The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
New Rumor Nikon D850/D900
- Thread starter Antonio Chagin
- Start date
Lars
Active member
Going back to the supposed rumor... Of course Nikon like all manufacturers are working on new products. It could be argued that D810 still is the benchmark in its category depending on how you define it, my guess is it's going to be at least 12-18 months until there is a strong need for an improved product. Perhaps videographers see things differently but they have different criteria. Just my opinion.
If I would venture a guess, we could perhaps see the next generation next spring, with 4K video and a slightly higher still resolution - 42 or perhaps 50 Mpx to match Canon to keep the fanboys at bay - plus some other evolutionary tweaks, none of which would be a game changer.
Of course, my wish list would look quite different - I'd like to see some more daring features: a truly good digital viewfinder (at least FHD, or "6 million dots" in marketing terms), silent shutter, some real innovation on the in-camera HDR side, stuff like that. As Jorgen says, the D810 is good enough to cover most bases as it is.
If I would venture a guess, we could perhaps see the next generation next spring, with 4K video and a slightly higher still resolution - 42 or perhaps 50 Mpx to match Canon to keep the fanboys at bay - plus some other evolutionary tweaks, none of which would be a game changer.
Of course, my wish list would look quite different - I'd like to see some more daring features: a truly good digital viewfinder (at least FHD, or "6 million dots" in marketing terms), silent shutter, some real innovation on the in-camera HDR side, stuff like that. As Jorgen says, the D810 is good enough to cover most bases as it is.
Hulyss Bowman
Active member
Wise man said !
For the ones wanting IBIS inside pro Nikon bodys ... be aware this technology make your camera fragile (I'll won't buy it). I broke two k5 because IBIS do not like vibrations/shocks. Some TV operators told me "be careful and do not go too close to the speakers; you'll break your camera". The result is those guys was spot on. You can't trust it till it happen.
For the ones wanting more pixels : For god shakes, buy into MF.
A serious modern 35mm photographer who's not happy with what pull out a D810 have some serious problems, and those problems are linked to all but not the camera.
So yea, a good Nikon move can be a 16/18MP BSI (or just a 18MP renesas sensor) but the actual one is absolutely perfect. How come a man (me
) still using a D700 as his main camera, today in 2015/2016 ? Does my clients are less exigent than US clients ? I don't think so.People/clients care about your skills, not your gear. We, photographers are the ONLY ONES who care about gear and almost start internet wars to justifies the madness of our Gear Acquisition Syndrome.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Several answersWise man said !
For the ones wanting IBIS inside pro Nikon bodys ... be aware this technology make your camera fragile (I'll won't buy it). I broke two k5 because IBIS do not like vibrations/shocks. Some TV operators told me "be careful and do not go too close to the speakers; you'll break your camera". The result is those guys was spot on. You can't trust it till it happen.
For the ones wanting more pixels : For god shakes, buy into MF.
A serious modern 35mm photographer who's not happy with what pull out a D810 have some serious problems, and those problems are linked to all but not the camera.
So yea, a good Nikon move can be a 16/18MP BSI (or just a 18MP renesas sensor) but the actual one is absolutely perfect. How come a man (me
People/clients care about your skills, not your gear. We, photographers are the ONLY ONES who care about gear and almost start internet wars to justifies the madness of our Gear Acquisition Syndrome.
1) I never ever had any issue with IBIS form Olympus, cannot speak for FF IBIS though - also I think you cannot compare IBIS form vendor A with IBIS from vendor B. But to end this part of the discussion - I do not expect IBIS in a Nikon FF body anyway ...
2) The MP question/race - this is something coming unfortunately from the vendors, as they tend to still compete in this area. And Nikon was the vendor who started this race with their D800/D800E 3 years ago, when most people were just hoping for something in the 24MP range, but that would obviously not have been cool enough - so here we go Nikon, now you have to fight with the ghosts you called up yourself. I for myself never really needed the 36MP of my D800E, besides the fact that this camera was pretty slow in comparison to FF Nikons with up to 24MP. But unfortunately we cannot end this MP race from our side, so it is useless to continue discussing this ...
3) D810 - if you compare the IQ output from the D810 to that from the Df, the Df wins hands down. Not that you cannot make the D810 sing as well, but it requires much more effort in post processing, at least in LR and C1Pro as the Df. So for a photographer who wants to spend more time behind the camera and not the computer this the Df is sure the better choice if high MP count is not needed.
