New Rumor Nikon D850/D900

[paulraphael]

Peter,

... how will all that help you make better images than what you now make with say a Nikon D810 or Sony A711?

Lots of ways. I use my d800 (not an 810) for work where medium format technical camera would be ideal, except 1) they generally lack the Nikon's low light abilities, and 2) I couldn't afford one anyhow.

My last project was done in the same huge wood tripod I use for my large format gear, everything composed and focused with live view and shutter released with the mirror up. I'm printing the project 40" and 60" wide. Other photographers have asked if the work had been done with 8x10.

But the camera has a couple of problems for me. One is terrible live-view performance, especially in low light. It's like trying to watch Earth TV from some far away galaxy. Very challenging for me to focus. The other is that I get a lot of digital artifacts in my images—overly strong edges on high contrast borders, jagged diagonal lines, and what sometimes looks like exaggerated chromatic aberration (but isn't). None of this is the standard aliasing artifacts from high spatial resolutions, but I believe it's somehow related to image detail around the nyquist frequency. I'm guessing that 20% or 25% more linear resolution could save me a lot of photoshop work. Although I don't know for sure.

At any rate, all else equal, more pixels would help me a bit. My sensor outperforms my lenses in the corners but not in the middle.

I also wish Nikon would send their UX engineers back to school. But who doesn't.

 

[jsf]

Much to my dismay I still lust after more MP. I have no rational nor practical reason for it. My d800 is a 20"x30" native size print. I don't want a print bigger than that for just practical reasons it stretches my storage capacity in my matting and framing room. But saying that I still desire more MP. I do not want MF because of the weight. So I know that if Nikon releases a 50+ MP camera I will buy it for no other reason than it is available. I am not a gear head, I am not a .... Ok, maybe. But I was intrigued at the idea of a digital capture might look good right out of the box so to speak. It never occurred to me that that might be desirable when shooting in RAW. I get it if one shoots JPEGs but RAW? My images in RAW right out of the box look washed out and wimpy. I want them to look that way. That means I have exposed hard to the right with as little in camera processing as is possible. In the end Jack is right as usual, the final image's power, both in subject and aesthetics trumps MP's every time. But to my ever lasting dismay I still lust after more MP's.

 

[AlexLF]

I'd go for a 50 mpix too but no more. 42 would be enough also. But what I miss (I said this many times before) is D5x, its ergonomics, rigidity, all of it! Men, that D3x was the best camera I had (and I had my first camera in 1988).
Nikon, please...

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Hopefully the D8xx will be so good that D810 prices will plummet, enabling me to buy a second body. While even more pixels, better DR, better whoknowswhat would be nice, having two identical bodies makes work easier, the D810 is a better camera than I ever dreamed about and for sure, I won't afford two new $3,500+ bodies.

But of course, when that camera is launched, I might change my mind yet again and dig out some gold from under a stone... we'll see

 

[ptomsu]

My main hope in a D8xx is for the AF system from the D5. More MP are nice but I don't need them really. Maybe if this comes in combination with one of the latest Sony sensors with copper wiring etc. then it would be great, as it would increase performance and IQ even with higher MP count.

But I agree that the D810 is really hard to top!

 

[Lars]

I see the possibility for a "FF D500" and a D810 successor, but probably not in one product.
"FF D500": Pro body but performance held back enough to not compete with D5. Is this D750 or successor? Not sure.
D8XX with higher res sensor and 4K video. I think I already said this once?
D8XX will happen for sure at some point in time, and eventually D810 prices will drop enough for Jorgen to buy a few bodies.
Not sure if Nikon wants to sell a "FF D500", might confuse the pro market to actually buy a cheaper product from Nikon than the D5.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I see the possibility for a "FF D500" and a D810 successor, but probably not in one product.
"FF D500": Pro body but performance held back enough to not compete with D5. Is this D750 or successor? Not sure.
D8XX with higher res sensor and 4K video. I think I already said this once?
D8XX will happen for sure at some point in time, and eventually D810 prices will drop enough for Jorgen to buy a few bodies.
Not sure if Nikon wants to sell a "FF D500", might confuse the pro market to actually buy a cheaper product from Nikon than the D5.

