Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Why I don't want the D850 anymore
Page <<first <prev 6 of 13 next> last>>
Jan 25, 2018 09:51:02   #
hbk
 
You should have bought from B&H Photo......30 day return policy FOR ANY REASON.....you get a total refund.......

Reply
Jan 25, 2018 10:09:02   #
RRS Loc: Not sure
 
Robeng wrote:
Well, you can answer your own question. Last week you offer to do a painting of one of my images from Big Sur, California. Those images were taken with a Nikon D850, do you see any noise. If you want I can post those images again to show you. Anyway the D850 is great when it comes to noise, I usually start at ISO 1000 and work my way up for landscape shots.

Also I thought I saw you purchased a Canon, why would you jump from one manufacture to another.


I know that the Nikon D850 is a very good camera but would you please explain why you start at an ISO of 1000 to shoot landscape photos? I'm missing something, for an educational point would you tell me why this is a starting point, it's not like an animal or bird that is moving. I always let the light determine my ISO and try to start at 100 and work my way up from there. Thanks!

Reply
Jan 25, 2018 10:10:25   #
sigpaw
 
I do a lot of shooting in low light. On a dark stage setting with actors, colored light and a black background. I shot for a few years with my D750 and was able to get some excellent photos in these settings, but my D850 is head and shoulders better in low light (less noise, better detail). It pulls things out of the darkness that my unaided eyes can't see. The detail it captures in darkness, from the balcony (with a 200-500mm f/5.6) continues to surprise.

Very happy with it. Rent one, borrow one and see for yourself.

Reply
 
 
Jan 25, 2018 10:14:01   #
Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan
 
No one has mentioned "pixel smear" in comments on this post. That seems to be part of what the OP was concerned about, not just noise.

Reply
Jan 25, 2018 10:16:08   #
xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada
 
GalaxyCat wrote:
I don't want the D850 any more because I've read that there is too much noise. Maybe the pixels are just too many, or too small so that the limit of the technology is reached in this design. Plus, the camera has to be even more sensitive to vibration/shake/etc... due to the smaller pixels, which is required if the sensor is the same size as other dslrs, which is the 35mm size.

Comments?


Galaxy Cat, now you have done it! Your recent commentary is not really refutable, since it is your personal feeling. I know that at times my lowly D800 has given me similar concern, but it remains a wonderful camera. However, you certainly have stirred up the Nikonians, with an all-out assault on their “Holy Grail”, the “mighty” D850. You go girl!!!

Reply
Jan 25, 2018 10:25:31   #
Jwshelton Loc: Denver,CO
 
If you want to give up "your" D850, which I understand you do not have, I would take it. Have had mine for about a month.
Do not understand your concerns about noise.
Agree with many of the other comments regarding reviews.
Was also curious about your painting a picture from a D850 photo????

Reply
Jan 25, 2018 10:26:20   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
Fotoartist wrote:
No one has mentioned "pixel smear" in comments on this post. That seems to be part of what the OP was concerned about, not just noise.

OK, I'm ready to learn something new. Exactly what is "pixel smear"?

Reply
 
 
Jan 25, 2018 10:33:51   #
mas24 Loc: Southern CA
 
nikonkelly wrote:
I will come at this in a different way. I bought my D850 on the second of November and was pleased as plum when I got it... only to discover about 3 days later that it would not follow birds in flight... I set it up just as my D500 and it still was not right, I played with it for 5000 shots... and I took it back to get my money back... it was a no go. They told me that they found nothing wrong with it, to which I said bull crap. So I got got it on my tripod, and I shot moving cars (grills) yes a hard subject, but then so are birds, and after about 100 shots with it I called Nikon. They asked for three images, and I did not hand pick them, rather I sent 3 consecutive images. upon taking a look at the first image the Nikon Person said... Send it in, there is something wrong with your camera. I sent it in on Wednesday, had it back the next Wednesday. I went out and shot moving cars with it ten minutes after I got it back. Lo and behold, they were sharp and less noise than I had seen in any image in the past.

