Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development

[shadowblade]

Does anyone know a date for the "D850"?

August 24 announcement.

[BernardLanguillier]

Well... how could anyone in his right mind form an opinion about the suitability of the D850 for a particular role when nothing factual is known about it?

The only element we have telling us the D850 won't be a great base ISO camera... is the theory you have constructed...

So being called a fanboy for not adhering to your guess is... amusing.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

Well... how could anyone in his right mind form an opinion about the suitability of the D850 for a particular role when nothing factual is known about it?

The only element we have telling us the D850 won't be a great base ISO camera... is the theory you have constructed...

So being called a fanboy for not adhering to your guess is... amusing.

Cheers,
Bernard

I'm not saying it won't be - I have no idea what Nikon is going to do, any more than you do. I'm saying it shouldn't be its main focus.

You're starting from the position of 'the D850 is a low-ISO, high-resolution camera' and everything is a bonus and extrapolating that to mean that the sensor needs to be a low-ISO-optimised sensor. And you're obviously projecting your own desire for a low-ISO, high-DR specialist camera onto it with the false belief that this must be the camera designed for that. But nothing in the known specs list suggests that it's designed as a low-ISO non-action camera. The only reason anyone would even think that is the D8xx name. But look at the specs - 9fps, D5 AF system - and there's nothing there to suggest it's designed as one.

The D850 is an action camera. It has the AF system of one and shoots at 9fps. That's as fast as the D3 managed. As an action camera, it will be expected to perform well at typical sports/wildlife ISOs - 400-6400. Not half a stop behind the leaders, but just as well as the leaders. It doesn't have to beat the D5 or A9 at ISO 3200, but needs to at least match them. If it can improve on the D810's low-ISO performance while doing so, it's a bonus, but hardly a must.

Doing otherwise would be like putting a low-ISO sensor into the D5 that's great at ISO 50, but noisy above ISO 1600. Or making an A7r2 sensor that's great at ISO 25600, but had a curve that flattened out at low ISO, 5D3-style.

Think about it - what if it hadn't been called the D850? What if they'd called it the D900 and announced it with the same 9fps, D5 AF and 46MP? Does that sound like a low-ISO, high-DR, high-resolution studio camera to you? Of course not - it sounds like a general action camera, a super-D750 or super-5D4 rather than a D810 successor. It's not inconceivable that the D850 is a completely different kind of camera while sharing the D8xx name - after all, the 5D3 and 5D2 both shared the '5D' tag, but could hardly be more different in actual use.

[BernardLanguillier]

Euh... not sure where you secured that intimate understanding about what I think and what I desire.

My view is the following:
- The D850 will be the medium FX camera in Nikon line up
- There is going to be a D900 or a D5x with a higher level of resolution to compete with the a9r/5Ds Mk II
- We have no clue today how the D850 will be performing at low ISO, but we know that it is going to have a native ISO64 and that Nikon claimed that it would have better dynamic range.

From these elements, I find it reasonable to think that the D850 will have an excellent level of DR at low ISO, or at least I don't find anything telling me it won't.

I use my H6D-100c camera/back and I stitch when I need the best possible low ISO image quality. I frankly don't need the D850 to be excellent at low ISO, but I think there is a very good chance it will.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Michael Erlewine]

My view is the following:
- The D850 will be the medium FX camera in Nikon line up
- There is going to be a D900 or a D5x with a higher level of resolution to compete with the a9r/5Ds Mk II
- We have no clue today how the D850 will be performing at low ISO, but we know that it is going to have a native ISO64 and that Nikon claimed that it would have better dynamic range.

From these elements, I find it reasonable to think that the D850 will have an excellent level of DR at low ISO, or at least I don't find anything telling me it won't.

Cheers,
Bernard

What he said...I agree (and hope!).

