http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dsl r/d850/ THIS KILLS THE CANON

does it beat sony though?

>>3137929
And all the sonyboys will be crying in impotent rage because it has slightly more megapickels than their beloved a7Rii on a bsi sensor.

>>3137937
in everything except sheer burst speed, yes.

File: 1468779226747.png (383KB, 662x668px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 662x668px

>>3137929
>this kills the everything on the FF market for $3200

Nah fuck you canon is better

I was told there would be a hybrid viewfinder. Why is there no hybrid viewfinder?

>>3137985
because you listened to a literal fucking retard when everyone else was saying that wouldn't be the case

>>3137929
does it support magic lantern? because if no, no

>>3137929
Didn't canon commit sudoku after they released the 5dii? Nothing they've released since has been worth the box it came in.

>>3137986

I obviously didn't expect one, dummy.

>still not better than a99 II
nikonlets, when will they learn?

It's obvious they tried to copy the A99ii concept with high speed + high resolution combination.

This won't hurt Canon though, Canonfags have always been resilient and okay at being inferior.
This will put the hurt on Sony.

>>3137929
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD0xBQGZ9hI

that guy, he's just chugging down the beer non stop.

>>3137997
>his camera needs a hack to work decently
d850 4k full frame.

>>3137929
>Nikon FX-format, backside illumination sensor
This confirmed a couple of things for me-
1) D850 is going to be fucking awesome.

2) The 42MP BSI sensor must be owned by Sony Imaging, and that means Sony Semiconductors never had any rights to sell it. Since it's plain obvious Nikon had to take a detour and purchase a completely new sensor designed from the ground up in order to get the BSI technology.

>Optical viewfinder with 0.75x magnification
This one is a little embarrassment. After all this time they still can't beat Canon in OVF size.

File: 1438853686676.gif (3MB, 340x384px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 340x384px

Why isn't /p/ more HYPE?

It's a new camera for fuck's sake.

>>3138035
You are fucking cancerous.

Photography has so little to do with gear. Especially barely incremental new gear.

>>3138027
No, this is just the scaled up version of sonys latest crop sensor. Nothing special about it.

>>3138035
It adds zero innovation, compare this to the a9;
First of its kind stacked sensor vs off the shelf outdated bsi
Fastest burst ever vs 9fps
Intelligent af that will lock onto an eye at -3 ev vs standard af

There's nothing to get hype over.

>>3137929
No one on /p/ ever needs something like that.

>>3138038
>No, this is just the scaled up version of sonys latest crop sensor
Not true. Their crop sensor doesn't even have BSI.

This one Does.
It's more like the long lost brother to the 42MP BSI sensor. It took Nikon +2 years to find him, but he was found eventually.

File: 1390167628169.png (430KB, 824x720px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 824x720px

>>3137940
It's 3000 dollars vs 2000 dollars at this point.
You get what you pay for.

Also this is 2 year old technology by now, if I know Sony right, they have some other things right around the corner.

I'd rather buy a 5d4

>>3138083
Is this dumb nigger for real?

D850 has the best AF system from the D5.
Fast clearing buffer with the far more reliable QXD cards.
Backside illumination sensor.
8K resolution timelapse videos.

>>3138038
Consider that most of us won't change their system. This camera does take one step further, not ahead. It's pretty great if you're asking me and I'm not a nikon guy.

It's not that I wouldn't enjoy more innovation for dslrs, especially regarding eye af or high resolution viewfinder overlays like a histogram, zebras and so on. Where nikon and canon are conservative, they are also quite reliable and robust in the given features.

>>3138083
+1

>>3138084
Every 33 megapickles camera does
>8K resolution timelapse videos.
Just like in-camera hdr, this option is for retards.

>>3138024
>he thinks specs are more important than software support
cool story dad

>>3137937
>does the sony sensor beat sony sensors?

ftfy

>>3138254
>Thinks it's okay for camera companys to handicap their cameras to shit on their consumers in an attempt to upsell to their better products.

