Official release of Nikon D850

[Mikehit]

But yes, pointless posts like these from blind fan boys make me laugh. So thanks for that.

So saying that a camera does what you want it to do is being a 'blind fan boy'.

None so blind as they say...

 

[LonelyBoy]

I still don't follow. Every investment is an expense by definition.

But not all expense is investment. Not equal relationship. Expense subset is investment.

Is car investment?
Is TV investment?
Is fridge investment?
Is phone investment?
Is computer investment?

Nobody buy TV for investment. Only special car investment. Nobody buy fridge for investment. Camera and lens like all above for consumer. Expense.

Who said that investment is purely in cash? You buy a L lens because of better image quality - is that not an investment return?

But to repeat my request - what do other manufacturers do that you want Canon to do?

It is - the Internet Financial Expert Brigade (TM) is convinced that "investment" only means "financial investment for financial return", when it's really "any allocation of resources for any sort of return". I just invested $300 in running shoes for a return in health and enjoyment. I invested much more money in my GX460 for a return in flexibility of driving my wife's bike around and general driving enjoyment. I also invest a good big pile into my 401k, and money into our mortgage and house maintenance, and... all of those are investments.

As for what he wants Canon to do, obviously, Innovate! And stop following, and stop crippling, and all the other non-specifics everyone complains about. I invested (hey there's that word again!) in EF lenses long before my FF body, and if I invest in a new body to get "better IQ" it's going to be straight into a 5D4. I like my Canon glass, I like my 5D3, and I'd rather stick to a better version of what I'm familiar with than change it all to something that I might not like as much.

 

[snoke]

Buying full frame lenses may be future planning, but not an investment.

No, you right 100%

Yes... no... sort of

Here's an example:

Option #1 buy a EF 100 L 2.8 macro for about $800 today.
Option #2 buy a EFS 60 2.8 macro for about $350 today.

5 years from now, the EF 100 L 2.8 macro easily will sell for $600.
5 years from now, the EFS 60 L 2.8 macro will take so long to sell that you'll give up. People will offer you $50-$100, and you'll just decide to keep it.

Buy $800 today, sell $600. Lose $200.
Buy $350 today, sell $100. Lose $250.

$50 not big difference.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Buying full frame lenses may be future planning, but not an investment.

No, you right 100%

Yes... no... sort of

Here's an example:

Option #1 buy a EF 100 L 2.8 macro for about $800 today.
Option #2 buy a EFS 60 2.8 macro for about $350 today.

5 years from now, the EF 100 L 2.8 macro easily will sell for $600.
5 years from now, the EFS 60 L 2.8 macro will take so long to sell that you'll give up. People will offer you $50-$100, and you'll just decide to keep it.

Buy $800 today, sell $600. Lose $200.
Buy $350 today, sell $100. Lose $250.

$50 not big difference.

$50 less for a much better lens? Sounds like a major difference in $/quality to me.

 

[dak723]

People jump on forum members and resort to insults when when they have no actual argument.

In other words, a troll post.

If enough people hit the "Report to Moderator" button when they see these posts that do nothing but insult, maybe these posts will be deleted and the users warned. That is, if the moderators want to do so, which so far they don't. As is unfortunately obvious, these troll posts generate a lot of response and thus are good for the site owner(s). I keep mentioning this to no avail - ignore the troll posts. Ignore the posts that are just meant to inflame and enrage.

Otherwise this forum will continue to deteriorate to these mindless arguments and name calling that take over almost every thread.

stop jumping at forum members. there is a point in friendly interaction with other forum members, for starters.

there is an important difference between RAW and mraw, sraw files.

"...Unlike a full RAW file, the sRAW and mRAW files are not true RAW files..."

here is why:

http://protogtech.com/adobe-lightroom/canons-mraw-sraw-formats-and-dng/

Who cares about those Raw editors? Like 0.76% users?

Sorry but yours is another pointless post.

