I really loath Canon's lack of commitment to competition and excellence in their camera technology.
What a load of tosh. To follow on from Molson's point: I can almost guarantee that your photos will not be improved in an impartial observer's opinion if you got a D850 over a 5DIV. I think you have become way too enthralled by internet babble and lab specifications, which is just the way the camera companies like it.
Longtime canon user here. I started with Canon, but switched once to Nikon before for the D700, but came back for the DSLR video capabilities Canon followed up with.
The 6DII was the biggest product letdown from them I've had in some time. I'm switching back to Nikon for the 850.
level1photog wrote
As for me, I don't see the point of switching camera from my capable 5D IV to A9/D850. It won't improve my photography. My camera is just more capable than my skills and I need alot more education before I even consider upgrading my camera. Hopefully by then, the Sony/Canon will have a near perfect camera with eye focus, IBIS, EVF, good battery, good ergonomic, and more compatibility with EF lens.
I'm interested in the D850 from a technical standpoint, but I'm not tempted whatsoever to buy it.
I have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to equipment compared to what I started out with 10 years ago, and now I'm focused on obtaining the equivalent level of knowledge and success actually taking photographs. When I can shoot birds like Peter, Arash, Tony and Romy, or landscapes like Rob, or images comparable to all of the other wonderful photogs on here, then I'll have justified my gear. Until then, no point in switching or buying more, the gear isn't what's holding me back.
My final gear item purchased was this past July, and since then I'm blissfully enjoying this lack of lusting after the next thing. And it's not just camera stuff either, it's the same with my phone, my car, my tv, clothes, everything... Some of the crap I have is 5+ years old, and I see no reason to buy new unless something crumbles into dust from overuse. Sorry, greedy corporations, you've lost me
We see the same argument for every new camera. 5D IV, 1DX II, D500, D5 were the same
In a year a new camera will be released. Then it will be the only usable camera that produces good image quality, and we can dump old D850's to buy the new release.
In my OP I wondered specifically about this camera for bird photography versus the existing competition. There's the usual discussion about any camera being good enough and the silliness of clamoring for the new thing.
But apart from the Sony DSLR, which seems to be a dying product line at Sony, there is really nothing like the D850. The cameras that compete are either too slow or have much less resolution. Since one does a lot of cropping in bird photography, a camera that combines decent speed with excellent AF, a deep buffer and high resolution does make a difference, a real one.
Therefore, the only arguments that make me doubt a switch are the comments about the low quality of Nikon's TCs, because with my Canons I can indeed increase my reach with them without worrying about fuzzy images.
johnvanr wrote:
In my OP I wondered specifically about this camera for bird photography versus the existing competition. There's the usual discussion about any camera being good enough and the silliness of clamoring for the new thing.
But apart from the Sony DSLR, which seems to be a dying product line at Sony, there is really nothing like the D850. The cameras that compete are either too slow or have much less resolution. Since one does a lot of cropping in bird photography, a camera that combines decent speed with excellent AF, a deep buffer and high resolution does make a difference, a real one.
Therefore, the only arguments that make me doubt a switch are the comments about the low quality of Nikon's TCs, because with my Canons I can indeed increase my reach with them without worrying about fuzzy images....Show more →
While I have heard that Canon TCs tend to play better than Nikon ones, I see some people getting very good results with Nikon TCs.
For example this shot was taken on the D810 with the 600mm f4, with a 2x tc at f8 (wide open). ISO 320, so you could get a bit sharper in ideal conditions. https://www.flickr.com/photos/56404461@N00/23295930153/in/album-72157662565735201/ (The @ symbol breaks the automatic URL parser, copy and paste the full URL into your browser to get the image)
You can view the full resolution image, and feather detail looks superb - you can easily make out each strand of each feather.
It's not quite as sharp, but it's a good example of a more realistic use case. And keep in mind that it's a moving subject, a shutter of 1/1000 despite the effective reach of 1800mm, wide open at f8, and at ISO 720 on a crop sensor camera which will noticeably degrade sharpness at 100%.
That's with the new 600mm f4E though, I'm not sure if the old G version handles TCs that well, though I've heard they're pretty similar.
Unfortunately it's nigh impossible to find anyone who has real experience with both the Nikon and Canon line-ups - not too many people can afford to shoot with both systems at once I suppose. Canon definitely has some great glass though, and the 200-400 in particular is a stunner.
brian_sp wrote:
ah no, at base d850 still better than the 5d4 and also as noted
"Notes:
(e) indcates estimated values that are not based on the normal test protocol. For example, the Nikon D850."
