Nikon d850 "in development"

As per my comment to you on FB it's no surprise. There's more than the module and processor that affects AF performance. The D5 might have stronger motors.
I think it's processor RAM... which I think is also related to buffer capacity. Now that AF is separated from main processing it may have separate RAM, but the idea is the same... basically, just a little better spec'd computer inside.
 
I have to admit I'm still struggling a little with my D850, very inconsistent AF accuracy even after fine-tuning on several lenses now, no issues with LiveView (as I would expect) but AF via the OVF just seems to be inconsistent, thinking about getting it into Nikon to be honest, I suppose someone has to get a lemon!
 
I have to admit I'm still struggling a little with my D850, very inconsistent AF accuracy even after fine-tuning on several lenses now, no issues with LiveView (as I would expect) but AF via the OVF just seems to be inconsistent, thinking about getting it into Nikon to be honest, I suppose someone has to get a lemon!
Well did you watch Matt granger video about the af? It was poor. He only got like half his shots in focus on outdoor light...
 
I have to admit I'm still struggling a little with my D850, very inconsistent AF accuracy even after fine-tuning on several lenses now, no issues with LiveView (as I would expect) but AF via the OVF just seems to be inconsistent, thinking about getting it into Nikon to be honest, I suppose someone has to get a lemon!
If you think you've got a lemon send it back to the retailer for a replacement. I faffed back and forth with my first D750 and it was never right.

The video @jonneymendoza is referring to was using the 3D tracking. It's been a bit blown out of proportion tbh as he's comparing it to the D5 which is the only camera I've seen work reliably with the 3D tracking. I'm sure using single point AF-C will yield much better results.

The point of the video was to show that AF isn't as good as the D5, much as he did with the D500, and you don't hear any complaints about the D500's AF. It's hardly surprising that these two cameras don't have the same tracking AF capability as the flagship sports camera. Also, in the video he's not using the grip and I would have thought using the more powerful EL-18a battery could make a difference, plus we don't know if AF fine tune had been done.

As usual Jonney's seen one review and made his mind up ;) :p It'll be interesting to see the D850 pitched against the D500, D750 and 5D4, it's only then that we'll start getting a better understanding of how good it is. If I was a betting man I'd guess it'll be better than all three (maybe on par with the D500), although the higher res will show up any slight miss more. Of course, time will tell if I'm right or not ;)
 
This is one of the things Thom Hogan writes about: he complains that Nikon keep "moving the cheese", i.e. moving controls around for no obvious good reason. His view is that continuity and consistency would be better than a never-ending quest for supposed optimality, but I guess that's more of an issue for people like him who run multiple cameras than it is for most people.

This drives me nuts, the minor changes between my D810 and D500. I wish they would just stick with a placement for a few iterations, or failing that allow much more customisation so at least I can set up two cameras to behave in the same way. As it is I have to consciously think about which body I am using as I change the settings...
 
I have to admit I'm still struggling a little with my D850, very inconsistent AF accuracy even after fine-tuning on several lenses now, no issues with LiveView (as I would expect) but AF via the OVF just seems to be inconsistent, thinking about getting it into Nikon to be honest, I suppose someone has to get a lemon!
I doubt they've fixed the auto AFMA... did you use that?
At 1:1 the D850 is going to be even more demanding on technique... it could easily be too slow of a SS rather than an AF error. Additionally, at 1:1 on screen the D850 will have even shallower DOF than any previous Nikon.
 
Don't waste your time, it has nothing to do with your issue. Also the MG video is NOT saying it is poor, just not as good as the D5 with 3D tracking, however there are plenty of videos out there showing the AF being spot on the TheCameraStoreTV being just one.
I can't say for certain w/ the D5/500/850, but I've never seen a lower spec'd camera with less RAM/smaller buffer to be quite the match even if everything else is supposedly the same.

But if one system isn't having trouble with a given subject/situation, then it's not going to be at all apparent that another system is "better." There are many times where my D5's AF isn't any "better" than my D810, because it doesn't need to be.
And there are enough other factors affecting AF/focus/sharpness that I don't know how it would be feasible to test w/o the results being subjective.
 
If you think you've got a lemon send it back to the retailer for a replacement. I faffed back and forth with my first D750 and it was never right.

The video @jonneymendoza is referring to was using the 3D tracking. It's been a bit blown out of proportion tbh as he's comparing it to the D5 which is the only camera I've seen work reliably with the 3D tracking. I'm sure using single point AF-C will yield much better results.

The point of the video was to show that AF isn't as good as the D5, much as he did with the D500, and you don't hear any complaints about the D500's AF. It's hardly surprising that these two cameras don't have the same tracking AF capability as the flagship sports camera. Also, in the video he's not using the grip and I would have thought using the more powerful EL-18a battery could make a difference, plus we don't know if AF fine tune had been done.

As usual Jonney's seen one review and made his mind up ;) :p It'll be interesting to see the D850 pitched against the D500, D750 and 5D4, it's only then that we'll start getting a better understanding of how good it is. If I was a betting man I'd guess it'll be better than all three (maybe on par with the D500), although the higher res will show up any slight miss more. Of course, time will tell if I'm right or not ;)

Yeah I've been in touch with WEX but its a long wait for a replacement, tempted just to return it and take my chances waiting as it just doesn't feel "right" as you say if its not right its probably never going to be.

I doubt they've fixed the auto AFMA... did you use that?
At 1:1 the D850 is going to be even more demanding on technique... it could easily be too slow of a SS rather than an AF error. Additionally, at 1:1 on screen the D850 will have even shallower DOF than any previous Nikon.

I didn't use Auto AF adjust, couldn't get it to work! I do hear what your saying about technique and I have considered that but even on a tripod I'm not getting great results.
 
Yeah I've been in touch with WEX but its a long wait for a replacement, tempted just to return it and take my chances waiting as it just doesn't feel "right" as you say if its not right its probably never going to be.



I didn't use Auto AF adjust, couldn't get it to work! I do hear what your saying about technique and I have considered that but even on a tripod I'm not getting great results.

Chris,

Sorry to hear your having issues, I’d be inclined to send it back for a full refund as it’s too bigger risk sending back and forth for repairs which may never totally resolve the issue.
I know your probably gutted but it’s no small amount of money.

You could always get a Sony A9 :D lol
 
This drives me nuts, the minor changes between my D810 and D500. I wish they would just stick with a placement for a few iterations, or failing that allow much more customisation so at least I can set up two cameras to behave in the same way. As it is I have to consciously think about which body I am using as I change the settings...

Well, they have realigned the D850
Buttons to the D5 which I think is a good thing . Unfortunately at risk of stating the obvious it’s not possible to do this with every Nikon model.
 
If you think you've got a lemon send it back to the retailer for a replacement. I faffed back and forth with my first D750 and it was never right.

The video @jonneymendoza is referring to was using the 3D tracking. It's been a bit blown out of proportion tbh as he's comparing it to the D5 which is the only camera I've seen work reliably with the 3D tracking. I'm sure using single point AF-C will yield much better results.

The point of the video was to show that AF isn't as good as the D5, much as he did with the D500, and you don't hear any complaints about the D500's AF. It's hardly surprising that these two cameras don't have the same tracking AF capability as the flagship sports camera. Also, in the video he's not using the grip and I would have thought using the more powerful EL-18a battery could make a difference, plus we don't know if AF fine tune had been done.

As usual Jonney's seen one review and made his mind up ;) [emoji14] It'll be interesting to see the D850 pitched against the D500, D750 and 5D4, it's only then that we'll start getting a better understanding of how good it is. If I was a betting man I'd guess it'll be better than all three (maybe on par with the D500), although the higher res will show up any slight miss more. Of course, time will tell if I'm right or not ;)
I wanna see it against the a99 mk2.

Also my 5d4 does not miss 50 percent of shots using similar 3d af ie having all the focus points enabled for tracking.
 
Chris,

Sorry to hear your having issues, I’d be inclined to send it back for a full refund as it’s too bigger risk sending back and forth for repairs which may never totally resolve the issue.
I know your probably gutted but it’s no small amount of money.

You could always get a Sony A9 :D lol

Yeah I think thats what I''m going to do if I'm honest, haha don't need an A9!!
 
I doubt they've fixed the auto AFMA... did you use that?
At 1:1 the D850 is going to be even more demanding on technique... it could easily be too slow of a SS rather than an AF error. Additionally, at 1:1 on screen the D850 will have even shallower DOF than any previous Nikon.
That's interesting, why wold DOF be shallower on the D850, resolution doesn't affect DOF so what else is coming into play?

I wanna see it against the a99 mk2.

