D500 to D850 -- Help pleas

[McGene]

New to this forum and really hopeful for some guidance.
I'm retired and enjoy photography only as a hobby. I currently use a D500.
I have started to get interested in macro photography ... but the D500 does not have focus stacking...thus, my interest in the D850 (I can't afford mirrorless).
I rented a D850 and took a macro shot of a flower with both the D500 and D850 -- I couldn't see any real difference between a 20 and 47 mega pixel file.
I then cropped the photo and the D500 produced a 4 mb file and the D850 yielded a 5 mb file. Again, I couldn't tell any difference.
Am I doing something wrong? I mean, everything I read says the D850 was Nikon's DSLR flagship ... I'm just not sure that moving from the D500 to the D850 is going wow me.
Thanks for your thoughts
-gene

 

[Ysarex]

You're not doing anything wrong. The D500 is a great camera. I have two APS sensor cameras, one that uses the same Sony sensor that's in your D500 -- Fuji X-T2 (also have X-T4). I have two FF cameras, one the Nikon Z7 has the same sensor as in the D850. The camera I use the most is none of the above but my 5th camera a compact Canon G7xmkII with a 1" sensor. The camera I use the least is the FF Nikon Z7. I'm keeping the FF cameras because they were gifts but truthfully I'd be quite happy without them. The G7 fits in my pocket and goes everywhere I go. The 20mp 1" sensor is up to the task for most of what I want to photograph and when I need more I grab one of the two Fuji cameras; they are ideal -- the sweet spot for me.

If I had to trim down and lose some of the gear I have the two FF cameras would go first. The two APS cameras would go next and I'm keeping my G7 no matter what.

The difference between your D500 and a D850 is about 1 stop of reduced noise and 1 stop of DR you rarely need. The resolution difference in the D850 is overkill -- 20mp is enough.

 

[McGene]

Thanks so much for your observations and experiences. I have been on the fence about moving to the D850 for some time now. As I mentioned about the only major advantage I see is the focus stacking feature. I just need to be honest with myself whether this ONE reason is reason enough to part with my D500 and buy a D850.

 

[Ysarex]

Thanks so much for your observations and experiences. I have been on the fence about moving to the D850 for some time now. As I mentioned about the only major advantage I see is the focus stacking feature. I just need to be honest with myself whether this ONE reason is reason enough to part with my D500 and buy a D850.

I do a lot of close-up photos -- flowers, plants, and the APS cameras are my choice because of the extra DOF they provide over a FF camera. If my G7 had better close focus ability I'd use that for even more DOF. I've recently entertained the idea of picking up an M43 camera specifically for close-up photos to add a little more DOF over the APS cameras.

 

[JoeW]

The D850 is a great camera--one of the best non-mirrorless cameras in the world. But if the only reason you're looking at shifting is focus stacking, then don't. You can do that manually with the D500 and then use software like Helicon to stack and create your finished photo.

There are many advantages of the D850. But getting one just for focus stacking wouldn't be worth it.

 

[Rickbb]

Thanks so much for your observations and experiences. I have been on the fence about moving to the D850 for some time now. As I mentioned about the only major advantage I see is the focus stacking feature. I just need to be honest with myself whether this ONE reason is reason enough to part with my D500 and buy a D850.

You don't need in camera focus stacking; in my limited experience it just doesn't work that well.

Use manual focus and a focusing rail, then stack in LR or Photoshop. A good rail is only a few hundred, a D850 a few thousand.

 

[McGene]

Wow, this is just what I needed. I did use a rented D850 and got some experience with focus stacking. I downloaded a copy of Helicon that seemed to work quite well.
I wasn't sure if the dynamic range and increase pixel count would be worth the investment. I almost always see a need to crop my photos so thought have a few more pixels might be helpful.
I have found a D850 with about 33K clicks with the official Nikon grip for about $1500 -- and I can get about $650 for my D500, so out of pocket cost would be reasonable -- IF, the upgrade is recommended. I don't see me going mirrorless at my age.

 

[greybeard]

I have a D850, Z5, and a Z50 and looking at the results on a 1080p monitor, I can't see much difference. These older monitors only display a little over 2mp. The D850 will let you crop more than the d500 but that is about the only difference you will ever see in IQ. The multi exposure thing is nice for focus stacking but, the Z5 does it with much better live view performance. Check out the used Z5 prices, you might be surprised.

 

[cgw]

It's certain used Nikon DSLRs will only go down in price as MILCs gain ground.

