1963mca wrote:
The D850 is giving me real GAS, however I'm going to pass at this time. My D800 has far more capability than I as an "advanced" amateur. The only reason for thinking of changing is GAS. My reason for passing at this time is that at my age I expect I will only get one or two more DSLR's. The only DSLR's I've had are the D90 and the D800, both of which I still have. I entered the world of digital in 2008 with the D90, adding it to my Nikon F4 (which I still use). I was so new to digital I didn't even realize that DX meant a crop sensor, I just thought the D90 was a top of the line amateurs 35mm (FF) DSLR camera. The info I read at the time didn't really describe the crop aspect. All I knew was that it was a lot less expensive than the "Pro" Nikons. I was and am still happy with the D90 and the DX format is absolutely no hindrance to me, has no bearing on the desire to upgrade, but GAS forced me to want an actual FF camera. Didn't need it, just wanted one. Plus I have a lot of FX lenses from the F4 era and have now added more (yes, have used them on the D90). Finally bit the bullet in 2014 and jumped in to the D800. Again, far more camera than I need but love it. So this was a gap of 6 years between my first DSLR and latest DSLR. Now, looking at the timeline of Nikon FX releases I see a span of only 2 to 3 years between them, each offering interesting steps forward, especially in sensor size and/or iso. So my thought is, since I've only had my D800 for 3 years now that the D850 is out, what will Nikon be releasing in another 3 years? If I keep my 6 year gap between DSLR purchases then I'm wondering what Nikon will have for us in 2020? Figure if I start saving now, I'll even have enough money to buy whatever they have to offer by then. If I had a real reason to upgrade, I'd get a D850, but..... I can wait. Anybody else thinking of waiting?
The D850 is giving me real GAS, however I'm going ... (
show quote)
I have a D810. From the standpoint of the megapixel increase in the D850, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to upgrade. The D810 already seems to out-resolve all of my lenses, so what's really to gain? Some of the features of the new camera are attractive, increased speed, better autofocus etc. I could even see myself using the screen the swivels out. I'm on the fence about it. I'm going to wait a bit before deciding.
Digital1022 wrote:
What's your problem? ... Your statement about putting a zoom on and only getting 24 mp, is totally without foundation and just your opinion. ... Offer your opinion, but don't preach, or you are liable not to like the results.
I don't have a problem. I'm just not blinded by GAS.
Zoom lenses do not perform as well at all of their focal lengths as prime lenses. There are too many design compromises. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
Take a look at the DxOMark rankings of zoom lenses tested on the D800e when it comes to sharpness (see below).
The sharpest zoom at the top of the list is the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR at an equivalent of 30 MP. That's not throughout its range and it may not be at the focal length you might care about. Now look at the overall rankings for that lens - 694th overall and 84th for sharpness.
The sharpest zoom that covers a more normal range is the Tokina AT-X 24-70 F2.8 PRO FX at an equivalent of 27 MP. But it ranks 523rd overall and 138th in sharpness.
That means that there are a lot of lenses available that are better overall and sharper. They are all prime lenses. The reason for their low overall ratings is that there are a lot of other factors working against zoom lenses like maximum aperture, uneven performance at all focal lengths, size, weight, price, etc.
There are only eleven zoom lenses listed that achieve 24 MP or more on the D800e. Do you own one of them? If not, get out your checkbook.
Try and find your favorite zoom on that list. If it can't do better than 24 MP on a D800e then it will also do poorly on a D850.
Now look at the same ranking for prime lenses. Can you see what I mean?
Do you still think zooms are great?
Zoom lenses tested on the D800e, ranked by sharpness
(
Download)
Prime lenses tested on the D800e, ranked by sharpness
(
Download)
selmslie wrote:
I don't have a problem. I'm just not blinded by GAS.
Zoom lenses do not perform as well at all of their focal lengths as prime lenses. There are too many design compromises. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
Take a look at the DxOMark rankings of zoom lenses tested on the D800e when it comes to sharpness (see below).
The sharpest zoom at the top of the list is the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR at an equivalent of 30 MP. That's not throughout its range and it may not be at the focal length you might care about. Now look at the overall rankings for that lens - 694th overall and 84th for sharpness.
The sharpest zoom that covers a more normal range is the Tokina AT-X 24-70 F2.8 PRO FX at an equivalent of 27 MP. But it ranks 523rd overall and 138th in sharpness.
That means that there are a lot of lenses available that are better overall and sharper. They are all prime lenses. The reason for their low overall ratings is that there are a lot of other factors working against zoom lenses like maximum aperture, uneven performance at all focal lengths, size, weight, price, etc.
There are only eleven zoom lenses listed that achieve 24 MP or more on the D800e. Do you own one of them? If not, get out your checkbook.
Try and find your favorite zoom on that list. If it can't do better than 24 MP on a D800e then it will also do poorly on a D850.
Now look at the same ranking for prime lenses. Can you see what I mean?
Do you still think zooms are great?
I don't have a problem. I'm just not blinded by G... (
show quote)
You might want to look at
http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/the-d850-blog/the-best-lenses-for-the.htmlThom Hogan has been writing the book for Nikon camera's for the last 16 years.
