Nikon Releases 45.7-Megapixel D850 Full-Frame DSLR

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Nikon is entering medium-format territory with its new DSLR, which is capable of shooting 45.7 megapixel images at 7 fps (or 9 fps with battery grip). The camera will also let users shoot 4K video at 30 fps. I’ve been meaning to sell off my D800e (36.3 MP), and now seems like a better time than ever…

The D850 has an effective pixel count of 45.7 megapixels, and supports the ISO 64-25600 range of standard sensitivities. The camera itself is capable of high-speed continuous shooting at approximately 7 fps, but when the optional MB-D18 Multi-Power Battery Pack is used, the rate increases to approximately 9 fps. Adoption of the same high-speed, high-precision 153-point AF system used by the D5 gives the D850 greater certainty of capturing moving subjects. It has a new backside illumination Nikon FX-format CMOS sensor and the latest image-processing engine, EXPEED 5.
 
Megalith said:
Nikon is entering medium-format territory
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Nikon is making a FF sensor with a slightly higher resolution than the old D800/810. Medium format implies the sensor is significantly larger, which it is not. If you go by pixel counts I could have said the Lumia 1020 was entering "medium format" territory 4 years ago. Except that they are plenty of MF cameras that don't have 40mpix on them either. Pixel count has no bearing on the size of the sensor.
 
Imo this is just them playing catch up to sony with the a7ii and a9, not terribly impressed.
 
I just sold a D750, and i have to assume the D850 is going to be better in every way. This is an impressive camera. For my needs D850 > A7Rii > A9.

I bought an old beat up Sony A99 for $580 and i already miss the D750 low light performance.
 
Damn you Nikon, playing catching up still. It was a such a mistake on my part to commit to nikon in 2012, the only reason I'm not switching is because I'd loose a ton of money on lenses alone.
 
bman212121 said:
No, it's not. Nikon is making a FF sensor with a slightly higher resolution than the old D800/810. Medium format implies the sensor is significantly larger, which it is not. If you go by pixel counts I could have said the Lumia 1020 was entering "medium format" territory 4 years ago. Except that they are plenty of MF cameras that don't have 40mpix on them either. Pixel count has no bearing on the size of the sensor.
Click to expand...

Correct on difference of format and resolution, which are mostly though not completely independent, but one correction: Nikon doesn't make sensors. Sony and Canon are the main producers of photographic sensors. In this case, the sensor was almost certainly custom ordered from Sony to Nikon's specification. And that's a good thing!

Chaos Machine said:
Imo this is just them playing catch up to sony with the a7ii and a9, not terribly impressed.
Click to expand...

The A7 ii series is an ergonomic disaster, and the A9 is only marginally better; here, along with lenses, flashes, other system components and support, Nikon is well ahead.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Correct on difference of format and resolution, which are mostly though not completely independent, but one correction: Nikon doesn't make sensors. Sony and Canon are the main producers of photographic sensors. In this case, the sensor was almost certainly custom ordered from Sony to Nikon's specification. And that's a good thing!
Click to expand...

From what I've read, Sony absolutely did not do this sensor. I've heard Renesas or some company that's a subsidiary of Mitsubishi. Others have pointed out that the color that the sensor gives off is not like Sony sensors. I assume we'll find out between now and the when it ships on 9/7
 
man and I was so happy I finally upgraded my 8MP Canon 1D II to a 16MP Canon 1D IV lol
 
nilepez said:
From what I've read, Sony absolutely did not do this sensor. I've heard Renesas or some company that's a subsidiary of Mitsubishi. Others have pointed out that the color that the sensor gives off is not like Sony sensors. I assume we'll find out between now and the when it ships on 9/7
Click to expand...

Nikon cameras that absolutely do have Sony sensors don't give off 'Sony colors'; Nikon definitely gets better color performance out of Sony's sensors than Sony does themselves. And those Sony sensors in Nikon cameras give off the same color as the Toshiba sensors in Nikon cameras, etc. Canon also gets 'Canon colors' out of their own Sony-sensored cameras (the Powershots, mostly).

And here's the kicker: this is being touted as a BSI sensor. Has anyone aside from Sony deployed these in volume? It's not a great argument, but aside from Canon who stubbornly makes their own ILC sensors and the likes of Leica who order inferior sensors from companies other than Sony, and Samsung that invested a ton into the market and then promptly gave up, Sony is not only the volume producer but also the most technologically advanced producer of image sensors. If you've got a link that suggests it's not a Sony sensor, I'd be happy to take a look!
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Nikon cameras that absolutely do have Sony sensors don't give off 'Sony colors'; Nikon definitely gets better color performance out of Sony's sensors than Sony does themselves. And those Sony sensors in Nikon cameras give off the same color as the Toshiba sensors in Nikon cameras, etc. Canon also gets 'Canon colors' out of their own Sony-sensored cameras (the Powershots, mostly).

And here's the kicker: this is being touted as a BSI sensor. Has anyone aside from Sony deployed these in volume? It's not a great argument, but aside from Canon who stubbornly makes their own ILC sensors and the likes of Leica who order inferior sensors from companies other than Sony, and Samsung that invested a ton into the market and then promptly gave up, Sony is not only the volume producer but also the most technologically advanced producer of image sensors. If you've got a link that suggests it's not a Sony sensor, I'd be happy to take a look!
Click to expand...
Not the colors of the images, the color of the sensor itself. Regardless, we'll see. From what I've read, it's not made by Sony.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
People are still rocking 1D IV cameras to great effect!
Click to expand...

oh ya I'm thrilled with it, I LOVED my 1D II, but the shutter finally gave up...

I still pull out my original 1D, the CCD has a special look to it that I like sometimes... I print out 13x19s from it and I've had people seriously think I was being an ass/lying when I told them it was only a 4MP image
 
Chaos Machine said:
Imo this is just them playing catch up to sony with the a7ii and a9, not terribly impressed.
Click to expand...
I'd say they've matched them, you lose in body stabilization (which is a huge deal for a lot of situations) but gain much better low-light AF.
You also get access to more lenses; in addition to excellent zooms (28-70, 70-200) you also have the Sigma Art series, which are about as good as primes get and pretty cheap too. The Sony full-frame lens system is not as bleak as it used to be, but there are very few used Sony lenses available and the new G-Master line inexplicably costs more than the equivalent offerings from Nikon or Canon.
 
bwang said:
The Sony full-frame lens system is not as bleak as it used to be, but there are very few used Sony lenses available and the new G-Master line inexplicably costs more than the equivalent offerings from Nikon or Canon.
Click to expand...

To be fair to Sony, their lenses are newer and typically 'better'. And typically, whoever makes the newest version of a particular class of lens (16-35/24-70/70-200/fast primes) has the best and most expensive version, which is moderated somewhat by Canon being a bit more of a volume producer and also an innovator when it comes to glass, so sometimes they have the better and cheaper option.
 
I'm happy with my D800E. The 36 megapixels is excellent for landscapes, but I don't think the extra few megapixels from the D850 is worth it. All those megapixels takes effort to ensure they are sharp where I want them to be.
 
MN Scout said:
I'm happy with my D800E. The 36 megapixels is excellent for landscapes, but I don't think the extra few megapixels from the D850 is worth it. All those megapixels takes effort to ensure they are sharp where I want them to be.
Click to expand...

The D800/E/D810 are really the lowest common denominator of landscape cameras, and they're fairly competent (the D810 more so) in other areas.

This D850 really seems to be squarely leveled at one target: the 5D IV. It's the first semi-pro camera from Nikon since the D700 that can honestly make that claim, and short of DPAF, on paper, it certainly could be worthy of it.
 
nilepez said:
Except Nikon has a lot of lenses and Sony doesn't. Lenses are more important than the body.
Click to expand...

That's true, but sonys adapter has made that something of a moot point. It gives native functionality to every A mount lens going back 25 years.
 
Chaos Machine said:
Imo this is just them playing catch up to sony with the a7ii and a9, not terribly impressed.
Click to expand...

