Nikon Officially Announces the D850

[Dieter Schaefer]

I'll miss having a built in flash...use mine all the time as a trigger

I also thought that I could use the on-board flash to trigger external flashes and the R200 flashes of the R1 macro lighting kit; paid dearly for this attempt of saving money and carrying the proper piece of equipment when the on-board flash of my D200 "popped" during a shooting session and took out half the electronics of the camera (luckily it had been my "high-mileage" one and I never bothered to have it repaired). Ever since, I have not used the on-board flash on any of my cameras and am thus not sorry at all to see it go.

 

The in-body AF assist light

is among the first things I turn off when I get a new camera; right along with the beep.

[DB_Gallery]

I liked the built in flash a lot since it was very fast and intuitive to use. There is also a certain look it gave, especially when holding the camera upside-down. I'll live without it but I did use it now and then when I had it.

[ShunCheung]

The single-digit D series DSLRs never has the pop-up flash. On other higher-end DSLRs just below the single-digit series, one of the purposes for the pop-up flash used to be as the commander for iTTL/Nikon CLS. Since Nikon is now gradually switching to radio trigger, the pop-up flash isn't as useful any more. I think that is why neither the D500 nor the D850 has the pop-up flash. Of course the D5 is never supposed to have one.

 

And that is why I think there are a lot of similarities between the D500 and D850, other than the fact that one is DX and one is FX. Take a look at this top view of the D500. It is almost indistinguishable from the top of the D850 (see my opening post). Both use the Multi-CAM 20000 AF module, both have XQD and UHS-II SD card slots, both have a tilting back LCD, a feature that was never available on the D700 and other D800 series cameras, neither has the pop-up flash, both have the ISO button next to the shutter release ....

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by ShunCheung

[rodeo_joe1]

I probably won't miss the on-camera flash, but what exactly has filled its space. A built-in GPS? My little P6000 has one of those - near useless mind, but it's there. Because RF slaving is hardly going to take up the space of a 300v 300uF capacitor and inverter circuitry. Not to mention the tube and reflector housing.

 

And now you have to buy at least one super-expensive flash to make full use of the RF-CLS facility.

 

Take stuff out and charge more. Nice marketing!

 

Let's hope someone is reverse engineering the RF signalling protocol right now. Ready to launch a 25 quid receiver module.

[rodeo_joe1]

"The per pixel DR of the D810 is13.67 EV at ISO 64 and 13.27 EV at ISO 100"

 

- It can be no higher precisely because of the limitation of 14 bit A/D conversion.

 

Moving to 16 bits would shut the yap of some that claim superior image quality from the marginally greater area of so-called MF digital. And besides, an A/D converter could easily be made switchable between 14 and 16 bits.

 

3.5K is getting quite expensive and I'd expect the highest possible image quality, not a speed versus IQ compromise. Speed merchants already have the D5.

[ilkka_nissila]

The prism is larger, extending into the front of the viewfinder housing. To my understanding this has lead to the increased magnification of the viewfinder image. I suspect there may be other differences as well. I have not tried the D850 camera but in the D3/4/5 and Df, the 24 PC rotates and shifts freely without risk of collision with the pop up flash housing. I would expect this to be the case with the D850 as well. I would expect weather sealing to be better as well. Finally there is no high voltage capacitor in a camera that has no flash, so it is safer if it needs to be opened.

[bob_bill]

The pop up flash was a pain for me on the d700 because I would often hit the button unintentionally in portrait orientation where I am a lot and it would pop open. In 8 years used it less than a dozen times when I was too lazy to carry a speed light. Now I don't leave home without one. The catch light from the built in is even worse than a straight on speed light. Hits me like an ice pick in the center of the pupil. Yes, I could relocate it in post and have, but it just wastes more time. I never used the nikon triggering system. Line of sight is too unreliable for me. I use tiny elinchrom radio triggers the size of a small box of wooden matches. Transmitter in the hot shoe and receivers velcroed to the speed lights. They are backups to my Einstein triggers. Have had a d500 about a month and funny, have yet to have the darn flash pop up...cause it's not there. Just saw Ilkka's post, as usual he is dead on. Edited August 25, 2017 by bob_bill

[ilkka_nissila]

The difference at ISO 64 would be something like 0.2 EV. It is generally thought that photographically useful tones start at the level where SNR = 20 and higher. At those tones there would be no perceptible effect from the 16-bit conversion.

