NIkon D850: Best Wildlife Camera EVER?

[TL Robinson]

...D750 and Df are off my list because they have no DX....

Not to derail again but need to point out that this is an incorrect statement with regards to the D750. It does indeed have DX mode. I've used it on a few occasions...once by complete accident.

I have no dF experience so can't address that camera...

Back to the 850....

 

[lokatz]

Good point, thanks. I should have said "native DX." At effective DX resolutions of less than 10 (D750) respectively around 6 megapixels (Df), these two bodies don't really cover DX for me. The D850, on the other hand, has almost 20, so it and the D810 are the only full-frame bodies I would consider for DX shots.

 

[Vincent]

...I arrive at a slightly different list I care about for my wildlife shooting.

I actually made a list of camera properties, not wildlife.
The D4S was mainly an option due to more performant AF.
The D5 is less due to the same AF on D500 and D850 for more resolution (reach) and lighter package.

On the other hand the colour and tone properties of the D5 can not be matched by the D500 in post. Not clear on the D850 for this.
Similarly an expensive Hasselblad will not be matched by the D5, but again not the discussion here or for wildlife at this moment I believe.

D750 and Df are off my list because they have no DX and the slower AF, thus falling short of my two top priorities.

It might be a different vision, but my second body does not need to cover the same as my primary. So if my primary is wildlife, my second will be complementary. But must agree D850 covers a lot, D5 as above with FX, almost 21 Mpix is probably powerful and good at high ISO = it is up to the user to put priority.

Schleppability: depends how far the stake out is, I`m conceiving my new house to have a view on wildlife (deer) from my balcony. The wild boar keep distroying the garden, etc ...

 

[Ad B]

I want to delete my input as much as possible (see Z7).

 

[Blacktop]

Nearly two weeks ago now.
Last week no D850 in my shop, damn.:ambivalence:
This week, also no delivery...:chargrined:
Again, waiting, waiting, waiting. That's a weak point in my brain.
If it takes much longer, I don't want the cam anymore, damn you Nikon!

Is your D750 broken?:barbershop_quartet:

Just messin with you. I know how it is when you order something and it seems to take for ever. I was checking the UPS tracking every 5 minutes after I ordered my D500.

 

[Ad B]

I want to delete my input as much as possible (see Z7).

 

[ISOhappy]

Here's my take on the D850 as the "best wildlife camera ever"...

For me, it's not. Here's why: I don't have exotic primes with TCs or an 800mm lens I can just pop on the camera. Even if I did, that's not my style. I like a lens that I can handhold, so my longest lens is the 200-500. In a lot of cases, I'm focal-length challenged, especially on an FX camera. I tend to crop most of my DX shots, so I know I'd be cropping practically all of my D850 wildlife shots. And that's the catch right there. When you crop down a lot on an 850 image, you throw away all those extra pixels and lose the FX advantage.

For wildlife, I decided on the D500. It's smaller, lighter and less expensive than the 850. It's got 21 MP vs 19-something with an 850 DX crop. It shoots faster, and if you want 9 fps on the D850, you gotta spend another grand. As far as ISO performance goes, it appears that per-pixel noise on the D500 is very similar to the D850 (in fact, I think the 500 looks slightly better). Now if you downsize the 850 image to match the 500, sure, the 850 will look a little cleaner, but if I have to crop, I'm not going to have that huge, 45 MP image to downsize.

So, is the D850 the most overhyped camera ever? Maybe. Is it the best for wildlife? If you can manage to fill the FX frame, then it could be. And there's the rub. The name of the game in wildlife is reach, and I know I can never get enough of it. In my case, it makes way more sense to shoot with the D500 and save the extra $2400 ($1400 difference in body price plus $1000 for the battery, grip, charger, etc) for better things.

 

[mikew_RIP]

Here's my take on the D850 as the "best wildlife camera ever"...

For me, it's not. Here's why: I don't have exotic primes with TCs or an 800mm lens I can just pop on the camera. Even if I did, that's not my style. I like a lens that I can handhold, so my longest lens is the 200-500. In a lot of cases, I'm focal-length challenged, especially on an FX camera. I tend to crop most of my DX shots, so I know I'd be cropping practically all of my D850 wildlife shots. And that's the catch right there. When you crop down a lot on an 850 image, you throw away all those extra pixels and lose the FX advantage.

For wildlife, I decided on the D500. It's smaller, lighter and less expensive than the 850. It's got 21 MP vs 19-something with an 850 DX crop. It shoots faster, and if you want 9 fps on the D850, you gotta spend another grand. As far as ISO performance goes, it appears that per-pixel noise on the D500 is very similar to the D850 (in fact, I think the 500 looks slightly better). Now if you downsize the 850 image to match the 500, sure, the 850 will look a little cleaner, but if I have to crop, I'm not going to have that huge, 45 MP image to downsize.

So, is the D850 the most overhyped camera ever? Maybe. Is it the best for wildlife? If you can manage to fill the FX frame, then it could be. And there's the rub. The name of the game in wildlife is reach, and I know I can never get enough of it. In my case, it makes way more sense to shoot with the D500 and save the extra $2400 ($1400 difference in body price plus $1000 for the battery, grip, charger, etc) for better things.

Welcome to the forum

 

[ISOhappy]

Welcome to the forum

Thanks, Mike. I thought I'd try something new, and this looks good. I spent a decent amount of time over on DP Reviews, but way too much trolling and bickering going on.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

... I spent a decent amount of time over on DP Reviews, but way too much trolling and bickering going on.

LOL... I'd say you're being waaay too kind. While some sub-forums are worse than others, the behavior on DPR, generally speaking, is deplorable in my opinion and wouldn't be tolerated on Nikonites for a New York minute. I hang out on DPR a bit but rarely post.

 

[Bikerbrent]

ISOhappy,

Welcome aboard. Enjoy the ride.
We look forward to seeing more posts and samples of your work.

You might want to post on the New Member Introductions thread

 

[lokatz]

... In a lot of cases, I'm focal-length challenged, especially on an FX camera. I tend to crop most of my DX shots, so I know I'd be cropping practically all of my D850 wildlife shots.
...
For wildlife, I decided on the D500. It's smaller, lighter and less expensive than the 850.
...
So, is the D850 the most overhyped camera ever? Maybe. ... The name of the game in wildlife is reach, and I know I can never get enough of it.

Hi ISOhappy, welcome to the forum!

I love my D500 as much as you apparently love yours, but why do you see a need to badmouth the D850?

For starters, you seem to embrace a rather narrow definition of wildlife, one I would refer to as birding-and-wild-animals-at-a-distance shooting. For that type of shooting, yes, I'd pick the D500 over a D850 any day. [I actually said so in a different thread earlier today.] However, if you ever go to, say Kruger Park, about half of your shots or so would clearly be better if you had a D850 because there you get to see a lot of wildlife up close. Not sure that's any less wildlife-ish. In my own wildlife shooting (during the past three years alone, I went to remote areas of Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, South Africa, India and Nepal), I often find myself wishing for a longer lens but also often shoot closer up, where IQ matters more than crop does.

"Most overhyped camera ever?" Where did you get that? [Ok, you answered 'maybe', but still.] I am not aware of any claims that a D850 will make coffee or slice bread, and when it comes to taking pictures, I know of no other body in the market (D5, Sony a9 and Canon 1D-X Mark II included) that is as well rounded in the overall bundle of AF, speed, dynamic range, noise and low-light performance, IQ, shooting speed, etc., so IMHO the 'hype' I hear seems well placed. Sure, others top it in individual categories, but if I were allowed only one camera, I couldn't think of a better one to own. I respect your opinion on per-pixel noise, but at this point, it is just that - an opinion. Still waiting for a meaningful comparison test, but if it confirms what the specs and initial owner reports promise, Nikon has another winner here.

So, no offense intended: even if all you ever shoot is birding-and-wild-animals-at-a-distance, it is perfectly ok to state that the D850 is not for you, but please acknowledge that it holds lots of appeal for most of us - amateurs and pros alike, and that includes many 'wildlifers'. For my part, I'm happy to see Nikon kicking Sony's butt again, and my unwillingness to shell out that much money for another body is the only thing that stands between me and a D850, at least for now.

 

[Woodyg3]

@ISOhappy

I agree with most of what you have to say with the D850 vs D500 for wildlife. I would never in a million years trade my D500 for a D850 for wildlife. If I had a D850, it would be as a BACKUP for my D500 with sports and wildlife, or for situations where I could fill the frame with the D850.

Meanwhile, the D850 IS a hell of a camera. It's a step forward in performance, and there are some great new features. I admit that I would love to have one, but I certainly don't NEED one.

 

[ISOhappy]

Hi ISOhappy, welcome to the forum!

I love my D500 as much as you apparently love yours, but why do you see a need to badmouth the D850?

For starters, you seem to embrace a rather narrow definition of wildlife, one I would refer to as birding-and-wild-animals-at-a-distance shooting. For that type of shooting, yes, I'd pick the D500 over a D850 any day. [I actually said so in a different thread earlier today.] However, if you ever go to, say Kruger Park, about half of your shots or so would clearly be better if you had a D850 because there you get to see a lot of wildlife up close. Not sure that's any less wildlife-ish. In my own wildlife shooting (during the past three years alone, I went to remote areas of Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, South Africa, India and Nepal), I often find myself wishing for a longer lens but also often shoot closer up, where IQ matters more than crop does.

"Most overhyped camera ever?" Where did you get that? [Ok, you answered 'maybe', but still.] I am not aware of any claims that a D850 will make coffee or slice bread, and when it comes to taking pictures, I know of no other body in the market (D5, Sony a9 and Canon 1D-X Mark II included) that is as well rounded in the overall bundle of AF, speed, dynamic range, noise and low-light performance, IQ, shooting speed, etc., so IMHO the 'hype' I hear seems well placed. Sure, others top it in individual categories, but if I were allowed only one camera, I couldn't think of a better one to own. I respect your opinion on per-pixel noise, but at this point, it is just that - an opinion. Still waiting for a meaningful comparison test, but if it confirms what the specs and initial owner reports promise, Nikon has another winner here.

So, no offense intended: even if all you ever shoot is birding-and-wild-animals-at-a-distance, it is perfectly ok to state that the D850 is not for you, but please acknowledge that it holds lots of appeal for most of us - amateurs and pros alike, and that includes many 'wildlifers'. For my part, I'm happy to see Nikon kicking Sony's butt again, and my unwillingness to shell out that much money for another body is the only thing that stands between me and a D850, at least for now.

Point taken, and my opinion about the D850 being overhyped is just that, an opinion. Is it the most well-rounded camera ever? Sure, probably in Nikon's lineup, but the OP asked is it the best wildlife camera ever. Personally, I don't think so. Then again, that statement is so subjective, there's really not a way to prove it anyway. It's definitely not the best wildlife camera ever for me. For some people? Sure, it may very well be.

Most of my wildlife/nature shooting is done locally, and I don't live anywhere exotic, so it's usually parks and forests, and the zoo, of course. I tried using an FX camera only and found that I missed the "reach" from DX. Now, I have the D500 for use with long lenses, and I have an FX camera for everything else. When I can fill the FX frame, I am totally happy with the quality, even though it's "only" 24 MP.

I am also looking forward to more reviews that compare the D850 to other comparable cameras. Everyone's got to make their own decisions based on their own needs

 

[ISOhappy]

@ISOhappy

I agree with most of what you have to say with the D850 vs D500 for wildlife. I would never in a million years trade my D500 for a D850 for wildlife. If I had a D850, it would be as a BACKUP for my D500 with sports and wildlife, or for situations where I could fill the frame with the D850.

Meanwhile, the D850 IS a hell of a camera. It's a step forward in performance, and there are some great new features. I admit that I would love to have one, but I certainly don't NEED one.

I'm with ya on that. If I could always frame the shot I wanted on FX, I'm sure the 850 is all I'd ever use, but to be honest, I'd probably be just as happy with the D750. FX quality is great when you can take full advantage of it, but that's rare for me. Deer and large animals are one thing, but birds? Heck no. I'd probably still want more reach even if I had a 1000mm lens, haha.

 

[lokatz]

...the OP asked is it the best wildlife camera ever. Personally, I don't think so. ... Now, I have the D500 for use with long lenses, and I have an FX camera for everything else. When I can fill the FX frame, I am totally happy with the quality, even though it's "only" 24 MP.

Agree with all of that. The D850 IMHO is surprisingly good for wildlife, but "best ever" seems like a stretch. Whether it performs better or worse than the D500 remains to be seen, though - its DX resolution is slightly lower, its AF performs slightly better in low light (at least according to spec), all else strikes me as pretty much the same.

One thing is for sure: we agree on the general concept of using the D500 with long lenses and a second body for everything else. In my case, that's a D7100, which with my 12-28mm gives me wide enough shots when I need it. If I were to buy a D850, it would replace the D7100 and the long lens would stay on the D500.

[Woodyg3, seems we agree here, too!]

 

[lokatz]

I'll throw in another argument for using the D500 for wildlife. Shot in Nepal a little over a week ago.

 

[ISOhappy]

Agree with all of that. The D850 IMHO is surprisingly good for wildlife, but "best ever" seems like a stretch. Whether it performs better or worse than the D500 remains to be seen, though - its DX resolution is slightly lower, its AF performs slightly better in low light (at least according to spec), all else strikes me as pretty much the same.

One thing is for sure: we agree on the general concept of using the D500 with long lenses and a second body for everything else. In my case, that's a D7100, which with my 12-28mm gives me wide enough shots when I need it. If I were to buy a D850, it would replace the D7100 and the long lens would stay on the D500.

[Woodyg3, seems we agree here, too!]

For sure. It's very hard to beat a two camera, FX/DX combo. I think my 200-500 will pretty much be on my D500 most of the time =) I did take it to the zoo this past weekend with my 70-200 f/4, which was a nice lightweight (relatively) combo. If I ever do replace my D750, it'll probably be with a D760 (or whatever Nikon calls it). I think I prefer having two bodies, and being able to choose the best one for the job. Consolidating down to one body would make things simpler, and maybe I'll look into that in the future. By then, the D860 or something will probably be out, haha. Or maybe mirrorless.

 

[tex.4810]

I'll throw in another argument for using the D500 for wildlife. Shot in Nepal a little over a week ago.

View attachment 269998

But what does your subject think?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[jay_dean]

I have the D500 for use with long lenses, and I have an FX camera for everything else. When I can fill the FX frame, I am totally happy with the quality, even though it's "only" 24 MP.

Its 20.9 MP mate, you'd have to 'upgrade' to the D7200 for 24 MP But my take on this is that the D850 is probably the best all round capable camera you can possibly buy. If you just wanted one camera that can do absolutely everything, the D850 is it