Barring any QC problems, the Nikon D850 looks like an awesome camera.
I use my Canon gear almost exclusively for bird photography and part of me can't help but ponder a switch from my 1DX, 5D IV and 500/4 IS II to a D850 with grip and Nikon 500mm. I'd lose some speed but gain a ton of resolution and thus reach.
I'd miss the Canon 100-400mm and 135L, though. No comparable Nikon equivalents as far as I know.
Yes, I've been eyeing the D850 since the solid rumours started. I already have a D500 and 200-500 so I've been initiated into the club....sort of
However, for me to make the D850 worth it I do want the 9FPS. But that requires buying a battery grip, D5 battery and D5 charger. In Canada it starts to get very expensive to buy all that. For now, I've decided to wait it out and see if I can use aftermarket grip (unlikely) and/or aftermarket D5 batteries and charger (more likely).
I was considering getting a Nikon or Sigma 500/4 to go with it and the 300PF in addition to my 200-500.
I wouldn't be making an entire switch if I did this but I would be selling some large Canon glass to make it feasible. Also would sell 1DX and maybe 5D4.
It does look good and Nikon have certainly made a progress with their new light FL super-telephoto lenses that are now finally competitive with Canon series II lenses in weight and optics. But until Nikon can fix their TC's that are quite soft and lacking compared to Canon's I would just put a 1.4X III on my 600II and that will give me 59 M pixels of reach on my 5D4 compared to a bare lens, tack sharp with fast AF. I can even quadrople my 1DXII reach to 80 MPixels! compared to a bare lens by putting a 2XIII on my 600 II and still get a tack sharp frame of a KF in flight in low light at 1200mm. With Nikon you are stuck with bare lens and their lens lineup is still not as good Canon. They have nothing that can compare with my 400DOII for example and if Canon come out with a 600 DO game will be over for a while.
A few months back I had an opportunity to shoot with a Nikon D5 and 600FL, I compared it to my 1DXII and 600II, while it was significantly better than the Nikon's I had tried in the past and I made some good frame with it, I can't say I was impressed with the results.
Usually switching systems (either side) is a waste of money and will not make you a better photographer.
It's tempting but I still want to see what a Canon 7D3 has to offer and I want to see if Sony offers an A9R with higher frame rates. I'm in a holding pattern at the moment. Going Nikon means a wholesale switch for me with a sizable loss of money to get equivalent gear. Going to Sony I get to use adapters but have to struggle with atrocious ergonomics.
It sucks. There's a bunch of features/specs out there that I want but the compromises to get them are too high.
I appreciate the advancements Nikon has made but I honestly have no interest in switching systems. Maybe that's because I'm getting old, but it's a big hassle and given my shooting preferences I don't think 2 or 50 extra stops of DR would dramatically change my results. In some situations that I don't shoot in often the Nikon could do better, but for the time being I'll continue using my lousy 1DX and 5DSR. YMMV
dmcphoto wrote:
I appreciate the advancements Nikon has made but I honestly have no interest in switching systems. Maybe that's because I'm getting old, but it's a big hassle and given my shooting preferences I don't think 2 or 50 extra stops of DR would dramatically change my results. In some situations that I don't shoot in often the Nikon could do better, but for the time being I'll continue using my lousy 1DX and 5DSR. YMMV
Couldn't agree more. Sure is terrible to own and use such horrible cameras.
johnvanr wrote: Barring any QC problems, the Nikon D850 looks like an awesome camera.
That's the crux of it, right there... it looks like a very nice camera, and Nikon has finally caught up in the resolution department (although it still has a few flaws when it comes to things I like to shoot) but I think I will wait until the first two or three rounds of recalls are finished before I buy one.
arbitrage wrote:
Yes, I've been eyeing the D850 since the solid rumours started. I already have a D500 and 200-500 so I've been initiated into the club....sort of
However, for me to make the D850 worth it I do want the 9FPS. But that requires buying a battery grip, D5 battery and D5 charger. In Canada it starts to get very expensive to buy all that. For now, I've decided to wait it out and see if I can use aftermarket grip (unlikely) and/or aftermarket D5 batteries and charger (more likely).
I was considering getting a Nikon or Sigma 500/4 to go with it and the 300PF in addition to my 200-500.
I wouldn't be making an entire switch if I did this but I would be selling some large Canon glass to make it feasible. Also would sell 1DX and maybe 5D4.
I don't think you would gain much over the AF-S 200-500 f5.6E by buying either of those 500mm f4 lenses - both are a notch (or two) down from the Canon EF 500mm f4L II.
I was tempted and as an interim system, almost bought the D500/200~500 combo from their refurb store. I held off when I learned that their refurb warranty is only 90 days as compared with Canon's 1 year.
I have been spoiled with my professional relationship with CPS which is only a few minutes away from my house. I have heard about Nikon's horror stories of "impact damage" and slow repair turnaround
arbitrage wrote:
Yes, I've been eyeing the D850 since the solid rumours started. I already have a D500 and 200-500 so I've been initiated into the club....sort of
However, for me to make the D850 worth it I do want the 9FPS. But that requires buying a battery grip, D5 battery and D5 charger. In Canada it starts to get very expensive to buy all that. For now, I've decided to wait it out and see if I can use aftermarket grip (unlikely) and/or aftermarket D5 batteries and charger (more likely).
I was considering getting a Nikon or Sigma 500/4 to go with it and the 300PF in addition to my 200-500.