[shadowblade]

My view is the following:
- The D850 will be the medium FX camera in Nikon line up

Certainly it will function as a 'balanced'-type body (like the 5D4), with the AF and FPS necessary to shoot fast action, but also the resolution to do a good job of non-action work. The combination also happens to make it ideal for long-distance action, where cropability is important (more important than 15fps vs 9fps).

Whether it will actually be the 'medium' body in Nikon's top-level lineup (with the D5 as the 'fast and low-res' and something else as the 'slow and hi-res') depends on whether Nikon actually has a high-resolution sensor available. It's not impossible that Nikon only has a 'fast' and 'medium' body available, with no 'slow' body for lack of a suitable sensor. Canon was in the same position a few years ago, with the 1D4 or 1Dx as the 'fast' and the 5D3 as the 'medium', but no 'slow' body to replace the 5D2/1Ds3 as the high-resolution camera. This contributed heavily towards Sony's success with the A7r and drew more than a few Canon shooters to the D800/D800e.

- There is going to be a D900 or a D5x with a higher level of resolution to compete with the a9r/5Ds Mk II

If Nikon has a suitable sensor available, a D850x is more likely than a D900 or D5x. And, if Sony were to launch both a 'medium' and a 'slow' body (with the A9 being the 'fast'), it would actually make more sense for the 'slow' to be the A7r3 rather than the A9r.

A 'medium' body needs to be designed for fast action - in fact, it needs to handle it just as well as the 'fast', apart from an emphasis on having sufficient resolution over having the ultimate frame rate. A 'slow' body doesn't need to shoot action at all - it's nice to have the AF for it, but not strictly essential, and it certainly won't be shooting at a fast burst rate. So, if it had to be one or the other, it would actually make more sense to put the high-resolution sensor into an A7r3 (with all the other top-level features, e.g. dual cards, build quality, etc., but without having to compromise or complicate the sensor to add better on-sensor AF) while putting a 50MP-or-so sensor into an A9r, giving it a 10fps burst rate and making it the 'medium'.

For the same reason, it would make much more sense for Nikon's 'slow' to be a D850x than a D900 or D5x. A 'slow' doesn't need the speed- or action-related features of a D5 body, and driving up the cost to add features that aren't useful to most 'slow' shooters would only cost sales, particularly if Sony releases an A7r3 'slow' which offers the same studio/landscape-relevant capabilities (resolution and DR, not necessarily the ability to track hummingbirds with a 'slow' camera) at a lower price point. Making a D900, offsetting the 'slow'-ness of the sensor with even greater bandwidth (e.g. 7fps instead of 5, and faster AF) really just turns it into an even higher-tier 'medium' - at that point, it wouldn't really be competing against Canon's and Sony's 'slows', but against the D850 itself (e.g. 46MP and 9fps at $3.5k, vs 70MP and 7fps at $6k).

- We have no clue today how the D850 will be performing at low ISO, but we know that it is going to have a native ISO64 and that Nikon claimed that it would have better dynamic range.

From these elements, I find it reasonable to think that the D850 will have an excellent level of DR at low ISO, or at least I don't find anything telling me it won't.

They said it would have 'better dynamic range', but they never said it would have better dynamic range at ISO 64. More likely, this 'better dynamic range' is at higher ISOs rather than base.

The weak point of the D810 sensor isn't base ISO DR. It's DR at mid-high ISOs - 1600-6400. Which is the ISO range that the D850 needs to be good in to take advantage of the improved frame rate and AF and function as an action body. So, the most logical explanation would be that low-ISO DR is the same as the D810, but the mid-high ISO DR is a lot better - a bit like the improvements from the A7r to A7r2. In that case, what Nikon said would still be completely true - the camera would have better DR. Just at this 'better DR' would be at higher ISO - the base-ISO DR would be similar to that of the D810 (while still managing to increase the pixel count).

[BernardLanguillier]

Could you develop your thoughts a bit more?

