NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: JKoerner007 on February 12, 2018, 02:40:39
-
I am getting closer to having saved-up enough sheckles to afford a Nikkor 600mm f/4 E FL ED.
And while this may be nothing but an afterthought for some, it's a lot of money for me :D
The question I keep going over in my mind is what camera to use on this lens (+/- a 1.4 TC III)?
I know the Nikon D5 is Nikon's flagship camera and has better low light/high ISO capability than the DX, but in the majority of shooting that I will be doing, super-high ISO is not going to be as important as reach.
Good as the Nikon D5 is, cropping-in to the same reach as a D500 is a diminishment of the D5 image.
Although the D500 may not have the lowlight capability of the D5, in decent light (from ISO 100 - 2500) it's going to trump the D5 in resolution and pixels-on-the-image (figuring-in the 1.5x conversion factor).
I am curious to hear from other photographers who own both a D5 and a D500.
(I'm not looking to hear from theorists, people who have "read articles," or have any other kind of unsubstantiated opinion.)
I'm just looking to hear from real-world experience from those who have, and use, both of these cameras ... and have shot with them for a while.
QUESTION:
If you had to get rid of ONE (and keep the other forever) which would you keep ... and why?
Thanks.
PS: Please don't sidetrack to the D850. I am well aware of its existence ... but, for a super-tele, I want either the D500 or D5, thanks.
-
I don't know if anyone here has all of D5, D500 and 600/4E but Shun Cheung (you can reach him at the photo.net Nikon forum or by sending e-mail directly) has both the D5 and D500 as well as a previous version of the 600/4. You might ask him how his usage is divided among the bodies with that lens.
-
I don't know if anyone here has all of D5, D500 and 600/4E but Shun Cheung (you can reach him at the photo.net Nikon forum or by sending e-mail directly) has both the D5 and D500 as well as a previous version of the 600/4. You might ask him how his usage is divided among the bodies with that lens.
I have the D500 but no D5. Given these circumstances check out Steve Perry and Brad Hill. Both to be trusted IMHO and they retain their D5's apparently
And John, you are challenged never to connect your 600 / 400 to a D850 :-) !!
-
If you are considering a D500/D5, might has well throw a D850 into the mix. DX cropped, you are getting something very similar to the D500. Now, you may not get the same high ISO performance, but you'll be getting an FX sensor.
Not saying you should go that way, but definitely don't rule it out at this stage in the game.
-
I have the D5 had a D500 for about a year and used both on 400mm and 800mm lenses. I sold the D500 because I was just not using it very much. The D5 was always mounted first in the AM and the last body in use in the evening. The D5 was always my preference for most BIF situations. The D500 was the better choice at times, just not very many. I have a preference for FX. The D500 was sold and I picked up a D850 for landscape/static subject use.
-
If you are considering a D500/D5, might has well throw a D850 into the mix. DX cropped, you are getting something very similar to the D500. Now, you may not get the same high ISO performance, but you'll be getting an FX sensor.
While you can use a D850 in this way, there are a few practical (minor) issues. First, if you shoot with the intention of cropping by at least 1.5x, the DX area in the D850 viewfinder is small compared to that in the D500, which can make it harder to focus and compose on the subject.
Secondly the D850 makes a louder sound than the D500 (in normal viewfinder based shooting). The D850 does have silent shutter mode available but it is live view only, so for this and other reasons, it is not as well suited to action subjects, at least if you need to focus continuously and adjust the composition during the sequence.
Thirdly, the D850 real-life buffer performance leaves something to be desired, though in DX crop mode I guess the issue is not as severe as in FX.
There is one omission in the D500 specifications, namely the 9-point dynamic area mode which is present in the D850 and D5 is absent from the D500. Interestingly the D9 has become my most frequently used AF area mode with the Multi-CAM 20k equipped cameras and I would not be happy if it were taken away. A large part of the module's capability is not available in single point AF area mode (since only a third of the AF points is user selectable) and 25-point dynamic or group area AF do not have the precision of single point or D9.