I wouldn't be making an entire switch if I did this but I would be selling some large Canon glass to make it feasible. Also would sell 1DX and maybe 5D4.
For my dragonfly photography the 300PF would be a great lens, Canon doesn't seem interested in producing something comparable. For birds where longer focal length is required Canon has more options although Sigma is starting to compete in that area. But for (flying) dragonflies low weight and good closeup IQ becomes more important. Add a good macro lens for slow moving subjects (Sigma 2.8/150?) and a standard zoom (current options not very attractive, big/expensive or optically lacking ...) or a few good and relatively small primes and I have all I really need. In that case I would probably keep a few Canon lenses plus SL2 body as lightweight alternative.
The D850 will be too late for my dragonfly photography this year, so I have many months to see how the D850 performs in practice, and if maybe Nikon is going to do something about its rip-off EU pricing.
If I don't buy the D850 due to weight or other 'issues' I'm probably going to move to Nikon anyway using a D7500 or D500 instead of the do-it-all D850. I don't really need FF but if you can get FF, high pixel density and some other great features all in the same body why not ;-)
Not Tempted. I've had several highly hyped Nikon DSLR's, don't go by published specifications, its the things they don't publish that get you. Reviews can bite you as well, many reviewers have one use in mind and their usage may not tell you what you need to know.
I guess there are more advantages for us Canucks to be buying Nikon Canada gear than just the lower prices (except for the initial MSRP on the D850... ) but I guess we're getting a little off-topic...
johnvanr wrote:
Barring any QC problems, the Nikon D850 looks like an awesome camera.
I use my Canon gear almost exclusively for bird photography and part of me can't help but ponder a switch from my 1DX, 5D IV and 500/4 IS II to a D850 with grip and Nikon 500mm. I'd lose some speed but gain a ton of resolution and thus reach.
I'd miss the Canon 100-400mm and 135L, though. No comparable Nikon equivalents as far as I know.
Anyone else thinking along those lines?
With the D850, Nikon has finally caught up to Canon and Sony in the resolution department, and of course the Dynamic Range is likely to be best-in-class, like the D810.
For my photographic pursuits, here are the pros and cons I see (based on the information currently available):
D850 Pros:
- Best-in-class dynamic range (hopefully)
- high resolution
- no AA filter
- good high ISO performance (hopefully)
- tilt and touch rear LCD with
- 4K video with no crop factor
- focus stacking feature
- silent shutter
- class-leading battery life
D850 Cons:
- substantial weight gain
- still no EFCS in Live View (according to DP Review)
- still very poor implementation of Live View
- rear LCD not fully articulated; designed for video only
- still no built-in GPS
- external GPS prevents use of standard remotes
- no timed shutter speeds longer than 30 seconds
- still no AF-compatible extension tubes
- no built-in flash
- no Log profiles for video
- crippled WiFi
- Nikon service
molson wrote:
I don't think you would gain much over the AF-S 200-500 f5.6E by buying either of those 500mm f4 lenses - both are a notch (or two) down from the Canon EF 500mm f4L II.
DxOMark's data shows that the Sigma is a bit less sharp than the Canon II on the 5DSR, but sharper on the 1DXII and 5DIV. The-Digital-Picture seems to show the Sigma having better center resolution at least, though the Canon has a bit more contrast in their test photos. I think Lenscore shows both the Nikon and Sigma lenses as sharper than the Canon (though as usual the site's down, so I can't check that). And Brad Hill says that the Nikon E and Sigma are on par with each other.
So given all that, I'd say that neither the Sigma nor the Nikon are a notch down from the Canon, and certainly not two notches. And you will indeed gain quite a noticeable difference going from the 200-500 to any 500mm f4. The 200-500 is a great lens, but there's a reason why it costs $1400 and the 500mm f4 lenses cost $5000-$10000.
Lauchlan Toal wrote:
And Brad Hill says that the Nikon E and Sigma are on par with each other.
Brad also says both the Sigma and Nikon are soft wide open, while the Canon is not. The Canon is also sharp wide open with both 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, while the Sigma and Nikon are not and need to be stopped down (a lot, with the 2x). I've known Brad a long time, and have bought a bunch of his used gear over the years, so I have some idea of how he rates gear performance.
Here's what the Canon EF 500mm f4L IS II can do wide open with the Canon EF 2x-III extender; I'd like to see some of LensScore's sample photos if you have a link...
molson wrote:
Brad also says both the Sigma and Nikon are soft wide open, while the Canon is not. The Canon is also sharp wide open with both 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, while the Sigma and Nikon are not and need to be stopped down (a lot, with the 2x). I've known Brad a long time, and have bought a bunch of his used gear over the years, so I have some idea of how he rates gear performance.
Here's what the Canon EF 500mm f4L IS II can do wide open with the Canon EF 2x-III extender; I'd like to see some of LensScore's sample photos if you have a link......Show more →
Yeah, Canon does seem to have an edge with their teleconverters with most lenses, I can't dispute that.
I'm curious as to why Brad would use Nikon/Sigma gear if the Canon lenses are that much better though. He seems to shoot at high ISO or in soft lighting situations a lot where Nikon's DR edge doesn't matter, and with all the kit he uses and the rate at which he buys and sells gear I have no doubt that he could have switched to Canon quite easily long ago. And he'd have the opportunity to try out Canon gear from all the photographers who use it on his photo tours. With the amount of time he spends testing gear and his meticulous standards I really can't imagine him choosing to use inferior equipment.
) but I guess we're getting a little off-topic...