New Nikon D850 rumoured

[69Bonni]

I love my D810 ( oh actually also my D700 and 300) It's a lovely tool no complaints really other than the display screen. I know I'm no spring chicken but I really wish they would put a bit more effort into that display. I'm sure with the small displays that are available today they could do an awful lot better.
BTW that's not a cue to fit to any new models those bloody awful EVF's. That is just a personal opinion but I'm sorry an optical viewfinder knocks spots off any EVF I have seen.
I'd love to be able to say the rear displays are nice and that I can use it to view my shots and compose with it but they are not that special IMHO. Ok for histogram, text display, but viewing the nuisances of a shot, sorry not impressed. Shout me down if you will, as it's just my personal opinion but like I said a bit more effort please Mr Nikon.
While we're on wants .... And I have never fathomed why can't they build in a proper exposure timer? Hardly rocket science. Maybe wifi or GPS perhaps.
Bung those bits on ditch the Video caperbility (if I wanted a Video camera I'd buy one).

I have always wondered if manufacturers hold these little innovations back just so that they have something held back to shove into new models.
Just my 2d
Happy New Year everyone

 

[Blank_Canvas]

I know we don't know but what's the best info when this camera is likely to come out ?

At Nikon's Centenary Celebration later this year, I'm not sure of the exact date but around the 25th July, 100 years since the launch of their first camera. That's my guess, but there is nothing at all on the web yet that gives anything away.

 

[posiview]

why can't they build in a proper exposure timer? Hardly rocket science.

Indeed.

Cheers.

 

[woof woof]

BTW that's not a cue to fit to any new models those bloody awful EVF's. That is just a personal opinion but I'm sorry an optical viewfinder knocks spots off any EVF I have seen.

As you say it's a personal thing and down to your own perception and visualisation. I spent my working life with electronics so maybe I'm more predisposed to EVF equipped gear and I love being able to see things with an EVF that no OVF can possibly allow me to see and that's before we get to the advantages of the in view goodies such as the focus and exposure aids. Such a convert am I to EVF's now (even after owning 35mm SLR's / cameras and a FF 5D) that I'd only go back to an OVF equipped camera with a loaded gun to my head.

Whenever I come across comments such as yours I feel like urging those who not only think that OVF's are superior but also that EVF's are awful to try and use an EVF for a longer period to see if they can begin to gel as I think that there are real advantages to EVF use.

 

[chrism_scotland]

As you say it's a personal thing and down to your own perception and visualisation. I spent my working life with electronics so maybe I'm more predisposed to EVF equipped gear and I love being able to see things with an EVF that no OVF can possibly allow me to see and that's before we get to the advantages of the in view goodies such as the focus and exposure aids. Such a convert am I to EVF's now (even after owning 35mm SLR's / cameras and a FF 5D) that I'd only go back to an OVF equipped camera with a loaded gun to my head.

Whenever I come across comments such as yours I feel like urging those who not only think that OVF's are superior but also that EVF's are awful to try and use an EVF for a longer period to see if they can begin to gel as I think that there are real advantages to EVF use.

There are advantages to EVF like you say, especially for manual focus aids, but there are also a lot of advantages to OVF as well, none of the top EVF's currently on the market are great in low light and the time the EVF is blacked out after a shot can also be an issue, even with the very high refresh rates of the XT2 and thats where an OVF still wins out for a lot of people.

I have to agree though there are positives to an EVF.

 

[woof woof]

I disagree about the low light issue as my cameras allow me to see more detail in low light than I ever could with a 5D and f1.4 lens. I haven't tried a more modern FF OVF equipped camera but it would have to have a much better OVF than the 5D had to better the EVF equipped camera I have now for low light detail perception (and I'm not sure it's possible with an unaided optical system and the inherent losses, it can never be as good as your eye as there must always be losses) and EVF's are only going to get better over time. However, this night vision and increased detail perception comes at a cost of light output which can affect night vision and give eye strain after prolonged use.

I realise that both systems have their strengths and weakness and my main point is that I think that people are perhaps a little technology / EVF adverse... I don't think that the more modern and higher end ones are awful, just maybe a different experience.

 

[chrism_scotland]

I disagree about the low light issue as my cameras allow me to see more detail in low light than I ever could with a 5D and f1.4 lens. I haven't tried a more modern FF OVF equipped camera but it would have to have a much better OVF than the 5D had to better the EVF equipped camera I have now for low light detail perception (and I'm not sure it's possible with an unaided optical system and the inherent losses, it can never be as good as your eye as there must always be losses) and EVF's are only going to get better over time. However, this night vision and increased detail perception comes at a cost of light output which can affect night vision and give eye strain after prolonged use.
I realise that both systems have their strengths and weakness and my main point is that I think that people are perhaps a little technology / EVF adverse... I don't think that the more modern and higher end ones are awful, just maybe a different experience.

Only giving my opinion based on using both the Fuji XT2 and Sony A7ii which probably have the best EVF's on the market currently v the OVF in the D810, D800 and D750.
Think a certain vintage of photographer might be tech averse but its such a big part of it nowadays that there isn't really any way around engaging with it now.

 

[HoppyUK]

<snip>
IMO, there is about zero point to 50+MP in the 35mm FF format. AFAIK there is no lens that can resolve to that level... <snip>

You can't say that, because a) as an unqualified statement it's meaningless, and b) demonstrably untrue.

Also, the very good article from Luminous Landscape that you linked in post #28 disagrees.

And yet, to match the pixel size of a 24mp DX sensor you'd need a 55mp FX sensor. There is plenty of headroom yet.

Exactly. Not to mention smaller formats that demand, and receive, even higher lens performance. The 20mp Olympus M4/3 sensor is working to the equivalent of 80mp on full-frame; Nikon-1 cameras are pushing over 150mp equivalent (sans AA filter, too).

Back on topic, I wouldn't be surprised to see a new Nikon D850, even with marginal performance upgrades. All quality camera manufacturers are suffering long-term declining sales and they need to put prices up to bridge the gap on profits. A new model is a good way of both selling more, and increasing margin.

 

[snerkler]

Only giving my opinion based on using both the Fuji XT2 and Sony A7ii which probably have the best EVF's on the market currently v the OVF in the D810, D800 and D750.
Think a certain vintage of photographer might be tech averse but its such a big part of it nowadays that there isn't really any way around engaging with it now.

I actually started out with an EVF (if you discount the 35mm point and shoots I had before I took up photography) and was actually concerned about moving to OVF due to not being able to see the exposure and WB etc and remember discussing this on a few occasions with @twist. However, he convinced me I'd be fine and I finally took the plunge swapping my A77-II for the D750 and haven't looked back. Looking through optics is a much nicer user experience for me and is definitely worth giving up the exposure preview and focussing aids IMO. I've had several mirrorless running alongside the D750 and currently have the Fuji XT1, and as good as the EVFs are I still prefer looking through optics. Obviously this is just preference.

 

[sk66]

You can't say that, because a) as an unqualified statement it's meaningless, and b) demonstrably untrue.

Also, the very good article from Luminous Landscape that you linked in post #28 disagrees.

It is obviously opinion, but based on fact/experience. The D8xx series has a resolution of just over 200px/mm and the 5Ds-R is pushing 250px/mm which equates to a lens capable of resolving 100LP/mm or better... there are few lenses capable of doing that, and even fewer situations/settings that allow it. To date, I believe the only lens DXO has tested and shown to resolve 36MP is the Zeiss 135/2 *at* f/2 (on the D800E)... the same lens was not able to resolve 50MP on the 5Ds-R at any aperture.

The linked article does clearly show that a perfect lens *could* resolve 50MP, and much more... but to get that across the spectrum would require only using apertures of f/4 and wider, along with the much higher demands on technique. The net result is that one frequently (usually?) records the same lower resolution only w/ larger pixel dimensions... i.e. no resolution benefit.

I did note that there are often other minor gains besides resolution, but the question there is whether the benefits/gains outweigh the negatives. There aren't many times where one will need more than 12EV of DR or 24bit color depth/accuracy, levels already achieved by many cameras below 50MP.

FWIW, I also own/use the Nikon 1 system (the V2) with their best lenses... and they deliver nothing near 150MP equivalent, more like 6-10MP. And it has lower DR/Color/SNR/etc as well.

 

[Jim_Tod]

I use a d810 having upgraded from a d7100 ( which i still have and use)

The d7100 has a smaller sensor pitch ( and therefore more pixels per mm2) but the difference in real life for me is that i create ebetter landscape photos with the d810 than i do with the d7100 and can clearly see detail that i wouldnt achieve with the d7100

Often same lenses on both cameras and same s**t photographer behind the viewfinder.

There might be other technical reasons but until MP of FF cameras starts reducing quality in real life then this is a theoretical debate.