How the hell is 9fps @ 45MP not impressive??? No one has made a fast camera with high resolution and a BSI sensor yet. It is everything I want in a camera, 4K just finishes it off nicely :)
 
Megalith said:
Nikon is entering medium-format territory with its new DSLR, which is capable of shooting 45.7 megapixel images at 7 fps (or 9 fps with battery grip). The camera will also let users shoot 4K video at 30 fps. I’ve been meaning to sell off my D800e (36.3 MP), and now seems like a better time than ever…

The D850 has an effective pixel count of 45.7 megapixels, and supports the ISO 64-25600 range of standard sensitivities. The camera itself is capable of high-speed continuous shooting at approximately 7 fps, but when the optional MB-D18 Multi-Power Battery Pack is used, the rate increases to approximately 9 fps. Adoption of the same high-speed, high-precision 153-point AF system used by the D5 gives the D850 greater certainty of capturing moving subjects. It has a new backside illumination Nikon FX-format CMOS sensor and the latest image-processing engine, EXPEED 5.
Click to expand...

When you reach this level of resolution, you really need to up the quality of your lenses. Zooms will no longer cut it due to chromatic abrasion and other effects (and I'm not taking into account fringing and barrel distortions). I had a good 6 mega pixel (D70) with a good quality Nikon APO zoom lens and it was pretty obvious the limitions of zoom back then. You'll have to use high precision prime lenses to get the most out of it, and they are NOT cheap. Bayer sensor or not.
 
bman212121 said:
No, it's not. Nikon is making a FF sensor with a slightly higher resolution than the old D800/810. Medium format implies the sensor is significantly larger, which it is not. If you go by pixel counts I could have said the Lumia 1020 was entering "medium format" territory 4 years ago. Except that they are plenty of MF cameras that don't have 40mpix on them either. Pixel count has no bearing on the size of the sensor.
Click to expand...

In the old days what qualified as medium format was the size of the plate. Along with the ISO, that pretty much dictated the final resolution you would get as well as you light collecting ability. But the best ][edit] 35mm[/edit] format cameras were typically equivalent to 50 MP.

Medium formats have about 400 Megapixel resolutions.

Edit: (went back to check my facts)
 
Chaos Machine said:
That's true, but sonys adapter has made that something of a moot point. It gives native functionality to every A mount lens going back 25 years.
Click to expand...
And I would like to add that there are also adapters for Canon, Nikon, and Sigma (to name a few) so that you can use them on Sony's E-mount. On top of that, Sony's new G Master lenses are pretty sweet (although a little pricey).

As an A-mount user (A77II currently, A77 and A700 prior), the selection of lenses may not be huge, but how many lenses do I really need to own at any given time? The main essentials are there, along with a some of the specialties. But that doesn't mean I don't have a few complaints.

  1. The Sony lens lineup that does exist can be pretty pricey.
  2. There is very little to no F/4 lineup for those that want more than a budget lens but can't spring the $2,000+ for the Zeiss and G lenses. We would love to see a 24-105 F/4 and the return of an updated beercan (70-210 F/4).
  3. It would be nice if Sony allowed support of third party lenses with their Hybrid AF and advanced MFA.
  4. It's a shame that third party manufacturers aren't giving A-mount (and Pentax) the amount of support that they used to. Some of their latest lenses look pretty sweet, but there is no indication they are releasing them in the format I use. Like line item 1, this then limits me to mainly Sony/Minolta lenses if I want to unlock the full potential of the A-mount cameras.
  5. I would like to see some updated lenses. Sony has been refreshing some A-mount lenses, but slowly. I still want to see an updated 135mm Zeiss and I would like to see the G Master series makes its way over. The 90mm macro and 24-70 GM lenses would be at the top of my list.
I've contemplated many times about whether I would benefit switching over the E/FE mount. For a while the newer system lacked capabilities that the A-mount was better at, such as low light focusing and framerate. The system is now at a level where I think it would suit my needs when it comes to both of those. But what I can't get over is the body design for both FF and APS-C E-mount cameras. True, they are closer in size to film cameras of yore, but they are too small for me and I don't like the way they feel. My A77II feels great in my hand. It isn't too big, yet not too small. The grip is just right along with plenty of buttons and dials all in the right spot to use. The A7RII and A9 are getting closer to matching some of that, but it is still...missing the mark for me in the feels department. On top of that, the cost for me to change systems completely is more than I can currently stomach. Even if I trade/sell everything I have and start light (like two zooms, a prime, and a macro), I'd be sinking quite a chunk of change in one sitting.

