arbitrage wrote:
There is essentially no added "reach" from a D500 vs a D850....it is less than 1MP....people buying a D500 over D850 for added "reach", don't understand what they are buying.
The one benefit of a D850 over a D500 even if you are cropping down to less than a D500 FOV, is that for faster BIF action, even though the AF coverage is identical, you have that buffer FOV to get back onto the bird if it moves erratically or if you lag behind in your panning skills. The other advantage is if you use f/8 lens/tc combinations and are limited to reliable AF only in the centre cluster and you have a subject that fills a lot of the DX frame, with the D850 you can put the centre point on the eye and still have the extra FX FOV to have a good composition. With a D500 you either have to focus/recompose (risky if the subject is filling a lot of the DX FOV as DOF concerns come into play) or you have to try and AF with an unsupported outer AF point (outer unsupported AF points still attempt AF but they only are reliable in really good light)....Show more →
The difference in the D850 and D500 is more then 1MP if using DX mode which a lot of people do, but it's not just the MP, that's a bit lazy. It's the MP AND the D850 has a lower pixel density. Those combined made for a notable difference, though slight. It might be because I have calibrated 4k monitors and my 1080p monitor actually looks soft in comparison. This will make for a slight difference in large prints as well.
The reach part is the equivalent FOV. You dont ever change the lenses focal length, But a 200-500mm lens on a D850 is the equivalent of 300-750mm on the D500 with no crop. Also, when cropping the D850 image down to the D500 full image you also loose the 1 full stop ISO advantage of that FF sensor as well as a touch of IQ. I had a D850 until recently and know quite a few people with both and all of them crop their D500 images most of the time for wildlife and BIF images. I would also rather have full edge to edge focus points and 100% OFV as I don't have issues keeping subjects in the VF and tracking them. Cropping the D850 down to the D500 FOV will also result in even less pixel density I believe.
The D850 is an amazing camera and SWEEEET when you fill or mostly fill the frame, but if you don't it's just a crazy expensive D500.
Eric214 wrote:
The difference in the D850 and D500 is more then 1MP if using DX mode which a lot of people do, but it's not just the MP, that's a bit lazy. It's the MP AND the D850 has a lower pixel density. Those combined made for a notable difference, though slight. It might be because I have calibrated 4k monitors and my 1080p monitor actually looks soft in comparison. This will make for a slight difference in large prints as well.
The reach part is the equivalent FOV. You dont ever change the lenses focal length, But a 200-500mm lens on a D850 is the equivalent of 300-750mm on the D500 with no crop. Also, when cropping the D850 image down to the D500 full image you also loose the 1 full stop ISO advantage of that FF sensor as well as a touch of IQ. I had a D850 until recently and know quite a few people with both and all of them crop their D500 images most of the time for wildlife and BIF images. I would also rather have full edge to edge focus points and 100% OFV as I don't have issues keeping subjects in the VF and tracking them. Cropping the D850 down to the D500 FOV will also result in even less pixel density I believe.
The D850 is an amazing camera and SWEEEET when you fill or mostly fill the frame, but if you don't it's just a crazy expensive D500....Show more →
These are the raw facts taken directly from Nikon USA's spec sheets for each cameras file outputs:
1) D500 DX image is 5,568 x 3,712 which is 20.67MP
2) D850 DX image if you use their in camera crop mode: 5,408x3,600 which is 19.47MP
3) D850 FX image is 8,256 x 5,504 = 45.44
4) If you do a 1.5x crop in post to a D850 image you get 5,504 x 3669 = 20.20MP
So it is really a 0.47MP difference if you do the crop properly in post. Or you can do it in camera where the crop is slightly more and then 1.2MP difference. Take your pick...either way ~1MP and makes no difference in any real world image. If you really think you would be better off with that extra 0.47MPs, then so be it. I really don't think you will be. If the D850 had 1.06 extra MPs it would be totally identical to the D500 DX.
The pixel density is a direct factor of the sensor size and the MPs. So yeah the D500 has a slightly greater pixel density which you can figure out with my numbers above. Again, so slight it is meaningless in a real world image.
Yes, when you crop the D850 to DX you end up with the same per pixel noise and DR as the D500. Again because of the slight pixel density differences shown above, the photonstophotos DR and Noise graphs show the slight advantage to the D500 at the pixel level which makes sense. Again very slight which makes sense as the sensors are ~ same generation sensors and the D500 has those 0.47 extra MPs.
