p.6 #4 · D850 still takes a better picture than z8/9, change my mind.
RoamingScott wrote:
Anyone grab a D850 on sale this weekend?
…
Anyone?!
I'm seeing some better pricing in the used arena but the only reason I would get another is to use my AIS glass and 105E with it at this point. But Z mount glass is so out of this world good compared to most F mount stuff, I just can't see the logic in going backwards even a little bit.
p.6 #5 · D850 still takes a better picture than z8/9, change my mind.
But the irrefutably better IQ!!!
Ai_Print wrote:
I'm seeing some better pricing in the used arena but the only reason I would get another is to use my AIS glass and 105E with it at this point. But Z mount glass is so out of this world good compared to most F mount stuff, I just can't see the logic in going backwards even a little bit.
p.6 #6 · D850 still takes a better picture than z8/9, change my mind.
sjms wrote:
"no denying this"? now thats an interesting piece of speculation. i know that if you say something enough there will some that will believe. you see you need to have the identical shooting situation to bring the variables in line with each other. blanket statements just don't cut it.
I wasn't even intending to continue humoring this thread but someone else bumped it up so why not. It's not a blanket statement or speculation. Images shot side by side in the same light with the same lens and same settings are cleaner out of a d850.
To everyone else who hasn't read the thread, I know the d850 is LOUD, I know the benefits the Z mount and mirrorless offer are far superior to dslrs, I know AF fine tune is a pain in the ass, that's not what I'm even talking about here.
p.6 #9 · D850 still takes a better picture than z8/9, change my mind.
Kasper6188 wrote:
I wasn't even intending to continue humoring this thread but someone else bumped it up so why not. It's not a blanket statement or speculation. Images shot side by side in the same light with the same lens and same settings are cleaner out of a d850.
To everyone else who hasn't read the thread, I know the d850 is LOUD, I know the benefits the Z mount and mirrorless offer are far superior to dslrs, I know AF fine tune is a pain in the ass, that's not what I'm even talking about here.
Seeing some banding there in the Z8 file.....what were your settings? Were the settings and edits the same for both cameras?
To say that the files are cleaner due to the better dynamic range of the D850, I want to contest that it would be very difficult to see the difference between a dynamic range of 14.8 vs 14.4 with properly exposed images. Happy to be convinced otherwise, but that still wouldn't push me back to DSLR land for reasons stated in the last page of this thread.
p.6 #10 · D850 still takes a better picture than z8/9, change my mind.
Yea this is more of a stacked sensor thing. Stacked sensors are fast but the we're trading things like DR and IQ for speed. This is apparent in other company's cameras too, like Sony's a7R non-stacked sensor cameras against the a1.
It's also why a non-stacked sensor third gen Z7 is also worth having around.
p.6 #11 · D850 still takes a better picture than z8/9, change my mind.
They look better for some reason, don't they? DSLR files look thicker, image motifs have better shape, images look deeper. Not always but some will see it for sure. It's what I see in my early Sonys also (a900/a99), so I am leaning towards sensor design and signal handling, specifically the PDAF developments that combine the sub parts of the photo diode captures after they work their magic in focusing.
They are all using some form of 'all pixel' AF now, so the loss due to pixel type (AF or image capture) is no longer correct, as all pixels are used for both AF and image capture.
"One further benefit of the new Canon technology is that these signals can be combined and output as a single image pixel, which Canon claims suffers from ‘virtually no light loss’."
So that is a further step in mirrorless, but I'd like to know the exact measure of 'virtually' here. It might be this kind of thing, now that sensor AF has taken over as the main R/D area of sensor design attention, from DR and image quality as a pure element.
It can be one change or the combination of several differences, and we don't know what goes on in these modern age 'dark arts' chip design departments. Like this:
'Nikon said that BSI wasn't used on the D850 for low light (less noise). In fact, they said it was used to allow for more circuit runs so the chip could be read off faster.' Nikon engineers always got more from that era's Sony sensors.
It might be that all the ducks were in a row in the D850, as a lucky outcome.
--------------
DR: agree that a half stop is near the threshold of 'noticing' - a stop is easy to see, less than a half-stop is difficult or not relevant.
p.6 #12 · D850 still takes a better picture than z8/9, change my mind.
Kasper6188 wrote:
I wasn't even intending to continue humoring this thread but someone else bumped it up so why not. It's not a blanket statement or speculation. Images shot side by side in the same light with the same lens and same settings are cleaner out of a d850.
To everyone else who hasn't read the thread, I know the d850 is LOUD, I know the benefits the Z mount and mirrorless offer are far superior to dslrs, I know AF fine tune is a pain in the ass, that's not what I'm even talking about here.
The Z8 noise difference is not because it's a MILC - it's because it has a sensor optimized for readout performance, which unfortunately currently carries a small read noise penalty. The non-Z8/Z9 bodies don't have that penalty. The pro DSLR Nikon bodies also have read noise penalties.
p.6 #14 · D850 still takes a better picture than z8/9, change my mind.
snapsy wrote:
The Z8 noise difference is not because it's a MILC - it's because it has a sensor optimized for readout performance, which unfortunately currently carries a small read noise penalty. The non-Z8/Z9 bodies don't have that penalty. The pro DSLR Nikon bodies also have read noise penalties.
but within reason it does not require much to resolve at all. that's the reason i don't notice it and after i am finished it to is finished.
p.6 #15 · D850 still takes a better picture than z8/9, change my mind.
philip_pj wrote:
They look better for some reason, don't they? DSLR files look thicker, image motifs have better shape, images look deeper. Not always but some will see it for sure. It's what I see in my early Sonys also (a900/a99), so I am leaning towards sensor design and signal handling, specifically the PDAF developments that combine the sub parts of the photo diode captures after they work their magic in focusing.
They are all using some form of 'all pixel' AF now, so the loss due to pixel type (AF or image capture) is no longer correct, as all pixels are used for both AF and image capture.
"One further benefit of the new Canon technology is that these signals can be combined and output as a single image pixel, which Canon claims suffers from ‘virtually no light loss’."
So that is a further step in mirrorless, but I'd like to know the exact measure of 'virtually' here. It might be this kind of thing, now that sensor AF has taken over as the main R/D area of sensor design attention, from DR and image quality as a pure element.
It can be one change or the combination of several differences, and we don't know what goes on in these modern age 'dark arts' chip design departments. Like this:
'Nikon said that BSI wasn't used on the D850 for low light (less noise). In fact, they said it was used to allow for more circuit runs so the chip could be read off faster.' Nikon engineers always got more from that era's Sony sensors.
It might be that all the ducks were in a row in the D850, as a lucky outcome.
--------------
DR: agree that a half stop is near the threshold of 'noticing' - a stop is easy to see, less than a half-stop is difficult or not relevant. ...Show more →
Well said, this is exactly what I see. Thicker, more depth, substance, natural look etc… Not something measurable or seen by everyone.
p.6 #17 · D850 still takes a better picture than z8/9, change my mind.
Kasper6188 wrote:
Well said, this is exactly what I see. Thicker, more depth, substance, natural look etc… Not something measurable or seen by everyone.
That's nothing. The new Canon will capture 3-dimensional images. You will just need a new monitor with a 3-dimensional screen to view them properly.
