Rumors update: the Nikon D820 will have the same AF system as the D5


A quick update on the rumored Nikon D820 specifications - the camera will have the same AF system as the Nikon D5:

  • Announcement this summer, shipment in fall (announcement/shipment could be earlier)
  • Will be called D820 (D850 is still a possibility)
  • 45-46MP sensor
  • Improved low and high ISO
  • New and improved version of SnapBridge
  • No built-in GPS
  • Tiltable LCD screen
  • Memory card slots: one SD and one XQD
  • New: AF system from the D5

Here is a Nikon D4 vs. D5 AF points coverage area comparison:

Nikon D4 vs D5 AF points coverage area

This entry was posted in Nikon D850. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Markus

    To sum it up:
    – Same AF modul as D5: Meh just recycling
    – 45 MP: uff the file size; just 45, I want at least 50 MP better would be 70 MP

    At some point I wish Nikon would bring a modulized body where everyone can customize it to his needs. So many complaints about a camera that looks like a great upgrade for an already excellent D810.

    • ITN

      The Multi-CAM 20k is still far better than any other technology available, so what you call recycling I call breathtakingly amazing.

      I agree a modular camera would be good but the ergonomics would be affected as the joints would have to be free of controls. This would lead to a bulky and clumsy camera.

    • bondjamesbond

      “To sum it up:
      – Same AF modul as D5: Meh just recycling”

      Stopped reading right there.

      • Markus

        I just wanted to point out what was discussed here. I’m a huge fan of the current Nikon lineup and don’t see any problems in their cams 😉

  • masterac

    I wonder how high the iso will be, d500 is 1.6 million, d5 around 3, could we get something around 2 ?

  • Alexander Otto

    Damn, the MPx count keeps rising and all that without in camera stabilization. I guess I’ll have to wait for the D750 update. Otherwise I can’t shoot without a tripod or a tripod in windy weather for that matter.

    • DSP~

      In addition to that, I wouldn’t want to start splitting my photo library to multiple expensive SSDs just because I need to cope with thousands of 30-50MB files.

      • ITN

        This is why Nikon only makes one camera > 24 MP (or two cameras, if the D810A counts as a separate unit); all the others are 16-24MP.

        • DSP~

          Well lets hope for a decent D760 then. Without the bullshit of the current version with slow card slots, horrible buffer and mediocre AF.

          • ITN

            I think there is a good chance that the D750’s successor will have higher fps and longer bursts like the D7500 does (8fps with 50 raw burst length). However, it is not clear if Nikon will give it Multi-CAM 20k. A priority in the D750 design was in compact size and good low light performance and this necessitated scaling down the AF sensor slightly. Multi-CAM 20k may be too large to fit in this chassis. The other possibility would be that Nikon take the D820 chassis and put a 24MP sensor in it with a higher fps. I think that would be very popular but then some would complain that the body is too big and expensive …

            • DSP~

              As long as the grip stays that deep, I would be fine with a bigger body in order to have a better AF system. I don’t need tons of points or freaky tracking capabilities, I just need some cross type points on the edges. The current line sensors are not very reliable when using just a single point.

            • ITN

              I absolutely agree. The cross type points at the edge of the sensor array are fantastic. I think it is strange that Nikon had almost all sensors cross type in the D2 series and the F6 but then abandoned this and went with only central columns as cross type in the D3 and stuck with this for eight years. This has caused a lot of grief over the years.

          • Tom Gloor

            What’s wrong with current D750? I’m asking as I’m about to get it in few days so would love to know, please.

            • DSP~

              The D750 is a great camera. Image quality and ergonomics are on point.
              My biggest problems are: AF performance of the off-center points is bad indoors, buffer is horrible, write speed to SD card tops out at about 50-70 MB/s, LCD resolution is crap, tethering is slow, WiFi is mediocre even with 3rd party software.
              It takes great photos and is great to use but in some demanding conditions it may not keep up with your needs.

            • Tom Gloor

              Well, I’m coming from D90 and D810 is too big for me, too expensive and makes big files. So, based on what you said, what would you recommend instead of D750 if I tell you that I wanna go full frame now? By the sound of it it doesn’t look like you think D750 is a good camera. I think SD speed I won’t really notice and same goes for buffer? On D90 I never noticed any of these things as I never press the shutter so crazy. LCD resolution? Does it matter really when the LCD is too small anyway so won’t show that much? Wifi? I don’t have wifi on D90 so I don’t think that i will care much. Tethering – you mean over the cable?
              Please share more as on saturday Im heading to get D750 unless i hear better idea 🙂

            • DSP~

              If you are not capturing action in low light or do occasional studio shoots, then you definitely don’t need to worry about what I wrote.
              Just to clarify, the D750 is a spectacular camera wich made me jump the ship from the Canon 5D Mark 2. The image quality is great, the files have enough room to be post processed heavily. The images are usable up to ISO 6400 depending on the resolution / print.
              I am a semi-pro wedding and event photographer, so I need all of my gear to do exactly what I need it to and after about two years I found pretty much every aspect of the D750 that I dislike. Not everything I mentioned is a deal breaker and most of the time, I get great results.
              Yes, sometimes the buffer is a limitation for me because even with the fastest card, continuous shooting will drop to 2-3 fps after a burst. And sometimes the off center AF points don’t acquire focus when only one individual point is selected. The LCD makes video shooting brighter than f4 a matter of luck aswell as liveview shots, manual focus and image review without looking at the 100% view. I often don’t notice bad shots because of the low resolution LCD if I don’t zoom in on every shot I take. But coming from a D90 it may still be an improvement for your needs.
              I had some occasions where I had a kinda-studio shoot where I wanted to show the clients the shots on a laptop immediately. It took me hours to find a software wich only transfers a tiny jpg to the laptop because transferring anything else (e.g. via LR) was way too slow, tethered or via WiFi.
              And video? Forget about video. Bad codec, bad autofocus.

              Now you know about all the quirks and problems that *I* have with the D750. They may just be relevant to me and may be way exaggerated for most of the people using this camera.

              Bottom Line / tl;dr – Buy a D750, there is nothing better on the market wich suits all round FX needs.

            • Tom Gloor

              And if I do some studio work from time to time as a hobby and don’t want the 820 due to heaviness and huge files then is there better alternative? To me it looks like you have a very specific needs because I don’t see anything better on the market that would be a good all rounder like the D750 seems to be so until then isn’t it a bit unhelpful to focus on the bad? I’m sure every camera has limitations but those things that don’t work for you now really can’t be replaced in a better camera now then in that case you have the best one can get, correct?

            • DSP~

              As I already mentioned: In my opinion there is not a single camera out there that could outperform the D750 in relation to its price tag.

              I think the 5D4 has a better AF, the D810 could have a tad better dynamic range and with a D5 you wouldn’t need to worry about the buffer but combining all the aspects needed for a good FX camera, the D750 is your best choice. Full stop.

              I didn’t want to discourage your choice in buying this camera with my arguments and maybe I didn’t emphasize enough on how great the D750 is in most situations. I just wanted to elaborate on the issues a bit more because I thought that I covered the major benefits of the camera enough.
              Just to be clear: If I had the choice today to buy new gear from scratch – even with unlimited funds, I am fairly certain that I still would end up with one or two D750s.

            • Tom Gloor

              Thank you! I think you are right that its a great camera and its definitely going to fit my needs as by listening to you I realised that you are totally different league than me and therefore it will take me ages to get where you are now so for that reason I should be fine with D750. Also, once I get to that level I’m sure there will be a body that will surpass all of these and will give me years of pleasure. 🙂
              Regardless, thank you for your input and I will update you once I hit certain level. Hope I will not regret this purchase 🙂

            • decentrist

              well said!

    • ITN

      Stabilization (either sensor or lens based) actually introduces a bit of blur that can be seen at the pixel level, some acuity is lost. Stabilization is good for getting an acceptable quick shot but not for the best image detail (a tripod, fast shutter speed, or flash is used for that). Nikon have plenty of VR lenses to choose from for those cases where it actually helps in a meaningful way.

      • yaley

        Do you have a link to an explanation for the blur stabilisation introduces?

        • ITN

          Not as such, it’s more something that people have noticed in practical use. Stabilization is based on measurement of acceleration (or angular velocity) using sensors and then there are motors that move to compensate for the motion and some kind of signal processing algorithm to estimate the corrective movement required. However, there is always some noise in the measurement and this can lead to slight blur in the image that wouldn’t be there without the stabilization. Also there is a slight delay between measurement and compensatory movement, so it is not a perfect correction. I think it’s easy to see by comparing with a solid tripod (assuming that the tripod, the head and method of attaching the camera or lens to the head are rigid) that at the pixel level the tripod gives better sharpness than stabilization. I think it’s worth mentioning it here because the D820 will be used by the pickiest people who will be looking for the best image quality. I think many of these people will notice the subtle imperfections of stabilization technology.

          Thom Hogan also has written about the image-quality reducing effects of VR at fast shutter speeds (1/500s or faster).

          I recognize that for many kinds of practical use the stabilization can be beneficial. I use Nikon sports mode VR quite a lot with telephotos. It stabilizes the image by a bit making it easier to compose and focus and it can also help reduce blur at slower speeds but I do notice a slight loss of the best sharpness in 36MP images at fast speeds compared to the best shots without VR. I use it because it helps achieve controlled compositions and keep the AF sensor on the subject with less variation, but I do feel the best sharpness isn’t quite as good as with VR OFF at fast shutter speeds (used to photograph sports).

          I think the D820’s users will be very picky and probably notice these things. I am not suggesting VR or IBIS isn’t useful but these technologies are not really a substitute for a tripod if best image detail is among the goals. I think they were designed more with “need to get a recognizable shot in a difficult situation quickly” in mind rather than competing with the detail of large format landscape photographs. I realize these views may not be shared by everyone.