If shooting in DX crop mode, I would still prefer the larger viewfinder, better buffer, slightly better image quality and quieter operation of the D500. If you intend to make use of the 45MP FX capability (or the other features exclusive to the D850) then of course the situation changes. But 45MP for action can place quite a burden on your storage and post processing workflow. I think while the D850 in theory does everything in practice it is still best used for precision work rather than action.
However, it depends on how you shoot. If you have no need or intention to use CH and if you just want the best image quality at low to intermediate ISO then the D850 may be the best choice. However, if I shoot action I need the camera to respond precisely in time irrespective of what kind of tasks were given to it moments before, and in my experience it is too easy to make the D850 have a hiccup, but this may be partly because I'm used to the D5. I am not a heavy user of CH in fact I mostly shoot in S or Qc modes (in which case there is no issue with the D850), but there are a few applications where I do use high fps, and in those cases the D850 is not ideal. However, perhaps optimizing the settings and use of only the XQD card slot alleviates the issue. I just don't like to have to change settings from situation to situation as works against instinctive operation of the camera. I would like the camera to automatically switch to 12-bit NEF recording when at ISO 400 or higher, for example. This would be a more seamless reduction in file size and optimize the buffer capacity without the user having to remember to change settings. It should be a simple job in a firmware update to permit this kind of grading of file type as a function of ISO setting.
Anyway I am surprised by the apparent great interest in the D850 and relative lack of interest in the D5. I get the cost difference but other than that, even after 20 months with the D5, I'm still happier and more excited about it than the D850.
-
I don't know if anyone here has all of D5, D500 and 600/4E but Shun Cheung (you can reach him at the photo.net Nikon forum or by sending e-mail directly) has both the D5 and D500 as well as a previous version of the 600/4. You might ask him how his usage is divided among the bodies with that lens.
Thanks!
-
I have the D500 but no D5. Given these circumstances check out Steve Perry and Brad Hill. Both to be trusted IMHO and they retain their D5's apparently
I think Steve Perry uses the D500 + 300 f/4 PF for light hiking, and the D850 + 600 FL ED for serious targets, when stationary.
And John, you are challenged never to connect your 600 / 400 to a D850 :-) !!
;D
-
If you are considering a D500/D5, might has well throw a D850 into the mix. DX cropped, you are getting something very similar to the D500. Now, you may not get the same high ISO performance, but you'll be getting an FX sensor.
Not saying you should go that way, but definitely don't rule it out at this stage in the game.
I don't want to use the D850 because of the file size.
If I try to compensate, the D850 in DX mode is not quite what the D500 is. It would be a waste to use a D850 like a DX, may as well buy the DX.
However, used properly, the D850 is not something I would want to power-through with multiple exposures of a single subject. I typically come back with 400-1000 images on a weekend hike, 3x that on a week-long excursion. I don't want each of those to be 100+ MB apiece.
-
I have the D5 had a D500 for about a year and used both on 400mm and 800mm lenses. I sold the D500 because I was just not using it very much. The D5 was always mounted first in the AM and the last body in use in the evening. The D5 was always my preference for most BIF situations. The D500 was the better choice at times, just not very many. I have a preference for FX. The D500 was sold and I picked up a D850 for landscape/static subject use.
Thank you. Nice lens set :)
Which body did you use during the day?
Can you describe why the D5 was your preference? Is it handling ... or file quality?
Steve Perry said the D5 cropped-in cannot match the D500. At the same relative framing, the D5 is clearly better ... but if you have to crop the D5 to get the D500 framing, it is not.
Do you disagree with this? Thanks again.
-
While the D850 files are large, 14-bit lossless compressed NEFs are about 60MB in size, not quite 100MB. It does depend on the subject, ISO setting etc. a bit how well the images compress. And when making 16-bit TIFFs with perhaps some layers, whoa... :o
-
While you can use a D850 in this way, there are a few practical (minor) issues. First, if you shoot with the intention of cropping by at least 1.5x, the DX area in the D850 viewfinder is small compared to that in the D500, which can make it harder to focus and compose on the subject.
Secondly the D850 makes a louder sound than the D500 (in normal viewfinder based shooting). The D850 does have silent shutter mode available but it is live view only, so for this and other reasons, it is not as well suited to action subjects, at least if you need to focus continuously and adjust the composition during the sequence.
