D810 to D850 - anything to do differently?

[TAM63]

Having shot with the D850 a little bit (but all basically one subject), I am struggling just a little bit with the colors.

Not complaining, I love the camera. I just need to get this figured out to my taste. So far, I just left the auto white balance at the factory setting. Of course, I can adjust in post (I do shoot RAW). I am using Lightroom, and intend to stay with that software. So far, I am using 'camera standard' profile, I prefer that to adobe standard etc.

In particular, I'm struggling a bit with the blue sky. I realize I can just adjust things to whatever I want, but I'm not used to needing to adjust the various colors, and perhaps it's not my strong point right now.

Anyone else notice any differences, and do you have any particular tips for handling the colors?

 

[TAM63]

I am also noticing some differences (I think) with highlights weighted metering, my favorite way to shoot. (of course it doesn't work in all situations, but it does a lot of the time for me).

The D810, this worked fine. The D500 I had briefly tended to blow out the highlights more frequently it seemed.

The D850, on the contrary, seems to perhaps underexpose a little. In Lightroom, I can increase the exposure slider by a full stop or more, without getting any blinkies for blown highlights.

This may not actually be a problem - do I remember right, this camera is ISO-less except for the 200-400 ISO bit? So I can just increase exposure as needed?

Or is the D850 just actually preserving more detail in the highlights, and I should just be grateful?

 

[JimKasson]

Or is the D850 just actually preserving more detail in the highlights, and I should just be grateful?

Have you looked at the raw files with a tool like RawDigger?

Jim

 

[TAM63]

Or is the D850 just actually preserving more detail in the highlights, and I should just be grateful?

Have you looked at the raw files with a tool like RawDigger?

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com

No I have not. What would I be looking for with that tool (I do not currently own it)?

Again not a complaint. But it seemed with the D810, the histogram would be a fair bit further to the right than the D850. I say 'seemed' because I haven't shot the same scene side by side (and not doing so now in the thunderstorm haha)

Here's a pic ,nothing special, brought it into Lightroom with the defaults (profile camera standard) - no adjustments to exposure or colors. It is cropped.

Seems a bit cool to me (my monitor is calibrated) and probably a little dark. Although as I've said, maybe that exposure isn't a problem.

 

[toomanycanons]

"It could use more Dynamic Range though...."

Meaning your D850 has less DR than your other cameras or that basically all your cameras could use more DR?

 

[TOF guy]

Similar pixel pitch but different technology. The D500 is a CMOS (APS-C, 21Mpx) while the D850 is a BSI CMOS( FX 45.7Mpx) ....its closer to but not the same...

...but why does that affect the required hand-holding shutter speed? The answer is that it doesn't.

I have tried to explain this on another thread

You can “explain a thousand times* if it was incorrect the first time it will still be incorrect the 1000th time

but it ended that you will believe what you experience tells you to believe. My experience

A very subjective experience...

(coming from D600, D7100, D800e, D750 and D500) says that It makes a (significant) difference...

specially for surfing shots where I like to see my water droplets sharp and well defined.

We all do

This is also true with my BIF shots... Here is an article regarding CMOS vs BSI CMOS sensor technologies if you are interested....

it says nothing about requiring a different shutter speed because a sensor is BSI

I worked in the Semiconductor industry for over 20 years...

How does working in semi conductor technology helps you understand why a BSI sensor would need a different shutter speed please explain

I do not now...

no you don’t considering what you wrote before about the supposed benefits of lower resolution

https://www.quora.com/BSI-sensor-is...ameras-uses-CMOS-sensor-instead-of-BSI-sensor

That article is a bit dated but is still relevant.

Relevant to shutter speed? How?

 

[JimKasson]

Or is the D850 just actually preserving more detail in the highlights, and I should just be grateful?

Have you looked at the raw files with a tool like RawDigger?

No I have not. What would I be looking for with that tool (I do not currently own it)?

You'd be looking for clipping in the histogram




This is a good histogram, with some green-channel data in the brightest stop of the dynamic range, but not much clipping. When I looked at the histo with log scale, there were 200 pixels clipped in the top green channel, out of a total of about 13 million.

Jim

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[TOF guy]

A nice addition is silent shutter mode but better practice a bit because it’s sssslllllllooooooowwwwwwwwwwww.

 

[JimKasson]

A nice addition is silent shutter mode but better practice a bit because it’s sssslllllllooooooowwwwwwwwwwww.

