Nikon : D850 : teaser : 8K timelapse?

[ricktas]

Nikon have posted a teaser about the upcoming D850


https://youtu.be/epaRJ3eqKzk

[Cage]

Other than confirming the model name they haven't given much away.

[swifty]

Other than confirming the model name they haven't given much away.

I think that might be the point.
Trickle release of info. Might see a series of teasers leading up to the announcement.
But 8k time lapse would indicate at least 8000 pixels (can't remember the exact number for the 8k standard but thereabouts) on the long side.
So for 3:2 ratio, you'd get at least 8000x5300 or ~42mp. So a resolution north of 42mp can be expected.

[glennb]

I'm looking at upgrading my D610 but waiting on 3 cameras to come out and one of them is a Sony, the replacement of the A7II which is coming out in September I think. The other is the D850 and a Nikon full frame mirrorless camera which I'm hoping has similar specs to Sony A7II replacement. Ive invested a lot into Nikon, But I am keen to lighten the weight of my photography gear and really hoping Nikon can provide a full frame mirrorless option with similar specs as the D850. But if neither mirrorless camera has the specs I want I just hope the D850 isn't the weight and size of a Brick.

[swifty]

First 2 product shots just leaked on Nikon Rumors with site owner Peter saying updated specs/info to follow.

[Cage]

Peta Pixel have some more pics and specs .... https://petapixel.com/2017/07/26/nikon-d850-photos-leaked-theres-tilt-screen-backlit-buttons/


The Nikon D850 will apparently have a tilt-screen, illuminated buttons, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, a joystick, a relocated ISO button, no AEL button, and a redesigned physical interface.

Nikon's latest Cash Back is only offering $!50 on the D810 but $200 on the D750 and D610. :confused013

[swifty]

Actually the same pics from Nikonrumors but they did a break down of some info that can be inferred from the photos.

The curiosity is a new 'thing' on the camera's prism (left side looking from the front). People are speculating it's a EVF/OVF switch for a hybrid finder but I doubt it personally.
But I think it might be a new port for shoe mount accessories including poss an external EVF. And if so, poss expect better LV AF and other features.

[arthurking83]

...
But 8k time lapse would indicate at least 8000 pixels (can't remember the exact number for the 8k standard but thereabouts) on the long side.
....

8K is exactly double the 4K resolution values in each dimension .. which quadruples the overall pixel count.

4K = 3840 x 2160(which again doubles the HD values in each direction .. 1920x1080, which is familiar now to many of us desktop users
8K = 7680 x 4320 = 33Mp

considering the D800/810 both use 7360x4912 3:2 aspect ratio, then the 8K timelapse format is most likely to be a crop mode to maintain 8K format compatibility

If they maintain the pixel density at 7680 on horizontal plane and keep to the 3:2 aspect ratio for still capture, then the horizontal pixel values must be at 5125 .. ie. 7680x5125 maintains the 3:2 aspect ratio for full frame capture.
That equates to only 39Mp.

if they use the cinema 8K format(most likely) .. then it'll be 8196 pixels wide(ie. 2 x 4096).
to maintain the 3:2 aspect ratio in this scenario, then they'll need 5469 pixels on the horizontal plane .. and 8196x5470 = 44Mp

I guess it depends on how they implement the 8K timelapse feature whether it's a true implementation which saves PP work(in terms of resizing to suit the true format), or if the camera is set to crop to that frame aspect ratio or whatever.

either way tho, if they stick to a pixel value of only 44Mp, it's still hands Canon a marketing advantage with their 50Mp 5Ds/r model lineup .. and also the medium format models.

I'm thinking that the loss of the built in flash won't be a problem .. BUT!! .. only if they've updated the prism to make the viewfinder a lot better than the D800/810 (ie. like in the D500).
A bigger brighter prism would offer me a reason to update my D800.

Curious as to what that switch on the side of the prism housing is too.
I'm not particularly fussed if it's a hybrid EVF/OVF switch(unlikely, but not impossible)
What would be nice to see/have is the ability to quickly and easily change focus screen/finder in some way .. a release tab for something like that .. again unlikely that they'd do that in a D8xx series and not the D5 type camera first.

Waiting to see what features and spec upgrades this thing will bring.

[Cage]

@ Uncle Arthur


A bigger brighter prism would offer me a reason to update my D800.

Is your D800E backward morphing ? :lol2:

I also had a play with the numbers and came up with a 39.3Mp sensor. I'm guessing that it will have something like a 42Mp sensor. I'm also trying to get my head around the idea that more megapixies does not necessarily mean more detail. Less, but bigger pixels, will capture more photons, and maybe almost as much detail as a sensor with a higher pixel count. I haven't been able to find any definitive testing of this theory.

Perhaps in a controlled environment like a studio, the higher pixel count should give more detail.

I guess it comes down to your proposed usage. If I was shooting in that light controlled environment I'd go for the big pixel count, but for everyday usage I'm leaning toward the bigger pixel size.

[arthurking83]

.... I'm also trying to get my head around the idea that more megapixies does not necessarily mean more detail. Less, but bigger pixels, will capture more photons, and maybe almost as much detail as a sensor with a higher pixel count. I haven't been able to find any definitive testing of this theory.

....

If anything can be proven is that as the onward march of technology continues, it usually 'improves the breed'. Maybe not in every single occurrence of that generalisation but Sony has recently proved it to be an easy goal to achieve in terms of their sensors.
That 39-42 Mp sensor proposition is darned close to the current 42Mp sensor used in the A7IIr .. so it's kind'a making sense all round.
A very good sensor, and better than the now very old 36Mp sensor in the D8xxx's.

[swifty]

Oops. Bad number rounding on my part. But the only thing we can really deduce is the pixel count will be greater than ~39mp. NR seem pretty confident in the 45-46mp number.

[Cage]

I'm actually more interested in the next iteration of the D750. :nod:

[Dan05]

Is this going to make the D800 cheaper??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cage]

More rumoured specs leaked on the D850, courtesy of PetaPixel

https://petapixel.com/2017/08/11/nikon-d850-slides-leak-confirmed-specs-features/

45.75MP FX full frame CMOS sensor
180,000 RGB sensor that’s same as the D5, with better face detection and enhanced scene recognition
Native ISO range of 64-25600 (expandable to 32-108400)
153-point AF system with 30% more frame coverage than the D5
Center AF point -4EV, and all others -3EV
8K timelapse shooting
4K UHD video recording in FX with no crop
51-photo buffer when shooting in 14-bit RAW
3.2″, 2.36-million-dot tilting LCD touchscreen with improved gesture control
7fps continuous shooting standard, 6fps with autofocus, 9fps when using a battery grip
30ps at 8MP using the electronic shutter
RAW can be small, medium, and large resolutions
0.75x magnification viewfinder, the first for a full-frame DSLR
Focus stacking. Camera can shoot up to 300 photos with 10 levels of bracketed focus from nearest to infinity for software to stack afterward.
Natural Light AWB achieves better white balancing in natural light
Completely silent electronic shutter while shooting in live view.
There’s no low-pass filter
Dual SD + XQD card slots

Whatever form it's released in I, wonder if Nikon will get it right, straight out of the box :confused013

[arthurking83]

Further to that info, and a couple of images of a D850 next to a Df, there is a rumour that it may be announced tonight or tomorrow too.

[MissionMan]

Specs leaked in a Nikon slide deck. Nikon fans will be impressed

https://petapixel.com/2017/08/11/nikon-d850-slides-leak-confirmed-specs-features/

[Cage]

Interestingly in the translated Chinese video was a mention of enhanced rendering of reds in sunset/sunrise shots.

I mentioned in a recent sunrise post how I felt that the IR cut filter murders the reds, and of course I'm wondering how it will benefit the capture of H-Alpha in astro shooting.

PS: Maybe Nikon is using the filter from the D810A, but whether or not, it will probably sound the death knell for the D810A, which in all honesty most people weren't even aware of it's overpriced existence.

[arthurking83]

Interestingly in the translated Chinese video was a mention of enhanced rendering of reds in sunset/sunrise shots.

.....

All that will mean is that in one of the landscapey/vividy Picture Control modes, the reds will be more red than before.
Should be noted that in all likely hood, us gear geeks buy once every now and then and don't care for such trivial matters.
But the majority of affluent tourist types buy because it does:
1/ 40+ billion Mp
2/ Nikon (brand recognition) name
3/ high price tag .. must be seen to have expensive gear ;)
4/ pandering to fickle sensitivities, and folks looking for a quick rush of endorphins with their over saturated and highly contrasted selfie shots!

:p

I'd say it's highly unlikely to very improbable that they'd tinker too much with the filtration on a std consumer camera.

D810a was a specialised piece of kit for a specialised field.
That camera was specifically made to capture the H-Alpha IR spectrum, and it's ISO circuitry was tweaked to also assist in rendering that very faint imaging prospect from places far far away.
And I'm sure I remember a post(seen third hand) about a chap that had purchased a D810a and complained about it's very red rendering of images! :rolleyes:

For me, I'm interested in how the larger vf magnification pans out in the real world in terms of usage and focusability and the e-shutter system(plus focus stacking mode)

[swifty]

A little over a day away from announcement it seems.
Press release statement and photos as well a few samples have all been leaked on Nikon rumours.
There's probably nothing left to reveal tomorrow. Except the price. Brace yourselves.

[MissionMan]

Pricing has been confirmed in the rumours as US$3600 so a direct conversion would be $5000 (convert USD to AUD and add 10% for GST). Realistically, this number would be higher because we get screwed in little old Australia so my guess is that it will be somewhere between $5000-$6000.

[swifty]

I must have missed the US pricing info. It's not in the press leaks unless I overlooked.
Anyways, local pricing is the issue and the USD is strong. Hence bracing myself.
But anyways I'll probably buy a lens first. Save for the body next year.

[MissionMan]

I must have missed the US pricing info. It's not in the press leaks unless I overlooked.
Anyways, local pricing is the issue and the USD is strong. Hence bracing myself.
But anyways I'll probably buy a lens first. Save for the body next year.

It was yen based in the price leaks from what I saw.

[swifty]

Ahhh..ic.
That figure still might change since JP and US pricing doesn't always translate well but usually Jp official pricing tends to be a bit higher. I think the companies do some hedging of currency.
A reputable member on Nikongear even suggested a price north of $4kUSD but some of the Chinese pricing speculations seem in line with the US $3600 mark.
Anyways, still bracing myself. Currently living in Singapore and the local pricing here is a bit erratic. Low comparatively for some items and high on others. Eg. low on the 300mm f4 PF but high on the 70-200mm f2.8 FL.

[swifty]

Wow... supposedly $3299 USD (w/out tax) but admin had to take that info down.
https://nikonrumors.com/2017/08/23/nikon-d850-price-in-us-and-australia-shipping-could-start-earlier.aspx/
Translates to ~$4175 AUD + GST but Aussie pricing supposedly $5399 inc GST.

[Cage]

Most of the post release blurbs are saying $US3,299.00 retail.

PS: Just got an email from Ted's Cameras. RRP $5,199.00, after $200.00 trade-in so I'm guessing around the $4K mark when things settle down.

PPS: Nikon AU are quoting a pre-order price of $5,799.00 RRP.

PPPS: Just had a look in my crystal ball and there could be a pre-loved, low shutter count D810 in there. :nod:

[swifty]

$5799 RRP. Oh myyyyyyyy!!!!!!

[MissionMan]

Does it come with a shovel for you to dig your own grave when your partner discovers you spent $5800 on a new body?

- - - Updated - - -

And add $1500 for the D5 battery, charger and a battery grip if you want to shoot 9fps so if you are planning on shooting 9fps, it'll cost $7300.

Yeah, I may just give this a skip...

[swifty]

It's very odd. RRP being $5799 but official dealer pre-orders are already significantly discounted.
Meaning, are Nikon giving dealers a larger than usual margin allowing them to discount?
By setting the RRP very high, does that mean Nikon expects the AUD to depreciate further against the yen but play with actual pricing behind the scenes by altering pricing to dealers.

I have a theory that US pricing is actually artificially aggressive. Why? for the reason to stop Sony claiming the no.2 position for FF ILC in the US.

[Cage]

Does it come with a shovel for you to dig your own grave when your partner discovers you spent $5800 on a new body?

- - - Updated - - -

And add $1500 for the D5 battery, charger and a battery grip if you want to shoot 9fps so if you are planning on shooting 9fps, it'll cost $7300.

Yeah, I may just give this a skip...

Or this.... The D850 + MB-D18 grip, plus a 128GB SanDisk Extreme Pro SD Card, all for $5,988.00 https://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/nikon-d850-dslr-mb-d18-battery-grip

The pricing, ATM, is all over the place.

PS: And I don't think it would be a smart move to price it above the Canon EOS 5DS with it's 50.6MP

[MissionMan]

Or this.... The D850 + MB-D18 grip, plus a 128GB SanDisk Extreme Pro SD Card, all for $5,988.00 https://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/nikon-d850-dslr-mb-d18-battery-grip

The pricing, ATM, is all over the place.

Don't forget to add a D5 battery ($200) and a charger ($699) which is required for using 9fps if thats what you want. So all in all, $6900

[Cage]

Don't forget to add a D5 battery ($200) and a charger ($699) which is required for using 9fps if thats what you want. So all in all, $6900

Personally I can live without 9fps. :nod:

When all the excitement dies down and the 'must have the latest and greatest brigade' have handed over their money, I'm tipping a street price just North of $AU4K for the body only.

[MissionMan]

Personally I can live without 9fps. :nod:

I can live without spending $5000 on a new body.

I mean that literally...if I had to buy this, my wife would kill me and I wouldn't be alive, so the only way I can live is without spending $5K on a new camera :D

[Cage]

As I said ^ I'm watching for a steal on a D810. ;)

And I still have the battery grip and 'L' bracket from my D800 ready to whack on it.

[arthurking83]

....
By setting the RRP very high, does that mean Nikon expects the AUD to depreciate further against the yen but play with actual pricing behind the scenes by altering pricing to dealers.

....

Nah! I think it's just typical Nikon(Au) price gouging! :D

Nikon almost certainly have been leaking info from the day of the announcement, gathering data on how many would be interested(ie. demand).
Having figured out the level of demand, they then work out an initial price.
You could be right about Nikon US pricing being 'aggressive' although I doubt it needs to be.
All those that have 'left the room'(or so to speak) have already left, and I doubt they'd be looking to come back.
if you believe everything you read on the internets, it seems all Nikon customers of old, have already switched to mirrorless of some type, so I doubt that they'd be looking to get back into overweight DSLRs now anyhow.
it'll just be a few remaining dinosaurs(I include myself in that description too tho!) that may look for an upgrade after an iteration or two .. and so with that analysis I'd dare say they could have bumped the price a little more from that point.