That's why sony is going to over take canon no doubt. Look at their 6dmk2, its a fucking embarassment that can't keep up with a camera sony came out with years ago. Nikon is still coming out with great cameras, and actually giving customers what they want. What's canon doing? Muh dual pixel af! Muh ergos! Their 4k on their new DSLR cameras fucking sucks, just to get good video, you have to cough up 10 grand for one of their C cameras. Fuck that. At least they make good lenses.

>>3138258

Sony sensors in a Nikon body have routinely outperformed the same sensor in a Sony body. It's a valid question.

>>3138262
Agreed. But the a7r out performed the d800, then the d810 came out which beat the a7r. Then the a7r2 came out which beat that. Then the d850 came out which beat the a7r2. So the next Sony itteration should be better in terms of IQ. Not to say Nikon doesn't make great cameras. It's just healthy competition between the two companies. Canons just doing their own thing

>>3138264
>>3138262

my bad, just looked up d800vs a7r. Looks like the d800 pulled won in some categories, a7r won in some

>>3138035
because it's nikon

>>3138281
Sure it *might* have the usual mechanical shit bugs, but those will be ironed out as more units are produced.

Just get it 6 months after the launch.

>>3137929
>no hybrid viewfinder

Good.
Can just keep my D800 for a few more years then.

>>3138264
>the a7r out performed the d800

Debatable.
And it certainly didn't outperform the D800E (= D800 without AA filter), which came out before the A7r.

I'm surprised it can do 9 fps.

Although you need to buy a battery grip.....and a special insert for said battery grip....and a bigger battery that won't fit in the body so it's useless as a spare....and send them 2 liters of your own blood.
(I only made up one of those, can you guess which?)

That's 411 Mpix/s
Compared to 291 Mpix/s for the D5.

Makes it an interesting choice for sports photography.
You get a little less frames, but you can crop in more.

>>3138306
>I'm surprised it can do 9 fps.
Shouldn't be.

Sony's Backside illumination used the copper metal process, which enables much higher internal bandwidth in the sensor.
The D5 didn't have this because they used older technology. But this newest design use the same technology the A7Rii/A99ii sensors use, and have much higher bandwidth.

>>3138313
But doesn't it have the same processor as the D5?

I thought that was normally the bottleneck, not the sensor itself.

>>3138297
yeah, i corrected myself here
>>3138297

>>3138318
Maybe it never was the bottleneck.
Maybe they overclocked it. Who knows.

>>3138313
I'm also curious if it uses line skipping in video mode.

That would basically require reading 8K video off the sensor.
I suspect not though.

I know the A7r uses line skipping, which is the real reason it doesn't have the low light capabilities of the A7s.

>>3138324
That one is a bit up in the air. It depends on how much money Nikon gave the Foundry.

If it's using the same material and structures as the A7Rii, it would need to crop the sensor to enable Full Read-out.
If it's using something more advanced, it might have full un-cropped read-out, but I doubt this.

Canon hasn't been relevant since the 5DII except for video

>>3138333
But even their 4k from the 5dmk4 looks like ass compared sony cameras going for 1/3 the price.

>>3138330
It doesn't crop the sensor (except for a little bit)

But it probably skips either the odd or even rows and columns.
Which would mean at most 25% of the sensor gets used for video - which won't be great for low light.

It's always very hard to get info on this.

>>3138084
no lenses and shitty support for the nikons
canon is the industry standard, there is no question about it

>>3138374
Being the lowest standard in a dying industry is nothing to be proud about.

I wonder what a electronic viewfinder looks like. Can someone take a photo of it? Can you see the pixels?

>>3138377
Just go into a camera store and try out the A9 while taking pictures with it.

It's how most EVFs will look like 3-4 years from now. The A9 is just a little bit ahead of the curve.

>Can someone take a photo of it?
I believe some youtubes out there actually did this when the camera launched.

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-24 at 2.31.10 PM.png (766KB, 916x672px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 916x672px

>>3138377
Honestly, the point of the EVF isn't about "seeing pixels" it's about seeing your image how it will look before you take the photo. It gives you an accurate depiction of it without having to take a test shot. The benefit of this vs live view on the back of a dslr is that you can actually look throught the eye piece without the sun fucking it up. I've got an a7r, and one of the cool things about the EVF on that is that you can actually set up the eye piece and the screen on the back to display different items, so the big screen might display all of the exposure, historgram, and setting info, then you can look in the evf and see the level while you snap the photo.

