Nikon d850 "in development"

Blank_Canvas said:
Outstanding news !, I did say it wouldn't be long.
Click to expand...
Well apparently if you edit a NEF file and change the “D850” to “D810” then the RAW files would open ... guess it didn’t take Adobe long to edit the RAW editor for that!
 
Eloise said:
Well apparently if you edit a NEF file and change the “D850” to “D810” then the RAW files would open ... guess it didn’t take Adobe long to edit the RAW editor for that!
Click to expand...

I would imagine not, but I'm no expert. It's good that Adobe have looked at this with the first batch of D850s in the UK being delivered as we speak. No news yet when I'll get mine. It's the not knowing that's the worst thing. If it's in two or three weeks I can cope with that but it would be nice to have an indication at least.
 
Eloise said:
Well apparently if you edit a NEF file and change the “D850” to “D810” then the RAW files would open ... guess it didn’t take Adobe long to edit the RAW editor for that!
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's as straight forward as that?
 
snerkler said:
I'm not sure it's as straight forward as that?
Click to expand...
I’m just going on...
“Several readers have already received their Nikon D850 cameras. Adobe has not yet updated their software with D850 support. You can use a free binary editor like HHDsoftware and change one byte of the string "D850" to "D810". This will allow both Lightroom and Photoshop to open the D850 RAW files.

Read more: https://nikonrumors.com/2017/09/05/...o-open-nef-files-and-more.aspx/#ixzz4rw61oTXE”
 
Eloise said:
I’m just going on...
“Several readers have already received their Nikon D850 cameras. Adobe has not yet updated their software with D850 support. You can use a free binary editor like HHDsoftware and change one byte of the string "D850" to "D810". This will allow both Lightroom and Photoshop to open the D850 RAW files.

Read more: https://nikonrumors.com/2017/09/05/...o-open-nef-files-and-more.aspx/#ixzz4rw61oTXE”
Click to expand...
Interesting if true. I know this has been possible in the past with closely related cameras like the D70 and D70s, but it hasn't given usable results with cameras that have very different sensors. I suppose it depends on the details of the raw format and exactly how Adobe implements raw conversion these days. One thing you won't have using this method is an accurate camera matching profile, so you'll presumably just get a generic conversion. If you ever want to try it, I'd suggest editing the 'Model' tag (after backing up the file!) with something like ExifTool rather than using a hex editor. This will ensure you are cleanly editing the correct metadata tag, and allow batch conversions.
 
Last edited:
Ok, the Adobe Camera RAW 9.12.1 which supports the Nikon D850 is now available for download on Creative Creative cloud. Good news for Photoshop and Lightroom users we are now supported.

The D850 Manual is also now available on the Nikon Manual Viewer on Smartphones. Just uploaded it to my iPhone.
 
Last edited:
I got mine today, stunning camera. Those worried about sharp images with this MP need not worry the photo's from it hand held are super sharp.

Nikon have nailed it with this.
 
Jase said:
I got mine today, stunning camera. Those worried about sharp images with this MP need not worry the photo's from it hand held are super sharp.

Nikon have nailed it with this.
Click to expand...

What glass are you using? Tossing up primes and zooms here!
 
quite funny how there is already 3 people in TP that not only ordered the camera but have it already vs no one has bothered with the 6d2!!

But whats even funnier is that i bet the 6d2 will outsell this camera. all because of the brand name. Like apple lol
 
jonneymendoza said:
quite funny how there is already 3 people in TP that not only ordered the camera but have it already vs no one has bothered with the 6d2!!

But whats even funnier is that i bet the 6d2 will outsell this camera. all because of the brand name. Like apple lol
Click to expand...

Nah more to do with the fact 6D2 is hobbyist and over £1500 less.
 
jonneymendoza said:
quite funny how there is already 3 people in TP that not only ordered the camera but have it already vs no one has bothered with the 6d2!!

But whats even funnier is that i bet the 6d2 will outsell this camera. all because of the brand name. Like apple lol
Click to expand...
I don't think it's the brand name per se, just that Canon have the lion's share of the market so it's most likely that any new Canon will outsell any new Nikon for this reason.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Great time to be a photographer
Click to expand...