Old D810 came in a US$3299 as well, so they could easily have upped it even a couple of hundred.

At current(as of 25/8/17) US$3299 ~ AU$4200(came in at $4170) .. add in a small amount of breathing room and lets call it $4500.

Irrespective of how Nikon Au pricing goes, I won't be getting mine from any authorised sellers in Au(ever again!) .. due to their pathetic customer service levels.
I'll most likely get mine in from a HK based seller somewhere. I'll give it a (long)while tho .. wait for all the expected issues to be resolved before I outlay any money on one.
Good 'ol Nikon simply can't be trusted to make something that's going to work from day one.

So the 'accepted' practise nowadays is to wait till all the focus/flare/battery/shutter/etc issues have been:

1/. revealed(by millions of Nikon devotees),
2/. denied(by Nikon till they're blue in the face),
3/. accepted(by some lowly ranked Nikon employee) and
4/. sorted out(over a 3 year time frame)! ;)

[Cage]

Irrespective of how Nikon Au pricing goes, I won't be getting mine from any authorised sellers in Au(ever again!) .. due to their pathetic customer service levels.
I'll most likely get mine in from a HK based seller somewhere. I'll give it a (long)while tho .. wait for all the expected issues to be resolved before I outlay any money on one. Good 'ol Nikon simply can't be trusted to make something that's going to work from day one.

I certainly won't be going down that road Arthur. I had the D600 shutter replacement done and I dealt directly with Nikon in Sydney. They picked it up, did the replacement in less that a week, and couriered it back to me.

Try getting that level of service from a dealer, whose first language is not English, and who resides overseas.

[swifty]

AK: do you recall such a big discrepancy between rrp and store preorder pricing for previous highly anticipated products?
It just seems odd and creates confusion. One local store now even has it below $5k?
What about NPS members, do they have to order from Nikon at rrp to get priority first dibs?

[Steve Axford]

Sounds like a great camera. It will be interesting to see how it turns out, but I see no reason to expect it to be a dud. Nikon apparently stuffed up with some previous releases, but they are not the first manufacturer to do that, nor will they be the last. Hopefully, Sony will release an A7R3 soon. That should be interesting to see.

[Cage]

Sounds like a great camera. It will be interesting to see how it turns out, but I see no reason to expect it to be a dud. Nikon apparently stuffed up with some previous releases, but they are not the first manufacturer to do that, nor will they be the last. Hopefully, Sony will release an A7R3 soon. That should be interesting to see.

The point in it's favour is that it is not a completely new camera but rather the latest incarnation of the D8xx series, and the D810 has been a pretty solid performer.

[Steve Axford]

Yes, it is just a really sensible evolution. Nothing radical, but it looks good.

[arthurking83]

The point in it's favour is that it is not a completely new camera but rather the latest incarnation of the D8xx series, and the D810 has been a pretty solid performer.

Knowing Nikon .. they'll work out a way to stuff something that should be simple to do.

D500 battery issues should never have transpired if they weren't so dedicated to rooting out thirdparty batteries from customers conciousness.
So instead of making the D500 problematic with thirdparty batteries, they made the D500 problematic with all batteries!
This reeks of complex firmware coding.

It's that kind of "screw the customer and give them no options" mentality that brings them undone, and that will cause some issue somewhere down the track.

With new shutter & new sensor, there's bound to be an issue somewhere.

D800, was really an evolution of the D700, but with a much higher pixel resolution. Technically speaking tho, not a revolution but another evolution ....
D800's focusing system was ripped straight out of the D4(which worked OK-ish) but for some unknown reason, Nikon worked out a way to stuff the manufacturing process of that same focusing system on the D800.
The real issue was their attitude towards the problem, and their inability to deal with it respectfully!

[Cage]

Knowing Nikon .. they'll work out a way to stuff something that should be simple to do.....

......With new shutter & new sensor, there's bound to be an issue somewhere.


“While Nikon contracts with a silicon foundry to actually manufacture the chips, Nikon confirmed that the D850’s sensor is entirely their own design,”

Oh dear, Arthur. :Doh:

The D850 sounds like the bees knees, but I wouldn't even contemplate buying one for at least twelve months, even if I did have the readies.

[arthurking83]

.... but I wouldn't even contemplate buying one for at least twelve months ....

This is inline with my thinking too... 6-12months.
Wait for issues to be resolved, and price drop to a sane level.

[swifty]

Got to play with a pre-production unit yesterday, albeit only for a short time. Unfortunately the peaking function wasn't working properly on the demo unit but everything else felt very good, especially the new finder.
And after using the AF joystick, I don't think I can buy a new camera without one.
But there was also a D5 on show. To my surprise, despite the larger overall size, the grip of the D5 was even better than the D850 for my hands.
Actually that was probably the only disappointment and it only applies to me but the grip shape didn't fit my hand as nicely as my D700 nor the D5, as mentioned. But it was only a 5min play and it could just be me being too used to my D700.

[MissionMan]

Got to play with a pre-production unit yesterday, albeit only for a short time. Unfortunately the peaking function wasn't working properly on the demo unit but everything else felt very good, especially the new finder.
And after using the AF joystick, I don't think I can buy a new camera without one.
But there was also a D5 on show. To my surprise, despite the larger overall size, the grip of the D5 was even better than the D850 for my hands.
Actually that was probably the only disappointment and it only applies to me but the grip shape didn't fit my hand as nicely as my D700 nor the D5, as mentioned. But it was only a 5min play and it could just be me being too used to my D700.

I agree. I got one on my X-T2 and as a result, I'll be trading in my X100T for an X100F just to get the joystick. Makes a huge difference.

[swifty]

I agree. I got one on my X-T2 and as a result, I'll be trading in my X100T for an X100F just to get the joystick. Makes a huge difference.

Yea, I didn't think that small change in ergonomics would help that much but I guess it suited me because I'm constantly shifting AF points on my direction control pad and never let the camera choose the starting point.
Still need more play with the grip. That might be the decider for me.

[MissionMan]

Yea, I didn't think that small change in ergonomics would help that much but I guess it suited me because I'm constantly shifting AF points on my direction control pad and never let the camera choose the starting point.
Still need more play with the grip. That might be the decider for me.

Fuji has a nice implementation of the joystick. If you push it in (like a button), it then brings up the AF zone/point size so you can use the scroll wheel to make it bigger or smaller.

[swifty]

Fuji has a nice implementation of the joystick. If you push it in (like a button), it then brings up the AF zone/point size so you can use the scroll wheel to make it bigger or smaller.

The joystick was also a button but I don't know what options are available to assign it. My play with the D850 was quite short unfortunately.
Btw for clarity sake, I only played with the D850 but got to actually shoot motorcross at the event with a D5 and I'm extrapolating my AF joystick shooting experience from the D5. Without actually shooting a real life scenario, I might have overlooked how well suited it is for my style of shooting.

[MissionMan]

The joystick was also a button but I don't know what options are available to assign it. My play with the D850 was quite short unfortunately.
Btw for clarity sake, I only played with the D850 but got to actually shoot motorcross at the event with a D5 and I'm extrapolating my AF joystick shooting experience from the D5. Without actually shooting a real life scenario, I might have overlooked how well suited it is for my style of shooting.

As mentioned, having shot with a joystick, I find it hard to shoot with a non-joystick camera. It makes a huge difference. It will be interesting to see what they incorporate with the Joystick.

On a humorous note, someone suggested that the reason the launch price is high is that they have to incorporate the cost of parts and shipping for product recalls :D

[Cage]

If you are a My Nikon Life member you can have a play with it in Sydney on Sept 7.

I reckon we'll see some shots on here shortly after, possibly in the 'Bird' forum. :nod:

[I @ M]

If you are a My Nikon Life member you can have a play with it in Sydney on Sept 7.

I got that email around midday today like many others.
Purely out of idle curiosity I clicked the "reserve a place" button around 1:00 pm to see that all sessions were "sold out".

Maybe a viagogo (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-30/viagogo-consumer-advocates-call-on-google-to-crack-down-reseller/8853308) bot snapped them up and they are now on sale ----------- :D

[arthurking83]

.....
Purely out of idle curiosity I clicked the "reserve a place" button around 1:00 pm to see that all sessions were "sold out".

......

Nikon recently released an apology due to the quick (pre)sellout of the D850 worldwide .. which obviously means someone(or viagogo! :p) have all placed their names in the hat to prepurchase D850.

I'm assuming that blind consumerism is as strong as ever, and contrary to the majority of opinions in the photographic world, Nikon aren't being abandoned by all and sundry in the photographic community who have all moved into mirrorless pastures! ;)

And!!... I like buying stuff as much as the next guy(or girl) .. but I can never understand the notion of buying a product sight unseen ... no idea how, or if, it works.

[Cage]

Nikon recently released an apology due to the quick (pre)sellout of the D850 worldwide .. which obviously means someone(or viagogo! :p) have all placed their names in the hat to prepurchase D850.

I'm assuming that blind consumerism is as strong as ever, and contrary to the majority of opinions in the photographic world, Nikon aren't being abandoned by all and sundry in the photographic community who have all moved into mirrorless pastures! ;)

And!!... I like buying stuff as much as the next guy(or girl) .. but I can never understand the notion of buying a product sight unseen ... no idea how, or if, it works.

Arthur, their track record hasn't been real flash of late with new FF releases.

D800 Auto-focus problems..... (I had one with no problems)
D600 Oil spots from shutter..... (I had one with oil splatter)
D810 Thermal issues with long exposures..... (Firmware update and return to Nikon for a fix)
D750 Shutter problems..... (Return to Nikon for fix)

That's pretty much all new Full Frame releases. :eek:

OTOH, my D7200 is performing beautifully. :nod:

[MissionMan]

Nikon recently released an apology due to the quick (pre)sellout of the D850 worldwide .. which obviously means someone(or viagogo! :p) have all placed their names in the hat to prepurchase D850.

I'm assuming that blind consumerism is as strong as ever, and contrary to the majority of opinions in the photographic world, Nikon aren't being abandoned by all and sundry in the photographic community who have all moved into mirrorless pastures! ;)

And!!... I like buying stuff as much as the next guy(or girl) .. but I can never understand the notion of buying a product sight unseen ... no idea how, or if, it works.

I would disagree. I don’t think the $5000 camera’s is where Nikon is losing market share. It’s the entry level full frame (D600/D700 series) and APSC DSLR market.

[Steve Axford]

Not following Nikon very closely, I am unaware of how quickly Nikon are likely to get on top of their orders for the 850. I know that it is always a choice for vendors - to release early and wait for supply and early release problems to catch up, or wait till all problems are resolved and supply is available.
The first strategy runs the risk of upsetting customers who are left waiting in line for an unreasonably long time, or who run into major problems with a buggy product. On the other hand you get the potential marketing coup by having a (hopefully) leading product out there as quickly as possible.
The second strategy is more conservative and misses the potential marketing advantages in return for smooth sailing with customers. Often, the market leader will go for this option because a) they can, and b) they have the biggest customer base and therefore the most to lose if they upset current customers.
The camera market is interesting in that the current market leader (in sales) seems to be under significant pressure in technology and it is hard to see how they can catch up, at least in the short term. Perhaps they (Canon) have decided to focus on lenses and hope that customers will forgive them their back-level cameras. Sony are potentially the technology leader, but we'll have to wait and see if they can actually deliver on that potential with their next camera.
All told, I think the success of the 850 will depend on how well Nikon the provide for the demand relatively fault free. If they can do that, then they are likely to have a winner.

[jim]

I think recent history would suggest that they are likely to have a winner even if they totally stuff all that up, Steve. We're a forgiving lot we Nikon users. (Plus the cameras tend to be pretty good once all the problems are finally sorted out)

[Cage]

Nikon recently released an apology due to the quick (pre)sellout of the D850 worldwide .. which obviously means someone(or viagogo! :p) have all placed their names in the hat to prepurchase D850.

It will be interesting to see whether anybody at all actually gets one of the pre-release orders.

Cynical I know, but a great way to create interest and artificial demand.

[Steve Axford]

I think recent history would suggest that they are likely to have a winner even if they totally stuff all that up, Steve. We're a forgiving lot we Nikon users. (Plus the cameras tend to be pretty good once all the problems are finally sorted out)

:) I suspect that you are right, but there is some turnover, even if it's only old users dying and new users coming onto the market. Some users really do switch brands, but that is rare as it is a big move. There may also be a hidden effect where loyal users become disillusioned and therefore buy less voraciously than they would have otherwise. We've all seen how the cashed up photographers feel they have to have the "best" camera out there, even if they only ever post on instagram. Profit is profit and no vendor cares much if the profit is made from a true expert or a no-hoper (except where true expert sales promote sales to no-hopers)
I think most Nikon users will be happy in the knowledge that Nikon can probably claim the best still camera crown for a little while, even if they have no intention of buying one.

[arthurking83]

I would disagree. I don’t think the $5000 camera’s is where Nikon is losing market share. It’s the entry level full frame (D600/D700 series) and APSC DSLR market.

Yes, but! .. if you believe all the chatter from the internet experts, apparently Nikon need a full frame mirrorless due to losing market share in that area!
This was the major gist of comments made after the release(s) of the A7ii and A9 ... they were supposed to be the downfall of Nikon's camera business. When the likes of Sony's A6300/6500 series, or Fuji's or Olympuses cameras come to market, there's not so much Nikoncentric negativity.
These Nikon doomsayers all come out of the woodwork when upper end cameras are revealed, and when Nikon push out the same old same old DSLR tech over and over(ie. D5, D500, D810, Df .. etc).

If you look at the CIPA data(randomly chose the last data figures for the last month reported) ... lower end or cheaper DSLRs sold over the previous month(Jun) and period(Jan-Jun) whereas much higher end or more expensive mirrorless cameras were being bought.
The data for DSLRs is most likely due to discounting or rebates (or whatever) rather than purely lower end DSLRs being sold.

The way I'm reading it using random models types as examples: if Nikon use to sell about 500K D3300s and now only sell 350K D3400s, if there was a huge amount of leakage to mirrorless (of those lost 150K sales), then the currency value of mirrorless wouldn't have increased by as much as it did in that period.
So the summary on the mirrorless front would be something like Sony's A7s, Fujis XT and XPro type bodies ... and even Olympuses higher end EM1s may be increasing in volume by a little bit each which is dragging the value of mirrorless product sales higher.

