# Official release of Nikon D850



## Chaitanya (Aug 24, 2017)

45MP BSI sensor, 4k video, 7/9fps and cheaper than 5D mk 4. Certainly looks impressive.
https://www.dpreview.com/news/4840194993/nikon-d850-offers-45-7mp-bsi-fx-format-sensor-7-fps-bursts-4k-video


----------



## nda (Aug 24, 2017)

Yes, very impressive..


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 24, 2017)

Everything canon should and could have put into the 5d mark iv but didnt because they are stingy..aside from the 8k timelapse and stacking thing.


----------



## Ryananthony (Aug 24, 2017)

Too bad you need to purchase a D5 battery for the grip to get 9 frames a second.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 24, 2017)

Great news! Hopefully Canon will consider lowering prices for 5D IV a tiny bit to keep competition at bay. 
All I need is my 5D IV. I win with Canon mid to long term in many ways. Competition is good for us consumers.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 24, 2017)

This is a brilliant camera for Nikon especially in light of the negative press they have received of late.
An excellent feature set at a killer price.

Clearly a scary competitor for Canon. Lucky it doesn't take EF lenses.


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 24, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> Too bad you need to purchase a D5 battery for the grip to get 9 frames a second.



My first impression was somewhat impressed by the 9 frames per second, but I'd guess the majority of people with D5 batteries are gonna be choosing their D5 for high speed assignments anyway. 

Will be curious to see what kind of frame rate the 5ds2 ends up with now, since the 5DS shoots higher resolutions than the d850 while still only using compact flash. I could see a Cfast 5DS2 shooting similar speeds even with like 75 megapixels.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 24, 2017)

So in the same tradition of grumbling that CR generates over what Canon cameras don't have, what's this one lacking?

Jack


----------



## xps (Aug 24, 2017)

What an lovely body.

What would I like to see in an coming Canon competitor too:

4k & 8k timelapse
Slow Motion - capture Full HD 1080p at up to 120 fps
Tilting LCD Touchscreen
Silent Shooter -users can shoot in complete silence with live-view
Widest and Brightest Optical viewfinder
Phenomenal Battery Performance - 1,840 shots at full resolution or approximately 70 minutes of video
Illuminated Buttons !
Focus Stacking !
Focus Peaking

And the price.... (that is rumored about 3800€)


Well done Nikon!


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2017)

How long is it since I heard 7fps described as 'astoundingly fast'? 
That whole first paragraph is filled with so many superlatives, that if it were not Nikon I would immediately walk the opposite direction.

It looks like a great competitor to the 5D4 and the one negative I can see is that it has only 15 points sensitive to f8. Many fewer than the 5D4.

It looks like it is cheaper than the 5D4 but is $200 really that significant?


----------



## tomscott (Aug 24, 2017)

7 and 9 FPS is impressive considering its pushing 45mp! 51 frame buffer of 14-bit lossless RAW capture. Wonder how long the write times will be!

The 5DMKIV is rated at 17/21 and 1DXMKII 59/73 frame buffer. There must be come powerful processing in the D850.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2017)

Oh, dear. If they can't even print the Nikon logo properly, what will happen to their brand spanking new release 

https://www.dpreview.com/news/6447615392/nikon-delays-100th-anniversary-d5-and-d500-over-logo-printing-issue

;D :


----------



## hambergler (Aug 24, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> So in the same tradition of grumbling that CR generates over what Canon cameras don't have, what's this one lacking?
> 
> Jack



Would like a flip screen and GPS but otherwise this thing seems like a dream "no compromise" camera.

Been waiting for the 5d mark iv to drop in price a little before I pull the trigger to replace my 5D3 but I can't help but lust after this one. I would easily drop 5K if I could get this with an EF mount.


----------



## canon1dxman (Aug 24, 2017)

hambergler said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > So in the same tradition of grumbling that CR generates over what Canon cameras don't have, what's this one lacking?
> ...



Just after I bought my 1DX2, Park Cameras in UK had their yearly open days. First 6 customers who wanted one.....£2500.


----------



## Mancubus (Aug 24, 2017)

As I said on another thread, Canon will answer this. Oh yeah, in 2021 with a 5D Mark V with:

- 36 Megapixels, with a mandatory AA filter so you don't get all the sharpness
- Some improved video, but some last century codec to screw you
- 8 fps (as long as the battery is full or almost)
- No BSI sensor, who would need that?
- No stabilised sensor too
- an ancient regular SD slot
- Some super innovative feature like the dual pixel raw that does absolutely nothing usable
- No AF auto adjustment, if you're missing focus it's your fault, never the camera/lens

MAYBE we get a tilting screen and focus stacking...MAYBE

Canon didn't see my money with the 5D4 and with the way things are going I might still keep my 5D3 for a very long time.

I'd make the move today if I could trade my gear for equivalent Nikon lenses and flashes without losing too much money.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> As I said on another thread, Canon will answer this. Oh yeah, in 2021 with a 5D Mark V with:
> 
> - 36 Megapixels, with a mandatory AA filter so you don't get all the sharpness
> - Some improved video, but some last century codec to screw you
> ...



You mean 7fps to compete with Nikon's 'astounding' 7fps or...wait for it...9fps if you spend another $500?
No stabilised sensor when Nikon doesn't have it either?
No Auto adjustment when Nikon has one that no-one finds useful? And where does Canon say 'miss focus its your fault' when they build in AFMA? 
Dual pixel raw that does nothing useful but everyone says is great for video?

As for in-camera bracketing - they have not only bought in Sony's sensors but it is looking like they have also bought into Sony's ethos of 'throw in all these fancy things that very few people will use and wow people with the spec sheet' in an attempt to recover dropping market share.

I am not saying the new camera is not looking good (it really is) but impact on the market is yet to be seen n posts like yours are more about gear envy than what is actually useful. The fact you are not willing to take the hit on selling your Canon gear shows how important these features are in the grand scheme of things - but if you are so pessimistic about Canon's future, if you look at the added enjoyment you will get from owning Nikon over so many years is surely worth it.


----------



## hne (Aug 24, 2017)

Too bad the AF when recording video is fit for the 90's.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 24, 2017)

Looks like a good camera.
The betterthe competitors are the more Canon need to respond. I see this as good in the long run. I don't I'll ever switch to Nikon so I need Canon to stay motivated and improving. (Sony are more tempting they are really improving their frame rate on that new camera. Just lacking the long lens to go with it yet but they are probably in the pipeline. I'm not a great fan of the 7DII. I do a lot of sport and frame rate is a huge asset. 20 FPS would capture a lot of amazing action shots. 10 FPS is good but not fast enough to capture all the action.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 24, 2017)

here we go, ladies and Gentlemen:

https://www.camerastore.com.au/nikon-d850-body-only.html

Price: A$5,299.00 body only.


----------



## ErlendS (Aug 24, 2017)

I am a 5D IV user with lots of Canon glass and equipment. I can't help feeling that the D850 is far better in all aspects (except DualPixel AF), and at a lower price point. The problem for Canon is that the consequence of the somewhat poor (especially video) specs of the 5D IV will make it impossible for Canon to really lift their EOS line before they release improved versions of their top notch EOS cameras (1D/5D). I really feel that Canon has screwed me, when they chose not to include technology they actually possess and hoping that I will buy something from the C-line in addition. As I am only an enthusiast wanting a good hybrid camera, that will not happen. Espcially when you can get more complete hybrid cameras from the competition. This is only leading me one step closer to switch to Nikon or Sony. If Canon do not see the writing on the wall soon, I do believe that they might become a victim of their own commercial tactics.


----------



## bsbeamer (Aug 24, 2017)

This camera simply looks amazing on paper for a fantastic price. If I wasn't so invested in the EF mount, it would be on my maybe switch to list along with Sony. I WANT to stay with Canon, but I also want to be making a wise spend of my money.

The 5D IV basically offers DX crop 4K, but not the ability to switch to a DX mode for stills. That sounds like a simple firmware update that could be offered easily. (DX crop on FX has been a feature Nikon lovers have loved for years.)

Other than that, I cannot see how Canon can "compete" on paper against this beast without upping their game. Good luck to Nikon, I hope this competition benefits us all.


----------



## djack41 (Aug 24, 2017)

Nikon's announcement pales in comparison to Canon's exciting, long awaited roll-out of the 6D Mk2 and the Rebel T6. In a couple of years Canon might even update the 7D Mk2 with cutting edge features like a tilt screen.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 24, 2017)

How many of us would have purchased this camera if it had a Canon label on it rather than Nikon. I would have. If it does well in the market, Canon will take notice, but they are not fast responders. We will be waiting quite awhile.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2017)

ErlendS said:


> If Canon do not see the writing on the wall soon, I do believe that they might become a victim of their own commercial tactics.



Oh, they've seen the writing - they clearly do not place much emphasis on it. As long as you keep buying Canon you are telling them they are doing just fine. 

The 5DIV has been out for less than a year, so it is a recent acquisition for you - why do you suddenly feel 'screwed'? Why did you buy into the second best camera in the line-up while knowing it was so pitifully below your requirements? Why did you not buy a Sony with an adapter for Canon lenses? That would have been cheaper than the 5DIV.

I am not being awkward here, but I am genuinely interested in the thinking of someone who so clearly disappointed in Canon as a company yet still buys their gear.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2017)

bsbeamer said:


> This camera simply looks amazing on paper for a fantastic price. If I wasn't so invested in the EF mount, it would be on my maybe switch to list along with Sony.



You can switch - buy a Sony A7/A9 with an adapter. What is stopping you? That will send more of a message than complaining on a forum.


----------



## padam (Aug 24, 2017)

bsbeamer said:


> This camera simply looks amazing on paper for a fantastic price. If I wasn't so invested in the EF mount, it would be on my maybe switch to list along with Sony. I WANT to stay with Canon, but I also want to be making a wise spend of my money.
> 
> The 5D IV basically offers DX crop 4K, but not the ability to switch to a DX mode for stills. That sounds like a simple firmware update that could be offered easily. (DX crop on FX has been a feature Nikon lovers have loved for years.)
> 
> Other than that, I cannot see how Canon can "compete" on paper against this beast without upping their game. Good luck to Nikon, I hope this competition benefits us all.



They will release the 5DSR II next year, but their market segmentation is different, it will more expensive and more specialized (so probably even more megapixels but not as much features).


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 24, 2017)

oh, many and many. Canon label means also reliability, quality of workmanship, first rate support, usability, colour magic and resale value going forward. this sets two brands apart for people that value mid to long term benefits of a system the most.



BeenThere said:


> How many of us would have purchased this camera if it had a Canon label on it rather than Nikon.


----------



## OSOK (Aug 24, 2017)

The D850 is very impressive. Incredible feature set. Only the 5DSR will have a slight megapixel advantage but that will be lost due to higher noise and lower dynamic range. This body beats the Canon offerings with the sole exception of dual pixel AF.

Priced at $3,300 ..this is a killer camera body.


----------



## ykn123 (Aug 24, 2017)

I'm pretty happy with my camera setup (5DM4, 5DSR, 1DX) but of course this is going to be a great camera , not just on paper. Glad for the Nikon shooters they continue to get fine cameras too. I would even buy/try one , just to have both worlds, but the cost of additional decent glass just prevents me from doing so. The only thing that pisses me off really is the price politics of Canon recently. The announced pricing for the D850 is 3799 Euro while the new 5DM4 was above 4000 Euro and even now sells at 3899 Euro from camera stores here. I think the D850 has some features that make it a more enhanced/complete camera , well it's newer. But none of the features really make's me thinking about selling my Canon stuff, just the pricing these days is not fair on the Canon side.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 24, 2017)

I agree with others who noted that Nikon is going all out on D850 with price set on the verge of desperation. 
Survival mode comes to mind. I recon they sell this camera $500 short at the very least. I would say that if it was priced at $3799, it still sells just fine.



ykn123 said:


> ....just the pricing these days is not fair on the Canon side.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 24, 2017)

He did say 2021 though..... Basically too little to late to the point that it stays outdated


Mikehit said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > As I said on another thread, Canon will answer this. Oh yeah, in 2021 with a 5D Mark V with:
> ...


----------



## snoke (Aug 24, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> It looks like it is cheaper than the 5D4 but is $200 really that significant?



How much beer you buy for $200?

Price of D850 + memory cards = price of 5D4
etc.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 24, 2017)

Yall say this but competition in specs doesnt motivate Canon it is sales.


Hector1970 said:


> Looks like a good camera.
> The betterthe competitors are the more Canon need to respond. I see this as good in the long run. I don't I'll ever switch to Nikon so I need Canon to stay motivated and improving. (Sony are more tempting they are really improving their frame rate on that new camera. Just lacking the long lens to go with it yet but they are probably in the pipeline. I'm not a great fan of the 7DII. I do a lot of sport and frame rate is a huge asset. 20 FPS would capture a lot of amazing action shots. 10 FPS is good but not fast enough to capture all the action.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2017)

I hear there's an office pool going at Canon HQ on the timing and nature of the first recall notice for the D850.


----------



## snoke (Aug 24, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I agree with others who noted that Nikon is going all out on D850 with price set on the verge of desperation.
> Survival mode comes to mind. I recon they sell this camera $500 short at the very least. I would say that if it was priced at $3799, it still sells just fine.



How you know desperate?

How everyone know D850 "cheap"?

Canon staff discount is 33%. What 5D4 price look like minus 33%?

If D850 price make 5D4 price lower, who complain? Anyone?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2017)

RayValdez360 said:


> He did say 2021 though..... Basically too little to late to the point that it stays outdated



SO you are saying Nikon will have another D8xx model before 2021?
He criticsed Canon attitude as 'if you are missing focus it is your fault, yet Canon have AFMA in their cmaeras already so clearly they do not think that. And the auto-AFMA Nikon have is well known as unreliable enough to be little more than a gimmick. 
He claimed dual pixel is useless - yet every review says it is not.

So even if the Canon stays as it does until 2021 (which was a massive assumption), unless you think Nikon will have a new D8xx body before 2021 the gap will remain what it is now. i.e. not very much.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2017)

snoke said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like it is cheaper than the 5D4 but is $200 really that significant?
> ...



Do I wish the 5D4 were $200 less? Sure. But why stop at $200 - why not £400, or $1,000. In which case the D850 is overpriced.

If the price difference is not enough to make people switch, it is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## smithcon (Aug 24, 2017)

My hope is that Canon DOES feel lots of heat from dragging their feet and decides to compete in the market on more than their market share alone. I have a big investment in Canon glass and I cannot tell you how thrilled I would be if Canon would create a body as compelling as the D850 for landscapes, studio work, and occasional action shooting. For now, I have stopped investing in the Canon EOS system as I can get buy with my trusty 6D and have most of the lenses I need, although a good wide zoom was in my purchase plans until recently. I do occasionally rent other lenses, and even the 1DX II for special action occasions, from my local shop. 

Nobody has come out with my dream camera yet -- the D850 gets much closer with IQ and speed combo, along with electronic shutter option, if it lives up to it's promises (and I think odds are that it will). But I would still like hardware OTIS and the now-unfounded rumors of the hybrid EVF really had me salivating. Always thought I would hate EVFs until I used a really good one for a day last fall (A7R II), and had a chance to play with the great one in the A9 recently. For those that have not tried a good one, I highjly recommend checking one out -- not only can you get a much better idea of exposure without relying on the LCD screen, but you can also chimp and change any camera setting (assuming the camera maker has it's act together) without removiung the camera from your eye. I don't know if I'm ready to abandon OVF altogether -- a hybrid would be perfect. I would email Canon my bank account numbers if they came out with a body with the capabilities of the D850, or perhaps even better with a DSLR with the capabilities of the A99II.

I *don't* want to switch systems, mainly because of my lens investments and my happiness with Canon ergonomics. But I do hope Canon wakes up and stops being happy following the pack on many aspects that affect the photography experience, namely IQ and tech that makes gathering difficult images more possible and less inconvenient. I have tasted the other tech, and they provide very useful advantages that sadly Canon seems to ignore.


----------



## CanonGuy (Aug 24, 2017)

Waiting for October a7iii announcement and keeping an eye on the d850 reviews. Either of these two will be my next body. Done with canon and didn't upgrade my 5d3 after renting 5d4 for two weddings. Exciting time!


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2017)

smithcon said:


> But I do hope Canon wakes up and stops being happy following the pack on many aspects that affect the photography experience, namely IQ and tech that makes gathering difficult images more possible and less inconvenient. I have tasted the other tech, and they provide very useful advantages that sadly Canon seems to ignore.



And so continues the meme. 
So many people assume the only developments that matter are pixels and DR. I would argue the other direction - how can Sony be so incompetent as a designer to give us a camera with ergonomics that even many Sony owners say is far from ideal. Surely it is easier to develop a decent interface than it is to design and build a new type of sensor. As for making a camera aimed at sports and wildlife and yet not deliver a range of zooms those photographers find most useful. And aiming for that market with a pitiful after sales service...that is a bigger failure than anything Canon commit by tnot including 4k.

The sensors in the 5D4 and 1Dx2 are so close to the Sony/Nikon in real terms as to be not a differentiator in practical terms for all but the most demanding photographers.

For me, Canon have got their priorities right. Others disagree. But to say they are 'happy following the pack' is facile.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 24, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > He did say 2021 though..... Basically too little to late to the point that it stays outdated
> ...


 You know his post was sarcasm or a joke. He is just saying what I said. Canon does too little to improve compared to the competition while not even being up to their standards in features while at the same time they have long periods of time between updates. I honestly use canon for reliability but I would love for them one day to make my life easier with more features like a usable 4k, a high MP camera with modern DR. Maybe an AF assist light so i dont need a flash in low light. 2sd cards or a better format slots because CF is on it's way out the door.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 24, 2017)

Sorry, English please. 



snoke said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with others who noted that Nikon is going all out on D850 with price set on the verge of desperation.
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Aug 24, 2017)

First, it looks like a great camera. No reason to deny that.

Second, don't assume that Nikon is focused on Canon. They are seriously threatened by Sony and need to protect their Number Two position in the market. That is the most urgent need. If they can cut into Canon sales a little, so much the better. But this is designed to stop Sony from gaining market share. 

Third, this probably bodes very well for the next Canons in the lineup: The 5DS(r) and the 7DIII. The problem for Canon is that the 5D series is built on the idea of sharing the same basic body, so I would not expect a tilt screen or anything that requires the 5Ds to have a different body from the 5DIV.

I'm guessing a 28mp 7DIII and a 70mp 5Ds.

