D850

[k-hawinkler]

Nope Vivek. :grin:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Wouldn't that be A99r ? A SLT is closer to a DSLR than a mirrorless camera?

That's an interesting point. Unfortunately, too many people look upon the SLT range as abandoned to make any upgrade a major success. The A900 and later the A99 models were always my favourite Sonys, and the lenses are rather good.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/nikon_d850_photos/

Does anybody know how I can trick ACR into thinking that the RAW files come from a D810? ACR won't open them as is, and there's no update available yet as far as I can see.

 

[bensonga]

As good as the D810 is, I was happy enough with my D800e, so I never upgraded to the 810. However, I just placed a pre-order for the D850.

This film/negative digitizing adapter for the D850 looks interesting too.

https://nikonrumors.com/2017/08/24/...itizing-adapter-set-scan-film-at-45-7mp.aspx/

Gary

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

As good as the D810 is, I was happy enough with my D800e, so I never upgraded to the 810. However, I just placed a pre-order for the D850.

This film/negative digitizing adapter for the D850 looks interesting too.

https://nikonrumors.com/2017/08/24/...itizing-adapter-set-scan-film-at-45-7mp.aspx/

Gary

I was wondering about that film adapter. Since the D850 has reached a resolution well beyond grain level of most films, this might be a well working solution. What does make me skeptical though, particularly for colour film, is the fact that all advanced scanning software have different settings for different film stock. Those settings can make dramatic differences when it comes to colour rendering of the finished scan. Does the camera have different settings for this? This is all the more important since the camera apparently outputs a jpeg file, not a RAW file, from the "scans", limiting editing flexibility.

I don't know yet when the D850 will be available here in Thailand, an interesting fact since it's probably made here, but I consider buying a second hand D810 (again) while buying the lenses needed for the new camera. I'll need a second body anyway, and the D850 will be my most expensive camera ever. I can hear squeaking sounds from my wallet :shocked:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/nikon_d850_photos/

The Photographyblog photos look rather terrible if you ask me (although they might represent an interesting challenge for those who like to spend hours in front of the computer doing post processing). Here are some from Nikon. They have probably chosen the seven best out of a zillion candidates, but at least they show off the camera's potential in a good way:

http://www.nikon-image.com/products/slr/lineup/d850/sample.html

 

[bensonga]

I was wondering about that film adapter. Since the D850 has reached a resolution well beyond grain level of most films, this might be a well working solution. What does make me skeptical though, particularly for colour film, is the fact that all advanced scanning software have different settings for different film stock. Those settings can make dramatic differences when it comes to colour rendering of the finished scan. Does the camera have different settings for this? This is all the more important since the camera apparently outputs a jpeg file, not a RAW file, from the "scans", limiting editing flexibility.
:

It will be interesting to see how well it works. For $140 USD, I'm willing to give it a try.

Gary

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

It will be interesting to see how well it works. For $140 USD, I'm willing to give it a try.

Gary

I've seen a couple of articles about it now, and nobody seems to know how advanced the on-board processing is. For critical quality with colour negatives, I think I would skip the automatic in-camera processing and shoot RAW. For b&w on the other hand, the in-camera process might be perfect if the camera manages to capture all the nuances of the film. With films like Tri-X and HP5, this process should be able to capture every single grain of those films, giving a realistic representation in digital form.

The hardware part of this would obviously work fine on any camera, particularly the D810 and D800E.

 

[bensonga]

I've seen a couple of articles about it now, and nobody seems to know how advanced the on-board processing is. For critical quality with colour negatives, I think I would skip the automatic in-camera processing and shoot RAW. For b&w on the other hand, the in-camera process might be perfect if the camera manages to capture all the nuances of the film. With films like Tri-X and HP5, this process should be able to capture every single grain of those films, giving a realistic representation in digital form.

The hardware part of this would obviously work fine on any camera, particularly the D810 and D800E.

I'm not sure why (or if this info is even correct), but the website link I shared says the ES-2 "digitizing adapter" is only compatible with the D850. For all other cameras the ES-1 slide copier is recommended.

