Part I, there is also a Part II that goes into more detail on digital sensors. It has this comment in the introduction:

          “This knowledge will then be applied to a very hot topic of debate: are today’s lenses good enough for sensors with 24 million pixels? We are sure there is ample material for a discussion here.”

          In case this is not enough material, H H Nasse has also written a number of other articles on optical design…

          • DaveR43

            On page 24 of H H Nasse article “How to read MTF Curves Part II”, he looks at a two lenses (80 lpmm and 160 lpmm)and two sensors, (12 mpixels and 24 mpixels). These are his comments:

            “What can these curves tell us based on
            what we learned from the images used as
            examples?

            1. Doubling the number of pixels
            improves the transfer function even if
            the sensor resolution is better than
            the resolution of the lens.

            2. The curve for the poor lens on the 24
            MP sensor is almost as good as the
            curve of the good lens with the 12 MP
            sensor.

            3. We expect differences between 12
            and 24 MP to be visible but we also
            see that they should not be
            overestimated (see Comparison 4).

            The differences are not as large as
            the numbers 12 and 24 may suggest.
            Thus concerns that today’s good lenses
            may in general not be able to cope with a
            24 MP sensor appear somewhat
            exaggerated. Of course the full potential of
            the huge data files can only be used with
            a very good lens. But we can expect some
            improvement of image quality not only for
            the optimal aperture stops but also outside
            of the range of best performance,
            provided there is no price to pay in the
            form of increased noise or reduced
            dynamic range.

            The reason for an overly pessimistic view
            is the misconception that only the
            resolution limit of the system determines
            the image quality and that it is identical to
            the resolution of the weakest link of this
            chain. This is not the case, though, since
            the curves are multiplied, or it is the case
            only if the optical system performs very
            poorly.”

            QED

    • DaveR43

      If a replacement for the D810 had 54 Mpixels, a perfect lens would deliver 54 P-Mpix, and increase of 50% over the results on a D810.

      We can get some idea of the capability of existing lenses on a 54 MPixel body using the DxO results on the DX format 24 Mpixel D7100, multiplying up.

      For example,

      Zeiss Milvus 85 f/1.4: 36 P-Mpix on D810;21 P-Mpix on D7100; 21*54/24 = 47 P-Mpix.

      This is a P-Mpix increase of 31%

      Using the same logic with a number of existing Nikon lenses gives the following results

      105 f/1.4E 30%
      70-200 f/2.8G VR II 25%
      85 f/1.8G 30%
      24 f/1.4G 27%
      14-24 f/2.8G 27%
      50 f/1.8G 43%
      50 f/1.4G 39%
      24-120G 35%
      20 f/1.8G 35%
      16-35 f/4 30%

      So while the absolute results may not get up to 54 P-Mpix, by upgrading a 36 Mpixel D810 to a 54 Mpixel body one would achieve an increase of 25-43% in P-Mpix for these lenses.

      Seems a pretty good deal to me.

      • DonD

        Ok, but if a lens isn’t perfect to the point of not being able to show 36 sharpness on a 36 body when others can, why will looking through it with a 50 mpx body give it any more resolving power?

        • DaveR43

          A Zeiss Milvus 85 mm f/1.4 deliver 36 P-Mpix on the D810, however, it is not autofocus.

          By using a higher resolution body, one can achieve pretty much the same resolution with lower cost lenses that do autofocus.

          For example, based on the D7100 results pro-rata’d up, the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G will deliver 34 P-Mpix on a 54 mpixel body.

          Similarly:

          200 f/2.8: 38 P-Mpix
          400 f/2.8G: 38 P-Mpix
          300 f/2.8G: 34 P-Mpix
          24 f/1.8G: 34 P-Mpix
          35 f/1.8: 36 P-Mpix
          70-200 f/2.8: 34 P-Mpix
          20 f/1.8: 34 P-Mpix
          58 f/1.4: 32 P-Mpix

          BTW many people have used a wide range of Nikon FX lenses on the Nikon 1 range, with great results. Even the lowly Nikon V1 has a resolution equivalent to 73 mpixels at full frame size. So there’s still a lot to be had by using higher resolution sensors with existing lenses.

        • DaveR43

          I do have a book that explains it reasonably simply, but it is packed away somewhere. For the time being, below I have taken some extracts from a Carl Zeiss document “How to read MTF Curves”, by H H Nasse. You should be able to find it via Google if you want to read up on this.

          First, Modulation Transfer Function

          “In optics, the difference between bright
          and dark is referred to as “contrast”. Seen
          from a more general point of view, the
          difference between maximum and
          minimum for all sinusoidal, periodically
          changing quantities is called
          “modulation.” If we compare the
          modulation of the image with the
          modulation of the object by simply dividing
          these two figures by each other, we get a
          simple figure that provides a statement
          about the imaging properties of the lens:
          The modulation transfer. Thus, we have
          already understood the first two letters of
          the term “MTF”. It is a number between 0
          and 1 or between 0 and 100%.”

          Secondly, how MTF can be applied to real life situations:

          “We never observe the image of the lens
          directly with our eye, but require further
          links in the imaging chain: We always
          require an image sensor, analog or
          digital, or maybe a scanner, a printer or
          projection optics.
          All these components, even the human
          eye, have their own imaging properties,
          each of which can also be described by
          a transfer function. And the nice property
          of MTF is that the MTF of the entire
          imaging chain is (approximately) the
          product of all individual MTFs.”

          To take a very simple example. If a lens has an MTF(l), and a sensor has an MTF(s), the MTF of the combination is MTF(l) x MTF(s). The resulting MTF is lower than either of the two MTF figures

          In principle, using the lens with a higher resolution sensor will mean the sensor MTF is higher, resulting in an improvement in the overall MTF, so the images will be sharper.

          • Michiel953

            Very enlightening and helpful Dave; thanks. It’s all pretty logical really; nothing more complicated than the old “Garbage in? Garbage out” adage, used in audio amplifier speak. Or maybe I’m too much of a Quad aficionado.

      • Tony

        What factors determine the varying percentage improvements for different lenses? I can see that an optically perfect lens would exploit all the additional mp and would get a 50% improvement going from 36mp to 54mp, but the above figures suggest that it is not necessarily the highest resolving lenses which benefit most from the additional mp. (I am also not an optics engineer)

        • DaveR43

          You are right. And some lenses show quite small increases using these metrics. A difficulty is that DxO don’t describe the details of how they estimate P-Mpix.

          It would be interesting to look at e.g Tamron and Sigma lenses on a range of Canon bodies, to see how closely the pro rata multiplier corresponds to an actual high resolution body.

          • DaveR43

            Canon 7D Mk II is 20.3 mpixels, 1.6 crop factor; pro rata to FF = 51.7 mpixels.

            Canon 5Ds R is 50.3 mpixels.

            Quick examples here. First number is P-Mpix from pro rata calculations from 7D Mk II DxO results, second is P-Mpix from 5Ds R DxO results:

            300 f/2.8L IS II: 44; 45
            35 f/1.4L II USM: 36; 37
            70-200 f/2.8L IS II: 31; 33

            • Tony

              That demonstrates that your pro rata estimates are reasonable, and does show good consistency in the DxO results.

              My question is still whether the apparent metric suggesting that some lenses (and not necessarily the highest resolution lenses) will benefit more than others from a higher resolution sensor is a “real statistic”, which will translate into an actual human visible effect. Or is it just some meaningless statistic that results from trying to summarize the resolution in a single number? (Consider the 50mm f/1.8G – 43% increase, as opposed to 24mm f/1.4G – 27% increase)

            • DaveR43

              The confusion I originally set out to clarify was the concern that a 54 mpixel sensor would not result in any increase in image quality. Clearly there is an increase.

              Whether it will be apparent in real life will depend on the kinds of images taken, and the uses to which they are put.

              You could determine it yourself. Assuming you currently use a 36 mpixel DSLR, use stitching techniques as necessary, create 72 mpixel, 54 mpixel and 36 mpixel images of the kind of scene you typically photograph, and compare them under the conditions you would expect to view them.

              Can you see a difference in the sharpness and detail? If not, no need to worry about replacing your current camera/s, from a resolution perspective.

    • Thom Hogan

      Yes, you’re proving that you’re not an optics engineer.

      • DonD

        But no one has answered my question. Just saying it is doesn’t make it so.

        • Thom Hogan

          Sorry, but your question WAS answered. The same lens tested by DxO on cameras with different pixel counts results in different resolution numbers. Why? Because the sensor is resolving more, not the lens.

    • Carleton Foxx

      Don’t feel bad, I don’t understand it either, but from what I have been able to figure it out, as long as you’re using relatively recent lenses and don’t stop down too far, you don’t need to worry because there’s nothing you can do about it anyway.

    • Tony Beach

      Here is an example for you to chew on. The Nikkor 50/1.4G gets a 14 P-Mpix rating from DxO Mark when used on the 24 MP D3X, which is not 24 P-Mpix; for whatever reason, the same lens used on other 24 MP D600 and D610 FX sensors gets a 16 P-Mpix rating and on a 24 MP D750 it gets an 18 P-MPix rating, which still isn’t 24 P-Mpix. Raise the pixel density 50% and the P-MPix rating goes up 50% from 14 P-Mpix on the D3x to 21 P-Mpix on the D800E and D810; yet on my my D800 it’s only 16 P-Mpix (same as the D600 and D610, and less than the D750), which very much leads me to question the entire concept of P-Mpix.

      • DaveR43

        A possible explanation is the D3X, D600, D610 and D800 all have anti-aliasing filters, whereas I think the D750 only has a partial anti-aliasing filter, the D800E has the anti-aliasing filter action cancelled out, and the D810 has none.

        • Tony Beach

          It is not an explanation at all.

      • DaveR43

        The anti-aliasing differences (see my earlier note) also show up in tests done by Optyczne (Polish test site, they do the tests published on the Lenstip web site).

        If you want to check their tests out you will need to use a browser that supports language translation.

        They have tested many cameras, and they generally include resolution tests.

        Looking at their graphs for MTF50 line pairs per mm, their results for the D600, D800, D750, D810 correlate quite well with the DxO P-Mpix results.

        MTF50 [lpmm]
        D810 71.5
        D750 56.5
        D800 54
        D600 51

        • Tony Beach

          It’s a lot of hypothetical hogwash. The D750 does not resolve more than the D800 in the real world, and I’m pretty certain not in a lab either (unless the results are skewed beyond recognition). People can live in their little fantasy world all they want, but I’m not going join them there.

          Regarding AA filters specifically, for landscape photography I spend a lot of time in the f/11 range, which is well beyond where the effects of the AA filters used on these cameras have any significance.

          • DaveR43

            Which shows more resolution in this section of the dpreview studio scene?https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a0d52dadaaa62de1c374bcb5ad785f454be210a560b90e3dd84c1184fddf71b1.jpg

            • Tony Beach

              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/43da89292718bc73dd57ae11f5dc097837f44c7a5ef45717b1292b48122acea4.jpg

              See my response below.

              I downloaded the Raw files from the D750 and D800 from DPR’s studio scene, resized the D750 file to match the D800 file in size, and took some side-by-side 100% crops. You are welcome to try and do better, but what I see is a clear advantage for the D800 here.

              As for your example, it is false detail. Go look at the Phase One IQ180 rendition of that portion of that scene and you will see that neither the D810, D800, nor the D750 is resolving the detail that the Phase One IQ180 is resolving there. The D750 is showing some fraction of the lines (they are essentially made up) whereas the D800 is simply showing blur there (with some moire actually, just not as much as much moire as the D810 is showing there, but more than the D750 is showing because the D750 also has an AA filter on it).

            • DaveR43

              I’ll give you that.

          • DaveR43

            I see you edited your response with an additional paragraph.

            Granted if you are at f/11 all the time, then you will not see whatever differences there are at f/4.

            I have just checked the Optyzcne results again. At f/11, the D800 does indeed show higher resolution than the D750.

            MTF50 [lpmm] on the D800 is 45 compared to 44 on the D750.

            • Tony Beach

              Your source is flawed. You can see the crops I offered to another reply of yours. This idea that there is only a negligible difference in resolution between the D750 and D800 at any reasonable aperture is demonstrably false.

      • DonD

        Thank you. I chewed on it. I think the answer is in the amount of or the existence of AA filters, but I could be wrong. It’s not just IF it has a filter but how much blur did the filter add to the image coming out of the lens.

  • RJ

    I have been a UK Nikon user since the 1980’s. I am getting wary of the company I admit. The have been price gorging here since the late ’90’s and it is getting worse. Yes we have some nasty sales tax here and the import tax is not the best either. I don’t see Brexit as a factor, but rather the fact we have the fastest growing economy in the developed world as of right now. The pound is also good against the yen. My problem is I fully predict the D810 replacement will be a full thousand pounds more expensive than the outgoing camera. I predict the 610 replacement will have the 24 mp sensor and the 750 replacement, to carry the d810 36mp sensor. The trouble they have to face here right now is the pentax K1 for people who do not create a large sense collection. Also the art lenses, they out perform the Nikon ones for less money. Personally I think if they go silly with prices, I might pull the trigger on that mint condition F3 film camera and get a slide scanner.

    • Viktor

      Yes, I do agree with you RJ. I have been Nikon user for around 22 years and in the last years I am switching towards Sigma Art as I do not like Nikkor pricing policy. The pricing of the Nikkor lenses is ridiculous. It makes me sick and feel Nikon is too priggish about their gear and very unpleasant towards their customers.
      Nikon (as I mean mainly Nikkor) is going the wrong direction and customers are saying that to them – however they are not listening and their sales in photo branch are awfully falling as show in the last years results…. 🙁
      I am sad about that and hope for management change which is getting crucial now.

  • Wait what? Didn’t the D750 come *after* the D810? I remember clearly because I kept telling all my wedding photographer friends to wait and NOT get the D810, and they didn’t listen to me, and then when the D750 came out a ton of them got D750’s and regretted their D810’s…

    Either way, I suspect that a D810 replacement will come sooner than a D750 replacement, but neither will come in the next 6 months I don’t think.

    A D610 replacement, on the other hand, might come sooner than later, but honestly I bet that whole line is not long for this world, I dunno. If they do make a D620 or something, it’s gonna hafta be super cheap and super simple. A D5500 full-frame, as it were…

    • Spy Black

      For me, a D750 or D610 replacement will hopefully have even better dynamic range and noise then their predecessors, even if there’s no change in resolution. All the other things like better AF and whatnot are cool, but those two cameras are the workingman’s high dynamic range/low noise cameras. I hope it stays that way and don’t follow in the footsteps of the D5 and D500.

      • Politics_Nerd

        I’d take a little more FPS for sports in a D760…

        • Politics_Nerd

          or a lot more…

  • Politics_Nerd

    Woo hoo!! Now the only question is, do I wait for the 850s???? ;-p

  • tomskyphoto

    Wouldn’t expect much in terms of dramatic improvements on the sensor side. The D810 is still the king of DR with almost 15 EV among the current bunch of FF cameras that otherwise sit pretty closely together in terms of IQ as even Canon is slowly catching up albeit they haven’t fully arrived yet.

    The Sony A7RII for example outperforms the D810 in resolution, but only marginally, and high ISO performance. For that it trades in almost one EV of dynamic range and also adds a horrendous long exposure chroma noise that makes it essentially unusable without LE NR. In addition the 810’s output is visibly cleaner at base ISO despite its nominally lower resolution. I own both cameras and have experienced these characteristics firsthand. In terms of overall IQ it can still be said that the IQ of the 810 is among the absolute best in its class if not the best and with the ‘obsolete’ D800(E) trailing not too far behind.

    It’s also noteworthy to compare the D4s to its successor, the D5, same pattern there. So I doubt that Nikon could actually get much improved DR and better ISO performance out of Sony’s 42MP BSI sensor or an even higher resolution new one. CMOS seems to have almost leveled off at its technological maturity plateau where massive improvements from one sensor generation to another don’t happen anymore. Now advances are just incremental and quite often marginal. For the sake of sensor performance gains alone skipping at least every other camera generation now comes with almost no penalty.

    Things like AF, processing speed for higher fps and faster memory interface and video could be improved of course and make the D810’s successor a compelling upgrade for those who need those features for their photo- or videography. For my slow shooting style I don’t need any of these features upgraded at all so it looks like I’m going to pass on the D8xx/D900 or whatever it s name will be unless some mad pipedream 17+ EV, 80+ MP medium format trashing monster surprisingly materializes out of the blue.

    • KnightPhoto

      I think Thom is implying that may well happen in a D5X “unless some mad pipedream 17+ EV, 80+ MP medium format trashing monster surprisingly materializes out of the blue.” I think he said maybe 72mp.

      A super high mp D5X and a still good enough to do some Canon trashing 54mp D820. Nice combo yes?

  • Bo Dez

    The D810 is probably the last remaining camera that makes sense and has a certain future with investing in.

  • animalsbybarry

    Many people want a Nikon FF mirrorless
    If Nikon can use the rumored new mirrorless Sony 70-80 mp sensor with improved AF making the D850 a mirrorless F mount would be great
    If they decide to include mirror and D5 level AF then I hope it will include live view comparable to the mirrorless camera with AF as good as the Sony when using live view

    • Michiel953

      Many. That’s you and… a friend?

      • No, actually only him 🙂

        • Michiel953

          Or multiple personality (dis-)order? Just joking.

          I was reminded though of this Jeremy Paxman/Boris Johnson exchange, in which the question “How much?” was repeatedly posed without a clear response forthcoming…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EujXtSlOwA

      • hje

        Marry People
        small typo. just referring to this woman.

    • Bo Dez

      I would love it to be 70-80MP but I don’t think EVF is ready yet and I doubt I would be interested in it and probably wouldn’t buy it. They are awful looking at and in a dark studio they are much worse, grainy slow and starting to lose effectiveness. 70-80MP with Mirror and OVF is what I want.

    • azur

      With regards to F mount cameras with FX sensors I prefer composing the subject through a big, bright optical viewfinder rather than composing the subject on the tiny television screen of a battery driven viewfinder.
      For APS-C and smaller formats it makes more sense to replace the smaller and often darker optical viewfinders with electronic finders (unless the optical viewfinder can be as nice and big and bright as e.g. the D500 viewfinder).
      Optical viewfinders are said to be more complex and therefore more expensive to manufacture than electronic viewfinders, but I am willing to pay the premium since the viewfinder is so important for the composition experience.
      For a new, more compact, digital camera series for street photography and travel-light tourist photography (think S mount or something like that) it would on the other hand make sense to make the jump to a battery driven electronic viewfinder regardless of format, it be FX or APS-C.

      • animalsbybarry

        Nikon users naturally prefer optical viewfinders and SLR camera… that is why they are Nikon users

        There are also many good reasons to preffer mirrorless and EVF
        Both have valid arguments and I am not going to try to convince you of which is better

        If Nikon does not make a FF mirrorless than allowing the D850 to function like an effective mirrorless camera in live view and as a DSLR in normal mode

        The best of both worlds

        The LCD screen can be used in a manor similar to an EVF with a lensman or similar hood

        • KnightPhoto

          Agreed, a sensor that has OSPDAF to enhance LiveView would be the best of both worlds. Add in one final piece of the puzzle, the ability to take an add-on EVF for times when the Hoodman is too unwieldly. And I’d use OVF and PDAF 85% of the time, so still need that part.

          Give me all that and I don’t need a mirrorless camera for my genres (other than a small pocketable one like a DL, that would still be handy).

  • Jirka

    My dreamy D850 is:

    36 – 70 MPX (im ok with 36, but 70 would be interesting)
    on senzor phase detection
    5 – 8 fps (8 in crop mode maybe, but i dont care so much about fps on D8xx)
    D5 AF system and cpu
    4K – 6K video no crop
    focus peaking
    be able to choose electronic shutter (for silence and timelapses)
    ((IBIS would be awesome too))

    My dreamy D760 is:

    16-24 MPX (for high iso/low noise photos)
    on senzor phase detection
    8 fps
    D5 AF system and cpu
    4K – 6K video no crop
    focus peaking
    be able to choose electronic shutter (for silence and timelapses)
    ((IBIS would be awesome too))

  • eric

    d810 is a great camera. a legend in my book. im glad i got one. i cant imagine how to make it any better besides pushing pixels up which is largely a gimmick anyways. if you havent had a d810, i would still pick up one now.

