-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon 5d 4 vs Nikon 850
- Thread starter George Zip
- Start date
M
Michael Thomas Mitchell
Guest
... is that I've already been taking thousands of photographs and videos with it for a YEAR! 
Rick Knepper
Forum Pro
Yxa
Senior Member
I would wait before judging. It's an all new sensor and may have a half stop less DR at base ISO, better high ISO IQ, and worse banding when recovering shadow detail when underexposing by more than 5 stops.... Compared to the body it replaces.... Requiring a recall by Nikon and subsequent mass brand switching
--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)
The D850 seems to have better low and high ISO DR than the D810
"Note the low per pixel read noise at ISO 64.
I predict a DxOMark Landscape figure of 14.9 up slightly from the 14.8 for the D810; we'll see."
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
Yxa
Senior Member
Last edited:
But these comments assume that Canon decides how much dynamic range the camera/sensor will have. Canon makes their own sensors. They designed this one, they added the DPAF feature, and it came out of the silicon foundry after 18-24 months of R&D (which is how long it takes) and it performed the way it did. Presumably, perhaps, the cost of the 5Div sensor was cost-prohibitive for the 6D2, so they had to use the sensor they had. Even if the 5Div sensor could be affordably used in the 6D2, its higher resolution could perhaps add a lot of other costs, such as memory buffer size enlarging, frame rate being reduced, etc.
This notion that lower DR is some sort of diabolical marketing plan of Canon is silly. They have a history of using the best (Canon) sensors they can. For example, the 6D had a better-performing sensor than the 5D Mark III. The 80D has a better-performing sensor than the 7D Mark II.
I've worked in product development for a very long time, and sometimes, your product just isn't as good in some aspect as you want, but you don't have the time, money and/or people resources to correct it. The 6D2 was already late to market.
The 6D2 is a significant upgrade over the 6D in every aspect except DR:
- 26 mp vs 20 mp
- Articulating screen
- Dual pixel autofocus greatly improves video shooting and LiveView stills
- Frame rate boosts from 4.5 to 6.5 fps
- Video increased from 1080p30 to 1080p60 (still not 4K, but...)
- Touchscreen
- More viewfinder focus points
- Faster CPU means faster AF, higher frame rate, more responsive
With all that said, I still prefer my 5Div, because I shoot concerts in very dark halls. I also move focus points constantly (which the 6D2 doesn't easily allow) and I Rate my photos as I shoot them for faster review later. I love the identical control layout of the 7D Mark II and 5D Mark IV. But that doesn't put me in the club of disliking the 6D2 or believing it's a Canon "conspiracy" of some sort. It should be very obvious to anyone that Canon Engineering is amazingly talented and fanatically-devoted to photographers. It is among the greatest of all Japanese engineering and it is very much a quintessentially Japanese engineering feat. DPReview had an article about Canon's master lens makers which is absolutely amazing. The L lenses are built by master craftsmen with decades of experience.
Last edited:
Canon still is to blame. If they can't produce a FF sensor for a $2000 camera with all the latest bells and whistles (BSI, copper wiring, stacked sensor, etc.) soon, they won't be able to compete effectively in the mirrorless area. They should know better than anyone that sensors and processing are key to cameras' future performances improvements since it's partly on their sensors that they built their early lead in DSLRs. They should have seen it coming a long time ago. They're also to blame for not having opened quickly enough their sensor production and expertise to other customers (smartphones and others).
The 5DSR II won't leapfrog the D850 in terms of combining high resolution and speed, because that would make it a 5D mark V.
Unless Canon decides to shake up their cameras lineup, it will most likely keep fps on the relatively slower side, and up the mp count.
At 47 MP, that's filling up a hard drive and slowing LR down in a hurry ! No need for such resolution for most photography...in this digital and smartphone age. 99% of my web browsing is on my 7+.
Rick Knepper
Forum Pro
I think the conversation prior to your post was about the 5D4 and D850.
- Messages
- 28,178
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
Actually not the case? I just upgraded my workstation a few months ago. The new system processes (in LR or Photoshop) 50 MP RAW files significantly faster than my 5 year old system processed 16MP files. Storage space isn't an issue either
Rick Knepper
Forum Pro
The most need for the 5DsR II IMO is the DR. Not asking for a leapfrog, just bring it even with the 5D4. They'll have to improve other things for it to sell, so a slight bump in fps & resolution should help.
Cost is not the only consideration. The 5D4 is not an option for me, period, regardless of cost. It's just too big, too heavy. I find it unwieldy.
David Franklin
Senior Member
The new Nikon seems like a very nice camera and somewhat superior in most specs to my 5D4.
I am a working professional, shooting a wide array of commercial and corporate work. My gut reaction to the comparison: so what.