Gary

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I'm not sure why (or if this info is even correct), but the website link I shared says the ES-2 "digitizing adapter" is only compatible with the D850. For all other cameras the ES-1 slide copier is recommended.

Gary

Interesting

 

[ptomsu]

I've seen a couple of articles about it now, and nobody seems to know how advanced the on-board processing is. For critical quality with colour negatives, I think I would skip the automatic in-camera processing and shoot RAW. For b&w on the other hand, the in-camera process might be perfect if the camera manages to capture all the nuances of the film. With films like Tri-X and HP5, this process should be able to capture every single grain of those films, giving a realistic representation in digital form.

The hardware part of this would obviously work fine on any camera, particularly the D810 and D800E.

I have shot in RAW mode for my film scanning together with the 2.8/60 Macro and the results were absolutely perfect. RAW allows to use all the color grading offered either by LR or C1P, that means this becomes a pretty good workflow. The Macro adapter with film holder will be definitely a welcome add on to how I shot.

I would almost never use the automatic scan mode and JPEG - I would rather shoot in RAW medium (25MP) and convert to JPEG whenever I want so in post.

I found in all my scanning that even the finest grain film resolves something around 20MP, so taking 46MP shots of FF slides or negatives is the absolute overkill IMHO ....

 

[Paul2660]

Appears the longest shutter speed is 30s. So the intervalometer can't due any exposure longer than 30s just like the D810.

I had hoped Nikon would move the timer from the D810A which allows longer exposures. Guess they are holding it back for a D850A. But an oversight to me.

Fuji, Hasselblad, Phase One, and Pentax figured this out.

Paul Caldwell

 

[JohnBrew]

One change I applaud is moving the "Mode" button from the right side to the left. It is awkward to use on D810.

Waiting for first full test results...

On another note, Nikon usually temporarily drops the price four to six months after intro.

 

[iiiNelson]

Looks like a great addition on paper for those in the Nikon ecosystem. Doesn't look like they made many compromises for what most would want in a "do everything" camera.

 

[routlaw]

Well I ordered mine via my NPS membership yesterday. This looks to be a killer camera indeed. The focus stacking capability really has my interest among other things.

I have an almost unused D810 that I will be selling, any takers?

 

[Jan Brittenson]

As good as the D810 is, I was happy enough with my D800e, so I never upgraded to the 810. However, I just placed a pre-order for the D850.

Same here; I've also been happy with the D800E enough that the incremental upgrades to the D810 didn't seem worth paying for. But with yet another incremental step the D850 looks quite good! I'll be getting one for sure.

 

[Thorkil]

Allow me to put some questions, that might be stupid to some, but anyway, I’ll take that risk.

I’m very happy with my Df.

I have no ambitions, for the time being, to print larger than A2+ (17” x 24,4”), but realistic mostly at A3+.

I only use C1 Pro 10 for my PP.

I finally got some fine primelenses collected for the Df, 18/2.8D, 28/1.4D, 50/1.2Ais, 85/1.8D, 105/2DC, 135/2DC, 180/2.8D.

I presume that more Mpixels not only matters for how large you can print, but also matters for the microcontrast, that with the right PP will give a gain in the “pop” effect.
(so when I look at some of the latest fine pictures from Joe Colson and his X1D there seems more “pop” here than in pictures from the GFX – but perhaps Joe is “just” cleaver in PP.,
while the difference in sensorsize, Mp, lens-sharpness and camera-processing might not be the only answer here…or what?)(and I’m aware that MF in itself give a gain compared to FF, even with a 45Mp D850)

But back to my D850 question.
(and I'm aware that a D850 would/could require more tripodwork in setting at 45Mp)

With these my hardware-prerequisites above:

- Will I get a gain in picture-“pop” from the D850 compared to the Df with only pp in C1? (I still love the fat and smooth Df pixels)

- And if so, will it be a matter of that the 66Mb raw files from D850 will give more room in PP for more delicate sharpness?

