D810 plus lens or D850?

[Derrel]

I bought a D800 used for $798 in October, 2017...I bought a used D610 with Nikon grip, two chargers, and four batteries for $698 in July 2017...I personally think that used bodies are the way to go...

I like FX format simply for the lenses available for it; the lenses are many, and the focal lengths are what they have been for decades; a 24mm is a wide-angle, a 50mm is a normal, and 85mm is a short telephoto; a 70-200 is a USEFUL lens, even indoors. On a crop-sensor body, all of the traditional lens focal lengths, and the distances at which they can be successfully used, goes right out the window, and a 70-200 indoors in many rooms and places is quite often way, way, way too narrow-angle; same with an 85, too long indoors in most houses on a crop-body camera.

95% (estimate) of all the Nikkor lenses ever made are for FX digital or 35mm cameras...there are just a few DX Nikkors. Personally, I'll never go back to a DX-format Nikon. I never truly liked what it did to all the lenses.

The D500? Not very impressive in poor light compared to FX Nikon...it's just not, from a pure image quality standpoint. it's fewer megapixels, much,much smaller pixels, and it's lower in MP count, and, well...it was built for ACTION, or for SPEED work, not for landscapes, not for portraiture, not for slower,deliberate picture-taking. As I see it, the D500 is a PJ/action/sorta' wildlife oriented machine.

 

[mrca]

Derrel, I have shot a d500 for 5 months and disagree strongly. If someone can't take amazing portraits or landscapes with that camera they need some lessons. It is perhaps the best crop camera on the market. A d850 with grip costs $2,000 more. For what, one or 2 stops of iso and megapixels most amateurs never need? They need more than 24 mp? Pros paying 6 grand for a 20 mp D5 probably don't agree. Also, unlike when I bought a d200 in 2005, there are now plenty of excellent crop lenses both from nikon and after market like Sigma. I just hate to see amateurs led to believe a full frame camera is better for them when in most cases, it won't improve their shots all that much if at all. If they want to take their photography to really higher levels, they need to master the craft. Take classes and learn lighting and composition, it costs next to nothing compared to an 850 and will really take one's photography up many notches. I have been shooting film or full frame for 50 years except for a couple with the d200 and 500. I just went with the d850 to print really large and get my 135 mm lens to give me the shooting distance I like and 8mm fisheye to be round again. I don't see any significant difference in high iso performance that warrants an extra 2 grand outlay for someone not getting paid for their shots. I think the money is better spent on training.

 

[Derrel]

Derrel, I have shot a d500 for 5 months and disagree strongly. If someone can't take amazing portraits or landscapes with that camera they need some lessons. It is perhaps the best crop camera on the market. A d850 with grip costs $2,000 more. For what, one or 2 stops of iso and megapixels most amateurs never need? They need more than 24 mp? Pros paying 6 grand for a 20 mp D5 probably don't agree. Also, unlike when I bought a d200 in 2005, there are now plenty of excellent crop lenses both from nikon and after market like Sigma. I just hate to see amateurs led to believe a full frame camera is better for them when in most cases, it won't improve their shots all that much if at all. If they want to take their photography to really higher levels, they need to master the craft. Take classes and learn lighting and composition, it costs next to nothing compared to an 850 and will really take one's photography up many notches. I have been shooting film or full frame for 50 years except for a couple with the d200 and 500. I just went with the d850 to print really large and get my 135 mm lens to give me the shooting distance I like and 8mm fisheye to be round again. I don't see any significant difference in high iso performance that warrants an extra 2 grand outlay for someone not getting paid for their shots. I think the money is better spent on training.

I've seen actual, side-by-side D610 vs D500 comparisons...the D500 is below the 610 and the 800 in SNR, at every setting...it's wayyyyy lower in MP count than 36MP. At high ISO levels, the FX Nikons are significantly cleaner than the D500. I'm not impressed by the D500's high ISO performance.

Not sure where you're getting that I am advocating the D850...because I'm NOT. And I'm NOT advocating the D850,either... maybe you oughtta' go back and re-read what I actually wrote?

There are just a few decent crop-frame lenses from Nikon; there are decades' worth of lenses from Nikon,and others, all of which were designed for 24x36mm capture. A 70-200 is almost useless indoors in anything smaller than a gymnasium on a crop-sensor body. A 300mm prime is limited in many places on a crop-frame camera. I'm NOT a fan of APS-C.

I think you need to exercise some better reading comprehension--because I am advocating CHEAP, used, bodies. Not the D850.

A full frame camera _is_ better in many ways, but mostly because it doesn't ruin every lens's angle of view indoors. Indoors, for example, with an 85mm lens, an APS-C camera needs 35 feet of distance to get a 8.45 foot tall picture area; with an FX Nikon, the 8.45 foot tall picture area is easily shot from 20 feet. The "best crop body ever made" requires you to stand over 34 feet away, to shoot a simple, two-person, full-length portrait? Not very useful in many,many situations.

And the D500 is, as I said, not very impressive in poor light...