I use my 5D4 in my work almost exclusively. Each time I pull a couple of hundred, or couple of thousand, files into Lightroom and start editing, I just marvel at how good the 5D4 files are. I can pull them and/or push them farther than I need to in 99.99% of the pictures that I shoot (including mid-day very high contrast daylight shooting), and, in the case of the 0,01% shot, I know that I can make provisions, in advance, to make them work anyway. The resolution is already higher than I need for about 75% of my jobs (clients display their images on the Net nowadays), and it is adequate for about 24% of the remaining 25%. Another 10 or 15 MP's probably won't narrow the resolution gap that much for that remaining 1%; medium format looks like the answer for that. I never need to shoot at higher than ISO 6400 for any job, and not very often at sensitivities higher than 800. Lower noise would be nice, but noise is already way past "acceptable."
So, what's left to improve? Well, as with handguns, a 15 round magazine is probably all you'll ever need, but having more bullets can't ever hurt. So, more of everything: more DR, more resolution, and lower noise at higher ISO. Even though I really don't NEED these things at this point, I certainly wouldn't turn them down at a similar price point.
The 5D4, as is, is an amazing tool. I shoot mostly static or semi-static subjects in still photography, and, for this, the camera's focus system, including the outer focus points, works perfectly for me. This camera has been dead nuts reliable, shooting (estimate), maybe 40,000 exposures so far. I've shot in snow, sleet, rain, cold, hot and humid weather outdoors, and in "blast furnace-like" heat in client testing areas indoors. The 5D4 never missed a beat. I shoot lower end video (not big productions), mostly for clips for clients on their websites, and the HD video from the 5D4, and, especially the PDAF, for one-man jobs, is really good. A camera without PDAF makes this kind of work either much harder and more time consuming, or sometimes near-impossible without an extra focus puller. I have not yet used 4K for work, but have experimented with it on my own and haven't had much of a problem with it in editing, but I do have a pretty massive PC for post.
Finally, my 5D4 uses my current terrific line up of Canon L lenses, with no adapter and no loss of focus accuracy and speed. No elaboration necessary.
Sure, there are a few things that I would really like in the next iteration of this camera line. But, as for being flung into a wave of envy over the Nikon 850 - ridiculous. Good for Nikon. Good for Nikon shooters. But, I'm still quite satisfied with the 5D4. I can easily wait a year or two, or even three, for the next leap forward.
Regards, David
I am a working professional, shooting a wide array of commercial and corporate work. My gut reaction to the comparison: so what.
I use my 5D4 in my work almost exclusively. Each time I pull a couple of hundred, or couple of thousand, files into Lightroom and start editing, I just marvel at how good the 5D4 files are. I can pull them and/or push them farther than I need to in 99.99% of the pictures that I shoot (including mid-day very high contrast daylight shooting), and, in the case of the 0,01% shot, I know that I can make provisions, in advance, to make them work anyway. The resolution is already higher than I need for about 75% of my jobs (clients display their images on the Net nowadays), and it is adequate for about 24% of the remaining 25%. Another 10 or 15 MP's probably won't narrow the resolution gap that much for that remaining 1%; medium format looks like the answer for that. I never need to shoot at higher than ISO 6400 for any job, and not very often at sensitivities higher than 800. Lower noise would be nice, but noise is already way past "acceptable."
So, what's left to improve? Well, as with handguns, a 15 round magazine is probably all you'll ever need, but having more bullets can't ever hurt. So, more of everything: more DR, more resolution, and lower noise at higher ISO. Even though I really don't NEED these things at this point, I certainly wouldn't turn them down at a similar price point.
The 5D4, as is, is an amazing tool. I shoot mostly static or semi-static subjects in still photography, and, for this, the camera's focus system, including the outer focus points, works perfectly for me. This camera has been dead nuts reliable, shooting (estimate), maybe 40,000 exposures so far. I've shot in snow, sleet, rain, cold, hot and humid weather outdoors, and in "blast furnace-like" heat in client testing areas indoors. The 5D4 never missed a beat. I shoot lower end video (not big productions), mostly for clips for clients on their websites, and the HD video from the 5D4, and, especially the PDAF, for one-man jobs, is really good. A camera without PDAF makes this kind of work either much harder and more time consuming, or sometimes near-impossible without an extra focus puller. I have not yet used 4K for work, but have experimented with it on my own and haven't had much of a problem with it in editing, but I do have a pretty massive PC for post.
Finally, my 5D4 uses my current terrific line up of Canon L lenses, with no adapter and no loss of focus accuracy and speed. No elaboration necessary.
Sure, there are a few things that I would really like in the next iteration of this camera line. But, as for being flung into a wave of envy over the Nikon 850 - ridiculous. Good for Nikon. Good for Nikon shooters. But, I'm still quite satisfied with the 5D4. I can easily wait a year or two, or even three, for the next leap forward.
Regards, David
Lawn Lends
Senior Member
This is a funny reply to somebody thinking about getting the 1+ kg D850.
Lawn Lends
Senior Member
I don't know why you're comparing the 5D 4/5 to the d850. It's more in line with the d750 and 5DSR with the D810.... or as close as it can get, as the D810 is a do it all.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/128728392@N05/albums/72157648429825829
Last edited:
Edit: So you are ignoring D850's lower base ISO, which is one of its (and D810's) major selling points.
At base ISO D850 has a stop higher DR than 5D4, and it is neck to neck with medium format Fujifilm GFX 50S.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum