Nikon : D850 : teaser : 8K timelapse?

[Cage]

With about thirty million tech savvy youngsters entering the worldwide urban workforce each year, I'd be surprised if this group weren't responsible for most of the growth in mirrorless take-up. I suspect that the leakage from current DSLR users would be minor in comparison.

[Steve Axford]

With about thirty million tech savvy youngsters entering the worldwide urban workforce each year, I'd be surprised if this group weren't responsible for most of the growth in mirrorless take-up. I suspect that the leakage from current DSLR users would be minor in comparison.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Kev. From my observation, most DSLR users (ie Canon and Nikon users) are unlikely to change. Look at Canon. They have been lagging behind with cameras for many years now, but they are still the market leader. DSLR users like big cameras and optical viewfinders, not to mention their accumulated lenses and their hard won familiarity with mindbogglingly complex systems that few people enjoy relearning (mirrorless cameras a just as mind boggling). But ..... tech savvy youngsters are starting afresh and have no bias towards the old technologies, in fact they probably have a bias towards new technologies. I suspect both Canon and Nikon will have to reinvent themselves at some time in the future. Clearly, neither feel that the time is now, but when is it? Since we have no information on the internal workings of any of these companies, we just have to wait and speculate, just like we've been doing for years.

[arthurking83]

MM, I meant no disrespect to you personally ... but that 12-15yo reference was to the hoards of switchers out there in the ether .. those fleeting and unseen types.

It’s a shock for you that full frame users might switch to APSC? Many have and will continue to do so. Most were on full frame because there wasn’t any APSC pro glass, rather than needing full frame.....

This furphy that Nikon's lack of pro APS-C glass is just plain silly. A few might sell here and there, but the investment required on Nikons part would make them an unviable expense to the limited number of enthusiasts out there that would actually buy them.

A random and simple example of how this non existence of Nikon pro level APS-C glass makes no sense:

Fuji's 16mm f/1.4: cost about $1500, size weight: 73x73mm and 375g.
Nikon's (equivalent) 24/1.8 lens: 75x83mm and 355g.
Add that to a D6xx/7xx and the lens does the same thing(slightly better DOF on the Nikons if we follow the 1 stop of light/DOF loss rule)
So what you're saying is that so many folks really really want an APS-C camera so badly but are switching to other APS-C format brands because the lenses don't exist
They may not exist for APS-C(for an obvious reason!) .. but they're existence is there for a small form large sensor camera!

I think the people looking for pro level APS-C cameras haven't really thought their choices for options through very well!
If Nikon made a similar 16mm f/1.4 lens and it had roughly the same specs as the Fuji(most probably would have to be longer due to the longer back focus distance on the Fmount too tho!) .. for these leakers to stick with Nikon .. then theire optiisn would be:
D7200/7500 + $1500 Nikon 16/1.4 lens .. ie approx $3K + all up.
D6xx/7xx + $900 Nikon 24/1.8 lens .. approx just a tad under $3K.
What Nikon needs is a D5500/5600 sized 135 format camera.

How does Nikon win in that situation having had to invest milions to produce this so called needed APS-C pro lens that costs more than an equivalent 135 format lens?
I think the actual reality of what has happened is probably more like this: Nikon had many Pro level APS-C only lenses(mostly zooms, one prime that I remember). Demand probably waned for them. Nikon hasn't updated them ever!
They've released one or two other APS-C only prime lenses, not really pro level but APS-C and prime lenses all the same! I'm guessing they know exactly what the demand for those lenses are/were .. and hence they've made a decision not to pursue APS-C only lenses!
Of course I'm basing my assumptions on the premise that Nikon are keeping tabs on what products of theirs sells, and what doesn't!
And like Steve said, we aren't privvy to Nikon's internal workings. And in that use of the term 'we', that includes Thom Hogan(should be noted that is the only well known Nikon user screaming out ... "Buzz Buzz"!)

.... From my observation, most DSLR users (ie Canon and Nikon users) are unlikely to change. Look at Canon. They have been lagging behind with cameras for many years now, but they are still the market leader. DSLR users like big cameras and optical viewfinders ....

