The Nikon D850 released

CabanSail

Just got an email from my local camera shop that they are taking pre-delivery orders for the new D850. Not sure of price yet. have not dared to look.

Seems to have some very good specs. The sensor is way too large of course at 46MP but that's the way of these things. The 7fps is impressive and that can go to 9fps with the battery grip fitted.

They have lost the pop up flash, which I have only ever used as a trigger for external flashes, so an IR sender may need to be added.

Some other nice bits is the articulated touch screen and it has true 64ISO at the low end.

Looks like a very nice piece of kit.

DPReview First Impressions

uck51js9zml2yt

Its lots of money
https://www.jessops.com/c/p/new/nikon/d850?utm_medium=emailandutm_source=uknewsletterandutm_campaign=nikond850240817

CabanSail

The price here is about €3550 or €3227 tax free. A lot of dosh.

Nforce

Pricing in the US is ~$3,300

Looks to be a great camera, might be tempted to upgrade from my D750 but not for at least 12 months.

Dinarius

The spec and price point make it a competitor to Canon's 5D Mark IV.

Obviously, it has more pixels. How that affects their relative performance in terms of colour and luminance noise is anyone's guess.

I use Canon. 99.9999% of the time, even the 5D's 30Mp are too many.

On a related matter; within a few years, DSLRs will probably have 8k video.
I often wonder why the big two, Canon and Nikon only ever offer advancements in parallel. Quite boardroom deals about drip feeding improvements into the market? You gotta wonder. One thing is for sure, phones advance at a rate that those of us in the photography business can only dream about. There is genuine competition in the phone market.

D.

wersal gummage

From what I've seen it's not just pixels, it seems better specs on most fronts and cheaper too. I was asking in another thread recently about pixel differences etc as I don't think they would be noticeable (but I'm no expert). I'm using the Canon 5d mark ii and find it great and no need for anymore pixels for me. However the abundance of of focus points on the nikkon looks good and I guess it would have good ISO handling at higher ISO. Anyway, I've a few Canon lenses so not an option for me, but just based on the spec and if lenses werent an issue I'd be picking the nikkon here.

CabanSail

I have had the D800 for quite a few years. It is still working well and I can see no reason to change. It has a 36MP sensor but I process images at 12MP. The only time I have used full resolution is when doing a drastic crop. So the increase to 46MP is not significant, but I think it's a number the companies use for boasts.

Dinarius wrote: »

I often wonder why the big two, Canon and Nikon only ever offer advancements in parallel. Quite boardroom deals about drip feeding improvements into the market? You gotta wonder. One thing is for sure, phones advance at a rate that those of us in the photography business can only dream about. There is genuine competition in the phone market.

You have to realise that mobile phones are a lot more recent product than an SLR camera. The SLR development has been going for over half a century. Phones on the other hand are much more recent and Smartphones even more so. I actually had the first phone that used the term Smartphone. It was the Nokia N80 and promised a lot but never lived up to it. That seems an age ago but was only just over ten years. Steve Jobs then released the iPhone and it was a revolution. We all take it for granted now but at the time many people were very skeptical of a phone without a keypad.
Canon and Nikon are the two big players in the camera market, followed closely by Sony now. They push each other and compete quite vigorously. You can bet the next evolution to replace the current models are already well advance in R&D.

Dinarius

CabanSail wrote: »

You have to realise that mobile phones are a lot more recent product than an SLR camera. The SLR development has been going for over half a century.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges here.

The digital SLR is younger than the mobile phone. That it bears a passing resemblance to the film SLR is purely coincidental. This was done in large part to maintain an aspect ratio we had been used to for over half a century.

In every other respect, the DSLR has nothing to do with the film SLR that came before it, except that both capture images.

My point is simply that, advances are drip fed by the big two to the point where I am suspicious. Why, for example, wasn't the 5D released last year with log video capture capability? And why are they charging for it now, instead of making it a firmware update?

Phone makers are falling over themselves to offer improvements. Camera makers are not.

D.

CabanSail

I beg to differ.

The majority of the DSLR is the optics and mechanical components and their control. That has been developed over a long period. There have been refinements but is still much the same as the early SLR cameras. The major change is that the sensor has gone from chemical to electronic. That change is significant but the majority of the product is still much the same.

The improvement of the digital sensor has also been quite amazing. I bought my first digital camera in 1997. A Casio QV-10A which had a 250Kp sensor. I did not have a mobile phone for another three years. The first pro DSLR was released in 1999 from what I gather (Nikon D1) but my first DSLR was bought in 2005. The rapid rise from my QV-10A to the Kodak D3700 (2000) to the Nikon D70S was staggering. That part of the product has continued to grow but it is reaching a point where what is being added now is refinement as the sensors are reaching the resolution of the optics to which they are coupled.

Phones, which is a strange term as it is one of the lesser functions now, is still adding features in areas where there is room to develop.