Thirdly, the D850 real-life buffer performance leaves something to be desired, though in DX crop mode I guess the issue is not as severe as in FX.
There is one omission in the D500 specifications, namely the 9-point dynamic area mode which is present in the D850 and D5 is absent from the D500. Interestingly the D9 has become my most frequently used AF area mode with the Multi-CAM 20k equipped cameras and I would not be happy if it were taken away. A large part of the module's capability is not available in single point AF area mode (since only a third of the AF points is user selectable) and 25-point dynamic or group area AF do not have the precision of single point or D9.
If shooting in DX crop mode, I would still prefer the larger viewfinder, better buffer, slightly better image quality and quieter operation of the D500. If you intend to make use of the 45MP FX capability (or the other features exclusive to the D850) then of course the situation changes. But 45MP for action can place quite a burden on your storage and post processing workflow. I think while the D850 in theory does everything in practice it is still best used for precision work rather than action.
However, it depends on how you shoot. If you have no need or intention to use CH and if you just want the best image quality at low to intermediate ISO then the D850 may be the best choice. However, if I shoot action I need the camera to respond precisely in time irrespective of what kind of tasks were given to it moments before, and in my experience it is too easy to make the D850 have a hiccup, but this may be partly because I'm used to the D5. I am not a heavy user of CH in fact I mostly shoot in S or Qc modes (in which case there is no issue with the D850), but there are a few applications where I do use high fps, and in those cases the D850 is not ideal. However, perhaps optimizing the settings and use of only the XQD card slot alleviates the issue. I just don't like to have to change settings from situation to situation as works against instinctive operation of the camera. I would like the camera to automatically switch to 12-bit NEF recording when at ISO 400 or higher, for example. This would be a more seamless reduction in file size and optimize the buffer capacity without the user having to remember to change settings. It should be a simple job in a firmware update to permit this kind of grading of file type as a function of ISO setting.
Anyway I am surprised by the apparent great interest in the D850 and relative lack of interest in the D5. I get the cost difference but other than that, even after 20 months with the D5, I'm still happier and more excited about it than the D850.
Thank you for this thoughtful analysis.
You included some drawbacks I hadn't thought of, while underscoring the drawbacks I already don't want to deal with.
I already don't like using my D810 for stacking and on my 300mm, because of the file size.
I find the D810 to be borderline acceptable while waiting for downloads/stacks to process, the D500 a breeze to process and deal with.
I don't want to bog myself down by processing a gazillion D850 files (and I have a decently-spec'd computer, 3.6 Ghz, 64mb RAM, MSI motherboard, GeForce GTX 960 Gaming 4G graphics card.)
Your excitement with the D5 is intriguing ... it seems everyone who actually has one is thrilled with it.
We agree that, despite its capability, the D850 is best used for precision, judicious shooting.
I think the D5 got a bum rap because of its mediocre base-ISO performance ... which is absurd, because no one who uses the D5 deploys it at base ISO.
Even with the D500, I never use it at base ISO (unless I am shooting studio macro). For wildlife, I always shoot 640 - 2500 ISO.
Nikon is smarter than many of its users by making the D5 excel at high ISO only, because that is where anyone who shoots action/low light is going to be.
The D5's dynamic range excellence is on the high-end, not the base-end, by intentional design.
Thanks again.
-
A most informative thread. If I could afford a D5, the weight in the field becomes a significant factor, but OTOH it's not that much more than a D850 + grip. The factor one should consider is balance that is improved using the D5 against the D500 with exotic telephotos. Steve Perry mentions the advantages of the D5 in his detailed review of the D850
I agree the advantage of high ISO puts the D5 ahead, and a long way ahead above 3200. This is besides 12 fps etc for action. And it keeps on delivering here in the tropics and "up there" :-)
http://blog.iamnikon.com/en_GB/pyeongchang-2018/winter-sports-2018-olympic-short-track-speed-skating-intensity-uncertainty/
-
Discussion on FM. Steve Perry prefers the D5 in Costa Rica. He owns all 3 D5, D850 and D500 I think. (Unfortunately, the D500 is not part of this discussion thread)
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1530297
-
A most informative thread. If I could afford a D5, the weight in the field becomes a significant factor, but OTOH it's not that much more than a D850 + grip. The factor one should consider is balance that is improved using the D5 against the D500 with exotic telephotos. Steve Perry mentions the advantages of the D5 in his detailed review of the D850
I agree the advantage of high ISO puts the D5 ahead, and a long way ahead above 3200. This is besides 12 fps etc for action. And it keeps on delivering here in the tropics and "up there" :-)
http://blog.iamnikon.com/en_GB/pyeongchang-2018/winter-sports-2018-olympic-short-track-speed-skating-intensity-uncertainty/
Thank you.
