Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 29   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development  (Read 932555 times)

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2605
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #120 on: July 31, 2017, 10:17:16 pm »

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

I never said it was anything other than a rumour. I did not pretend to present it as objective truth.

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

Than any other plausible rumour which has come out before. There were previous hints at its resolution (was it 42MP? 46MP? 48MP) but nothing that hinted at both its resolution and its manufacture.

Quote
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.

An opinion which is based known or suspected facts.

In other words, what every professional, in every field, does.

And I've explained my methodology, or line of thinking. You and anyone else are free to question or critique that line of thinking in any way you want - unlike you, I've spelt it out. I don't just expect anyone to take my word as truth, without plausible explanation. Which is a whole lot more than, 'Nikon is better, because Nikon is better'.

Here, we have a likely 46MP full-frame sensor (which crops to 20.4MP if you apply a 1.5x crop, to ensure an effective sensor area at least as large as an APS-C sensor), reportedly capable of 8-10fps (fast enough for wildlife - at least, it was considered fast enough in the days of the D3, D300 and 7D). You do the maths.

Quote
Same lead question as the above.

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

So? That's the essence of reasoned debate, in the essence. You put forth an argument, and the reasoning behind it, Scientists were doing that for a century about Einstein's prediction of gravitational waves, before experiments proved him correct. Attacking someone for the audacity of putting forth an argument, as opposed to the content or reasoning behind that argument, is the purview of the preacher or demagogue, not the scientist, logician or lawyer.

As above, I've actually outlined my line of thinking and the reasoning behind it, for anyone to critique. Which you haven't - you expect everything you say to be taken as truth, and shut down with rhetoric anyone who calls you out or brings out evidence contrary to your claims.

You've yet to put down a single counterargument as to why anything I've said wouldn't be valid.

Quote
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.

Obviously, because it's likely to be the last top-of-the-line DSLR or mirrorless offering from any major manufacturer for the year. The Canon/Nikon action bodies aren't due for a rehash, the A9 only came out a few months ago, the 5Ds2 and A7r3/A9r aren't due until at least the start of next year. It will be talked about because it's the only product there is to talk about at this time whose launch is imminent.

Although if Canon or Sony announce a 5Ds2 or A9r in November, you can just about guarantee that, for the remainder of the year from that point, the new announcement will be talked about more than the talked-to-death D850.

Not that being 'talked about' is a measure of performance. We all talked about the sensor performance of the 5D3 and 7D for a long time.

Quote
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.

Well, obviously. Between a slated October release and the end of the year, there probably won't be any major Sony camera releases, and all the early A9 adopters will already have their cameras.

And of course the sensor will be better than anything available today. It's been two years since the A7r2, and will be closer to two-and-a-half by the time the D850 is released. If Nikon (or Sony themselves, even in a second-line sensor) can't beat their previous sensor with a two-and-a-half-year lead time, even if only marginally, that would be pretty hopeless.

But the D850 isn't competing against the currently-existing sensors. It will be competing against Canon's and Sony's next-generation high-resolution bodies. That it beats the A7r2 is meaningless at this point in its product cycle. That would be like saying that the Samsung Galaxy S8 beats the iPhone 4 - products from two different generations. It needs to match or beat the A7r3/A9r.

Quote
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.

60-80MP isn't 'incremental progress' if it maintains other sensor characteristics, e.g. DR and high-ISO performance. And there's no reason it wouldn't maintain these characteristics, going on past record (of both Sony and Canon).

What isless-than-incremental progress is going from 42MP to 46MP in three years, with other factors remaining the same, in a camera built around high resolution and image quality. Which is why the A7r3/A9 won't have the 46MP sensor, but something significantly better.

'Best sensor in a production camera on the day that it's released' doesn't mean anything if a better one is in advanced development, to be released within months. Sensor development takes years - the 46MP sensor would have been developed at the same time as whatever Sony put into their next-gen model. An advantage holds for a full product cycle or longer, not the few months' difference between different brands' release dates for the same generation of camera. We compared the 5D3 and D800, despite their different release dates. We compared the 5Ds, D810 and A7r2 - they were direct competitors with each other, despite their different release dates. The fact that Nikon releases their camera a few months before the others, with  sensor that beats the previous generation, doesn't give Nikon the sensor advantage against this generation.

