D850 / Amazon Update

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by pcassity, Nov 2, 2017.

  1. if you subtract the VAT, it comes down to some $3700. If I were to purchase a D850 locally, I'd pay 7.75% sales tax for a total of about $3550 - so the main culprit in the price differential is the sales tax (and I would assume that the remainder is due to currency exchange rate differences). If I take Germany as an example, with 19%VAT, the D850 price sans sales tax is about $3650. Of course, neither in the UK or Germany can I do what is possible here in the US - order from B&H or adorama and pay no sales tax whatsoever (even though in my state I should pay the "use tax" when I do the annual tax return). Naturally, this sort of calculation can't hide the fact that people in the UK and Germany pay 20%+ more for a D850 than the lowest possible price in the US (with most of that extra going to the government and not to Nikon).

    Seems I cannot deny that this describes me too. I got drawn into the Sony mirrorless system that had nothing to do at all with any dissatisfaction with Nikon but was prompted by the desire to use some inherited Leica M-mount lenses on something digital that didn't have a red dot and associated price tag. That experiment ended with me abandoning the M-mount lenses altogether and acquiring some native Sony FE lenses to complement my Nikon DSLR system. While I am not ready yet to let go of Nikon completely, if I had to purchase a camera body right now (no intention at this time), I would most likely opt for the Sony A7R III over the Nikon D850, in particular if the new Sony FE 24-105 indeed turns out to be as good as initial report claim it is. That would give me a chance to assemble a three-lens travel/hiking kit that's substantially smaller and lighter than my current Nikon equipment without being in any way limiting or inferior; the decision would almost entirely be driven by lens choices rather than camera specs: Nikon's 14-24/2.8 or Sigma's 12-24/4 are substantially larger and heavier than the Sony 12-24/4. Unless the initial reports on the Sony 24-105 turn out to be overly optimistic, it will surpass Nikon's 24-120 or Sigma's 24-105. The Sony FE 70-200/4 is at par with Nikon's offering but I would very likely trade it and the Nikon AF-S 80-400 for the new Sony FE 100-400 (which from all I've read is better optically). I would retain NIkon D810 for use with prime lenses and Nikon D500 for reach with the 200-500.

    Evolutionary, but nothing revolutionary (OK, 7/9 fps for a 46MP camera is a huge step forward).
  2. "...if you subtract the VAT, it comes down to some $3700."

    - $3881 actually Dieter, but I accept the point that a lot (not all) of the differential is due to low purchase tax rates in the US.

    Whatever. I don't find either the specification or price at all attractive.
  3. Indeed, should teach me to ballpark these calculations in my head:(

    It's good to know that should I have the need to replace my D810 that there is a camera with good specs waiting for me down to road to be picked up for a more reasonable price used.
  4. The A7RIII does show Sony are fixing some of their historical issues and listening to their customers. Nikon should pay attention to relatively dedicated users on these fora who are considering switching.

    I'm not there yet. The A7RIII still apparently stops interacting somewhat when flushing its buffer (shades of the D800 in live view), though much less so than the mk2. On-sensor phase detect AF still has some disadvantages compared with a dedicated AF sensor for subject tracking - though Canon has shown you can do both, and I wouldn't turn down a "contrast detect fine tune" mode during normal shooting. Supposedly the A7RIII does a final contrast detect check in single shot mode, which shows it down but increases accuracy - I'm not sure the AF is all that magic without it, although they certainly have a coverage advantage (and apparently better eye tracking) compared with a mirror system.

    The D850 at ISO64 still has a small advantage over the A7RIII at ISO100 - though the tweak to reduce read now has worked well on the Sony, and that sensor works better at high ISO than the D850. If the rumours are correct that Sony wanted Nikon to use the A7RII/III sensor but Nikon wanted their own, I hope the benefits (ISO 64 and full frame 4K?) were worth it compared to the lack of PDOS and higher ISO performance.

    I'm a bit envious of the sensor shift resolution bump mode (even if it's slow on the Sony). Yes, sensor shift VR makes the sensor a little more delicate for cleaning, but it's pretty beneficial. The Sony looks to have better connectivity, too.

    There are some Sony things putting me off. I still mostly prefer an optical finder (though I maintain hybrid should be possible). DSLR battery life is still better - though I don't know how much of the D850's jump relative to the D810 was losing the flash (IIRC standard numbers assume some flash use). The memory card choices on the Sony look much more restrictive. Sony are (expensively) building their lens set, but aren't quite there, and adapted lenses are compromised. So I'd sooner a D850 than an A7RIII - but maybe not an A7RIV. Allowing for decent lenses, body size makes no difference to me (unfortunately for my health) - it's features and image quality I care about.

    A Canon shooting friend is thinking of jumping system, to a high end body (he's not interested in my D810 used). With the current range I wouldn't touch Canon, but I'm going to tell him to check Sony before going Nikon. That wasn't the case not long ago.

    Unfortunately I doubt Nikon management are looking past the D850 selling as fast as it can be made to see the danger. But maybe I'm wrong.
  5. I previously made the expensive mistake of jumping ship to Canon when Nikon, apparently, showed no intention of producing an affordable full-frame body. Then along comes the brilliant D700 to completely eclipse the 5D - well, apart from the crappy overexposing metering on the D700.

    So it's not without reservation that I'll jump ship again, but Nikon's future lineup isn't looking very exciting or attractive right now.

    If Nikon do have an MLC in development, then they'd do well to advertise the fact. Before every other camera company on the planet entices their customers away. I mean, if even Hasselblad thinks that MLCs are the future....
  6. I tend to remember the D700's metering as being relatively good - but that might be through rose white-balanced glasses. (I've been critical of the D800 and D810 metering, especially the D810's "highlight metering" that still blows out large areas of image, but my D700 didn't get much use once I had the D800E.)

    I switched from Canon to Nikon at the point when I was thinking of starting to spend proper money on photography (I had - still have - a budget Eos digital and my most expensive lens was the 70-300 IS [simpler times]); I was thinking of getting proper glass before a big holiday, and I'd been following rumours of a 5D update for some years, and been perpetually disappointed. I was mostly waiting for live view, since I shot more tilt-shift in those days. I eventually got frustrated enough at Canon that I decided to buy the D700 when it was launched, drawn partly by the 14-24 (good idea, give or take field curvature), 135 f/2 DC (terrible idea for me), and getting the 150-500 Bigma (not system-specific, but terrible anyway). I don't miss the f/1.2 lenses, but I have mild 200-400 f/4 IS envy. The 5D2 got announced too late for my holidays; I didn't really regret the decision, although I was absolutely expecting it to get the 1DsII 16MP sensor rather than the 1DsIII 22MP one, which gave me some pause.

    I've been committed by my glass ownership since, although I've had no reason to regret my D8x0 ownership, partly because of the dynamic range advantage. The 5Dsr and 5D4 don't tempt me. Sony would have the advantage of allowing adapted lenses, although the experience is compromised.

    I'm not in a huge hurry for Nikon to go mirrorless (although I do think it would be a sensible cost-saving measure for their lower end) - partly because the size advantage is barely there for decent FX glass. There are still advantages to both the optical finder and the separate AF system - although Fuji have shown a hybrid option for the former can be done (okay, not in an SLR, but I can think of at least ways to implement it) and I'd value the SLR/PDOS combination that Canon have, especially for video. Nikon could stop me worrying by implementing some of the set of features we've discussed in the past, which don't rely on mirrorless. They should do it to fill out their range (if they can work out how to adapt their lenses properly), but I don't yet buy that mirrorless is universally better.
  7. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Moderator

    Nikon has already made it very clear that they are developing mirrorless cameras, besides the apparently failed attempt with the 1" Nikon 1 series. In fact, Nikon has made it clear that they are focusing on the high end, in both DLSRs and mirrorless:

    Mirrorless is not panacea, but it can certainly complement DSLRs. Since Canon and Nikon have established SLR systems, they are no in a hurry to develop something to compete against themselves, but when the technology matures, they certainly will add in that area. For shooting sports and action, the mirror is posting some limitations.
  8. The suspense is killing me! Sony has set the bar fairly high by now and part of me is confident that Nikon can come out with something that raises it even further:)Another part, however, is afraid that Nikon might hit way off the mark:( Both have happened in the past; for Nikon’s sake, I’ll hope for a hit out of the park.
  9. If the rumours are correct that Sony wanted Nikon to use the A7RII/III sensor but Nikon wanted their own, I hope the benefits (ISO 64 and full frame 4K?) were worth it compared to the lack of PDOS and higher ISO performance.

    I don't think it's primarily a question of features or performance but independence of a single supplier of sensors, in particular one who is also a competitor. It is good that there are multiple (relatively) independent companies making sensors so that there is competition and prices stay reasonable and there is motivation to advance the state of the art. Nikon was first to commercialize OSPDAF but it is something Nikon seem reluctant to implement in their DSLRs; they say the reason is that there is still an image quality drawback (however small it may be) and obviously live view is the secondary and not primary mode of operation of a DSLR. For their mirrorless system, I am sure they will implement it, with a new lens lineup that is equipped with motors and optical designs that work well with mirrorless AF. I think the delay is in part due to the difficulty of making it work well with older AF lenses, and the challenge of making an impression in an established market as an outsider.