Obviously Nikon's D610 and D750 would be down in terms of volumes by now, considering they are dinosaurs in camera tech terms .. respectively about 3 or 4 years old now. A refresh of those two models would kickstart that segments unit sales.
I don't think those types of products are the issue, they are considered high value products by Nikon, looking to get D5600 customers to consider the D610 as an alternative.

Another aspect to note about the currency value of cameras quoted in CIPA data is that it's in Yen. And the Yen fluctuates in value. So if there are a lot of older models(eg. D610/D750) still being made, and being discounted it will distort the figures a little too.

I don't doubt that the D850 will be a sales success for Nikon. I think there will be higher volumes of D850 sales, then there were of the D810. D810 was an update, for me the only reason to update would have been for the EFC sensor tech, but then reading about it's limitations it was never going to be an actual proposition for me(and I guess a few more like minded me's out there!) .. too many $s for not enough features(or updates).
D850 tho changes that .. for me the potentially much better viewfinder(my #1 reason for an upgrade), EFC(if it works better than many have commented) .. focus peaking in Lv mode(could be handy for macro), more pixels(hoping for better high ISO and dynamic range) .. etc.

I need real reasons to upgrade .. I'm not a fan of updating just because there's a new model.
And on every discussion board I've viewed that comments on the D850, there are 3 posts from folks explaining they're all going to wait till the problems are sorted out, for every post from the habitual updaters! ;)

Apart from my D800E imploding at the regularly used 10 pin accessory port, I also had the annoying Nikon battery issue with my D800E too, early on. I eventually got back to the store when I had something else to purchase, and got it changed(obviously for free).
True to Nikon form, the replacement battery did exactly the same thing(reporting no life left in it and not really having as much reserve as it really should .. but the age of the battery reporting as 'dead' is the real annoyance).
I can't be stuffed with annoying silliness like that, and I have no doubt that's it's due to Nikons insistence that we all bow to their battery making excellence!! (<-note the sarcasm there!!) and they try to corner that market using inept camera firmware coding to restrict the use of non Nikon batteries!
It was easier for that debacle to be solved with the acquisition of 'coded' thirdparty batteries .. rather than muck about with Nikon's useless batteries.

The gigantic issue with the camera business overall is not the types of cameras sold today as interchangeable lens cameras, but the complete collapse of the once insane compact cameras(where Nikon would have had a strong presence).
Nikon made and sold more cameras (not much but just a small increase of ILCs) last (half) year.
With the D850 and replacements for the D6xx/7xx and Df that shoudl be coming in the next 6 months or so .. I think the hype they'll get may help sales a little more again .. just as the continuous stream of new mirrorless products helps that market grow slowly.

[MissionMan]

Yes, but! .. if you believe all the chatter from the internet experts, apparently Nikon need a full frame mirrorless due to losing market share in that area!
This was the major gist of comments made after the release(s) of the A7ii and A9 ... they were supposed to be the downfall of Nikon's camera business. When the likes of Sony's A6300/6500 series, or Fuji's or Olympuses cameras come to market, there's not so much Nikoncentric negativity.
These Nikon doomsayers all come out of the woodwork when upper end cameras are revealed, and when Nikon push out the same old same old DSLR tech over and over(ie. D5, D500, D810, Df .. etc).

If you look at the CIPA data(randomly chose the last data figures for the last month reported) ... lower end or cheaper DSLRs sold over the previous month(Jun) and period(Jan-Jun) whereas much higher end or more expensive mirrorless cameras were being bought.
The data for DSLRs is most likely due to discounting or rebates (or whatever) rather than purely lower end DSLRs being sold.

The way I'm reading it using random models types as examples: if Nikon use to sell about 500K D3300s and now only sell 350K D3400s, if there was a huge amount of leakage to mirrorless (of those lost 150K sales), then the currency value of mirrorless wouldn't have increased by as much as it did in that period.
So the summary on the mirrorless front would be something like Sony's A7s, Fujis XT and XPro type bodies ... and even Olympuses higher end EM1s may be increasing in volume by a little bit each which is dragging the value of mirrorless product sales higher.

Obviously Nikon's D610 and D750 would be down in terms of volumes by now, considering they are dinosaurs in camera tech terms .. respectively about 3 or 4 years old now. A refresh of those two models would kickstart that segments unit sales.
I don't think those types of products are the issue, they are considered high value products by Nikon, looking to get D5600 customers to consider the D610 as an alternative.

Another aspect to note about the currency value of cameras quoted in CIPA data is that it's in Yen. And the Yen fluctuates in value. So if there are a lot of older models(eg. D610/D750) still being made, and being discounted it will distort the figures a little too.

I don't doubt that the D850 will be a sales success for Nikon. I think there will be higher volumes of D850 sales, then there were of the D810. D810 was an update, for me the only reason to update would have been for the EFC sensor tech, but then reading about it's limitations it was never going to be an actual proposition for me(and I guess a few more like minded me's out there!) .. too many $s for not enough features(or updates).
D850 tho changes that .. for me the potentially much better viewfinder(my #1 reason for an upgrade), EFC(if it works better than many have commented) .. focus peaking in Lv mode(could be handy for macro), more pixels(hoping for better high ISO and dynamic range) .. etc.

I need real reasons to upgrade .. I'm not a fan of updating just because there's a new model.
And on every discussion board I've viewed that comments on the D850, there are 3 posts from folks explaining they're all going to wait till the problems are sorted out, for every post from the habitual updaters! ;)

Apart from my D800E imploding at the regularly used 10 pin accessory port, I also had the annoying Nikon battery issue with my D800E too, early on. I eventually got back to the store when I had something else to purchase, and got it changed(obviously for free).
True to Nikon form, the replacement battery did exactly the same thing(reporting no life left in it and not really having as much reserve as it really should .. but the age of the battery reporting as 'dead' is the real annoyance).
I can't be stuffed with annoying silliness like that, and I have no doubt that's it's due to Nikons insistence that we all bow to their battery making excellence!! (<-note the sarcasm there!!) and they try to corner that market using inept camera firmware coding to restrict the use of non Nikon batteries!
It was easier for that debacle to be solved with the acquisition of 'coded' thirdparty batteries .. rather than muck about with Nikon's useless batteries.

The gigantic issue with the camera business overall is not the types of cameras sold today as interchangeable lens cameras, but the complete collapse of the once insane compact cameras(where Nikon would have had a strong presence).
Nikon made and sold more cameras (not much but just a small increase of ILCs) last (half) year.
With the D850 and replacements for the D6xx/7xx and Df that shoudl be coming in the next 6 months or so .. I think the hype they'll get may help sales a little more again .. just as the continuous stream of new mirrorless products helps that market grow slowly.

The internet chatter is 100% correct. The internet chatter is saying they need a full frame mirrorless. It’s not saying they only need a full frame mirrorless or that Nikon should stop producing DSLR’s, it’s simply saying there is a big portion of their market they are losing.

The last set of Fuji survey results I saw showed that 30% of Fuji buyers are coming from Nikon and Canon full frame.

[arthurking83]

The internet chatter is 100% correct. The internet chatter is saying they need a full frame mirrorless. It’s not saying they only need a full frame mirrorless or that Nikon should stop producing DSLR’s, it’s simply saying there is a big portion of their market they are losing.

The last set of Fuji survey results I saw showed that 30% of Fuji buyers are coming from Nikon and Canon full frame.

So Nikon and Canon full frame users are switching to Fuji's PS-C format? :confused013
Problem with surveys are that they're usually filled in by 12-15 year olds with the time to do so .. real users have little time for such trivia!

We know Nikon have lost a lot of sales in the camera department(all manufacturers have!), the vast majority of these lost sales have been in the compact market.
Nikon's DSLR sales in the last 6 months increased by 10K units(710K to 720K) and this is selling predominantly older models! ... and they 'NEED' a mirrorless model ?

I think that a very important point that these internet chatters forget is that Fuji buyers have to come from somewhere! That is, previously Fuji buyers didn't exist primarily because Fuji barely existed. Then Fuji started making 'different' products and those Fuji customers had to come from somewhere. Some from Nikon some from Canon, others from Pentax .. etc. Some may have even come fresh out of nowhere.
Same with Sony's quick ascension. For Sony it's been all in the mirrorless market, and a major contraction for them in the DSLR(SLT) category .. and the main reason they lost so many SLT sales is they dropped that market(only one model of the 10 they used to make).

That Nikon is going to make a mirrorless camera is now a given. They've stated this fact.
But in terms of sales, I don't think it'll cannibalise DLSR all that much, and I've got reservation that it'll be the huge success for them that the internet chatter is predicting(unless it maintains the F-mount)

[ricktas]

I think recent history would suggest that they are likely to have a winner even if they totally stuff all that up, Steve. We're a forgiving lot we Nikon users. (Plus the cameras tend to be pretty good once all the problems are finally sorted out)

I don't think that is exclusive to Nikon. Samsung recently announced the Note 8 phone. Who could have gotten through last year without hearing about the Note 7 catching fire, and going through two recalls, being banned on planes worldwide etc. Yet, even though all this happened, the pre-orders for the Note 8 are 30% higher than they were for the Note 7. I believe most people are quite willing to give second chances.. but the second time round they better not make the same mistakes again. People will seriously question their dedication to a brand if that brand repeats its mistakes and doesn't learn from them.

[arthurking83]

.... I believe most people are quite willing to give second chances.. but the second time round they better not make the same mistakes again. ...

Second chances LOL!
From about the time of the D800's release, Nikon has hit rock bottom in terms of quality control. Coincidentally this happened to be at a time when mirrorless cameras were starting to make their mark.
Some would even suggest that a group of mirrorless manufacturers colluded in bribing Nikon's workers to subvert Nikon's manufacturing process! :p

But it seems Nikon devotees are much thicker skinned, harder headed, forgiving or just plain sillier than even the worst Samsung tragics!
Maybe Samsung owners give second chances .. or maybe even third chances!! .. But it seems Nikon owners(still owning Nikons) are far more gracious in having given their 10th or 20th chances!

Me, personally ... I reckon I've fallen into the just plain silliest basket! ;)
(made worst when they completely destroyed my software workflow setup!)

I think the D850 is going to be the most scrutinised camera, in terms of faults, ever!!
We're going to read about focusing ability, and high ISO noise ability and the awesome frame rates and whatever other uber feature it oozes ... but there are going to be so many people scrutinising focus accuracy at every focus point, shooting into the brightest light sources man has ever made trying to find flaring issues, and looking for oil splatter on sensors at the micrometer level. :lol:

[MissionMan]

So Nikon and Canon full frame users are switching to Fuji's PS-C format? :confused013
Problem with surveys are that they're usually filled in by 12-15 year olds with the time to do so .. real users have little time for such trivia!

We know Nikon have lost a lot of sales in the camera department(all manufacturers have!), the vast majority of these lost sales have been in the compact market.
Nikon's DSLR sales in the last 6 months increased by 10K units(710K to 720K) and this is selling predominantly older models! ... and they 'NEED' a mirrorless model ?

I think that a very important point that these internet chatters forget is that Fuji buyers have to come from somewhere! That is, previously Fuji buyers didn't exist primarily because Fuji barely existed. Then Fuji started making 'different' products and those Fuji customers had to come from somewhere. Some from Nikon some from Canon, others from Pentax .. etc. Some may have even come fresh out of nowhere.
Same with Sony's quick ascension. For Sony it's been all in the mirrorless market, and a major contraction for them in the DSLR(SLT) category .. and the main reason they lost so many SLT sales is they dropped that market(only one model of the 10 they used to make).

That Nikon is going to make a mirrorless camera is now a given. They've stated this fact.
But in terms of sales, I don't think it'll cannibalise DLSR all that much, and I've got reservation that it'll be the huge success for them that the internet chatter is predicting(unless it maintains the F-mount)

It’s a shock for you that full frame users might switch to APSC? Many have and will continue to do so. Most were on full frame because there wasn’t any APSC pro glass, rather than needing full frame. Apparently I’m a 12 year old as well.

I switched to APSC. No loss in quality. I’d go as far as saying 80% of non-pro full frame users don’t actually need full frame. Most enthusiasts don’t even know how to leverage the extra DOF offered by full frame (f/1.4 over 1.8).

Anyway, we are sidetracking king from the original thread direction. The main point was that your statement about Nikon not needing full frame mirrorless is incorrect. The bulk of the pro market (which is what this camera is aimed at) wasn’t really the market at threat from mirrorless (Yet). Other than the A9, the mirrorless camera market is targeted at enthusiast, the $500-$2500 Camera body market. They need FF mirrorless for the market they are bleeding on D600/D700 series users (and perhaps some of the D800 who didn’t need the extra MP). In conjunction to this, if mirrorless does become the future which is a possibility (we can’t predict 5-10 years in technology land), Nikon will have limited experience.

[ricktas]

But it seems Nikon devotees are much thicker skinned, harder headed, forgiving or just plain sillier than even the worst Samsung tragics!
Maybe Samsung owners give second chances .. or maybe even third chances!! .. But it seems Nikon owners(still owning Nikons) are far more gracious in having given their 10th or 20th chances!



This is making the assumption that these people have bought every one of these cameras. My most recent camera is my D800 and it works perfectly fine. I have not considered upgrading so any issues with other models has only ever been a fleeting look at what is going on, rather than a thorough investigation into them.

I doubt anyone has bought every single model as they came out, and thus experiences of their 10th or 20th chance would be probably only a few dozen people, most likely reviewers from Hong Kong who's lives revolve around youtube channels and who really are not photographers, but tech heads.

It is sort of like the recent air-bag recalls (https://www.productsafety.gov.au/news/takata-airbag-recalls-affecting-australian-consumers). People looked up to see if their car was on the list, if it wasn't they moved on.. and will likely buy the same brand of car next time. Others will get their air-bag replaced and probably still buy the same car brand next time. Only if they directly experienced repeated issues across multiple vehicles might they consider changing brands.

I seriously doubt anyone has had first hand experience of 10 or 20 faulty Nikon cameras. :D and if they have, perhaps they should consider taking up phone camera photography. I can recommend the Samsung Note 8 :p

[Cage]

With about thirty million tech savvy youngsters entering the worldwide urban workforce each year, I'd be surprised if this group weren't responsible for most of the growth in mirrorless take-up. I suspect that the leakage from current DSLR users would be minor in comparison.

