Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 29   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development  (Read 920238 times)

bclaff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 86
    • Photons to Photos
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #100 on: July 30, 2017, 11:39:55 am »

... I didn't know whether you performed your own tests or used the data from DxO to calculate PDR values.
I perform my own tests which are provided in the 1st section on PhotonsToPhotos
I make DxOMark Derived calculations which are provided in the 2nd section on PhotonsToPhotos.
The DxOMark values are provided primarily because they have tested more cameras than I have although they also serve as a sort of cross-check.
In the case of any discrepancy I trust my values over those derived from DxOMark data.

I look forward to testing the Nikon D850 some day !  ;)
Logged
Visit me at Photons to Photos

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2040
    • The Last Word
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #101 on: July 30, 2017, 11:54:21 am »

I look forward to testing the Nikon D850 some day !  ;)


Me, too. I have one on order; my dealer will take reservations for unannounced products.

Jim

JKoerner007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • "A picture's worth a thousand words."
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #102 on: July 30, 2017, 12:07:43 pm »

Nothing to do with sensor specs, but data interpretation. Something that's common to all scientific fields - the ability to read data tables and charts, to understand and critique the methodology by which the data was derived and to infer conclusions from the data (including the lack of any conclusions, if the data is insufficient or the methodology flaky). It was applicable to hard sciences (of which physics and mathematics - the sciences behind optics - are two) and is equally applicable to optics, medical science, biostatistics and even military science.

And nothing you have posted has 1) had anything to do with the thread topic, the D850, or 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.

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.

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.

For you to constantly berate Nikon owners with your rhetoric, when their buying motives are completely different from yours, is wearing thin.

Realize that you don't need to follow every Nikon thread, preaching Sony, as if your buying motives = everyone's.
Realize that don't need to copy/paste the results from DxO or anything else either.
Realize that some psychologists might call your obsession 'pathological.'



So far, you've never produced any data that backs your claims, or any data interpretation beyond 'X is bigger than Y' (without any understanding of what X and Y are actually measuring).

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.



All you've done is screech rhetoric and brandish Lenscore overall scores, like a partisan lawyer or politician, without any understanding of what the scores actually mean (an understanding which no-one has, since Lenscore themselves don't publish how they got their results or what each of their scores/categories actually measures).

No, all was actually fine and peaceful on this thread until you and your boy showed up.

Why can't you two stay on Sony thread topics ... or is there not enough activity/interest over there to keep you busy?



No, you live in a world of man-made clauses, contracts and words. By their very nature, these are mutable, subjective and open to interpretation.

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?

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?

You are confusing math with science; they're not the same thing. Math is unchanging; science is ever-changing.

Have you ever heard of "evolution?" This phenomenon is why pretty much why new medicines constantly have to be created by science.

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.



I deal with objective realities. When someone has a blood pressure of 55/30, they have a blood pressure of 55/30, no matter how you want to spin it. When someone has a penetrating injury to their common femoral artery, they have an immediately life-threatening vascular injury, no matter how you want to spin it. The exact words you use to describe the circumstances don't change the situation, the necessary actions or the outcome, and aren't particularly helpful to either the patient or the treating team.

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.

Which is why some doctors are called "quacks," because they fail to interpret correctly, or make bad choices, while others are indispensable ... because they read/interpret/prescribe correctly.



I don't need to know any of that. I pay an agent to do it. Just like you probably pay someone else to perform surgery on you (before you ask, yes, I have performed surgery on myself before).

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.

(And, BTW, I have performed surgery on myself. Always been a "Soldier of Fortune" type. One of the great old books on the subject: Do It Yourself Medicine.

I have purchased non-steroid, non-narcotic medicines, from all over the world, for almost 20 years. Mostly used them to treat the dogs I raised, but used them on myself too. Sutures and staples too, as I am accident-prone, and pretty active ;))



They screwed up. They got me a policy that didn't do the job.

My travel insurance was meant to cover everything, including cameras. That's why it cost so much. No point having dedicated camera insurance when, unless I'm travelling, it's sitting at home and covered by home and contents insurance anyway.

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.)



One part's a call-sign, the other is a sports team. And, yes, the call-sign was mine. Medical evacuation in the Himalayas, rappelling from helicopters to assess and stabilise injured and sick climbers and hikers before evacuating them to appropriate facilities.

Sounds adventurous.



Anyone can get bashed by a group when unarmed and alone.

One reason why I am seldom both ...



And why would I choose 'Mark', of all names?

Again, your innocence is cute ... and part of the reason you were 'chosen,' I suspect.

For the slow, the suggestion that you change your name to "Mark" was a play on words.

The perp who cut you, and took your belongings, was the true 'Shadowblade,' while you were ... the 'mark.'

Hence the name-change suggestion ;)

JKoerner007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • "A picture's worth a thousand words."
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #103 on: July 30, 2017, 12:08:07 pm »

Now then, if we could please get back to the D850 ... thanks.

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #104 on: July 30, 2017, 07:46:02 pm »

One more off topic for me. I think it's very bad form to put down someone because of their misfortunes. John, don't know if you travel or walk through sketchy areas, but I can tell you one thing for certain...no matter how good one thinks they are in self defense or the likes...you can get rolled in the blink of an eye. To make fun of ones misfortunes on the photo board just crosses a line that should not be crossed.

Just had to say this as it did not sit well with me.

Back to regular programming and discussing how the 850 will suck. :o
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12164
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #105 on: July 30, 2017, 08:47:56 pm »

Back to the D850 and its speculative specs with 3 questions:

- for D800/D810 owners: what would it take for NOT to uograde to the D850?
- for Nikon non D8x0 owners: what would convince you to upgrade your camera to a D850?
- for non Nikon owners: what would convince you to dump your current brand equipment and buy a D850 instead?

As a first category person, I would probably not upgrade if it didn't have the AF of the D5 and at least a 25% increase in resolution without loss of base ISO DR.

Cheers,
Bernard

alan_b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 278
    • West Coast Architecture + Interiors Photographer
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #106 on: July 30, 2017, 09:18:52 pm »

Back to the D850 and its speculative specs with 3 questions:

- for D800/D810 owners: what would it take for NOT to uograde to the D850?
- for Nikon non D8x0 owners: what would convince you to upgrade your camera to a D850?
- for non Nikon owners: what would convince you to dump your current brand equipment and buy a D850 instead?

As a first category person, I would probably not upgrade if it didn't have the AF of the D5 and at least a 25% increase in resolution without loss of base ISO DR.

Cheers,
Bernard

I have D800 & 810s, mostly tripod-bound & manual-focus.  Things I'm looking for in no particular order:
Cleaner live view in low light
More flexible spit view (X/Y/arbitrary comparison)
Lower base ISO and/or better/cleaner dynamic range/color/tonality
Masked viewfinder with full-frame capture
Noticeably higher resolution
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #107 on: July 31, 2017, 01:33:15 am »

Back to the D850 and its speculative specs with 3 questions:

- for D800/D810 owners: what would it take for NOT to uograde to the D850?
- for Nikon non D8x0 owners: what would convince you to upgrade your camera to a D850?
- for non Nikon owners: what would convince you to dump your current brand equipment and buy a D850 instead?

As a first category person, I would probably not upgrade if it didn't have the AF of the D5 and at least a 25% increase in resolution without loss of base ISO DR.

Cheers,
Bernard

Also "first category person" :-) - the price tag will play a role! But apart from that an improved AF is a must for me. As an 800E owner, a lot of my wish list is provided by the 810 which I held off buying for budget reasons.
Logged

myotis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #108 on: July 31, 2017, 03:03:37 am »

Back to the D850 and its speculative specs with 3 questions:
- for Nikon non D8x0 owners: what would convince you to upgrade your camera to a D850?

As a non-D85x0 owner, I don't need convinced.

I have been waiting for the D850 to replace my D600. I am assuming image quality will be as good or better than existing D8x0 cameras, and I have been waiting for a tilting screen and 4k video. Video isn't my primary reason for buying one, but I will struggle to pay for a D8x0 of any model, so it needs to be multi-purpose. So far the D850 would seem to deliver everything I have waited/wished/dreamed for, including faster fps making it that bit more versatile for Wildlife.

Now, if Nikon only bring out a decently designed Nikon V4 to replace my V2s, it will be a perfect 100th anniversary year for me.