Pause this video at 34 seconds, you can see the level, camera settings, a custom overlay which is set to rule of thirds, you can see highlight clipping and focus peaking. so that's quite a bit of info that you're getting all at once which is incredibly helpful

>>3138386
>>3138377

vid related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIwrmFGMi9c

>>3138383
>I believe some youtubes out there actually did this when the camera launched.
thanks, there are actually ones.
>>3138386
>>3138388
thank you as well.
Its true what you say and this may sound like an old person not wanting change: it kind of takes away the "magic" trough digitizing the whole image taking process

>>3138390
Ehh, I don't think it takes away any "magic" Go check out a camera for yourself and see how you like the evf. I know it took some time for me to get used to it

Doesn't change the fact that Nikon doesn't have a comparable lens selection. I will wait to purchase Nikon for a little bit. Their good lenses are too expensive.

>>3138399
What lenses are they missing that you need?

>>3137978
Canon lenses are indeed better. As is there Cinema line.

>>3138407
some of them are but some of them arent

File: xboxheug.jpg (142KB, 1163x556px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1163x556px

> Weight: 1 KG
> Weight: 1 KG
> Weight: 1 KG
> Weight: 1 KG
> Weight: 1 KG

>>3138399
>Their good lenses are too expensive.

That's why you buy the Sigma and Tamron alternatives.

>>3138411

What's wrong bitch boy?

>>3138023
As someone who is pounding beers as we speak that ain't shit son. But I do want the camera, now the question is just pre-order or wait for grey market.

>>3138400
Not him.

But I shoot Nikon and I would like:
- pancake
- 400 f/5.6
- 11-24 f/4 is cool too

Other than that I don't think anything is really missing.

>>3138417
He prefers plastic, like his buttplug.

>>3138421
My buttplug is made of anti bacterial silver, thank you very much. Only the best for us sony fans.

>>3138422
Doesn't silver feel too cold?
Or do you warm it in your mouth between sessions?

>>3138423
Jesus christ do you not have running water? How can one be so poor? You warm it up before you use it.

File: 1.jpg (108KB, 891x502px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 891x502px

Apparently the A9 has moved past the D5 AF sensor in low light tests.
https://youtu.be/0xo9qKPVhEk?t=968

Do you think it's because the D5 AF sensor lacks Backside Illumination?
Or is it just because the A9 gained more processing speed?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

>>3138424
There is running water in the main house where my wife and Jamal sleep, but not in the cuckshed where I as a Sony fanboy am required to stay.

File: 1496778713976.gif (1002KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

1002KB, 250x251px

>>3138426
I think you lost the plot I'm a sony fanboy. I have my own house.

>>3138425
>Do you think it's because the D5 AF sensor lacks Backside Illumination?

I doubt it.
AF sensors work very differently from image sensors.

One drawback dedicated AF sensors have is they don't get to catch all the light because most of it is bounced to the optical viewfinder.
Also the bigger surface area of the image sensor vs the AF sensor might be an advantage - I don't know though,

btw: I didn't see any low-light AF tests in that video?

>>3138427
You pay the mortgage, sure.

DSLR users are so cancerous. You spend this much time and effort on gears and all that stupid codewords meanwhile the best photos are taken by those who know so little about gears.

>>3138425
>>3138430
>btw: I didn't see any low-light AF tests in that video?

OK, I've found the segment but it was weird.
measuring speed rather than reliability.

Speed will always depend largely on the lens.

I think a more useful test is making the room darker and seeing at what point the cameras shit themselves.
Just getting a lock is what you will be interested in when you have to shoot in very poor lighting conditions. - you're not going to do any action photography.

>>3138407
the cinema line is great in terms of quality and build, but WAY fucking overpriced. I shoot with a c300 a lot and think it's a waste of money

>>3138420
The 11-24 is nearly identical to the 14-24 in optical quality and loses a stop of light. And its $3k. Screw that.

45.7 meganoodles.
fuck.
my poor processor.

