BrownieVet wrote:jshen808 wrote:..if you want to see some great colours straight from the camera....then you may consider taking a look at the D7500....this 'blacksheep' in the Nikon line of cameras, produces beautiful pictures....the below images was extracted from Raw Nef files, full sized, not post processed....the D7500 Picture Control was set to 'Auto', which is a new feature....and the D500 does not have it....however, the D850 does....D7500, image extracted from Raw Nef.....D7500, image extracted from Raw Nef....D7500, image extracted from Raw Nef....go ahead and pixel peep....Cheers..And here are two UNEDITED OOC JPEG candid snap shots from a mid-level Nikon D5300 with DX 18-140mm kit lens. No special set-up. Light source is one hot shoe mounted Godox V860 fitted with head diffuser. Head pointed to the ceiling for bounce effect...Nice pictures with plenty of details....much better image quality than the sony images that was posted....Cheers..

vbuhay wrote:BrownieVet wrote:vbuhay wrote:anotherMike wrote:Nothing to do with it. I've taken similar shots to that one with a D2X and the 200/2G.It's the lighting and the lens, not the camera body.Frankly I'm amazed you even begun to think the body mattered at all in this case.-mI am talking abut theSensorNOT the body, I like the D850 Body -one of the reason I bought it....So why complain about the pixel count of the D850 sensor?The higher the pixel count, the smaller the pixels. The smaller the pixels the lower the Dynamic Range.....True, bigger sensor equal more dynamic range and less noise. But it is also important who makes the sensor and Sony makes the best. So even even if the pixel count would be similar, the Sony would still be better. Sony is the new gold standard in FF photography. Get one!!

vbuhay wrote:Tony Beach wrote:vbuhay wrote:What I am talking about is that since the size of the Physical Pixel is directly a determinant of the pixel dynamic range and therefore the image dynamic range. If the individual pixel does not have the higher DR, then the Image cannot possible have higher DR, unless it is artificially altered.....That's pure bunk.A 24Mpx Cmos (D750) sensor will have less DR than a 24Mpx BSI Cmos (A7III) you can Google the reason why...The reason is that the A7m3 sensor has a dual gain that kicks in after ISO 400, and before ISO 400 they are in fact practically the same.Seehere.The reason why the D850 BSI Cmos pixels have less DR is because the BSI Pixels pixels in the A7III have LARGER PHYSICAL PIXELS...You don't know what you're talking about.Seehere.Thanks for that link - so I compared the 7M3 24Mpx vs the D850 45.7Mpx and at every single ISO except ISO 63 and 80, the A7III have higher Photo Dynamic Range...Be honest. The difference in the link I provided between the D750 and A7m3 at ISO 100 and ISO 400 is 4 hundredths of a stop. Your assertion that the difference comes from BSI is not borne out by the fact that the actual difference between ISO 100 and ISO 400 is never more than a fifth that (one tenth of a stop, which is negligible).As for the D850, at ISO 400 when its dual gain kicks in it has ever-so-marginally (eight hundredths of a stop) better DR than the A7m3 at that ISO.In addition, if the D850 has 24Mpx, processing the 24Mpx is quicker than 45.7 Mpx and therefore you can get faster FPS without the Battery Grip and a smaller lighter body (with 10 FPS - like the D500 same battery etc.)Wrong again. If the file size is the issue then it will show up as a reduced buffer size and not as reduced fps. The larger mirror is the issue.Why do you think the best Dynamic Range is found in Medium format Cameras???? BECAUSE THEY HAVE LARGER PIXELS ! -YMMVNo, it's because the sensor itself is larger.Of course it is larger, which is why they can put 100Mpx in them even at that, in general most of the Medium formats have bigger pixels than Full frame , but not all... I had a list of latest sensors from the Phase One sensors to most of the latest arrange by dynamic range , highest to lowest and the top 4 or 5 are all Medium formats. I am trying to locate it but have not found it yet....I will post when I find it...You are not getting the concept. Larger sensor area gathers more light, and that's how we get more DR.Somebody please let me know where my logic is wrong.Everywhere starting from the notion that it's the pixel size that determines the overall DR of the sensor.Its not the sole determinant but it is a major factor,Now explain the differences in DR between the A7Rm3 and the A7m3. They are very nearly identical.i.e.BSI CMOS vs CMOS sensors, CCD vs CMOS, .....others. A BSI CMOS will capture more light than CMOS of the same pixel size....Wrong again. So much light is captured with an FSI FX/135 format sensor that BSI adds nothing to that.

