• 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

#21 [email protected]!

[email protected]!

    Newbie

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

Posted 31 October 2017 - 12:35 PM


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.

 

I agree. I tend to generalize.

 

But with the Nikon cameras I've used, the base ISO is almost always the cleanest, of corse I haven't used all Nikon cameras just the: d70,d200,d300,d7200,d700,d3,d800,d850.

 

 

 

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 :)

 

 

 

The only time I use the low settings, is to beat back the sun for an hdr or to replace a ND filter for a long shutter. Seems to work ok for that. But I try to keep in mind that it might have less DR. Haven't tried on the D850 yet. I don't use it often. I don't know what would be better though, the low setting or the filter?


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

 


#22 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 October 2017 - 01:06 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 :)

 

This appears to become an example of being a bit stubborn. "I demand low ISO 6" - and I can't see any sensible reason for that (I'm not saying who's stubborn, then  :D )

 

But you might update your outdated knowledge about multi-exposures and how to get a long time exposure impression: https://www.kickstar...stant-0?lang=de

 

Scroll down to "Capture Looooong Exposures" - and that's without the disadvantage of increasing the noise by long exposures* - that's what you get with an ISO 6 camera. It's totally counterproductibe to hunt for less noise by lowering ISO, but then get longer shutter speeds and therefore more noise again. Doesn't make any sense.

 

It's also without the disadvantage of closing down the aperture and get massive diffractions. Great glass, great sensor and then ruin the best possible results by increasing noise and diffraction.

 

*) it just remains unclear, if a couple of stacked pictures will not increase sensor temperature - then I would have to live with a disappointment, I guess.



#23 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,851 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 31 October 2017 - 01:11 PM

My 9 stop ND filter is pretty colourcast-less. Hoya ND400 (no idea why it is not called ND512). I chose a 58mm one so it will fit my lenses with 58mm thread (like the Canon FL 55mm f1.2), all my old Nikkors (55mm f1.2, 50mm f2, 35mm f2.8, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f3.5, 135mm f2.8, 55mm f3.5), Voigtlander 20mm with 52mm to 58mm step up ring, and the odd 55mm lens that I have with appropriate step up ring. I only need one to cover a wide focal range. And to be honest, of course I have not used it on all those focal lengths and lenses.

 

I also have a Marumi ND8 3 stop filter, also pretty colourcast-less.

 

For people who worry about every bit of sharpness, it is best to do things without ND filter, and so, lower ISO settings would be welcome for some.



#24 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 October 2017 - 01:35 PM

Well, things are different if you have to rely on 150 × 150 mm filters and need to use an appropriate holder to get the whole setup light-tight. I've bought a Formatt Hitech and all I can say it looks very much lowtech and needs massive colour corrections - Hoya ND4 is free of that. I could waste more money on other filters, but all I read so far about ND1000 filters was : No matter "which" and "how much", all of them show colour cast. Checking Google for color cast leads to pages of articles, so I stay highly sceptical.

 

Also, a M58 screw in filter will not help me and honestly, most of the time the big plate stays at home because it needs an even bigger holder.

 

Anyway, back to topic: D850 goes down to ISO 64, not many bodies - if at all - go "downer" and toni's and Markus' begging for lower ISO is nothing I support. Less than no noise apparently is possible - just don't push the shutter button too loud.  :D



#25 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 31 October 2017 - 03:13 PM

Thanks for trying to educate me, JoJu ;) It doesn't need a kickstarter device to do that, the same can be achieved in post.

And didn't demand anything, either. Just mentioned I'd appreciate such a feature, because, just as in your case, my ND filters are usually at home when an opportunity to use them shows up. Unlike you, I still think there would be actually benefit by having low ISO in-camera (lower than 64). Not in terms of image quality, though, that wasn't the idea behind it.
Editor
photozone.de

#26 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 October 2017 - 03:29 PM

But in which terms then?

 

Btw., the cool thing - at least in theory, I still have to wait to find out if it actually is cool - with Arsenal is, you do the multi exposure in the field and come home with just one RAW instead a solid pack of fat RAW-files to download, backup and spend time in post. Doubtful if the results would be better.

 

The other cool side, as far as I could hope for: It doesn't matter much at which aperture you like to do "longtime bulb" shot. In theory 1000 shots of 1/1000 are giving the same result as 1 shot at 1 sec. I just mention "silent shutter in LiveVIew", which is a novelty with Nikon (but not with Fujifilm or Sony). That means no mechanical wear involved...

