Nikon d850 "in development"

I've been using XQD since the D4 introduction and I've never had a single issue with them. I have had issues with SD/CF cards, but they are rare and I've been using them a lot more/longer. Still, my preference is to have fewer images per card and change them more frequently, or to have the images written to two cards simultaneously.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
One last question on XQD cards-on average how many images( full res) should we expect from the D850, this will give me an idea if i need to but another 64gig or go for a 128 gig card
Click to expand...
Did you know this question is actually answered in the camera's user manual? Page 362.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
One last question on XQD cards-on average how many images( full res) should we expect from the D850, this will give me an idea if i need to but another 64gig or go for a 128 gig card
Click to expand...

I always find the camera's estimate from an empty card is much lower than the reality. I shot a wedding with 64gig xqd cards last weekend and the camera told me I'd get about 760 shots per card but i got well over 1,000 before needing to change.

edit - this was lossless compressed RAWs
 
rampanthamster said:
I always find the camera's estimate from an empty card is much lower than the reality. I shot a wedding with 64gig xqd cards last weekend and the camera told me I'd get about 760 shots per card but i got well over 1,000 before needing to change.

edit - this was lossless compressed RAWs
Click to expand...
I've found the Nikon's I have had to greatly underestimate the number of images available on a card. :rolleyes: Good that it underestimates of course, but sometimes by 25-50%. :eek:

If I need to guestimate how many images I can get I just go to folder of pics and take the largest file size and divide it by the size of the card. It will give a more accurate estimate than what Nikon works out. Hard to do if you don't have the camera already I know, but the manual does give you an idea, which Stewart has linked to. ;) I always download the manual for any camera I am waiting to get, jut to flick through and see if there is anything I haven't read about from reviews or users.

It works out I can get about 1200+ Lossless Compressed RAW files on my D500 on a 32Gb card as the largest files are about 25Mb for example, and the camera says it can get 859. :thinking: And not every image is going to take up that much space if there is not much detail in the image, so probably quite a few more that 1200 images on 32Gb.
 
This may help, some real world numbers from a variety of shoots, with 14bit raws, lossless compression turned on. And one row of medium raws to compare too

upload_2017-11-13_17-52-4.png
 
redhed17 said:
I've found the Nikon's I have had to greatly underestimate the number of images available on a card. :rolleyes: Good that it underestimates of course, but sometimes by 25-50%. :eek:

If I need to guestimate how many images I can get I just go to folder of pics and take the largest file size and divide it by the size of the card. It will give a more accurate estimate than what Nikon works out. Hard to do if you don't have the camera already I know, but the manual does give you an idea, which Stewart has linked to. ;) I always download the manual for any camera I am waiting to get, jut to flick through and see if there is anything I haven't read about from reviews or users.

It works out I can get about 1200+ Lossless Compressed RAW files on my D500 on a 32Gb card as the largest files are about 25Mb for example, and the camera says it can get 859. :thinking: And not every image is going to take up that much space if there is not much detail in the image, so probably quite a few more that 1200 images on 32Gb.
Click to expand...
I think initially it quotes the number of uncompressed files but of course as the file then gets written it compresses it hence why you end up with more than it predicts. Looking at the D850 and D810 file sizes lossless compressed 14 bit are 44% smaller than uncompressed 14 bit so I would assume the D750 would be similar if we had the uncompressed option.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I think initially it quotes the number of uncompressed files but of course as the file then gets written it compresses it hence why you end up with more than it predicts. Looking at the D850 and D810 file sizes lossless compressed 14 bit are 44% smaller than uncompressed 14 bit so I would assume the D750 would be similar if we had the uncompressed option.
Click to expand...
You would think after all these years it would adjust the estimation for the settings used in camera. :rolleyes:
 
Hi all

Please accept my apologies if this has been covered elsewhere.

Anyway, I am seriously thinking of getting a D850 to replace my D810 for wildlife. In dull conditions, I am constantly in the iso 1600-3200 range.

I have looked at the DP Review comparometer tool and the D850 seems to give significantly cleaner high iso images than the D810 when shooting a studio scene.

The question to those here who have the D850, and who will have had the D810, is, do you see much difference in real life shooting conditions ? I am particularly interested in noise and retained detail as you can imagine.

