Nikon : D850 : teaser : 8K timelapse?

[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.

[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.

[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

[ricktas]

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

I do, I just wanted to point out that making statements about what can or cannot be done with each system is ridiculous.

Some people like DSLR, Some like medium format backs, or panoramic cameras, others like APSC, and there are plenty of people out there now doing very nicely as photographers using their phones.

Each to their own and we need to appreciate that people use differing systems, rather then try and belittle them for doing so.

There is no perfect camera/system/lens. And this thread was started about the D850, but has somehow gotten bogged down in APSC and Mirrorless discussions, which is completely irrelevant to this particular model camera.

[MissionMan]

I do, I just wanted to point out that making statements about what can or cannot be done with each system is ridiculous.

Some people like DSLR, Some like medium format backs, or panoramic cameras, others like APSC, and there are plenty of people out there now doing very nicely as photographers using their phones.

Each to their own and we need to appreciate that people use differing systems, rather then try and belittle them for doing so.

There is no perfect camera/system/lens. And this thread was started about the D850, but has somehow gotten bogged down in APSC and Mirrorless discussions, which is completely irrelevant to this particular model camera.

As are statements that people who move back to APSC are idiots. Every time I ask people to show me photos they took that couldn’t be taken on APSC, I normally get crickets. They can show me something from a top professional, and I don’t have an issue believing that these top professionals are good enough, but are they? There are very few lenses that aren’t available on APSC that the enthusiasts here use and there are very few people here who actually know how to take advantage of the extra DOF offered by full frame.

What I am getting at is that most people here don’t need full frame. They may want it and that’s okay, but they don’t need it and they will try pretend they need it. They will try pretend that the extra ISO is a show stopper for them and the dynamic range difference of one stop is more important than world peace. They are buying it because of the expectations of the industry. They are buying it because some glass isn’t available due the manufacturers, not the capability. They are buying it for the potential of a 105 f/1.4 that they will realistically never buy. I have no doubt that there are many full frame users here that are capable of using full frame beyond the capacity of APSC, but my guess is that number is maximum 20% of full frame users, perhaps even 5 or 10%.

[ricktas]

What I am getting at is that most people here don’t need full frame.

But trying to argue that in a thread about a full frame camera is always going to cause division.

There are a lot of people that never realise the full potential of their camera, no matter what system it is based on (even phone cameras). Everyone should buy what they want to and enjoy using it. I for one am glad there are differing systems as it lets us each choose what we want. Imagine a world were there was only one camera manufacturer, and only one system, for everything from phones to medium format. We should rejoice in the variety, rather than put-down those who choose a different path to our own. I am pleased you have decided to embrace apsc and mirrorless, but let other embrace their own choices, and respect their choices. It is not illegal to own a full-frame camera, and people should be free to choose to do so.

[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 !

[MissionMan]

But trying to argue that in a thread about a full frame camera is always going to cause division.

There are a lot of people that never realise the full potential of their camera, no matter what system it is based on (even phone cameras). Everyone should buy what they want to and enjoy using it. I for one am glad there are differing systems as it lets us each choose what we want. Imagine a world were there was only one camera manufacturer, and only one system, for everything from phones to medium format. We should rejoice in the variety, rather than put-down those who choose a different path to our own. I am pleased you have decided to embrace apsc and mirrorless, but let other embrace their own choices, and respect their choices. It is not illegal to own a full-frame camera, and people should be free to choose to do so.

Hold on Rick, let's not forget this comment came from Arthur saying "People aren't moving from Full Frame to APSC" when I have more to substantiate it than his hunch and "anything who is switching from full frame to APSC hasn't thought it through" so my response were justified and I'm sorry to say that Arthur deserved to be called out.

I don't care what people buy. I don't care if they want to buy a medium format to take photos of their cat. BUT....don't tell me I haven't thought it through when i have gone from one system to another and expect not to get a sharp response! Having a full frame thread isn't a license to talk crap.

- - - Updated - - -

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 !

I strongly disagree and this comes back to Nikon vs other manufacturers, which is why I keep raising the issue of Nikon's lack of focus on APSC glass.

FOV isn't an APSC limitation, it's Nikon's limitation imposed on APSC. With other manufacturers you can get pro quality ultra wide APSC glass.

In essence, you just proved my point. You are being "forced" to go to full frame because of Nikon's limitations imposed on APSC glass.

[Cage]

Mission Man, you are way, way off topic.

If you want to do some Nikon bashing and show your love for APS-C and Fujifilm, start you own thread and stop hijacking this one.

