Nikon D850 previews, commentary - first reviews

[Bill Mellen]

One tester who feels uneasy on the the IQ of the medium RAW campared against the D5

https://neilvn.com/tangents/review-nikon-d850/

This also but still inadequate - https://neilvn.com/tangents/review-nikon-d850-high-iso-test-nikon-d5-d850-d810-d750/

Viewing his supplied .NEF files in small, medium and large in Capture NX-D is interesting. The large at 50%, medium at 75% and small at 100% are very close in detail. Most of the difference I see seems to be subtle changes in lighting and focus. The medium may have some camera shake or VR artifact that shows in the clock face on the right.

I would like to see more examples.

[chambeshi]

Viewing his supplied .NEF files in small, medium and large in Capture NX-D is interesting. The large at 50%, medium at 75% and small at 100% are very close in detail. Most of the difference I see seems to be subtle changes in lighting and focus. The medium may have some camera shake or VR artifact that shows in the clock face on the right.

I would like to see more examples.

Interesting - I have yet to test this function, but I place more credence in the tests (see Part 3) by Nasim Mansurov et al posted last month and still to be updated in their thorough review of the D850 https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d850

thanks

[Bill Mellen]

Interesting - I have yet to test this function, but I place more credence in the tests (see Part 3) by Nasim Mansurov et al posted last month and still to be updated in their thorough review of the D850 https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d850

thanks

Thanks Woody,

Nasim's review of the small, medium and large raw options is very interesting.  I don't have a D850 yet.  Maybe after the first of the year.  I probably should learn how to use the cameras that I have first 

[chambeshi]

D850 autofocus tests by dpreview

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d850-first-impressions-review/8

Interestingly their findings seem in agreement with Matt Granger's video testing: 3D Tracking would sometimes lose the subject in a way that was unexpected.  According to dpreview the AF tracking during burst shooting lags behind D5 but is better than D810, A7R II and 5Ds R.

I'm wondering if they used the MB-D18 grip and EN-EL18(a/b) battery in this testing or not. This could affect AF performance.

Grip or not, trying to rely on 3D-tracking with any background (let alone clutter) probably explains the glitches they had trying to keep the AF system on an erratic target. Besides differences between users with AF, one reads little if any reports that compare relevant systems directly on repeated trials under standardized conditions (eg D500 vs D850 vs D5). And setting the AF on the top Nikons is complicated. Here again, these rushed off reports seldom spell out what settings-they used.

Based on the past few days comparing the D500 and D850 on small passerine birds flying within clutter, I do not believe these reports. I set AFC with Group-Focus interchanging with Point-Focus (set DoF preview button to Point-Focus to complement Back Button AFC). I use the 300 f2.8G VRII with TC14E II on the D850

I will try and post some examples of the nuptial display by the male Shaft-tailed Whydahs - challenging subjects. Let alone when they are flitting in the clutter of twigs etc and in very challenging light. While waiting for the ideal behaviour of these little birds in the ideal light, I took these sequences deliberately to test the AF performance of the D850. Either harsh backlighting or near sunset (ISO 256 000). So terrible noise etc. Well...i've yet to use a D5 but so far I struggle to detect the differences between the D850 and D500 on AF (except the AF point coverage in respective viewfinders).

The sphingid Macroglossum daymoth is pollinating Plectranthus neochilus - again in clutter. All one can do is try and lock on to the hovering insect - a shimmering target wavering by the flower. And this is also with 300 f2.8 to track this erratic insect (3cm length) flitting between flowers....