          • Thom Hogan

            Yes. You have the choice shooting at 1/1000+ (e.g. sports) of stabilizing the viewfinder and losing some edge acuity or getting that edge acuity and learning to figure out how to hold the camera better. It’s why we all use monopods with the big long lenses.

      • Alexander Otto

        Well, it depends. Trying to get a sharp shot in windy areas in low light situations with the VR lenses usually doesn’t fair to well for me. And the VC makes lenses unnecessarily expensive and heavy as well.

      • 24×36

        “Stabilization” performance reduction is not just an “in use” concern, either; stabilization involves either a sensor mounted to a platform capable of moving, as opposed to mounted in a fixed position, or a lens element that moves, as opposed to being fixed. Whether “in operation” or not, either of these will potentially reduce the acuity of the system through their additional complexity (ironically, through an “UNstable” portion of the imaging chain).

        I’d really prefer that Nikon stay away from “sensor shift” anything, and that they produce a line of high performance, non-VR lenses, for exactly that reason. I’m never going to use “stabilization” in my shooting envelope anyway, so – I don’t need it, don’t use it, and there’s only potential downside given those circumstances.

  • RC Jenkins

    Expected that the D8xx would have the D5 AF. Not news.

    The news would be if it didn’t have the D5 AF. 🙂

  • C-M

    It won’t be called D820 and that the successor would have the Multi-Cam 20K is obvious
    So do you have any news?

  • Thanks for this up date – its looking like the D820 will be a great successor for an already great camera.

    But it is disappointing that Nikon continues to refuse to build in a GPS receiver into its top spec cameras; when it does in the cheapest DSLRs in the range. I own 3 nikon GP-1As and keep having to replace the connection cable – I would much prefer to be snag free – so please Nikon provide built in GPS to al your top camera, you know like Canon do.

  • Umano Teodori

    I’d love to have the d series viewfinder where when u use crop mode like 5:4 out of images areas are darker.

    For ppl who do magazines it’s a great feature and it’s worth to pay extra money.

    • 24×36

      You already have it if you have a D810, page 76 of the manual.

      “The 1.2x, DX and 5:4 crops are shown below; the area outside the crop can be viewed in gray when Off is selected for Custom Setting a6 (AF point illumination, p. 310).”

      I’m sure it will also be available on the D820.

  • maaggy

    Nikon makes small tech steps… No GPS?… So disappointing !!

    • Even the Pentax K-1 has WiFi and GPS built-in. And they are a niche player with lot of less sales.

      • John Albino

        If it had proper WiFi, it probably also could just link up with your phone and get GPS from the phone, with the right app.

        • peter w

          Nice idea.

          There is a hugre problem with GPS and photography. Data quality of GPS is very dependent on your position. Varying from good to no signal. Good signal taking quite some time to acquire after starting up. Both ends of quality can be dealt with, but dealing with data varying erronously in between is a pain. What is the value of this incoherent shit along with exact time registration and high resolution photographic registration recorded, no baked, in a NEF? Better add the data at home – best with corrections up to the level that is nessesary for its use .
          From a data point of view.

    • its like they hate money….a $5 chip would do so much for their bottom line

  • Dymo Lai

    Still waiting a light-weight full frame mirrorless.
    Traditional SLR type DSLR is not so attractive.

    • 24×36

      That all sounds good until you realize that the biggest weight reduction you’re getting in MILCs vs. DSLRs is from the smaller batteries, and to get DSLR-like battery life you’ll need much larger (and much heavier) ones in your MILC.

  • Nikos Delhanidis

    i am most curious about fps

  • animalsbybarry

    New rumors are poping up all over about a Canon FF mirrorless that will use EF mount
    This will maintain the look and feel of current DSLR as well as lens compatability
    This (in my opinion) is the best direction for Nikon to take with thier mirrorless FF
    Keep it F mount, and buy the latest greatest mirrorless sensors from Sony
    Nikon needs to drastically reduce operating expenses in a declining market while still producing the best camera on the market
    Buying mirrorless sensors from Sony with most of the advanced “camera features” already built into the chip is the most effective way to downsize while still producing the best available camera

    • Viktor

      OK, but just please do not write guys about some declining market. The market in high/pro/high-enthusiasts/mirrorless is not declining. The thing that is declining is the compact cameras market….. It is more about restructuring and focusing on the demanded products 😉

      • That’s true but DSLR and lenses sales are also down. Maybe because the cameras are already that good that you won’t feel the need to exchange your model every few years. However, Canon is doing better than Nikon. I believe they have more aggressive marketing.

      • Thom Hogan

        Be careful with that opinion (and that’s what it is, an opinion). As I note above, the D8xx series has been bought by a lot of people as a bragging rights camera. Indeed, more of them than people who actually need a D8xx. Those extra folk can, and do, quickly go away.

        • Chewbacca

          I’m sure As soon as Canon release the rumored full frame mirrorless and it’s the new cat’s meow it’s going to be these very people who’ll deem their DSLR’s old school and head off to miirrorless land.

        • Viktor

          Opinion…. well it is more expectation that opinion. Opinion is a point of view state by an individual. This is more expectation based on some few statistics that are available….. off course deeper statistical data would be better to come to some conclusions, but that is only manufactures who has them, I do not think they are available anyhow 😀

          D8xx case – yes, you are right, there is a portion of these guys and that is maybe the reason why D800 is one of the mostly owned cameras nowadays (in top 10 based on some statistics showed last week….), so even more then D810 owners…. “photographer” or bragging turist have fulfilled their ego…… BUT – the market I wrote about is the whole market together – high-end/pro/mirrorless no matter whether Nikon, Canon, Fuji…. and these braggers will stay in this group, just buy something else – probably X1D 😉

        • Ralf

          Back in the D800 days what I was really after was a 25MP camera ideally
          with 6-8 frames per second. The D800 was slower, higher resolution but
          it had convincing dynamic range and price.

          So that much about
          your theory about the market for a D8xx / D3/D4 hybrid earlier in this
          discussion. I did agree with it five years before you wrote it 🙂

        • Tony

          To assert that more people have bought a D8xx for “bragging rights” than people who have bought a D8xx because it is the right tool for their requirements seems to me to be an unsubstantiated, Trump-like, accusation. Or are you being pedantic about the meaning of “need”?

          • Thom Hogan

            Wording is tricky. But I believe the data sets I have available to me support my wording.

            • Tony

              Doubtless your “data set” is larger than mine, but (here in the UK) I have yet to meet a single person who does not use a D8xx as a serious, practical tool.

            • Thom Hogan

              Good to know, and I hope you’re right. Nikon won’t survive without dedicated enthusiasts.

        • Matti

          By your wording, everyone who is not pro, Falls in that group of ‘buying to want, not to need’. In fact if that group (pro’s only) existed, D800 would be massive fail imo from Nikon. Nikon existed for a big part cause of enthousiasts. And like it or not, +2MP increase = stolen money for me as customer. D80 (lovely camera) is now superseeded by smartphones, except in control. Even D500 (apart from the tools it has to take ‘harder then normal to take pictures’ (fast autofocus), is getting tailed by best smarthpones. And The D500 = Buy to want camera, not to need. Nobody (even pro) needs 10 fps to get job done. Nobody. But they buy anyway. Also I’m 100% you put yourself in the ‘need’ cathegory for all camera’s you own Thom. Wrong. Judging by your typing on your website (no offence meant) you buy nikon cause you like it, and are a gearhead. Nothing else. So simplying ‘need’ so far, for the camera D800, and also very easely using the word ‘bragging right’, is to black and white. Period. If D800 didn’t exist, i very likely already would have sold my gear and gotten smartphone (yes i still dont have one :D). Sure i dont need 36MP in the true sense. But as a photographer, that wants ‘pay off’ for the effort of manually take pictures, I need the 36MP resolution to be happy about it, to have a ‘wow, that picture is really beautifull’ feeling. And that is also an interpretation of ‘need’. Sure 1mp pictures can be nice, but it barely tells anything.

          So by Thoms judgemeng (copying his exagerrating method) All of the following camera’s are ‘want’ (not need), no matter if pro or not, since another tool that gets the job done exists:

          D5
          D8xx
          D500

          D750/d7500 do job just fine, anything more is ‘want’.

          And by this i just want to say: please think much better before you so lightly use the word ‘want’ and ‘need’. I certainly could be happy with my D80, but it would feel ‘not rewarding’ enough to me. D750 certainly would make me happy. But the d800 was an insane deal, gave me all dynamic range, pixels i ever needed at an unseen price point (2600 euro launch). Even d810 isn’t as tempting (more expensive, and on most accounts same camera). If we follow your ‘need’ interpretation, even Thom bought the D800 for bragging rights (to himself when watching his pictures).

          • Thom Hogan

            No, that’s not true. I would say that any enthusiast who’s into landscape photography or even printing big is a candidate for a D8xx. But since the beginning, every time I see someone with a D8xx, I ask them about what they shoot, how they use it, etc. That came about because the very first person I ran into in the field one other than me was using it like most people use smartphones. So I asked a lot of questions. Turns out that he was just posting to Facebook.

            I ran into this same thing with the D3 when it came out, probably because it was Nikon’s first full frame camera and everyone seemed to believe they needed that, regardless of price or how the camera was purposed.

            • Matti

              So you are saying, that I (as D800 owner), ‘need’ the camera, cause I mainly shoot landscape, and ‘thus’ didn’t buy it for bragging rights? Cause there’s a fine line you know. Trying to understand how far ‘need’ goes for you. I haven’t printed yet, but the moment I move to a bigger house, i will print many of my works to put on the wall, that’s a certainty, and i’m already dreaming of how big the prints will be with D800.

              Also even if i don’t print it, i love zooming in to pictures of locations, that I might never go back to again. Seeing the details (36,3 MP), makes you appriate the scene even more then with your naked eyes. Say a mountain of 3000 meter high, and you take wide shots (24mm) of the whole scene, at about 1800 meters high, then if you zoom into, it’s amazing to see how high the trees survive, get thinner and thinner, to have very few trees surviving the power of nature on top of mountain. Smartphone/old DSLR (10-14MP) would not show that period. And it’s something i love about D800. You can watch a landscape files of D800 for 10 minutes and still not be bored. Smartphone/facebook pics are boring after 30 sec. But then the question is… is this need or want. Bragging rights or not. For me it’s certainly not for bragging. I bought the camera, because i knew i would like it, not to brag. In fact when people ask wich camera i use, i rather not tell, cause at some point i have to say i spend 2000 euro on a camera, and that gets most peoples eyes wide open in a way that’s usually disagreeing way.

              Anyway I agree that for instance if i had all money of world, and would buy 600mm F4 and nikon D5 i would be bragging rights/Toy wanna-have, factor. Cause i rarely shoot things that require high fps, and rarely shoot birds (my Sigma 150-600mm will do just fine in 99% of cases). But D800 that’s harder to define. D800 is the closest camera to my needs for shooting. Is it a sin to buy/use it then? I have no regrets whatsoever, even with d750/d810 out now.

            • Thom Hogan

              Of course, you could have just taken another set of photos with a telephoto lens.

              I have a standard set of questions I ask in surveys, but they try to get to the difference between “casual use” and “dedicated use.” Your example falls a bit on the casual side for me.

            • Eric Calabros

              Its true about any model in the lineup. Even entry level DX is more than enough for many people. What they really need is lens interchangeability, not a big sensor. But most of them stick with kit lens all the time. Marketing should be like “you want to differentiate your images? You don’t need to upgrade the body, buy this lens instead”. Lack of affordable primes doesn’t help of course.

        • Sheesh

          True Thom. I don’t need 36mp, but I find it handy when travelling – it means I can travel lighter and only carry one lens.

          If I need something a little longer than I’m carrying I can drop into DX mode to get a perfectly acceptable “longer lens” 16mp equivalent shot.

          *braces himself for hideously tedious technical discussions on freaking equivalence…*

      • John Albino

        In addition to what Thom pointed out, another problem is the number of “high-end pro photographers” ALSO is declining. Far more of those calling themselves “pro” are using Canon Rebels and Nikon D750-type cameras than top-end stuff. It’s a matter of economics — there are no more deep-pocketed clients to pay the freight for >$4,000-type cameras any more. “Good Enough” is Good Enough for most clients these days.

        • Viktor

          Yes, I am sad after reading your sentences…. but yes, you are partially right 🙁 I see that too around…. HOWEVER I still think there is enough of those willing to spend for good pictures (clients as well as photographers). The thing that clients do not want to be photographed by a camera worse they have (or their cousin has) will be still driving the cycle around, eg. I would be ashamed walking in front of the client with any other then Pro level camera…. and as a bonus these cameras are very robust, so therefore I still do see a lot of collegues walking around with D700, D300, D3 cameras – why not? They are still working. and 12mps is enough for many usages…. If I would not go D8xx the D3X was Great with big “G”…..
          But still I think the Pro market is a special market where we NEED the gear not WANT the gear, so after a certain while everyone of us goes again to the shop to get his new Pro camera…. I am possitive and I belive there will be still enough innovations to work on and therefore enough anxiousness for the new gear 😉

          • Hans J

            In my world a $4000 camera is the cheapest part. Try $12k for a Profoto 8a. 8k for Broncolor Para 222 and $1200 for some heads and them times that by 4x to 6x. Not to mention C-stands mini booms. I think the last order I made of EQ was about 110k

            • Viktor

              Yes I know that 😉 That is another part of Pro life…. however still not everyone is a studio photographer. Eg. I am fine with two strobes and a possibility to borrow additional ones 😉

        • Sheesh

          I think it may also be the case that we’re seeing diminishing returns and 24mp bodies are simply sufficient for a lot more working photographers these days.

          As you mentioned John the number of pros are declining, and those that remain are probably making less money, so it makes sense to opt for a cheaper body which still does the job.

          Sure there are still some photographers who print big, but I think they are also likely declining in number, and are probably shooting medium format anyway.

    • RC Jenkins

      I really hope not. Canon’s EF mount has some advantages over Nikon’s F-mount, and it has arguably helped them incredibly since its introduction.

      I’d much rather Nikon do a new mount, release a few compact, fast primes (to take advantage of the system), and do the adapter thing.

      By retaining F mount, Nikon would completely remove a large benefit of mirrorless cameras in general: reduced flange distance.
      Reduced flange distance means smaller bodies, more adaptable lenses (without optical adapters), simpler & more flexible lens designs (= higher quality / less costly), etc.

      Nikon’s F-mount is already all over the place and not the easiest to design for: the small throat and large flange distance leads to more complex designs, tougher outer-point AF, and expensive glass (as well as less capable lens adapters). Luckily, Nikon has brilliant lens designers to overcome some of this–but they’d do even better with a more modern mount.

      And so to catch up over the years, Nikon’s F-mount has become a bit of a Frankenstein’s monster. Today, we’ve got:

      -Non-AI, that can’t mount on most bodies without modification

      -(most lenses): AI / non-E, that (still!) have a mechanical aperture lever

      -AF, which have a mechanical autofocus coupling & no motor, requiring the camera to physically disconnect its AF motor if you want to manually focus (or risk damage. That’s the camera AF/MF switch)

      -AF-S, which has a built-in AF motor

      -E, which uses an electronic diaphragm (vs. mechanical)

      -AF-P, which uses electronic ‘focus-by-wire’ rather than direct mechanical focusing. Limited support–does not work at all on many cameras

      So Nikon: Please don’t base a mirrorless camera around a 60-year-old mount designed for DSLR’s before autofocus was a thing.

      Do what Olympus/Panasonic, Canon, and Sony have successfully done with mirrorless so far: use a new mount specifically designed for mirrorless. Don’t cripple yourself. Give yourself a good foundation for the future.

      • animalsbybarry

        There is no adavantage to a shorter mount / smaller harder to use camera with bigger harder to handle lenses

        Much better to have bigger easier to use camera and smaller easier to handle lenses

        • RC Jenkins

          You’re changing the scope of the conversation, and ignoring the limits it puts on the system. Canon’s lens diameter is not ‘hard to handle.’ We’re talking about a few mm at the mount–nothing to do with the focusing ring or any of that–which are often similar sizes between companies.
          https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Canon-85mm-f1.2L-II-vs-Nikon-85mm-f1.4G.jpg

          There are many advantages, some of which I listed out.

          Even if you want to talk about handling, there is an inherent weight distribution advantage by mounting the lens closer to the sensor (smaller flange distance), rather than far in front of it.

          And also, bigger diameter means simpler lenses and fewer elements–which means lenses can be smaller and more lightweight.

          Note that the Canon is smaller here, even though it has a much larger mount. Both 50mm F/1.8.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c65de561b48a25a8ee5f69bad88006accc8540ee5b84c25978793118fc4b5b2d.png

          • animalsbybarry

            There is no advantage to mountin the lens closer to the sensor then making the kens longer

            There is also no advantage to buying all new lenses or putting them on an adapter

            And the mount diameter is big enough and works fine

            • RC Jenkins

              You either don’t know basic physics or you’re purposely being dense.

              There is an advantage to having a smaller overall system. It won’t always be smaller, but with the F-mount, you will always be limited in how small you can make the system or what lenses you can adapt to the system. So there go a few key advantages of mirrorless. The camera will never be thinner than the theoretical minimum 46.5mm. This is not acceptable for many applications, like street shooting or easy carrying. I’ll gladly throw my mirrorless cameras & pancakes in my laptop bag, but I won’t with my DSLRs.

              You don’t have to buy all new lenses. Many people here (myself included) have multiple bodies, with different bodies serving different purposes. With an adapter, you can use all your existing lenses…plus more.

              Have you ever heard of retrofocus lenses? Why don’t you suppose they just made them ‘regular’ lenses? You can have much simpler & easier optic design for corners and wide angles with tiny flange distances and larger mount diameters. This is basic optics.

            • animalsbybarry

              Compare the actual size of Sony cameras plus lenses
              They are not smaller

            • RC Jenkins

              Sony cameras have a tiny mount diameter that most people believe was designed for APS-C. (including engineers at Zeiss & the CEO of Sigma). The lenses have to be bigger to apply more optical corrections.

              So your example of Sony is just proving my point.

              I didn’t say it’s always smaller. I said it can be smaller in some cases. That’s why I specifically said “immediately release a few compact, fast primes (to take advantage of the system).”

              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0119ed82a58009e09c2808dda466efbea6fe1a9865fe34b4d9bf62f2e934b6a9.png

              These are all 35mm lenses on Full frame cameras. Which one looks biggest to you?

            • Hans J

              @disqus_jRvrr8RMpM:disqus you know, you and I have not agreed on a few things but with this. I’m 100% in support of every last word you said. I really do hope Nikon makes a new Digital mount for the future.

            • Ric of The LBC

              to be fair, the Leica is manual focus. Show a Nikkor 35 f2 AIS.

            • RC Jenkins

              They unfortunately don’t have any AIS lenses on that site (camerasize.com).

              But my smallest personal FF Nikon lens in this range is the Voigtlander 40mm F/2 (manual focus, AIS,P):
              https://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/images1000x1000/Voigtlander_ba229d_40mm_f_2_0_Ultron_SL_885401.jpg

              It’s about as small as any lens will get–thinner than that Leica lens.

              Even with that tiny lens on the DSLR, the mirrorless cameras are significantly smaller, especially when packing unmounted. Easy fit in a laptop bag or coat pocket.

