Nikon d810 in dx crop mode

RocklandDragon

I'm still in the market for a second camera. I've looked at used d300s, d700, and D3s and although the price of a d300s is good, the d3s and even the d700 are pricey. If I'm going to spend over $3k for a used D3s with warranty, why not look at a new model? Here comes the d810 and it's dx mode that has me interested.

Has anyone used a Nikon d810 in dx crop mode and with the battery pack? It's looking like the d9300 might be riding with the unicorns so I am taking a look at the d810's dx mode. How is picture quality in dx mode? I think the dx mode is great for me for sports shooting. Gets me some needed reach, extra fps, and can switch to fx when I want to take a pic of an athlete just standing on the sideline. The loss of megapixels won't bother me but I wonder in a high iso, low light situation, if the dx mode will lose too much picture quality.

I havent found much info online about the dx mode in use for the 810. Not even that many reviews (although the ones that have seem to really like it...a lot!) but very little info on the DX mode. If the DX mode makes great quality pics then I just might have found the Nikon camera I have been looking for and wont need to wait for the 9300. The frame rate of 7fps with the battery pack is enough. The buffer is great for me. The focusing system is apparently the same as the d4, so that's full of win and it's built like a tank and should be fine in bad weather conditions. Plus, it's a full frame camera and the times I need to do portraits, it's fantastic for it.

Just wondering what y'alls thoughts are on the dx mode and if anyone can share their experience with it on the d810. Thanks. I'll try out the d810 myself but input from others has always been beneficial to me.

JonMcGuffin

I don't own a D810 (or a D800 for that matter) so please take my comments with a grain of salt however from what I've heard/seen/read I think what most will end up telling you is this:

#1) When shooting in DX mode, they don't care for the fact the viewfinder just puts a black bar around the hidden FX area to display the DX frame.

#2) Other than the frame rate increase, there's actually little to no reason to shoot in DX mode as the camera is simply throwing away pixels that could be used. You're better off shooting in full FX mode and just cropping in post to get whatever image you want. For that matter, you can use any FF camera and do the same thing however the D810 is rare in that it has SO many pixels it allows you to crop and still have a relatively high MP count remaining.

The only other small benefit would be the ability to use true DX glass, the camera will put itself in DX mode for you and make that glass perfectly usable at 15+Mp.

Personally, if you can get over the fact the D810 is a $3300 camera, the D7100 is a $1200 camera and the "mysterious" D9300 would probably run around $1800+/- then I think going to FX makes a lot of sense for the flexibility.

Photobug

@Msmoto just bought a D800E last month and uses it in DX mode. She should be able to enlighten you on using the D800/810 in DX mode.

From my perspective, I think it's a great idea, in DX mode you get the reach and FPS and you can changes lens and shoot in FX mode.

PB_PM

I don't own a D810, but I suspect DX mode works just as it does on the D800, which I do have.

#1) When shooting in DX mode, they don't care for the fact the viewfinder just puts a black bar around the hidden FX area to display the DX frame.

It works better if you turn off auto illumination of AF points. When you do that, it darkens the unused part of the frame rather than just putting up the semi-transpartent box.

#2) Other than the frame rate increase, there's actually little to no reason to shoot in DX mode as the camera is simply throwing away pixels that could be used. You're better off shooting in full FX mode and just cropping in post to get whatever image you want.

Unless of course you know that you only need the DX frame, and don't need the larger files to slow down your workflow in post. Not to mention that it's easy enough to program a function button to switch between FX and DX mode.

JonMcGuffin

I think this is what frankly makes the D810 such a truly fantastic camera. The versatility is amazing. The only downside as I pointed out previously is that you're paying $3300 and if all you really want is a good DX body, well that's a pretty hefty price to pay.

richiero

I don't own a D810 (or a D800 for that matter) so please take my comments with a grain of salt however from what I've heard/seen/read I think what most will end up telling you is this:

#1) When shooting in DX mode, they don't care for the fact the viewfinder just puts a black bar around the hidden FX area to display the DX frame.