If the sensor is Sony-developed, likely they're using the best for themselves (the 60-80MP version) while offering the second-best for sale (the 46MP version). If the sensor is Nikon-developed, Sony is just making it for the cash, likely knowing that their own one is better (if they didn't make it, someone else would, and they'd lose the cash anyway). Or do you have a logical reason why Sony would give Nikon its own best sensor, when its competing in the same market space and likely to release a new model within months?

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

They said the same thing about Nikon's ability to catch up with Canon 12 years ago, given the latter's huge advantage with CMOS technology (as opposed to CCD) and full-frame sensors. Look what happened.
Logged

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 658
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #121 on: July 31, 2017, 10:33:51 pm »

Why don't you two guys just give it a break. Let's just wait until the 850 is released and tested and we'll all see both of you are totally wrong.

For now...don't pollute anymore.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12730
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #122 on: August 01, 2017, 12:41:50 am »

What if the D850 were Nikon's answer to the 5DIV at 46mp, great speed, great image quality at all ISOs... and a D5x/D900 with higher res were to be released also that is an answer to the a9r/5DR mv II?

Some here seem to be forgetting that Nikon has been aiming for the top and mostly succeeded to reach their targets of technical excellence till date.

As far as Sony's roadmap is concerned, I am pretty sure that the a7rIII will only feature a modest increase of resolution (46mp sounds about right) while the a9r may reach breakthrough resolutions at a much higher price point.

The Nikon line up I foresee is the following:

- mirrorless new FF body at around 1,400 US$ as a real affordable entry model, this would be instead of a D620
- D760 at 2,200 US$ to compete with the 6DII/a7III but specs close to the 5DIV (30mp, AF of the D810+)
- D850 at 4,000 US$ to compete with the 5DIV/a7rIII (46mp, AF of the D5)
- D5x and/or D900 at 5,000 US$ to compete with the 5DRII/a9r (70mp, AF of the D5)

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 01:01:08 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 865
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #123 on: August 01, 2017, 01:00:01 am »

What if the D850 were Nikon's answer to the 5DIV at 46mp, great speed, great image quality at all
ISOs... and a D5x/D900 with higher res were to be released also that is an answer to the a9r/5DR mv II?

Some here seem to be forgetting that Nikon has been aiming for the top and mostly succeeded to reach their targets of technical excellence till date.

As far as Sony's roadmap is concerned, I am pretty sure that the a7rIII will only feature a modest increase of resolution (46mp sounds about right) while the a9r may reach breakthrough resolutions at a much higher price point.

The Nikon line up I foresee is the following:

- mirrorless new FF body at around 1,400 US$ as a real affordable entry model, this would be instead of a D620
- D760 at 2,200 US$ to compete with the 6DII/a7III but specs close to the 5DIV (30mp, AF of the D810+)
- D850 at 4,000 US$ to compete with the 5DIV/a7rIII (46mp, AF of the D5)
- D5x and/or D900 at 5,000 US$ to compete with the 5DRII/a9r (70mp, AF of the D5)

Cheers,
Bernard

Hear, Hear! I mostlly care about very useful low ISOs and a workable LiveView...and some more pixels.
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2192
    • The Last Word
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #124 on: August 01, 2017, 10:44:42 am »

Hear, Hear! I mostly care about very useful low ISOs and a workable LiveView...and some more pixels.

You're assuming that the low ISO setting would be accompanied by increased FWC, right? Otherwise, you could just use an ND filter.

I know it's a little thing, but I sure hope they fix the double-push EFCS in LV.

Jim

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 865
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #125 on: August 01, 2017, 10:57:06 am »

You're assuming that the low ISO setting would be accompanied by increased FWC, right? Otherwise, you could just use an ND filter.

I know it's a little thing, but I sure hope they fix the double-push EFCS in LV.

Jim

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is FWC?
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2192
    • The Last Word
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #126 on: August 01, 2017, 11:32:12 am »

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is FWC?

Full Well Capacity is the number of electrons that can be stored on the photodiode without the sensor becoming unacceptably nonlinear. It is thus the determinator of the signal to photon noise (or shot noise, if you prefer) ratio, which is what adversely affects IQ through almost the entire photographic dynamic range in most modern sensors, now that read noise is getting so low. (There are cameras, like the D5, for which the read noise at base ISO is unusually high, and what I just said doesn't apply there.)

Photon noise signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) = 1/sqrt(electron count), so the more electrons the better. There are two ways to get more electrons; a higher FWC, and a more efficient (in the sense of more electrons for a given photon count) color filter array (CFA) and the sensor itself. With quantum efficiencies (electrons/photons) now running around 60% and more transparent CFAs causing color difficulties, the only way to make big strides in PDR is higher FWCs.

Jim

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 865
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #127 on: August 01, 2017, 11:39:26 am »

Full Well Capacity is the number of electrons that can be stored on the photodiode without the sensor becoming unacceptably nonlinear. It is thus the determinator of the signal to photon noise (or shot noise, if you prefer) ratio, which is what adversely affects IQ through almost the entire photographic dynamic range in most modern sensors, now that read noise is getting so low. (There are cameras, like the D5, for which the read noise at base ISO is unusually high, and what I just said doesn't apply there.)

Photon noise signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) = 1/sqrt(electron count), so the more electrons the better. There are two ways to get more electrons; a higher FWC, and a more efficient (in the sense of more electrons for a given photon count) color filter array (CFA) and the sensor itself. With quantum efficiencies (electrons/photons) now running around 60% and more transparent CFAs causing color difficulties, the only way to make big strides in PDR is higher FWCs.

Jim

I get the idea. Whatever they did with the D810 to the low ISO (64) is what interests me. I have not seen anything close to that, in the other cameras I tested recently like the Pentax K1, The Sony A7RII, The Fuji GFX, and the Hasselblad X1D.

Can you comment on the low ISO of the D810, please?
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2605
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #128 on: August 01, 2017, 12:02:30 pm »

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?

That's because Sony's sensors vs Nikon's reliance on other people's sensors is the only aspect of Sony camera technology that's actually relevant in this discussion on the D850. Sony designed and made the D810 sensor. Who made and designed the D850 sensor has a huge bearing on the likely performance of the D850.

If you've actually bothered to read anything that's non-Nikon, you'll find that I'm just as critical of Sony lens development as I am of Nikon-designed sensors and (until the most recent generation) Canon sensors.

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

The usual TL;DR trolls use any time they can't win an argument.

]quote]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 ;)[/quote]

I'm always trying to find something better, no matter what I'm using.

Camera, boat, car, house, camping gear... I'll buy the best for purpose, then look for something even better.

If you're so happy with your gear, why bother discussing and preaching it?

Quote
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.

That's a form of argument, which I mentioned. 'Both academia and argument'. You build up evidence - both direct and circumstantial - for or against a point of contention, then explain how it supports your case or disproves the opposing case.

Something you haven't bothered to do at all here.

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

Explain how.

You've just done exactly what I pointed out in the section you quoted - all you've done is repeatedly say, 'You're wrong', without actually pointing out why. 'You're wrong' isn't an argument.

Quote
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

What the hell is a 'truth'?

That smacks of quasi-religious talk.

'S. aureus is sensitive to flucloxacillin' is no longer a fact as soon as you find a single strain that's resistant to flucloxacillin. It's a generalisation, because most strains are sensitive to flucloxacillin, but cannot be taken as fact. 'This strain of S. aureus is sensitive to flucloxacillin', however, is a provable fact.

Measurable facts do not change. If they do, you haven't been specific enough. If you measured someone's blood pressure at 95/50, it was 95/50 at that point in time. That doesn't change. Five minutes later and the BP may be different, but that doesn't change the fact that, at that point in time, the patient's BP was 95/50.

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

I fail to see your point. And your increasingly flowery rhetoric is getting more and more difficult to read. Besides, you're now entering my world - debating.

There are numerous articles out there on the mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance. Do a search on Pubmed and you'll find plenty. There are probably other undiscovered mechanisms out there, but the fact that other mechanisms exist does not mean that the currently-known ones are wrong.

Quote
Huh? :o

I'll elaborate.