              This is why thin mirrorless cameras + compact / pancake lenses are great for street shooting. This portability is just not possible with DSLR-sized cameras.

            • Ric of The LBC

              How about a Df with a Nikkor 45mm f2.8. 🙂

            • RC Jenkins

              Post it! But it’s still much larger..and more importantly: too large. 🙂

              It’s just not going to get thin enough with F mount. We’re talking 46.5mm….plus the sensor & its electronics…plus the rear LCD…plus structure, etc.

              That’s why every mirrorless camera adds at least 10-15mm behind the lens, so we’re looking in the 60mm range for any Nikon mirrorless, any sensor size.

            • RC Jenkins
            • Sheesh

              Agree with you there. Mirrorless have certain advantages in terms of live histograms etc, but in reality I find their size is only marginally smaller.

            • 24×36

              Retrofocus lenses are actually advantageous. Those “simpler” wide angle lenses you speak of have the light from the edges hitting the sensor from very extreme angles on short register cameras. Optimize your sensor microlenses for that, and they don’t work well for your telephotos. Don’t optimize for that, and your performance suffers away from the middle of the frame on all of those “simple” wide angles.

              Sometimes you create more problems with your “solutions” to non-problems.

            • RC Jenkins

              I know they are. That’s why I included them.

              Short flange distances allow the same advantages of retrofocus lenses without the hassle or constraints of the mount diameter.

              That’s sort of the point.

      • Eric Bowles

        If you have a 3% share of lenses in the market like some of the companies listed, you can develop a new mount without issue. If you have a half million AF-S and newer lenses in the market and a 40% share of installed lenses, you protect that market. There is zero chance that a full frame or DX sized sensor mirrorless will have a new mount. That would be a crazy strategy and mean any Nikon mirrorless user needs to start over with lenses. Sure there are adapters – but that’s not going to maintain the advantages compared to using the F-mount.

        • RC Jenkins

          Canon did it in 2012 (EOS-M mount). Successfully. Years after other formats had dominated the mirrorless market.

          By definition, there are only really up to 2 camera companies that have around 40% share of installed lenses. So far, 100% of them that have tried this (Canon) have been successful. Canon is now #2 for mirrorless cameras shipped, surpassing Sony.

          Also, what exactly is the issue with adapters? Seems to work fine for Canon.

  • jasalva100

    Why the XQD card if it is going to shoot 5 FPS?

    • Bob Thane

      5 fps times 46 megapixels is 230 megapixels per second. The D500 has an XQD card, and does 208 megapixels per second.

      • Eric Bowles

        There is a translation to megabytes, but Bob’s correct. it will take a step up in processing speed to get 5 fps with 46 megapixel / 55 megabyte images. That IS a step forward and is 20% faster than the D500 using the fastest card. You should expect a large buffer – similar to the D500. But even with a 1.2 GB buffer like the D500, the frame rate and images in a single burst will be substantially lower than the 20.9 mp D500.

    • Allen_Wentz

      The faster card pays big dividends after the shoot when one is backing up and uploading images.

  • AnotherView

    Having the same AFsensor as the D5 won’t mean much unless it also has a dedicated AF processor and pumps out 10 FPS.

    • dylanear

      Very accurate and fast AF is very welcome even when shooting at single shot shooting.

      That said, yes, another slow shooter from Nikon would be frustrating in a world where even mid range cameras are at 10fps. I’d love to see 10fps, I’m more realistically hoping for 8fps, but expecting no more than 5 or 7. 🙁

      • AnotherView

        Yeah, I’d buy a 10 FPS D820 in a heartbeat…..8 FPS I’d need to think about. Unfortunately I don’t think we’ll even
        get 8 FPS so expect to be keeping my D810 until the next upgrade cycle in 2-3 years.

  • Viktor

    Just another point to the rumored Mirrorless Canon.
    I have read the third party lenses will not work with it….. well Nikon (Canon), if you make it like that, be sure that the product will be a total failure. A lot of us has got at least one third party lens and I am surely not going to buy a product which will not allow me to use them…..

    • I guess it’s the other way around? Third-party lenses manufacturers need to license from the camera manufacturer to make it really compatible not doing reverse engineering and hope that it will be fine (that’s more like hacking in terms of computers)?

      • Viktor

        I do not know the exact negotiation process, all I need is the third party lenses to be working 😀 😉

    • 24×36

      That’s part of the reason Nikon was my choice instead of Canon (when switching from Pentax due to FF foot-dragging) – Canon with its fully electronic interface had more leeway to “interfere” with the function of non-Canon lenses, and there were simply third party lenses for which nether Nikon nor Canon made no alternatives, and I didn’t want those “issues.” Nikon tends to behave better with third party lenses than Canon does.

      I would imagine Nikon would want to retain backward compatibility with their pre-“E” lenses (which is MOST of them), as F-Mount compatibility is one of Nikon’s best features. That may not be a panacea for third party lenses though (for example, some older third party lenses NOW don’t work on “live view” with current Nikon DSLRs). At least with third party lens makers introducing “docks” to allow lens firmware to be updated, there should be work-arounds for such issues for the *latest* third party lenses. Older ones, you’re probably out of luck if they don’t work. Not really Nikon’s obligation, but I suspect Canon goes the extra mile to disable third party stuff.

  • Ferdinand

    XQD & same AF of D5 means = 8FPS + buffer is the only question

    • Bob Thane

      If it’s 46MP, the very best we could hope for is 6 fps (maybe 6.5 if they push things). Biggest reasonable buffer would be 90 shots, though it’ll probably be lower than that.

      • Eric Bowles

        The write speed of the D500 processor is about 230 MB/s. With 46 mp images and 14 bit compressed files, each file will be about 55 MB. That means we are talking about 4-5 MB/s write speed unless the processor is stepped up. Assuming it is stepped up a little – 20% or so – we are talking about write speed of up to 300 MB/s. That’s about 5.5 frames.

        The buffer on the D500 is big – about 1.25 GB. You might be able to squeeze 6-7 frames per second out of the camera if you used the D500 buffer. 7 frames per second will fill the buffer in about 10 seconds with a faster write speed and processor. With the existing processor, 7 fps would fill the buffer in about 6 seconds. Reduce the frame rate to 6 fps and you have 10 seconds until the buffer fills.

    • dylanear

      I would have preferred staying at 36mp, it’s almost impossible to out resolve the D800e sensor as it is. I have a lot of very good lenses and few and then only with perfect technique and circumstances will be close to perfectly resolved pixels.

      While I don’t NEED faster than 5fps on my max resolution body since I have a D500. 5fps on my D800e does feel really slow after using my D500, or E-M1, Or 7 year old EM-5, which all do 10fps. So Nikon going higher resolution will seem like a marketing decision that will rarely give actually sharper output and hurt an actually useful specification like shooting speed.

      Nikon really needs to step up their processing. The CPU shouldn’t be a limiting factor in 2017. Sony can do 20fps at 24mp, Nikon should be able to do 46mp at 10fps. But I’d guess we’ll be lucky if it does 7fps. I’d be pretty happy with 8fps at 46mp.

      I’ll surely buy this D820/D850 if it’s D500 like, but full frame, that alone is enough. But I’ll be a lot happier about it if it’s as fast as the D700 I bought 10 years ago.

      • 24×36

        Actually your D800e only does 4fps (FF). Maybe that’s why it feels really slow compared to your D500. ;-D

    • 24×36

      You’re missing a couple of big things. First being the bigger shutter and mirror that has to be moved at that speed (not beyond the realm of possibility, since it was included in the D700 at the D8xx price point), and second (the bigger issue) being more than double the pixels being processed (= much more processing power needed).

      Don’t get me wrong, I’m hoping for more fps (since more is always better and useful, but not necessarily because I really *need* more) AND a (much) bigger buffer, but I certainly don’t *expect* 8fps with 45-48MP FF. More like 6fps. Then again, who knows? ;-D

    • Sheesh

      I’d be happy with 5-6fps at full res and 8fps for 1.2/DX crop. That way I get a great landscape camera, with a more than acceptable (for me anyhow :-)) wildlife crop camera.

      Only other thing it would need is a decent buffer. Recent history (D5, D500, D7500) gives me hope.

  • I LOOOOOVE people who just have to have the latest even when they hardly know how to use what they already have, means I can buy mint gear at great pre owned prices, hurry up D8xx and I can get another D810

    • True. I am astonished how many people really don’t know how to operate their cameras – it means they have never read any manual or book of what is really implemented and don’t have a clue about the exposure triangle which has an impact on image quality. Otherwise they would know what every button, dial, knob and menu entry is good for. My camera doesn’t have any secret.

      • Bob Thane

        I used to know everything about my camera, but after a few years of never needing to use auto-bracketing or exposure comp you tend to forget that stuff. As long as I can change ISO, shutterspeed, aperture, and AF mode, I’m good.

        • Aldo

          You dont use exposure comp? You always shoot M?

          • Bob Thane

            Yeah, I never shoot in conditions that change too fast for me to adjust the settings, so no need for anything other than full manual. Worst case scenario I forget to adjust for some shadows and have to bump the exposure in post, but with my cameras that gives roughly the same result as bumping the ISO so it’s never been an issue.

  • Jirka

    Can nikon make FF mirorless please? with nikon ergonomics etc

    • Edison Firme

      I’d love a FF mirrorless that has ergonomics in mind, not like Sony’s dumb “smaller” marketing hype.

    • TwoStrayCats

      No. Now stop it and buy the SLR.

  • any news of its video capabilities?

  • luis

    Nikon, can you also omit the pop up flash on the D820/850? a D4/5 style would be much nicer…just my two cents 😉

    • Bob Thane

      I dunno, has anyone ever actually had a problem with the pop-up flash? I know of many people who’ve used it in a pinch to trigger speedlights, or as fill in sunlight, but I’ve never heard of anyone breaking the flash off or anything like that.