P.s. Also have an em-5 for walkabout/ street as a lighter less obtrusive camera but ive never thought the em-5 resolves detail better than the d810 in real life at its theoretical equivalent of 64 MP ( all prime lenses for this)

D850 is a rumour currently, but if it comes with more MP then i will be more interested in the real world comparison with generally used lenses than theoretically isn't better. Apparently the bumble bee cant fly- something to do with size of wings and body

 

[Blank_Canvas]

It is obviously opinion, but based on fact/experience. The D8xx series has a resolution of just over 200px/mm and the 5Ds-R is pushing 250px/mm which equates to a lens capable of resolving 100LP/mm or better... there are few lenses capable of doing that, and even fewer situations/settings that allow it. To date, I believe the only lens DXO has tested and shown to resolve 36MP is the Zeiss 135/2 *at* f/2 (on the D800E)... the same lens was not able to resolve 50MP on the 5Ds-R at any aperture.

The linked article does clearly show that a perfect lens *could* resolve 50MP, and much more... but to get that across the spectrum would require only using apertures of f/4 and wider, along with the much higher demands on technique. The net result is that one frequently (usually?) records the same lower resolution only w/ larger pixel dimensions... i.e. no resolution benefit.

I did note that there are often other minor gains besides resolution, but the question there is whether the benefits/gains outweigh the negatives. There aren't many times where one will need more than 12EV of DR or 24bit color depth/accuracy, levels already achieved by many cameras below 50MP.

FWIW, I also own/use the Nikon 1 system (the V2) with their best lenses... and they deliver nothing near 150MP equivalent, more like 6-10MP. And it has lower DR/Color/SNR/etc as well.

DXO Don't make me laugh ! People spend more time reading reviews on the internet than actually doing photography! All the Nikon lenses that I use in the real world (not the virtual world ) with my D810 are absolutely spot on !

 

[JJ!]

http://thenewcamera.com/nikon-d850-d900-rumored-specification/

http://www.cameracomparisonreview.com/2015/12/21/nikon-d850-to-feature-54mp-sony-sensor/
"
After the announcement of Canon 5DS/R and Sony A7R II Nikon wants to create a prefect competitor for both the camera, the Successor of Nikon D810 camera is expected to have massive bump in resolution and video recording capabilities.

According to a Anonymous source [Thanks] Nikon may pick a newly developed 50+ MP Fullframe resolution sensor for the successor of Nikon D810 DSLR camera, the upcoming Nikon D850 / D900 (name not confirmed yet) will also capture 4K videos,

Take a look at the rumored specification of the camera

• 52MP FX-Format CMOS Sensor
• Base ISO start from ISO 32
• EXPEED 4 Image Processor
• No Optical Low Pass Filter
• Internal UHD 4K Video
• New Multi-CAM AF Sensor

Take this with a grain of salt since the information is coming from a new source. We will update you soon as we get any new information.

Update: Photokina 2016 is already crossed and .Nikon is keeping silence on the successor of Nikon D850 camera. Actually Nikon is looking forward to Canon, since according to rumors Canon is also updating Canon 5DS R camera and its successor is expected to arrive in June or August of 2017. At the same timeframe we also expect we will see announcement of Nikon D850 camera.

Stay tunes we will post more update soon."

Sounds exciting for landscape photography. I just ordered a D810 so not looking for buying a new toy for a while, but this looks great

The first link is from June 2015 and the 2nd dated December 2015 or am I looking at that wrong?

 

[Dave Semmens]

If they don't put an articulating screen on it then I will pass and keep my 810.

I will probably just stick with the 810 anyway as it is bloody fantastic

 

[Jim_Tod]

I will probably just stick with the 810 anyway as it is bloody fantastic

 

[HoppyUK]

It is obviously opinion, but based on fact/experience. The D8xx series has a resolution of just over 200px/mm and the 5Ds-R is pushing 250px/mm which equates to a lens capable of resolving 100LP/mm or better... there are few lenses capable of doing that, and even fewer situations/settings that allow it. To date, I believe the only lens DXO has tested and shown to resolve 36MP is the Zeiss 135/2 *at* f/2 (on the D800E)... the same lens was not able to resolve 50MP on the 5Ds-R at any aperture.

The linked article does clearly show that a perfect lens *could* resolve 50MP, and much more... but to get that across the spectrum would require only using apertures of f/4 and wider, along with the much higher demands on technique. The net result is that one frequently (usually?) records the same lower resolution only w/ larger pixel dimensions... i.e. no resolution benefit.

