bvphotos wrote:
Where was this? Indian Kargil or over the border in Pakistan?
The girls picture was taken right before we got to Kargil and the second picture was in the market in Kargil. I was on a trip from Srinagar to Kargil, Zanskar and Leh.
Great shots in here. However, I don't see anything different from what a DSLR like the Nikon D810/850 with good primes will produce (DR, DOF, overall look of image).
Daan B wrote:
Great shots in here. However, I don't see anything different from what a DSLR like the Nikon D810/850 with good primes will produce (DR, DOF, overall look of image).
We're on the internet...
If a shot is exposed and processed well, you probably couldn't tell a huge difference between FF and APS-C on the internet at these sizes. That's not normally why people buy MF gear
Daan B wrote:
Great shots in here. However, I don't see anything different from what a DSLR like the Nikon D810/850 with good primes will produce (DR, DOF, overall look of image).
If a shot is exposed and processed well, you probably couldn't tell a huge difference between FF and APS-C on the internet at these sizes. That's not normally why people buy MF gear
Why do people normally buy a 50MP MF instead of a 50MP DSLR? Please elaborate me. For example, if I look at the GFX5-0 vs D810 comparisons I fail to see a big difference. In some I even prefer the D810 shots. Or do the images need to be printed big for any big difference to show up?
Daan B wrote:
Why do people normally buy a 50MP MF instead of a 50MP DSLR? Please elaborate me. For example, if I look at the GFX5-0 vs D810 comparisons I fail to see a big difference. In some I even prefer the D810 shots. Or do the images need to be printed big for any big difference to show up?
One reason is people may crop down to 4:3 a lot and prefer a native 4:3 sensor. The D850 is looking pretty awesome with the D5/D500's AF so that's a pretty well rounded and full featured system Nikon has put out. Really would come down to individual photographer needs. I don't think MF gear has been the normal choice for photographers for several decades at least however.
Daan B wrote:
Why do people normally buy a 50MP MF instead of a 50MP DSLR? Please elaborate me. For example, if I look at the GFX5-0 vs D810 comparisons I fail to see a big difference. In some I even prefer the D810 shots. Or do the images need to be printed big for any big difference to show up?
Independent of resolution, some people buy a MF body instead of a 35mm full frame DSLR for the same reason that some people buy a 35mm full frame DSLR over an APS-C DSLR.
Of course the systems are rather different (MF mirrorless vs FF DSLR). Especially considering features like AF, performance and so on. Plus the Fuji can take all kinds of glass. That is a given and not the point I am trying to make.
I would expect to see a difference in tonality, DR and noise.
The DR and tonality of the D810/850 is already awesome at ISO64. I doubt the Fuji will be much better. It isn't what I am seeing anyway. And online reviews seem to agree with this.
Maybe the high ISO noise is better on the Fuji? Difference between APS-C and FF is usually about one stop. I doubt the Fuji will be one stop better at high ISO than the D850.
Well, if someone could prove otherwise, please do. I have nothing against the Fuji. I was considering one myself. But it is 2 tot 3 times as expensive as the D850, but not 2 to 3 times better (or different) in file output. With that in mind, it seems not logical to prefer the Fuji over the Nikon. YMMV of course.