It really isn't a problem. It provides you with a "tunnel vision view," which reminds me of the D5200's viewfinder. However you are correct that the D810 does shoot faster in DX mode, which is exactly the reason you would want to use the camera in DX mode, especially if you are shooting action and need a higher frame rate.
I have shot some sports with the D810, and find it to be a very capable camera in either FX or DX mode. I believe part of the reason for its capability is its bump to 5FPS in FX and a potential 7FPS in DX. But another part of that reason is its new focusing system which locks on a subject in AF-C mode and keeps that subject in focus, even while coming at you. It outperforms my D600, and does a better job than my D3, even though that camera was a speed demon at 9 frames a second. I credit the improved 51 pt focusing system of the D810 with this improvement. It leaves the D600 in the dust (no pun intended), and has a better keeper rate than either the D3 or D600, I can't imagine how good the D4s is with its higher burst rate and same focusing system as the 810.

But getting back to the OP's original question; there really isn't a decent DX camera out there that can shoot as well as well or as fast as the D810, and provide you with a buffer that will continue to allow you to shoot quite a few frames without slowing down. The D7100 does give you 24 mps', but its buffer is woefully too small. Shooting in Dx with the D810, produces excellent images... at least in the low to mid ISO ranges.

JJ_SO

Before I ordered my new D810, I rented one. Although all my DX lenses except the 40mm Macro and two bodies are sold, I was interested in the sound of 7fps with battery pack: very pleasing (and so ssssilent... it's nearly whispering compare to the wham-wham-wham of D800).

Fast - as the whole camera is a lot more snappier than my D800 - and a very high keeper rate in AF-C, contrary to what happens if I use CH series on D800. Also you have to wait two dozen shots approximately until buffer becomes slower.

So I think I will use this DX-fps more often than ever with D800 as IQ has enough reserves to crop anyway and decent FX tele-lenses would be overdose for my purpose.

So you get a great landscape cam with sportscar inbuilt, an excellent high ISO behaviour, loads of sharp shots, no or not much bothering for other people / shy animals in terms of noise, IQ-wise it would be a tough project to improve this cam. I hope it will be mine soon. Delivery situation appears to be tensed.

framer

#1) When shooting in DX mode, they don't care for the fact the viewfinder just puts a black bar around the hidden FX area to display the DX frame.

Turn off a6 in the menu and it will behave as a D3, D4 with a darken area in the out of bounds area.

If you are needing to see it in the dark turn a6 on and the box will light up.

framer

Msmoto

I see someone mentioned my name… LOL, and yes, i find the D800E, essentially the same resolution as the D810, works in DX crop mode. On Flickr here is a set shot mostly in DX crop, looking at the Exif data should tell which ones, and IMO this is an excellent way to have about 12 MB files from the D800E, D800, D810.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/sets/72157645191200258/

One in particular which has small print in it:



In fact, I purchased the D800E from a friend specifically for the purpose of having a pro body crop sensor camera, and the versatility of the D800E is outstanding. I can also shoot full frame when I want even more bang, and I see a difference between this and my D4. The difference is not necessarily sharpness, but more a sense of more depth in the content. Sorry I cannot describe the subjective difference I see, but the bottom line is I am quite satisfied.

Also, I shot a photo of the sun, a huge crop (4.2 MP size on the sensor) and this is one of the best images of the sun from a non-specialized camera setup I have seen. Looks pretty much like the NASA images:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/14864705484/sizes/o/

So, IMO the use of a D810 in crop mode is one of its best attributes and should be quite adequate for someone seeking do do just this.

spraynpray

@Msmoto: That shot above is a D4 shot isn't it?

manhattanboy

But getting back to the OP's original question; there really isn't a decent DX camera out there that can shoot as well as well or as fast as the D810, and provide you with a buffer that will continue to allow you to shoot quite a few frames without slowing down. The D7100 does give you 24 mps', but its buffer is woefully too small. Shooting in Dx with the D810, produces excellent images... at least in the low to mid ISO ranges.