 

Also, no longer the problem of filter holders which are not light-tight, or filters which can reflect incoming light or increase aperture flares...

 

Until today I haven't thought about this advantages, so thanks for keeping the wish for ISO 6 upright. The longer I think about the more downsides I find - but not a single benefit. You cannot lower the voltage for the sensor ubless you like to risk read-out-errors. The problem with sensor heat and long exposures still exists and you will constantly have to work with a tripod.



#27 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,851 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 31 October 2017 - 03:31 PM

I like lower ISO settings (or ND filters) for capturing movement that otherwise is a bit difficult, like movement by the wind or ghosting walking people, even with larger apertures. So not talking about about 30 second exposures or something.



#28 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 31 October 2017 - 03:36 PM

But in which terms then?


Usability. The same reason why in-camera focus stacking exists in the D850 ;)
Editor
photozone.de

#29 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 31 October 2017 - 03:40 PM

I like lower ISO settings (or ND filters) for capturing movement that otherwise is a bit difficult, like movement by the wind or ghosting walking people, even with larger apertures. So not talking about about 30 second exposures or something.


Yup. Something like this:
 

 

Attached Files


Editor
photozone.de

#30 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 October 2017 - 03:44 PM

Usability?

 

But to get sharp shots with ISO 6, a tripod will be the only thing to use. I think, ISO 6 is much more limiting than a software based solution will be - which, btw was just impossible 13 years ago. A device like Arsenal would have come in a pretty big box, additional power extension cable and a couple of harddrives, each a massive 200 MB big.


Usability?

 

But to get sharp shots with ISO 6, a tripod will be the only thing to use. I think, ISO 6 is much more limiting than a software based solution will be - which, btw was just impossible 13 years ago. A device like Arsenal would have come in a pretty big box, additional power extension cable and a couple of harddrives, each a massive 200 MB big.



#31 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 31 October 2017 - 03:50 PM

Of course you need a tripod for long exposure, regardless of if you use low ISO, ND filters or stack images.


Editor
photozone.de

#32 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 October 2017 - 03:54 PM

Yup. Something like this:
 

 

Clever mst, don't inlcude the EXIF, otherwise somebody might get the idea you could do this kind of stuff in dark fair situations as well with ISO 200, IBIS and f/16

 

_DSC1971-XL.jpg

 

That one was at ISO125, f/11, 1/10 in daylight (although not very bright daylight like in Sahara or the Arctic)

 

Handheld and OIS switched ON. I think, abreathing workshop could do more than an ISO 6 body  :rolleyes: Ooooohhmmm...



#33 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 31 October 2017 - 04:01 PM

That wasn't intentional. And no, I don't think a breathing workshop would have helped. Nor would IBIS (or VR)

 

Especially for you: Nikon D7200, AF-S DX 16-85 VR at 52 mm and f/7.1, ISO 400, 5 sec exposure. ND 3.0 filter and Leica tabletop tripod with tiny Markins ballhead.

 

I'm not sure what your point is by now, mine was just: shots like this would require a little less effort with a camera that could do really low ISO. I wouldn't have to remember taking the ND filters (the right sizes), wouldn't have to compose the scene first, focus, do a test shot, then mount the filter, adjust exposure and shoot. With low ISO, I could save some time and (most notably) still have a usable viewfinder image.


Editor
photozone.de

#34 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 October 2017 - 04:01 PM

Of course you need a tripod for long exposure, regardless of if you use low ISO, ND filters or stack images.

 

Tripod for

 

low ISO 

ND filters or

stack images

 

:lol:

 

You've seen my handheld focusstack? Lemme show u:

 

Bru%CC%88cke-L.jpg

 

If the software already has to work, it can as well also align the pictures... but of course it's better not to need that step. And a tripod is helpful in each way. Just not needed for stacks...



#35 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 October 2017 - 04:06 PM

That wasn't intentional. And no, I don't think a breathing workshop would have helped. Nor would IBIS (or VR)

 

Especially for you: Nikon D7200, AF-S DX 16-85 VR at 52 mm and f/7.1, ISO 400, 5 sec exposure. ND 3.0 filter and Leica tabletop tripod with tiny Markins ballhead.

 

I'm not sure what your point is by now, mine was just: shots like this would require a little less effort with a camera that could do really low ISO. I wouldn't have to remember taking the ND filters (the right sizes), wouldn't have to compose the scene first, focus, do a test shot, then mount the filter, adjust exposure and shoot. With low ISO, I could save some time and (most notably) still have a usable viewfinder image.

 

And the shot is where...?