[Steve Axford]

With about thirty million tech savvy youngsters entering the worldwide urban workforce each year, I'd be surprised if this group weren't responsible for most of the growth in mirrorless take-up. I suspect that the leakage from current DSLR users would be minor in comparison.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Kev. From my observation, most DSLR users (ie Canon and Nikon users) are unlikely to change. Look at Canon. They have been lagging behind with cameras for many years now, but they are still the market leader. DSLR users like big cameras and optical viewfinders, not to mention their accumulated lenses and their hard won familiarity with mindbogglingly complex systems that few people enjoy relearning (mirrorless cameras a just as mind boggling). But ..... tech savvy youngsters are starting afresh and have no bias towards the old technologies, in fact they probably have a bias towards new technologies. I suspect both Canon and Nikon will have to reinvent themselves at some time in the future. Clearly, neither feel that the time is now, but when is it? Since we have no information on the internal workings of any of these companies, we just have to wait and speculate, just like we've been doing for years.

[arthurking83]

MM, I meant no disrespect to you personally ... but that 12-15yo reference was to the hoards of switchers out there in the ether .. those fleeting and unseen types.


It’s a shock for you that full frame users might switch to APSC? Many have and will continue to do so. Most were on full frame because there wasn’t any APSC pro glass, rather than needing full frame.....

This furphy that Nikon's lack of pro APS-C glass is just plain silly. A few might sell here and there, but the investment required on Nikons part would make them an unviable expense to the limited number of enthusiasts out there that would actually buy them.

A random and simple example of how this non existence of Nikon pro level APS-C glass makes no sense:

Fuji's 16mm f/1.4: cost about $1500, size weight: 73x73mm and 375g.
Nikon's (equivalent) 24/1.8 lens: 75x83mm and 355g.
Add that to a D6xx/7xx and the lens does the same thing(slightly better DOF on the Nikons if we follow the 1 stop of light/DOF loss rule)
So what you're saying is that so many folks really really want an APS-C camera so badly but are switching to other APS-C format brands because the lenses don't exist :confused013
They may not exist for APS-C(for an obvious reason!) .. but they're existence is there for a small form large sensor camera!

I think the people looking for pro level APS-C cameras haven't really thought their choices for options through very well!
If Nikon made a similar 16mm f/1.4 lens and it had roughly the same specs as the Fuji(most probably would have to be longer due to the longer back focus distance on the Fmount too tho!) .. for these leakers to stick with Nikon .. then theire optiisn would be:
D7200/7500 + $1500 Nikon 16/1.4 lens .. ie approx $3K + all up.
D6xx/7xx + $900 Nikon 24/1.8 lens .. approx just a tad under $3K.
What Nikon needs is a D5500/5600 sized 135 format camera.

How does Nikon win in that situation having had to invest milions to produce this so called needed APS-C pro lens that costs more than an equivalent 135 format lens?
I think the actual reality of what has happened is probably more like this: Nikon had many Pro level APS-C only lenses(mostly zooms, one prime that I remember). Demand probably waned for them. Nikon hasn't updated them ever!
They've released one or two other APS-C only prime lenses, not really pro level but APS-C and prime lenses all the same! I'm guessing they know exactly what the demand for those lenses are/were .. and hence they've made a decision not to pursue APS-C only lenses!
Of course I'm basing my assumptions on the premise that Nikon are keeping tabs on what products of theirs sells, and what doesn't!
And like Steve said, we aren't privvy to Nikon's internal workings. And in that use of the term 'we', that includes Thom Hogan(should be noted that is the only well known Nikon user screaming out ... "Buzz Buzz"!)



.... From my observation, most DSLR users (ie Canon and Nikon users) are unlikely to change. Look at Canon. They have been lagging behind with cameras for many years now, but they are still the market leader. DSLR users like big cameras and optical viewfinders ....

I think a more accurate description would be that they're harder to change, or resist change for the sake of change itself.
Some folks are simply consumers, others are users.
One thing I know about myself, I'm not a consumer, and use my stuff to the nth degree, or within an inch of it's life(where I can). D300 is a testament to that, my vehicles all bear the scars of that pattern.
I won't simply update unless there's a really good reason to update. if the vf the D800 was of the quality of film cameras of old, I wouldn't be interested in the D850(which should have a much better vf).
I've tried a few mirorless recently, and some Sony SLT cameras way back, and while the newer stuff is better, for mine still too far short of an OVF .. especially a good OVF(like my D300).
if mirrorless used an EVF that is in every way better than an OVF, then for sure I'd be in too.
Way back when EVFs first came out, I was probably one of the most enthusiastic about the possibilities for them. The reality turned to sheet! :p .. they still give me motion sickness if I look through one for too long.
For me, for now, the best of both worlds is my only choice. I think I'm a typical DSLR user type.
If Nikon brought to market a mirrorless camera that accepted Fmount lenses(they'd be insane not too) .. I'd still be uninterested unless it gave a better vf experience in every sense of the word.
That means refresh rates that don't make me feel motion sick, HDR level dynamic range to begin with. magnified zooming and or focus peaking for critical focus and suchlike are a bonus to have, but primary requirement would be that all the basics are sorted and then the bonus of added embellishments.
I'm not resistant to change being a DSLR user, I'm resistant to consumerism for the sake of it.

[MissionMan]

MM, I meant no disrespect to you personally ... but that 12-15yo reference was to the hoards of switchers out there in the ether .. those fleeting and unseen types.



This furphy that Nikon's lack of pro APS-C glass is just plain silly. A few might sell here and there, but the investment required on Nikons part would make them an unviable expense to the limited number of enthusiasts out there that would actually buy them.

A random and simple example of how this non existence of Nikon pro level APS-C glass makes no sense:

Fuji's 16mm f/1.4: cost about $1500, size weight: 73x73mm and 375g.
Nikon's (equivalent) 24/1.8 lens: 75x83mm and 355g.
Add that to a D6xx/7xx and the lens does the same thing(slightly better DOF on the Nikons if we follow the 1 stop of light/DOF loss rule)
So what you're saying is that so many folks really really want an APS-C camera so badly but are switching to other APS-C format brands because the lenses don't exist :confused013
They may not exist for APS-C(for an obvious reason!) .. but they're existence is there for a small form large sensor camera!

I think the people looking for pro level APS-C cameras haven't really thought their choices for options through very well!
If Nikon made a similar 16mm f/1.4 lens and it had roughly the same specs as the Fuji(most probably would have to be longer due to the longer back focus distance on the Fmount too tho!) .. for these leakers to stick with Nikon .. then theire optiisn would be:
D7200/7500 + $1500 Nikon 16/1.4 lens .. ie approx $3K + all up.
D6xx/7xx + $900 Nikon 24/1.8 lens .. approx just a tad under $3K.
What Nikon needs is a D5500/5600 sized 135 format camera.

How does Nikon win in that situation having had to invest milions to produce this so called needed APS-C pro lens that costs more than an equivalent 135 format lens?
I think the actual reality of what has happened is probably more like this: Nikon had many Pro level APS-C only lenses(mostly zooms, one prime that I remember). Demand probably waned for them. Nikon hasn't updated them ever!
They've released one or two other APS-C only prime lenses, not really pro level but APS-C and prime lenses all the same! I'm guessing they know exactly what the demand for those lenses are/were .. and hence they've made a decision not to pursue APS-C only lenses!
Of course I'm basing my assumptions on the premise that Nikon are keeping tabs on what products of theirs sells, and what doesn't!
And like Steve said, we aren't privvy to Nikon's internal workings. And in that use of the term 'we', that includes Thom Hogan(should be noted that is the only well known Nikon user screaming out ... "Buzz Buzz"!)




I think a more accurate description would be that they're harder to change, or resist change for the sake of change itself.
Some folks are simply consumers, others are users.
One thing I know about myself, I'm not a consumer, and use my stuff to the nth degree, or within an inch of it's life(where I can). D300 is a testament to that, my vehicles all bear the scars of that pattern.
I won't simply update unless there's a really good reason to update. if the vf the D800 was of the quality of film cameras of old, I wouldn't be interested in the D850(which should have a much better vf).
I've tried a few mirorless recently, and some Sony SLT cameras way back, and while the newer stuff is better, for mine still too far short of an OVF .. especially a good OVF(like my D300).
if mirrorless used an EVF that is in every way better than an OVF, then for sure I'd be in too.
Way back when EVFs first came out, I was probably one of the most enthusiastic about the possibilities for them. The reality turned to sheet! :p .. they still give me motion sickness if I look through one for too long.
For me, for now, the best of both worlds is my only choice. I think I'm a typical DSLR user type.
If Nikon brought to market a mirrorless camera that accepted Fmount lenses(they'd be insane not too) .. I'd still be uninterested unless it gave a better vf experience in every sense of the word.
That means refresh rates that don't make me feel motion sick, HDR level dynamic range to begin with. magnified zooming and or focus peaking for critical focus and suchlike are a bonus to have, but primary requirement would be that all the basics are sorted and then the bonus of added embellishments.
I'm not resistant to change being a DSLR user, I'm resistant to consumerism for the sake of it.

Yeah, it's such a furphy that many of the Nikon advocates have said the same. People like Thom Hogan are saying exactly that.

You are missiing the point. What i am saying is people are being sold a lie with full frame. They were sold that they needed it to be a good photographer, and in reality they don't. Nikon and Canon sold it to them by only making the good glass available to full frame. It may not have been a lie at one point, but now it's a lie. Unless you are buying expensive f/1.4 primes like the 105 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.4, you have no need for full frame. There is no advantage. High ISO? There is one stop difference between full frame on dynamic range and ISO and pros were using that 5 years ago, but suddenly amateurs need clean photos at ISO12800 to post on Facebook? Or they need 50mp camera because they print billboards when? Oh, yes, never! The D500 is more than most current full frame users will ever need.

Primes are fine (although the Nikon f/1.8's are cheap plastic bodies while the Fuji's are metal and the construction is 10x better, I know because I've had the 20 f/1.8), but no zooms. Where is the pro quality 14-24? It doesn't exist. You have to go to third parties and you should never have to go to a third party to get a trifecta zoom or you get stuck like a mate of mine who has had endless back and front focus issues with his Sigma. 50-140? It doesn't exist. Where is the 56 f/1.2? It doesn't exist. The point is, if you are only buying f/1.8 primes, why the hell are you bothering with full frame?

Now, you say people looking for APSC with pro glass haven't thought through your choices (which I find insulting). I would say the fact that you put cheap full frame glass on your D810 you haven't thought through your choices either so you should think before you speak or insult people. I would challenge you to show me photos you have personally taken on your full frame glass which could not have been taken with an APSC camera. If you shooting 400 f/2.8 on a full frame, maybe you could argue that, but 99.99999% of amateurs don't have $10K for a 400 f/2.8.

[swifty]

Nikon, being a predominantly camera company likely needs to defend every major movement in this industry.
And for the DSLR users, of which there are still a large user base, the D850 is the product squarely for them. And perhaps the D750 follow up too.
However, as good as these products are/wil be, this is not likely to introduce new users to Nikon and can't stop the leak of those who prefer EVFs. But this product is absolutely necessary to defend the DSLR territory.
As both Steve and Kev points out, new users are far less likely to be attracted to refinements in existing (albeit very good) technology that the D850 brings. That new OVF is great news for us DSLR users but isn't a selling point to users who haven't already used OVFs in the past.

So there's the separate issue of what mirrorless option to introduce. My personal preference is that two options should be offered (one in FF and one with a smaller sensor) but every man and his dog has an opinion on this subject and we risk straying down another ML vs DSLR debate.

[Steve Axford]

I think a more accurate description would be that they're harder to change, or resist change for the sake of change itself.
Some folks are simply consumers, others are users.
One thing I know about myself, I'm not a consumer, and use my stuff to the nth degree, or within an inch of it's life(where I can). D300 is a testament to that, my vehicles all bear the scars of that pattern.
I won't simply update unless there's a really good reason to update. if the vf the D800 was of the quality of film cameras of old, I wouldn't be interested in the D850(which should have a much better vf).
I've tried a few mirorless recently, and some Sony SLT cameras way back, and while the newer stuff is better, for mine still too far short of an OVF .. especially a good OVF(like my D300).
if mirrorless used an EVF that is in every way better than an OVF, then for sure I'd be in too.
Way back when EVFs first came out, I was probably one of the most enthusiastic about the possibilities for them. The reality turned to sheet! :p .. they still give me motion sickness if I look through one for too long.
For me, for now, the best of both worlds is my only choice. I think I'm a typical DSLR user type.
If Nikon brought to market a mirrorless camera that accepted Fmount lenses(they'd be insane not too) .. I'd still be uninterested unless it gave a better vf experience in every sense of the word.
That means refresh rates that don't make me feel motion sick, HDR level dynamic range to begin with. magnified zooming and or focus peaking for critical focus and suchlike are a bonus to have, but primary requirement would be that all the basics are sorted and then the bonus of added embellishments.
I'm not resistant to change being a DSLR user, I'm resistant to consumerism for the sake of it.

I understand full well why few DSLR users want to change. I was a Canon user for most of my camera life and I probably wouldn't have changed had it not become a business rather than just a hobby. Probably the biggest thing is having to relearn all that stuff that took years to absorb. Move an adjustment from a dial to a menu and you will confuse and annoy many of your users, do that sort of thing to most of the functions and you will cripple many users. That's what happens when you change brands and it has little to do with DSLRs and mirrorless. The viewfinder is something that most DSLR users say is a major stopper to them moving to mirrorless and, in general, an OVF is better. But I don't find it very much better, and now that I am used to an EVF, it doesn't bother me. After all, it is very much an illusion that "what you see is what you get". Of course, now I am locked into Sony in exactly the same way that Nikon users are locked into Nikon and Canon users are locked into Canon, but I look at future possibilities and I am more than happy with my choice. I am planning how I am going to use the next Sony camera when it comes out (probably 60-70mp in a couple of months time), but also how I am going to use the Canon TS-E 50mm macro. I don't expect that many Nikon or Canon user that didn't have my opportunities would be changing brands, but there must be quite a few watching how things develop and perhaps delaying major upgrades.

A note on size. Many DSLR users say that mirrorless cameras are too small and fiddly. I find this extraordinary. If I pick up a full size DSLR now my first reaction is "wow, this is huge". The idea of carrying that around everywhere is a bit daunting and I would regard it as a major negative. From what I see, most younger photographers think the same.

[I @ M]

) but every man and his dog has an opinion on this subject and we risk straying down another ML vs DSLR debate.