All tests/comments I have ever read indicate the D5 outperforms the D850 in AF acquisition/handling ... so does the D500 for that matter.
The D850 simply produces the best files, with similar AF etc., just not the buffer or the accuracy, again given the file size.
-
Discussion on FM. Steve Perry prefers the D5 in Costa Rica. He owns all 3 D5, D850 and D500 I think. (Unfortunately, the D500 is not part of this discussion thread)
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1530297
Thank you.
Steve Perry actually says he "almost always recommend(s) the D850 for general wildlife over the D5 (especially if you grip the D850)."
I understand why he says this, though, the supposedly-superior image quality + the newness of the D850.
(In some ways I think he's just trying to sell videos/get clicks on everyone's excitement over the D850.)
What I actually noticed, however, is that everyone who's shooting D850 wildlife shots isn't really producing anything that can't be had by the D5/D500 ... and the images actually look a little soft to me.
I don't think the D850 is nailing shots like the D5/D500 nail shots.
(Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what my eyes tell me.)
I keep seeing these thick, almost viscous-looking wildlife images come from the D850, with the subject's eyes (and other critical-focus details) being slightly soft.
I don't see the same phenomenon with the D5/D500.
-
I haven’t noticed softness in my D850 images; on the contrary the output is extremely sharp. My issues with the D850 are timing and workload related as well as high ISO due to low light in much of my wintertime photography.
I think perhaps the high marketing visibility and specifications of the D850 have lead some less skilled photographers also to buy it and you may be seeing the result of their early efforts. Given time I would expect to see more outstanding work from the camera.
Once the spring comes with more light I hope to grow happier with the D850. In the summer I get to see much more situations where there is potential to use the camera in lighting conditions which are brighter and contrastier, permitting the dynamic range and resolution to be taken advantage of. Currently I can only do that for landscapes on tripod.
I have noticed that in Qc drive mode with EFCS, there is a significant improvement in sharpness of hand held 300 PF shots at slowish speeds. In such scenarios the D850 seems to have a significant advantage.
-
I haven’t noticed softness in my D850 images; on the contrary the output is extremely sharp. My issues with the D850 are timing and workload related as well as high ISO due to low light in much of my wintertime photography.
I think perhaps the high marketing visibility and specifications of the D850 have lead some less skilled photographers also to buy it and you may be seeing the result of their early efforts. Given time I would expect to see more outstanding work from the camera.
Once the spring comes with more light I hope to grow happier with the D850. In the summer I get to see much more situations where there is potential to use the camera in lighting conditions which are brighter and contrastier, permitting the dynamic range and resolution to be taken advantage of. Currently I can only do that for landscapes on tripod.
I have noticed that in Qc drive mode with EFCS, there is a significant improvement in sharpness of hand held 300 PF shots at slowish speeds. In such scenarios the D850 seems to have a significant advantage.
Understood.
I don't believe the softness is coming from the camera itself, but rather from the effort to use an extremely high-res camera during fast-action.
The higher the resolution, the more augmented flaws in technique and/or motion become. (Which is pretty much what you said.)
My assumption was that the softness was coming from the lack of absolute stillness, combined with the high-res of the camera.
I just don't consider the D850 an athlete, like a the D5 or D500. (Maybe I am wrong, though.)
With perfect stillness, of course, and high-quality glass, I would expect the sharpness of the D850 to be astounding compared to the other two.
