elkhornsun wrote:
In theory the D500 should be better for BIF as the autofocus sensors cover more of the viewfinder and in theory the IQ should be a tiny bit better with more megapixels. In reality though I have found that he image quality is better from the D850 than the D500 when using the same set of lenses (600mm f/4E, 200-500mm, and 80-400mm). I did not expect to see a difference but it was actually quite apparent.
I dislike shooting with the D850 in DX crop mode and it does require a battery pack grip with the EN-EL18 battery to provide the fps of the bare D500 with the DN-EL15 battery. But the visible difference in image quality has resulted in my relegating the D500 as a backup camera for the time being. When the D6 arrives it will replace the D500. ...Show more →
apertur3 wrote:
Interesting. Do you find that AF-auto is best for BIF with the D850? I've been using 9-pt and group, and have had varying degrees of success. My hit rate isn't very high, but some of it could be due to my lack of experience/practice shooting BIF.
Yes I do. Before, I also used 9-pt or Group and also had varying degrees of success. For me, in most cases, with AF-auto, I have found that the eye *is* in focus. There have been times when I found that the eye was *not* quite in focus; i.e. (as already mentioned) AF-auto focused on a larger part of the bird. But most often AF-auto is right on.
Besides, one reason I was searching for a new option was that I often was *not* able to keep the 9-pt or Group on the bird throughout the entire sequence.
TimMunsey wrote:
When you get your bird full frame the noise "particles" are smaller on the D850 compared to the full frame D500 image, compared at DX level then as Gary says the D500 might have a slight advantage the noise being of the same size.
I prefer my D850 over my D500 simply because you have double the bird catching area.
If you use auto area AF then I think the D850 is faster than the D500, but if you use group or 25 then it could be slower. With the D850 I use auto area with the D500 I use 3D, which I know is a little off the popular choice.
This sounds about like what I have found. I only started using AF-auto after I switched away from my D500 and went to my D850.
I have a Microsoft Word file somewhere that states in the title that "the D850 AF sucks”. This was when I still favored my D500 (and still used 9-pnt and Group and the like; i.e. *not* AF-auto yet). I would bring the D850 with me in the field as an alternate, and set aside a little time to test it. But it just would not come close to acquiring AF like my D500 would. I was so frustrated with it as a BIF camera. So, I continued to favor the D500. But on those outings I never thought to try AF-auto with my D850.
Then one day Geoff mentioned AF-auto and recommended it to me. So I gave it a try on the estuary. That was it! The results were great.... or at least very good!
Now, like Tim, I favor the D850 (with a 9 FPS set-up of course) as my BIF camera. I think it is because I know I have the chance at composing an entire bird comfortably within a 45 megapixel image. That excites me! So, when I learned about the speed/accuracy of the AF-auto (with the D850), the D850 became my BIF choice. I think it is nearly all I expect from AF in accuracy and speed.
This may change this coming season, but it's not likely. I am quite happy with how this works.
So, if you shoot the D850 and like to shoot BIF, I would seriously give AF-auto a good go and see if you like it too.
A given autofocus mode works better in some situation than it others. That is why Nikon and Canon provide their customers with multiple approached.
Group AF works great for me when photographing hummers where they nearly fill the frame but has been completely ineffective with birds that are in a group as the camera can ignore the bird in the center of the frame if another bird is closer to the camera.
DAF 25-point makes it easier to track BIF but the result have been much better with 9 point DAF although tracking is more difficult.
With the D850 I can switch to DX mode for more distant or smaller subjects and back to FX when the subject gets closer. No such option with the D500 or other DX camera.
What is overlooked is that the D850 has a unique sensor design that is an improvement over those in the D5 and D500 and I can easily see the difference between a DX image from the D850 over one from the D500 taken of the same subject with the same lens. The D850 is definitely the better camera and it should be at 2x the cost of the D500. The value proposition with the $6500 D5 is much harder to accept and why I do not own one, as attractive as its smaller megapixel image files are in terms of post processing efficiency.
groob wrote:
I think we need more information before any useful advice can be given.
1. What ISOs are you shooting at?
2. What is causing the noise: increased ISO, underexposure at the point of capture, or post-processing?
In my experience, when the subject is properly exposed, neither camera produces overly-objectionable noise at ISOs up to 4000 or 5000.
Yes, I keep wondering...in flat or lower lighting, might I need to overexpose a bit more to overcome a potential noise issue? It seems counterintuitive but I think you're very right about this.
pasblues wrote:
Yes, I keep wondering...in flat or lower lighting, might I need to overexpose a bit more to overcome a potential noise issue? It seems counterintuitive but I think you're very right about this.