This is what you said: 'and are as germane to your life as are scientific laws'

In other words, you said that, since man-made contracts are relevant to daily life, they are a technical field.

That's a non-sequitur. Something can be relevant without being technical.

I like salad. It's healthy and tasty, so I eat a fair bit of it. Therefore, salad-making is relevant to daily life.

Does that make salad-making a technical field? Of course not.

You may be able to present other arguments as to why you think man-made contracts constitute a 'technical field, but the fact that they are 'relevant to daily life' is not one of them.

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

Again, putting forth a point without explanation. Not an argument. It would get thrown out of any journal or courtroom.

Quote
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.

That was my original piont. 'BP of 55/30' and 'penetrating injury to the CFA' are objective, observable facts. How these individual facts are interpreted to form a bigger picture is another matter entirely.

You, on the other hand, contended that they are not objective facts, but are subjective. A quickly-inserted arterial line or CT scan will prove you wrong. Here is your quote:

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?


In other words, you've implied that, just because it's temporary, it's not a fact. Wrong - a pressure transducer attached to an arterial line will tell you that, at that moment in time, the BP is 55/30. That's a fact. And you've implied that, just because there may be varying levels of injury to a blood vessel, it is not a fact that the vessel is injured. Again, easily disprovable - it's either injured or it's not.

Quote
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.

Then why do many cases drag on for weeks, months or even years? Surely, if laws and contracts are purely mechanical and not subject to argument, they should all be over as soon as both sides have read them. Yet lawyers and judges will argue endlessly about the meaning of a single word or phrase.

Quote
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.

Do you expect your car mechanic to fix your car without destroying it - or, worse, sabotaging it? Do you expect your surgeon to take out your appendix rather than simply cutting you open, tying your intestines in knots and carving his name into your liver? Do you expect the pumps at your petrol station to pump fuel rather than water into your car? I'd think so.

In the same vein, I'd expect a major travel agent, selling tens of thousands of travel insurance contracts annually, to know what they're selling and to act without malice in selling the product.

A society where you have to do everything yourself and have the specialised knowledge and skills to double-check everyone's work, because you can't trust them to do it properly, doesn't work past the most primitive levels of development.

Quote
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.

If that's the case, then why do we have lawyers? If everyone can read and understand legal documents, why bother having people who specialise in them? And, if the lawyer messes up and things don't go your way even though his or her reading of the contract said that it would, do you then have a case to sue the lawyer? (don't know about the US, but, here, I don't think you can)

Quote
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?

In many places, it's downright prohibited. Can't carry one without a local licence, can't import unless as a dealer, etc. And, if you get caught, the penalties are high.

If you think you're special, I dare you to bring an automatic weapon into Singapore and carry it around.

Quote
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.

Seen it from both ends. Trauma in the hospital, and fighting for my life crossing the Sahara and in an armed ambush in Ecuador.

Quote
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

You've yet to bring out any evidence - whether directly-measured or circumstantial, authoritative or merely supportive - regarding your stance on Nikon cameras. Rhetoric doesn't constitute evidence. If you have them, bring out the links, charts and articles to support your position, so that we can all validate or critique them.

Quote
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.

Shadow Three, then Shadow One, were my callsigns (I have others, but I'm not going by Rainbow or Daffodil...). I played for the Blades. More than earned, I'd say. And I don't know where you're getting 'ninja' from.

007 is a fictional spy, assassin and sleazebag.
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2192
    • The Last Word
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #129 on: August 01, 2017, 12:10:11 pm »

Can you comment on the low ISO of the D810, please?

Sorry, I guess I compressed things too much when I said this: "Photon noise signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) = 1/sqrt(electron count), so the more electrons the better. There are two ways to get more electrons; a higher FWC, and a more efficient (in the sense of more electrons for a given photon count) color filter array (CFA) and the sensor itself. With quantum efficiencies (electrons/photons) now running around 60% and more transparent CFAs causing color difficulties, the only way to make big strides in PDR is higher FWCs."

That means we need more photons. The only way to get more photons is to increase the exposure. If we increase the exposure, we're going to saturate the sensor unless we increase the FWC. Since the ISO setting on the camera (I don't know why they don't call it gain) is based on how far an gray card is from full scale, we need to reduce the ISO setting to get the greater exposure. (Go easy on me, you experts out there -- that was a very simplified explanation of how ISO works in digital cameras, and there's lot of wiggle room in the spec).

