D850

PB_PM

It's a 24MP sensor, pushing less than half data, that's how.

donaldejose

So you think that if you set the D850 to DX mode it would have a shorter blackout time in silent mode shooting? If that is true it might be a good workaround.

PB_PM

Not on a DSLR, blackout time is dictated by the travel time of the mirror, unless you are talking about live view. In which case, the camera is still reading out the entire sensor and discarding the crop in processing. If anything it makes it take longer, since it adds another step.

For mirrorless cameras, or any live view use on a DSLR data rate could matter for blackout time.

donaldejose

I am not talking about travel time of the mirror. That is very fast. Pistnbroke and I have been talking about the blackout time on the rear LCD being 2 to 3 seconds in live view silent shooting and we have not been able to reduce that time. It is not the mirror because the mirror is up. For a mirrorless body the EVF would substitute for the rear LCD. So the question is: if the Sony A9 has a very short EVF viewfinder blackout time how does Sony do that? What does the A9 have that the D850 does not have? Is it just megapixels which accounts for that difference? I doubt it. The Nikon D750 also has 24 mp and also has a long blackout time. Maybe you need two processors so one can keep feeding the LCD while the other processes and sends data to the buffer?

tc88

It's called usage models and optimizations.

On Sony, everything goes through the EVF, so they have to optimize the path from sensor to make it usable for real time. On Nikon DSLR, the expectation is that live view is for fine detail, but non time critical work. So they don't bother optimize the speed of it. Until at a point where Nikon believes more than half of the users care about using live view in real time, or its engineers run out things to work on, I doubt much will be done in this aspect.

That's why there will be Nikon mirrorless. But even when mirrorless comes, the two lines will be catered to different usage models. One for people who want to use OVF, and another for people who want to use EVF. And liveview response on OVF cameras will still be bad until the usage model and expectation change.

WestEndFoto

Maybe a D950 could be just like a D850, except with interchangeable viewfinders (an OVF and EVF). There will not even be a need to tweak liveview.

While they are at it, they can have interchangeable sensors - a colour option, a black and white option and astronomy option.

I would buy into that.

PB_PM

donaldejose said:

I am not talking about travel time of the mirror. That is very fast. Pistnbroke and I have been talking about the blackout time on the rear LCD being 2 to 3 seconds in live view silent shooting and we have not been able to reduce that time. It is not the mirror because the mirror is up. For a mirrorless body the EVF would substitute for the rear LCD. So the question is: if the Sony A9 has a very short EVF viewfinder blackout time how does Sony do that? What does the A9 have that the D850 does not have? Is it just megapixels which accounts for that difference? I doubt it. The Nikon D750 also has 24 mp and also has a long blackout time. Maybe you need two processors so one can keep feeding the LCD while the other processes and sends data to the buffer?

Live view is what I mentioned in the first post on the matter. Which is why I talked about data rate. The buffer is irrelevant for live view, that's simply for storing processed images before the are written to a memory device.

Live view blackout time all down to the IGP and CPU(s) in the camera. How much cache does the CPU have (CPU cache is way faster than RAM), how much memory is dedicated, if any, for the IGP. What processes have priority in CPU time. That's what matters for lives view. The A9 as mentioned before is handling far less data per second than the D850. The IGP in the D850 is compressing the 46MP down to about 1MP in the display vs 24. We're talking almost half as much data. The A9 likely has a faster processor, and a more powerful IGP, to keep the display going while shooting. There is a reason that the A9 has a D5 level price tag, and the D850 does not.

Pistnbroke

If its the size of the RAW file thats keeping it busy why is it not a lot faster with a large jpeg basic to one card ? Looks like I must wait for a mirrorless from Nikon as this is clearly a bodged on feature ( or bodged up )
I also note that good old Rockwell is using the 28-300 for the test shots in his review just published. Perhaps I am not as stupid as I (you ) thought.

tc88

I usually don't pay much attention to this live view mode of operation. But I did some tests for you. I thought the blackout time is more around 1-1.5s? Other people with the camera can provide their estimates. And it doesn't seem to change much between the jpg basic and raw+jpg fine. So probably not that much file size related. Maybe Nikon just wants to black it out so that you know you are snapping? Otherwise, you could have snapped many without noticing since it's silent? Who knows? Many things on Nikon cameras are not explainable.

WestEndFoto

Pistnbroke said:

If its the size of the RAW file thats keeping it busy why is it not a lot faster with a large jpeg basic to one card ? Looks like I must wait for a mirrorless from Nikon as this is clearly a bodged on feature ( or bodged up )
I also note that good old Rockwell is using the 28-300 for the test shots in his review just published. Perhaps I am not as stupid as I (you ) thought.

He is using a 55 2.8 Micro for sharpness related tests.

Pistnbroke

tc88 good point but a flicker would have done or a quick preview

donaldejose

Yes, he is using a micro for his sharpness tests but Ken's 28-300 shots are "adequately sharp" for most purposes. When Ken reviewed that 28-300 lens he said it was sharper than most people thought. In his D850 review Ken says (in his usual overstated way for "tongue in cheek" entertainment) "Every Nikon lens made in over 40 years works great on the D850, so you have a huge selection. Personally I use my 28-300 VR for everything, and I'm done. It shoots wide, normal, macro, tele and on the D850, even action in low light. Done." Funny! While the 28-300 lens certainly isn't on Nikon's preferred D850 lens list it may be more usable and more adequate than people would think. That is Pistnbroke's point. Here is a test for us D850 owner's to try sometime: Since the D850 is so good at medium to high ISO (800 to 3200) can the old f3.5-5.6 variable zooms be more adequate now than they were in the past? Maybe? I recently did a photo shoot at an "old folks home" with a D500 and the 13 year old 18-70 f3.5-5.6 DX lens. My thinking was: "Why worry about sharpness, just how many wrinkles and age spots would those old folks want to show anyway." Yet, I was very surprised at how sharp the results were. Notice how sharp the hair is on the 93 year old woman in this example shot at 70mm f5.6 ISO 400: One could argue that this is far too sharp for a portrait. I wonder what the 28-300 would do on the D850? Maybe I will take that to the next old folks home photo shoot? Here is another example of an old lens: Nikon's brochure for the D850 recommends the 105 f1.4 as does Thom Hogan but Nikon's official list of lenses for the D850 includes the old 105 f2 DC. That 105 f2 is sometimes said to be soft at f2 and certainly not as sharp across the board as the 85mm f1.8, for example. Yet here is a portrait taken with that lens at f5.6 on a D500 ISO 320: Look at the hair and eyelashes. Do you need more sharpness in a portrait? Do you need more bokeh in the background? Do you need f1.4 and if shot at f1.4 wouldn't the dept of field be too shallow to even keep both eyes sharp? Is there really a need for that 105 f1.4 as a portrait lens? The suggestion I am making (and I think Pistnbroke agrees with) is that the "old" primes and zooms are good enough.

rmp

Do "D850" and "good enough" belong together? If old lenses are "good enough" why bother with a new camera?

tc88

Man, both of you guys make very good points.

My take, a good f/1.8 lens allows you to take at both 1.8 and 5.6. A f/5.6 lens only allows at 5.6. It's not that f/5.6 lens can't work. You can control the composition and situation to make it work, but a bigger aperture lens allows more flexibility. Maybe you want full body shot where there is more background and DOF is more since it's further? Maybe it's outdoor where there is more clutter you want to avoid? Maybe it's dim and you want a higher speed to avoid handshake? Of course these can be avoided or got around in some other ways, and it really depends on the user and situation.

donaldejose

rmp: The answer is versatility. I am thinking the D850 is now the "king" of versatility. If you want reach it has a D500 inside it. Just shoot it in DX mode and it is as good as using a D500. If you want ultimate dynamic range, shoot it at ISO 64 and it is as good as using a D810. If you want largest files shoot in RAW or large fine jpeg and it is better than a D810. If you want convenience work the Picture Controls to your taste and shoot it in jpeg which has the camera "post process" for you. If you want ultimate sharpness shoot with the sharpest lenses you can find. If you want speed add the battery grip with the more powerful battery. If you what "good enough" for a family trip or a certain photo session you can use older and less expensive zooms. The D850 can be adopted to do what you want when you want it:the new "king of versatility."

tc88: Sure, same with a good f1.4. Increased versatility. I did not shoot my 105 DC at f2 to compare it with my 85 f1.8 or at f2.8 to compare it with my Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro. I don't like having one eye out of focus in portraits so I agree with Joe Edelman that all this shooting at f1.4 is "a passing fad." If it is your thing, go for it. I don't doubt the new 105 f1.4 is sharper than the old 105 f2 DC but I do question if you really need that additional sharpness and f stop for portraits. Maybe if you are lucky enough to shoot young models with perfect skin added sharpness won't be a problem to overcome. I am not that lucky!

rmp

Thanks donaldejose. I have been thinking about selling my D810 and/or keeping it as a backup. You just talked me into selling it.

PB_PM

Pistnbroke said:

If its the size of the RAW file thats keeping it busy why is it not a lot faster with a large jpeg basic to one card ?