4) Fully agree that a good 18-20MP BSI sensor would be great, guess this is what will at least come in the D5, but then again the D5 is not for me as I am not willing to spend as much money and carry as much weight. If they bring a Df2 with same sensor and video (yes I need more video lately and would only like to have/use one camera body) then this would be the best camera for lot of folks.
5) GAS - fully agree to that and sometimes hard to overcome
Hope that clarifies some issues.
Exactly! In fact, just think how many times we have had a client choose one of our less technically perfect images over the technically perfect one because "they liked it better" ??? Seriously happens a lot. They don't care what camera gear you show up as long as it doesn't look like a toy and you deliver. And then anything at around 16 or more MP is at least as good and generally better than anything we ever delivered off of medium format film...
/rant
Uh no, Canon started it several years back with the 1Ds... Oh, and I personally appreciate having the 36MP my D810 offers. Yes it meant I had to buy some new glass to take fuller advantage of them, but the results have been worth it for me. But they have not made me any better of an artist... Finally, going 36MP was a 50% jump in the day, where 42.5MP is like a 15% increase today -- and if history serves will be a marginal increase to any usable output quality. The new sensor may or may not have some other special characteristics I like, we will see.
I'm calling BS on this, it simply isn't true. Yes, the Df has a unique look to it, but I feel it is more the combination color response and noise character that gives it a unique quality we like (and some of us like the retro body styling too
). Even then I can pretty easily mimic the Df color palette and a surprising amount of the noise character in the D810 using C1, so a lot of even that difference goes away.When the new Nikon body comes out, I will probably buy one just because I'm a gear idiot and like to be current
banghead.
stephengilbert
Active member
"I'm a gear idiot." At least you're specialized. Better than being a full spectrum idiot.
Lars
Active member
Yep MF slides looked far better than 35mm on the light table - major selling point. No so with digital.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Depends on what you see/define as starting the race, I would consider the huge increase from 20MP to 36MP which happened with the introduction of the D800/D800E as the real start of that race - but that is bean counting anyways.Uh no, Canon started it several years back with the 1Ds... Oh, and I personally appreciate having the 36MP my D810 offers. Yes it meant I had to buy some new glass to take fuller advantage of them, but the results have been worth it for me. But they have not made me any better of an artist... Finally, going 36MP was a 50% jump in the day, where 42.5MP is like a 15% increase today -- and if history serves will be a marginal increase to any usable output quality. The new sensor may or may not have some other special characteristics I like, we will see.
I'm calling BS on this, it simply isn't true. Yes, the Df has a unique look to it, but I feel it is more the combination color response and noise character that gives it a unique quality we like (and some of us like the retro body styling too
When the new Nikon body comes out, I will probably buy one just because I'm a gear idiot and like to be current
Having said that - being a similar gear idiot at least I will most likely go for the new 42MP Nikon as soon as it arrives.
WRT D810 - I understand that you like/prefer it's output, but I it is easier to get the IQ I prefer from the Df for ME as it was from the D800E and what I have seen from my D810 trials there is not too much difference. I do agree - and we all know this - that we can mimic almost every output in a decent RAW converter for whatever we like, but as I am rather lazy I prefer as less post processing work as possible. But I do agree if one needs (or in many cases they think that they need) 36MP resolution, then the D810 is currently the perfect tool in DSLR land. And if there would be more difference for me compared to the D800E then I would for sure shoot one too - but then this is subjective of course again.
Lars
Active member
So basically Df images subjectively look better straight out of the camera? Or are there specific technical aspects to the in-camera PP? I understand Jack's view, but not everyone is (or aspires to be) a PP geek. So results straight out of the camera are important as well as PP potential.
Tying back to the thread subject, I would venture to guess that any PP tweaks Nikon did to improve Df would trickle over to new pro bodies.
Lars
Active member
Such a design could do away with the viewfinder and some weight related to mirror, but the body wouldn't be smaller (still as thick). So it wouldn't compare to an A7 in size.
Certainly an interesting discussion topic though. If I was Nikon I would go for an A7-like body with a new mount, and an adapter (basically a barrel) for F lenses. Then start making more compact lenses for the new mount. No mechanical AF just AF with G lenses.
As for MP, I'm all for higher res cameras - this pushes lens designers to make better lenses, and all other parts of the system get a closer look as well. All photographers win, even those who do not buy the highest res cameras.
