Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development

[kers]

Much more? That's 23% greater resolution. My results with top FF lenses indicate that, on-axis,  the lens is not the most important factor until well over 200 MP.
Jim

I measured with my humble nikon1 J5 that 150 Mp in the central area is possible for the better lenses at their best aperture.
However, off-axis we already see problems at 36MP especially with wide angles. That is why the Otus 28mm is such a good lens.

[shadowblade]

Thanks. The extensive added explanation makes it clear that the statement is simply about the fact that in some cases, Sony camera designers work with Sony sensor designers to customize sensor designs, and these "bespoke" sensor designs are for use only in Sony cameras. In this context, I note that over the years, Nikon's camera designers have similarly worked with Sony sensor designers, providing some Nikon-developed sensor design ideas for sensors used exclusively in Nikon cameras.

In fact, it also seems that some Sony sensors are exclusively for Olympus M43 cameras. I mention this just to emphasize that Sony Semiconductor Solutions Corporation offers both bespoke and prét-a-porter sensors.

Do they, though?

I note that the 36MP sensor is listed with the sensors open to commercial buyers at Sony's website, whereas the (newer, and presumably Sony-commissioned) 42MP is not. The 42MP also uses certain technologies - BSI, and far better performance at high ISO - that the 36MP does not.

Given that they are part of the same group of companies, with the same overall management at the top level, there will be a far greater level of integration possible between Sony's camera designers and their sensor designers than for any other company working with Sony imaging. More a case of 'This is what we need - how can we do it, and what technology do we need to develop and what fab processes do we need to have in order to do it?' rather than 'Sorry, the technology doesn't exist/our fab plant can't do it yet.' Certainly, BSI technology opens up a lot of possibilities for improving performance, particularly at low ISOs, by putting more capability behind each pixel rather than being limited by the amount of spare room at the front, between the photosites.

[davidgp]

Do they, though?

I note that the 36MP sensor is listed with the sensors open to commercial buyers at Sony's website, whereas the (newer, and presumably Sony-commissioned) 42MP is not. The 42MP also uses certain technologies - BSI, and far better performance at high ISO - that the 36MP does not.

Given that they are part of the same group of companies, with the same overall management at the top level, there will be a far greater level of integration possible between Sony's camera designers and their sensor designers than for any other company working with Sony imaging. More a case of 'This is what we need - how can we do it, and what technology do we need to develop and what fab processes do we need to have in order to do it?' rather than 'Sorry, the technology doesn't exist/our fab plant can't do it yet.' Certainly, BSI technology opens up a lot of possibilities for improving performance, particularly at low ISOs, by putting more capability behind each pixel rather than being limited by the amount of spare room at the front, between the photosites.

I think we already talked about this in the past and we didn't agree at the end , but here we go again...

Take a look for example to mobile phone sensors, what really gives Sony their big bucks in sensor business... where all those technologies like BSI or stacked sensor of the A9 was first developed... Sony was selling their best sensors to Apple or Samsung (yes, they use Sony sensors in their flagship phones instead of their own)... even though they also make their own mobile phones (well, not that they're to successful in this business).

About BSI, I remember an interview with some Sony representative when the A7r II was released about why they aren't using it in sensors with lower resolution on FF... their response was that it was more complicated to produce and for bigger pixel size the benefits where minimal... for example, A9 does not uses BSI sensor...

Anyway... as I was saying... we can agree to disagree in this regard


http://dgpfotografia.com

[shadowblade]

Looking at the D850's specs for wildlife/action photography, it looks like Nikon has left a gap which Canon and/or Sony could potentially exploit.

The D850 can manage 46MP at 9fps, but only with a grip. Without the grip, it's down to 7fps - marginal for a primary action body, although still more than usable.

What exactly does the grip provide? More power? Unlikely that it provides an extra processor or anything else that contributes to the frame rate. Is the battery so weak, or the camera so power-intensive, that it cannot run at 9fps on a single battery, for whatever length of time? Or is this just an artificial limitation on Nikon's part to force people to buy the grip, controlling the spread of third-party grips but driving away potential users who simply can't stand gripped bodies (too big, too heavy in hand or just unnecessary weight in a travel kit)?

The A9 has enough bandwidth to run 24MP at 20fps. That's 48MP at 10fps, in a volume and weight of a non-gripped camera, while running a power-intensive EVF. There's no reason to think Canon can't achieve the same sort of bandwidth, and thus resolution/frame rate, in an ungripped 5Ds2 or 5D5 either.

