Updated: Nikon D850 sample gallery

Honestly unsure... the cam was set to 14 bit lossless compressed for this entire gallery.

Sep 20, 2017permalink

I've always read that file size was directly related to the complexity of the content in the image. Try shooting a blank white wall using both settings and see what you get.

Sep 20, 2017permalink

HowaboutRAW

MrBrightSide:

File size goes up with higher ISOs but ALL of my NEFs shot uncompressed with the D850 are in the 91-94MB range.

The size dependent on image complexity system you describe is more akin to jpegs images.

Lossless should simply write the same data into a smaller package. Lossy doesn't interest me except academically. Well, and lossy NEFs from the D850 look washed out--even when shooting with the optically excellent 105mm f/1.4.

Sep 20, 2017permalink

bartnoel

Please DPreview... could you test even mraw and sraw to show differences in terms of sharpness, tonal range and dinamic range?

Sep 18, 2017permalink

We absolutely will. Have already shot portions of the studio scene in those modes for testing.

Sep 18, 2017permalink

bartnoel

thanks! you are number 1!

Sep 19, 2017permalink

You're welcome! Was very interested in this myself as I don't always need 46mp.

Sep 20, 2017permalink

Wubslin

There is nothing in this gallery to convince me to by the D850, and there is nothing on DPReview to convince me to buy anything else.

Looks like Blue Swan Media is not the only person to be grateful that this site has saved them money.

Sep 18, 2017permalink

When was the last time the DPR member changed their computer display?
When was the last time the DPR member changed their printer?
When was the last time the DPR member changed their typical print sizes?
When was the last time the DPR members got new eyes?

Example in my gallery largest walls are 8.5 x 4.2m (that room is 8.5x5m by floor area)

When someone rents the gallery for an month, they will have decisions to do with the print sizes and amount of prints they are going to place on such walls.
If they will add for that room a few additional light-weight walls to middle of the room, they are limiting movement and viewing distance at some parts of the bigger walls so they need to consider what to put and where.

Then there is the main question, how large prints the majority of the customers can hang on their walls or fit to their decoration?
Print sizes are not by average huge ones.

So how many Mpix is enough for most photographers?

Sep 18, 2017permalink

RawBob

Can you show us some of your work? I'd like to know what you use so I can base my next camera purchase on that premise. I'm sure it must be far better than the samples DPReview provided here.

Sep 18, 2017permalink

Goodmeme

Well, this Canon user is impressed. It eats my 5d classic for breakfast, even with out of camera jpegs versus my raw edits. I liked the range of shots, and was bowled over by the dynamic range on show.

Sep 18, 2017*permalink

It's not just the gallery. There is nothing I've seen anywhere to convince me I need this camera. Considering it's a 45MP camera, I'm not really seeing any more details than what's already possible with other modern cameras. In fact, some shots show LACK of details. Some of the other features they added to seem useful, but I wouldn't buy this camera just for IQ alone.

Sep 19, 2017permalink

I am thinking of buying it for the wider autofocus sensor area but that's just my personal shooting style. And, I need to sell my current camera before the value falls too much further. As for megapixelage, I guess it depends on how much you retouch. More megapixels makes it easier to fix skin problems which is always nice.

Sep 20, 2017permalink

RawBob

I don't think the second hand value of my D610, Sony a6000 and D7200 would cover the cost, unless I sold all my flash gear, lenses and other items as well. I'm happy with what I have for now, the glass is more important to me, but I would be happy to pick up a D810 instead as an upgrade, at least for the astrophotography and landscape work I do.

Sep 20, 2017permalink

And there you have it: the economics are different for everyone.
I would love to booze it up day and night like the DPR editors and go out to lavish lunches with my friends, but those cost huge money and I love cameras more than either people and the delightful feeling of being drunk.

I'm willing to endure the hell of white-knuckle sobriety and brown-bag peanut butter sandwiches so I can save up for a new camera body once in a while. My other sacrifice is that I constantly risk camera failure because I only own one body at a time.
You're much smarter than me to own three bodies, but my liver is healthier.
It's all tradeoffs.