>>3138411
Heavy is good, heavy is reliable. If it does not work you can always hit people with it.

>>3138434
the funny thing is that those retards argue about 5000-7000 bucks cameras no one of them will ever buy.

>>3138035
Because it's a truly pro camera. and /p/ is fucking shit in every aspect

>>3137929
Still same shitty ergonomics.

Huh, no!

>>3138436
>I think a more useful test is making the room darker and seeing at what point the cameras shit themselves.
Max Yuryev did a test like this one.

It sort of indicated the same thing as the first test I linked to. Results are at 23:05.
https://youtu.be/KX1sfy__7A4?t=1179
The times are changing I guess.

>>3138488
sorry about your tiny hands

sad!

>>3138254
>he thinks some hack is software support
ahahahahahaha

>>3138375
>dying industry
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/2016-companies-market-shares-japan/

Expect high resolution overlays, expect hybrid view finders and note there are also disadvantages with evfs

>>3138609
>Expect high resolution overlays
What kind of data do you expect them to overlay into the OVF?

Data from the AF sensor?
Data from the AE sensor?
Or do you intent to split of the limited light even further into more sensors? You would end up making the AF sensor weaker, or make the OVF darker.

Can you afford that, in an era where mirrorless has surpassed DSLR in low light AF speed?

>>3138611
>Can you afford that, in an era where mirrorless has surpassed DSLR in low light AF speed

You mean the one fast mirrorless camera out of all of them which managed to outperform one dslr in one test that was never repeated?

>>3137929

>Nikon copies the a7rii years late

Cool I guess.

What they should have done, was license e-mount, make their own version of the LA-EA4 but for F-mount and then make sure it only worked with their version of e-mount mirrorless.

>>3138642
>one test that was never repeated
This is one test>>3138553
This is another that confirmed>>3138425

>which managed to outperform one dslr
Which other DSLRs are faster than D5 and 1DXm2?
It would be interesting to put those faster ones up for testing.

>>3138644
>years late
There was no other option.
Sony right now has two camera related companies, Sony Semiconductor, and Sony Imaging.
The 42MP sensor was owned by Sony Imaging. So Nikon couldn't simply just buy it from Sony Semiconductor.

Nikon had to spend these last 2 years buying the necessary licenses for Backside illumination sensor, and developing a new sensor up from scratch, before Sony Semiconducter can manufacture it for them.
The downside is it took them 2 whole years, and a lot of money sunk into lincenses and development.
The upside is this is now Nikon's own sensor, and no other company can purchase that 45MP sensor from the foundry without their permission.

>>3138644
>>Nikon copies the a7rii years late
There's literally nothing similar between those two cameras besides a hi res bsi sensor.

>>3138652
Silent shooting, same manufacturing techniques.

The only difference is slightly different resolution, and the D850 sensor's total bandwidth is capped at 20% lower than A99ii to keep the temperatures down, and hopefully gain less noisy image.

>>3138611
>What kind of data do you expect them to overlay into the OVF?
Markers for focus fields and also recognized faces, level, histogram, zebras, peaking
>Data from the AF sensor?
>Data from the AE sensor?
Both including level sensors and other stuff. There's no way around increasing focus fields and increasing resolution to provide proper face detection and metering for faces.

>Or do you intent to split of the limited light even further into more sensors? You would end up making the AF sensor weaker, or make the OVF darker.
The last years showed an increasing resolution does not force more noise.

>Can you afford that, in an era where mirrorless has surpassed DSLR in low light AF speed?
I like to keep my system and I enjoy ovfs in some situations as I enjoy evfs in other situations.

>>3138664
The point I was trying to make is you can only overlay data you acquired from the AF sensor and the AE sensor.

>peaking
Not possible. It would require you to divert light away from the AF sensor and OVF, into the image sensor. You would get slower AF and darker OVF.
>zebras
Same as above. How are you going to get data for Zebras if the mirror is blocking the main sensor?
>histogram
Might be possible.
>level
Definitely possible, since it use data from electronics that doesn't look through the lens.

