fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2              4       5       6       end
  

Archive 2018 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography

  
 
Thern
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


JohnK007 wrote:


^^ true, last try...


Again, read how I describe it as a dumb question.


It's not a dumb question, it's a question based on the OPs current situation.
In his current setup he allready owns the better gear for lowlight conditions and he clearly states he doesn't want to shell out ten grant.
Hard to comprehend huh?


Again, realize what you do is irrelevant to what I do.

"No friggin way does an EOS 7D + 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 beat a D5 + 500 f/4 FL ED," either

What does that clarify?


That's not what I said in my initial answer.


Rather than giving a dense direct answer, with no explanation ... as you did ...


Which I didn't.....


try comprehending the fact that I showed him the basic error of the question in the first place: comparing setups in two different classes.



The basic error is answering to another question like you did.
Wether or not you like it, it's reality to the OP to ask this question.
If someone asks me what would be the best Nikon setup for bird or wildlife photography in lowlightconditions without any limits regarding budget I'd recommend the setup I'm shooting with myself. (Look at my gearlist)
But in the OP's case it's clear he does choose for a budget with a (to him) legitimate reason, which I do respect.
Now in his current situation he allready owns the best gear for his particular needs so why would I recommend to buy into a less performing system?


It's the difference between "giving a man a fish" ... and teaching him how to fish.


To use this equation..
In this case I'm sure he knows allready how to fish, he allready owns a superior fishingrod (1DX plus F/4 supetele) but he wants to buy a better one not wanting to pay enough for it to acquire a really better one (D5 plus 500/600E or 180-400)
Well, the rods (D500/D850) he asks about are not better than his current one REGARDING lowlightperformance, certainly not combined with a full stop slower lens than the lens he allready owns.

That's why I said stick to Canon.



Nov 01, 2018 at 02:12 AM
johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


morris wrote:
The wider FOV creates more space around the bird so if you get off center there is more room to error. If that's not clear, if you take your BIF at 24mm your odds of getting the bird in frame is much greater than at 500mm.

Morris


Clear. You were talking about the frame and I was talking about the focus points within that frame.



Nov 01, 2018 at 06:26 AM
quigsby
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


Concerning Mark Smith video comparison. I have heard that the grip for the D850 helps improve for more FPS, but what does it have to do with focus? Are you saying that a normal charged D850 battery cant drive the autofocus to its optimum without help? If so aren't we getting screwed? Its like Nikon saying spend a ton of money and you'll get great focused shots, but give us another grand for a grip and they'll be really great, that makes no sense to me. Can someone enlighten me.


Nov 01, 2018 at 08:08 AM
Thern
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


Don't worry, the grip gives you some extra FPS and vertical controls, nothing else.


Nov 01, 2018 at 08:12 AM
jpelt78
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


The AF sensor module is the same basic one in the D500 and D850. So it covers the same field of view (most of the DX and a narrower portion of the FX frame). I think they have some physics constraints to getting the focus sensor to cover more to the edges of FX. This is probably as far as DSLR will get in terms of FX coverage with off sensor focus modules.

The D500 also has probably a little more horsepower behind its AF system than the D850 and a higher frame rate as well which could help in getting the wing position you want.

Noise wise both have the same pixel pitch for the sensor so they will be very similar to each other at the pixel level. If you can get close enough to your subjects to fill the frame with the D850 will come out better because you have more pixels on subject and can downsample. If you end up having to crop to DX then you really gain nothing. Also if you have to crop to DX mostly anyway the experience is better with the “larger” view of your subject in the D500 viewfinder.



Nov 01, 2018 at 08:25 AM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


arbitrage wrote:
Here is my opinion....the D850 used as a "reach" camera is worse than a D500 for noise at the pixel level so absolutely no point if you can't make some use out of the full frame.


Agreed.

If one is using a 300mm PF, they're pretty much "reach-starved" going into it, so for the most part using the D500 makes more sense. Despite what some others claim, when you crop the D850 to equal the framing of the D500, the results are *not* as good as what the D500 produces. So, if you're cropping D500 images at all, which I invariably do, the D850 is not the camera to use.





arbitrage wrote:
However, I have found some unique advantages to using my D850 over the D500 that many don't talk about:
1) Even when reach limited and not using any more than the DX frame but especially when using close to the DX frame AND using an f/8 lens/TC combo the D850 can use the best centre focus point and still have a proper composition. With the D500 you'd have to start trying to use some outer point which isn't officially supported (although unlike Canon can be selected) to try and get the point on the eye and a good composition. This often
...Show more

I've not noticed this; I'll have to experiment.

Mainly, when I put the 300 f/4 PF + 2x TC III (600 f/8 on D850), I still don't have all the reach I want, 9x out of 10. This is why I invariably opt for the D500 (~900mm f/8), where I am good to go. Never have a problem nailing eye focus.

For BIF, though, using the D850 might be the way to go ... for the reasons you suggest.



arbitrage wrote:
2) I also like that really with a D850 say with a 500mm lens you have a 500-750mm lens (from a certain point of view)....sometimes when the stars align birds get close enough that you can use the FX sensor and with a D500 and a prime lens you are out of luck (have to go just for a head portrait or something) but with the D850 you have that extra focal length to use when things get close (ie the true 500mm FOV) and the equivalent 750mm FOV you'd get on the D500 for when "reach" is needed.


When hiking the mountains and deserts of CA, quarry can see you a mile away, and reach is definitely what's always needed ...



arbitrage wrote:
3) Seeing more of a bird in the frame edges earlier to get on the bird or not lose the bird as you try to get back on the bird...with a D500 you can lose the bird earlier off the DX frame edge, with the D850 you have the full FX FOV to react and get the AF array back on the bird.


Makes sense. However, even the D500 is "not enough" (for the 300 PF + TCs) much more so than it is "too much" ... at least in my experience.



arbitrage wrote:
But otherwise the D500 for reach limited shooting where you are always doing crops of the DX frame is probably the best choice as it has better buffer, 10FPS without spending a bunch more on the battery grip and the slightly better per pixel DR/ISO.


Which is my experience, 99.99% of the time.



arbitrage wrote:
HOWEVER, if you want 1DX like images you need to skip the D850 and get the D5 for high-ISO shooting....I've always preferred the 18-24MP range of FF cameras for IQ. My 1DX, 1DX2 and A9 are my favourite sensors and I think they have a little magic to them as the ISO creeps up even compared to the highly regarded (but pixel dense) D850 sensor. The D5 is an even better high-ISO sensor than my three favourites....


Which is what my advice was. I know you like the A9 AF too, but the D5 AF is Nikon's elite, better than the D500, D850, and A9 as well. IMO, the D5 + 600 f/4 FL ED is the ultimate "low light" wildlife combo.



arbitrage wrote:
For eagles I don't think you will notice much difference, they will both nail lots and lots of shots. I find the Nikon AF benefits over the 1DX and 1DX2 is more in the very fringe cases of small, fast, erratic BIF where one can make use of the AutoAF that actually works on the Nikon compared to the non-useable 61-pt (All Point) on the Canon.


Not many eagles where I'm at, but larger birds (vultures and such) the D850 should be fine, but up north (in low light) the D5 would again be the choice.



arbitrage wrote:
Basically as the birds get smaller and faster the Nikon (and even more so the Sony) AF systems start to pull ahead of the Canon system. But the 1 series (IMO) are pretty damn good and the subjects have to get really challenging for the Nikon and Sony systems to make a difference over the 1DX(2). The Nikon (and Sony) systems show their benefits much earlier (ie on easier subjects) over the other Canon 5 and 7 series.


Little birds, far away, is the diet of opportunity I most commonly encounter. I disagree the Sony AF is better. You're comparing Sony's $5,000 Pro offering (A9) to an $1800 pro-sumer and a $3200 landscape Nikon camera (D500 / D850). The Nikon D5 is the proper Pro comparison to the Sony A9, where the D5 AF system again is better ... and whose high-ISO performance is as well. As I said, if the original poster is truly interested in the best AF + low-light performance, then watching Ebay for a bargain D5 + bargain 500 f/4 (or, preferably 600 f/4) would be the way to go. Using the 500 PF f/5.6 would be a compromise, losing a stop of light in the lens, but gaining the best AF + high-ISO capability in the camera world today.