vbuhay wrote:Tony Beach wrote:vbuhay wrote:The higher the pixel count, the smaller the pixels. The smaller the pixels the lower the Dynamic Range.....You really need to educate yourself about this. You're so wrong it's not even funny, it's just sad.So are you telling me that the pixel size of the D850 (45.7Mpx) is larger that the pixel size of the A7III (24.2Mpx) - both being full frame?No, I'm telling you that the size of the photodiodes isn't determinant of the light captured by the sensors.Please explain...The explanation seems to be that you think we are working with sensor technology from ten years ago.

vbuhay wrote:anotherMike wrote:Nothing to do with it. I've taken similar shots to that one with a D2X and the 200/2G.It's the lighting and the lens, not the camera body.Frankly I'm amazed you even begun to think the body mattered at all in this case.-mI am talking abut the Sensor NOT the body, I like the D850 Body - one of the reason I bought it....vbuhay wrote:I do not like EVFs (realtime Lag), I love my Nikkors and Tamrons....I Like a lighter, less bulkier body with highest Dynamic Range and a fast 10 FPS..... that is all!I think I would love to have the A7III sensor in a smaller D850 body...Just pointing out the obviousVbuhay, you take some nice pictures: Go take some more of it and have fun!Markus

seahawk wrote:vbuhay wrote:BrownieVet wrote:vbuhay wrote:anotherMike wrote:Nothing to do with it. I've taken similar shots to that one with a D2X and the 200/2G.It's the lighting and the lens, not the camera body.Frankly I'm amazed you even begun to think the body mattered at all in this case.-mI am talking abut theSensorNOT the body, I like the D850 Body -one of the reason I bought it....So why complain about the pixel count of the D850 sensor?The higher the pixel count, the smaller the pixels. The smaller the pixels the lower the Dynamic Range.....True, bigger sensor equal more dynamic range and less noise. But it is also important who makes the sensor and Sony makes the best. So even even if the pixel count would be similar, the Sony would still be better. Sony is the new gold standard in FF photography. Get one!!Might be, but in the end if it means that the thread starter goes to the Sony forums - go Sony!!

Rens wrote:Not a Nikon user at the moment, but interested in the forthcoming mirrorless, I check the forum from time to time.I don't understand, why did this silly post get so much attention?Because there's very little left to debate anymore.The current crop of cameras are as much as ANY capable shooter needs. The differences between them (and the lenses) as shrunk to the point where it really is just a matter of personal preference.Any knowledgable pro shooter knows this, which is why they're still using some older bodies happily and getting paid. Choose the edge that works for YOU and that's the end of it. For me the handling, lenses and OVF of the D850 are what I want. But if I was shooting with a Sony 7DrIII or Canon 5DmkIV, the results would be 99.99% the same.Rob

seahawk wrote:seahawk wrote:vbuhay wrote:BrownieVet wrote:vbuhay wrote:anotherMike wrote:Nothing to do with it. I've taken similar shots to that one with a D2X and the 200/2G.It's the lighting and the lens, not the camera body.Frankly I'm amazed you even begun to think the body mattered at all in this case.-mI am talking abut theSensorNOT the body, I like the D850 Body -one of the reason I bought it....So why complain about the pixel count of the D850 sensor?The higher the pixel count, the smaller the pixels. The smaller the pixels the lower the Dynamic Range.....True, bigger sensor equal more dynamic range and less noise. But it is also important who makes the sensor and Sony makes the best. So even even if the pixel count would be similar, the Sony would still be better. Sony is the new gold standard in FF photography. Get one!!Might be, but in the end if it means that the thread starter goes to the Sony forums - go Sony!!@seahawkYes the perfect place for someone that does not understand the basics about optics, Dynamic range and physics...

The shape of the D810 grip is not as rounded as the body of the D4, and the D810 feels more bottom-heavy than the D4. There is a big enough difference for me personally that I will always choose the D4 for editorial work. The unibody of the D4 / D5 is also way more rigid than a gripped camera.

SilvanBromide wrote:just Tony wrote:SilvanBromide wrote:And the answer to your question is you would notice a nine ounce reduction in the combined weight of the camera and lens - which some might consider a more important consideration when using a large/heavy lens than when using a smaller or lighter one. ; )Just the opposite. The L-plate stays on my D810 full time. It's very noticeable when I'm using a 24/1.8. It's never noticeable with the 300/2.8.If you say so.But to me, that's like saying that adding a brick to your backpack won't matter when it's already full and almost too heavy to lift - and will only be a problem when it's nearly empty.I think you have it wackbards. ; )Add 9 ounces to your soup spoon and get back to me. Add 9 ounces to your garden shovel and get back to me. This is a simple analysis. Remember that the zooms in your gear list are not accurate predictors of the handling of a 200/2. If you had one you would use a different support strategy than you do now; the difference in muscle and skeletal loading will not be limited to matters of degree. Your transport device will look more like a backpack and much less like a neck strap.You also brought up hand size. That's irrelevant to my complaint. I didn't specify but I was complaining about the edges on the places your fingers touch. It's worse than the old Nikon F (they got things sorted out on the F2). If Sony was making hand tools with the same design philosophy they wouldn't be taken seriously at Home Depot.I'm not a Sony hater. I really like the photographic results I get from my original version RX100. Why didn't they design it in a way that works towards NOT dropping it? Even the new Mark VI hasn't addressed that. The ergonomics attention in their design team appears to be MIA. Same goes for their menu designs. I'm not the first person you've heard that from. This is an example of tough love from me. I would like Sony to get this stuff figured out.

seahawk wrote:seahawk wrote:vbuhay wrote:BrownieVet wrote:vbuhay wrote:anotherMike wrote:Nothing to do with it. I've taken similar shots to that one with a D2X and the 200/2G.It's the lighting and the lens, not the camera body.Frankly I'm amazed you even begun to think the body mattered at all in this case.-mI am talking abut theSensorNOT the body, I like the D850 Body -one of the reason I bought it....So why complain about the pixel count of the D850 sensor?The higher the pixel count, the smaller the pixels. The smaller the pixels the lower the Dynamic Range.....True, bigger sensor equal more dynamic range and less noise. But it is also important who makes the sensor and Sony makes the best. So even even if the pixel count would be similar, the Sony would still be better. Sony is the new gold standard in FF photography. Get one!!Might be, but in the end if it means that the thread starter goes to the Sony forums - go Sony!!We'd call him a cab :=)