Certainly, a gripped D850 would be a very good wildlife camera (and the best one we know exists at the moment). But could this requirement to use a grip work against it when considering different options for a two-camera system, should Sony or Canon release something with similar resolution/frame rate that can achieve that performance ungripped?

Also, I'd be interested to see thr PDR-vs-ISO measurements of this camera. The choice of an ISO 64 base seems interesting,  given that, unlike the D810, the D850 is as much an action body as anything else. It can't sacrifice high-ISO performance for minor benefits at base ISO - it needs to perform at ISO 1600-6400, not lag two-thirds of a stop behind its contemporaries. I'd be looking to see if it does, in fact, achieve a better DR at ISO 64 while keeping up at high ISO, or if it merely shifts the curve half a stop leftward (like the D810). If it's the latter, it would seem as if the designers couldn't make up their mind - is it an action camera that shoots and focuses quickly and performs at mid-high ISOs, or is it a resolution camera designed for ultimate low-ISO performance? 9fps and a compromised ISO 1600-6400 wouldn't make much sense.

[Michael Erlewine]

Looking at the D850's specs for wildlife/action photography, it looks like Nikon has left a gap which Canon and/or Sony could potentially exploit.

The D850 can manage 46MP at 9fps, but only with a grip. Without the grip, it's down to 7fps - marginal for a primary action body, although still more than usable.

What exactly does the grip provide? More power? Unlikely that it provides an extra processor or anything else that contributes to the frame rate. Is the battery so weak, or the camera so power-intensive, that it cannot run at 9fps on a single battery, for whatever length of time? Or is this just an artificial limitation on Nikon's part to force people to buy the grip, controlling the spread of third-party grips but driving away potential users who simply can't stand gripped bodies (too big, too heavy in hand or just unnecessary weight in a travel kit)?

The A9 has enough bandwidth to run 24MP at 20fps. That's 48MP at 10fps, in a volume and weight of a non-gripped camera, while running a power-intensive EVF. There's no reason to think Canon can't achieve the same sort of bandwidth, and thus resolution/frame rate, in an ungripped 5Ds2 or 5D5 either.

Certainly, a gripped D850 would be a very good wildlife camera (and the best one we know exists at the moment). But could this requirement to use a grip work against it when considering different options for a two-camera system, should Sony or Canon release something with similar resolution/frame rate that can achieve that performance ungripped?

Also, I'd be interested to see thr PDR-vs-ISO measurements of this camera. The choice of an ISO 64 base seems interesting,  given that, unlike the D810, the D850 is as much an action body as anything else. It can't sacrifice high-ISO performance for minor benefits at base ISO - it needs to perform at ISO 1600-6400, not lag two-thirds of a stop behind its contemporaries. I'd be looking to see if it does, in fact, achieve a better DR at ISO 64 while keeping up at high ISO, or if it merely shifts the curve half a stop leftward (like the D810). If it's the latter, it would seem as if the designers couldn't make up their mind - is it an action camera that shoots and focuses quickly and performs at mid-high ISOs, or is it a resolution camera designed for ultimate low-ISO performance? 9fps and a compromised ISO 1600-6400 wouldn't make much sense.

My thoughts exactly. Personally, I don't care about high ISO, since I never use it. However, I do care about an authentic low ISO, like the ISO 64 that the Nikon D810 has. If the D850 has the same ISO 64 as the D810 (or better), I will be very happy. However, if the ISO 64 is some kind of extended ISO (or whatever the right words are), I will be very disappointed and look again at the mirrorless MF cameras or hope Sony will deliver a larger landscape/macro camera.  I have so many fine and useful lenses in Nikon F-mount format that a proper ISO 54 D810 would satisfy me until Nikon perhaps comes out with a high-resolution mirrorless body that takes all the old lenses.

[shadowblade]

My thoughts exactly. Personally, I don't care about high ISO, since I never use it. However, I do care about an authentic low ISO, like the ISO 64 that the Nikon D810 has. If the D850 has the same ISO 64 as the D810 (or better), I will be very happy. However, if the ISO 64 is some kind of extended ISO (or whatever the right words are), I will be very disappointed and look again at the mirrorless MF cameras or hope Sony will deliver a larger landscape/macro camera.  I have so many fine and useful lenses in Nikon F-mount format that a proper ISO 54 D810 would satisfy me until Nikon perhaps comes out with a high-resolution mirrorless body that takes all the old lenses.

This may be a case of trying to chase two targets at once.

The D850 is an action camera. It can shoot 9fps and has the D5 AF system. With its full-frame sensor and high pixel density for cropping, it will likely be the best wildlife and field sports camera out there. It needs to perform in the ISO 1600-6400 range, not be two-thirds of a stop behind the leaders like the D810. The D810 can get away with it because it doesn't even pretend to be an action camera. The D850 can't.

At the same time, anyone using it as a D810 successor, or as Nikon's top resolution/IQ body, will expect top-quality low-ISO performance. The D810 delivers no more DR at ISO 64 than the D800e or A7r deliver at ISO 100, although the images may be slightly cleaner. In other words, it essentially sacrificed 2/3 of a stop of ISO performance at all ISOs to deliver this - something the D850, as an action camera as well as a high-resolution camera, can't afford to do.

I wonder if they've managed to find a compromise that delivers high ISO performance equal to other action cameras while maintaining (if not exceeding) the D810's low-ISO performance,  or if they've had to sacrifice one end for the other? If they had to sacrifice one end, it would make more sense to sacrifice the lower end (below ISO 100) - the 46MP camera won't be the highest-resolution camera out there, but could well be the best action/wildlife body. Better to optimise it to make it truly excel at its strength (while being more than competent for non-action work) than to make something that's half-optimised for both (fps/resolution and AF for action, but DR and ISO performance for non-action)

[Michael Erlewine]

This may be a case of trying to chase two targets at once.

The D850 is an action camera. It can shoot 9fps and has the D5 AF system. With its full-frame sensor and high pixel density for cropping, it will likely be the best wildlife and field sports camera out there. It needs to perform in the ISO 1600-6400 range, not be two-thirds of a stop behind the leaders like the D810. The D810 can get away with it because it doesn't even pretend to be an action camera. The D850 can't.

At the same time, anyone using it as a D810 successor, or as Nikon's top resolution/IQ body, will expect top-quality low-ISO performance. The D810 delivers no more DR at ISO 64 than the D800e or A7r deliver at ISO 100, although the images may be slightly cleaner. In other words, it essentially sacrificed 2/3 of a stop of ISO performance at all ISOs to deliver this - something the D850, as an action camera as well as a high-resolution camera, can't afford to do.

I wonder if they've managed to find a compromise that delivers high ISO performance equal to other action cameras while maintaining (if not exceeding) the D810's low-ISO performance,  or if they've had to sacrifice one end for the other? If they had to sacrifice one end, it would make more sense to sacrifice the lower end (below ISO 100) - the 46MP camera won't be the highest-resolution camera out there, but could well be the best action/wildlife body. Better to optimise it to make it truly excel at its strength (while being more than competent for non-action work) than to make something that's half-optimised for both (fps/resolution and AF for action, but DR and ISO performance for non-action)

I understand your view, but I need the low ISO, not an action camera.

[Jim Kasson]

I wonder if they've managed to find a compromise that delivers high ISO performance equal to other action cameras while maintaining (if not exceeding) the D810's low-ISO performance,  or if they've had to sacrifice one end for the other?

There is a way around this: DR-Pix, or something like it that doesn't fit all ISOs to the Procrustean Bed of one conversion gain. But Nikon has ignored that technology so far.

Jim

[shadowblade]

I understand your view, but I need the low ISO, not an action camera.

I'm not arguing about need, but what they are likely to do.

I need an ultra-high resolution sensor with great DR at low ISO, for landscapes.

I also need a body with top-tier AF for tracking action, with a fast enough frame rate for wildlife, a high enough resolution for cropping and good performance in the ISO 400-6400 range.

Ideally, they'd be one and the same camera - something that excels both at low ISO and at high ISO.

But the D850 appears to lean towards the second type of camera. It has a decent resolution, good enough for cropping wildlife/action, but won't win the resolution stakes against either Canon or Sony. It also has the frame rate and AF systems for action. So it would make sense to optimise the sensor for mid-ISO action photography and play to its strengths, rather than make it a low-ISO sensor to try to turn the camera into something that it's not. If the low-ISO optimisation can be done without impacting on mid-ISO DR, then go for it, but it wouldn't make sense to sacrifice mid-ISO performance in a body that could be the best general action body out there to make it slightly better at something it's unlikely to be the best at, anyway. That goes double if Nikon intend to bring out a higher-resolution body in the next one to two years anyway, as a dedicated studio/landscape body.

[shadowblade]

There is a way around this: DR-Pix, or something like it that doesn't fit all ISOs to the Procrustean Bed of one conversion gain. But Nikon has ignored that technology so far.

Jim

It may be an issue of mass fabrication rather than design.