 

I think the greater than usual interest in the D850 is mostly because it combines characteristics of several previously specialized cameras into one: excellent autofocusing, high fps, high resolution, full frame 4K video. If you remove the fast reads you probably forget full frame 4K, and fps rate would be reduced. Live view would be laggy. Even though the D850 is expensive it is less expensive than the D810, D500 and D5 combined. Thus it is seen as good value at least by those who can afford it and have use for the combined features.

 

If Nikon want to make money, they have to offer something people consider valuable. Only in a few applications is ISO 64 useful. Even landscape often has elements that move too fast for ISO 64 (trees in wind, waves in the sea, plants swaying back and forth). In the studio I typically shoot at iso 100-200 because I don't want my subjects to wince when the flashes go off. I do use ISO 64 sometimes but often it is too slow. A camera which aims to capture a large customer base has to offer a good general purpose feature set. The idea that a high image quality camera should not need to be fast is outdated. If you shoot sports you can take advantage of the extra flexibility by composing wide and retaining a range of cropping options depending on the layout and application. You can also extend the usable range of distances at which you can photograph the subject. This kind of use is unique to a high resolution high speed camera. Well of course you can crop from a 20MP image but the quality should be better from 45MP.

 

The downside is the large amount of data that results from such shooting. At least if used extensively.

[bebu_lamar]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'll miss having a built in flash.

 

I use mine all the time as a trigger both for CLS(SB-600s and 800s) and plain old optical slaves. I also occasionally use it for outdoor fill, especially when I don't want to haul around an external light.

I guess anyone who wants to use CLS with the D850 will now have to carry around an SB-800 or SU-800 to work as the controller.

Although they didn't but they could build in the RF trigger. Besides when you bring all the flashes for your CLS setup does an extra flash matter? I found the built in flash doesn't really have enough power for daylight fill because the flash has to be strong enough to match ambient light.

[georges_walker]

Hi Shun, everybody,

 

It's been some time since my last post ...

I think I'm ready and willing to update my equipment, D850 seems to be the next one for me.

I'm also very interested about the new Digitizing Adapter, but I wonder how compatible it could be with the Micro 105mm instead of the 60mm as suggested by Nikon.

 

One thing that I was expecting is more effort from Nikon about giving us, the users, more options to secure our own files, I mean, the chance to encrypt the files at the cards, not only to set up a password but a full encryption option. Somebody may say it makes slower the writing process... yes but for sometimes security goes in first place rather than speed. Let's see if later a firmware update gives us the chance to select that option from the menu.

[ShunCheung]

What I didn't expect is that Nikon manages to give us 45MP and 9 fps (although you need to D5's battery) at the same time; that is accumulating a lot of large image files in a hurry. I am not sure how big the buffer is, and how it dumps those files into the memory cards. XQD will probably do a decent job, but SD, even with UHS-II, can be a bottleneck.

 

Personally, I am quite happy with 10 fps on the 20MP D500. Having over twice as many pixels, on the FX frame, can be a bonus. But that is taxing on the memory cards. On my D500, the UHS-II SD card is still the weak link.

 

Not including any CF card slot is pretty much expected. If Nikon discontinues the D810 (and D810A), the D5 with the CF option will be the only current Nikon that still takes CF cards, and most people get the D5 with the XQD option.

[DB_Gallery]

"The per pixel DR of the D810 is13.67 EV at ISO 64 and 13.27 EV at ISO 100"

 

- It can be no higher precisely because of the limitation of 14 bit A/D conversion.

 

Moving to 16 bits would shut the yap of some that claim superior image quality from the marginally greater area of so-called MF digital. And besides, an A/D converter could easily be made switchable between 14 and 16 bits.

 

3.5K is getting quite expensive and I'd expect the highest possible image quality, not a speed versus IQ compromise. Speed merchants already have the D5.

 

I take DR on paper with a grain of salt due to my own direct experience with it in the real professional world. For example, my D810 on paper has more DR than my Leica M240 and my Hasselblad CFV50c digital back. But in actual use, the M240 files edge it out slightly in real usable DR and the Hasselblad back ends up being a lot more pliable in post, both especially when it comes to highlight headroom and a fair amount of color and tone leading up to those highlights.