It's about average for a high-MP FF camera:

How fast is the Nikon 850 electronic shutter? - the last word

This is the first post in a series about the Nikon D850. The best way to navigate to the other posts is go to the widget on the right (you may have to scroll down a bit) labeled "Category List". It has a drop-down menu that has a category called "D850". If you pick that from

blog.kasson.com

In that category, only the a9 is way ahead.

Jim

 

[TAM63]

Or is the D850 just actually preserving more detail in the highlights, and I should just be grateful?

Have you looked at the raw files with a tool like RawDigger?

No I have not. What would I be looking for with that tool (I do not currently own it)?

You'd be looking for clipping in the histogram


This is a good histogram, with some green-channel data in the brightest stop of the dynamic range, but not much clipping. When I looked at the histo with log scale, there were 200 pixels clipped in the top green channel, out of a total of about 13 million.

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com

Ahhh ok, I see.

Based just on glancing at the histogram (not in a fancy tool) I'm going guess it is doing something like that. As I was guessing, probably preserving the highlight detail better. So I think I should just be grateful.

 

[TOF guy]

A nice addition is silent shutter mode but better practice a bit because it’s sssslllllllooooooowwwwwwwwwwww.

It's about average for a high-MP FF camera:

By “sssslllllllooooooowwwwwwwwwwww” I am alluding to the lag between the moment the shutter is pressed and when the image is taken. The D850 reminds me of my first digital camera of many years ago.

 

[JimKasson]

Or is the D850 just actually preserving more detail in the highlights, and I should just be grateful?

Have you looked at the raw files with a tool like RawDigger?

No I have not. What would I be looking for with that tool (I do not currently own it)?

You'd be looking for clipping in the histogram


This is a good histogram, with some green-channel data in the brightest stop of the dynamic range, but not much clipping. When I looked at the histo with log scale, there were 200 pixels clipped in the top green channel, out of a total of about 13 million.

Ahhh ok, I see.

Based just on glancing at the histogram (not in a fancy tool) I'm going guess it is doing something like that. As I was guessing, probably preserving the highlight detail better. So I think I should just be grateful.

If you're looking at the histogram in a program like Lightroom, C1, or Adobe Camera Raw, you're not looking at the raw histogram, but the histogram of the demosaiced and color-converted image. Where that clips is malleable, depending on raw developer settings. In order to see if there's clipping in the raw file, you need a tool that lets you look at the raw values.



jim

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[JimKasson]

A nice addition is silent shutter mode but better practice a bit because it’s sssslllllllooooooowwwwwwwwwwww.

It's about average for a high-MP FF camera:

By “sssslllllllooooooowwwwwwwwwwww” I am alluding to the lag between the moment the shutter is pressed and when the image is taken. The D850 reminds me of my first digital camera of many years ago.

I haven't noticed that. I'll take a look. Just to be clear, we're not talking about the CDAF focusing time, are we? That is slow.

Jim

 

[Ken Seals]

Or is the D850 just actually preserving more detail in the highlights, and I should just be grateful?

Have you looked at the raw files with a tool like RawDigger?

No I have not. What would I be looking for with that tool (I do not currently own it)?

If you're looking at the histogram in a program like Lightroom, C1, or Adobe Camera Raw, you're not looking at the raw histogram, but the histogram of the demosaiced and color-converted image. Where that clips is malleable, depending on raw developer settings. In order to see if there's clipping in the raw file, you need a tool that lets you look at the raw values.

jim

 

[TOF guy]

I haven't noticed that. I'll take a look. Just to be clear, we're not talking about the CDAF focusing time, are we? That is slow.

The “slow” comment was about the whole delay from starting to press the shutter to the capture (including focusing) .

 

[JimKasson]

I haven't noticed that. I'll take a look. Just to be clear, we're not talking about the CDAF focusing time, are we? That is slow.

The “slow” comment was about the whole delay from starting to press the shutter to the capture (including focusing) .

Gotcha. The D850 CDAF is about average for CDAF, in my experience. CDAF is just slower than PDAF.

Jim

 

[vbuhay]

"It could use more Dynamic Range though...."

Meaning your D850 has less DR than your other cameras or that basically all your cameras could use more DR?

I would like to get more DR on an Updated D850 with a 24 or 36Mpx BSI CMOS sensor.