    I have mild 200-400 f/4 IS envy

    I think the Nikon 500/4 and 400/2.8 are better value than the Canon 200-400/4. The 500/4 FL is longer and lighter and some 1500€ less expensive, and to be honest what images from the Canon zoom I've seen, haven't really popped out as particularly spectacular in terms of image quality (to me they are reasonably sharp but "muted," which could be a result of the 25/20 (33/24 with extender) element/group optical design). To me the images from the Nikon nano-coated long primes seem more vivid and rich in colour than those from the Canon zoom. The 500/4 VR 1st version is available second hand for about half of the cost of the 200-400 extender. I do get the practical appeal of the zoom that covers 200mm to 560mm (with built in extender) but to my eye the output doesn't reflect the asking price in this case. I'm afraid a new Nikon 200-400/4 might be introduced in the same price class as the Canon and that would limit the potential buyers a lot. A lightly used VR 500/4G at half price is what I would get. I just am not quite ready for that yet; I'm convinced of the quality of the lens and its autofocus is excellent but I have had other expenses that get in the way.

    I think the idea of purchasing into a new system, waiting for lenses to become available for it, and then spending the premium on new glass would all be over the top for me, and just a silent 20fps doesn't do it for me. I've figured out that for my style of photography I prefer single shots and occasionally use 8fps bursts, anything faster than that would just create more nearly identical frames to edit with little benefit.
  10. Good point Shun, I didn't consider the cancellation cases. I decide already to upgrade my equipment to the new D850
  11. I did just that, shun :) my thought process also the same; since I heard several of my friends (out of state) were getting theirs from their local camera shops pretty quickly. So after placing my order at B&H a few days after the announcement -- and waited, and waited -- I decided to put my name on the wait-list at my local shop. At that time (mid November) they said I would be #13 on the list -- had no idea how far down the bottom of the barrel I was at B&H -- and was not sure how they were determining who would get the first ones after the 'Nikon members' were taken care of first. Well, like a couple waiting to have a baby and deciding to adopt - only to find out they are pregnant - within a few days after placing my other order, I get the notice from B&H mine is on its way!! I can't report how it is yet because I then had look through the manual in order to buy approved memory cards and all the other essentials. :)
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2017
  12. I have been quietly following the news and discussions about the D850. I'm in Tokyo and I wandered into Bic Camera at Shibuya this afternoon. To my surprise, they had the D850 in stock. They said they only had one unit available. I'm not sure if that was really the case, but now they don't have that one for sure, since I took possession of it. Maybe the next person that walks in to inquire will also be told they only have one. I was going to wait until the initial frenzy dies down, but since I was sure I would buy one sooner or later, I might as well make it sooner, and hey, Merry Christmas to myself, if I have to spend it working, away from my family. It's going to be a couple more days before I have access to my computer, but I'm really looking forward to it.
  13. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Moderator

    raczoliver, you should have told them at Bic Camera that you wanted two D850 and see whether they would suddenly be able to produce a second one. :)

    As far as I can tell, the D850 shortage has eased; sometimes the wait with Amazon is fairly short although it is not in stock yet. Some local camera stores also have short queues. However, the shortage has lasted a month or two longer than what I had expected.

    So far I am quite happy with the D850. However, the RAW files for 45MP are huge. I have also captured some 4K video, and those video files are huge also. All of a sudden those 128G XQD cards don't seem to have as much capacity any more.
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2017
  14. They're in stock at the larger UK camera stores. Merry Christmas to anyone who's picked one up (okay, and the rest of you!) - I'm going to wait a few paycheques but I'll get there soon
  15. I waited 8 years with the d700 can wait a few more months. In the mean time, a d500 has been an eye opener from the d700. I haven't bothered to calibrate it to my sekonic meter, but I am constantly surprised about being able to keep everything in the histogram that I know would require some blocking or poor blacks on the d700. The 24 mp is plenty for portraits but for birds I expect nearly doubling the pixels will be visible. I doubled from d700 to d500 and it was significant. Can anyone comment on how the tonal transitions compare to say MF black and white film?
  16. The D850 is an awesome camera. A must have that will work its way into a long future. I see no aberrations with this camera, Nikon knocked it out of the park with this one!

Share This Page