• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

So finally ... the Nikon D850


  • Please log in to reply
184 replies to this topic

#101 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,684 posts

Posted 06 September 2017 - 12:45 AM

It's a bit of hypothetical discussion, isn't it? Who on mother earth will use the D850 at lower than maximum resolution?

It's like driving on the autobahn in a Porsche and to decide that 50km/h is good enough today.

 

  

 

    I think many sports/wildlife shooters may well choose crop for the reach and smaller file sizes, a four second burst at 9 Fps on FF will produce quite a stock.....and when you get back to the computer you might pick one or two shots!

 

 

  I still see it as a do it all camera!.....



#102 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,525 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 06 September 2017 - 08:35 AM

I'm guilty of using my camera at M1 resolution. Though it's not a D850. :)

#103 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 06 September 2017 - 08:39 AM

According to BC's (and Mansurov's) explanations, Canon does a better job with real smaller RAW files.



#104 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,785 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 06 September 2017 - 08:51 AM

According to BC's (and Mansurov's) explanations, Canon does a better job with real smaller RAW files.

Although Canon's smaller RAWs have a higher bit depth, they still are not RAW like (they are like 14 bit JPEGs or TIFFs, demosaiced and tonal curved and a WB applied and downsampled).



#105 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 11 September 2017 - 11:14 AM

Yeah! I don't have the camera as there are not much copies available for the stores, but I have a Capture One beta with support for D850! Great, it will be in the next C1 official version.

 

However, so far I could not check how many of the exotic RAW-formats are supported. For me, DX-version will be enough, I don't see any use for the rest.



#106 miro

miro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • LocationI am here

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:06 AM

Yeah! I don't have the camera as there are not much copies available for the stores,

I really wonder about this shotrage. The dSLR sells are extremely low. It is still unknown how deep they will go.  Maybe all dSLR manufacture  turned in slow mode.  The prediction pattern is

1. The global camera market will drop below 20 million units.

2. Camera manufacturers will continue to cut jobs (and lose money).

3. We will see less innovation.

4. The focus will switch to professional segment and prices will increase

 

That is the situation now. Nobody knows what will be the future of those dinosaurs.

I would say – Who is gonna buy Porsche instead of self-driving electric car in near future.



#107 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:57 AM

The D850 is opposite of "selling low" and a lot of people ordered at least one, I also saw photogs ordering 2 or 3 to replace their D800/D810 toolbox. I also live in a small country - don't think Switzerland is top priority to Nikon.

 

Currently there's no online dealer able to deliver a D850 today.

 

People who like driving will go on to buy Porsche, as it is basically not just something to transport. People who need a transport probably will not buy Honda, Toyota, Peugeot, Volkswagen individual (but uniformly designed) cars. Hey, people are putting a 220kW electro drive into a Jaguar E-type (yes.the design is 1968...)

 

Back to Nikon: They underestimated the needs of the market for a D850, especially with these kind of specs. They will not sell millions of it at this price, but they will take away a chunk of other pro cameras sales.



#108 miro

miro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • LocationI am here

Posted 14 September 2017 - 11:56 AM

Hopefully does not introduce some fire. 

 

https://www.dpreview...ssions-review/6

 

 

Wim, BC wake up - take actions :-)



#109 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 14 September 2017 - 12:05 PM

Yeah, it's time to charge the equivalence calculators... wait, it's about too many stops of DR? overrated. totally.

 

:lol:



#110 miro

miro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • LocationI am here

Posted 14 September 2017 - 12:42 PM

Yeah, it's time to charge the equivalence calculators... wait, it's about too many stops of DR? overrated. totally.

 

:lol:

Also too many Mpixels and fps - this cammera is non sense :mellow:



#111 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 14 September 2017 - 12:47 PM

Totally. More than 3 MP is overkill. For facebook.



#112 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 14 September 2017 - 04:38 PM

Hopefully does not introduce some fire. 

 

https://www.dpreview...ssions-review/6

 

 

Wim, BC wake up - take actions :-)

Why?

 

To each their own, in my book anyway.

 

I am quite happy with what I have. Currently just waiting for a 50+ MP mirrorless FF camera from Canon :). And that's for big prints :). And a DR of 10 to 12 stops is plenty enough for me :).

 

BTW, I read an interesting article off late, although I can't remember where. High iso and high DR testing is useless unless some real world samples are show. Well-lighted test sheets or test subjects are really totally useless for this, as they do not reflect real life photography, and the result with real photography may well be completely different :). When I find the article again (read it on Flipbook on my phone), I will post the url :).

 

Kind regards, Wim



#113 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 14 September 2017 - 05:04 PM

Well, to a certain point I do agree: Real world pictures are a different story than shooting test boards.

 

However, I don't expect a sensor showing weaknesses on a testboard to be much better (in aspects of noise in shadows, shadows and highlights to be recoverable) in real life than a sensor with less weaknesses. Therefore the lemon in DR remains at Canon  :P It's no point to adapt one theory to real life na dthe other leaving in theory.