Jim

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2192
    • The Last Word
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #130 on: August 01, 2017, 12:18:57 pm »

I get the idea. Whatever they did with the D810 to the low ISO (64) is what interests me. I have not seen anything close to that, in the other cameras I tested recently like the Pentax K1, The Sony A7RII, The Fuji GFX, and the Hasselblad X1D.

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%2050S,Nikon%20D810,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2

GFX base ISO PDR: 11.9 stops
a7RII base ISO PDR: 11.4 stops
D810 base ISO PDR = 11.6 stops

I didn't include the other cameras that use the Sony 33x44mm sensor since they're all virtually the same.

All the above numbers are normalized for sensor resolution. If you look on a per-pixel basis, the D810 is going to look better because it's a lower-resolution sensor. But if you want to know what a print is going to look like, you want to normalize for resolution.

Jim

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2605
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #131 on: August 01, 2017, 12:19:31 pm »

What if the D850 were Nikon's answer to the 5DIV at 46mp, great speed, great image quality at all ISOs... and a D5x/D900 with higher res were to be released also that is an answer to the a9r/5DR mv II?

Some here seem to be forgetting that Nikon has been aiming for the top and mostly succeeded to reach their targets of technical excellence till date.

As far as Sony's roadmap is concerned, I am pretty sure that the a7rIII will only feature a modest increase of resolution (46mp sounds about right) while the a9r may reach breakthrough resolutions at a much higher price point.

The Nikon line up I foresee is the following:

- mirrorless new FF body at around 1,400 US$ as a real affordable entry model, this would be instead of a D620
- D760 at 2,200 US$ to compete with the 6DII/a7III but specs close to the 5DIV (30mp, AF of the D810+)
- D850 at 4,000 US$ to compete with the 5DIV/a7rIII (46mp, AF of the D5)
- D5x and/or D900 at 5,000 US$ to compete with the 5DRII/a9r (70mp, AF of the D5)

Cheers,
Bernard

I don't see that happening, since a mirrorless body would require new lenses to work at its full potential (the optics can stay the same, but new motors are needed).

More likely:

D620 to compete with 6D2 (and possibly A7iii), as an entry-level body. They could even reuse the same old sensor and still beat the 6D2's sensor, while competing with the A7iii on AF (provided it doesn't include too much of the A9). I also thought about the 36MP Sony sensor, since, as an older sensor used in several products, it will be relatively cheap, but its poor-for-2017 high-ISO performance makes it less viable for a general-purpose body. More likely, they'd just use a cheaper, third-rate sensor from Sony or someone else.

D760 to compete with 5D3 (and possibly A7iii, if it includes more of the A9)

D850 to compete with either the A7r3 or A9r.

I doubt there will be a D5x - who could they possibly sell it to? The D800 dropped the price point of a high-resolution, good-AF camera significantly, while the D810 solidified this price drop. You couldn't sell a D5x or 1Dxs for $7-8k these days, as you could with a D3x or 1Ds3. Even an A9r couldn't sell for much more than an A9 - it's different (slow and high-resolution) rather than better.

As for Nikon mirrorless, I think that's more likely to come in the consumer range, to replace the consumer-range SLRs. Since they will require new lenses, it's easier to introduce them from the consumer end, which doesn't require so many different lenses for a viable system. Also, Nikon's first-generation mirrorless AF is unlikely to match its SLR AF performance (it took Sony several iterations, and they're a much larger company, with more resources and a solid background in video, putting all their camera efforts into mirrorless), and consumer-grade cameras are less taxing on AF than higher-grade cameras and users. A high-resolution, high-DR studio/landscape camera is another possibility, but less likely, since Nikon would have to source the sensor from somewhere and would have difficulty beating the A7r3/A9r in that role.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2605
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #132 on: August 01, 2017, 12:29:59 pm »

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%2050S,Nikon%20D810,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2

GFX base ISO PDR: 11.9 stops
a7RII base ISO PDR: 11.4 stops
D810 base ISO PDR = 11.6 stops

I didn't include the other cameras that use the Sony 33x44mm sensor since they're all virtually the same.

