NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on February 27, 2018, 06:46:13
-
My Nikon D850 is off to repair; don’t even ask what happened. Just mark it down as the dreaded “user error.” In the meantime, I am using my faithful Nikon D810 and doing my best to keep shooting. And here is why I am writing:
It was a real shock to go back to the D810 after using the D850. I had no idea what a (minor) hardship it would be or, another way of saying this is, how easily I slid into and got used to an upgraded camera body like the D850.
I’m not sure how many D850 owners will agree with me, but the first thing I noticed is how very much better the color is on the new D850 compared to the D810. As mentioned, I just went along with the upgrade and quickly forgot the various struggles to get color right with the D810. Anyway, I see a big difference now that I am back to struggling with the D810!
And the rest of the shocks were more like tremors, like I am already quite used to the pixel increase in the D850 sensor and appreciate it and I was totally used to the silent shooting mode. It was hard going back to mirror-up and clicking twice. And the LiveView on the D810 is way inferior to what the D850 can use. That would be the second most-important (painful) difference I noted.
Anyway, I’m going to live, but I deeply appreciate my D850 and wish it god speed to get back to me soon. I know; I'm ungrateful to criticize the D810 and should be more appreciative. Forgive me.
Here I am just playing with the recent Nikon fisheye zoom (8mm-15mm). How do you folks get rid of the blue ring around the image? This is a quick shot of my mini-studio.
I can’t believe all the stuff I think I need around to take photos!
-
I thought the blue ring was a feature. :)
Pity poor me. My D800 has an AA filter.
Dave Hartman
-
The "blue ring" is indeed a characteristic common to the fisheye designs.
-
Blue ring? I like it. If I want to get rid of it I use the elliptical marquee in Photoshop to create a circular selection or magic wand non consequtive and then refine shrink by a few pixels, but this function has a new place and name now
-
It's here in this image, not as pronounced as yours, I put it down to the blue lighting reflecting in the lens. Same 8-15mm Nikon demo lens.
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,7153.msg115221.html#msg115221
I don't 'mind' it too much but I realise it could clash or spoil some images.
You need to lean forwards and keep the hands out of frame at 8mm, not easy!!! ;D
-
It's here in this image, not as pronounced as yours, I put it down to the blue lighting reflecting in the lens. Same 8-15mm Nikon demo lens.
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,7153.msg115221.html#msg115221
I don't 'mind' it too much but I realise it could clash or spoil some images.
You need to lean forwards and keep the hands out of frame at 8mm, not easy!!! ;D
I am just playing with it. I kind of like my hands and feet in this image. It adds to the clutter. LOL.
-
Now if you had your nose and eyes you could say "Kilroy was here' ;)
Your work space is sooooo neat and orderly.
I really like your wood flooring and do not mind the blue ring.
Hope your D850 returns soonest :)
Tom
-
Blue ring? I like it. If I want to get rid of it I use the elliptical marquee in Photoshop to create a circular selection or magic wand non consequtive and then refine shrink by a few pixels, but this function has a new place and name now
Thanks.
-
D850? Superb color and rendering style. Very satisfactory. I would miss her too in case .... But: I have the D500 as a second body that is also wonderful
PS The D500 is much better than the D600, the D810 is only gradually better than the D600. The D850 tops them all but she is only gradually better than the D500. It is a generation gap. Maybe you need a second D850?
-
If the blue doesn't go with an image why not drop the blue channel in the extreme periphery of the images rather than creating harsh circular crop of the image. Another possibility could be to have a soft edged selection so as to crop to black with a feathered edge. It should be easy to simply drag the selection to the image in Photoshop.
Hard edged, soft edges, blue, neutral; it seems like a matter of preference to me. I'd play with it if I could.
Dave Hartman
-
the 8-15 = -7 is a great and fun lens to use for sure!
-
If you press SHIFT using the eliptical marquee tool you get a circle.
A generous NG member, Kuri, shared this tip to get a perfect border to the circular image:
https://youtu.be/v4Jq2nIX9eE
-
The D810 is the only camera I know. Have been using it for 18 months. I am still trying to master my camera. Find that you make better images if you can use the tool correctly in given situations. My photography has improved at the pace of my better understanding of my camera. I have been doing LR and PS for less than one year. In the beginning, I tried, mostly no success, to heroically fix unsatisfactory images with post-processing. Now, my final photos are very much better because I am getting much better images out of my camera.
I looked very hard at the 850. More pixels. Better high ISO. Other things better. But no fill-flash. Low light and night photography should not be better because Nikon did nothing on the low end of ISO. Both at 64. The sensors seem about the same size - but, the programming could be improved/different.
