Happy 100th Birthday, Nikon and the Development of the D850

[Dieter Schaefer]

all for $3000

More like $4300 - $4500 would be my guess.

I hope the next version will have dual XQD

Me too. Not happy with SD cards and not spending money on SD UHS-II. The D500 has only one XQD slot and the second slot might as well not be there at all (since whatever one puts in there slows the camera down when used).

How are they going to sell a D5 after that?

Not my problem and I don't care anyway. The availability of the D500 doesn't seem to put too big a dent into D5 sales?!

[Two23]

More like $4300 - $4500 would be my guess.

 

 

 

The jump from ~$3K to >$K is a substantial one. Many fewer people will spend that. I think it's more likely that Nikon will price competitively with the nearest Canon equivalent. They also have to be more than a bit worried about losing market share to Sony as well. There is a limit to how high they can price.

 

 

 

Kent in SD

[d_ponce]

Nikon is officially 100 years old today, 25th July, 2017.

 

Nikon also announced the development of the D850, which is the FX-format successor to the D810.

 

• Nikon Japan's news on the 100th anniversary: Nikon | News | Nikon Celebrates the 100th Anniversary of its Founding
  
• And the D850, but there isn't much info yet: Nikon | News | Development of Digital SLR Camera Nikon D850
  

This is wonderful news ShunCheung -- it's been what I've been waiting to hear!! You've made my day. :) :)

[CvhKaar]

You can still buy memory stick cards though new models with higher specs do not seem to be developed. XQD is used by some of Sony's own very successful professional video cameras which are sure to be important to Sony. The alternative for Nikon would be CFast 2.0 which is almost twice as expensive as XQD (128GB) and physically bigger and older tech so it is not a good choice from the consumer point of view: pay a lot more and gain very little over XQD. Lexar CFast cards are also discontinued, along with their other memory cards if the business is not purchased by someone else. And then there is CFexpress which is currently only made by Delkin in one size and no cameras as yet support it. XQD is the best choice of the currently available high speed cards IMO. I am certainly not going to be paying a lot of money for flimsy SD UHS-II cards. I will use what uhs-i cards I have as backup in the D850 but do not intend to buy new ones. Unless of course my current SD cards stop working which unfortunately has happened to too many of mine. I hope the next version will have dual XQD or dual CFexpress if they must change to it. I suspect there is no practical need for the latter outside of high end cinema cameras (8K), but I really appreciate the ruggedness and speed of the current XQD.

This is all very true Ikka, therefore it is also most unfortunate if Lexar really stops.

Dependency on 1 manufacturer for a standard article like memory cards is not a good thing because it creates a monopoly situation which is unhealthy. Hopefully more manufacturers will step into the XQD market, since for now this is indeed, technically speaking, the best option we currently have access to ..

[mike_halliwell]

Not my problem and I don't care anyway. The availability of the D500 doesn't seem to put too big a dent into D5 sales?!

 

I guess no-one actually knows the answer to that do they?

 

Equally, I'm specifically referring to FX to FX. If you 'need' a D5, you need the extra stop or so of ISO that FX gets you over DX.

 

There are views circulating that the D850 is a mini-D5, just as the D700 was the mini-D3.

[d_ponce]

The jump from ~$3K to >$K is a substantial one. Many fewer people will spend that. I think it's more likely that Nikon will price competitively with the nearest Canon equivalent. They also have to be more than a bit worried about losing market share to Sony as well. There is a limit to how high they can price.

Kent in SD

Competitive pricing I hope is being considered. I recall in 2009 when they announced the release of the 12mp D3s -- even then the pixels were on the conservative side compared to their competitors, yet commanding a $5000 price tag implied that 'size wasn't everything'. I know I jumped on it and was blown away with what I got. Fast forward 4 years later with the release of the D180 at not much more than half the price, I figured it would be a handy second body, but did not expect it to surpass the D3s at that price point - and with so much 'bulk' I thought for sure I would never use all those pixels and thought it was great that they offered a reduced file size option. :) But after putting it through its paces -- side by side against the D3s -- and using all those pixels :), I was sold! -- clearly a quality camera did not need to cost a kings ransom. Because of the superb quality I was getting from the D810 compared to the D3s, that D3s has rarely seen the light of day in the past few years -- so my anticipation level for the predecessor to the D810 as a companion to 'my ultimate camera' has me just chomping at the bit in anticipation!! :) So I guess, no matter what the price, I'll be on line as soon as the announcement has been made -- please be kind, Nikon. :)

[Dieter Schaefer]

please be kind, Nikon.

Maybe my guess of $4300 - $4500 was a bit high - but I would be surprised if it came in significantly below $4K ($3800 at the lowest).