Many years ago, when I was looking at what format to invest in, I tried the different options out. I looked at Canon, Nikon, and Sony (which recently took over Minolta's camera division). I was a big Minolta person beforehand. I gave them all a run through, did my research, put my hands on them, etc. From the get go, I quickly eliminated Canon from my list. I didn't like the way they felt and I hated their menu system. Then came Nikon and Sony. I liked the way the Nikon felt but I did not like their menu system nor did I care for their colors (especially at higher ISOs where saturation dropped and things started to look yellow). Sony's menu system made sense to my thought process, the camera felt great in hand, and I liked the "Minolta-like" colors they produced. Sure, they were a little noisier at higher ISOs, but at least colors were retained and appeared more faithful to what my brain recalled. That's when I began my investment via the A700.

If I had to start over again and had no prior investments that needed to be offloaded, my initial impressions would probably be the same, with exception that I would probably have Fuji and possibly Pentax to the list. Canon, again, would quickly get the axe from me. Nikon and Sony would tie, again, for hands on feel and button placement. Pentax would get high marks for checking a lot of the boxes of what I look for in a camera but would get dinged on AF and having even poorer lens support than Sony. Fuji would get a strong look by me because it checks a lot of boxes that camera users look for, they seem to have a very strong support for their customers by constantly keeping older cameras updated via firmware, they have an interesting lens collection that rank quite well (albeit a small one), they come across as a bit of a mix of Sony and Nikon when it comes to their mission of what they want to deliver, and they seem like the odd dog which has been around for quite a while. Nikon will probably get a pass from me because of the menu layout as well as them being OVF (I love my EVF and they have come a long way in what they can offer). So I guess I would be stuck between choosing Sony, again, and going with Fuji. Sony's got more bells and whistles along with better video, Fuji's comes across as trying to find a balance between latest tech and an authentic photography experience. Almost like a poor man's Leica.

I guess I will stick with my A77II (paired with the awesome Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 HSM A) and wait and see if Sony releases an A77III that incorporates some of the latest features found in the A99II and A9.
 
Chaos Machine said:
That's true, but sonys adapter has made that something of a moot point. It gives native functionality to every A mount lens going back 25 years.
Click to expand...

If only that were true, and if only said A-mount lenses weren't already well behind Canikon equivalents.

Sony royally halfassed their A-to-E mount adapters, and that the third-party EF-to-E mount adapters (especially Metabones) allow more functionality with adapted EF-mount lenses than adapted A-mount lenses is the insult, and that Sigma's adapter for their EF lenses to E-mount is actually native is the injury.

If you're going to shoot A-mount lenses, stick with an A-mount camera- at least Sony got the ergonomics on those right!
 
DigitalGriffin said:
In the old days what qualified as medium format was the size of the plate. Along with the ISO, that pretty much dictated the final resolution you would get as well as you light collecting ability. But the best ][edit] 35mm[/edit] format cameras were typically equivalent to 50 MP.

Medium formats have about 400 Megapixel resolutions.

Edit: (went back to check my facts)
Click to expand...


That only turned into a 30 minute side travel that didn't really find an answer from. I always confuse Large Format with Medium Format because 4 x 5" is smaller than 6 x 9", except when they say 6 x 9 when talking about medium format it's in cm, not inches. I do see where a 4 x 5" large format scanner was able to scan at 400mpix, but I'm not sure if there is a scanner for medium format that would do the same. I can assume the 400mpix estimate is probably film that is shot and enlarged as opposed to film that is scanned in or images shot with a digital back. I question that there is actually 400mpix worth of detail in MF anyway and that you can probably scan it at lower resolution and in most cases you won't see a difference unless there is a lot of fine detail you need to preserve. To the original point there are probably lots of people using < 40mpix with digital backs but still gaining the other advantages of the larger sensor and producing great shots.

The definition of size is still the same as before though, medium format refers to things bigger than 35mm and smaller than 4 x 5".
 
DigitalGriffin said:
When you reach this level of resolution, you really need to up the quality of your lenses. Zooms will no longer cut it due to chromatic abrasion and other effects (and I'm not taking into account fringing and barrel distortions). I had a good 6 mega pixel (D70) with a good quality Nikon APO zoom lens and it was pretty obvious the limitions of zoom back then. You'll have to use high precision prime lenses to get the most out of it, and they are NOT cheap. Bayer sensor or not.
Click to expand...