Sep 20, 2017*permalink

RawBob

I have a slight advantage over most people. No wife and no kids. It makes it a little easier to justify my purchases, at least to myself. However it has taken some time to obtain this set, it was not all bought on the same day. Approximately 10 years for all the lenses, flash equipment and cameras, upgraded from D200 and D70, and D300 to D7000 to D610/D7200 so I'm in it for the long haul. Interesting side point, the D70 is STILL going strong and taking great photos. And why Nikon? Because I have some rather expensive Nikon glass that I'm not willing to part with. If I was starting from scratch and had the money, I would probably go with Sony.

Sep 21, 2017*permalink

The D70 is a great camera. CCD sensors had something that CMOS just can't equal. Plus it has a great sensor for high-speed sync IIRC.

My dream is to sell everything and roam the world with just a D700 and the Nikon 35mm 1.4.

Sep 21, 2017permalink

Goodmeme

@mr brightside, sounds heavenly . Although I've always hankered after the 35L myself. :) Still waiting for a Canon full frame with a built in fill flash though.

Sep 23, 2017permalink

I'm always amazed at how much hate seems to pile up in sample galleries.

I know first-time DSLR buyers expect their images to become magically better now that they have a "real camera", but you guys are supposed to be people who understand photography. People who know that it's almost impossible to determine camera/lens/brand/processing/whatever by just looking at the image. These are just that: sample images (and pretty decent ones I think too). Whatever camera you buy will have far less impact on the quality of the photos you take than you think.

Next time let's have top commercial photographers post the sample images, so you can hate on the fact that they have access to high end lighting equipment, and talented makeup artists and models.

Sep 18, 2017permalink

Blue Swan Media

I don't think of it as hate, rather as a critique, and it's entirely fair.

Sep 18, 2017permalink

It ain't critique as critique is never negative but positive.

Everyone can talk/write negatively, but only skilled can write positively even from a downside. That is why a being critic is a profession based to talent, not to mouthwash everything by opinions.

Sep 18, 2017permalink

For as much as this camera was hyped, we have every right to be extremely critical of it.

Sep 19, 2017permalink

I have this camera. It lives up to the hype. I can tell from experience, however limited it may be, not from sample images.
Can I tell the difference between the pictures it takes vs the ones I took with my D800? No. Because what makes my best work my "best" depends on so much more than the camera body.
And that is my point.

Sep 19, 2017permalink

So if we are only looking for better IQ, there's no point in upgrading?

Sep 19, 2017permalink

Depends on where you're "upgrading" from. Unless your current camera is medium format, you'll probably get better IQ too.

Sep 20, 2017permalink

Sounds like it's about the same as other cameras with the same pixel density, like the D500. If it isn't a significant increase in IQ over what's already out there (D810, D750, D500...) then it's not worth it to me.

Sep 20, 2017permalink

@Harvey Specter yes, we know, you've posted that a million times.
Since you are unimpressed about everything you've seen so far (and to be honest, in many cases I cannot blame you), you are welcome to hire me on a shoot so I can show you what the camera can do in the hands of an actual photographer. Then you can decide whether it's worth it or not to you ;-)

Sep 20, 2017permalink

maxmarra

this camera is going to set new DPReview high score.

Sep 18, 2017permalink

Blue Swan Media

Thank you, DPReview for saving me $6,000 (D850 + 70-200). Coming from Fuji, these colors are just awful and viewing that gallery remind me why I left Nikon in the first place.

Not the fault of the reviewers of course, just the way these cameras render. The only Nikon I've seen lately with decent color is the D5.

Sep 18, 2017permalink

You would think that manufacturer like Nikon would gladly offer original files for their sample images!
As they can have the full control to show the full potential of the new equipment that they are placing on the market.

Now they just let the reviewer (that is writing industry profession) to rule their fate how the possible customers see the gear!

Sep 18, 2017permalink

RayVagh

I agree. Not impressed. All photographs are dull, DR doesn't help when the photographers can't take good pictures. The Canon Rebel/Elan sample gallery is better.