 

[Talys]

Buying full frame lenses may be future planning, but not an investment.

No, you right 100%

Yes... no... sort of

Here's an example:

Option #1 buy a EF 100 L 2.8 macro for about $800 today.
Option #2 buy a EFS 60 2.8 macro for about $350 today.

5 years from now, the EF 100 L 2.8 macro easily will sell for $600.
5 years from now, the EFS 60 L 2.8 macro will take so long to sell that you'll give up. People will offer you $50-$100, and you'll just decide to keep it.

Buy $800 today, sell $600. Lose $200.
Buy $350 today, sell $100. Lose $250.

$50 not big difference.

$50 less for a much better lens? Sounds like a major difference in $/quality to me.

For sure. Also, it's proportionate. On an good EF lens, you'll lose maybe 20%-25% of the value. With a few exceptions like the EFS 17-55 2.8, which is still pretty easy to sell and holds its value (but also expensive), most EFS lens lose 30% of their value when you walk out the door of the camera store, and 75% within a few years.

Part of that is that there's just more supply and less demand for use EFS lenses, but another aspect is that the vast majority of EFS lenses get refreshed way quicker than EF and certainly EF L lenses. Once there's a new version out, that's the kiss of death for resale value.

Got an original EFS 55-250 or 18-55 kit lens? Value: lunch, if you're lucky? EFS 10-22? Cost you $650, you won't get more than $200 back for it used, and you'll wait til the next Solar eclipse to get that, because whoever is offering you money for you will try to get it for less than the EFS10-18.

I have nothing against EFS lenses; I own plenty. But I have no illusions about selling them -- they're nice to have, cheap, small, and light, and they can be useful... but their recovery on sale is miserable, at least for me.

 

[privatebydesign]

People jump on forum members and resort to insults when when they have no actual argument.

In other words, a troll post.

If enough people hit the "Report to Moderator" button when they see these posts that do nothing but insult, maybe these posts will be deleted and the users warned. That is, if the moderators want to do so, which so far they don't. As is unfortunately obvious, these troll posts generate a lot of response and thus are good for the site owner(s). I keep mentioning this to no avail - ignore the troll posts. Ignore the posts that are just meant to inflame and enrage.

Otherwise this forum will continue to deteriorate to these mindless arguments and name calling that take over almost every thread.

I don't, I call people idiots when they are being idiotic and/or making idiotic claims or statements that do not stand up to reason, facts or constant patient corrections, links and articles that explain in great detail why their opinion is factually incorrect. I also call them obtuse when they are being obtuse.

It's strange to me that nowadays both those statements of fact are considered insulting behavior. Indeed the constant trolling has lessened my involvement here as the trolls never seem to add anything useful, they just make loads of noise, rile everybody up and escape entirely uncensored.

 

[deleteme]

I use 5Dmk3s and a 5DsR daily for work.

Both are good but I gravitate toward the R because of the resolution and sharpness.
The DR issue does not seem to affect my work as I light my scenes.

However, if I did not need my TS lenses I would be on this camera in a minute.

In truth, I really don't know how if I would see a difference in my work but the price of the body alone is a huge incentive.

 

[LonelyBoy]

People jump on forum members and resort to insults when when they have no actual argument.

In other words, a troll post.

If enough people hit the "Report to Moderator" button when they see these posts that do nothing but insult, maybe these posts will be deleted and the users warned. That is, if the moderators want to do so, which so far they don't. As is unfortunately obvious, these troll posts generate a lot of response and thus are good for the site owner(s). I keep mentioning this to no avail - ignore the troll posts. Ignore the posts that are just meant to inflame and enrage.

Otherwise this forum will continue to deteriorate to these mindless arguments and name calling that take over almost every thread.

I don't, I call people idiots when they are being idiotic and/or making idiotic claims or statements that do not stand up to reason, facts or constant patient corrections, links and articles that explain in great detail why their opinion is factually incorrect. I also call them obtuse when they are being obtuse.