I would be particularly interested if anyone can point me to a link showing D850 images shot at iso 1600+.

Thanks in advance and again please accept my apologies if this has been covered elsewhere.

Gary
 
redhed17 said:
You would think after all these years it would adjust the estimation for the settings used in camera. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The problem is that it doesn't know what you are going to take photos of. If you take an image of a single coloured, evenly lit wall, then that will compress highly. If you on the other hand take an image of a multi-coloured landscape, it will compress less.
 
I have a grip for my D850 on order.
I'm looking to get the rest of the kit to take it to the 9fps.
I'm confused as to which battery and charger is designed for the D850, as there is EN-EL18a/EN-EL18b and MH-26/MH-26A.
Can anyone enlighten me to which is the one to go purchase?
Also has anyone bought a third party charger? And if so how has it performed and would you recommend it, as the official Nikon charger is daylight robbery.
 
wilt said:
I have a grip for my D850 on order.
I'm looking to get the rest of the kit to take it to the 9fps.
I'm confused as to which battery and charger is designed for the D850, as there is EN-EL18a/EN-EL18b and MH-26/MH-26A.
Can anyone enlighten me to which is the one to go purchase?
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any practical difference between the EN-EL18a and the EN-EL18b. They're both 2500 mAh.
Similarly I don't think there's any practical difference between the MH-26 and the MH-26A.
You can mix and match either battery with either charger, so far as I can tell.
 
I am trying the infamous buffer test and getting about 22 shots before slow down

RAW lossless compressed 14 bits

Only card is a Lexar x2933 XQD

Point is that I should be getting about 55 shots before that occurs

Only difference from my testing and specs quoted in handbook is that Nikon used a Sony XQD (have one on order) - have grip and 18b battery so should be good.

Anybody else tested and what are you seeing?
 
Last edited:
wilt said:
I have a grip for my D850 on order.
I'm looking to get the rest of the kit to take it to the 9fps.
I'm confused as to which battery and charger is designed for the D850, as there is EN-EL18a/EN-EL18b and MH-26/MH-26A.
Can anyone enlighten me to which is the one to go purchase?
Also has anyone bought a third party charger? And if so how has it performed and would you recommend it, as the official Nikon charger is daylight robbery.
Click to expand...

I had the official charger for the D700 high capacity battery and bought a cheap 3rd party version for D500 high capacity and no issues, now charged the 18b without issue
 
mike weeks said:
I am trying the infamous buffer test and getting about 22 shots before slow down

RAW lossless compressed 14 bits

Only card is a Lexmark x2933 XQD

Point is that I should be getting about 55 shots before that occurs

Only difference from my testing and specs quoted in handbook is that Nikon used a Sony XQD (have one on order) - have grip and 18b battery so should be good.

Anybody else tested and what are you seeing?
Click to expand...
That's disappointing. What's the write speed of your lexar, and the Sony used in the handbook? I assume your test is just writing RAW to one card and you're not doing a backup or RAW + jpeg?
 
mike weeks said:
I am trying the infamous buffer test and getting about 22 shots before slow down

RAW lossless compressed 14 bits

Only card is a Lexmark x2933 XQD

Point is that I should be getting about 55 shots before that occurs

Only difference from my testing and specs quoted in handbook is that Nikon used a Sony XQD (have one on order) - have grip and 18b battery so should be good.

Anybody else tested and what are you seeing?
Click to expand...
Just seen your post and tested mine, depending on what I'm photographing it ranges from 28-70 images before choking. I'm shooting without grip continuous high speed shutter, 14bit compressed RAW only to the Lexar XQD card. Lens cap on 28 shots, photo out of my window chokes at 78.
 
snerkler said:
That's disappointing. What's the write speed of your lexar, and the Sony used in the handbook? I assume your test is just writing RAW to one card and you're not doing a backup or RAW + jpeg?
Click to expand...

RAW only no SD card inserted and the Lexar x2933 has a slightly faster write/read speed than the best Sony

Mike
 
wilt said:
Just seen your post and tested mine, depending on what I'm photographing it ranges from 28-70 images before choking. I'm shooting without grip continuous high speed shutter, 14bit compressed RAW only to the Lexar XQD card. Lens cap on 28 shots, photo out of my window chokes at 78.
Click to expand...