Sep 21, 2017permalink

User3252627750

I certainly shall not judge a camera by viewing images posted in the web. A lot may depend on the screen caliberation used to view any image and of course the glass in the front of the camera. Fine tuning the WB is another factor which can be deployed to advantage,
Most of the time, we seem to rely so much on the auto everything and for some of us, perhaphs an iPhone or any entry level point and shoot is what we actually should be aiming for. A camera is just a tool; photography is the technique as they say.

Sep 21, 2017*permalink

Alan Russell

every landscape Ive seen from the d850 is soft. the D810 Blew it out of the ballpark. Consumers got pulled in by the higher megapixels thinking your images could outdo any previous Nikon body. Nothing out of the lens gets posted professionally they all have to enter post production and that is where you do your magic. shame on you Nikon for all of this hype. It was your hundred anniversary and you don’t even have stock
I’ll stick with my D800 and D7100 for my wildlife pics

10 months agopermalink

talmy

The state has been enveloped in smoke from a large number of forest fires this year. Not the best time to be here for landscape photography attempting to show off a new camera.

Sep 18, 2017permalink

Have owned and have been die-hard Nikon user since 1950 (SP 35mm non-SLR) then Nikon F. There is nothing in the sample gallery that excites me since I have taken shots under similar conditions with my D800 and two other Nikon DX bodies.

The 2 more fps, 10 more MP, 100 more AF points, 1,000 more shots rated battery life, better video capability and other improvements over my D800 does not, IMHO. equate to far superior pictures over my D800. While the new XQD card is faster than my current CF and SD cards, I have not missed any shots due to memory card transfer rates.

Oh sure, the 19.4MP DX crop etc looks impressive but why would I buy an FX Nikon for DX feature when my DX Nikkors fitted to my Nikon DX bodies does the job superbly?

My wife thought I am sick when I told her to use the money, we allocated for the D850, for something else she wants.

Sep 17, 2017permalink

Alan Russell

totally correct. Dynamically the images look attractive but steadying the camera with the higher megapixels is a huge issue For the semi pro. The margin of error is so much greater I’ve seen images out of the D 500 that are so detailed. The D7100 Also being a DX camera at such a cheap price is a tremendous Bargain. Enjoyed your comment

10 months agopermalink

Thanks Russel.

I am passed the hype of mega-pixel race. Not being a pixel peeper to begin with, I find the OOC Jpeg-fine more than adequate for my purpose. I still continue to take NEF+JPEG(fine) "just in case" i completely botch the exposure.

As an aside, the dreaded "noise" at above ISO 800 is a thing in now the past for me with the $10 Macphun Noiseless CK. I am sure there are other similar product in the market.

10 months agopermalink

davids8560

I dunno. Shouldn't we wait for super aliens to bring us truly boffo-extraordinaire camera technology that will kick this camera's ass? Camera dudes on their planet could be way ahead of ours!

Sep 17, 2017*permalink

Kharan

DPR - good job on hiring Carey! It's really refreshing to see samples by someone who obviously loves photography and is skilled at it.
But it's unfair that not all cameras get the same treatment re: samples.

Sep 17, 2017permalink

Paul Petersen

I agree Cary really know how to do it!

Sep 18, 2017permalink

Neal Hood

I will third. Pictures are simply excellent. He has a very good eye.

Sep 18, 2017*permalink

moontide

I had the same thought, lovely photos and that smile made me feel so happy!

Sep 18, 2017permalink

Murphster

I agree with moontide on the smile.

Sep 18, 2017permalink

Well, it's not all that often that the comment section brings a smile to my face, but you guys did it. Thanks so much, I'm glad you enjoyed the gallery.

Sep 18, 2017permalink

Great shots... But why????
Are these photos better
A. Because of sensor and processor improvements
B. Because Nikon is making much better lenses than even 10 years ago?
C. Because the current generation of software has improved so much?
D. Because the photographer who shot these is better at what he does as the result of the normal skills improvement that comes with time and experience?

I would argue the overriding answer is D because I bet if you gave this camera to a mediocre photographer you would not get such great results.

Sep 17, 2017permalink

If you rate the sample photos in the gallery as great, then I agree with your assessment of D as the reason. For me, however, I am not impressed. In fact, I am disappointed of some well under-exposed shots where the shadows lack details. I am also not impressed by some terrible compositions. But then, every body is entitled to his or her opinion.