For experts, the 850 could/should make a difference. But I am not there yet. I would like to see side by side images made with each camera, using the same subject matter, settings, technique and post-processing. If the 850 images are meaningfully better, then I will re-think the matter.
Nice shot of your workroom/studio. Very nice space. My Nikon camera + Nikon lenses + peripheral gear and traveling tripod fit into a waterproof backpack and weigh 35 lbs. At this moment, I do not need more or better stuff. I need better knowledge and experience.
Regards,
peter
-
If the blue doesn't go with an image why not drop the blue channel in the extreme periphery of the images rather than creating harsh circular crop of the image. Another possibility could be to have a soft edged selection so as to crop to black with a feathered edge. It should be easy to simply drag the selection to the image in Photoshop.
Hard edged, soft edges, blue, neutral; it seems like a matter of preference to me. I'd play with it if I could.
Dave Hartman
There at a lot of ways Nikon may send us a small program to eliminate this ring. But this action requires Nikon think about its customers, and it isn't a Nikon's first priority, to think about its own loyal customers. Ricoh, Fuji, Sony, even Canon, are thinking, but Nikon... LZ
-
it was the other way for me. I liked the D700 colors more compared to the D800. :o :o :o
-
There at a lot of ways Nikon may send us a small program to eliminate this ring. But this action requires Nikon think about its customers, and it isn't a Nikon's first priority, to think about its own loyal customers. Ricoh, Fuji, Sony, even Canon, are thinking, but Nikon...
You mean a program like the one Canon does not provide to eliminate the blue ring in images from its 8-15 fisheye? Or would it be more like the one Sigma does not provide to eliminate the blue ring from images made with its circular fisheyes? Of course, Sony, Ricoh and Fuji are really thoughtful: they save you worrying about blue rings by not having circular fisheye lenses at all!
All circular fisheyes make blue rings. This is a lens property, because you also see it when the image is recorded on film.
-
For Fuji and probably other cameras as well you can get the Meike 6.5mm circular fisheye which actually doesn't generate a blue ring. You still need to apply a circular mask to eliminate the image of the inside of the lens, clearly visible on the photos... this is easily taken care of with a Photoshop automated action. I now have just one key to hit and am done with it.
-
It looks like maybe the Meike Fisheye has an build in mask to remove the troublesome edge,,,
As I recall, it is the optical design of the Nikkor fisheye lenses that features the blue fringe,,, as well as other brands.
-
It looks like maybe the Meike Fisheye has an build in mask to remove the troublesome edge,,,
As I recall, it is the optical design of the Nikkor fisheye lenses that features the blue fringe,,, as well as other brands.
I know that, Erik, thanks! What I really mean, is much wider, then, actually, little problem with that blue ring... I mean the terrible Nikon's warranty service, as well as post-warranty huge troubles. Even under warranty, I was not able to service my gears in Europe, for the reason it was from the USA, originally! Estimation for fixing was about $3000! So I was pushed to broke the warranty, by open 2 of my film and 1 digital bodies (different trips!), and some lenses. For ex., I've fixed my 80-200 with the parts from Russian tank's watch, when the inner sliding helicoid of this lens lost its bolts... So what I did really pay for, was a front element from my 16-35 (another event, my fault, I should have filter over it!), damaged by drunk idiot, cose this thing could not be covered by warranty, hah-hah! Best wishes, LZ!
-
The Meike generates a magenta ring - you can see it in many of the images in the Flickr group https://www.flickr.com/groups/meike_fisheye/pool/with/38507393410/ - eg https://www.flickr.com/photos/captkodak/35921838811/in/pool-meike_fisheye/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/pmorris73/38398586184/in/pool-meike_fisheye/
-
The Meike generates a magenta ring - you can see it in many of the images in the Flickr group https://www.flickr.com/groups/meike_fisheye/pool/with/38507393410/ - eg https://www.flickr.com/photos/captkodak/35921838811/in/pool-meike_fisheye/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/pmorris73/38398586184/in/pool-meike_fisheye/
I think it has mechanical vignetting which hides any color ring at the edge with black.
-
Fisheye lenses are peculiar, and they are not all the same.
Most are equidistant fisheyes, in which the image height is equal to focal length times the half angle of view in radians. A circular fisheye lens has to have a very short focal length: 90 degrees in radians is 1.57, and 8 x 1.57 = 12.56, so an 8mm fisheye with a focal length of 8mm has an image size of 25.12mm - just about able to fit in a 36 x 24 frame. Most Nikon fisheyes are equidistant fisheyes.
