[mee]

Have I misunderstood? I thought d850 actually downsamples 45mp to a lower mp, while keeping ff frame?

It does keep the same FF frame in the Medium and Small size RAWs, just at a lower resolution. But apparently they are 12-bit and not full RAWs somehow.. I wish I had the page that explained it. Though it was basing off of the D810 and it's Small RAW size.


Perhaps the D850 has improved?


Having about 25MP RAW output for events and the full 45.7 for landscapes would be great!

[D1N0]

Having about 25MP RAW output for events and the full 45.7 for landscapes would be great!

NEF (RAW): 12 or 14 bit, lossless compressed, compressed, or uncompressed; large, medium, and small available (medium and small images are recorded at a bit depth of 12 bits using lossless compression)

[rawr]

Having about 25MP RAW output for events and the full 45.7 for landscapes would be great!

Much the same as with K-1 - crop mode RAW for events, FF 36MP RAW (+ pixel shift boost if required) for landscapes, studio etc.

On the subject of pixel shift, will be interesting to see K-1 pixel-shift output compared to 45 MP D850 output, once the test sites do their reviews.

[awscreo]

Much the same as with K-1 - crop mode RAW for events, FF 36MP RAW (+ pixel shift boost if required) for landscapes, studio etc.

On the subject of pixel shift, will be interesting to see K-1 pixel-shift output compared to 45 MP D850 output, once the test sites do their reviews.

But K-1 crops the images, while d850 just down samples/compresses them? Say I'm going to a city for a day somewhere, I'd likely be shooting a zillion snapshots that won't end up in my portfolio but rather on a Facebook page. But I want to keep the FF frame so i can take advantage of my wider lenses. Wish we could have a mode like that for k-1 too, all I'm saying.

[rawr]

Wish we could have a mode like that for k-1 too, all I'm saying.

We do. But JPEG only. Which for Facebook is all one would need.

If one is interested in doing a zillion Facebook only snapshots, but wants to reduce file size and storage etc, whilst retaining the FF setting and field of view, you can set your file recording option to JPEG only, ensure JPEG file size is set to "F" [7360x4912 pixels], and then select "1" or "2" star JPEG quality to increase the level of JPEG compression applied in-camera to the saved image.

A JPEG recorded at 7360x4912 pixels is gonna look pretty good once posted as a 1280px (or likely even smaller) image on Facebook, even compressed to the maximum 1 star amount by the camera beforehand, I think.

Then record that file setup as a User mode setting (U1 to U5) for quick access to those parameters next time you need to do another zillion Facebook snapshots.

No need to turn your nose up at JPEG. JPEG is all many a pro sports or event shooter ever uses.

[awscreo]

We do. But JPEG only. Which for Facebook is all one would need.

If one is interested in doing a zillion Facebook only snapshots, but wants to reduce file size and storage etc, whilst retaining the FF setting and field of view, you can set your file recording option to JPEG only, ensure JPEG file size is set to "F" [7360x4912 pixels], and then select "1" or "2" star JPEG quality to increase the level of JPEG compression applied in-camera to the saved image.

A JPEG recorded at 7360x4912 pixels is gonna look pretty good once posted as a 1280px (or likely even smaller) image on Facebook, even compressed to the maximum 1 star amount by the camera beforehand, I think.

Then record that file setup as a User mode setting (U1 to U5) for quick access to those parameters next time you need to do another zillion Facebook snapshots.

No need to turn your nose up at JPEG. JPEG is all many a pro sports or event shooter ever uses.

I'd prefer raw, that's just my preference. Gives me more flexibility if I ever decide I want to work on a lucky shot I got. It'd still be only uploaded to my normal social networks, but I still want to retain control over things I'm used to. Others probably have different preferences, and it's nothing to do with "turning up one's nose".

[biz-engineer]

D850 specs / price looks good. I'd have expected a higher introduction price. That Nikon system look quite compelling, knowing that most third party lenses are available for the mount, likely very good IQ, not to mention AF and FPS.

[ffking]

D850 specs / price looks good. I'd have expected a higher introduction price. That Nikon system look quite compelling, knowing that most third party lenses are available for the mount, likely very good IQ, not to mention AF and FPS.

If one is to believe what one hears about Nikon's finances, they need another good one, and I sincerely hope this is it - they have a long tradition of raising bars, which can only be good for photography.

[biz-engineer]

If one is to believe what one hears about Nikon's finances

I'd not worried about Nikon finances, having a large customer base with good access to market is a huge asset that some other companies don't have. Some other camera companies aren't in the same situation.

[disconnekt]

D850 specs / price looks good. I'd have expected a higher introduction price. That Nikon system look quite compelling, knowing that most third party lenses are available for the mount, likely very good IQ, not to mention AF and FPS.

Until you want the extra 2fps, then your going to add another $396 for the grip, $149 for the D5 battery (which you'll need in order to get the extra 2fps), and $369 for the battery charger, so you'll end up spending at least an extra $916 (or so) on top of the $3300 for the camera.

[RockvilleBob]

Until you want the extra 2fps, then your going to add another $396 for the grip, $149 for the D5 battery (which you'll need in order to get the extra 2fps), and $369 for the battery charger, so you'll end up spending at least an extra $916 (or so) on top of the $3300 for the camera.

Actually I would get three batteries for cold weather wildlife shooting. The D500 has been a very good camera for me. This is very tempting since it's basically a D500 for wildlife plus a full frame for the macro photography I enjoy. The ability to do in camera focus stacking means I don't need to take a rail or the Helios FB Tube with me. I am looking forward to the reviews about the D850's focus stacking ability. Also I would probably need to add another $150 for an L Bracket to handle macro and panorama shooting. -

Naturally I am trying to sell the BOSS on a $3300 camera buy

[mee]

Actually I would get three batteries for cold weather wildlife shooting. The D500 has been a very good camera for me. This is very tempting since it's basically a D500 for wildlife plus a full frame for the macro photography I enjoy. The ability to do in camera focus stacking means I don't need to take a rail or the Helios FB Tube with me. I am looking forward to the reviews about the D850's focus stacking ability. Also I would probably need to add another $150 for an L Bracket to handle macro and panorama shooting. -

Naturally I am trying to sell the BOSS on a $3300 camera buy

Do you plan on giving up a camera to make room?

[mee]

Back to seriousness. If anything, this camera tells me Nikon isn't in dire straits as some would have us think. That said, if this thing was a brick, they probably would be which is why (I'm guessing) they pulled out some serious features.

[surfar]

some serious features.

Yes, and costing some serious $$$$$....a bit too serious for my consideration.

---------- Post added 08-28-17 at 09:08 AM ----------

Back to seriousness

Is that a Paul Simon song?

[Nicolas06]

D850 specs / price looks good. I'd have expected a higher introduction price. That Nikon system look quite compelling, knowing that most third party lenses are available for the mount, likely very good IQ, not to mention AF and FPS.

Honestly, I feel with that competion from both Canon, Nikon and Sony Pentax has a problem. Pentax FF lenses are globally as expensive as the competition but the body isn't the same at all and if you are to invest in a system now, getting pro lenses you want a body that can follow. Pentax doesn't provide that and is thus the worst choice to make with Canon and Sony.

Versus Nikon, the D850 is better on every aspect, there no really a case when the Pentax would do significantly better and many where it is significantly worse: Lens echosystem, AF performance, video, burst rate all put Pentax to shame.

I agee, granted we have SR and pixel shift. But is it really better? 45MP at iso 64 all the time or pixel shift on completely still subjects ? The differences in pixel and iso from the D850 mean the D850 is going to get the better quality most of the time and that only when doing pixel shift the K1 is going to be - maybe - a bit better... SR is an asset only vs non stabilized teles and legacy lenses... Not really that significant when most lenses are now stabilized and that Sony, bodies have SR too.

Either Pentax change strategy and become again a value brand, ensuring that we get a buch of affordable zooms and prime in the FF line up like a 28-200, a 70-300, a 150-600, 24-120 plus 35, 50, 85 primes maybe with an FF body in the sub 1500$ range or they really invest into R&D to get something comparable with finally decent AF, decent burst rate and some 4K compatibility.

Ideally, of course they would do both, exactly like the competition is doing with all segments covered. The problem is that today, non of the segment are properly covered and it show on the bottom line.

Today more so than anytime before I feel like Pentax is lost in its management and investment decision and that they'll become even more niche in the best case or simply leave the table silently by just not releasing new product and stopping production... slowly. A bit like they did with the Q.

Pentax ! Please act, please innovate ! Don't let the Theta be the only successful Ricoh camera!