Reach has to be a combination of sensor size and pixel density. The lens as you say doesn't become a 700mm lens from a 500mm lens because you put it on the D500. It gives you a FOV image in your DX viewfinder that looks like a 700mm FOV in an FX viewfinder. People used to equate DX cameras with extra reach without considering the pixel density and back then they were usually somewhat correct because there weren't FX sensors with pixel densities similar to the DX cameras on the market. We were used to like 16-18MP DX sensors and only 12-20MP FX sensors. But now a days you have to take into account the pixel density when discussing "reach" or what most wildlife/bird photographers call "pixels per duck".
Like you, I had both cameras and I've sold my D850 last year and just kept the D500 because for my subject matter where I live I didn't have a lot of opportunities to really make use of the D850's extra FX pixels.
I also find the D500 to be slightly more response in AF and I like the magnified subject view in the OVF. Also just getting 10FPS native without extra grip, batteries, chargers to get to 9FPS is simpler. However, my points I made in the previous post still stand. Those were the two main advantages to shooting a D850 even when cropping past the DX FOV, which like most I often was. When I used my 500PF/1.4x or my 500E/2.0x it was a benefit to be able to place one of the center points on the head/eye and not have to recompose or resort to an outer unsupported point in cases where the subject was filling most of the DX frame. And certainly even though if you aim the same lens at same subject at same distance with a D850 and a D500 the AF points cover the same area of the subject. The D500 points fill most of the FOV but they don't cover any more of the scene/subject than the centered AF points of the D850. But if trying to track a fast/erratic BIF like swallows, the D850 extra FOV (even though AF points didn't exist in that area) was helpful to not loose the bird out of the OVF and help you get the AF points back on the bird.
arbitrage wrote:
These are the raw facts taken directly from Nikon USA's spec sheets for each cameras file outputs:
1) D500 DX image is 5,568 x 3,712 which is 20.67MP
2) D850 DX image if you use their in camera crop mode: 5,408x3,600 which is 19.47MP
3) D850 FX image is 8,256 x 5,504 = 45.44
4) If you do a 1.5x crop in post to a D850 image you get 5,504 x 3669 = 20.20MP
So it is really a 0.47MP difference if you do the crop properly in post. Or you can do it in camera where the crop is slightly more and then 1.2MP difference. Take your pick...either way ~1MP and makes no difference in any real world image. If you really think you would be better off with that extra 0.47MPs, then so be it. I really don't think you will be. If the D850 had 1.06 extra MPs it would be totally identical to the D500 DX.
The pixel density is a direct factor of the sensor size and the MPs. So yeah the D500 has a slightly greater pixel density which you can figure out with my numbers above. Again, so slight it is meaningless in a real world image.
Yes, when you crop the D850 to DX you end up with the same per pixel noise and DR as the D500. Again because of the slight pixel density differences shown above, the photonstophotos DR and Noise graphs show the slight advantage to the D500 at the pixel level which makes sense. Again very slight which makes sense as the sensors are ~ same generation sensors and the D500 has those 0.47 extra MPs.
Reach has to be a combination of sensor size and pixel density. The lens as you say doesn't become a 700mm lens from a 500mm lens because you put it on the D500. It gives you a FOV image in your DX viewfinder that looks like a 700mm FOV in an FX viewfinder. People used to equate DX cameras with extra reach without considering the pixel density and back then they were usually somewhat correct because there weren't FX sensors with pixel densities similar to the DX cameras on the market. We were used to like 16-18MP DX sensors and only 12-20MP FX sensors. But now a days you have to take into account the pixel density when discussing "reach" or what most wildlife/bird photographers call "pixels per duck".
Like you, I had both cameras and I've sold my D850 last year and just kept the D500 because for my subject matter where I live I didn't have a lot of opportunities to really make use of the D850's extra FX pixels.
I also find the D500 to be slightly more response in AF and I like the magnified subject view in the OVF. Also just getting 10FPS native without extra grip, batteries, chargers to get to 9FPS is simpler. However, my points I made in the previous post still stand. Those were the two main advantages to shooting a D850 even when cropping past the DX FOV, which like most I often was. When I used my 500PF/1.4x or my 500E/2.0x it was a benefit to be able to place one of the center points on the head/eye and not have to recompose or resort to an outer unsupported point in cases where the subject was filling most of the DX frame. And certainly even though if you aim the same lens at same subject at same distance with a D850 and a D500 the AF points cover the same area of the subject. The D500 points fill most of the FOV but they don't cover any more of the scene/subject than the centered AF points of the D850. But if trying to track a fast/erratic BIF like swallows, the D850 extra FOV (even though AF points didn't exist in that area) was helpful to not loose the bird out of the OVF and help you get the AF points back on the bird....Show more →
Yeah the D500 pixel density is 5.68 MP/cm² and the D850 is 5.32 MP/cm² and the difference widens a bit as you crop.