With both these Nikons, my misses and failures are due to my own mistakes, as one relies on reflex to grab shots of fleeting events. To conclude so far, I'm impressed with the D850 AF :-)

[Frank Fremerey]

You are so right, Woody. Ability to cope with a very complicated AF system means success. The D850 and the D500 are as good as IT gets

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I think the reports I've seen are consistent in that group, dynamic area etc. work fine in the D850; the differences that have been reported between D850 and D5 are in 3D tracking a subject that moves across the frame in a zig-zag pattern. I am pretty sure dpreview are using a consistent test ideally they would do it in the same time of day in the same place with the same subject doing a certain routine with the bicycle (how controlled it is I don't know but I know they've been thinking about the procedure for a while before they went public with it). They are smart enough to understand that the test needs many repetitions to come out with conclusions. While I agree a consistent protocol for testing 3D tracking is difficult to achieve but several reports seem to align along the same finding: it is good but not quite as good in 3D tracking as the D5. Ideally this test would be done by a pair of shooters with both cameras at the same time, and then swap cameras between shooters, and repeat, several times until reliable conclusions (or not) can be made.

I don't often use 3D tracking because it tends to lose the subject when another person crosses the line of sight between the camera and the subject. Also if skaters are spinning around each other the selected subject is quickly forgotten. I prefer using D9, group, single point as my main AF area modes in the D5 and auto area and D25 occasionally, depending on the situation. 3D may be useful at times but I'm not used to giving that much control to the camera. I think dpreview give too much weight to this type of AF technique where the camera tracks the subject across the frame. I think it's a fun algorithm to play with but in the end I want to be in control and don't want to have to correct the camera at the (unpredictable) moment when it loses the subject even if focus is not immediately lost. However, of course it is a worthy aim if the method gradually becomes more and more trustworthy. However, I would never choose or avoid a camera because of its 3D tracking performance.

I know some photographers use 3D tracking a lot. I guess subject and environment play a big role in how successful it is.

I use auto area AF for pairs and ice dancing when shooting at f/4. For wider apertures it can focus on the subject facing the camera successfully, but sometimes it does not. So I tend to go for the other modes when shooting these subjects at f/2.8 or f/2. Group area AF seems fantastic for fast moving subjects (provided that the precision afforded by the area is sufficient). Dynamic area AF can sometimes "think" too long but if it is fast enough it gives greater precision than group (since it priorities the selected point when it can).  For precise pinpoint focusing on moving subjects I've had best luck with D9 (on the D5). I used to be single point only shooter for many years and didn't like the dynamic area implementation in Multi-CAM 3500 cameras, but I find D9 on the D5 to be small enough to give enough control and large enough to compensate for wiggle in me trying to position the main point on the subject. Group area gives closest-subject priority within the group area and it is a good choice for large subjects at some distance but when getting close then it can focus on the subject's nose instead of the eyes, and so on. I still think it's one of the most effective AF area modes for fast action especially towards low light.

[arthurking83]

.....
You can also take full control and choose manual for the lens and manual mode and use S or A or whatever but you will loose the automation.
Subsequently, you could load your "Picture Control" to your heart content in full manual mode.
Not that there is any point going manual as it defeats the purpose of the ES-2 automation and you might as well continue doing what you were doing using the ES-1.
As for the RAW v Jpeg. Obviously the RAW would be a better route, however the Jpeg does offer a Fine mode for a higher res and pixel count....

As already said, I don't (YET) have the D850, so I can't offer practical experience on how it works.
But I'm completely failing to see any advantage of the automation process that the ES-2 will offer.
I don't see how your attack on RichardHaw for his video preview has any bearing other than that it's just a blatant attack for no nett result.
He offered his opinion that the lack of customisation control is a major limitation (ie. that the camera is stuck in A mode!!) and your attack in his comments stem from his use of a non recommended lens .. yet Nikon doesn't demand the use of the 60/2.8 AF-S micro, only as a recommendation.
AND they clearly state that "any other micro" lens is suitable, and as far as I remember Rich did use .. ANY OTHER MICRO LENS!

To me the use of the term any other micro lens doesn't implicitly imply that the exemption to that statement is the specific lens and additional accessories(ie. the extension tube and ES-1) that Rich did use .. it literally means ANY OTHER micro lens.
So your attack on Rich is not only unwarranted, it's totally misguided .. and ultimately uncalled for.

The camera is still stuck in A mode no matter what micro lens is used.