 

It's a bit the same story with equivalence-  it's just highly theoretical maths as there are effects of general sharpness, corner sharpness, contrast and bokeh behaviour of a lens coming into play when it comes to real world prints. And all of a sudden f/2 is not the same DoF as f/3 or f/8 not the same as f/12



#114 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 14 September 2017 - 06:02 PM

maybe off topic (or back to topic ?) seems D850 sensor is not made by Sony but by towerjazz ex panasonic

 

http://www.funtechta...amera-not-sony/

 

if they have the technology why don't they make a similarly capable 22 MP MFT sensor ?



#115 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 14 September 2017 - 09:32 PM

maybe off topic (or back to topic ?) seems D850 sensor is not made by Sony but by towerjazz ex panasonic

 

http://www.funtechta...amera-not-sony/

 

if they have the technology why don't they make a similarly capable 22 MP MFT sensor ?

 

They are working on totally new sensor technology, organic sensors. The idea is that wells of organic sensors have much larger well capacity, and hence better performance noise-wise, and higher iso possibilities :).

 

Kind regards, Wim



#116 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,785 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 18 September 2017 - 07:50 AM

Update on the "mRAW" and "sRAW". Apparently, Nikon has changed what that entails, on the D850.
 
Now, they are actually 12 bits "RAW".
 
Iliah Borg looks into the files with Raw digger and found that D850 RAW has 8,288 x 5,520 pixels in the RAW file. M has 7,104 x 4,728 pixels, S has 6,216 x 4,136 pixels.

Nikon RAW files get converted into 8,256 x 5,504 pixel images. (this always happens, many border pixels go *poof*).
The M ones get converted into 6,192 x 4,128 pixel images, some serious downsampling still going on there during conversion.
The S ones get converted into 4,128 x 2,752 pixel images, even more serious downsampling going on.

I am sure they have a reason for the 2nd downsampling during conversion. However, to me it seems to partly defeat the reason to shoot mRAW and sRAW (file size).

#117 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 18 September 2017 - 08:00 AM

Just a quick question a friend of mine had Nikon D5200 however when gong through menus the hourglass was always appearing and the menus were too slow, he sold it and switched back to Canon, any of it on D850 ? those slow menus response weren't noted in any review 



#118 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 18 September 2017 - 08:13 AM

Because they are not normal.

 

You're doing it again, toni-a: blowing a fly to the size of an elephant. At first, it's ridiculous, at second it's annoying.

 

Nearly every reviewer hast set up the camera language to a Western language. I even don't know, if Arabic or whatever your friend chose, is on the list of supported languages (yes,it is along with 34 other languages for the D850), but this could be the reason for delay - or a firmware bug.

 

Are you seriously thinking, a pro camera with a delay in menus could be sold?

 

But of course, selling the camera and running to the other company is much easier than finding out if something is wrong. Glad he found a good one.



#119 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 18 September 2017 - 08:33 AM

Update on the "mRAW" and "sRAW". Apparently, Nikon has changed what that entails, on the D850.
 
Now, they are actually 12 bits "RAW".
 
Iliah Borg looks into the files with Raw digger and found that D850 RAW has 8,288 x 5,520 pixels in the RAW file. M has 7,104 x 4,728 pixels, S has 6,216 x 4,136 pixels.

Nikon RAW files get converted into 8,256 x 5,504 pixel images. (this always happens, many border pixels go *poof*).
The M ones get converted into 6,192 x 4,128 pixel images, some serious downsampling still going on there during conversion.
The S ones get converted into 4,128 x 2,752 pixel images, even more serious downsampling going on.

I am sure they have a reason for the 2nd downsampling during conversion. However, to me it seems to partly defeat the reason to shoot mRAW and sRAW (file size).

 

Any ideas why they would use 2 downsamplings (meaning, the second downsamples the first)? I would see it more logical (if downsampling is a need for anybody) to downsample the max size one time to the target size.

 

However, to me it appears pretty stupid, these different "RAW"-files, I simply don't see a purpose in buiyng a high MP count and then  downsample it again.  :huh: At first, it appears nonsensical. But then, marketing and sense are two different worlds.  ^_^

 

You already found out for what the use the backlit sensors? The camera basically has two layers of circuits, one has a low gain to get base ISO 64, the other becomes active from ISO 400 with a higher gain. Therefore an improvement in high ISO. So far I only saw ISO 4000 max. which was okay but not enough for my needs. I wonder how it behaves at ISO 12.800 and higher.

 

Just found something on Nikon rumors: https://nikonrumors....-high-iso.aspx/

 

Not too shabby  :)



#120 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,785 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 20 September 2017 - 08:10 AM

I do not know why they do it in two stages. Possibly it has to do with errors being "introduced" with remosaicing after the demosacied downsampling, and a 2nd downsampling smooths this out? I have seen no simulations of what happens in these steps (remosaicing after downsampling) online and will have to do it myself in software to get an understanding of it.

The only reason for lower res. RAW will be significantly smaller files... But with these BIG small files, it makes less sense in that case anyway.

The ISO 10000 seems to look ok, but at that small size it is hard to tell. The other two do look.. shabby.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de