Cheers,

Graham

« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 03:41:03 am by myotis »
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #109 on: July 31, 2017, 08:22:45 am »

Back to one of my original fears about the D850, which that they will deliver higher ISOs for low-light, but be forced to abandon the ISO 64 that is in the the D810. If they do that, lower the dynamic range,  I see no reason to purchase the D850. In that case, I will buy a 2nd D810 or perhaps again look at the two mirrorless MF cameras. OR... see what Sony offers us.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 08:38:03 am by Michael Erlewine »
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2040
    • The Last Word
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #110 on: July 31, 2017, 10:27:01 am »

Back to the D850 and its speculative specs with 3 questions:

- for D800/D810 owners: what would it take for NOT to uograde to the D850?
- for Nikon non D8x0 owners: what would convince you to upgrade your camera to a D850?
- for non Nikon owners: what would convince you to dump your current brand equipment and buy a D850 instead?



I'm going to buy it no matter what, if only to test it, but what I'd like to see is:


One-push EFCS
Global shutter (Failing that, ES with scan time faster than 1/125 second)
100 MP
FWC = 80000 e- (If you have to lower the ISO to do that, fine)
Hybrid finder, with silent shutter mirror-locked up mode
IBIS

Jim

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6367
Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #111 on: July 31, 2017, 11:34:03 am »

I'm going to buy it no matter what, if only to test it, but what I'd like to see is:

One-push EFCS
Global shutter (Failing that, ES with scan time faster than 1/125 second)
100 MP
FWC = 80000 e- (If you have to lower the ISO to do that, fine)
Hybrid finder, with silent shutter mirror-locked up mode
IBIS
A worthy but very ambitious list. In particular, 100MP x 80,000 e- FWC = 8x10^12 e- total charge capacity, probably well over double the charge per unit area of any current sensor, so requiring substantially deeper wells. (Or incremental read-out during exposure, to allow extrapolating values for wells that fill-up.)

I am curious about the rumored hybrid OVF/EVF, as a way of enhancing Live View usability while preserving the OVF, which could be a good transitional step.
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2040
    • The Last Word
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #112 on: July 31, 2017, 11:44:15 am »

A worthy but very ambitious list. In particular, 100MP x 80,000 e- FWC = 8x10^12 e- total charge capacity, probably well over double the charge per unit area of any current sensor, so requiring substantially deeper wells. (Or incremental read-out during exposure, to allow extrapolating values for wells that fill-up.)

I know it's not (all) gonna happen, but I can dream, can't I? WRT FWC, I'm thinking switched capacitors like in DR-Pix sensors, maybe starting at ISO 32 and switching to high-conversion gain mode at ISO 200 or so.

Jim

John Cothron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
    • Cothron Photography
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #113 on: July 31, 2017, 01:38:20 pm »

Back to the D850 and its speculative specs with 3 questions:

- for D800/D810 owners: what would it take for NOT to uograde to the D850?
- for Nikon non D8x0 owners: what would convince you to upgrade your camera to a D850?
- for non Nikon owners: what would convince you to dump your current brand equipment and buy a D850 instead?

As a first category person, I would probably not upgrade if it didn't have the AF of the D5 and at least a 25% increase in resolution without loss of base ISO DR.

Cheers,
Bernard

I may well be the only person here that is solidly in the 3rd scenario.  I've never shot anything BUT canon, unless you count MF film.  I've been reading the thread with interest (or at least portions of it) because I am curious as to what other brands offer.  Sony most definitely has put out some nice products, but I suspect I'm in the minority that I prefer (at this point) an OVF.  I'm not saying the EVF doesn't do what it needs to do but it is a feel thing for me.  The biggest hurdle I would have is glass, like most I suspect.  I have a rather full complement of Zeiss glass in Canon EF mount and I wouldn't likely to go through the expense of  changing glass.

It might be different if there was a night and day difference in the performance of bodies these days, but I just don't think there are.  I understand the whole DR argument, and while I run into that issue from time to time those instances are generally not something even an extra stop of DR would resolve so I just don't feel particularly limited by it.  Now if I could make the jump to more DR with a Nikon body and not have the glass issue to resolve I might be tempted.  I don't care much for the adapter route either. 


Logged
John
Flickr

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2549
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #114 on: July 31, 2017, 01:51:45 pm »

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Realize that some psychologists might call your obsession 'pathological.'

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 02:07:09 pm by shadowblade »
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3872
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #115 on: July 31, 2017, 02:12:32 pm »

Back to the D850.

Looking more and more now that the 850 sensor will basically be a full frame D500 with a few D5 similar features.

More oriented to sports and action and high ISO. 8 to 10 fps.

D500 is not the best at best at base ISO but instead seems to score better as the ISO climbs.

