Good God, you're right. Nothing but cat photos.... Genius

I’m sorry to tell you but I think you really missed the point.
This gallery is not intended to be as a photography exhibition with great composition or particular places or even great moments. It’s in purpose to do normal pictures with no particular interest, so you can see what the camera can do without any conditioning. You can even download raw file to do some post. It's just technical stuff, appreciate this.

That's not really an answer to my question. Iirc it is a high contrast correction/compression tool. My question should have been: why was it applied to all shots?
I'm shooting Jpeg only since acquiring my 850 a week ago, and skipped this option in the menu.

@SirSeth I do shoot RAW (exclusively) but that does not mean I can not recognize underexposed shots when I see them. I also worked in a photofinishing plant in college so I know about dodging and burning. Are you saying you think this D850 underexposes? I think it is just more of the current fad of underexposing and "Pulling" the shadows instead of trying for a good exposure to start. After all, ALL cameras now are so good at image quality at decent sizes you must resort to stuff like underexposing 4 or 5 stops then pulling then looking at 100% views to see meaningful differences.....which then by definition at that point are not really meaningful differences in the real world.

@roustabout66. I see you do have the background. I'm guessing we just have a different perspective. I argue that even with the best sensors a "proper exposure" as in reading off an 18% middle gray will not produce the right exposure for the skies and at the same time as the right exposure for the shadows. Pulling shadows is a way to preserve highlights because once you clip those (which often happens in a middle gray "correct" exposures, then that info is gone. So I think underexposing purposely to preserve highlights is a better exposure decision if shooting RAW.

You're wrong. You didn't sign a lifetime user contract with Canon. Maybe that's what they'd like you to believe but guess what, everyone has a choice.

io_bg:

The Fuji has an EVF, so if that's what you want to shoot with that's the system for you.

Nothing the Fuji X-T2 can't do as well.

The Fuji GFX just became an utter irrelevance with the D850. The shooting experience is appalling with the Fuji.

so russbarnes you have tried out the Fuji GFX then ????????

I had it for a week probably a week longer than you Yes/No

Yes, I've had the Fuji and the Hasselblad X-1D on trial. Both are abysmal shooting experiences. In terms of sheer usability the D850 does everything both cameras should but can't. Everything from start-up time, ISO performance, frame rate etc etc Fuji have made a huge mistake in this marketplace while higher end Full Frame offerings in advanced sensor performance demonstrate why paying 3 times as much for a so called Medium Format body (and i say so called because the sensor size in these bodies are not true medium format as we all know) is pretty stupid. Fuji should stick with and make their X Line better instead of wasting time on a DOA medium format market. Look no further than the massive price cut Hasselblad just had to apply to the H5D for further evidence of this.

Pop a speed booster on a gh5 and it will match FF all day long, except for really fast action, but then m43 really comes into its own anyway with its native lenses.
Honestly, good luck with raw file sizes this large!

To substitute quality of captured detail and sharpness in the same area my m4/3 camera can, and to replace it as an everyday photographic tool, an FF camera manufacturer has to come with
— a 64 MP FF camera,
— at the price of $350,
— weight of 400 g,
— with 9fps precise mechanical shutter,
— FF lenses 2.5x times smaller,
— FF lenses at 1/3 of their current weight.
Now, who is gonna make such an FF camera for me? :-D

samtheman2014, Advent1sam

- you are kidding no one but yourselfs in truth: "boost the poor shadow noise even at base ISO of m43, boost DR to match FF " all day long" . Dream on. For a start the DR is about 3 stops worse which isn't a great start when it comes to boosting shadow, and when you boost shadow to the extent that is often needed you are, in effect, apply 4-5 EV boost to the shadow tones. No 4/3rds can do that and stay useable.
I had an EM1 and likes some aspects of it but even at base ISO the RAW files had "gritty' look to them prior to any post processing. The 4/3rds format is dated - I hated it -and then there is the fact that the DOF is horrible. I had the full complement of Oly lenses including the 75/1.8. Yes the lenses have good acuity. But that is but one desirable aspect of a good lens. I still own a Nikkor 135 F2 DC portrait lens. It is simply in a different world to the Oly and the images you make with it have the magic ingredient that the Oly can't acheive.

We were expecting a lot more.
Nikon D800E-810 was (is) wow camera.
Excellent image quality.
Cheap alternative for hasselblad.
From D850 I expected excellent quality especially at a lower ISO.
Of course, we want the best quality even at a high ISO, but…..100, 200, 400 ISO is the most important for most photographers.
In my opinion Nikon D850 is not a successor to Nikon 810.
Maybi d700.
We - I want a monster with a lot of pixels and excellent quality at 100-400 ISO.

I was expecting 36mp or lower but much better noise performance from Expeed 5. I never had a problem with AF in low light. After all photography is the art of light and not the darkness. I have d500 and D5. I only used tilting LCD once on D500 so it is not a selling point for me.
The detrimental point for me is higher resolution and dealing with it. It takes twixe as long to process 46mp file than 36mp. When I switched from 22mp camera to 36mp I had to upgrade my computer. Now I can't even do that because my computer is already the fastest one I can get.
Sure, for those who shoot 100 photos per week 46mp is OK but I might shoot several thousand per day sometimes.
Even though DPR says that ISO performance is better I certainly don't see it at any ISO. D5 is one stop better than D810 and D850 and it is noticeable.

Just my opinion that D850 is only a minor upgrade, even less minor than going from D800 to D810. Nikon added features no one will actually use on a daily basis.

Anecdotal but fair enough, it depends on what kind of photography you do. The D850 appears a very versatile camera; suitable for many different tasks.

When it comes to file size I somewhat agree with you having both the D800 and the D500 the filesize of the former can be cumbersome (even with a pretty good computer setup), with that said computers evolve and there was a time (back in the late 80's early 90's) where my humble computer (an Amiga) struggled with small .jpg's.

Nothing anecdotal about it. I downloaded D850 RAW images. It takes me 1.5 sec or less to process D810 RAW file in ACR with all sliders on default. D850 took 3 seconds. If I use more noise removal it could take 2.5 seconds on D810 and 5 seconds on D850. Since I am running at 4.5GHZ on 6 cores there is nothing out there to upgrade to, to get 2x the speed.

No, not at all monumental. We already compared RAW files from both cameras and came to conclusion that noise is the same at any ISO. And it is not just me who is saying it.
Better focusing? Only in the dark. D810 can focus in the darkness too if there is some contrast. Still, focus point spread is very small. Not so good. On the paper sounds very good but in real life not much of the difference.

Tilting LCD? Whooopy!!!! Have not used it on D500 very often.

Focus stacking, can be done manually ob D810 or any other camera and not used for everyday photography anyway.

For 9fps needs to spend another $1050 (charger-$370, battery-$150, battery grip-$370, backup battery).

Flash is another $$$ since D850 no longer has it. I can use D810 flash in a pinch but not so with D850.

Need fast computer so I don't fall asleep while processing a batch of photos.
Need larger memory cards. Some RAW files are about 20mb larger on average depending on ISO.

D810 on the other hand brought focus point orientation feature just like Canon had for many years which is much more useful for me than any of the above.

The only monumental is the upgrade price for features I don't need.

@Richard Murdey. Half of it is not true. D850 does not have better DR or noise performance. Equal maybe but not better. I already tested myself but it takes 2x as long to process D850 files especially at higher ISO. Everything else is just up to individual taste. I just don't see it as OMG. I see it as different.

@sts2 Find my posts and look at my equipment. The way I see it if the camera has more features but not a better IQ than the previous model this camera is not an upgrade camera. If I did not have D810 already and I could not get D810 I would definitely buy D850 but since I do have D810, D5, D500 I am not upgrading.

Take a look what other people think about D850 in multiple threads. Most people bash it for not having better IQ.

Cannot comment on the processing time, but if it is double then it seems there is a something in the raw converter that is not properly optimized yet. On IQ, I agree that the difference here is not so large, but there is a small improvement in DR above ISO400, plus the increase in resolution.

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D810,Nikon%20D850

And you are entitled to it too. But I am not going by the test chart. I have seen so far more that 100 RAW images of many different subjects and I can't find a single one that can't be done with D810. At this point D810 is my light camera. That and 28-300mm and I can go anywhere. You would have to bring D850 and external flash plus batteries to go light. I also use D810 with Tamron 15-30mm on the red carpet events to shoot groups. I just don't see how extra 10mp will make better IQ. In fact awhile ago there was a thread where people compared resolution output from D810, Canon 5D mk4 and some other cameras. No one could actually tell the difference in normal shooting because once you have enough resolution and good enough IQ you are basically covering most of the situations.
But my main two cameras are D5 and D500. And I actually reduce resolution while sending files because agencies only require 12mp max, about 1-1.5mb files.

@ Richard. The chart show very insignificant increase certainly within margin of error and certainly not detectable in use.
As far as optimization of the converter try older cameras like Canon 5Dmk2 and D800. Same results. 50% increase resolution responsible for 100% speed decrease.

Accept before I bought D5 few months ago and D500 last Christmas i used 2 D800e and D810. D800e was with me since it was announced. So I have just as much experience with D800/D810 as anyone. Then your clients expect certain production they don't ask what camera you use. The bottom line is delivered photos which are not much different from D810 compared to D850. So maybe D850 is not worst than D810 but it is certainly not better in IQ. As far as any other improvement it is up to individual taste. But these improvements have no bearing on the IQ.

Most people are looking for the better IQ then they are upgrading not more features unless features are very useful. The new PDAF is not "much" better than the old one because you don't shoot in the dark all the time. Besides only the center point is -4EV. D810 focusing is just fine in the dark too. That is why on the paper it sounds wonderful but in real life there is not much difference. And then the system is designed to only use Nikon F2.8 or brighter. If you use any other lens it will not work as good.
Having all new guts means absolutely nothing. Bumped up speed only only good if you are shooting sports of some sort otherwise for landscapers it means nothing. Originally D800 was designed for landscape photography.
So basically all of these upgrades are very minor and less useful because D810 was already wonderful camera with everything anybody needs.

