I enjoy wildlife photography and your videos convinced me a year ago to buy a d500. I seem to shoot more portraits and events then wildlife and recently picked up a d850, again, based in part on your videos. Both cameras are great and everything you said about both of them has been 100% accurate. I sold the d500 to help pay for an open but unused d850, so it was only another $1300. Sold my dx only lenses, and it dropped my total to $900. For me to upgrade to a d850 for $900 was an easy decision.
i own both cameras. I hardly use the 500. The 850 in the crop mode is a 500. I like the fact I can shoot my 850 like a 500 (crop mode and expanded focus coverage) when I need the long range. As my subject gets closer, I switch with the Function button to the Fx mode. I cannot do both with the 500 - have long and wide range coverage. The 850 in my opinion is slightly better in low light. The BIG reason for the 500 is PRICE. My 850 with the battery grip, D5 battery, and charger is EXPENSIVE.
DX mode on a FX is never the same as s DX body. DX body gives you real longer reach, meaning a 500mm lens will truly become 750 im focal tange. The bokeh will be better, you can cropp a little more and pixel density is better. DX mode on FX is just cropped imate not a true extension in focal range. Cherrs 😊
Got a couple of D500's, a D5 and a D850, totally agree the D500 is great for action. One improvement I've made to both D500's is adding the EN-EL18c battery, no change in FPS but AF acquisition on big primes (300mm f/2.8 in particular) is noticeably faster. Assume the higher MaH helps overcome the inertia of moving heavy glass?
@GC GRAPHS Does this require any different grip or anything like that? Also do these batteries fit directly into the D500? I have the D500 and the original grip for the D500. These batteries just look different in shape and size due to them being D5 batteries. Let me know! Thanks (:
@@grahamclark2299 thanks! I have the battery and the cover now and wow that battery works so well haha. The lifespan of my camera with this battery is so much better than before.
Typically full-frame sensors perform better in low-light since the pixels tend to be more spread out (but, as you mentioned, the pixel density of the same space is comparable on these two bodies). Meanwhile, the D500 sensor does have 1 more stop in the standard ISO range before moving to High 1. The D850 has 1 more stop in the standard ISO range's low end... which helps minimize the need for a neutral density filter for strong light.
Had the D500, but as a hobby shooter I couldn't justify having the body sitting there and not really using it except for wildlife. Bought the D850, does everything
Well I disagree with you about low light performance. I own both the D850 and the D500. the D850, compared to the D500 is a lot better in low light. Im not even biased, I used the D500 exclusively for 4 months and let my D850 sit on the shelf (wanted 10fps without a 1.5kg camera) its odd how the D500 behaves in low light. its like the images are just always too bright, and colors are ALWAYS off when the light is low. don't know why!. the D500 also burns highlights very easily.. shadows are pretty much lack any detail. The D850 is amazing in this regard as well.. also, images from the 850 are actually sharper than the 500 with the same lens, same conditions, same settings. tested it heavily and my conclusion is the D850 is better in every way than the D500, except the 9fps and more weight.
Slight Nature As an owner of both bodies, I have to agree here.. in anything other than ideal lighting conditions- which is most of the time- the D850 is, in my experience, a superior body. The only time I switch to my D500, is when I need a little more reach.
Thanks Ken for making me feel good about owning a D500. I am an amateur BIF photographer. Fast acquisition & maintenance of focus is paramount for me. I admit the photographic equivalent of the Siren's song "Die Lorelei" - aka Sony A9ii - is very tempting. Fortunately .... or unfortunately, I don't have the financial wherewithal to be seduced. My faith in Nikon is they will at least equal the autofocus nemesis - Sony - and then overtake them. Nikon glass will always be superior IMHO. Cheers, Jack.
dude , don't give in to sony. a sony is just a sony. BUT a NIKON... is NIKON. I have compared sony side by side with D850 what i found is that, I don't understand why they have switched to sony.
@@nikonman3971 Thanks mate - I ain't switching yet ... or ever. I think the cancellation of the Olympic Games is going to give Nikon time for some serious R & D.
since the pixel density of the d850 in the inner area, which corresponds to the aps-c, is identical to that of the d500, the sensor coverage is identical with respect to the crop area of the d500. You can only see around it in the viewfinder, but the inner area is just as fully covered as the comparable d500 area. or am I wrong ? I have both cameras
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and comments...I have the D500 & cannot justify upgrading ...also kept my trusty old D7100 which I enjoy using.... cheers from a hobbyist...😀
There's zero pictorial differences between the 2 cameras but the d500 does have a slightly faster framerate. By zero pictorial difference, I mean cropping a D850 to match the D500 and doing a blind test, no one's gonna tell between the 2 in a controlled environment. Also a used D500 is very cheap. I'd say it's the winner. My 2 cents.
@@KenTheoriaApophasis www.photoartfromscience.com/single-post/2019/10/07/Nikon-D500-Un-cropped-versus-D850-Cropped-Shot-Comparison No one would be able to tell the difference in a blind test.
I have both bodies - and for the majority of my shooting (BIF) have switched back to the D500. Especially on low flying raptors, such as a Northern Harrier, it seems the auto-focus works better for me on the D500 (even though I've heard they are to be exactly the same in each body). I think it possibly has a lot to do with the subject appearing larger to me and maybe I just do a better job staying on the bird as a result with the D500, causing less hunting. Unfortunately, I can't agree with the low light comment - first light and last light animal shots are common and a real challenge. I guess I would also clarify what "wildlife" you're shooting - particularly in that if the animal is relatively stationary and you can get close, wouldn't you rather have the D850 ALL DAY LONG? If we fill over 1/2 of the frame with the subject on the D850, aren't we gaining ground on the D500 at that point (which would have the full frame covering the subject I realize)? I truly believe the D850 to show superior result when cropping less than half or so of the image in post - maybe this is an obvious difference or maybe I'm over-blowing that? Dumping a ton of pixels on my subject seems like a good thing, no? The hair and feather detail seems tough to beat on the D850 when close - basically portraiture work at that point.
Hi Kip, I guess you have been using both cameras for more than two years now? Hoping you havent changed bodies already. So I only need to confirm the fact of how easy is to get clear portraiture of birds (as you described, with nice and sharp hair and feather details) and catching sharp flying birds with the D850. My problem is that I want to do both wildlife and landscape photography, but I can't afford both bodies. And I feel I will be lacking the type of landscape photography I wanna do if I go for the D500. Thanks!
I have the D500. Bought the D850. Couldn’t justify having $3000 tide up in a camera with having the D500. Bye bye D850. Another few weeks went by and said..geez I’d sure love to have a D850. Bought another. Same thing happened again. I can always fall back on my D3S for my FF camera needs. I still miss having one though.
I just bought the D500 and think its fabulous compared to my D7200 ..im catching way more birds in flight and super sharp images ..when i view my shots on the computer i find myself saying WOW ..look at this ..deffinately the camera and not me !
I now have a D800 camera and really like the newer D850, but it is a bit expensive at $3,000 for new and around $2,500 for used. Would this be a good upgrade for me?
The D500 is great and really worth a recommendation , especially for BIF or fast action sport. But, for general Wildlife, the D850 with its 40+ MP full frame BSI Sensor is far better (e.g. shallow DF) and more versatile than the D500. You can crop in camera or PP and get the same image like the D500. And unfortunately you are absolutely wrong saying that Wildlife shooters seldom shoot in low-light - actually they do it quiet often!
I'm selling off my Canon gear and switching. I mainly shoot hard-core outdoor sports (motocross and tennis) and I have a budget of $3,500 -- should I go with the D500 or the Fujifilm X-T4?