Looking more and more that the 64 base ISO will be replaced with a 100.

Paul Caldwell





Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2549
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #116 on: July 31, 2017, 02:14:06 pm »

And this comes out:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/nikon-d850-likely-use-new-sony-46-megapixel-ff-sensor/

Still a rumour, but at least it's something more substantial.

Possibly a sweet spot for wildlife photography, if it can hit 8-10fps - 46MP lets you focus using one point and crop around it as the subject moves and changes posture, giving you 20.4 MP if you crop all the way to 1.5x, or more if you don't have to crop as heavily. They'll need a better 200-400, though.

As I said, not Sony's top-of-the-line sensor. Probably the second-best. They've likely got a better one coming within months, in the A7r3 or A9r. We already know they've been working on something in the 60-80MP range.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 02:18:01 pm by shadowblade »
Logged

JKoerner007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • "A picture's worth a thousand words."
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #117 on: July 31, 2017, 04:43:30 pm »

And this comes out:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/nikon-d850-likely-use-new-sony-46-megapixel-ff-sensor/

Still a rumour, but at least it's something more substantial.

Would you call this "data interpretation," "scientific methodology," or "objective truth?"

What, exactly, is this link "more substantial" than?



Possibly a sweet spot for wildlife photography, if it can hit 8-10fps - 46MP lets you focus using one point and crop around it as the subject moves and changes posture, giving you 20.4 MP if you crop all the way to 1.5x, or more if you don't have to crop as heavily. They'll need a better 200-400, though.

Same question as my first line above ... Would you call this data interpretation, scientific methodology, or objective truth? ... since you say you only deal in facts, data, and objective truths.

All these if-clauses, possiblys, and prognostications smell more like 'your opinion' to me.



As I said, not Sony's top-of-the-line sensor. Probably the second-best. They've likely got a better one coming within months, in the A7r3 or A9r. We already know they've been working on something in the 60-80MP range.

Same lead question as the above.

The truth is you're guessing, wishing, and 'thinking out loud,' same as everyone else.

Since your guess is no better than anyone's, my guess is the Nikon D850 will be the single-most talked about DSLR for the remainder of this year.

When it releases, I also predict the D850 will out-sell any Sony camera for the remainder of the year, with better specs, features, and lens supplementation ... with a sensor equal to or (hey, I can hope too) better than what is currently being offered today.

If at some undisclosed time next year, Sony comes out with a marginally-better sensor, then what we call this is "incremental progress," which is to be expected.

That won't change the fact the D850 will have the best sensor in its class the day it's released.

It will also take Sony a lot longer than a few months to achieve Nikon's lens portfolio, if they ever can.

JKoerner007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • "A picture's worth a thousand words."
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #118 on: July 31, 2017, 06:07:50 pm »

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:

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.

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.

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.

I've only talked about sensors and the measurable aspects of their performance.

Boy you ramble-on a lot. I think I've met my match.

The main gist of this palaver is that, "because I can't disprove your ramblings about Sony sensors," you're going to keep rambling.

So be it.

Of course you only talk about sensor performance, because the rest of Sony's amenities are lacking. Where would they be without the help of Zeiss and Voigtlander?



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.

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.

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).

More palaver. Sorry, don't have the time to engage.



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.

I would have no problem buying a Sony system either ... if they only had decent glass in the areas I prefer also. But they don't.

As you mentioned in the above paragraph-rant, I don't even bother to read about Sony ... and that's because I am happy with my current gear.

Yet you're always here on Nikon threads preaching 'Sony' ... as if you're "trying to convince" everybody else ... or yourself ;)



It's called evidence - something that's valuable in both academia and argument.

Evidence also useful in building case trials, which I have been doing in the physical world, as an investigator, probably longer than you been daydreaming on the internet, and probably longer than you've ever done anything else. In fact, since before the internet, cell phones, etc.



No evidence, or evidence from a questionable source? Then it's just rhetoric.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

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.

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.

Sorry, but this smacks more addled palaver. And you have your understanding exactly backwards.



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'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.

Again, sorry, but now you're entering into my world, and it is you who are confused.

A fact is something that is measurable, observable, and repeatable; that's it. A fact is different from a truth.

There are also historical 'facts' (a single occurrence) versus measurable, observable, repeatable facts.

You're confusing the definition of facts with the definition of truths.

Truths are timeless; facts are not. Measurable facts can and do change, quite often, usually over time however.