Given the enormous and lasting popularity of the D700, it would seem obvious for Nikon to make a full frame D500. The D700 was launched a year after the D3/D300, and although many speculated about the negative impact of the D3 sales, I'm quite sure that the net profit for Nikon was solid. The D3 was yesterday's news already, and most of those who can afford the top models probably buy it within a year of introduction anyway. In addition, the D700 must have sold in quantities far beyond cameras like the D3 do, and that's quite an achievement, being a spin-off of two existing models.

But Nikon doesn't always do the obvious, so if there will be a full frame D500 is anybody's guess. Even the time interval could be different from the D700, but logically, it should arrive during first half of 2017, with the D5s following a year later. The D810 successor may arrive any time, today, tomorrow or next year. With a camera like the D810 on the market, Nikon is in the fortunate situation of being able to choose that timing freely. There is something called Photokina this year though...

 

[Swissblad]

Given the enormous and lasting popularity of the D700, it would seem obvious for Nikon to make a full frame D500. The D700 was launched a year after the D3/D300, and although many speculated about the negative impact of the D3 sales, I'm quite sure that the net profit for Nikon was solid....

Many used the same logic and waited for a smaller D4 based body........ which never happened as expected.... instead we got the Df.

As such, I'm not sure we'll see a real D700 successor in future.....:shocked:


Not that we have much to complain about.....:grin:

 

[ptomsu]

Many used the same logic and waited for a smaller D4 based body........ which never happened as expected.... instead we got the Df.

As such, I'm not sure we'll see a real D700 successor in future.....:shocked:


Not that we have much to complain about.....:grin:

I rather think there will be a Df successor, hopefully based as much as possible on the D5 - sensor, AF system, processing engine etc.

AND hopefully this time with video (from the D5) and the battery system from the D810 ....

All this in a Df like compact body and this would be my walking/street shooting every day P&S machine indeed

 

[Lars]

Good commentary by Thom Hogan on this topic:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/why-there-should-be-a-nikon.html

 

[drofnad]

Given the enormous and lasting popularity of the D700, it would seem obvious for Nikon to make a full frame D500. The D700 was launched a year after the D3/D300, and although many speculated about the negative impact of the D3 sales, I'm quite sure that the net profit for Nikon was solid. The D3 was yesterday's news already, and most of those who can afford the top models probably buy it within a year of introduction anyway. In addition, the D700 must have sold in quantities far beyond cameras like the D3 do, and that's quite an achievement, being a spin-off of two existing models.

But Nikon doesn't always do the obvious, ...

But at that time, Nikon was following Canon (5D) in providing a "prosumer" 35mm-sensor'd camera, and possibly reaping benefits in FX lenses sales, at a time when (merely!) 12mpx wasn't believed to be a grievous compromise of IQ for speed (and the later D3X's 24mpx was seen as a luxury more than an "okay for now 'til more"); so the D700 was just reaching to cheaper level w/FX. Today, there are the D6xx & D750 holding the prosumer position --and also the Lighter Is Better one. Tom Hogan asserts that the D700 hurt D3 sales, but we don't see the numbers, and might wonder at what FX sales (bodies & lenses) would've been w/o a prosumer body (to your point)! (--fun to see Tom reach back for "H" to join "X", in a sort of awkward use with "D8xx".) Are Canonicles raising a fuss for a "true" 5D successor, or is the 6D more D700ish than D6xxish?

Now, as for a "D5X", whose sales would that hurt --D8xx, that would be going in the other direction from D3->D700! How much work is it to fit diff-sensor workings into the uni-body dbl.-grip pro body? Still, what's the demand --the sound of (just) one (big) hand clapping?

-d.