@@lorenzonarwhal not really yet because I don't have a lense on the XT4 to compare with. I would need to get a 50-140 for example. But so far, I've seen great wildlife pics with the X-T4. Don't know for sports though I can tell you I am really happy with the camera. It's fast, silent, great dynamic range, a joy to use this Fuji :)
Have a 7 year old d750, which is getting quite worn out nowadays after a lot of use, I enjoy shooting landscapes and motorsports. Thinking I'll get a D850 as I love the reliability, toughness and battery life I've got out of the D750, less weight would be good for when I hike to photo spots but the DSLR size/weight doesn't bother me that much.. When I bought the D750, it was a 2 horse race faster 750 vs high pixel 810... Very confused now as there is the D850 vs D780 vs Z6II vs Z7II... What are everyone's thoughts?
Funny intro, should be an option right at the bottom to unsubscribe from Jockey's spam mail though. Great info in this one. What are you giving up opting for the D7200 over D500?
The 850 is king. If your not sure you don't know how to use it. I've cropped in some shots to a ludicrous level. My D7200 got sold long ago. Great camera but 850 is some machine. Stick a 300mm prime on it.
good for you. How about reviewing one of those fancy mirrorless, just do not buy it. Pics are great. Camera is functional, but has one terrible viewfinder. Way dim outside and blinding light inside. Tried manual adjust and auto adjust. No help. Then it goes dim just as pic is ready. Adjust time and it still goes dim ,just takes longer.
I photograph a lot of soccer games and mountain biking events in Scotland. I’m in the fortunate position of owning both of these excellent cameras and whilst I agree with all of your remarks about the comparative tech aspects of the sensors, etc., I would disagree with your conclusion. Photographing soccer I definitely get more successful photos and better results generally from the D850. I find that the advantage of the comparative ease of following the action with the wider field of view offered by the full frame format of the D850 significantly outweighs the apparent advantages of the faster burst mode and narrower field of view offered by the otherwise excellent DX format D500. The D500 effectively does the cropping for me, but I have to have the action framed in the centre of the picture, which can be very difficult in a fast moving game. Put simply, the ball is often out of the frame of what might otherwise be an excellent picture! The wider field of view of the FX format D850 means that even though I’m swinging the camera & 400mm lens around quite rapidly and and often catch the action well off-centre, I do still catch the action - and the ball - somewhere in the frame, and can crop later...
I am planning to buy D810 after couple of months,because i wanna use that wonderful Nikon 180mm f2.8 with autofocus.I am currently using it with Nikon D5500 (crop sensor).By the way Mr.Ken did you hear about Laowa 25mm Ultra Macro?Do you think its worth buying this lens.I want ultra macro lens for shooting insects...
You have to remember with a 25mm macro you will have to be closer to your subject. If it's primarily insects you risk disturbing them and scaring them off.
Great job. I watch all your videos except those on metaphysics. Nothing wrong. Just not interested. You are always touting the D3 as the best DSLR ever made. Okay.. so what if you had enough funds to buy the 850 new and the D3 used plus significant spare parts, which would you buy?
I'm sorry, did he say that most wildlife photography isn't done in dirty, gritty, situations with low light high ISO??!???? Mostly with good light?!?! Obviously not a wildlife photographer. Is there an inside joke on this channel that I missed?
HI, I like your video.I want bay a Nikon D810 ,but I have a Nikon D300 and 3 lenses.I like shoot a nature ,land scapes and street photography.What is beather D500 or d810? Thanks
Finally added the D850 and it's an amazing camera for sure. If you have never shot such a high Rez sensor be aware it takes a change in shooting technique. It's very unforgiving of handholding, the slightest movement will render you a blurred image if you don't respect the standard reciprocal rule. It's also very unforgiving of poor lenses. Lenses that produce nice results on my D750 look poorer on the D850, you need sharp lenses to get the most out of the D850. I might add the D500 eventually but thus far I think the D850 is the better choice unless you are exclusively a sports/wildlife shooter. 😋
I disagree with you. I have both cameras and I use to use my D500 for wildlife until the D850 came on the scene and blew the D500 out of the picture. You did not touch on an important issue/element with the cameras and that is image quality especially the image detail in the shadows. The main reason I shoot wildlife with the D850 over the D500 is the dynamic range is much better and also it has much more crop ability. The images look much better. If you need more focus area, just simply move a little to the left or right or change the perspective/composure a little and then focus - it does not take but just a fraction amount of more time and work. Let's not be lazy, the end result is what matters and there is no comparison between the two.
Hey guys, My D850 is nowhere near as good as all the Nikon I have ever had before (D600, D3X, D3, D3S, D800, D7500, D7100... I have been using Nikon for more than 12 years and never stuggled with a camera as it is with this D850 that I bought brand new... Any advice? It has to be me the problem. The camera is terrible in low light with the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8, the 85mm f1.8G, the Sigma 24-105, with the Samyang 14mm f2.8... It cant garanti me any concistant result as all my other camera can the same environment. It is fantastic in term of the type of video i do. Any help will be wellcome.
Get yourself a Nikon p900 or p1000, watch a boat go over the horizon with the naked eye... then get a nice pair of binoculars and watch it come back into view. On a clear day, low humidity, keep watching that boat with the binoculars until it disappears. Then bust out your Nikon....thus proving the Earth is not a sphere nearly 25000 miles in circumference. 8 inches per mile squared is the formula. At 50 miles, you should have well over 1500 feet of apparent curvature. There is none. Try this yourself.
@Tejas Manake Furthermore, Weather Balloon footage taken with straight lens cameras from 110,000+ feet shows nothing but Flat Line Horizon. Spherical trigonometry dictates significant curvature from half that altitude IF the Earth were in fact a ball/Sphere nearly 25,000 miles in circumference.
@@FlyinRyanProductions406 fisheye lens is what you are referring to... you know, just like a typical GoPro. There's no curvature to our earth. That is a fact.
While I despise the name calling, simple tests disprove flat earth theory. I find the theory interesting and have read up about it extensively before coming to my own conclusions. I loved Eric Dubay's comments on finding things out for yourself rather than being told you're not qualified enough to. Distrusting the narrative is good sometimes (NASA are scumbags!) but you've got to be objective if you really want the truth, and not simply look for what supports your belief. Flat earth theorists seem to be obsessed with finding curvature and seeing the sphere in pictures, but at that scale it's just not going to happen. One simple test is looking with binoculars over a distant peninsular or bay and you'll notice the bottom of buildings, trees etc. are all significantly obscured by the water, hence curvature. I have done this myself looking across 40 km (approx. 25 mi) from Salmon Bay Beach, Ballito, South Africa (29°32'43.8"S 31°12'51.2"E) over to the city of Durban (29°50'46.9"S 31°02'15.5"E). The CBD area, stadium and piers were all either partially or fully cut off by the water. You could do this almost anywhere there's a body of water with land on each end over a significant distance. Like you said try this yourself. Also from your own boat theory, during sunrise and sunset the sun disc (as FE theory calls it) should never drop from view, and we'd get light from the sun all the time or at least have a view of it like a distant star? Because it would only be moving further away and not be obscured, right? But what we actually see is the Sun disappearing behind the spherical Earth. FE also doesn't account for the phases of the Moon, eclipses etc. Flat Earth would make a great movie but in reality in ignores too many facts.
@@ganjabobby I personally have seen the Chicago skyline, in its entirety, from 50-plus miles away, it was a very clear day. This is not a mirage. There should be close to 2,000 feet of curvature at that distance, the very tip of the Sears Tower should be well below the horizon. The moon landings were blatantly obvious hoaxes. Every single picture we see of outer space, the planets, galaxies, Etc, are all admittedly CGI images. It's 2020, and tens of millions of Americans now question the Earth's shape. It is verifiably not a sphere nearly 25000 miles in circumference. That is an absolute fact. And it does not spin/rotate. The Stars reset themselves annually, and records indicate they've been in the same exact positions for millennia. Ponder that. But to keep it real simple, revert back to my initial comments regarding the Chicago skyline. You and I can get together on a clear day and settle this ourselves. This isn't tower 7 in regards to 9/11, nearly 20 years haven't passed. This is present right now, in our faces. This won't go away.