I really like the idea of a battery grip that uses the 1DX II battery. That would solve a lot of problems. Hoping for a 7DIII with such a grip and a CFast slot -- 16 fps here we come!

And yes, Canon does need to improve its autofocus system, so I'm also hoping for incremental improvements in autofocus on the 7DIII.


----------



## foo (Aug 24, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> It looks like it is cheaper than the 5D4 but is $200 really that significant?



depends on where in the world you are - usual nonesense. 

Here in the UK, the D850 is up for preorders at £3499 at main dealers. 5D4 was £3599 at launch a year ago, now £3349. Guess things will be worse if you're buying it in euros.


----------



## CanonGuy (Aug 24, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Sorry, English please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is it hard for you to understand what he's trying to say? Can you write French/Mandarin fluently? Was your comment necessary?


----------



## foo (Aug 24, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I really like the idea of a battery grip that uses the 1DX II battery. That would solve a lot of problems. Hoping for a 7DIII with such a grip and a CFast slot -- 16 fps here we come!



How does it work out if you don't already have a 1DX2 ? Looking at the D850, the cumulative cost of grip plus D5's battery plus a charger is going to hurt. Different if you already have a D5, but if you do then you may not care about getting the D850 up to 9fps?

As for the CFast slot, I'd prefer not. Looks like CF, CFast, XQD etc will all get superceded by CFexpress. As CFast is based on SATA, which is no longer being developed, it may be better to try to defer putting in a card type that's essentially already dead. Not sure if CFexpress is far enough along though, but I've certainly wondered if that's why the 5D4 didn't add CFast.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2017)

foo said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like it is cheaper than the 5D4 but is $200 really that significant?
> ...


What 'nonsense'?


----------



## Fatalv (Aug 24, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> So in the same tradition of grumbling that CR generates over what Canon cameras don't have, what's this one lacking?
> 
> Jack



It's lacking the Canon label/reliability, EF Mount, and DPAF. Add those three and take my money! ;D


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 24, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, English please.
> ...



I agree, let's encourage those with ESL to contribute their technical expertise and go easy on/skip the language criticism. I full understood and if I didn't I could ask for clarification.

Jack


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 24, 2017)

No, I did not understand what he was trying to say. I really tried. Hence my response. Secondly, the way he usually comes across sounds a bit rude. Don't you think? I do not generally appreciate when people jump at me despite my comment was merely an observation rather than statement. 



CanonGuy said:


> Is it hard for you to understand what he's trying to say? Can you write French/Mandarin fluently? Was your comment necessary?


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 24, 2017)

Along with the D500, Nikon has now put some distance between itself and Canon's offerings with the D850. 

I'm not moving from Canon as a) I've heavily invested in it financially and b) I believe it to be the best system for macro photography but I have to be honest and say that I am envious of the strides other manufacturers are making with their camera bodies. 

Performance wise, Canons are less than when it comes to tracking (I think Nikon's 3D is better) and for what may be the best part of 6 years, sensor performance. 
Yes, I fully believe Canon's lenses are better than Nikon's are overall but the 6Dii and 5Div seem very tame and limp versus their Nikon counterparts.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2017)

Sabaki said:


> Along with the D500, Nikon has now put some distance between itself and Canon's offerings with the D850.
> 
> I'm not moving from Canon as a) I've heavily invested in it financially and b) I believe it to be the best system for macro photography but I have to be honest and say that I am envious of the strides other manufacturers are making with their camera bodies.
> 
> ...



As a matter of interest, are you taken by the totality of functions added but not use them, or would you actually use them. When I ask 'use them' I mean more than 'thats nice I will give it a go'. I would definitely be in the latter camp but for my day to day stuff apart from the sensor it does not really hold many advantages for me over the 5D4.


----------



## woodman411 (Aug 24, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> Waiting for October a7iii announcement and keeping an eye on the d850 reviews. Either of these two will be my next body. Done with canon and didn't upgrade my 5d3 after renting 5d4 for two weddings. Exciting time!



Not sure if you read this, it's from a pro who went from Canon to Sony and back to Canon again (primarily with the a7r2 bodies, but I think many issues persist): https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59526785


----------



## bmwzimmer (Aug 24, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I hear there's an office pool going at Canon HQ on the timing and nature of the first recall notice for the D850.



At least their last few models haven't had any recalls yet (D5, D500, D7500, D5600). Hopefully they got their QC sorted...


----------



## CanonGuy (Aug 25, 2017)

woodman411 said:


> CanonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Waiting for October a7iii announcement and keeping an eye on the d850 reviews. Either of these two will be my next body. Done with canon and didn't upgrade my 5d3 after renting 5d4 for two weddings. Exciting time!
> ...



Once the a7iii is out, I'll try that with Metabone adaptor. If the keeper rate is bellow my expectation due to af issue, I'll get the d850 and 50 Art. Either ways, canon won't get my $$$ till they take the lead on innovation. 

I think I mentioned in one of my previous post that it's not like my 5d3 is failing me or 5d4 won't be enough for my need. But I will never support a company with my $ who's just playing catch up game and playing it bad. Whose sole intention is to maximize milking rather than taking the industry ahead. I'll always support a company who's innovating. So yah, enough with canon. At least for me.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2017)

foo said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I really like the idea of a battery grip that uses the 1DX II battery. That would solve a lot of problems. Hoping for a 7DIII with such a grip and a CFast slot -- 16 fps here we come!
> ...



Nothing says you'd have to buy the grip. You could choose to continue to use the LP E6. But having more power could not only open the door to a higher and more sustained frame rate, but would also help drive the autofocus with certain lenses. 

It's a bit early to predict the demise of Cfast. Canon isn't the only manufacturer using the cards. Adding Cfast to a 7D would help grow the market.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 25, 2017)

unfocused said:


> It's a bit early to predict the demise of Cfast. Canon isn't the only manufacturer using the cards. Adding Cfast to a 7D would help grow the market.



I was lukewarm about CFast in the 1DX MkII, I hate mixed slots and would far rather one or the other, I wish Canon had done a Nikon and offered two versions one with dual CF and one with dual CFast slots. But now I have used CFast with a thunderbolt card reader damn am I sold! The workflow is so much faster it is ridiculous.

As for CFast's demise, well XQD has already effectively died so what choices are there now? And let's not forget there are a lot of video cameras out there that use them and those users aren't going away.


----------



## Talys (Aug 25, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I agree with others who noted that Nikon is going all out on D850 with price set on the verge of desperation.
> Survival mode comes to mind. I recon they sell this camera $500 short at the very least. I would say that if it was priced at $3799, it still sells just fine.



It's sad when an apparently awesome body has to be flogged to entice people to switch. The idea, of course, is that even if they barely break even or lose a little on the body, it's all good, because no matter what, people need to buy a few lenses.


----------



## -pekr- (Aug 25, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> Waiting for October a7iii announcement and keeping an eye on the d850 reviews. Either of these two will be my next body. Done with canon and didn't upgrade my 5d3 after renting 5d4 for two weddings. Exciting time!



If the 5DIV does not help you to get excellent results from your weddings, nothing can


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Along with the D500, Nikon has now put some distance between itself and Canon's offerings with the D850.
> ...


Hey mikehit

Well, there's functions and features I would use and others I wouldn't I imagine but my concerns are more about how every generation released, Canon seems further and further off the pack.

I was bitterly disappointed with the 6D mkii. This was the body I would buy as it would close the gaps on where my 6D fell short for where I wanted to take my photography. Greater AF spread and the generational improvement in sensor performance was just not there. 
The 7D mkii also fell short of the marketing promises as to me and a large number of people in my photographic community, the AF tracking is a bit disappointing.

But it's the sensor tech that gets to me. How is it that the 5DIV is still not on par with the D800 & D810? Don't get me wrong, its a brilliant piece of kit but it'll lurk in the massive shadow cast by the D850 for the rest of its lifetime.

All those little bits and bobs...wi-fi, nfc, swivel screens etc etc are secondary to me and I never do video with my DSLRs but when looking in totality at Canon cameras, the compromises are felt by the average Canon user and its becoming an unsatisfactory trend that leaves us looking at other brands in envy


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 25, 2017)

The D850 seems to be a great camera, and I would be very tempted if it was a Canon. However, I don't see why 5DIV users envy the D850 so much that switching is considered. Few of the the spec advantages the D850 has over the 5DIV will make a positive difference in real world use. The higher resolution will result in more noise at higher ISO, more storage requirements , slower editing and a demand for sharper lenses. The 30 megapixels in the 5DIV seems just about perfect. 

The only thing I really envy about the D850 is the larger viewfinder, but then again, the one in the 1DX/1DXII is even larger. 

Canon ergonomics, user interface and lenses are the major differentiators to me. Small differences in specs doesn't matter much in everyday use.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 25, 2017)

Sabaki said:


> But it's the sensor tech that gets to me. How is it that the 5DIV is still not on par with the D800 & D810? Don't get me wrong, its a brilliant piece of kit but it'll lurk in the massive shadow cast by the D850 for the rest of its lifetime.
> 
> All those little bits and bobs...wi-fi, nfc, swivel screens etc etc are secondary to me and I never do video with my DSLRs but when looking in totality at Canon cameras, the compromises are felt by the average Canon user and its becoming an unsatisfactory trend that leaves us looking at other brands in envy



The sensor is one area where Canon have been behind for years, and this only because they insist on developing their own sensors whereas Nikon buy them in. Would Canon have matched SoNikon if they had spent the R&D on developing DR route instead of dual pixel? Maybe, but ironically, the dual pixel focus is widely praised in video - the very function that people slam Canon for. 

But exactly how far behind are Canon sensors, even with DPAF? 3 or 4 years ago people were comparing a 2-3 stop shadow lift as to how far beind Canon were and that was a reasonable comparison. Now Canon have caught that up so they have to push it 6 stops to show any difference. How relevant is that to the market - specialist users maybe, but in general....? But I have to say whenever anyone who has shown a 6 stop lift and said 'look at that!' I have not once seen one where I would keep it or (if I were a pro) even think of selling it. So how important is a 6-stop lift in reality? 

I am sure some people will push Canon to the limit and want full 4K or want a 6 stop lift so switch to Sony. But equally some people will want high performing AF for birds in flight and go from Sony to Canon. A lot of people will own both to cover all bases. 

I can fully understand the disappointment with the 6D2 specs and that may have an impact beyond sales of the 6D2, but a few people are talking about switching to Canon not because Canon is failing them but because the spec sheet says Canon do not care and they are 'taking it easy'. It seems to me an odd reason to want to change systems.


----------



## Mancubus (Aug 25, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> The D850 seems to be a great camera, and I would be very tempted if it was a Canon. However, I don't see why 5DIV users envy the D850 so much that switching is considered. Few of the the spec advantages the D850 has over the 5DIV will make a positive difference in real world use. The higher resolution will result in more noise at higher ISO, more storage requirements , slower editing and a demand for sharper lenses. The 30 megapixels in the 5DIV seems just about perfect.
> 
> The only thing I really envy about the D850 is the larger viewfinder, but then again, the one in the 1DX/1DXII is even larger.
> 
> Canon ergonomics, user interface and lenses are the major differentiators to me. Small differences in specs doesn't matter much in everyday use.



Let's put it this way: Canon released a 5D4 which loses in resolution, sharpness (damn AA filter) and dynamic range to a D800E from 2012!!

I am a Canon user, of course I'm upset. I use a 5D3 which I really like, but it's beaten up and I simply can't justify dropping the price of a new 5D4 which is better but nowhere near what the other brands offer.

I can still do my job with my 5D3, but can't we at least have a choice of a superior camera that isn't crippled? Why not give us a choice on the AA filter? Why not a BSI sensor? Why not get rid of the ancient SD slot?

I wouldn't complain about the 5D4 if it was $2500, but the D850 steamrolls over it and with a lower price tag!

Canon has better glass it's true, but Nikon has been releasing some very good new lenses lately, I don't think I would be short on choices. Canon on the other hand has no good 50mm 1.4 and no stabilised 24-70 2.8.


----------



## foo (Aug 25, 2017)

unfocused said:


> It's a bit early to predict the demise of Cfast. Canon isn't the only manufacturer using the cards. Adding Cfast to a 7D would help grow the market.



That's a bit too narrow a viewpoint, original CF is still around largely due to industrial uses rather than cameras and that means it's going to take quite some time to finally die off. SD has a set of industrial users too, but is likely largely smartphone users keeping it going.
CFast and XQD are different in that they don't have the massive installed base of non-camera users to help.

However as with CF being based on the PC industries IDE which is long dead, CFast is based on SATA which ceased development 5/6 years ago in favour of SATAexpress using PCIe and NVMe, so CFast won't progress from where it is as a different connector would be required.
(it's not even clear if the PC industry will ever actually use SATAexpress, they seem to have largely skipped it in favour of a different connector as SSD speeds grow)

CFexpress is headed in the same direction as other large users of the technology in PC and other industries - PCIe & NVMe. So cameras using the same technology get the benefits of scale including lower costs and other industries helping to drive improvements.

In the wider context, trying to grow the CFast market might not be the best idea.


----------



## foo (Aug 25, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> But now I have used CFast with a thunderbolt card reader damn am I sold! The workflow is so much faster it is ridiculous.


If you thought that was good, you're going to love the next evolution. NVMe (in CFexpress) has the potential to be orders of magnitude faster. It's available today in m.2 format for PC's and just needs a better/more robust form-factor suitable for a camera. 



privatebydesign said:


> As for CFast's demise, well XQD has already effectively died so what choices are there now? And let's not forget there are a lot of video cameras out there that use them and those users aren't going away.


All of the existing card types will stay around for some time, but I'd argue that cards that are largely restricted to cameras will disappear quicker than ones with a much wider set of users. Simple economy of scale at work.


----------



## snoke (Aug 25, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I was lukewarm about CFast in the 1DX MkII, I hate mixed slots and would far rather one or the other, I wish Canon had done a Nikon and offered two versions one with dual CF and one with dual CFast slots. But now I have used CFast with a thunderbolt card reader damn am I sold! The workflow is so much faster it is ridiculous.



But CF investment useless! Hear the cry everyone on CR. If Canon make 2xCFast and 2xCF, you buy 2xCFast or 2xCF? I think you buy 2xCF and keep old cards working, yes? And then you would never know about CFast speed 

Absolutely you right about performance. 1000%.



Sabaki said:


> Along with the D500, Nikon has now put some distance between itself and Canon's offerings with the D850.
> 
> I'm not moving from Canon as a) I've heavily invested in it financially and b) I believe it to be the best system for macro photography but I have to be honest and say that I am envious of the strides other manufacturers are making with their camera bodies.
> 
> ...



Yes! Agree!


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 25, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > The D850 seems to be a great camera, and I would be very tempted if it was a Canon. However, I don't see why 5DIV users envy the D850 so much that switching is considered. Few of the the spec advantages the D850 has over the 5DIV will make a positive difference in real world use. The higher resolution will result in more noise at higher ISO, more storage requirements , slower editing and a demand for sharper lenses. The 30 megapixels in the 5DIV seems just about perfect.
> ...



The 5DIV has some advantages over much of the competition, most notably the dual pixel AF, ergonomics, user interface and lenses. If you want more resolution, get the 5Dsr. 

But you said it yourself. You really like your 5DIII. That is because it is a very well thought out camera. I will assume that you don't like it very much because of it's specs, but for how it handles everything well. That undefinable quality is a major Canon strength.


----------



## snoke (Aug 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Then ask who is target market for D850/5D4?
Upgraders? (same brand, more expensive camera)
Refreshers? (same brand, new model)
Defectors? (change brand)

Canon owners only have APS-C lens for APS-C camera biggest risk for Canon. Move to FF, need new lens too. Time to reconsider brand. Maybe.

Lots APS-C owners. Lots.

Big problem for Canon owners is cheaper camera have better numbers. Make good 2nd hand price difficult. Psychological problem in Canon buyer/owner mind. Nothing more.

Before announcement, posts expect high price than 5D4. Now low price. If not own Nikon, why care?

Maybe Nikon want entice more Canon/Sony owner with only APS-C camera and APS-C lens with lower price camera.

Maybe just cheaper for Nikon to make = cheaper price for camera.

Or maybe exchange rate. How prices look in JPY?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 25, 2017)

I think these brand updates are aimed at giving people within the brand an upgrade path, and anyone who goes from 5D3 to 5D4 or from D810 to D850 is a bonus. Sometimes just upgrading functions with no realistic improvement in sensor is an upgrade - and all manufacturers do it at some point.
The minimum you need to do is to make sure that, in its entirety, no particular feature falls so far behind the competition that people are ready to switch (some always will, but they should be a small minority). Some on this forum take this to mean that Canon is resting on its laurels and getting lazy, and if you look only at DR sensor they will be right. But I see Canon prioritising other developments. 

But my basic premise still stands and no-one has proved it to be false. The performance of the Sony A7/Ar7/A9, the Nikon D810/D850/D5 and 6D2/5D4/1DX2 are so close in performance as to make next to no difference in the real world, for a vast majority of people. Yes, some people need the little extra that Sony may offer but they are very, very few. 

I don't understand what you mean by



> Canon owners only have APS-C lens for APS-C camera biggest risk for Canon.


They can use L lenses on their APS-C body before investing in the body.


----------



## snoke (Aug 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I don't understand what you mean by
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Canon like APS-C owner have FF lens but not required and more $$. Nikon like it too. But.

Consumer buy cheaper 80D or 700D camera so consumer buy cheaper lens too.

For consumer, no investment, just expense.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 25, 2017)

snoke said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand what you mean by
> ...


I still don't follow. Every investment is an expense by definition.
What do other manufacturers do that you think Canon should do?


----------



## snoke (Aug 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I still don't follow. Every investment is an expense by definition.



But not all expense is investment. Not equal relationship. Expense subset is investment.

Is car investment?
Is TV investment?
Is fridge investment?
Is phone investment?
Is computer investment?

Nobody buy TV for investment. Only special car investment. Nobody buy fridge for investment. Camera and lens like all above for consumer. Expense.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 25, 2017)

snoke said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't follow. Every investment is an expense by definition.
> ...



Who said that investment is purely in cash? You buy a L lens because of better image quality - is that not an investment return?

But to repeat my request - what do other manufacturers do that you want Canon to do?


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 25, 2017)

*The 5DIV has some advantages over much of the competition, most notably the dual pixel AF, ergonomics, user interface and lenses. If you want more resolution, get the 5Dsr. *
[/quote]

Here's part of my argument too

The D850 alone is cheaper than the 5Div. But to get what the D850 offers, one has to buy both the 5Div and the 5DSR to compliment it's feature set.