Sep 17, 2017permalink

Which one you want, a technical samples or a photography gallery?
You can't have both!

His job should be to push the limits of the hardware, not to create a gallery worth images!

The images should be such that they present the common and less common challenging situations that example wedding or landscape photographer faces.
So that reason to camera exist, should get to be visible in the technical samples.

Sep 18, 2017permalink

And, of course there's always the very erratic jpeg rendition from this site. I continue to maintain that the quality of the pictures varies from stunning to awful depending on which server you're pulling from. But you're right, the photos should be a torture test of the lens-sensor-processing system, but would a typical site visitor be able to figure out what Gee was seeing? Most people find it impossible to separate content from execution, they would, for instance, criticize real night photography for being too dark and noisy, not understanding that the photo was designed to test the cameras outer limits.
Or not?

Sep 19, 2017permalink

miksto

The best comparisons of D850 to competition so far came from these guys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTHAnfMWAHQ
and for video shooting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2irrdAFvJ8

Sep 17, 2017permalink

First of all, you should always write to whom videos you are linking so you are not making clickbaits. In this case Tony Northrup videos again...

Secondly, Tony Northrup does huge mistake in there as the Olympus 80Mpix raw file is truly a raw file and it requires very different method to be used. There is so much details (every pixel has R,G,B color values, unlike any Canon, Nikon or Sony cameras) and to get the real 80Mpix out, you need to sharpen the image. And those HR raw files allow you to pull so much details out of them via sharpening that it would look on others files totally overprocessed if done same thing.

Without correct method of sharpening, the HR files looks just awfully soft.

Sep 18, 2017permalink

miksto

Write to him on youtube if you can. I am sure all will benefit if he corrects the mistake. Still I did not yet see any better comparison - may be because it is early days yet for D850.

Sep 18, 2017permalink

Tony Northrop is a spell-casting hell demon. There is no other way to explain his having such a gorgeous wife.

Sep 19, 2017permalink

Vignes

some asked T. Northrup why compare with 5DS rather 5D4 since 5DS doesn't performance well on high ISO. he answered because the 5DS is high Mpx. But what i found odd was he did a compare with 6D2 which was a lower resolution camera than 5D4. So i asked him why... no answer?

Sep 20, 2017permalink

Maybe because there are two cameras on Canon line to compete this one model.

6D Mk2 for high noise performance
5D S for high Mpix value

This is the key thing with the Nikon that they have now a DSLR that is like bonding those two together (and throwing in a AF system from D5).

Sep 20, 2017permalink

Toshier

Is that Jared Polin on photo 21 and 22 in the blur? :)

Sep 17, 2017permalink

I would bet that s him!

Sep 17, 2017permalink

Well spotted :)

Sep 20, 2017permalink

Johnny420

The level of detail and sharpness this camera renders is phenomenal. State of the art as far as I'm concerned.

Sep 17, 2017permalink

You really have limited experience with competing brands...your post has turned you into a novice I am afraid.

Sep 17, 2017permalink

itsme35

he doesnt own the D850, he is a Canon shooter. opinion based on other peoples opinion. i would rather see a raw image than an to jpg converted or shot as image. 72dpi, what does that tell you

Sep 17, 2017permalink

Hi don-bosco - - - very well said! Actually not just competing brands. I find lacking details in shadows that would not happen with the proper setting of HDR or D-Lighting.

NOT a troll here since I only use Nikon / Nikkor cameras - lenses for 55 years.
Currently own and use two D800, D5100, D5300, and D500.

Sep 17, 2017permalink

Yes, what that 72DPI should tell us?

Sep 20, 2017permalink

Joaquin Trigueros

I am outraged that 90% of all the glamour models are females and the photographers male, according to Nikon and everybody else!

Actually...

Sep 16, 2017*permalink

Andrew770

Well, we need to get more women interested in photography or maybe they have much better things to do than to play with toys.

Actually, from a recent study, it appears that 85% of professional photographers are men. And besides, photography does not appear to be a high paying job and we should not discriminate against women by pushing them into low-paying professions.

Sep 17, 2017permalink

Joaquin Trigueros

We need to stop polluting the planet. We would like to get more women interested in photography, if they are interested.