-
I hesitated to answer the question, as I'm not qualifying, being a "no D500 owner". Instead, I bought a second D5 mid last year, having considered first the D500. First D5 was acquired late March 2016, in replacement of a D4s. It took me some time to get accustomed - even coming from a D4s -, but It is the best camera I ever owned.
As mainly an action/sport photographer, I can fully rely on the D5's high ISO capabilities; in other words, I never really bother at what ISO I'm shooting. Looking at some of my statistics, I noticed that, nevertheless, close to 40% of my retained shots are at base 100 ISO; 7% at ISO 6'400 and higher (up to 102k); and 16% in the traditional 800-<12'800 ISO bracket.
Why a D5 and not a D500 ? (1) For consistency in manipulation / processing; and (2) don't change a winning team 😊
-
Thanks for adding your experience.
Very surprised to hear that 40% of your retained shots are at base 100 ISO :o
-
I have used all three bodies and kept the D500/D850 for the following reasons:
1) the high ISO performance of the D5 is second to none, 12 fps are better than 10 or 9. But both cases are so rare in my professional work, the D5 simply does not justify its price. But: I would buy the D5 recording chip in a lesser body for these rare cases.
9) My work does not involve high fps. It does involve High iso frequently. I can use the D500 at 20.00 ISO, D850 at 25.600 which is good for well over 90% of jobs. For the other jobs I can still rent a D5.
3) D5 noise is unsatisfactory. Very much so. D500 is silent by nature, D850 can be totally silent if a. no pulsating light source is involved, because there will be a jalousie effect if and b. AF can be LV slow or c. Manual focus is an option.
So noise, fps, SuperHighISO, AF in silent environment are to be factored into your decision.
Last point. At same duration events I shoot half the amount of frames because D500/D850 are such reliable performers. I never use the display. I know what will be in the box. I cull without mercy. That saves disk space but not working hours. After 1 Million frames I have some HDs in my cupboard and extenal storage
My machine is 16 core, 32 threads, 64 Gig RAM, SSD
-
Thanks for adding your experience.
Very surprised to hear that 40% of your retained shots are at base 100 ISO :o
I was surprised as well. But then I realised that most of the racing pictures are taken at very low speed (1/80s - 1/160s) and, therefore, low ISO, to generate the so called "speed blur".
-
Thank you. Nice lens set :)
Which body did you use during the day?
Can you describe why the D5 was your preference? Is it handling ... or file quality?
Steve Perry said the D5 cropped-in cannot match the D500. At the same relative framing, the D5 is clearly better ... but if you have to crop the D5 to get the D500 framing, it is not.
Do you disagree with this? Thanks again.
During the day I let the subject drive the decision for the most part. Active subjects generally get the D5 and static/slow moving subjects the D850. If I am using the D850, I am wanting to keep the ISO at 400 or lower.
As to my preference for the D5, handling is a great factor. The fit of the grip, control layout and overall size as it relates to managing large lenses drives my preference. And the file quality is also quite nice especially in the ISO 1600 - 6400 range where a f5.6 prime and a 1.25TC tend to be.
I agree with Steve's assessment you refer to above. As a result, I am finding myself waiting until my subject is nearer before shooting. With wildlife/birds I have found that patience is a necessary virture. :)
-
3) D5 noise is unsatisfactory. Very much so. D500 is silent by nature, D850 can be totally silent if a. no pulsating light source is involved, because there will be a jalousie effect if and b. AF can be LV slow or c. Manual focus is an option.
Surprised to hear this view, but thanks for providing it.
I thought the D5 had the most exemplary noise reduction in high ISO of any of them ...
-
During the day I let the subject drive the decision for the most part. Active subjects generally get the D5 and static/slow moving subjects the D850. If I am using the D850, I am wanting to keep the ISO at 400 or lower.
As to my preference for the D5, handling is a great factor. The fit of the grip, control layout and overall size as it relates to managing large lenses drives my preference. And the file quality is also quite nice especially in the ISO 1600 - 6400 range where a f5.6 prime and a 1.25TC tend to be.