[MissionMan]

Mission Man, you are way, way off topic.

If you want to do some Nikon bashing and show your love for APS-C and Fujifilm, start you own thread and stop hijacking this one.

Seriously? This had nothing to do with Nikon bashing so maybe you need to get the Nikon chip off your shoulder.

This started from:

a) Arthur proclaiming that the D850 was so amazing that Nikon didn't need to produce a full frame mirrorless.

I pointed out that mirrorless was never going to impact the $5000 D850 market as the mirrorless is targeted at the D600/D700 series, not the D850. This isn't Nikon bashing. It is a correct reflection of the market as it stands right now. If Nikon was to produce a full frame mirrorless, I highly doubt it would be targeted at the D850 market, it would be a D600 type of camera. So explain to me where this is bashing Nikon?

b) Arthur proclaiming that full frame users would be idiots for going to APSC.

Now if you seriously think this is "Nikon bashing" then perhaps you need to understand what Nikon bashing is. Nikon bashing is more about what you, Arthur and every other person has been doing in this thread complaining about Nikon's poor quality control, something I haven't been doing. Nikon bashing is NOT correcting incorrect statements or assumptions made by people with no data to back it up.

c) more recently someone saying that he is moving to full frame because of FOV

I rightly pointed out that FOV is not a APSC limitation, it is a Nikon APSC limitation.

So, thanks, but no thanks. I guess I will just have to bow out of every Nikon thread in future, god forbid I actually offend any of your poor Nikon fans (who incidentally seem to do more Nikon bashing yourselves) who need this camera to convince you that Nikon is still relevant, despite none of you wanting to buy it, which is strange because of your concerns about quality control. I guess what this means in future is that the Nikon threads have to be dedicated to a one sided debate which may not be correct because the Nikon fans here cannot actually handle it if someone throws out information that is contrary to your delicate opinions. That way, you don't actually have to worry about whether what you are saying is correct or not.

So I'll keep you happy and leave this Nikon debate, oops sorry, Nikon dictatorship I think is a better word.

[jim]

Following some serious thought I've been doing about anthropics recently, I am prepared to make the following declaration: I have a full frame camera and therefore everyone who does not have a full frame camera must be wrong.

I trust this settles the issue.

[arthurking83]

I suggest you go back and read my replies more carefully .. word being put into my mouth here. not really appreciated either!

What I said, was in response to MM's comment that Nikon desperately need APS-C pro glass(lenses).
What I said was that if a photographer was to base their decision to go back to APS-C solely on the provision of lens choices, it's illogical .. they don't really understand why they've done that.

Went on to give lens examples, based on the lens capability for each format. That some lenses are made in plastic and others' are covered with metal is no indication that the lens is pro, more durable or whatever(easy way to understand this is to read up Lens Rental blog.
Many instances of straight up metal bodies Sony lenses made primarily using plastic inside that wear/break/fatigue/cause them troubles .. this is metal bodied lenses!

Never called anyone an idiot .. especially an APS-C user since I am one myself!
Never said that the D850 was so amazing that Nikon didn't need a mirrorless. I said that I don't think Nikon need a mirrorless camera to make money, and I have said in other posts that they need to make good products backed up with no faults, and backed up with better customer relations! .. that will give them good profits in the long run, and customer loyalty.


WHAT I SAID:
Lets get one thing sorted straight up tho. Full frame does offer at least one major advantage over APS-C(and other cropped formats). For a given sensor pixel pitch(ie. number of pixels per square millimeter the full frame sensor gives you all of those cropped sensors combined, you get the choice of which one you'd prefer .. and that once you choose a cropped sensor, you can't uncrop it as you can crop a larger sensor!

What does this mean in a practicality sense: I can use a full frame 50Mp sensor(lets use Canon's 5Dsr as the example), crop to 22Mp APS-C, or 16Mp m4/3rds sensor.
Using this fabled 16mm f/1.4 lens as a guide, we know using the standard crop calculations, this equates to a 24mm f/1.8 lens on the full frame format. Back tracking a bit on sensor sizes, this requires a 12mm f/1 lens for m4/3 sensor.

The widest very fast aperture lens currently available for full format is the Sigma 20/1.4(been thinking of adding this one to my kit too for it's unusualness!)
This gives wide FOV and fast aperture. To get the same FOV plus DOF on the cropped formats require a 14mm f/1 lens on APS-C or a 10mm f/0.7 lens for m4/3rds .. quite clearly the types of lenses required to achieve similar results on full frame are getting beyond ridiculous now for the cropped formats. The full frame formats have been around a lot longer than the cropped formats, so it's only natural that more varied lens types exist for the larger formats. The 135 format has been the most popular film format ever .. and again it's only natural that it contain the largest number of lens types from all the manufacturers that ever made them.