>gear thread about brand new nikon camera
>there are more posts about sony than nikon
>meanwhile actual photo threads get few to no replies
another day on /p/

>>3138655
What? That's where you go? The other has high framerate and buffer, excellent af system, a pro level weather resistant body with native support for 6 decades worth of lenses. The other has a nice sensor, ibis and some other new techy features with a somewhat of workable camera shaped computer built around it.

>>3138671
>The point I was trying to make is you can only overlay data you acquired from the AF sensor and the AE sensor.
I already got that and already responded.
>>peaking
>Not possible. It would require you to divert light away from the AF sensor and OVF, into the image sensor. You would get slower AF and darker OVF.
>>zebras
>Same as above. How are you going to get data for Zebras if the mirror is blocking the main sensor?
My point was, data from ae and af sensor are sufficient after increasing focus fields and resolution. There's no further diversion required. Think of a 3+MP sensor for ae metering that doesn't suffer from aa and band-elimination filtering which is done for main sensors.

>>3138677
I'm not the other Anon who originally posted.

But it's obvious to everyone Nikon couldn't get that particular 42MP sensor, so they designed/purchased their own which is very similar to it.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/6588202384/the-nikon-d850-can-scan-film-using-the-new-es-2-digitizing-adapter

>>3138687
That would be cool if it did negative raws.

Although maybe the raw preview will be correct at least, making it a little easier to check exposure.

>>3138450
>The 11-24 is nearly identical to the 14-24 in optical quality and loses a stop of light. And its $3k. Screw that.

But it's a lot wider, that's the point.

I wouldn't buy one either, just said I think it's cool.

>>3138553
That's a another speed test.

And looks like both cameras perform excellently in conditions that are ridiculous to shoot anything but landscape at.
I was curious at what point those cameras stopped to focus completely, but I guess that's so dark you wouldn't be able to see through the optical viewfinder anyways. (and decent AF in live view is certainly something I'm still missing on my DSLR, I don't suppose that's fixed on the D850?)

>>3138678
I still have my doubts about this.

For example race recognition would normally need the main sensor to activate this. If you modify the AE sensor so it can recognize faces, will it even be fast enough?
The vast majority of the light is diverted to the AF sensor (which isn't granular enough for face recognition), and diverted to your eye.
It's only a tiny bit of the light that goes into the AE sensor, so you're going to have questionable performance of this feature. Consider that most low end image sensors can also do face recognition, but are very slow even though their main sensor get s100% of the light.

Then there is also the issue of the competing cameras already moving on to high performance eye recognition AF. I'm not sure face recognition can compete with that.

>>3138698
My objection is the price. Its supposed to be Canon's response to Nikon but it's 50% more expensive.

>>3138702
>I don't suppose that's fixed on the D850?
It's a backside illumination sensor. So the liveview will be cleaner than ever in dark situations.

>>3138678
I have to agree with this guy.

AF and AE sensors gather a lot of data already.

Histogram, face recognition and zebras should already be possible.
The AE sensors have enough resolution for that.

Focus peeking would currently be a little limited.
But just highlighting which AF points are currently on target should be very simple and already a nice help.

I really hope DSLR's will copy all the advantages of mirrorless systems and combining them with the advantages of DSLR's, that would make some awesome cameras. - are you listening Canon and Nikon executives?

>>3138707
My D800 is absolute garbage at focusing in live view even in perfect light.

Especially with the flip out screen, I would expect the D850 to be far more useful in that way.

>>3138712
The performance will be questionable in my opinion.

Here's a more practical workaround: Implement Faster AF into your main sensor and simply improve the living hell out of the liveview.
It's going to cost a lot of research dollars, and you will need the Stacked sensor technology, but once you get this you will have the best of both worlds.

Normal operation? Just use OVF.
Need that Eye recognition and other fancy Zebras and FocusPeak? Just open up for liveview.

>>3138715
The image has the potential to be clean, but it's also a matter of whether Nikon builds the liveview well enough.

For ideal condition, you need low latency connection from Sensor to high refresh rate LCD screen, and you need well processed image that's downsampled to LCD resolution.
If Nikon can execute on all of this, it will be very fine.