 

[mrca]

Derrel, You are not impressed by the d500 performance based on what? Have you ever shot one in the real world? You are evaluating a camera based on things most amateurs including op, will never need. 36 mp? What is the resolution of the monitor or cell phone where nearly all their images reside? How many print large enough to warrant more mp? What kind of amateur shooting needs more performance than that camera has? Professional wedding photographers for years have been using crop cameras with lower iso performance and far fewer mp and doing just fine in churches with low light and no flash allowed. Pros don't wring their hands over a few mp here, a stop of iso there. Photographers just use the tool. You need to go back and read what I wrote, I am not saying you advocated the 850, the op was. "I think you need to exercise some better reading comprehension." I agree on a crop making ff lenses you already have act differently and it is one of the reasons for my using an 850. But novices don't have particular ways lenses are used and can buy lenses that give them what they want at specific ranges. Your example of using a 70-200 for full length indoors is makes no sense, why? I used the 70-200 for head and shoulders in a 20 foot studio? And I have shot 400 mm on FF for headshots in a studio with only 20 feet in length with no issue. I have used the 500 for months and I would use the 24-70 that op already ownsfor full length, giving a 35-105 2.8 equivalent. Killer range and fast as well. But I have a 35 2.0, a 50 1.4 and a 16-35 f/4 that is a 24-60, also a great range. And last I noticed, you can move subjects to areas where you have enough room or I know how to shoot through door ways from the next room to extend length. I agree the different angle of view than being used to is a real pain so now my 8mm circular fish eye is circular again and my 135 puts me at the distance I love for compression and the dof it produces. Folks here seem to like the 85 1.4 and I like it for half to 3/4 body as that puts me at the distance I like. I agree with you on cheap used bodies. KEH is a great, reliable supplier. I have a 1980 MF camera from them that looks like new. But you keep hammering the d500 iso performance. Here is a quote from Ken Rockwell:
"Even ludicrously high ISOs look superb. The D500 has great color and tone at any ISO up to and including 51,200!" But then he is a photographer who does testing, but also shoots in the real world.

 

[jaomul]

Personally I have crop and fx. The modern Nikon crop cameras are fantastic for image quality, probably better than fx were years ago and with the right lenses are so very capable.

The problem is we base performance on the modern available best. Nikon FX has better image quality than dx when technology is of the same era

 

[Braineack]

Derrel, You are not impressed by the d500 performance based on what?

every picture I've seen posted with one looks like a step back in terms of IQ.

The images always look noisy, and colors muted. They images remind me more of a D5100 in terms of IQ and not a D610.


edit: interesting. I put the above in dxo and they kinda backup my claim:

 

[mrca]

Yes, better quality for both dx and fx than most even use. How many folks images are seen off a monitor or cell phone with minimal resolution, a fraction of what 24 mp or 46 gives. So much for image resolution. Yes the quality of fx is better than dx. How many people can tell the difference shown 2 images? I don't know many amateurs running around needing 12500 iso all the time. Perhaps I marvel at the complaints since I used to shoot film with 25 and 50 and still shoot 100 iso. It would be like 2 ferrari owners arguing which car is better because one only has 400 hp and the other 500. Yep it has more HP, but what difference does it make driving on the street?

 

[Braineack]

People say that, but my commute is 2.5 miles, I have 300hp now and shopping for a new car with 400hp. True story.

All I know is what I see from the images. I just haven't been overly impressed with the images I've seen from the body.

 

[mrca]

Every photo you have seen looks like a step back in time?? Colors ALWAYS noisy and muted? Sounds more like operator error? Why the hell would an image shot at the d500 native iso of 100 be noisy? Are images beyond 12500 really acceptable to you? We all have different standards. Muted? What are they doing, not processing the raw file? You post charts to prove your point, not real world images. Can you really tell the difference? How do those charts show d500 images are always noisy and muted? I shot one for 5 months and that is bs. Have you ever shot one??? All this bs comes from folks who don't. But then, I have shot one. Dx0, aren't they the bozos that told me I don't want my favorite lens a 135 2.o because of ca or my 70-200 that is soft in the corners and has vignetting? How do I know I love them, I shot them. Photography has been taken over by number geeks who think art is a spreadsheet or blue print. Making crap by the numbers. It is one of my pet peeves of what has happened since digital brought in all the geeks. Now they think they are artists, no just the same geeks and don't get me started about "computer artistry." In 2000 to 2005 I watched as they crowded out the artists in a photo club I belonged to as they tried to reduce everything to numbers. What do you expect, they are numbers people, not artists. If someone can't take killer images with a d500, it says something about their skill level.

 

[mrca]

I have been backwards in traffic at 140 on a race track. Only needed 150 hp to do that. Now I need a vehicle that can haul all my photo gear including large beach hand truck or hand truck/ladder , smaller assembled octas and hard shell golf case holding smaller stands, the occasional 9' seamless, is easy to park and can launch and pull out a boat easily. If you "need" 400 hp on the street, then you definitely "need" an d850. But if you have a need for speed, the d500 is 10 fps.

 

[jaomul]

I think dx users have great cameras(where image quality is concerned), especially the modern ones. FX users have it a bit better. It's always hard to take a step down from the top once you've been there