Nikon D750 vs D850 for Wildlife Photography

[Leonard Shepherd]

Sensors record the brightness of the light falling on them when an exposure is made - the brightness is the same for the same aperture regardless of the format.

No, they just record photons.

I disagree with your analysis.

Are you saying film cannot record the level of brightness in an image because that takes place in the grain structure and during the development?

At lower ISO's, when technology and MP are the same, there are negligible image resolution and noise differences in the field between DX and FX.

Noise isn't produced by ISO settings. An imaging sensor having x times larger area than another, will also have an x times larger photon density for the same lens aperture.

You are not right.

The sensor records the image at base ISO and then the recorded brightness is electronically magnified at higher ISO's, producing electrical noise at higher ISO's.

Crank up the ISO and there is more noise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise

Doctor, doctor - although I work in the Antarctic where their are no land mammals - I know from the internet I have got rabies - and want you to cure it.

The reality is there is negligible difference in image resolution or noise at lower ISO's between DX and FX, MP for MP and technology for technology - and usually any difference is not detectable outside of a laboratory.

It seems to be a current internet myth that pixel size has an easily detectable effect on noise and resolution at lower ISO's between DX and FX.

Those who regularly shoot DX alongside FX (with similar technology) know first hand the myth is not true.

Whether the Z50, courtesy of a later Expeed processor, has equal or a little better noise performance than the Z6 and & Z7, remains to be clarified - but some sources imply that it has.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Of course, if you're just starting, you think of just "having more pixels" on the target, disregarding the quality of those pixels and the composition. Probably people will start recommending bridge cameras with 100x zooms, since those have "more pixels" on the target.

Lots of lousy pixels on the subject

 

[Iron Eagle]

To save money there is the option of the D500 that uses the same autofocus system as the D850 and as a DX camera provides a 21MP file.

You save money but you lose more than one stop of light.

Maybe you could explain what you mean - as f4 as an example transmits the same amount of light regardless of the camera format.

As the eyepiece of a DSLR acts as a second aperture, quality DX bodies have a viewfinder around 1 stop brighter than an FX viewfinder.

I think he may mean you gain a stop of ISO performance? FX cameras typically perform at least a stop better in ISO. So, if you take a shot with all the same settings, and you had to use ISO 3200 on both cameras, the FX shot will look a stop cleaner compared to DX. In other words, 3200 ISO on DX looks similar to 6400 ISO on FX.

I am referring to the fact that a larger sensor will have lower noise using the same settings, better dynamic range, better color depth and also higher effective resolution when using the same lens.

Which are mainly the reasons some people prefer larger sensor over smaller sensors.

OK, makes sense. Same reasons I prefer FX

 

[Abinoone]

Good advice - thank you!

 

[Alan Russell]

depends on the glass - 200-500mm and the 500mm prime F4 are superb with the D850 BUT you need to sharpen your BIF technique in holding a higher megapixel camera because the margin of error in a shake is unforgiven..

 

[blink667]

Thank you, Jeff! Your experience & reasoning were just what I was looking for. I think I'll just wait until I can afford the 850. Thanks again!

Could anyone compare the 810 to the 850's IQ? The 810 is easily about $1500 cheaper on the used market and is also considered a pretty decent camera at a more affordable price. Thanks

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Could anyone compare the 810 to the 850's IQ?

It can help to clarify what you mean by image quality.

On the long dimension of the frame Nikon quote 7360 pixels for the D810 and about 12.25% more at 8260 for the D850.

At low ISO's this should give the D850 sensor tested in isolation about 12% more resolving power.

As image resolution is made up of lens resolution tested in isolation as well as sensor resolution an average expectation is around 6% more image resolution for the D850 - being a little higher with an excellent lens and a little lower with a lesser lens.

Dynamic range and noise have not improved much at lower ISO's between the introductory dates of the two cameras.

Each new generation of Expeed results in dynamic range and noise improvements at higher ISO's. The D850 has a later generation of Expeed.

For many purposes D810 IQ as measured in a lab is not far behind a D850, though it is behind.