>>3138703
>you're going to have questionable performance of this feature
I'm right there with you. However, I also see 1 inch 20+megapickles sensors delivering good imaging in low-light which probably also exceed the performance required for ae metering. I see more problems in limited space, thermal conditions, in general data processing issues around the prism.
>If you modify the AE sensor so it can recognize faces, will it even be fast enough?
In viewfinder mode Nikon and Canon are currently detecting faces based on ir color information on 150,000+-pixel sensors. The D850 provides a 153-point AF system linked to a 180,000-pixel metering system. The median measured distance over the faces come near eye tracking. For wide apertures, in live-view simple face-detection also leads to sharp eyes and blurry nose tips. While eye tracking is an improvement it's certainly not required.

>>3138717
>The performance will be questionable in my opinion.

I don't see why?

Like >>3138719 mentioned the AE sensor has 180.000 pixels.
That's plenty for stuff like zebras (there would be 519x346 areas if zebraness) and histogram.
Eye recognition has already been proven to work just fine, it's only a matter of showing it to the user through the ovf.

Focus peeking with just 153 point would be kinda meh.
But they are phase detection, so they could show actual distances not just a binary "in focus / not in focus"

>>3138726
Because the sensor is so small, and so little light is diverted to it.

>519x346
I thought we were discussing high end equipment in this thread.
But I guess if you're fine with that. More power to you.

>Eye recognition has already been proven to work just fine
I don't think you get it. The competitor has pro level AF tracking of the eyes, it does not lose track in stills mode, ever.
https://youtu.be/0xo9qKPVhEk?t=1020
Canon's implementation is questionable, and even the dual pixel lose track.
Nikon's implementation has some serious problems even with slow movements.

>Focus peaking
It's a feature for manual focusing.

File: z11.gif (25KB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 250x188px

>>3138733
>the sensor is so small, and so little light is diverted to it.

On the other hand the pixels are huge and have incredible dynamic range.
Using an image sensor, with its limited dynamic range, for exposure measurements is also just a compromise.

>But I guess if you're fine with that. More power to you.

It's just to check if some areas of the picture are over/under exposed.
Why would you need to see millions of areas?
You wouldn't even be able to see the zebras on areas that small.

>>3138735
That's a good point. And the OVF overlay will also be very bad resolution as well.

I don't think such a solution is desirable to be honest.

>>3138006
>Why isn't there a hybrid viewfinder
>I obviously didn't expect one lol

>>3138735
>>3138736
Sony A7(R)-2 evfs do have 786,432 pixels and it seems like this is enough to display all of the desired stuff. So I imply, for ae metering and ovfs overlays at dslrs, the resolution would be both desirable and performing.
Also we're talking about future stuff. The last few posts just discussed things that can be altered and improved.

>>3138793
Leica SL and the A9 have upgraded their EVF a lot since then.

>>3138259
>nikon purchaser
>unironically complaining about other companies gimping their products
What did he mean by this?

>>3138035
it's a mini version of another flop lacking innovation or good software design, the d5
I mean seriously this camera was supposed to be a sign that nikon stepped up their game and the only improvement is more megapickles

>>3138877

Fuck off cry baby.

>>3138889
>WAAAAH! Stop triggering me and let me advertise overpriced gear in peace!
fuck off shill

>>3138877
What did you honestly expect them to do?

It's amazing enough they were able to pay their way to get Backside illumination after just 2 years, instead of 4.

File: the bird is the word 2.jpg (31KB, 500x478px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x478px

Just pre-ordered from the Jews in New York.
>3,296.95 shekels

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	mrwat
Image-Specific Properties:

>>3138974
>>3138926
Brave beta testers. Report back if something is broken.

>>3138976
...or have too much oil on them

>>3138872
What's your point regarding the discussion?

>>3138996
I just think the camera makers should surpass each other, and not come up with strange compromises.
It's all just opinions anyway, maybe you're right and OVF with overlay really is the future?

>>3138999
>Checked
I agree with that too

>>3138876
I actually have two sony's, and I still have my obsolete canon cameras

>>3138999
>Maybe OVF with overlay really is the future?
I wouldn't say so. It's just one way to go. Like ovfs, evfs are compromises too.
In my opinion, milc and dslr cannot be compared which is why I believe Canon and Nikon will (start to seriously) pursue both dslrs and milcs as Sony will keep pursuing milcs and won't give up on slts.