Besides, I made myself a promise when I started with 8x10" film in 2002 - I'd retire the 8x10 when I can get a good 50 MP image out of a Nikon body. Almost there.
Lars
Active member
Once you learn to appreciate cropping you will never have enough resolution.
Another demand for higher resolution comes from panoramics. The letterbox format changes the way we look at an image, rather than a composition in a 4:5 frame we tend to see multiple directions of view, and we tend to look closer at each view. So a panoramic should not be seen as a crop but rather as an extended frame to cover more to the sides (the XPan got that part right) - basically a panoramic print needs to be much larger than a 4:5 print to work at the same viewing distance. So IMO if you for example like 3K pixels vertically (12" in print) then your 3:1 pano needs 9K pixels horizontally which the D810 cannot deliver. Add cropping and you realize that the megapixel race is far from over.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Lars
Active member
Yep I'm damaged from 8x10In this case you obviously are someone who needs 36MP+
the point though is that it's good for everyone that some of us want more resolution.
Lars, don't even hesitate a second, you will love it for many years to come -- even when it becomes back-up to whatever new model you get!
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
I can't speak for the Df, since I don't own it. Still, I have to say that straight out of the camera, the RAW files from the D700 look more like finished files than those from the D810. When that is said, no files I've worked with have been so easy to get into the shape I want as the D810 files. Most of the time, a few preset parameters in ACR will do the job.I'm calling BS on this, it simply isn't true. Yes, the Df has a unique look to it, but I feel it is more the combination color response and noise character that gives it a unique quality we like (and some of us like the retro body styling too
WRT raw files, and looks "off the sensor" when opened in just about any raw converter...
Firstly, the biggest difference you'll see out of the gate between a Df and D8xx is contrast, and more specifically, clean, good blacks. Relative to the Df, the D8xx series has more DR and this shows in the raw files, off the sensor, which very often need black added to "pop." Once you set that that, a major "difference" between your Df and the D8xx disappears.
Secondly, is the color response or gamma of each channel from the sensor itself. Now this can be different from different raw converters per a profile, but is often set to replicate the manufacturers definition of "neutral" for that cam by whoever raw. In the case of the Df, *my take is* its sensor renders slightly more saturated blues, and slightly desaturated reds and greens, with greens also tending a wee bit toward cyan as compared to the D810 rendering. In fact, I greatly prefer the D810 as my landscape cam for it's ability to separate subtle greens much like MF digital backs do. Anyway, that color palette difference gives the Df a "look" that reminds some of us older photogs (okay, ME) of when we shot Kodak Ektachrome or older Vericolor film emulsions -- and I suspect we like that aspect, kind of like remembering a first kiss.
[flamesuit]
Firstly, the biggest difference you'll see out of the gate between a Df and D8xx is contrast, and more specifically, clean, good blacks. Relative to the Df, the D8xx series has more DR and this shows in the raw files, off the sensor, which very often need black added to "pop." Once you set that that, a major "difference" between your Df and the D8xx disappears.
Secondly, is the color response or gamma of each channel from the sensor itself. Now this can be different from different raw converters per a profile, but is often set to replicate the manufacturers definition of "neutral" for that cam by whoever raw. In the case of the Df, *my take is* its sensor renders slightly more saturated blues, and slightly desaturated reds and greens, with greens also tending a wee bit toward cyan as compared to the D810 rendering. In fact, I greatly prefer the D810 as my landscape cam for it's ability to separate subtle greens much like MF digital backs do. Anyway, that color palette difference gives the Df a "look" that reminds some of us older photogs (okay, ME) of when we shot Kodak Ektachrome or older Vericolor film emulsions -- and I suspect we like that aspect, kind of like remembering a first kiss.
[flamesuit]
Oh the good old days Lars, when we could make 4 different very LARGE prints from a single negative :ROTFL:Yep I'm damaged from 8x10
I still remember that first Death Valley trip where we met, you and I the lone wolves schlepping huge backpacks with our 8x10 gears and as many as 10 filmholders (GASP!), hand-carrying our massive tripods whilst everyone else was moving around rapidly with the hottest new 2.5 or 4MP DSLRs and 6MP MF digital backs! Also remember the two of us always going in the same direction while everybody went somewhere else and the head instructor getting pissed that we "disappeared" on him LOL!!!