I think (always dangerous) that the problem is that a point coming through a lens is recorded as a disk if that disk fits within the pixel site its not a problem but if you make the pixel site smaller the point can be hitting 2 pixel sites instead of 1 you don't really lose resolution but you cant record the finer detail that could be recorded on the finer pitched sensor because the lens isn't sharp enough.
Camera shake also becomes more critical to sharp detail.
Seems the smaller the sensor and the finer the pixel pitch the better your lens needs to be.
blackest wrote:
You might want to look at
http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/the-d850-blog/the-best-lenses-for-the.htmlThom Hogan has been writing the book for Nikon camera's for the last 16 years.
I think (always dangerous) that the problem is that a point coming through a lens is recorded as a disk if that disk fits within the pixel site its not a problem but if you make the pixel site smaller the point can be hitting 2 pixel sites instead of 1 you don't really lose resolution but you cant record the finer detail that could be recorded on the finer pitched sensor because the lens isn't sharp enough.
Camera shake also becomes more critical to sharp detail.
Seems the smaller the sensor and the finer the pixel pitch the better your lens needs to be.
You might want to look at br
http://www.dslrbodie... (
show quote)
As always, an interesting article from Thom Hogan. You might also notice that nearly all of, "The lenses marked with * are lenses I'm considering dropping from the list." happen to be zoom lenses.
You make a good point about doubling the number of pixels to get more resolution from the same lens. The same applies to film as you move from Tri-X down to Adox CMS 20. Pretty soon the resolution limitation is not in the sensor or film but in the lens.
For portions of the image that are out of focus, high resolution does not provide any benefit at all. Unless you take all of your images at the diffraction limit from a tripod using a remote release with prime lenses and manual focus, extremely high resolution doesn't buy you much.
I was happy with my D610 and A7 II (both 24 MP) until I got my Df and discovered that I did not miss the drop in sensor resolution.
If I really need ultra high resolution, moving up to a larger format is a much simpler solution and the only way I can afford to do that is with film.
bpulv
Loc: Buena Park, CA
Digital1022 wrote:
Yea, but bites from ants, scorpions, spiders, etc. don't come out in the wash, nor does poison ivy. Furthermore, do you know what focus stacking is. In case you don't, it's the process of making the foreground, middle ground and background tack sharp particularly important in some landscape and macro photography. Go a head and try it with out an LCD. If you don't shoot that type of photography, then you may not need it. But don't speculate that because you don't need it, nobody needs it. If you ask most pros, they will tell you that it is a very important tool that they would not be without. Please don't try to imply that no one needs it and any type of photography can create the same quality images with a camera that does not have an LCD, because that my friend is "fake news".
Yea, but bites from ants, scorpions, spiders, etc.... (
show quote)
The issue was the swing out LCD display, NOT FOCUS STACKING! Read the whole string from the beginning before you comment.
Also, it is "middleground" not "middle ground", "ahead" not "a head" and "without" not "with out".
bpulv wrote:
The issue was the swing out LCD display, NOT FOCUS STACKING! Read the whole string from the beginning before you comment.
Also, it is "middleground" not "middle ground", "ahead" not "a head" and "without" not "with out".
You made your point. No need to become petty.
ebcobol wrote:
Get a Life!!
Thank you. I would suggest you not be so anal. You are acting very small and petty.
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
bwana wrote:
It all depends on what you're looking for! If you're looking for low light performance, it isn't even close to being the best!
Here is the corrected list
- Sony A7S DxO Low Light ISO: 3702
- Sony A9 LL ISO: 3517
- Sony A7R II LL ISO: 3434
-
Pentax K-1 LL ISO: 3280- Nikon Df LL ISO: 3279
- Nikon D3s LL ISO: 3253
- Canon 1DX ii LL ISO: 3207
etc
bwana
Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada
bpulv wrote:
...
Also, it is "middleground" not "middle ground", "ahead" not "a head" and "without" not "with out".
Sorry, it is middle ground:
Definition of middle ground:
1 :a standpoint or area midway between extreme or opposing positions, options, or objectives
2 :middle distance
bwa
bwana
Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada
rehess wrote:
Here is the corrected list
- Sony A7S DxO Low Light ISO: 3702
- Sony A9 LL ISO: 3517
- Sony A7R II LL ISO: 3434
- Pentax K-1 LL ISO: 3280
- Nikon Df LL ISO: 3279
- Nikon D3s LL ISO: 3253
- Canon 1DX ii LL ISO: 3207
etc
Thanks for the info regarding the K-1.
bwa
blackest wrote:
It's not a perfect score it's one of the best (so far) but the score goes higher there are a couple with 101 and 102 scores as well.
Most photography is limited by the photographer, the light and distance. Marginal improvements in camera technology will not turn a bad photograph into an excellent one.
There are some photographs you will get with a better camera that you would miss with a lesser one. Case in point some shots of the Blue Angels I got with the 10 fps, fast focusing D500 that I would almost certainly have missed with my D7100 (or D750). Someone on UHH said they were the best Blue Angel shots they had ever seen. Not to speak of dozens of birds in flight shots I've gotten with the D500 that likely would have otherwise been missed.
bdk
Loc: Sanibel Fl.
I have $500. put away towards an 850 but having an 810 do I really need the 850? I'm thinking about taking the advise given here at UHH for years and years. Get a better lens. So maybe I will. I'm loving the sigma art lenses.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.