I did note that there are often other minor gains besides resolution, but the question there is whether the benefits/gains outweigh the negatives. There aren't many times where one will need more than 12EV of DR or 24bit color depth/accuracy, levels already achieved by many cameras below 50MP.

FWIW, I also own/use the Nikon 1 system (the V2) with their best lenses... and they deliver nothing near 150MP equivalent, more like 6-10MP. And it has lower DR/Color/SNR/etc as well.

I agree that ever-higher pixel counts are of questionable practical merit, but if that's what it takes to keep our favourite camera manufacturers in business in difficult times, well... okay.

But you can't just say "no lens can resolve 50mp" because it's simply untrue. Even quite modest lenses can resolve 200-300 lpmm and more, though the contrast level will be low. So the question is, at what contrast level does resolution stop? Unless this is stated, phrases like that are meaningless and misleading.

Here's an example of 50mp clearly visible on a Canon 5DSR. It's here https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/upgrading-a-classic-canon-100-400mm-f4-5-5-6l-is-usm-mark-ii-review Scroll down to the mini gallery that I think will open with a guy playing guitar. On the film strip below it, click on the flamingo, and then use the loupe feature to zoom in on the fly on its bill. The very finest lines you can see there on the fly's wings are just slightly more than one pixel wide. You can see it more clearly on my original of course, but I can't show you that.

The lens was a Canon 100-400 Mk2, 1/250sec (IS on, plus monopod) at f/5.6, 400mm. So, a very good lens for sure, but still some way short of the very best and 400mm is actually the softer end! Furthermore, I don't think the fly is actually quite on the sharpest plane of focus that is a little way behind it, further up the bill (AF point was on the eye). Okay, the detail is not crystal clear, but it's there sure enough.

NB It's interesting to note that without the loupe feature, that magnifies 10x, you can't see any of that fine wing detail at all. Nada. And with the loupe, you're probably looking at an image the equivalent of 2.5-3m wide on a typical monitor.

 

[Riz_Guru]

What Nikon needs are lenses like Sony's G Master's, engineered for the high resolution future.

 

[SFTPhotography]

What Nikon needs are lenses like Sony's G Master's, engineered for the high resolution future.

How much better, if at all, are G master lenses say over top end Nikon primes and zooms though.

 

[Riz_Guru]

How much better, if at all, are G master lenses say over top end Nikon primes and zooms though.

Hard to say as they can only currently be tested/used on the A7RII's 42.2mp sensor.
I wonder how they will perform on 70-100mp sensors.
The FE 85mm f1.4 is a amazing bit of glass
My point being, how many of the current Nikon glass is capable of producing on higher resolution sensors.
It's already been proven that not all Canon lenses work well with their 5Ds/r models.

 

[chrism_scotland]

Hard to say as they can only currently be tested/used on the A7RII's 42.2mp sensor.
I wonder how they will perform on 70-100mp sensors.
The FE 85mm f1.4 is a amazing bit of glass
My point being, how many of the current Nikon glass is capable of producing on higher resolution sensors.
It's already been proven that not all Canon lenses work well with their 5Ds/r models.

Its a good point, I'd guess that very few of the zooms are (pixel-peeping) capable of 50mp+, but the primes probably would be ok in most cases. However in terms of can these lenses produce an acceptable image at over 50mp for most people I'm sure they'd be fine!

 

[sk66]

But you can't just say "no lens can resolve 50mp" because it's simply untrue. Even quite modest lenses can resolve 200-300 lpmm and more, though the contrast level will be low. So the question is, at what contrast level does resolution stop? Unless this is stated, phrases like that are meaningless and misleading.

I take your point... but MTF10 is fairly useless/disappointing, and the accepted standard is MTF50. 100LP/mm equates to 4800 LW/PH for the D8xx and 125 LP/mm is 6000 LW/PH for the 5Ds-R... I have seen very few lens tests that achieve these levels.

The very finest lines you can see there on the fly's wings are just slightly more than one pixel wide.

If the image is 35MP in size and the finest detail is somewhat larger than 1 pixel, then the resolution in the image is something less than 35MP... I don't see how you determined 50MP actual resolution in the image.

NB It's interesting to note that without the loupe feature, that magnifies 10x, you can't see any of that fine wing detail at all. Nada. And with the loupe, you're probably looking at an image the equivalent of 2.5-3m wide on a typical monitor.