Which Lexar card?

Mike
 
wilt said:
Just seen your post and tested mine, depending on what I'm photographing it ranges from 28-70 images before choking. I'm shooting without grip continuous high speed shutter, 14bit compressed RAW only to the Lexar XQD card. Lens cap on 28 shots, photo out of my window chokes at 78.
Click to expand...
Strange that it's such a wide range. I know different scenes have varying amounts of info surely we're only talking a few MB so to range from 28-70 seems pretty extreme to me :eek:
 
snerkler said:
Strange that it's such a wide range. I know different scenes have varying amounts of info surely we're only talking a few MB so to range from 28-70 seems pretty extreme to me :eek:
Click to expand...
The 28 shots was 14bit compressed with lens cap on, i got up to 70 shots 14bit compressed shooting out my kitchen window with lens cap off.
I then seen Mike was testing 14bit lossless compressed, so i retested at 14bit lossless compressed. I get various numbers of shots before the buffer chokes, ranging from 28-48 taking essentially the same shot out my kitchen window.
Still a big variation in numbers, i could live with a few shots below Nikons stated but 28 (lowest number i got) is still far off the highest i got 48.
 
Last edited:
mike weeks said:
I am trying the infamous buffer test and getting about 22 shots before slow down

RAW lossless compressed 14 bits

Only card is a Lexar x2933 XQD

Point is that I should be getting about 55 shots before that occurs

Only difference from my testing and specs quoted in handbook is that Nikon used a Sony XQD (have one on order) - have grip and 18b battery so should be good.

Anybody else tested and what are you seeing?
Click to expand...

I think the quoted specs are for no grip at 7fps, with grip at 9fps it is less, it's worth trying with and without to see what the difference is
 
Unlocker said:
I think the quoted specs are for no grip at 7fps, with grip at 9fps it is less, it's worth trying with and without to see what the difference is
Click to expand...
If you are shooting at a higher speed, then the buffer will fill quicker (less shots) because as you are filling the buffer, you are also emptying it; however you are filling at a quicker speed, emptying at the same speed.

Its like if you take a yoghurt pot (or a bucket for that matter) and poke a hole in it. Hold it over measuring jug and start filling it with a tap - at some point (so long as the hole is smaller so drains slower than the tap fills) the pot will be filled; at that point turn the tap off and let it drain into the jug. Now repeat the process (empty the jug first) but have the tap turned higher; again stop the tap when the pot is full and let it drain into the measuring jug. You should find that there is less water in the pot the second time than there was the first time.
 
Eloise said:
If you are shooting at a higher speed, then the buffer will fill quicker (less shots) because as you are filling the buffer, you are also emptying it; however you are filling at a quicker speed, emptying at the same speed.

Its like if you take a yoghurt pot (or a bucket for that matter) and poke a hole in it. Hold it over measuring jug and start filling it with a tap - at some point (so long as the hole is smaller so drains slower than the tap fills) the pot will be filled; at that point turn the tap off and let it drain into the jug. Now repeat the process (empty the jug first) but have the tap turned higher; again stop the tap when the pot is full and let it drain into the measuring jug. You should find that there is less water in the pot the second time than there was the first time.
Click to expand...

Good description, I'm fully aware of it, it's just that Mike mentioned his buffer was low and that one of the differences was that he had the grip on and that really reduces the buffer size which would account for the differences he his seeing.

As another idea, I think it was Photographylife that worked out that there was no discernible difference using 12bit RAWs above 400 iso, so if that's where you're at, the buffer is a lot larger.
 
wilt said:
38 shots before buffer chokes on the third test, why such a big difference in what is essentially the same shot with maybe minor lighting variations?
Click to expand...
It does seem odd. But I don't see where it will much matter... I've never taken a 28 shot burst of images in my life.
 
sk66 said:
It does seem odd. But I don't see where it will much matter... I've never taken a 28 shot burst of images in my life.
Click to expand...
That's only 4 seconds, a lot can happen that time, and a lot more could be captured if that was extended to 7-8 seconds before buffer chokes. I shot MMA and occasionally athletics, a large buffer is essential. Luckily I have a D500 but was hoping that the D850 could have taken over from it.
 