I think a more accurate description would be that they're harder to change, or resist change for the sake of change itself.
Some folks are simply consumers, others are users.
One thing I know about myself, I'm not a consumer, and use my stuff to the nth degree, or within an inch of it's life(where I can). D300 is a testament to that, my vehicles all bear the scars of that pattern.
I won't simply update unless there's a really good reason to update. if the vf the D800 was of the quality of film cameras of old, I wouldn't be interested in the D850(which should have a much better vf).
I've tried a few mirorless recently, and some Sony SLT cameras way back, and while the newer stuff is better, for mine still too far short of an OVF .. especially a good OVF(like my D300).
if mirrorless used an EVF that is in every way better than an OVF, then for sure I'd be in too.
Way back when EVFs first came out, I was probably one of the most enthusiastic about the possibilities for them. The reality turned to sheet! .. they still give me motion sickness if I look through one for too long.
For me, for now, the best of both worlds is my only choice. I think I'm a typical DSLR user type.
If Nikon brought to market a mirrorless camera that accepted Fmount lenses(they'd be insane not too) .. I'd still be uninterested unless it gave a better vf experience in every sense of the word.
That means refresh rates that don't make me feel motion sick, HDR level dynamic range to begin with. magnified zooming and or focus peaking for critical focus and suchlike are a bonus to have, but primary requirement would be that all the basics are sorted and then the bonus of added embellishments.
I'm not resistant to change being a DSLR user, I'm resistant to consumerism for the sake of it.

[MissionMan]

MM, I meant no disrespect to you personally ... but that 12-15yo reference was to the hoards of switchers out there in the ether .. those fleeting and unseen types.



This furphy that Nikon's lack of pro APS-C glass is just plain silly. A few might sell here and there, but the investment required on Nikons part would make them an unviable expense to the limited number of enthusiasts out there that would actually buy them.

A random and simple example of how this non existence of Nikon pro level APS-C glass makes no sense:

Fuji's 16mm f/1.4: cost about $1500, size weight: 73x73mm and 375g.
Nikon's (equivalent) 24/1.8 lens: 75x83mm and 355g.
Add that to a D6xx/7xx and the lens does the same thing(slightly better DOF on the Nikons if we follow the 1 stop of light/DOF loss rule)
So what you're saying is that so many folks really really want an APS-C camera so badly but are switching to other APS-C format brands because the lenses don't exist
They may not exist for APS-C(for an obvious reason!) .. but they're existence is there for a small form large sensor camera!

I think the people looking for pro level APS-C cameras haven't really thought their choices for options through very well!
If Nikon made a similar 16mm f/1.4 lens and it had roughly the same specs as the Fuji(most probably would have to be longer due to the longer back focus distance on the Fmount too tho!) .. for these leakers to stick with Nikon .. then theire optiisn would be:
D7200/7500 + $1500 Nikon 16/1.4 lens .. ie approx $3K + all up.
D6xx/7xx + $900 Nikon 24/1.8 lens .. approx just a tad under $3K.
What Nikon needs is a D5500/5600 sized 135 format camera.

How does Nikon win in that situation having had to invest milions to produce this so called needed APS-C pro lens that costs more than an equivalent 135 format lens?
I think the actual reality of what has happened is probably more like this: Nikon had many Pro level APS-C only lenses(mostly zooms, one prime that I remember). Demand probably waned for them. Nikon hasn't updated them ever!
They've released one or two other APS-C only prime lenses, not really pro level but APS-C and prime lenses all the same! I'm guessing they know exactly what the demand for those lenses are/were .. and hence they've made a decision not to pursue APS-C only lenses!
Of course I'm basing my assumptions on the premise that Nikon are keeping tabs on what products of theirs sells, and what doesn't!
And like Steve said, we aren't privvy to Nikon's internal workings. And in that use of the term 'we', that includes Thom Hogan(should be noted that is the only well known Nikon user screaming out ... "Buzz Buzz"!)




I think a more accurate description would be that they're harder to change, or resist change for the sake of change itself.
Some folks are simply consumers, others are users.
One thing I know about myself, I'm not a consumer, and use my stuff to the nth degree, or within an inch of it's life(where I can). D300 is a testament to that, my vehicles all bear the scars of that pattern.
I won't simply update unless there's a really good reason to update. if the vf the D800 was of the quality of film cameras of old, I wouldn't be interested in the D850(which should have a much better vf).
I've tried a few mirorless recently, and some Sony SLT cameras way back, and while the newer stuff is better, for mine still too far short of an OVF .. especially a good OVF(like my D300).
if mirrorless used an EVF that is in every way better than an OVF, then for sure I'd be in too.
Way back when EVFs first came out, I was probably one of the most enthusiastic about the possibilities for them. The reality turned to sheet! .. they still give me motion sickness if I look through one for too long.
For me, for now, the best of both worlds is my only choice. I think I'm a typical DSLR user type.
If Nikon brought to market a mirrorless camera that accepted Fmount lenses(they'd be insane not too) .. I'd still be uninterested unless it gave a better vf experience in every sense of the word.
That means refresh rates that don't make me feel motion sick, HDR level dynamic range to begin with. magnified zooming and or focus peaking for critical focus and suchlike are a bonus to have, but primary requirement would be that all the basics are sorted and then the bonus of added embellishments.
I'm not resistant to change being a DSLR user, I'm resistant to consumerism for the sake of it.

Yeah, it's such a furphy that many of the Nikon advocates have said the same. People like Thom Hogan are saying exactly that.

You are missiing the point. What i am saying is people are being sold a lie with full frame. They were sold that they needed it to be a good photographer, and in reality they don't. Nikon and Canon sold it to them by only making the good glass available to full frame. It may not have been a lie at one point, but now it's a lie. Unless you are buying expensive f/1.4 primes like the 105 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.4, you have no need for full frame. There is no advantage. High ISO? There is one stop difference between full frame on dynamic range and ISO and pros were using that 5 years ago, but suddenly amateurs need clean photos at ISO12800 to post on Facebook? Or they need 50mp camera because they print billboards when? Oh, yes, never! The D500 is more than most current full frame users will ever need.

Primes are fine (although the Nikon f/1.8's are cheap plastic bodies while the Fuji's are metal and the construction is 10x better, I know because I've had the 20 f/1.8), but no zooms. Where is the pro quality 14-24? It doesn't exist. You have to go to third parties and you should never have to go to a third party to get a trifecta zoom or you get stuck like a mate of mine who has had endless back and front focus issues with his Sigma. 50-140? It doesn't exist. Where is the 56 f/1.2? It doesn't exist. The point is, if you are only buying f/1.8 primes, why the hell are you bothering with full frame?

Now, you say people looking for APSC with pro glass haven't thought through your choices (which I find insulting). I would say the fact that you put cheap full frame glass on your D810 you haven't thought through your choices either so you should think before you speak or insult people. I would challenge you to show me photos you have personally taken on your full frame glass which could not have been taken with an APSC camera. If you shooting 400 f/2.8 on a full frame, maybe you could argue that, but 99.99999% of amateurs don't have $10K for a 400 f/2.8.

[swifty]

Yeah, it's such a furphy that many of the Nikon advocates have said the same. People like Thom Hogan are saying exactly that.

You are missiing the point. What i am saying is people are being sold a lie with full frame. They were sold that they needed it to be a good photographer, and in reality they don't. Nikon and Canon sold it to them by only making the good glass available to full frame. It may not have been a lie at one point, but now it's a lie. Unless you are buying expensive f/1.4 primes like the 105 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.4, you have no need for full frame. There is no advantage. High ISO? There is one stop difference between full frame on dynamic range and ISO and pros were using that 5 years ago, but suddenly amateurs need clean photos at ISO12800 to post on Facebook? Or they need 50mp camera because they print billboards when? Oh, yes, never! The D500 is more than most current full frame users will ever need.

Primes are fine (although the Nikon f/1.8's are cheap plastic bodies while the Fuji's are metal and the construction is 10x better, I know because I've had the 20 f/1.8), but no zooms. Where is the pro quality 14-24? It doesn't exist. You have to go to third parties and you should never have to go to a third party to get a trifecta zoom or you get stuck like a mate of mine who has had endless back and front focus issues with his Sigma. 50-140? It doesn't exist. Where is the 56 f/1.2? It doesn't exist. The point is, if you are only buying f/1.8 primes, why the hell are you bothering with full frame?

Now, you say people looking for APSC with pro glass haven't thought through your choices (which I find insulting). I would say the fact that you put cheap full frame glass on your D810 you haven't thought through your choices either so you should think before you speak or insult people. I would challenge you to show me photos you have personally taken on your full frame glass which could not have been taken with an APSC camera. If you shooting 400 f/2.8 on a full frame, maybe you could argue that, but 99.99999% of amateurs don't have $10K for a 400 f/2.8.

Being sold a lie? I wouldn't go that far. Nikon's traditional strength is the enthusiast and above market and as such, their strongest product line will always lie in their upper range.

But what I would say is that if any company is going to offer a particular line (based on a particular sensor format), they should follow through with it properly and offer a full range of lens options for that format. Don't try to artificially define what can or can't be done in that format. By limiting DX lens choice, I'm afraid that is what Nikon has done, whether intentionally or inadvertently.

The success of Fujifilm is precisely that they are following through with their X-mount lenses, offering both small and light all the way through to pro lens options.
This is also what's happening with in m43 as they start to flesh out pro lens options, another great mirrorless option.

For me, this is Nikon's biggest failure. Not seeing how CX->DX->FX interact within an ecosystem. Rather than build a cohesive line-up where users of the entire Nikon ecosystem can fluidly move between lines but still have great options in each whilst retaining compatibility of accessories, they tried to define users of each group and box in and limit what they can do in each format.

BTW, nothing wrong with FF users using f1.8 glass nor is there any issue with DX users using f1.4 glass (if it exists). If the lineup was complete you can make your choice.

- - - Updated - - -

Methinks the straying has started ( again ), the evangelists are out in full force as soon as a new dslr hits the market predicting doom and gloom + immediate bankruptcy for whichever company dares to not release a mirrorless body to appease their fervour.

Been going for quite a while now and I am still awaiting the day when a company goes belly up for having the audacity to manufacture mirrors and include them in their products.

Its inevitable sometimes, Andrew. But photography is a hobby of passion so it invites passionate discussions. I personally don't mind fanboism since fans of a systems touts the advantages of their system that other system users might not be aware of. The problem is exaggerations and put-downs of other systems. Most advantages are quite small and you don't need to denigrate the alternative to point out a good feature of your system.

[arthurking83]

....

Now, you say people looking for APSC with pro glass haven't thought through your choices (which I find insulting). ....

You've missed the point again!
You said they're moving to other brands APS-C formats because Nikon don't offer APS-C pro glass(which they do to a limited degree!) You said they're moving from D6xx/7xx bodies(ie. full frame) because of this glass discrepancy in APS-C.

For new entrants, coming to the scene, a 16mm lens means nothing to them. For many of us old farts that were used to 18-35mm lenses way back, seeing a 16mm lens and expecting a 16mm lens, see a 24+mm lens and think ... what the ...

What I'm saying is that this need for APS-C pro glass is the furphy, when Nikon clearly seem to have dedicated themselves to the 135 format .. from which they were born to mind you.
In fact, I reckon that Nikon are so dedicated to the Fx format, that in the near future they will drop one of the D3xxx/5xxx models and combine them into one market segment.
This could be an opportunity for them to remove the mirror box and make it mirrorless too(but still F-mount).

There are a few Nikon pro lenses, f/1.4 or otherwise at the small of the focal length scale are all plastic bodied as well!
Just because the lens plastic doesn't make it any lesser quality than a metal lens of the same type.
I think you have confused an outer shell made of plastic with one of internal plastic construction!
I have no issue with plastic bodied lenses at all, as long as the internals are high grade materials .. that's all care about.
In a theoretical sense, a plastic cased lens is going to be better protected from external elements than a metal bodied one too.
Heat soak and transfer and impact resistance are two obvious properties that come to mind, plus the inherently more slippery nature of plastics could be beneficial, and their resistance to rust and abrasions compared to metal bodied lenses.

Point about buying only f/1.8 primes for full frame also goes for pro lenses on APS-C .. they are so large and heavy by comparison to f/1.8 primes on Fx, the whole point of moving to the smaller format is nullified.
A major reason to go to full frame is not only the lenses, or DOF, but the potential for more pixels if that's a priority, the potential for wider FOV(if that's the priority) the potential to still crop to APS-C(if that's the priority) ..

If you missed the point this time around(and stop taking my comments personally) .. the point for the larger format is OPTIONS!

Yeah, you get some f/1.8 lenses if you want reasonably small .. get f/2.8 lenses if you want smaller(some still exist). But you still have that option with f/1.4 lenses on Fx format .. something you don't get on the smaller formats.
Start adding pixels to the smaller formats(ie. something like 50Mp on an APS-C and of course diffraction becomes the issue .. which then negates the usefulness of ultra sharp pro lenses that can't be stopped down at all, and could be suffering diffraction wide open at some stage in the future!

Questioning the availability of lenses not available for the APS-C format, when an equivalent is available for the Fx format makes no sense(in terms of keeping the brand within Nikon).
Where's Fuji's 105/1.4 equivalent? that would have to be a 160mm f/1.2 lens! Why haven't they provided an equivalent lens for that purpose?
Where's Fujis' 600/f2 lens? They're supposed to be catering to a market demanding APS-C lenses that Nikon are apparently ignoring? Why haven't they produced in that sense?

Sounds like a pretty stupid demand doesn't it?
So to question the availability of lenses from Nikon in the APS-C market, that have already provided for in the larger format arena ... simply makes no sense!!

What I think would be a better solution is the same one mirrorless manufacturers are targeting.
Make the lenses smaller again.
Instead of making limited use 16mm f/1.4's for APS-C only .. make a 16mm f/4. Small form factor, makes the camera feel less unwieldy. 35mm f/2(like they already have, but in AF-S guise. 20mm f/4's etc etc. Small and light to appease the smaller and lighter crowd.
Strangely they used to(and still do to a limited degree) make these lenses, but stopped.
IIRC, my business lessons, you don't stop selling something if it's in demand .. and you don't keep making something if it's not in demand!