The 7100 is pretty much non-stop in jpeg with extreme pro's. In RAW, shooting the entire frame is very limited buffer wise, but shooting in crop mode gives a pretty decent number of frames. My question to begin with is why shoot the 810/800 in crop mode? Likely because the subject is far away? The same thing happens with the 7100, just the entire perspective is shifted. The 810/800 is 1x no crop and 1.5x in DX crop. The 7100 is 1.5x in no crop and 2x in crop. Those of us that do not like tearing our rotator cuffs holding exotic teles appreciate the 2x crop

Photobug

@manhattanboy: I don't have a D800/D810 but you can get 1.5 crop mode just by installing a DX lens or with FX glass, toggle to DX get the crop mode. Need confirmation from a D800/D810 user.

manhattanboy

I'm still in the market for a second camera. I've looked at used d300s, d700, and D3s and although the price of a d300s is good, the d3s and even the d700 are pricey. If I'm going to spend over $3k for a used D3s with warranty, why not look at a new model? Here comes the d810 and it's dx mode that has me interested.

If its speed you are after then why not a D4S. You sound like the loss in pixels is no big deal.
Check out this review on a D4S for fast moving objects:
http://photographylife.com/nikon-d4s-nikkor-800mm-f5-6-bird-photography
There are comments on the difference in what you can capture with 6-7 fps versus >10fps.

haroldp

@manhattanboy: I don't have a D800/D810 but you can get 1.5 crop mode just by installing a DX lens or with FX glass, toggle to DX get the crop mode. Need confirmation from a D800/D810 user.

D800 can be set to automatically go into DX crop mode when a DX lens is mounted, that setting is its factory default.

I have programmed the bottom function button on my D800e to set crop mode so I can do so quickly.

As to resolution, the 16mp in DX mode that the D800 gives you will challenge all but the best lenses, expertly used.

.... H

Bokeh_Hunter

Honestly If you want DX buy a DX camera. There are threads on here that speak to the DX advantages. To mention one, you get more resolution (MP) from the current DX cameras than with the D800/810.

You buy FX to shoot Full Frame lenses and use DX as an option when it is an absolute must. Lenses will last 10+ years, camera bodies are refreshed every 2-4 years. Put your money first in lenses and build into a FX body.

RocklandDragon

I'm still in the market for a second camera. I've looked at used d300s, d700, and D3s and although the price of a d300s is good, the d3s and even the d700 are pricey. If I'm going to spend over $3k for a used D3s with warranty, why not look at a new model? Here comes the d810 and it's dx mode that has me interested.

If its speed you are after then why not a D4S. You sound like the loss in pixels is no big deal.
Check out this review on a D4S for fast moving objects:
http://photographylife.com/nikon-d4s-nikkor-800mm-f5-6-bird-photography
There are comments on the difference in what you can capture with 6-7 fps versus >10fps.

A loss in pixels would be no big deal for sports but the price of the D4s is quite steep. The cost of the 810 is high enough for me but I really like its versatility that it offers. It gives me the reach for sports and extra frames but I can revert to FX mode for landscapes and still portraits.

Granted, if a D4s and the 810 were the same price, I'd get a D4s but the D4s is almost twice the cost and at this juncture, I can't really justify paying that price. At least not yet. Also, I would love to own a D3s (more than a 1D Mark IV) but if it is going to cost near the price of a new D810, then I'll go for the D810 if it does enough of what I need.

RocklandDragon

Honestly If you want DX buy a DX camera. There are threads on here that speak to the DX advantages. To mention one, you get more resolution (MP) from the current DX cameras than with the D800/810.

You buy FX to shoot Full Frame lenses and use DX as an option when it is an absolute must. Lenses will last 10+ years, camera bodies are refreshed every 2-4 years. Put your money first in lenses and build into a FX body.

My biggest problem with the current DX cameras that Nikon offers is the buffer. I used to shoot in JPEG only but RAW has saved a few photos that I underexposed or were just a bit off. I love the detail that I can gain from RAW now and the buffer of the 7100 is simply too small for sports. A D9300 with a decent sized buffer and 7fps+ would be excellent but it appears the camera is not coming around anytime soon.

Full frame is what I would like to shoot for things other than sports. 5fps would be enough for weddings, quinceneras, birthdays, and definitely more than what I need for portraits and landscape. The full frame sensor would be fantastic for indoor gatherings suchs as graduations, plays, etc. I'd definitely want to use full frame for these uses and would use DX mode for action in sports and wildlife, and get that reach. Also, I can revert to FF to get pics of the sideline, dugout or fans and maybe just get a shot of a team huddling, ready for a snap or stepping into the mat or batter's box. The 810 gives me good options.

Vipmediastar_JZ

@RocklandDragon I think that what you attempt should be good. I don't shoot my FX in DX as I rather crop but for sports, why not?

the rumor is that nikon will release an action camera so maybe wait a month to see.

Otherwise taking advantage of the DR of the D810 would be to your advantage. Highlight weighted, group auto focus and DX crop will probably serve you well. Once you get used to how the camera works you may just switch to jpg and call it a day.

Put it back in Raw for when it matters like you mentioned, the other stuff.
As mentioned above set one of your Functions buttons for a quick switch from FF to DX.

haroldp

Lets remember that there are other crop modes on the D800/810.

I sometimes use the 8 X 10 form factor mode for portraits to help me compose since most portrait print sales are an 8 X 10 form factor variant.

I actually prefer the line frame in the viewfinder to a darkened outside frame, since I grew up with viewfinder cameras (Leica's) and am used to it.

Seeing outside the frame helps my composition because I am making conscious choices at to what is in our out more readily than I would if I only saw what is in the frame.

For action, seeing what is about to enter the frame can be useful as well.

Most (90 %) of my D800 or D3x shooting is FX mode, but there are definitely situations where one of the crop modes make sense.

- tourist shots
- some event work
- wildlife here I will crop even the DX frame

I also really prefer the Nikon pro camera control layout, and the D300s as an additional body has no advantages over a D800 in DX mode, it isn't even lighter.

Regards .... H

Msmoto

@spraynpray

D4…..mmm….. yes, you are correct….let me see…. oh, yes, D800E



Larger at
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/14649503293/sizes/o/

There is something nice about the D800E and i really like it. I may be using it in crop mode in a few weeks at a vintage motorcycle race…. with the 400mm f/2.8 VRII, TC-20EIII. This is IMO a good combination and seems to have worked well with my sun shot seen here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/14864705484/sizes/o/

In the sun shot, huge crop, one can look at the area about 2 o'clock near the edge and actually see surface irregularities …… in my opinion, blows my mind.

And, the D810 is supposed to be slightly better….. with no AA filter at all….

proudgeek

do I see sunspots?

Bokeh_Hunter

You started by looking at a D300, D700, or a D3s but then want a D810 because of the buffer. To be honest, you are probably the only person I have ever heard that from. Then you are talking about 5fps being enough. But also you believe the buffer on the 7100 is too small.

I'm trying to pull everything into my head that you have said I think you may have some confusion of what is holding back shoots that you are experiencing. With any of those cameras, (except the D3s) you are basically at 5fps and you will have hold the shutter release for 4-5 seconds before the buffer is full. That is a really, really, really long time. That would be holding the trigger down for a swing and tracking a batter's run to 1st base.

I'm just curious what you are shooting now (body & lens) and why you believe it is the buffer that holds everything back (describe the situation.) What you have described shooting, I can not see (except for rarely) how you can fill a buffer up so much that it is a concern. I own a D300 & D800 and I almost never fill the buffers up. Only times I have is shooting Sandhill cranes in flight and that was after I knew I got the shoots I wanted and was just trying stuff. Switching for DX to FX on a body isn't the quickest of selections either - there is probably no way you will want switch between them during a game either.

If you are just trying to create a story for yourself to justify spending the money, that's all good. The d800/810 are amazing cameras. But my concern is, from what you have written, I don't see how your situations improves magically with a D810. That is a lot of money to shell out and not have an issue fixed. If you can list what you are using now (bodies and lenses) and the situations where you believe it is the buffer, maybe there is something else that is holding you back.

RocklandDragon

Quote "I'm just curious what you are shooting now (body & lens) and why you believe it is the buffer that holds everything back (describe the situation.) What you have described shooting, I can not see (except for rarely) how you can fill a buffer up so much that it is a concern. I own a D300 & D800 and I almost never fill the buffers up. Only times I have is shooting Sandhill cranes in flight and that was after I knew I got the shoots I wanted and was just trying stuff. Switching for DX to FX on a body isn't the quickest of selections either - there is probably no way you will want switch between them during a game either."

