Nikon D5 vs D850: Hello, all If $$ is not a problem, I shoot everything I can, speed & low light considered, Mine main lens is a Nikon 70-200 2.8E FL. Also a cheap 28-70 3.5 what are...

1beer2

Hello, all
If $$ is not a problem, I shoot everything I can, speed & low light considered, Mine main lens is a Nikon 70-200 2.8E FL. Also a cheap 28-70 3.5 what are your thoughts? Thanks.

Bill_de Loc: US

Neither is perfect for "everything", so you better buy both.
Then get rid of the cheap lens and replace it with a good one.

--

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

1beer2 wrote:

Hello, all
If $$ is not a problem, I shoot everything I can, speed & low light considered, Mine main lens is a Nikon 70-200 2.8E FL. Also a cheap 28-70 3.5 what are your thoughts? Thanks.

(Reviews) https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV/videos
http://www.cameradecision.com/
http://cameras.reviewed.com/
http://camerasize.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://snapsort.com/compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Both are great cameras. I opted for the D500 over the D5 because I seldom need the high fps offered by both. Your lens bank will be the key to everything. The 70-200 f/2.8 FL lens is wonderful but you need other lenses of equal quality. The holy trinity is good with additions. A wonderful walking-around lens is the Nikon 24-120 f/4 or the Sigma 24-105 F/4 Art. I also like the Nikon 105 f/2.8 micro. The Nikon 200-500 is a very good lens to use on either camera. Have fun.

OviedoPhotos

If $$ were not the deciding factor I would get the d850, then buy a new lens. The bodies have a limited lifetime.

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

The D5 has better high ISO performance (esp beyond 3200), better high ISO dynamic range, is 3 FPS faster, has a much better buffer, and less mirror blackout time. If you're doing intense action, the D5 is the way to go. However, for moderate action down to stills, the D850 is the way I go (unless the light is really low). The D850 also crops a lot better - you don't want to crop too deeply into a D5 file. I use my D850 for most of my work (80% or more right now), bringing out the D5 only when the action is crazy or the light is low - or when I'm shooting higher ISO in mixed light and need the extra dynamic rage.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Hey Steve, I have a D4s, the predecessor to the D5. Only 16 MP but it has worked for me as a landscape camera in certain situations.
Two weeks ago I took it on a boat cruise in Lake Superior's Pictured Rocks N.P. The boat was bouncing along at 10mph while I was banging off shots of the rock formations at ISO 6400, 1/500 sec., f11 using a 24-120 zoom. I ended up getting sharp results, low noise and I must have collected enough quality data to bring out the colors, tone, and sharpness in post processing to kind of amaze me. You are right though, you can't crop in too much.

Steve Perry wrote:

The D5 has better high ISO performance (esp beyond... (show quote)

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I'll second Steve's advice and add a few points. As the owner of a D5, D500 and D850, they all have their place in my workflow. For sports action I stick with the D5, with the D850/D500 as my second. I used my D810 for everything except sports, but my D850 also does sports well, but, at least for me, not as primary. I consider the D500 a very nice all around camera and the D850 a fantastic one! Best of luck.

ken glanzer

1/500 may not have been fast enough. The tree leaves look just a little out of focus. There is not any detail in the rocks to tell you it might not be in total focus! Always blow up pictures big later in the computer, examine for sharpness & resolution. When I take flash pictures at night that are in focus they really impress me for detail.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

The tree tops are over 1000 feet away! I'm posting 1MB Jpegs. I think it's sharp enough to make a 16x20 print. BTW, flash wouldn't have reached.

ken glanzer wrote:

1/500 may not have been fast enough. The tree leaves look just a little out of focus. There is not any detail in the rocks to tell you it might not be in total focus! Always blow up pictures big later in the computer, examine for sharpness & resolution. When I take flash pictures at night that are in focus they really impress me for detail.

ken glanzer

I didn't know they were that far away but when everything is maximized such as fast enough shutter, tripod use, high resolution lenses, high pixel rate on & on, surprises do occur. It only takes one deficiency to ruin a picture. To really test a lens shoot a newspaper at night with a flash on a tripod & compare with others in the computer.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I may have not made my point well in my post. I'm not testing lenses, I'm talking camera bodies. I was shooting at ISO 6400 because I felt I had to to shoot at f11 at 1/500 sec to get DOF and sharpness from a moving boat. Usually noise and color issues are a problem at that high of an ISO with most cameras. However, with a fast, low noise camera such as the D4s I was able to get acceptable landscape shots that my compatriots with their super sharp 36MP cameras couldn't come up with because of noise issues. I suppose I could have tried to sharpen the leaves of the trees better. But I was concentrating on the Pictured Rocks.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

I do a lot of shooting from my boat. Imo this could just as well been shot at f8 and a slower shutter speed like 1/200 or even 1/100 in a burst. Some of them, maybe even all of them, would have been sharp. If I'm right, someone with a 24MP or 36 Mp FF camera shooting at ISO 3200, ISO 1600, or even ISO 800 could easily have matched your results.

But thanks for helping me to think about these issues.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

ken glanzer wrote:

I didn't know they were that far away but when everything is maximized such as fast enough shutter, tripod use, high resolution lenses, high pixel rate on & on, surprises do occur. It only takes one deficiency to ruin a picture. To really test a lens shoot a newspaper at night with a flash on a tripod & compare with others in the computer.

What benefit do you get from shooting flash with a tripod?? Flash is normally something like 1/1000 - I cannot imagine any motion 1/1000 won't stop {somewhere I have a picture I took of a kitten examining a dripping faucet - the shutter speed was 1/60, but the flash had clearly and completely stopped a falling droplet}

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

1beer2 wrote:

Hello, all
If $$ is not a problem, I shoot everything I can, speed & low light considered, Mine main lens is a Nikon 70-200 2.8E FL. Also a cheap 28-70 3.5 what are your thoughts? Thanks.

Lets see, you have the latest version of the Nikon 70-200. If you like sports, get the Nikon D5, if you like landscape, go with the D850 but this lens is not the best for landscape, I would go with the D5 and get a 16-35 f4 so you could do both sports and landscape.