Certainly, multilayer circuitry, BSI technology and the general shrinkage of architecture make it a much more realistic technology to implement now than five years ago.

But there may also be an issue with patents.

[Michael Erlewine]

My point is that if it does not have the ISO, which made the D810 famous, then it is not an upgrade for that camera, at least for me. End of story.

[BernardLanguillier]

But the D850 appears to lean towards the second type of camera. It has a decent resolution, good enough for cropping wildlife/action, but won't win the resolution stakes against either Canon or Sony.

Right... 45mp is "decent resolution"...

This is 4x5 level with the right lenses, by most standards it is super high resolution.

70mp will not be that different.

If you really need more, only spherical stitching will help.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Jim Kasson]

It may be an issue of mass fabrication rather than design.

Certainly, multilayer circuitry, BSI technology and the general shrinkage of architecture make it a much more realistic technology to implement now than five years ago.

But there may also be an issue with patents.

It requires a license from the successor company to Aptina, where it was invented. Sony has implemented it in non-BSI (and BSI) sensors and achieved excellent results.

Jim

[kers]

I hope that the d850 can prove OVF is still alive.
It seems they put a real nice prisma in the d850.
If it can shoot without noise, uses evf in a proper way and has a nice detailed LCD screen than you have the best off both worlds.

[shadowblade]

It requires a license from the successor company to Aptina, where it was invented. Sony has implemented it in non-BSI (and BSI) sensors and achieved excellent results.

Jim

I knew Sony had implemented something similar - didn't know they had licensed it from Aptina rather than developing their own similar thing. I believe one method involves using an additional, 'add-on' capacitor, while another involves using two (or more) sets of ADCs, for different ISO settings.

[Jim Kasson]

I knew Sony had implemented something similar - didn't know they had licensed it from Aptina rather than developing their own similar thing. I believe one method involves using an additional, 'add-on' capacitor, while another involves using two (or more) sets of ADCs, for different ISO settings.

Sony uses the Aptina technology. That's the one with the add-on cap that's switched in at low-ISOs to raise the FWC and lower the conversion gain. That improves the high-ISO SNR more effectively than changing ADCs, since the change in gain occurs ahead of the source follower, some switching, and the PGA.

Jim

[shadowblade]

Right... 45mp is "decent resolution"...

This is 4x5 level with the right lenses, by most standards it is super high resolution.

70mp will not be that different.

If you really need more, only spherical stitching will help.

Cheers,
Bernard

It's all relative to the competition.

If Canon and Sony both bring out 60MP sensors with similar DR, then 46MP is not particularly high-resolution. A studio/landscape/commercial/reproduction/architecture/other non-action photographer can make use of every extra pixel.

The 5Ds is already 50MP, and Canon's hardly going to go backwards resolution-wise in the next iteration.

There's also opportunity cost. Some things are an either/or deal - you can't have both.

The D850's combination of resolution, frame rate and AF would make it an ideal action camera. But, to be an ideal action camera, it needs to match up to the best-in-class sensors in the typical action working range, from ISO 400-6400. If it can't do that, then it detracts from its ability to perform as an action camera.

The D810 sacrificed high-ISO performance for low-ISO performance. It has similar DR at ISO 64 to the A7r at ISO 100, similar DR at ISO 500 to the A7r/D800e at ISO 800, similar DR at ISO 2000 to the A7r/D800e at ISO 3200, and so on - always around half to two-thirds of a stop behind. It could do that because it was never expected to perform as an action camera - there was no opportunity cost there.

That's not the case for the D850. It's expected to perform as an action body. It can't sacrifice half a stop of performance at typical action ISOs in order to be slightly better at ISO 64. If it does, it will be sub-par as an action body, while being an oddball for a non-action camera, with high low-ISO DR but a fast frame rate, action-oriented AF system and resolution likely below what the competition will offer.

It remains to be seen if it manages to achieve both, maintaining low-ISO image quality without sacrificing high-ISO performance. It'd be a win if it manages to retain the D810's DR at low ISO (with an additional 10MP to boot; whether it achieves this 11.6 stops of PDR at ISO 64 only, or if it achieves it at ISO 100 and retains it at ISO 64 doesn't particularly matter) while matching the D5/A7r2/A9's dynamic range at ISO 1600-6400. But it can't afford to fall behind the pure action bodies at ISO 1600-6400, nor can it afford to underperform the D810 DR-wise at low ISO, which is why the sensor design and choice for the D850 is a much tougher decision and much tougher technical challenge than the sensor for the D810 (or the D5, for that matter) - it has to do more than one thing, and both of them well.