Without wishing to appear to be having a little joke at anyone's expense... Yes, I think it's a great time to be a photographer but maybe an even better time for gear heads?

I may be wrong and there may be a large number of people who really do need this camera but I suspect that most will already have a very good camera and updating to this latest one will improve their photography and / or let them get more shots not one diddle squat. But that's fine, enjoy photography, enjoy the gear and enjoy life :D

Canon? They're so 20th century :D
 
Last edited:
Wayne Els said:
And most people that drop this amount of money on a body will already have a load of glass. So few people would ditch a 5D3 for this over a 5D4 which is the Canon equivalent.
Click to expand...
Some would. Some have ditched for mirrorless even. Canon only saving grave is lenses atm but even that. Nikon Sony etc all make equally if not better glasses than canon
 
jonneymendoza said:
Some would. Some have ditched for mirrorless even. Canon only saving grave is lenses atm but even that. Nikon Sony etc all make equally if not better glasses than canon
Click to expand...
Some would but nothing like the majority.
Sony make great lenses but there's big gaps in the range and they are like for like more expensive.
I'm guessing you've got a beef with Canon, it sounds that way anyway. Ultimately competition is good. And as long distance walkers say in the States, hike your own hike.
 
Wayne Els said:
Some would but nothing like the majority.
Sony make great lenses but there's big gaps in the range and they are like for like more expensive.
I'm guessing you've got a beef with Canon, it sounds that way anyway. Ultimately competition is good. And as long distance walkers say in the States, hike your own hike.
Click to expand...

I think maybe for a lot of people the gaps in the Sony lens line up are few these days. Other than that your post could be taken as a bit of Sony whinging and it could be time for you to hike your own hike. Just sayin'.
 
I had a play with one at the Carmarthen Camera Show last Saturday; as a Canon user I guess it will be a while before I take the plunge (if I do.....) but I was confused by one thing.

Files from the 22Mp Canon 5d3 are in the region of 25 Mb each. But files from the 46Mp d850 were, apparently, about 31Mb. I know the file size is subject dependent, so is it possible that the figures I was given above were incorrect?
 
woof woof said:
I think maybe for a lot of people the gaps in the Sony lens line up are few these days. Other than that your post could be taken as a bit of Sony whinging and it could be time for you to hike your own hike. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
You've misconstrued my comment. I'm pretty happy with my Sony. I just wince at the price of the glass.
 
jerry12953 said:
I had a play with one at the Carmarthen Camera Show last Saturday; as a Canon user I guess it will be a while before I take the plunge (if I do.....) but I was confused by one thing.

Files from the 22Mp Canon 5d3 are in the region of 25 Mb each. But files from the 46Mp d850 were, apparently, about 31Mb. I know the file size is subject dependent, so is it possible that the figures I was given above were incorrect?
Click to expand...
Nikon offer lossless compressed as well as compressed and uncompressed files. I think the 14 bit uncompressed D850 files are somewhere in the region of 70-90mb, far too large to work from imo. I have no issue with lossless compressed files, in fact I have no option for uncompressed in my D750. I don't even know whey they do uncompressed files if they have lossless compressed. I guess some folk can't get their head's around lossless compression and still think uncompressed are going to be way better ;)

Edit, here you go. From finding this I'm really disappointed that the the large, medium and small file size options are only available with 12 bit files, just like the D810. For me this is the first negative thing about this camera. I was hopeful of the option for the different MP images, but at 14 bit. Yes I know it's difficult to see the difference between 12 and 14 bit a lot of the time but still, why limit it?????

Screen Shot 2017-09-07 at 17.17.30.png
 
Last edited:
That's interesting and news to me! One of my doubts about large Mp cameras (all brands) has always been whether my PC would be able to cope with the files or whether I would need to upgrade that as well.