Sep 24, 2017permalink

The real question is, did Nikon actually make more than 100 of these cameras? Aside from the lucky few who got theirs on release day, have ANY more shipped out?

Sep 16, 2017permalink

Mateus1

Color rendition reminds me film time photography. Looks great.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

nathantw

Man, good thing the D850 is coming out. Certainly couldn't capture any of those with a Nikon FE and Kodachrome back in the day. (Rolling my eyes)

Sep 16, 2017permalink

duchamp

Certainly not - most likely the models weren't yet born then. ;)

Sep 17, 2017permalink

NJohnston

What's a Kodachrome?

;)

Sep 18, 2017permalink

nathantw

duchamp, You certainly got me there. LOL

Sep 19, 2017permalink

Fredix

I wanted to buy Sony, but I was waiting for D850.
Now, I am disappointed. Because I feel the photos are not sharp!

Sep 16, 2017permalink

After, I am underwhelmed..

Sep 17, 2017permalink

Vignes

is sharpness everything? what about color rendering, contrast...

Sep 20, 2017permalink

Julien-Pier

I don't want to sound like an ass, but these photos are quite meh.
I mean... Auto everything is not going to get you far in therm of harnessing the potential of a camera.
And shooting in Jpeg only shows how well the camera converts Raw to Jpeg. I hope people won't fork 4000$ on a camera to shoot Jpeg in Auto.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

All of the jpegs are offered with Raw files as well for you to inspect. As for auto everything, like white balance and D-Lighting, those likewise don't impact the Raw files, but are features that are important to show for jpeg shooters considering this camera. Yes, there will be jpeg shooters considering this camera.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

I've downloaded a few of the RAWs and have played around with them in LR. They seem to respond well to processing. I posted one example over here:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4204564

I encourage others play with the RAWs in their preferred software. I looked at one of the earlier landscape shots in samples, and thought the jpeg lacked sharpness and detail. The RAW was much better. Bottom line is, we really shouldn't be judging IQ based on jpegs.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

I agree with Harvey. I think it would be best to work from the raw files, then to do the raw to jpg conversion in the end.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

I look at the current crop of cameras like a car enthusiast looks at the latest Corvettes, Mustangs, et. al.—the electronic engine, transmission, braking, and traction controls in high-performance cars think and respond far faster than I ever could so why not use them.
Sure the electronics mean I'll never be able to drive a Corvette at 10/10ths of its capabilities but using them I can get very close to 9/10ths. Without them I might only be able to ever use 5/10ths of the car's potential, so all in all, it's a net win just as it is with cameras.

Sep 16, 2017*permalink

barrym1966

Did you shoot any under florescent lighting to see the horrible banding Nikon are well known for?

Sep 17, 2017permalink

Agree, poor sharpness and mediocre colours. These shots leave a lot to be desired. Initially I thought of poor jpeg engine but then I could not see much difference when I played with corresponding RAW files

Sep 17, 2017permalink

What wrong with shooting JPEG only? Your comment sound like elitist to me.
There are many HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL PROFESSIONAL photographers who shoots in JPG almost exclusively. I shot in NEF (raw) and often in NEF+JPEG(fine). 90% of the time, I find the JPEG version undistinguishable from the processed NEF. The numerous INEXPENSIVE post processing software now in the market allows MANIPULATING JPEGs to rival the processed raw photos.

Sep 27, 2017*permalink

http://nsa39.casimages.com/img/2017/09/16/170916043321196650.jpg

What is interesting is that albeit the 45 MP sensor deliver a good amount of details, I do not find lot of differences (pixel wise) in IQ than my 5DIV (assuming that no cropping is involved).

I added a full resolution (6600 x 4400 with minimal cropping/adjustments) of one photo I took recently from the 5DIV (taken with the 35mm f/1.4 ii), and I have plenty of details.

The IQ is obviously a combination of the quality of the sensor/lens/light. Those 45 MP images do not have the MF rendering for me, and the skin tones from the Nikon are quite questionable (the photos of the baby need some heavy correction, horrendous dark orange skin tones).

