JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #12 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography | |
Thern wrote:
Somehow I get the feeling you're thinking the cropfactor does increase focal length which is untrue.
A 300mm or any other lens is a 300mm no matter the sensor behind it.
The only difference is the FOV but that's not the same as FL.
In the case you're using a less resolution sensor you may/will notice 'the lack of sufficient pixels if you have to crop.
Most photogs like youself are cropping anyway so why not let the camera do the work allready...
This is imo the main reason why one would want to shoot a DX camera.
I understand the crop factor does not actually change the focal length, but it creates "an equivalent" focal length, as far as framing goes, hence the ~ designation in my reference.
Since Nikon itself, B&H, etc., all pronounce the same 1.5x "equivalent focal length" advantage also, I will continue to do so as well.
Thern wrote:
Before the D850 there was simply no (Nikon) fullframe camera with the same pixeldensity available which meant a cropsensor had the advantage for long end shooting providing the highest pixeldensity thus detail one could buy. (One of the reasons I bought a D500 which is despite its really higher resolution than the D5 my second choice)
With the D850 however the same applies.(again with a very slight advantage in labmeasurements for the D500)
The only difference is the D500 does the cropping incamera and with the D850 you can ,which is an advantage,
or have to do that yourself in PP.
In your examples you crop the D500 pics to a pretty big extend.
The portion of the frame with the bird is however the same percentage if you crop the D850 to that very same crop. (well a teenieweenie less)
If you want truly better pixeldensity ALONE you'd better buy a D5600   ...Show more →
I get all this, and have said as much, but you're leaving out a lot of factors.
First of all, I have the D850, so you're preaching to the choir about its merits to me. But, in the end, your parenthetical expression says it all: "it's a teenie-weenie bit LESS" than the D500. Please face this fact: less = less, which is why I use my D500.
No matter how you try to spin it, the D500 is MORE than the D850 for reach- and AF-situations.
More pixels, more reach, more AF coverage in your viewfinder, more visability in the viewfinder, more FPS (no matter how much you spent on that extra grip), it has way more buffer ... in essence, more of everything that I need. Period.
Lol, hey, the D5600 is a good lil' camera too, my girlfriend has it (along with the 18-140mm), but it doesn't have anywhere near the horsepower to supplant the D500 
Rest assured, I use my D850 for those situations where it is actually better than my D500: macro, landscape, portrait, where reach is not something I need.
Thern wrote:
I posted the snap (it's a snap, no PP just a jpg) of the roedeer to demonstrate the lack of versatility if one may say so of the cropsensor vs the wider FOV of a fullframesensor.
(I was out that day on the hunt for a rare bird in the wetlands and I stayed till nightfall when this roedeer showed up)
It's not a lack of versatility in the camera; it's a lack of options with you. I carry 2 cameras with me: the D500 and the D850. If you do the same, you could have taken off the TC, and switched the lens to the D850, but you chose not to. I've done the same thing at times (not bother to switch lenses); but if it's something I care about, I will simply take a few shots with the D500 ... then switch the lens to the D850 ... take off the TC ... and try to properly compose.
Normally, I have the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar on my D850 (with wide lenses in a pouch, for landscapes). So in that situation, I also could just holster my D500 + 300 PF combo in the chest-holster of my Cotton Carrier, and take the D850 + 125mm combo off my hip-holster, and get the larger animal shot that way.
But the truth is, the number of times I need the reach is 50-1 versus the number of times I have "too much" reach with my combo, so I'll keep doing what I'm doing
Thern wrote:
Imo both cameras have their advantages and properties which may appeal more to one or another but 'the eventual reach' is the same.
The difference is having more real estate collected by the full frame sensor and thus more cropping needed to isolate a little bird but it will net you in the end with the same result in pixeldensity on your subject.
Look at it this way if you'd print the uncropped pics of a little bird at the same distance of the D500 and D850 at 300 PPI you'd obtain a much larger print of the D850 file but the bird would be the same size....Show more →
Wrong. You keep trying to say the reach is "the same." It's NOT the same, and no again, the bird would NOT be "the same size" ... it would be smaller, less pixels, less DR, less color, etc.
The D850 reach is "almost" the same; the frame rate is "almost" the same; the buffer is "not even close." It would be helpful to stop saying things that aren't true and simply face these facts. It's all published information, friend; there is nothing to debate.
Look, I *know* when to use my D850, I've got one
I also know when *not* to use it, which is pretty much 100% of the time I am hiking looking for birds and needing reach. Same as I know putting a Zeiss prime on my D500 is a waste of time for a landscape shot, when the D850 will blow it out of the water. Again, you're preaching to the choir, and you're trying to "sell someone" on a D850 who already has one 
Your argument *only* holds if I can only bring one camera. Yes, the D850 is the better "all-rounder."
But I bring *both* cameras with me, and I *know* the D500 is the better camera for reach, AF speed, and buffer ... which is what I use it for. (Right tool for the job, and all ...)
Again, there is nothing to debate. It simply is.
Cheers.
|