A few fisheyes are orthoscopic: image height is equal to focal length times sin half angle of view, and sin 90 degrees = 1. The Nikon 10mm f/5.6 OP was an orthoscopic fisheye (OP is for Orthoscopic Projection), with an image circle just 20mm in diameter (http://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0006/index.htm). If the orthoscopic condition is perfectly met, illumination across the image is uniform - which was the point of the Nikon lens because you can use the image to measure the illumination of large areas, a town square, eg, so you can work out how much shadowing there will be by adjacent buildings at different times of the day and year.
Obviously, a focal length of 8mm or 10mm is a problem for an SLR. So SLR fisheyes have to be retrofocus - the 10/5.6 OP being an exception. The lens projects a long way inside the camera and it had to be used with the mirror up. AFAIK the 10/5.6 OP is the only circular fisheye that does not have the colour fringe, so the retrofocus elements may be the villain of the piece.
Obviously, a mirrorless camera can have lens elements projecting into the camera, so a short focal length lens needs weaker or even no retrofocus elements compared to an SLR lens. That may be why the Meike fisheye has less edge colour than ordinary SLR fisheyes.
-
Good afternoon!
Different than the OP and after 6 months with D850 I moved back to D810 + D500 because that combo pleases me more than D850 alone for several reasons.
summary:
Despite my initial D850' enthusiasm and after 6 months with D850 I sold it and went back to a new D810 + D500 set because ...
D850 vs D810
-I missed the PUF-flash commander system of my D810
-The extra 9 MP(D850 vs D810) is not such a big difference.
-My D800 and D810 auto focused perfectly with my 105 AF-S + 2xTC while my D850 did not.
-Compared to D810, D850 is a rather loud operating DSLR again. Not as loud D800 or D700 used to be, but much louder than D810 and significantly louder than D500. Birds and animals don't like that, people in church neither.
-Slightly related to the above, vibrations due to mirror Slap and Shutter Shock -which are much more present in D850 than in D810-, might cause more blur than with D810 while shooting handheld. I found my D850 images to be less sharp than what I get handheld with my D810, especially at relative slow shutter speeds. The D810 lack of vibration rules out the resolution advantage D850 should have.
While shooting in LV, D850 excels though...
-I miss the D850 tilting screen and the AF stick with D810, but I have those on my D500...
D850 vs D500:
-I find D500 a much better wildlife camera than D850.
10fps in a light and relative compact camera and much more comfortable viewfinder for long distance shooting. (1.5 factor vs D850'DX mode)
-TMHO, IQ of the D500 is significantly better than D850 in dx mode.
-I did not like the extra weight and bulkyness of a D850 + grip to get 1 fps LESS than the 10 fps that the relative compact and light D500 provides.
-I also find the D500 AF system with its wide AF point coverage MUCH better for fast BIF, insects in flight photography and overal action photography.
In Europe a new D810 + D500 is € 4500 while a D850 + grip and D5 battery + charger is € 5000.
Why I moved back from D850 to D810 + D500 in detail: From D850 back to D810 + D500 combo (http://www.nikonuser.info/fotoforum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=3512&sid=6b1a15ade7309a720e1df24b26b8802f)
Kindest regards,
Stany
-
Good afternoon!
Different than the OP and after 6 months with D850 I moved back to D810 + D500 because that combo pleases me more than D850 alone for several reasons.
summary:
Despite my initial D850' enthusiasm and after 6 months with D850 I sold it and went back to a new D810 + D500 set because ...
D850 vs D810
-I missed the PUF-flash commander system of my D810
-The extra 9 MP(D850 vs D810) is not such a big difference.
-My D800 and D810 auto focused perfectly with my 105 AF-S + 2xTC while my D850 did not.
-Compared to D810, D850 is a rather loud operating DSLR again. Not as loud D800 or D700 used to be, but much louder than D810 and significantly louder than D500. Birds and animals don't like that, people in church neither.
-Slightly related to the above, vibrations due to mirror Slap and Shutter Shock -which are much more present in D850 than in D810-, might cause more blur than with D810 while shooting handheld. I found my D850 images to be less sharp than what I get handheld with my D810, especially at relative slow shutter speeds. The D810 lack of vibration rules out the resolution advantage D850 should have.
While shooting in LV, D850 excels though...
-I miss the D850 tilting screen and the AF stick with D810, but I have those on my D500...
D850 vs D500:
-I find D500 a much better wildlife camera than D850.
10fps in a light and relative compact camera and much more comfortable viewfinder for long distance shooting. (1.5 factor vs D850'DX mode)
-TMHO, IQ of the D500 is significantly better than D850 in dx mode.