While I'll agree that lens quality needs an upgrade to make the most of higher resolution sensors, extra resolution still helps; further, good zooms (Canon's 11-24 and Sony's 12-24, Canon's latest 16-35's, Sony's 24-70/2.8, Nikon's 70-200's, Canon's 100-400 and 200-400...) stand up well to the 36MP+ sensors available from the big three manufacturers.

What the better fast primes (and the best slower primes) get you is more acuity at wider apertures, generally speaking, on top of usually better correction for color, distortion, and vignetting at like apertures.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
While I'll agree that lens quality needs an upgrade to make the most of higher resolution sensors, extra resolution still helps; further, good zooms (Canon's 11-24 and Sony's 12-24, Canon's latest 16-35's, Sony's 24-70/2.8, Nikon's 70-200's, Canon's 100-400 and 200-400...) stand up well to the 36MP+ sensors available from the big three manufacturers.

What the better fast primes (and the best slower primes) get you is more acuity at wider apertures, generally speaking, on top of usually better correction for color, distortion, and vignetting at like apertures.
Click to expand...

The only point of getting a high resolution camera is because you have the intent of blowing up the print either physically or a crop blowup. So acuity at a larger aperture is mainly what I'm worried about. That larger aperture helps reduce hand shake with shorter exposure times. There's no point in having a high MP camera if you have hand shake ruining that resolution.
 
buttons said:
I just sold a D750, and i have to assume the D850 is going to be better in every way. This is an impressive camera. For my needs D850 > A7Rii > A9.

I bought an old beat up Sony A99 for $580 and i already miss the D750 low light performance.
Click to expand...

To actually comment back on the original article it certainly is going to be one large camera to wield. I recall seeing someone using a D800 for a wedding and it's quite a chunk of camera. (They also had a grip on it which makes everything huge) They definitely loved that camera body and it has all of the bells and whistles you can possibly need for what they were doing. They could produce some great shots with it but I seem to recall even then the 36mpix is actually a bit daunting because in a fast paced environment like that you really have to be steady to get the most out of it. I've heard people say it can be a very unforgiving camera. Tech specs aside it should be interesting to hear if the D850 makes taming that huge resolution easier and how it improves daily use.

EDIT: Actually there is another big step up from someone with an older D800 / D810. This is the first body in that segment to feature a touch screen. I'm sure a lot of people will claim they don't need it, but once you've had one on your camera it's not really something you enjoy losing. I'd imagine most people keep accidently touching their screens anyway because it's embedded through the use of phones.
 
Last edited:
DigitalGriffin said:
The only point of getting a high resolution camera is because you have the intent of blowing up the print either physically or a crop blowup. So acuity at a larger aperture is mainly what I'm worried about. That larger aperture helps reduce hand shake with shorter exposure times. There's no point in having a high MP camera if you have hand shake ruining that resolution.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree on the uses of more resolution, and will readily add that most severely overestimate how much resolution they can actually use (let alone need), but do note that usage of tripods for stabilization and flashes/strobes to stop motion are certainly also valid avenues for high-resolution utility.

Further, given that the D850 appears to be aimed at being a camera for everything (where the 5D III and 5D IV are market leaders), the resolution is more of a 'there if you need it' rather than the whole point of the camera.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
If only that were true, and if only said A-mount lenses weren't already well behind Canikon equivalents.

Sony royally halfassed their A-to-E mount adapters, and that the third-party EF-to-E mount adapters (especially Metabones) allow more functionality with adapted EF-mount lenses than adapted A-mount lenses is the insult, and that Sigma's adapter for their EF lenses to E-mount is actually native is the injury.

If you're going to shoot A-mount lenses, stick with an A-mount camera- at least Sony got the ergonomics on those right!
Click to expand...

I'm just saying the lens situation isn't as dire as you make it out to be with a metabones adapter your Canon lenses are covered with performance near native on most lenses. It makes changing systems a hell of alot more attractive when you can keep your canikons
 
Chaos Machine said:
I'm just saying the lens situation isn't as dire as you make it out to be with a metabones adapter your Canon lenses are covered with performance near native on most lenses. It makes changing systems a hell of alot more attractive when you can keep your canikons
Click to expand...

