D850 frame rate vs buffer

[Frode]

A high resolution camera with high fps can be useful for sports photography as well as wildlife.  If the buffer is small, this dampens the practical value of the concept of having high resolution and high speed in one camera. Thankfully it seems with 12-bit NEFs it is sufficient for most purposes.

I give an example. I often shoot figure skating. To keep ISO moderate, shutter speed high (the skaters can spin very fast), my first choice is the 200/2 provided that I'm shooting from a position close to the ice. At f/2, especially if the skater is close to filling the frame, I get a nice ethereal blur of the background and avoid excessive disturbance from backgrounds but still it is recognizable that there are spectators, judges etc. in the background. Sometimes the skater's arms and legs are extended like this

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/36953629383/in/dateposted-public/

and sometimes the skater is small

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/37575916146/in/dateposted-public/

I need to crop the image to accommodate for these variations (and different distances). I don't have enough space to use a supertelephoto zoom like the 200-400 (nor do I own one) and that would push me from ISO 1600 to 6400.  So the option offered by a high resolution camera such as the D850 is attractive. It would allow me to crop from the images from the prime and have a bit more detailed images than if cropping from D5 images.

Is high fps for extended times necessary? No, it is not, I mostly shoot single shots but if I want to get jump sequences of a particular skater

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/30275677831/in/dateposted-public/

then yes, high fps can be very useful and the sequence can last several seconds. In fact there are quite many occasions where one might use high fps, though I'm not a big fan of such an approach I recognize that sometimes it's necessary.

As for how much gain there is from shooting with a high resolution camera vs. intermediate resolution in such applications, well, it's to be determined, I feel the details in the dress seem more crisply defined with smoother transitions when using the D810 than when using the D5. However, on the other hand the D5 images are less noisy at high ISO.

In many action situations when working with a prime lens you may find the subject changing distance and the photographer is unable to compensate, so there is cropping in post-processing to get the best final compositions.  And even with a zoom lens you still want some space around the subject to give some margin of error. The fastest focusing and highest quality supertelephoto lenses are still primes. 

Of course there is the disadvantage of large quantity of data that results from high fps capture of high resolution images. However, one might use such technique only for a particular athlete of special interest and then the quantity of data would probably not be an issue. The other issue is balancing between SNR and resolution; at low to medium ISO there is no question high resolution cameras can give more detailed images. At high ISO the extra details may or may not show from the noise, and this is something interesting to see from D850 images. Focus accuracy can also play an important role in the outcome.

Generally I find 20-24MP is well suited to my photography, even though I recognize more detailed images can be obtained using higher resolution sensors; I spend too much time editing and want to reduce that time. However, if the goal is the best possible quality in a specific task then I wouldn't be surprised if the D850 came out ahead in many cases.

Without doubt. However, I believe the majority of photographers prefer to have the option of a smaller camerawhen the grip is not needed. I personally use the D810 without grip when I'm shooting landscape etc. but mount the grip usually when photographing people as I typically shoot a lot of verticals with telephoto lenses. However, if I am tight for bag space and especially if it is the second camera I might leave it without the grip.

Nice images!

My experience with the D810 vs D4s was that D810 needed faster shutterspeed (therefore higher iso) in order to get sharp images. Especially handheld. Might also be the same with D850?

[RoyC]

question to those who have the grip: which batteries work?

original 18; 18a; 18b; replacements: which?

All of them work.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Yes, I just tested - twice - panning against moderate clutter (vegetation). 86 frames in Medium RAW (25.6 M) before a noticeable pause. But I did not change the file depth so I presume this is at 14bit (?)

Medium and small raws are 12-bit lossless compressed.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

@Ilkka: I love your work, shown on the linked images! When I see these exceptional moments I ask: What is the burn rate? Do you need 30 shots to get one of those or is it more in the 10 shots arera?

Thanks.

I edit and keep about 5-10% of figure skating images that I shoot.  I seem to print and/or upload roughly 3% for public viewing.

A large proportion of the rejects are when the subject is just too far away (I try not to shoot when the subject would require 3x crop but sometimes get caught up in the action and keep shooting).  1-2x crop is what I aim for because then there is still some margin for error and the image quality is still very good. Of course it is nice to get a frame filling image but the risk of limb(s) being cropped off is very high in such cases as the subject can move very fast.

Faster shutter speeds are a good idea if you want high resolution images of action. I typically shoot figure skating at 1/1250 to 1/1600s; if I really wanted to emphasize sharpness I might even want to go faster for some parts but for me it's easier to keep fixed exposure settings so there is no risk of error there.  For ice dance and pairs I usually drop the shutter speed a bit to gain some depth of field and to be able to use different focal lengths (since there are two skaters, the magnification of movement is lower and the shutter speed is not as critical as it is with close-ups of a solo skater).

[Frank Fremerey]

Nice images!

My experience with the D810 vs D4s was that D810 needed faster shutterspeed (therefore higher iso) in order to get sharp images. Especially handheld. Might also be the same with D850?

the d500 and the d850 have the same pixel density so shutter speed to freeze blur is the same with the same lens.

One needs to test the requirements for the kind of sports you shoot and there is always a trade off.

