JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.5 #2 · D500 vs D850 for bird photography | |
Thern wrote:
The socalled advantage of the cropfactor is marketingtalk and nonexistent after PP.
A 66% crop of a fullframesensor with the same pixeldensity will give you exactly the same FOV, AGAIN it doesn't change the FL used.
Like Geoff and I said and I will say it again,
In labmeasurements there's a marginal advantage for the D500, in practice you won't be able to tell them apart.
If that would be untrue I'd bought a D850 the day it was released to subsitute the D800E for its so much better IQ.
Don't know why you keep repeating yourself on this point, so let me repeat myself.
A 'marginal advantage' for the D500 is *still* an advantage. Stated in reverse, a marginal disadvantage of the D850 is still a DISadvantage. How many times must this be said, before the point sinks in?
I make my choices based on what's an advantage to me, which is why I stick with the D500 when shooting wildlife, given my lens choice (300 PF), and given my quarry (small birds).
Go re-read the bottom of p. 3 a hundred times, until the simple truth of it finally catches-hold with you.
Thern wrote:
The AF-sensor density is absolutely better and the viewfinder magnification is indeed an advantage, I agree.
Yes, right, another advantage for the D500. While the advantage in pixels is slight, the advantage in viewing is huge, leaving ALL advantages with the D500, zero for the D850.
Thern wrote:
In your assesment of both camera's I'd favour the D500 for everything else except for landscape where most photogs (I know landscapephotogs shooting tele) want the wider FOV of the fullframesensor.
Thern wrote:
In your assesment of both camera's I'd favour the D500 for everything else except for landscape where most photogs (I know landscapephotogs shooting tele) want the wider FOV of the fullframesensor.
We disagree. The D850 is superior to the D500 for *everything* in which I do not need a crop factor (portraits, macro, landscape). The only exception is certain instances of macro, where a crop-advantage increases "effective" magnification in the same fashion it increases "effective" focal length.
Thern wrote:
Well like I said I was out that day trying to catch a rare bird in the reserve leaving my other combo (FX plus zoomlens) at home.
The Roedeer showed up and I made a snap to identify it. (I'm wildlife manager in this reserve)
Sitting on a distance of less than 10 meters moving the rig slowly and carefully to my eye was sufficient for the Roedeer to run. So one shot and it was gone.
If you're only carrying one camera, I agree, the D850 is the best possible choice for that 'one' camera.
Me? I can holster my D500 +300 kit, and deploy my D850 + CV 125 kit, in less than 5 seconds. Less then 3 seconds, really. Holster one to chest, deploy the other from hip. Boom, ready. (BTW, if you don't have a Cotton Carrier, I highly-recommend you get one. One of the most liberating elements to my field hiking. Can't imagine not having one ...)
Thern wrote:
You're missing my point.
In theory you're right, even a 1% better DR or or or will validate your statements.
IRL however, it will be hard ,if so, to see this, if so, teenie weenie (yup! proud father and grandfather) differences.
Right is right, though?
Right? 
Thern wrote:
Which was what I said
So again if I could carry/buy just one camera not shooting exclusively litle birds, I'd prefer to use a D850 handsdown.
In the case you find youself needing to crop even the allready incamera cropped images, the D500 has the advantage not needing to move large files around containing a lot of unwanted data.
We agree. If I had to give up "one" camera, it would be the D500. The D850 is "almost" as good a wildlife camera, and absolutely blows the D500 away for everything else.
However, since I *don't* have to give up one camera, and since the Cotton Carrier *does* exist, I can HANDS-FREE carry *both* cameras ... and take advantage of the D500 where it BEATS the D850 (reach, AF, coverage, viewfinder) for small animals that are far away. The 300 PF is so light, I hardly feel it carried this way (unlike huge super-telephotos).
The difference is you decide to use the D850 for these things, accepting its 2nd-Place status, which you find "good enough" ... whereas I carry *both* cameras, using the D500 exclusively where it excels, and the D850 for everything else, where it excels.
Thern wrote:
Btw you state you're saving for a D5 which is indeed the best tool for lowlightconditions (since I'm shooting 90% of the times in really lowlight, the main reason why I bought one) but a D5 does indeed have noticeable less 'reach' asking for the best resolving longest focal lenght you can buy if shooting little birds/critters.
A 300PF (if I understand correctly your longest lens?) is in your case that short you will be prolly very unhappy with its results...
I agree. My kit is still a work in progress. If I used the D5, it would NOT be with the 300 PF, but with a 400 f/2.8 or a 600 f/4, and from a blind. The 300 PF + D500 is my *hiking* preference. If I were going to do blindwork, I would want a longer piece of glass, and would likely use the D850, except in low light, where the D5 would be used.
I wouldn't be casually hiking with all this stuff, but may haul it to stationary blind spots, unpack, deploy, etc.
Thern wrote:
Adding TCs will take away the gain in lowlightperformance. (For that matter I only engage the TC of the zoom if I have to, if I can avoid it by using the 600 I will allways do so)
I'd recommend to buy a fast supertele first but only if you're able and willing to deal with the bulk and heft of such lens.
Just saying.
I agree with this. Again, way back at the bottom of p. 3, I say all this.
We all have our compromises. My compromise is forgoing the superior resolution of FL ED super-telephotos in order to enjoy the light-weight mobility of the 300 PF, knowing I'm taking a hit in image quality over an FL ED Nikkor lens, but enjoying my hikes 1000x more since I don't have to carry the weight when I hike.
As you say, there's charts and graphs showing the FL ED lenses "score higher" in the tech figures, but **in the real world** the shots I am able to take with this lil' lens are easily as good as 90% of any images posted up here by those who sport the FL ED glass. The 300 PF is not only more enjoyable, it can also be used for macro, as this thread topic illustrates, GIVING me something extra, that no FL ED lens can duplicate, another bonus in using the 300 PF for hiking 
I will never again hike with a super-telephoto lens, takes all the fun out of it. However, for dedicated blind work, especially if travel expenses are involved, then I will indeed lug such a kit to a key spot, where the added reach + image quality of FF makes their deployment more sensible, when using longer glass.
Thern wrote:
PS Out of curiosity
Would you do me a favour and do a little test for me? If you don't want to there's no man overboard, I will certainly not blame you just ask somebody else.
If so take a little subject with lots of detail and place it at the distance where it's framefilling the D500 then make a snap with the D500 and D850 in DXmode, both at 300mm F/4, same ISO, from a tripod or whatever at the same distance.
I'd truely would like to see the results, like you stated before a pic is worth a thousand words.
Sorry, I don't jump through people's hoops. I've done all of this to my own satisfaction, and I agree the D850 is close. Full, detailed accounts have already been done as well, so it is senseless and pointless to "do it again."
Though the results are "close," at the end of the day the D850 is slightly *LESS* than the D500, and its viewfinder magnification is much less, which (again, refer to the bottom of p. 3), is sub-optimal for hiking, given my lens choice + intended quarry. I will repost the stated parameters again, here:
- So the real way clarify "which is best" 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
My last post on this subject 
|