Cheers,
Bernard

[MoreOrLess]

Personally I think a D900/D5x is unlikely given the D850 specs were hearing about, it very much seems like a camera were Nikon have thrown in everything they could in order to counter the downturn in the market and potential conception from mirrorless. Didn't Nikon themselves say they were looking at reducing the number of DSLR lines they offer? I wouldn't be supprised if the D610 isn't replaced and the D750 successor ends up being the budget body, perhaps with a an F-mount mirrorless FF body as an even cheaper one?

As far as the 5DR goes I think 45 MP is more than enough to hang with that, even if the base DR were to come down slightly it would still likely have a significant edge over the Canon whilst outgunning it greatly in FPS, AF, 4K, etc.

[shadowblade]

Personally I think a D900/D5x is unlikely given the D850 specs were hearing about, it very much seems like a camera were Nikon have thrown in everything they could in order to counter the downturn in the market and potential conception from mirrorless. Didn't Nikon themselves say they were looking at reducing the number of DSLR lines they offer? I wouldn't be supprised if the D610 isn't replaced and the D750 successor ends up being the budget body, perhaps with a an F-mount mirrorless FF body as an even cheaper one?

As far as the 5DR goes I think 45 MP is more than enough to hang with that, even if the base DR were to come down slightly it would still likely have a significant edge over the Canon whilst outgunning it greatly in FPS, AF, 4K, etc.

It won't be competing against the 5Ds, though. It will need to compete against Canon and Sony's next-generation models - likely 5Ds2, 5D5 and A9r and/or A7r3. In the high-resolution role, it'll be up against 60-70MP, not 50MP.

Looking at the D850, it's pretty much a 5D4 that's been made bigger and better in every way - better AF, higher resolution, faster frame rate - or a beefed-up D750. It's not a Nikon-branded 5Ds, nor is it an updated D810. It's a general-purpose body with a nod towards action (D5 AF and 9fps), not a resolution/IQ specialist (although it outclasses every existing Nikon body in this). This suggests room for a high-resolution specialist alongside it, a bit like how the 5Ds exists alongside the 5D3/5D4.

If the D850 had 45MP and only 5fps, I'd be much more inclined to see it as the 'resolution' model, since, in that case, it would clearly not be an action body, and slow even for a general-purpose one. It would look more like Nikon's best attempt at a high-resolution body, with no compromises made to achieve a decent frame rate. But, with 9fps and a D5 action body, even with 46MP, it looks like they held back on the resolution in order to achieve greater frame rate for the same bandwidth. It may be that this decision was forced onto them, if a higher-resolution sensor wasn't available. Or it may be that a slower, higher-resolution body is planned at some stage.

As it stands, it outclasses the 5D4 in every respect and will likely cannibalise the D5 (since 46MP and 9fps is far more useful than 20MP and 1104fps with the same AF system for a lot of roles, particularly anything involving long telephotos). Just about the only thing the 5D4 has to compete on is cost, and likely not by a huge amount (the 5D4's launch price was USD3499). It will likely put up a huge challenge for the 5D5 even if Canon releases it two years from now - going from 30MP to 46MP, with a step up in both AF and fps, in a new camera, against the price of an 18-24-month-old D850 will be a tough ask. It even leaves room for a 30-36MP, 7fps D760 to replace the D750 and undercut the 5D4 for similar specs. But, as a studio/non-action camera, it will be hard-pressed against the A7r2 and 5Ds successors - the frame rate won't come into play, the AF barely will and you're left with a 46MP sensor against something likely in the 60MP+ range, likely with dynamic range in the same ballpark.

Sure, 46MP is probably enough for most users. So is 7fps. But studio/landscape photographers are always going to want more resolution and DR (subject to minimal acceptable performance in other areas), just as action shooters are always going to want faster frame rates (subject to minimum-acceptable resolution).

Whether a higher-resolution, slower-shooting version eventuates will depend on whether Nikon can source a suitable sensor for it - there is certainly room for it in the lineup.

