D850- Visible excellent results! (Page 2): I wish you'd hit the "store" box so we could have downloaded the photos. The downloaded version is always sharper. Also, I've been tempted to...

SteveR Loc: Michigan

grtday wrote:

So...here are some samples of the 500+ shots. br Q... (show quote)

I wish you'd hit the "store" box so we could have downloaded the photos. The downloaded version is always sharper. Also, I've been tempted to go with a softbox rather than one of Fong's diffusers. In the B&H catalog, they're less expensive also, about $9.99.

Also, as much as I love my 28-300, do you think the 24-70mm would have worked for you and produced even sharper images?

Jim Bob

grtday wrote:

So...here are some samples of the 500+ shots. br Q... (show quote)

Oooh. Ambiguous as I intend. Most images appear over saturated and less than sharp. Ken Rockwell likes that lens as well. But many reviewers rate it mediocre at best. Assuming your technique is adequate, the 24-70 would have been a better choice. Sorry to burst your bubble but you did not do the camera justice.

jkatpc Loc: Virginia Beach

grtday wrote:

So...here are some samples of the 500+ shots. br Q... (show quote)

Did you edit these? They seem to have a very red overtone. The meat table looks like a lot of rare meat (which I would love!). With regard to flash, in my opinion anything except bouncing off the ceiling at that close range is going to be overpowering. Not sure you can dial down the power enough short of using high speed sync.

jkatpc Loc: Virginia Beach

grtday wrote:

So...here are some samples of the 500+ shots. br Q... (show quote)

With regard to lens choice, yes, definitely the 24-70 would have been better all day long. Even a 50mm prime.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

grtday wrote:

For the last few years, I have been the roving par... (show quote)

Having shot every day for about a week with my D850 I think you are on to some thing. Images seem to need less post processing. All my lenses have become a notch better. So far the only criticisms are the loud shutter and slow live view focusing.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Jim Bob wrote:

Oooh. Ambiguous as I intend. Most images appear over saturated and less than sharp. Ken Rockwell likes that lens as well. But many reviewers rate it mediocre at best. Assuming your technique is adequate, the 24-70 would have been a better choice. Sorry to burst your bubble but you did not do the camera justice.

As usual, a review from somebody who doesn't use the 28-300 but takes either the word of others who don't use it or dxo. I'd be much more apt to accept the opinion of somebody who has used the the lens. Most who do like it. It's, shall we say, an over-achiever.

I would, again, however, have liked to be able to download the images to make a more accurate assessment of them.

Haydon

I would have also liked seeing them full resolution or in highly contrasted situation/or and with shallow depth of field. Not meaning to be sour but these posted images could have been easily taken with a cellphone. I have no doubt this camera is very capable in the right hands.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

grtday wrote:

So...here are some samples of the 500+ shots. br Q... (show quote)

You need to check the "download" box when attempting to show off images so the IQ is maintained.

Jim Bob

SteveR wrote:

As usual, a review from somebody who doesn't use the 28-300 but takes either the word of others who don't use it or dxo. I'd be much more apt to accept the opinion of somebody who has used the the lens. Most who do like it. It's, shall we say, an over-achiever.

I would, again, however, have liked to be able to download the images to make a more accurate assessment of them.

As usual, an idiotic reply. You must have a million of them. Do you really believe I give a sh*t as to whether you like or accept my opinion? I’m not here to win friends and don’t care if I make enemies. Look at these images and tell me what a great lens it is.