A very salient point IMO. If the image is displayed/viewed in any typical manner (i.e. viewed as a whole) those details will not be visible. It's much like the dots a magazine image is made of... they're there but you can't see them, so they are effectively irrelevant.

 

[sk66]

DXO Don't make me laugh ! People spend more time reading reviews on the internet than actually doing photography! All the Nikon lenses that I use in the real world (not the virtual world ) with my D810 are absolutely spot on !

What do you mean by "spot on?" "Sharp?"
I also own/use a D810, with some very expensive lenses and in many different situations... I am quite confident that I very seldom capture an actual 36MPs of resolution in the final images... if ever.

 

[HoppyUK]

I take your point... but MTF10 is fairly useless/disappointing, and the accepted standard is MTF50. 100LP/mm equates to 4800 LW/PH for the D8xx and 125 LP/mm is 6000 LW/PH for the 5Ds-R... I have seen very few lens tests that achieve these levels.

If the image is 35MP in size and the finest detail is somewhat larger than 1 pixel, then the resolution in the image is something less than 35MP... I don't see how you determined 50MP actual resolution in the image.

A very salient point IMO. If the image is displayed/viewed in any typical manner (i.e. viewed as a whole) those details will not be visible. It's much like the dots a magazine image is made of... they're there but you can't see them, so they are effectively irrelevant.

MTF50 is a common standard for lens testing, but it's a very long way from the visual limit of resolution. MTF10? Maybe something around that level.

The flamingo image is slightly cropped from 50mp, but I'm viewing the original in Lightroom and at max magnification the fly fills the entire working area and you can clearly see individual pixels - they're about 3mm wide on my monitor, so very easy to count. The fly's legs are 2-2.5 pixels wide.

 

[69Bonni]

As you say it's a personal thing and down to your own perception and visualisation. I spent my working life with electronics so maybe I'm more predisposed to EVF equipped gear and I love being able to see things with an EVF that no OVF can possibly allow me to see and that's before we get to the advantages of the in view goodies such as the focus and exposure aids. Such a convert am I to EVF's now (even after owning 35mm SLR's / cameras and a FF 5D) that I'd only go back to an OVF equipped camera with a loaded gun to my head.

Whenever I come across comments such as yours I feel like urging those who not only think that OVF's are superior but also that EVF's are awful to try and use an EVF for a longer period to see if they can begin to gel as I think that there are real advantages to EVF use.

I think you are probably right Alan. Maybe more time and longer use of a camera with EVF may change my view (No pun intended). I have spent my life pretty much in electronics too, which would presuppose I'd naturally be bias toward EVF but i guess its like all things there are pros and cons to both. The camera i used briefly was a Sony A7 (not sure which version). So its probably a little unfair of me to make such a broad sweeping statement without a proper evaluation of the EVF performance, perhaps its better to say i'm happy with my OVF for now.

I must say this is turning into an interesting thread!
Happy New Year to all

 

[sk66]

MTF50 is a common standard for lens testing, but it's a very long way from the visual limit of resolution. MTF10? Maybe something around that level.

The flamingo image is slightly cropped from 50mp, but I'm viewing the original in Lightroom and at max magnification the fly fills the entire working area and you can clearly see individual pixels - they're about 3mm wide on my monitor, so very easy to count. The fly's legs are 2-2.5 pixels wide.

That lens tests quite well, with an average MTF of ~60% at 40 LP/mm when at 400/5.6... 40LP/mm equates roughly to an 8x10 enlarged/viewed at 8x in terms of what a human can see. But that is nowhere near the ~120LP/mm the 5Ds-R could theoretically resolve.
Interestingly, that lens on the 5Ds-R is rated at a *max* of 24PMpix when at 135/5 by DXO. Also interesting (to me at least) is that DXO is not using a fixed MTF contrast, but is using the human eye's contrast sensitivity function ("CSF" or "Acutance") instead. Imatest also incorporates CSF into their measurements (some/optionally). And apparently, using CSF as part of the measure is going to be part of new standards being developed (IEEE/ISO/I3A). CSF is essentially a variable with lower contrast requirement for larger frequencies/spacings.

What most of this means is that the lens can't match the sensor, but that doesn't really matter because your eyes can't either... unless the image is viewed under huge magnification (i.e. 3m wide print viewed from 60cm; and probably much larger for a true 50MP).