-I did not like the extra weight and bulkyness of a D850 + grip to get 1 fps LESS than the 10 fps that the relative compact and light D500 provides.
-I also find the D500 AF system with its wide AF point coverage MUCH better for fast BIF, insects in flight photography and overal action photography.
In Europe a new D810 + D500 is € 4500 while a D850 + grip and D5 battery + charger is € 5000.
Why I moved back from D850 to D810 + D500 in detail: From D850 back to D810 + D500 combo (http://www.nikonuser.info/fotoforum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=3512&sid=6b1a15ade7309a720e1df24b26b8802f)
Kindest regards,
Stany
This is an interesting post for me, because this is the exact wildlife setup I have: D810 + D500.
The only issue I have regarding what you said is, can't you switch the D850 to not involve the mirror ... or is it just loud regardless? (IMO, the D500 is unpleasantly-loud, compared to the D810, so if the D850 is louder than that, I could see this being a problem.)
When all is said and done, I agree, the D500 is wonderful wildlife camera and hard to beat, for all the reasons you state.
While many look down their noses at the D500, comparing the DxO (and other) stats to the D850/D5 ... they forget that all of these graphs, charts, comparisons and such compare image quality "filling the frame" with each camera!
The truth is, in real life situations (with wildlife not at a 'petting zoo'), you RARELY can fill the frame with either a D850, or a D5 ... even with a 600mm lens.
The reality is, it is always easier to 'fill the frame' with the D500.
So, if you are not filling your frame with an FX camera ... you're coming up short ... and so (for wildlife photography) all the charts/graphs you see in lab tests on FF cameras mean nothing, because your final image is a fraction of your camera's capability.
Alongside this reality, most people are cropping-in a bit, even with the D500, so if you're using a FF camera means you're coming up way short, and your results still will not match what the D500 can pull off.
The D500's superior AF coverage is another excellent point people are quick to forget ...
Anyway, I know there are instances where the D850 is going to shine (when you can fill the frame in really nice light) ... as well as instances where the D5 is going to shine (when you can fill the frame in low light). However, overall, the D500 will always have an advantage in being able to fill the frame ... which, at the end of the day, means (for wildlife) it will trump the other two more often than not.
-
Stany- the D810 is not completely lacked of vibration, but true, indeed - it is less then D850 produced, in my experience. That is an Achilles point of weakness, almost for all Nikons, even great F3 was suffering severely at 1/45-1/90. The rest - agree without any reservations, with understanding all of it could be completely subjective from my side, why not. LZ
-
I will just remove it.
-
I can't help but wish that posters actually knew the equipment they talk about. Am I missing something? I have taken many thousands of shots with the D850. My takeaway is that either folks don't know how to use the D850 or, worse, have never even laid a hand on one. It makes me want to give up such discussions altogether. It seems that threads no longer have any intention of staying on topic.
Michael,
Yes you are missing something ......if you read Stany's post he explains in detail why he has a preference for the D810 over the D850. He owned both cameras and wrote a very helpful post regarding his experience with them.
Your response seems quite rude.
Stany,
Thank you for your detailed post, I found it very interesting reading.
Cheers
-
I have little idea what some of the posters here are talking about. The D850 can be completely silent, which is how I use it and does not have to use use the mirror at all, so there are no vibrations or sound that I am aware of. It has sped up my work by two or three times, at least.
'Your work' is not the criteria anymore; wildlife photography is.
The topic is actually, "Forced back to the D810," which you call a downgrade (for your type of shooting), but for Stany's type of shooting it's an upgrade.
You claim the D850 is completely silent (which I mentioned) ... but is that when shot regularly for action ... or is it in Live View only (which is what you do)?
Big difference.
I can't help but wish that posters actually knew the equipment they talk about. Am I missing something? I have taken many thousands of shots with the D850. My takeaway is that either folks don't know how to use the D850 or, worse, have never even laid a hand on one. It makes me want to give up such discussions altogether. It seems that threads no longer have any intention of staying on topic.
It's not just this forum, but is ubiquitous. Often it seems like posters are filibustering to avoid buying the D850. Sorry folks, but not every opinion is considered... IMO. LOL.
"Your work" is not everyone's work, Michael.
Stany offered another view on "going back to the D810," in favor of the elder camera, for different reasons from yours: wildlife/action photography.
You can clearly see him agree with your criteria, "While shooting in LV, D850 excels though...", which is pretty much what you do. So he's agreeing with you, and for that matter, so am I.