I think this depends on how you define overexposing. Regardless of the type of light, you need to make sure that you've properly exposed the subject. Oftentimes in flat light, that will mean the background will be overexposed, but I wouldn't worry about that as long as the subject is properly exposed. In any type of light, I expose the subject so that its whites are on the verge of being too hot. I call that a proper exposure, even if the background is overexposed.
As to the noise issue, if the subject is properly exposed, you shouldn't have to deal with much noise in it up to ISO 4000 or so. If you push the file in post, then, yes, you can introduce noise.
groob wrote:
I think this depends on how you define overexposing. Regardless of the type of light, you need to make sure that you've properly exposed the subject. Oftentimes in flat light, that will mean the background will be overexposed, but I wouldn't worry about that as long as the subject is properly exposed. In any type of light, I expose the subject so that its whites are on the verge of being too hot. I call that a proper exposure, even if the background is overexposed.
As to the noise issue, if the subject is properly exposed, you shouldn't have to deal with much noise in it up to ISO 4000 or so. If you push the file in post, then, yes, you can introduce noise. ...Show more →
Yes, exactly, the subject needs to be properly exposed - exactly what you are saying. I'm sure we are talking about the same thing. A subject in more of a flat lit shadier area with a bright background needs adjustment by the photographer to compensate for the imbalance (if shooting in some sort of auto exposure mode) which is a lot better than trying to bring the subject exposure up in post. That's where the noise is going to raise it's ugly head. So, a bird in the sky that looks flat lit from below - we don't care about the bright sky...the bird needs to be properly exposed.
I would agree with you about ISO noise except that I've gotten distracted recently by something referred to as thermal noise, which I've never considered before. I don't know exactly when thermal noise comes into play - is that like...a hot day or when the camera heats up or what?
pasblues wrote:
Yes, exactly, the subject needs to be properly exposed - exactly what you are saying. I'm sure we are talking about the same thing. A subject in more of a flat lit shadier area with a bright background needs adjustment by the photographer to compensate for the imbalance (if shooting in some sort of auto exposure mode) which is a lot better than trying to bring the subject exposure up in post. That's where the noise is going to raise it's ugly head. So, a bird in the sky that looks flat lit from below - we don't care about the bright sky...the bird needs to be properly exposed.
I would agree with you about ISO noise except that I've gotten distracted recently by something referred to as thermal noise, which I've never considered before. I don't know exactly when thermal noise comes into play - is that like...a hot day or when the camera heats up or what? ...Show more →
Both the D500 and D850 sensors are very close to ISO-less from ISO 400 upwards and certainly are at higher ISO. Therefore, if you underexpose a few stops and push in post you are no worse than if you used the proper ISO for the subject. But the noise you end up seeing if you push a 1600 file up one stop would be what you would have seen using 3200 in camera.
For other cameras (like most Canons and the D5 (below ISO 5000)) you really need to get the ISO right in camera or you pay a penalty doing it in post.
When you properly expose the subject leaving the background darker and then bring up shadows in post by a stop the noise shown in the background after the shadow lift will be greater than the ISO used to expose the subject properly.
arbitrage wrote:
Both the D500 and D850 sensors are very close to ISO-less from ISO 400 upwards and certainly are at higher ISO. Therefore, if you underexpose a few stops and push in post you are no worse than if you used the proper ISO for the subject. But the noise you end up seeing if you push a 1600 file up one stop would be what you would have seen using 3200 in camera.
For other cameras (like most Canons and the D5 (below ISO 5000)) you really need to get the ISO right in camera or you pay a penalty doing it in post.
When you properly expose the subject leaving the background darker and then bring up shadows in post by a stop the noise shown in the background after the shadow lift will be greater than the ISO used to expose the subject properly. ...Show more →
A lot to consider. I've owned a number of systems and they all have their good and bad. It comes down to knowing how a particular piece of equipment works and how you can push or pull on it. I had a Canon 10 that did terrible in low light at 1600 ISO, (even properly exposed subject) but in plenty of light at 1600 ISO, it was fine. Sensors have come a long way since then.
I was doing bird photography in Costa Rica the past two weeks and had the D500 and D850 and for lenses, the 500mm PF, 600mm f/4, and 80-400mm zoom. I found that with the 500mm PF lens that I used more than 50% of the time the best camera to use with it was the FX D850. I had a wider field of view and if I ended up cropping the image later I lost nothing in the way of image quality.
The same applied to the 80-400mm where I had 80-400mm zoom options and where most of the time I was shooting at between 150mm and 350mm with the FX camera. Where I have benefited from the 80-400mm lens mounted on a DX camera was in places like Yellowstone where the camera to subject distances tend to be much greater.
