Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development

[hogloff]

Pretty sure you wouldn't call me 'boy' in person, and pretty sure you'd do anything but 'swing' if we met also.

Agree on the last part. No gaskets blown, but enough time wasted.



Everybody's market share has dropped like a rock (Canon's total sales is down 35% also).

I agree, Sony's market share is 'up' ... mostly because they were less than 2% a couple of years ago.

Market share is a percentage of the entire market. When Nikon's share which used to be around 40% drops to about 25%...that's significant. And no Canon's market share had held steady and mirrorless had eaten up Nikon's share.

As far as Sony's market share, I can confidently say it is Much greater than the 2% you mention. In fact mirrorless market share of ILC has been climbing and sits at roughly 35%.

[Maverick02]

Another thread full of back and forth, this was one of the forum's one could come to, where things where discussed, talked out, and each side presented themselves intelligently, without all the ego and pride being in the forefront. 

[shadowblade]

Blah, blah, blah, blah... too long and too nonsensical to address each assertion individually.

Until you actually bring out some data to back up your claims (apart from the idiotic, derived, uncorroborated Lenscore/Senscore values which don't actually correlate with other tests out there which have published their methods or raw data), they remain just as idiotic as your previous asseetions of Canon's superiority to everything else out there. Or do you want me to start quoting those posts too (they were made when the D810 and D4 were already out, so no excuses about changing technology)?

I've got access to enough cameras to not be a 'fanboy' of anything. I just use the right tool for the job. I don't even personally own a Canon or Sony camera at the moment. But the Nikons stay in the locker most of the time for a good reason - much the same reason as the Mamiya MF body.

As for Nikon sensors (either not designed, not made, or both, by  Nikon) being 'better' than others, take a look at the chart here.

photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Raw numbers (presented as a logarithmic DR value), not derived scores without explanation as to how they were actually derived. They also correlate well with other tests out there.

D810 vs A7r2 - effectively equal DR at base ISO. The A7r2 has as much DR at ISO 100 as the D810 has at ISO 64 (11.42 vs 11.6 stops at 1:20 SNR, which is well within the margin of error in testing). If you want to nit-pick decimal points within the margin of error, the original A7r actually has a higher measured DR at ISO 100 than the D810 at ISO 64 (again, it is within the margin of error, so it is functionally the same). The A7r2 also performs better at high ISO (the D810 and A7r lines being the same, since they are basically the same sensor) and has a few extra megapixels. There's a reason one sensor is newer than the other.

D5 vs 1Dx2 vs A9 - the lines all basically overlap at high ISO. The Canon and Sony kill the Nikon at low ISO (as does the older D4/D4s).

Lens-wise, look at the Lensrentals blog. Measured data from multiple lenses, presented as MTF charts at multiple frequencies, not jist a single 'sharpness' value that is somehow related to the sharpest part of the lens at the sharpest aperture.  No-one's lenses are uniformly better. Even at the same focal length or in the same length category, it often comes down to your priorities. Do you need maximal central sharpness, since the corners will be out-of-focus anyway, or is across-the-frame sharpness more important? Sharpness wide-open, or stopped down? Can you handle some astigmatism if the lens is sharper overall? Which end of the zoom is more important? How about field curvature? Even the DxO lens data is better - 'accutance' may be a derived value from MTFs at multiple frequencies (someone at DPR or Fredmiranda came up with a conversion formula that works within a small margin of error), but at least they've published data from across the frame, at multiple focal lengths and apertures, and you can see how they came up with the numbers that they did. Lenscore could just as well be rolling dice and you'd never know, with their lack of transparency.

[shadowblade]

Market share is a percentage of the entire market. When Nikon's share which used to be around 40% drops to about 25%...that's significant. And no Canon's market share had held steady and mirrorless had eaten up Nikon's share.

As far as Sony's market share, I can confidently say it is Much greater than the 2% you mention. In fact mirrorless market share of ILC has been climbing and sits at roughly 35%.

Face it - he's obviously not a technical person, and clearly doesn't understand data beyond x is a bigger number than y, with the false implications that x is better than y at everything, and that everything that brand x makes is better than everything that brand y makes. Just likes to be told which brand to follow (in simplistic, 1-number, all-or-nothing terms) then becomes an attack dog for that team, without any nuances. He was a zealot for Canon back when he shot Canon (to the point of arguing that the D810 didn't have a DR or real resolution advantage over the 5D3) and, since converting to Nikon, has become even more   zealous in defending his new religion, to the point of directly contradicting his own previous arguments, and in such a way that, if even a quarter of what he said were true, you'd wonder why anyone would shoot Canon or Sony at all, or why they're still in business.