Sep 16, 2017*permalink

Julien-Pier

Well, the camera is not the culprit here, the photographer is. None of those photos showcase the power of the D850. They could have been taken with a compact camera and the results would have been similar

Sep 16, 2017permalink

I also feel that dpreview may tend to rush their reviews and the way they release their image samples. Sometime i think it is best to take the necessary time to know well the camera and producing better photos. Very important if one wants to convince that the camera is very capable of delivering the expectation. What I like with he Nikon is the backlit buttons that can be useful at night time. The sensor MP count and dynamic range are too overrated IMHO. I think there is also too much hype about those new camera releases (specially Sony and Nikon).

Sep 16, 2017*permalink

I wonder how much more detail we can realistically expect to see? Is it maybe that this sensor is out-resolving most lenses?

Sep 16, 2017permalink

CaPi

Nice to know that you all know to do it better than the man with the actual body in hand.
Your imagination what might have been done outreaches time and dimension of any first impression.
Can people actually breathe in your presence?

Sep 16, 2017*permalink

nathantw

MoiMoi, what you say reminds me of those people who buy a fancy camera for that trip people saved a lifetime to go on so they could capture the best pictures ever only to find they have no idea how to use that new camera and come back disappointed.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

stevo23

Agree - not the best samples for showing off this camera. @ Harvey - I'm sure there's a study of it somewhere, but my suspicion is that the camera is not out resolving the lenses they're using.

Sep 17, 2017permalink

Vignes

Moimoi, that EF 35mm glass is one heck of a glass. it's in my wishlist.
coming back to your comment, yeah we need to get out of the hype phase and do an objective test. I saw one famous reviewer did a youtube review of D850 against A7R2 and GH5 and kind of gave a perception that D850 is better in video than the Sony/Pana. I just laughed and thought that even review sites/person are human after all... we are somehow biased on something.
About the resolving part. i was contemplating on whether to get the 5DS or 5D4 and decided to go with 5D4. the 30 Mpx is more forgiving than the 50Mpx. Plus i liked the output except felt sometimes 5D4 over exposes stuff... exposure needs to be turned down. Many would argue that the extra Mpx is like a backup plan. after testing the 5Ds and 5D4 i could not agree with that perception with respect to my use and lens collection.

Sep 17, 2017*permalink

Well don't blame the photographers. They have nothing to do with sharpness or colour rendering. These are very same photographers who always take tack sharp shots with other cameras. I have see great output from their work with Fuji, Canon, Sony and some Nikon bodies. That being said, here the camera is a culprit.

Sep 17, 2017permalink

rev32

Carey, thanks for the gallery! Any chance you can get into a gym and photo a volley ball or basketball? I'd really like to see how it does with action, in a dark high school gym at ISO 6400 and up.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

I'll see what we can do for the full review! We'll definitely try to have some high ISO sports shooting of some sort.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

rev32

That would be great!

Sep 16, 2017permalink

barrym1966

Carey , could you shoot one with the lens cap on and lift the shadows by +100 to show the sensor noise/banding?

Sep 17, 2017permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9485291827/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-sample-gallery/1822134446

@Barry if that would be useful to you, I can arrange it. PM me an address to send it to and I'll try to get to it within the next week or so.

Sep 20, 2017permalink

shooter45

Nothing spectacular IMO ....

Sep 16, 2017permalink

blink667

the last spectacular image I saw was in MOMA taken with an ancient SLR. These however are technically impressive.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

henrikbengtsson

Dang...not your regular snap-shot samples, I must say. Good work. Impressive to say the least. Much improved since the 5D4 samples

Sep 16, 2017*permalink

ffazzaz

Hory crap. Those are some seriously bad sample images. Gamma all over the place (look at that bicycle, are you kidding?), dirty midtones, banal subjects.

Bottom line, the D2, D600 still holds their own. DP Review needs to up their game in re internet reproduction quality.

Frankly, this is horrendous.

Sep 16, 2017*permalink

IIRC, the bicycle was exposed that way on purpose to avoid clipping in both highlights and shadows to allow for post processing flexibility in the Raw.

On any case, I'm sorry you're disappointed.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

K e n n e t h

Thanks for posting the fashion and portrait images--I'd like to think you guys read the comments on your articles

Now if only they'd deliver my D850...