The camera still captures all the data from the sensor at full resolution, then processes it as a jpeg as part of the post capture process. Converted to JPEG would be slower than an uncompressed RAW file, because it requires more processing. Due to the conversion processes and down sampling, making a jpeg can be slower. The jpeg will write faster from the buffer to the SD card, but that has no affect on blackout time, which will be the same regardless of the file type and size selected.

decentrist

donaldejose said:

A 28-300 on a D850? Surely, you wouldn't be getting the maximum resolution the sensor is capable of. However, that one lens on that body is highly likely not to be the only lens you use 100% of the time if you purchase a D850. There can be utility in using the body with other sharper lenses while also putting the 28-300 on it when you want to take only one lens with you. For example if you want "snapshots" of your time in a hostile environment where you don't want to be switching lenses but want that range of focal lengths available to you. Sometimes you may "trade off" ultimate image quality for the protection you achieve by not ever removing the lens from the body in a certain environment. Why shoot large basic jpeg? Look at the photos in Ken Rockwell's review of the D850. Ken tends to shoot basic or normal jpeg for family snapshots. Look at the crop of Katie's eyes and examine her eyelashes. That should certainly be "good enough" detail for anyone in any situation. If you set your Picture Profiles to your personal preference and if you get your exposures right and if you are shooting in situations where you will not need to bring up the shadows or reduce the highlights because you either have control over the light or the scene is even lit you don't need RAW files and you can let the camera do all the processing itself. I often shoot RAW to one card and jpeg to the other card. For studio portraits I very seldom need the RAW file because the slight changes I make in post processing are all well within the range of jpeg latitude. One final point. You, and the client, don't always want ultimate sharpness. For example, portraits of old people who don't want all their wrinkles and age spots to show. If you have a D850 and are shooting such a client you may be well advised to put a "resolution challenged" lens on that body!

a ringlight will alleviate that issue

WestEndFoto

Yes, a ringlight is on my bucket list.

Pistnbroke

yes a ringlight if you shoot through it you get shadows around all the edges of your subject ...no mate flash over the lens with a flash flipper.
My point on the 28-300 was that when I have been robbed of £3500 for the body I still need a lens and I certainly am not goint to buy 3 and swop lenses.
If I buy one for me I must buy another for the wife thats £7000 ,,not paid for the last 810 yet !!!!

donaldejose

No ringlight for me. I hate the unnatural catchlights in the eyes which it produces. I use two medium softboxes (or octoboxes) on each side of the face to fill the shadows and produce catchlights that either mimic rectangular windows or the circular sun. You can see an example of each in the photos I posted above. I have tried the following ringlight/softbox device but still don't like it. https://fotodioxpro.com/collections/light-modifiers/products/fdx-rng-flsh-stfbx The smaller black spot in the center of the catchlight produced by a beauty dish reaches the limit of what I personally can stand.

spraynpray

Regarding Live view: I wish my Nikon was as good in live view as the Canon offerings are. I use it a lot (at night) and it is a clunky joke by comparison to my mates Canon. His focuses faster, shoots faster and is quieter than any of my Nikons. As it seems the D850 is worse, I'll pass. The new 77D and the upcoming 7D3 are even better.

If only it were possible to get a Canon with Nikon IQ, I'd be all over it.

donaldejose

Sony keeps coming up with some great technology. The just announced A7rIII pixel shift technology can produce a 169.6 mp file. See video in main blog. The examples in the video look very good. Is this a good reason to cancel a D850 order and order the new Sony instead if someone is trying to obtain ultimate image quality from a 35mm/FX size sensor? Did Nikon screw up by putting vibration control in lenses instead of in the camera body?

WestEndFoto

donaldejose said:

Sony keeps coming up with some great technology. The just announced A7rIII pixel shift technology can produce a 169.6 mp file. The examples in the video look very good. Is this a good reason to cancel a D850 order and order the new Sony instead if someone is trying to obtain ultimate image quality from a 35mm/FX size sensor? Did Nikon screw up by putting vibration control in lenses instead of in the camera body?

And which Sony lens (or even Canon or Nikon lens) is going to be able to take advantage of that resolution?

WestEndFoto

spraynpray said:

Regarding Live view: I wish my Nikon was as good in live view as the Canon offerings are. I use it a lot (at night) and it is a clunky joke by comparison to my mates Canon. His focuses faster, shoots faster and is quieter than any of my Nikons. As it seems the D850 is worse, I'll pass. The new 77D and the upcoming 7D3 are even better.

If only it were possible to get a Canon with Nikon IQ, I'd be all over it.

Spraynpray, is this an issue that prevents you from capturing images that your Canon shooters can, or is it just an annoyance?