Another big advantage of the full format over the cropped sensors I mentioned earlier, and that was that if the pixel density of the sensor is accommodating for it, you can crop the larger sensor to the same FOV as the smaller sensor.
This means weight savings for the larger format. Where most folks look at the obvious size differences of the smaller formats, they don't take the time to contemplate the overall package of lenses required to achieve FOV parity.

So the APS-C kit, we'll give it the 16mm f/1.4 and for the full frame kit we're going to give it the equiv 24/1.8 lens. They give close enough to the same FOV(actually wider according to lens specs from Fuji and Nikon respectively, but we'll ignore that point for now).
The point I'm making here is that while on APS-C you've only got the 16mm FOV which is equivalent to the 24mm FOV on the full frame, on the full frame you can crop to this same APS-C format .. this now gives you not only two different lens types, but also a zoom lens where a zoom lens hasn't been used. You don't have to crop to that APS-C format, you can crop to whatever format size you like, infinitely variable from APS-C's 16mm, all the way to 24mm.
That full frame 24mm lens on full frame, is a theoretical zoom lens if you use it as an APS-C lens as well as a full frame lens.
Alternatively if we use zoom lenses as comparatives, the combinations and permutations of lens FOV is even more mind boggling compared to those available in the cropped formats.
Something like the Nikon 14-24/2.8 becomes a 21-36/2.8 used in APS-C crop mode if you prefer.

So .. with the likes of these high density full frame cameras, which can crop to 20-ish Mp in APS-C mode, the APS-C format is becoming less relevant.
**Before you attack this comment!!! .. that doesn't' mean it's not relevant .. I said, it's becoming LESS relevant. lets get this fact straight and correct .. LESS relevant.
Reason is, taking the D500 as an example. it's APS-C frame gives 20Mp, a cropped D850 gives APS-C equiv of 20Mp. So you mount this massive 400/2.8 bird lens on the D850. It's a proper 400/2.8 FOV on the Fx camera, and it's also a 600/2.8 FOV equivalent on the same camera.
What I don't get on the APS-C D500 is the 400/2.8 ability .. I only get the 600/2.8 FOV ability .. etc etc .. to infinity(with other lenses).

So if I want 16mm on APS-C, I can have a 24mm lens full frame, but on full frame this also gives me a 36mm equivalent APS-C ability(plus any other crop ability you choose to have on APS-C as well).
So where you to want that same 24-36mm lens on APS-C, requires you to use a slower or larger zoom lens, or two lenses to achieve the same lens ability on the full frame camera body.
It's the same at the long end too with the 400mm example .. much more complex and in favor of the larger format sensor .. again!

Where you chose the APS-C format for the available lenses, now require you to add more lenses to that camera ... where the full frame camera owner doesn't need that extra weight ... nor the need to change lenses mid shoot.
Changing lenses mid shoot is almost a guarantee to miss shots.

That you chose Fuji APS-C format over Nikon's Fx camera was a personal choice for you. It seems to have worked for you.
I doubt that MissionMan chose an APS-C format, and decided that Fuji was the way to go forward from there. I think the choice was Fuji ... -> they make APS-C format gear so that's how it panned out.
That is, the Fuji camera appealed, it just so happens that they make APS-C sized gear only. I'm sure if Fuji had a 135 format camera body at a reasonable price, the choice would have been a lot more difficult.
We'll never know tho as that is simply not a choice to make.

I've kind'a waited for somethign like the D850 to come for a while now. If it isn't what I'm expecting(mainly the viewfinder), I may pass on it. The extra pixels will be a bonus but I can live without them(personally I'd have preferred to have seen something like 60-ish Mp). But in the overall scheme of thins, they make no difference to my choice.
The Fx format does tho, and is a major deciding factor for me.
The D500s' APS-C format wasn't as 'open to interpretation' for my liking. Yeah I could crop it, but I'm cropping a cropped format ... not really viable in the long term.
I made this choice based purely on physical properties, a bot of equivalence, and a lot on the possible variables .. not simply because APS-C is better worse, or that Fx is better or worse .. simply that Fx is more compliant for my future uses.