just Tony wrote:SilvanBromide wrote:just Tony wrote:SilvanBromide wrote:And the answer to your question is you would notice a nine ounce reduction in the combined weight of the camera and lens - which some might consider a more important consideration when using a large/heavy lens than when using a smaller or lighter one. ; )Just the opposite. The L-plate stays on my D810 full time. It's very noticeable when I'm using a 24/1.8. It's never noticeable with the 300/2.8.If you say so.But to me, that's like saying that adding a brick to your backpack won't matter when it's already full and almost too heavy to lift - and will only be a problem when it's nearly empty.I think you have it wackbards. ; )Add 9 ounces to your soup spoon and get back to me. Add 9 ounces to your garden shovel and get back to me. This is a simple analysis. Remember that the zooms in your gear list are not accurate predictors of the handling of a 200/2. If you had one you would use a different support strategy than you do now; the difference in muscle and skeletal loading will not be limited to matters of degree. Your transport device will look more like a backpack and much less like a neck strap.Again, you presume too much. I spent quite a lot of time shooting with the Sigma 100-300 f2.8 Sports and the Sigma 150-600 Sports, both with dSLR and ML bodies attached. I've recently sold both lenses after owning them for a number of years - which is why they don't appear in my current gear list.Both the Sigmas are longer (and the 120-300 is also heavier than the Nikon 200/2 that I've also used (though I have never owned one).I speak from that experience when I say that I found the lighter body both noticeable and preferable when using heavy/bulky rigs. I note that you have found otherwise, which is fine, but you engage in overreach when you extrapolate from your own findings to everyone else.You also brought up hand size. That's irrelevant to my complaint. I didn't specify but I was complaining about the edges on the places your fingers touch. It's worse than the old Nikon F (they got things sorted out on the F2). If Sony was making hand tools with the same design philosophy they wouldn't be taken seriously at Home Depot.I'm not a Sony hater. I really like the photographic results I get from my original version RX100. Why didn't they design it in a way that works towards NOT dropping it? Even the new Mark VI hasn't addressed that. The ergonomics attention in their design team appears to be MIA. Same goes for their menu designs. I'm not the first person you've heard that from. This is an example of tough love from me. I would like Sony to get this stuff figured out.Well that's interesting, and I guess Sony's ergonomics don't suit you for whatever reason.I've found their ergonomics - especially with the mkIII bodies and the a9 - just fine. In fact I've preferred them to the dSLRs I used previously. So again, you are making general declarations as though you speak for everybody, but I'm afraid you don't.

jshen808 wrote:BrownieVet wrote:jshen808 wrote:..if you want to see some great colours straight from the camera....then you may consider taking a look at the D7500....this 'blacksheep' in the Nikon line of cameras, produces beautiful pictures....the below images was extracted from Raw Nef files, full sized, not post processed....the D7500 Picture Control was set to 'Auto', which is a new feature....and the D500 does not have it....however, the D850 does....D7500, image extracted from Raw Nef.....D7500, image extracted from Raw Nef....D7500, image extracted from Raw Nef....go ahead and pixel peep....Cheers..And here are two UNEDITED OOC JPEG candid snap shots from a mid-level Nikon D5300 with DX 18-140mm kit lens. No special set-up. Light source is one hot shoe mounted Godox V860 fitted with head diffuser. Head pointed to the ceiling for bounce effect...Nice pictures with plenty of details....much better image quality than the sony images that was posted....Cheers..Thanks John,I posted this to illustrate (to the OP) that the low end camera and lens does not necessarily mean inferior photo.  Nor physical sensor size that has lower pixel count, pixel size which may dictate pixel the sensor density automatically produce inferior photos. I think hitting the lens sweet spot combined with the camera's optimum ISO threshold (I don't know the proper term) could produce stunning photo that could rival that from a camera-lens combination that is haphazardly set.  This particular inexpensive kit lens performs very well at f/5.6 thru f/8 and at FL between 50 to 80.  It gives almost identical result when mounted on my D5100 and D800. Best regards,Ric

dccberry wrote:The shape of the D810 grip is not as rounded as the body of the D4, and the D810 feels more bottom-heavy than the D4. There is a big enough difference for me personally that I will always choose the D4 for editorial work.Not arguing for one second that the D4 works better for you. Just saying it's a very personal preference. Some (like me) do not feel the difference.The unibody of the D4 / D5 is also way more rigid than a gripped camera.No argument there from me.  That's why to mount my cameras to a tripod I always remove the grip and use the L-bracket directly attached to the body.

