Do the claimed specs make you go WOW! .. or

[arthurking83]

Really interesting post. Arthur.

I had no idea that there was that huge penalty for using 14-bit raws on any camera, let alone anything so recent.

Yup! ... although 10 year old in Digital camera terms isn't really recent.
But yep. Just a design limitation from that sensor .. which I think was also Sony built.
The issue was the number of channels that the readout system used. Not enough.
D3's and D700s sensor used off sensor ADC which allowed them more channels to move more data, so it was never bit-speed limited in the same way.

(d) I also religiously download the manual of any camera I am considering and read it in detail (650 pages in the case of the 5D IV!) before I order. If Canon put misleading or untrue claims in their advertising, I'd never know about it anyway 'coz I get my detailed information from the manual. (And from trustworthy sites like TDP...

Same here. but a lack of interest at the moment to see how it's going. I like to push buttons while I read.
Actually a small trivial limitation I've noted in the D850 that could be important at my end. It relates to their feature for film digitisation.
When I first saw that, my ears pricked up. But then duly sagged again when it said jpg format only.

And my first thought was why such trivial silliness.
Colour reversal would be easily implemented on a Nikon via the use of Picture Controls .. I can almost do it on the PC, but can't upload the correctly working Picture Control to the camera .. and like I said, I like raw and 14 bits of them too.
So Nikon could very easily remove that stupid film capture feature, allow the camera to set up a colour reversal setting instead and let the user(implied to be more advanced simply due to the nature of the camera body!) she can do it herself without some dummy mode feature!

Like Thom Hogan sometimes implies .. (and like the Live view operation of the D300) .. good idea done so laughably dumb by Nikon .. again!

The difference between my idea of Picture Controls and their built in feature method is that digitising film is not something any photographer would do on a regular basis every day/week/month/even year!.
It may be a one off thing here and there or on the rare occasions that ... (Nikon implement a good idea in a well engineered method! )

With my Picture Control method, you would set up a film capture/reversal setting, save it to the PC and only load it up into the camera if and when needed. Otherwise it's not there to clutter up firmware space needlessly. More flash memory space for stuff that helps more of the time!
Nikon have made the feature a permanent distraction .. like video for you. Nice to have access to it every green moon, but do you want it there every day? in the way all the time?


BTW: The gripes I've relayed up there are pretty trivial in comparison to Sony A9 that other thread that twigged my memory about. They claimed 20fps but didn't mention that's only capable in electronic shutter mode.
Eshutter has it's limitations re exposure on all camera sensor comparisons I've seen to date. Maybe 1 stop .. maybe more.
And from memory if mechanical shutter is used, then that 20fps drops down to 10fps .. somewhat less than Canons 13 and Nikons 12 .. or whatever they currently are.
So many made a loud hoorah when the Sony claimed a pseudo crown as the speed king, but no one bothered to compare apples with apples, and introduced the concept of oranges into the mix.

[Steve Axford]

BTW: The gripes I've relayed up there are pretty trivial in comparison to Sony A9 that other thread that twigged my memory about. They claimed 20fps but didn't mention that's only capable in electronic shutter mode.
Eshutter has it's limitations re exposure on all camera sensor comparisons I've seen to date. Maybe 1 stop .. maybe more.
And from memory if mechanical shutter is used, then that 20fps drops down to 10fps .. somewhat less than Canons 13 and Nikons 12 .. or whatever they currently are.
So many made a loud hoorah when the Sony claimed a pseudo crown as the speed king, but no one bothered to compare apples with apples, and introduced the concept of oranges into the mix.

I suspect that using a DSLR for very rapid shooting would be effectively impossible. The A9 can take about 200 frames continuously and you can see what you are taking through the viewfinder the whole time. That is, you can track your subject and take pictures at the same time. You can't do that if you use a mechanical shutter and mirror. At best you see a very degraded, flickery, image and at worst you see nothing at all.
The use of fully electronic shutter is a huge advantage. Go into a store and try it out. It is very impressive.

[arthurking83]

I suspect that using a DSLR for very rapid shooting would be effectively impossible.

Yep, I get that. they'd have to convert to SLT type mirror designs.

..... You can't do that if you use a mechanical shutter and mirror. ....

For some folks a mechanical shutter may be an important consideration, and the microsecond blackout not so much.

My point isn't to belittle the ability of the A9 here.
More so like the D300 disappointed me in how it did(or didn't) do some things .. is that I wander into a shop and not knowing much about the A9 I decide that 20fps is what I really need.
But I'm a geek and I also want IQ and file malleability to be as good as I can get it too.
Through testing I discover for myself too that Eshutter loses a bit of dynamic range, and I prefer higher quality raw files(ie. refer back to my D300 14bit issues above) .. so I set the A9 to mechanical shutter .... and I now no longer shoot at 20fps as my initial desire lead me to the A9 in the first place
Not being a geeky type photographer and hence browsing forums and other sites that discuss camera gear in some depth .. my WOW factor now fizzles into a series of ZZZZs

ps. I pesronally have no desire to shoot at any more than about 3fps. This is all hypothetical, for highlighting disappointing aspects from any gear.


Other disappointing bit of gear for me was that 105mm f/2.8 VR lens. For general imaging it's very nice. About as good bokeh as you can get, perfect for portraits and stuff .. but for macro(1:1) is very average. closeups(i.e not 1:1) it's OK.
Also I'm not totally happy with the Nikon SB800 flash either. It works well, just the interface to switch from on board to wireless modes is extremely clunky.
Another big let down for me was the Nikon wired intervalometer MC-36 .. waste of money on all fronts. The only way to stop it depleting batteries was to remove the batteries. ie. you can't turn it off and it has no auto off ability. You have to remove the batteries to turn it off! how idiotic is that! Needles to say I sold mine at whatever someone was willing to pay for it, years ago.