Nikon d850 "in development"

jonneymendoza said:
O dear.
Click to expand...
As a canon user (you, not me) I love the way you jump on anything remotely negative in the 850 thread. Along with Riz too FWIW. Maybe you can get over your insecurities over the 850 and maybe even get a life? In the hope of offering you some consolation, Canon will catch up in due course and in years to come you'll look back and laugh......"what was I worrying about".
 
ryanyboy said:
As a canon user (you, not me) I love the way you jump on anything remotely negative in the 850 thread. Along with Riz too FWIW. Maybe you can get over your insecurities over the 850 and maybe even get a life? In the hope of offering you some consolation, Canon will catch up in due course and in years to come you'll look back and laugh......"what was I worrying about".
Click to expand...
Have you not seen me bash canon way more than any brand lol.

Yea I have a life. My cameras get used a lot as I go out taking pictures and don't post/read much here especially on the weekends.

Got a cool shoot scheduled this weekend. Umm use my 5d4 or my Sony's?

Lots of choices. Glad I'm not loyal to a specific brand hehe.
 
ryanyboy said:
As a canon user (you, not me) I love the way you jump on anything remotely negative in the 850 thread. Along with Riz too FWIW. Maybe you can get over your insecurities over the 850 and maybe even get a life? In the hope of offering you some consolation, Canon will catch up in due course and in years to come you'll look back and laugh......"what was I worrying about".
Click to expand...

The D850 sounds great even from a Canon users point of view. It's disappointing to see someone returning one though so soon after getting it. You just hope that it's not a common problem. I don't think that Canon have any need to catch up. I don't think that the reason they make cameras is to try and have the best in each class. But they compete, sometimes making gains as with the 5D4 and 1DX MkII and then screwing it up a bit with the 6D2. I'd like to see canon become a bit more adventurous and start including electronic shutter and focus stacking in future models and a few other bits and bobs. I don't think that any brand is a market leader in anything. Sony are pushing the boundaries but apart from the A9 and 7R2 do they really have anything that stands out as best in class. Sony suffer from lack of lenses and, from my point of view, using an adaptor is not a selling point to brush over a limited lens line up. I've had a play with a D850 and it's very nice and I'm considering perhaps getting one and running 2 makes. Im lucky in that I have a friend who has one and I can really have a decent go with one before making my mind up. I really hope that it doesnt suffer from issues that result in a recall. It makes for an easier decision when buying one.
 
Last edited:
chrism_scotland said:
Well, I'm out - wasn't happy with the inconsistent results with different lenses and AF adjustment so its gone back, picked up another (used) A7rii for now, will do me for my trip away next month!
Click to expand...
All this micro-AF adjustment business is a royal pain in the back side, so glad that I don't have to worry about it on mirrorless systems.
I used to spend ages micro adjusting lenses on my DSLR, time wasted which could have gone towards actually taking photographs, what a headache.
 
Riz_Guru said:
All this micro-AF adjustment business is a royal pain in the back side, so glad that I don't have to worry about it on mirrorless systems.
I used to spend ages micro adjusting lenses on my DSLR, time wasted which could have gone towards actually taking photographs, what a headache.
Click to expand...
Yea i had to do it for my sigma lenses
 
ryanyboy said:
As a canon user (you, not me) I love the way you jump on anything remotely negative in the 850 thread. Along with Riz too FWIW. Maybe you can get over your insecurities over the 850 and maybe even get a life? In the hope of offering you some consolation, Canon will catch up in due course and in years to come you'll look back and laugh......"what was I worrying about".
Click to expand...

Now now I am only doing what certain DSLR folks do towards Mirrorless systems, merely point out the negatives and positives ;) lol ..... I don't think I have been that harsh towards Nikon or the D850 to be fair, after all this is a discussion about the Nikon D850 isn't it, both good and bad will get mentioned.
The tables have turned...... the recent announcement/rumors from both Nikon and Canon that they are working on mirrorless systems just goes to show that DSLR tech is dated and reached its peak, time for something new!

There will always be the DSLR and Mirrorless crowds both waving their respective flags, nothing wrong with that at all. :D
 
Riz_Guru said:
All this micro-AF adjustment business is a royal pain in the back side, so glad that I don't have to worry about it on mirrorless systems.
I used to spend ages micro adjusting lenses on my DSLR, time wasted which could have gone towards actually taking photographs, what a headache.
Click to expand...

Yep it's a pain but it takes me 10 minutes to do a lens and I don't even put the images on the PC so it doesn't eat into my day too much.
 
