Nikon Officially Announces the D850

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by ShunCheung, Aug 24, 2017.

Tags:
  1. I still shoot film, so this tidbit that is mildly interesting... using the D850 as a film scanner, although it seems like the scanned image results in a jpeg file. I would have preferred that it generate a RAW image. In any case, I will likely be getting one by Q1 2018, depending on availability. I'd be interested to hear from early adopters.

    "Use the D850's 45.7 MP back illuminated sensor and Live View for Stills Mode as a negative film scanner with the new optional ES-2 Film Digitizing Adapter on a compatible Micro-NIKKOR lens. You can copy slides or negatives one at a time. Digitize the gems from your film days."

    "The ES-2 is a Film Digitizing Adapter that lets you easily convert your film images to digital. Taking advantage of the high-pixel count of the D850's 45.7 MP, the Film Digitizing Adapter lets you convert both 35mm slides and negatives to digital files. Using a lens such as the AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED attached to the D850, the camera's digitizing function automatically reverses the colors and stores them as JPEG images. This once time-consuming process involving a film scanner can be done much more quickly. For negative strips, use the FH-4 Strip Film Holder with the ES-2 and for slides, use the FH-5 Slide Mount Holder with the ES-2."
     
  2. It is not possible to produce a RAW file that is a positive of a negative image, left alone for contrast and color correction.
     
  3. My D800E is well over 5 years old which is hard for me to believe considering how current it still feels. I do not think I would ever trade it in. It is worth far more to me than what I would get on the used market.

    Still, the D850 looks very tempting. However, with prime nature photography season not starting until April 2018 again around here, I will have a few months to make up my mind (and to wait for the price of the D850 to come down).
     
  4. @dieter: Thanks for the information on sRaw. Not a big deal to me.

    Also, it will be difficult for me to justify the upgrade from my D800, which is still serving me very well in studio. And, the fact that I prefer my Df for family, travel and street photography. I might go for a deal on a clean used D850 later next year. Who knows?
     
  5. Just found this article on sRAW - there's no indication so far that things will be any different on the D850: sRAW Format Explained
     
  6. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Just double check Nikon's fact sheet. DX crop on the D850 is 5408 x 3600, which is roughly 19MP.

    The D500's sensor generates a 5568 x 3712 image at full strength. Therefore, the D500 has a few more pixels, but the actual difference is minor. The bigger difference is that the D500 can shoot at 10 fps with the standard EN-EL15 battery. The D850 can only shoot 7 fps unless you use the stronger MB-D18 for the D4 and D5.

    I think one is better off just using the D850 to capture with the entire FX frame and then crop, if necessary, afterwards. It gives you more flexibility.
     
  7. If you sell pictures, even occasionally, the extra mp will make your file eligible for wallpaper. No kidding, it's happened to me, with a 50mp body. Komar, a German wallpaper producer contacted me about licensing one of my images as wallpaper (real wallpaper, not screen saver). Also, I've printed out to 72" on the long side, producing a stunning print.

    If you do neither of those, the cropping ability is luxurious. With Nikon delivering the speed, the only negative is file size.
     
  8. Also, voice of experience here, why would you crop in-camera when you can do it in post?
     
  9. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    With some Nikon DSLRs, if you use the crop mode, since the image files are smaller with fewer pixels, the frame rate can go up. I recall that the D800 has a higher maximum fps in the DX crop mode. The D7100 DX body can do 6 fps native, but if you use its 1.3x crop mode on top of DX (which is 2x crop from FX), it goes up to 7 fps.

    However, there doesn't seem to be such fps advantage if you use the crop mode on the D850. Therefore, the remaining advantage is smaller image file sizes for faster processing, and you can save some memory card and disk space also. Given that memory cards and disk drives are cheap in these days, at least to me, small file size is no longer a major advantage.
     