.....
You can also take full control and choose manual for the lens and manual mode and use S or A or whatever but you will loose the automation.
Subsequently, you could load your "Picture Control" to your heart content in full manual mode.
Not that there is any point going manual as it defeats the purpose of the ES-2 automation and you might as well continue doing what you were doing using the ES-1.

As for the RAW v Jpeg. Obviously the RAW would be a better route, however the Jpeg does offer a Fine mode for a higher res and pixel count.

At any rate, dissing Nikon and it's leadership and management for what you not comprehend or not matches with your "personal" expectations, is uncalled for.

So here's the issue, you've read my discussion as a personal affront, otherwise you would not have misread what I wrote.

The problem is you CAN'T use a Picture Control to capture a reversed image of a colour negative!
And this is the crux of the issue.
Nikon have made a mess of a feature that even the most basic cheapest smart phone can do much more simply at a jpg setting.
They did it in a complicated manner that could have been simply done using a built in system that they already use(ie. the Picture Controls system).

So as a marketing feature, in effect, it's a massive fail.

So for this so called automation(that is seemingly important to you) as a potential customer, you not only pay US$3200 for the camera, but also need to spend upwards of US$800 for a specific lens and a very basic adapter and accessories for that adapter, just to take a very occasional digitized negative?
Marketing fail!
And to only capture a jpg image .. fail!
Smart phone can do this for free! Find a hand me down smart phone(usually free, I have 4 to offload for free if anyone wants one) load a free negative digitizer for free, and capture jpgs .. once again for free!

I think our respective uses for the NEF format will see us disagree on many things if you think the NEF format is all about the pixel count!.
For me a major use of NEF is white balance, among many other advantages such as dynamic range process ability.
I'd prefer 8Mp raw file with white balance adjustment capability, rather than 47Mp of useless jpg data!

That they didn't see it this way can only be described as a failure on the part of the people involved in the programming of this feature.

** They did the exact same thing with the Live view implementation on the D300 where the mirror flaps up and down multiple times needlessly! massive engineering fail for a feature that may have been useful, but made useless by someone high up in the decision making department at Nikon. That camera should never have been allowed to market with the Lv feature as it was.

Like I wrote earlier .. Coming from the perspective of NOT being a user of the feature, but as an observer of the implementation of the feature .. that and the Lv feature of the D300 are both major implementation fails, when better alternatives exist.
 
As a user, which I will be early in the new year, I won't(can't) use the negative digitizer, simply due to the uselessness of the feature .. but I will without any doubt still digitize some of my old negatives.
As a user of a D300, I just don't use Lv mode to capture images, and my choice of the D300 over the D200 back then was for the Lv feature!
 
Having done a fair bit of film digitization, I think I have a good comprehension of the features we're discussing here.
I'm thinking that you may not fully understand the process and the hardware involved(judging by your comments) in using the products to achieve the desired result of digitizing negatives using a digital camera.

If this is not the case then it would be nice to read your review of this feature and the advantages of using the automation process that the 60 AF-S Micro allows ... as opposed to Rich's method.
Nowhere does it state in the D850 literature that an ES-2 is required, or even recommended!
They only 'recommend' the 60 AF-S Micro, but then  mention the use of any other micro lens ... not require it! .. yet they still impose many needles limitations on using the camera the way most D850 users may find 'usable' .. and you defend this position.
nowhere do Nikon state that using those products offers any automation that would not otherwise be available if using 'any other micro lens'.

Anyhow! .. the right to defend is obviously a right that you have, just as it's my right to highlight the mishandling/mismanagement of the feature!
But if you offer a counter argument as you have, then surely it's incumbent on you to disclose the information you have on why you insist that Rich has not used an appropriate method and that your method, using 'recommended' accessories, is a more correct way?

[Ethan]

Empirical discussion.

1- Unlike you, I would not and will not take any position to comment theoretically on a feature which is not yet available and hence cannot be tested.

2- I was more referring to the guy who did the video and not necessarily Richard, but inclusively, who is an old hand and would do his own testing.

