• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Your favourite feature of the D850?

D850 favourite features

  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#1 [email protected]!

[email protected]!

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationHalifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted 27 October 2017 - 12:55 PM

Long time no see PZ people! or should i say OL people ;)

 

So... What's your favourite features or functions of the D850? 

 

 

I'm not somebody who jumps on every new camera, I had my last one for 10 years and its its still a great camera! But..

 

I just got mine and I think my total favourite feature is the ability to block out the viewfinder to the different aspect ratios and even crop into or dx mode!

 

This is huge for wildlife and sports. Its also great if you have an assignment that requires a certain aspect ratio. I used to struggle to compose in 8x10, or 1:1, now its a breeze. I can also crop on camera anytime I feel I don't need the full 46mp. Wonderful!

 

 


Commercial photography: http://duann.ca , Wildlife Nature, Macro: http://paulduann.com/blog

 


#2 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 27 October 2017 - 01:13 PM

I like

  1. the touch display
  2. the silent shutter
  3. the best Nikon AF I have used so far
  4. the focus stacking option
  5. the framing in different ratios (although I haven't tested them fully, in the past they were a problem fopr Capture One)


#3 [email protected]!

[email protected]!

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationHalifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted 30 October 2017 - 05:07 PM

......

       After a few more days of shooting, another thing not so much a feature but a benefit of the sensor, is the lack of noise when shot and exposed properly at ISO64.

 

I have always been used to certain a lvl or noise off of a sensor.  It just shows up as some grain over the image when zoomed 1:1. 

When shot "proper" at ISO 64 it's almost completely of noise, and to my eye its gone, all I see is totally clean! 

Its so clean that it looks like the noise/grain has been blurred away, but with keeping every bit of detail at the same time! Very nice.

I can't wait to get it into the studio!!

 

......

       I haven tried focus stacking yet, but i'll love it for my macro I'm sure.

 


Commercial photography: http://duann.ca , Wildlife Nature, Macro: http://paulduann.com/blog

 


#4 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 30 October 2017 - 08:02 PM

Just a side note, the lowest ISO isn't always the cleanest noise wise, the best is usually the base ISO, on my 5D the lowest noise is at ISO 100, ISO 50 is an expansion it's shooting at ISO 100 then dialing exposure minus one.
FWIW on my 30D I used extensively the best noise performance was at ISO 160, although it had ISO 100 and 130

#5 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 30 October 2017 - 08:47 PM

ISO 64 is base ISO on a D850  ;) The lowest ISO would be ISO 32

 

And I doubt very much that you would see a difference of noise between 64 and 100 ISO, but please split any hair you can't see as a full one  ^_^



#6 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 30 October 2017 - 09:06 PM

ISO 64 is base ISO on a D850 ;) The lowest ISO would be ISO 32

And I doubt very much that you would see a difference of noise between 64 and 100 ISO, but please split any hair you can't see as a full one ^_^

I don't even see a house difference between ISO 100and 200 however if you need to add +2 or 3 f stops then difference is relevant
I would have loved to have ISO 64
Kodak SLR had the lowest ISO of an SLR made, 12 or 6 I think, too bad manufacturers are only occupied with clean high ISO leaving the job to ND filters

#7 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 30 October 2017 - 10:00 PM

Don't be ridiculous. You never took a photo at ISO 6, I'm very sure and I'm also very sure there was no base ISO 6 at all. If you think else, check it up and deliver a proof. And even if there was an ISO 6 camera - at Kodak times the noise was worse than today's ISO 64. This kind of theoretical blurb without any real use or need in everyday practice is a bit upsetting, I have to say.

 

And SLR is a single lens reflex - they don't have base ISO as they are film cameras. Also, in the beginning of digital cameras not each camera had a finder or an LCD. Often they had to be connected to a PC / Mac and shot exclusively tethered, at a whopping 1 MP, sometimes less.



#8 [email protected]!

[email protected]!