Like I said for those who don't have the camera D850 is wonderful but for those who have D810 there is no reason to upgrade. Just read several threads and you will find out if you don't believe me. And no matter how much you will try to convince me I am not the only one who thinks about it on the same rational level.

No, not just my point of view. Read the posts in the Nikon forum.
I am comparing AF from the actual use too. Yes, there is a difference but only in extreme dark condition and only if you use center point and only with Nikon lenses with F2.8 or better. That is a lot of restrictions!!!!!! And how often do you shoot on the full moon focusing on the sand? Once a month? Do your nails turn in to claws at the same time? :)
And D810 being very good is the point. A great point. If it wasn't I'll be first in line to get D850.

As far as RR the car is a luxury item and people who drive it are mostly chauffeurs. In my business I would rather have a small, maneuverable, reliable car. I do drive SUV though. D810 or D850 are not luxury items for me but a tool. As a tool D850 does nothing for me D810 can't handle. D5 on the other hand is different. Just Ethernet alone makes a huge difference. Many times I can edit while I am shooting because photos directly transfer to my laptop wireless. And if I can submit my photos faster than others I can make more money.

Again you keep referring to YOUR needs. It's perfectly fine to determine what you need and base your buying decisions on that, but to generalise your personal point of view as fact is a fallacy you would want to avoid. To say that the D850 is merely a minor improvement because YOU don't see any benefit is simply incorrect, and used to rationalise your decision to not buy one for your own needs.

We're going round in circles, I'm done with this discussion.

Yeah, I understand completely. I imagine you were in the rush to get some initial samples out there before the full review. I appreciate them in any case, just wanted to point this part out (since I bet a lot of users wont read the note accompanying the picture).

Cheers!

@HowaboutRAW
The studio scene comparison isn't there yet, so i don't really know how you can say with such confidence that it is better. Maybe, but unless you've show exact same scene with all those cameras, what you say is a mere assumption.

Second, even if it is better (or worse), it will not be by a huge margin. It uses sony sensors from the same generation, so it may have a bit better signal processing, but the differences will be in the "i think it looks better", or "i prefer that look" category than in the "i can say objectively that in all situations this will be better by half stop" than the... A7RII :)

From Thom yesterday at NR. "Nothing has changed in my assessment. The interconnects are not Renaysys type, they're Sony type, and I don't know of anyone else using that style."

sandy b:

And why do I care what Thom has to say?

You asked for evidence. I think it's pretty clear by now, both from the images and comments from experts like Thom and Bob that this is a Sony sensor, designed by Nikon.

sandy b:

"that this is a Sony sensor, designed by Nikon."

That would make it a Nikon sensor.

Got no idea who Bob is. Thom, I'm not gonna a pay a great deal of attention to.

@Howaboutraw
The "designed by" difference in sensors, can make some differences - like making a custom RGB filter (and i am not pointing only at fuji X sensors, but all manufacturers tune the RGB filter a bit differently), the thickness of the glass covering the sensor, and a few other parameters sony can tune within an existing pipeline they have.

This will not make miracles... as the sensor core does not modify. Simple playing with the RBG filter can give you a sensor with more accurate colors but you loose something in high ISO range or the other way around.
Of course you know that ... but you just want to make a big deal of the fact that a sensor has some 2% improvement in whatever parameter :)

badi:

It's a lot better higher ISO body than the A7RII, suggesting the sensor is significantly different.

Nikon has engineered sensors in many of it's highend DSLRS, the D5, D4S, D3 by way of example. Not, the D810.

:) my intention is not to contradict you endlessly, i'll just only one more thing.

I compared the images at imaging-resource, and the differences are... small.
Here is the link comparing some 100% crops (the last comparison is D850 vs A7R2 at ISO 6400):
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d850/nikon-d850A.HTM#IQC-LP

To my eyes (which might not be as good as yours) the difference is rather in the noise style. I would consider the D850 the winner in all 3 crops, but the difference is so small that it doesn't make a significant impact. One would be able to make prints about the same size from both cameras.
Yes, the D850 is better, but it's the "significantly" better part that i do not agree on, and i just fail to see.
If with one camera you can print 100cm and with the other 105cm (with same settings) to have the same perceived quality, for me it is not "significant". That's all.

Odd, they should be about 61MB.

51,6 MB, pag. 362 of the manual

Andycnv:

And the NEFs, shot lossless fullsized, are 61MB from Imaging Resource.

Therefore I don't care what the manual has to say.

@HowaboutRAW

What part about lossless compression don't you understand? File size will vary depending on the complexity of the content. Monotonic blocks will be compressed more effectively than fine patterns, so you can see that simple geometric subjects tend to be around 45 MB, while the more detailed compositions run closer to 50 or 60 MB.

Brandless has a point though, these images really don't impress like they should. These look like images coming out of older cameras. Guessing it's just the jpegs?

I didnt even look at the images, since I'm not considering buying anything.

why bother commenting then? ??

@Graham: since you're obviously not going to buy it either, what's the deal with that comment? Do you get to make up new rules for people you disagree with?