My interest in the D850, over the D810, is precisely for macro, because the D810 has a terrible LCD compared to either the D500 or D850 (Live View).
Therefore, it's not that we 'don't know what we're talking about,' it's that you aren't seeing the shift in criteria.
No one is disputing the D850's supremacy, in perfect light, when you can ensure Live View and filling the frame (which, again, is what you do). But not everyone is exclusive to this type of photography, as you are.
The disparity in favor other camera options comes with regard to action photography ... where you need speed, AF coverage, and reach ... placed in that environment, the D850 comes up short in every regard, and is longer the best option.
So, it is actually not a topic digression for others to discuss why, for other applications/criteria, the D810/D500 might be the preferred choices.
-
To Jkoerner - what you said in Michael address is true, but partially. His work is among the most interesting I've ever seen, but it is his job and his gears. He is a real MASTER in what he is doing. So is his point of view. Stany is liking completely different things in photography, so his job is forming his preferences. You are liking 300/4 new lens, for exmp., and you do show us your great images. But your lens is not for me, I am happy with my 80-400G, because it carries great convenience for my kind of interest, as well as higher quality thru the zoom! So the 70mm macro is not "bad" for me, and I do not need 105mm macro, or anything else. Be logical, please! Thank you! LZ
-
Hi LZ, here is my response:
To Jkoerner - what you said in Michael address is true, but partially.
What I said was completely true.
The D850 is not 'the' absolute best Nikon choice for every type of photography.
It is excellent at everything, unsurpassed in optimal light/maximal pixel applications, but a distant third amongst current offerings for fast-action/wildlife.
His work is among the most interesting I've ever seen, but it is his job and his gears. He is a real MASTER in what he is doing. So is his point of view.
Your opinion.
I respect (and like) Michael and his work ... a lot :)
However, with more than a decade's experience with macro myself, I can emphatically tell you that stacking images of flowers is not the most difficult macro work to implement. The difference seen in vibration movements at 1:2 are negligible compared to movements at much greater magnifications.Try doing a 50-image stack of a rose in your home ... you'll find it stays still and "behaves" the whole time. Then try doing a 50-image stack, at 4:1, of a live spider ... who may move a palp, a leg, or otherwise 're-adjust itself' ... over and above camera/other vibration at that magnification ... and you'll see just how subtle tiny movements can affect an image. Oh, and then try to do "after-stack touch-ups" on the hundreds of bristly hairs many arthropods possess ... that may 'mis-align' for mechanical reasons and/or in conjunction with their own subtle movements ... and report back to me that level of difficulty compared to touching-up smooth flower/leaf edges of larger, immobile flowers @ 1:2 ;)
Stany is liking completely different things in photography, so his job is forming his preferences. You are liking 300/4 new lens, for exmp., and you do show us your great images. But your lens is not for me, I am happy with my 80-400G, because it carries great convenience for my kind of interest, as well as higher quality thru the zoom!
That was exactly my point: different applications demand different tools.
Michael's err was in reprimanding Stany (and me) based on his (Michael's) preferences, not on the preferences of Stany as a wildlife (not studio-stack) photographer.
There is actually universal agreement among all of us that, for Live View, critical, photography (in optimal light), the D850 is the preferred Nikon body to use.
However, for fast-action wildlife photography ... where speed, reach, low-light, as well as AF prowess (and coverage) can matter more than anything ... suddenly the D850 starts taking a back seat to other options. Stany also mentioned the D810's buttery shutter sound, compared to the clacking of the D850, affecting his ability to keep wildlife around. Totally different experiences/shooting needs between the two photographers. Thus, totally different preferences between the two cameras.
There are 3 things you're confusing: likes (preferences), facts, and applications.
Our preferences are our subjective biases; facts are inherent properties to the gear; while applications are our choices (intelligent or not) of how to apply the facts of various gear options to match our preferences.
Speaking of which, one fact you need to accept is that the 80-400 zoom is not a 'higher-quality' optic than the 300mm PF (or any other modern telephoto).
It may be your preference, and it may be convenient for your usage, but to call it 'higher quality' is in err of reality.
(Doesn't mean it can't produce beautiful images though ... which is a different subject.)
So the 70mm macro is not "bad" for me, and I do not need 105mm macro, or anything else.
I didn't say the 70mm macro is bad "for you"; I said it is pretty useless for wildlife. There is no wildlife photographer on earth whose mainstay is a 70mm lens.
