D850 and the need for faster shutter speed (?)

[Jack Dahlgren]

Thank you, Akira 🙂.

Seems to me that you «all» agree in using higher shutter speed than 1/FL 😊.

Still learning, so I really appreciate your advice/effort.

I really don’t like these sorts of “rules”. Use what you need to to get what you want. In strong light with modern cameras it is easy to shoot at 0.5/FL so why not. But in low light you have to trade something to get that. Maybe it means more noise or less sharpness. In those cases it is often best just to brace yourself and leave that sort of rule behind.

[Frank Fremerey]

Thank you, Frank 🙂.

What’s your experience regarding D850 and Color at higher iso (like iso 6400)? I’ve read somewhere that it’s impressive even at higher iso values.

Your experience regarding the need of higher shutter speed seems to be the correct procedure.

My kind of photographing includes:

kids in movement - ordinary family pictures (often handheld)
Portraits - both non-/controlled situations (both tripod/handheld).
Football (soccer) - monopod/tripod.
Raptor like golden eagles (sometimes in good light, but often dusk/dawn) - tripod.

All of these call for the D500, not the D850. Why?

The D500 ist fast enough for sports like indoor soccer.

Her color rendition changes not much from ISO100 to ISO20.000, it only "grays out" or fades.

The D850 will at higher ISO setting deliver an ugly amount of chrominance noise that is non existent in the D5/D500 or easily to be filtered in a batch.

20.000 ISO action? D500
20.000 ISO max details with a lot of post processing or black an white? D850

Shooting children and sports you sure want to save on individual file therapy ...

If you are not on a budget and can live with the ugly and pitching sound of the D5, go for her. I was floored with her color rendition and detail clarity up to ISO 100.000 (shooting a theatrical performance in next to no light). Terrific piece of hardware!!!!

In all other cases go for a D500 or two with the original Nikon grip. Next to silent operation even at Ch compared to the gripped D850 and the D5.

[Frank Fremerey]

PS: concerning the opening post, think that 22mp on the D5 are distributed much wider than they are on the D500.

So. FL factor is significantly lower than it is with the D500/D850 which feature the same pixel density.

Carrying equipment like the D5 and the 400FL you do not plan to apply a sloppy technique, do you?

[Frank Fremerey]

PPS: FL factor for me means: the minimum speed that allows me to fully utilize the technical advantage of a hardware development. In sports or birding the minimum speed is dictated by the amount of motion blur you are ready to accept. A decicive football goal should not be shot at 1/30 of a second or 1/2, even if the grass appears much greener and more detailed due to base ISO and f=5.6 or 8.0 ...

For sports the no compromise tool is the D5

[CS]

I really don’t like these sorts of “rules”. Use what you need to to get what you want. In strong light with modern cameras it is easy to shoot at 0.5/FL so why not. But in low light you have to trade something to get that. Maybe it means more noise or less sharpness. In those cases it is often best just to brace yourself and leave that sort of rule behind.

+1

[the solitaire]

I really don’t like these sorts of “rules”. Use what you need to to get what you want. In strong light with modern cameras it is easy to shoot at 0.5/FL so why not. But in low light you have to trade something to get that. Maybe it means more noise or less sharpness. In those cases it is often best just to brace yourself and leave that sort of rule behind.

Even though none of the other statements in this thread is incorrect, I do agree that in photography, rules are there to be broken more then anything. To me, photography is a creative process. I have a certain rudimentary interest in technology, but only so far as that I understand what is going on when things are not going the way I want them to.

For everything else, the technology involved is of secondary interest only to the image results. In short, that means a tripod would prevent me from getting a photo more often then aid me in any way. Having to focus on shutter speeds would get in my way. I use the optimum I can get, but if that optimum required for correct exposure is longer then 1/FL, then that is the way it is. I take the photo rather then having to come back with a light setup.

I guess everyones needs and requirements are different however, and that is what makes it so nice to see other peoples takes on photography and the results they get, and compare them to your own.

My girlfriend uses a D800, never touched a tripod in her life, and gets results that, in my eyes, are good enough to sell. She also doesn't worry to much about this 1/FL rule. Just occasionally wonders why none of her images are completely sharp when viewed at 100%, only to find out during PP that the shutter speeds were abominally long (sunset photos at ISO 1600 and shutter speeds of 1/320th or slower on fast moving subjects for example)

[Ilkka Nissilä]

One just needs to be aware of the impact of the exposure time on the resulting images and make an educated choice. I generally err on the side of fast shutter speed when photographing moving subjects and can do that because of the wide apertures I use. If I wanted more depth of field then I would probably have to accept a bit longer exposures at times. For landscape I typically go for everything in focus and use a tripod and all the tricks of the trade for that. Exposures can be long (1/15s to several seconds).