      • Viktor

        Yes, I did have a problem with it – many times 😉 And therefore I use a tape to it 😀

        It is not only about breaking, it is also about the space it uses. Could be used for a better purpose – eg. Wi-Fi, GPS…. a place to store additional cards 😀

        • Tom

          I also use my built-in flash as a trigger or as an emergency fill-flash but if it became a choice between it and a GPS, I would prefer the GPS.

      • dylanear

        Other than mine getting stuck, the button hasn’t worked since a mild drop while in the leather case.

        So I have the flashless D800e I wanted! 😉

      • Allen_Wentz

        Yes, it pops open at inopportune times.

        • Bob Thane

          Haha, interesting. I’ve never popped the flash accidentally on my D5200 in the four years I’ve had it, so it’s good to know that not everyone has the same experience.

    • Michiel953

      (Black) duct tape

      • Viktor

        Yes I have it there 😀

      • John Albino

        Gaffer tape is better. Not as sticky and easier to remove without leaving residue. That’s what I’ve used when I want to lock down the pop-up flash.

        • peter w

          (Gaffer tape was used in the eighties to cover the mark of your camera, so that you couldn’t tell a Chinon from a Leicaflex (well…) from a Pentax, from a Yashica from a Canon or a Praktica, etc. Unless off course, you had studied the models, and you saw right away what it was: a Petri.)

          • John Albino

            Also, covering the nameplate was to disguise the value of a Nikon F to a potential thief.

            • peter w

              Yeah
              I rember wondering how much that would help.
              Would the name shield Petri be save enough to leave a camera unattended? Nah…

              Yet when I look at the strap of my present lens and camera, I think a bit about that.

    • Ralf

      It’s doing a fair job to trigger other flashes. It would be even more valuable to my if I wasn’t using that bloody huge 24-70mm f/2.8 where the lens is so big it casts a shadow in the lower third of the frame. My worst problem with it is it’s poppung accidentally quite frequently and it’s a miracle I haven’t broken it off yet.

      • Viktor

        You wrote it exactly: “poppung accidentally quite frequently”…. and that is why some people do not want it there 😉

    • TwoStrayCats

      Honestly, I’ve never used the popup flash on my 810. If I need to generate light, I’ll use off camera flashes or continuous floods. I always thought the popup flash was a mickey-mouse waste of money on that camera.

  • saywhatuwill

    Oh shoot! It doesn’t have 1000fps that I REALLY NEED! Deal breaker. Oh no, it doesn’t have 32k video that I can’t live without. Deal breaker. Man, this camera doesn’t have anything.

    • MrFotoman

      Please show me where Nikon is forcing you to buy this camera.

      • saywhatuwill

        I guess sarcasm isn’t your forte.

        • Michiel953

          But that’s just a wild guess right?

    • Michiel953

      Incremental updates? Wot’s Nikon thinking???

    • TwoStrayCats

      And its not waterproof to 25 meters.

  • MrFotoman

    PLEEEASE include WiFi. 750 can do it – no reason why this shouldn’t.

    • paige4o4

      100% agree. A standard wireless communication opens up a lot of options.

  • dclivejazz

    If the D820 comes out as Peter predicts, I will be buying one as soon as I can, mostly for the improved high ISO performance. I’ve loved my D800e and D810 but can always make use of better high ISO performance in the kind of low-light photography I do. The other enhancements will be icing.

    • Yes but if history (D5) is any indication, improved ISO comes at the cost of reduced dynamic range. Isn’t the massive dynamic range the reason we love the D810?

      • These are different cameras with different use cases. The I am hopeful that Nikon will bias the D820 to low ISO and maximum DR while still improving high ISO performance some.

        • Well I hope you’re right, but I think the tech is same regardless of the camera use. Improved ISO will come at a cost. We see it in Sony’s new A9 as well. I know, I know, different camera, different use… but what we’re seeing is improved computational pre-raw noise cancelation power (at the cost of dynamic range) and not actual sensor improvement. Doesn’t matter who’s making the sensor. Nikon would go to a D900 nomenclature if this was going to be a major tech bump.

  • John Nelson

    This follow-on looks pretty good. I’ll be really curious to see if Nikon will be able to improve frame rates over the 810 given the 10mp increase.

    • Shutterbug

      If I had to guess I’d say frame rate is more of a marketing decision than anything. Years ago Nikon had cameras pushing over 1000 MP/s through the pipeline. I think limiting factors are mirror design, buffer size, sensor readout, etc. but all those things are better now (and not at their limits in a D8XX type body) so here’s hoping.

      • RC Jenkins

        Which cameras were these? Were they processing & writing to 14-bit RAW files to buffer?

        You can get many speed increases, but often at the expense of image quality. For example: a 12-bit file is only slightly smaller than a 14-bit file–but the 14-bit file has at least 4x more processing per operation (which obviously can vary dramatically, depending on the nature.
        For example, pre-raw noise reduction may sample neighboring pixels, etc).

        The Expeed has to do a lot of expensive signal processing.

        So I could be wrong, but I suspect the current generation Expeed-5 based cameras are bottlenecked by the specific type of processing that it does.

      • peter w

        D800 had problems with resolution and mirror slap around 1/40 ~ 1/100 s. Blurred images.
        So it is better, but it needs to be even better than that.

      • dylanear

        If I had to guess I’d say resolutions over 36MP are more of a marketing decision than anything.

        Not sure of my lenses exceed what my D800e can resolve. And if they get close, that’s only under ideal conditions with perfect technique.

        Sure, I don’t need it faster than 5fps very often, but still more times than I need more than 36mp.

        But Sony is doing over 40MP, Canon has 50MP, so Nikon MUST follow. 🙁

  • eric

    The one hiccup for me with the d820 is the tiltable screen. Im always worried those will break off by accident. This is reason enough for me to pass and wait to see happens next few years.

    • nwcs

      It’s weird, everyone keeps talking about tilting screens being broken off yet we never actually see it happen or hear it reported in droves. And, yes, pros use cameras with tilting screens.

      • eric

        Great. I hope it doesn’t happen to you. Im entitled to my own concern. Pros also use slr’s still with no screens! imagine that! with Film! or how about medium format hasselblad 503c for a vogue magazine fashion shoot. Not every “pro” is a cookie cutter version of a city wedding/portrait photographer. sorry.

        • nwcs

          Ok……. let’s just say this: there is no reason for unfounded anxiety about tilt mechanisms. But if you want to be anxious about them go ahead.

        • RC Jenkins

          I think it’s the opposite. The D8xx fits ’tilting screen’ scenarios better than the need on the D500–’tilting screen’ is not synonymous with ‘wedding/portrait’ photography.

          The D810 is an excellent landscape & astro camera. These scenarios can often require mounting the camera somewhere difficult to use the OVF; and also where manual focus using live view is preferable to autofocus.

          For example, with the camera low to the ground, pointed straight up to the sky, attempting to get perfect infinity focus; or against a wall with a wide tilt-shift lens to fit in more scene, where you can’t get further back. These are pretty common scenarios for the D810.

          The D500, on the other hand, is primarily designed for fast AF action shooting…through the OVF. Tilting screen is nice, but less necessary.

        • dylanear

          No one is saying you don’t have the right to be concerned. Just maybe real world experience shows your concern and the experiences of others don’t match up.

          I had similar concerns, until I lived with it for a few weeks. I have little concern over it now. You might be pleasantly surprised. Maybe.

      • Eric Bowles

        I have been using a tilt screen on my D500. You’d have to encounter a really strange situation to hook something on the screen and rip it off. I’ve never run into that issue, but I have shot my D800E from positions where the tilt screen would be very nice.

    • NotPartisan

      This is a non-issue. The tilt screen mechanism on the D500 is likely the same design Nikon will use going forward and it is excellent. It stays put with a detent and will not tilt until you intentionally pull it out with effort. You are far more likely to sustain damage to any type of LCD screen on the back any DLSR, whether fixed or tilt, by dropping your camera, banging it on a hard object, etc. than you are by specifically some freak situation that manages to reach in and pull your screen out of its detent and then rip it off.

      • eric

        Ok. I’m glad you don’t mind it but it bothers me. Something I didn’t like on the d750 and so I never got one. I prefer a solid back. Its just how I roll.

        • paige4o4

          Hmm, then how do you feel about the pop up flash? Surely that’s also just as easy to break.

          • eric

            I never use the flash. Im not wedding photographer.

        • Allen_Wentz

          Live and learn: the tilt display is hugely useful on tripod, for video, and shooting from low or from high. And it is pro-Nikon tough on the D500.

    • dylanear

      I didn’t want it on the D500. Felt it was just extra weight, bulk and something that could break. But I have to admit, after using my D500 a few weeks I was happy it was there. It’s very solid and well built, doesn’t seem to be a huge weak spot. And it does come in handy on occasion!

      Slight concern about reduced weather sealing due to the screen, but I really have no idea how the D500 compares to D300, D810, etc, in that respect.

    • Allen_Wentz

      Not to worry, those tilt screens are Nikon-tough.

  • ninpou_kobanashi

    Apple Commodore-80!

  • Kiboko

    “Tiltable LCD screen,
    Memory card slots: one SD and one XQD” Sounds like a D500 design (except the prism). I hope it is. That it uses the same grip and button-interface.

  • Alex Ionas

    How about 4k video? I’d imagine it is about time that Nikon start introducing full sensor read otherwise a 3840×2160 crop from an aprox. 9340×6230 would end up in some frustrating problems with lens selection. 8bit 4:2:2 in camera would also make them catch up with Panasonic a bit and give Sony a run for their money.