 

My point is: Instead of stretching a modern sensor beyond it's possibilities, I rather prefer a soft- or firmware solution, keep base ISO at 64 and also the max ISO - I'm rather afraid, your highly specialized ultra low ISO sensor would do just these low ISO pretty well and suck at "normal" ISO like the Sigmas do. No free lunch...

 

And if you (or I) need a second body with a more universal sensor, all the "don't need to think about or transport ND filters and their holder" benefits would be lost.



#36 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 31 October 2017 - 04:06 PM

That's focus stacking. I was talking about exposure stacking. Which I prefer to do myself (not have it done in a black box device) and for that, perfect alignment is a must.

 

And I'm perfectly fine with it, I don't mind using a tripod. That wasn't my point.


Editor
photozone.de

#37 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 31 October 2017 - 04:08 PM

And the shot is where...?


In post #29...
Editor
photozone.de

#38 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 October 2017 - 04:51 PM

I have to add another thing. 5 seconds on a fair balcony can add (and is a risk for anyway) some motion blurr to the otherwise static cars, depending what's and who's going next to you. I never tried to stack and align short time exposures to a long time collection. Okay, once I did - when shooting film and the perforation was too weak, so the frame kept in place... I really wonder what the transition time zone between two shots would do to the picture. At worst some kind of stroboscopic effect.

 

Oh and thank you for your exposure data. Let's see: ISO 400? Not the lowest you can get from a D7200? f/7.1? Not the closest one can get (but you were aware of diffraction, I think, and tried to avoid it?) + ND3.0 = 10 stops.

 

At 5 secs you need a tripod - so no changes in exposure time needed. The ND filter is like an aperture of f/150 (roughly 10 stops down from f/7.1) or ISO 1.5 (again, 10 stops down form ISO 400). Going "only" down to ISO 6, you'd get away with f/16. And again, diffraction kicks in. But no ND filter needed.

 

So I keep on thinking: Wether there is an ISO 6 setting (with decent enough quality) or a long exposure stack: Both could be in camera (that was the reason to show a handheld focusstack, which is much more complicated to blend over), both would allow to leave ND filter at home. Additionally, the stack (if the software is up to perfect alignment) could also save the tripod. I don't see a reason why that should be a worse thing than ISO 6.

 

There's pixel shift in various models, there's Photoshop coming up with AI for composings, selections and contextsensitve image repair , Arsenal also is based on AI. and modern phones' cameras imitating bokeh. It might as well be we could not detect the software-manipulation. After all, a long time exposure itself is already a kind of reality distortion we never will be able to see if it was no camera involved (as well as ultra-highspeed shots).



#39 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 31 October 2017 - 06:11 PM

Oh my... you're really in smartass mode today, aren't you? ;)

Sorry, no offense, but seriously: I didn't claim "I want ISO 6 in-camera"... 6 is just the setting which that Kodak, that Toni and me remembered, offered. But yes, it would have made that shot possible, too, to some extent. But that sample image was not meant to say "look, I could have done this without ND if I had ISO 6", it was simply an example of what kind of shots I sometimes wish I had in-camera low iso.

On your thoughts about the shot: I only had the ND3.0 available, so no way to adjust things there. Aperture was chosen to avoid diffraction, true, and 5 secs to get the amount of motion blur I was looking for. That only left me with ISO to adjust exposure a little, that's why it's at ISO 400 and not a lower setting.

 

Edit: and no, I don't think you can do exposure stacking handheld with reasonable quality. For focus stacking, the software can pick parts of the images from each shot and combine them into a new one. For exposure stacking, you want the same parts of the image at different exposures and blend them. To me, that's something different.

 

Anyway, as already said, I definitely don't mind using a tripod. Certainly the best way to get the best performance out of your glass, still :)


Editor
photozone.de

#40 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 October 2017 - 07:31 PM

Oh my... you're really in smartass mode today, aren't you? ;)

 

 

Yeah, it's my smartass-Tuesday lehre21x18.gif why are you asking?  ^_^

 

Basically you know that I agree about tripods and glass and don't leave too much to software. But I also made some tests with tripods and I also got slightly blurred tripod shots because there was wind, tiny vibrations, kind of shutter slap or one of Saturn's moons was a bit in rampage mode.

 

I think, I just want to find out if there are different paths to the goal longtime exposure as in "it's good to have a choice". And pointing out the downsides I'm seeing with a ultralow ISO camera doesn't mean it couldn't be done - it just means "where's the hot pepper in that idea, which leaves the marketing dudes breath fire?"







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

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de