Sep 16, 2017permalink

We do read the comments, for better or for worse ;) glad you find this gallery useful.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

K e n n e t h

Carey, I'm glad you're able to provide samples of what I shoot, confirms for me that the D850 is my next camera

Thanks!

Sep 17, 2017permalink

You're most welcome, thanks for visiting the site and taking the time to comment.

Sep 20, 2017permalink

Michael1000

I am impressed with the quality and variety of the gallery. I really wasn't expecting it. It really shows off what the D850 can do in the right hands. Thanks, Carey!

Sep 16, 2017*permalink

You're welcome, thanks for the kind words!

Sep 16, 2017permalink

When is the full review coming out??

Sep 16, 2017permalink

As soon as possible ;-)

Sep 16, 2017permalink

Now all I need is the camera, lol. Thanks for doing this testing!

Sep 16, 2017permalink

medon78

Awesome gallery!
Thank you very much for posting OOC JPEGs.

The color rendition is really nice! Could you share which camera settings you used in general? AWB, D-Lighting, ...?

Sep 16, 2017permalink

Absolutely. IIRC, I was using Auto D-Lighting and the auto white balance setting that preserves warm tones somewhat. The picture profile was 'Auto,' which, as we understand it, adjusts the 'Standard' profile depending on what the camera thinks is going on with the scene (so sharpness, saturation, etc. can vary from shot to shot). The JPEGs were the highest possible quality you can set on the camera. Let me know if you have any other questions, or if I missed any parameters you were curious about!

Sep 16, 2017permalink

NarrBL

That's a fine set of images you've added today, Carey. Much appreciated looking through them for their expression, as well as what this top-capability camera can deliver.

I found myself more than a little amazed by the people who commented -- and marked better - the blacked-out rejectables which this camera's abilities let you draw out to their real-life result by taking the development step actually very natural to photography..

Having lived many years in this country where you took them, the developed versions are how such a scenes will look to the eyes, when there in person. This is especially true in the one later in the series, looking down a staight road through a late afternoon forest.

In fact, if anything, your work this way through the sets is a little on the dark side, while this surely is a matter of taste -- and of our chance to make images as we saw or want to express remembrance of them.

Sep 16, 2017*permalink

NarrBL

For me, that's what photography is about, long before getting into any postmodern territory, and the blind following of what a non-humanized sensor shows is the actually distorted reality people can get so upset about.

I quite appreciate the expanded breadth of articles here in DP Review which explore this humanity via camera-expressive takes on subjects.

And for your editors must say, that is as much as I really don't appreciate the more recent dives into egotistical and political articles exploiting tabloid takes on ' strange things that happen around photography'.

New authors , ok -- as you guys are -- but not those encouraged to make noise and seek attention this way. As is visible, it doesn't help the quality of commentary here either.

Sep 16, 2017*permalink

fPrime

NarrBL, sorry but you came off as a post-modern, non-humanized, blacked-out, expanded-breadth fool with this post. Apologies if I left out any clichés...

Sep 16, 2017*permalink

NarrBL

Well, I think you should go on seeking truth your own way, fPrime, and I in mine.
It's best, no?

Sep 16, 2017permalink

John Koerner

Just lousy.

Maybe you can have someone who knows how to take interesting, capable, technical shots ... instead of letting your girlfriend run around with the camera for a half-hour.

Absolutely mundane, nothing imagery.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

blink667

Who's looking for "art" when the point of the images in the article is to exhibit the technical quality of the photos based on what the camera and sensor can do?

Sep 16, 2017permalink

Deliverator

Wow, just... wow. You seriously need to work on your bedside manner.

Sep 16, 2017*permalink

A little harsh, but still funny =)

Sep 16, 2017permalink

Skyscape

Of course, @John Koerner. I mean, the nerve of them. What they should have done is contacted you to show them how it's really done. No doubt you would be able to do justice to the camera's capabilities. Add to that the artistic genius of your compositions and we have the best-kept secret on this site.

On a more serious note, I thought the photos accomplished their task. They were not meant to be artsy or blow your little midget-mind, but you didn't get that.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

Nick Brundle - Photography

At the very least, you could tell they weren't all taken in a half hour. I mean, maybe if I was the Flash...