Riz_Guru said:
Now now I am only doing what certain DSLR folks do towards Mirrorless systems, merely point out the negatives and positives ;) lol ..... I don't think I have been that harsh towards Nikon or the D850 to be fair, after all this is a discussion about the Nikon D850 isn't it, both good and bad will get mentioned.
The tables have turned...... the recent announcement/rumors from both Nikon and Canon that they are working on mirrorless systems just goes to show that DSLR tech is dated and reached its peak, time for something new!

There will always be the DSLR and Mirrorless crowds both waving their respective flags, nothing wrong with that at all. :D
Click to expand...

You've never shown me anything to prove that you have even have the slightest idea if that statement is true or not.
 
Gaz J said:
You just hope that it's not a common problem.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming it's a fault of that specific unit otherwise you'd assume other reviewers would have picked up on it. Would be nice to have confirmation either way.

Gaz J said:
I don't think that Canon have any need to catch up. I don't think that the reason they make cameras is to try and have the best in each class. But they compete, sometimes making gains as with the 5D4 and 1DX MkII and then screwing it up a bit with the 6D2.
Click to expand...

While Canon doing the least work for the most profit is very sensible for them as a business it's not that interesting for the consumer.

I'd much rather they felt threatened and had to put out ever more impressive cameras but the truth of the matter is they don't need to as even when they're disappointing they're still good cameras and will probably always be the market leader.
 
No offence to chris m but he does change camera due to issues more than i do pants. He never seems to be happy with any camera and has returned a few for issues.. either very inlucky or no camera offers exactly what u expect. Ive been following the FM thread from the start and read lots of revieves and have only read praise for the AF so far.
 
windrunner said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I've found, and yeah amazing camera.
 
ryanyboy said:
You've never shown me anything to prove that you have even have the slightest idea if that statement is true or not.
Click to expand...

I don’t have to prove anything, this is a Nikon D850 thread, it will always generate both positive or negative comments.
If you don’t like it that’s fine :)
 
pmac said:
No offence to chris m but he does change camera due to issues more than i do pants. He never seems to be happy with any camera and has returned a few for issues.. either very inlucky or no camera offers exactly what u expect. Ive been following the FM thread from the start and read lots of revieves and have only read praise for the AF so far.
Click to expand...
Matt granger posted a video that at least shows the 3D tracking being poor
 
pmac said:
no he showed a video showing it was poor compared to the d5 which is exactly what you would expect.
I've yet to see a video comparing its AF to the d810 or 5dmk4 which is what segment its competing in, then we might be able to say it has poor AF.
Click to expand...

In all my years I've never once used the 3D tracking mode. I'd rather he tested continuous AF in one of the more useful modes.
 
Riz_Guru said:
I don’t have to prove anything, this is a Nikon D850 thread, it will always generate both positive or negative comments.
If you don’t like it that’s fine :)
Click to expand...

Correct. And you don't use Nikon, you shoot Sony. So why don't you stop trolling?

And if you want to add something to the the thread why don't you enlighten us further with regards to your statement that DSLR technology has "reached its peak"?
 
ryanyboy said:
Correct. And you don't use Nikon, you shoot Sony. So why don't you stop trolling?

And if you want to add something to the the thread why don't you enlighten us further with regards to your statement that DSLR technology has "reached its peak"?
Click to expand...

I used to own & use Nikon and I keep a watchful eye on what they release, Nikon as a brand is very strong and I like them.
Trolling? I don’t remember any specific forum rules dictating where I can and cannot post, it’s a open forum for discussion and this is a D850 forum.
My statement regarding DSLR technology reaching its peak was merely my opinion and re-enforced when both Nikon and Canon showed interest to release mirrorless FF bodies, to me that speaks volumes.

Anyways back on topic,
I think Nikon have got the marketing on the D850 spot on, it really is a very well all-rounded camera, having watched Matts video on the D850 vs D5, the outcome wasn’t surprising at all and you have to remember each body has a different price point.
D5 is still better for speed / AF etc but it’s bigger and more costly proposition.

Are you getting the D850?
 
Last edited:
shapeshifter said:
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:
Click to expand...
No, the definition of DOF is "acceptable sharpness" in an image; and it is/always has been based upon image size vs viewing distance (the COC). The scale on the lens uses the default COC for the size of film/sensor as do most DOF calculators... and this assumes the image will be viewed from a distance equal to the image diagonal (which is equivalent to the diameter of ~ a 45* circular FOV). If you view it from farther, what appears "acceptably sharp" will increase; and closer it decreases (the COC changes).