Maybe the 1.4/105 on a D500 serves figure skating better than the D5 with 2.0/200 in some situations? Maybe it is best to have both?

[Frank Fremerey]

All of them work.

thank you

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Maybe the 1.4/105 on a D500 serves figure skating better than the D5 with 2.0/200 in some situations? Maybe it is best to have both?

I don't have a D500 to test. In the past I didn't get good results with DX on figure skating.

[Ethan]

1) Regarding the buffer depth it is clear that a huge one is only needed in rare cases, 10 Frames is enough for next to any real world situation. I am with you here.

2) What is a PF A1???

PF A1 is the new Profoto On/Off Camera flash.
It offers lot of versatility with the promise of Soft Light using the dedicated Light Modifiers. The LED modeling light is an exiting new feature as well as recycling time.
There is a lot at stake specially how it handles the Thermal cut out. The A1 is ideal to use with the B1 as rim light or whatever one wishes to do with it.
You can check it out here:

https://profoto.com/ca/a1

If all good, I am getting a couple, instead of the 910, when the product is released for sale next month.

[Ethan]

A high resolution camera with high fps can be useful for sports photography as well as wildlife.  If the buffer is small, this dampens the practical value of the concept of having high resolution and high speed in one camera. Thankfully it seems with 12-bit NEFs it is sufficient for most purposes.

I give an example. I often shoot figure skating. To keep ISO moderate, shutter speed high (the skaters can spin very fast), my first choice is the 200/2 provided that I'm shooting from a position close to the ice. At f/2, especially if the skater is close to filling the frame, I get a nice ethereal blur of the background and avoid excessive disturbance from backgrounds but still it is recognizable that there are spectators, judges etc. in the background. Sometimes the skater's arms and legs are extended like this

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/36953629383/in/dateposted-public/

and sometimes the skater is small

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/37575916146/in/dateposted-public/

I need to crop the image to accommodate for these variations (and different distances). I don't have enough space to use a supertelephoto zoom like the 200-400 (nor do I own one) and that would push me from ISO 1600 to 6400.  So the option offered by a high resolution camera such as the D850 is attractive. It would allow me to crop from the images from the prime and have a bit more detailed images than if cropping from D5 images.

Is high fps for extended times necessary? No, it is not, I mostly shoot single shots but if I want to get jump sequences of a particular skater

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/30275677831/in/dateposted-public/

then yes, high fps can be very useful and the sequence can last several seconds. In fact there are quite many occasions where one might use high fps, though I'm not a big fan of such an approach I recognize that sometimes it's necessary.

As for how much gain there is from shooting with a high resolution camera vs. intermediate resolution in such applications, well, it's to be determined, I feel the details in the dress seem more crisply defined with smoother transitions when using the D810 than when using the D5. However, on the other hand the D5 images are less noisy at high ISO.

In many action situations when working with a prime lens you may find the subject changing distance and the photographer is unable to compensate, so there is cropping in post-processing to get the best final compositions.  And even with a zoom lens you still want some space around the subject to give some margin of error. The fastest focusing and highest quality supertelephoto lenses are still primes. 

Of course there is the disadvantage of large quantity of data that results from high fps capture of high resolution images. However, one might use such technique only for a particular athlete of special interest and then the quantity of data would probably not be an issue. The other issue is balancing between SNR and resolution; at low to medium ISO there is no question high resolution cameras can give more detailed images. At high ISO the extra details may or may not show from the noise, and this is something interesting to see from D850 images. Focus accuracy can also play an important role in the outcome.

Generally I find 20-24MP is well suited to my photography, even though I recognize more detailed images can be obtained using higher resolution sensors; I spend too much time editing and want to reduce that time. However, if the goal is the best possible quality in a specific task then I wouldn't be surprised if the D850 came out ahead in many cases.

Without doubt. However, I believe the majority of photographers prefer to have the option of a smaller camerawhen the grip is not needed. I personally use the D810 without grip when I'm shooting landscape etc. but mount the grip usually when photographing people as I typically shoot a lot of verticals with telephoto lenses. However, if I am tight for bag space and especially if it is the second camera I might leave it without the grip.

I read carefully your write up.

My experience is based on camera to subject distance where the subject is moving across a large distance at speed parallel to the camera. This is where I need a big Buffer.

When the subject is nearer to the camera and the movements are limited and enclosed in an imaginary "sphere" like for a Ballerina or a Dancer or a person with head and torso and arms movement, I am satisfied with a fast shutter speed and limited buffer of a dozen images.

A large Buffer for me brings more trouble than needed.

I do appreciate that each person has a different type/style of photography and that's fine by me.

[Ethan]

Nice images!

My experience with the D810 vs D4s was that D810 needed faster shutterspeed (therefore higher iso) in order to get sharp images. Especially handheld. Might also be the same with D850?

Yes, the D850 needs a higher shutter speed.

[golunvolo]

When the subject is nearer to the camera and the movements are limited and enclosed in an imaginary "sphere" like for a Ballerina or a Dancer or a person with head and torso and arms movement, I am satisfied with a fast shutter speed and limited buffer of a dozen images.