It's strange to me that nowadays both those statements of fact are considered insulting behavior. Indeed the constant trolling has lessened my involvement here as the trolls never seem to add anything useful, they just make loads of noise, rile everybody up and escape entirely uncensored.

Yeah, this place has always been... lively, but since the 6D2 rumors picked up in earnest there've been a strangely large number of newcomers who registered just to express their displeasure and announce that they're either not buying into Canon or moving away. Which is a strange sentiment to have when joining a Canon forum, and they all seem to be posting at about the same rate. While I'm a big believer in free speech, I'm not convinced that they're anything but trolls (like actual trolls, from the original internet definition, posting just to get a response instead of just holding an unpopular opinion), and trolls don't need to be kept around.

Now watch them all step in and claim I'm trying to squelch dissent...

 

[snoke]

For sure. Also, it's proportionate. On an good EF lens, you'll lose maybe 20%-25% of the value. With a few exceptions like the EFS 17-55 2.8, which is still pretty easy to sell and holds its value (but also expensive), most EFS lens lose 30% of their value when you walk out the door of the camera store, and 75% within a few years.

No counting buyer desire. After one year, no warranty on lens. Problem mean pay repair. Risk. When buy used EF lens, goal always find seller 50% MSRP.

Part of that is that there's just more supply and less demand for use EFS lenses, but another aspect is that the vast majority of EFS lenses get refreshed way quicker than EF and certainly EF L lenses. Once there's a new version out, that's the kiss of death for resale value.

Absolutely 100% right

I have nothing against EFS lenses; I own plenty. But I have no illusions about selling them -- they're nice to have, cheap, small, and light, and they can be useful... but their recovery on sale is miserable, at least for me.

If recovery on sale is miserable, give it away to brother/sister/son/daughter/etc.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Unless I am missing it, the D850 does NOT have a built-in flash, correct? Seems interesting considering the D800 and D810 have one (I think). One of the most sensible (non fantasy) criticisms of Canon 5D series is lack of built in flash and I would have thought this was a major selling point for Nikon D800 series. Overall however this does look like a killer camera and if I was not so deep on my credit card I might even consider it.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Sorry for my ignorance, can someone briefly explain what a back side illuminated sensor is (as on the D850)?

 

[Sharlin]

Sorry for my ignorance, can someone briefly explain what a back side illuminated sensor is (as on the D850)?

The term is somewhat misleading but it means that the wiring for the photosites is on the back of the sensor instead of the front, freeing more surface area for the actual light-sensitive parts and also reducing light falloff in the corners (mechanical vignetting; the photosites getting shaded by the wiring).

 

[Sharlin]

Unless I am missing it, the D850 does NOT have a built-in flash, correct? Seems interesting considering the D800 and D810 have one (I think).

Most likely was sacrificed in order to make room for the larger viewfinder.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Thank you @Sharlin for a concise explanation. I have never heard of wires vignetting the sensor. I wonder if it makes a difference in the real world or if it is just marketing hype?

 

[privatebydesign]

Thank you @Sharlin for a concise explanation. I have never heard of wires vignetting the sensor. I wonder if it makes a difference in the real world or if it is just marketing hype?

It makes a big difference on small sensors, especially phones and small sensored P&S's. It seems the tech doesn't scale particularly well because the percentage of sensor real estate lost to the traces is proportionally much smaller the bigger the sensor. Certainly everybody expected more from the several larger sensors that have come out with the tech but none have delivered anything like the jumps in performance the smaller sensors did.

 

[AdjustedInCamera]

Thank you @Sharlin for a concise explanation. I have never heard of wires vignetting the sensor. I wonder if it makes a difference in the real world or if it is just marketing hype?

It makes a big difference on small sensors, especially phones and small sensored P&S's. It seems the tech doesn't scale particularly well because the percentage of sensor real estate lost to the traces is proportionally much smaller the bigger the sensor. Certainly everybody expected more from the several larger sensors that have come out with the tech but none have delivered anything like the jumps in performance the smaller sensors did.