Fortunately, the rest of us have data that we can read and interpret,  which is often much more nuanced than the black-or-white assertions of zealots, and not at all one-sided.

[JKoerner007]

Blah, blah, blah, blah...
As for Nikon sensors (either not designed, not made, or both, by  Nikon) being 'better' than others, take a look at the chart here.

photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Aside from your own blah-blah, the reference link you provided, the same distinction obtains at Base ISO:

The truth is, they're all getting close, but Nikon's oldest is still a little better than Canon/Sony's newest.

[JKoerner007]

Blah, blah, blah, blah...
As for Nikon sensors (either not designed, not made, or both, by  Nikon) being 'better' than others, take a look at the chart here.

photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Again, aside from your own blah-blah, the reference link you provided, the same distinction obtains at High ISO:

Once more, they're all very close, but Nikon's newest is still a little better than Canon/Sony's newest, where it matters at High ISO.

[JKoerner007]

Blah, blah, blah, blah...
As for Nikon sensors (either not designed, not made, or both, by  Nikon) being 'better' than others, take a look at the chart here.

photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

And, finally, using your own blah-blah again, and the same reference link, are we surprised to find Nikon in front of the the APS-C comparison:

The D500 dominates at Base ISO ... and it evens out at high ISO ... while being much more fully-functional than either.

You claim to be a "technical" person ... yet what qualifications do you really have?

As best I can tell, you got beat up a few months ago, let people steal your gear from you, and since then you've been doing ... what?

Seems you weren't smart enough to buy an adequate insurance policy to cover yourself ... so I am not sure why you think your opinion on gear is all that special.

Try being respectful, and you might get the same in return.

[hogloff]

Face it - he's obviously not a technical person, and clearly doesn't understand data beyond x is a bigger number than y, with the false implications that x is better than y at everything, and that everything that brand x makes is better than everything that brand y makes. Just likes to be told which brand to follow (in simplistic, 1-number, all-or-nothing terms) then becomes an attack dog for that team, without any nuances. He was a zealot for Canon back when he shot Canon (to the point of arguing that the D810 didn't have a DR or real resolution advantage over the 5D3) and, since converting to Nikon, has become even more   zealous in defending his new religion, to the point of directly contradicting his own previous arguments, and in such a way that, if even a quarter of what he said were true, you'd wonder why anyone would shoot Canon or Sony at all, or why they're still in business.

Fortunately, the rest of us have data that we can read and interpret,  which is often much more nuanced than the black-or-white assertions of zealots, and not at all one-sided.

Yes John's tenacious brand loyalty and defense to the death mentality has him banned from another board. Maybe it's best to just ignore the obvious cheer leading as I've seen it drag down an entire board.

[JKoerner007]

Yes John's tenacious brand loyalty and defense to the death mentality has him banned from another board. Maybe it's best to just ignore the obvious cheer leading as I've seen it drag down an entire board.

Nice exaggeration (always the sign of a flawed argument).

No "entire board" has ever been "dragged-down" by anyone's post that I am aware of.

As far as cheerleading goes, if Nikon were producing sub-par cameras, with lousy sensors, and non-competitive features, I would be the first to become disgruntled and leave ... as I did when Canon came out with the 7D II ... after I waited over 6 years for their upgrade, only to be disappointed.

However, what I keep seeing are top scores/marks, in every category, with what Nikon is putting out.

I see no evidence that Sony cameras are keeping 'the superior' sensors unto themselves; the overwhelming evidence (posted above) suggests nothing of the sort.

It would be nice to be able to discuss Nikon products without you two haters predicting gloom-and-doom in every thread topic.

Perhaps you could start an A9 thread.

Thanks.

[hogloff]

Nice exaggeration (always the sign of a flawed argument).

No "entire board" has ever been "dragged-down" by anyone's post that I am aware of.

As far as cheerleading goes, if Nikon were producing sub-par cameras, with lousy sensors, and non-competitive features, I would be the first to become disgruntled and leave ... as I did when Canon came out with the 7D II ... after I waited over 6 years for their upgrade, only to be disappointed.

However, what I keep seeing are top scores/marks, in every category, with what Nikon is putting out.

I see no evidence that Sony cameras are keeping 'the superior' sensors unto themselves; the overwhelming evidence (posted above) suggests nothing of the sort.

It would be nice to be able to discuss Nikon products without you two haters predicting gloom-and-doom in every thread topic.

