Traveller_Jeff

The NEF output for most of my images from the D850 is at least 50meg
The NEF outuput for most of my images from the D5 is around 25meg.

If the D5 is a better camera and far more expensive than the D850, why is the NEF output resolution apparently so much higher on the D850 than it is on the D5? Is there a major difference in the pixel size? Thank you.

User ID

When there are distinctly fewer, but larger, pixels a smaller file size is perfectly normal.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

The D5 was a pro camera optimized for low light and fast frame rate (sports, both indoor and outdoor). It’s still one of the best high ISO/low light cameras ever built (if not the best) with relatively large pixels. The D5’s resolution is plenty adequate for sports and photojournalism. The D850 was designed as a “prosumer” high performance general purpose camera and designed with later generation imagers with smaller pixels.. Different design objectives. The D850 has 2 stops better DR at base ISO, but they’re almost the same once you get to ISO 1000. On the other hand, the D5 is roughly a stop better in low light/high ISO situations. And the D5

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

Do not. DO NOT!!!! Do Not equate bytes (file size) with pixel resolution. They have NOTHING to do with each other.

N O T H I N G

One camera is a 45MP full-frame camera, 8256×5504. The other is a 20MP full-frame camera, 5568×3712. Pixel Resolution is pixel resolution. File size is not pixel resolution. Isn't. Wasn't. Never will be.

The differences in price of the two cameras has nothing, nil, nada, zero, (0.0), to do with the respective pixel resolution of the two cameras.

The 'flagship' professional body, the D5, represents all the 'best' features of the Nikon line of DSLR cameras at that point of development, circa Jan 2016. The processing chip, the frames per second, the noise processing, the ISO range, the AF tracking capability, and most importantly: the all-weather resistance with an integrated battery grip and a shutter rated to 400,000 actuations.

The $6400+ initial pricing of Nikon's flagship represents all these features, especially that all-weather ruggedness, not the pixel resolution of the sensor. We see all these technologies flowing downward into subsequent DSLRs, priced lower, even with sensors at more than 2x the pixel resolution. But, we don't seen 400K shutters, integrated battery grips, nor this level of all-weather resistance.

These apex (flagship) cameras are built for everyday, all day usage in all weather conditions by working professional news & sports photographers. The 20MP sensor is purposely sized for 2-page magazine prints, although physical printing of magazines is kind of going the way of the Dodo bird. The D850 is developed also for working professionals, especially those making wall-sized prints and the UHH chattering class.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

The D850 had more more smaller pixels than the D5. The trade off is more small pixels produces the perception of sharper images. The D5 has larger pixels which produces images with better low light performance with greater dynamic range. Pick your favorite you can’t get both. Personally I would take the D5 any day. I lament that the “pro” mirrorless cameras seem to have gone toward too many pixel. Probably, because bigger numbers sell better. Sad but true.

User ID

There are time to just ignore Pauls tirades. When there are distinctly fewer, but larger, pixels a smaller file size is perfectly normal.

Simple. Anyone with two or more camera bodies can prove that for themself.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Just like anyone with a shower can 'prove' water is wet ... but, why would they then ask: how long is a gallon of water?

User ID

Depends on water pressure vs design of shower head.

BebuLamar

Especially the raw files size are directly proportional to the number of pixels and bit depth.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

The D850 is rated as providing much more DR than the D5.

DXO Mark rates the DR for the D850 as 14.8 stops and for the D5 an anemic 12.3 stops.
Photons to Photos rates the max DR for the D850 as 11.6 stops but for the D5 only 9.4 stops. My APS sensor Fuji beats the D5 with a max 10.5 stops DR.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

You would be right in thinking that the larger file size (more megabytes) means more image data, but in this instance the extra data is due to the higher resolution (more megapixels) of the D850. Resolution is only one aspect of image quality, and unless you intend to produce extra large prints or do a lot of cropping, the 20 MP of the D5 is more than adequate.

With JPG files, if you compare files from a common source (i.e. the same sensor), a smaller file size means more compression, which means less image data and that in turn means poorer image quality. However, that connection between file size and image quality doesn't apply to raw files. With raw files, a higher sensor resolution produces larger files, but apart from that connection the file size tells you nothing about image quality.

tshift Loc: Overland Park, KS.

WHAT!!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

If you choose the same picture size and bit depth, and if compression algorithms are equal (if used). The crowd is pretty ignorant of the impact of JPEG choices. Raw files are a little less complicated, but still offer choices that affect file sizes.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Makes no difference as long as both are aet up for the same raw file parameters.

1grumpybear

I have owned both the D850 and D5. The D5 was for sports and action and the D850 was for everything else. For me it was the number of fps vs detail. When Nikon introduced the D6 I was hoping it would be the combination of the D850 and the D5, it wasn't. The Z9 is plus more. I would shoot about 300 frames at a football game, last friday night I shot over 3000 frames. But it is still amounts to LUCK. Standing at right place at the right time but with fps you can catch the runner looking like he's charging rather than marching.