I didn't say it becomes 750mm. I even said as much. I said it become the fov equivalent. This happens without lots of IQ and without cropping to the original native size of the sensor. No loss of pixel density either.
I never focus and recompose. It's a completely flawed technique. I almost always use my center AF point. I just like the fact I have it edge to edge of I need it, I have the ability.
I get the outer edge area in DX mode for trying to reaquire a subject but shooting on the D500 then going back to the D850, things were just a bit too small and the AF points were small enough to make tracking and keeping the points on a day moving bird or animal. The ovf at 100% makes all the difference as well, at least to me. I guess it would matter of I had tracking or panning issues but I really ever do.
Eric214 wrote:
Yeah the D500 pixel density is 5.68 MP/cm² and the D850 is 5.32 MP/cm² and the difference widens a bit as you crop.
The pixel density can not change, it is a fixed physical value of the sensor...doesn't matter how much you crop, the pixel density never changes. Can you explain why you think it would change??
Eric214 wrote:
I didn't say it becomes 750mm. I even said as much. I said it become the fov equivalent. No loss of pixel density either.
Yes that is why I said "as you say" Eric214 wrote:
I never focus and recompose. It's a completely flawed technique. I almost always use my center AF point. I just like the fact I have it edge to edge of I need it, I have the ability.
Exactly my point, focus/recompose is a flawed technique and the D850 reduces the times you might have to use it if you are using an f/8 lens/TC combination where the outer points suck or don't work at all. More and more important as the subject gets larger in the DX FOV. Eric214 wrote:
I get the outer edge area in DX mode for trying to reaquire a subject but shooting on the D500 then going back to the D850, things were just a bit too small and the AF points were small enough to make tracking and keeping the points on a day moving bird or animal.
If you do the test, you will see that the AF points although visibly smaller in the OVF because of the wider FOV still cover the exact same amount of the subject as I mentioned in my post above. I found the magnified view in the D500's OVF more beneficial for precise placement on a perched bird. But for BIF it didn't matter anyways. Eric214 wrote:
I guess it would matter of I had tracking or panning issues but I really ever do.
Yeah for eagles I doubt anyone has tracking or panning issues but try on Violet-Green Swallows (not Tree, not Barn) when they are hunting insects on the wing and you will benefit from the D850's FOV more times than not.
arbitrage wrote:
The pixel density can not change, it is a fixed physical value of the sensor...doesn't matter how much you crop, the pixel density never changes. Can you explain why you think it would change??
Yes that is why I said "as you say"
Exactly my point, focus/recompose is a flawed technique and the D850 reduces the times you might have to use it if you are using an f/8 lens/TC combination where the outer points suck or don't work at all. More and more important as the subject gets larger in the DX FOV.
If you do the test, you will see that the AF points although visibly smaller in the OVF because of the wider FOV still cover the exact same amount of the subject as I mentioned in my post above. I found the magnified view in the D500's OVF more beneficial for precise placement on a perched bird. But for BIF it didn't matter anyways.
Yeah for eagles I doubt anyone has tracking or panning issues but try on Violet-Green Swallows (not Tree, not Barn) when they are hunting insects on the wing and you will benefit from the D850's FOV more times than not.
I didn't say the points dont cover the same area of the subject, what I said was the subject and points are just much smaller and are basically annoying. Harder to put smaller points on a smaller target. I dont' just shoot Eagles, I shoot Kingfishers, Blue Jays among others as well. But also try tracking Eagles when there are 3 or 4 in a frame and they are fighting over a fish for 70-100 frames in a row. Still not that easy and pretty erratic.
As far as the pixel density changing I read that somewhere that explained it. Unless I read it wrong. I will have to see if I can find that again.
Again, we're basically saying the same thing. counter productive rehashing the same points
Though this is with my 200-500mm making it harder than with the 500 PF, I think this shows pretty good panning/tracking ability. This was shot 1/250
Nice job, Eric. It was brutally cold in Iowa this morning, -16 with -30 windchill. The eagles were not moving much. Hope to get back out this afternoon.
Not much happening this morning. Did manage a couple shots of a Red-Shouldered Hawk and an Eastern Phoebe. Pretty impressed with the amount I was able to crop these photos (not sure if I cropped them too much). Taken with a Nikon D850 and 500mmpf. CC welcomed and appreciated.
CJMiller wrote:
Nice job, Eric. It was brutally cold in Iowa this morning, -16 with -30 windchill. The eagles were not moving much. Hope to get back out this afternoon.
Chris
Thanks Chris. That storm blew through today but not as much snow as expected, just about 3 inches and not the 8 they were calling for. They are calling for more snow next weekend . I got out yesterday for a couple hours but not much happening. A few shots only.