 

that D3s has rarely seen the light of day in the past few years

Same happens to me with the D700 once I had the D810.

[d_ponce]

Same happens to me with the D700 once I had the D810.

 

So many photographers claim that their gear does not make better photographs -- only the photographer does; implying that an iphone image and a D810 image would be equal in the same competent hands. I definitely beg to differ no matter how often I hear this said. That said, a really nice image can be had from an iphone in competent hands, but put a professional DSLR in those same hands and magic is made. ;)

[bebu_lamar]

Same happens to me with the D700 once I had the D810.

 

So many photographers claim that their gear does not make better photographs -- only the photographer does; implying that an iphone image and a D810 image would be equal in the same competent hands. I definitely beg to differ no matter how often I hear this said. That said, a really nice image can be had from an iphone in competent hands, but put a professional DSLR in those same hands and magic is made. ;)

 

I often heard the joke that the cook said the photographer has good cameras because his photos are so good and the photographer said the cook has good stove because the food is delicious. They said it's not true but take 100 photographers who create good photographs the majority of them if not all have good cameras and the same true for the 100 cooks.

[Two23]

They said it's not true but take 100 photographers who create good photographs the majority of them if not all have good cameras ...

 

 

That could be because someone who is more into taking photos is more apt to put more money into them. Their photos are better simply because they've taken more photos and are more experienced. For specific kinds of images, you do have to have competent gear. I'm thinking of wildlife photos, for example. A 500mm f4 lens is going to outperform a 55-200mm kit lens. However, to me, a "great" photo is one that engages me emotionally. While some of my best shots have come from D800E plus 24mm PC-E, some of my other best have come from a 1904 Brownie. The single most important thing in photography is the Vision. If you don't have that, doesn't matter how much you spend on gear.

 

 

Kent in SD

 

We always hear that for night shots you have to have the

latest camera, an f1.4 lens, and shoot ISO 10,000. Well,

a 1932 Brownie with an f11 lens & ISO 100 can work too.

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Two23

[ShunCheung]

Switching topics a bit: received an e-mail from Nikon USA. You can buy 100th anniversary T-shirts for $24.95 or an anniversary leather bag for $400 ....

Nikon Merchandise | Shop Nikon Branded Gear

[Dieter Schaefer]

That's one expensive bag (that doesn't seem to allow to carry a camera with a lens mounted). And the T-shirts are cotton/polyester blend - thanks, but no thanks.

 

So many photographers claim that their gear does not make better photographs

Switching from one to the other (D700 with 12MP and AA filter to D810 with 36 MP and without AA) does indeed deliver a better photograph (in the technical sense, not the artistic one) but doesn't, however, make me a better photographer.

 

A good stove doesn't make me a better cook but does allow me to do things that I can't do on an inferior one.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

[Wouter Willemse]

You can buy 100th anniversary T-shirts for $24.95 or an anniversary leather bag for $400 ....

 

And NOW we're talking!!! Finally.... been there, done that.... now we can finally say "got the T-shirt". Life's good :)

 

 

As for new cameras: I usually am pretty good at convincing myself I need a new toy, or more toys. In case of the D800/D810, I so far never found anything that it can do that I can't do with my D700. Sure, it has much better dynamic range, but it's not often the D700 makes me feel lacking. AF better, but I usually focus manually. Resolution? I don't print that large. Etc.

So realistically: sure, gear does matter as better gear in experienced hands will improve the risks of getting a good image. But how much the gear matters has a lot to do with your uses, habits, way of working and expectations.

[CvhKaar]

While some of my best shots have come from D800E plus 24mm PC-E, some of my other best have come from a 1904 Brownie.

- a 1932 Brownie with an f11 lens & ISO 100 can work too.

[ATTACH=full]1201817[/ATTACH]

 

True and.. not entirely...

In that 1904 , or 1932 , Brownie Box camera, you now load a "modern roll film" which will have the same quality in whatever camera you load it. Then you do a "Modern analogue chemical print" , of copy the resulting negative to a "digital positive" etc. etc.

 

In modern digital camera's that film is replaced by the digital sensor and a bunch of electronics and software. In a cheap digital camera this electronics and programs are not the same as used in more expensive camera's so here the comparison ends (e.g. the comparison of the smartphone with the DSLR)

 

So in analogue photography there is more or less a constant quality factor which is the film and D&P processes no matter which camera you use , which is not represented in the same way in the digital age , I think..

[d_ponce]

Switching from one to the other (D700 with 12MP and AA filter to D810 with 36 MP and without AA) does indeed deliver a better photograph (in the technical sense, not the artistic one) but doesn't, however, make me a better photographer.

 

A good stove doesn't make me a better cook but does allow me to do things that I can't do on an inferior one.