Nov 01, 2018 at 09:14 AM
this is me
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


I don't care how good the ISO on a camera is if the subject is a tiny little dot in the frame.
You guys have to understand, the birds here in the NE region are elusive and often miles away.
I remember the first time I went to a refuge for birding. The guy told me there's a snowy out on the field. I asked where and he show me on his scope and I was having a hard time making out what the little dot is.



Nov 01, 2018 at 09:34 AM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


Thern wrote:
[blah, blah, blah ...


Actually, if you go back and re-read the OP's desires, carefully, he said:

... it got bad fast in low light and AF was inconsistent...

... the moment ISOs go up, I hate the noise esp. in BIF images ...

... Basically, I’m looking for the best AF and the cleanest images (but forget about Sony; I don’t like using their bodies), also allowing for serious cropping.



None of his choices give him what he wants.

He's either going to have to compromise on the "serious cropping" part, or "the best AF/low light" part. He can't have both.

Hence my suggestion to clarify values and be realistic.

The D5 + 500 f4 (or PF) will produce better images, and have better AF/low light, than what he's using now.

The D850 will allow for more cropping, but will have neither the best AF nor the best low-light performance.

He's going to have to make a choice here: cropping potential vs. ultra-good AF + superior low-light performance.

We agree that what he's using now (1Dx + 500L) is better than the D500 + sub-par 200-500 f/5.6 zoom.

But "the best" AF/low light performance is what the OP's most often-stated bottom line desire is, and nothing he (or you) suggested qualifies.



Nov 01, 2018 at 09:48 AM
Thern
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


this is me wrote:
I don't care how good the ISO on a camera is if the subject is a tiny little dot in the frame.
You guys have to understand, the birds here in the NE region are elusive and often miles away.
I remember the first time I went to a refuge for birding. The guy told me there's a snowy out on the field. I asked where and he show me on his scope and I was having a hard time making out what the little dot is.



In that case I'd humbly suggest to train in observation, approaching skills and the use of hides.
Looks to me as a very boaring activity photographing dots, especially with a lessperforming camera regarding lowlight performance which deminishes detail in addition. (Personally I won't even bother to aim my camera at such distance let alone pressing the release)



Nov 01, 2018 at 10:23 AM
arbitrage
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


JohnK007 wrote:
Agreed.

If one is using a 300mm PF, they're pretty much "reach-starved" going into it, so for the most part using the D500 makes more sense. Despite what some others claim, when you crop the D850 to equal the framing of the D500, the results are *not* as good as what the D500 produces. So, if you're cropping D500 images at all, which I invariably do, the D850 is not the camera to use.



I've not noticed this; I'll have to experiment.

Mainly, when I put the 300 f/4 PF + 2x TC III (600 f/8 on D850), I still don't have all
...Show more

Thanks for the detailed response. We can agree to disagree about the D5 vs A9. I know which one I'm backing....feel free to back the other. Both spectacular cameras. Have you used either?



Nov 01, 2018 at 07:15 PM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


arbitrage wrote:
Thanks for the detailed response. We can agree to disagree about the D5 vs A9. I know which one I'm backing....feel free to back the other. Both spectacular cameras. Have you used either?


You bet, and okay.

I've not used both in any kind of "extended test"shootout, no, but I have held and used both at a local retailer. (Have met folks with both at state parks, too, and messed around with them.)

IMO, the D5 feels to be (by far) the more refined, professional tool.
The Sony A9 felt like a toy, its buffer was inconsistent, and its AF more erratic (and less dependable) than the Nikon D5.

Although my field use is quite limited, the impression I've been left with is the accuracy of the D5 was (by far) better in low light, IMO, though not so much for video.

Further, and most importantly, **build-quality-wise**, if I spent $12,000+ to go on a trip to an African rainforest ... for a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity ... there's NO WAY I'd bring the A9 ... not a chance.

But I'd bring the D5 in a heartbeat and feel 100% confident I made the right decision.

How bout you? Have you personally compared the two?



Nov 01, 2018 at 07:41 PM
arbitrage
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


JohnK007 wrote:
You bet, and okay.

I've not used both in any kind of "extended test"shootout, no, but I have held and used both at a local retailer. (Have met folks with both at state parks, too, and messed around with them.)

IMO, the D5 feels to be (by far) the more refined, professional tool.
The Sony A9 felt like a toy, its buffer was inconsistent, and its AF more erratic (and less dependable) than the Nikon D5.

Although my field use is quite limited, the impression I've been left with is the accuracy of the D5 was (by far) better in low light, IMO, though
...Show more

Toy vs Professional tool: agreed the D5 feels like a more professional, beefier, more rugged body. The A9 is a smaller, cheaper feeling camera. However, the A9 is a much more refined tool for what you can customize it to do...ie the D5 does certain things very well and is the pinnacle of decades of development but the A9 still schools it in what you can do with the camera as far as functionality and custom buttons.

Buffer: I shoot the A9 at 20FPS and fire for a few seconds at a time...never hit the buffer, never hit the buffer on a D500 (same as D5 but a few more FPS) and I realize both of those are artificially imposed by FW. In the end I don't hit either...A9 is well over 100 shots even in uncompressed RAW, I shoot compressed RAW and that gets you more than the D5's 200 shot imposed buffer....I don't need that many shots in a burst usually. Downside of A9 is the slower card that takes longer to clear the buffer.

AF consistency....I have to be honest, I have never used a camera that is more consistent in a burst than the A9....so much so that unless I'm anticipating very fast action where 10-20FPS is necessary to nail the shot, I will often drop to 5FPS just because every shot looks the same....ie no micro focus shifts you get with any DSLR no matter how good the AF system is. Now my D5 experience is fairly limited, just a few days of shooting it when borrowed on a trip to Central America...no fast, fast targets to test on, seemed very consistent also but still showed the good 'ol DSLR focus shifts.

Low light...yes D5 for sure....I don't shoot in low enough to matter, sunrise light the A9 is excellent, indoors?....no idea really. I'd reach for a DSLR for really low light indoor stuff.

$12K trip? I'd bring the A9 but I'd have two more bodies also and yes at least one of those would be a really well sealed DSLR. On all of my overseas/exotic trips I take 3 cameras, if I was leaving tomorrow the A9 would be in the bag as would the D500/D850. If I had a D5 it would be D5, D850, A9. If it was a downpour I'd either cover or up or grab the DSLR. I've seen D4s and 1-series fail in Antarctica without any rain/snow involved...proper protection should be used even with the pro bodies in extreme conditions.

I haven't shot them both on the same targets on the same day. I've only had limited time over a few days with the D5. Otherwise I've had many months with the A9 shooting it alongside the D500/D850. In my limited time with the D5 I couldn't say if it gave a higher hit rate than D500/850? I believe in the other FM members that say it does. I didn't find any differences in acquisition time or AF speed between distant and near objects compared to the D500/850. I'd love more time with the D5....if I stay with Nikon and used prices drop another $1K then I may reconsider it.



Nov 01, 2018 at 09:12 PM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


arbitrage wrote:
....

Low light...yes D5 for sure....I don't shoot in low enough to matter, sunrise light the A9 is excellent, indoors?....no idea really. I'd reach for a DSLR for really low light indoor stuff.



We'll agree to disagree as to our preferences, though it does appear we agree on the germane performance (low light AF king) as it relates to this thread topic.



arbitrage wrote:
$12K trip? I'd bring the A9 but I'd have two more bodies also and yes at least one of those would be a really well sealed DSLR. On all of my overseas/exotic trips I take 3 cameras, if I was leaving tomorrow the A9 would be in the bag as would the D500/D850. If I had a D5 it would be D5, D850, A9. If it was a downpour I'd either cover or up or grab the DSLR. I've seen D4s and 1-series fail in Antarctica without any rain/snow involved...proper protection should be used even with the pro bodies in
...Show more

I bring 2 bodies virtually everywhere: D500 + D850.

I am going to Thailand at the end of this month. If I were to invest in another body, it sure wouldn't be the Sony A9. It can't take the rain, and it doesn't have significant enough low-light performance to warrant a $5K expenditure; it doesn't have the lens options; it doesn't have the reach of my D500; nor does it deliver the image quality of my D850.

IMO, the Sony A9 is kinda "lost somewhere in the middle" ... does everything really well ... but is the best at nothing.

Camera-wise, I feel I have the best APS-C option (D500), the best base-ISO landscape camera (D850), so the only thing I am lacking is super-low-light AF performance, where (again) we'll just have to agree to disagree on which unit best fills that order. IMO it is the D5 over the A9.

If I won the Powerball, and money was no object, my choice would be a D5 and a 600 f/4 FL ED. (the 800 is too big for flying IMO.)

For a quick flight, I might add the D5 and a 500 PF ... to save space and weight ...

The Sony not only is a toy compared to the D5, its only real wildlife lens option is the 400mm GM (a beauty, BTW), but kind of short for the sole option of the system IMO.

By contrast, so many wonderful super-tele options with Nikon ...



arbitrage wrote:
I haven't shot them both on the same targets on the same day. I've only had limited time over a few days with the D5. Otherwise I've had many months with the A9 shooting it alongside the D500/D850. In my limited time with the D5 I couldn't say if it gave a higher hit rate than D500/850? I believe in the other FM members that say it does. I didn't find any differences in acquisition time or AF speed between distant and near objects compared to the D500/850. I'd love more time with the D5....if I stay with Nikon and
...Show more

Well, if you have the chance, I'd love to read your overall, indepth experience with the D5.

I myself am rubbing my chin at purchasing a used one, likely in the mid-point of next year.
I've been thinking real hard about the new Z7, was going to sell my D500, but I think the smarter move is to keep the reach ... and then enjoy all the Ebay deals on the D5, as many migrate to the new Z platform.

The more I think about it, I'm more interested in "The Holy Trinity" (D5, D850, D500), plus a whole plethora of lens options, than a hodge-podge of Nikons, Sonys, 3rd party adapters, and a deficit of mature wildlife lenses.

When the Z models proliferate to eventually replace "The Big 3," one-by-one, the first party FTZ adapter will make the switch painless, and I can replace my lenses at my convenience, if I decide to replace them at all. Very happy with my Zeiss glass, my Voigtländer Apo-Macro, and my 300 PF. If I add something, it will be a well-thought-out keeper as well ... that would seamlessly take the FTZ adapter also.

Cheers.



Nov 01, 2018 at 09:55 PM
Thern
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


Well I do shoot the D5 as my main camera and as some may know I tested the A9 for a full week (about 11300 shots) back to back against it.
My conclusion was the A9 to be a very promising contender, but not yet matured enough as a SYSTEM (no native 600 or 180-400 like zoom) and lacking some very ,to me!, important props to convince me into buying one. (Ergonomics, ruggedness, size and sealing)
That's being an old fart shooting (D)SLRs for over 40 years....
I stated then and still do to love the MILC concept and certainly being able to see a Sony or Nikon MILC in my bag sometime in the near future (the latter preferred because I have some nice Nikon lenses)
This is exactly the same I hear when discussing the MILC concept with colleague photogs, some did allready buy a Z7 some (more) ordered the Z6, but each and everyone of these guys are saying the same..
If Sony would have professional services AND the long FL's they'd be a lot more competitive. (Like I feel too)
Back to the D5 or any other single digit Nikon.
It's there for a reason and the sole reason is to have a tool for a proshooter needing a workhorse with the best AF, highest framerate, best lowlightperformance, best liability and ruggedness Nikon can produce.
The result is a bulky camera wich feels like a brick and is built like a tank.
Since most pro photogs shooting a D5 are using the 400 F/2.8 this isn't an issue at all, it's even nice to have more counterweight.
Well Nikon knows what they're doing and the D5 is indeed the best tool for this kind of work. (Fast action in lowlight)
Does it have the best IQ? Simple answer No! Pair it with a 400 F/2.8 and shoot it back to back against a D850 paired with a 400 F/2.8.
The D850 will blow it out of the water, but (there's allways a but ) ONLY at low to 2500/3200ISO. Above these values you'll start to see noise which needs cleaning, a D5 will get up to 6400ISO to reach about the same noise level. (I'm talking about non-processed files, a lot of pros shoot jpg)
For the wildlife photog this means a mixed bag.
Since most wildlife photogs have the time and are willing and able to process their files the high pixeldensity of the D850/D500 becomes a very nice proposition, if (and only but if!) they can stay away from the real high ISOs.
If he/she needs to shoot a lot in lowlight however the D5 becomes the better weapon of choice.
I don't have any experience at all with Canon (yes I did hold it and was allowed to shoot it a few hours but that's noway enough to me to give a valid assessment ) What I do know however is their 1DX was a direct rival for the D4 which means the same concept as a D5 and thus comparable in lowlightperformance.







Nov 02, 2018 at 01:44 AM
johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


Good to see a bunch of you are widening the discussion. There's a reason I never brought up the D5, which is undoubtedly Nikon's best BIF camera. That is that from reading about it, I don't think it's that much better - if at all - than the Canon 1DX II. So, for me, if I were looking only at the top cameras, it would make sense to replace my 1DX with the 1DX II and be done with it.

Where I think Nikon currently beats Canon by a mile is in the second tier, namely the D850 and the D500. I had and sold the 7D II, 5DSR and I'm about to sell my 5D IV. Note, too, that I have no intention of sticking with DSLRs for anything but bird photography. I was already working on selling my DSLRs when I discovered bird photography and that discovery is the only reason I stopped. I'm happy with my Olympus gear for most photography and see a ML FF in the future, most likely at the moment either Nikon or Panasonic.

Judging by the comments here, sticking with Canon is my best bet for now. I do really like the D500, though, and I'm impressed by the 200-500mm for the price. So, I might just hold on to it for fun's sake.



Nov 02, 2018 at 09:01 AM
RexGig0
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


johnvanr wrote:
Good to see a bunch of you are widening the discussion. There's a reason I never brought up the D5, which is undoubtedly Nikon's best BIF camera. That is that from reading about it, I don't think it's that much better - if at all - than the Canon 1DX II. So, for me, if I were looking only at the top cameras, it would make sense to replace my 1DX with the 1DX II and be done with it.

...(Snipped)...

Judging by the comments here, sticking with Canon is my best bet for now. I do really like the D500, though,
...Show more

Sticking with Canon is a good bet, as is keeping a D500 around. There is nothing wrong with using both the Canon and Nikon systems, except that the zoom rings operate in opposing directions, so look out for that, if shooting in a hurry. I find Nikon zoom and focusing rings to operate in the “right” direction, for me, perhaps because my earliest DSLR lessons were taught with a Tamron lens on a Nikon body. (Tamron zoom rings operate the way as Nikon.) I then used fortuitously-available Canon gear, to start building my system, but used some Nikon lenses on Canon cameras, with a Novoflex adapter, as those were leaner times, so sharing Nikon lenses with my Nikon-shooting wife made economic sense.

Nikon was nice enough to put the ISO button the the “right” place, on the D5/D500/D850, for those of us accustomed to Canon 1D/5D/7D cameras.

I added a D500 in late 2017, soon followed by a pre-owned 80-400G lens. The D500’s AF solidly beat everything I had at the time, including 7D II, 5Ds R, and Nikon D3s cameras. In early 2018, when I retired, the cheque for my unused “comp” time was enough to pay for a new 1D X II, or a new D5. When I considered the factor of the cost of future grail-quest-level super-telephoto lenses, and that my wife shoots only Nikon cameras, it made sense, for me, to shift to Nikon for birds, so I bought the D5.

A funny little thing happened, however, the Great XQD Famine of Early 2018. I bought my D5, and my wife’s D850, as the shortage of XQD cards became acute. I gave her my only large-capacity XQD card, leaving me with only two 32GB cards to use with my D5. With Spring Migration imminent, and in some cases already in effect, I looked at my ample supply of fast CF and SD cards, and my best bird lens, at that point in time, my EF 100-400L II IS*, and quickly bought a new 5D IV, for its somewhat better AF than my 5Ds R. Buying the 5D IV meant postponing the addition of a better Nikkor tele, for budgetary reasons. (Alas; all of that drama, and I missed the white pelicans before they flew north, anyway.)

