Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ISOhappy" data-source="post: 642522" data-attributes="member: 44145">Here's my take on the D850 as the &quot;best wildlife camera ever&quot;...For me, it's not.&nbsp; Here's why: I don't have exotic primes with TCs or an 800mm lens I can just pop on the camera.&nbsp; Even if I did, that's not my style.&nbsp; I like a lens that I can handhold, so my longest lens is the 200-500.&nbsp; In a lot of cases, I'm focal-length challenged, especially on an FX camera.&nbsp; I tend to crop most of my DX shots, so I know I'd be cropping practically all of my D850 wildlife shots.&nbsp; And that's the catch right there.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It's smaller, lighter and less expensive than the 850.&nbsp; It's got 21 MP vs 19-something with an 850 DX crop.&nbsp; It shoots faster, and if you want 9 fps on the D850, you gotta spend another grand.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; Maybe.&nbsp; Is it the best for wildlife?&nbsp; If you can manage to fill the FX frame, then it could be.&nbsp; And there's the rub.&nbsp; The name of the game in wildlife is reach, and I know I can never get enough of it.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ISOhappy, post: 642522, member: 44145"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification