I currently own the D7100, D500, & D810 so I should think this out before acting. I am interested in the D850 but will hold off till it has been out a least 1 year like I did the others. I do not have a stellar history when being a early adopter with any product. My other problem is I tend to purchase new and never get rid of anything when upgrading. Had my house for forty years and my wife for third years.
NIkon D850: Best Wildlife Camera EVER?
- Thread starter mikew_RIP
- Start date
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
That would be a great name for a rock band...Dream Crusher.Dont crush my dreams just yet!!!
I just looked through my LR catalog for some wildlife shots at low light high ISO with the D750. It's been awhile since I used the D750 for wildlife but if something happened to my D500 I would have no qualms about going back to the D750.
As you can see by the exif it was pretty low light wildlife stuff with ISO 6400 and at 1/800th SS. The focus is spot on as well even with a 150 dollar Kenko 1.4 TC attached to the 200-500mm lens.
Congratulations, after the divorce it will not be a problem
I do rate it on what we hear as possibly the best camera for wildlife but my spending days on that scale are over,my wife was made redundant 6 weeks ago and ime already retired so we decided she would not go back to work.I do have the satisfaction of having the D500 and in the dim and distant past owning a few top film camera bodies like the Nikon F3 and the Hassleblad 500ELM.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I think at some point we need to find a way to separate those who speak from years of first-hand experience from those who speak from theory and conjecture.
Dont ask me to explain this i just saw it on a bird watching forum and thought it may be of interest,it should show the 500 V the D850 in DX mode,if not you can enter them.it looks like you need to select them your self.
Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting
Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting
Seriously, you had two days to think of something, and THIS is the best you were able to come up with?
Ok, now that I got my cheap return shot out of the way, let me get REAL serious: HoroscopeFish, there are obviously lots of people on this forum who joined, like I did, because they want to learn AND share their own knowledge/experience. Newbie or old hand, I'd hope that's true for everyone. We all have wisdom to share and knowledge gaps to fill. Since joining the forum, I've learned quite a few things, and I hope people learned something from me, as well.
Problem is, there is nothing to be learned from opinions. It takes well-formulated arguments, observations, and factual statements. The link mikew just shared provides great food for thought (thanks, Mike!) - your statement I am quoting here reflects no intention whatsoever to move the discussion forward. After more than 20 years of shooting with around ten different Nikons and no-idea-how-many different lenses, I am still happy to learn and be proven wrong; in fact, I admittedly sometimes make bold statements to see who CAN and WILL prove me wrong. In all cases, however, convincing me of something will take arguments, not opinions or insults. I try to do the same thing the other way around, by either using arguments or clearly stating it when something is just my opinion (and then still trying to augment that with an argument where possible).
"My camera is better" and "You're a fool", which unfortunately pretty much sums up your contributions to this thread (and those of a few others) in an admittedly pointed way, are statements that do well in the opinions department but suck as arguments. Does posting such statements give you pleasure? What it is that makes it enticing for you to insult and ridicule, rather than compel and convince? I'm afraid I don't get it.
TL Robinson
Senior Member
I love playing with these charts - D500 .vs D750 (DX) D810 (DX) and D850 (DX) - D750 still tops them all...not that I shoot my 750 in DX mode - only did once when I wanted to test my Sigma 50-100 Art and my D500 hadn't been delivered yet...
TL Robinson
Senior Member
^ That being said when you look at other areas the D850 does show a marked improvement - not just DR at higher ISO's. The DR Shadow Improvement chart puts the D850 above both the D810 and the D750 - but still way below the D5.
Again - from the feedback I'm getting from people I know and trust who are shooting with D850's now - it's a fantastic camera, and I'll probably end up with one in my bag eventually unless I opt for a D5 (or it's successor).
Again - from the feedback I'm getting from people I know and trust who are shooting with D850's now - it's a fantastic camera, and I'll probably end up with one in my bag eventually unless I opt for a D5 (or it's successor).
Last edited:
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I haven't given it any thought at all over the past couple of days. I was re-reading this thread and replied to that off the cuff...
I've re-read my posts and I don't find anything insulting about them. I can be a tad blunt at times, I admit, but I certainly never made any "my camera [is] better" statements, nor did I ever imply you were/are a fool. I disputed one specific statement you made regarding the low-light capabilities of the D750, and I still do. But again, I'm sorry you feel insulted. Insulting posters is a violation of the ToS so please feel free to report these insults to a Moderator. You can also add me to your Ignore List.
Cheers.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
As an owner of one and a former owner of the other, this is just bat-shit crazy talk. Seriously bat-shit crazy talk.
"The D750 is sort of the full-frame equivalent of the D7100."
Here's a thought: how about we look at the facts? (You should try that some time - can be great fun!)
The D7100 and D750 have near-identical resolution and shooting speed. They also share most other features and setting options. They have identical mode dials, a feature that sets the 750 apart from all other Nikon FX bodies except for the 600/610. They even have identical sets of Scene and Effect modes, a combination not found on any other FX body.
The 7100 was the first Nikon to get the faster, more precise 51-point AF system. Guess which FX camera was the first one to get it? Right: the 750! The 750 has a built-in electronic level. Guess which DX camera got it first? Right: the 7100! (Same with a number of other features the two bodies share, such as flash slow limit, flash sync, flash bracketing, repeating flash and flash commander mode, 200 percent LiveView zoom, ...)
Where the 750 differs is in its sensor (FX vs DX - as I had pointed out), which also gives it one higher ISO stop. In addition, the 750 has built-in Wifi which the 7100 did not yet have but the 7200 got, a quiet continuous mode, and a few other minor spec differences. If that makes you happy, you could argue that the 7200 is even MORE similar to the 750 than the 7100 is. Nevertheless, there are lots of similarities between 7100 and 750, certainly enough for my statement to make sense.
If you owned both of them, as you said, maybe you should have spent the time to get to know them?
Here's a thought: how about we look at the facts? (You should try that some time - can be great fun!)
The D7100 and D750 have near-identical resolution and shooting speed. They also share most other features and setting options. They have identical mode dials, a feature that sets the 750 apart from all other Nikon FX bodies except for the 600/610. They even have identical sets of Scene and Effect modes, a combination not found on any other FX body.
The 7100 was the first Nikon to get the faster, more precise 51-point AF system. Guess which FX camera was the first one to get it? Right: the 750! The 750 has a built-in electronic level. Guess which DX camera got it first? Right: the 7100! (Same with a number of other features the two bodies share, such as flash slow limit, flash sync, flash bracketing, repeating flash and flash commander mode, 200 percent LiveView zoom, ...)
Where the 750 differs is in its sensor (FX vs DX - as I had pointed out), which also gives it one higher ISO stop. In addition, the 750 has built-in Wifi which the 7100 did not yet have but the 7200 got, a quiet continuous mode, and a few other minor spec differences. If that makes you happy, you could argue that the 7200 is even MORE similar to the 750 than the 7100 is. Nevertheless, there are lots of similarities between 7100 and 750, certainly enough for my statement to make sense.
If you owned both of them, as you said, maybe you should have spent the time to get to know them?
TL Robinson
Senior Member
I have owned both, and I can tell you from hands on experience, the *one* time I used the D7100 in a low light situation (again, venue shooting, but low light is low light regardless) I was no where near pleased.
Body and mode similarities, or when whichever camera got what feature, are pretty much irrelevant to the conversation.
The D4, D4s, D750, D810 and the D850 are all fairly equivalent when it comes to dynamic range at high ISO, only beat out by the D5. The D7100 doesn't even come close, which is one of the reasons I sold my D7100 since it was pretty much collecting dust and useless for what I shoot 75% of the time.
I still use my D750, even with owning a D810, and see -0- reason, still, to drop $3300 on a D850. If I see images that reflect what I consider a marked improvement in DR at high ISO's that may change. For the amount of wildlife I shoot, the D500 is perfectly suited (and on chart at least shows slightly higher DR across the board than the D850 in crop mode) - so no reason to side-grade there either. I'd rather spend that money on glass where needed or wait for the D5 successor.
Again, the D850 is an amazing camera for what it is - and if I were shooting with anything less than what I have, I would definitely buy one. Short pixel density, there isn't enough of an improvement there to justify it in anyway.
All that said, as fun as it is debating cameras on the 'net - time better spent outside shooting before it decides to rain.
Body and mode similarities, or when whichever camera got what feature, are pretty much irrelevant to the conversation.
The D4, D4s, D750, D810 and the D850 are all fairly equivalent when it comes to dynamic range at high ISO, only beat out by the D5. The D7100 doesn't even come close, which is one of the reasons I sold my D7100 since it was pretty much collecting dust and useless for what I shoot 75% of the time.
I still use my D750, even with owning a D810, and see -0- reason, still, to drop $3300 on a D850. If I see images that reflect what I consider a marked improvement in DR at high ISO's that may change. For the amount of wildlife I shoot, the D500 is perfectly suited (and on chart at least shows slightly higher DR across the board than the D850 in crop mode) - so no reason to side-grade there either. I'd rather spend that money on glass where needed or wait for the D5 successor.
Again, the D850 is an amazing camera for what it is - and if I were shooting with anything less than what I have, I would definitely buy one. Short pixel density, there isn't enough of an improvement there to justify it in anyway.
All that said, as fun as it is debating cameras on the 'net - time better spent outside shooting before it decides to rain.
Last edited:
Couldn't agree more. I am 10 hours away from boarding a flight to Delhi, about to spend three weeks traveling in India and Nepal together with my wife.
I`d like to see some D850 discussion here. Probably it is too early?
For me there are 5 main criteria in cameras:
1) Resolution => the D850 does excellent
2) Reach and 3) AF => the D850 does as well as D500 (not clear on the DX mode in the visor)
4) Colour and tone accuracy => does the D850 come close to D4 to D5 preformance??
5) High ISO performance => difficult to judge in real life with the D850, since you will have to compare a 300dpi result in a sensible print format
With 2 cameras (main and spare) a D5 + D850 seems to cover most (used to be 3 to cover all: D5 + D810 + D500).
However I see a wildlife photographer go for D850 (main) and
- a second D850, easy to work
- a D500 for a lighter solution
- a D750 (even if not the newest, a valid discussion)
- a Df (D5 replacement on budget)
The D850 seems to have the main properties a wildlife photographer would want.
- top notch AF
- serious buffer and fps
- ISO performance on the end result (not clear yet for me, but clearly not bad)
Does it replace a D500 + D810 combination, no for me since it is 1 camera, but it can be an upgrade for the D500 and for the D810, both.
For me there are 5 main criteria in cameras:
1) Resolution => the D850 does excellent
2) Reach and 3) AF => the D850 does as well as D500 (not clear on the DX mode in the visor)
4) Colour and tone accuracy => does the D850 come close to D4 to D5 preformance??
5) High ISO performance => difficult to judge in real life with the D850, since you will have to compare a 300dpi result in a sensible print format
With 2 cameras (main and spare) a D5 + D850 seems to cover most (used to be 3 to cover all: D5 + D810 + D500).
However I see a wildlife photographer go for D850 (main) and
- a second D850, easy to work
- a D500 for a lighter solution
- a D750 (even if not the newest, a valid discussion)
- a Df (D5 replacement on budget)
The D850 seems to have the main properties a wildlife photographer would want.
- top notch AF
- serious buffer and fps
- ISO performance on the end result (not clear yet for me, but clearly not bad)
Does it replace a D500 + D810 combination, no for me since it is 1 camera, but it can be an upgrade for the D500 and for the D810, both.
Hi Vincent, This started out as a D850 wildlife discussion but got a little side-tracked with the debate around the D750.
Thinking about your post, I arrive at a slightly different list I care about for my wildlife shooting. Quite a bit of it requires long hikes in remote areas or across rain forests, which may explain this. In order of priority, I'd say my requirements are these:
1. Reach - do I have sufficient focal length?
2. AF speed and accuracy - fast enough to always get the shot?
3. Hi ISO performance - is the shot of that owl sitting in the dark going to be good?
4. Schleppability - can I carry my gear over many miles without breaking my back?
5. Resolution - can I crop tightly and still keep a large enough image?
6. Shooting speed - can I get the right shot with a moving target?
As you'll note, color accuracy is not high on my list because I feel I can always fix that in post-editing.
Because of these priorities, a D500 is high on my list. DX has an intrinsic advantage with priority #1 and allows me to use a shorter (read: lighter) lens, where Nikon's 300mm f/4 PF is just right for me because it is sharp and super-light. In my view, priority #2 is only met by Nikon's 153-point AF - the older 51-point system isn't nearly as good, though not bad.
That leaves only the D5, which I consider too heavy, and the D850 as alternatives. D750 and Df are off my list because they have no DX and the slower AF, thus falling short of my two top priorities. I know some wildlifers place higher priority on shooting speed than I do, but that would not change the ranking between these bodies anyway.
The D850, with nearly as much resolution in DX format as the D500, is a seriously attractive alternative if its hi-ISO performance turns out to be as good as initial test shots suggest. I often carry two bodies and am definitely eyeing the D850 as my second one. But when shooting DX, I'm not sure which advantages it would offer me over the D500 for wildlife.