pcm81: Long time ago, it used to be that if you bought a nikon camera you were guaranteed quality product, no matter which camera you got. Now that Nikon is supporting consumer market low quality produces are encountered more and more often. D600 fiasco is a good example of a product gone bad, and it looks like nikon has learned their lesson. It's good to see that the company is trying (hopefully) to steer back to "only top of the line products name rand guarantee"
And 25 years ago, cameras were much simpler. The idea of shooting at ISO 3200 in colour would have been considered preposterous.
Why does every slight problem with a Nikon camera bring up the real problem specific to the D600?
Has Nikon not figured out a fix for this D810 issue? Is Nikon pretending there isn’t a problem?
Do Canons, Olympuses, etc never have problems requiring a fix?
“quality” is a noun, not an adjective.
Pat Cullinan Jr: The signal-to-noise ratio could stand improvement. Do you agree?
What are you talking about, the D810's high ISO performance improves upon that of the D800?
If you want a good high ISO body get a Df, D4s, or the Canon 6D.
Also, this is about problem with the D810, not general performance characteristics.
Menneisyys: Given that the ancestor, the A5000, had a, noise-wise, *significantly* worse sensor than its big brother (the A6000), I wonder if the switch to using the current (A6000, D5300, D3300 etc.) stunningly excellent 24 Mpixel sensor means the possible A6100 is introduced with a, say, 30 Mpixel, absolutely excellent sensor.
DXO sensor scoring is effectively useless. That's because many of the scores are based on theoretical light sources, not actual use of the sensor+body+lens.
And again I stand by the raws I've shot with both the A5000 and A6000 in basically the same lighting with the same model kit zoom.
Why do you think that you're going to win this argument by citing really questionable sources?
I'd didn't just reach my conclusion after looking at one raw.
Get a hold of both cameras and shoot with them under similar lighting with similar lenses, then get back to me.
Stop wasting time with DXO scores.
If you want to test with DPR samples, fine, but both bodies need to have the same lens and you'll need to download and extract files from both cameras, and do all of this for multiple raws.
Nukunukoo: Very interested with the sensor, will it be on the D7100 successor?
I didn't mistake the sensors. My point that the D7100's 24mp sensor is nearly the equal of the 24mp sensor in the A6000 stands.
I'd prefer the 20mp sensor from the A5000 in a future (not released) Nikon D7X00.
So no, I didn't switch sensors.
Nikon has delivered extraordinary FF bodies since 2009. In 2004 or 5, Nikon released the amazing D2Hs--still not cheap used today--though a useable ISO 1600 is no longer radical.
If the D610 is not for you don't buy one, but the A7 is not quiet to shoot with, so it's not simply that the D610 can do slightly better image quality than the A7 that makes the D610 a better camera than the A7.
Just a Photographer :
Right, like the Pentax K01. But that didn't sell, and Nikon would have noted that fact.
So the body needs to be thin like a Fuji X camera body. Doesn't need to be stupid thin like many Sony Nex bodies. So that all precludes reusing Nikon DSLR lenses for a Nikon mirrorless with either an APSC sensor or FF sensor.
So yep, I'd thought of all that, but realized the problems, before I made my original point, the one I stand by.
I believe, not sure, the D5300 has a Sony sensor.
I know about the higher ISO banding, but I've also seen it with the 24MP Sony APSC sensor from the Pentax K3, A6000, D5300.
I suspect Nikon knows somethings about handling sensor signals that Sony doesn't.
Anyhow, I only ever said the two 24MP sensors, one Toshiba and the other Sony, are basically equal.
I'd rather a D7X00 have fewer pixels and a fast big buffer.
I'm not joking about the sensor in the D7100 being basically the equal of the sensor in the A6000.
Nor am I joking when I say that a newer Nikon D7X00 would be well served to drop the pixel count and use the A5000's Sony sensor--or some other 20MP sensor.
The Sony A7 has compressed raws and is extraordinarily audible. The D610 is better in both regards.
Nikon can't release a big mirrorless without doing significant lens work.
And I've shot raws in lowlight (basically the same lowlight) with both.
So I'll stand by my comment.
If you're going to make judgements about cameras, it's best to avoid exclusive reliance on "comparators", or even just raws from this website.
When I make a claim about a camera and/or sensor (or lens) I've almost always shot with it. And if the camera shoots raw, I've shot in raw and waited until that raw format is extracted with serious extraction software before making any final judgements.
Um, except the A5000's sensor is a better high ISO sensor than that from the A6000 by a good bit, at least when shooting with the A5000--not some other body that may use it with a different processing computer.
The sensor in the D7100 is already the equal of this Sony sensor.
Perhaps Nikon could use the sensor from the A5000 for a D7200.
Nikon has been having financial troubles since the advent of digital. And yet there's the D810, the D4s, the Df.
Perhaps a stronger line of inexpensive APSC DSLRs could help. And new lenses wouldn't be necessary unlike with an hypothetical APSC mirrorless.