I found that the D5 does, indeed, have noticeably better AF than the 5D IV, but I do not need to apologize to myself for using the 5D IV for birds. Canon’s current-generation AF is not bad, at all.

*Yes, the focus ring direction, being different from my several Nikkor zoom lenses, can be mildly vexing, but this lens has a tensioning ring, to mitigate zoom creep, and when adjusted for minimum tension, allows this lens to be operated by holding the barrel near the hood, or, the hood, itself, and pushing/pulling to zoom.






Nov 04, 2018 at 02:03 PM
RandyR
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


I shoot a D5, D850 and a D500.
The D5 blows away the other 2 in AF acquisition, AF tracking, low light AF and of course high ISO.
I won’t trust anything but the D5 for paid photo trips.
I have never shot a Canon 1dx2 but I know shooters who switched to Nikon because of the D5



Nov 04, 2018 at 03:42 PM
arbitrage
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #18 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


The 1DX2 is a capable BIF camera....maybe others are better....but if it gets the job done then it gets the job done...if it can nail Fox Sparrow's IF, not sure what else you'd need it to do?






















Nov 04, 2018 at 04:48 PM
elkhornsun
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


I shoot with Nikon as it has provided the best combination of autofocus, flash exposure accuracy, and lens options over the past 10 years. The D5 focuses faster, particular with subjects where the distance to the camera is rapidly changing, but at the loss of DR and image resolution. The D500 is the least expensive camera but it does not provide the IQ of the D850.

In terms of lenses any Nikon camera I use will focus fastest with the 500mm PF, followed by the 600mm f/4, followed by the 80-400mm, and the worst in AF performance is the 200-500mm lens. No perfect lens and these all have their own drawbacks for use in the field.

Photographing a white bird flying at the camera is as tough a situation to photograph successfully as I can think of and I have come to the conclusion that the best approach is to use as high a fps capture rate as possible knowing that it is going to take a good while to later review all the image files.

Many years ago I heard someone asking Cathy Church how she got such great photos of fan worms (which retreat into their hole in a second if they sense anything in their vicinity and she replied "I look for a retarded one". May not seem PC but it showed that she found a way to photograph a difficult subject underwater with the available cameras of the day.




Nov 05, 2018 at 07:10 PM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography


elkhornsun wrote:
The D500 is the least expensive camera but it does not provide the IQ of the D850.


This statement gets repeated a lot, but it's not necessarily true.
The answer to the question of, "Which has the better image quality?" ... is ... IT DEPENDS

Yes, if you're able to frame both shots equally, or only crop slightly, the D850 produces better images.

However, if you have to crop a D850 image-in to equal the native framing of the D500, the D500 image will be better than the D850 image. More pixels, better DR, better everything.

If you find yourself cropping-in mostly with a D500, it will *always* be taking better images than trying to crop-in to that extent with the D850.

Remember, all those great DR/IQ ratings with the D850 are when you're filling the frame; they're not when you're cropping-in to equal the D500 framing.

Remember too, that the D500 isn't just "less expensive" ... it has better AF, better AF coverage, a better buffer, faster frame-rate, AND better IQ than the D850, if you have to crop-in to achieve the same framing as the D500.

So the real way to answer the question, boils down to these questions:

1) How long is your glass?;
2) What's the general size of your quarry?;
3) How important is AF coverage, speed, buffer size?

EXAMPLES:
If you're shooting Elk in a wildlife park, or seagulls on a pier, the D850 might be the way to go.
If you have a 800 f/5.6E lens + 1.25x TC (or 600 f/4E), you might not need reach, or if you're cropping minimally, the D850 might be preferred.
Or, if you're shooting smaller birds, sitting on the porch a few yards away from your backyard bird feeders, with the tiny 300 f/4 PF, you still might be okay using the D850.

But if you're hiking in the mountains or desert, and if your quarry are legitimately wild, smaller birds ... who AREN'T tame ... who AREN'T at your backyard feeder ... but who are fast and wary ... and can see you a mile away ... you'll be glad to have the D500 ... and it will take better images, every time, than trying to crop-in with your D850



Nov 05, 2018 at 07:57 PM
1       2              4       5       6       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2              4       5       6       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account