    • Agree, but I doubt it. You have to buy a new body every two years for Nikon’s camera division to survive. Trickle up tech. All of the body updates so far have been the same (more or less)… new SnapBridge, Tiltable Screen, new focus tech, deeper integration of XQD, price increase. If Nikon has better 4k tech, it won’t be in this update.

  • Haha I had an apple IIe with dual drives. Damn I’m old. Lol.

  • Manuel Labor

    and I just bought a used D4…Consumers can never win. 🙁

    • But please use what you have. These tools are more than good enough to shoot anything.

      • Ric of The LBC

        HARUMP!

      • Manuel Labor

        Of Course. What’s that saying…”The Best Camera is the one you have!” 🙂 Besides, I’m not rich! lol

    • RC Jenkins

      Aren’t these cameras primarily designed for completely different shooting scenarios…?

      • Viktor

        Yeah, I do not understand, why there are people writing into a discussion about different photo-area (segment) they are in.

        It is a SLOW-MOTION cameras OR FAST-MOTION cameras. These segment overlap only maybe for wedding and wildlife photographers – which are actually those who NEED back-up cameras anyway, so there it is obvious to have one Fast and one Slow.
        Reading about someone needs 10fps on D8xx is something like someone wanting D5 being 47MP (not D5X, I really mean D5)….

        Or someone buying Ferrari and complaining it does not go fast on Dakar in desert 😀

    • AYWY

      You just won by buying cheap after the generation ended. 🙂

  • Eddy Kamera

    So D8xx is the new DxX?

    • TwoStrayCats

      Ah, the new D5/8: less than 4/3, but oh so much more…

    • 24×36

      I think of my D810 plus grip with replacement battery door and D4 battery as a “modular D4X.” So unless Nikon has a different high resolution sensor for such a “D5X,” the D820 will probably fill that role in the same manner.

  • Andrew

    Ande, an intelligent person would do their research before insinuating about someone else. Are you too lazy to read my posts or is this how you conduct your personal business?

    • Ande Notos

      Lol seriously though, your posts are a bit weird. Almost all of them talk about how amazing every single thing Nikon does is.

      • ITN

        What is wrong with someone being excited? People who have a positive outlook on life tend to accomplish things.

        • Ande Notos

          Not my experience exactly, but oh well.

          Praising a product before it comes out is a behaviour that seems pretty weird to me.

          • ITN

            It is easy to guess what this product will be like, knowing most of the components from other cameras.

            Trashing a camera here is far more common and much less constructive.

            • Ande Notos

              He was praising the low light performance of a sensor that we don’t know about yet, and how impressive what they did with it was. There’s almost no way of knowing about the low light capabilities of the sensor, and whether they did something extraordinary with it. For all we know, its low light capabilities could be worse than the D810, due to the (rumored) higher pixel count. Nikon would likely not do that, but we just don’t know. If he said “if the low light capabilities are improved it will be impressive” it would make sense.

              Praising an unreleased sensor is odd, and about as constructive as trashing a camera. Actually, it’s probably less constructive. Criticism can be constructive, even in the form of trashing, I don’t see what you could gain from praising something you know nothing about.

            • ITN

              The discussion is based on the rumored specs on the top of the page (“improved low and high ISO”). None of us know what the camera will be like but it is understandable that the discussion would be based on the rumored information.

            • Ande Notos

              “Improved low and high ISO” can mean many things. And it’s a rumor. Can you not see how weird it is to give praise like that? That is not the only instance. That’s how almost every single post by Andrew is.

            • AlphaStatuz

              Where are you even reading that he was “praising the low light performance” of the new sensor? All I’m seeing is, “improved low and high ISO performance.” You seem to be looking to make an issue out of nothing, and in any event, I’d say it’s a fairly safe bet that the 820 WILL be the most advanced camera of its type (and possibly even the best landscape photographers’ body) for a time when it’s released.

          • Allan

            Agree.

      • Andrew

        Andre, you really are not a nice person are you? You walk up to a perfect stranger and insult them and then try to solicit other people to share in your perverse behavior. You are the typical high school class bully that hurts other children just because you are too dysfunctional to live with your miserable self!

        • Ande Notos

          That’s a very weird reaction, I wasn’t even serious. I didn’t mean to insult you or anything, I just mentioned your posts seem pretty weird. Just re read your post and tell me if I’m right or not. I have no idea how that went to me being a typical high school bully. WTF.

          • R_D

            Ande Ballbagos more like

            • Ande Notos

              Fun fact: My username is actually completely random gibberish, I find it amusing some people think it’s a name.

          • Andrew

            Andre, saying that you were not serious is a good way of hiding from the facts. When you pick on others and try to castigate them, that is how a bully would behave. But I guess the word sorry or I apologize is not in your vocabulary.

            • Ande Notos

              ??? Do you seriously get so easily offended by random people you don’t know on the internet?

            • Somerandomblokeontheinternet

              Ande Notos, I have no interest in either side of this argument, but you keep using the word “weird”, despite it not even being in context for the majority of the times you use it. Not only that, but your insistent labelling of Andrew as “weird” is, as others have said, a classic sign of insecurity projection and a tactic used by online abusers and bullies worldwide. Your immediate denial of said behaviour and falling back on the classic: “do you really get so offended by strangers” spiel is very old. You are either very young and inexperienced, or simply have a low emotional intelligence.

            • Ande Notos

              I didn’t say HE is weird, I said the behaviour of continuously praising some product that you don’t know about is weird. Actually, the whole fuss about it is weird. Look, I’m really not interested in continuing this argument, if some people can’t handle their behaviour being called weird on an online forum and call the one who said so a “bully” or an abuser, so be it.

  • El Aura

    I think almost anybody would have guessed that the D810 successor would get the D5 AF system. In fact, together with a higher resolution sensor, it would have been the change almost anybody would have said is a sure thing.

    But I guess going from basic common sense to ‘confirmation’ by sources is an important milestone.

  • dkitts

    Why oh why doesn’t Nikon just release the basic specs of the darn thing with a ship date of whenever. This cannot be helping their product line sales (d500, d5, d810 etc) as everyone is waiting to see what the D8n0 is going to be. If I knew that it would not help my fledgling business, I would just go buy a different body NOW as opposed to waiting.

    • nwcs

      Because our discussions about this is better marketing for them than just simply saying what’s on their roadmap.

    • RC Jenkins

      Last time Nikon decided not to keep something on the “DL,” (get it?) it didn’t work out too hot for them. 🙂

  • Eric Artman

    Dang, the focus points are still confined to that rectangle? There’s no way I’ll be upgrading to a d820.

    • RC Jenkins

      It would be physically tough (and impossible) in many cases to spread them out much further, given angles the light must travel for comparative phase detect autofocus…In many cases, light from the outside of the lens is completely blocked.

      Not going to happen for most F-mount lenses on an FX sensor. If the lenses were designed to project a much larger image circle (and the mirrors could support it as well), then maybe. This is why DX can go almost to the edges–it’s just a crop of that.

      So I wouldn’t hold my breath.

    • Edison Firme

      I’m disappointed about that too, but if you think about it, do you really need to AF points to the edge of the frame? Do you really want the sharpest part of your image to be that off of center? I’ve tried different types of composition for my photos, and they all usually end up looking best at somewhere within the AF rectangle. And for tracking purposes, it’s the same thing. Do we really want the subject we are tracking to be that much off center, outside the present focus points?

      • peter w

        uhm…, yes.

  • Edward Chen

    Looking good so far. I hope it is better DR and high ISO performance. Also:
    Better LV autofocusing
    Built in GPS
    Auto fine-tune like d500
    4k video
    Trash SD. Give me double XQD with 6 fps. 7 with BG.
    tilt screen like d500 is good enough.

    Nikon, pls make it right. I am your 20 years nikon shooter. And i am considering A9.

    • Edward Chen

      And no more than 3000 usd please!

      • Neopulse

        It’s going to be at least $3,500

        • peter w

          at least 🙁

          • Neopulse

            I know… :-S I’m going by the pricing trend as of lately, but…. We’ll see what happens, I think even $3,300 is reasonable like when the D800E and D810 came out. Prices go up, not down unfortunately.

      • Lauchlan T

        I don’t think they’ll hit under $3000, since the D810’s already there and it’s unlikely that they’d price it at or lower than the D810. But I do hope they price it under the 5DIV – the D800 being less expensive than the 5DIII was a big drive for many photographers who switched brands.

    • RC Jenkins

      Why are you debating between the A9 and this camera?

      I consider these two cameras to be designed for completely different purposes.

      This is more of a competitor to the A7R series, not the A9.

      • Edward Chen

        I am not. I try to re-align my system. I own d800e. The reason I bought (and “downgraded” to dx)
        d500 just because one thing and one thing only: AF. We all know d8xx series are horrible in AF.

        So that being said, if so called d820 improvement is just marginal over d800e, i am going to keep my d800e, sell d500, and get myself a A9.

        Looking at specs and demos, A9 AF is real deal. LV AF also lightning fast under low light. I am thrilled with a9.

        • peter w

          We all know horrible in AF?
          What are you talking about? It is good for birds in flight. Yes, some other Nikons are even better.
          Perhaps A9 also.

          Downgrading to D500? What an utterly nonsense. These are all adequate tools, optimised for a specific type of photography.

          Happy choice to you, off course, but please don’t exaggerate to this extent.

          • RC Jenkins

            Agreed. The D810 has great AF.

            In fact, DPReview called it “class leading” with “magical” 3D-tracking just last year:
            https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d810/9

            @disqus_vTXNG7cPEv:disqus : All I can say is have fun with the A9. I’m sure it will be excellent during periods where you’re not waiting for the buffer to clear or the sensor to return to operating temperature.

            • Edward Chen

              I am hoping d820 is as good as we all expect. I dont like mirrorless ergonomic but AF is critical in my work. And i cant afford pro body.