3- An Attack is different from a comment or in this case two comments that needs to be answered unless you refute the art of discussion and consider an attack for any whom does not agree with you.
An Attack is you dissing Nikon leadership and they are not here nor likely would want to answer you.

Nuance my dear man, nuance.

[arthurking83]

From this last reply, I still think you don't fully understand or realise the topic or discussion both Richard and I have made on the feature.

Empirical discussion.

1- Unlike you, I would not and will not take any position to comment theoretically on a feature which is not yet available and hence cannot be tested....

And yet you already have! You claim that the ES-2 offers some form of automation on the D850. 

Read the manual. Whilst you are correct in that my comments are made on theory(that is I don't have access to a D850 yet), the manual (as you know) states how the feature works and only mentions the one accessory(60 AF-S lens) as one possible accessory required.
I'm not sure what the automation process is that you referred too when using the ES-2 adapter, but you should know that the ES-2 adapter/accessory wouldn't do anything that any other tube like device can do. There is no electrical or electronic connection to the front of the lens to allow some intricate automation process of any kind.
It's simply an updated version of the ES-1 device with a different design type(namely the slide and strip holders) .. all this ES-2(ie. the tube section) does, is hold the film at a certain distance and the tube doubles as a way to remove ambient light from the front of the lens to the film itself.
Quite important if you want a high quality rendering of the film.
PB-4 + PS-4 attachment does the same thing only that the 'tube' is a variable length bellows.

An easy way to see how silly Nikon's marketing really is, I ask you to view the ES-2 product page on Nikon's website and analyse the info they show under the 'compatible with' tab!
If you can't disseminate this info, I'll tell you that the compatible with info is silly because, on it's own(ie. without the micro lens) .. the ES-2 is totally incompatible with the D850 alone.
How do you mount it, without an F-62mm adapter of some type and a lens to focus it.
The info that it's compatible with the D850 is made even more silly(as it's compatibility is with a lens of some type) in that there is an implication that it's not compatible with any other Nikon camera?
That is, if I have any other Nikon camera that the ES-2 will not work!

... 2- I was more referring to the guy who did the video and not necessarily Richard, but inclusively, who is an old hand and would do his own testing. ...

I'm not 100% sure which video you are referring too, but the one that RichardHaw linked too was done by Richard himself. If you are referring to another video I apologise for my misunderstanding.

....
3- An Attack is different from a comment or in this case two comments that needs to be answered unless you refute the art of discussion and consider an attack for any whom does not agree with you.
An Attack is you dissing Nikon leadership and they are not here nor likely would want to answer you...

The use of the term diss may be a sticking point too tho.
I'd use that term if my comment was something like "I think Nikon engineers are a bunch of buffoons .. no reason just my opinion". A negative comment as such with no reason or explanation is unwarranted.
But they introduced a feature that is far too limiting for the target audience it that the camera is intended for*. ie. simple thing like you can't change shutter speed! .. and need to control shutter speed with ISO if you're aperture limited?
Like I said, if you've done film digitization with a camera you'd understand why such a silly limitation, can be important.

Therefore berating Nikon management is not an attack.. or at least an unwarranted attack. It's a negative comment on their ability to create a feature for sure, but based on empirical data.

1. the camera didn't design itself. If this was the case, then my 'attack' will surely change direction and be targeted at the camera. We both know how silly that last comment is, so not applicable. The camera didn't design/engineer itself.
2. someone or some group had to design the camera. ie. a designer/engineer/whatever.
3. someone or some group had to sign off on the design/engineering/feature set. ie. middle to upper management.

To blame the camera or diss the camera is mistargeting the complaint. And by all other observations is an excellent device, and is why I'm going to get one for myself when I can.
To blame the designer/engineer .. whilst it could be appropriate, I believe that they probably just didn't realise that a better way could be done, and in part is already available** without the need for added complex coding of the firmware.
Considering that this is a feature that some of us may use on a regular basis, and that the implementation is sub par .. blame on it's limited ability has to rest at the middle/upper management team that signed off on the design.
Blaming the CEO or whatever the top person's role is called at Nikon isn't helpful, as they wouldn't be privy to such trivial issues.. not their job role.
But it is the job role of a middle manager that is employed for the purpose of keeping the project as simple as possible, quick as possible and, for us users, to offer the best possible outcome.

* the D850 is not really a device that targets auto mode camera users. This is evidenced by the simple fact that it has no Auto type modes like a consumer model does.
** As I said earlier you can digitise black and white film(which I don't have any to test), using a moderately modern Nikon camera and a self styled Picture Control using tone/luminance reversal. But this reversal doesn't work on colour.
So the colours don't work out when it comes to reversal. It would have taken far less coding effort to redress that one small element in The Picture Control Utility rather than add more complex coding to the camera itself.

On a more personal note, with respect to your comment that Nikon aren't here to respond to my comments, this in itself is another marketing fail. Remember we are the customers, and the old adage that the customer is always right applies to Nikon, as much as any other company that requires customers, for that company to remain a viable entity. It is a provable point that if the company alienates enough customers, they risk their viability as a profitable entity.
Nikon would be best advised to employ more customer relations operatives to absorb and use customer feedback across a wide spectrum of sources. And more so at a time when their market share is slowly dwindling, and their product quality control has been lacking in recent years!

[Ethan]

From this last reply, I still think you don't fully understand or realise the topic or discussion both Richard and I have made on the feature.

And yet you already have! You claim that the ES-2 offers some form of automation on the D850. 

Read the manual. Whilst you are correct in that my comments are made on theory(that is I don't have access to a D850 yet), the manual (as you know) states how the feature works and only mentions the one accessory(60 AF-S lens) as one possible accessory required.
I'm not sure what the automation process is that you referred too when using the ES-2 adapter, but you should know that the ES-2 adapter/accessory wouldn't do anything that any other tube like device can do. There is no electrical or electronic connection to the front of the lens to allow some intricate automation process of any kind.
It's simply an updated version of the ES-1 device with a different design type(namely the slide and strip holders) .. all this ES-2(ie. the tube section) does, is hold the film at a certain distance and the tube doubles as a way to remove ambient light from the front of the lens to the film itself.
Quite important if you want a high quality rendering of the film.
PB-4 + PS-4 attachment does the same thing only that the 'tube' is a variable length bellows.

An easy way to see how silly Nikon's marketing really is, I ask you to view the ES-2 product page on Nikon's website and analyse the info they show under the 'compatible with' tab!
If you can't disseminate this info, I'll tell you that the compatible with info is silly because, on it's own(ie. without the micro lens) .. the ES-2 is totally incompatible with the D850 alone.
How do you mount it, without an F-62mm adapter of some type and a lens to focus it.
The info that it's compatible with the D850 is made even more silly(as it's compatibility is with a lens of some type) in that there is an implication that it's not compatible with any other Nikon camera?
That is, if I have any other Nikon camera that the ES-2 will not work!

I'm not 100% sure which video you are referring too, but the one that RichardHaw linked too was done by Richard himself. If you are referring to another video I apologise for my misunderstanding.


The use of the term diss may be a sticking point too tho.
I'd use that term if my comment was something like "I think Nikon engineers are a bunch of buffoons .. no reason just my opinion". A negative comment as such with no reason or explanation is unwarranted.
But they introduced a feature that is far too limiting for the target audience it that the camera is intended for*. ie. simple thing like you can't change shutter speed! .. and need to control shutter speed with ISO if you're aperture limited?
Like I said, if you've done film digitization with a camera you'd understand why such a silly limitation, can be important.

Therefore berating Nikon management is not an attack.. or at least an unwarranted attack. It's a negative comment on their ability to create a feature for sure, but based on empirical data.