My (limited) understanding is that with a 'normal' sensor not only are there read-out wires' in front of' the sensor, but these join the main board around the sides of the photo sites. This means that the photo sites cannot be right up against each other and so you have a gap between them that's not catching light.

On this basis it may well be large sensors with high resolutions also benefit from BSI for the reason you state, it allows proportionally more of the sensor to be available for light capture. The area of the sensor lost to the wiring and the gaps is higher as the pixel count goes up, and as the sensor gets smaller, so basically then, when the photo sites get smaller, the loss due to the wiring becomes more of a factor.

 

[privatebydesign]

Thank you @Sharlin for a concise explanation. I have never heard of wires vignetting the sensor. I wonder if it makes a difference in the real world or if it is just marketing hype?

It makes a big difference on small sensors, especially phones and small sensored P&S's. It seems the tech doesn't scale particularly well because the percentage of sensor real estate lost to the traces is proportionally much smaller the bigger the sensor. Certainly everybody expected more from the several larger sensors that have come out with the tech but none have delivered anything like the jumps in performance the smaller sensors did.

My (limited) understanding is that with a 'normal' sensor not only are there read-out wires' in front of' the sensor, but these join the main board around the sides of the photo sites. This means that the photo sites cannot be right up against each other and so you have a gap between them that's not catching light.

On this basis it may well be large sensors with high resolutions also benefit from BSI for the reason you state, it allows proportionally more of the sensor to be available for light capture. The area of the sensor lost to the wiring and the gaps is higher as the pixel count goes up, and as the sensor gets smaller, so basically then, when the photo sites get smaller, the loss due to the wiring becomes more of a factor.

Gapless micro lenses seem to have mitigated that somewhat. Certainly the A7RII, whilst being a great camera, didn't have the performance hike over its predecessor the addition of a BSI would suggest. It seems that from preliminary results (that have proven accurate in the past) the D850 is the same.

I don't profess to be a sensor engineer, or understand a fraction of the tech speak, I am just going by results. When used on the small sensors it made a big difference, the larger they go the less it improves performance. Don't forget scaled up the phones and P&S's would be hundreds of MP sensors, not mere mid 10's.

 

[AdjustedInCamera]

Thank you @Sharlin for a concise explanation. I have never heard of wires vignetting the sensor. I wonder if it makes a difference in the real world or if it is just marketing hype?

It makes a big difference on small sensors, especially phones and small sensored P&S's. It seems the tech doesn't scale particularly well because the percentage of sensor real estate lost to the traces is proportionally much smaller the bigger the sensor. Certainly everybody expected more from the several larger sensors that have come out with the tech but none have delivered anything like the jumps in performance the smaller sensors did.

My (limited) understanding is that with a 'normal' sensor not only are there read-out wires' in front of' the sensor, but these join the main board around the sides of the photo sites. This means that the photo sites cannot be right up against each other and so you have a gap between them that's not catching light.

On this basis it may well be large sensors with high resolutions also benefit from BSI for the reason you state, it allows proportionally more of the sensor to be available for light capture. The area of the sensor lost to the wiring and the gaps is higher as the pixel count goes up, and as the sensor gets smaller, so basically then, when the photo sites get smaller, the loss due to the wiring becomes more of a factor.

Gapless micro lenses seem to have mitigated that somewhat. Certainly the A7RII, whilst being a great camera, didn't have the performance hike over its predecessor the addition of a BSI would suggest. It seems that from preliminary results (that have proven accurate in the past) the D850 is the same.

I don't profess to be a sensor engineer, or understand a fraction of the tech speak, I am just going by results. When used on the small sensors it made a big difference, the larger they go the less it improves performance. Don't forget scaled up the phones and P&S's would be hundreds of MP sensors, not mere mid 10's.

Makes sense - thanks.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Yes thanks to all.