I need to reiterate again .. I've never called anyone, or any group of users idiots, least of all anyone that decides APS-C is a format for them. That assertion was made as an assumption by MissionMan due to what I elaborated on, and was misinterpreted by himself to mean something it was never meant to.

Side note: if I called anyone preferring an APS-C body an idiot then it'd be self deprecation on my part considering that I literally today! ... earlier this morning .. bought myself another APS-C camera and APS-C lens(thanks Kev!!)).
Now, I may sometimes come across to be an idiot(hey!.. take it easy peeps! ) .. I've been told that I look like an idiot(stupid hat I wear in the cold room at work) .. but I know I'm not an idiot for choosing a new APS-C camera and lens kit.

[MissionMan]

I suggest you go back and read my replies more carefully .. word being put into my mouth here. not really appreciated either!

What I said, was in response to MM's comment that Nikon desperately need APS-C pro glass(lenses).
What I said was that if a photographer was to base their decision to go back to APS-C solely on the provision of lens choices, it's illogical .. they don't really understand why they've done that.

Went on to give lens examples, based on the lens capability for each format. That some lenses are made in plastic and others' are covered with metal is no indication that the lens is pro, more durable or whatever(easy way to understand this is to read up Lens Rental blog.
Many instances of straight up metal bodies Sony lenses made primarily using plastic inside that wear/break/fatigue/cause them troubles .. this is metal bodied lenses!

Never called anyone an idiot .. especially an APS-C user since I am one myself!
Never said that the D850 was so amazing that Nikon didn't need a mirrorless. I said that I don't think Nikon need a mirrorless camera to make money, and I have said in other posts that they need to make good products backed up with no faults, and backed up with better customer relations! .. that will give them good profits in the long run, and customer loyalty.


WHAT I SAID:
Lets get one thing sorted straight up tho. Full frame does offer at least one major advantage over APS-C(and other cropped formats). For a given sensor pixel pitch(ie. number of pixels per square millimeter the full frame sensor gives you all of those cropped sensors combined, you get the choice of which one you'd prefer .. and that once you choose a cropped sensor, you can't uncrop it as you can crop a larger sensor!

What does this mean in a practicality sense: I can use a full frame 50Mp sensor(lets use Canon's 5Dsr as the example), crop to 22Mp APS-C, or 16Mp m4/3rds sensor.
Using this fabled 16mm f/1.4 lens as a guide, we know using the standard crop calculations, this equates to a 24mm f/1.8 lens on the full frame format. Back tracking a bit on sensor sizes, this requires a 12mm f/1 lens for m4/3 sensor.

The widest very fast aperture lens currently available for full format is the Sigma 20/1.4(been thinking of adding this one to my kit too for it's unusualness!)
This gives wide FOV and fast aperture. To get the same FOV plus DOF on the cropped formats require a 14mm f/1 lens on APS-C or a 10mm f/0.7 lens for m4/3rds .. quite clearly the types of lenses required to achieve similar results on full frame are getting beyond ridiculous now for the cropped formats. The full frame formats have been around a lot longer than the cropped formats, so it's only natural that more varied lens types exist for the larger formats. The 135 format has been the most popular film format ever .. and again it's only natural that it contain the largest number of lens types from all the manufacturers that ever made them.

Another big advantage of the full format over the cropped sensors I mentioned earlier, and that was that if the pixel density of the sensor is accommodating for it, you can crop the larger sensor to the same FOV as the smaller sensor.
This means weight savings for the larger format. Where most folks look at the obvious size differences of the smaller formats, they don't take the time to contemplate the overall package of lenses required to achieve FOV parity.

So the APS-C kit, we'll give it the 16mm f/1.4 and for the full frame kit we're going to give it the equiv 24/1.8 lens. They give close enough to the same FOV(actually wider according to lens specs from Fuji and Nikon respectively, but we'll ignore that point for now).
The point I'm making here is that while on APS-C you've only got the 16mm FOV which is equivalent to the 24mm FOV on the full frame, on the full frame you can crop to this same APS-C format .. this now gives you not only two different lens types, but also a zoom lens where a zoom lens hasn't been used. You don't have to crop to that APS-C format, you can crop to whatever format size you like, infinitely variable from APS-C's 16mm, all the way to 24mm.
That full frame 24mm lens on full frame, is a theoretical zoom lens if you use it as an APS-C lens as well as a full frame lens.
Alternatively if we use zoom lenses as comparatives, the combinations and permutations of lens FOV is even more mind boggling compared to those available in the cropped formats.
Something like the Nikon 14-24/2.8 becomes a 21-36/2.8 used in APS-C crop mode if you prefer.