wilt said:
That's only 4 seconds, a lot can happen that time, and a lot more could be captured if that was extended to 7-8 seconds before buffer chokes. I shot MMA and occasionally athletics, a large buffer is essential. Luckily I have a D500 but was hoping that the D850 could have taken over from it.
Click to expand...
I shoot a lot of action stuff as well. I agree that a whole lot can occur in 4 seconds, but most of it isn't what you want ideally. You can hold the shutter down, or try to time the shots better... either way you'll probably miss the perfect shot 4 out of 5 times. IMO, perhaps more important is how fast the buffer clears.
I'm half convinced that the "perfect shot" doesn't occur a lot of the time...
 
wilt said:
The 28 shots was 14bit compressed with lens cap on, i got up to 70 shots 14bit compressed shooting out my kitchen window with lens cap off.
I then seen Mike was testing 14bit lossless compressed, so i retested at 14bit lossless compressed. I get various numbers of shots before the buffer chokes, ranging from 28-48 taking essentially the same shot out my kitchen window.
Still a big variation in numbers, i could live with a few shots below Nikons stated but 28 (lowest number i got) is still far off the highest i got 48.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, each time you tried did you format the card first? Is the card new or has it been used for a while? Just trying to help you get to the bottom of the variations (though it might just be random)
 
Eloise said:
Out of interest, each time you tried did you format the card first? Is the card new or has it been used for a while? Just trying to help you get to the bottom of the variations (though it might just be random)
Click to expand...
I did format in camera each time so I knew for certain the number of images taken. It's quite a new card, maybe used on half a dozen shoots of 1000 images each time
 
sk66 said:
I shoot a lot of action stuff as well. I agree that a whole lot can occur in 4 seconds, but most of it isn't what you want ideally. You can hold the shutter down, or try to time the shots better... either way you'll probably miss the perfect shot 4 out of 5 times. IMO, perhaps more important is how fast the buffer clears.
I'm half convinced that the "perfect shot" doesn't occur a lot of the time...
Click to expand...
Yeah I'd have to agree with you about the perfect shot, still searching for it though. [emoji3]
 
I'm a member of a Facebook D850 group. Reading some of the comments on there it is very apparent to me that many people are buying the D850 without any real consideration about if it's something they need or will get the best from. Seriously, some of the questions I've read would be understandable if they were coming from someone who has just bought their first D3000 camera. But a D850 - seriously?

Anyway, I don't really care, people can spend their money on what they like. And if they waste their money of something that's totally beyond their needs then good luck to them. I've done it a million times myself :D But it did get me thinking one thing.....

WHY AFTER ALL THESE YEARS OF DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY ARE PEOPLE STILL CHASING MEGAPIXELS??

The people in the marketing departments of Nikon/Canon etc must be stitches. They have the easiest job in the entire world.

"We could include in body image stabilisation, focus stacking, wifi, medium and small raw, video, a coffee maker, tv etc. But after careful consideration we feel the most important thing is that it has 100mp's. And a direct link to instagram"

Job done.
 
ryanyboy said:
I'm a member of a Facebook D850 group. Reading some of the comments on there it is very apparent to me that many people are buying the D850 without any real consideration about if it's something they need or will get the best from. Seriously, some of the questions I've read would be understandable if they were coming from someone who has just bought their first D3000 camera. But a D850 - seriously?

Anyway, I don't really care, people can spend their money on what they like. And if they waste their money of something that's totally beyond their needs then good luck to them. I've done it a million times myself :D But it did get me thinking one thing.....

WHY AFTER ALL THESE YEARS OF DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY ARE PEOPLE STILL CHASING MEGAPIXELS??

The people in the marketing departments of Nikon/Canon etc must be stitches. They have the easiest job in the entire world.

"We could include in body image stabilisation, focus stacking, wifi, medium and small raw, video, a coffee maker, tv etc. But after careful consideration we feel the most important thing is that it has 100mp's. And a direct link to instagram"

Job done.
Click to expand...
I'm also in that Facebook group. I upgraded from a D810. I was never chasing megapixels, it was the many other improvements that made me change. I love the thumb focus selector, higher resolution flip screen, focus stacking, 9fps(when grip arrives) silent shutter and many more fine tweaks. Megapixels was well down the list and only for the reason of cropping power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top