Come on Sony:
The put the sensor from the A5000 in a body, use a much better EVF than that in the A6000.
Don't compress raws the way the A6000/5000 do.
And that would be an amazing APSC mirrorless body.
In other words fix the problems with both the A5000 and A6000 (all quite possible) and don't just simply launch something in between.
Charlie boots: Ultimately it will be the software that counts. Spreadsheets and word processors drove the sales of the first PC's. Visicalc, Lotus123, Excel, Word etc. today hardware is becoming a commodity and thus again the sales will go to those with the best software and ecosystem. If all things are then equal it will come down to price and consumer mindshare. Samsung is still lacking on the software side.
I think you mean "if you're picky you can order..", note the dropped "not".
Why not simply wait a week or two for a new computer, and order what you need, not what some idiot is selling at store?
If you don't need the computer that second, there's no great reason to buy one from a store.
The thing about Windows 8 and 8.1, is a least it's simple enough to order a Windows machine running Win 7.
And both HP and Lenovo have made sure that some retail stores have some Win 7 laptops for sale. Stupidly, Samsung, Acer and Asus haven't figured out how much they're killing their sales by only having Win8 machines in retail stores. And Dell was being idiotic with the retail versions for a while.
The mass adoption of Windows Vista, what nearly drove Dell out of business and basically drove Sony out of the computer market. (Didn't help that when Vista released the 4GB of RAM necessary to run it was $1000 extra for a basic laptop.)
The decisions behind Win8 are a real puzzle. Just look at how many people use external keyboards with iPads when writing anything of any length. So it's not like people just always want to use a touch screen interface.
Vista was far from universally stable, you're simply promoting a Microsoft lie there.
It remains a huge marketing gift to Apple, and even Linux/Unix users.
Those fools running Microsoft, Ballmer, really didn't understand that problems with Vista would be widely reported on the internet and now there were 35-50 year old people making decisions about the mass purchasing of computers, who'd grown up using computers, and could recognize BS when they saw it.
Now some people had decent luck with it. But for many it was a disaster. It did improve. People I know only fixed Vista by upgrading to Win 7.
Drivers and Vista: that you even bring that up is a joke. If the drivers weren't ready, then there was no reason to release Vista. (And then fact that no one says "and you'll have to chase down drivers just to get it to run stably" about Windows 7, or 8, or 8.1--tells me that there was something profoundly wrong with Vista at official release time.)
uRebel Rob: Not going to get it: screen size and res is okay (as long it's not PenTile), looks meh but I don't care, camera and OS are good enough. But no external storage and only 32 GB internal? I had more than that used in my Galaxy S 1 + 32 GB card 3 years ago, and my current phone's 64 GB card is almost full right now.
Hopefully it (and iPhone 6) will help bring down the S5 and M8 prices, though. I'm looking to get a new phone in a month or so...
I too think that DPR should have noted that choice to omit an mSD card slot.
Thank you for chasing this information down.
Right, a big reason to skip this phone if you have any plans to use it as a camera.
AbrasiveReducer: Get a Gitzo, a good ball head and an Arca or RRS release. Costs a lot, but they last a lifetime and unlike cameras, don't become obsolete after a couple years.
I never claimed what you wrote is incorrect.
There remains something you be missing--that's different.
Frankly, I'm not clear about what jet turbine compressor blades are made of. I'd have guessed a different material than titanium, like inconel.
Again, don't simply think that all you know about titanium is all that there is to know about materials.
iP 1, 2, 3, and maybe 4 didn't work well as phones--that's phones.
Android is far from crappy, and not particularly complicated. Clearing Safari history on an iPhone is somewhat complicated. So careful throwing around "complicated".
Now some Android phones have too much crapware.
R Vaquero: Copying Apple as usual...
Percival Merriwether: They were going to call it the "BeExpensive" but that would have been too obvious.
In the last few years, then yen is up against the US dollar.
Retooling those lens factories to meet higher standards for post 2006/7 digital costs money. Up to about that time film lenses were good enough.
The problem is that carbon fiber tripods didn't exist in say 1984.
What did a good Bogen (Manfrotto) aluminum tripod with a 3 axis head cost in 1984? (Bought my heavy Bogen in 2000 for about 170usd.)
I own a scratched copy of that 85mm f/2.0 Oly. Even scratched it's excellent. And it wasn't cheap used 25 years ago.
Um, then why can't I get a Samsung Galaxy S4 for $50?
And Apple still hasn't learnt how stupid the iOS method for clearing Safari history is--talk about a good user experience (not) with iOS.
iOS devices also have awful sound quality for audio/video file playback. Samsung is somewhat better, and HTC went as far as to put a serious DAC in at least some variation of the new HTC 1.
There are a lot of reasons for choosing something other than the iPhone.
iPhone 4? Was that back when the phone didn't work real well?
If the iPhone does what you need, great, but let's not pretend it's the be all and the end all of smart phones.