D810 successor in the pipeline?

[Erik Lund]

Erik and John, thanks for sharing your experiences!

I think the moire is more of a problem when the images are browsed on computer screen.  The interactions of different resolutions (of the sensor, lens, image in various magnification and monitor) should make the matter more complicated.

The randomness of the ink particles might help mitigate the moire on the prints?

I am refereeing to moiré that show at 100% on a screen and in the images when it is printed.

Sometimes it's impossible to mask or remove other times it's easy,,,

[Akira]

Erik, thanks for the clarification.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Getting rid of moiré in the printed image can be painstakingly difficult. I much prefer the issue not to be manifested in the first place.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

A properly implemented browser (such as Nikon ViewNX-i or 2) will lowpass filter the image before sampling in the viewing resolution. What moire there is in the original will show on the screen but it does not add further moire or other aliasing effects to the images displayed. A badly implemented browser such as Adobe Bridge does the resampling without lowpass filtering which can result in rather gross artifacts in patterns. This is why I don't use Bridge. Quite frankly I think it is an embarrasment to Adobe.

[Akira]

A properly implemented browser (such as Nikon ViewNX-i or 2) will lowpass filter the image before sampling in the viewing resolution. What moire there is in the original will show on the screen but it does not add further moire or other aliasing effects to the images displayed. A badly implemented browser such as Adobe Bridge does the resampling without lowpass filtering which can result in rather gross artifacts in patterns. This is why I don't use Bridge. Quite frankly I think it is an embarrasment to Adobe.

I didn't know about the automatic low-pass filter in the Nikon software.  But that would be only beneficial when you appreciate the images in the ViewNX, I guess?  I wonder if the web browsers offer such a function which is more beneficial?

[chambeshi]

So no announcements of interest in Las Vegas earlier this week at CES:

http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/6/14183134/canon-nikon-sony-cameras-photography-ces-2017

So, we keep waiting until later in the year, Photokina perhaps, or even near the end of 2017...

If Nikon are set to upgrade the D810, let us hope the successor has U1, U2, U3 as with the D7200, to archive alternative menu configurations. And that this "D850" also includes the option for an audio focus indicator too. Small additions that are so invaluable to those of us who actually work a camera for more than a test drive.

This is in addition to the hopes already on this Thread for improved AF of the calibre of the D5/D500!

Oh yes, an articulating LCD, aka that of the D500, will be wonderful, not least for close-up work. And why add the availability of a FX split-ring focusing screen for the D850?

In other respects, adopting the ergonomics of the D500 will be a big positive - including the position of the ISO button next to the shutter release

[Frank Fremerey]

For my taste the touch screen is okayish, the articulating screen is okayish, but I do not use both very much. I do not need them.

I miss the IR remote on the D500, have to use my MC-36 again. Bullocks

I can wait. I am very happy with the D500 and D600, they are great tools and I can do more or less everything I need with them.

D500 electronics with a capable recording chip like the D600 has or the A7R2 is a dream come true but not a necessity.

[Macro_Cosmos]

I recently got a used D810 for a bargain, only 3000 actuations too. Had to go on a 20-hour round trip (23 actually, NSW trains are an abomination ) to a remote town. A shame I didn't stay there for another night. This town is truly beautiful, it's called the Sapphire Village -- Inverell. The sellers were the nicest I've ever met!
Inverell Sunrise by Daniel Han, on Flickr

I still prefer the ergonomics of my D750, that being the deep grip and the flippy screen I always use. I don't think we well get a replacement till early next year, since Nikon usually start their new replacements from the cheaper models.

Anyway, this is a list of things I'd like to see in the D850 or whatever arbitrary number Nikon goes with:
42mp, I honestly don't need anything above 24.
7fps in Ch mode with a D5 battery installed in the grip
x2 XQD cards YES XQD
Ergonomics of the D500/D750
Faster and better AF, allow f8 AF
Flippy Screen
I'd like to see focus peaking too... focus peaking for liveview anyone? 

And some other things that I personally don't care that much about:
4k
wifi+GPS

 

[Frank Fremerey]

How much was the D810 with 3k actuations?