 

If the D850 ends up exceeding all my other digital equipment in terms of color, tone and usable range, I will be happy. But it would in no way cause me to ditch either the Leica body and especially not the Hasselblad back since that entire V system is in league of it's own.

[ilkka_nissila]

I can't be sure the exact details are correct but I read the D850 can shoot 51 uncompressed 14 bit NEFs or 170 12 bit images (lossless compressed) in a burst. I'm not sure if this is at 9fps or 7fps. Buffer clearing takes 7s to XQD card according to Nikon interview by imaging resource.

 

This is quite good performance for such large files.

[Ed_Ingold]

The dynamic range of a sensor is only roughly tied to the bit depth of the conversion, especially for CMOS sensors, which have in-sensor processing. The bit depth is best regarded as the number of steeps resolved between the darkest and brightest portion of the resultant image. The dynamic range of the subject can be mapped to a much shorter dynamic range in the image output, In general, RAW files are subjected to some degree of processing, even if the output is in the RAW format. If an S-shaped curve were applied, the dynamic range can be extended several stops (3-4). Some, like Sony, call this HDR processing, describing it as an adjustment to the gain, depending on the exposure level. Film does this naturally, having a roughly logarithmic transfer curve with a decreasing slope at the toe and shoulder, as does the human eye.

 

If the effective response were linear, a 14 bit sensor would probably get no more dynamic range than 9-10 stops. The lowest exposure levels would be buried in noise.

 

To reiterate, it is important to distinguish the dynamic range of capture from that of the output (or results on film).

 

What is, 'High Dynamic Range'? An Industry Principal, explains: Part 1 : United Kingdom : Sony Professional

Edited August 26, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

[Andy Murphy]

I like the ability to in-camera process raw images as jpg's, too. Also, if a question is permitted, I am purchasing a 128 GB Sony XQD card for mine and for an SD II card should I go for 64 GB? Thanks

[allan_jamieson2]

Seems like this will be a great camera for those able to buy at US price levels but obviously Nikon don't want to sell many in the UK (or EU)

as the launch price at £3499 is £1100 higher than the launch price of the D800!

 

Saying that my D800 is still working very well and much as I'd like to be able to upgrade to the D850, that is just not going to happen any time soon!

[jens_krause]

Fortunately, I do own the MH-26a battery charger and two EN-EL18a batteries already to use with the battery pack.

 

Still, the D850 requires its own MB-D18 battery pack (approx. 440 Euros). I would probably also need a new L-bracket (approx. 190 Euros). To take advantage of the high speed, I would also need XQD-infrastructure: A 64 GB XQD-card with a USB 3.0 reader is currently available at a big internet retailer for 110 Euros. That is 730 Euros in addition to the 3800 Euros of the D850. That would be about 4500 Euros to get to a shooting style similar to what I currently use with the D800E.

[jens_krause]

I usually print at 300 dpi Exquisite detail is extremely important to me. For the D800E to get to exactly 300 dpi, I would need to print at 62,3 cm x 41,6 cm. Thus, my usual print size is 60 x 40 cm, allowing for a little room to crop. For the D850, to get to exactly 300 dpi, I would need to print at 69,9 cm x 46,6 cm. As Shun suggested, the resolution advantage is not that significant in actual use.

 

Higher frame rate, better autofocus, backlit buttons, a one-stop advantage, less battery consumption, a bigger viewfinder, and a higher resolution monitor are the other main selling points to me, also in nice-to-have territory. I cannot say I am limited in any way by the D800E. AF works generally very well with the D800E after the adjustment for the left focus issues. This serves as a reminder for me to wait with a possible purchase until possible kinks are corrected.

[ilkka_nissila]

Even if the RAW file itself contains a nonlinear representation of the input, the conversion from linear to nonlinear is extremely unlikely to take place on the analog side of the circuitry. We can safely assume such a mapping occurs after the analog-to-digital conversion. A 14-bit analog-to-digital conversion does have the potential of limiting pixel-level dynamic range very slightly (of the order of 0.2 EV) at ISO 64.

[rodeo_joe1]

" ...especially for CMOS sensors, which have in-sensor processing."

 

- I've long been an advocate of log amplification at the analogue sensor signal level prior to digitisation. However, I see no evidence that such non-linear amplification takes place. Can you point to any published specification that shows otherwise Ed?

