vbuhay wrote:NotASpeckOfCereal wrote:Why don't you just go get an A7 if you think that's what you need?ChrisI do not like EVFs (realtime Lag), I love my Nikkors and Tamrons....I Like a lighter, less bulkier body with highest Dynamic Range and a fast 10 FPS..... that is all!Then you may not recognize what features map to the success in getting that image.Because:Havenothingto do with the image in the post.The image in that post was possible with that lens primarily due to the EVF. The EVF is a much more effective aid for manual focusing a 200mm F/2 AIS than a DSLR's OVF. That is all. Even without the EVF, many cameras could have captured that, in live view, or with good focusing technique--the EVF just helps with focusing manual focus.That image does not exemplify dynamic range, resolution, speed, or any of these other qualities. It demonstrates how aids (like focus peaking in the EVF) can team up with good technique.Really, you're either saying that:or any combination of the above.

Baloney. AIS is an older, manual focus model. With correct usage it will render pleasing results on ANY sensor.

L Copps wrote:However you do reveal an important point: Nikon has a gaping hole in its lineup for a serious professional medium resolution DSLR.It's called a D5....

beatboxa wrote:vbuhay wrote:NotASpeckOfCereal wrote:Why don't you just go get an A7 if you think that's what you need?ChrisI do not like EVFs (realtime Lag), I love my Nikkors and Tamrons....I Like a lighter, less bulkier body with highest Dynamic Range and a fast 10 FPS..... that is all!Then you may not recognize what features map to the success in getting that image.Because:Havenothingto do with the image in the post.In a way it does - it uses the A7III (24Mpx BSI CMOS sensor) better DR than the D850...its lighter, less Bulky, its got faster FPS, gets better IQ with less than the latest lens (as recommended by Nikon)....The image in that post was possible with that lens primarily due to the EVF. The EVF is a much more effective aid for manual focusing a 200mm F/2 AIS than a DSLR's OVF. That is all.EVF at a wedding, kids, pets- no not for me?  for portraits, product , architectural etc. yes. Here is a shot that would be difficult for me to get without an OVF...or this...That image does not exemplify dynamic range, resolution, speed, or any of these other qualities. It demonstrates how aids (like focus peaking in the EVF) can team up with good technique.Really, you're either saying that:I don't think I said I do not want the D850 (its got stellar AF module). What I am trying to say is that I would like it better if.....Yes I still am climbing the learning curve on it, there is a lot to like but a few I don't. I got mine the first day September 7th 2017...I have close to 10,000 actuations so far....Here is a shot I like:from a lowly 24-70 GI have read about the virtues of EVF, sadly I have not experience it since  the only mirrorless I have used is my AW100 which died in the Philippines due to drowning...and my phone.I have never understood what you get out of trolling so no. I have always try to give my input and try to contribute, I guess sometimes that could be misunderstood.or any combination of the above.You have some valid points above, My original reason for acquiring the D850 was to replace my D750 and D800e, to lessen my load -  that is currently not happening,  My plan was to keep the D850(without grip) + D500. The D850 should cover  Landscapes, night skies, events, weddings, portraits macros. The D500 will cover wildlife, sports, BIFs and airshows each would back up the other.My main reason for participating here is to learn and I have learned a lot. I try to contribute when I can...

vbuhay wrote:Just saying.....Nikon are you listening?With all due respect, this has nothing to do with the sensor or Mp, but to do with the lens, the lighting, the photographer, the location and post processing.

vbuhay wrote:One of the reason for Nikons marketing decision to use the 45.7 Mps...was to one up all and forces us to : Upgrade to the latest Nikon lenses....We hear that often - but "forcing us to upgrade our lenses" is a load of ****.  I'm using the same lenses with the D850 as with my D5, and the D810 and D3s that preceded them in my bag.

Tuonov2 wrote:L Copps wrote:However you do reveal an important point: Nikon has a gaping hole in its lineup for a serious professional medium resolution DSLR.It's called a D5....I have though about that , its too bulky and heavy, there is still a chance I may go that route. Trade a D500 + D750+ D800e + $$ -----> D5 ? ending  with  D850+ D5, you think I could pull it off...

Lance B wrote:vbuhay wrote:Just saying.....Nikon are you listening?With all due respect, this has nothing to do with the sensor or Mp, but to do with the lens, the lighting, the photographer, the location and post processing.I think the if that if this sensor can do this, what else can it do? Geometry tells me that it has larger pixels. Physics tells me that it has better dynamic range....all you need is some light and a sensor of course the photographer to get an image the rest is just nice to have....

vbuhay wrote:Lance B wrote:vbuhay wrote:Just saying.....Nikon are you listening?With all due respect, this has nothing to do with the sensor or Mp, but to do with the lens, the lighting, the photographer, the location and post processing.I think the if that if this sensor can do this, what else can it do? Geometry tells me that it has larger pixels. Physics tells me that it has better dynamic range....all you need is some light and a sensor of course the photographer to get an image the rest is just nice to have....Better DR? In this image? Hmm.I stand by my assertion. There is nothing about this image that the D850 or D810 or D750 with the same lens, same photographer and same conditions couldn't have achieved.

vbuhay wrote:beatboxa wrote:Then you may not recognize what features map to the success in getting that image.Because:Havenothingto do with the image in the post.In a way it does - it uses the A7III (24Mpx BSI CMOS sensor) better DR than the D850...its lighter, less Bulky, its got faster FPS, gets better IQ with less than the latest lens (as recommended by Nikon)....No. In no way does it.Prove that these specific qualities improved the specific photo you posted.The image in that post was possible with that lens primarily due to the EVF. The EVF is a much more effective aid for manual focusing a 200mm F/2 AIS than a DSLR's OVF. That is all.EVF at a wedding, kids, pets- no not for me? for portraits, product , architectural etc. yes. Here is a shot that would be difficult for me to get without an OVF...Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am interpreting the photo you posted as a portrait.Who cares about the shots you posted? They have nothing to do with your original post here. This is at least the second time I can recall that you've posted completely irrelevant examples. You fail to realize that different cameras and qualities work better for different scenarios.or this...That image does not exemplify dynamic range, resolution, speed, or any of these other qualities. It demonstrates how aids (like focus peaking in the EVF) can team up with good technique.Really, you're either saying that:I don't think I said I do not want the D850 (its got stellar AF module). What I am trying to say is that I would like it better if.....You posted a photo and said you would like the D850 better if it had all of these qualities that have nothing to do with the example you posted. Where's the link you purport between the photo and these qualities?Yes I still am climbing the learning curve on it, there is a lot to like but a few I don't. I got mine the first day September 7th 2017...I have close to 10,000 actuations so far....Here is a shot I like:So?That's not the only learning curve you're supposedly climbing.I have read about the virtues of EVF, sadly I have not experience it since the only mirrorless I have used is my AW100 which died in the Philippines due to drowning...and my phone.Why are you commenting and arguing against something if you've never used it?Your ignorance on the subject is not helping your argument.I have never understood what you get out of trolling so no. I have always try to give my input and try to contribute, I guess sometimes that could be misunderstood.See above.or any combination of the above.You have some valid points above, My original reason for acquiring the D850 was to replace my D750 and D800e, to lessen my load - that is currently not happening, My plan was to keep the D850(without grip) + D500. The D850 should cover Landscapes, night skies, events, weddings, portraits macros. The D500 will cover wildlife, sports, BIFs and airshows each would back up the other.My main reason for participating here is to learn and I have learned a lot. I try to contribute when I can...So far, you've made controversial statements and arguments that display your contempt and misunderstanding of key technology pieces and how they relate to photography.I'm not sure you're learning since this is at least the second recent post where you've made such statements and then posted completely irrelevant example photos that have no link to the topic at hand.So what do you feel that you've contributed in your post here?

L Copps wrote:The 45.7 mp resolution was chosen to create the most versatel ILC on the planet that could go toe to toe with any other camera and it does. I wouldn't have it any other way.However you do reveal an important point: Nikon has a gaping hole in its lineup for a serious professional medium resolution DSLR.While I would not get into the particular OP image, as that has too many variables to consider, I agree with the OP and yourself that a D850 equivalent with 24MP and better High ISO even, would sell well too.Not only for its own sensor specifics, but that the files would be less to handle. Yes, storage is cheaper, but still.That does not mean that the D850 is not great, but that an alternative would add to the line up.However, that alternative is likely to now come in mirrorless and probably will satisfy much demand in many ways.

Lance B wrote:vbuhay wrote:Just saying.....Nikon are you listening?With all due respect, this has nothing to do with the sensor or Mp, but to do with the lens, the lighting, the photographer, the location and post processing.Yep, this could've just as easily been done with a D750, D850 or other Nikon camera, and with better colors. Lucky there's no bright backlights in this shot, or we'd probably see those lovely Sony striping artifacts.

vbuhay wrote:NotASpeckOfCereal wrote:vbuhay wrote:James Lotto wrote:You are opening a can of worms....D850 Sensor could easily match that and more.Somebody please show me....this is a good a place as any to demonstrate it... I am very very tempted to try that A7III...200mm AIS f2.0 lens?I follow Daniel's work. He's got great cameras and great lenses, but I see people produce mediocre work using the same gear.He's got some great post-processing kung fu and he knows how to get what he wants (good eye and vision on his intended results), and he could probably do just as well with the D850.But I guess mostly I don't understand your statement about Nikon listening. Why don't you just go get an A7 if you think that's what you need?ChrisI do not like EVFs (realtime Lag), I love my Nikkors and Tamrons....I Like a lighter, less bulkier body with highest Dynamic Range and a fast 10 FPS..... that is all!Well, I would start with getting rid of your Tamron Lenses and getting Nikon 105 1.4E or Nikon 200 f/2.The quality of that shot isNOT due to the camera body or the EVF,like beatabox alluded to,  but due to the Nikkor lens on it.The amazing thing is that your not pointing out that Sony has no lens equivalence to this lens.

Gear doesn't matter if you shoot RAW.  You can match any output.

vbuhay wrote:Hence the Medium Raw mode with about 25Mpx

vbuhay wrote:lickity split wrote:vbuhay wrote:Just saying.....Nikon are you listening?Put the 200/2 on any of your bodies and your in business...200mm F2 AIS?One of the reason for Nikons marketing decision to use the 45.7 Mps...was to one up all and forces us to : Upgrade to the latest Nikon lenses....LOL, worst argument ever, apart for guys looking only at datasheets and seeking noiseless and steady video autofocus motors... Funny, but for this shot, none of theses specs are needed, only long focus and shallow DoF...Old Nikon lenses will only have more CA or ghosting than new ones benefiting of latests coatings and lense technology, but the rendering was already fabulous, and raw processing will get rid of almost all theses problems.Higher Mpx sensor like D850 one will just not be pushed at its max resolution capacity, but final pic will be the same than that 24Mpx SONY MILC sensor, even on a 24Mpx 30" display if it was available.

Amazing rationalization from an engineer who wants to try new technology. Go and buy a new toy.

vbuhay wrote:Just saying.....Nikon are you listening?I can't help but think, less mud on the shoes = more convincing photograph.

I have no idea why you would even think Nikon would do that or even hope for it. The D8xx family of cameras have from the very start been Nikon's high MP cameras.If for some crazy reason they did use a 24 MP sensor, I doubt it would have been BSI.

vbuhay wrote:I Like a lighter, less bulkier body with highest Dynamic Range and a fast 10 FPS..... that is all!What would you notice by shaving an ounce or two off of a camera bodywhen you are using a 200mm f/2.0 lens?Personally, I'd vote in favor of the camera body that has been designed for something that resembles a human hand (i.e.,notthe Sony)... and that's with using a gimbal.