Perhaps you could start an A9 thread.

Thanks.

Top scores if you look at your selective views of only one site that does not publish their test process. If you look at a few other sites, you get a very different picture, but you refuse to do so as it might knock your beloved Nikon off that pedestal which you seem to really need.

As far as Sony goes...it's killing it with the latest lenses they are releasing, 12-24 and 100-400 and that A9 is quite the performer, but not something I need.

Notice that even though the reviews for the 12-24 put it ahead of the Nikon 14-24 and the Canon 11-24, I don't wave the "we are numeral UNO" finger in the air as that to me is just meaningless cheer leading.

[JKoerner007]

Top scores if you look at your selective views of only one site that does not publish their test process. If you look at a few other sites, you get a very different picture, but you refuse to do so as it might knock your beloved Nikon off that pedestal which you seem to really need.

As I recall, I just finished posting screen-grabs from the site our pilfered, camera-less friend provided where the same conclusions obtained: Nikon on top in the areas their models specialize in.

As far as Sony goes...it's killing it with the latest lenses they are releasing, 12-24 and 100-400 and that A9 is quite the performer, but not something I need.

Notice that even though the reviews for the 12-24 put it ahead of the Nikon 14-24 and the Canon 11-24, I don't wave the "we are numeral UNO" finger in the air as that to me is just meaningless cheer leading.

You apparently aren't subtle enough to appreciate the rich irony here.

Anyway, enough is enough. Hopefully, developments in the Nikon D850 can continue to be posted without your derisive interference.

Have a nice weekend.

[BernardLanguillier]

Guys, in the end all these cameras (except the 6DII ) are brilliant tools.

- In a few months both Nikon and Canon will have full frame mirrorless cameras available and will be in the position Sony is in right now (latest entrant). The past 2-3 years will be forgotten quickly and people will be back chosing cameras based on their own merits and that of the system they belong to instead of chosing a brand because of investor's concern about possible market consolidation.
- there is plenty proof that both of these companies know how to design amazing optics and little evidence that Sony is ahead in this area although they are very good also,
- there is not going to be a clear enough winner btw Nikon and Canon in the DSLR war that it really matters much from a photographic standpoint. I'll be convinced that my D850 will remain the last top of the hill DSLR, like the Nikon F6 has remained the best film SLR, and some Canon users will feel the same about their 5DMkX,
- the last DSLR lenses designed like the Nikon 105mm f1.4 or 70-200 f2.8 E FL will go down in history as benchmark lenses from a past era but will continue to be used very successfully on mirrorless bodies, just like the last Leica R lenses remain pretty much unbeaten 20 years after their introduction (180mm f2.8 APO).

Cheers,
Bernard

[Bernard ODonovan]

Guys, in the end all these cameras (except the 6DII ) are brilliant tools.

- In a few months both Nikon and Canon will have full frame mirrorless cameras available and will be in the position Sony is in right now (latest entrant). The past 2-3 years will be forgotten quickly and people will be back chosing cameras based on their own merits and that of the system they belong to instead of chosing a brand because of investor's concern about possible market consolidation.
- there is plenty proof that both of these companies know how to design amazing optics and little evidence that Sony is ahead in this area although they are very good also,
- there is not going to be a clear enough winner btw Nikon and Canon in the DSLR war that it really matters much from a photographic standpoint. I'll be convinced that my D850 will remain the last top of the hill DSLR, like the Nikon F6 has remained the best film SLR, and some Canon users will feel the same about their 5DMkX,
- the last DSLR lenses designed like the Nikon 105mm f1.4 or 70-200 f2.8 E FL will go down in history as benchmark lenses from a past era but will continue to be used very successfully on mirrorless bodies, just like the last Leica R lenses remain pretty much unbeaten 20 years after their introduction (180mm f2.8 APO).

Cheers,
Bernard

The 6DII could go down as the best all round digital camera of all time... 

Nikon F6, you're kidding, only 8 FPS and only 11 focus points running slower than the previous Nikon F5 which only had 5...! 


Everyone knows the best ever camera, digital or otherwise was the EOS 1V HS. It had a true gray scale meter so did not guess exposure like the Nikon had to, not forgetting it also had access to the best range of lenses in history. Lenses that saw people running to Canon from Nikon that had no ring USM's... 














Joking. I am sure the F6 is a fine camera... 