            • RC Jenkins

              But you can afford an A9? If you need faster than D810 + FF + budget, go with a D750 or wait for its successor.

              Better high ISO shooting too.

          • Edward Chen

            What are you talking about. D800/e is great camera. It does great job as in IQ but AF is not the camera’s best feature. Under dim condition, less contrast situation, its AF hunts and is so inaccurate. My older d700 did better job. All camera AF works well in daylight or well-lit condition.

            D500 AF smokes d800e out. No contest.

            • peter w

              Echo is a great retorical instrument.
              Well off course I respect your experience.

              I also had a D700. I think to remember D300 AF was faster. D800 I consider quite snappy. My only problem with this camera is the mirrorslap around 1/60s which makes unsharp pictures even from a sturdy tripod. Solution to this is life view, but, well, there is room for improvement there.

              Lets hope this rumored new camera will solve both our problems. From what I read in reviews, D810 would solve my problem at least partly.

        • Din

          Yeah comparing A9 very good buffer. Compare it with nikon 1 V3.

  • Iceman

    The new FF mirrorless will be introduced sôn probably 2018 photokina. Ít is hard to choose btw this and the FF since not yet known about spec as a upgrade of nikon d750.

  • aarif

    I tohugh this was a given anything less would have been a disapointment

    • Shutterbug

      You are correct. Since January 2016, I don’t think anyone has thought this wouldn’t be the case. Really the only surprise is that it is coming a bit late (most expected it in 2016 or early 2017 initially).

  • Slavik Kolibas

    Nikon: Please add a hybrid OVF/4kEVF and 5 axis IBIS.

    • Viktor

      I do not believe Nikon would introduce IBIS to FF DSLRs. Reason?

      Nikon has got their VR stabilization on the lenses and by giving the in-camera stabilization they would give advantage to third party no VR lenses and that is surely something they do not want 😀
      Almost 99% sure, this feature will not be included 😉

  • maaggy

    No built-in GPS?… So stupid…

    • Eric Calabros

      Demanding built-in GPS is more stupid. %99 of us never use it, and the %1 could use smartphone or logger solutions.

  • S. C. F

    Any indication of frame rate? I have an 810 and love it, but would like better high ISO performance, higher resolution, and higher frame rate. With the xqd card I’m guessing more fps. With the new focus system it will be, once again, the perfect camera for me.

    Now if they do a ff professional mirrorless that takes the same lenses I will truely be a happy camper!

    • RC Jenkins

      Probably somewhere in the 5-7 FPS range.

      • S. C. F

        It’s five now, I’m hoping for 10, but 7 in full bit rate, resolution, etc. would be good!

        • Bob Thane

          if it has the same processor as the D5 and 46MP, we’re looking at 6 fps at most. Maybe 6.5 if they really squeeze it, but I don’t expect that. So sadly, I’d say the odds of them using a better processor than the D5 and getting 7+ fps is next to zero.

          • S. C. F

            every little bit helps. hoping for the best. Saving my pennies. The 810 has become a part of my hand, and appendage if you will, and I believe it is the best all around camera on the market. I’m just hoping it can be improved enough to keep me and others in the Nikon family.

  • TonyDee

    The new focusing system, as implemented on the D500, is amazing.

    For roughly $1000, DxO shows the Sigma 85mm 1.4 rating 36 Mpixels on a D800e and 40 Mpixels on a Canon 5DS R. So it’s possible to own a lens that can out-resolve 36 Mpixels at much less than the cost of the camera. Once a higher Mpixel FF Nikon is available, several current Nikon lenses will show higher Mpixel ratings as well.

    If the camera is designed to shoot at 8 fps, I’d be fine with that. If it shot at 10+ fps and the buffer filled earlier, we would have to read a new list of complaints.

    • RC Jenkins

      “FPS” is the max. It is adjustable.

      See the “Continuous Low-Speed” mode, or “CL”

      • TonyDee

        RC, thanks, I do understand and have used that feature. I was implying that if the camera did shoot at 8 fps, I’d be more than content. If it shot faster, and in doing so ran up the buffer faster than it could be stored to the card, people would complain the buffer was too small.

  • Pk Bullock

    Come on lottery ticket…

    • ToastyFlake

      I might get two, if I win $140 million.

  • M42

    45-46 mp. Time for a new computer!

    • Shutterbug

      If you already have a D800/D810 you probably will barely even notice the extra size on the PC side of things. But it’s always a good excuse to buy a new PC, and one I will probably use myself haha!

      • Edward Chen

        Shoot uncompressed NEF or TiFF 🙂

      • Allen_Wentz

        Having gone through this evolution before, I am going to guess that with faster AF and better buffer and higher frame rate and bigger file sizes, a new D8xx WILL significantly impact most photogs’ workflows.

  • flaker

    Maybe it’ll actually cover more than just the center of the frame?

    • Shutterbug

      If you understand how PDAF systems work in current body designs, much larger AF distribution is pretty much impossible without significant physical redesign or radical technology change.

      • flaker

        … then maybe do a physical redesign? What would all be involved? It seems cameras of the past could cover the frame… why not any more?

        • Shutterbug

          What happens is light comes in the camera, and is reflected down onto the AF sensor by the sub mirror, which is significantly smaller than the main mirror. The maximum physical size of the AF sensor array has to be quite a bit smaller than the full frame. You would probably have to fully redesign the body from the ground up, while maintaining flawless compatibility with all existing lenses and accessories. Physical size of the body would likely increase, which is probably not a good thing. AF coverage also doesn’t seem to be an issue with current FF bodies even in the most demanding applications, so I just can’t seeing any of the big DSLR manufacturers completely overhauling their DSLRs for a bit more coverage. It’s more likely that they simply get rid of the mirror and transition to on-sensor PDAF when they deem it good enough to replace existing PDAF.

          • flaker

            Thanks for the info!

        • RC Jenkins

          They couldn’t. Long story short, it would need a larger image circle diameter and larger mirror for current phase detect methods. Which would be impossible in the limited space of any F-mount DSLR.

          Note that even DX AF points that go edge to edge only work with certain lenses and lens speeds.

          That’s not even addressing performance.

          They may be able to spread a little further, with AF in only one direction (close, vertical phases).

          But they would be so imprecise and limited that they wouldn’t do much. And it would hurt AF performance for all other points closer to center.

  • RC Jenkins

    Yes, good call. Definitely useful when you’re using the OVF rather than 100% live view. I usually do live view for precise focus for landscapes & astro. 🙂

    Another option is using the phone as an external screen via wifi or wire, but the delays make this really annoying for focusing & framing sometimes.

  • flaker

    XQD … ?? Noooooooooooo!!!

    I don’t want to buy another needless format.

    • Shutterbug

      It’s vastly superior to other formats. Whether you think it’s needless or not I think a lot of people will be really glad to have it. I can’t wait to make the switch personally. Nikon also co-developed XQD so it’s no surprise they are starting to use it. At the end of the day your memory costs compared to what will probably be a $3500 body are insignificant. 64GB fast XQD’s are around $80 right now, that’s pretty reasonable. It is also a huge reason why we have unlimited buffers in the D5/D500, so I imagine it will also be used to increase the D850’s buffer capacity (by being able to offload so fast).

      • flaker

        1) Just because it’s “Better” doesn’t make it a good buy.
        Betamax was better than VHS, but you’d have been an idiot to buy them after the writing was on the wall that it wasn’t going to take off.

        2) Even with that, with the mixed-media, if you shoot both cards (backup) then you lose the speed gains (whatever they are) because you’ll run at the lower speed of the two… yet you still incur all the negatives of XQD (rare, expensive, tough-to-find, need exotic card readers, etc) and lose the benefits of and all-SD solution (ubiquity of readers [built into many devices at this point), cheap, don’t need two sets of media cards, logistics, can easily acquire at a moments notice, etc). Honestly, if you are going to go with an xqd card and force all the xqd negatives… go with an all-xqd system and at least give me the supposed positives.

        3) A fast-ish 64gb SD card can be had for 30 bucks. If we assume every XQD card is $50 more (as you say) and we have a dozen of each card and maybe more for a slew of cameras… now we are looking at $600 bucks. Sure, it’s not the same as the cost of a body, but it’s still a non-trivial expense (especially when you get little-to-no benefit and a lot of negatives from it because it’s not an all-xqd system)

        • Shutterbug

          1) The video media example is a bad one because we have gone from VHS to DVD to BluRay and now to mostly digital streaming. There have been far fewer memory card changes than that, and yet most people handled the former on much larger scale without issue. People buying the latest and greatest cameras expect the latest and greatest memory formats, and most importantly, memory speed. XQD gives people just that in an even more durable format. If it meant having a much smaller buffer, why would anyone want to be using legacy memory on a state of the art camera?

          2) The mixed media is a moot point because it’s already mixed (in the case of a D810 or D500). I completely agree that two identical slots would be better, preferably dual XQD like on the D5. Nikon seems to reserve that only for their flagship bodies though. XQD has virtually no negatives other than that it’s a new format so most people need to buy into it, and some are resistant to change, but that is no different than anything else. I don’t know where you’re looking but XQD is neither rare nor expensive. B&H has a good selection and prices are extremely reasonable, and understandably slightly more expensive than mid-range SD cards. Also note that the fastest SD cards that are around 55-60% the speed of XQD are MORE expensive. Comparing an average, slow, SD card with XQD is not a useful comparison.

          3) A fast-ish 64GB XQD is $69 – I don’t see that as significant for a superior product being used in a $3000-4000 body. If you are buying $4000 bodies and double or triple that again in lenses, an extra 30 bucks when you buy a card isn’t going to matter to 99% of users. If you have multiple bodies and $30K+++ in camera gear, you are likely either wealthy or you make your living off photography and buying half a dozen cards isn’t even a blip on the radar, or can also likely be written off.