Methinks the straying has started ( again ), the evangelists are out in full force as soon as a new dslr hits the market predicting doom and gloom + immediate bankruptcy for whichever company dares to not release a mirrorless body to appease their fervour.

Been going for quite a while now and I am still awaiting the day when a company goes belly up for having the audacity to manufacture mirrors and include them in their products.

[swifty]

Yeah, it's such a furphy that many of the Nikon advocates have said the same. People like Thom Hogan are saying exactly that.

You are missiing the point. What i am saying is people are being sold a lie with full frame. They were sold that they needed it to be a good photographer, and in reality they don't. Nikon and Canon sold it to them by only making the good glass available to full frame. It may not have been a lie at one point, but now it's a lie. Unless you are buying expensive f/1.4 primes like the 105 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.4, you have no need for full frame. There is no advantage. High ISO? There is one stop difference between full frame on dynamic range and ISO and pros were using that 5 years ago, but suddenly amateurs need clean photos at ISO12800 to post on Facebook? Or they need 50mp camera because they print billboards when? Oh, yes, never! The D500 is more than most current full frame users will ever need.

Primes are fine (although the Nikon f/1.8's are cheap plastic bodies while the Fuji's are metal and the construction is 10x better, I know because I've had the 20 f/1.8), but no zooms. Where is the pro quality 14-24? It doesn't exist. You have to go to third parties and you should never have to go to a third party to get a trifecta zoom or you get stuck like a mate of mine who has had endless back and front focus issues with his Sigma. 50-140? It doesn't exist. Where is the 56 f/1.2? It doesn't exist. The point is, if you are only buying f/1.8 primes, why the hell are you bothering with full frame?

Now, you say people looking for APSC with pro glass haven't thought through your choices (which I find insulting). I would say the fact that you put cheap full frame glass on your D810 you haven't thought through your choices either so you should think before you speak or insult people. I would challenge you to show me photos you have personally taken on your full frame glass which could not have been taken with an APSC camera. If you shooting 400 f/2.8 on a full frame, maybe you could argue that, but 99.99999% of amateurs don't have $10K for a 400 f/2.8.

Being sold a lie? I wouldn't go that far. Nikon's traditional strength is the enthusiast and above market and as such, their strongest product line will always lie in their upper range.

But what I would say is that if any company is going to offer a particular line (based on a particular sensor format), they should follow through with it properly and offer a full range of lens options for that format. Don't try to artificially define what can or can't be done in that format. By limiting DX lens choice, I'm afraid that is what Nikon has done, whether intentionally or inadvertently.

The success of Fujifilm is precisely that they are following through with their X-mount lenses, offering both small and light all the way through to pro lens options.
This is also what's happening with in m43 as they start to flesh out pro lens options, another great mirrorless option.

For me, this is Nikon's biggest failure. Not seeing how CX->DX->FX interact within an ecosystem. Rather than build a cohesive line-up where users of the entire Nikon ecosystem can fluidly move between lines but still have great options in each whilst retaining compatibility of accessories, they tried to define users of each group and box in and limit what they can do in each format.

BTW, nothing wrong with FF users using f1.8 glass nor is there any issue with DX users using f1.4 glass (if it exists). If the lineup was complete you can make your choice.

- - - Updated - - -


Methinks the straying has started ( again ), the evangelists are out in full force as soon as a new dslr hits the market predicting doom and gloom + immediate bankruptcy for whichever company dares to not release a mirrorless body to appease their fervour.

Been going for quite a while now and I am still awaiting the day when a company goes belly up for having the audacity to manufacture mirrors and include them in their products.

Its inevitable sometimes, Andrew. But photography is a hobby of passion so it invites passionate discussions. I personally don't mind fanboism since fans of a systems touts the advantages of their system that other system users might not be aware of. The problem is exaggerations and put-downs of other systems. Most advantages are quite small and you don't need to denigrate the alternative to point out a good feature of your system.

[MissionMan]

Methinks the straying has started ( again ), the evangelists are out in full force as soon as a new dslr hits the market predicting doom and gloom + immediate bankruptcy for whichever company dares to not release a mirrorless body to appease their fervour.

Been going for quite a while now and I am still awaiting the day when a company goes belly up for having the audacity to manufacture mirrors and include them in their products.

Nope, lets be clear, the mirrorless vs DSLR debate is mute.

This started with Arthur saying that anyone who dared switched from full frame to APSC was an idiot and should reconsider their position. On the converse, I'm challenging him to produce something he has taken which shows me what I can't produce with an APSC camera. If you are going to call people idiots, then I would like to know why.

I can also backup my statement with a poll that was done:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4194437

Yes, 56% of the people came from Canon and Nikon and 28% of came from full frame. It may not be reflective of the entire population group but it's a hell of a lot more than "no full frame users switch because I think they are idiots for doing it"

I can also tell you that as someone in a Fuji group on Facebook. The poll results I see here are 100% reflective of the user base I see in the Fuji group.

[arthurking83]

....

Now, you say people looking for APSC with pro glass haven't thought through your choices (which I find insulting). ....

You've missed the point again!
You said they're moving to other brands APS-C formats because Nikon don't offer APS-C pro glass(which they do to a limited degree!) You said they're moving from D6xx/7xx bodies(ie. full frame) because of this glass discrepancy in APS-C.

For new entrants, coming to the scene, a 16mm lens means nothing to them. For many of us old farts that were used to 18-35mm lenses way back, seeing a 16mm lens and expecting a 16mm lens, see a 24+mm lens and think ... what the ... :confused013

What I'm saying is that this need for APS-C pro glass is the furphy, when Nikon clearly seem to have dedicated themselves to the 135 format .. from which they were born to mind you.
In fact, I reckon that Nikon are so dedicated to the Fx format, that in the near future they will drop one of the D3xxx/5xxx models and combine them into one market segment.
This could be an opportunity for them to remove the mirror box and make it mirrorless too(but still F-mount).

There are a few Nikon pro lenses, f/1.4 or otherwise at the small of the focal length scale are all plastic bodied as well!
Just because the lens plastic doesn't make it any lesser quality than a metal lens of the same type.
I think you have confused an outer shell made of plastic with one of internal plastic construction!
I have no issue with plastic bodied lenses at all, as long as the internals are high grade materials .. that's all care about.
In a theoretical sense, a plastic cased lens is going to be better protected from external elements than a metal bodied one too.
Heat soak and transfer and impact resistance are two obvious properties that come to mind, plus the inherently more slippery nature of plastics could be beneficial, and their resistance to rust and abrasions compared to metal bodied lenses.

Point about buying only f/1.8 primes for full frame also goes for pro lenses on APS-C .. they are so large and heavy by comparison to f/1.8 primes on Fx, the whole point of moving to the smaller format is nullified.
A major reason to go to full frame is not only the lenses, or DOF, but the potential for more pixels if that's a priority, the potential for wider FOV(if that's the priority) the potential to still crop to APS-C(if that's the priority) ..

If you missed the point this time around(and stop taking my comments personally) .. the point for the larger format is OPTIONS!

Yeah, you get some f/1.8 lenses if you want reasonably small .. get f/2.8 lenses if you want smaller(some still exist). But you still have that option with f/1.4 lenses on Fx format .. something you don't get on the smaller formats.
Start adding pixels to the smaller formats(ie. something like 50Mp on an APS-C and of course diffraction becomes the issue .. which then negates the usefulness of ultra sharp pro lenses that can't be stopped down at all, and could be suffering diffraction wide open at some stage in the future!

Questioning the availability of lenses not available for the APS-C format, when an equivalent is available for the Fx format makes no sense(in terms of keeping the brand within Nikon).
Where's Fuji's 105/1.4 equivalent? that would have to be a 160mm f/1.2 lens! Why haven't they provided an equivalent lens for that purpose?
Where's Fujis' 600/f2 lens? They're supposed to be catering to a market demanding APS-C lenses that Nikon are apparently ignoring? Why haven't they produced in that sense?

Sounds like a pretty stupid demand doesn't it?
So to question the availability of lenses from Nikon in the APS-C market, that have already provided for in the larger format arena ... simply makes no sense!!

What I think would be a better solution is the same one mirrorless manufacturers are targeting.
Make the lenses smaller again.
Instead of making limited use 16mm f/1.4's for APS-C only .. make a 16mm f/4. Small form factor, makes the camera feel less unwieldy. 35mm f/2(like they already have, but in AF-S guise. 20mm f/4's etc etc. Small and light to appease the smaller and lighter crowd.
Strangely they used to(and still do to a limited degree) make these lenses, but stopped.
IIRC, my business lessons, you don't stop selling something if it's in demand .. and you don't keep making something if it's not in demand!

I think the problem with the discussion here is that you've come to it purely from your point of view.
Nikon didn't have a 56/1.2 lens for APS-C, so you moved from them to another brand that offered it.
And it seems to me that this is the only way you will ever view this topic .. from your point of view.
I'm fairly sure Nikon have a pretty good understanding of which of their products are selling and which aren't! .. let them deal with it.
if they go bust .. you were right . if they sell mode DSLRs in the next 6 months .. will you admit your perspective on the topic was wrong tho?

ps. unless you have actually done it yourself to know, using cheap consumer grade lenses on a D8xx(I have the D800E too mind you) .. is not a deal breaker.
I say this with the benefit of experience too .. it's no different to using cheap consumer grade lenses on APS-C .. it all comes down to the point of my replies .. OPTIONS!
And not only are they the usual level of options, but they are also unusual types of options, in that they aren't easily achievable .. such as using my lowly consumer oriented Sigma 10-20mm APS-C only lens on my D800E .. for about 12 months.
So in APS-C mode(OPTIONS!) I get the usual 10-20mm (15-30mm FOV equivalent) choice .. or I just stick with Fx mode and make it approximately an 8mm 1:1 format lens at 10mm if I like(OPTIONS!)
Of the images I've uploaded from that combo here, not a single negative comment re why I chose to use a lowly pathetic consumer level Sigma lens(that never misfocused) and even dared to upload the resultant images.

[swifty]

Where's Fuji's 105/1.4 equivalent? that would have to be a 160mm f/1.2 lens! Why haven't they provided an equivalent lens for that purpose?
Where's Fujis' 600/f2 lens?

On the subject of being accurate, a 105/1.4 equiv on the Fuji system would be a 70mm f0.95.
I suppose you're thinking of the equiv of a Nikon 600mm f4? That would be a 400mm f2.8

[Cage]

Arthur has raised some good points.

I think that I'm a fairly typical semi-pro DSLR user. My early background was with Canon 'A' series cameras until the late '90's, when I took a break for about ten years.

I came back with a Pentax K20D (Canon lost me with their mount changes :() and then a K5. Loved the K20D, loved the Pentax glass, but not overly fussed with the K5. Then I fell for the hype that if you wanted to be a 'proper photographer' you must have a Full Frame camera so I jumped ship to Nikon with a D600. To be honest I wish that I still had it as I only had minor problems with my sensor, and Nikon replaced that anyway.

I was then seduced by the 'more megapixels is better' hype and went to a D800, and to be frank, unless I got everything right I could see bugger all difference between the results from the two different Nikons. I'm sure in specific applications there is a noticeable difference, but for the average shooter like myself it's not a biggie. I didn't like the way the D800 handled ISO from ISO800 and above, and I was so disenchanted that I went back to the APS-C format with a D7200.

For my bird shooting the DX format is brilliant, with my new Sigma Sport giving me 900mm equivalent @ 24MP, with more than acceptably sharp results. However for close-up architectural work, landscapes and wide-field astro shots you just can't beat the extra real estate available from a FF sensor. Yes, I know I could stitch but that's more PP and often it gives less that desirable results.

So, as Arthur alluded to above, horses for courses. If I didn't have budget constraints I'd probably have a D500, even though I am more than pleased with the D7200, and I'm looking at another FF Nikon, most likely the D810 as it's had a pretty trouble free run.

Maybe somewhere down the track I'll seriously consider the D850, after the bugs have been sorted, and the price has settled at a realistic level.

In a perfect world Nikon will have sorted their QC issues, and the D850 will take the photography world by storm, with no re-calls, firmware updates etc, but I'm not holding my breath. And I don't think Canon will just sit idly on their hands either.

Oh, and at no stage have I even considered the thought of going mirrorless, and that statement is in no way meant to denigrate those who have chosen that platform as the one most suited to their particular requirements.

But this is all academic and subjective because a bloody good photographer with the most basic of DSLR's will almost always produce better results than the wannabe with the latest and greatest gear. :nod:

[arthurking83]

On the subject of being accurate, a 105/1.4 equiv on the Fuji system would be a 70mm f0.95.
I suppose you're thinking of the equiv of a Nikon 600mm f4? That would be a 400mm f2.8

Of course .. my bad. Trying to get kids lunch ready and quickly typing up stuff and having to leave it so food doesn't burn .. etc.
if we're to stick to the one stop DOF/light loss rule, then the 70mm would be f/1.0 I think.

[swifty]

I'm just applying the 1.5X crop calculations since FF is a little bit more than 1 stop diff. But f0.95 or f1, same diff.

[Steve Axford]

Arthur has raised some good points.

I think that I'm a fairly typical semi-pro DSLR user. My early background was with Canon 'A' series cameras until the late '90's, when I took a break for about ten years.

I came back with a Pentax K20D (Canon lost me with their mount changes :() and then a K5. Loved the K20D, loved the Pentax glass, but not overly fussed with the K5. Then I fell for the hype that if you wanted to be a 'proper photographer' you must have a Full Frame camera so I jumped ship to Nikon with a D600. To be honest I wish that I still had it as I only had minor problems with my sensor, and Nikon replaced that anyway.

I was then seduced by the 'more megapixels is better' hype and went to a D800, and to be frank, unless I got everything right I could see bugger all difference between the results from the two different Nikons. I'm sure in specific applications there is a noticeable difference, but for the average shooter like myself it's not a biggie. I didn't like the way the D800 handled ISO from ISO800 and above, and I was so disenchanted that I went back to the APS-C format with a D7200.

For my bird shooting the DX format is brilliant, with my new Sigma Sport giving me 900mm equivalent @ 24MP, with more than acceptably sharp results. However for close-up architectural work, landscapes and wide-field astro shots you just can't beat the extra real estate available from a FF sensor. Yes, I know I could stitch but that's more PP and often it gives less that desirable results.

So, as Arthur alluded to above, horses for courses. If I didn't have budget constraints I'd probably have a D500, even though I am more than pleased with the D7200, and I'm looking at another FF Nikon, most likely the D810 as it's had a pretty trouble free run.