Be logical, please! Thank you! LZ
With a degree in Philosophy from UCLA, of which logic is the major component, I am quite sure I have a handle on that ;)
That said, good shooting :)
-
I can't help but wish that posters actually knew the equipment they talk about. Am I missing something? I have taken many thousands of shots with the D850. My takeaway is that either folks don't know how to use the D850 or, worse, have never even laid a hand on one. It makes me want to give up such discussions altogether. It seems that threads no longer have any intention of staying on topic.
It's not just this forum, but is ubiquitous. Often it seems like posters are filibustering to avoid buying the D850. Sorry folks, but not every opinion is considered... IMO. LOL.
Pretty pathetic... ::)
About D850 vs D500:
Captured through the viewfinder of MY D850 ;D , the difference in view between D850 & D500:
(http://www.myphotogallery.name/D850/D500VF.JPG) (http://www.myphotogallery.name/D850/D850VF-DXcrop.jpg)
( Please notice that the first image(D500 viewfinder) is a simulation based on the image taken with my Phone though the D850 viewfinder.)
And how you see the AF point coverage in your viewfinder makes the big difference for me when you compare D850-DX mode vs D500 for wildlife photography (Sorry, under while the bird was gone...):
(http://www.myphotogallery.name/D850/D500-AFpointCoverage.jpg) (http://www.myphotogallery.name/D850/D850VF-DX-AFpointCoverage.jpg)
( Please notice that the first image(D500 viewfinder) is a simulation based on the image taken with my Phone though the D850 viewfinder.)
About Focus point coverage and the way you see it in your viewfinder, D500 beats D850 & D5 hands down.
About D810 vs D850...
What's wrong to prefer a build in flash commander system over a bulky accessory, even for a professional user?
What's wrong to like the advantages a PUF provides on certain occasions, even for a professional user?
A sample taken handheld with my "prehistoric" D800e & 105 + 2xTCIIIe combo and the mighty PUF:
A screenshot of the AF area as seen in NikonViewNX:
(http://www.myphotogallery.name/stany/20120630-macro_DSC140-FocusPoint.JPG)
And a 100% crop of the AF area:
(http://www.myphotogallery.name/stany/20120630-macro_DSC_0140-crop100.jpg)
My opinion about the D850 after more than 6 months shooting with it and approx 5500 images:
• The best camera Nikon offers until today for studio photography.
• The best camera Nikon offers until today for landscape photography.
• The best camera Nikon offers until today for LV photography.
• The best camera anybody offers at this moment for macro shooters who work with non moving subjects, intentionally undercooled or etherized insects, partly because of resolution and partly because of the stacking feature.
• If you don't mind bulkyness and weight, while used WITH the battery grip and D5 battery and in good light, the best "all in one" wildlife camera anybody offers at this moment
TMHO, there are much better options for high iso photography though:
A D750 if your budget is limited. (D750 blows away D810 at iso 3200+ ànd is significantly better than D850 from iso 3200 upwards).
A D4s or D5 if you don't mind weight or price.
TMHO D500, -while used in good light-, is a MUCH better action camera because of the viewfinder & AF point coverage differences as mentioned above ànd -of course-, because of native 10 fps ànd 200 NEF buffer.
For people like me who prefer D810 in a combination with D500 over D850 because of the benefits it provides for my kind of photography, a very good friend of mine who is a professional photographer and teacher wrote me the following:
"The good thing about the D850? It reduced the price on the D810!
The D810 is good enough for 99.99% of the photographers out there!"
For the future though, with a Nikon FX mirrorless in my mind and if it will be as I would like it to be:
• with F mount or "in-house" Nikon F mount adaptor,
• with streaming magnification possibility in your viewfinder,
• with PUF and flash commander on board,
• even more resolution than D850 actually provide (75MP?)
• with very wide AF point coverage in viewfinder, like Sony pro FX cams.
• .....
..., D500, D810 ànd D850 might become obsolete, and probably even sooner as we expect.
Just my thoughts...
Kindest regards to everybody!
Stany
-
My D800 and D810 auto focused perfectly with my 105 AF-S + 2xTC while my D850 did not.
It seems the Multi-CAM 20k is optimized for fast lenses. If I recall correctly autofocus with 105 AF-S with converters is not promised to work.
Compared to D810, D850 is a rather loud operating DSLR again.
I agree; the D810 has a pleasing, soft sound even in S mode, whereas the D850 S mode sound is crispier; however, in Qc mode the D850 is quiet enough in my experience and this works well when photographing in situations where the camera sound might create a distraction. I use Qc instead of Q because the latter creates two sounds, but I don't hold the shutter button long enough in Qc to get the second exposure.
vibrations due to mirror Slap and Shutter Shock -which are much more present in D850 than in D810-, might cause more blur than with D810 while shooting handheld. I found my D850 images to be less sharp than what I get handheld with my D810, especially at relative slow shutter speeds. The D810 lack of vibration rules out the resolution advantage D850 should have.
