Came across this video today, and if it is mostly true about the D850 I will have a hard time heeding my words to my wife "I don't think I will replace the D810 with the next model"...
"Confirmed Specs Comparison of Nikon D5 vs D850 . Both DSLR Models are going to Launched in 2016."
I follow this channel on Youtube for the information about video for DSLRs, but have no idea how trustworthy it is when it comes to rumours...
D810 | D7100 | Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art |Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 G AF-S VRII ED | Nikon 105mm F2.8 AF-S IF-ED VR II Micro | Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM | Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM | Coolpix P6000 IR converted |
http://gjesdal.org
Comments
Even some of their D5 info looks like BS, so how would they know about a D850?
They have absolutely no idea. At. All.
Sigma 70-200/2.8, 105/2.8
Nikon 50/1.4G, 18-200, 80-400G
1 10-30, 30-110
Can't recall read much on 810 replacement, so had to check it out.
Tilt screen? We know for sure the D5 won't have this
4 card support 2xXQD and one CF and one SD? Not likely
Expeed 5 (possible dual Expeed 5) this is pure BS, as the Expeed has been dual processor since at least Expeed 3
Got the number of focus points wrong
Got the ISO number wrong, and weird extra comma 1,02,400?
Built in Wifi and GPS
Anyway, happy to be proven wrong on any of this, but seems weird to me.
Now when that will happen is anyone's guess, I'm guessing 4th quater 2016 an updated model will
Be announced. The one thing that will be correct is that 4K video capability will be available but so
It will be across Nikon product line in the future, the same way we migrated from standard definition to HD.
Other models will be replaced before the D810, me thinks.
Sigma 70-200/2.8, 105/2.8
Nikon 50/1.4G, 18-200, 80-400G
1 10-30, 30-110
I do see it slowing down in the future however.
I do think the rate of megapixel advances will slow a bit, but 120MP is essentially here if you scaled-up a Nikon1 sensor.
I also doubt that a CX lens equals the sensor that you suggest above.
And I would love to be convinced that lens are better than I am thinking.
Here's the math:
CX = 13.2 mm x 8.8 mm
FX = 36 mm x 24 mm
J5 = 5,568 x 3,712 = 20,668,416
CX sensor scaled up
(36 / 13.2) * 5,568 = 15,098
(24 / 8.8) * 3,712 = 10,123
15,098 * 10,123 = 152,837,054 or 153mp
When I said 120mp I was thinking of the previous version 18mp sensor, not the 20mp on the J5. Regardless there are much higher pixel densities being made in limited quantity today, than the 36mp D810 or 50mp 5Ds. Both Nikon and Canon have shown us prototype 250mp+ full frame cameras. 200mp+ sensors are available for scientific and military use. They just aren't practical for consumers, yet.
As to resolution, i am still planning on working out a system to shoot my Schneider 90mm f/8, Super Angulon on my D800E...to check if the resolution is as good as I think it might be. And this from a lens which is 50 years old.....
@Ironheart using the below measurements gives roughly the same results: ~154MP for the 20.8MP J5 sensor scaled up to FF.
From 18-35mm.. Its really an awesomely sharp standard zoom and it even goes to 200mm and its still sharp .. did is say its sharp? its sharp :-) .. i got my 70-200 F4 and planned to use it on CX with tele-converters .. :-) and ... If some one else is contemplating that I would say don't bother.. yes sharp but not worth the difference and effort, get an old 18-200 :-). I am curious to try the two 18-300 but I don't have them ...
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
This seems to be a popular discussion by the way .
Lenses for small sensors can have remarkable resolution, the Olympus 4/3 lenses are a good example.
One of the reasons that modern lenses are so sharp is that designers can correct for factors like distortion and to a lesser degree vignetting digitally, and are then free to optimize others.
Cost of course is the 'other' factor.
Industrial (used for semiconductor traces), and military (used to read Pravda in Gorky Park from space) optics are routinely corrected to resolutions and contrast far beyond commercial designs, but can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Reading H'aaretz needs correction from right to left, which is still in design.
An example of what can be done when the cost compromise is removed is the new Leica APO summicron which is remarkable across the frame, but costs $8,000 for a 50mm F2 and is back ordered 3 years.
There are also numerous benefits in rendering, to having a sensor that significantly out resolves the lens. The downside being that each new generation camera has eaten my prior computer. With a D810 as my primary camera, I am now using a current generation mac pro (6 3.5 ghz physical cores, 30gb backplane) and do not know where to go from here.
... H
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
Ordering that may be a bit of a gamble because 3 years is a long time - maybe other lenses may be closer to it for a lot less money?
My point being that there is a lot of headroom in the science of optical design to keep up with sensors if it is needed and can be paid for.
Fuji's 90mm F2 is a good example. Their entire lens lineup is probably design crumbs from Fuji's industrial and military optics business.
... H
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.