We're talking about low-ISO, high-resolution sensors here. The D850 isn't a high-speed action camera, so how the D500/D5/A9/1Dx2 perform is completely irrelevant.
Jeeze, I promised not to comment, but your pathological denial of reality demands a response.
Please don't speak of what 'we' are talking about, unless you're addressing the mouse in your pocket.
I will talk about what I please, thank you
I was talking about Nikon's superior sensor quality at all levels. To refresh your memory:
The D810 is the best Base ISO DSLR on the market, even 3 years after its production, and even after 3 new Sony offerings in the same class.
The Nikon-designed D500 is the best APS-C sensor on the market; it is also the most fully-capable APS-S camera on the market. Hence its multiple awards.
The D5 is the best high ISO DSLR on the market.
Denial of these truths, and the attempt to bury several of them, just so you can keep writing, is only denial on your part, not rebuttal.
In any case, the D500 sensor (Nikon-designed) is worse
Another deliberate misrepresentation.
The truth is, the Nikon D500 has the best DX (APS-C) sensor available today. Better than any Sony offering; better than any Canon offering.
Better ergonomics, functionality, and 10x better AF function, too.
Nikon's D810 sensor is a Sony-designed, Sony-made sensor. Nikon has never designed or made a sensor that matches Exmor sensors at low ISO.
What difference does it make?
Nikon's handling of the Sony sensor (in the D810) has achieved better Base ISO results than ...
not one ...
not two ... but
three subsequent Sony sensors made in the wake of the D800/D810. Nikon can simply handle the sensors better.
Canon are looking to do just that: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Canon-wants-its-image-sensors-in-others-cars-robots
Naturally, Canon isn't going to sell its best sensor to Nikon or Sony, either.
Well, given Canon's dismal sensor performance, I don't imagine to many prospective buyers flocking to them over Sony ....
Just because a company sells a type of product in general, or one particular product to one particular customer, doesn't mean it will sell everything they make to any buyer. Sony sold the 36MP sensor to Nikon because it made sense at the time - Sony had no other way to use the sensor. There's nothing forcing them to do the same next time - they'll only do it if it's to their advantage to do so. And it would be dumb to sell your trump card to any competitor, particularly your main rival. Or do you actually think that Pentax wouldn't have used the 42MP sensor, had they been able to get their hands on it?
This is simply burying your head in the sand, ignoring the reality that, 5 years (and 3 FF sensors later), Sony still doesn't produce the best base ISO results; the aged Nikon D810 does.
'Brand preference'? Don't have one. I like sharp lenses in front of a top-performing sensor. Back in 2007-2008, that meant Canon/Zeiss lenses in front of a 1Ds3 or 5D2. Currently, that means Canon/Sigma/Zeiss in front of Sony bodies. Would use Nikon lenses too (and did use a 14-24 on the 5D2 and A7r), but they barely work with adaptors. The D810 is nice, but can't take third-party lenses not specifically made for F-mount, which is a deal-breaker. Until the recent PC-E 19, Nikon didn't have a decent wide-angle tilt-shift. And that still doesn't replace the critical 24mm tilt-shift, and the PC-E 24 is crap. It also can't take the Canon 100-400L II, which is the best landscape telephoto lens out there (taking into account corner-to-corner sharpness, weight for dragging through the wilderness and the focal lenghts covered - the verdict is still out on the Sony 100-400 GM), and both the 80-400 and 200-500 are significantly less sharp in the corners.
Your posts belie this claim. You are a Canon fanboy converted to a Sony fanboy.
The Canon 100-400 is (at best) a convenient medium-high-quality lens, nothing more.
The Nikon D810 doesn't need 3rd party lenses: the Nikkor optics all eclipse most 3rd party (or Canon) option available.
The few exceptions are Otus lenses, which fit on the D810 just fine, and produce cleaner images on the D810 at base ISO than any Canon or Sony cameras with the same lens.
Only thing is, none of the best sensors are designed by Nikon.
The D4s sensor beats any Sony sensor, and was manufactured by Nikon.
The D500 sensor beats any competitor's sensor, and was spec'ed by Nikon.
The D5 does well as an action camera, but not because of its sensor, but because of its AF and lens selection. The 1Dx2 has a better all-round sensor unless you only ever shoot at the very highest ISO, while the A9 matches the D5 in AF capabilities and has a better sensor at all ISOs (better DR/noise at low ISO, equal at high ISO but still maintaining a resolution advantage) but lacks the lens selection.
More rubbish.
The A9 AF system is sub-par to the D5's.
The buffer, and ability to keep going, is a joke compared to the D5's.
The D810 sensor is a Sony design.
Nikon's removal of the AA filter, + 64 ISO expansion, makes it better than any Sony effort with their own sensors.
Companies can do more than one thing, and they balance their priorities.
Sony is trying to knock Nikon off its perch in the camera market. They're hardly going to give them their best selling point, to be used against them - they're not dumb. The sensors they sell to go in D810 bodies are a drop in the ocean compared to the numbers they supply for lesser cameras, industry, consumer goods and other non-photographic applications. The sales won't be missed, and will be mostly made up for by the increased market share from having a better camera in the market (less D850 sensors sold to Nikon, but more A9r bodies, sensors included, sold to the public). And they may still make the sensor - they just won't design it for them.
We go back to your baseless, "wishful thinking," prognostication.
The truth is, the sensors they sell to Nikon in all probability out-revenue the money they make selling their own inferior, limited cameras ... to zealots like you, with limited needs.