 

[ronald_michael]

New to this forum and really hopeful for some guidance.
I'm retired and enjoy photography only as a hobby. I currently use a D500.
I have started to get interested in macro photography ... but the D500 does not have focus stacking...thus, my interest in the D850 (I can't afford mirrorless).
I rented a D850 and took a macro shot of a flower with both the D500 and D850 -- I couldn't see any real difference between a 20 and 47 mega pixel file.
I then cropped the photo and the D500 produced a 4 mb file and the D850 yielded a 5 mb file. Again, I couldn't tell any difference.
Am I doing something wrong? I mean, everything I read says the D850 was Nikon's DSLR flagship ... I'm just not sure that moving from the D500 to the D850 is going wow me.
Thanks for your thoughts
-gene

One thing I like about is the D850 can shoot *.tiff , although the files can be huge.

 

[RAZKY]

One thing I like about is the D850 can shoot *.tiff , although the files can be huge.

Are the TIFFs 8-bit or 16-bit? I shoot 14-bit NEF with my Df and export as 16-bit TIFFs. It would be nice to shoot 16-bit directly.

 

[McGene]

Interesting comment about shooting tiff -- sorry for a stupid question -- but why would I want to shoot tiff vs RAW?

I don't use LR or Photoshop (can't justify the cost for an amateur like me). I use the free software from Nikon NX Studio. Does all that I need. Plus, you're gonna love this -- I'm colorblind!!!!

 

[JoeW]

A quick very rough summary is that RAW is best for manipulation, TIFF is great for sending a high-quality file you've edited to someone else. Here is a good article talking about the pros and cons of each format: RAW vs TIFF: Which File Type Should You Use for Photography?

 

[Strodav]

Have both the D850 and D500, both are excellent cameras. I think your question is more about sensor size than focus stacking. My photo monitor is 2560 x 1440 (3.7mp), at about 109 pixels / inch and 10 bits / color. To fit a D850 45.7mp image at 14 bits on my monitor it needs to be resized down about a factor of 12, so you are throwing away 33mp give or take, and compress from 14 bits / color to 10 bits / color. For the 20.9mp D500, your resizing and throwing away about 17mp and compressing to 10 bits to get an image to fit on the screen. If you take a picture with the same framing on a D850 and D500 you won't see much difference on your monitor until you start looking at 1:1 to see the D850 shows much more detail compared to the D500.

So why a D850? It has focus stacking and the higher resolution sensor allows you to capture more detail, which is great for landscapes, astrophotography, macro photography, ... . It is arguably the best dslr ever made. Why a D500? 10fps, 1.5x crop factor. Both cameras have the same D5 AF system. It was my go to birding camera until I got a Z9, which has IBIS, and amazing AF system, at much higher frame rates.

Now, I use my Z9 and D500 for birding, depends on the situation and the D850 for everything else except street photography when I use my trusty and beloved D7200. It's important to remember, it's not just about the camera, but also the glass. You can absolutely destroy the potential detail of a D850 sensor with a crappy lens.

 

[greybeard]

Have both the D850 and D500, both are excellent cameras. I think your question is more about sensor size than focus stacking. My photo monitor is 2560 x 1440 (3.7mp), at about 109 pixels / inch and 10 bits / color. To fit a D850 45.7mp image at 14 bits on my monitor it needs to be resized down about a factor of 12, so you are throwing away 33mp give or take, and compress from 14 bits / color to 10 bits / color. For the 20.9mp D500, your resizing and throwing away about 17mp and compressing to 10 bits to get an image to fit on the screen. If you take a picture with the same framing on a D850 and D500 you won't see much difference on your monitor until you start looking at 1:1 to see the D850 shows much more detail compared to the D500.

So why a D850? It has focus stacking and the higher resolution sensor allows you to capture more detail, which is great for landscapes, astrophotography, macro photography, ... . It is arguably the best dslr ever made. Why a D500? 10fps, 1.5x crop factor. Both cameras have the same D5 AF system. It was my go to birding camera until I got a Z9, which has IBIS, and amazing AF system, at much higher frame rates.

Now, I use my Z9 and D500 for birding, depends on the situation and the D850 for everything else except street photography when I use my trusty and beloved D7200. It's important to remember, it's not just about the camera, but also the glass. You can absolutely destroy the potential detail of a D850 sensor with a crappy lens.

What he said. Another thing the D850 does is crop mode which is roughly the same resolution as the D500. I use mine all the time with a 300mm in crop with a battery grip and the big battery. This gives me 9 fps and the focus sensors can cover most of the frame. I shot this yesterday with an old 70-300 f/4.5-5.6, @ f/5.6, 1/2500. With a little noise and sharpening help from Lr and Ps, it came out pretty well.