[HSakols]

Maybe this thread should be in the coffee corner because it is more about religion and spirituality.  I find the whole announcement odd.  It seems that Nikon is under so much pressure that they are forced to announce something even though it is not the right time - they couldn't even comment on the sensor.  Being a member of the Nikon church, I at some point will upgrade my D800, but not just to buy bells and whistles I'll never appreciate - e.g. I don't want a video camera.  I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm finding that I grab my micro 4/3 system more and more and limit my printing to relatively small sizes.  For those who beleive one church is superior to the other, stop shooting jpegs and learn to use raw - this is simply rehtoric from the priests who have nothing better to do.

[Jim Kasson]

Maybe this thread should be in the coffee corner because it is more about religion and spirituality.  I find the whole announcement odd.  It seems that Nikon is under so much pressure that they are forced to announce something even though it is not the right time - they couldn't even comment on the sensor. 

They don't seem to be worried about the Osborne Effect. Does that say something about current D810 sales?

Jim

[Jim Kasson]

Being a member of the Nikon church, I at some point will upgrade my D800, but not just to buy bells and whistles I'll never appreciate - e.g. I don't want a video camera.

The D810 is a series of upgrades -- decent LV focusing, EFCS (hobbled EFCS, but still EFCS), much Improved AF --  to the D800E that together make a huge difference to me.

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/nikon-d810-summary/

You may be able to pick up a used one cheaply soon. Maybe even mine, though I'm going to keep it for a while to test against the new camera when it ships.

Jim

[shadowblade]

Aside from your own blah-blah, the reference link you provided, the same distinction obtains at Base ISO:

The truth is, they're all getting close, but Nikon's oldest is still a little better than Canon/Sony's newest.

You can't argue with measured numbers:

Landscape/studio cameras at low ISO: http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D810,Sony%20ILCE-7R,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2

D810 at ISO 64 - 11.6 stops (setting the floor at 20:1 SNR - DxO uses a 1:1 SNR, which is why the numbers are different, but interconvertible)
A7r at ISO 100 - 11.71
A7r2 at ISO 100 - 11.42

All within the same roughly one-third to half-a-stop margin of error (i.e. equal performance, likely variable between individual sensors and indistinguishable in practice). The A7r2 also nets you a few extra megapixels over the other two - never a bad thing for a landscape/studio body.

D810 at ISO 100 gets 11.06.

So, if you really want to nit-pick, the A7r actually recorded more DR at ISO 100 than the D810 did at ISO 64. Not that this actually means anything, since the two values are so close together they are likely to fall within the test's margin of error and would be overshadowed by sensor variability in actual use. Both Sonys also overshadow the Nikon at ISO 100, but you'd have little reason to ever use ISO 100 instead of ISO 64 when shooting a static scene with the D810, so that comparison is irrelevant.

Action cameras at mid ISO (400-6400 - the most relevant ones for the vast majority of action/wildlife/sports photography): http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-9

1Dx2 at ISO 400 - 9.56
D5 at ISO 400 - 9.00
A9 at ISO 400 - 9.22

At ISO 400, D5 and A9 are essentially the same, with the 1Dx2 a little ahead.

1Dx2 at ISO 800 - 8.86
D5 at ISO 800 - 8.43
A9 at ISO 800 - 9.24 (different post-sensor treatment at different ISOs likely provides the jump in DR seen between ISO 400 and 800 - we see this at a few points in the graphs of all three cameras)

The A9 and 1Dx2 are comparable here, with the D5 over two-thirds of a stop behind the leader.

1Dx2 at ISO 1600 - 8.06
D5 at ISO 1600 - 8.04
A9 at ISO 1600 - 8.49

1Dx2 and D5 are indistinguishable here, with the A9 possibly a little in front.

1Dx2 at ISO 3200 - 7.14
D5 at ISO 3200 - 7.60
A9 at ISO 3200 - 7.44

D5 and A9 are essentially the same at ISO 3200, with the 1Dx2 lagging a bit behind here.

1Dx2 at ISO 6400 - 6.18
D5 at ISO 6400 - 6.68
A9 at ISO 6400 - 6.53

Again, the D5 and A9 are essentially indistinguishable, with the two values falling well within the margin of error, with the 1Dx2 again being a bit behind.

So, all three sensors provide comparable DR performance for the vast majority of sports/action/wildlife applications, with the 1Dx2 being perhaps a touch better at the bottom of the range (if you shoot outdoor daytime sports or in floodlit stadiums) and the D5 having an edge over the 1Dx2 at the top of the range (if you shoot amateur sport or indoor sports with poor lighting) and the A9 being consistent throughout the range. The A9 gets you 16% more pixels, but currently lacks fast, long lenses (fine if you shoot tennis or basketball, not so great if you shoot soccer or hyenas), although this is likely to change by the end of the year, with a fast 400mm in the works.

