And nothing you have posted has 1) had anything to do with the thread topic, the D850,
I think you'll find it's very relevant, since it concerns:
a) the source of the D810's sensor, and the likely availability (or not) of that same source for the D850
b) the potential for the D850, in the absence of said source, to beat the performance of one of the D850's likely competitors (the other being the 5Ds2), given Nikon's past record at designing its own sensors
After all, many people considering the D850 - myself included - would weigh it up against its likely competitors, with all its pros and cons, both current and potential.
Here's the post:
Very different situation now.
The 36MP sensor used in the D800, D810, A7r and others is a Sony design (with small tweaks for each company). Back in 2012, Sony had a sensor, but no viable full-frame camera business (A-mount was dying even then). They also had a paying customer who could put these sensors into bodies, sell a lot of them and raise awareness of the Exmor (and Sony sensors in general) at the same time. It made sense to sell the sensor.
Sony wouldn't be ready to re-enter the full-frame camera business for almost two years. But the strategy worked. By the time the A7r was ready for launch, everyone knew about Exmor, everyone knew about Sony's sensor advantage and there was a large number of Canon non-action photographers - mostly ex-5D2 shooters - ready to move to a body with a better sensor, if they could just take their existing lenses with them. It sold like anything, despite the lack of native lenses available at the time - Nikon and the D800 had done the advertising for them, and the offer of a free Metabones adaptor with every A7 or A7r body sold only sweetened the deal and made it easier for frustrated Canon shooters to jump ship.
The situation now is different. Sony now has a major stake in the full-frame camera market, and every D850 sensor sold to Nikon is one less potential A9r or A7r3 sale. Ever wondered why no-one else is using the 42MP sensor, whereas several others have access to the (now second-line) 36MP sensor?
Therefore, Sony won't sell Nikon - or anyone else - their best sensor. They will sell their second-best sensor, so the 42MP sensor may make an appearance (since a next-generation version can't be far off). Also, if Nikon designs the sensor, Sony will make it for them - if they don't, then someone else will, and better to make something out of every Nikon body sold than nothing at all. But they won't sell them the best Sony design, and Nikon would be equally dumb to try to contract Sony to design it for them (there's no way Sony would design a sensor for Nikon to be better than their own top-of-the-line sensor - any advancements they made in designing that sensor would certainly make it into the Sony sensor too).
Nikon itself doesn't have a great track record with designing high-resolution, high-DR sensors. Their successes in that area have come courtesy of Toshiba (D7200) and Sony (D800/D810). And Sony now owns Toshiba's imaging division. So, Nikon would likely have to look for someone else to design the sensor. And, so far, no-one's managed to combine high resolution and high DR in the same 24x36mm package that Sony has.
Which leads to this - there is very little chance that the D850's sensor will match or surpass the A7r3's or A9r's sensor. It will be a good sensor, but it almost certainly won't beat the Sony. The Sony body will contain Sony's top-of-the-line sensor. The D850 won't. It may contain Sony's second-best sensor, or a Nikon-designed sensor made by Sony, but it won't contain Sony's best. The only way the D850 can have a better sensor is if they manage to find a third party to design one that beats Sony's best (in other words, doing basically what Sony did last time with the D800 sensor), which is a hard ask.
I laid out my arguments and my reasoning behind it. It is, by definition, not provable until all three companies release their products, so, until then, logical reasoning and extrapolation to form hypotheses are the next best thing.
None of which you even bothered to rebut, beyond saying 'It's not true' in about 200 different ways, without actually bothering to say
why you think it's not true, or what events or evidence exists to support your case.
2) supported your same tiresome main purpose for posting anything, which is to cheer that Sony "is making 'better sensors' for itself," while selling Nikon 2nd rate sensors. There is nothing "scientific" about your posts either.
I've quoted sources and figures, with links. You're free to look at those sources yourself, and argue for or against their validity. As is everyone else here. What evidence have you quoted? Only your own rhetoric, and attacking the man rather than the argument.
As for my understanding of science, I don't have to understand exactly how fuel injection works, or any of the science behind the combustion which propels automobiles, to understand that a car capable of 200mph is faster than a car capable of 150mph.