  10. Agreed, but then you have to question why buy it in the first place?
     
  11. Dieter, thanks, I was expecting that area concept but wasn't sure. I appreciate the information. So would it therefore be more advantageous to shoot FF and crop in post except for the larger files? I guess d800/810 users have been addressing that for years. I wonder what you have been doing and why.
     
  12. The European prices for this camera seem to have about 400€ extra in them, compared to B&H price in the USA + European VAT. :(
     
  13. Shun, thanks for the info. For me, this means I'm that much closer to buying a D810, since their prices should fall (I hope).
     
  14. I have never cropped in-camera, not even to utilize the increased frame rate the D810 offers when used in 1.2x or 1.5x crop mode. I always owned a DX camera that offered a higher MP count than the DX crop on the D810 (about 15MP). When I crop, I do it in post, always. I also have either a spare memory card or sufficient capacity in-camera to not have to rely on in-camera cropping to reduce file sizes. In essence, shooting is data acquisition at the maximum level (OK, I do shoot lossless compressed instead of uncompressed); any further data reduction takes place at home in front of the computer; never give up data if there is no real good reason to do so.

    The D850 is the first FX camera with a high-enough pixel count that I would have me consider giving up DX altogether - but I already own a D500 and a D810, so why would I consolidate down to one camera now? I may do so in the future when it's time to move on from the D500/D810, but not now.

    It just dawned to me that we are witnessing the "true update cycle" of Nikon DSLR cameras now: it's 9 years. It took Nikon 9 years to come up with a true successor to the D300 (by which I mean a camera that supersedes the predecessor in ALL aspects) and it took 9 years to provide a true successor for the D700 in from of the D850.
     
  15. NPS pre-oder in, we'll see how long this takes....

    I use the in camera crop modes a ton, 45+ MP will make this even easier.
     
  16. Found a post over on FM.com by CanadaMark listing features, which stated

    - Smaller RAW modes does not increase buffer size, they actually take longer for the camera to process. Medium is 25.5MP, small is 11.3MP."
     
  17. Sounds like an incremental increase. The AF ev -4 sounds interesting, but I just can't justify spending $3300 on a camera body. My plan is to keep using D800E, entirely skip the D810, and when the used D850 prices inevitably drop below $2,000, I'll buy two. Meanwhile, I do some lens shake ups: sell NIkon 20mm f1.8G & buy Sigma 14mm f1.8, sell Nikon 80-400mm AFS and buy Nikon 300mm f4 PF + TC-14iii. The better AF on the D850 and 10 more MP just won't make a difference in what I shoot. As for video, I don't even own a 4K TV.


    Kent in SD
     
  18. I use a D810 mostly and have a D3s as a second body for its different capabilities. I can see replacing the D3s with the D850, would make the two camera setup a little easier to use. Will wait until the D810 is tested, vetted, and (hopefully) discounted, though.
     
  19. Since I tend to run a fair few years behind the curve, when I do action shooting(limited to my nephews' baseball games) I use the crop mode on my D2x to get the higher frame rate and deeper buffer.

    I'm mixed in my thoughts on its utility in my D800. I'm in the process of upgrading from a collection of 4 and 8gb cards to some 32 and 64gb, and although they're relatively inexpensive these days I still don't have the quantity that I'd like. I think a 32gb card is good for a little under 400 RAW files, which seems dauntingly small given that I've been use a few hundred on a 4gb card and over 1000 on 8gb.

    Moving to a camera with that much resolution(and a 5 year old one at that) has made me have to rethink everything. I bought a new(er) Mac Pro(2012 Cheesegrater) that I'm in the process of building out to my specifications-specifically I need to get a couple of big platter drives to store images. PCIe boot drives and 12 cores should help me crunch through images fairly quickly(it's not bad now with a standard SSD and 8 cores).
     
  20. Dieter, I think you nailed it with that 9 year number. While they made small changes, or huge files, I bought lenses. I went from the d200 to a d500 and will go from a d 700 to the d850. The 500 is blowing me away and I expect the 850 nearly 4x the d700 pixels should also. It answered all my requests and then some.
     

Share This Page