In real world photography outside a lab the far superior AF of the D850, brighter viewfinder, improved high ISO and noise for a specific physical viewing size and bigger buffer can help get more first class images more easily.

Summing up first class images should not be difficult with a D810; with the D850 able to deliver first class + images - with the trade off of a higher purchase price.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than anything else.

 

[mais51]

Thank you all! I truly appreciate your advice & experience! Coming from the experience basis of a D5600, I know that I need to go full frame and it appears that the D850 is the way to go. I just wish is wasn't so damn expensive! I've invested in good glass over the past year but I know that I need to couple it with FF sensor, fast FPS, and advanced AF.

D850 is no more expensive than the Z7 or Sony A7R III

 

[Slideshow Bob]

You've mentioned that you're using a 200-500 on a DX camera, and that you would consider using a TC in future. That effectively means that you're focal length limited at the long end.

If you bought the 200-500 as a relatively inexpensive way of getting 500mm, and you don't often shoot at less than 500mm, there's not much point in going to FX, and certainly no point in getting a D750. A D850 will get you far more pixels on target than the D750, but not as many as you currently get with your D5600, so unless you can fill the FX frame in the same way you would a DX frame, there's not going to be an image quality advantage.

You might as well have a D500. Keep in mind that if you have to crop a D850 image down to DX size, the D850 pixels are of slightly worse quality (in terms of noise) than the D500 pixels, while having almost exactly the same pixel density.

FX cameras are best for people who aren't focal length limited at the long end. For someone struggling to fill the DX frame, the D850 (with the same lens) has almost no advantages over the D500. And as good as the 200-500 is, you would ideally want something slightly sharper across the entire frame to make the most of a 46mp FX sensor.

Of course, you could get a D500 and a D750 (or maybe a used D810), and use whichever one best suits a given situation. But if you're always shooting at 500mm, there wouldn't be much point.

 

[nilanjanray]

I have used both. I prefer the D850 for reasons others have already talked about.

Re AF: both (and the D500) have good enough AF. The D850 and D500 have better ones, but that shouldn't be the primary consideration. No point in hairsplitting AF capabilities between D850 and D500, though the D850's D9 is rather useful.

A recent shot. Slow panning.


Evening walk. Ranthambore National Park.



--
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nilanjanray/

500px

500px.com

Website: https://nilanjanray.in/wildlife-nature-photo-galleries/

 

[Alan Russell]

The D500 and 200-500 mm Nikon are a perfect marriage
I use it all the time

 

[Alan Russell]

Get a D500 You will get better reach Lightning fast focus for birds in flight

 

[romfordbluenose]

2 weeks of repeated debate and views. Nothing new since the first few days and the original.poster says nothing. Amusing but getting a bit boring now.

 

[Igor Sotelo]

I'm considering investing in either the D750 or D850 for my bird & wildlife photography. Both get pretty good reviews but the D750 is a fraction of the cost of the D850. Is the latter model that much better to warrant the much higher cost? Any personal experience you coul share would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

I think the D850 is the pinnacle of DSLR’s, it has a 45MP pixel sensor, 20MP DX mode that is more usable with the bigger viewfinder, 7fps or optional 9 with the grip and bigger batteries, weather sealing, 1/8000 shutter speed, touch screen and a LOT of additional features that aren’t particularly important for wildlife photography. It’s also made to higher standards than the D750.

That being said the D750 is all around great camera too.

 

[Alan Russell]

The D500 is also a strong BIF contender

 

[Scottelly]

I'm considering investing in either the D750 or D850 for my bird & wildlife photography. Both get pretty good reviews but the D750 is a fraction of the cost of the D850. Is the latter model that much better to warrant the much higher cost? Any personal experience you coul share would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

Hi Abinoone, you don't have a gear list here, so I can't tell what you're shooting with now. I suggest you get a good lens, and not worry about the camera you're using. A Nikon D300S will do just fine, unless you plan to make giant prints, like I do. 12 MP is good enough to display full-screen on a really big screen, and have lots of detail. It's also good enough to print larger than 13" x 19" (which is the standard for a good quality print that "normal" people make). If you want to get 20" x 30" prints made at Costoco or somewhere like that, you can. I've made those large prints from my 12 MP photos out of my Canon 5 D, and they looked pretty good. If you want to just display your photos on-line, and you're going to be down-scaling them (I scale mine down to 3,000 pixels on the long side), then you don't even need 12 MP.