As an aside, here are the values for the D810 and A7r2:

D810 at ISO 800 - 8.44
A7r2 at ISO 800 - 9.32

D810 at ISO 3200 - 6.59
A7r2 at ISO 3200 - 7.37

Obviously, they're not action cameras, but, as a general-purpose camera (which almost all cameras, whether landscape-oriented or action-oriented, will be called into service for), and even for some limited landscape/nature situations (e.g. avoiding star trails, or where a tripod isn't an option, or where you're trying to shoot a macro of a flower or fungus and there's a breeze), the A7r2 is well ahead of the D810 at mid-to-high ISOs. Between the D800/D810/A7r sensor (all variants of the same sensor) and the A7r2 sensor, Sony really gave a major boost to the high-ISO performance of Exmor (which was even more of an issue back in the days of the A900 and D3x, which were great at base ISO, but not much good above ISO 400 or so).

Even against the D5, the A7r2 sensor holds up well at high ISO - it retains a DR advantage up to ISO 2000, then becomes indistinguishable with the D5 after that (the lines go back and forth and cross several times, but stay within 1/3 of a stop of each other). It also retains its megapixel advantage - over double the pixel count. Of course, the A7r2 probably won't autofocus under those lighting conditions, but the sensor holds up all the way to very high ISOs.

Extremely high ISO (not actually all that relevant for most purposes, other than bragging rights or if you exclusively shoot in unlit environments, e.g. poorly-lit concerts): http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-9

1Dx2 at ISO 12800 - 5.2
D5 at ISO 12800 - 5.68
A9 at ISO 12800 - 5.58

1Dx2 at ISO 25600 - 4.28
D5 at ISO 25600 - 4.72
A9 at ISO 25600 - 4.61

1Dx2 at ISO 51200 - 3.51
D5 at ISO 51200 - 3.69
A9 at ISO 51200 - 3.50

1Dx2 at ISO 102400 - 2.72
D5 at ISO 102400 - 2.70
A9 at ISO 102400 - 3.17

So, the A9 and D5 are indistinguishable at ISO 12800 and 25600, both being marginally ahead of the 1Dx2, but all three are equal at ISO 51200. Interestingly, the A9 jumps ahead of the other two by a significant margin at ISO 102400, but, by that stage, the image quality is so poor it's no good for anything other than a casual 'I was here' shot, or a 'breaking news' shot taken on the scene of an incident by a photojournalist, where any shot is better than none.

[HSakols]

Numbers are fine, but if you can't see the difference in the final print they are meaningless. 

[shadowblade]

And, finally, using your own blah-blah again, and the same reference link, are we surprised to find Nikon in front of the the APS-C comparison:

The D500 dominates at Base ISO ... and it evens out at high ISO ... while being much more fully-functional than either.

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%2080D,Nikon%20D500,Nikon%20D7200,Nikon%20D7500,Sony%20ILCE-6300

'Pro-level' APS-C is a one-horse race, with only Nikon bothering with it. Neither Canon or Sony even pretend to have an interest in it - the 7D2 and A6300 are, at best, aimed at the same enthusiast level as the D7xxx range.

Regardless, the D500 doesn't 'dominate' at base ISO. The D7200 (a Toshiba sensor, not a Nikon-designed one) is slightly (about half a stop) ahead of the D7500 and D500, although not significantly ahead of the A6300. Above base ISO, all three sensors fall within a third of a stop of each other and essentially perform identically, except that the D7200 gives you a few extra pixels.

The 80D is behind all the others, but, as a 1.6x crop sensor instead of 1.5x crop, isn't really comparable.

[shadowblade]

You claim to be a "technical" person ... yet what qualifications do you really have?

More than you, probably. Background in the hard sciences - which, among other things, calls for the ability to evaluate and interpret data and methodology - with further research qualifications and a career based on applied science.

As best I can tell, you got beat up a few months ago, let people steal your gear from you, and since then you've been doing ... what?

Seems you weren't smart enough to buy an adequate insurance policy to cover yourself ... so I am not sure why you think your opinion on gear is all that special.

So? I'm a scientific/technical person. Wouldn't know the first thing about insurance laws or policies, and I'd fall asleep trying to read the first page.

That's about as much of a non sequitur as judging the skill of your brain surgeon based on his ability to play the guitar.

Try being respectful, and you might get the same in return.

Notice how you're the only person who cops it, and only after you throw the first punch by launching a tirade of abuse at me and/or others?