Screen Shot 2017-09-28 at 1.07.24 PM.png
 
Riz_Guru said:
All this micro-AF adjustment business is a royal pain in the back side, so glad that I don't have to worry about it on mirrorless systems.
Click to expand...
I don't know why this would necessarily be the case if you have on sensor PDAF (i.e. faster AF)... I don't need to use AFMA for live view AF (CDAF) either...
 
pmac said:
No offence to chris m but he does change camera due to issues more than i do pants. He never seems to be happy with any camera and has returned a few for issues.. either very inlucky or no camera offers exactly what u expect. Ive been following the FM thread from the start and read lots of revieves and have only read praise for the AF so far.
Click to expand...
yes ,Chris is one of those that cant keep a camera for more than a few months ,must be a horrible aberration :LOL::LOL:
 
pmac said:
No offence to chris m but he does change camera due to issues more than i do pants. He never seems to be happy with any camera and has returned a few for issues.. either very inlucky or no camera offers exactly what u expect. Ive been following the FM thread from the start and read lots of revieves and have only read praise for the AF so far.
Click to expand...

I don't change camera's due to issues at all, this is the first one that's gone back due to it being faulty and if I could just get another one (and not wait weeks) I would but I'm not willing to wait weeks without a camera just as I've got some desire to get out and shoot again.

I've never made any suggestion that I've had "issues" with the other kit I've had and moved on I do like trying different bits of kit and I'm in the lucky position to be able to afford to chop and change as I wish with my kit (not that I tend to lose any more than I would if I was renting for a weekend generally).
 
sk66 said:
No, the definition of DOF is "acceptable sharpness" in an image; and it is/always has been based upon image size vs viewing distance (the COC). The scale on the lens uses the default COC for the size of film/sensor as do most DOF calculators... and this assumes the image will be viewed from a distance equal to the image diagonal (which is equivalent to the diameter of ~ a 45* circular FOV). If you view it from farther, what appears "acceptably sharp" will increase; and closer it decreases (the COC changes).

View attachment 111395
Click to expand...
Viewing distance of what? the fianal image? The "subject distance" on the calculator is the disatance from the focal plane to the subject.What is this "viewing distance"?

The "depth of field" relates to the amount of depth (distance from camera to image viewed that is in 'focus'. ie a smaller aperture gives a greater amount of the image in 'focus' a wider aperture gives less of the image in 'focus' the word "shap" never comes into it nor does the term "viewing distance". Is this something else to do with viewing a photograph after it has been taken or somthing.
 
shapeshifter said:
Viewing distance of what? the fianal image? The "subject distance" on the calculator is the disatance from the focal plane to the subject.What is this "viewing distance"?

The "depth of field" relates to the amount of depth (distance from camera to image viewed that is in 'focus'. ie a smaller aperture gives a greater amount of the image in 'focus' a wider aperture gives less of the image in 'focus' the word "shap" never comes into it nor does the term "viewing distance". Is this something else to do with viewing a photograph after it has been taken or somthing.
Click to expand...

There's really only one razor thin plane of perfect focus. Everything not at that exact distance is out of exact focus. but for a certain distance in front of and behind that plane of exact focus it will be difficult, perhaps in practice impossible, to see any difference in sharpness. What counts as the depth of focus is how far from the plane of exact focus is still acceptably sharp. That in turn depends on the viewing conditions. For example, I can take a portrait of a face where the eyes are in focus but the ears are obviously not when printed at A3 size and the print examined with a magnifying glass. But when I print it at A5 and examine it with a magnifying glass the ears are just as sharp as the eyes.
 
Riz_Guru said:
All this micro-AF adjustment business is a royal pain in the back side.....
Click to expand...

You know what, there is a lot of hype surrounding this. This is not even a mandatory requirement. Many people don’t even know what they are doing and get it wrong. Nikon lenses on Nikon cameras just work straight out of the box. Personally, I never use 3rd party lenses.

The sensors are so good now that if your out by a fraction of a millimetre it’s going to show. Once again we managed for years both with 35mm, medium and large formats. Everything was fine. There’s definitely a place for Fine tuning and I’m embracing the change but unless you’ve got total confidence in what you are doing avoid.....
 
shapeshifter said:
What is this "viewing distance"?
Click to expand...
shapeshifter said:
Is this something else to do with viewing a photograph after it has been taken or somthing.
Click to expand...
Yes, the viewing distance of the displayed image, which is dictated by the COC used (or more correctly, the image size and viewing distance dictate the COC).

As I stated, the standard COC (i.e. .2mm for 8x10 film, .03mm for 35mm/FF, .02mm for APS, .015mm for m4/3, etc, etc.) defines the viewing distance of the final image as being equal to the diagonal measurement of that image (i.e. an 8x10 viewed from 12"). The COC is the amount of point blur recorded at the image plane (sensor/film) that "will be judged to be in focus," in other words "acceptably sharp." And the reason smaller formats have a smaller standard COC is because they must be enlarged more in order to generate a display of the same size ("mega pixels" are irrelevant here)... i.e. an 8x10 negative requires no enlargement to make a 8x10 print, but a 35mm negative (or FF digital sensor image) has to be enlarged about 500% (?) in order to make an 8x10 print (or any other display), so the 8x10 negative can record more blur resulting in the same DOF in the final image.

That's all fine and good... but lets say you are going to take a picture with a FF camera (35mm .03mm COC) which is intended for fine art gallery display... maybe a 4'x6' print that may be viewed from 3ft away. The standard COC states that a 4x6 should be viewed from just over 7ft, so a more appropriate COC to use for 3ft viewing might be .02mm.

I tried to find something fairly clear that explains it all so you wouldn't have to take my word for it... but I didn't find anything with a quick google search (everything I found was very basic/generic, or the concepts are broken out and rather technical). THIS is close to what I was looking for.
 
Last edited:
Good lord.

I make a living from this and I'm glad I've never once had to think about most of what y'all are talking about.

One thing we can hopefully all agree on is that Adobe are ghouls and need to hurry the hell up in releasing the lightroom update, this DNG converter business is doing my head in
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
No, the definition of DOF is "acceptable sharpness" in an image; and it is/always has been based upon image size vs viewing distance (the COC). The scale on the lens uses the default COC for the size of film/sensor as do most DOF calculators... and this assumes the image will be viewed from a distance equal to the image diagonal (which is equivalent to the diameter of ~ a 45* circular FOV). If you view it from farther, what appears "acceptably sharp" will increase; and closer it decreases (the COC changes).

View attachment 111395
Click to expand...

As a basic definition that’s okay.You are on the right track but it’s always been based on much more than just Circles of Confusion ! The pivotal point you have missed out is that the DOF is controlled by adjusting the lens aperture. For example. Increasing the f-number (Reducing the aperture diameter) increases the DOF.

However, the DOF is intrinsically linked to the camera-to-subject distance, focal length of the lens, type of lens (symmetrical or asymmetrical) aperture or f-number selected and camera format size. All these things are equally important and exist to define the DOF when the camera is pointing towards the given subject.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Nikon lenses on Nikon cameras just work straight out of the box.
Click to expand...
While I largely agree... AFMA is a finicky thing, only optimal for one subject distance, often exasperating the issue at other subject distances, and often done "wrong/poorly." But no, Nikon lenses are not perfect across the board "out of the box"... especially if you add a TC.
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
However, the DOF is intrinsically linked to the camera-to-subject distance, focal length of the lens, type of lens (symmetrical or asymmetrical) aperture or f-number selected and camera format size. All these things are equally important and exist to define the DOF when the camera is pointing towards the given subject.
Click to expand...
Yes, all of those factors determine the amount of point blur recorded, i.e. the COC (except format size, that determines how much point blur is acceptable)...
I didn't miss that, I just figured it irrelevant to the discussion, which was initiated by my statement that 1:1 evaluation of a D850 image on screen will have less DOF than any other Nikon camera. Because at 1:1 it will be larger on your monitor, and I doubt anyone moves their chair/computer back to compensate (digital display is the only time where MP's/pixels factor into DOF).
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
While I largely agree... AFMA is a finicky thing, only optimal for one subject distance, often exasperating the issue at other subject distances, and often done "wrong/poorly." But no, Nikon lenses are not perfect across the board "out of the box"... especially if you add a TC.
Click to expand...

Agree, but it’s almost universally acknowledged that Nikon TCs are a compromise in quality, although they do have their uses from time-to-time.
 
Anyone know or heard rumours as to when the next batch is due for Europe / UK?
 
jamesev said:
Anyone know or heard rumours as to when the next batch is due for Europe / UK?
Click to expand...
The US have apparently been shipped their 3rd lot so you would hope that we won't be too far behind. I've only heard of one UK shipment so far though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top