The D850 does AF at speed while offering similar resolution to the 5DSR. Guys, we are on the losing end here

It has been mentioned elsewhere on this post but had the D850 been the Canon 8D, we would've been over the moon with joy.


----------



## snoke (Aug 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Who said that investment is purely in cash? You buy a L lens because of better image quality - is that not an investment return?



If image gets better price, yes 

Emotional investment what you speak of. Intangible. Good for Canon if consumer make this investment because harder consumer to change. If consumer have Ford car history, not so easy buy GM. Same same. Emotional attachment.



> But to repeat my request - what do other manufacturers do that you want Canon to do?



More aggressive product.

Canon product strategy sleepy. Nikon/Sony exciting.



Sabaki said:


> It has been mentioned elsewhere on this post but had the D850 been the Canon 8D, we would've been over the moon with joy.



Disagree. 5Ds, 5DsR, 5D4 owners all complain about investment in camera because now less.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 25, 2017)

lol, desperation. It is actually called aggressive pricing and the 5DmkIV is not hard to beat: canon crippled its video spec on purpose so it cost Nikon nothing to beat that. It has faster media, uses a processor that is a year newer, and embraced BSI a year later when sony has all but commoditized the technology. Nothing in this camera smells of desperation. Everything about it smells of the result of analyzing your competitor and doing enough to beat it. Nothing new. Sony carved its name out of this "survival mode": out innovating competitors and taking risks. Nikon is at it too. So survival mode is really not a special state companies should enter, but a state all companies that aren't going to be extinct should be at all the time. Any company that does not, ignores its market threats, releases lower spec gear at higher prices, has lost its right to win. 



SecureGSM said:


> I agree with others who noted that Nikon is going all out on D850 with price set on the verge of desperation.
> Survival mode comes to mind. I recon they sell this camera $500 short at the very least. I would say that if it was priced at $3799, it still sells just fine.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 25, 2017)

snoke said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > It has been mentioned elsewhere on this post but had the D850 been the Canon 8D, we would've been over the moon with joy.
> ...



One can do in the Nikon D850 everything that you need two Canon bodies to do. That for me is every reason why a D850-esque body would've gone down a storm with Canon users.
Even if it meant purchasing the grip, you stil end up with more camera for less


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 25, 2017)

Sabaki said:


> *The 5DIV has some advantages over much of the competition, most notably the dual pixel AF, ergonomics, user interface and lenses. If you want more resolution, get the 5Dsr. *





> Here's part of my argument too
> 
> The D850 alone is cheaper than the 5Div. But to get what the D850 offers, one has to buy both the 5Div and the 5DSR to compliment it's feature set.
> 
> ...



We don't yet know how what the D850 AF is like. Nor do we know its buffer clearance - if you want high fps the chances are you want the buffer to clear quickly as well and with 46MP that could take time. 

The specs are impressive but let us wait for real-world reviews.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 25, 2017)

snoke said:


> > But to repeat my request - what do other manufacturers do that you want Canon to do?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is not an answer. 
You criticised Canon's APS-C lens line up. I asked what you want to see Canon do, and what you see other manufacturers dong that Canon are not doing.
What strategy is Canon being 'sleepy'


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 25, 2017)

snoke said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > It has been mentioned elsewhere on this post but had the D850 been the Canon 8D, we would've been over the moon with joy.
> ...



All cameras drop in price. What is your point? 
We don't even know what the impact of the D850 is yet - you are merely hypothesising


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> The specs are impressive but let us wait for real-world reviews.



Sound advice, let's do that instead of miring ourselves into a state of depression :-\


----------



## snoke (Aug 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> You criticised Canon's APS-C lens line up. I asked what you want to see Canon do, and what you see other manufacturers dong that Canon are not doing.



No! Canon APS-C lens right for market. Sorry if you misunderstand.

But when upgrade from APS-C camera + lens to FF, can change brand too!



Mikehit said:


> All cameras drop in price. What is your point?
> We don't even know what the impact of the D850 is yet - you are merely hypothesising



Sabaki make hypothetical 8D so I follow.

I explain investment problem for owner to you.

I have model A, it has 20MP, 5fps. I buy for $2000. Keep good.
Model B announce.
If B have 24MP & 6fps, model A can sell maybe $1500. Maybe good price if good condition.
If B have 30MP & 8fps, model A get $1500? More difficult sale.
If B have 40MP & 10fps, model A get $1500? Very hard sale.
Yes, model A still make picture like before but value perception change with new model.


----------



## foo (Aug 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> foo said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



You said it's $200 less than the 5D4, I pointed out that it's £150 _more_ than the 5D4 - hence nonesense..

I agree that a difference like that isn't sufficient to be of concern to the sort of people who buy cameras like these


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2017)

Brilliant specifications, which I would love in a Canon. I am currently in Malaysia doing bird and nature photography with my 5DIV and 5DSR and have a dilemma of which body to use for different occasions. The 5DSR has a real edge on the 5DIV for sheer resolution but the 5DIV is better in poor light and for action shots. It would be great for Canon to combine the two as Nikon has done, and rid of that blurring filter.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 25, 2017)

snoke said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > But to repeat my request - what do other manufacturers do that you want Canon to do?
> ...



As others have said elsewhere, Nikon and Sony *have* to be more aggressive, because they have a smaller market share. They have to work harder to get the sales they want. You may not like it - I expect few people do, except Canon and those who profit from them - but that's how it is. They don't have to take as many risks, because they are in the lead. And no exciting product Nikon, Sony, or anyone else has produced has changed that in many years.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 25, 2017)

foo said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > foo said:
> ...



In the official Nikon release it is less than the 5D4 is at the moment anbd it is less than the official 5D4 launch price.
So no nonsense.


----------



## snoke (Aug 25, 2017)

scyrene said:


> As others have said elsewhere, Nikon and Sony *have* to be more aggressive, because they have a smaller market share. They have to work harder to get the sales they want. You may not like it - I expect few people do, except Canon and those who profit from them - but that's how it is. They don't have to take as many risks, because they are in the lead. And no exciting product Nikon, Sony, or anyone else has produced has changed that in many years.



Canon #1 due to aggression.

Which product?

1Ds - 1st FF DSLR
10D - 1st "affordable" DSLR at $1500
300D - 1st DSLR under $1000
5D Mark II - 1st FF DSLR with 1080p

Only Canon have FF DSLR for ~5 years (2002 - 2007).

Early land grab. Make name.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 25, 2017)

I agree with you, I hope Nikon is on top of this and marketing department works overtime to augment the product launch.



Talys said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with others who noted that Nikon is going all out on D850 with price set on the verge of desperation.
> ...


----------



## OSOK (Aug 25, 2017)

Competition is a good thing. Nikon is desperate and needs to get back into the game. So they did away with holding back and offered up the most features and specs that were technologically available to them and did so at a great price. Canon on the other hand, as market leader has the privilege to hold back specs on cameras to segment their lines. Unfortunate for Canon users.

Comparing the overall internet response -

5DSR: Mostly positive, few gripes and complaints. Excitement level after announcement - high.

5D Mark 4: Mostly positive, several gripes and complaints. Excitement level after announcement - average to low. 

6D Mark 2: Mostly negative, many gripes and complaints. Excitement level after announcement - very low.

D850: Almost universally positive. Almost no gripes or complaints. Excitement level after announcement - extremely high.

5D Mark 4 was a decent upgrade, but didn't blow anyone away or amaze them. 6D Mark 2 is a camera that hardly anyone really wanted. D850 is a camera almost everyone wants or wishes they had in features and spec

5D Mark 4 owners wouldn't have been angry at Canon for being given 9 FPS, no AA filter, a tilt screen, a better AF system, faster and better memory card compatibility, 4K without crop factor .....just to name a few things. All of which without a price increase!!!!



Well done Nikon!


----------



## scyrene (Aug 25, 2017)

snoke said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > As others have said elsewhere, Nikon and Sony *have* to be more aggressive, because they have a smaller market share. They have to work harder to get the sales they want. You may not like it - I expect few people do, except Canon and those who profit from them - but that's how it is. They don't have to take as many risks, because they are in the lead. And no exciting product Nikon, Sony, or anyone else has produced has changed that in many years.
> ...



Sure, but that doesn't explain why they have remained in the lead in sales, and have even increased their market share, especially recently. The EOS-M was decidedly timid to begin with, and that series of cameras has never gained the praise of online commentators the way e.g. Sony mirrorless cameras have, yet Canon is (as Neuro likes to point out) second in that market now.

Aggressive product placement isn't the only way to succeed. Less flashy things like reliability, after sales service, and brand recognition are all very important too.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 25, 2017)

OSOK said:


> Competition is a good thing. Nikon is desperate and needs to get back into the game. So they did away with holding back and offered up the most features and specs that were technologically available to them and did so at a great price. Canon on the other hand, as market leader has the privilege to hold back specs on cameras to segment their lines. Unfortunate for Canon users.
> 
> Comparing the overall internet response -
> 
> ...



You refer to 'excitement after announcement'. People on Canon forums seem to be far more cynical about Canon new releases than Nikon users are about Nikon releases and I think this comes from a feeling of 'they are bigger so their products should be better'. In business that is not always the case. 

So instead of giving an assessment of peoples' response on forums to the announcement, a better assessment would be user satisfaction and how many people upgraded (especially from the model it is replacing). I would venture from comments after all the hullabaloo has died down that the 5DIV is not 'average to low' but 'high'.
The 6D2 is looking 'solid but not exciting'.

D850 is high, but Nikon models usually are...then people get their hands on the model and it cools rapidly especially when they get product recalls.




> 5D Mark 4 owners wouldn't have been angry at Canon for being given 9 FPS, no AA filter, a tilt screen, a better AF system, faster and better memory card compatibility, 4K without crop factor .....just to name a few things. All of which without a price increase!!!!


No, we would not have been angry. I for one would have been very happy, but expecting all that wit no price increase is verging on dumb. What you seem to want is a 1Dx2 at 5D prices.
By the way, what do you mean by 'better memory card compatability'?


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 25, 2017)

D850 with its' feature set and list of options and parameters sits somewhere in between Canon 5D IV and Sony A9. It would be reasonable to price the product accordingly. there is nothing to LOL about. opinion is only that: opinion. 
Marketing 101: Agressive price oriented messages should not be the main focus of your marketing communications. 



psolberg said:


> lol, desperation. It is actually called aggressive pricing and the 5DmkIV is not hard to beat: canon crippled its video spec on purpose so it cost Nikon nothing to beat that. It has faster media, uses a processor that is a year newer, and embraced BSI a year later when sony has all but commoditized the technology. Nothing in this camera smells of desperation. Everything about it smells of the result of analyzing your competitor and doing enough to beat it. Nothing new. Sony carved its name out of this "survival mode": out innovating competitors and taking risks. Nikon is at it too. So survival mode is really not a special state companies should enter, but a state all companies that aren't going to be extinct should be at all the time. Any company that does not, ignores its market threats, releases lower spec gear at higher prices, has lost its right to win.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 25, 2017)

scyrene said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



It doesn't explain mirrorless either. Canon didn't make one for years then they did, now a short time later with a modest lens selection and bodies generally derided in forums they are number 2.

Me thinks Canon has a very good marketing research department, and the courage to follow their suggestions despite the forums/websites/experts/pundits/reviewers etc all clamouring otherwise.

Canon have an uncanny knack of making products roundly dismissed by all those said experts yet clearly outselling their 'better' competition. of course is does mean for the Canon owner with more than a passing interest in cameras it can lead to envy, but at that point we really do need to look inwards to ourselves and be serious about that envy and the actual impact not having this or that feature would make to our own images. 

All assuming images are the end goal, I have no problem with people owning cameras because they want to and they enjoy the tech and company of similar folk. For them any hobby will always have the next big thing, just look on any specialist forum.


----------



## OSOK (Aug 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I for one would have been very happy, but expecting all that wit no price increase is verging on dumb.



Nikon just released a camera that blows the 5D Mark 4 out of the water on every single spec, and did so without a price increase.



> By the way, what do you mean by 'better memory card compatability'?



Nikon has an XQD card and their SD card is a UHS-II. Canon just released the 6D Mark II, and didn't provide UHS-II compatibility.The 5D Mark 4 still has the original CF card and standard SD setup. It is a fairly new camera itself.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 25, 2017)

OSOK said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > I for one would have been very happy, but expecting all that wit no price increase is verging on dumb.
> ...



What Nikon are doing is irrelevant. Canon has decided that the price they are charging is relevant to the features offered and to expect them to add more at no added cost is fantasy. 
By the way, why did Nikon not include GPS in the 850 at that cost?
Why did they not improve the WiFi at no cost - it is widely derided by Nikon owners
A screen that only tilts? How very m'eh. Surely a fully articulated screen would not have cost any more - after all, they have the technology. Nikon have gimped it 
[/sarcasm]

And it seems the DR is no better than the D810....ITS WORSE THAN THE 5DIV....and no advancement in 3 years??? WTF??? 
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D810,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2
Nikon are screwing you!!!
[/sarcasm]


----------



## OSOK (Aug 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> OSOK said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...




The 5D Mark 4 does not have an articulating screen. It's understood that such a feature is far too much of a compromise for build quality. A camera body with a fully articulating screen is weaker than one without. A tilt screen is a compromise that allows more viewing angles without sacrificing the strength of the main body. 

The 5D Mark4 does not even have a tilt screen.

GPS is a feature going out of style across the industry. It is of minimal use for most photographers and is a known-battery life killer. The omission of GPS pleases more people than it upsets by a wide margin.

The 5D4 has significantly less low ISO dynamic range than the D810. That is where the high dynamic range is of importance. At higher ISO, the 5D Mark 4 has slightly more, but it is of little to no use at high ISO. Diminishing returns. The 5D Mark 4 also has hideous photo destroying color banding issues at low ISO when shadow lifting, rendering much of the dynamic range pointless. Has Canon fixed this? At least Nikon has the integrity and respect for its customers to issue recalls and fix the issue. Canon ignores and pretends their issues do not exist, and handle them as one-offs. This way, they only have to pay for the ones that people actually send it. Everyone else lives with the lemon. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. It could also be the reason why Canon released the 6D Mark 2 with a sensor that has zero improvement in dynamic range over the 6D. After the 5D Mark 4, maybe they've backtracked on high dynamic range due to the problems they've had.


----------



## Speedster (Aug 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> OSOK said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



I wish you wouldn't feed this troll. His postings and your latest response (seemingly looking at estimated numbers) make for tiresome reading.


----------



## OSOK (Aug 25, 2017)

That is an unjust comment. How am I trolling when I am posting in the third party manufacturers section of this forum in a thread about a Nikon camera?


----------



## Quirkz (Aug 25, 2017)

God I hate these threads. 

Let's be clear: if the 850 delivers what is promised, with reliability, then wow! Great for Nikon users, well done Nikon. Real competition is a very good thing. 

Will it make the pictures I take with my superb 5d4 magically worse? No! Do I suddenly regret my choice? Not in the slightest. I love my 5d4, and my little m5, and the photos I get with them. I recently sold my Sony a7s and Fuji film X70 cameras and lenses because I was just happier using, and got better photos with my canons.

I'm going to be genuinely very pleased if the 850 lives up to the promise of the spec sheet, and for all those that buy them - they have lovely big numbers after all! . But please stop telling me that my canon cameras suck, because my photos and those of everyone else who shoots canon clearly says otherwise. Please stop implying that canon is nerfing and cheating me; because every day I use either of my canons, all I can think is 'wow. This camera is amazing and has nailed it for me'.

Just go out, buy the 850, and have a great time using it and taking beautiful photos. So many wonderful photos were lost in the time people took to read just this post.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 25, 2017)

Speedster said:


> I wish you wouldn't feed this troll. His postings and your latest response (seemingly looking at estimated numbers) make for tiresome reading.



Bill Claff working off estimated numbers is precisely why the 6D2 got so much flak so I was interested in what response would be when the manufacturer they hold is such high esteem does prettymuch the same thing.
Yet again it seems that when Canon don't add a feature they are 'nerfing' and 'crippling'.But when Nikon omit a feature they are being practical and there is a reason for it.


----------



## ErlendS (Aug 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> ErlendS said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon do not see the writing on the wall soon, I do believe that they might become a victim of their own commercial tactics.
> ...



I bought the 5DIV as soon as it was released, after having waited for it for a long time. I feel screewed because I trusted Canon's marketing and expected to buy the ideal all-round hybrid camera. 

I am probably guilty of not doing enough research on the camera before making the purchase, but I was simply to naive to be able to comprehend that Canon would deliberatly hold back on features only due to commercial and financial considerations. 

The camera is a great stills camera, but I was not aware of the effect that the AA filter would have on landscape photography. So it is not as fantastic for this purpose as I thought.

Canon started the DSLR video trend, so I would never have guessed that they would include an useless 4K codec with a substantial crop. I just relied on the Canon markering stating that it did indeed do 4K. I am no expert so it is not that easy to understand the significance of the technical data presented.

I have a lot of Canon glass and equipment, and the glass will not work well on a Sony with an adapter. If the AF works at all, it is slow and unreliable. I have tried. So if I should choose to change to Sony or Nikon, I would choose to go for native-lenses and sell off my Canon gear. 

For my next camera house upgrade I will obviously do more research and await more reviews before making the purchase. But I am still a Canon-fanboy, hoping that they will change their approach to the market and come up with more complete cameras.


----------



## jtjc (Aug 25, 2017)

As an owner of the 5diii, 5div, and 6dii. I cannot help but feel disappointed at Canon. This d850 is the same price as my 5D IV which is not even 1 year old. And it completely wipe the floor with the 5div. This is my own opinion, but the D850 is like having the 5Dsr, 5div, and 7dii all in 1 camera. It will have the 5D autofocus which is better than even the 1dx II in most test. On top of that you'll get 9fps with the grip, tilt screen which is EXTREMELY useful, i can't tell you how many times i wish my 5div has a touch screen. And 4k with no crop. Speed, high iso Image quality, dynamic range, resolution, features, this camera has it all. Matter of fact the only thing that my 5d iv have over this D850 is dual pixel auto focus. which I love and do use a lot. But really that is it. Between the 6dii and this, i'm just sooo disappointed with Canon. I like the 6dii but man there are some CRIPPLING decisions on Canon part that makes the experience frustrating. The only light at the end of the tunnel is that this will wake Canon up and the next release will be better. Not gonna do me any good since i'm stuck with my 5div and 6dii for the next few years.


