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!

Nikons new offering...Anyone considering switching up?

aztwang

Member
I know I know..but someone had to ask..LOL Seriously with Nikons new D850 45 MP camera which does bring allot to the table,
has anyone considered switching up from their 45,50,60 MP MF back? Just curious and thought we might have some interesting light hearted conversations.

Cheers

Don
 

MrSmith

Member
It's not a 'game changer' though is it? Nice camera and a great upgrade from a d800 but it's just evolution not revolution.
As somebody with a few select canon lenses left (the good ones) and a Sony/actus/digitar it offers me nothing in the way of an upgrade.

I'm more interested in an X1D or whatever 50+mp Sony come out with next which fits my requirements better.

I'll not take a cheap shot at any of the full frame 35mm brands though which seems a popular pastime (especially over at the 'other place')
They all have their plus points.

A colleague of mine is ordering one to replace a d800, I did point out to gain any increase in quality then the money would be better off spent on a few select primes (zeiss, Nikon or sigma) but it's mainly the 4K filming that is influencing the switch.

I know a car photographer who is trading in his H5d-50c and lenses as in a controlled studio environment the files are indistinguishable from a 5ds.
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
Not considering switching it up, but I can see myself potentially getting one as a MF backup/supplement. I'm currently 35mm-less, and after shooting the eclipse, I'm finding myself wanting a 35mm system again....which will either be the D850 or a used D810...unless they release a D850A =P
 

Jeffrey

Active member
I'm keeping my D810. I don't see a compelling reason to trade up. Maybe wait one more generation in this series and consider buying then. Otherwise the D810 is a perfect 35mm equivalent camera for me.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I am not even thinking of switching from my 40MP camera. While "shopping" and "photography" both have two p's, the two are not mutually inclusive. Shopping for gear just seems like an extension of the rat race: that is not what got me into nor keeps pursuing photography.

Besides, I thought it was the D800 that was the medium-format killer. Or was that a Canon model? Hard to keep track of all the cameras that were supposed to be the end of MFD. Perhaps the D890 will do that...
 

jng

Well-known member
I'm very tempted by the D850, not to replace my IQ160 but to upgrade from my D800E. The MFDB I use for anything that isn't moving, the Nikon for anything that is - i.e., totally different applications for what I do. The latest 35mm full frame sensors are excellent but I just don't think there's a substitute for sensor (or film) size. YMMV, of course. The wrench that's been thrown into the works for me is Hasselblad's latest firmware update that now gives electronic shutter capabilities to the X1D. If the right lens adapters come along, this could be the perfect complement to my MFDB kit, albeit at 3-4x the price of the new Nikon.

John
 
I thought it was the D800 that was the medium-format killer. Or was that a Canon model? Hard to keep track of all the cameras that were supposed to be the end of MFD. Perhaps the D890 will do that...
"Killer" is a relative word working with frame of reference. D800 was the killer for medium format with a pixel count less than say 29MP. 5DSR was the killer for medium format with a pixel count less than say 40MP. Both medium format and 35mm format get advancement at the same time.

By the way, "killer" means causing significant depreciation of second-hand re-sales value. Surely the D850 (along with Canon's 5DSR) would cause any medium format <=50MP to depreciate. It won't reduce the absolute image quality of older medium format gear, but it would bring up the standard and reduce the relative image quality of older medium format gear.
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
I am not even thinking of switching from my 40MP camera. While "shopping" and "photography" both have two p's, the two are not mutually inclusive. Shopping for gear just seems like an extension of the rat race: that is not what got me into nor keeps pursuing photography.

Besides, I thought it was the D800 that was the medium-format killer. Or was that a Canon model? Hard to keep track of all the cameras that were supposed to be the end of MFD. Perhaps the D890 will do that...
Just happened across this thread, thanks, Will, the rat race indeed.
If you win the rat race, you are still a rat, right? No thank you...:):):)

Since being on this forum, you have all posted amazing work. Some, with "obsolete" equipment, but the images could not be better.

Today, I would love a fat pixel back like the P21+... I still adore film and I am blown away by the latest 100mp backs.

I have only one need... the next image to be the very best I can do, I am happy with that.
 

MrSmith

Member
there will always be MFD. but what you will see is markets shifting around as the tools change.
as an ex 10x8/5x5/6x6 shooter i no longer have a need for MFD but that could change.
i’m format and brand agnostic, i just want solutions to my shooting needs and to keep clients happy.

its good to see posts that don't browbeat others for their choices or myopic brand fandom :thumbup:
 

Shashin

Well-known member
By the way, "killer" means causing significant depreciation of second-hand re-sales value. .
No, it doesn't. It implies the advantages of using one type of system or format have no value by advances in a perceived "lesser" system.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
You are correct, though the standard of "advantages" is most accurately implied by second-hand re-sales value.
Really? I have never seen that posited as an argument. Mostly it is why spend x on (insert your camera or format here) when you can get the same (insert your preferred technical variable here) for (x/y) less.

You would have to show with a statistically significant sample that resale value correlates to "advantages." Of course, resale value is too simple a variable. If I am generating a greater revenue with with certain equipment, resale value by itself is not very useful. Then there are photographers that will place the value on the photographs created by the equipment, not its depreciation. I think if you want a financial instrument, stocks and bonds are better.
 

Dustbak

Member
I just ordered a D850 to replace my D800e. It is not meant to replace my H5D40, not even when it has larger files. The way I work with the HB in the studio is so much more enjoyable than with the Nikon.

I am sometimes amazed how people are not taking ease of use or being used to a certain workflow into consideration. I can work so much faster, more reliable (also in repeating results) with the HB than with my Nikon that it is a no-brainer.
 
Really? I have never seen that posited as an argument. Mostly it is why spend x on (insert your camera or format here) when you can get the same (insert your preferred technical variable here) for (x/y) less.

You would have to show with a statistically significant sample that resale value correlates to "advantages." Of course, resale value is too simple a variable. If I am generating a greater revenue with with certain equipment, resale value by itself is not very useful. Then there are photographers that will place the value on the photographs created by the equipment, not its depreciation. I think if you want a financial instrument, stocks and bonds are better.
There is no need to show statistically significant samples. Generally if something has more advantages then more people are willing to pay more, and vice versa.

If someone is bound to use the old gear without being able to afford an upgrade or switch, it does not necessarily mean his gear is the best choice for other new users who have no burden of lens systems.

I agree that if one can make a significant amount of money with one certain system, then the system is fully justified for one. However, others may find a "lesser" system to achieve the same earnings, and at the same time with a more affordable price. This is the mechanism to drive down the second-hand re-sales value of the older gear.
 

tjv

Active member
The D850 sure looks like an amazing camera.

I don't know, but to me the only thing about it I'd appreciate over my Credo 60 right now is a deeper file at base ISO to push the shadows and retain highlights. It's not that I'm pushing against the limits of the Credo's files very often at all – careful exposure is key here – but I guess it would allow for a more 'relaxed' shooting experience...

At the end of the day though, I just couldn't give up the flexibility or movements I get with my Techno and the ability to chop and change the back between that and the Hasselblad body.

For those that like the 3x2 ratio and autofocus etc though, I'm guessing it's a no brainer purchase. And to be honest, despite the fact I don't *need* a D850, I still want one...
 

jduncan

Member
There is no need to show statistically significant samples. Generally if something has more advantages then more people are willing to pay more, and vice versa.
.
This asumtion is wrong: Price of used items is not determined by features or advantages only, and more often than none, even primary. If that was the case, a used Patek Calatrava will have a lesser value than a JL reverso, and the best value will be a Casio. What about Ferrari: the cars are a set of problems, same goes for the Land Rover Defenders that have such a high price in the USA.
This is also valid with electronics, or cameras etc. Some item can become popular, some times for no apparent reason.


So: Vogue, brand, rarity, condition, provenance, identification etc, can be far more important than features or advantages. The inability of most people to tell fine wine apart is quite telling. So is the used price of the XPan system.

Notice that I am making a narrow note to your argument, maybe you can try to justify the "no need for statistics" in a different way.
Best regards,
 
This asumtion is wrong: Price of used items is not determined by features or advantages only, and more often than none, even primary. If that was the case, a used Patek Calatrava will have a lesser value than a JL reverso, and the best value will be a Casio. What about Ferrari: the cars are a set of problems, same goes for the Land Rover Defenders that have such a high price in the USA.
This is also valid with electronics, or cameras etc. Some item can become popular, some times for no apparent reason.


So: Vogue, brand, rarity, condition, provenance, identification etc, can be far more important than features or advantages. The inability of most people to tell fine wine apart is quite telling. So is the used price of the XPan system.

Notice that I am making a narrow note to your argument, maybe you can try to justify the "no need for statistics" in a different way.
Best regards,
Yes it's a pretty narrow note. Actually brand, rarity, identification etc are all determinants of price, and all count towards "advantages". Whenever these factors cannot offset the depreciation due to new features/performance brought by technology advancements, then it's called "killed".
 

Shashin

Well-known member
There is no need to show statistically significant samples. Generally if something has more advantages then more people are willing to pay more, and vice versa.
Generally? So you are saying that there is statistical evidence, so why not show it? The problem is that it is not true. I would say the D850 has more advantages over a Leica M, but people will buy a Leica. Now you can start flubbing and state that brand is an advantage, but then you get any variable that a buyer can justify is a valid variable resulting in a hypothesis that cannot be disproven--hardly scientific.

If someone is bound to use the old gear without being able to afford an upgrade or switch, it does not necessarily mean his gear is the best choice for other new users who have no burden of lens systems.
This is not even an argument. No one is suggesting that someone looking for a new system not consider a D850. And who is this person that cannot afford an upgrade or switch?

I agree that if one can make a significant amount of money with one certain system, then the system is fully justified for one. However, others may find a "lesser" system to achieve the same earnings, and at the same time with a more affordable price. This is the mechanism to drive down the second-hand re-sales value of the older gear.
Exactly. There are many variables. Focusing solely on resale is not very useful. Particularly when you cannot show a correlation.
 
Top