I think the problem with the discussion here is that you've come to it purely from your point of view.
Nikon didn't have a 56/1.2 lens for APS-C, so you moved from them to another brand that offered it.
And it seems to me that this is the only way you will ever view this topic .. from your point of view.
I'm fairly sure Nikon have a pretty good understanding of which of their products are selling and which aren't! .. let them deal with it.
if they go bust .. you were right . if they sell mode DSLRs in the next 6 months .. will you admit your perspective on the topic was wrong tho?

ps. unless you have actually done it yourself to know, using cheap consumer grade lenses on a D8xx(I have the D800E too mind you) .. is not a deal breaker.
I say this with the benefit of experience too .. it's no different to using cheap consumer grade lenses on APS-C .. it all comes down to the point of my replies .. OPTIONS!
And not only are they the usual level of options, but they are also unusual types of options, in that they aren't easily achievable .. such as using my lowly consumer oriented Sigma 10-20mm APS-C only lens on my D800E .. for about 12 months.
So in APS-C mode(OPTIONS!) I get the usual 10-20mm (15-30mm FOV equivalent) choice .. or I just stick with Fx mode and make it approximately an 8mm 1:1 format lens at 10mm if I like(OPTIONS!)
Of the images I've uploaded from that combo here, not a single negative comment re why I chose to use a lowly pathetic consumer level Sigma lens(that never misfocused) and even dared to upload the resultant images.

[Steve Axford]

I think a more accurate description would be that they're harder to change, or resist change for the sake of change itself.
Some folks are simply consumers, others are users.
One thing I know about myself, I'm not a consumer, and use my stuff to the nth degree, or within an inch of it's life(where I can). D300 is a testament to that, my vehicles all bear the scars of that pattern.
I won't simply update unless there's a really good reason to update. if the vf the D800 was of the quality of film cameras of old, I wouldn't be interested in the D850(which should have a much better vf).
I've tried a few mirorless recently, and some Sony SLT cameras way back, and while the newer stuff is better, for mine still too far short of an OVF .. especially a good OVF(like my D300).
if mirrorless used an EVF that is in every way better than an OVF, then for sure I'd be in too.
Way back when EVFs first came out, I was probably one of the most enthusiastic about the possibilities for them. The reality turned to sheet! .. they still give me motion sickness if I look through one for too long.
For me, for now, the best of both worlds is my only choice. I think I'm a typical DSLR user type.
If Nikon brought to market a mirrorless camera that accepted Fmount lenses(they'd be insane not too) .. I'd still be uninterested unless it gave a better vf experience in every sense of the word.
That means refresh rates that don't make me feel motion sick, HDR level dynamic range to begin with. magnified zooming and or focus peaking for critical focus and suchlike are a bonus to have, but primary requirement would be that all the basics are sorted and then the bonus of added embellishments.
I'm not resistant to change being a DSLR user, I'm resistant to consumerism for the sake of it.

I understand full well why few DSLR users want to change. I was a Canon user for most of my camera life and I probably wouldn't have changed had it not become a business rather than just a hobby. Probably the biggest thing is having to relearn all that stuff that took years to absorb. Move an adjustment from a dial to a menu and you will confuse and annoy many of your users, do that sort of thing to most of the functions and you will cripple many users. That's what happens when you change brands and it has little to do with DSLRs and mirrorless. The viewfinder is something that most DSLR users say is a major stopper to them moving to mirrorless and, in general, an OVF is better. But I don't find it very much better, and now that I am used to an EVF, it doesn't bother me. After all, it is very much an illusion that "what you see is what you get". Of course, now I am locked into Sony in exactly the same way that Nikon users are locked into Nikon and Canon users are locked into Canon, but I look at future possibilities and I am more than happy with my choice. I am planning how I am going to use the next Sony camera when it comes out (probably 60-70mp in a couple of months time), but also how I am going to use the Canon TS-E 50mm macro. I don't expect that many Nikon or Canon user that didn't have my opportunities would be changing brands, but there must be quite a few watching how things develop and perhaps delaying major upgrades.

A note on size. Many DSLR users say that mirrorless cameras are too small and fiddly. I find this extraordinary. If I pick up a full size DSLR now my first reaction is "wow, this is huge". The idea of carrying that around everywhere is a bit daunting and I would regard it as a major negative. From what I see, most younger photographers think the same.

[swifty]

Nikon, being a predominantly camera company likely needs to defend every major movement in this industry.
And for the DSLR users, of which there are still a large user base, the D850 is the product squarely for them. And perhaps the D750 follow up too.
However, as good as these products are/wil be, this is not likely to introduce new users to Nikon and can't stop the leak of those who prefer EVFs. But this product is absolutely necessary to defend the DSLR territory.
As both Steve and Kev points out, new users are far less likely to be attracted to refinements in existing (albeit very good) technology that the D850 brings. That new OVF is great news for us DSLR users but isn't a selling point to users who haven't already used OVFs in the past.

So there's the separate issue of what mirrorless option to introduce. My personal preference is that two options should be offered (one in FF and one with a smaller sensor) but every man and his dog has an opinion on this subject and we risk straying down another ML vs DSLR debate.

[I @ M]

) but every man and his dog has an opinion on this subject and we risk straying down another ML vs DSLR debate.

Methinks the straying has started ( again ), the evangelists are out in full force as soon as a new dslr hits the market predicting doom and gloom + immediate bankruptcy for whichever company dares to not release a mirrorless body to appease their fervour.

Been going for quite a while now and I am still awaiting the day when a company goes belly up for having the audacity to manufacture mirrors and include them in their products.

[MissionMan]

Methinks the straying has started ( again ), the evangelists are out in full force as soon as a new dslr hits the market predicting doom and gloom + immediate bankruptcy for whichever company dares to not release a mirrorless body to appease their fervour.

Been going for quite a while now and I am still awaiting the day when a company goes belly up for having the audacity to manufacture mirrors and include them in their products.

Nope, lets be clear, the mirrorless vs DSLR debate is mute.

This started with Arthur saying that anyone who dared switched from full frame to APSC was an idiot and should reconsider their position. On the converse, I'm challenging him to produce something he has taken which shows me what I can't produce with an APSC camera. If you are going to call people idiots, then I would like to know why.

I can also backup my statement with a poll that was done:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4194437

Yes, 56% of the people came from Canon and Nikon and 28% of came from full frame. It may not be reflective of the entire population group but it's a hell of a lot more than "no full frame users switch because I think they are idiots for doing it"

I can also tell you that as someone in a Fuji group on Facebook. The poll results I see here are 100% reflective of the user base I see in the Fuji group.

[ricktas]

On the converse, I'm challenging him to produce something he has taken which shows me what I can't produce with an APSC camera. If you are going to call people idiots, then I would like to know why.

Picks up grenade

Take a 12mm wide angle lens. Place it on a full frame camera. Take a photo. Take same lens and place it on an APSC camera. Take Photo. Ohh.. different field of view, different scene captured. Same lens.

Drops grenade and runs away

Trying to lighten the argumentative mood in this thread.

[MissionMan]

Picks up grenade

Take a 12mm wide angle lens. Place it on a full frame camera. Take a photo. Take same lens and place it on an APSC camera. Take Photo. Ohh.. different field of view, different scene captured. Same lens.

Drops grenade and runs away

Trying to lighten the argumentative mood in this thread.

You do know they make 8mm for APSC which is a 12mm equivalent? Just throwing it out there

[Cage]

Arthur has raised some good points.

I think that I'm a fairly typical semi-pro DSLR user. My early background was with Canon 'A' series cameras until the late '90's, when I took a break for about ten years.

I came back with a Pentax K20D (Canon lost me with their mount changes ) and then a K5. Loved the K20D, loved the Pentax glass, but not overly fussed with the K5. Then I fell for the hype that if you wanted to be a 'proper photographer' you must have a Full Frame camera so I jumped ship to Nikon with a D600. To be honest I wish that I still had it as I only had minor problems with my sensor, and Nikon replaced that anyway.

I was then seduced by the 'more megapixels is better' hype and went to a D800, and to be frank, unless I got everything right I could see bugger all difference between the results from the two different Nikons. I'm sure in specific applications there is a noticeable difference, but for the average shooter like myself it's not a biggie. I didn't like the way the D800 handled ISO from ISO800 and above, and I was so disenchanted that I went back to the APS-C format with a D7200.

For my bird shooting the DX format is brilliant, with my new Sigma Sport giving me 900mm equivalent @ 24MP, with more than acceptably sharp results. However for close-up architectural work, landscapes and wide-field astro shots you just can't beat the extra real estate available from a FF sensor. Yes, I know I could stitch but that's more PP and often it gives less that desirable results.

So, as Arthur alluded to above, horses for courses. If I didn't have budget constraints I'd probably have a D500, even though I am more than pleased with the D7200, and I'm looking at another FF Nikon, most likely the D810 as it's had a pretty trouble free run.

Maybe somewhere down the track I'll seriously consider the D850, after the bugs have been sorted, and the price has settled at a realistic level.

In a perfect world Nikon will have sorted their QC issues, and the D850 will take the photography world by storm, with no re-calls, firmware updates etc, but I'm not holding my breath. And I don't think Canon will just sit idly on their hands either.

Oh, and at no stage have I even considered the thought of going mirrorless, and that statement is in no way meant to denigrate those who have chosen that platform as the one most suited to their particular requirements.

But this is all academic and subjective because a bloody good photographer with the most basic of DSLR's will almost always produce better results than the wannabe with the latest and greatest gear.

[Steve Axford]

Arthur has raised some good points.

I think that I'm a fairly typical semi-pro DSLR user. My early background was with Canon 'A' series cameras until the late '90's, when I took a break for about ten years.

I came back with a Pentax K20D (Canon lost me with their mount changes ) and then a K5. Loved the K20D, loved the Pentax glass, but not overly fussed with the K5. Then I fell for the hype that if you wanted to be a 'proper photographer' you must have a Full Frame camera so I jumped ship to Nikon with a D600. To be honest I wish that I still had it as I only had minor problems with my sensor, and Nikon replaced that anyway.

I was then seduced by the 'more megapixels is better' hype and went to a D800, and to be frank, unless I got everything right I could see bugger all difference between the results from the two different Nikons. I'm sure in specific applications there is a noticeable difference, but for the average shooter like myself it's not a biggie. I didn't like the way the D800 handled ISO from ISO800 and above, and I was so disenchanted that I went back to the APS-C format with a D7200.

For my bird shooting the DX format is brilliant, with my new Sigma Sport giving me 900mm equivalent @ 24MP, with more than acceptably sharp results. However for close-up architectural work, landscapes and wide-field astro shots you just can't beat the extra real estate available from a FF sensor. Yes, I know I could stitch but that's more PP and often it gives less that desirable results.

So, as Arthur alluded to above, horses for courses. If I didn't have budget constraints I'd probably have a D500, even though I am more than pleased with the D7200, and I'm looking at another FF Nikon, most likely the D810 as it's had a pretty trouble free run.

Maybe somewhere down the track I'll seriously consider the D850, after the bugs have been sorted, and the price has settled at a realistic level.

In a perfect world Nikon will have sorted their QC issues, and the D850 will take the photography world by storm, with no re-calls, firmware updates etc, but I'm not holding my breath. And I don't think Canon will just sit idly on their hands either.

Oh, and at no stage have I even considered the thought of going mirrorless, and that statement is in no way meant to denigrate those who have chosen that platform as the one most suited to their particular requirements.

But this is all academic and subjective because a bloody good photographer with the most basic of DSLR's will almost always produce better results than the wannabe with the latest and greatest gear.

You raise a good point when you comment about mount changes and that must be one of the major worries with the DSLR makers. If you make a mirrorless line, one of the advantages would be to reduce the flange distance, but that would mean changing mounts and all the problems that causes. You can provide adaptors, but they are never ideal. Alternatively, you keep your old mount and miss any advantages you might get from changing mounts - and they could be significant in the future. It is a problem that has destroyed companies in the past and cannot be taken lightly.

By the way, I do work from the assumption that DSLRs will eventually become old technology and will be relegated to bit players. IMO, that will take a while to happen, but it will happen. As often occurs, the advantages of being a market leader in a technical industry over a long period can be negated by the need to maintain upward compatibility across technology changes (so as not to pee off your current, loyal users).

[arthurking83]

....

By the way, I do work from the assumption that DSLRs will eventually become old technology and will be relegated to bit players. IMO, that will take a while to happen, but it will happen. As often occurs, the advantages of being a market leader in a technical industry over a long period can be negated by the need to maintain upward compatibility across technology changes (so as not to pee off your current, loyal users).

I'm coming from the point of view(overall) that at some point in the next 20-ish years or so .. smart phones will have completely eaten into most camera markets.
They crucified the compact market in a matter of 5 or so years.
As new tech emerges for them(which it always is a few steps ahead of dedicated camera tech) .. smart phone tech will start eroding smaller format camera markets. And that could possibly include up to about 1" sensor camera types. ie. close to APS-C format cameras.

As highly unlikely as this scenario may be, it's not totally impossible.
And as they say .. if you eliminate the impossible, you're left with the improbable, however unlikely it may seem!

I'm basing this point of view on the premise that companies like the Light with their L16 may at some point bring a product to market.
Already we're seeing all the major phone makers rushing to get dual camera dual lens phones out .. for what reason? Why do smartphones need dual cameras.
Surely all anyone does with them is the occasional happy snap to instabook, or the odd work related evidence gathering image capture .. don't need shallow DOF for that, don't need super high quality low light images for that .. yet this is where the smartphone makers are heading ... straight into ILC territory.
Add in the odd interchangeable sensor lens module type design .. and we'll have ILC smartphones as well!
Red considered using an interchangeable sensor/lens module .. ala Ricoh GXR where you change the sensor and lens as a unit. Would be easy to do for a smartphone too.

Strangely too .. on the topic of compatibility Nikon have recently thrown caution to the wind and gone the other way with their new AF-P type lenses.
Some currently supported cameras are basically unusable without a firmware update .. which would be very easy for Nikon to rollout.

They did something similar a few years back when they changed the way lens distortion data was applied in camera via a new firmware system, and updated cameras(like the D90) after it became listed as an unsupported model!

[Steve Axford]

I'm coming from the point of view(overall) that at some point in the next 20-ish years or so .. smart phones will have completely eaten into most camera markets.
They crucified the compact market in a matter of 5 or so years.
As new tech emerges for them(which it always is a few steps ahead of dedicated camera tech) .. smart phone tech will start eroding smaller format camera markets. And that could possibly include up to about 1" sensor camera types. ie. close to APS-C format cameras.

As highly unlikely as this scenario may be, it's not totally impossible.
And as they say .. if you eliminate the impossible, you're left with the improbable, however unlikely it may seem!

I'm basing this point of view on the premise that companies like the Light with their L16 may at some point bring a product to market.
Already we're seeing all the major phone makers rushing to get dual camera dual lens phones out .. for what reason? Why do smartphones need dual cameras.
Surely all anyone does with them is the occasional happy snap to instabook, or the odd work related evidence gathering image capture .. don't need shallow DOF for that, don't need super high quality low light images for that .. yet this is where the smartphone makers are heading ... straight into ILC territory.
Add in the odd interchangeable sensor lens module type design .. and we'll have ILC smartphones as well!
Red considered using an interchangeable sensor/lens module .. ala Ricoh GXR where you change the sensor and lens as a unit. Would be easy to do for a smartphone too.

Strangely too .. on the topic of compatibility Nikon have recently thrown caution to the wind and gone the other way with their new AF-P type lenses.
Some currently supported cameras are basically unusable without a firmware update .. which would be very easy for Nikon to rollout.

They did something similar a few years back when they changed the way lens distortion data was applied in camera via a new firmware system, and updated cameras(like the D90) after it became listed as an unsupported model!

I agree, Arthur, things may change a lot in the not too distant future. If the timing of those changes are right then the change may not be from DSLR to a current mirrorless, but from DSLR to something totally new. Maybe that is what Canon and Nikon are banking on, and who knows, it may work. They may suffer some short term pain, but maybe that is just a matter of holding their nerve.

I don't think smart phones will ever take over the top end of the market, but lenses containing the sensor chip are a real possibility.

[swifty]

I'm just applying the 1.5X crop calculations since FF is a little bit more than 1 stop diff. But f0.95 or f1, same diff.

[arthurking83]

If you look at the purpose of the new Red Hydrogen smartphone, it's purpose is two fold.
1. to work as a comms device AND as a still camera(to a degree).
2. to operate a Red video camera as an alternate control panel.

It uses a dedicated high speed data connection system(if you look at the device you se a series of pins on one side of the back panel).
It's supposed to be the basis of their hydrogen system, which records holographic (video and stills)imagery.

So while it also does other stuff, like make phone calls(phone) and helps the user to control their Red video cams ... it also does video and still of it's own accord, using an attachment system.
Sounding a lot like a ILC system .. camera body + lenses + flashes + ... whatever!

Ie. the phone won't be the defining device ... it'll be the centre of an environment of devices that allow high quality captures.

It's going to be interesting to see how this Red thing pans out .. and how long before Samsung/Sony/Apple all decide that there is a future market there somewhere.
Samsung and Apple have everything to gain from such a market push.
Sony has more to lose in the short term in such a market, but could make something of it in the long term .. kind'a like their idea of the wireless sensor/lens device controlled by a smartphone a few years back.

[Steve Axford]

Interesting. And then there is DJI, that Shenzhen company who makes drones and who are rapidly destroying GoPro and who bought Hasselblad. The cutting edge could be things like holography and getting your camera into really odd places, as much as really high quality stills, though both are important. I can only guess at how much data and processing would be required for high quality holography, so that may take a few years.

[Cage]

One salient point being overlooked in this FF vs Crop debate.

I have an APS-C camera, the D7200, love it, and not parting with it anytime soon.

I am also going to get another FF camera, most likely the D810, and for one reason only.

The reason is for the larger FOV that the Full Frame sensor offers over the Crop Sensor for landscapes and nightscapes. That's it, in a nutshell. Nothing to do with DOF, lens availability et al. If I didn't do ultra-wide angle work the APS-C sensor would be fine.

In other words, choosing the right tool for the job !