 

[vbuhay]

From D810 to D850 - anything I want to know?

All batteries compatible, even the older one I got with the D810? (I seem to remember there was some sort of issue with the older battery and D500)

Battery chargers compatible I presume.

I noticed a white balance difference, when I shot two side by side - isn't there a new white balance option - opinions?

Anything else helpful? I shoot a lot of nature/birds, plus macro/bands/misc.

Thanks

added some of what I remember:

I'll play with focus stacking

How do you all like the autofocus fine tune?

Any recommendations for button customization particular for switching quickly from single point focus to group, still subjects to moving, etc?

As a rule, I have to use higher Shutter speed... than my D500, D750 ....to get a similar shot...for action and BIF shots...

That's odd - because the D500 has pretty much the same pixel density as the DX crop area of the D850. They should not require different shutter speeds. On top of that, if you're using the same lens and viewing the resulting image at the same physical size, the pixel count of different cameras of the same format is irrelevant to the "safe" shutter speed.

Similar pixel pitch but different technology. The D500 is a CMOS (APS-C, 21Mpx) while the D850 is a BSI CMOS( FX 45.7Mpx) ....its closer to but not the same...

...but why does that affect the required hand-holding shutter speed? The answer is that it doesn't.

Used with equivalent lenses, the required shutter speed for a given amount of pixel blur displacement as a ratio to picture height is not affected by format.

Used with lenses of identical focal length, the required shutter speed for a given amount of pixel blur displacement as a ratio to picture height is 1.5 times longer for FF than APS-C.

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com

I have used the same lenses on both my D500 and D850 (with battery Grip) on Surfing and BIFs....I initially used the same techniques as per your above comments, my result was not the same...Of course I gained some DR with the D850 due to its full frame but the images I was getting was a bit softer so I increase the speed and seem to have worked better. I used to use 1/2500 on the d750, 1/3200 on the D500, and now I am using 1/4000 or even higher on the D850...using the same Lenses, Tamron 150-600 G1 and G2, 70-200 VRII....One other thing I have notice is that the Tamrons might have reached the resolving power of the D850 sensors....

 

[TAM63]

Or is the D850 just actually preserving more detail in the highlights, and I should just be grateful?

Have you looked at the raw files with a tool like RawDigger?

No I have not. What would I be looking for with that tool (I do not currently own it)?

You'd be looking for clipping in the histogram


This is a good histogram, with some green-channel data in the brightest stop of the dynamic range, but not much clipping. When I looked at the histo with log scale, there were 200 pixels clipped in the top green channel, out of a total of about 13 million.

Ahhh ok, I see.

Based just on glancing at the histogram (not in a fancy tool) I'm going guess it is doing something like that. As I was guessing, probably preserving the highlight detail better. So I think I should just be grateful.

If you're looking at the histogram in a program like Lightroom, C1, or Adobe Camera Raw, you're not looking at the raw histogram, but the histogram of the demosaiced and color-converted image. Where that clips is malleable, depending on raw developer settings. In order to see if there's clipping in the raw file, you need a tool that lets you look at the raw values.

jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com

Thanks. Got you I realize it isn't the same, but I think it's probably fairly close. In any case, I think my conclusion is camera is probably doing what I want.

 

[JimKasson]

Or is the D850 just actually preserving more detail in the highlights, and I should just be grateful?

Have you looked at the raw files with a tool like RawDigger?

No I have not. What would I be looking for with that tool (I do not currently own it)?

You'd be looking for clipping in the histogram


This is a good histogram, with some green-channel data in the brightest stop of the dynamic range, but not much clipping. When I looked at the histo with log scale, there were 200 pixels clipped in the top green channel, out of a total of about 13 million.

Ahhh ok, I see.

Based just on glancing at the histogram (not in a fancy tool) I'm going guess it is doing something like that. As I was guessing, probably preserving the highlight detail better. So I think I should just be grateful.

If you're looking at the histogram in a program like Lightroom, C1, or Adobe Camera Raw, you're not looking at the raw histogram, but the histogram of the demosaiced and color-converted image. Where that clips is malleable, depending on raw developer settings. In order to see if there's clipping in the raw file, you need a tool that lets you look at the raw values.

Thanks. Got you I realize it isn't the same,

Right.

but I think it's probably fairly close.

It ain't. Not unless you're using UniWB.

In any case, I think my conclusion is camera is probably doing what I want.

Good.

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com