Sep 16, 2017*permalink

John@
May I ask what you expected to see with the samples from a Nikon D850?
Sydney Opera House, perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically...?

Sep 16, 2017*permalink

SkySpades

This same discourse got him banned from the Fred Miranda forum. Pure jackwagon.

11 months agopermalink

Joed700

Thank you DPreview! I've been waiting for the 85mm f/1.4G's images from the D850. They look awesome!

Sep 15, 2017permalink

Thank you, and thanks for checking out the gallery!

Sep 16, 2017permalink

vivaldibow

Thanks for the sample pictures! Finally, these are the pictures I have been expecting from the mighty D850! The pictures are so large that it took me quite a few mouse clicks to find the eyes of the baby! :)))

Sep 15, 2017*permalink

You're most welcome, thanks for checking out the gallery and taking the time to comment.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

zakaria

What a beautiful model and what a capable machine d850.nikon should sign a contract with
The talented photographer ..

Sep 15, 2017permalink

Boeing skipper

Great and useful gallery, thank you Carey

Sep 15, 2017permalink

You're most welcome, I'm glad you've found it helpful.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

Satyaa

The new photos should have been added after the previous photos that were already in the gallery.

I made comments earlier on the lines of "photo # x has something..."

Now the # is wrong and to anyone reading those comments it makes absolutely no sense.

Sep 15, 2017permalink

A perfectly valid criticism. It's something I'll bring up with the staff.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

Satyaa

Thank you.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

Triplet Perar

Excellent, and love the effort. Colours and saturation are spot on, best images coming out of a DSLR yet. I wonder if the photographers felt the same, in comparison with other DSLRs they tried before the D850? What they feel about the camera? Say, a new level of confidence?

Sep 15, 2017*permalink

c76plus

The quality of the pictures of this model is just amazing, details and dynamic range are scary!
This is the best producto gallery I've seen since this website left the UK.

Sep 15, 2017permalink

caspianm

Great camera poor photography. Auto picture profile, Auto iso, motion blur and possibly lenses not fine tuned.

Sep 15, 2017permalink

whakapu

Perhaps consider being less unkind. This is a camera review site, not a next-top photographer reality show where we all get to be Simon Cowell. For the record I thought there were some good shots (eg of the bike backlit by the sun) and a few flawed ones (focus on a man when there's a pretty woman in frame), but overall I thought it served the purpose of demonstrating the capabilities of the camera.

Sep 15, 2017permalink

caspianm

I'm not in the market. It only showed what this camera can do WHEN you choose auto iso, and auto pic profile with mostly over saturated color, over the top contrast and inaccurate color, and way unsharpened images as a result. The lens had not had auto tuned and the shooter unsteady hand showed in a good number of photos. Who cares I'm going home.

Sep 15, 2017permalink

photoaddict

Sure glad that you posted underexposed image #40 as it would allow me to test how well it can tolerate with push up to 5 EV in ACR. The outcome is stunning. For some reason, I could boost the luminance noise even further without making it look waxy compared to lower resolution images.

Sep 15, 2017permalink

Glad you found it useful! Thanks for checking out the gallery.

Sep 15, 2017permalink

owenleve

Hands-down the worst Collection of photos you have posted for new camera I have ever seen on the site

Sep 15, 2017permalink

Well, darn.

Sep 15, 2017permalink

SETI

Nope. Great photos for camera REVIEW. You're annoyed because Nikon did not live up to your expectations.

Sep 16, 2017permalink

GinoSVK

Too much sensor capability for Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8E FL ED VR, pictures without any fine details even at f/4, enlarged 20Mpx file will provide the same level of quality.

Sep 15, 2017permalink

Arca45Swiss

The detail in the landscape shots is pretty good but doesn't match my IQ180. I am sure better lenses like Otus or even Milvus would up the quality substantially though there will still be more fine detail with the IQ180. But not bad at all considering this is a low cost camera by comparison

Sep 15, 2017permalink

vesa1tahti

JPEGs 25, NEFs more than 50 MB. No, I'm satisfied with my D7200 (and my old laptop).

Sep 15, 2017permalink