Maybe somewhere down the track I'll seriously consider the D850, after the bugs have been sorted, and the price has settled at a realistic level.

In a perfect world Nikon will have sorted their QC issues, and the D850 will take the photography world by storm, with no re-calls, firmware updates etc, but I'm not holding my breath. And I don't think Canon will just sit idly on their hands either.

Oh, and at no stage have I even considered the thought of going mirrorless, and that statement is in no way meant to denigrate those who have chosen that platform as the one most suited to their particular requirements.

But this is all academic and subjective because a bloody good photographer with the most basic of DSLR's will almost always produce better results than the wannabe with the latest and greatest gear. :nod:

You raise a good point when you comment about mount changes and that must be one of the major worries with the DSLR makers. If you make a mirrorless line, one of the advantages would be to reduce the flange distance, but that would mean changing mounts and all the problems that causes. You can provide adaptors, but they are never ideal. Alternatively, you keep your old mount and miss any advantages you might get from changing mounts - and they could be significant in the future. It is a problem that has destroyed companies in the past and cannot be taken lightly.

By the way, I do work from the assumption that DSLRs will eventually become old technology and will be relegated to bit players. IMO, that will take a while to happen, but it will happen. As often occurs, the advantages of being a market leader in a technical industry over a long period can be negated by the need to maintain upward compatibility across technology changes (so as not to pee off your current, loyal users).

[arthurking83]

....

By the way, I do work from the assumption that DSLRs will eventually become old technology and will be relegated to bit players. IMO, that will take a while to happen, but it will happen. As often occurs, the advantages of being a market leader in a technical industry over a long period can be negated by the need to maintain upward compatibility across technology changes (so as not to pee off your current, loyal users).


I'm coming from the point of view(overall) that at some point in the next 20-ish years or so .. smart phones will have completely eaten into most camera markets.
They crucified the compact market in a matter of 5 or so years.
As new tech emerges for them(which it always is a few steps ahead of dedicated camera tech) .. smart phone tech will start eroding smaller format camera markets. And that could possibly include up to about 1" sensor camera types. ie. close to APS-C format cameras.

As highly unlikely as this scenario may be, it's not totally impossible.
And as they say .. if you eliminate the impossible, you're left with the improbable, however unlikely it may seem! ;)

I'm basing this point of view on the premise that companies like the Light with their L16 may at some point bring a product to market.
Already we're seeing all the major phone makers rushing to get dual camera dual lens phones out .. for what reason? Why do smartphones need dual cameras.
Surely all anyone does with them is the occasional happy snap to instabook, or the odd work related evidence gathering image capture .. don't need shallow DOF for that, don't need super high quality low light images for that .. yet this is where the smartphone makers are heading ... straight into ILC territory.
Add in the odd interchangeable sensor lens module type design .. and we'll have ILC smartphones as well!
Red considered using an interchangeable sensor/lens module .. ala Ricoh GXR where you change the sensor and lens as a unit. Would be easy to do for a smartphone too.

Strangely too .. on the topic of compatibility Nikon have recently thrown caution to the wind and gone the other way with their new AF-P type lenses.
Some currently supported cameras are basically unusable without a firmware update .. which would be very easy for Nikon to rollout.

They did something similar a few years back when they changed the way lens distortion data was applied in camera via a new firmware system, and updated cameras(like the D90) after it became listed as an unsupported model!

[Steve Axford]

I'm coming from the point of view(overall) that at some point in the next 20-ish years or so .. smart phones will have completely eaten into most camera markets.
They crucified the compact market in a matter of 5 or so years.
As new tech emerges for them(which it always is a few steps ahead of dedicated camera tech) .. smart phone tech will start eroding smaller format camera markets. And that could possibly include up to about 1" sensor camera types. ie. close to APS-C format cameras.

As highly unlikely as this scenario may be, it's not totally impossible.
And as they say .. if you eliminate the impossible, you're left with the improbable, however unlikely it may seem! ;)

I'm basing this point of view on the premise that companies like the Light with their L16 may at some point bring a product to market.
Already we're seeing all the major phone makers rushing to get dual camera dual lens phones out .. for what reason? Why do smartphones need dual cameras.
Surely all anyone does with them is the occasional happy snap to instabook, or the odd work related evidence gathering image capture .. don't need shallow DOF for that, don't need super high quality low light images for that .. yet this is where the smartphone makers are heading ... straight into ILC territory.
Add in the odd interchangeable sensor lens module type design .. and we'll have ILC smartphones as well!
Red considered using an interchangeable sensor/lens module .. ala Ricoh GXR where you change the sensor and lens as a unit. Would be easy to do for a smartphone too.

Strangely too .. on the topic of compatibility Nikon have recently thrown caution to the wind and gone the other way with their new AF-P type lenses.
Some currently supported cameras are basically unusable without a firmware update .. which would be very easy for Nikon to rollout.

They did something similar a few years back when they changed the way lens distortion data was applied in camera via a new firmware system, and updated cameras(like the D90) after it became listed as an unsupported model!

I agree, Arthur, things may change a lot in the not too distant future. If the timing of those changes are right then the change may not be from DSLR to a current mirrorless, but from DSLR to something totally new. Maybe that is what Canon and Nikon are banking on, and who knows, it may work. They may suffer some short term pain, but maybe that is just a matter of holding their nerve.

I don't think smart phones will ever take over the top end of the market, but lenses containing the sensor chip are a real possibility.

[arthurking83]

If you look at the purpose of the new Red Hydrogen smartphone, it's purpose is two fold.
1. to work as a comms device AND as a still camera(to a degree).
2. to operate a Red video camera as an alternate control panel.

It uses a dedicated high speed data connection system(if you look at the device you se a series of pins on one side of the back panel).
It's supposed to be the basis of their hydrogen system, which records holographic (video and stills)imagery.

So while it also does other stuff, like make phone calls(phone) and helps the user to control their Red video cams ... it also does video and still of it's own accord, using an attachment system.
Sounding a lot like a ILC system .. camera body + lenses + flashes + ... whatever!

Ie. the phone won't be the defining device ... it'll be the centre of an environment of devices that allow high quality captures.

It's going to be interesting to see how this Red thing pans out .. and how long before Samsung/Sony/Apple all decide that there is a future market there somewhere.
Samsung and Apple have everything to gain from such a market push.
Sony has more to lose in the short term in such a market, but could make something of it in the long term .. kind'a like their idea of the wireless sensor/lens device controlled by a smartphone a few years back.

[Steve Axford]

Interesting. And then there is DJI, that Shenzhen company who makes drones and who are rapidly destroying GoPro and who bought Hasselblad. The cutting edge could be things like holography and getting your camera into really odd places, as much as really high quality stills, though both are important. I can only guess at how much data and processing would be required for high quality holography, so that may take a few years.

[ricktas]

On the converse, I'm challenging him to produce something he has taken which shows me what I can't produce with an APSC camera. If you are going to call people idiots, then I would like to know why.



Picks up grenade

Take a 12mm wide angle lens. Place it on a full frame camera. Take a photo. Take same lens and place it on an APSC camera. Take Photo. Ohh.. different field of view, different scene captured. Same lens.

Drops grenade and runs away

Trying to lighten the argumentative mood in this thread.

[MissionMan]

Picks up grenade

Take a 12mm wide angle lens. Place it on a full frame camera. Take a photo. Take same lens and place it on an APSC camera. Take Photo. Ohh.. different field of view, different scene captured. Same lens.

Drops grenade and runs away

Trying to lighten the argumentative mood in this thread.

You do know they make 8mm for APSC which is a 12mm equivalent? Just throwing it out there

[ricktas]

You do know they make 8mm for APSC which is a 12mm equivalent? Just throwing it out there

I do, I just wanted to point out that making statements about what can or cannot be done with each system is ridiculous.

Some people like DSLR, Some like medium format backs, or panoramic cameras, others like APSC, and there are plenty of people out there now doing very nicely as photographers using their phones.

Each to their own and we need to appreciate that people use differing systems, rather then try and belittle them for doing so.

There is no perfect camera/system/lens. And this thread was started about the D850, but has somehow gotten bogged down in APSC and Mirrorless discussions, which is completely irrelevant to this particular model camera.

[MissionMan]

I do, I just wanted to point out that making statements about what can or cannot be done with each system is ridiculous.

Some people like DSLR, Some like medium format backs, or panoramic cameras, others like APSC, and there are plenty of people out there now doing very nicely as photographers using their phones.

Each to their own and we need to appreciate that people use differing systems, rather then try and belittle them for doing so.

There is no perfect camera/system/lens. And this thread was started about the D850, but has somehow gotten bogged down in APSC and Mirrorless discussions, which is completely irrelevant to this particular model camera.

As are statements that people who move back to APSC are idiots. Every time I ask people to show me photos they took that couldn’t be taken on APSC, I normally get crickets. They can show me something from a top professional, and I don’t have an issue believing that these top professionals are good enough, but are they? There are very few lenses that aren’t available on APSC that the enthusiasts here use and there are very few people here who actually know how to take advantage of the extra DOF offered by full frame.

What I am getting at is that most people here don’t need full frame. They may want it and that’s okay, but they don’t need it and they will try pretend they need it. They will try pretend that the extra ISO is a show stopper for them and the dynamic range difference of one stop is more important than world peace. They are buying it because of the expectations of the industry. They are buying it because some glass isn’t available due the manufacturers, not the capability. They are buying it for the potential of a 105 f/1.4 that they will realistically never buy. I have no doubt that there are many full frame users here that are capable of using full frame beyond the capacity of APSC, but my guess is that number is maximum 20% of full frame users, perhaps even 5 or 10%.

[ricktas]

What I am getting at is that most people here don’t need full frame.

But trying to argue that in a thread about a full frame camera is always going to cause division.

There are a lot of people that never realise the full potential of their camera, no matter what system it is based on (even phone cameras). Everyone should buy what they want to and enjoy using it. I for one am glad there are differing systems as it lets us each choose what we want. Imagine a world were there was only one camera manufacturer, and only one system, for everything from phones to medium format. We should rejoice in the variety, rather than put-down those who choose a different path to our own. I am pleased you have decided to embrace apsc and mirrorless, but let other embrace their own choices, and respect their choices. It is not illegal to own a full-frame camera, and people should be free to choose to do so.

[Cage]

One salient point being overlooked in this FF vs Crop debate.

I have an APS-C camera, the D7200, love it, and not parting with it anytime soon.

I am also going to get another FF camera, most likely the D810, and for one reason only.

The reason is for the larger FOV that the Full Frame sensor offers over the Crop Sensor for landscapes and nightscapes. That's it, in a nutshell. Nothing to do with DOF, lens availability et al. If I didn't do ultra-wide angle work the APS-C sensor would be fine.

In other words, choosing the right tool for the job !

[MissionMan]

But trying to argue that in a thread about a full frame camera is always going to cause division.

There are a lot of people that never realise the full potential of their camera, no matter what system it is based on (even phone cameras). Everyone should buy what they want to and enjoy using it. I for one am glad there are differing systems as it lets us each choose what we want. Imagine a world were there was only one camera manufacturer, and only one system, for everything from phones to medium format. We should rejoice in the variety, rather than put-down those who choose a different path to our own. I am pleased you have decided to embrace apsc and mirrorless, but let other embrace their own choices, and respect their choices. It is not illegal to own a full-frame camera, and people should be free to choose to do so.

Hold on Rick, let's not forget this comment came from Arthur saying "People aren't moving from Full Frame to APSC" when I have more to substantiate it than his hunch and "anything who is switching from full frame to APSC hasn't thought it through" so my response were justified and I'm sorry to say that Arthur deserved to be called out.

I don't care what people buy. I don't care if they want to buy a medium format to take photos of their cat. BUT....don't tell me I haven't thought it through when i have gone from one system to another and expect not to get a sharp response! Having a full frame thread isn't a license to talk crap.

- - - Updated - - -


One salient point being overlooked in this FF vs Crop debate.

I have an APS-C camera, the D7200, love it, and not parting with it anytime soon.

I am also going to get another FF camera, most likely the D810, and for one reason only.

The reason is for the larger FOV that the Full Frame sensor offers over the Crop Sensor for landscapes and nightscapes. That's it, in a nutshell. Nothing to do with DOF, lens availability et al. If I didn't do ultra-wide angle work the APS-C sensor would be fine.

In other words, choosing the right tool for the job !

I strongly disagree and this comes back to Nikon vs other manufacturers, which is why I keep raising the issue of Nikon's lack of focus on APSC glass.

FOV isn't an APSC limitation, it's Nikon's limitation imposed on APSC. With other manufacturers you can get pro quality ultra wide APSC glass.

In essence, you just proved my point. You are being "forced" to go to full frame because of Nikon's limitations imposed on APSC glass.

[Cage]

Mission Man, you are way, way off topic.

If you want to do some Nikon bashing and show your love for APS-C and Fujifilm, start you own thread and stop hijacking this one.

[MissionMan]

Mission Man, you are way, way off topic.

If you want to do some Nikon bashing and show your love for APS-C and Fujifilm, start you own thread and stop hijacking this one.

Seriously? This had nothing to do with Nikon bashing so maybe you need to get the Nikon chip off your shoulder.

This started from:

a) Arthur proclaiming that the D850 was so amazing that Nikon didn't need to produce a full frame mirrorless.

I pointed out that mirrorless was never going to impact the $5000 D850 market as the mirrorless is targeted at the D600/D700 series, not the D850. This isn't Nikon bashing. It is a correct reflection of the market as it stands right now. If Nikon was to produce a full frame mirrorless, I highly doubt it would be targeted at the D850 market, it would be a D600 type of camera. So explain to me where this is bashing Nikon?

b) Arthur proclaiming that full frame users would be idiots for going to APSC.

Now if you seriously think this is "Nikon bashing" then perhaps you need to understand what Nikon bashing is. Nikon bashing is more about what you, Arthur and every other person has been doing in this thread complaining about Nikon's poor quality control, something I haven't been doing. Nikon bashing is NOT correcting incorrect statements or assumptions made by people with no data to back it up.

c) more recently someone saying that he is moving to full frame because of FOV

I rightly pointed out that FOV is not a APSC limitation, it is a Nikon APSC limitation.

So, thanks, but no thanks. I guess I will just have to bow out of every Nikon thread in future, god forbid I actually offend any of your poor Nikon fans (who incidentally seem to do more Nikon bashing yourselves) who need this camera to convince you that Nikon is still relevant, despite none of you wanting to buy it, which is strange because of your concerns about quality control. I guess what this means in future is that the Nikon threads have to be dedicated to a one sided debate which may not be correct because the Nikon fans here cannot actually handle it if someone throws out information that is contrary to your delicate opinions. That way, you don't actually have to worry about whether what you are saying is correct or not.