Sort of.

Most of what makes mirrorless of any type attractive is image-processing-based AF, with Sony's EyeAF being a prominent example. EyeAF is only available with native lenses, which literally means no A-mount lenses on E-mount cameras.

Further, the A9's speed is highly curtailed with non-native lenses, and that kills much of its attractiveness.


[and last: Nikon took the long road to electronic lenses in a similar fashion to Minolta/Sony and Pentax, so adapting Nikon lenses even to the point of being similar in capability to adapted all-electronic EF-mount lenses is going to be a similar shit-show to adapting A-mount lenses, what with screw drives and aperture linkages; only the latest 'E' Nikons (as in, 24-70/2.8E VR) are fully electronic and thus prime targets for adaptation to E-mount]
 
Just laid my hands on a new D7500. While it is an DX camera, a lot of the innards of that camera are found on the D850 like the Expeed 5 processor and tilting touch-screen back (lower resolution tho). One of the differences (beyond that omfg-huge image sensor) is that The D7### has stepped away from the magnesium allow body and embraced a carbon fiber one. The continuous shooting speeds of the D850 straddles the D7500 with 7 and 9 fps (the d7500 is 8 fps). The buffer depths seem to be about the same relative to the number of pictures it can hold (100+ jpeg or 50 raw). The D850 buffer is of course physically larger considering the pixel count is double.

The D850 is damn nice, and for the DX line the D500 is kickass, but I kinda prefer my D7500 since it more fits with the kind of photography I do. I'm a hobbyist, not a pro. I like the lower DX camera's creature comforts (smaller size/weight, oodles of preprogrammed shooting modes, pop-up flash for those times when I don't want to lug an external flash with me). For me the D7500 is a more usable walk-about camera than the D500 (DX) or D850 (FX) beasts that still gives me close to the same functionality of those higher end shooters.
 
Holy mother of God why?

This resolution has to be outresolving most lenses by quite a healthy margin, making it practically completely useless...
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Holy mother of God why?

This resolution has to be outresolving most lenses by quite a healthy margin, making it practically completely useless...
Click to expand...

You said it yourself... *Most* lenses. The resolution is there for the times where it doesn't really outresolve them.

How about a nice prime lens while using a tripod for instance?

SD cards today are getting gigantic, and the camera can still do 7fps at 45MP so is it really a problem? Can't you also turn down the resolution it saves at if you are so concerned?
 
SirMaster said:
You said it yourself... *Most* lenses. The resolution is there for the times where it doesn't really outresolve them.

How about a nice prime lens while using a tripod for instance?

SD cards today are getting gigantic, and the camera can still do 7fps at 45MP so is it really a problem? Can't you also turn down the resolution it saves at if you are so concerned?
Click to expand...


Well, I only said "most" because I haven't tried all lenses, and didn't want to be wrong :p


I have some fairly decent glass, including:
- Nikon 35-70 f/2.8D
- Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR AF-S
- Nikon 50mm f/1.4D

I'm not convinced any of these would hold up at 45.7 MP
 
rgMekanic said:
Still happy with my D90
Click to expand...
As long as you have good light, the d90 is a decent camera, but once you get above ISO 800....maybe 1600, it starts to get really noisy. I haven't owned one in 5 years, sensors are a lot better than now (even on the cheapest Nikon DSLRs). The best part about all the extra pixels is the ability to crop. Few (if any) need 45 MP for printing.
 
nilepez said:
As long as you have good light, the d90 is a decent camera, but once you get above ISO 800....maybe 1600, it starts to get really noisy. I haven't owned one in 5 years, sensors are a lot better than now (even on the cheapest Nikon DSLRs). The best part about all the extra pixels is the ability to crop. Few (if any) need 45 MP for printing.
Click to expand...


Which is funny, because when the D90 first launched, it had the lowest high ISO noise of all Nikon's DX bodies, slightly beating out the D300.

It's amazing how quickly things improve.

I'm still in a D90 as well. I'd upgrade, but honestly I rarely use it anymore...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top