- While not printing larger than A2+, will my lenses above give a sufficient sharpness on the D850 (which I would presume they would do..)?

Best Thorkil
(PS, but I will keep my Df in any case for the rest of my life, thats for sure..)

 

[jlancasterd]

There's an on-line brochure on the Nikon Rumours site.

https://nikonrumors.com/2017/08/25/...-vs-d5-vs-d750-comparison.aspx/#ixzz4qrIWbgDq

I ordered a D850 from Cambrian Photography two days ago. They asked for my Nikon Professional User number, so I'm hoping to get it fairly quickly. I'll probably trade my D810 (or ask Cambrian to do a sale on commission for me). I'm pleased I won't have to buy additional cards or batteries as I already have a D5 and XQD cards, and can use D5 batteries if I decide to buy the grip. I am, however, wondering about buying an SB-5000 flash to replace my SB-900 and any thoughts on that would be welcome as the SB-5000 costs around £450 in UK

 

[jdphoto]

Seems close to a Sony A7rII BSI sensor, but better weather sealing and two cards is good. Thankfully they've done away with the ancient CF card. If you print 16x24, I doubt anyone can tell the difference between an GFX, X1D, D850 or even an Xt2. It's funny one of the biggest features is it's ability to scan 35mm film negs. Although, this might be the less expensive option for MFD. If only there was an option for EVF.

 

[Jack]

Allow me to put some questions, that might be stupid to some, but anyway, I’ll take that risk.

I’m very happy with my Df.

I have no ambitions, for the time being, to print larger than A2+ (17” x 24,4”), but realistic mostly at A3+.

I only use C1 Pro 10 for my PP.

I finally got some fine primelenses collected for the Df, 18/2.8D, 28/1.4D, 50/1.2Ais, 85/1.8D, 105/2DC, 135/2DC, 180/2.8D.

I presume that more Mpixels not only matters for how large you can print, but also matters for the microcontrast, that with the right PP will give a gain in the “pop” effect.
(so when I look at some of the latest fine pictures from Joe Colson and his X1D there seems more “pop” here than in pictures from the GFX – but perhaps Joe is “just” cleaver in PP.,
while the difference in sensorsize, Mp, lens-sharpness and camera-processing might not be the only answer here…or what?)(and I’m aware that MF in itself give a gain compared to FF, even with a 45Mp D850)

But back to my D850 question.
(and I'm aware that a D850 would/could require more tripodwork in setting at 45Mp)

With these my hardware-prerequisites above:

- Will I get a gain in picture-“pop” from the D850 compared to the Df with only pp in C1? (I still love the fat and smooth Df pixels)

- And if so, will it be a matter of that the 66Mb raw files from D850 will give more room in PP for more delicate sharpness?

- While not printing larger than A2+, will my lenses above give a sufficient sharpness on the D850 (which I would presume they would do..)?

Best Thorkil
(PS, but I will keep my Df in any case for the rest of my life, thats for sure..)

I can see a difference in A2 prints between my D810 and Df -- but it requires nose in the print. The D810 has more DR, and more DR does allow one to create more micro-contrast (clarity) in post. But it also kills much of the film-like quality one gets from fatter pixels. IME, any MF DB by comparison can offer the best of both worlds -- more and fatter pixels at the same time. And IMHO, therein lies the "magic" of MF digital over FF DSLR. Said another way, you'll never equal MF output with a FF DSLR, even when MF digital is 2 generations behind FF technology -- but the difference is not staggering and like most technologies, squeezing the utmost percentage gain points out of it requires additional expense significantly out of proportion to the gains...

Plus don't loose sight of the fact that a FF DSLR can accomplish many things MF digital cannot and is frequently significantly easier to use. My ultimate point is, it's a useless apples v oranges comparison: *IF* you desire MF DB results, you need an MF DB camera. If you want excellent image quality at reasonable expense and convenient use, then good FF DSLR is the ticket; just don't expect the results -- as good as they may be -- to ever match the best MF captures technically.