A large Buffer for me brings more trouble than needed.

I do appreciate that each person has a different type/style of photography and that's fine by me.

   Ethan, I personally just got to now the benefits of 10 fps with the d500 and large buffer. I can understand the trouble of a small buffer but not that of a large one, care to elaborate?
   Also, in general, I have heard about the need for faster shutter speed with denser sensors. Again, the d500 is close to the d850 in that regard but I haven´t felt the need for a faster shutter speed or at least not a big difference. It is more delicate with the d3300 or d5300 for that matter.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

1,5x shutter speed should do it (going from 20MP FX to 45MP FX) as long as we are talking about subject movement blur and not some special effect such as shutter vibration.

The D850 has a counterbalanced shutter so shots at those critical shutter speeds where shutter vibration had an appreciable effect on image detail with a given lens are likely to be sharper than with older cameras.

[Ethan]

   Ethan, I personally just got to now the benefits of 10 fps with the d500 and large buffer. I can understand the trouble of a small buffer but not that of a large one, care to elaborate?
   Also, in general, I have heard about the need for faster shutter speed with denser sensors. Again, the d500 is close to the d850 in that regard but I haven´t felt the need for a faster shutter speed or at least not a big difference. It is more delicate with the d3300 or d5300 for that matter.

1- As I said earlier, it is your shooting type and requirement.

When you are shooting with a deep buffer, there must be a reason for doing so. Usually, it is because you cannot control the exact moment which you need to capture and therefore it is a gun and run type of shoot. Whether a fast sport or BIF or whatever.
There is nothing wrong with that but it is not my style and idea of photography. I like to control the event unfolding in front of me and I get Extremely frustrated when the buffer fills up and you are back to slow mode and miss the shot that you wanted. In which case shoot 6k or 8k or whatever k video and antialias the frame and use it. But, this is not photography per se.

So the first issue with deep buffer is lost of control.
The second issue is dealing with enormous files in post.

I have a pet peeve of so called professionals who teach photography or Lighting and they try this and that until they get to the correct lighting.
It simply means that they do not have enough experience to achieve what they want.
Coming from a video and film background, we just ask for a particular lighting and it takes few seconds or minutes for the DoP to deliver. That's what is pro sh!!!t.

With all due respect to everybody, if you need to fill your buffer once in a blue moon is fine with me. If you need to fill your buffer continuously then you have no clue of what you doing and better buy a video camera.

2- I have no idea about denser sensors and shutter speed. What I know from experience is the higher the res of cameras and the higher shutter speed needed to achieve sharpness or should I say proper focus.
Add to that a fast lens and you gonna need the fastest shutter speed you can master.
Denser sensor or not is not in my realm of photography knowledge.
My knowledge is very limited to no bullshit. A camera and a shutter speed + Aperture + ISO. It is pretty simple really. It is called a compromise between the camera trinity and as with all compromise, there is a price to pay. You want low noise or you want to capture the image. Which are you willing to compromise.
Your shot, your call.

I want the image, and if there is no noise, no problem, I will add it in post   

[Frank Fremerey]

I heared the best way to shoot basket ball action at the critical movements you want to capture is 1/350 s
Ilkka shoots his figure scaters that seem to move faster at 1/1250 to 1/1600s
My understanding is that every sport requires its own critical shutter speed with respect to the movement.

The pair dance is not so great at f/1.4 or f/2.0 because only one of the faces is sharp and the other is not blurred enough to make is look intentional, so f/2.8 or f/4.0 are required which means higher ISO or flash if possible in the situation....

Is that understanding correct?

[David H. Hartman]

Nice images!

My experience with the D810 vs D4s was that D810 needed faster shutterspeed (therefore higher iso) in order to get sharp images. Especially handheld. Might also be the same with D850?

If you pixel peep which is normally done for sharpening and noise control it's much easier to see any faults in technique or optics. The D850 should be a bit more difficult in this respect compared to the D810.

This is pixel peeping isn't really new. In the days of film if you made your own prints and use a heavy 10x grain focuser you were grain peeping. It's just that now many more people do it. When making an 8x print and focusing with a high quality 10x grain focuser I was looking at the negative much like I was using a 80x microscope. I could see the difference on Tri-X, hand held when I shot a 50/1.8 AI at 1/1,000th f/5.6 v. 1/250 f/11. The difference was also visible in an 8x10" print and more so in an 11x14" print. Why? Right lens, right aperture and the top shutter speed on my Nikon EL2 which compensated for not shooting from a tripod.

The difference if shooting from a tripod with Plus-X and more so with Tech Pan was more visible but Tri-X offered more than most knew. Two things that were really important were don't shoot at the smallest aperture as it's not as sharp as mid apertures and do buy the best enlarging lens. It was a waste to buy fine taking lenses and an economy enlarging lens. That economy enlarging lens would limit all of one's best taking lenses.

The more things change the more they stay the same. There is one exception that comes to mind and that's moiré. With the random grain structure of film moiré wasn't a problem.

Dave Hartman

There are frequently other considerations that are more important than ultimate sharpness. One should not be a slave to high shutter speeds or a tripod or shooting at the sweet spot of a lens.