    • trialcritic

      Many said that one does not need more than 10mp in 2005. When the resolution improves, the ways to apply it comes too. I have a D800 and thought that it was the end of the world.

      • eric

        better resolution comes from using better lenses. i can print professionally at 24×36 with my d810. you can believe whatever you want though. im sure Nikon would love if you bought a new camera every year.

        • trialcritic

          People who work with such cameras rarely use bad lenses. I am largely in landscape photography and use a Zeiss 15mm lens as it allows filters.

          • eric

            and you need more megapixels for what reason? because your client doesn’t think its enough and is requesting more? or you just think more is always good? if your doing landscapes mostly, i would suggest a medium format camera. it will give you a lot better results, better color, more depth.

            • Allen_Wentz

              Actually it is not _us_ that needs more pixels, it is _Nikon_ that needs more pixels in their next D8xx iteration if they want to continue to compete.

              Personally I would be thrilled with an upgraded 30 MP. But Nikon would lose even more market share.

            • eric

              not sure i agree with that. there are already other cameras out there that have more pixels for some time and nikon hasn’t budged yet. in my view there real competition is themselves. not getting involved in mirrorless market, way late on snapbridge, focusing on low end dslr’s, they dont seem to get how the camera market has changed. customers want smaller bodies, with connectivity, and of course decent specs…but i dont think nikon understands this. i think 36mp is enough, considering file size is huge already, but my guess is they drop a 54mp camera to get people to go wow, but in reality it only produces marginally better results and your stuck with enormous files.

            • Allen_Wentz

              I have to say I agree with everything you say Eric. Which is why I would be happy with even less than 36 MP but fully modernizing the D810 to (slightly larger) D500 body.

              Nikon engineering remains best in class in my opinion, so Nikon is capable of continuing the “best all-around DSLR” of the D8xx series. Thom’s suggestion of both h & x versions seems to me like the best solution to pixel count marketing.

              When you have a camera as good as the D810, “marginally better results” may be exactly what a version upgrade needs. Plus we will not know how much better until we see how a new sensor performs. Perhaps Nikon can wow us and drive lens improvement purchasing via a new D8xx like they did with the D800/810 (hopefully sans the QA/QC issues…).

              Dealing with 100 MP image files (MF scans) was a PITA a decade ago, but once i7 processors became common and Apple brought us Thunderbolt for i/o enormous files became manageable. As someone who built print ads in addition to capturing images I have always appreciated having more image data rather than less. Any photog whining about file size gets zero sympathy from me.

  • Carleton Foxx

    And for all of you saying that Nikon should add radio transmitter for flash, they tried that before (D1?) and apparently none of you bought it. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/92c6e2b9e0e69257eff9a21a48bee78819531750e59d2bfdfbd334108e87733e.jpg

  • Thom Hogan

    Don’t be a troll. You made an assertion. I’ve asked you to provide detail for that assertion. You’ve failed at that. Therefore, I and other are not going to believe your assertion.

  • Wesley

    It can be the same old camera, just give me AF that fills 80%+ of the frame.

  • CERO

    Question admin.. does this means the D810 will be declared EOL and no more parts for replacement/repairs will be built?

    • No, I think they will have replacement parts for a long time after the camera is discontinued.

      • CERO

        Thanks man! I was fearing.. lets just say that I had to face very expensive equipment EOL calls in my life. And they said “We do no longer produce parts for this device, once the device parts are exhausted, no more parts will be produced”. Forcing me for a pretty giant upgrade (money wise). So I’m now paranoic in these kind of rumors.

  • 120_300 OS for nikon

    From Clickbait some years ago to first real rumors but any news yet or now at saint valentine day Peter ?

    • Nope, nada. The entire rumor mill is silent.

  • 120_300 OS for nikon

    Most important for me at this upcoming camera is AF system of D5 and higher cleaner ISO keep same bat pack again to keep (00 E D810 users happy and they can use older as backup only yes change to XQD is a must i still do not have it but we have to go up in the future and not backwards in time.

  • Back to top