TOF guy wrote:dccberry wrote:The shape of the D810 grip is not as rounded as the body of the D4, and the D810 feels more bottom-heavy than the D4. There is a big enough difference for me personally that I will always choose the D4 for editorial work.Not arguing for one second that the D4 works better for you. Just saying it's a very personal preference. Some (like me) do not feel the difference.The unibody of the D4 / D5 is also way more rigid than a gripped camera.No argument there from me. That's why to mount my cameras to a tripod I always remove the grip and use the L-bracket directly attached to the body.I guess I can tell the difference between the D4 and a gripped D850.But it doesn't effect me...kinda like the candy coating on M&Ms.Rob

SilvanBromide wrote:just Tony wrote:SilvanBromide wrote:just Tony wrote:SilvanBromide wrote:And the answer to your question is you would notice a nine ounce reduction in the combined weight of the camera and lens - which some might consider a more important consideration when using a large/heavy lens than when using a smaller or lighter one. ; )Just the opposite. The L-plate stays on my D810 full time. It's very noticeable when I'm using a 24/1.8. It's never noticeable with the 300/2.8.If you say so.But to me, that's like saying that adding a brick to your backpack won't matter when it's already full and almost too heavy to lift - and will only be a problem when it's nearly empty.I think you have it wackbards. ; )Add 9 ounces to your soup spoon and get back to me. Add 9 ounces to your garden shovel and get back to me. This is a simple analysis. Remember that the zooms in your gear list are not accurate predictors of the handling of a 200/2. If you had one you would use a different support strategy than you do now; the difference in muscle and skeletal loading will not be limited to matters of degree. Your transport device will look more like a backpack and much less like a neck strap.Again, you presume too much. I spent quite a lot of time shooting with the Sigma 100-300 f2.8 Sports and the Sigma 150-600 Sports, both with dSLR and ML bodies attached. I've recently sold both lenses after owning them for a number of years - which is why they don't appear in my current gear list.Both the Sigmas are longer (and the 120-300 is also heavier than the Nikon 200/2 that I've also used (though I have never owned one).I speak from that experience when I say that I found the lighter body both noticeable and preferable when using heavy/bulky rigs. I note that you have found otherwise, which is fine, but you engage in overreach when you extrapolate from your own findings to everyone else.You also brought up hand size. That's irrelevant to my complaint. I didn't specify but I was complaining about the edges on the places your fingers touch. It's worse than the old Nikon F (they got things sorted out on the F2). If Sony was making hand tools with the same design philosophy they wouldn't be taken seriously at Home Depot.I'm not a Sony hater. I really like the photographic results I get from my original version RX100. Why didn't they design it in a way that works towards NOT dropping it? Even the new Mark VI hasn't addressed that. The ergonomics attention in their design team appears to be MIA. Same goes for their menu designs. I'm not the first person you've heard that from. This is an example of tough love from me. I would like Sony to get this stuff figured out.Well that's interesting, and I guess Sony's ergonomics don't suit you for whatever reason.I've found their ergonomics - especially with the mkIII bodies and the a9 - just fine. In fact I've preferred them to the dSLRs I used previously. So again, you are making general declarations as though you speak for everybody, but I'm afraid you don't.You seem to have accidentally wandered into the wrong forum, and that would be the most charitable characterization of what you are doing here. Frankly, you look like a shill to me.

Tony Beach wrote:SilvanBromide wrote:just Tony wrote:SilvanBromide wrote:just Tony wrote:SilvanBromide wrote:And the answer to your question is you would notice a nine ounce reduction in the combined weight of the camera and lens - which some might consider a more important consideration when using a large/heavy lens than when using a smaller or lighter one. ; )Just the opposite. The L-plate stays on my D810 full time. It's very noticeable when I'm using a 24/1.8. It's never noticeable with the 300/2.8.If you say so.But to me, that's like saying that adding a brick to your backpack won't matter when it's already full and almost too heavy to lift - and will only be a problem when it's nearly empty.I think you have it wackbards. ; )Add 9 ounces to your soup spoon and get back to me. Add 9 ounces to your garden shovel and get back to me. This is a simple analysis. Remember that the zooms in your gear list are not accurate predictors of the handling of a 200/2. If you had one you would use a different support strategy than you do now; the difference in muscle and skeletal loading will not be limited to matters of degree. Your transport device will look more like a backpack and much less like a neck strap.Again, you presume too much. I spent quite a lot of time shooting with the Sigma 100-300 f2.8 Sports and the Sigma 150-600 Sports, both with dSLR and ML bodies attached. I've recently sold both lenses after owning them for a number of years - which is why they don't appear in my current gear list.Both the Sigmas are longer (and the 120-300 is also heavier than the Nikon 200/2 that I've also used (though I have never owned one).I speak from that experience when I say that I found the lighter body both noticeable and preferable when using heavy/bulky rigs. I note that you have found otherwise, which is fine, but you engage in overreach when you extrapolate from your own findings to everyone else.You also brought up hand size. That's irrelevant to my complaint. I didn't specify but I was complaining about the edges on the places your fingers touch. It's worse than the old Nikon F (they got things sorted out on the F2). If Sony was making hand tools with the same design philosophy they wouldn't be taken seriously at Home Depot.I'm not a Sony hater. I really like the photographic results I get from my original version RX100. Why didn't they design it in a way that works towards NOT dropping it? Even the new Mark VI hasn't addressed that. The ergonomics attention in their design team appears to be MIA. Same goes for their menu designs. I'm not the first person you've heard that from. This is an example of tough love from me. I would like Sony to get this stuff figured out.Well that's interesting, and I guess Sony's ergonomics don't suit you for whatever reason.I've found their ergonomics - especially with the mkIII bodies and the a9 - just fine. In fact I've preferred them to the dSLRs I used previously. So again, you are making general declarations as though you speak for everybody, but I'm afraid you don't.You seem to have accidentally wandered into the wrong forum, and that would be the most charitable characterization of what you are doing here. Frankly, you look like a shill to me.Thanks for pointing out that civil discussion of alternative perspectives and experiences is not welcome here.My mistake.

SilvanBromide wrote:Tony Beach wrote:You seem to have accidentally wandered into the wrong forum, and that would be the most charitable characterization of what you are doing here. Frankly, you look like a shill to me.Thanks for pointing out that civil discussion of alternative perspectives and experiences is not welcome here.My mistake.No mistake. Alternative viewpoints are always welcome. What would be less welcome?  Maybe, assuming that others will share that viewpoint.  Just like you did in your earlier post:SilvanBromide wrote:And the answer to your question is you would notice a nine ounce reduction in the combined weight of the camera and lensHow do you know whether anyone else would notice it...?

briantilley wrote:SilvanBromide wrote:Tony Beach wrote:You seem to have accidentally wandered into the wrong forum, and that would be the most charitable characterization of what you are doing here. Frankly, you look like a shill to me.Thanks for pointing out that civil discussion of alternative perspectives and experiences is not welcome here.My mistake.No mistake. Alternative viewpoints are always welcome. What would be less welcome? Maybe, assuming that others will share that viewpoint. Just like you did in your earlier post:SilvanBromide wrote:And the answer to your question is you would notice a nine ounce reduction in the combined weight of the camera and lensHow do you know whether anyone else would notice it...?I see. So my second mistake was to assume that the "anyone else" in question would be sentient.Thanks - I think you've made your point perfectly clear.

SilvanBromide wrote:briantilley wrote:SilvanBromide wrote:Tony Beach wrote:You seem to have accidentally wandered into the wrong forum, and that would be the most charitable characterization of what you are doing here. Frankly, you look like a shill to me.Thanks for pointing out that civil discussion of alternative perspectives and experiences is not welcome here.My mistake.No mistake. Alternative viewpoints are always welcome. What would be less welcome? Maybe, assuming that others will share that viewpoint. Just like you did in your earlier post:SilvanBromide wrote:And the answer to your question is you would notice a nine ounce reduction in the combined weight of the camera and lensHow do you know whether anyone else would notice it...?I see. So my second mistake was to assume that the "anyone else" in question would be sentient.Thanks - I think you've made your point perfectly clear.Yes, I think so too