1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

D850 v Z7

Discussion in 'Nikon Chat' started by cliveva, Jan 7, 2019.

  1. IanG1957

    IanG1957 Well-Known Member

    This is so true! (The money aspect) - however I have to say that the Z 7 didn't figure much in my calculations - too many damn pixels makes a sensor horrible for low light work. I'm not interested in 900 frames a second either (although this beauty is very quick) and as I've previously mentioned, a second card slot is a complete waste of time for me. I can't see why this is a deal breaker when there is so much else on offer that is useful?

    As you rightly say, Nikon is catering for people with different priorities, different usage - it should be like this - the days of one single camera lasting 13 years before an update are long gone...(And I still have a couple of F and F2 bodies gathering dust...)
  2. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Interesting you should say that, a friend, whose speciality is wildlife, takes the view that you can't have too many pixels which may well be true for him. Personally, I am with you fewer clean pixels are better than many noisy ones, at high ISO.

    As to the card slot argument, over the 40+ years I have been using SLRs I have only had two slots for about 7 years and even now I only use the second slot for overflow. If I were making a living from my cameras I may have a different view but even that would probably depend on what I was doing.
    IanG1957 likes this.
  3. IanG1957

    IanG1957 Well-Known Member

    I think this is the thing frankly - I've said before, the "wedding photographer conundrum" (Must have 2 slots etc.) is a total nonsense - I know a couple of working wedding photographers who never go to a job with only one camera body...

    If the camera has a card with an interface which is sufficiently fast FOR THE PURPOSE, then why do I need a second slot ? I am not a sports photographer, and I don't photograph rallies or races...and frankly even in these situations I think I would tend to fire off a short salvo, pressing the shutter button rapidly rather than a long burst, but that's just me.

    The lower pixel/better low light it simple physics - the larger the photosite, the more photons it will capture - yes, of course you can shoot at absurdly high ISO on the D850, but a recent image I made at 6400 ISO (on a 12MP camera body) was used on a hoarding 4M x 3M - I have to admit it was very pleasing to see!
  4. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    The thing is that dual slots or two bodies are insurance against two totally different problems; dual slots mean that if one card fails, you don't lose shots you've already taken. Two bodies mean that if one body fails, you don't lose shots you haven't taken yet. Neither resolves the other problem.
    So if you're worried about card failure, right now, dual slots is the only solution. Personally, I'm not - I don't do weddings these days, but I shoot a lot of conferences which are similarly unrepeatable, but I've never yet had an SD card fail on me, and I've not had a CF card issue for over 10 years - and then it was my own fault for removing the card during a write cycle, and recovery software meant I have only ever lost 3 shots due to card failure. Instead, I use big cards to make sure I don't have to change mid-shoot. Also that makes sure there's less chance of physically losing a card, something that worried me in film days, too. Back then, when I shot a wedding, I liked no less than 4 bodies; one for 160 ISO film, one for 400 - for outside and inside shots. Then another one of each to make sure I didn't lose any shots whilst reloading and in case of battery failure. I would also try to get the odd pic with the current "spare" body of key moments for the same reason people like dual slots - but I was much more worried in film days, as there was so much more that could go wrong in terms of film development etc.
    As it happens, my main body and my APS-C body DO have dual slots, but I never end up using the CF card. For some years, I used a single slot camera for my paid work, and it has never let me down - it's still in use as main backup body.
    So in short, it is a real issue, but only for a few. It's something alongside many other things that the spec-obsessed have blown up out of all proportion, because they generally don't know what's important and what isn't - and above all, why.
    Learning and IanG1957 like this.
  5. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    Nearly all of my photography is outside. For me, the advantage of playback in the viewfinder is that its dioptre adjustment corrects for my eyesight; I need to put on specs for a sharp view of the LCD, which is still unclear in bright sunlight.

  6. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    But the greater the number of pixels, the less prominent noise in each pixel is when viewing the final image at a given scale. The two factors balance out, and what matters is the total number of photos captured and how well they’re processed.

  7. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    Fortunately I’ve never yet experienced card failure. But when using my single-card D90, I was frustrated when I got home one day, and the best photo of the day, which I’d been reviewing after I took it, had disappeared. I must have accidentally deleted it after reviewing it. My carelessness, and my photography is usually only for my own satisfaction, but it’s the best photos I’m likely to review in camera in most detail. I’m delighted that my D800 has dual slots to protect me against repeating that or the possibility of card failure.

  8. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I've never done it but you can "lock" images to prevent deletion in camera.
  9. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    That then compliates card formatting later. I never delete in the camera but I only ever format in the camera.
  10. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the tips, but currently its not a worry with the two cards my D800, and if I switch to a Nikon Z and they haven’t added a 2nd card slot, rather than locking individual images, I’ll just try to be careful and take my chances, as with the D90 after that incident.

    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019 at 12:24 PM
  11. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    The absence of a second slot would not be the determining factor on whether I bought a specific camera, neither would the card type. For me the absence of a second shutter release would be more serious but that is more to do with comfort than anything else.
  12. IanG1957

    IanG1957 Well-Known Member

    I'm with you there !
  13. IanG1957

    IanG1957 Well-Known Member

    I'm sorry but I can't agree with you here - the two factors most certainly do not 'balance out' - I have images from a D3s and a D800, same event, same auto-ISO (6400) and the D3s knocks spots off the D800 in terms of noise etc.
  14. Jimbo57

    Jimbo57 Well-Known Member

    I currently have a D850 and am toying between a Z7 and Fujifilm X-T3. I do want a lighter, smaller camera for carrying around. The D850 is superb for anything that does not involve carrying over long/difficult distances. I always have two cameras, so replacing my D810 with either of the above could work for me, despite the non-interchangeabilty of lenses. I need to think a bit more about this. On the one hand, my dozen or so Nikon lenses will fir the Z7 with the adapter. On the other hand, for a carry camera, the Fuji 16-55mm and a longer zoom would possibly be all I need. Decisions, decisions......
  15. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    I don’t have any cameras with sensors of a similar size but very different pixel count, to make my own comparisons, but I’m sure I have read, in the past, that photosite size shouldn’t directly affect noise between images reproduced at a given size (the “physics”). Following your comment, I’ve made a brief search. ‘The effect of pixel size on noise’ by Richard Butler, DPReview (https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2) states that shot noise is unaffected by the size of pixels within a given sensor, but a high pixel count sensor is likely to add slightly more read noise than a low pixel count sensor; at worst a 22% increase in the (small, for modern sensors) read noise contribution to noise from a sensor with four times as many pixels. He shows comparisons between a Nikon D810, and a Sony a7S; the a7S performs somewhat better, but he comments that it has a dual gain design for improved low light performance. A comparison of the dynamic range of the D800 and D3s according to DxOMark shows the D3s as better than the D800, but by less than one stop, from ISO 1600 upwards. But the D3s also has a sensor optimized for low light performance. DxOMark also shows the D850 and D3s as almost identical from ISO 3200 upwards. Sadly they don’t show performance for the Z6 and Z7 yet.

  16. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    The continuous change in sensor technology overwhelms the pure "size" issue. My 5Ds with 50 MP has far-lower noise than my 5D with 12.8 or my 1D iv which, if you scaled it up to full frame would have about 30 MP. I've never used a M4/3 camera but they equate to about 80 MP if you scaled them up to FF and I don't come across comments on poor noise performance. APS-C cameras with 24 MP would be about 50 MP if scaled to FF and my Fuji XH-1 is a bit cleaner than my 5Ds at high ISO and much cleaner than my XE-2 which has 1/3 fewer pixels.
  17. IanG1957

    IanG1957 Well-Known Member

    I do.

    I'm not really interested wether or not you or anyone else "believes" me, or can prove irrefutably that my maths/physics etc. is incorrect - I use all of my cameras in many different shooting environments, and I KNOW what combination is best suited to any given situation, based on REAL images.

    It's a little like the people who buy lenses based on the MTF curves...great stuff but how does the lens react/resolve etc. in a REAL shooting situation? I have some mediocre glass, if you believe the "write-ups" but the resulting images are very useable and nothing like as catastrophic as one could be lead to believe…

    I wrote my comments on this thread to share my expériences, and not to show I'm better or know more than anyone else - couldn't give a monkeys - I'm sure Richard Butler is an astounding bloke, and I wish him well.
  18. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Shouldn't is very different from Doesn't.

    Until relatively recently it was considered that the bumble bee was, theoretically, unable to fly. Nobody had told the bumble bees about this so they continued to fly completely unaware that what they were doing was impossible. Which simply goes to show that theory and practice don't always agree, usually because there is something missing from the theory (vortex lift in the bumble bee's case). When ever theory and practice disagree it is usually the theory that is wrong. If IanG says that in practice fewer pixels means less noise I have to agree with him, why theory says otherwise I'll leave to the physicists.[/QUOTE]
    IanG1957 likes this.
  19. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Only by the idiocracy. It comes (allegedly) from a throwaway remark by a French entomologist called Antoine Magnan that according to the known rules of aerodynamics bees can't fly. He then went on to point out that they clearly do fly so the known rules of aerodynamics were incomplete.
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019 at 1:21 PM
  20. IanG1957

    IanG1957 Well-Known Member

    I love Wikipedia too...

Share This Page