I love this "DR is better as base ISO"... aka only in the best light, as in if you're over ISO 100, it's no different. Not to mention, I can almost guarantee most people couldn't make a photo showing any true advantage.
Yeah, because that .25% of DR makes or breaks a shot. I mean, look hard at the chart you linked, and the hair difference, and you think that is a game breaking win?
Honestly, whatever you shoot is going to be great, you don't have to come in and try to fight the internet to prove anything.
Nikon catches up again! And the specs of D850 really look nice.
-4 EV AF is what I would have wished for 6D MK II.
May be I will look for one in two years, when possible drawbacks are fixed and the price wents down under 2000 again.
But first I have to check, if I like the handling. I am nailed to Canon because of the thumbwheel.
but that lens is doing squat to bring in shooters from other brands over to canon
bodies on the other hand, one just has to look at what the d500 did, quite a few canon shooters at least adding this body and the 200-500 to their inventory
and look at the uproar in all the forums, not just here about the real screw up the 6d2 is, in all the forums i visit to this date there is still only a handful of people that bought the 6d2, now the d850, the canon forums are all talking about the d850.....didn't ever see ONE post about the 5d4 on any nikon forum when it hit the market and why is that, because canon lags and just does not bring anything worth getting excited about with any of their bodies
The 300 f4 PF is too short for my type of shooting, but I'd like a Canon 200 - 500 f/5.6 IS with the IQ of the 100-400 II.
The D850's specs are impressive, and if Canon were to come out with a similar camera (ca. 50 MP, 7-9 fps, no AA filter), I'd readily upgrade my 7D II and 5D III and go uni-body.
BTW Tony, are you still shooting both systems, or have you let go of your Canon stuff?
What this actually shows is that no ISO64 RAW file from the D850 has been tested yet (remember - 64 is base ISO, not 100) and that at ISO 100 (which is above base) it's fractionally worse than the D810 and fractionally better than the 5D IV (which is at base at ISO 100.)
At higher ISOs this shows the D850 edges fractionally ahead of the D810, presumably benefiting from the BSI sensor and that the 5D IV maintains an edge at high ISO. As a landscape photographer base ISO performance is all that matters to me though.
I would expect that at ISO64, when test data from these RAWs is available, we will see the D850 still sit fractionally lower than the D810 - but at ISO100 on this chart it's a difference of 0.1 stops - in other words, margin-of-error territory.
So yes, the 5D IV is competitive with the D850 when the 5D IV is running at it's native base ISO and the D850 is running 2/3 of a stop above it's native base ISO.
I no longer shoot Nikon, but these values don't surprise me. The move to a BSI sensor resulted in a slight reduction in DR for the A7RII, and it appears that this is also the case for the D850 - although the reduction in these charts is so minor that you could reasonably say Nikon have held DR constant whilst adding an extra 9 megapixels, which isn't a bad achievement in the context of the fact the D810 already had class-leading base ISO performance. It will be interesting to see test results at native base ISO 64 when available, however.
As a current dual system shooter, I can say that Canon still has a lot of things going for it which don't necessarily show up in a spec sheet.
There is no Canon spec sheet that can hold a candle to the D850 for FF or the D500 for APS-C BUT there are a bunch of usability features buried in the Canon cameras that actually put them ahead of the newest Nikon's in actual use in the field.
And for my type of bird and wildlife shooting there are still some lenses available that Nikon hasn't matched yet. The ones I own are the 400DOII and the 200-400/TC. Then the previous discussion about Nikon TC performance adds another wrinkle to the whole picture BUT I can't confirm or deny that myself as I haven't tried a big prime with 2xTCIII in Nikon yet. I can say that the 1.4TCIII on the 200-500 does a good job and the D500 can still focus it reasonably well but not as good as the Canon 1.4TCIII on a 100-400II (but those aren't directly comparable lenses and in different price categories).
One thing that excites me about the D850 is its data pipeline of 9 fps x 45.7 MP, or 411.3 MP/s.
Assuming that 12 fps is the upper limit of a mechanical shutter (which can be manufactured economically), that pipeline can handle 34.3 MP APS-C frames. I so look forward to a 7D III (or perhaps 7D IV) with 32 MP @ 12 fps.
I love this "DR is better as base ISO"... aka only in the best light, as in if you're over ISO 100, it's no different. Not to mention, I can almost guarantee most people couldn't make a photo showing any true advantage. 