Nikon d850 "in development"

Had hands on with a D850 in Clifton Cameras this afternoon. It feels very much like a large D500, very similar layout, somehow feels smaller than a D810, even though it is the same size, I suspect this is consequence of the deeper grip. The Nikon rep confirmed you need a D5 battery to get 9fps, no mention of how you charge it... Personally this an extra expense I could not justify.

Anyway overall impression was positive, focus is D500 fast, the touch screen seemed more responsive. In live view the shutter is completely silent, so silent you don't realise it has taken a picture. It seems like a thorough evolution of the D850, at a price.
 
StewartR said:
Sorry, I don't understand.
Click to expand...
With long lenses and moving subjects it is a struggle to get even 50% resolution actually recorded, and that's using top quality primes... I'm quite certain that I'm often below 12MP with the D810.

More MP does generally get you more recorded resolution, but it's always a lot less that 1:1... I think the 9MP increase on the D850 will be a net gain of maybe 2MP recorded over the D800e/810 even in the best conditions, maybe less.
 
sk66 said:
With long lenses and moving subjects it is a struggle to get even 50% resolution actually recorded, and that's using top quality primes... I'm quite certain that I'm often below 12MP with the D810....
Click to expand...
Really? Is that a universal truth, or is it you and/or your equipment? Reason I ask is that last summer I went on a polar bear trip to Spitzbergen, using a Canon 100-400 Mk II and a Canon 7D Mk II (20MP APS-C, comparable to a Nikon D500). I've never done anything like that before and I probably never will again, so I took equipment which I knew how to handle rather than a 1DX and a big prime or anything like that. But even so I was absolutely staggered by the image quality I obtained, sharp and detailed right down to the pixel level.
 
StewartR said:
Really? Is that a universal truth, or is it you and/or your equipment?
Click to expand...
It's pretty universal... there are very few lenses that can resolve down to those kinds of pixel sizes, and the ones that can only do so when at/near max aperture. Add in camera/subject movement and stopping down for DOF/exposure and you get even less. Luckily, you don't really need that kind of resolution actually recorded... you can't see it (it's like the dots a magazine image is made up of, they're there, you just can't see them). If you are seeing a lack of detail/sharpness, then the image probably contains less than 12-14MP actual.
This is the Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 (one of very few lenses that is close to being truly diffraction limited)... at f/1.4 it delivers 35MP on a D810 and 41MP on a 5DS R, and it goes down from there as the aperture is stopped down. You'll note that the chart stops measuring at 12MP (for the reason I mentioned).

Screen Shot 2017-08-31 at 5.38.24 PM.png

Most lenses do much worse, this is the 100-400 II on the 7D II

Screen Shot 2017-08-31 at 5.46.37 PM.png

* P-MP is measured LP/MM MTF converted to MPs required
 
Last edited:
Resolution captured is very much lens dependent too and not just a sensor spec... for example the Canon 5DR/S sensor needs specific compatible lenses to gain the added resolution the sensor offers... I wonder how many current Nikon lenses can actually resolve enough lines/pixels to see the benefit of the new D850's sensor?
This is where the Sony G master lenses will out-perform its competitors as these have been designed and built ground upwards with the future of camera sensors in mind.
 
Riz_Guru said:
Resolution captured is very much lens dependent too and not just a sensor spec... for example the Canon 5DR/S sensor needs specific compatible lenses to gain the added resolution the sensor offers... I wonder how many current Nikon lenses can actually resolve enough lines/pixels to see the benefit of the new D850's sensor?
This is where the Sony G master lenses will out-perform its competitors as these have been designed and built ground upwards with the future of camera sensors in mind.
Click to expand...
They have been built to resolve something like a 100mp sensor I heard
 
jonneymendoza said:
They have been built to resolve something like a 100mp sensor I heard
Click to expand...
Probably right, so I guess we need to see if Nikon issue a lens compatibility list, listing which lenses they recommend for use with the D850? :D
 
Riz_Guru said:
Probably right, so I guess we need to see if Nikon issue a lens compatibility list, listing which lenses they recommend for use with the D850? :D
Click to expand...
all the gold ring ones according the video interview i posted here...
 
nandbytes said:
all the gold ring ones according the video interview i posted here...
Click to expand...
That's good as most of the Nikon top-end lenses have the gold rings.... would be interesting to know/see what the lenses limits are for resolving power.
 
nandbytes said:
really?
repeated QC issues, failed deliveries and you still trust them more?
Click to expand...
'Failed' deliveries is nothing new, it's a marketing ploy. QC could be better I agree. But then Canon have had problems too.

jonneymendoza said:
I think qc issues has been overblown?
Click to expand...
QC's not been great with the D600 and D750, however as with most things these days I agree that it's been blown out of proportion.
 
snerkler said:
'Failed' deliveries is nothing new, it's a marketing ploy. QC could be better I agree. But then Canon have had problems too.

QC's not been great with the D600 and D750, however as with most things these days I agree that it's been blown out of proportion.
Click to expand...
Just order from Amazon and any qc issues just return the camera. The 5d3 had qc issues too
 
jonneymendoza said:
Just order from Amazon and any qc issues just return the camera. The 5d3 had qc issues too
Click to expand...
TBF Nikon have been very good at sorting the QC issues this time. Whilst they shouldn't have happened in the first place they have been very swift and very good at acting upon it.
 