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationHalifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted 31 October 2017 - 01:06 AM

Just a side note, the lowest ISO isn't always the cleanest noise wise, the best is usually the base ISO, on my 5D the lowest noise is at ISO 100, ISO 50 is an expansion it's shooting at ISO 100 then dialing exposure minus one.
FWIW on my 30D I used extensively the best noise performance was at ISO 160, although it had ISO 100 and 130

 

I hear that about Cannons. I'm a nikon guy, and its simply the lowest noise I've ever seen! It reminds me of the medium format from school, but the colour noise is even better than the older ccd on the medium format!.. I'll post a sample when I get a minute.

 

I was reading a bit and I guess you get 2/3 more light squeezed into the base 64ISO vs ISO100, so you get a much cleaner image vs100 on D810 and D850. I haven't really compared at ISO100 so I don't know how they look yet. I guess thats why they looked so clean!

 

from DPreview:

"One of the D810's most significant features was its ability to shoot at ISO 64. There are two main factors that influence the Raw (saturation-based) ISO rating: efficiency and full-well capacity. Higher efficiency (a higher proportion of photons being registered) would push base ISO upwards, while an increased full-well capacity (capacity for electronic charge) pushes it down.

The D810 offered a lower ISO by increasing its full well capacity (or, at least, finding a way to squeeze a bit more out of it). This meant it was able to capture just as much of the light it was exposed to as the D800 but could tolerate more light before it started to clip. This meant it could be given greater exposure, which improves the signal-to-noise ratio and gives cleaner tones across the image: an improvement often interpreted as improved tonality.

 

This ability to tolerate an extra 2/3EV exposure is why we say that the D810 is able to compete with the latest batch of medium format cameras, whose 44 x 33mm sensors would capture 2/3EV more light at the same F-number and shutter speed."


Commercial photography: http://duann.ca , Wildlife Nature, Macro: http://paulduann.com/blog

 


#9 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts

Posted 31 October 2017 - 08:12 AM

          :wub:  I would love to have one :wub:  :wub: ...

 

               ....but it needs the grip for me at least so....too expensive for me :(

 

             .....then the better lenses  :blink:

 

   ...however, there will be grey market soon no doubt......like Yippee!!    :P  :D    :lol:   B)

 

      I wonder how much they will be?  2300-2500 euros.......pity my organs aren't unsellable!    :(                                

 

 

 

   wow..I hit the emoticon buffer!                     



#10 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 October 2017 - 08:18 AM

What can you do in birding you can't do with your D500?



#11 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts

Posted 31 October 2017 - 08:26 AM

      Indeed JoJu! 

 

     My  D750  :wub:  is back in action......I love it's IQ..... actually it's a pretty good sports camera as it is, only having 1/2 a frame less than the D850 sans grip,   6.5 fps is getting there for FF.

 

   The two together cover my needs adequately, ten years back I never thought I would have such capable kit! 



#12 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 31 October 2017 - 08:46 AM

about base ISO

https://petapixel.co...quality-images/

 

About KodaK SLR ISO 6

 

Optimization setting of the Pro 14n and has lower noise and less purple fringing tendency than the existing one. ISO range is calibrated from 160 to 800, with the full extended ISO range being 6 to 1600.

 

http://www.bythom.com/14n.htm



#13 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 October 2017 - 08:54 AM

Linking to a 6 year aged article which was debating the sense of Lo 0.5 and Lo 1 (or ISO 50 in Canonish) is historcially interesting, but these days most users (not necessarily most forum readers  :D ) know that the lower ISO come at the price of reduced DR and don't improve noise level at all.

 

EDIT: On second thought: As long as few users are convinced it's best to take pictures without any compression and constantly fail to prove it, the very same users might also be convinced the lowest possible ISO is just the way to go.



#14 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 31 October 2017 - 09:26 AM

I don't think it can be considered as common knowledge. In fact, I tend to disagree that "most users" are aware of the lack of improvements at low ISO.

Regarding the Kodak: ISO 6 was then one (and basically only) why I was interested in getting one for a while (when 14 MP was still impressive). It was available on both the EF-mount and the F-mount version of the cameras... even though I never really liked the Sigma-based SLR/c, to be honest.
Editor
photozone.de

#15 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 October 2017 - 10:19 AM

I think Nikon choose wisely not to talk about ISO 50, 32, 25 but instead of Lo 0.3, 0.7 and 1 (EV). The manual also very clearly states about higher contrast (page 120) and I do think, amongst the users who need regularly low ISO the downsides are known - and the others are the people who think they can treat a DSLR like they uised to do with film cameras and never look into manuals.