[MoreOrLess]

It won't be competing against the 5Ds, though. It will need to compete against Canon and Sony's next-generation models - likely 5Ds2, 5D5 and A9r and/or A7r3. In the high-resolution role, it'll be up against 60-70MP, not 50MP.

Looking at the D850, it's pretty much a 5D4 that's been made bigger and better in every way - better AF, higher resolution, faster frame rate - or a beefed-up D750. It's not a Nikon-branded 5Ds, nor is it an updated D810. It's a general-purpose body with a nod towards action (D5 AF and 9fps), not a resolution/IQ specialist (although it outclasses every existing Nikon body in this). This suggests room for a high-resolution specialist alongside it, a bit like how the 5Ds exists alongside the 5D3/5D4.

If the D850 had 45MP and only 5fps, I'd be much more inclined to see it as the 'resolution' model, since, in that case, it would clearly not be an action body, and slow even for a general-purpose one. It would look more like Nikon's best attempt at a high-resolution body, with no compromises made to achieve a decent frame rate. But, with 9fps and a D5 action body, even with 46MP, it looks like they held back on the resolution in order to achieve greater frame rate for the same bandwidth. It may be that this decision was forced onto them, if a higher-resolution sensor wasn't available. Or it may be that a slower, higher-resolution body is planned at some stage.

As it stands, it outclasses the 5D4 in every respect and will likely cannibalise the D5 (since 46MP and 9fps is far more useful than 20MP and 1104fps with the same AF system for a lot of roles, particularly anything involving long telephotos). Just about the only thing the 5D4 has to compete on is cost, and likely not by a huge amount (the 5D4's launch price was USD3499). It will likely put up a huge challenge for the 5D5 even if Canon releases it two years from now - going from 30MP to 46MP, with a step up in both AF and fps, in a new camera, against the price of an 18-24-month-old D850 will be a tough ask. It even leaves room for a 30-36MP, 7fps D760 to replace the D750 and undercut the 5D4 for similar specs. But, as a studio/non-action camera, it will be hard-pressed against the A7r2 and 5Ds successors - the frame rate won't come into play, the AF barely will and you're left with a 46MP sensor against something likely in the 60MP+ range, likely with dynamic range in the same ballpark.

Sure, 46MP is probably enough for most users. So is 7fps. But studio/landscape photographers are always going to want more resolution and DR (subject to minimal acceptable performance in other areas), just as action shooters are always going to want faster frame rates (subject to minimum-acceptable resolution).

Whether a higher-resolution, slower-shooting version eventuates will depend on whether Nikon can source a suitable sensor for it - there is certainly room for it in the lineup.

I'm not really sure I see higher resolution comp from Canon coming in the near future though, Sony perhaps but I suspect that were now approaching the realms of diminishing returns on 35mm bodies for the vast majority of lenses.

What does seem more likely to me is that the medium format market will take a bit of a bite out of the high resolution FF market as cheaper options are getting more common. Right now I don't think the resolution on Sonys 44x33mm sensor is good enough to draw across large scale business but the larger format does probably have more potential for improvement so say a 70+ MP sensor could be a factor.

I think the best response to this for Nikon though is probably to try and maximise there advantages rather than looking to fight a resolution war that will target a market of diminishing size. Basically have a camera that can offer resolution and superior action shooting plus handling.

Personally speaking even as mostly a landscape shooter I do actually find the improvements in AF and FPS over my D800 potentially more interesting for branching out more into wildlife without a massive investment in lenses.

[shadowblade]

I'm not really sure I see higher resolution comp from Canon coming in the near future though, Sony perhaps but I suspect that were now approaching the realms of diminishing returns on 35mm bodies for the vast majority of lenses.

What does seem more likely to me is that the medium format market will take a bit of a bite out of the high resolution FF market as cheaper options are getting more common. Right now I don't think the resolution on Sonys 44x33mm sensor is good enough to draw across large scale business but the larger format does probably have more potential for improvement so say a 70+ MP sensor could be a factor.