Sure there was a problem. The D850 was a piece of crap... until it went back in. true, QC should have caught it, but they did not. A dear friend of mine is to get her D850 back from Nikon tomorrow for very similar issues. I expect it to be fixed as well. But out of the thousands of D850's out there... only a couple have had issues... and they are correctable... that does not sound like there is too much noise. I think that you need to read and look at the images that are out there and really judge for yourself rather than letting someone else tell you what you need or dont need. and if you cant afford it... by all means... dont buy it. get something else or use what you have... just dont be a nay sayer because someone else's best friend's third cousin thought that it was not good.
I will come at this in a different way. I bought ... (show quote)


Your quote. "The D850 was a piece of crap, until it went back." Your story is interesting. I've heard of photographers sending back lenses, as many as two times, until they got the one that satisfied them. You had the patience to send your D850 back, until it came back right. Here's hoping your experience is quite minimal. $3300 is a lot of money for a body only camera. Perhaps Nikon's QC was an issue on your camera. Hopefully, not many others, except for a future firmware fix for all D850s, to correct any other upcoming problems. Enjoy your D850.

Reply
Jan 25, 2018 10:42:57   #
leftj Loc: Texas
 
joer wrote:
Just the fact that I use both cameras and know what I'm getting. Don't take my word for it and check DXO.


All of you do know that Galaxy Cat is just baiting you, right?

Reply
Jan 25, 2018 10:44:26   #
Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska
 
Fotoartist wrote:
No one has mentioned "pixel smear" in comments on this post. That seems to be part of what the OP was concerned about, not just noise.

If the exact same image is shot with a D750 and with a D850, and then printed at 8x12 in both cases the "pixel smear" will be exactly the same (due to resampling to the same pixel dimensions). The D850 image will have less noise.

If the two images are resampled to print at 48x72, the pixel smear will be different. The D750 will still have more noise and also more smear from the extra resizing required.

The D850 in either case will produce less noise. But also note that if the ISO is low enough (roughly ISO 4000 or lower) it is possible to process with a black point that will eliminate all visible noise and either camera will be the same as the other up to a size where the D750 must be resampled to a larger pixel dimension.

Reply
Jan 25, 2018 11:07:26   #
Jimmy T Loc: Virginia
 
I'm a Canon guy, but I would LOVE to have a "noisy" Nikon D850!!! So if any UHH'er has a "noisy" Nikon D850 for sale cheap (Grin) please PM me. Also, would you be so kind as to share the source of this criticism? V/R JimmyT
GalaxyCat wrote:
I don't want the D850 any more because I've read that there is too much noise. Maybe the pixels are just too many, or too small so that the limit of the technology is reached in this design. Plus, the camera has to be even more sensitive to vibration/shake/etc... due to the smaller pixels, which is required if the sensor is the same size as other dslrs, which is the 35mm size.

Comments?

Reply
 
 
Jan 25, 2018 11:16:51   #
Mark M USN RET
 
Hey Jim, Concur. ...and Great pics. I can see Kathy and Michelle having a fit over us communicating via UHH

Mark

Reply
Jan 25, 2018 11:25:11   #
John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN
 
Some of the replies here refer to noise. How do I know I am supposed to see it. Do I have to take the image into Photoshop and enlarge, enlarge. At some point the pixel squares will show up - is that the noise.

Reply
Jan 25, 2018 11:29:56   #
Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina
 
Sorry, but I never understand statements like this on the forum. If you don't want to use any features you can pretty much just not use them. or I guess one could stick with film and the expense and pace of shooting film. I think what people that say this are really saying is that they don't want to have to pay for the features...

Best,
Todd Ferguson

cval52 wrote:
I would love to have a high quality camera WITHOUT all the extra junk. I do not want video or internet.... just a great sensor and optics....simpler.

Reply
Jan 25, 2018 11:35:14   #
Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak
 
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
Nope. The D850 is a lot of things, but noisey ain't one of them. You have a cheapish lens on this thing, it will show all the deficiencies. But, with a $3400 camera body, you shouldn't be using the 18-55 kit lens.



Absolutely. Not about a D850, but an example of what you say. My grandson has a D810, and he initially thought that it wasn’t focusing properly and exchanged it for a new one. Then he got the Nkon 70-200 f/2.8 VRiii and was amazed how sharp it was. Turned out he was using the Nikon 24-85, which is not a high end lens, and the D810 showed every fault. It was a case of cheap glass on a very good camera. That’s one drawback of having a high end camera like the D810 and D850, or equivalent Canon—it will show a cheap lens’s shortcomings. Incidentally, the 24-85 worked well with my D7200. Big difference.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 13 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.