Nikon d850 "in development"

Flashman said:
Of course, some people won't be happy until Nikon bring out a camera that gets itself out of the bag and takes the pictures all on its own before making a nice fry up for its owner... even then some people will complain that the bacon isn't crispy enough.
Click to expand...

That’s what my assistant(s) are for, except for taking the exposure !
 
gramps said:
Mainly the lack of IQ improvement over the D810 but also talking about not being fast enough for wildlife/sports, high ISO not that impressive and excessive file size ... "a failed experiment", "not sure it's raised the bar".
Surprising comments really but coming from well established photographers.
Click to expand...
Well that seems a bit dumb buying a high MPx camera for sports, unless you specifically want to print the images on billboards (that would be a minority)
A kin to buying a Porsche 911 and saying its not good for off roading because the 4WD isn't as as good as the previously released Cayenne
 
Last edited:
jamesev said:
Well that seems a bit dumb buying a high MPx camera for sports, unless you specifically want to print the images on billboards (that would be a minority)
A kin to buying a Porsche 911 and saying its not good for off roading because the 4WD isn't as as good as the previously released Cayenne
Click to expand...
Why isn't a high mp camera suitable for sports, one of the great assets of the D810 is its clean, well resolved images.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Yet huge file and terrible af and buffer compared to a d4
Click to expand...

Large file, reasonable buffer and excellent AF ... whilst many would choose a D4 (or more likely D5) for exclusive action photography, many would choose the D810 for its all round ability.
 
jamesev said:
Well that seems a bit dumb buying a high MPx camera for sports, unless you specifically want to print the images on billboards (that would be a minority)
Click to expand...
Digital has really screwed up the way we think of things... In reality, MP's/sensor resolution has very little to do with IQ, especially these days when all sensors have more than enough. In almost every sense it comes down to physical sizes, not pixel dimensions... the consideration of pixels/pixel sizes is more akin to film grain characteristics.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Yet huge file and terrible af and buffer compared to a d4
Click to expand...
Terrible AF! Has it been proven to be terrible apart from the 3D tracking video?

And you are comparing a dedicated sports / action camera to a non specialised camera with almost 3x the number of pixels and are in any way surprised or disappointed that it doesn't match up. Speed and huge files don't generally go together, but the D850 is big step in that direction for those that want that.

The D850 is a high resolution camera that is faster than the previous model. For those who don't have D4's or D5's sitting around for the times when they may do sports, it may be all some people need. I don't think it is that hard to understand. :-/
 
redhed17 said:
Terrible AF! Has it been proven to be terrible apart from the 3D tracking video?

And you are comparing a dedicated sports / action camera to a non specialised camera with almost 3x the number of pixels and are in any way surprised or disappointed that it doesn't match up. Speed and huge files don't generally go together, but the D850 is big step in that direction for those that want that.

The D850 is a high resolution camera that is faster than the previous model. For those who don't have D4's or D5's sitting around for the times when they may do sports, it may be all some people need. I don't think it is that hard to understand. :-/
Click to expand...
D810 I'm talking about!
 
jonneymendoza said:
Yet huge file and terrible af and buffer compared to a d4
Click to expand...
Are you trolling again Jonney? ;) :p

Files don't have to be huge, you have the option (which is nice obviously). Nikon do true lossless compression which takes the file size down to 51mb, vs Sony's lossy compression which does reduce the quality. If I had the A7RII I'd have to therefore shoot in uncompressed which would mean 81mb files :eek:

AF may prove to be better than the D4 yet we don't know. All tests show that the D850's AF system is excellent despite what you continue to believe ;)

Buffer is very good, capable of 51 shots of lossless 14 bit full size RAW files and a whopping 170 12 bit RAW, that's pretty amazing considering the files sizes. Would you ever need 51 shots, let alone 170? I rarely reach the buffer on my D750 and that can only do 15 shots before the buffer fills.


https://photographylife.com/nikon-dslr-buffer-capacity-comparison


Edit: just seen fro above you were referring to the D810. Why're you comparing the D810 to the D4? The D810 was never ever billed as a camera for sports, even as an allrounder. Even the D850 shouldn't be compared to a sports camera, but at least it is good at sports as an allrounder.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Are you trolling again Jonney? ;) [emoji14]

Files don't have to be huge, you have the option (which is nice obviously). Nikon do true lossless compression which takes the file size down to 51mb, vs Sony's lossy compression which does reduce the quality. If I had the A7RII I'd have to therefore shoot in uncompressed which would mean 81mb files :eek:

AF may prove to be better than the D4 yet we don't know. All tests show that the D850's AF system is excellent despite what you continue to believe ;)

Buffer is very good, capable of 51 shots of lossless 14 bit full size RAW files and a whopping 170 12 bit RAW, that's pretty amazing considering the files sizes. Would you ever need 51 shots, let alone 170? I rarely reach the buffer on my D750 and that can only do 15 shots before the buffer fills.


https://photographylife.com/nikon-dslr-buffer-capacity-comparison
Click to expand...
Ffs I'm taking about the d810 on the person I replied to lol
 
Has anyone found an L-Bracket that is available for the D850 yet?

I have one ordered from RRS but would but would like one asap if there are any available.
 
So the D850 is the first sensor that I"m aware of to score 100 on DXO. Does anyone else find this a bit odd considering the slightly disappointing noise handling?

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...Sony-A7R-II-versus-Nikon-D810___1177_1035_963

That being said the D500 scores are relatively poor yet in the real world I didn't find that much difference compared to the D750. After downsampling the D850 should be mighty.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
So the D850 is the first sensor that I"m aware of to score 100 on DXO. Does anyone else find this a bit odd considering the slightly disappointing noise handling?

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...Sony-A7R-II-versus-Nikon-D810___1177_1035_963

That being said the D500 scores are relatively poor yet in the real world I didn't find that much difference compared to the D750. After downsampling the D850 should be mighty.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I'm not convinced by the DXO noise scores, looking at actual shots the D850 looks noticeably cleaner than the D810, and that's even at 1:1. Looks comparable to the A7RII to my eyes.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.1312927631284066&y=-0.9790009973890715
 
I thought it looked comparable with the D810 and slightly worse that the A7R2. But it's splitting hairs a bit and depending on which part you put in the frame.

Even if it gives a bit away It's still a mighty effort with that resolution.
 
snerkler said:
So the D850 is the first sensor that I"m aware of to score 100 on DXO. Does anyone else find this a bit odd considering the slightly disappointing noise handling?
Click to expand...
It's not a percentage score, it's open ended. Although I don't know how/why they add up/prioritize.
 
Winkyphoto said:
The 645 is not a full-frame "35mm" sensor camera. The 850 is the first one in its format to hit 100.
Click to expand...

No one mentioned format just sensor so the 645 was the first sensor to reach 100.
 
Unlocker said:
The Pentax 645Z hit 101 years ago, just don't know why they decided to stop listing it?

View attachment 112011
Click to expand...
I've got D850s and a 645z, they're both very very good but mainly for different purposes. It's shocking that the 645z didn't get more traction, it's an amazing camera.

I've had these new cameras for over a month now and Adobe still haven't updated Lightroom to support them. The DNG converter takes a million bleeding years, which has caused problems with clients needing pictures quickly for social, and then there's no camera profiles that I'm sure means that my finished pictures aren't as good as they could be. Screw you, Adobe.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
I've got D850s and a 645z, they're both very very good but mainly for different purposes. It's shocking that the 645z didn't get more traction, it's an amazing camera.

I've had these new cameras for over a month now and Adobe still haven't updated Lightroom to support them. The DNG converter takes a million bleeding years, which has caused problems with clients needing pictures quickly for social, and then there's no camera profiles that I'm sure means that my finished pictures aren't as good as they could be. Screw you, Adobe.
Click to expand...

Adobe are the same every time... With the cameras I've had in recent years Capture One Pro have always beaten them to it by weeks for RAW and tethered support. It's really rubbish of Adobe.
 
Flashman said:
Adobe are the same every time... With the cameras I've had in recent years Capture One Pro have always beaten them to it by weeks for RAW and tethered support. It's really rubbish of Adobe.
Click to expand...
Well for the Nikon... less so for the Pentax as they are worried supporting it in Capture One will eat into sales of Phase One cameras!

(PS. I suspect the delay in Lightroom support is that there is rumoured a major new version around the corner)
 
Just wondering if anyone has tried or bought the new Nikon D850 yet? Not sure if it's meant as a successor to the D810 but the difference in price seems quite steep, I know there's lots of new features in the D850 but just trying to justify the extra outlay.

This post has been moved to be part of the D850 thread. I should have searched harder before posting the question but basically what I'm still asking is, is it worth the extra outlay to move up from the D810.
 
Last edited:
FiestaRed said:
Just wondering if anyone has tried or bought the new Nikon D850 yet? Not sure if it's meant as a successor to the D810 but the difference in price seems quite steep, I know there's lots of new features in the D850 but just trying to justify the extra outlay.

This post has been moved to be part of the D850 thread. I should have searched harder before posting the question but basically what I'm still asking is, is it worth the extra outlay to move up from the D810.
Click to expand...
Do you need the extra MP, better noise handling, FPS and buffer, and tilt screen? If so is worth the extra outlay? Only you can decide.

As for the price, it's pretty comparable to the D810 launch price plus the post Brexit inflation I believe.
 
Interesting, pg. 285 of the manual lists a whole lot of lenses they say should not be used for high ISO/low light images w/ the D850.

Screen Shot 2017-10-13 at 4.14.13 PM.jpg

This isn't actually something new... these lenses use LEDs as part of the VR system, and when very little image light is getting through the light from the LEDs can pollute the image. I'm just wondering why they are differentiating them with the D850?
 
sk66 said:
Interesting, pg. 285 of the manual lists a whole lot of lenses they say should not be used for high ISO/low light images w/ the D850.

View attachment 112428

This isn't actually something new... these lenses use LEDs as part of the VR system, and when very little image light is getting through the light from the LEDs can pollute the image. I'm just wondering why they are differentiating them with the D850?
Click to expand...
Interesting. I'll be very interested to hear if this is obvious in the real world as I have some of those lenses and have used them in high ISO scenarios on my D750 without noticing any ill effect.
 
I have the 16-35, 28-300, and 400 on that list. I've never seen anything obvious even w/ the D810, so I don't know what they consider "high ISO" or "long exposures." But TBH if it's high ISO I'm probably not using the D810, and I don't often take long exposures.
 
sk66 said:
I have the 16-35, 28-300, and 400 on that list. I've never seen anything obvious even w/ the D810, so I don't know what they consider "high ISO" or "long exposures." But TBH if it's high ISO I'm probably not using the D810, and I don't often take long exposures.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends what the consider high ISO too. I've used some of those lenses at 6400 and 12800 ISO, is this what they consider high or are they talking 51200 etc.
 
gramps said:
So effectively do not use VR on any lens at high ISO? :thinking:
Click to expand...
Yes, my original statement was a bit misleading... the Nikon VR system uses LEDs. It's just that the design of these particular lenses causes the LEDs to not be terribly well isolated from the optical path. Edit: And the LEDs don't turn off even with VR disabled on these lenses. Maybe they do turn off with the other VR lenses not listed?
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I guess it depends what the consider high ISO too. I've used some of those lenses at 6400 and 12800 ISO, is this what they consider high or are they talking 51200 etc.
Click to expand...
No one knows... AFAIK, this is the first time Nikon has put together a list acknowledging the potential issue with these lenses.

EDIT: I honestly don't know what difference the camera body makes. The issue is light pollution from the VR LEDs...
 
Last edited:
What do they deem as "high ISO sensitivities" which warrant not using the lenses as designed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top