MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Not only is that practical information, but it's also very helpful to me. I post to social media only infrequently, but regularly make large prints and calendars (forget the exact size, but quite large). Thank you for your input.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Thank you for that info. I doubt that I'd ever be shooting at such a high ISO, but it could happen.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

That cropping capability is what has me leaning toward the Z9 or the D850. Now, if I could just fall off this blasted fence in one direction or the other!

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Thank you to those of you who have so graciously responded with helpful information. I'm bowing out now, with much to consider.

1grumpybear

I own the D850, D6, D5 and the Z9. In previous reply on page 3 I shot with the D850, D6 and Z9 they were shot with same light and each camera was white balanced with a X-rite target and the camera light meter at 0. I tried to post the orginal shots but it would not let me, I think the files were to large. I bought the D5 and then the D850 because of the higher resolution and then the D6 for the fps and then the Z9 because it has both fps and resolution. Been taking pictures for over 60 years. It appears the UHH will not let me upload and store the original. As far shooting at each ISO stop for each of the 4 cameras I don't have the time or energy.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Thanks!

JBRIII

Wrong camera by me?

Z9 in lastest outdoor photography.

Badgertale Loc: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

Both the D500 and d850 are great in low light situations. Using one or the other with their respective lenses rather than mixing and matching would be the best way to go. Though maximizing lens usage by being able to use and DX lens on an FX body (and visa versa) is convenient, I would suggest using using DX bodies with DX lenses, the same for FX equipment, and you won't have this problem. I quite imaging you already had a feeling about this, but it is always good to ask. :0)

I appreciate the other hog's technical "know-how" and, frankly, my head spins...but it is good information to sort through. ;0)

JBRIII

Don't think many do, but testers, but that's what makes comparing too many changing things difficult to translate over. And of course only talking about one thing at a time, a system does not make.

That's my main point;

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Why not consider the D780?

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Hmmmm - never gave it a thought, but WILL check into it. Thank you!

muphoto

I have used, both the D5, the year after if was introducing until 2020. Since then I have used , and have two D850s. The D5 was a university camera that was one of many I used as the university photographer. A position I held for 41 years.
In my use, the D850s low light performance is as good as the D5. I have not noticed any more noise. I still shoot university football and basketball games. The D850 shooting rate is not as fast as the D5, but still does the job. The extra MPs of the 850 are a plus. I can shoot from one end of the field to the other and still be able to crop close to the action. I use a Nikon 200-500 for sports. Sorry I have never used the D6

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

You seem to have no problem wasting your time. They’re all gonna be good at best case and worst case is an edge case and doesn’t necessarily indicate how they’re gonna look at higher ISO’s that people actually use. And you’re really wasting your time if you don’t click “store originals” so people can actually see the results.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...I love it, I figured it out! Haha, to each, but I love my D5...was planning to sell it when the Z9 hits, but maybe not, it's such a great camera.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

The answer, as suggested by others, is to shoot raw. None of the WB or Picture Control settings are applied to the raw file - they are simply passed on to the raw converter as suggestions (in the case of proprietary raw converters). In the case of Picture Control settings, they affect in-camera jpegs, not raw files. However, if you use proprietary software to render the raw files, those same in-camera settings are applied in the raw converter, but the controls are there to re-adjust them, which includes zeroing them if desired.

From what I've seen of Nikon's Picture Control sharpening, it seems rather crude and it's a source of the tight haloing (the thin white line round high contrast edges) that you see in jpegs when you push them in PP. Most PP editors are capable of doing a far better job of sharpening, and I believe most modern PP editors don't use the sort of sharpening that produces tight haloing. The best answer is to shoot raw, zero the sharpening setting in Picture Control (or whatever equivalent applies) and learn how to do your own sharpening in PP.

It also pays to be aware of the worst noise aggravators in PP. These are brightening in general but in particular lifting the Shadows or Blacks, adding Contrast or Clarity and adding the wrong kind of sharpening. The ideal kind of sharpening targets edges and avoids smooth areas (where the noise is most noticeable and which don't need sharpening anyway).

Textures are another matter and are best dealt with via selections. Sharpening accentuates textures and denoise softens them, so they need to be dealt with as required. It would be nice to be able to keep denoise away from edges whenever you want to, but a lot of denoise tools don't have edge protection as an option....

...and did somebody mention that the best option is to shoot raw and learn how to PP them yourself?