----------



## OSOK (Aug 25, 2017)

I wonder what Canon users reactions would be to this hypothetical announcement:

Introducing the all new, 5DSR Mark II

55 MP, 9 FPS with battery grip, 14 stops DR via BSI with on chip ADC, CFast & UHS-II, true 1DX2 AF system, tilt touch screen, 4K video with no crop factor, outputting 4.2.2 with decent codec, no AA filter -- price $3,300. 

I think they would probably pass out from excitement compared to what they've been offered. Of course, this is a fantasy scenario for a Canon release, but a REALITY for Nikon users.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 25, 2017)

How true....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GflhBUSpdQ


----------



## Talys (Aug 25, 2017)

OSOK said:


> I wonder what Canon users reactions would be to this hypothetical announcement:
> 
> Introducing the all new, 5DSR Mark II
> 
> ...



There's no question it would be exciting as an offering, but it wouldn't change two things:

1. Pretty much everyone here that shoots Canon and enjoys it has said the D850 sounds really awesome, so why wouldn't it be pretty awesome if Canon had a camera with the same sort of features, too? But that doesn't mean that these people are necessarily going to run out and buy it (either one), even if they can afford it.

2. The people who don't shoot 4k with their 5D4 still won't shoot 4k. The people who don't shoot any video won't care about any of the video stuff. The people who don't want to spend $3,000+ on a body will still won't want to spend $3,000+ on a body. The people who don't need 7FPS still won't need 9FPS. The people who scream "no tilt screen" (weather sealing, all that) won't be happy that there's a tilt screen. 

So taking #2 into account, PERSONALLY, I would ask, "What does the 5DSRII do for shooting the kind of stills I like to shoot, and am I willing to pay $1,300 more for it over 6DII?"

If the difference is 0.5EV of DR, the answer is most certainly, no.

If the difference is that I will have a lot more photos in focus using the AF system, the answer is maybe. Specifically, I'd ask two questions:

First, how good can the camera focus on moving birds against a busy background, and keep the bird in focus as it moves across a busy background?

Second, in a studio with sufficient lighting, if I mount the camera on the tripod and use autofocus on a still subject and a remote trigger, set it to f/8 or f/11, am I happy with the autofocus on 100% of the photos, or do I still need to MF in liveviewx10 to ensure perfect focus on the "correct" parts of the subject?


Frankly... I'm more excited by things like RT flash system than I am about marginal DR I won't use, video I won't use, FPS I won't use, etc.




Mikehit said:


> How true....
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GflhBUSpdQ



That's a great video  Everyone who has gear envy should watch it! He's hilarious, lol.


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 25, 2017)

Sabaki said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



I disagree. I have the 5Ds and the 1DXII. I use the 1DXII far more, and an important reason why is the fewer megapixels. Having superior ISO performance and smaller file sizes (faster and easier editing, far less storage space) is for most situations much preferable compared to higher resolution. (And the ISO on the 5Ds is ok if you apply noise reduction and saves at reduced resolution-but it requires more work). 

If I had to chose and only have one camera, I would prefer it to have 30 megapixels.

Personally, I would hate having 45 megapixels in a high fps body. Sorting through and picking the keepers after a shoot would be a time consuming pain. Therefore, I would only very rarely use a D850 for high fps tasks. The strength of the D850 specs that some of the people in here rave about, would therefore be wasted on me. 

So, thank you Canon for the do it all 5DIV, and for offering a high resolution body when needed, and for not having it all in one camera. It costs more, but makes life easier.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 25, 2017)

OSOK said:


> I wonder what Canon users reactions would be to this hypothetical announcement:
> 
> Introducing the all new, 5DSR Mark II
> 
> ...



I'd buy one to compliment my other Canon gear. I'd also know that forum dicks would point out how far it is behind the Nikon/Sony/Olympus equivalent, or whatever model designation they can find, to make a senseless point.


----------



## Talys (Aug 25, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> Personally, I would hate having 45 megapixels in a high fps body. Sorting through and picking the keepers after a shoot would be a time consuming pain. Therefore, I would only very rarely use a D850 for high fps tasks. The strength of the D850 specs that some of the people in here rave about, would therefore be wasted on me.



Yes, I'm not sure anyone who raves about 45 megapixels and 9fps has ever gone through even 2 minutes worth of shooting. That's over 1,000 photos and about a full 64GB memory card.

Forget about everything else -- just to sort through which photos are in focus will take forever, because you have 10 copies of everything and 60MB RAW files are a pain to go from blurry preview to fully loaded - just to check focus.

I'm not sure what percentage of people who claim 4k video is a must-have, have actually edited 4k video. It's a painfully long, tedious process, and the file sizes for relatively short videos are massive.


Personally, I think 20-30 megapixels is ideal for most things. I think that unless you need to print a billboard, if 20-30 isn't enough megapixels, you will probably get better results by using a different lens or moving closer than by upping the megapixel count.

I have often thought that it would be wonderful if I owned a 5DSR and could shoot wildlife properly in its crop mode; then I could get out of having an APSC. But the reality of it is that OVF doesn't magnify the cropped portion in the viewfinder, so I wouldn't be happy with it, and at the end of the day, if I'm going to discard everything but the center half of out of 600mm, I'm better off shooting it with APSC.


----------



## OSOK (Aug 25, 2017)

Nikon now offers Medium and Small RAW.

If file size is a big problem, MRAW comes in around 25 MP which is quite ideal. But you keep the option to shoot high resolution 45 MP images if the need arises.

Canon has had MRaw for a long time. Problem is, with the 5D Mark 4, you max out at 30mp with an AA filter. No option to go higher. With the 5DSR, you can go smaller in size, but you lose out on speed, dynamic range and ISO performance. If I recall, it maxes out at 5fps, is around 12 stops of DR, and 6400 ISO.

D850 does it all, in one body - at no extra cost. And you're not stuck with a massive data workflow if you don't want it.


----------



## Jeffrey (Aug 26, 2017)

I have a Nikon D810 and enjoy shooting the camera immensely. The one thing it lacks is a fast fps, otherwise the camera is fantastic. 

Will I purchase a D850? To be honest, not right away. I haven't seen a compelling reason to do so. I might skip a generation in this series and then consider the investment. Meanwhile I'm shooting as much as I can, say 3 days a week for at least part of the day.


----------



## Ryananthony (Aug 26, 2017)

Jeffrey said:


> I have a Nikon D810 and enjoy shooting the camera immensely. The one thing it lacks is a fast fps, otherwise the camera is fantastic.
> 
> Will I purchase a D850? To be honest, not right away. I haven't seen a compelling reason to do so. I might skip a generation in this series and then consider the investment. Meanwhile I'm shooting as much as I can, say 3 days a week for at least part of the day.



I have a question if you don't mind. On my 1dx, I use back button focus using the AF-ON button. I use the asterisk beside it for recall custom functions. (ex, ''AF-ON'' - manual f8, 1/1000, ISO 1000 and then, ''*'' - AV, f2.8, 1/250, auto ISO. etc)
This ability has become a life saver. Is there a similar function on the d810 or D5 (if you know) that something similar is possible? I notice there is only an AF-ON button on the back of the D810


----------



## applecider (Aug 26, 2017)

Snoke you want an investment buy a stock, all cameras or 99.999% are going to lose value with time. 

Or if you want a camera like "investment" buy a boat. ;D

Buying full frame lenses may be future planning, but not an investment. Maybe it is a language thing about the word investment.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 26, 2017)

Not so meaningless if you consider that at least some RAW editors do not support m-raw and s-raw formats .

I wonder why? 


Does DxO OpticsPro support mRAW or sRAW format ?

CANON : sRAW and mRAW formats are not supported.
NIKON : sRAW (Small RAW) format is not supported.

https://support.dxo.com/hc/en-us/articles/219346717-Does-DxO-OpticsPro-support-mRAW-or-sRAW-format-





CanonGuy said:


> Such a pointless and meaningless post If you don't like 45mp of d850, just shoot mraw about 27mp!
> 
> But yes, pointless posts like these from blind fan boys make me laugh. So thanks for that.


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 26, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Not so meaningless if you consider that at least some RAW editors do not support m-raw and s-raw formats .
> 
> I wonder why?
> 
> ...



I did try the mraw on my 5Ds. It did hurt the image quality, and as far as I remember the files were not faster to work with in Lightroom. I have no reason to believe mraw from the D850 would be any better. 

I guess the trolls in here don't care about reality.


----------



## CanonGuy (Aug 26, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Not so meaningless if you consider that at least some RAW editors do not support m-raw and s-raw formats .
> 
> I wonder why?
> 
> ...



Who cares about those Raw editors? Like 0.76% users? 

Sorry but yours is another pointless post.


----------



## CanonGuy (Aug 26, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Not so meaningless if you consider that at least some RAW editors do not support m-raw and s-raw formats .
> ...



So yum are claiming that mraw being half the size of raw, didn't speed up the Lightroom process but processing d850 files will take longer as the size is larger? Totally makes sense man...


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 26, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > SecureGSM said:
> ...



Yes, that is what I claim. I haven't tried it in almost two years, so the software may have improved since then. I remember being tempted about the mraw possibility, but was disappointed with it, and never tried it again since.


----------



## snoke (Aug 26, 2017)

applecider said:


> Snoke you want an investment buy a stock, all cameras or 99.999% are going to lose value with time.



I agree! Others not.



> Or if you want a camera like "investment" buy a boat. ;D



Buy boat like buy plane 



> Buying full frame lenses may be future planning, but not an investment.



No, you right 100%


----------



## Talys (Aug 26, 2017)

snoke said:


> applecider said:
> 
> 
> > Buying full frame lenses may be future planning, but not an investment.
> ...



Yes... no... sort of 

Here's an example: 

Option #1 buy a EF 100 L 2.8 macro for about $800 today.
Option #2 buy a EFS 60 2.8 macro for about $350 today.

5 years from now, the EF 100 L 2.8 macro easily will sell for $600.
5 years from now, the EFS 60 L 2.8 macro will take so long to sell that you'll give up. People will offer you $50-$100, and you'll just decide to keep it.

There's one other factor, too. If you're willing to buy used, there are a ton of great high-end EF lenses, and a ton of great really cheap EFS zooms. But there aren't very many of the high-end EFS lenses (like 17-55 2.8 or 60 L 2.8) available. If you buy really good L lenses used at the right time (a 2-3 years into the life cycle), you can lose almost nothing if you sell them at the right time (7-8 years into the life cycle).

In practical terms, yes, they'll almost always sell for less than you bough them for. But sometimes, the best investment choice is a loss minimization strategy.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 26, 2017)

stop jumping at forum members. there is a point in friendly interaction with other forum members, for starters. 

there is an important difference between RAW and mraw, sraw files.

_"...Unlike a full RAW file, the sRAW and mRAW files are not true RAW files..."_

here is why:

http://protogtech.com/adobe-lightroom/canons-mraw-sraw-formats-and-dng/






CanonGuy said:


> Who cares about those Raw editors? Like 0.76% users?
> 
> Sorry but yours is another pointless post.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 26, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> But yes, pointless posts like these from blind fan boys make me laugh. So thanks for that.



So saying that a camera does what you want it to do is being a 'blind fan boy'.

None so blind as they say...


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 26, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



It is - the Internet Financial Expert Brigade (TM) is convinced that "investment" only means "financial investment for financial return", when it's really "any allocation of resources for any sort of return". I just invested $300 in running shoes for a return in health and enjoyment. I invested much more money in my GX460 for a return in flexibility of driving my wife's bike around and general driving enjoyment. I also invest a good big pile into my 401k, and money into our mortgage and house maintenance, and... all of those are investments.

As for what he wants Canon to do, obviously, Innovate! And stop following, and stop crippling, and all the other non-specifics everyone complains about. I invested (hey there's that word again!) in EF lenses long before my FF body, and if I invest in a new body to get "better IQ" it's going to be straight into a 5D4. I like my Canon glass, I like my 5D3, and I'd rather stick to a better version of what I'm familiar with than change it all to something that I might not like as much.


----------



## snoke (Aug 26, 2017)

Talys said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > applecider said:
> ...



Buy $800 today, sell $600. Lose $200.
Buy $350 today, sell $100. Lose $250.

$50 not big difference.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 26, 2017)

snoke said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > snoke said:
> ...



$50 less for a much better lens? Sounds like a major difference in $/quality to me.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 26, 2017)

People jump on forum members and resort to insults when when they have no actual argument.

In other words, a troll post.

If enough people hit the "Report to Moderator" button when they see these posts that do nothing but insult, maybe these posts will be deleted and the users warned. That is, if the moderators want to do so, which so far they don't. As is unfortunately obvious, these troll posts generate a lot of response and thus are good for the site owner(s). I keep mentioning this to no avail - ignore the troll posts. Ignore the posts that are just meant to inflame and enrage.

Otherwise this forum will continue to deteriorate to these mindless arguments and name calling that take over almost every thread.



SecureGSM said:


> stop jumping at forum members. there is a point in friendly interaction with other forum members, for starters.
> 
> there is an important difference between RAW and mraw, sraw files.
> 
> ...


----------



## Talys (Aug 26, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



For sure. Also, it's proportionate. On an good EF lens, you'll lose maybe 20%-25% of the value. With a few exceptions like the EFS 17-55 2.8, which is still pretty easy to sell and holds its value (but also expensive), most EFS lens lose 30% of their value when you walk out the door of the camera store, and 75% within a few years.

Part of that is that there's just more supply and less demand for use EFS lenses, but another aspect is that the vast majority of EFS lenses get refreshed way quicker than EF and certainly EF L lenses. Once there's a new version out, that's the kiss of death for resale value.

Got an original EFS 55-250 or 18-55 kit lens? Value: lunch, if you're lucky? EFS 10-22? Cost you $650, you won't get more than $200 back for it used, and you'll wait til the next Solar eclipse to get that, because whoever is offering you money for you will try to get it for _less_ than the EFS10-18. 

I have nothing against EFS lenses; I own plenty. But I have no illusions about selling them -- they're nice to have, _cheap_, small, and light, and they can be useful... but their recovery on sale is miserable, at least for me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2017)

dak723 said:


> People jump on forum members and resort to insults when when they have no actual argument.
> 
> In other words, a troll post.
> 
> ...



I don't, I call people idiots when they are being idiotic and/or making idiotic claims or statements that do not stand up to reason, facts or constant patient corrections, links and articles that explain in great detail why their opinion is factually incorrect. I also call them obtuse when they are being obtuse. 

It's strange to me that nowadays both those statements of fact are considered insulting behavior. Indeed the constant trolling has lessened my involvement here as the trolls never seem to add anything useful, they just make loads of noise, rile everybody up and escape entirely uncensored.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 26, 2017)

I use 5Dmk3s and a 5DsR daily for work.

Both are good but I gravitate toward the R because of the resolution and sharpness.
The DR issue does not seem to affect my work as I light my scenes.

However, if I did not need my TS lenses I would be on this camera in a minute.

In truth, I really don't know how if I would see a difference in my work but the price of the body alone is a huge incentive.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 26, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > People jump on forum members and resort to insults when when they have no actual argument.
> ...



Yeah, this place has always been... _lively_, but since the 6D2 rumors picked up in earnest there've been a strangely large number of newcomers who registered just to express their displeasure and announce that they're either not buying into Canon or moving away. Which is a strange sentiment to have when joining a Canon forum, and they all seem to be posting at about the same rate. While I'm a big believer in free speech, I'm not convinced that they're anything but trolls (like actual trolls, from the original internet definition, posting just to get a response instead of just holding an unpopular opinion), and trolls don't need to be kept around.

Now watch them all step in and claim I'm trying to squelch dissent...


----------



## snoke (Aug 27, 2017)

Talys said:


> For sure. Also, it's proportionate. On an good EF lens, you'll lose maybe 20%-25% of the value. With a few exceptions like the EFS 17-55 2.8, which is still pretty easy to sell and holds its value (but also expensive), most EFS lens lose 30% of their value when you walk out the door of the camera store, and 75% within a few years.



No counting buyer desire. After one year, no warranty on lens. Problem mean pay repair. Risk. When buy used EF lens, goal always find seller 50% MSRP.



> Part of that is that there's just more supply and less demand for use EFS lenses, but another aspect is that the vast majority of EFS lenses get refreshed way quicker than EF and certainly EF L lenses. Once there's a new version out, that's the kiss of death for resale value.



Absolutely 100% right



> I have nothing against EFS lenses; I own plenty. But I have no illusions about selling them -- they're nice to have, _cheap_, small, and light, and they can be useful... but their recovery on sale is miserable, at least for me.



If recovery on sale is miserable, give it away to brother/sister/son/daughter/etc.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Aug 27, 2017)

Unless I am missing it, the D850 does NOT have a built-in flash, correct? Seems interesting considering the D800 and D810 have one (I think). One of the most sensible (non fantasy) criticisms of Canon 5D series is lack of built in flash and I would have thought this was a major selling point for Nikon D800 series. Overall however this does look like a killer camera and if I was not so deep on my credit card I might even consider it.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Aug 27, 2017)

Sorry for my ignorance, can someone *briefly* explain what a back side illuminated sensor is (as on the D850)?


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 27, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> Sorry for my ignorance, can someone *briefly* explain what a back side illuminated sensor is (as on the D850)?



The term is somewhat misleading but it means that the wiring for the photosites is on the back of the sensor instead of the front, freeing more surface area for the actual light-sensitive parts and also reducing light falloff in the corners (mechanical vignetting; the photosites getting shaded by the wiring).


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 27, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> Unless I am missing it, the D850 does NOT have a built-in flash, correct? Seems interesting considering the D800 and D810 have one (I think).



Most likely was sacrificed in order to make room for the larger viewfinder.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Aug 28, 2017)

Thank you @Sharlin for a concise explanation. I have never heard of wires vignetting the sensor. I wonder if it makes a difference in the real world or if it is just marketing hype?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> Thank you @Sharlin for a concise explanation. I have never heard of wires vignetting the sensor. I wonder if it makes a difference in the real world or if it is just marketing hype?



It makes a big difference on small sensors, especially phones and small sensored P&S's. It seems the tech doesn't scale particularly well because the percentage of sensor real estate lost to the traces is proportionally much smaller the bigger the sensor. Certainly everybody expected more from the several larger sensors that have come out with the tech but none have delivered anything like the jumps in performance the smaller sensors did.