 

exactly! I did not say better gear makes me a better photographer -- I did say better gear provides me with the opportunity to produce a better image -- and allows me to print that image so that others can see that quality -- something an iphone will never do; although on a small screen they do look phenomenal! The "100%" test separates the 'men from the boys' and what drives my decisions when it comes to upgrading, purchases, etc. -- and now knowing the incredible capabilities of the D810, I can only imagine what I will get with the D850 - my finger is on the 'place order' button -- lol!! And to think there was a time when I said I would 'never go digital' - lol!

[Dieter Schaefer]

Resolution? I don't print that large.

I don't print at all - yet the resolution difference between the D700 and D810 is obvious (as is the one between the D300 and the D7100/D7200/D7500); and the advantage is not only in the ability to crop more (though that's nice as I had a few images within an image taken with the D810 that could be extracted with sufficient resolution to be useful).

 

my finger is on the 'place order' button

Mine's not. Nothing about the specs that have been rumored will make enough of a difference for me to pay full price and certainly not early on. In addition, the uncertainty regarding Nikon's mirrorless future (or dare I say Nikon's future in general?) makes me hold back ANY Nikon purchase from now on until sufficient information is being made available. For the time being it appears I have all I need/want anyway. Just recently I made my first purchase in disfavor of something that's available for Nikon (though not from Nikon directly) in that I purchased the Sony FE 12-24/4G lens instead of the Sigma 12-24/4 (almost identical in price with the Sony lens being half the weight of the Sigma). And it now appears that Sony has another winner with the now available FE 100-400/4.5-5.6GM, a lens that apparently puts Nikon's AF-S 80-400 to shame (and how long have we had to wait for Nikon to finally replace - at an exorbitant price - the first version of that lens?). A Sony A6500/70-400 combo weighs a mere 280g more than the Nikon 80-400 alone (though there are handling issues because the camera body is so tiny)! For comparable specs and performance, the Nikon D500/200-500 combo weighs about 1200g more!

 

For some 38 years, I always had Nikon as my main system but unfortunately, it appears that Nikon only pulls something great out of their hat when things get desperate. Cue in the D700 to curtail mass leakage to Canon; a move that certainly impacted D3 sales. Cue in the D800/D800E to prevent even more people wandering off to Canon. Cue in the D500 that came out of left field when even the hardiest Nikon fans had given up hope of a D300/D300S successor. If the Sony A7 cameras didn't wake up Nikon, then surely the A9 must have gotten their attention now. For years, Nikon was aiming for the #1 spot; now they are in danger of dropping to #3 behind a "newcomer" that a few years ago looked as good as "done and over with".

 

What kept me with Nikon in the past few years, despite the long wait for a D300, 80-400, and 300/4 replacement (and the long overdue prime lens refresh), were a few items: 16-35/4 VR, 70-200/4 VR (another lens one had to wait a long time for), 200-500, D500, and D810. Those and the fact that even though the grass may have looked greener on the Canon side of the fence, it wasn't sufficiently tempting to cross over. Neither, so far, has Sony although I have more than one toe in that water now! For the time being, I will attempt to preserve my systems status quo and take a "wait and see" approach.

[d_ponce]

Mine's not. .

As an event photograph I need two bodies -- and even considered a second D810 -- but that really seemed silly at that price. If the D850 -- or any upgrade in the future - was mirrorless, I'd be passing on a new camera for a long time. The quality just isn't there yet (I also do fine art photography -- so perfection is the goal). I'm with you on sometimes just waiting things out -- I've haven't 'crossed over' yet, but I never say never. :-)

[Dieter Schaefer]

There are views circulating that the D850 is a mini-D5

If the rumored specs are indeed correct (46MP, D5 AF, XQD/SD cards, 10fps) then the D850 would be the FX-equivalent of the D500. In fact, it would incorporate the D500 in a high-resolution FX camera. It would be a major feat to move 2.25 times as much data off the sensor and onto the card (pretty much matching the performance of the Sony A9 (which moves the data from a 24MP sensor at 20fps)). Even if it turns out to be "only" 8 fps, that's still 4x as much data as the D700 managed or twice as much as the D7500 does.

[Wouter Willemse]

yet the resolution difference between the D700 and D810 is obvious

 

No doubt, and I didn't meant to imply otherwise. But: is that resolution relevant to my photography, enough to spend a considerable amount of money? No, for me not. And I can completely understand for others, it would. Again, I am not arguing that. My point is that DSLRs have matured to the point where an upgrade becomes a more complicated proposition, and it really depends on how the advantages would move your photography forward (or not), whereas half a decade ago, the leap would be so much bigger, making it a lot easier to decide on upgrades. But now? If your camera works, and it doesn't block you from achieving what you want, or make it unnecessary hard to do so, there are increasingly little reasons to upgrade.

[Two23]

 

 

That's the thinking I've evolved to. There just isn't that much difference between the "latest thing" and something one generation older selling for half the price. I'd rather spend that extra money (and with the D8xx series it is a substantial amount) on travel. I'll wait for used ones to become available. Meanwhile, I'm thinking of switching my Nikon 20mm f1.8 for a Sigma 14mm f1.8, and my Nikon 80-400mm AFS for a Nikon 300mm f4 P + TC-14iii. For me, that's a better use of the money.

:)

 

 

 

Kent in SD

[d_ponce]

If the rumored specs are indeed correct (46MP, D5 AF, XQD/SD cards, 10fps) then the D850 would be the FX-equivalent of the D500. In fact, it would incorporate the D500 in a high-resolution FX camera. It would be a major feat to move 2.25 times as much data off the sensor and onto the card (pretty much matching the performance of the Sony A9 (which moves the data from a 24MP sensor at 20fps)). Even if it turns out to be "only" 8 fps, that's still 4x as much data as the D700 managed or twice as much as the D7500 does.

Dieter, why do you feel it would be an FX equivalent of a D500 -- as opposed to a slightly upgraded (already) FX model D810? Why would a company upgrade a lesser model camera, but consider it in the same family as another slightly higher end model -- why not call it a D550 with your thinking?

[Dieter Schaefer]

why do you feel it would be an FX equivalent of a D500

Because it would use the D500 chassis (obviously with a larger prism housing) and allow the use of the MB-D17 (if Nikon is smart) from the D500. The D850 sensor would be the scaled (in area) version of the 20.9MP sensor of the D500 (which would make it 47MP) and it would allow the same 10fps (either in DX mode only or also in FX). Also being the FX equivalent of the D500 and an upgraded version of the D810 isn't mutually exclusive, is it?

 

why not call it a D550 with your thinking?

The D500/D850 would re-create the duopoly D300/D700 - and they didn't call the latter D350 either.

 

If your camera works, and it doesn't block you from achieving what you want, or make it unnecessary hard to do so, there are increasingly little reasons to upgrade.

There just isn't that much difference between the "latest thing" and something one generation older selling for half the price.

My thinking exactly. The D500 was enough of an upgrade from the D300/D300S (small wonder as it took 8+ years) and D7100/D7200 (great sensor, compromised body) that it was worth getting right away. If the rumored D850 specs prove true, then for some its worth upgrading from a D810, for others, the D810 (or even the D800E) will still do just fine. At least it appears that the D850 will be an upgrade in every aspect over the D810, unlike the D7500 which adheres to Nikon's "tradition" of "giving with one hand and taking back with the other" approach.

[d_ponce]

Because it would use the D500 chassis (obviously with a larger prism housing) and allow the use of the MB-D17 (if Nikon is smart) from the D500. The D850 sensor would be the scaled (in area) version of the 20.9MP sensor of the D500 (which would make it 47MP) and it would allow the same 10fps (either in DX mode only or also in FX). Also being the FX equivalent of the D500 and an upgraded version of the D810 isn't mutually exclusive, is it?

.

Thanks, Dieter! Wasn't judging - just wasn't sure I understood your thinking -- but thanks for the great explanation!

[Dieter Schaefer]

Wasn't judging - just wasn't sure I understood your thinking -- but thanks for the great explanation!

:)

 

Looking at these data, it appears the D850 won't come until 3Q 2017 (which would be October-December): Nikon | Investor Relations | Financial Results by Quarter

There also doesn't seem to be any room for a mirrorless until (and including) 4Q 2017 (which is to say not before April 2018). Appears we will have to wait another year before it becomes clear where Nikon is headed with mirrorless! One can only hope that their revenue forecast for the fiscal year 2017 (ending March 2018) isn't too optimistic; as already mentioned, I will certainly not purchase anything Nikon (unless I absolutely have to) until I have at least a basic understanding where Nikon is headed; and I can imagine that I am not alone in that approach.

[ilkka_nissila]

I'm not following at all what the D850 has to do with mirrorless ...

 

Sony's 100-400 is about 15% more expensive than the Nikon 80-400, 36% more expensive than the Canon 100-400 II and about 88% more expensive than the Nikon 200-500 (in retailers close to me). It's difficult to say what is behind the pricing here. In general, I believe the manufacturer studies the relationship between price and expected demand and finds a point on the curve where they can make a profit (or they may even try to optimize the profit). However, it is difficult to estimate the curve. Sometimes the best price is not selected or the lens may be expensive to manufacture which limits the choices in pricing. Each system has products which seem overpriced and others which feel like bargains. It's just something that we have to work around to get to making the photographs that we want to make.