1. the camera didn't design itself. If this was the case, then my 'attack' will surely change direction and be targeted at the camera. We both know how silly that last comment is, so not applicable. The camera didn't design/engineer itself.
2. someone or some group had to design the camera. ie. a designer/engineer/whatever.
3. someone or some group had to sign off on the design/engineering/feature set. ie. middle to upper management.

To blame the camera or diss the camera is mistargeting the complaint. And by all other observations is an excellent device, and is why I'm going to get one for myself when I can.
To blame the designer/engineer .. whilst it could be appropriate, I believe that they probably just didn't realise that a better way could be done, and in part is already available** without the need for added complex coding of the firmware.
Considering that this is a feature that some of us may use on a regular basis, and that the implementation is sub par .. blame on it's limited ability has to rest at the middle/upper management team that signed off on the design.
Blaming the CEO or whatever the top person's role is called at Nikon isn't helpful, as they wouldn't be privy to such trivial issues.. not their job role.
But it is the job role of a middle manager that is employed for the purpose of keeping the project as simple as possible, quick as possible and, for us users, to offer the best possible outcome.

* the D850 is not really a device that targets auto mode camera users. This is evidenced by the simple fact that it has no Auto type modes like a consumer model does.
** As I said earlier you can digitise black and white film(which I don't have any to test), using a moderately modern Nikon camera and a self styled Picture Control using tone/luminance reversal. But this reversal doesn't work on colour.
So the colours don't work out when it comes to reversal. It would have taken far less coding effort to redress that one small element in The Picture Control Utility rather than add more complex coding to the camera itself.

On a more personal note, with respect to your comment that Nikon aren't here to respond to my comments, this in itself is another marketing fail. Remember we are the customers, and the old adage that the customer is always right applies to Nikon, as much as any other company that requires customers, for that company to remain a viable entity. It is a provable point that if the company alienates enough customers, they risk their viability as a profitable entity.
Nikon would be best advised to employ more customer relations operatives to absorb and use customer feedback across a wide spectrum of sources. And more so at a time when their market share is slowly dwindling, and their product quality control has been lacking in recent years!

This is getting tedious.

The issue is two folds:

1- The viability of the new NIKON D850 feature to digitize Negs
2- Dissing the Nikon Leadership and Engineering Management

You can huff and you can puff, this will not change one iota to your dissing the Nikon Leadership and Engineering Management.

This discussion has now exhausted it's course and I am done here.

You are most welcome to continue the discussion off this thread.

Over and out.

[David H. Hartman]

You can huff and you can puff, this will not change one iota...

No! This is wrong...

The quote is: "Then I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house in."

Dave Hartman

...and don't get me started about furze.

[arthurking83]

...
This discussion has now exhausted it's course and I am done here.

You are most welcome to continue the discussion off this thread.

Over and out.

Fair enough.
So when the focus of the topic does an about face and you've been taken to task to provide some evidence or proof of your comments, or it's made you realise that you have completely misunderstood the discussion, the response is that "you're done with it".

Fair enough and feel free to PM me or start a new thread if you like on why you would assume it to be fair for you to make theoretical assertions (re the automation process that you mentioned but have no evidence of), but that I'm not allowed the same courtesy to offer my assessment of a review/preview of a feature that is clearly substandard in it's implementation.
I'm curious as to why my contributions are less worthy, or that I am in some way discriminated against, relative to your standing on this forum.

And while you're on the topic of dissing, and also in the PM menu system, I think it'd be prudent for you to offer an apology to RichardHaw for your inappropriate dissing of his video review of that same feature.

And thanks for taking the time to elaborate clearly and concisely on the question's I've asked of you too .. 

Oh!.. and 'Roger' to your "over and out"

[richardHaw]

Thanks, Arthur for the educate response 

and now, back to regular programming 

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1081951.html (use google translate)

some interesting things mentioned here about the sensor (back-illumination). pardon the Engrish, I read Japanese but not well enough for technical translation.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Good interview. The interviewer asks relevant questions.

[richardHaw]

there are some things that didn't translate very well through google translate but it's generally spot-on in most cases 

My Japanese is no match for Akira-san's