What you don't know is how they were measured. Your source doesn't say. It doesn't say how they measured it, what they actually measured or what the results were.
For all you know, they measured their terminal velocity falling from a plane, when what you really want to know is how fast it can go on an actual road.
It is you who doesn't seem to understand that, if two vehicles are similar in top speed, that certain certain suspension features, steering mechanisms, etc. will make the difference in non-linear races. Thus the available options, or even style, of two similar-spec'ed vehicles can become the buying difference for many, not just top speed. Finally, you also don't seem to understand that, if vehicles perform similarly, the difference in what happens in a race will boil down to what the drivers can do behind the wheel ... or that, for pure driving enjoyment, the differences boil down to where each decides to go.
I've only talked about sensors and the measurable aspects of their performance.
I haven't mentioned other aspects of performance at all. That's a completely separate argument. And it largely depends how much of the D5 makes it into the D850, and whether Sony's next-gen high-resolution body is more A9 or more A7r2.
For you to constantly berate Nikon owners with your rhetoric, when their buying motives are completely different from yours, is wearing thin.
I challenge you to find one quote of me doing that.
Search all you like. You won't find one.
Unless you consider an argument against Nikon's product, strategy or future a personal attack against you. Which, come to think of it, wouldn't surprise me. Or many others here, I would think.
Realize that you don't need to follow every Nikon thread, preaching Sony, as if your buying motives = everyone's.
I do the same in Canon threads. And in Sony ones. Anything concerning new gear and product development that interests me. I've criticised Sony plenty as well.
Clearly, you only read the Nikon ones.
I was very excited when the D800 was first released. It offered something that the 5D2 sorely lacked, and Sony was barely a serious camera company at that time. The only reason I didn't buy it was because there were inadequate tilt-shift options and, at the time, Canon lenses (many of which had recently been upgraded) had a clear edge over Nikon ones (many of which were older-generation).
I would have no problem buying a Nikon system, if it performed as required and had a clear upgrade path into the future. Or that of any other manufacturer, for that matter. But they still don't have decent tilt-shifts (apart from the new 19mm, but that doesn't replace the crucial 24mm focal length for landscapes and cityscapes) and, unlike both Canon and Sony, don't have a clear plan for what happens after SLR or for an ongoing source of top-level high resolution/high DR sensors.
Realize that don't need to copy/paste the results from DxO or anything else either.
It's called evidence - something that's valuable in both academia and argument.
No evidence, or evidence from a questionable source? Then it's just rhetoric.
Realize that some psychologists might call your obsession 'pathological.'
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You are the one who has never produced any evidence that Sony is keeping its best sensors to itself, while selling 'second-rate sensors' to Nikon.
Until you find someone leaking from either company, you won't get direct proof.
So, what do you do in the absence of direct proof that isn't forthcoming? You put forth a case using reasoning and logic, explaining how each step leads to the next, as well as the motive for each party in undertaking that step.
Which is exactly what I've done. So far, your only counterargument consists of, 'It's wrong'.
If you have a better hypothesis, put it out there, and let's see if it can hold up to the weight of counterargument.
Geeze, how far off-topic can we go?
You don't think science changes?
That new technologies emerge, while others become dated?
You don't think scientists 'interpret data' differently?
Knowledge changes and is updated. The facts themselves don't - we just learn more about them.
The Earth didn't start orbiting its barycentre with the sun just because we discovered it. It always did. Only that, prior to that, we hadn't discovered it yet. Knowledge changed. The fact didn't.
Hell, even the medical field is subject to constant change. Do all doctors prescribe the same antibiotic for the same pathogen? Do not some bacteria develop resistance to certain antibiotics (even only in certain regions of the world), to where an antibiotic choice that worked last year will no longer work this year? Do you think doctors in China treat gonorrhea the same as doctors in London?
No. But you're confusing facts with generalisations.
'S. aureus is sensitive to flucloxacillin' isn't a fact. It's a generalisation, based on the pattern of antibiotic sensitivities for a given organism, in a given population, at a given time. 'This strain of S. aureus is sensitive to flucloxacillin' is a fact that's easily provable or disprovable. But it takes time to prove it. Generalisations exist because you often need to start treatment straight away, with something that will probably work, while you wait for solid proof. But they're nothing more than an educated guess.