So .. with the likes of these high density full frame cameras, which can crop to 20-ish Mp in APS-C mode, the APS-C format is becoming less relevant.
**Before you attack this comment!!! .. that doesn't' mean it's not relevant .. I said, it's becoming LESS relevant. lets get this fact straight and correct .. LESS relevant.
Reason is, taking the D500 as an example. it's APS-C frame gives 20Mp, a cropped D850 gives APS-C equiv of 20Mp. So you mount this massive 400/2.8 bird lens on the D850. It's a proper 400/2.8 FOV on the Fx camera, and it's also a 600/2.8 FOV equivalent on the same camera.
What I don't get on the APS-C D500 is the 400/2.8 ability .. I only get the 600/2.8 FOV ability .. etc etc .. to infinity(with other lenses).

So if I want 16mm on APS-C, I can have a 24mm lens full frame, but on full frame this also gives me a 36mm equivalent APS-C ability(plus any other crop ability you choose to have on APS-C as well).
So where you to want that same 24-36mm lens on APS-C, requires you to use a slower or larger zoom lens, or two lenses to achieve the same lens ability on the full frame camera body.
It's the same at the long end too with the 400mm example .. much more complex and in favor of the larger format sensor .. again!

Where you chose the APS-C format for the available lenses, now require you to add more lenses to that camera ... where the full frame camera owner doesn't need that extra weight ... nor the need to change lenses mid shoot.
Changing lenses mid shoot is almost a guarantee to miss shots.

That you chose Fuji APS-C format over Nikon's Fx camera was a personal choice for you. It seems to have worked for you.
I doubt that MissionMan chose an APS-C format, and decided that Fuji was the way to go forward from there. I think the choice was Fuji ... -> they make APS-C format gear so that's how it panned out.
That is, the Fuji camera appealed, it just so happens that they make APS-C sized gear only. I'm sure if Fuji had a 135 format camera body at a reasonable price, the choice would have been a lot more difficult.
We'll never know tho as that is simply not a choice to make.

I've kind'a waited for somethign like the D850 to come for a while now. If it isn't what I'm expecting(mainly the viewfinder), I may pass on it. The extra pixels will be a bonus but I can live without them(personally I'd have preferred to have seen something like 60-ish Mp). But in the overall scheme of thins, they make no difference to my choice.
The Fx format does tho, and is a major deciding factor for me.
The D500s' APS-C format wasn't as 'open to interpretation' for my liking. Yeah I could crop it, but I'm cropping a cropped format ... not really viable in the long term.
I made this choice based purely on physical properties, a bot of equivalence, and a lot on the possible variables .. not simply because APS-C is better worse, or that Fx is better or worse .. simply that Fx is more compliant for my future uses.

I need to reiterate again .. I've never called anyone, or any group of users idiots, least of all anyone that decides APS-C is a format for them. That assertion was made as an assumption by MissionMan due to what I elaborated on, and was misinterpreted by himself to mean something it was never meant to.

Side note: if I called anyone preferring an APS-C body an idiot then it'd be self deprecation on my part considering that I literally today! ... earlier this morning .. bought myself another APS-C camera and APS-C lens(thanks Kev!!)).
Now, I may sometimes come across to be an idiot(hey!.. take it easy peeps! ) .. I've been told that I look like an idiot(stupid hat I wear in the cold room at work) .. but I know I'm not an idiot for choosing a new APS-C camera and lens kit.

Maybe if you bothered to keep your responses to a length that is remotely readable we might actually be able to read the whole thing or remember what you wrote, but unfortunately every time you reply we get a book. Yes, you can take that as constructive criticism because I don't have the time to read the thesis on the molecular breakup of polymer lens construction you just wrote.

But what I will say is the next time you and the rest of the guys jump on a Sony A9 thread and bash the camera like you did previously (and yes, there were plenty of you in this thread), I'll be sure to remind you guys that it's a Sony thread and you aren't invited.

Over and out.

[ricktas]

So, back to our regular feature. The D850 looks mighty fine on paper.

[Cage]

So, back to our regular feature......

We can only hope.

[Steve Axford]

I'm curious if anyone here is thinking of buying one.

[swifty]

I'm thinking about it.
But for me, it'll coincide with a bunch of other tech upgrades so I'll likely have to wait til next year. It'll also give me more ops to familiar myself with the camera before deciding it's the right model to upgrade to.

[ricktas]

My D800 works just fine, but if I had a need to upgrade the 850 looks good.