[BernardLanguillier]

It's all relative to the competition.

If Canon and Sony both bring out 60MP sensors with similar DR, then 46MP is not particularly high-resolution. A studio/landscape/commercial/reproduction/architecture/other non-action photographer can make use of every extra pixel.

Sure.

Could you please explain once again why you are using this tremendous amount of energy to write about a camera that obviously is far from fitting your needs?

Are you trying to show us, likely D850 buyers, the right path ahead?

As D810 owners, the value is pretty obvious and most available facts point that this is going to be the best available DSLR at release, replacing the D810 in this role.

Are better cameras going to be released moving forward? Most certainly so. But as far as I know, none of them will be able to focus my large collection of brilliant Nikon lenses as well as the D850 will (and none may be able to focus their native lenses as well either by the way).

As far as I am concerned, I may purchase a Sony a9r, that would be a great way to tip my toes into the mirrorless world. Would I keep it if Nikon released a DSLR with similar resolution? Probably not but who knows.

We can speculate all we want in our imaginary world, the reality is that we end up speaking a lot about our own context and needs and share little usable input for others. I did waste a lot of time doing that in good faith in the past, I never got much out of it really. 

Cheers,
Bernard

[henrikfoto]

Does anyone know a date for the "D850"?

[shadowblade]

Sure.

Could you please explain once again why you are using this tremendous amount of energy to write about a camera that obviously is far from fitting your needs?

Are you trying to show us, likely D850 buyers, the right path ahead?

As D810 owners, the value is pretty obvious and most available facts point that this is going to be the best available DSLR at release, replacing the D810 in this role.

Are better cameras going to be released moving forward? Most certainly so. But as far as I know, none of them will be able to focus my large collection of brilliant Nikon lenses as well as the D850 will (and none may be able to focus their native lenses as well either by the way).

As far as I am concerned, I may purchase a Sony a9r, that would be a great way to tip my toes into the mirrorless world. Would I keep it if Nikon released a DSLR with similar resolution? Probably not but who knows.

We can speculate all we want in our imaginary world, the reality is that we end up speaking a lot about our own context and needs and share little usable input for others. I did waste a lot of time doing that in good faith in the past, I never got much out of it really. 

Cheers,
Bernard

The D850 does suit one of my needs - that of the high-resolution action camera suitable for shooting wildlife and cropping if needed. The combination of resolution, frame rate  better than anything else out there for it.

But it won't be the best low-ISO, high-resolution full-frame body out there. Its resolution deficit compared to Canon/Sony will see to that. It will be competent, and likely better than the D810 for that, but there will be better options for those only concerned with low-ISO performance with no regard for action use.

That may well be another Nikon system,  if they can come up with an ultra-high-resolution camera more suited to that role. But it won't be the D850. Nor should it - better to have a camera that's fully optimised for one thing without compromises, while being competent at the other, than being half-optimised for both while being the best at neither. Let the D850 be the king of wildlife/action, without compromising its mid-ISO performance for slightly better ISO 64, and let another body with higher resolution be the low-ISO body.

Or are you so wedded to the D850 being the D810 replacement for base ISO use that you can't see that it may be best suited to a completely different role, with the low-ISO crown being taken by another Nikon camera with a different name and specs better suited to the role? Maybe even D850 with 46MP/9fps and D850x with 70MP/5fps, as a pair of bodies which can handle every situation and cover each other competently as a backup camera should the need arise.

No interest in convincing anyone. But it's interesting how rusted-on fanboys take it so personally that one camera of their favoured system isn't going to be the best at everything - the best low-ISO high-resolution body as well as the best action body. It's not like I'm expecting to be shooting cheetahs at 10fps with a Sony 70MP system.

Action and non-action are best covered by a pair of cameras, each specialised in a role but able to cover for the other if needed, rather than a 'do everything' body which does an OK job of everything but excels in neither. Aside from the ISO performance, which is currently unknown, the D850 appears to be the action rather than non-action camera of the pair. So let it do that role as well as it can, and hope for an even higher resolution non-action body, rather than hoping for a low-ISO sensor that takes away from its ability as an action camera while still leaving it a few megapixels short of being an ideal non-action body.

As for its role as a general-purpose, photojournalistic 5D4-style body, it would make more sense to put in a sensor able to keep up at ISO 3200 than one which sacrifices that for even better base-ISO performance. After all, you buy a general-purpose camera to be able to shoot everything competently with one body, not to sgoot at base ISO while sacrificing action capability.