This is strange, the D850 has a counterbalanced shutter specifically designed to minimize vibration. The D810 mirror movement is slower than the D850, the faster movement is necessary to make it possible to get high frame rates with good viewfinder visibility and AF. The D850 mirror might introduce more vibration than the D810's mirror but the shutter in the D850 should introduce less vibration than the D810's shutter. Furthermore the EFCS is available in the D850's Q and Qc modes which in my experience can dramatically improve hand-held sharpness at slow-ish speeds (i.e. 1/50s, 1/80s). Furthermore the mirror movement is slowed down in Qc mode so it should lead to less mirror-induced vibration compared to S mode.
So for vibration I find the D850 to be better especially with lenses such as the 300 PF in Qc mode (with EFCS on), but I no longer have the D810 to compare mechanical shutter vibration between the two (in S mode). Any vibration issues I might have in S mode, Qc seems to rectify and I'm extremely happy with this aspect of the camera. Of course Qc has a slight delay compared to S mode but this delay is necessary to get the benefits in reducing vibration and I find that they've made an excellent compromise which still permits normal viewfinder use while activating the EFCS.
As for the sound of the camera, I admit the D810 was more pleasing in S mode and this characteristic of the camera fell victim to the necessity to provide higher frame rates and better AF tracking (shorter mirror blackout) which are saleable features. I think the D810 remains a classic but the AF improvements in the D850 are dramatic enough when used with fast lenses that the ugrade was worth it for me. And the EFCS in Qc mode is critical improvement for those situations I might want to use the 300 PF indoors at slowish speeds (in event photography, I felt D810 results with the 300 PF were a bit lacking in crispness at intermediate speeds though not bad, just not as crisp as the lens is capable of). Also for indoor architectural details I intend to use the 300 PF with the D850 in quiet continuous mode. For wildlife it might not be fast enough depending on how far ahead the photographer can predict the subject's behaviour in the immediate future. However if observing slow-speed softness with the 300 PF hand held, I would immediately recommend trying the Qc (EFCS ON) in the D850, provided it is available. You might be surprised with the improvement in outcome.
D500, D810 ànd D850 might become obsolete, and probably even sooner as we expect.
If this happens then the majority of autofocus lenses become obsolete too. I don't believe it is possible to implement competive AF with a mirrorless camera using screwdrive or most AF-S lenses; AF-P lenses are likely to work though. Furthermore there is the issue of optimizing the PDAF sensors for the exit pupil distance which means a mirrorless with a short flange distance will likely not focus as well with off-center points using F mount AF lenses than a DSLR will, though I suppose they can try to make a compromise.
Finally on-sensor PDAF points seem to cause banding in highlights if we are to believe dpreview's report.
https://www.dpreview.com/samples/9120111657/sony-a7-iii-sample-gallery
"In a couple of the photos you may notice striping, a problem we've found common to all cameras with masked phase detect AF pixels when shot a certain way: with very fast lenses wide open pointed directly at bright light sources to purposefully induce flare (e.g. here and here)."
If you look at the fifth image the highlights in the right top corner show this kind of banding. IMO this would be a major complaint if it occurred in a high end Nikon camera.
I do not find EVFs acceptable for my own use due to the artifacts (jaggies around high contrast edges, flickering) which compromise my shooting enjoyment and ability to focus on the subject's subtle emotional cues which permit me to select the right time for the shots, and also lead to reduced battery life and may in contrasty light show blocked shadows etc. An EVF is simply not an option I would be willing to consider because of these issues, and thus I am likely to stay with DSLRs as long as I live. I can't believe that there aren't others who are not similarly bothered by the EVF and thus I don't believe the DSLR will be universally replaced by mirrorless cameras.
I fully agree that the D5 and D500 are more practical to use for action photography because of the larger buffers, higher frame rates, more practical file sizes but the D850 does permit greater flexibility in post-process cropping than the other two. I consider this a "reserve zoom" feature and sometimes it is very practical. On my desktop, editing 45MP NEFs is not so much an issue, but on my laptop it is a royal pain to have to go through high frame rate captures with 45MP originals. I guess this is a problem that eventually goes away, but I generally avoid high frame rate shooting and prefer single shots where possible, to avoid accumulation of unnecessary data on my hard drives. Still, I do think that many people will find the flexibility of working with large files a valuable feature. I have a bit mixed feelings about it.