All the above numbers are normalized for sensor resolution. If you look on a per-pixel basis, the D810 is going to look better because it's a lower-resolution sensor. But if you want to know what a print is going to look like, you want to normalize for resolution.

Jim

Did they really do anything special, though?

The D810's DR at ISO 100 is around half a stop less than the D800e or A7r at ISO 100, and all use the same basic sensor. The D800e and A7r are unable to reach ISO 64 natively.

Meanwhile, the D810's DR at ISO 64 is very similar to the D800e's or A7r's DR at ISO 100.

This pattern continues all the way up the ISO curve - the DR of the D810 at any given ISO is similar to the DR of the D800e or A7r at half a stop higher ISO.

Is it simply a case of all three sensors actually having similar (possibly identical, given sample variation/margin of error) DR, but something reducing the D810's sensitivity, so that it can achieve a lower native ISO (64 instead of 100) but have a slight DR disadvantage over the others at any given ISO (e.g. similar DR at ISO 64 that the others achieve at ISO 100)? Say, for instance, stronger colour filters, or some other element of the filter stack, blocking out more light than on the others?
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2605
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #133 on: August 01, 2017, 12:35:42 pm »

You're assuming that the low ISO setting would be accompanied by increased FWC, right? Otherwise, you could just use an ND filter.

I know it's a little thing, but I sure hope they fix the double-push EFCS in LV.

Jim

That's where BSI technology could come in handy.

BSI essentially gives you 3D circuitry - instead of circuitry being at the front of the sensor, at the same level as the photosites, it goes behind it. Currently, it's being used to allow more light to strike the sensor, increasing its sensitivity.

But 3D circuitry gives you other options. FWC is one of the critical elements in determining dynamic range, and it relates to how much charge each photosite can hold before becoming saturated.

Capacitors hold charge, and their capacitance is dependant on (among other things) their surface area. You can pack a lot of surface area into a very small volume, with fine enough circuitry (imagine the surface area of a sponge). Meanwhile, BSI, developed sufficiently, could potentially allow you to put a capacitor behind every photosite...

No longer would the FWC be dependent on the size of the light-collecting area of the photosite. It would be dependent on the size of the capacitor behind it. The speed at which light is collected wouldn't change, but the total amount able to be collected and measured would - hence, this would result in ultra-low ISOs with ultra-high DR, rather than an increase in high-ISO performance.
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2192
    • The Last Word
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #134 on: August 01, 2017, 12:36:39 pm »

Did they really do anything special, though?

The D810's DR at ISO 100 is around half a stop less than the D800e or A7r at ISO 100, and all use the same basic sensor. The D800e and A7r are unable to reach ISO 64 natively.

Meanwhile, the D810's DR at ISO 64 is very similar to the D800e's or A7r's DR at ISO 100.

This pattern continues all the way up the ISO curve - the DR of the D810 at any given ISO is similar to the DR of the D800e or A7r at half a stop higher ISO.

Is it simply a case of all three sensors actually having similar (possibly identical, given sample variation/margin of error) DR, but something reducing the D810's sensitivity, so that it can achieve a lower native ISO (64 instead of 100) but have a slight DR disadvantage over the others at any given ISO (e.g. similar DR at ISO 64 that the others achieve at ISO 100)? Say, for instance, stronger colour filters, or some other element of the filter stack, blocking out more light than on the others?

I've measured the sensitivity of all three cameras in a rough sense since I routinely do comparison shots and note the differences in raw values for the exposures. The D810 sensor at base ISO is indeed about two-thirds of a stop slower than the a7RII at base ISO. The GFX sensor is slower than the a7RII at the same ISO.

Jim

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2192
    • The Last Word
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #135 on: August 01, 2017, 12:42:17 pm »

That's where BSI technology could come in handy.

BSI essentially gives you 3D circuitry - instead of circuitry being at the front of the sensor, at the same level as the photosites, it goes behind it. Currently, it's being used to allow more light to strike the sensor, increasing its sensitivity.

But 3D circuitry gives you other options. FWC is one of the critical elements in determining dynamic range, and it relates to how much charge each photosite can hold before becoming saturated.

Capacitors hold charge, and their capacitance is dependant on (among other things) their surface area. You can pack a lot of surface area into a very small volume, with fine enough circuitry (imagine the surface area of a sponge). Meanwhile, BSI, developed sufficiently, could potentially allow you to put a capacitor behind every photosite...

No longer would the FWC be dependent on the size of the light-collecting area of the photosite. It would be dependent on the size of the capacitor behind it. The speed at which light is collected wouldn't change, but the total amount able to be collected and measured would - hence, this would result in ultra-low ISOs with ultra-high DR, rather than an increase in high-ISO performance.

Sony already puts a capacitor behind each sensor pixel, and a switching transistor, too, in all the sensors that use the DR-Pix technology, and not all of them are BSI.

I don't view the BSI much as a sensitivity-increaser since the microlenses can compensate for smaller pixel apertures. However, it allows flat microlenses, which reduce CFA crosstalk, and that is a big step forward. And, of course, it enables stacked sensors, which are a huge potential win.

Jim

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2605
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #136 on: August 01, 2017, 12:46:27 pm »

Sony already puts a capacitor behind each sensor pixel, and a switching transistor, too, in all the sensors that use the DR-Pix technology, and not all of them are BSI.

I don't view the BSI much as a sensitivity-increaser since the microlenses can compensate for smaller pixel apertures. However, it allows flat microlenses, which reduce CFA crosstalk, and that is a big step forward. And, of course, it enables stacked sensors, which are a huge potential win.

Jim

Increase the size of the capacitor and you've just increased your low-ISO DR.

Of course, the penalty may be heat, which introduces its own problems.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2605
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #137 on: August 01, 2017, 12:47:47 pm »

I've measured the sensitivity of all three cameras in a rough sense since I routinely do comparison shots and note the differences in raw values for the exposures. The D810 sensor at base ISO is indeed about two-thirds of a stop slower than the a7RII at base ISO. The GFX sensor is slower than the a7RII at the same ISO.

Jim

This would probably require destructive testing, but does removing the filter stack from all three sensors equalise their sensitivity?
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12730
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #138 on: August 01, 2017, 12:50:30 pm »

Nikon is obviously going to release both a FX mirrorless body and matching lenses very soon. A patent for a 24-70 f2.8-4 mirrorless lens was just made public. The only question is whether Nikon will start low end or high end. I bet on low end.

The Nikon 1 is the obvious proof the Nikon has had a great mirrorless AF solution for years.

I personally believe there is a market for a D5x.

The ergonomics of the D5 and resulting ease/speed of use are IMHO way superior to any currently available mirrorless camera.

But note that I wrote D5x/D900 to indicate that its form factor doesn't matter.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 01:05:35 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2605
Re: Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development
« Reply #139 on: August 01, 2017, 12:59:13 pm »

Nikon is obviously going to release both a FX mirrorless body and matching lenses very soon. A patent for a 24-70 f2.8-4 mirrorless lens was just made public. The only question is whether Nikon will start low end or high end. I bet on low end.

I personally believe there is a market for a D5x.

The ergonomics of the D5 and resulting ease/speed of use are IMHO way superior to any currently available mirrorless camera.

But note that I wrote D5x/D900 to indicate that its form factor doesn't matter.

Cheers,
Bernard

The ergonomics of the D5/1Dx slow me down more than anything else. It's easy enough to attach a grip anyway.

Moreover, how many people would pay a $2-3k premium for what essentially amounts to a grip you can't remove? Particularly if a competitor can offer you the same performance, in a different form factor, at a much lower price? That's essentially what the D700 did to the D3, and what the D800 did to the 1Ds3/D3x lines of cameras. If they had released a D4x, with the same sensor as the D810, it would likely have struggled to sell.

If/when Nikon move into mirrorless, it is likely to be at the low end (APS-C). They will be trying to get all the current D3xxx/D5xxx, and possibly D7xxx buyers. Unless they can get full-frame sensors at a low enough price to bring the total unit cost to a similar price point, they won't be able to capture this audience with an entry-level full-frame mirrorless system.

Maybe if they made a huge order of last-generation, 24MP A7 or D750 sensors, they could get them for cheap and saturate the low end of the market...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 29   Go Up