In fact (pardon the pun):

  • It is impossible to step twice into the same river."
  • ~ Heraclitus



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.

Were you better-versed in logic, you would see your self-contradiction right here of your previous utterance.



The fact that it's relevant doesn't make it a technical or scientific field.

Huh? :o



If nothing else, this just shows how little you know about medicine.

You've also shown that you know nothing about logic.



'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.

What's actually funny is that you are underscoring my point here, not your original one.

You're changing course as you go along, to clarify, which was my point, not yours.



Not like subjective laws and contracts, which can be argued about for weeks.

Again, shows how little you know about the best of contracts. Logic binds them. Only when poor logic (read, poor wording) is used is there ambiguity.

To repeat myself, if you don't think courses of treatment for particular maladies are "subjective," or "argued about," then you're not being realistic.



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.

Finally we agree on something. If I sign a contract, without reading it properly, then yes I am the one to blame.

However, if I trust somebody to do something for me, by granting him the authority to act in my stead, as a licensed professional, and he fails to get the job done, then that is another matter. Same as you.



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.

Another invalid comparison, and more palaver, but it's such an incorrect belief system that it demands comment.

Keep in mind that the the standard for all legality is "the reasonable man."

I do not have the microscopic equipment to test the food I eat for microbes. That is an "unrealistic" expectation of consumers to equip themselves with microscopic testing equipment prior to eating a simple meal.

However, if somebody hands me a document to sign, written in a language I understand, and in letters I can read with my naked eye, then it is "reasonable" to expect me to read it. Therefore, my failure to read the fine print, or my failure to interpret the information correctly, is my own failure. As it was yours.



Hence my current legal proceedings against them.

Best of luck on that, seriously.

I would be interested in reading the particulars ...



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?

Can't? As in breaking a physical law of time/space ... or an inconvenient one of convention ... or just the limitations of your own awareness?

Again, can't?



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.

In all seriousness, I don't wish bad on you or anyone else. A few years ago, a Navy seal (on this board I think) actually lost his life in Mexico. It can happen to even the best of us ... or, even more likely, the less aware or less vigilant. But, regardless, I wouldn't wish harm on you or anyone else.

I see enough of it every day.



'Innocence'? More like I have no interest in wordplay, just as you have no interest in evidence.

Sounds more like you have no sense of humor or are clever in some ways, not so much in others.

I have no interest in evidence?
Lol I have been dealing in nothing but evidence for most of my life.

Real evidence, the kind you have to go outside and collect ... sometimes in bad neighborhoods ... at night ... or the wee hours of the morning ... spying on people, documenting their activities (whenever your investigation reveals them to be active) ... interviewing witnesses from all walks of life ... measuring skidmarks, hiring forensic experts, storing evidence according to law ... checking for evidence of forced entry ... harvesting security footage placed where a loss occurred (or was alleged to have occurred) ... harvesting intel through pretext, a professional con (when legal) ... whatever it takes ... and reporting these facts ('this evidence') to my principals.

Can only chuckle at you here ...

What I can also do, however, is relax, speculate, and hope for something better when I am not working :D



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.

Better luck next time.



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.

Not high-falutin', earned.

As a licensed investigator, I'm quite sure I've earned my right to the 007 epithet more than you've ever earned the handle of "Shadowblade."

Or are you a licensed Ninja? If so, how many years? lol

Indeed, based on your thread topic a few months back, you deserve to have that fantasy-description revoked at this point, sport.



(Can we go back to being adults now? I've wasted 2 hours on this. I promise the rest of the viewers to speak of nothing but the D850 from this point forward ... after it arrives.)
« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 06:18:13 pm by JKoerner007 »
Logged

Geods

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #119 on: July 31, 2017, 09:59:06 pm »

D800e owner...

No one has mentioned IBIS or high resolution mode. I have an Olympus OMD EM-1 Mk II. While few think of its high resolution mode as substantial, I think it is fantastic and puts resultant images into the high end FF arena, albeit from a tripod only. The Pentax K-1 has a sensor shifting high resolution mode as well as IBIS and it costs significantly less than the D810. I hope, amongst the other reported/speculated improvements, that the D850 will offer IBIS and a high resolution mode that will allow it to compete with the DMF crowd and their 100MP sensors. Many people use their high resolution Nikons as a landscape photography tools and shoot them from a tripod, so this would make great sense. Thoughts?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 29   Go Up