 

That Sony diatribe on "HDR" really says nothing about capture technology, only proposed display improvements.

 

However, the specification for REC 2020 makes specific reference to greater bit-depth being necessary in order to encompass its wider colour gamut.

 

Quote: "

Since a larger color space increases the difference between colors an increase of 1-bit per sample is needed for Rec. 2020 to equal or exceed the color precision of Rec. 709."

 

While this may not be totally applicable to still photography, it does indicate another advantage of increasing A/D bit depth.

 

An increase from 14 to 16 bits would only increase file sizes by a maximum of 14.3% BTW, not fourfold!

 

OTOH, camera and lens flare will compress real world subject brightness range considerably; making it highly improbable that any image hitting the sensor exceeds a 12 or 13 stop range.

 

FWIW: DXOmark sensor ratings. Nikon D810 2nd place, Leica M 240 42nd place.

Edited August 26, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

[BeBu Lamar]

" ...especially for CMOS sensors, which have in-sensor processing."

 

- I've long been an advocate of log amplification at the analogue sensor signal level prior to digitisation. However, I see no evidence that such non-linear amplification takes place. Can you point to any published specification that shows otherwise Ed?

 

That Sony diatribe on "HDR" really says nothing about capture technology, only proposed display improvements.

 

However, the specification for REC 2020 makes specific reference to greater bit-depth being necessary in order to encompass its wider colour gamut.

 

Quote: "

Since a larger color space increases the difference between colors an increase of 1-bit per sample is needed for Rec. 2020 to equal or exceed the color precision of Rec. 709."

 

While this may not be totally applicable to still photography, it does indicate another advantage of increasing A/D bit depth.

 

An increase from 14 to 16 bits would only increase file sizes by a maximum of 14.3% BTW, not fourfold!

 

OTOH, camera and lens flare will compress real world subject brightness range considerably; making it highly improbable that any image hitting the sensor exceeds a 12 or 13 stop range.

 

FWIW: DXOmark sensor ratings. Nikon D810 2nd place, Leica M 240 42nd place.

 

Analog Log amp isn't as accurate as the linear one. I much rather do that in digital.

[rodeo_joe1]

"Analog Log amp isn't as accurate as the linear one. I much rather do that in digital."

 

- That was certainly true back in the 1970s and early '80s, with thermal stability being the major issue. However it's to be hoped that on-chip component matching and thermal coupling has improved considerably since then.:rolleyes:

[BeBu Lamar]

"Analog Log amp isn't as accurate as the linear one. I much rather do that in digital."

 

- That was certainly true back in the 1970s and early '80s, with thermal stability being the major issue. However it's to be hoped that on-chip component matching and thermal coupling has improved considerably since then.:rolleyes:

I am working on measurement system and it's very easy and cheap to buy an instrumentation linear amplifier (in IC form) that is very accurate and cheap. Finding a Logarithmic amp is very difficult and they are not very accurate. I get better result using an AD converter then use a microprocessor to calculate the log. For my application it's slow speed not fast like the speed needed in a digital camera though.

[joseph_smith3]

If I understand the specs correctly the D 850 allows me to shoot the following all at 7 frames per second:

 

FF, about 46mp w/ 51 frame buffer

APS-H (1.2 factor) about 31mp w/ 75 frame buffer

APS-C (1.6 factor) about 20mp w/ 117 frame buffer

 

If I added the MB-D18 vertical grip pack (with the EN-EL18B battery inserted) then fps becomes 9fps.

This provides a lot of options in one camera.

 

If I did not already own a D 500, I would not buy one but consider the D 850 as an alternative. I do not know what I would do if I owned a D5.

 

I just bought 128 GB XQD cards for my D 500. If I owned a D 850, the 128 GB card is the one I would be getting. I just wish the D 850 and the D 500 had two XQD slots.

 

I might sell my D810 and D 500 and its MB-D 17 grip and get a D 850 with a MB-D18 grip and the D 5 battery.

 

I still have my D 800e that I use because I can process the RAW files in Nikon Capture NX-2 as opposed to Nikon Capture NX-D. (I just do not want to learn LR or PS or Capture One.)

[Asad Ali]

Nikon d810 is a remarkable camera the best in its class, my hope for d850 is high, specs show that it would be magnificent.