You are confusing math with science; they're not the same thing. Math is unchanging; science is ever-changing.
You're confusing facts with knowledge, and science with knowledge. Science is a process, not a library. The library is constantly updated; the process by which it happens remains the same.
Have you ever heard of "evolution?" This phenomenon is why pretty much why new medicines constantly have to be created by science.
Your point being?
The mechanisms of antibiotic resistance are demonstrated fact. There are likely other mechanisms that haven't been discovered yet, but the ones which have been are proven and unlikely to change any time soon. 'X bacterium is always sensitive to Y antibiotic' isn't a fact, isn't provable and no-one would claim that it was - it holds only until someone finds a strain that isn't sensitive to it.
Finally, man-made contracts, that are well-written, don't leave much to interpretations ... and they are still legally-binding ... and are as germane to your life as are scientific laws.
The fact that it's relevant doesn't make it a technical or scientific field.
Objective realities? More nonsense. It sounds like you are attempting to live in a fantasy, where you make "every case the same."
To begin with, blood pressure values change daily--even throughout the day. They can change from circumstance, drug/alcohol use, even after a few cups of coffee. To say, "His blood pressure is 55/30," describes a very temporary situation. What is objective at the moment ... can change very rapidly. He will either have it raised ... soon ... or perish.
And also, to what extent has the femoral artery been penetrated? Just nicked? Completely severed?
All of these ever-changing factors matter. Thus it is all 'open to interpretation' ... as are the many possible ways to deal with these maladies.
If nothing else, this just shows how little you know about medicine.
'Blood pressure of 55/30' may be temporary, but it doesn't mean that it's not true. A blood pressure of 55/30 means a blood pressure of 55/30. How you interpret that fact depends on the clinical situation and the patient in front of you, but it doesn't change the fact that, at that point in time, the blood pressure was 55/30 - it's an objective measurement.
A penetrating injury to the common femoral artery is always a life-threatening situation, whether it's just nicked or completely severed. You can lose litres of blood into the thigh before clotting, extravascular pressure or a drop in central blood pressure stem the bleeding, with haemodynamic changes that can affect the end-organ perfusion of other vital organs. The way you interpret or prioritise the fact that the CFA has been injured depends on the context, but it doesn't change the underlying fact - that the CFA has been injured.
Not like subjective laws and contracts, which can be argued about for weeks.
Apparently, you did.
Your failure to know = your failure to buy the right product.
Your a$$umption that your agent knew, or cared, was your problem. There are quacks in insurance too.
One of the biggest travel agents in Australia. A reputable company. No different to going to the most reputable hospital in the country and expecting first-level treatment.
But I'll remember that - next time anything happens to you, we'll know who to blame.
After all, you should have done your research and looked after yourself better.
Who knows? Maybe you shouldn't have eaten at that top restaurant whose chef wasn't washing his hands and whose waiter was spitting into the souffle. Catching hepatitis was your own fault. It's always the victim's fault, isn't it? Should have done your research better, rather than relying on reputation.
No, you screwed up: in your insurance choice and in your choice of an agent.
For that matter, most home-owner policies do cover theft abroad, which are all (as you say) "open to interpretation."
With a well-written insurance policy, read by a person familiar with the available coverage options, you are protected in the way you really want to be protected.
Which also brings us back to RCV and ACV coverages. (If your agent really did fail you, you could make a claim against his ENO carrier ... Errors and Omissions ... depending on the documented paper trail of your inquiry/requests.)
Hence my current legal proceedings against them.
One reason why I am seldom both ...
You do realise that you can't walk around packing heat in most parts of the world? And, even where you can, you can't just bring guns and ammunition with you from home, through multiple airports and countries?
I've been through countries where I both carried firearms, and used them. This time, I was attacked 10 seconds out of my hotel on the first day. Couldn't have obtained protection even if it were legal.
Again, your innocence is cute ... and part of the reason you were 'chosen,' I suspect.
'Innocence'? More like I have no interest in wordplay, just as you have no interest in evidence.
The same thing's taken me through 127 other countries without an incident where I came off worse off, including every country in mainland Africa.
And, with a name ending in '007', you're in no position to complain about high-falutin' names. At least I earned both parts of mine.