24 megapixels is a sweet spot. Sure. I'd like to see tonality and resolution which does not necessarily mean megapixels. When I did my first shots with the D3 and an Apo Macro Large Format lens my eyes were popping in joy. 12 Megapixels seemed to be so much more just by better lens. Yet. If I compare these shots today to 24 Megapixel work they look low res. I am spoiled. I did some Architecture with the D800E and these shots are still impressive today.

Technology moves on and it does not seem it moves to lower pixel counts. So. If higher pixel count comes with better tonality and resolution in a sturdy body with better AF, better WB, better ISO performance low and high like real ISO25 for bright light situations and 25k shots with rich details and fine tonality, I take the extra pixels as collateral damage pumping my HDs full even faster


PS phantastic shot. Superb colors and lighting

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The same camera probably won't have optimal high and low ISO image quality. Nikon likes to optimize their professional cameras to specific areas of use, i.e. D810 is optimal at 64, D5 at very high ISO. I would expect this trend to continue in the next generation.

[Frank Fremerey]

The same camera probably won't have optimal high and low ISO image quality. Nikon likes to optimize their professional cameras to specific areas of use, i.e. D810 is optimal at 64, D5 at very high ISO. I would expect this trend to continue in the next generation.

If so, this is a marketing decision, not a technical necessity, see the chart in #102...

BTW: Happy New Year to you, we did not have the chance...

[Ilkka Nissilä]

If so, this is a marketing decision, not a technical necessity, see the chart in #102...

In DXOMark's measurements, the D810 maintains a clear lead (0.86 EV) in dynamic range at base ISO over the A7R II, but the latter is better at high ISO (by approximately 1 EV). This illustrates that different cameras are optimized for different applications and there is definitely a tradeoff that must be made. Which tradeoff is preferable to an individual user varies from user to user; it is nice that the manufacturers offer options.

The D5 may not do as well as the A7R II because the D5 is a fast camera. Fast sensor reads put it at a disadvantage against slower cameras and it should really be compared with cameras offering comparable fps and autofocus performance. If we do this kind of a comparison:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-SLT-Alpha-99-II-versus-Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D5___1120_1071_1062

we can see that the D5 leads the A99 II and Canon 1DX II at 3200-102400 (in dynamic range), so it does quite well among cameras designed for a similar purpose. It also leads in color sensitivity and tonal range over a wide range of ISO settings, on the other hand, the 1DX II is slightly better at midtone SNR, according to these measurements.

Yes, the SLT design puts the A99 II at a slight disadvantage (0.4EV I believe), but the difference between the D5's dynamic range at high ISO and the A99 II's is greater than that. Again Nikon has gone for a sensor which is optimized for greater ISO settings than the Sony A99 II since they assume that action photographers are more likely going to be using high than low ISO and acceptable quality must be reached in extreme conditions.

Nikon offers a more "allaround" sensor in the D750 which shows good dynamic range across a wide range of ISO's but doesn't match the D810 at base ISO nor the D5 at high ISO. I do not believe Nikon would go for such a sensor in either the D5's successor or the D810's, simply because these cameras are expected to be the best at their primary specialty.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

BTW: Happy New Year to you, we did not have the chance...

Happy New Year

Ilkka

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Nikon offers a more "allaround" sensor in the D750 which shows good dynamic range across a wide range of ISO's but doesn't match the D810 at base ISO nor the D5 at high ISO. I do not believe Nikon would go for such a sensor in either the D5's successor or the D810's, simply because these cameras are expected to be the best at their primary specialty.

To add for clarity, I don't have anything against general purpose cameras or cameras optimized for a wide range of ISOs. I think most photographers most of the time are shooting somewhere in the middle of the ISO range and most cameras do well in this area, so there isn't perhaps room for enough of a competitive edge that can be attempted by the engineers. In my work in biomedical optical imaging, we have to make compromises in instrument design between low light SNR, bright light SNR, dynamic range, speed, accuracy, coverage etc. There is no way to build one instrument which is best at all desirable properties and quite a lot of pressure to design an instrument which is best in a specific application, to push what is possible in that field, and make new discoveries. I would imagine this to be true of many areas of engineering actually. Whether it is best for an individual photographer, I couldn't say. Two bodies which both work well in the middle and excel at different extremes seem to work well for me. What direction Nikon will take in the next generation is impossible to know.

[Frank Fremerey]

I love your insight and that you share it with us, thank you!