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.Gaping hole ?    I think the D5 fills that hole.

vbuhay wrote: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.We all have our want on what we take pictures of as well how that picture should look like..... to get there, we have our abilities and equipment to rely on...we have a finite amount of influence as to the dynamic range of the sensor (or film) we can use. For me the higher the dynamic range of my sensor, the larger the depth of my canvas, the more flexibility I have to capture the image I have in my mind. Which is why I wish for a D760? my rationale are - I 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!I think I would love to have the A7III sensor in a smaller D850 body...Wish you had included this text in your original post and made it about the need for a D750 update.  It might have started a lively discussion among those who are looking for such a camera instead of generating all this negative energy.  The D850 was designed to combine the strengths of the D500 and D810, and as such, needed the high megapixel  count.  It obviously doesn’t meet your needs, but wishing it was something other than what it was clearly intended to be isn’t really helpful.Alan

Gon0S wrote:Tony Beach wrote:vbuhay wrote:I do not see the D750 as a low Mpix DSLR, I have one since 2014.It's 2018 now, and now the D750 is clearly on the low side for an FX/135 format camera, and it's going to get lower....I do not like the constraints the high density (smaller pixel) sensors on Dynamic RangeI call bull.Another take from Bill Claffhere.According to Bill the D800 matches the A7m3 from ISO 200 to ISO 500 and at ISO 100 the difference is a fifth of a stop in favor of the A7m3, so that's really an irrelevant difference there. OTOH, the D5 loses big time to the higher MP cameras at lower ISOs (as seen in the screenshot above, as well as at Bill Claff's site), which illustrates that it isn't the pixel density per se but rather the way the sensor is optimized.Candid question :Did anyone see the DR difference between a D800 and a D810?I have seen it in the numbers, and I'm sure others have, but in the real world (full disclosure: I have a D800 but do not have a D810) I haven't heard anyone complaining about the slightly lower DR from the D810 at any ISO above 80 (which equals the D800 at ISO 100). See Bill Claff's assessmenthere.Could anyone assure us such minimal DR difference could seriously be noticed?This is DPR though, so getting a third of a stop more DR at ISO 12800 or getting a third of a more stop of DR from the D810 than from the D800 if you expose it two thirds of a stop more are "worthy" of endless discussions.I bet very few of us can see the DR differences between a D800 and a D810, so the difference between a D800 and the A7m3 is even less than minimal. The point? that argument is just a big LOL.+1

seahawk wrote:Because of the EV. Make the jump and switch to modern times. No looking back once you have done it.If you mean EVF, then no thanks.

Tony Beach wrote:Gon0S wrote:Tony Beach wrote:vbuhay wrote:I do not see the D750 as a low Mpix DSLR, I have one since 2014.It's 2018 now, and now the D750 is clearly on the low side for an FX/135 format camera, and it's going to get lower....I do not like the constraints the high density (smaller pixel) sensors on Dynamic RangeI call bull.Another take from Bill Claffhere.According to Bill the D800 matches the A7m3 from ISO 200 to ISO 500 and at ISO 100 the difference is a fifth of a stop in favor of the A7m3, so that's really an irrelevant difference there. OTOH, the D5 loses big time to the higher MP cameras at lower ISOs (as seen in the screenshot above, as well as at Bill Claff's site), which illustrates that it isn't the pixel density per se but rather the way the sensor is optimized.Candid question :Did anyone see the DR difference between a D800 and a D810?I have seen it in the numbers, and I'm sure others have, but in the real world (full disclosure: I have a D800 but do not have a D810) I haven't heard anyone complaining about the slightly lower DR from the D810 at any ISO above 80 (which equals the D800 at ISO 100). See Bill Claff's assessmenthere.Yeah, I know it can be seen in numbers, but still waiting a comparative shot showcasing the revolutionary and must have need of 1/3 to 1/2 EV more DR war.We are nitpicking on so much small scale of evolution... But finally, since 2012, we are just seeing faster readout sensor from SONY... Nothing to amaze me.Could anyone assure us such minimal DR difference could seriously be noticed?This is DPR though, so getting a third of a stop more DR at ISO 12800 or getting a third of a more stop of DR from the D810 than from the D800 if you expose it two thirds of a stop more are "worthy" of endless discussions.Yeah, some can already battle and brag for 1/10th less obvious specification than a third of a stop...I bet very few of us can see the DR differences between a D800 and a D810, so the difference between a D800 and the A7m3 is even less than minimal. The point? that argument is just a big LOL.+1I just checked DXO for DR of Nikon D810 (2014) vs Fujifilm S3pro (2003) vs SONY Alpha7R III (2018)Warning, it may hurt hard the eyes but belief too:90% of my D810 photos were taken below 800 ISO. Should I undestand I did get only marginal DR improvment since 2003 ?

TOF guy wrote:vbuhay wrote: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....There is not such law of physics.Not only that, but history of sensor production tells us that larger pixels do not necessarily equate to higher DR.  Technology marches on.  Different manufacturers of sensors produce sensors with different DR.  Just having larger pixels doesn't equate to better DR.  To whit, Canon.

Just a friendly reminder to many in this thread of some of DPReview's great features.Purely hypothetically (of course), if someone makes a post full of misguided & ignorant nonsense, trollishly & vehemently defends anti-fact positions, and seemingly has no logical capacity to tie photography to claims, one may want to filter this garbage out.Here's an example of what that would look like...hypothetically, of course:To do this, under the post, click "MoreOptions" > "IgnoreUser"Hypothetically, of course.

Sure but if your going to ignore the OP of a thread, you might as well not participate in the thread at all.Works pretty decent if it's not the OP of a thread.

nuke12 wrote:Sure but if your going to ignore the OP of a thread, you might as well not participate in the thread at all.Works pretty decent if it's not the OP of a thread.I don't mind initial participation--everyone has opinions (agreeable or not) and everyone makes mistakes--and everyone should be given the chance to make them. That's not the issue.After a few responses where people repeatedly & stubbornly make the same mistakes, misrepresent facts, constantly alter scope, and just generally present themselves as incapable of any form of intelligent or informed discourse, I find it time to just ignore that user for all future conversations. I find their "contributions" useless--no value.Others may offer great insight & contribution to the thread, however. But I really just want to ignore the garbage from the user, not the contributions from others.In certain cases, I may additionally unsubscribe from a thread if I'm not interested in its direction. Haven't done that yet in this thread, but we'll see.Actually, on second thought, I'm unsubscribing from this thread as well--on your implied suggestion.  See what I mean about great contributions from others?

beatboxa wrote:nuke12 wrote:Sure but if your going to ignore the OP of a thread, you might as well not participate in the thread at all.Works pretty decent if it's not the OP of a thread.I don't mind initial participation--everyone has opinions (agreeable or not) and everyone makes mistakes--and everyone should be given the chance to make them. That's not the issue.After a few responses where people repeatedly & stubbornly make the same mistakes, misrepresent facts, constantly alter scope, and just generally present themselves as incapable of any form of intelligent or informed discourse, I find it time to just ignore that user for all future conversations. I find their "contributions" useless--no value.Others may offer great insight & contribution to the thread, however. But I really just want to ignore the garbage from the user, not the contributions from others.In certain cases, I may additionally unsubscribe from a thread if I'm not interested in its direction. Haven't done that yet in this thread, but we'll see.Actually, on second thought, I'm unsubscribing from this thread as well--on your implied suggestion. See what I mean about great contributions from others?True. I see your point. When a thread turns sour and there is no hope, I do as you mentioned and unsubscribe.LOL, I guess I still have hope for the OP. Maybe foolish me?

Re: This is why I wanted the D850 to have a 24Mpx (36 at most) BSI CMOS sensor - not the 45.7MpxelI havenotread every post, however, after reading your OP and all your responses to posts from others, I can't help but wonder if you know how to use ALL the cameras and lenses in your gear list.I wonder if you are aware of your D850 options of Image Quality and Image Size. In case you have not read your D850 User's Manual, shots below are from that manual.Page 83Page 84Page 88Page 91I assume that you are aware of the effect ofImage AreaandImage SizeonImage Quality. I'll dispense with the pros and cons. I also assume that you are aware that thefactory defaultsetting for DX lens isAuto DX, moreover, you can override that factory setting to use the entire sensor area (FX Full Frame) as well as switching back and forth.I'll not ask you to explain or justifyyour preference for 24 to 36 meg pixel. Instead, am suggesting for you to investigate and experiment with the Image Sizesand theImage Qualityon the above tables.Since you are an engineer, you can easily do a mental calculation of the image pixel count for each options. e.g. FX-Medium (6192 x 4128) =25 meg pixeland FX-1.2X (30 x 20) Large (6880 X 4584) =32 meg pixel.While I do not agree with your logic but it isnotmy business to tell you how you SHOULD use your D850. For me, you do not need to justify how you want to use your D850.I hope this give you another idea to address your concerns...

To the OP;You've been told over and over again in this thread, what your seeing or what you think your seeing is not real. I would never tell a person not to switch systems. There are many things to like about Sony cameras but the reasons your presenting, just don't ring true. Maybe it's time to walk away from this thread, take some deep breaths and review your thoughts?I'm out of here.

just Tony wrote: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?That would be a bit over nine ounces (the difference in weight between a D850 and an a7iii).And the answer to your question is you would notice a nine ounce reduction in the combined weight of the camera and lens - which some might consider a more important consideration when using a large/heavy lens than when using a smaller or lighter one.  ; )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.I guess you assume that all human hands are the same as your hands. They aren't.I consider my hands average for a male of the species. I love the D850 for its tech and consider it a stellar camera in many respects but I far prefer holding and using the more compact Sony FF bodies. Happy for your mileage to vary, but not for you to extend your preferences to presumptive statements about all human hands!  : o

By the time you add a grip and EN-EL18 battery to the D850, it will weigh the same as a D5, and the D5 has better balance and ergonomics. I use the D4 and a gripped D810, and much prefer the balance of the D4.

SilvanBromide wrote:And the answer to your question is you would notice a nine ounce reduction in the combined weight of the camera and lens - which some might consider a more important consideration when using a large/heavy lens than when using a smaller or lighter one. ; )Just the opposite. The L-plate stays on my D810 full time. It's very noticeable when I'm using a 24/1.8. It's never noticeable with the 300/2.8.

Nothing to do with it. I've taken similar shots to that one with a D2X and the 200/2G.It's the lighting and the lens, not the camera body.Frankly I'm amazed you even begun to think the body mattered at all in this case.-m

just Tony wrote:SilvanBromide wrote:And the answer to your question is you would notice a nine ounce reduction in the combined weight of the camera and lens - which some might consider a more important consideration when using a large/heavy lens than when using a smaller or lighter one. ; )Just the opposite. The L-plate stays on my D810 full time. It's very noticeable when I'm using a 24/1.8. It's never noticeable with the 300/2.8.If you say so.But to me, that's like saying that adding a brick to your backpack won't matter when it's already full and almost too heavy to lift - and will only be a problem when it's nearly empty.I think you have it wackbards.  ; )

dccberry wrote:By the time you add a grip and EN-EL18 battery to the D850, it will weigh the same as a D5, and the D5 has better balance and ergonomics. I use the D4 and a gripped D810, and much prefer the balance of the D4.Yes, I agree with that. I have handled the D5 but what I would not like to traveling with it and it seems to defy storage in a bag or back pack when traveling. With a battery grip, you can separate it with the body making it fit better for travel with a lens attached...but it slows you down....if by the time the D6 rolls around and my ideal D850(860 or 760) with 24 or 36Mpixel BSI, 10 FPS body has not materialize, I may buy the D5 (when prices drops) ....or if the Sony A7IV has a better compatibility interface with Nikkor lenses becomes available, then I will go with that next.

dccberry wrote:By the time you add a grip and EN-EL18 battery to the D850, it will weigh the same as a D5,The same as a D5 and EN-EL18 ?and the D5 has better balance and ergonomics.Very personal view. To me there very close.

BrownieVet wrote:Re: This is why I wanted the D850 to have a 24Mpx (36 at most) BSI CMOS sensor - not the 45.7MpxelI havenotread every post, however, after reading your OP and all your responses to posts from others, I can't help but wonder if you know how to use ALL the cameras and lenses in your gear list.I wonder if you are aware of your D850 options of Image Quality and Image Size. In case you have not read your D850 User's Manual, shots below are from that manual.Page 83Page 84Page 88Page 91I assume that you are aware of the effect ofImage AreaandImage SizeonImage Quality. I'll dispense with the pros and cons. I also assume that you are aware that thefactory defaultsetting for DX lens isAuto DX, moreover, you can override that factory setting to use the entire sensor area (FX Full Frame) as well as switching back and forth.I'll not ask you to explain or justifyyour preference for 24 to 36 meg pixel. Instead, am suggesting for you to investigate and experiment with the Image Sizesand theImage Qualityon the above tables.Since you are an engineer, you can easily do a mental calculation of the image pixel count for each options. e.g. FX-Medium (6192 x 4128) =25 meg pixeland FX-1.2X (30 x 20) Large (6880 X 4584) =32 meg pixel.While I do not agree with your logic but it isnotmy business to tell you how you SHOULD use your D850. For me, you do not need to justify how you want to use your D850.I hope this give you another idea to address your concerns...I have read most if not all of that - The size of the pixels in a sensor does not change physically When you change the settings in a camera, it is done through software, and many different "tricks are played to get the output image we see." What I am talking about is that since the size of the Physical Pixel is directly a determinant of the pixel dynamic range and therefore the image dynamic range. If the individual pixel does not have the higher DR, then the Image cannot possible have higher DR, unless it is artificially altered.....A 24Mpx Cmos (D750) sensor will have less DR than a 24Mpx BSI Cmos (A7III) you can Google the reason why...The reason why the D850 BSI Cmos pixels have less DR is because the BSI Pixels pixels in the A7III have LARGER PHYSICAL PIXELS...In addition, if the D850 has 24Mpx, processing the 24Mpx is quicker than 45.7 Mpx and therefore you can get faster FPS without the Battery Grip and a smaller lighter body (with 10 FPS - like the D500 same battery etc.)Why do you think the best Dynamic Range is found in Medium format Cameras???? BECAUSE THEY HAVE LARGER PIXELS ! - YMMVSomebody please let me know where my logic is wrong.