The 7100's buffer is too small on many instances when I shoot baseball. When I am trying to get the batter's swing only, itis fine. The six to seven raw shots will be ok, but when the ball is put in play or a runner tries to steal a base (especially when they try to steal home), then it is a major problem. The 7100 tracks very well and it is a great camera to use with a 70-200 f/2.8 but when it slows to one frame after a throw to second, a ground ball to short, or a double steal, it simply doesnt work for me. This situation would play out in football if I'm taking pictures of a runner is going through a hole but is hit and the ball comes loose and I try to shoot the scrum. A throw and there is either a catch, YAC or a turnover and I need to track it.

As far as switching back to fx to dx, I can do it during a break in the action if I need to. Did it with no problems switching modes on the 7100.

I own a Canon 7D and I own one lens. A Canon 70-200 non IS. The 7D is a great camera for football. The situations above it did very well. I have no qualms with it for football and it's buffer is good enough for raw. The stadiums for class 6A and 5A have decent lighting and when I'm on the field, light isn't a problem. However, I started looking at a Nikon crop body when I tried to shoot baseball with the 7D and shot inside badly lit gyms for wrestling and graduation. The IQ is not what I liked it to be. Baseball during the day, the 7D is fine. At night, where badly lit stadiums are the norm for high school baseball, it suffers. Anything above 1600 iSO (sometimes 1600 was iffy but that was with the kit lens).

So I started looking at Nikons. One reason I'm stuck at looking at Nikons and not any current Canon models is the great images I got with the 7100. Even in it's crop mode, it worked good for me. However, the buffer is a problem for me for the 7100.

Maybe I got spoiled with the image quality of the 7100 and admittedly it bests my Canon 7D. The 7D's rugged body, higher fps, good focus system, and buffer kept me to it. I like Canon's other body, the 70D and it gets good shots, but it's not as good as the 7D in other areas. That's why I was looking at getting two cameras. One can be used for sports and wildlife and the other can be used for portraits, dark venues, landscapes.

It doesnt seem pratical to have two bodies and it isnt. I'm looking to replace my 7D as a primary camera. I'll let my nephews come with me to games and they can shoot with it but I'm looking for another camera. I might wait for a 7D Mark II but that will be high. I'm saying at least $2,000 and I dont know what improvements Canon will make. This is why the D810 is so intriguing for me. I can immediately jump into getting a fantastic full frame camera, with excellent ISO range, 5 fps that can capture moments at graduations or weddings, and give me the best image quality a full frame can offer. That's why im interested in learing about its DX mode for sports. Five fps isnt enough for sports but 7fps and a solid buffer? That will be if the picture quality holds up. Those extra two frames would be key for me and the reach I get would be great too. Lenses, I'm not worried about. I'll get a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 and be set for a while (until I can save and own the 200 f/2--never rent this lens, because when you have to turn it back it in, it makes you cry inside).

We'll see. I'll try out the d810 in a couple of weeks at football games. I'll try a D700 with battery grip as well. I'll compare them and see what works better for me. If the d810's DX mode works as well as I hope for sports, then it will likely be my next camera (unless I can find a great price on a D3s. A Canon 1DX, D4 and d4s would be dream cameras but all of them just cost too much.). That's what was the main point of the thread. What experience do people have with the d810's dx mode? Seems like the d800's dx mode works great and I imagine the d810 will be even a bit better.

manhattanboy

The 7100's buffer is too small on many instances when I shoot baseball.
[...]
I own a Canon 7D and I own one lens. A Canon 70-200 non IS.
[...]
I'm looking to replace my 7D as a primary camera.

Nikon (and in this case the 7100) has amazing dynamic range and that is probably what made your pictures pop. 200mm on a crop body can be pretty short for long distance field sports. Shooting at night with a non-IS (or non-VR in Nikon speak) lens is going to push your ISO up very high. You are right to want a FF body for those situations. Although the folks here will cringe at this statement, a D810 and Nikon 70-200 2.8 is probably going to cost the same as you could find on a good deal for a 1DX at about 5K. The 1DX would get you both an increase in speed and the ability to shoot at night. You may be able to pair a 400 5.6 for under a grand too to get you fast focusing speed at long distance on the cheap.

Nikon is said to be releasing another "action" full frame body at photokina, so if saving a grand is worthwhile, then you probably should wait until September to see what is released. Else, just take the plunge on the 810. Also look at the 300 f4 AFS. It is very sharp, sharper than the Canon 400 5.6 or Canon 70-200 II IS.

Bokeh_Hunter

The six to seven raw shots will be ok, but when the ball is put in play or a runner tries to steal a base (especially when they try to steal home), then it is a major problem. The 7100 tracks very well and it is a great camera to use with a 70-200 f/2.8 but when it slows to one frame after a throw to second, a ground ball to short, or a double steal, it simply doesnt work for me. This situation would play out in football if I'm taking pictures of a runner is going through a hole but is hit and the ball comes loose and I try to shoot the scrum. A throw and there is either a catch, YAC or a turnover and I need to track it.

2 things with that statement: 1) It is the FPS not the buffer holding you back, 2) Better technique in shooting sports will get you 99% there. Trying to hold a shutter down for the 4-5 seconds it takes to fill a buffer, and I mean this constructively, is a bit sloppy. Anticipating moments is the name of the game with anything but a D3-D4s or any of the Canon top line products. I seriously doubt a D810 will gain you much in regard to the buffer or FPS if that is your primary reason wanting to move. You may not want to hear that, but that is what it is.

I'm with manhattanboy and I would wait to see what the rumored camera is at Photokina (Sept 16-21st). That may be your best bet. The other consideration is to look at a D3 which can be had for under $2k used.

Don't get me wrong, for a long time I have been wishing for Nikon to release a Sports pro DX that can do high iso, high FPS, and a huge buffer. Basically a mini D4. For whatever reason, Nikon has continually balked at the idea.

RocklandDragon

2 things with that statement: 1) It is the FPS not the buffer holding you back, 2) Better technique in shooting sports will get you 99% there. Trying to hold a shutter down for the 4-5 seconds it takes to fill a buffer, and I mean this constructively, is a bit sloppy. Anticipating moments is the name of the game with anything but a D3-D4s or any of the Canon top line products. I seriously doubt a D810 will gain you much in regard to the buffer or FPS if that is your primary reason wanting to move. You may not want to hear that, but that is what it is.

Don't get me wrong, for a long time I have been wishing for Nikon to release a Sports pro DX that can do high iso, high FPS, and a huge buffer. Basically a mini D4. For whatever reason, Nikon has continually balked at the idea.

(quote)


FPS is one that I do have to consider in my next camera and so far I have had success with 7fps. The extra frame I get with the 7D can be huge as I am able to get the ball making contact or near contact with the bat, more than the 7100. That I agree with 100%.

Holding down the shutter for 4 seconds is some heavy spraying and praying. However, I do not hold the shutter for that long. Never have. Truth is, why would I? If I'm trying to shoot a stolen base attempt after shooting the batter, wouldnt the focus be a total mess? Even in my first days with a 7D on a soccer game, I overexposed something awful but never filled the buffer or have shot for that long period of time. I literally would be shooting 32 pics in four seconds and with the Nikon it's 24.

The Nikon D7100 buffer slows down and simply fills too fast. It just does. I'm shooting 14bit RAW on continuous high and at 6fps, it's going to slow down to 1fps (maybe 2). I believe the buffer only handles 7 to 8 pics before slowing down. Sometimes it couldnt do that (I used a SanDisk Extreme SD card). If I'm shooting raw or raw+jpeg on continuous high, It's impossible to get to 4 seconds on the 7100 before the buffer is filled. It slows down after one second. I can shoot four frames trying to get a swing of a bat and then stop and try to shoot a throw down to second. The 7100 will slow down after two or three shots. It's writing the previous RAW files. RAW+JPEG is even worse. A SanDisk Extreme card is being used and maybe I should upgrade to ExtremePro but I dobut I would get much better results with the buffer.

I agree about anticipation of the moment. I can work on that for stolen bases and catches. I'm getting better at that and getting the runner hitting the hole or the wide receiver making a great catch. Still, the 7100 is too limited for me for sports, though and that's my experience with it. JPEG it's great but once I began to learn and use the flexbility of RAW, I wont turn back to JPEG only.

EDIT: You're right about waiting on the d750 and what it could be. This could be the full frame camera that I truly need. Could it be the d700 "true" successor? Based off the D4? Photokina isnt too far away now. I bet the specs will leak before then though. Canon is starting to confirm some specs of the 7D Mark II so yep...d750.