D850

[ptomsu]

WRT FF and if it is needed or better or whatever ....

I shot Nikon FX many years and currently shoot m43 (EM1.2) and APSC (XT2) and I have lately shot a number of events with both systems. It is not new that FF is said to have shallower depth of field and this shows of course against APSC, but even more so against the m43. But I must say shooting these events has shown me clearly the advantages of FF over the smaller formats. And this is not only based on superior high ISO but also shallower DOF.

So for me it became clear that I do need FF again and here the D850 comes in just at the right time. Especially as I can start off with all new actual Nikkor lenses.

Exciting times ahead

 

[jduncan]

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 prime lenses 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..)

Hi,
The DF has a unique look, you are probably used to it, so that could be important to you.
At that sizes, it's unlikely that it will do a difference, but you will have a camera that is a completely different animal.
You will be able to focus in a much more wide area, helping the composition. The difference in autofocus will be huge. You will also be able to crop: if your subject is far you will be able to crop. It's like having a 4K video camera when you publish in HD only. The Nikon D850 is heavier.

Most of your lenses are not high-resolution modern lenses, I believe that you peek them for the rendering (correct me if I am wrong, but all seem to be lenses with unique looks and high bandwidth), so the overall beauty of the image, out of camera, is something that you value a lot, it seems to me.
I don't see how the D850, for all its advantages, will be a gain for you.

Also, do you have the computer Bandwith to deal with the files? (If the raw sizes make any since this could be less of an issue)


Best regards,

 

[Thorkil]

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.

Thank you Jack, for wise words, that might lead the way to calm and “feet on the ground” reflections.
When I flip the coin, it lands on feeling that I want and prefer the soft yet strong/rich film-look over the more pronounced and sharp clarity.
I think that I better stick to the Df for the time being.
And speaking of MF, I had now and then had a dream, but I’m not willing to go all the way, either by the economy or by the mental involvement, by advanced PP etc. The GFX is also a too hefty investment with all the lenses, now when I already have invested too much.
So an upsizing could be economic realistic with the D850, and my existing lenses, but at what use, yes the auto-focus-adjustment, the focus-stacking perhaps, perhaps 5-10% more crispness-ability in clarity, but still, I might not want it over the filmlook, and huge files at what purpose, when I still love the pictures from the Df.
And if I want the MF-feeling, I better pull out my old SWC-903, and get the film cheap scanned by a Hassy X-1, at a very fair price I'm offered.
best Thorkil

 

[Thorkil]

Hi,
The DF has a unique look, you are probably used to it, so that could be important to you.
At that sizes, it's unlikely that it will do a difference, but you will have a camera that is a completely different animal.
You will be able to focus in a much more wide area, helping the composition. The difference in autofocus will be huge. You will also be able to crop: if your subject is far you will be able to crop. It's like having a 4K video camera when you publish in HD only. The Nikon D850 is heavier.

Most of your lenses are not high-resolution modern lenses, I believe that you peek them for the rendering (correct me if I am wrong, but all seem to be lenses with unique looks and high bandwidth), so the overall beauty of the image, out of camera, is something that you value a lot, it seems to me.
I don't see how the D850, for all its advantages, will be a gain for you.

Also, do you have the computer Bandwith to deal with the files? (If the raw sizes make any since this could be less of an issue)


Best regards,

Hi Duncan, I think you are right.
I tend to focus by a center-spot and then compose, while it seems more uncomplicated, if things have to be fast.
My dream of pictures are getting them at the more subjective side, rather than objective. I once had the D800E, but got frustrated while my mindset sort of couldn’t be squesed into this more complicated machine.
The D3 worked better for me, but was too heavy.
The Df allows me somehow to get childish again, in sort of the same way as the Leica M6 did, simple, yet complicated enough to do almost what I could dream of.
And getting childish means to me getting the mental freedom, that sets your mood in the optimistic and encouraged way. So, if the camera are able to be felt like an extension of an inner smiling, who could ask for more? A more complicated machine, that on the paper will give you a lot more possibilities, and therefore in theory more freedom, might have the contrary effect on me (but people are luckily different constructed between the ears), while you will feel committed or obligated to learn and perhaps even use all these possibilities, and therefore, in my mind, I get distracted away from the simple task or what basically ought to be a simple task. So, more possibilities, more complex variations could give me less mental freedom and perhaps actually more stress, and that I don’t want to be returning in.
So I better listen to, appreciate and take serious, the feeling of simple and good connection with the Df, a feeling that is often difficult and rare to find. So therefore, I better be thankful rather than unloyal just aiming at new goals in hardware.
Yes the lenses are chosen out of inspiration from Jack (he’s the one to blaim:grin, and looking at all the pictures around on flickr, reviews and so, the colours, the mood, the way to render was the important way for choosing. (the key-word were: better be dreaming of being at the place/situation, than actually feeling being there..)
By the way, speaking of mood, for those who would like to have the noct-nikkor, where prices have gone skyhigh, look at the bokeh, it seems more dull and washed out in the noct, where in the 50/1.2 Ais, the bokeh is more defined, even though in certain situation with strong light-contrasts can be harsh, but then just stop down a little, and you still will get a more interesting bokeh by the little cheap Ais-jewel.
Best Thorkil

 

[Jack]

The Df allows me somehow to get childish again, in sort of the same way as the Leica M6 did, simple, yet complicated enough to do almost what I could dream of.
And getting childish means to me getting the mental freedom, that sets your mood in the optimistic and encouraged way. So, if the camera are able to be felt like an extension of an inner smiling, who could ask for more?
>>SNIP<<
and looking at all the pictures around on flickr, reviews and so, the colours, the mood, the way to render was the important way for choosing. (the key-word were: better be dreaming of being at the place/situation, than actually feeling being there..)