Finally regarding the use of a flash as a commander, there are many problems with this approach. First, the sync flash is included in the exposure and it can cause light pollution from the commander even when the flash output is set to zero. Second, the pop-up has a long recycle time which means one can not take fast paced shots which I find to be necessary in group shots when there are kids in the shot each image is different and I've had dismal failures trying to use the pop-up to trigger remotes in this case. Timing shots with the pop-up as commander also is difficult because of the increased delay from shutter button press to actual exposure. I find it is much better to use an SU-800 as optical commander (no visible light pollution, much faster recycle and less shutter delay) or the radio system in the new Nikons. I welcome the absence of the pop-up flash in the D850 and am very happy that they left it out, permitting the increased viewfinder size and free shift and rotatory movement of the 24mm PC. In fact now all my Nikons are free of the pop-up flash. For me they are more valuable this way.
-
I don't understand these colour comments ..if you do raw then the colour is up to you ...I have mixed D7100 D800 and D810 at weddings in JPEG and you cannot tell the difference between the shots ...???
-
I don't understand these colour comments ..if you do raw then the colour is up to you ...I have mixed D7100 D800 and D810 at weddings in JPEG and you cannot tell the difference between the shots ...???
The color character of a recording chip is a highly non linear feature with a kind of auto masking effect one cannot easily imitate in post if at all. Combined with the Exspeed 5 capabilites of analysing and optimising the recording chip's output (D5, D500, D850, I guess even in RAW) the situation gets even more complex. In the Exspeed 4 and earlier times the WB situation was much less satisfying, in mixed light with an orange or green "smear" all over the frame that was next to unfilterable.
The Israeli / Toshiba / Nikon / Sony design of the unique D850 recording chip creates unmatched color quality at base ISO. I have never seen such a color fidelity and differentiation undisturbed by any formerly known WB issues and combined with unmatched AF accuracy with fast and ultrafast optics.
That is the little difference of the D850 to the D500. If you want that and need that, get the D850. She deserves to be a bestselling camera.
-
Frank.....does that mean that if I use a D810 alongside a D850 in JPEG that the colour of the D850 will not match the D810?
I have no interest in shooting RAW
-
Frank.....does that mean that if I use a D810 alongside a D850 in JPEG that the colour of the D850 will not match the D810?
I have no interest in shooting RAW
I'm not Frank, but I'll be frank and say: there is a very definite difference between the D810 and the D850, whether you use raw or JPG. The D850 is WAY better IMO.
-
I'm not Frank, but I'll be frank and say: there is a very definite difference between the D810 and the D850, whether you use raw or JPG. The D850 is WAY better IMO.
+1
-
I have no interest in shooting RAW
Then go, use you phone.
... joke ...
I shoot JPEG & RAW and if I am not happy with the JPEG for some reason I roll my own JPEG!
The RAW is what gives you full access to the camera. If the Chip produces 14 Bit RAW file information and you throw away everything but 8 Bit, you waste your money on these cameras.
-
If I shoot 1500 pics at a wedding with 3 cameras I cannot have the pics from one looking different to the others....if that is what you are saying ....another reason to stick with my trio of D810...I am not going to buy problems ...
-
If I shoot 1500 pics at a wedding with 3 cameras I cannot have the pics from one looking different to the others....if that is what you are saying ....another reason to stick with my trio of D810...I am not going to buy problems ...
You can wrestle them in post to look the same, but it is a PITA.
-
I received my Nikon D850 back from repair. I'm so happy to see it. The D850 really is an exceptional camera, one I got used to so quickly that when it was gone it was difficult to revert to the D810. I had felt the D810 and D850 were kind of the same until the D850 was gone. Then I found out how spoiled I had become.
It took so long because Nikon repair had to wait for parts, which took weeks. This after originally promising to return it in 7-10 days. Apparently, they break the camera down for repair and could not return it to me while waiting for parts. Anyway, the D850 is back. I, for one, am grateful for what superb cameras Nikon is capable of producing. I have had, in the last two years, the Sony X1D, Fuji GFX, Pentax K3 and K1, sony A7R2 and A7R3 cameras and, IMO, none of them touch the D850. Probably just me, but that's how I experience it.
-
If I shoot 1500 pics at a wedding with 3 cameras I cannot have the pics from one looking different to the others....if that is what you are saying ....another reason to stick with my trio of D810...I am not going to buy problems ...
No problem to gain visual consistency if you stick to one generation of camera. So if you choose said three cameras from the collection of D500, D5 and D850 (All EXSPEED 5) you will be more than happy. On events I do not even use my display anymore: D500 and D850 are as reliable and consistent as my D3 was or my F4.