----------



## AdjustedInCamera (Aug 28, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you @Sharlin for a concise explanation. I have never heard of wires vignetting the sensor. I wonder if it makes a difference in the real world or if it is just marketing hype?
> ...



My (limited) understanding is that with a 'normal' sensor not only are there read-out wires' in front of' the sensor, but these join the main board around the sides of the photo sites. This means that the photo sites cannot be right up against each other and so you have a gap between them that's not catching light.

On this basis it may well be large sensors with high resolutions also benefit from BSI for the reason you state, it allows proportionally more of the sensor to be available for light capture. The area of the sensor lost to the wiring and the gaps is higher as the pixel count goes up, and as the sensor gets smaller, so basically then, when the photo sites get smaller, the loss due to the wiring becomes more of a factor.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2017)

AdjustedInCamera said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > MrFotoFool said:
> ...


Gapless micro lenses seem to have mitigated that somewhat. Certainly the A7RII, whilst being a great camera, didn't have the performance hike over its predecessor the addition of a BSI would suggest. It seems that from preliminary results (that have proven accurate in the past) the D850 is the same.

I don't profess to be a sensor engineer, or understand a fraction of the tech speak, I am just going by results. When used on the small sensors it made a big difference, the larger they go the less it improves performance. Don't forget scaled up the phones and P&S's would be hundreds of MP sensors, not mere mid 10's.


----------



## AdjustedInCamera (Aug 28, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> AdjustedInCamera said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Makes sense - thanks.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Aug 28, 2017)

Yes thanks to all.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 28, 2017)

tomscott said:


> 7 and 9 FPS is impressive considering its pushing 45mp! 51 frame buffer of 14-bit lossless RAW capture. Wonder how long the write times will be



7 seconds to a fast QXD card, see point #9

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d850/nikon-d850A.HTM#q-and-a


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 28, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you @Sharlin for a concise explanation. I have never heard of wires vignetting the sensor. I wonder if it makes a difference in the real world or if it is just marketing hype?
> ...



Indeed. Working files from the Nikon D810 and the Sony a7rII, it looks to me that at low ISO Nikon's implementation of the 36 mp FF Exmor sensor is well superior to Sony's implementation of the 42 mp Exmor R. (BIS). 

Have you managed to make a post without a warning Private ? Well done


----------



## Aglet (Aug 28, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you @Sharlin for a concise explanation. I have never heard of wires vignetting the sensor. I wonder if it makes a difference in the real world or if it is just marketing hype?
> ...



Yes.

In this case, Nikon's engineers (who designed the sensor and fab'd it out) apparently chose to make a BSI sensor to increase bandwidth to get the high fps with all those pixels.
FWIW, I think BSI sensors used to be costlier to produce... Anyone have data on that aspect?
(cuz if so it makes the intro price all that much more _interestin_)

see point #11 on the link I put a couple posts up.

They're also claiming same or better DR than d810...
I'm looking forward to real tests on that as well as the read noise levels and possible pattern noise.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 28, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> Unless I am missing it, the D850 does NOT have a built-in flash, correct? Seems interesting considering the D800 and D810 have one (I think). One of the most sensible (non fantasy) criticisms of Canon 5D series is lack of built in flash and I would have thought this was a major selling point for Nikon D800 series. Overall however this does look like a killer camera and if I was not so deep on my credit card I might even consider it.



As Sharlin alluded to, it's not really that having a built-in flash is a selling point for the D800/810 and Canon just decided to do nothing. Rather, you have a certain amount of space in the VF bump, and you can either fill it with the biggest VF possible, or shrink the VF and add flash, or more antennas for WiFi/ BT/ GPS/ whatever. For someone who wants the flash, having it is a selling point. For someone who wants no flash or a dedicated one, having it built in is actually a negative, and not one that can be answered by "well just leave it folded down"; having the flash built-in specifically means that something else was left off to make room for it.

If you value a built-in flash you can certainly be disappointed that Canon chose another route for design, but it's not just them "being lazy", or "crippling" (which makes no sense, because it would only possibly be pushing people to a cheaper body instead of more expensive). As with almost all of these criticisms, it's a matter of tradeoffs and priorities, and based on sales, it seems as if Canon makes the correct choice more often than not, even if a very vocal minority is disappointed.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > MrFotoFool said:
> ...



I try Sporgon, I try, it is early here though so give me time to muck it up


----------



## MrFotoFool (Aug 28, 2017)

This camera body with the 100th Anniversary three lens kit would be a killer setup (14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 ). Almost (but not really) enough to make me switch to Nikon. If I had the money in hand, though, I might seriously consider it. That is until Canon's next great camera (5DsII?) and I decide to switch back.  Nikon's affordable 200-500 is a major selling point as well.


----------



## Ryananthony (Aug 29, 2017)

Why did the D850 lose the AE-L/AF-L button the back? Seems like a shame.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 29, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> Why did the D850 lose the AE-L/AF-L button the back? Seems like a shame.



"AF-ON" button near rear control wheel is likely programmable for function.
Also "F2" button on lower left will be ... something.. and in a slightly awkward position if you're using a large lens.


----------



## Ryananthony (Aug 29, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Ryananthony said:
> 
> 
> > Why did the D850 lose the AE-L/AF-L button the back? Seems like a shame.
> ...



I noticed the f2 button on the bottom left, but that would be awkward. On my 1DX I like using the asterisk for ''Recall shooting function'' and it has been a blessing. I dont and haven't owned a Nikon, but on the D810 I hoped I would be able to do something similar. Doesn't look like that will be the case at all with the D850. Do you have any experience?


----------



## Aglet (Aug 29, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Ryananthony said:
> ...



I can see that instant ability to change shooting modes or settings with a function button would be handy in some situations.

My FF Nikon experience is primarily with the original D800 as I haven't had a need to upgrade from that. I use them in full manual mode most of the time for landscape shooting. As such I make little use of advanced shooting features; just set up to work the way I typically do with that body.

It could be useful to download the PDF user manual for the D850 and see what they allow you to assign to the F2 button. There are a couple more buttons on the front, inside the fingertip area, but those are often used for stop-down preview and a variety of other functions you can program as well.

850 manual wasn't there yet when I checked:

http://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/index.html


----------



## Ryananthony (Aug 30, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Ryananthony said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



Thanks for the link. I can't believe I didn't think of actually reading the manual. Unfortunately, it doesn't look to be an option.


----------



## Talys (Aug 30, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> This camera body with the 100th Anniversary three lens kit would be a killer setup (14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 ). Almost (but not really) enough to make me switch to Nikon. If I had the money in hand, though, I might seriously consider it. That is until Canon's next great camera (5DsII?) and I decide to switch back.  Nikon's affordable 200-500 is a major selling point as well.



I was always jealous of the Nikon 200-500/5.6, until I got the Canon 100-400 L II. The much, much smaller size and weight make it a handheld shooter, while the Nikon is a rough ride for that, and the amazing 3.5' MFD makes it useful for shooting subjects the size of a bug without having to get so close as to spook it. Of course, there's the optical quality too.

Obviously, the price is a thing, as the Canon is $600 more. But if I had to choose between them, I'd pick the Canon 100-400LII every single time and happily shell out that extra $600.


----------



## Mancubus (Sep 2, 2017)

I saw that the D850 is already sold out on the pre-sales.

Canon, THIS is what we want, a top full frame body with no holding back on the specs. 

I was really convinced I'd buy a 5D4 even before it was announced, but I really can't convince myself - especially after looking at the D850 specs and knowing it costs roughly the same thing.


----------



## snoke (Sep 2, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> Canon, THIS is what we want, a top full frame body with no holding back on the specs.



At competitive price!


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 2, 2017)

snoke said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > Canon, THIS is what we want, a top full frame body with no holding back on the specs.
> ...



Sure, everyone wants that. I really hope the D850 proves to be as good as it looks on paper because competition is good for the consumer. Now let me ask you a question, just for context: suppose the D850 and the 5D4 had the same sensor, with all else remaining the same. Would this cause Nikon shooters to sell their gear and move to Canon? Why or why not?


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 2, 2017)

Why not consider purchasing 5D IV at grey market price (US$2750) then? that should be convincing enough? 



Mancubus said:


> I was really convinced I'd buy a 5D4 even before it was announced, but I really can't convince myself - especially after looking at the D850 specs and knowing it costs roughly the same thing.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Sep 4, 2017)

Based on specs this really is the perfect camera (one which I can't seem to get out of my head, after thinking I would never buy another camera for a decade or more). One note on ergonomics, which is an observation made by my Nikon shooting brother comparing his D800 to my 5Diii. I think the D850 is similar to D800 in size?

The Canon is solid and nice heft but has a normal (not too tall) body. The D800 series is a bit taller, but not as big as a pro grip body (Canon 1D series, Nikon D5). My brother felt the Nikon fit better in the hand as my Canon felt like his pinky finger was falling off the bottom. He and I are are both tall with long fingers, so for people like us I think he may have a point.

I recently picked up a used Canon 1Div as my second camera, which though I like is a bit too big and heavy (on first major shoot without a strap or tripod it gave me tennis elbow which took a few months to heal). I think the D800 series (including new D850) is the perfect size.

I really cannot afford to change systems - why am I trying to convince myself to get this camera?!!!


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 4, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> I saw that the D850 is already sold out on the pre-sales.
> 
> Canon, THIS is what we want, a top full frame body with no holding back on the specs.
> 
> I was really convinced I'd buy a 5D4 even before it was announced, but I really can't convince myself - especially after looking at the D850 specs and knowing it costs roughly the same thing.



The 5D4 is a significant upgrade to the Mk3 despite what you read online, the camera is improved in every way IMO. I'd never go back to a Mk3, it's a better camera than my 1DX2 in many ways.

Oh and re the D850, people are never happy, over on the Nikon camp they are all saying how users will stick with the D810.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Sep 4, 2017)

arthurbikemad said:


> The 5D4 is a significant upgrade to the Mk3 despite what you read online, the camera is improved in every way IMO. I'd never go back to a Mk3, it's a better camera than my 1DX2 in many ways...


I am curious if you have used both (5D3 and 5D4) and if you notice an improvement in the AI focus tracking. I sometimes photograph animals and found the 5D3 cannot keep the head in focus, but lags a bit where the point of focus is farther back on the body. I bought a used 1D4 that works well for this, but it is so darn heavy.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 4, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> arthurbikemad said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D4 is a significant upgrade to the Mk3 despite what you read online, the camera is improved in every way IMO. I'd never go back to a Mk3, it's a better camera than my 1DX2 in many ways...
> ...



Without sounding like a canon advert I'd say it is improved, they claim it has improved algorithms etc etc but I'd take a guess and say it's the focus system in general that has been improved, that plus more umph from the processor contributes to better AF in general, tbh I don't see any significant change from my 5D4 and my 1DX2. What is a big improvement in both bodies is the low light performance of the focus system, this is the one area that I feel great steps has been made by Canon. My 5D3 used to struggle with low light AF where the 5D4 seems to see in the dark, that said my 1DX2 did have issues last week shooting with the 85ii into the direct sun! Things that stand out for me are, the touch screen, the touch screen AF has way more options than the 1DX2, low light AF, the extra MP, WiFi/phone app is very useful, Video AF is GREAT, the new focus toggle button as seen on the 7D2, feels lighter than a 5D3, I am sure these things may seem minor but they add up as a whole. Hire one?

Never as good as a D850 but it will do. ;D


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 4, 2017)

Just to add few point to the excellent write up by arthurbikemad,

5D IV is the first 5D body that received 1D body metering system sans dedicated metering processor of 1dx II.

So better tracking, more accurate and colour aware metering, better WB for out of camera images.

Increased AF point low light sensitivity to -3EV transates to much improved AF accuracy as 5D III AF system used to struggle in low light situation and that resulted in decreased AF accuracy ( quality of focus).

Remote shutter release port relocated to the front of the camera makes big difference for cameras installed with L-bracket when shooting in portrait orientation. Shutter release cable does not get in the way any longer. Thank you Canon for that.
Increased pixel level sharpness by nearly 8% - all your lenses get instant sharpness boost. This is a substantial amount!

An increased sensor resolution at the same time adds to the statement above. Now you can print larger with better quality or view on larger screen.

A little better AF spread.

Now, very subtle one: AF joystick is more refined on 5D IV
Better weather proctection level than the one of predecessor.

P.S. I just made a purchase of my brand new 5D IV body and paid A$3,330.00 with free delivery and all taxes included. That equates to just *US$2,650.00* at the current exchange rate.

Here is the link for fellow Australians that may are on lookout for a well priced 5D IV body:

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/182569592138 

Do not forget to add coupon "PAINT" at checkout to received 10% discounts off the listed A$3,700.00 price. Once applied, the price will change to A$3,330.00. This deal is valid until the 8th of September 2017.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Sep 4, 2017)

This is great! You are really convincing me to ditch my 1D4 and forget about the Nikon D850 (which I could not afford anyway) and get a 5D4. Up until now I thought it was minimally different than 5D3 (since I have zero interest in video) but improved low light focus and focus in general is great news. 30MP should be plenty, since I have managed to upsize files from my 5D3 and even my previous 5D2 as large as 40x60 inches.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 4, 2017)

I haven't mentioned the single biggest gripe with 5D3 that made me to sell the body:

I was thoroughly disappointed with ISO 3200+ images taken with 5D3 to the point that I said to myself: my 6D is a better low light camera than the 5D3. Yes, 5D4 Is by A$1,000 more expensive than brand new 5D3 , but also allows me to produce much better imagery in challenging situations. It works out as a better solution mid to long term anyway. I would rather enjoy my photography now. The life is too short  ... 





MrFotoFool said:


> This is great! You are really convincing me to ditch my 1D4 and forget about the Nikon D850 (which I could not afford anyway) and get a 5D4. Up until now I thought it was minimally different than 5D3 (since I have zero interest in video) but improved low light focus and focus in general is great news. 30MP should be plenty, since I have managed to upsize files from my 5D3 and even my previous 5D2 as large as 40x60 inches.


----------



## PixelTrawler (Sep 4, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Just to add few point to the excellent write up by arthurbikemad,
> 
> 5D IV is the first 5D body that received 1D body metering system sans dedicated metering processor of 1dx II.
> 
> ...



Just a quick correction. The 5d4 does have a metering processor. A digic 6. Its main imaging chip is the 6+.
Its not rated as a dual processor as it only has the one imaging chip but it does have 2 digics on board.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Sep 29, 2017)

Thanks for all the advice. Nikon, shmikon - who needs them? I have sent in my 5D3 and 1D4 (and one lens) to KEH and have ordered a refurbished 5D4 from Canon direct. It has arrived but I was not home to sign for it so I will pick it up tomorrow morning at UPS. I look forward to enjoying the last camera I will need for a long time. Of course I said that when I got my 5D3, but this time I mean it!


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2017)

That's the spirit! 

Just to make you feel even better about the last camera that you will need for a long time: here is pixel level sharpness results for some Canon and Nikon cameras. the larger the number the better. I have explained previously, that this may be an important metrics for someone who prints large or view/project images on a larger screens:

Nikon D850: 1,659.7 AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G, F5.6, ISO 100
Nikon D750: 1,811.2 as above
Nikon D810: 1,751.8 as above 
Canon 5DsR: 1,690.1  EF85mm f/1.8 USM F5.6 ISO 100 
Canon 5D IV: 1,864.2 as above
Canon 80D: 1,906.8 EF50mm f/1.4 USM F5.6 ISO 100

your new 5D IV is 15% sharper than Nikon D850 at pixel level. you will be able to produce much sharper images with your old lenses as a bonus. 15% of pixel level sharpness advantage is the approximate sharpness difference between AFMA adjusted lens and the one that is out of tune by approximately +/- 7-8 AFMA points.




MrFotoFool said:


> Thanks for all the advice. Nikon, shmikon - who needs them?... I look forward to enjoying the last camera I will need for a long time. Of course I said that when I got my 5D3, but this time I mean it!


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> That's the spirit!
> 
> Just to make you feel even better about the last camera that you will need for a long time: here is pixel level sharpness results for some Canon and Nikon cameras. the larger the number the better. I have explained previously, that this may be an important metrics for someone who prints large or view/project images on a larger screens:
> 
> ...



I can't remember if I have asked you this before, but how does that offset against the 'de-sharpening' (is that a word) effect of magnifying the 80D image more?


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 29, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> Thanks for all the advice. Nikon, shmikon - who needs them? I have sent in my 5D3 and 1D4 (and one lens) to KEH and have ordered a refurbished 5D4 from Canon direct. It has arrived but I was not home to sign for it so I will pick it up tomorrow morning at UPS. I look forward to enjoying the last camera I will need for a long time. Of course I said that when I got my 5D3, but this time I mean it!


I would just like to endorse everything that Arthurbikemad and SecureGSM have said.
When the 5D mark 4 was first announced I did not buy one immediately because so many of the reviews at the time were very negative about it. The reviews were not openly critical of the camera (apart from its video features) - it was more a case of damning it with faint praise.
As my 5D mark 3 was on its last legs, I had to do something - either go for another 5D mark 3, or upgrade to a 1Dx (either the 1DX mark 1 or mark2), change brands (Sony and Nikon being the only alternatives I seriously considered) or go for a 5D mark 4.
I took several of the cameras on my shortlist for a test drive and in the end I went for the 5D mark 4. Having owned the camera now for 6 months I am really pleased with the choice I made. It is a far better camera than I was expecting and many of the improvements are difficult to quantify. The focussing is much better than the 5D mark 3, especially in low light and it is more forgiving of photographers who make lots of mistakes such as I do. The pictures just look better and I cannot really explain why.
On paper the Nikon D850 looks like a very good camera indeed, and it is probably slightly better than the 5D mark 4 - but then it is a more recent camera so you would expect it to be slightly better. However I doubt that the difference is sufficient to justify selling all your Canon equipment and buying a D850 instead.
One thing I have noticed is that Canon don't really proclaim how good their cameras are. They are always a bit reserved about it, and so I have always found that their cameras are a slightly better than I was expecting. This to me is better than some of the other camera manufactures who make claims that are either only partly true or, if you read the small print, require exceptionally favourable shooting conditions to be valid.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2017)

If you were to upscale any image you would lose sharpness/contrast/details to a certain degree.

what I am saying though is:

if your were to crop the files to an identical pixel size both horizontally and vertically, and print them large, then 80d printed image will be much sharper than the one from 5DsR or D850... 

the notion that one can CROP 5DsR files to the size of 80D and then print them large and still be better of, evidently does not hold the water.