Now if you want more dynamic range, you could get a D7100 or D7200. Used those cameras are pretty cheap these days. A D750 will work just fine for just about anything you might want, so you really don't need to get a D850. That said, if you have the money to buy both a 200-500 lens AND the D850, and it won't set you back too much, then go for the D850. They're great, and if I won the lottery, I'd buy one to replace my Nikon D810, even though it only has 9 MP more. Why? I like the tilt screen, the faster shooting, the better auto-focus (though the D810 auto-focus is very good), and the little extra detail it is capable of capturing. I'd get some lenses too though, because it's lenses that let you get the best photos possible. I'd get that 200-500 AND the Sigma 60-600, and I'd do a shoot-out between the two, to see which one I would keep. I've heard lots of good things about both. The new Tamron 150-600 is supposed to be very good too.

Good luck!

 

[Scottelly]

2 weeks of repeated debate and views. Nothing new since the first few days and the original.poster says nothing. Amusing but getting a bit boring now.

I guess you didn't read this post by the OP:

Nikon D750 vs D850 for Wildlife Photography

I'm considering investing in either the D750 or D850 for my bird & wildlife photography. Both get pretty good reviews but the D750 is a fraction of the cost of the D850. Is the latter model that much better to warrant the much higher cost? Any personal experience you coul share would be much...

www.dpreview.com

I know I didn't, or I wouldn't have posted my initial response.

 

[calson]

I have shot with the D750, D500, and D850 as well as the D810. The D810 is a great landscape photography camera but terrible for wildlife photography where its poor autofocus is a real hinderance. With the same 80-400mm lens on the D750 I could focus quickly on a subject that with the same lens on the D810 the camera would not focus or even hunt. The D750 was my best option at the time to get usable autofocus with a full frame camera. The D850 is better than the D750 as it should be with twice as many autofocus sensors and a dedicated autofocus processor chip.

I shot with the D500 and the D850 and the D850 is the better camera for wildlife photography. Take a lens like the 200-500mm f/5.6 zoom for example. The view angle on a D500 or other DX camera is comparable to that of a 300-750mm lens on a full frame camera though there is no gain in image magnification. Often the 200-500mm was too long at 200mm on a DX camera and I would use the 80-400mm (120-600mm FX view angle) instead.

With the D850 and its 45MP sensor I get the image area with a 500mm lens that would require a 600mm lens to get with the D750 or the D5/D6. That is a very big deal as I can use a much lighter and more portable 500mm PF lens in place of a 600mm f/4 lens. At the same time the D850 in DX mode provides the image of a 19MP DX camera or very close to what one gets with the D500 camera.

I shoot with the D850 always in FX mode and Raw capture. This provides me with two things, a file that I can crop a good deal and still have what I need to make a large print, and the dynamic range is so great with the D850 that I can expose for the highlights and bring up the darker areas in post. This is very different from the early DSLR cameras where blown highlights were a serious problem and one had to decide whether to lose them to get what was needed in the shadows.

I first saw with the D800e that my technique had to improve to get the same sharp looking images as I had with the D3. I needed to use faster shutter speeds to avoid camera motion blur being visible in the high resolution images produced. This is true for the D850 only more so.

After a trip to Costa Rica with the D500 and D850 cameras I found I used the D850 nearly 100% of the time and I realized that for me the best camera setup was using two D850 cameras with one using a prime telephoto prime and the other with a zoom telephoto. Not cheap but less expensive than a single D5 and a $3500 500mm PF can take the place of a very expensive 600mm f/4 lens.

Another not insignificant benefit for travel to photography wildlife is not needing to have a tripod and gimbal head to take along with my cameras and lenses. Being able to shoot 100% hand held provides greater mobility and speed and makes shooting from a boat a breeze.