The problem with MF is lens selection, particularly at the UWA and long telephoto ends. Most MF bodies and their lenses are designed with advertising, fashion and other commercial photography in mind - you won't get the equivalent of a 14mm, or even 16mm lens in that format, nor will you get something beyond around 200mm equivalent.

A MF sensor doesn't require as sharp a lens as a full-frame sensor to achieve higher resolution, but it's also much harder to make equally-sharp MF optics - the components all have to be larger. Conversely, a full-frame sensor can provide just as much resolution as a MF sensor, but will need sharper lenses to do so. Fortunately, sharp full-frame lenses are much easier to make than equally-sharp MF lenses...

The solution to higher resolution is not necessarily MF, but higher-grade lenses - Otus and Leica-style optics. Currently very expensive, but, with more demand due to higher-resolution sensors, prices will come down, especially if Canon/Nikon/Sony/Sigma get into the game.

Also, deformable curved sensors have the potential to greatly increase the resolution of optical systems by doing away with most of the optical elements in the lens. These are likely to first see use in fixed-lens systems with fixed sensors (e.g. phone cameras and RX-style bodies) but both Canon and Sony have now demonstrated models with adjustable curvature. New lenses would still be needed, though - you could still use a current lens on a deformable sensor, but the curvature would have to be set to zero (making it flat) and you wouldn't get any more out of it than with a fixed, flat sensor.

I think the best response to this for Nikon though is probably to try and maximise there advantages rather than looking to fight a resolution war that will target a market of diminishing size. Basically have a camera that can offer resolution and superior action shooting plus handling.

That looks to be what the D850 is - a general-purpose camera that's not the fastest around, nor the highest-resolution, but has an ideal combination for roles that need both speed and resolution, and an AF system that can handle it. It was what Canon also did with the 5D3, and the 5D4 is a continuation of that (as compared with the 5D2, which was, for its time, a no-holds-barred IQ/resolution camera which barely pretended to have an AF system and shot at less than 4fps).

But Canon released a 5Ds as soon as they had a sensor that could provide the resolution. There's a big market out there for high-resolution bodies. Canon was unable to satisfy that market for a long period of time (and still hasn't made a body with both resolution and high DR, since the 5Ds uses the previous-generation sensor technology), so lost market share in that segment, firstly to the D800, then to the A7r/A7r2.

Personally speaking even as mostly a landscape shooter I do actually find the improvements in AF and FPS over my D800 potentially more interesting for branching out more into wildlife without a massive investment in lenses.

I find it useful for one of the bodies. The other one should be an out-and-out resolution-focused camera. If both have high-end AF systems, with frame rate and resolution the main difference, they could each provide effective backup for the other. And they could both use the same set of lenses.

Sports photographers do the same with speed bodies - a D5/1Dx2/A9 for ultimate speed, another (general-purpose or crop body) for more reach. At present, the D500 would be the 'reach' body of choice for Nikon, but, with an equally-good AF system, the D850 would take that role, due to its greater cropping flexibility.

[Colorado David]

If the rumor is true that it will shoot 4K video on an uncropped FX sensor, I will probably buy one.

[shadowblade]

But, regardless of the qualities of the D850 itself - performance as a sports, wildlife or landscape camera - a more pertinent question for those not currently shooting Nikon is the longevity of the current crop of F-mount lenses.

SLRs and OVFs are on their way out. Mirrorless is getting better with each iteration, is now on par with top-tier SLRs AF wise and has much more potential for development. And SLR lenses just don't focus very well with mirrorless AF - Canon EF lenses aren't great on EF-M cameras and Sony A-mount lenses aren't great on E-mount cameras. SLR and mirrorless will likely coexist for a time - there will probably be one or two more generations of 5D and D8xx bodies - but, more and more, new lens developments will be designed with mirrorless systems in mind,  while SLR lineups, like A-mount, will be left to fade away as legacy systems. Is it really a good idea to invest in a system unlikely to retain full support into the future? Or is 10 years' use out of your lens lineup enough to justify buying into the system?

Clearly, if you already own a stable of Nikon lenses, the D850 will represent an upgrade from what you're currently shooting, unless you absolutely need the 14fps of the D5 and can work with a much lower resolution. But, if you're not already invested in Nikon, the longevity of the system makes the wisdom of switching questionable, whether you shoot wildlife (and the D850 is ideal) or landscapes (where it may not be the optimal camera).

[BernardLanguillier]

SLRs and OVFs are on their way out. Mirrorless is getting better with each iteration, is now on par with top-tier SLRs AF wise and has much more potential for development.

Repeating the same thing tens of times doesn't make it more true. The A9 is amazing for a mirrorless and very good in absolute terms, but still isn't at D5 level in terms of tracking AF speed on quickly moving subjects, which is basically when it matters.

It does have some clear advantages over a D5 (such as frame rate and AF points coverage), but these currently unfortunately still come at a price in terms of AF speed compared to the best DSLR.

As far as potential goes, I would probably agree, but this is pure guessing.

But this must also be looked at in terms of the actual needs... and today a D5 correctly used is already very good at focusing in very challenging situations.

And SLR lenses just don't focus very well with mirrorless AF - Canon EF lenses aren't great on EF-M cameras and Sony A-mount lenses aren't great on E-mount cameras. SLR and mirrorless will likely coexist for a time - there will probably be one or two more generations of 5D and D8xx bodies - but, more and more, new lens developments will be designed with mirrorless systems in mind,  while SLR lineups, like A-mount, will be left to fade away as legacy systems. Is it really a good idea to invest in a system unlikely to retain full support into the future? Or is 10 years' use out of your lens lineup enough to justify buying into the system?

Yet, Canon lenses can be focused nearly as fast on the Sony a7/a9 as they can on native Canon bodies, so the potential isn't that bad. The main problem is that AF lenses designed for DSLR aren't good with contrast based AF systems... but the latest mirrorless aren't using contrast based any longer, so I am not too worried by the potential of recent Nikon glass on the future Nikon mirrorless bodies. Future will tell of course.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

Repeating the same thing tens of times doesn't make it more true. The A9 is amazing for a mirrorless and very good in absolute terms, but still isn't at D5 level in terms of tracking AF speed on quickly moving subjects, which is basically when it matters.

It does have some clear advantages over a D5 (such as frame rate and AF points coverage), but these currently unfortunately still come at a price in terms of AF speed compared to the best DSLR.

As far as potential goes, I would probably agree, but this is pure guessing.

But this must also be looked at in terms of the actual needs... and today a D5 correctly used is already very good at focusing in very challenging situations.

Compare it with the 1Dx2. The A9 is every bit as fast and accurate.

I never said it was the very best. I said it was up there with the top tier. And, however you look at it, the 1Dx2 is part of that top tier. And it certainly outclasses the 5D4, D750 and probably even the D4s. There are many tests out there confirming the A9 belongs with the 1Dx2 and D5 in this group.

It's also more accurate when dealing with razor-thin DOF and a slow-moving or nonmoving subject - the combination of CDAF with PDAF really helps.

Yet, Canon lenses can be focused nearly as fast on the Sony a7/a9 as they can on native Canon bodies, so the potential isn't that bad. The main problem is that AF lenses designed for DSLR aren't good with contrast based AF systems... but the latest mirrorless aren't using contrast based any longer, so I am not too worried by the potential of recent Nikon glass on the future Nikon mirrorless bodies. Future will tell of course.

Cheers,
Bernard

Tracking moving subjects with a Canon lens on an A9 is fast (nowhere near as fast as a 1Dx2, though) but not very accurate (lots of slightly OOF shots). With very shallow DOF, it's very accurate when given the time, but slow. Similar to an A-mount lens used on an adapter, but nowhere near the performance it achieves with a native E-mount lens.

Mirrorless cameras use both PDAF and CDAF simultaneously - PDAF for speed, to get 'close enough', and CDAF for pinpoint accuracy and AI focus modes (e.g. eye detection). SLR lenses handle the large, fast, low-frequency PDAF movements well, but struggle with the small, repeated, high-frequency CDAF movements which are required for mirrorless AF speed and accuracy.

[Michael Erlewine]

The D850 announcement is now scheduled for August 24, 2017, something like 36 hours from now. Not sure whose time-zone, but probably Europe. We will see.

[shadowblade]

The D850 announcement is now scheduled for August 24, 2017, something like 36 hours from now. Not sure whose time-zone, but probably Europe. We will see.

Will be interesting. Performance-wise, probably the two big unknowns are DR (how well it does at base ISO, and how well it holds up in the 1600-6400 action range) and AF (as good as the D5/D500, or crippled for product segmentation).

Either way, it'll be a good thing no matter what system or subjects you shoot - it sets a high standard that Canon and Sony will have to meet. 46MP/9fps/top-tier AF is likely higher than what Canon would have aimed for in the 5D5, but it will have to meet that standard in at least one camera in order to continue to compete in the sports/wildlife market. It forces Sony to consider releasing something similar, even if they have a 70MP non-action model and the A9 - 46MP and 9fps is just so much more useful for most purposes than 24MP/20fps. And, for non-action cameras in general, it sets a high floor for resolution and DR - given that the D850 manages 46MP and can shoot fast action, if you're going to bring out a non-action camera that only manages 5fps, it had better have a huge advantage in resolution and base ISO performance (of the same magnitude as D3x vs D3s or 1Ds3 vs 1D3) or it is unlikely to succeed.

[MoreOrLess]

I think were seeing a bit of a shift in the MF market though Shadow always from the traditional advertising/fashion bent and more towards something that might be used by landscape shooters. Cameras like the Pentax 645z and Fuji GFX are pushing more into UWA range with there lens selection, Fuji is going to have an 18mm equivalent soon for example.

I think fighting a pure resolution war against the larger format is a questionable tactic personally as I think you are going to be hitting serious limitations of a lot of 35mm lenses when you get above 50 MP. Right now these MF bodies aren't showing there true potential at 50 MP though and if a 100 MP 44x33mm sensor did happen as rumoured would clearly win that war.

The actual number of people who want resolution that high is though I would say not massive, perhaps significantly larger than the old MF advertising market in the past but not big on the scale of Nikon's normal sales targets. Theres IMHO significantly more to be gained from a camera that is seen to do everything well which I think the D850 is in with a good shot of being if all the rumours are true.

I think this camera could actually help them pickup a significant part of the higher end market personally as they seem like they might have got the drop on Canon who have stuck to the old mind-set with the 5D line of somewhat crippling to drive future upgrades and flagship sales which as they look like they've thrown absolutely everything they could at the D850.

[BernardLanguillier]

It has just struck me that the D850 may finally be that digital F100/F6 many former F100/F6 users had been dreaming of.

The viewfinder in particular seems quite remarkable and it would make sense that Nikon gave to DSLRs users the best of the OVFs because the pleasure of using a nice OVF is one of the main reasons why some of us still choose to practise photography with a DSLR.

I have been shooting mostly with a H6D and D5 these past months, leaving my D810 pretty un-used although it still remains a great body, and I realize that, beyond the objective qualities of the H6D and D5, a key driver is their remarkable finders.

That is not something that fares well in a spec sheet comparison, that is akin to these little things that make some houses so much more likable that others.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

Sorry if this has already been shared; seems legit:
https://nikonrumors.com/2017/08/22/nikon-d850-press-release-leaked.aspx/

P. S. And this:
https://nikonrumors.com/2017/08/11/translation-of-the-leaked-nikon-d850-slides.aspx/