Also my 5d4 does not miss 50 percent of shots using similar 3d af ie having all the focus points enabled for tracking.
Again, one example Jonney. I'm sure there's others that will show a much higher hit rate. When considering a camera you need to build up a general picture, I repeat you cannot base your opinion based on one review or one youtube video. Every other review so far raves about how good the AF is on the D850, why are you insisting on only focussing on this one? ;) Now I don't know whether 3D tracking is good on the D850 or not. Doesn't look marvellous on that video granted, in fact it doesn't look great, but I'd need to see/read more reviews on this to know for sure. There's too may variables. Has he got the best setting for the D850? Has he fine tuned the lens on the D850, etc etc. If you listen to his final comments he does go on to say how good the AF is, it's just not as good as the D5, which I repeat is to be expected.

But as I've already said, 3D tracking isn't the best tracking mode for a number of things, and I wouldn't personally use it for this application. I have 3D tracking on my D750 but do I use it? Nope, I get much better results with single point AF-C. You have to spend time with cameras to get to know them, how to get the sharpest shots and what the best AF settings are for a given situation. Just because you can use one setting on one camera that does not automatically translate that it will work just as well on every camera. And finally, as already mentioned the high resolution will exaggerate any hint of slight missed focus. There's a chance that if the D5 was 45.7mp it might highlight that not every shot was tack sharp either.

I'll leave it at that, I've said enough on the issue ;) :p
 
That's interesting, why wold DOF be shallower on the D850, resolution doesn't affect DOF so what else is coming into play?

Again, one example Jonney. I'm sure there's others that will show a much higher hit rate. When considering a camera you need to build up a general picture, I repeat you cannot base your opinion based on one review or one youtube video. Every other review so far raves about how good the AF is on the D850, why are you insisting on only focussing on this one? ;) Now I don't know whether 3D tracking is good on the D850 or not. Doesn't look marvellous on that video granted, in fact it doesn't look great, but I'd need to see/read more reviews on this to know for sure. There's too may variables. Has he got the best setting for the D850? Has he fine tuned the lens on the D850, etc etc. If you listen to his final comments he does go on to say how good the AF is, it's just not as good as the D5, which I repeat is to be expected.

But as I've already said, 3D tracking isn't the best tracking mode for a number of things, and I wouldn't personally use it for this application. I have 3D tracking on my D750 but do I use it? Nope, I get much better results with single point AF-C. You have to spend time with cameras to get to know them, how to get the sharpest shots and what the best AF settings are for a given situation. Just because you can use one setting on one camera that does not automatically translate that it will work just as well on every camera. And finally, as already mentioned the high resolution will exaggerate any hint of slight missed focus. There's a chance that if the D5 was 45.7mp it might highlight that not every shot was tack sharp either.

I'll leave it at that, I've said enough on the issue ;) :p
Maybe it needs ibis to help get sharper images? Again the a7r2 tracks ever so slightly better with similar af setting. But that gets slated
 
That's interesting, why wold DOF be shallower on the D850, resolution doesn't affect DOF so what else is coming into play?
Display size/relative distance affects DOF (acceptable sharpness), it's actually the primary factor. That's why I specified at 1:1... i.e. evaluating on the computer at the same magnification ratio.
 
Last edited:
Display size/relative distance affects DOF (acceptable sharpness), it's actually the primary factor. That's why I specified at 1:1... i.e. evaluating on the computer at the same magnification ratio.
Hmmm, interesting. I can't quite get my noodle around that so will have to try it to see. The way my brain works is that if a shot has 1 foot DOF then it will still be 1 foot not matter how much you zoom in :confused:
 
Hmmm, interesting. I can't quite get my noodle around that so will have to try it to see. The way my brain works is that if a shot has 1 foot DOF then it will still be 1 foot not matter how much you zoom in :confused:
I'm sure you've seen it w/o realizing it. Try this... take an image with questionable sharpness and display it smaller on your screen... it will appear sharper. Then make it larger and it will become less sharp. Then move away from the computer so that it is again smaller and it will again be sharper... that's how DOF works.
The DOF calculators and standard COC factors assume an image of X size will be viewed from Y distance (the image diagonal)... if that's not the case, a different COC needs to be used or the results will be wrong. There is only one point that is actually "in focus" and DOF is not a fixed quality.
 
I'm sure you've seen it w/o realizing it. Try this... take an image with questionable sharpness and display it smaller on your screen... it will appear sharper. Then make it larger and it will become less sharp. Then move away from the computer so that it is again smaller and it will again be sharper... that's how DOF works.
The DOF calculators and standard COC factors assume an image of X size will be viewed from Y distance (the image diagonal)... if that's not the case, a different COC needs to be used or the results will be wrong. There is only one point that is actually "in focus" and DOF is not a fixed quality.

Excellent, and I think this is something that people often forget.

There are those who say that DoF doesn't exist until the picture is displayed and I see the point but I like to start at the end product and work back from that. Deciding what image size / cropping you want and deciding how the image will be viewed and accepting that this will affect how it is perceived should enable you to decide what kit and settings you need... Need a postage stamp sized picture with shallow DoF... You're going to need a wide aperture :D Need a large picture with deep DoF... etc...
 
Hmmm, interesting. I can't quite get my noodle around that so will have to try it to see. The way my brain works is that if a shot has 1 foot DOF then it will still be 1 foot not matter how much you zoom in :confused:

Another way to think of this is that 1:1 Photographs can be reproduced to the actual size. For example a footwear mark or enhanced fingerprint left at a crime scene. The practical application of this that the footwear mark could be compared to a suspects shoe(s). Incidentally all forensic photography is ‘generally’ taken between f/11 - f/16 for maximum depth of field.
 
Excellent, and I think this is something that people often forget.

There are those who say that DoF doesn't exist until the picture is displayed and I see the point but I like to start at the end product and work back from that. Deciding what image size / cropping you want and deciding how the image will be viewed and accepting that this will affect how it is perceived should enable you to decide what kit and settings you need... Need a postage stamp sized picture with shallow DoF... You're going to need a wide aperture :D Need a large picture with deep DoF... etc...
Unless you can control the image size and viewing distance DOF calculators are about useless (other than determining HFD if you need that). And let's face it, a lot of pictures we take don't have a known/determined output/usage... so at best all you can do is ballpark it.

But it is something to keep in mind when viewing/evaluating images on the web... what you see is very likely different from what many others see. And if it's a smaller (1024x) image it's very likely to be sharper and w/ more DOF than it would be in any other usage.
 
Ballparking it is good enough for me.

I may want to take a picture which I'm intending to print large and hang on a wall or I may want to take a picture to display on a screen and zap off around the world one or two thousand pixels on the longest side and saved as quality nine or ten rather than twelve. Sometimes I take pictures with the intention of cropping to 100%. Thinking about the intended end use will help me to decide what gear and settings I'm going to use.

Of course sometime it just doesn't work out and sometime I might not have the kit or the option of using the setting I'd ideally want and sometimes I may want to produce a large print but the quality just isn't there. Such is life but thinking about the final image and what I'd like to do with it and then working out what gear and settings I need seems to be a logical way of doing it for me.
 
Personally I think one of the benefits of this camera is to ‘go large’ I regularly used to shoot 5 x 4 / 10 x 8 format this is a godsend without the hassle of the Scheimpflug ! Storage is so cheap these days anyway.
 
I'm sure you've seen it w/o realizing it. Try this... take an image with questionable sharpness and display it smaller on your screen... it will appear sharper. Then make it larger and it will become less sharp. Then move away from the computer so that it is again smaller and it will again be sharper... that's how DOF works.
The DOF calculators and standard COC factors assume an image of X size will be viewed from Y distance (the image diagonal)... if that's not the case, a different COC needs to be used or the results will be wrong. There is only one point that is actually "in focus" and DOF is not a fixed quality.
I don't see what sharpness has to do with DOF. DOF is the amount of an image that is in focus in relation to the size of the hole in the lens and the distance of the lens from the focal plane! Is this another Tony Northrup theory? :thinking:
 
This drives me nuts, the minor changes between my D810 and D500. I wish they would just stick with a placement for a few iterations, or failing that allow much more customisation so at least I can set up two cameras to behave in the same way. As it is I have to consciously think about which body I am using as I change the settings...

Yep, real pita
 
I don't see what sharpness has to do with DOF. DOF is the amount of an image that is in focus in relation to the size of the hole in the lens and the distance of the lens from the focal plane! Is this another Tony Northrup theory? :thinking:

This is entirely correct, even the Nikon’s of the 1980s had a depth of field preview button and we didn’t use computers to develop our films back then.
 
Well I have been using the D850 for around a week now. I've come from a D800 then D810 and have to say i am so impressed with the D850. My biggest gripe with the D810 was the focusing in low ligh and the D850 smashes that now with almost instant lock in light levels way lower than Id get away with using the D810;

The images are far cleaner at higher ISO and the dynamic range seems to be far better too - not ust at ISO 64 but also for low level night shots.

The touch screen and silent shooter will be a game changer for me at weddings - the D810 was an improvement over the D800 in quiet mode but silent and the tilt screen will see me get away with a lot more.

Lots of other little things too - the wider spread of focus points, illuminated buttons

Amazing camera.
 
Back
Top