If you DOWNSAMPLE 5DsR files instead, then it is a completely different story as you lose nearly 20% at pixel level sharpness BUT make up for the loss due to approx. 45% image size downsampling. I hope it makes sense.

I am looking forward to 80D sensor tech upscaled and implemented in 5DsR II. now, that would be one ultimate High Res / High IQ machine. I hope Canon realised that the sensor tech they used in 80D beats every single available Canon, Sony and Nikon sensor when it comes to pixel level sharpness.



Mikehit said:


> I can't remember if I have asked you this before, but how does that offset against the 'de-sharpening' (is that a word) effect of magnifying the 80D image more?


----------



## Hflm (Sep 29, 2017)

arthurbikemad said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > arthurbikemad said:
> ...



Matt Granger put the D850 against the D5. Although claimed to use the same AF system, the performance difference was huge:

https://petapixel.com/2017/09/27/nikon-d850-autofocus-tracking-not-good-d5-test-finds/


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> If you were to upscale any image you would lose sharpness/contrast/details to a certain degree.
> 
> what I am saying though is:
> 
> ...



Than you. 
Another of those 'it depends...' situations.


----------



## Hflm (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> That's the spirit!
> 
> Just to make you feel even better about the last camera that you will need for a long time: here is pixel level sharpness results for some Canon and Nikon cameras. the larger the number the better. I have explained previously, that this may be an important metrics for someone who prints large or view/project images on a larger screens:
> 
> ...


Could you post the definition of this metric and the way you obtained the numbers in your post? Having used quite many of these cameras, I am highly sceptical of what you present here.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2017)

I downloaded RAW files for all tested cameras from the following page:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d850&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=sony_a7rii&attr13_3=canon_eos5dsr&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.006536766544423875&y=0.3382338704235256

once, downloaded, I fed the RAW file into Reikan Focal Quality of Focus Analyser tool.


please see a couple of reports attached. 

p.s. images, downloaded from the following page are not the same as on the page in the link above.
Therefore, I was able to run the QoF test over 2 image files per each camera instead of just a single file.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=nikon_d750&attr144_2=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_3=nikon_d750&attr146_0=100_3&attr146_1=100_3&attr146_2=100_4&attr146_3=100_4&normalization=full&widget=542&x=0.124786377&y=0.5025702




Hflm said:


> Could you post the definition of this metric and the way you obtained the numbers in your post? Having used quite many of these cameras, I am highly sceptical of what you present here.


----------



## Hflm (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I downloaded RAW files for all tested cameras from the following page:
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d850&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=sony_a7rii&attr13_3=canon_eos5dsr&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.006536766544423875&y=0.3382338704235256
> 
> ...


I think this to be quite a questionable approach. 
First, you have to keep in mind the demosaicing process and the noise reduction or sharpening metrics baked into the raw file, different lenses of different focal lengths (where sharpness depends, too, on the subject distance; my Focal results differ when calibrating my lens/body combinations depending on subject distance or consequent FOV changes). Another problem is focus accuracy. Nailing focus perfectly is not so easy and Dpreview quite often commented on the difficulty of achieving this (the A9 images were withdrawn, for example). 

And of course, not directly relevant here, we have different AA filters, which usually tend lower contrast at higher cycles, but reduce false detail due to alising (often gives the impression of higher acuity) and still allow for sharpening in post (no spectral cut off, so the information is not lost).

This is why people like Jim Kasson and others try to use raw converters which allow as much user control over the demosaicing as possible or move the cam on an electric sledge to hit peak sharpness.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2017)

Not saying this is perfectly accurate, however, please notice:
That all 3 Nikon bodies were tested with the same lens attached, same ISO, F value, at identical distance to the target , framing and nearly identical light levels (EV value). I agree that QoF values may change considerably if light level has changed, but I do not observe enough EV level variation in files to be concerned. 10EV was an average level in files if I I am correct here. 
With IS switched off and critical focus confirmed as I have sets of Test images obtained from 2 bodies (2 serial numbers , different firmware version) and results are nearly identical. 

Considering All of the above, I am comfortable to conclude that D750 body demosaiced RAW file is pixel level sharper than the same of D850 and by a substantial margin.

On unrelated note: I come across a statement that “your old lens does not resolve as good on high resolution body”
Or “ high resolution body outresolves your old lens”
Well, it looks like what I found is perfectly explains what really takes place here:

High resolution sensors (5Ds, d850) do not offer the best pixel level sharpness. Hence your lens that resolved at around 1800 level on 5D III all that sudden performs sluggishly on 5Ds at pixel level. 

I have a logical explanation to my statement:

No one complained so far that an old lens was outresolved on Canon 80D. Not a single report. 
How do you explain that fact as pixel density of 80D is very similar (actually even higher than the same of 5Ds)?
However, if we accept that I was correct to find that 80D sensor resolves much better at pixel level than 5Ds, then it all makes sense all the sudden. 




Hflm said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > I downloaded RAW files for all tested cameras from the following page:
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> High resolution sensors (5Ds, d850) do not offer the best pixel level sharpness. Hence your lens that resolved at around 1800 level on 5D III all that sudden performs sluggishly on 5Ds at pixel level.



And yet the 80D, which has the same density as the 5DS is the best of the lot.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2017)

Correct, 80D sensor has a higher pixel density than 5Ds by approx. 20%. but next generation sensor tech.

I am saying this:
the 80D / 5D IV sensor tech is better than the older tech in 7D II and 5Ds. hence I said the following before:



> "...I am looking forward to 80D sensor tech upscaled and implemented in 5DsR II. now, that would be one ultimate High Res / High IQ machine. I hope Canon realised that the sensor tech they used in 80D beats every single available Canon, Sony and Nikon sensor when it comes to pixel level sharpness..."









Mikehit said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > High resolution sensors (5Ds, d850) do not offer the best pixel level sharpness. Hence your lens that resolved at around 1800 level on 5D III all that sudden performs sluggishly on 5Ds at pixel level.
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Correct, 80D sensor has a higher pixel density than 5Ds by approx. 20%. but next generation sensor tech.
> 
> I am saying this:
> the 80D / 5D IV sensor tech is better than the older tech in 7D II and 5Ds. hence I said the following before:



Excuse my scepticism, but given the way sensor tech evolves and how few successive products use the same sensor tech, I find it hard to draw a conclusion you did. And you especially cannot say this when comparing between brands (Sony vs 'nikon designed Sony' vs Canon)
It would also be interesting to know how you define 'different sensor tech' given that the 6D2 is not the same sensor tech as previous models despite what people said at the time of its release.


----------



## Hflm (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Not saying this is perfectly accurate, however, please notice:
> That all 3 Nikon bodies were tested with the same lens attached, same ISO, F value, at identical distance to the target , framing and nearly identical light levels (EV value). I agree that QoF values may change considerably if light level has changed, but I do not observe enough EV level variation in files to be concerned. 10EV was an average level in files if I I am correct here.
> With IS switched off and critical focus confirmed as I have sets of Test images obtained from 2 bodies (2 serial numbers , different firmware version) and results are nearly identical.
> 
> ...


No doesn't make sense, see the link below. I owned the D750 and D810 and no way, even at pixel level, was the D750 better than the D810. The AA filter alone reduced acuity and strong sharpening was required. 

What happens here is very likely demosaicing bias due to in-RAW baked values and Raw-processor influences (note that Dpreview uses standard values). DCRAW is able to get the information straight from the raw file. This is nicely discussed here: http://www.strollswithmydog.com/raw-converter-sharpening-with-sliders-at-zero/
You can nicely see the influence of gamma, WB, as well as RAW-converter.
I don't know how Focal measures the Quality factor in detail, probably via looking at the edge intensity profile like in the link. Seeing such a strong impact already negates comparisons without taking this factor into account.

The number of pixels per gradient is additionally important and influences slanted edge sharpness in the used metric. It is even possible that the higher pixel camera under this metric has less acuity. Instead you just resolve the edge intensity profile better (which is not a pure step function due to the lens), but has a finite width. In research I often face a similar problem in numerics, when dealing with shocks (are similar to step functions here). 

Regarding the resolution, just a note. If you have a diffraction limited lens for f/8, you can have at most 29MP resolution (2pixels per Airy disc, wavelength 550nm, reduces to 19MP for 700nm) on FF. If the used lenses were diffraction limited to f5.6, your values change (60MP at 500nm and 39MP at 700nm) on FF sensors. This is the maximum you can get irrespective of the MP of the sensor. The latter situation for an APSC sensor means 27MP and 17MP, respectively. So both are affected similarly relative to their pixel count.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 29, 2017)

Hflm said:


> I don't know how Focal measures the Quality factor in detail, probably via looking at the edge intensity profile like in the link. Seeing such a strong impact already negates comparisons without taking this factor into account.
> 
> The number of pixels per gradient is additionally important and influences slanted edge sharpness in the used metric. It is even possible that the higher pixel camera under this metric has less acuity. Instead you just resolve the edge intensity profile better (which is not a pure step function due to the lens), but has a finite width. In research I often face a similar problem in numerics, when dealing with shocks (are similar to step functions here).
> 
> Regarding the resolution, just a note. If you have a diffraction limited lens for f/8, you can have at most 29MP resolution (2pixels per Airy disc, wavelength 550nm, reduces to 19MP for 700nm) on FF. If the used lenses were diffraction limited to f5.6, your values change (60MP at 500nm and 39MP at 700nm) on FF sensors. This is the maximum you can get irrespective of the MP of the sensor. The latter situation for an APSC sensor means 27MP and 17MP, respectively. So both are affected similarly relative to their pixel count.



+1
The point about measuring IQ from Reikan FoCal is borne out in practice. FoCal does indeed measure Quality of Focus in terms of edge sharpness, that is acutance, and acutance appears higher on lower mpx sensors. I routinely calibrate the same lenses on both a 5DSR and a 5DIV (and before that a 5DIII) and the lower resolution sensor gives a higher QoF despite being truly trounced in resolution tests.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2017)

Mike,
6D, 5D III and 6D II QoF test results are very close, just so we both understand that 80D and 5D IV test results do stand out quite a bit.
"different sensor tech" - because of on sensor ADC and who knows what else Canon improved in 80D and 5D IV sensor. 

not really in a position to argue the point. a*ll I know is that on 5D IV my lenses deliver higher QoF results than on my 6D body. same lens, same distance, same calibration target, same version of FoCal, same or similar lighting conditions...All of them, no exception..* Make what you want from this. 



Mikehit said:


> It would also be interesting to know how you define 'different sensor tech' given that the 6D2 is not the same sensor tech as previous models despite what people said at the time of its release.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2017)

right. 5D IV is a higher resolution sensor than 6D (30Mp vs 20Mp) or 6d II, yet it produced higher QoF results.

according to your theory, 6D QoF numbers should be higher yet they are not.



AlanF said:


> +1
> The point about measuring IQ from Reikan FoCal is borne out in practice. FoCal does indeed measure Quality of Focus in terms of edge sharpness, that is acutance, and acutance appears higher on lower mpx sensors. I routinely calibrate the same lenses on both a 5DSR and a 5DIV (and before that a 5DIII) and *the lower resolution sensor gives a higher QoF despite being truly trounced in resolution tests*.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Mike,
> 6D, 5D III and 6D II QoF test results are very close, just so we both understand that 80D and 5D IV test results do stand out quite a bit.
> "different sensor tech" - because of on sensor ADC and who knows what else Canon improved in 80D and 5D IV sensor.
> 
> not really in a position to argue the point. a*ll I know is that on 5D IV my lenses deliver higher QoF results than on my 6D body. same lens, same distance, same calibration target, same version of FoCal, same or similar lighting conditions...All of them, no exception..* Make what you want from this.



Your previous statements were quite categorical about which camera has higher pixel sharpness and how higher density sensors give lower pixel level sharpness and reference to sensor technology. But your quote above suggests you cannot define what 'same technology' means and lets us 'make of that what you can' based not on objective measurements but subjective review of an image. 
On top of this your numbers comparing FF and APS-C are only helpful if you crop a FF image to the same FOV as a APS-C - which is a limited situation

So this does make me wonder what practical value your numbers have and anyone looking at them without really understanding may draw the wrong conclusion. 

Please do not think I am trashing what you are saying but as a world-weary scientist I am trying to reconcile what you are saying. My other expensive sin is hi-fi and if that is packed full of pseudo-science as much as quality science and I have seen all manner of measurements that claim new insights.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> If you were to upscale any image you would lose sharpness/contrast/details to a certain degree.
> 
> what I am saying though is:
> 
> ...



What a lot of useless talk going on here.

This is the fact: 
1) you take a picture with a 5DSR and the same one with a 5DIV on a nice summer's day (just to exclude DR etc.). 
2) you like the picture and decide to make a print - any print size will do normal, large, very large, extremely large - whatever
3) the 5DSR picture will be sharper than the 5DIV picture - and you will be able to see the difference in your print (except at smaller print sizes)

More pixels count - a lot. 

End of story.

The same BTW holds true for on-line publishing.

Everything else - and all the discussion above - is about tech numbers but has nothing to do with photography...

...Just making it clear to those that may be misguided to believe anyone will ever take a sharper picture with a 80D or 5DIV than the same picture taken with a 5DS/R... ;D


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 29, 2017)

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d850&attr13_1=canon_eos6d&attr13_2=nikon_d750&attr13_3=nikon_d5&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.847120473833242&y=0.16149330482305577


DPReview just added the D850 to their comparison tool.
I have to say, it looks worse than the 6D, and the D750, and as far as I can tell the Nikon D5 is still the best low light camera on the market.
Nikon figured out some kind of black magic with the D5 and D500 to give them new levels of low light performance, but somehow that didn't make it into the D850.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2017)

MIke, just a couple of observations:

1. I was quite clear that the 2 higher resolution bodies I was referring to are: 5Ds and 850D
yes, the QoF numbers were the lowest for either of them.
I never said that all lower density sensors produce higher QoF results. please read again what I written.
5D IV QoF is higher than 6D. what does this tell you?

2. 80D and 5D IV sensors produced the highest QoF number out of the bunch. both sensors are the new generation of Canon on sensor ADC tech.
3. You may call this an accutance or an edge sharpness. 

4. cropping FF sensor to APC-S sensor being a limited situation: 
I am not into Wildlife photography but I recall others have discussed cropping 5DsR image vs proper framing on APS-C body in wildlife photography application on this forum before. that would be that limited situation you are referring to. 

5. and finally, I would qualify my findings as an empirical results rather than a science. 
6. I never claimed that I defined the technology. I have no interest in such a definition. I am interested in outcomes rather than continue a pointless argument about what is the reason behind the results I am getting.

simple takeaway home for me personally:

5D IV and 80D sensor produced images with the highest level of accutance/ edge sharpness/ whatever you would like to call this. now, unless you know how 80D and 5D IV sensors are different, I doubt very much we can reliably explain the reason behind this accutance phenomenon. It could be anything.








Mikehit said:


> Your previous statements were quite categorical about which camera has higher pixel sharpness and how higher density sensors give lower pixel level sharpness and reference to sensor technology. But your quote above suggests you cannot define what 'same technology' means and lets us 'make of that what you can' based not on objective measurements but subjective review of an image.
> On top of this your numbers comparing FF and APS-C are only helpful if you crop a FF image to the same FOV as a APS-C - which is a limited situation
> 
> So this does make me wonder what practical value your numbers have and anyone looking at them without really understanding may draw the wrong conclusion.
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> MIke, just a couple of observations:
> 
> 1. I was quite clear that the 2 higher resolution bodies I was referring to are: 5Ds and 850D
> yes, the QoF numbers were the lowest for either of them.
> ...



What you did say was



> High resolution sensors (5Ds, d850) do not offer the best pixel level sharpness. Hence your lens that resolved at around 1800 level on 5D III all that sudden performs sluggishly on 5Ds at pixel level.



which you qualified with 



> the 80D / 5D IV sensor tech is better than the older tech in 7D II and 5Ds.



which brings tech into the equation, as an explanation of the difference. But you are unable to say what 'better tech' actually means how do you know tech is the reason? You seem to be using bland supposition to explain observations that do not match your numbers. I am not saying tech is not the reason just that it is seemingly impossible to say. This then draws into doubt other claims you make on work that you are obviously putting time into. 




SecureGSM said:


> 4. cropping FF sensor to APC-S sensor being a limited situation:
> I am not into Wildlife photography but I recall others have discussed cropping 5DsR image vs proper framing on APS-C body in wildlife photography application on this forum before. that would be that limited situation you are referring to.



Yes. But you cannot make statements in isolation like you did, without qualifying them - which you only did after people questioned the meaning of your results. 
So your numbers are meaningless to a landscape photographer who has an 80D and is thinking of upgrading to a FF camera. There was exactly the same discussion when the 6D2 came out and how the sensor was 'poorer' than a 80D - but it seems that not for a landscape photographer it isn't precisely because of this.




SecureGSM said:


> 5. and finally, I would qualify my findings as an empirical results rather than a science.
> 6. I never claimed that I defined the technology. I have no interest in such a definition. I am interested in outcomes rather than continue a pointless argument about what is the reason behind the results I am getting.


Reasons are not 'pointless'. Measuring something then not assessing their relevance is creating numbers for the sake of it. Without any understanding of the reasons, your claims of discrepancies being the result of 'different technology' is merely suppositions and mumb-jumbo. 
Even the much-discussed DxO say that differences in scores of less than 5 points is probably not noticeable. What level of difference do your results become relevant?



SecureGSM said:


> simple takeaway home for me personally:
> 
> 5D IV and 80D sensor produced images with the highest level of accutance/ edge sharpness/ whatever you would like to call this. now, unless you know how 80D and 5D IV sensors are different, I doubt very much we can reliably explain the reason behind this accutance phenomenon. It could be anything.



I agree. But this is where you need to be careful. You have presented these numbers before, but I have still not seen a demonstration of what they actually mean in the real world. How does 1875 compare to 1800 or 1695?

I would love these numbers to have a real-world relevance to give us another handle on this technology but at the moment I am trying hard to get my head around what that is exactly.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> right. 5D IV is a higher resolution sensor than 6D (30Mp vs 20Mp) or 6d II, yet it produced higher QoF results.
> 
> according to your theory, 6D QoF numbers should be higher yet they are not.
> 
> ...



The quote you highlighted in red was for my measurements. Here is a chart I prepared some time ago that has the average spread of measurements published by FoCal on the top and below the spread of my own measurements on different bodies. I haven't tried the 6DII. There are other factors that come such as the strength of the AA-filter and the construction. All things being equal, what I wrote should be correct, but sometimes all things are not equal. 