I think you have made a landmark statement with these comments, a statement that also defines your style. I believe few of us can put our own feelings into words like that, and also believe that skill is perhaps one key marker separating hobbyist from artist. :salute::salute::salute:
~~~
As for this comment:

Yes the lenses are chosen out of inspiration from Jack (he’s the one to blaim:grin,

I happily accept that blame :toocool:

 

[Thorkil]

((thank you Jack..a lot!!!) ..:salute::salute::salute

 

[bensonga]

By the way, speaking of mood, for those who would like to have the noct-nikkor, where prices have gone skyhigh, look at the bokeh, it seems more dull and washed out in the noct, where in the 50/1.2 Ais, the bokeh is more defined, even though in certain situation with strong light-contrasts can be harsh, but then just stop down a little, and you still will get a more interesting bokeh by the little cheap Ais-jewel.
Best Thorkil

Unfortunately, I have no experience with the Noct-Nikkor, but I agree with you that the 50/1.2 AIS lens is a little jewel. Perfect on my 12mp D700. I have never tried it on my 36mp D800e.

Gary

 

[k-hawinkler]

Hi Duncan, I think you are right.
I tend to focus by a center-spot and then compose, while it seems more uncomplicated, if things have to be fast.
My dream of pictures are getting them at the more subjective side, rather than objective. I once had the D800E, but got frustrated while my mindset sort of couldn’t be squesed into this more complicated machine.
The D3 worked better for me, but was too heavy.
The Df allows me somehow to get childish again, in sort of the same way as the Leica M6 did, simple, yet complicated enough to do almost what I could dream of.
And getting childish means to me getting the mental freedom, that sets your mood in the optimistic and encouraged way. So, if the camera are able to be felt like an extension of an inner smiling, who could ask for more? A more complicated machine, that on the paper will give you a lot more possibilities, and therefore in theory more freedom, might have the contrary effect on me (but people are luckily different constructed between the ears), while you will feel committed or obligated to learn and perhaps even use all these possibilities, and therefore, in my mind, I get distracted away from the simple task or what basically ought to be a simple task. So, more possibilities, more complex variations could give me less mental freedom and perhaps actually more stress, and that I don’t want to be returning in.
So I better listen to, appreciate and take serious, the feeling of simple and good connection with the Df, a feeling that is often difficult and rare to find. So therefore, I better be thankful rather than unloyal just aiming at new goals in hardware.
Yes the lenses are chosen out of inspiration from Jack (he’s the one to blaim:grin, and looking at all the pictures around on flickr, reviews and so, the colours, the mood, the way to render was the important way for choosing. (the key-word were: better be dreaming of being at the place/situation, than actually feeling being there..)
By the way, speaking of mood, for those who would like to have the noct-nikkor, where prices have gone skyhigh, look at the bokeh, it seems more dull and washed out in the noct, where in the 50/1.2 Ais, the bokeh is more defined, even though in certain situation with strong light-contrasts can be harsh, but then just stop down a little, and you still will get a more interesting bokeh by the little cheap Ais-jewel.
Best Thorkil

Thanks Thorkil. I would like to see your images with both lenses that prove your point. TIA. :loco:

 

[bensonga]

From Imaging-Resource.com: "While Nikon contracts with a silicon foundry to actually manufacture the chips, Nikon confirmed that the D850's sensor is entirely their own design, vs. an off-the-shelf unit from a sensor manufacturer."

Does anyone know whether Nikon has designed any of their DSLR sensors prior to designing the D850 sensor?

Gary

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

From Imaging-Resource.com: "While Nikon contracts with a silicon foundry to actually manufacture the chips, Nikon confirmed that the D850's sensor is entirely their own design, vs. an off-the-shelf unit from a sensor manufacturer."

Does anyone know whether Nikon has designed any of their DSLR sensors prior to designing the D850 sensor?

Gary

They have. The D2X sensor as far as I remember, I think the one for the D2H as well. There's another one that I can't remember right now. D3X?

 

[bensonga]

They have. The D2X sensor as far as I remember, I think the one for the D2H as well. There's another one that I can't remember right now. D3X?

Thanks Jorgen. The D2x was my first Nikon DSLR and is still one of my favorites....in fact I have it with me today. It is reassuring to know that the D850 sensor is not Nikon's first in-house design. A friend asked me about this yesterday and he expressed some concern about it.

Gary

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Thanks Jorgen. The D2x was my first Nikon DSLR and is still one of my favorites....in fact I have it with me today. It is reassuring to know that the D850 sensor is not Nikon's first in-house design. A friend asked me about this yesterday and he expressed some concern about it.

Gary

I wouldn't worry about this even if it was the first one. The Sony sensors used in many Nikon cameras, not least the 36MP sensor of the D810, work very differently and in my view better in their Nikon versions compared to the Sony versions. To achieve this, Nikon must have solid in-depth knowledge about how sensors are designed and how they work.

 

[Thorkil]

Thanks Thorkil. I would like to see your images with both lenses that prove your point. TIA. :loco:

No, I'm sorry, you can't, while my opinion are solely based on different Noct-pictures, like

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-noct-nikkor-58mm-f1-2
and
http://www.streetsilhouettes.com/ho...-bokeh-shootout-between-leica-canon-and-nikon
and then the
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-50mm-f1-2-ai-s
and flickr and so.

And while the noct is sharper than the 50/1.2 Ais at 1.2 and 2.8, there is no reason why the 50Ais should be underrated and hide itself, because
for my taste the noct. wide open makes the background too outwashed compared to the 50Ais. I would like to get a hint of whats going on behind.
At 4 and 5.6 they are equal in sharpnes it seems.

So, I got on a waitinglist at a store in Japan for the Noct, where I bought the 18/2.8D, but I have regret that, while it looks like I better like the rendering from the 50/1.2 Ais, and then the ultimate sharpnes at 1.2-2.8 have to go. And the 50Ais might be more easy to handle at 1.2 too.
Thorkil

 

[PeterA]

Is there a way to zoom in to image to get accurate focus with fast lenses ?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Since there's a discussion going on here regarding the 50/1.2 and the Noct for the D850, it's important to be aware of the AF alternative, the 58mm f/1.4 AF-S. Although it renders distinctly different from both the AiS lenses, it's still a lens with a strong personality. It's unfortunately rather expensive, but I consider it as a part of a 3 lens setup for the D850, the others being the Zeiss 21mm and something around 135mm, or maybe even as short as 105mm.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-58mm-f1-4g

 

[Jack]

Is there a way to zoom in to image to get accurate focus with fast lenses ?

There certainly is with the D810 -- 100% (actually I think you can even do 200%) live-view -- so I suspect it will also be available on the D850. This is also a very useful feature when applied in conjunction with tilts on the PC-E's. The tilt-out LCD on the D850 will be a welcome additional asset for these uses as well.

 

[Jack]

Since there's a discussion going on here regarding the 50/1.2 and the Noct for the D850, it's important to be aware of the AF alternative, the 58mm f/1.4 AF-S. Although it renders distinctly different from both the AiS lenses, it's still a lens with a strong personality. It's unfortunately rather expensive, but I consider it as a part of a 3 lens setup for the D850, the others being the Zeiss 21mm and something around 135mm, or maybe even as short as 105mm.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-58mm-f1-4g

We're taking the thread a little OT, but heck, it's all discussion

I think my prime "trios" will change with subject matter, and actually for me with primes it's almost always "foursomes" :ROTFL: . For travel, probably 18/28/50/180. For landscape, 24/50/85/180. For people/street, 28/50/105/180. Currently those are all Nikkors except my 24 and 50 which are ARTs (both exceptionally good optically on the D810). But I'm actually considering getting back the 50/1.4 G for travel -- I like the way it renders and it's a lot more compact than the ART, though the 50/1.8 I have is remarkably similar save for the 2/3rd stop, and I'm rarely more open than f2 with my 50's. (Exception was the 50/1.2 -- when I owned that lens it was virtually locked down at f1.2 ) If the Nikkor 50/1.2 were AF it would be in my bag now and forevermore. But it's not, and my eyes are not as good as they used to be, and so ultimately the reason I sold it.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I don't want to derail this thread any further, but let me point out that my Nikkor 50/1.2 and Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 can be used with AF via the TechArt Pro adapter on A7rII, A9, a6300, and a6500. It works amazingly well.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

We're taking the thread a little OT, but heck, it's all discussion

I think my prime "trios" will change with subject matter, and actually for me with primes it's almost always "foursomes" :ROTFL: . For travel, probably 18/28/50/180. For landscape, 24/50/85/180. For people/street, 28/50/105/180. Currently those are all Nikkors except my 24 and 50 which are ARTs (both exceptionally good optically on the D810). But I'm actually considering getting back the 50/1.4 G for travel -- I like the way it renders and it's a lot more compact than the ART, though the 50/1.8 I have is remarkably similar save for the 1/3rd stop. If the Nikkor 50/1.2 were AF it would be in my bag now and forevermore. But it's not, and my eyes are not as good as they used to be, and so ultimately the reason I sold it.

The discussion is valid. We are reaching new levels of resolution, and what lenses are suitable is not obvious. My experience with the D810 told me that there are no obvious answers.8

 

[Jack]

The discussion is valid. We are reaching new levels of resolution, and what lenses are suitable is not obvious. My experience with the D810 told me that there are no obvious answers.8

And here's where I divert and tend to disagree a little. To *me* -- and I respect others opinions may vary -- the "character" of how a lens draws is more important to me than its ability to law down absolute resolution on whatever XYZ sensor. Don't get me wrong, I love resolution, just not to the detriment of character. For added clarification, if I were all about resolution the 18, 28 ASPH and 180 Nikkors, along with the 24-120 zoom, would probably NOT be in my stable post D800. Yet the zoom performs admirably for what it is, and those older primes render very much to my liking. I would almost say sharpness is over-rated for me while character is not. Hopefully this makes some sense...