I agree with Steve's assessment you refer to above. As a result, I am finding myself waiting until my subject is nearer before shooting. With wildlife/birds I have found that patience is a necessary virture. :)
Thanks for the insight ... and tip (http://nikongear.online/images/smilies/hatsoff.gif)
-
Surprised to hear this view, but thanks for providing it.
I thought the D5 had the most exemplary noise reduction in high ISO of any of them ...
I think Frank is referring to mechanical / shutter & mirror noise ...
-
3) D5 noise is unsatisfactory. Very much so. D500 is silent by nature, D850 can be totally silent if a. no pulsating light source is involved, because there will be a jalousie effect if and b. AF can be LV slow or c. Manual focus is an option.
If the environment is such that the sound of the camera is an issue, the quiet continuous (Qc) mode takes the sound of the D5 to a level which is perceived as soft and not distracting, in my experience, and I've been very happy with that for such circumstances. Of course then it is limited to 3fps. If one needs quieter high fps then a Sony A9 may be the solution, or one of the DX Nikons such as the D500 or D7500. I also use Qc with the D850 in similar circumstances when sound is to be minimized. I had a few situations where the D700's loudness was a problem (a choir concert); at the time there was no quiet option and similar high ISO capability was not available in a quiet camera so if I had been doing that more regularly a blimp would have been something to consider.
I do not like the Quiet (non-continuous) mode as it gives a second sound for the return of the mirror as the finger is lifted and this I find to be more distracting than the automatically returning mirror in Qc (quiet continuous) mode. For me high fps is an option not a necessity, and I am happy with the Qc solution for quiet moments and it has been satisfactory for both sides.
But I agree that for wildlife photography such as the OP's, it may be that the D500's relative quietness (along with the pixels per subject aspect) is an asset.
-
Surprised to hear this view, but thanks for providing it.
I thought the D5 had the most exemplary noise reduction in high ISO of any of them ...
I talked about sound, not grain
-
Mastering the LV AF slowness of the D850 or using manual focus, can avoid to use a blimp and you get insane fps (up to 30 JPEG per second for three seconds) in continuous light. More here:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4199429
And in the manual
Question: is it possible to focus trap with silent LV operation???
-
Indeed, manual focus with focus peaking might be a practical way to use the D850 hand held with silent shutter. So far I've mostly used the AF, and noticed that in low light the larger focus area can focus more securely but sometimes on the wrong target (within the selected area however); in some situations wide area AF focused on a brightly lit and detailed background instead of dimly lit subject in the foreground, whereas the pinpoint AF is very precise but might be difficult to use hand held because of camera shake and subject movement. I think I will start practising the use of manual focus for this kind of shots where I need to use LV hand held, such as when shooting from above crowd's heads. Silent shutter is then an additional option once the focusing technique is mastered. Still, I am used to the real-time image of the OVF and it is difficult to time shots using the LCD LV. Not having lag-free shooting, this leads to the use of high fps to catch moments which then fills up memory cards and hard drives unnecessarily. I think the OVF shooting experience is much better for photographing people; AF works without hunting, there is less lag, the subject is seen as a large part of the visual field when using the viewfinder and generally it is a more enjoyable experience than using LV, but for some situations, LV is necessary. For static subjects with the camera on tripod, LV is great, of course.
The sound from high fps within LV is less loud than when using the OVF, even when using the mechanical shutter (which is what I normally use as my subjects are moving and the lights are often flickering).
-
I talked about sound, not grain
"Shutter-sound" would have been a better way to communicate your meaning, then.
When speaking of camera performance, "noise" means something quite different ;)
-
"Shutter-sound" would have been a better way to communicate your meaning, then.
When speaking of camera performance, "noise" means something quite different ;)
The context was clear as water, I think?
-
I am using the D500 and a D4S on a 600/4 lens (amongst others). For my use it turned out that the D500 gets significantly more use because I need the "range" of that combo. Thats one of the reasons why I did not upgrade from D4S to D5. But thats in Europa, the evaluation result might be different in other world regions especially in overseas.
-
I am using the D500 and a D4S on a 600/4 lens (amongst others). For my use it turned out that the D500 gets significantly more use because I need the "range" of that combo. Thats one of the reasons why I did not upgrade from D4S to D5. But thats in Europa, the evaluation result might be different in other world regions especially in overseas.