So I'll keep you happy and leave this Nikon debate, oops sorry, Nikon dictatorship I think is a better word.

[jim]

Following some serious thought I've been doing about anthropics recently, I am prepared to make the following declaration: I have a full frame camera and therefore everyone who does not have a full frame camera must be wrong.

I trust this settles the issue.

[arthurking83]

I suggest you go back and read my replies more carefully .. word being put into my mouth here. not really appreciated either!

What I said, was in response to MM's comment that Nikon desperately need APS-C pro glass(lenses).
What I said was that if a photographer was to base their decision to go back to APS-C solely on the provision of lens choices, it's illogical .. they don't really understand why they've done that.

Went on to give lens examples, based on the lens capability for each format. That some lenses are made in plastic and others' are covered with metal is no indication that the lens is pro, more durable or whatever(easy way to understand this is to read up Lens Rental blog.
Many instances of straight up metal bodies Sony lenses made primarily using plastic inside that wear/break/fatigue/cause them troubles .. this is metal bodied lenses!

Never called anyone an idiot .. especially an APS-C user since I am one myself!
Never said that the D850 was so amazing that Nikon didn't need a mirrorless. I said that I don't think Nikon need a mirrorless camera to make money, and I have said in other posts that they need to make good products backed up with no faults, and backed up with better customer relations! .. that will give them good profits in the long run, and customer loyalty.


WHAT I SAID:
Lets get one thing sorted straight up tho. Full frame does offer at least one major advantage over APS-C(and other cropped formats). For a given sensor pixel pitch(ie. number of pixels per square millimeter the full frame sensor gives you all of those cropped sensors combined, you get the choice of which one you'd prefer .. and that once you choose a cropped sensor, you can't uncrop it as you can crop a larger sensor!

What does this mean in a practicality sense: I can use a full frame 50Mp sensor(lets use Canon's 5Dsr as the example), crop to 22Mp APS-C, or 16Mp m4/3rds sensor.
Using this fabled 16mm f/1.4 lens as a guide, we know using the standard crop calculations, this equates to a 24mm f/1.8 lens on the full frame format. Back tracking a bit on sensor sizes, this requires a 12mm f/1 lens for m4/3 sensor.

The widest very fast aperture lens currently available for full format is the Sigma 20/1.4(been thinking of adding this one to my kit too for it's unusualness!)
This gives wide FOV and fast aperture. To get the same FOV plus DOF on the cropped formats require a 14mm f/1 lens on APS-C or a 10mm f/0.7 lens for m4/3rds .. quite clearly the types of lenses required to achieve similar results on full frame are getting beyond ridiculous now for the cropped formats. The full frame formats have been around a lot longer than the cropped formats, so it's only natural that more varied lens types exist for the larger formats. The 135 format has been the most popular film format ever .. and again it's only natural that it contain the largest number of lens types from all the manufacturers that ever made them.

Another big advantage of the full format over the cropped sensors I mentioned earlier, and that was that if the pixel density of the sensor is accommodating for it, you can crop the larger sensor to the same FOV as the smaller sensor.
This means weight savings for the larger format. Where most folks look at the obvious size differences of the smaller formats, they don't take the time to contemplate the overall package of lenses required to achieve FOV parity.

So the APS-C kit, we'll give it the 16mm f/1.4 and for the full frame kit we're going to give it the equiv 24/1.8 lens. They give close enough to the same FOV(actually wider according to lens specs from Fuji and Nikon respectively, but we'll ignore that point for now).
The point I'm making here is that while on APS-C you've only got the 16mm FOV which is equivalent to the 24mm FOV on the full frame, on the full frame you can crop to this same APS-C format .. this now gives you not only two different lens types, but also a zoom lens where a zoom lens hasn't been used. You don't have to crop to that APS-C format, you can crop to whatever format size you like, infinitely variable from APS-C's 16mm, all the way to 24mm.
That full frame 24mm lens on full frame, is a theoretical zoom lens if you use it as an APS-C lens as well as a full frame lens.
Alternatively if we use zoom lenses as comparatives, the combinations and permutations of lens FOV is even more mind boggling compared to those available in the cropped formats.
Something like the Nikon 14-24/2.8 becomes a 21-36/2.8 used in APS-C crop mode if you prefer.

So .. with the likes of these high density full frame cameras, which can crop to 20-ish Mp in APS-C mode, the APS-C format is becoming less relevant.
**Before you attack this comment!!! .. that doesn't' mean it's not relevant .. I said, it's becoming LESS relevant. lets get this fact straight and correct .. LESS relevant.
Reason is, taking the D500 as an example. it's APS-C frame gives 20Mp, a cropped D850 gives APS-C equiv of 20Mp. So you mount this massive 400/2.8 bird lens on the D850. It's a proper 400/2.8 FOV on the Fx camera, and it's also a 600/2.8 FOV equivalent on the same camera.
What I don't get on the APS-C D500 is the 400/2.8 ability .. I only get the 600/2.8 FOV ability .. etc etc .. to infinity(with other lenses).

So if I want 16mm on APS-C, I can have a 24mm lens full frame, but on full frame this also gives me a 36mm equivalent APS-C ability(plus any other crop ability you choose to have on APS-C as well).
So where you to want that same 24-36mm lens on APS-C, requires you to use a slower or larger zoom lens, or two lenses to achieve the same lens ability on the full frame camera body.
It's the same at the long end too with the 400mm example .. much more complex and in favor of the larger format sensor .. again!

Where you chose the APS-C format for the available lenses, now require you to add more lenses to that camera ... where the full frame camera owner doesn't need that extra weight ... nor the need to change lenses mid shoot.
Changing lenses mid shoot is almost a guarantee to miss shots.

That you chose Fuji APS-C format over Nikon's Fx camera was a personal choice for you. It seems to have worked for you.
I doubt that MissionMan chose an APS-C format, and decided that Fuji was the way to go forward from there. I think the choice was Fuji ... -> they make APS-C format gear so that's how it panned out.
That is, the Fuji camera appealed, it just so happens that they make APS-C sized gear only. I'm sure if Fuji had a 135 format camera body at a reasonable price, the choice would have been a lot more difficult.
We'll never know tho as that is simply not a choice to make.

I've kind'a waited for somethign like the D850 to come for a while now. If it isn't what I'm expecting(mainly the viewfinder), I may pass on it. The extra pixels will be a bonus but I can live without them(personally I'd have preferred to have seen something like 60-ish Mp). But in the overall scheme of thins, they make no difference to my choice.
The Fx format does tho, and is a major deciding factor for me.
The D500s' APS-C format wasn't as 'open to interpretation' for my liking. Yeah I could crop it, but I'm cropping a cropped format ... not really viable in the long term.
I made this choice based purely on physical properties, a bot of equivalence, and a lot on the possible variables .. not simply because APS-C is better worse, or that Fx is better or worse .. simply that Fx is more compliant for my future uses.

I need to reiterate again .. I've never called anyone, or any group of users idiots, least of all anyone that decides APS-C is a format for them. That assertion was made as an assumption by MissionMan due to what I elaborated on, and was misinterpreted by himself to mean something it was never meant to.

Side note: if I called anyone preferring an APS-C body an idiot then it'd be self deprecation on my part considering that I literally today! ... earlier this morning .. bought myself another APS-C camera and APS-C lens(thanks Kev!!)).
Now, I may sometimes come across to be an idiot(hey!.. take it easy peeps! :p) .. I've been told that I look like an idiot(stupid hat I wear in the cold room at work) .. but I know I'm not an idiot for choosing a new APS-C camera and lens kit.

[MissionMan]

I suggest you go back and read my replies more carefully .. word being put into my mouth here. not really appreciated either!

What I said, was in response to MM's comment that Nikon desperately need APS-C pro glass(lenses).
What I said was that if a photographer was to base their decision to go back to APS-C solely on the provision of lens choices, it's illogical .. they don't really understand why they've done that.

Went on to give lens examples, based on the lens capability for each format. That some lenses are made in plastic and others' are covered with metal is no indication that the lens is pro, more durable or whatever(easy way to understand this is to read up Lens Rental blog.
Many instances of straight up metal bodies Sony lenses made primarily using plastic inside that wear/break/fatigue/cause them troubles .. this is metal bodied lenses!

Never called anyone an idiot .. especially an APS-C user since I am one myself!
Never said that the D850 was so amazing that Nikon didn't need a mirrorless. I said that I don't think Nikon need a mirrorless camera to make money, and I have said in other posts that they need to make good products backed up with no faults, and backed up with better customer relations! .. that will give them good profits in the long run, and customer loyalty.


WHAT I SAID:
Lets get one thing sorted straight up tho. Full frame does offer at least one major advantage over APS-C(and other cropped formats). For a given sensor pixel pitch(ie. number of pixels per square millimeter the full frame sensor gives you all of those cropped sensors combined, you get the choice of which one you'd prefer .. and that once you choose a cropped sensor, you can't uncrop it as you can crop a larger sensor!

What does this mean in a practicality sense: I can use a full frame 50Mp sensor(lets use Canon's 5Dsr as the example), crop to 22Mp APS-C, or 16Mp m4/3rds sensor.
Using this fabled 16mm f/1.4 lens as a guide, we know using the standard crop calculations, this equates to a 24mm f/1.8 lens on the full frame format. Back tracking a bit on sensor sizes, this requires a 12mm f/1 lens for m4/3 sensor.

The widest very fast aperture lens currently available for full format is the Sigma 20/1.4(been thinking of adding this one to my kit too for it's unusualness!)
This gives wide FOV and fast aperture. To get the same FOV plus DOF on the cropped formats require a 14mm f/1 lens on APS-C or a 10mm f/0.7 lens for m4/3rds .. quite clearly the types of lenses required to achieve similar results on full frame are getting beyond ridiculous now for the cropped formats. The full frame formats have been around a lot longer than the cropped formats, so it's only natural that more varied lens types exist for the larger formats. The 135 format has been the most popular film format ever .. and again it's only natural that it contain the largest number of lens types from all the manufacturers that ever made them.

Another big advantage of the full format over the cropped sensors I mentioned earlier, and that was that if the pixel density of the sensor is accommodating for it, you can crop the larger sensor to the same FOV as the smaller sensor.
This means weight savings for the larger format. Where most folks look at the obvious size differences of the smaller formats, they don't take the time to contemplate the overall package of lenses required to achieve FOV parity.

So the APS-C kit, we'll give it the 16mm f/1.4 and for the full frame kit we're going to give it the equiv 24/1.8 lens. They give close enough to the same FOV(actually wider according to lens specs from Fuji and Nikon respectively, but we'll ignore that point for now).
The point I'm making here is that while on APS-C you've only got the 16mm FOV which is equivalent to the 24mm FOV on the full frame, on the full frame you can crop to this same APS-C format .. this now gives you not only two different lens types, but also a zoom lens where a zoom lens hasn't been used. You don't have to crop to that APS-C format, you can crop to whatever format size you like, infinitely variable from APS-C's 16mm, all the way to 24mm.
That full frame 24mm lens on full frame, is a theoretical zoom lens if you use it as an APS-C lens as well as a full frame lens.
Alternatively if we use zoom lenses as comparatives, the combinations and permutations of lens FOV is even more mind boggling compared to those available in the cropped formats.
Something like the Nikon 14-24/2.8 becomes a 21-36/2.8 used in APS-C crop mode if you prefer.

So .. with the likes of these high density full frame cameras, which can crop to 20-ish Mp in APS-C mode, the APS-C format is becoming less relevant.
**Before you attack this comment!!! .. that doesn't' mean it's not relevant .. I said, it's becoming LESS relevant. lets get this fact straight and correct .. LESS relevant.
Reason is, taking the D500 as an example. it's APS-C frame gives 20Mp, a cropped D850 gives APS-C equiv of 20Mp. So you mount this massive 400/2.8 bird lens on the D850. It's a proper 400/2.8 FOV on the Fx camera, and it's also a 600/2.8 FOV equivalent on the same camera.
What I don't get on the APS-C D500 is the 400/2.8 ability .. I only get the 600/2.8 FOV ability .. etc etc .. to infinity(with other lenses).

So if I want 16mm on APS-C, I can have a 24mm lens full frame, but on full frame this also gives me a 36mm equivalent APS-C ability(plus any other crop ability you choose to have on APS-C as well).
So where you to want that same 24-36mm lens on APS-C, requires you to use a slower or larger zoom lens, or two lenses to achieve the same lens ability on the full frame camera body.
It's the same at the long end too with the 400mm example .. much more complex and in favor of the larger format sensor .. again!

Where you chose the APS-C format for the available lenses, now require you to add more lenses to that camera ... where the full frame camera owner doesn't need that extra weight ... nor the need to change lenses mid shoot.
Changing lenses mid shoot is almost a guarantee to miss shots.

That you chose Fuji APS-C format over Nikon's Fx camera was a personal choice for you. It seems to have worked for you.
I doubt that MissionMan chose an APS-C format, and decided that Fuji was the way to go forward from there. I think the choice was Fuji ... -> they make APS-C format gear so that's how it panned out.
That is, the Fuji camera appealed, it just so happens that they make APS-C sized gear only. I'm sure if Fuji had a 135 format camera body at a reasonable price, the choice would have been a lot more difficult.
We'll never know tho as that is simply not a choice to make.

I've kind'a waited for somethign like the D850 to come for a while now. If it isn't what I'm expecting(mainly the viewfinder), I may pass on it. The extra pixels will be a bonus but I can live without them(personally I'd have preferred to have seen something like 60-ish Mp). But in the overall scheme of thins, they make no difference to my choice.
The Fx format does tho, and is a major deciding factor for me.
The D500s' APS-C format wasn't as 'open to interpretation' for my liking. Yeah I could crop it, but I'm cropping a cropped format ... not really viable in the long term.
I made this choice based purely on physical properties, a bot of equivalence, and a lot on the possible variables .. not simply because APS-C is better worse, or that Fx is better or worse .. simply that Fx is more compliant for my future uses.

I need to reiterate again .. I've never called anyone, or any group of users idiots, least of all anyone that decides APS-C is a format for them. That assertion was made as an assumption by MissionMan due to what I elaborated on, and was misinterpreted by himself to mean something it was never meant to.

Side note: if I called anyone preferring an APS-C body an idiot then it'd be self deprecation on my part considering that I literally today! ... earlier this morning .. bought myself another APS-C camera and APS-C lens(thanks Kev!!)).
Now, I may sometimes come across to be an idiot(hey!.. take it easy peeps! :p) .. I've been told that I look like an idiot(stupid hat I wear in the cold room at work) .. but I know I'm not an idiot for choosing a new APS-C camera and lens kit.

Maybe if you bothered to keep your responses to a length that is remotely readable we might actually be able to read the whole thing or remember what you wrote, but unfortunately every time you reply we get a book. Yes, you can take that as constructive criticism because I don't have the time to read the thesis on the molecular breakup of polymer lens construction you just wrote.

But what I will say is the next time you and the rest of the guys jump on a Sony A9 thread and bash the camera like you did previously (and yes, there were plenty of you in this thread), I'll be sure to remind you guys that it's a Sony thread and you aren't invited.

Over and out.

[ricktas]

So, back to our regular feature. The D850 looks mighty fine on paper.

[Cage]

So, back to our regular feature......

We can only hope. :rolleyes:

[Steve Axford]

I'm curious if anyone here is thinking of buying one.

[swifty]

I'm thinking about it.
But for me, it'll coincide with a bunch of other tech upgrades so I'll likely have to wait til next year. It'll also give me more ops to familiar myself with the camera before deciding it's the right model to upgrade to.

[ricktas]

My D800 works just fine, but if I had a need to upgrade the 850 looks good.

[Steve Axford]

It strikes me that this is one of those upgrades that, while good, is possibly not quite enough to prompt most current users to upgrade. It provides 25% more pixels , 1 stop better sensitivity, some live view stuff, a tilt screen and better video (have I missed anything important?). If you can really use the extra resolution then it makes sense, but if not .... ?

[I @ M]

(have I missed anything important?)

I would say one or two omissions that some users will value highly.

From the sounds of things the viewfinder is a nice bright affair, important for those who enjoy an OVF.

[arthurking83]

It strikes me that this is one of those upgrades that, while good, is possibly not quite enough to prompt most current users to upgrade. ....

For some people, the pixels are irrelevant(eg. me!) for others(say a bird photographer) .. they're important.

I think the camera that's being updated from is going to have an important bearing too.

eg. from a D810, maybe you're right .. the increase in pixels may not be enough, and the D810 already has a usable(but annoying) electronic front curtain(EFC), so to choose the D850 on the basis of an EFC need, would be misplaced.
You'd upgrade from the D810, but not for the EFC.
D800's on the other hand don't have EFC .. I (almost) wanted that from the D810(coming from the D800E), but again, it wasn't all round enough of an upgrade in my mind.

Probably the two single most important aspects of the D850 over the D800/810 would be:

1/. the increased speed of the camera, at up to 9fps with the grip, increased buffer .. ie. infinitely more capable for wildlife/sports/action/etc.
2/. next gen AF ability, from the D5. D5 is considered to be about as good an AF camera as can be had(according to many reviewers testers). D800 is OK, never really missed a beat for me .. dunno about others. Once again, I think this comes down to your usage.

I can imagine a stack of other upgrades over the D800/810 bodies that make the D850 a more meaningful upgrade over the D810, than the D810 was over the D800 bodies.

[Steve Axford]

I would say one or two omissions that some users will value highly.

From the sounds of things the viewfinder is a nice bright affair, important for those who enjoy an OVF.

I'd missed that. Given that many DSLR users do say that the EVF is a show-stopper to using a mirrorless camera, it makes good sense to make the OVF even better. Still, probably a nice to have rather than a reason to upgrade.

- - - Updated - - -


For some people, the pixels are irrelevant(eg. me!) for others(say a bird photographer) .. they're important.

I think the camera that's being updated from is going to have an important bearing too.

eg. from a D810, maybe you're right .. the increase in pixels may not be enough, and the D810 already has a usable(but annoying) electronic front curtain(EFC), so to choose the D850 on the basis of an EFC need, would be misplaced.
You'd upgrade from the D810, but not for the EFC.
D800's on the other hand don't have EFC .. I (almost) wanted that from the D810(coming from the D800E), but again, it wasn't all round enough of an upgrade in my mind.

Probably the two single most important aspects of the D850 over the D800/810 would be:

1/. the increased speed of the camera, at up to 9fps with the grip, increased buffer .. ie. infinitely more capable for wildlife/sports/action/etc.
2/. next gen AF ability, from the D5. D5 is considered to be about as good an AF camera as can be had(according to many reviewers testers). D800 is OK, never really missed a beat for me .. dunno about others. Once again, I think this comes down to your usage.

I can imagine a stack of other upgrades over the D800/810 bodies that make the D850 a more meaningful upgrade over the D810, than the D810 was over the D800 bodies.

The EFC is critical for some wildlife photography. I will often use full electronic shutter as it is silent. I remember the frustration of getting a platypus to swim to within a few metres of me only to get a single photo of a platypus backside as he disappeared under water. I wouldn't have believed they could react so quickly if I hadn't so many missed photos. Small birds can be almost as flighty and will often leave on hearing a shutter.

Do you think that the D850 makes sense as an upgrade to the D800?

[swifty]

I'm still using a D700 btw. So the MP count is going from 12-46mp.
But personally that wouldn't the highest motivator, the mp count is quite far down the list actually.
I'd upgrade for the AF module, a more invariant sensor, AF joystick and the ability to shoot silently sometimes.
Nice things to have are the new OVF, MP count, EFC, high ISO.

It's really the sum of the parts.

[Steve Axford]

I'm still using a D700 btw. So the MP count is going from 12-46mp.
But personally that wouldn't the highest motivator, the mp count is quite far down the list actually.
I'd upgrade for the AF module, a more invariant sensor, AF joystick and the ability to shoot silently sometimes.
Nice things to have are the new OVF, MP count, EFC, high ISO.

It's really the sum of the parts.

Makes good sense. Auto focus is one of Nikons strengths, but we are nowhere near perfection just yet, so improvements are going to be well received. I've always been able to use more pixels, but I can see that they aren't always useful and more pixels don't help at all if you miss the focus.

[piczzilla]

Personally, focus peaking would be the only thing that moves me to upgrade from D800 to D850 (I imagine it will make macro shooting a lot easier). But from stories that are going around, D850 focus peaking is still a little tad inaccurate. Once they hit the shops, I might rent one and see it for myself. Holding my breath... :D

[Steve Axford]

Personally, focus peaking would be the only thing that moves me to upgrade from D800 to D850 (I imagine it will make macro shooting a lot easier). But from stories that are going around, D850 focus peaking is still a little tad inaccurate. Once they hit the shops, I might rent one and see it for myself. Holding my breath... :D

Macro is definitely easier with tilt screen and focus peaking. Personally, I think the tilt screen is the most important, as all focus peaking isn't always spot on.

[swifty]

Personally, focus peaking would be the only thing that moves me to upgrade from D800 to D850 (I imagine it will make macro shooting a lot easier). But from stories that are going around, D850 focus peaking is still a little tad inaccurate. Once they hit the shops, I might rent one and see it for myself. Holding my breath... :D

Do you focus stack? If so, have you seen the automated focus shifting feature for macro photography?

- - - Updated - - -


Makes good sense. Auto focus is one of Nikons strengths, but we are nowhere near perfection just yet, so improvements are going to be well received. I've always been able to use more pixels, but I can see that they aren't always useful and more pixels don't help at all if you miss the focus.

It's worth mentioning that the AF sensitivity (-4EV) and the better AF point spread are the more important part of the new AF module to me but I'll take any improvement in C-AF too although I don't typically shoot sports or BIF.

And don't get me wrong, I would love having more pixels. I'd be almost doubling my resolution going from D700-D850.
But there are a host of things required to make the most of those extra pixels, otherwise they are just a liability in processing. Speaking of which, my computer is older than my D700 and also needs an upgrade soon.

Most of all I would need to improve my own shot discipline. But the EFC and silent modes will help when shutter speeds reach those critical hand-holdable levels.
I've also chosen to upgrade my glass first, having bought the 105/1.4 and 70-200/2.8FL. 28/1.4E is next on the list. All of these should make the most of the extra pixels.
So yea, extra pixels are great but I want to make sure I can make use of it.

[piczzilla]

Macro is definitely easier with tilt screen and focus peaking. Personally, I think the tilt screen is the most important, as all focus peaking isn't always spot on.

Ooh I've never thought about tilt screen that way before (I usually just tilt my body). Seeing D850 has both, it's time to save up methinks :D

- - - Updated - - -


Do you focus stack? If so, have you seen the automated focus shifting feature for macro photography?

Yep, I just recently started stacking. I've got a stackshot auto-rail, but I only use it at home, because it's terribly inconvenient to use in the field.
I'm interested to try handheld stacking for field shots this Spring.

[Cage]

Vanbar (a Nikon AU dealer) are advertising it for $4,999.34

[swifty]

Vanbar (a Nikon AU dealer) are advertising it for $4,999.34

That's a little more like it. Still a tad high IMO. May as well factor in an overseas holiday if you're intending to purchase a D850 to get the GST back which would make it around $4550.
Local Singapore dealers are now saying around $4650 SGD including 7% GST. If you minus the GST it actually works out to be slightly better than the US pricing on current exchange rates which is a surprise. But apparently Sg won't be getting first shipment which is due out in a few days.
BTW, for those that don't know you can claim back GST as a non-resident when purchasing from Singapore but you don't get back the full 7%. Usually around 5% but that would still make it around $4440 SGD or $4115 AUD on current exchange rates. Pretty good but for the extra $400 AUD odd, if I was living in Oz I'd probably go the local AU set with the 2 yr warranty.

[Cage]

Pretty good but for the extra $400 AUD odd, if I was living in Oz I'd probably go the local AU set with the 2 yr warranty.

I really hope Nikon get this one right, but for mine the extra 400 bucks buys a lot of peace of mind.

[arthurking83]

Do you think that the D850 makes sense as an upgrade to the D800? [/COLOR] ....

On the whole, for my purposes, it appears to be so.
EFC for me would basically make macro shooting 'easier' .. less risk of movement(I'm hoping) for greater than 1x magnification.

Like Swifty said, he's still using the D700!
Way back, when I contemplated the update/upgrade from the D300 to the D800, I actually wanted a D700 at the time of the release of the D800 ... thinking that the price would come down massively and the money money saved not getting the D800 would also get me some good lenses as well ...
But having seen some nicely made videos from the D800, for me the video feature was the decider. The massive pixel count (kind'a) scared me a little, as I'd been reading horror stories of people having PC slowness issues.
Wasn't a major issue on my lethargic and very old(back then) PC, except if I did any noise reduction on any image. It could take up to 2 mins on a single image(using CaptureNX2) just to finish rendering the NR routine from enabling it!
Saving the now tweaked image would take barely 5 secs or so .. just the trouble of using the NR routine in my software.
Other than that the extra pixels were nice to have, never really used them, and once I updated the PC to something with a CPU that actually moves data, the number of pixels are generally irrelevant.
They can be nice to have so that if using high ISO and maintaining the entire frame, noise is barely an issue for the most part.

So for me, D800 to D850 make more sense than not(for my purposes).
For someone else that doesn't need the EFC, or care for the larger brighter viewfinder, or whatever .. and predominantly sticks to landscapes only .. maybe not.



Do you focus stack? If so, have you seen the automated focus shifting feature for macro photography? ...

I've done it a few times, but never manually. I can image how tedious it'd be for some situations.
My only focus stacking experience has been using ControlMyNikon (on a Windows Tablet) tethered to the D800E, using the Nikon 105VR, and the CMN software did it all for me.(basically coz I'm lazy, and get bored easily with tedious stuff).
So the software was set to shoot something like a zillion images, then set to open those images with another software(I think CombineZP), and it was scripted to automatically convert images to jpg and run the stack.
In the 5-10mins it took from when I pressed the go button to leaving the room so that my movements didn't affect the sharpness of the images, I made my lunch ate it, had a cuppa and came back 20 or so mins later to find it all done.
Wasn't overly thrilled by the overall mucking about trying to get the image looking 'nice' .. stupid 105VR 'focus breathes' too much for a macro lens.


.... May as well factor in an overseas holiday if you're intending to purchase a D850 to get the GST back which would make it around $4550.
....

This is exactly what I was thinking of doing at some point. HK or SG .. not sure on what/where how .. maybe even Thailand(where they're going to be made).
But I haven't been out of the country for over 40 odd years, and I've always thought to do something like that one day before all my joints stop working completely .. ie. while I CAN! :D
Not for long tho(can't really do that) .. maybe 4 days .. or a long-ish weekend or something.
ie. go to said OS place, locate reputable shop selling camera for decent $s(incl conversion rate) .. wander around said OS location using camera, and take in some brief sights .. hopefully have saved close to $1K, which basically pays for the trip!

[swifty]

But I haven't been out of the country for over 40 odd years, and I've always thought to do something like that one day before all my joints stop working completely .. ie. while I CAN! :D
Not for long tho(can't really do that) .. maybe 4 days .. or a long-ish weekend or something.
ie. go to said OS place, locate reputable shop selling camera for decent $s(incl conversion rate) .. wander around said OS location using camera, and take in some brief sights .. hopefully have saved close to $1K, which basically pays for the trip!

40 years!!! Arthur, you need to get out more. Seriously.
If you do decide to drop by Sg, shoot me a message. I'd be happy to show you around and if you're purchasing gear, where to/not to buy it from.

PS: I'd always thought you might be younger than me cos I thought 83 might have meant 1983, as the year you're born. Obviously I assumed wrong LOL.

[Steve Axford]

Are you really 83, Arthur?

[arthurking83]

....

PS: I'd always thought you might be younger than me cos I thought 83 might have meant 1983, as the year you're born. Obviously I assumed wrong LOL.

Nah! .. I wish too! :D

83 is my old driver number when I used to be a courier.
Tell 'ya what tho, I feel like an 83yo. My pop is 83, and he moves around better than I do.

[Cage]

- - - Updated - - -

If you troll back through the Melbourne meet-ups there is a pic of young Artie looking all of fifty something. :nod:

Here ya' go, Post #51 http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?139665-How-about-Vic-meetup-for-June-27th(Sat)-7AM-start/page2

[arthurking83]

You mean .. looking fifty-something, but feeling eighty something! :D
Motorcycling couriering and the broken bones that come with that has taken it's toll .. and funny enough I ended up working for Toll in the end.

Some goody info available now via the Manual on Nikon's download area.
Both View software's have also been updated to allow D850 NEF file compatibility.