          They have to change at some point – whether it’s nor or later the same people will resist and the same people will embrace it. It’s happening anyway so you might as well embrace it 🙂

          • flaker

            “Why would anyone want to be using legacy memory on a state of the art camera?”
            … for the same reason many of us still use the ‘D’ version of the 50mm 1.4 … because it does the job, functionally, just as good as the new more expensive option and, in fact, is better in some ways. People aren’t buying D800s for sports where buffer depth makes a huge difference. For a pro, switching tech and obsoleting equipment for zero real-life benefit isn’t a good idea.

            “XQD has virtually no negatives other than that it’s a new format”
            … but it’s NOT new. It’s been around in Nikon bodies for 5+ years. NO ONE in the entire electronics industry has picked it up. … and that, alone, is a huge negative. If I’m at a wedding and I need a SD card (oddly enough, this happened to me 5ish years ago… long story) I can just hit up another vendor, or even a guest and get an SD card. With xqd you need to order it online or hope the local pro-level photography store is open.
            Want to second shoot and just hand a card to the first shooter? Can’t do that with xqd unless you also hand them a card reader. (vs SD where basically every laptop made int he past decade has a reader built in)
            I could go on and on… but the fact is there are a LOT of negatives to using XQD. You are right that none of these center around the cards, themselves… but products don’t exist in a vacuum. There is a whole ecosystem built around SD… an ecosystem that doesn’t exist for XQD. It’s the same reason people aren’t all jumping to the new Sony even though it’s a better camera.

            “B&H has a good selection”
            … sweet, the largest photography store in the world has some.
            I consigned a D5 from nikon recently for a wedding and a test project and couldn’t get a CF version. I live in a top-20 metropolitain city and it literally took me an entire day to acquire 6 cards. I literally bought out the entire stock of a 4 million+ population metro area to shoot a single wedding. (granted, I only used 4 of the cards… and the local pro shop had 4 and was closed…. but the point is that the XQD cards are comparatively rare. I could have probably gotten enough SD cards at the gas station! (exaggerating) )

            I’ve got 40-50k in gear. I’m also in business. An extra 500-1000 in memory cards that provides we with zero functional benefit is more than a “blip on the radar”. In fact, I’d argue that pros (who must justify their purchases in dollars and cents rather than emotion) are MORE likely to care about needlessly wasting money and making their jobs harder. (sports shooters using a Dx level camera not withstanding)

            It has nothing to do with being afraid to ’embrace the new tech’… I was totally cool moving from CF to SD. It has to do with the fact this tech doesn’t provide enough benefit to make the extra costs and logistical problems worth it. (and others agree, based on it’s failure in the marketplace outside of nikon)
            Yes, XQD cards are faster and more rugged and I wish all consumer electronics moved to them. But does that matter? Does the fact titanium is stronger than oak wood mater if all you need is something as strong as balsa wood? … if you are in the world where balsa is acceptable and you are currently using oak and there is a whole ecosystem of woodcarvers and wood tools out there… would you pay a premium to move to titanium?

  • Antonio

    “NO ONE in the entire electronics industry has picked it up” – you’re wrong as Sony is using XDQ in some of their 4K video cameras, as you can confirm here: https://www.sony.net/Products/memorycard/en_us/xqd/

  • Allen_Wentz

    Wrong; “because it does the job, functionally, just as good as the new more expensive option” is flat WRONG.

    XQD is 47% faster. That is huge. Calling it “just as good” is totally untrue. When I want my D500 to perform I have to pull out the lame SD card – – and I buy the fastest cards available.

    And after the card is out of the camera it continues providing big speed benefits. And speed will be an even bigger deal with the 50+ MB NEF files we will be offloading from a new D8xx.

    As to old cards in the workflow, they live with old cameras in the workflow. And when the camera leaves so do the old lame cards.

    XQD rocks. It is too bad if there is only one of them, but hella better than crippling camera and workflow just to save a few dollars using last decade’s SD cards.

    • flaker

      XQD combined with an SD card (as backup – like most every wedding photographer I know uses dual card slots for) provides zero benefit… and provides quite a few negatives.

      As for “old cards go with old cameras” … that’s great for people that have one or two cameras. For people with half-a-dozen that can’t afford to wholesale replace their entire lineup just to accommodate a card switch… it’s an issue.

      Again, I’m not saying that XQD is worse than SD in a vacuum. XQD is obviously the better card. Quoting me transfer rates isn’t doing you any good. I’m saying that the ecosystem around your stuff matters… and the SD ecosystem is mature and effective and the cards are plenty fast to meet non-sports-shooters needs. The ecosystem for XQD is non-existent, even 5 years after production release and 10 years after spec release, to the point of it being a significant barrier.

      • Allen_Wentz

        Your arguments are all nonsense.

        1) Both cards and cameras have performance evolve over time. Even without the shift to hella faster XQD, the smaller, older, slower
        CF cards of my D2x would have been significantly limiting to the performance of my D3, let alone to my D500.

        Old cameras and their old cards live together. I use multiple cameras with CF, SD and XQD slots. I have no desire or need to use the old cards on my newer cameras. It is poor, slower workflow to do so.

        2) Including for a wedding photog XQD provides substantial benefit. When you go to upload hundreds of 50+ MB files the XQD is at least 50% faster. 50% is a very big deal. The lame SD used for backup never needs to enter the workflow.

        3) The XQD ecosystem argument is fully bogus. Cards are not in a consumer-goods popularity contest like Beta versu VHS was. No one sane believes that we will not always be able to go online and have XQD cards and readers delivered in a day. Heck, for that matter I could get a Betamax tape and reader delivered tomorrow.

        Bottom line is wishing for A) slower camera performance and B) slower workflows just to use older card types is way wrong to me. You may not personally care about card-crippled operation and workflow, but do not wish it on the rest of us.

        • flaker

          Again, I’m not saying that an SD card as good as a XQD card.
          I AM saying that, functionally, a 95-160mb/s card is just as good as a 300-400mb/s card given current and reasonably-in-the-future cameras for non-sports work. … and any benefit by the added speed is not worth the lack of ecosystem. Further, you don’t actually GET the added speed if you use both slots in a backup config… so the argument that “but it’s moar fastar!” doesn’t even apply for how many pros work.

          2) I spend ~80 work-hours on a given wedding (client relations, shooting, processing, etc). During the 15 minutes I am copying files (I need to ingest about 80gb per wedding) I’m generally checking emails, cleaning and putting gear away, and doing other things. It’s not a time-waste at all. Do you really just sit and watch the progress bar during session downloads? — yet blather to me about speed an crippled workflows?
          Even if it was trying to be an inefficient and possible and sitting and watching a progress bar, if I TRIPLED the speed of copying the files, I’d save maybe 10 minutes. Again… faster, but functionally equivalent in real life.

          3) Being able to buy something online doesn’t mean there is an ecosystem. You make the point yourself — you can get betamax stuff online… does that mean there is a betamax ecosystem upon which a pro should stake his business?
          It’s not uncommon to borrow / lend cards to / from other photographers and vendors. SD and CF are easy, no-brainer options for this. XQD would be a non-starter.
          SD readers are built into almost every laptop and computer made… with XQD, if you didn’t plan ahead and buy one online and have it with you… you are stuck.
          Want one of your available memory cards as a quick ‘flash drive’… basically SOL with a XQD if you didn’t remember your reader… with an SD it’s no problem. (and something I do often, in fact)
          If you have too many shoots over a shorter period of time than expected and need a few more SD cards… or perhaps you get your bag stolen and need to still get the job done… you can pick up SD cards anywhere locally… for XQD it’s a chore or simply would’t happen (I know, read my previous post on needing to get some for a D5).
          That ecosystem might not matter to you, but it’s disingenuous to pretend the ecosystem around SD and around XQD are equal. (theoretically or functionally)

          Again, XQD is a better card… but let’s stop pretending that’s _all_ that matters. … PARTICULARLY when you remove ALL benefits by pairing it with an SD anyway.
          The solution Nikon provided gives you “Card-crippled workflow” anyway. Absolutely zero benefit comes from shooting with XQD (in a backup config) and minimal even in a single-card config (which most people I know would never use)… yet there are significant logistical negatives.
          If they’d gone 2 XQD cards, at least you’d have a debatable point that shooting would be faster and that extra speed makes up for it… but with XQD + SD …. that argument can’t be made.

          • DSP~

            Insert *thank you* gif here.

          • Allen_Wentz

            Your argument is that you consider SD fast enough, best to settle on old tech. Many folks argued the same thing about parallel ports before USB 1, but now we have Thunderbolt 3 through USB 2.0 ports; hella better.

            I have lived through the very first cards to the current XQD, and the evolution has been very worthwhile. Certainly the market for faster cards can die overnight with your approach of “already good enough,” which I understand but disagree with. We could have quit with the first slow CF but fortunately we did not.

            Your arguments, which as noted I disagree with, help explain why Nikon puts a lame SD slot in the D500. My D500 is crippled so folks can use their old slow SD camera card as an emergency flash drive .

            FYI my kit includes a $20 USB card reader that reads pretty much every card format for purposes of emergency flash drive or for sharing cards with others. Intentionally crippling camera performance for such reasons is NUTS.

            Note that I do not pair XQD with lame SD, Nikon does and I do not like it. And, you do _not_ remove ALL benefits by pairing it with an SD:

            A) The lame SD can be pulled when one needs full performance from the camera.

            B) Post processing workflow one can use the XQD and ignore the lame SD card. Your backup may not be time sensitive, but mine is. The ~50% speed improvement of XQD over SD is not insignificant.

  • R_D

    totes hyped to upgrade my d800, totes not hyped at the probably 3.5k+ pricetag

  • ToastyFlake

    It’s going to be the D850, not D820.

  • Back to top