Photokina 2018 will bring light and hopefully enabling systems for both worlds on the same lenses without compatibility limitations.

>>3138877
Nikon is used because they provide products that are rigid and defined even if they are conservative. It's amazing you want to bitch about them because they don't just come up with new features for no reason.

Also,
>d5 was a flop
NASA just ordered 53 of them.

>d850 is overpriced
Canon wanted $4k for the 5D4 and Sony wants $4500 for the A9. This is one of the least expensive full frame cameras to come out in months.

Go be an angry troll somewhere else.

File: 1500373320921.jpg (49KB, 682x378px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 682x378px

>>3139241
Not him, but the reason for this is really simple.
>Canon wanted $4k for the 5D4 and Sony wants $4500 for the A9
It's the Canon one that's overpriced compared to Nikon and Sony.
On the Kardashev scale:
Sony is a Type IV civilization. It cost many billions to research this, and the tech really just to sell future cars and mobiles phones.
Nikon is a Type III civilization. Smart investment, don't have to sacrifice billions on factories and engineers, only a little behind.
Canon is a Type 1 civilization. Barbarians.

>>3139241
The a9 and 5d4 occupy different sectors of the market, the fps, af speed and silent shooting imply the a9 is for sports and events, the 1dx is the canon equivalent, it's $6k, or 33% more than the sony and the sony massively outspecs the canon.

>>3139250
>sony massively outspecs the canon
A 4 month old camera outspecs a 5 year old camera? No fucking way!

>>3139295
5Dm4 isn't actually 5 years old, it only feels 5 years old.

>>3139250
>massively out specs Canon
Except that part where it has no weather sealing which renders it useless in anything except comfy sporting events right?

>>3139298
>the 1dx is the canon equivalent
The 1Dx is 5 years old

File: Chris-Gampat-The-Phoblographer-Nikon-D850-first-impressions-photos-5-770x578.jpg (48KB, 770x578px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 770x578px

why couldn't these mongs have been a little bit forward thinking and put usb-c instead of that ugly ass usb3 port

>>3139579
>Nikon
>Forward thinking
That's fucking funny m80

>>3139579
Maybe that shit has some unnecessary licensing issues. Or maybe it's just more expensive to make the microchip that's compatible with the newest.

I currently use a D7200 and want to upgrade to a full frame at some point. I was looking at the D810 as my potential upgrade but this will more than likely be out by the time I'm willing to spend that much. Is there any reason I shouldn't upgrade to the D850?

>>3139600
Uncle Ken says not if you are going to buy new.
Buying a used D810 might be a good bargain though.

>>3139600
If you have the money, and the D850 does everything you need, then there is no reason not to.

The only reason to go for the older model is if it does something better than the D850, and that feature is something you really want.

>>3139579
Why does it say wifi on the side I thought it doesn't have wifi?

File: .png (8KB, 396x235px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 396x235px

>>3139773
it's got snapbridge but it's shit

>>3139295
>>3139367

The 1dxii is only a bit over a year old, the 5d4 is one year old almost to the day.

You dumbass.

>>3139325
The sony range are weather resistant and will happily put up with rain, irrelevant though as umbrellas exist.

>>3139795
>The sony range are weather resistant and will happily put up with rain

it helps them cool down a bit so they don't overheat

>>3139795
>irrelevant though as umbrellas exist
I wasn't just talking about rain. I was talking about the entire manner of beating a professional flagship camera takes. Look at how photojournalists for National Geographic can abuse the hell out of their cameras, coating them in mud, snow, dirt and water routinely. I wouldn't spend a cent on a camera I know is going through hell when it's just designed for sports indoors or in nice weather.

>>3139795
>The 1dxii
That's not what the original post said though you retard.

>>3139241
>This is one of the least expensive full frame cameras to come out in months
What's with features like gps, more fps, wifi, radio flash setup? It's not that cheap if you include all the extras which are given except radio flash setup with the 5div.