Makes perfect sense.
I think each individual's preference will have to do with their intended subject matter.
If a person is shooting sports, or larger wildlife (where there isn't too much cropping), the superior D5 files make sense.
However, I noticed a lot of dedicated bird photographers prefer the D500, especially if the take a lot of small birds, where the extra pixels of the D500 provide an advantage.
-
My experience, at this point, is limited, as I acquired my D500 in November 2017, and my D5 in February 2018, plus, some minor arm/shoulder injuries have limited my hand-held shooting, and I took delivery of a gimbal head only days ago. If “reach” is more important than performance at high ISO, I would think the D500 to be the better choice. If high ISO performance is more important, well, the D5 would seem to be the better choice. These factors are why I bought one of each. (A modest financial windfall enabled the recent purchase of a D5, for myself, and a D850, for my wife.)
This assumes we disregard the factors of frame rate, the D5’s integral vertical grip, and whatever differences may exist in the AF accuracy and acquisition. (I have yet to really test for differences in AF.)
-
I am bumping this old thread because it is an interesting discussion that may gain some new insight given Brad Hill's most recent blog post Link: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html
I won't rehash his point, but would suggest you consider the following before choosing the D5 or D500... what type of light will you expect to encounter most and how far will you be from your subject. Personally... we have 3 D500's (and a D810 and D610). I am not interested in hauling a 600mm lens about, as I hike quite a bit. I pair the D500 on the 200-400 for the crop factor, but the body w/ its small pixels challenges the resolution of my lens especially at 400mm. I also do a lot of dawn photography, often in flat light that requires iso1600... another challenge for the D500. In an ideal world, I would use a D5 with big pixels... my lens would appear sharper and ISO would not be an issue, but the DX crop is an essential element for my kit. With a 600mm lens, you will benefit from the D5 even if it requires a 1.4xiii converter... those three pieces play nicely with each other.
cheers,
bruce
-
serious answer? both.
BUT
what if you need higher resolution?
D850
so: all three. Only point for me is 7000€ are not justified for my professional purposes. That is why I wait for the D5 price to drop to 3500€ or less.
PS: now I go out shooting into the sunny day with one camera and one lens. Today? D850&105E
-
serious answer? both.
.... Only point for me is 7000€ are not justified for my professional purposes. That is why I wait for the D5 price to drop to 3500€ or less.
€7'000 for a D5 ?? In Switzerland the actual best price (from official Nikon dealer) is €4'430.
https://www.hawk.ch/nikon-d5-body-32gb-xqd-karte-lesegerat.html
-
Is that with tax?
I guess some stores may have excess inventory and offer a low price to reduce it.
-
Hello Ilkka; this is the about overall retail price: the prices rank between €4'400 and 4'700 for the first 10 dealers . Yes taxes, included, but you have to factor in that the VAT in Switzerland is only 8%. Despite that my country is very expensive; electronics and the like, have traditionally been cheap.
-
€7'000 for a D5 ?? In Switzerland the actual best price (from official Nikon dealer) is €4'430.
https://www.hawk.ch/nikon-d5-body-32gb-xqd-karte-lesegerat.html
No information about tax. And for the Import into the EU I will have to add 19% import tax = €5272, which is still better than the original €6999 (€5882 net) my local dealer wanted to charge when the camera came out. But it is not worlds apart. In my usage scenario I need the HighISO capability but I neither need the body size nor the speed. I do not shoot sports, because the topic does not interest me very much.
I paid €2700 for one of the first D500 incl. org. battery pack and €4130 for one of the first D850 incl. org. battery pack, but served my very well professionally and in my unpaid projects too.
The cheapest real world price is €4399: https://www.e-infin.com/eu/item/2991/nikon_d5_dslr_camera_body_double_xqd_version_(dual_xqd_slots) , but there is no tax declared, so I neither have to pay nor can deduct it
-
No information about tax. And for the Import into the EU I will have to add 19% import tax = €5272, .....
..and deduct the 8% Swiss VAT before applying your 19% ... (export goes without VAT) which makes €4'881 in the end.