Are lossless compressed files processed as if they were smaller files? Or are they converted into large files at some stage during the processing stage? i'm on a learning curve here....!:)
 
Only 29 uncompressed raw shots on that new xqd card? Thought those where supposed to be miles faster than the sd card tech?
 
jerry12953 said:
Are lossless compressed files processed as if they were smaller files? Or are they converted into large files at some stage during the processing stage?
Click to expand...
No, and yes.

Bottom line, there are 45 million pixels, so when you open an image into any kind of editor (Lightroom, Photoshop, whatever) it's going to require 3 bytes per pixel x 45 million pixels = 135 MB. But that's the best case, assuming you're happy to work in 8gbit colour depth. Some people aren't, but 16-bit colour requires 6 bytes per pixel, hence 270 MB. And that's when the image is unedited. As soon as you start doing thngs to it, the file size grows. I think it could be quite easy to get to 1 GB.

But that's only when the file is open in memory. Saving it to disk allows the computer to utilise compression strategies, like the camera does when initially saving the image, that can be lossless or lossy. However, even with compression, lossless file formats like PSD and TIFF can give you very big files.
 
StewartR said:
No, and yes.

Bottom line, there are 45 million pixels, so when you open an image into any kind of editor (Lightroom, Photoshop, whatever) it's going to require 3 bytes per pixel x 45 million pixels = 135 MB. But that's the best case, assuming you're happy to work in 8gbit colour depth. Some people aren't, but 16-bit colour requires 6 bytes per pixel, hence 270 MB. And that's when the image is unedited. As soon as you start doing thngs to it, the file size grows. I think it could be quite easy to get to 1 GB.

But that's only when the file is open in memory. Saving it to disk allows the computer to utilise compression strategies, like the camera does when initially saving the image, that can be lossless or lossy. However, even with compression, lossless file formats like PSD and TIFF can give you very big files.
Click to expand...
Interesting. So, are you saying that editing a compressed 45mb 45.7MP file will be as slow to process in Lightroom as an uncompressed 90mb 45.7MP file? The benefit of using lossless compressed for me would have been to speed up my workflow in LR. Storage is cheap these days so the actual file size isn't that important, it's speed of workflow for me.

As per my post above about the 25mp option only being 12 bit RAW, that's a huge disappointment for me. Could even be a deal breaker for me if and when I could afford one.
 
StewartR said:
Bottom line, there are 45 million pixels, so when you open an image into any kind of editor (Lightroom, Photoshop, whatever) it's going to require 3 bytes per pixel x 45 million pixels = 135 MB. But that's the best case, assuming you're happy to work in 8gbit colour depth. Some people aren't, but 16-bit colour requires 6 bytes per pixel, hence 270 MB. And that's when the image is unedited. As soon as you start doing thngs to it, the file size grows. I think it could be quite easy to get to 1 GB.

But that's only when the file is open in memory. Saving it to disk allows the computer to utilise compression strategies, like the camera does when initially saving the image, that can be lossless or lossy. However, even with compression, lossless file formats like PSD and TIFF can give you very big files.
Click to expand...
Stewart... is it not also the case (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) though that it depends what software you are using.

With Lightroom (and I assume similar applications such as Capture One) you’re very rarely working on the RAW image, you’re working on a preview. So the actual RAW file size doesn’t matter so much.
 
Eloise said:
Stewart... is it not also the case (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) though that it depends what software you are using.

With Lightroom (and I assume similar applications such as Capture One) you’re very rarely working on the RAW image, you’re working on a preview. So the actual RAW file size doesn’t matter so much.
Click to expand...

I think you're mixing up what you see with what's actually happening, to work on an image at all the software will need to decompress the image and then store it into memory at which point as Stewart says it takes up X amount of space.

Capture one feels more responsive than Lightroom because it's only rendering the full detail of the area you're working on rather than the whole image but regardless both pieces of software will have had to decompress the image and store it into memory to let you work on it.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
As per my post above about the 25mp option only being 12 bit RAW, that's a huge disappointment for me. Could even be a deal breaker for me if and when I could afford one.
Click to expand...

I thought that the medium RAW file option could be really useful as well. But having researched 12bit v 14bit, it seems as if there's very little difference in practice so the the option would still be a good one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top