 

 

Now I still don't got a  proof that pictures of  this fantastic Kodak ISO 6 machine would be superior in any way to contemporary cameras. The samples are just poor IQ compared to today's standards. toni-a, thanks for digging very deep in digital dust, but I would be very amazed if a machine from 2004 (!) could compete in any way with a modern camera.

 

What I saw in the samples, each of my also historical Sigma Merrills would eat for breakfast.  :D Not all old machines are better than modern ones. But on eBay they might be quite cheap these days. Age itself is not a quality per se.



#16 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 31 October 2017 - 10:36 AM

All I wanted to say is that best ISO isn't always the lowest, and thus LO1 with exposure similar to ISO 50 isn't ISO 50 actually and isn't better than ISO 100.
On that point we all agreed.
Kodak SLR had ISO 6 exposure equivalent, but no true ISO6 ND filters is still the way to go

#17 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 October 2017 - 11:06 AM

If I wanted to split hair, I could easily reply "the best ISO on D810 and D850 is also the lowest (ISO 64) - the other, lower settings don't even pretend to have to do with ISO".

 

So, on the Nikon side of things, at least with those two bodies the users can rely to get the bes lowest ISO if he or she uses the lowest ISO number that is - and don't care about "LO whatever".



#18 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 31 October 2017 - 11:17 AM

That might be true for the D810 and D850, but not necessarily for other Nikon DSLRs (or other brands for that matter), where the lowest ISO ("regular" ISO, not talking about Lo-Settings) does not necessarily give the best results.

 

For the record: MTF tests at PZ are also not necessarily done at the lowest available (regular) ISO setting. On the D3x for example, ISO 200 delivers slightly better results (read: higher numbers) than ISO 100.

 

Regarding the Kodak: of course it can't compete with modern sensors. It was one of the first available full-frame DSLRs, at that time you basically only had the choice between the Kodak, the mighty expensive 1Ds and the (horrible) Contax ND.

 

The point was: at the setting of ISO 6, the camera delivered much better results (in terms of noise) than at its base setting.

 

I still wish that similarly low settings were still available in modern cameras. It's similar in effect to ND filters... but works with any lens, so any filter thread size ;)


Editor
photozone.de

#19 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 October 2017 - 11:52 AM

ND filters usually have a color drift (if one goes for the real big 10 f/ stoppers), but how much better you think low ISO would become? And ISO 6 (down from 64) is just 3 stops less. Not sufficient for a long exposure in daylight.

 

At ISO 64 there already is no visible noise. Feel free to ask the manufacturers for ISO 6-1600. I'm pretty sure it will sell like mouldy bread. The low ISO setttings of any modern camera cover the needs and can't ne improved as noise can't become negative - if there is already no visible noise, double no noise will not lead to better results .

 

Using long exposures in daylight can be done with another technique: multiple exposures. As good as we have HDR stacks and focus stacks, we can also stack a couple of normal 1/15 exposures to get long times. At least, that's how Arsenal will do it. So, no ND filter = no color drift, no thread problems, tripod still necessary.

 

I think we continuously move to a much more software-based photography - after all, it doesn't matter how you can do long time exposures in daylight as long as they are convincing and trouble free.  ;)



#20 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 31 October 2017 - 12:24 PM

I guess we're mixing up two things here, now.

First, there was the point that lowest available ISO is not necessarily base ISO of the sensor.

Second, there was a remark by toni that he wishes low ISO settings like Kodak offered on the SLR/c and SLR/n would still be available in today's cameras (just like I do). There's a reason why Kodak offered it back then (improve image quailty by lowering noise, which was an issue back then even at low ISO settings and long eposures), but that's not the reason why I (and I guess toni, too) would love to have this feature in our current cameras.

Yes, you can do a lot with ND filters... but you need to buy them (probably several of them for different filter sizes) and carry them around.

And multiple exposures do not give you smoothened water or clouds, nor do they remove groups of tourists walking around your subject :)
  • toni-a likes this
Editor
photozone.de





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: D850, favourite features

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de