What is important is not to equate Reikan QoF with IQ and resolution.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2017)

if you crop ( not downscale) 5DsR image to the size of 5D IV sensor, the resulting image will be less accute/ edge sharp / whatever that the same produced by 5D IV.
I explained on the previous page that despite 5DsR images are nearly 20% less accute ( edge sharp, or whatever you would like to call this), due to 45% pixel count advantage horisontally and vertically, the downsampled image will be sharper than same of 80D. sharper.


practical implication:

if Canon will upscaled 80D sensor in 5DsR II, you will be able to print even larger as you r image accutance or edge sharpness will be much higher. I hope it makes sense. 

Once 5DsR II was released and test RAW images are available from DPR, I will ran the test again to see what QoF number the new sensor produced.

and no, it has nothing to do with photography. nothing at all 

Sorry, I would rather leave this conversation now until such a time when 5DsR II has materialised and then we can re-visit this conversation and hopefully you would be able to explain how the new 5DsR II sensor beats the crap out of the old 5DsR on accutance / edge sharpness level despite being a higher resolution sensor than 5DsR original.



Maiaibing said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > If you were to upscale any image you would lose sharpness/contrast/details to a certain degree.
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2017)

according to the table you have provided,
5D IV numbers at least equal or even slightly higher than the same of 5D III.
and 5D IV is a higher resolution body. 

AA filter on 5D IV body is much stronger than on the 5D III. you know that. yet is produced higher accutance / edge sharpness number.
I do not recall that I ever referred to the results that I am getting being an IQ level indicator.
I used pixel level sharpness word. you may call this edge sharpness or accutance if you will.

according to the numbers that I was getting 5D IV accutance / edge sharpness was very slightly sharper, nearly identical. 5DsR numbers do stand out though.
Have a great week end everyone. 



AlanF said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > right. 5D IV is a higher resolution sensor than 6D (30Mp vs 20Mp) or 6d II, yet it produced higher QoF results.
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> if you crop ( not downscale) 5DsR image to the size of 5D IV sensor, the resulting image will be less accute/ edge sharp / whatever that the same produced by 5D IV.


I think everyone knows that. This is like taking an image with 7D2 and 5DIV and reproducing them at the same size. I don't need your numbers to tell me that



SecureGSM said:


> I explained on the previous page that despite 5DsR images are nearly 20% less accute ( edge sharp, or whatever you would like to call this), due to 45% pixel count advantage horisontally and vertically, the downsampled image will be sharper than same of 80D. sharper.


Again, self-evident



SecureGSM said:


> practical implication:
> 
> if Canon will upscaled 80D sensor in 5DsR II, you will be able to print even larger as you r image accutance or edge sharpness will be much higher. I hope it makes sense.


Again, self-evident - more pixels in a larger sensor.

I am struggling to see how this idea of 'pixel sharpness' is helping our understanding or explaining what is going on at the sensor. 

Are your tests quantifying what we see, or are your tests offering an explanation? To take a (probably poor) analogy, does your speedometer show in an increase in speed because you are going faster, or are you gong faster because your speedometer is creeping up the scale?


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2017)

did I ever said that I know what is the reason behind this phenomenon?
I said that it could be anything - who knows what changes Canon made in 80D and 5D IV sensor. can you see what I am writing?

I never said 80D is a better camera stop this nonsense please.
I said and I stand my ground that 5D IV and 80D sensor exhibit higher accutance / edge sharpness in one isolated test.
what thats has to do with 6D II. landscape photography or any other camera as a device? I am referring to a single particular metric and you talk about totally unrelated subjects. what is your scientific explanation of this phenomenon then? 

I have a good idea: why would you run your own tests over few canon, nikon and sony bodies and come back with an alternative conclusion.

anyway, your logic is flawed. make what you what you will of these numbers. call them what you want but please stop accusing me of claims I never made. all the best.




Mikehit said:


> But you are unable to say what 'better tech' actually means how do you know tech is the reason? You seem to be using bland supposition to explain observations that do not match your numbers. I am not saying tech is not the reason just that it is seemingly impossible to say. This then draws into doubt other claims you make on work that you are obviously putting time into.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2017)

do you really have to? sorry. do you read me: my tests are quantifying what we see. did I ever attempted to provide explanation beyond a vague statement: new or better sensor tech on 80D or 5D IV sensors??? no, I have not. so why are you saying that I have?
I do not care what is going on on the sensor level. there is a phenomenon that you cannot explain. but end result is: accutance / edge sharpness on 5D IV and 80D sensor is better than the same on 6D. that affects the outcomes. if it does not affect your outcomes why wasting your time and my time. if it matter not to you what are you arguing here?

Please explain me why 5DsR Qof number is 1650, 6D QoF number is 1800 and 80D number is 1900.

if you cannot explain or produce your numbers, then lets discuss your speedometer theory or weather in Melbourne. and why not?



it is not self evident that 

I


Mikehit said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > if you crop ( not downscale) 5DsR image to the size of 5D IV sensor, the resulting image will be less accute/ edge sharp / whatever that the same produced by 5D IV.
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> did I ever said that I know what is the reason behind this phenomenon?
> I said that it could be anything - who knows what changes Canon made in 80D and 5D IV sensor. can you see what I am writing?
> 
> I never said 80D is a better camera stop this nonsense please.
> ...



Sorry but you did make a claim about the reason behind the differences by taking about sensors having different technology (you brought it up, not me) but if you comment was one of speculation then that was not clear and I may have over-emphasised its relevance. 

I never said you said claimed the 80D was a better camera - please show me where I did. You now seem to be accusing of making claims I never made. What I did see what the 80D has higher numbers than other models which means it is clearly 'better' in some regard, because if that is not what it means, what do these numbers show? 
And I brought up the 6D2 only as an illustration of how measurements like the ones you have produced can be misleading if the assumptions are not made clear. 

As for 'make what I will' of these numbers, that is precisely what I am trying to do. On the same table you have presented APS-C cameras and FF cameras but you are giving us little to no guidance on what they actually mean when applied to photography and defining differences between different models. 

What logic of mine do you think is flawed? All I am doing is trying to understand these numbers so if you see a flaw in my logic please explain why it is flawed.

As I said, I really want to understand what is going on here.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> do you really have to? sorry. do you read me: my tests are quantifying what we see.



OK. Now that is clear. You previous statements on this thread and previous threads have given me the impression that 'Camera X is better because..' which suggests you are trying to explain what we see. 
Do you have any suggestions on what is a meaningful difference? Does camera A have a score of 20 better better than Camera B because there is a genuine difference? Or is it 'measurement noise'?




SecureGSM said:


> I do not care what is going on on the sensor level. there is a phenomenon that you cannot explain. but end result is: accutance / edge sharpness on 5D IV and 80D sensor is better than the same on 6D. that affects the outcomes.



yet when I talk about a 'better' camera you say I should not do so. Pedantic? Yes - but it is things like this that can derail a technical discussion (and this is a technical discussion)



SecureGSM said:


> if it does not affect your outcomes why wasting your time and my time. if it matter not to you what are you arguing here?


I only know whether or not it affects my outcomes if I understand what the heck it is you think these numbers are showing in terms of photography. And your comment on that is sparse. I guess that is my main issue here




SecureGSM said:


> Please explain me why 5DsR Qof number is 1650, 6D QoF number is 1800 and 80D number is 1900.



I don't know. That is what I am asking you - you are producing the numbers so it is reasonable to find out what you think they reflect. You must be measuring these for a reason and have a logic behind them. How do you use them to select a camera? How would you use them to advise a friend on which body to buy? 

I am also asking you what is the relevance of those numbers to taking a photo. How does a score of 1800 on the 6D relate to a score of 1650 on the 5DSr? If bigger numbers are 'better' (your word) then are you saying the 6D will show more detail? More sharpness? If not, then what does QoF mean in photography?

How does a score of 1900 on the 80D affect a landscape image when viewed at the same size as a 5DSr that has a score of 1650? 
If your numbers should not be used (or you caution against using) to compare APS-C to FF then say so.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2017)

Mike,
I will make this really simple for you:

1. 80D sensor exhibits higher image acutance / image sharpness than 6D. 
obviously because tech in 80-D sensor is different It is quite obvious.. we know that Canon introduced some changes in sensor design. no matter what they are.
2. difference for your photography if you shoot with long telephoto:

If you *crop* 5DsR image to achieve the same FOV as with APS-C 80D or 7D II and expect to achieve the same edge sharpness or image acutance, then you better look at the numbers again as it appears that your are better of shooting with 80D uncropped image than with 5DsR image cropped to 80D pixel size. bingo!

p.s. and no, I am not saying that 80D is a better camera


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> If you *crop* 5DsR image to achieve the same FOV and with APS-C 80D or 7D II and expect to achieve the same edge sharpness or image acutance, then you better look at the numbers again as it appears that your are better of shooting with 80 uncropped image than with 5DsR image cropped to 80D pixel size. bingo!



I get that. You still have not explained what difference in your numbers is relevant to an image - if you are unable to quantify this then fine. Just don't obfuscate.

The comparison above is a conclusion from your numbers - but how well has that been demonstrated? And gain, that only applies when you are focal-length limited which as I have said before is something that your bare numbers do not explain.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2017)

I am sure that you used FoCal before and aware what the before and after calibration images look like. 
Imagine that your lens was Out of tune before calibration by 8 AFMA points. Now imagine what difference does it make if you were to compare before and after calibration screen

5DsR image at 1:1 magnification will look blurrier than 80D image at 1:1 magnification by approximately the same ammount. It is up to you to decide if this relevant or not. 
You can compensate for the loss of image acutance / edge sharpness by using a much sharper lens or image down sampling if it matters to you at all.



Mikehit said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > If you *crop* 5DsR image to achieve the same FOV and with APS-C 80D or 7D II and expect to achieve the same edge sharpness or image acutance, then you better look at the numbers again as it appears that your are better of shooting with 80 uncropped image than with 5DsR image cropped to 80D pixel size. bingo!
> ...


----------



## Hflm (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Mike,
> 6D, 5D III and 6D II QoF test results are very close, just so we both understand that 80D and 5D IV test results do stand out quite a bit.
> "different sensor tech" - because of on sensor ADC and who knows what else Canon improved in 80D and 5D IV sensor.
> 
> ...


Irrelevant. 

Do you know how QoF is mathematically defined and determined in FOCAL (not the black box number you obtain as a result)? Do you know how Focal handles the RAW demosaicing (older version used jpgs!!! Now they write: " A
special demosaicing routine is then used which is optimised for FoCal’s analysis of Autofocus
performance, and this image is then analysed." What is that supposed to mean?)? 

As long as you can't quantify the influence of the raw converter ALL deductions are pointless. I showed you a link above where it was demonstrated what happens when raw converters are used, even setting sharpening to zero doesn't get rid of the influence of baked in camera company settings. AA filter strength (often varies differently in x- or y-direction) is an other factor.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 29, 2017)

I listed the spread of repeat runs, and for some of them the differences between the extremes of repeat runs are greater than the difference of mean values between two bodies. You quote single values for QoF. Does this mean that you did just one measurement or is it the mean of repeat measurements? If the latter, what are the standard deviations? 



SecureGSM said:


> according to the table you have provided,
> 5D IV numbers at least equal or even slightly higher than the same of 5D III.
> and 5D IV is a higher resolution body.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I am sure that you used FoCal before and aware what the before and after calibration images look like.
> Imagine that your lens was Out of tune before calibration by 8 AFMA points. Now imagine what difference does it make if you were to compare before and after calibration screen
> 
> 5DsR image at 1:1 magnification will look blurrier than 80D image at 1:1 magnification by approximately the same ammount. It is up to you to decide if this relevant or not.
> You can compensate for the loss of image acutance / edge sharpness by using a much sharper lens or image down sampling if it matters to you at all.



How do your numbers relate to '8 AFMA points'? 
I have not used the Focal but as I understand it, it is relative, not absolute. It plots a curve for a given lens and chooses the best position for that lens - it does not compare between lenses. Two lenses needing +8 means they are both +8 from the best possible sharpness, not that when set to 'ideal' they have the same sharpness.
But I find it hard to picture (no pun meant) how the difference between two sensors is the same as having a mis-focusing lens. 

You say a 5DSR will look blurrier at 1:1. Can you demonstrate that?


----------



## Talys (Sep 29, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Mike,
> I will make this really simple for you:
> 
> 1. 80D sensor exhibits higher image acutance / image sharpness than 6D.
> ...



From a practical perspective, if you're going to shoot low ISO and always use only the crop area, just buy an 80D. The area that you see in the viewfinder or in liveview is actually what you'll get (making focus easier, for example), and for all practical purposes, nobody will be able to tell the pictures apart... and you'll save a ton of money and get flippy screen 

And no, I'm not saying that an 80D is a better camera either. But if all you care about is the crop area, and don't need high ISOs, it's a much _cheaper_ solution, and there are some advantages.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 30, 2017)

Mike,
If you have not used the Focal, then perhaps it would be good to familiarise yourself prior to start throwing the weight around. That’s not what a scientist will typically would do. 
8 AFMA point is only a very approximate number. I you used Focal a lot, you would what it makes to the image. Just an example: if your peak QoF is around 1800, then -20/+20 point AFMA QoF will be in around 1000 points only

I.e. If you detune you Camera by 20 AFMA points, you may expect the QoF value to reduce from 1800 to 1000
From experience, detuning by 8 AFMA points would typically result in QoF decrease of around 15%.

QoF curve typically looks like a parabola with its highest value being positioned on horizontal axis where your AFMA adjustment value is. Step to the left or right by 8 points and you QoF value is came down from the peak value by approx 15%. - for illustrative purposes only. 

Hence my example. From 1900 QoF value of 80D down to 1690 value on 5DsR

Yes, I can demonstrate the difference as you requested. You have not looked in the report for have provided you need to look at the QoF Test result pages. 

I provided 3 reports in PDF format. Please download 5DsR and 750D reports. 

Scroll through pages and locate image of the cropped area that Focal used to analyse RAW file for accutance (crispiness, edge sharpness or whatever...)
You can compare this image with the same you find in 750D report. 
Evaluate visually as you do your images at 1:1 magnification for blurriness, sharpness, crispiness, edge sharpness, whatever you would like to call this. 

You cannot make this stuff up as you will see with your own eyes that even 750D image was crispier around edges. 
I use this word deliberately. I hate buzz words though. 

AlanF,

I analysed two files per each given camera. 
Very small number, I know. However deviations of result for any given camera is also very small. All results are very close to each other. Please refer to 2x 5DsR report files I have provided.

There is a correlation between edge sharpness, accutance QoF value of Focal software and real world image sharpness or crispiness. 

Many forum members relies on Focal to achieve peak focus = peak sharpness for their images. 




Mikehit said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure that you used FoCal before and aware what the before and after calibration images look like.
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 30, 2017)

Are you implying that FoCal demosaicing algorithm is optimized for 5D IV RAW files exclusively and processes 5Ds RAW files incorrectly? Right. 
Do you believe your own eyes then?

Please download test RAW 5DsR and 5D IV files, open files in raw editor of your choice, do not apply any processing but crop the the area that Focal analysed. (Black and white round target) Compare side by side at 1:1 magnification level visually. You will notice the difference in edge sharpness, image acutance, crispiness, whatever you pleased. It is that evident.

p.s. *to remove Focal RAW demosaicing algorithm from the equation, I have ran QoF analysis on 5DsR and 5D iV jpeg files instead of RAW files.*

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr144_1=canon_eos5dsr&attr144_2=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_3=nikon_d750&attr146_0=100_0&attr146_1=100_0&attr146_2=100_4&attr146_3=100_4&normalization=compare&widget=542&x=0.124786377&y=0.5025702

both files were processed in ACR on MAC.

please find report files attached.

Canon 5DsR QoF value: 2002.4
Canon 5D IV QoF value: 2141.7

compare to 5DsR 1690 vs 5D IV 1865 when RAW files were used.

I do encourage you to look at the crop of the image that FoCal analysed (QoF pages of the report files) and compare them side by side. you can visually see the difference.

again, 5D IV produced more acute, edge sharp, crisp image when viewed at 1:1 magnification.
now that Focal RAW demosaicing algorithm is proven to have no influence on the end result, please explain how 5D IV camera files are consistently more acute, edge sharp, crisp than 5DsR one when viewed at 1:1 resolution?

I cannot explain this as I have no insider knowledge. Why would not you ask Canon? I am sure that they will be able to explain this phenomenon easily. 
I merely identified that there is a considerable difference in acutance, image edge sharpness and reported my findings here.









Hflm said:


> Irrelevant.
> 
> Do you know how QoF is mathematically defined and determined in FOCAL (not the black box number you obtain as a result)? Do you know how Focal handles the RAW demosaicing (older version used jpgs!!! Now they write: " A
> special demosaicing routine is then used which is optimised for FoCal’s analysis of Autofocus
> ...


----------



## Hflm (Sep 30, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Are you implying that FoCal demosaicing algorithm is optimized for 5D IV RAW files exclusively and processes 5Ds RAW files incorrectly? Right.
> Do you believe your own eyes then?


We don't know what the demosaicing does to what files, as such debating about things we don't know exactly
is difficult. It is likely, that In-Raw-Sharpening causes differences.



SecureGSM said:


> Please download test RAW 5DsR and 5D IV files, open files in raw editor of your choice, do not apply any processing but crop the the area that Focal analysed. (Black and white round target) Compare side by side at 1:1 magnification level visually. You will notice the difference in edge sharpness, image acutance, crispiness, whatever you pleased. It is that evident.



Again, doesn't prove anything, as long as the raw converter is in the equation. We need to be able to compare pixel-level sharpness directly and raw converters are changing the equation, as I demonstrated in the provided link in a previous post.



SecureGSM said:


> p.s. *to remove Focal RAW demosaicing algorithm from the equation, I have ran QoF analysis on 5DsR and 5D iV jpeg files instead of RAW files.*


This is even worse. Even Focal changed their software since with jpgs even more processing gets into the equation. That is known for ages.




SecureGSM said:


> Canon 5DsR QoF value: 2002.4
> Canon 5D IV QoF value: 2141.7
> compare to 5DsR 1690 vs 5D IV 1865 when RAW files were used.
> I do encourage you to look at the crop of the image that FoCal analysed (QoF pages of the report files) and compare them side by side. you can visually see the difference.
> ...


You didn't prove anything. I now get to the impression, you didn't understand the criticism many here provided at all.




SecureGSM said:


> I cannot explain this as I have no insider knowledge. Why would not you ask Canon? I am sure that they will be able to explain this phenomenon easily.
> I merely identified that there is a considerable difference in acutance, image edge sharpness and reported my findings here.


Based on the program Focal you chose and the metric used as a black-box in that software the results are as they are, which is fine. This is one thing. But the interpretation of the very results is the problem. So far your interpretation seems flawed to me. You get to conclusions 
1) *without knowing how the QoF metric is defined and measured*
2) *without quantifying or knowing what type of demosaicing is used* and how WB, tone curve and baked in raw values of the manufacturers influence the result (*that they do is proven in* http://www.strollswithmydog.com/raw-converter-sharpening-with-sliders-at-zero/)
3) Lenses. Are the lenses diffraction limited to f5.6? *In that case, the 5dsr has a disadvantage compared to the 5div, as the maximum achievable resolution in the red channel is 38MP due to diffraction, affecting the 5dsr and not the 5div.*


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 30, 2017)

what I do not understand really is why I am wasting my time here to explain a simple fact:

no matter what RAW converter I used, 5DsR files exhibit less acutance / edge sharpness than 5D IV files.



> This is even worse. Even Focal changed their software since with jpgs even more processing gets into the equation. That is known for ages.



Rubbish.. Focal still use jpeg files for lens calibration by default.. RAW is only optional. They claim that jpeg processing is much prefered. it is faster and you get same accuracy in result. you evidently do not have much experience with FoCal. Check your facts. please.



> 3) Lenses. Are the lenses diffraction limited to f5.6? In that case, the 5dsr has a disadvantage compared to the 5div, as the maximum achievable resolution in the red channel is 38MP due to diffraction, affecting the 5dsr and not the 5div.



DLA for 5DsR is F6.7

let's look at the numbers:

5DsR:

Red Quality 1810.7
Green Quality 2213.8
Blue Quality 1983.7

now 5D IV:

Red Quality 2059.6
Green Quality 2230.6
Blue Quality 2136.5

oh, wait.. what happened with 5DsR blue channel? is it DLA affected as well?? oh, schweppes..

it turns out that the BLUE channel of 5DsR is also underperforming. 

p.s. DLA for Canon 80D is F5.9 and for 5DsR is F6.7. Yet, QoF values of 80D is way better than 5DsR. like chalk and cheese.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Mike,
> If you have not used the Focal, then perhaps it would be good to familiarise yourself prior to start throwing the weight around. That’s not what a scientist will typically would do.
> ........
> QoF curve typically looks like a parabola with its highest value being positioned on horizontal axis where your AFMA adjustment value is. Step to the left or right by 8 points and you QoF value is came down from the peak value by approx 15%. - for illustrative purposes only.



Before you start accusing others of not being scientific, consider your own scientific approach and whether it is that of a serious scientist. 

Firstly, a QoF fit does not look like a parabola, it looks like the top of a bell-shaped curve. It has to be a type of bell shape as the QoF drops to zero at plus/minus infinity whereas a parabola tends to minus infinity at plus/minus infinity. FoCal probably uses a Gaussian function for data fitting. I've attached a typical QoF plot.

Secondly, it appears that you have just downloaded data from dpr and analysed it by a black-box program whose details you do not know. If that is so, then it is scientifically horrible. You don't know how carefully dpr performed its experiments - they weren't intended for what you are analysing, you don't know how the conditions changed between experiments done at different times. You haven't even done a statistical analysis and yet you draw conclusions between numbers that can be close.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 30, 2017)

no, 1650 and 1900 is not even remotely can be called statistically close.

2 5DsR bodies evaluated and 2 80D's. small data but not a statistically close results!

yet QOF values for the same camera model were statistically close: 1650 and 1690 - for 5DsR.

repeatability? yes, that is the word.


now, can I ask you: what happens with all the lens reviewers who evaluate a single copy of the lens and yet considered as a serious researches? oh, this lens beats that lens.. oh, wait i have just received a second copy of the lens and it is not as good. 

do you want me to point out the name of the reviewers that being oh so serious scientist evaluating a single copy of the lens? there are few to mention that are regular on this forum and yet. not a single person questioner how reliable the data is.

I simply do not have time to run a serious experiment.
I do not pretend to be a scientist, for starters.
secondly, I have my own Focal Numbers for number of cameras that i have calibrated.

look at at your own table of QoF values for the Christ sake - don't you see that your 5Dsr getting lower QoF values??
thirdly, I called the curve parabola and it is a bell shaped for you. what difference does it make? none. I can call the curve a didgeridoo just for fun 

btw, in majority of cases, for me the curve looks more like this one:







And lastly, I do not accuse anyone. I pointed attention to a fact and it is up to you to accept or not.
if you do not, it is fine, but would you please stop this never ending biased conversation.

your 5DsR sensor produce wonderfully acute and edge sharp images.









AlanF said:


> You haven't even done a statistical analysis and yet you draw conclusions between numbers that can be close.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> now, can I ask you: what happens with all the lens reviewers who evaluate a single copy of the lens and yet considered as a serious researches? oh, this lens beats that lens.. oh, wait i have just received a second copy of the lens and it is not as good.
> 
> do you want me to point out the name of the reviewers that being oh so serious scientist evaluating a single copy of the lens? there are few to mention that are regular on this forum and yet. not a single person questioner how reliable the data is.
> 
> ...



If you read my posts, which I do not expect people to do, I complain incessantly about reviewers who look at just one copy of lens and especially when viewers make comparisons between two lenses based on reviews of one copy of each.

If you truncated the ends off a bell-shaped curve it looks like a parabola. But it isn't one. It makes a big difference to me if you use the wrong equation to fit a curve. But, that is my job - I am a quantitative scientist and I train students to analyse data.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 30, 2017)

ah, ok. then what I called a parabola is in fact is a bell-shaped curve. what difference does it make.

should we stop calling square "a square" as it is in fact a rectangular with 4 equal sides?

Alan, I appreciate you are being a serious scientist, but what we are looking at is a a very interesting situation that no one previously was looking into. none.

look at the numbers above: it is evident that 5DsR BLUE channel performance is lagging behind. 
Green channel seems to perform as good, but BLUE and RED is not so.







AlanF said:


> If you truncated the ends off a bell-shaped curve it looks like a parabola. But it isn't one. It makes a big difference to me if you use the wrong equation to fit a curve. But, that is my job - I am a quantitative scientist and I train students to analyse data.


----------



## Hflm (Sep 30, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> what I do not understand really is why I am wasting my time here to explain a simple fact:
> 
> no matter what RAW converter I used, 5DsR files exhibit less acutance / edge sharpness than 5D IV files.
> 
> ...


You show here a big deficit in understanding. Jpgs have a lot of processing inside (like sharpening etc.). The Focal manual is even stating that explicitely!! If you deny that fact please educate yourself. If you indeed based your analysis on jpgs all the numbers are for the trash.

Additionally, diffraction is depending on wavelength (Rayleigh criterion). You are only looking at the standard values calculators offer. If you don't believe me look for the luminous landscape article ('Do sensors “outresolve” lenses’ by Rubén Osuna) for a start. Focal does look at the channels separately (see manual), so diffraction can influence the 5dsr at larger wavelengths.

You still stick religiously to QoF, without looking at the details.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 30, 2017)

do this:

set FoCal to use RAW files for analysis instead of JPEGs and it will take forever for the process to complete. that is what i said. Focal advice is not to set software to use RAW images as it will take much much longer to take photo, retrive the data from the camera, process, then take next shot etc..
it takes infinitely longer. try it once and you will realise what difference does it make. 

again, I used RAW files for analysis. read my lips. RAW.
have you looked at the file reports I have attached previously?
it pays to look first and only then start rubbishing someone.
it clear as: RAW files were used.

yes, Focal use channels. did you read my post above with separate red, blue and green values? if yes, why are you telling me this.

you mentioned that diffraction should affect 5DsR RED channel - I see this but also see that BLUE channel even more affected?
how is that sits with your theory?

*now. please explain me why 80D is not diffraction affected then? it really should be affected more than 5DsR as it's pixel density is much higher.*

your hypothesis is falling apart as there is no logical explanation why 80D sensor RED and BlUE channels should overperform 5DsR sensor by such large margin.







Hflm said:


> You show here a big deficit in understanding. Jpgs have a lot of processing inside (like sharpening etc.). The Focal manual is even stating that explicitely!! If you deny that fact please educate yourself. If you indeed based your analysis on jpgs all the numbers are for the trash.
> 
> Additionally, diffraction is depending on wavelength (Rayleigh criterion). You are only looking at the standard values calculators offer. If you don't believe me look for the luminous landscape article ('Do sensors “outresolve” lenses’ by Rubén Osuna) for a start. Focal does look at the channels separately (see manual), so diffraction can influence the 5dsr at larger wavelengths.
> 
> You still stick religiously to QoF, without looking at the details.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 30, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> and no, it has nothing to do with photography. nothing at all
> 
> 
> Maiaibing said:
> ...


Yup. Just thought it was not quite clear that you understood this and/or some people could misunderstand your posts.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 30, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Mike,
> If you have not used the Focal, then perhaps it would be good to familiarise yourself prior to start throwing the weight around. That’s not what a scientist will typically would do.
> 8 AFMA point is only a very approximate number. I you used Focal a lot, you would what it makes to the image. Just an example: if your peak QoF is around 1800, then -20/+20 point AFMA QoF will be in around 1000 points only
> 
> ...


----------



## Hflm (Oct 1, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> do this:
> 
> set FoCal to use RAW files for analysis instead of JPEGs and it will take forever for the process to complete. that is what i said. Focal advice is not to set software to use RAW images as it will take much much longer to take photo, retrive the data from the camera, process, then take next shot etc..
> it takes infinitely longer. try it once and you will realise what difference does it make.
> ...


Everything I explained to you is to no avail. I gave you several causes influencing your results. All of this is known and investigated for quite some time from different scientists, sites, blogger. You can't leave your QoF metric despite its flaws and now cherry pick the channels, one of the influencing factors, to prove your point, ignoring e.th. else.
Didn't you think about it at least a little bit?


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 1, 2017)

*Everything I explained to you is to no avail *- is exactly what I am thinking right now.

you giving me advice related to Focal sotware and you have obviously have no experience with the product.
your RAW vs JPEG FoCal routine wild ideas are broadly misaligned.

you saying that I show here a big deficit in understanding and you have not even looked through the report files attached. 

*I ask you again: If 5DsR is diffraction affected at F5.6 (it's DLA is only F6.7), how do you explain that 80D sensor performance is not affected. 80D pixel density is higher that the same of 5DsR with DLA F5.9.*

if you do not know, just say so: I do not know. don't just point to a resource on internet that does not explain what is really going on here.

regarding channels: you was the one who brought channels argument forward explaining that 5DsR RED channel is diffraction affected. I have merely pointed out that your diffraction affected RED channel hypothesis is not supported in QoF numbers per channel.
Your lack of attention to details is is seriously disappointing. did you even noticed that I mentioned number of times that I have NO slightest clue what is the reason behind 5DsR reduced acutance levels.
I found your diffraction hypothesis to be weak and flawed though as 80D with its' higher pixel density sensor should be even more affected.
Finally, I suggest to wrap this discussion up and call it a day.

lets agree to disagree. I wish you well.



Hflm said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > do this:
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 1, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> *I ask you again: If 5DsR is diffraction affected at F5.6 (it's DLA is only F6.7), how do you explain that 80D sensor performance is not affected. 80D pixel density is higher that the same of 5DsR with DLA F5.9.*



Diffraction limitation is a mathematical calculation based on circle of confusion which in turn is an assumption on pixel density. If your tests suggest that the 80D, with a higher pixel density, is not affected whereas the 5DSR is, then is suggests there is something going on (such as processing) in the background. If that is the case then it calls your numbers and your conclusions into question.

Simply saying 'I can't explain it therefore my numbers stand' is avoidance.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 1, 2017)

I spent a few hours doing FoCal and resolution measurements on the 5DSR and the M5, which has the same sensor as the 80D. I had to fool FoCal to analyse the M5, which I could do for jpegs but not raw. I used the manual proedure of recording images and feeding them into FoCal. This allowed me to do the measurements at iso640, not base, as that is the most common one for me, and also use the M5. I used a Bob Atkins chart and the 100-400mm II,

1, there were no significant differences in QoF for the 5DSR using jpeg or RAW.
2, the average QoF for the 5DSR was 1864 ± 60, and for the M5 1823 ± 27. The best for the 5DSR was 1977 and for the M5 was 1912. The scatter was because I hand held and refocussed each shot because that is my usual technique.
3, the resolution of the best two (5DSR on top) was very similar. The pixel pitch of the M5 is 3.72 µ , and 4.14 µ for the 5DSR, so you would expect an 11% higher resolution if neither had an AA filter. The lack of AA filter on the 5DSR makes up for its slightly larger pixels.

The attachments below are the output from DxO Optics Pro with PRIME noise reduction and no sharpening. The target was 20m from the camera, and the crops are the actual number of pixels on the sensor (100% crops).

The m5/80D is very good and would scale up nicely to give a 60 mpx FF, preferably with a switchable on/off AA fliter.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 1, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> So in the same tradition of grumbling that CR generates over what Canon cameras don't have...
> 
> Jack



Yup. Canon can't win. It's just really funny how the armchair quarterbacks come out of the woodwork every single time. They think engineering and design can turn on a dime overnight. When Canon issues a competing camera they will whine about that too, calling it crippled. I don't remember reading a single post saying that Nikon, etc. cripples cameras. Maybe I have to go to a Nikon forum for that.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 1, 2017)

hambergler said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > So in the same tradition of grumbling that CR generates over what Canon cameras don't have, what's this one lacking?
> ...



The Nikon is intentionally crippled. It doesn't have GPS or a tilt screen, or DPAF. Big compromises. What was Nikon thinking???


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 2, 2017)

*AlanF*,

thank you so much for the images provided.
I review both images side by side on a large screen (75") and it appears that m5 image is a fair bit crispier around contrasty areas of the image. i.e.: please compare "100mm" on both images and especialy "(ISO 3334 #chart 2)"
the round bracket sign following the "chart 2" on 5DsR produced image is quite blury in comparison to the M5 one. "3334" is also quite a bit blurier on 5DsR. I am looking at your images now. It could be due to something as simple as a slight camera shake due to mirror shock of a slight AF miss.
M5 image is also crispier around the check patterned area. it is quite noticable. I have attached a crop of the print screen just to demonstrate what I am referring to.. thanks again.




AlanF said:


> I spent a few hours doing FoCal and resolution measurements on the 5DSR and the M5, which has the same sensor as the 80D. I had to fool FoCal to analyse the M5, which I could do for jpegs but not raw. I used the manual proedure of recording images and feeding them into FoCal. This allowed me to do the measurements at iso640, not base, as that is the most common one for me, and also use the M5. I used a Bob Atkins chart and the 100-400mm II,
> 
> 1, there were no significant differences in QoF for the 5DSR using jpeg or RAW.
> 2, the average QoF for the 5DSR was 1864 ± 60, and for the M5 1823 ± 27. The best for the 5DSR was 1977 and for the M5 was 1912. The scatter was because I hand held and refocussed each shot because that is my usual technique.
> ...


----------



## AlanF (Oct 2, 2017)

Here we go again. You over-interpret just one comparison from a series of experiments that weren’t designed to be interpreted in that detail. Ironically, your own subjective analysis gives opposite conclusions from the FoCal numbers.

What I designed the experiments to do were:
1, compare QoF measured by jpeg and RAW, which I can do accurately because I measure jpeg and RAW from the same image, so most errors cancel out. The result from 6 measurements was that the ratio jpeg:RAW is 1.017 ± 0.012 (mean and standard error), which is close enough to 1 not to worry. So, my data support the contention that it doesn't make any significant difference using RAW and jpeg for the 100-400mm II.
2. To do a rough comparison between the M5 and 5DSR, which wasn’t a particularly good one because, as stated, they were hand held, depended on AF, and as not mentioned, I used mechanical shutter on the 5DSR and live view on the M5. I have done these many times in the past and know that the two are roughly similar, which they are in resolution and IQ.

I stated clearly those conclusions. Also, I have looked at just one sensor of each type, though the quality should not vary in the same large way between lenses. I have just repeated the ratio of QoF jpeg:RAW using the 400mm DO II + 2xTC, where there is usually a greater variation between channels and found it to be 1.028 ± 0.017. Again, close to 1.



AlanF said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Mike,
> ...





AlanF said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > now, can I ask you: what happens with all the lens reviewers who evaluate a single copy of the lens and yet considered as a serious researches? oh, this lens beats that lens..
> ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 2, 2017)

Focal has stated a goal of:

"There is another possible benefit to this as well – you _may_ be able to compare results across different FoCal tests. This needs further proving, but results from our testing suggest that the numbers from various tests can be compared as long as they are from the same camera, under similar lighting and using the same _Image Capture Mode_ (i.e. Raw or JPEG)."

https://blog.reikanfocal.com/2014/02/reikan-focal-rgb-analysis/


How can someone compare results from different camera models, when Focal is hoping to develop their calculation to be compatible across different tests on the SAME MODEL.

Has FoCal publishing anything recently that would justify comparing QOF results across different models, much less across tests on the same camera?


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 2, 2017)

I emailed Focal about using their numbers to compare lenses on the same body and the same body on different lenses. Their reply was:



> Yes, FoCal can be used to understand how well a lens performs, both in terms of absolute sharpness as well as it's ability to focus consistently.
> 
> When switching the same lens between different cameras (if they are not the same camera model) FoCal won't really take into account differences in things like resolution so that is not quite so clear cut.
> 
> The QoF or quality of focus numbers are used by FoCal to understand the difference in sharpness between different images by looking at the image crops. There are not explictly designed to allow comparison between different lens (models) or different cameras (models). If the lens is the same and the camera is the same the QoF values are more comparable.



So even Focal seem to be downplaying its use as a tool to compare the same lens on different bodies, and even less when comparing different lenses on different bodies. I would have thought that if this really could be used to compare bodies they would be touting it quite loudly.


----------



## shane.haumpton (Dec 12, 2017)

IMHO, I love the camera's DX Crop mode wherein the perimeter of the viewfinder is masked to provide a view equivalent to that of an APS-C-format DSLR. Currently priced at $3K+, I'm satisfied with its performance. Flawless image quality. Images look fantastic in any light.


----------