Eloise said:
Not to mention NASA! They obviously trust Nikon QC.

(And yes there is also a Sony up on ISS now for 4k video work)
Click to expand...

Exactly QC is always exaggerated.. people generally go to the internet to complain if something is not working but very rarely do the same when things are working.
 
Riz_Guru said:
I wonder how many current Nikon lenses can actually resolve enough lines/pixels to see the benefit of the new D850's sensor?
Click to expand...
AFAIK, there are no Nikon lenses that can resolve to that level (or even 36MP). You will still typically gain some resolution recorded, some small fraction of the increase.

But there are many other benefits gained from higher MP sensors besides resolution. That's where the increased DR/Color sensitivity/ISO performance etc come from... and all of that goes away if you crop the images. TBH, at this level a 9MP increase is pretty insignificant. It's the other improvements that make it a better camera...
 
sk66 said:
But there are many other benefits gained from higher MP sensors besides resolution. That's where the increased DR/Color sensitivity/ISO performance etc come from... and all of that goes away if you crop the images. TBH, at this level a 9MP increase is pretty insignificant. It's the other improvements that make it a better camera...
Click to expand...
I don't believe this is 100% correct but could be wrong... I always assumed that lower tmegapixel sensors had greater the light gathering ability because the sensors micro cells are bigger, on a high resolution sensor they have more micro cells but they are a lot smaller so this affects ISO/DR and possibly colour too.

I am going on the basis that Sony A7S/II is a high ISO monster compared to the rest and that is only 12mp... :D
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
That's nonsense... they don't even deliver the full 42MP on the A7R II.
But, I probably can't say this enough... you don't really need to record that kind of resolution.
Click to expand...
But could that not be down to a sensor limitation? I am sure Sony has designed the G Master lenses with extremely high resolutions in mind... guess we'll have to wait and see what Sony have up their sleeves.
One thing is for sure, they are showing real progress compared to the rest..... innovation.
 
Riz_Guru said:
I don't believe this is 100% correct but could be wrong... I always assumed that lower tmegapixel sensors had greater the light gathering ability because the sensors micro cells are bigger, on a high resolution sensor they have more micro cells but they are a lot smaller so this affects ISO/DR and possibly colour too.

I am going on the basis that Sony A7S/II is a high ISO monster compared to the rest and that is only 12mp... :D
Click to expand...
Depends if you are comparing at 1:1 (different size output) or "like images" (same size output). At 1:1 the larger pixels have the advantage, with "like images" the higher resolution has the advantage (due to oversampling/combining pixels).
In terms of light gathering, it mostly comes down to sensor size/total light.
 
sk66 said:
That's nonsense... they don't even deliver the full 42MP on the A7R II.
But, I probably can't say this enough... you don't really need to record that kind of resolution.
Click to expand...
they do.

and better. The lenses where designed for speedy cameras(A9) and super high res high DR sensors(future a7r3/A9r) i read it on there press event of the G master line.

Same with Canon's latest L lenses. All built for higher resolution for future use
 
Blank_Canvas said:
That's why the UK Armed Forces photographers and most Scenes of Crime Units use Nikon.
Click to expand...
Ha you obviously have no experience of MoD procurement if you think the process has anything to do with quality of deliverables.

A Naval Phot was talking at my camera club last year. He uses Nikon because it's what he's given but wasn't overly impressed with the build quality having broken a couple of D4's without being particularly hard on them.
 
sk66 said:
Depends if you are comparing at 1:1 (different size output) or "like images" (same size output). At 1:1 the larger pixels have the advantage, with "like images" the higher resolution has the advantage (due to oversampling/combining pixels).
In terms of light gathering, it mostly comes down to sensor size/total light.
Click to expand...
Cool..... I think most modern camera's are good enough now...... wonder what the next technological step will be..... Organic Sensors? Global Shutters? Clean ISO's to 100k? Night Vision?
 
Riz_Guru said:
But could that not be down to a sensor limitation? I am sure Sony has designed the G Master lenses with extremely high resolutions in mind... guess we'll have to wait and see what Sony have up their sleeves.
One thing is for sure, they are showing real progress compared to the rest..... innovation.
Click to expand...
It could be I guess, but it doesn't matter if they make an optically perfect lens (I doub't that will ever happen), there is an aperture limitation to resolution. This chart shows the max theoretical resolutions obtainable from a perfect lens for blue/green/red wavelengths... even a perfect (theoretical) lens can't project more than 40MP across the spectrum at apertures smaller than f/4 on 35mm. The chart is from this very technical article...

TABLA3.jpg
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
It could be I guess, but it doesn't matter if they make an optically perfect lens (I doub't that will ever happen), there is an aperture limitation to resolution. This chart shows the max theoretical resolutions obtainable from a perfect lens for blue/green/red wavelengths... even a perfect lens can't project more than 40MP across the spectrum at apertures smaller than f/4 on 35mm. The chart is from this very technical article...

TABLA3.jpg
Click to expand...
:eek: my brain just exploded :D lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top