d850 vs d810

[foveon]

...I used to own a d810 as well and that looked mushy compared to my merrills...

I`m a big fan of the Merrill-chip and impressed by the lot of detail it sees, still using DP1,2 and 3.
On the longer side I use a D810 and its output is just mushy when I missed fokus;
since Bayer-chips work without AA filter the pics are very clean and detailed, you just need good glass.

And ref. D810 vs D850, one is newer, has slightly improved resolution, AF and speed, but the other one is more than good enough for my needs; and considering the prices for a used D810 I dont feel the need to trade it in for a D850, maybe it makes more sense to look for a slightly used D810, a D850 is better than a D810, but IMO 2 D810`s are better than 1 D850.^^

 

[dave.gt]

I`m a big fan of the Merrill-chip and impressed by the lot of detail it sees, still using DP1,2 and 3.
On the longer side I use a D810 and its output is just mushy when I missed fokus;
since Bayer-chips work without AA filter the pics are very clean and detailed, you just need good glass.

And ref. D810 vs D850, one is newer, has slightly improved resolution, AF and speed, but the other one is more than good enough for my needs; and considering the prices for a used D810 I dont feel the need to trade it in for a D850, maybe it makes more sense to look for a slightly used D810, a D850 is better than a D810, but IMO 2 D810`s are better than 1 D850.^^

In response to the post before yours and so many others I see every single day...

Not long ago, it was accepted that one would never make "perfect" photographs, and the best equipment for producing good images was located between one's ears, behind the lens. I have been a photographer for almost five decades, and I don't know when it became common for people to search for the "best camera ever" to make those "perfect pictures". It is only an illusion, like fighting wind mills.

The D810 disparaged as mushy? Not meaning to sound rude or anything... that is kind of silly, even ludicrous, as a well-respected corporation like Nikon does not produce inferior instruments that make mushy images.

The D850 I am using now is amazing. But so were the other 50-60 cameras I have owned, in their own way. But it is only a camera that I must learn to use and create what I must as a form of artistic expression with all the emotion of the story behind the photograph.. It is definitely not a question of which camera I absolutely have to buy every two years for it to make the "perfect" image.

How has photography in general gotten it so backward?:

Gear is fun. Shooting is fun. Printing is fun. It is all good if one actually creates the images. One day soon, the norm will be telling your robot assistant/partner/etc. to go out and return with perfect pictures of the environment.

I am thankful I will not be around.:grin:

PS: Two D810s for the price of a new D850 is compelling. But I prefer the new features which are ergonomic in nature, and a few subjective changes, besides, I can only shoot one camera at a time and I suspect the D850 will be around for a very long time, maybe even the last camera I buy...

Btw, I am sure I have never mastered any camera, ever, nor do I expect to in the future. It will always be a learning process for me.

 

[robdeszan]

I am enjoying the thought exchange, thanks for contributing everyone.

I think “mushiness” brings some negative connotations but, in the context of Sigma Merrills, it is a word that describes it well, difference between a biting sharpness, so biting in fact that I stopped using them altogether, and a rather soft, in direct comparison, rendering of a CMOS sensor. I mentioned it to make sure that softness is not necessarily a bad thing. I have a certain preference for P1s CCD sensors as well, despite its technical limitations, so you can appreciate the shock those Z6 files gave me, that’s why I went with “mushy”. I hope there’s nothing wrong with the Z6, and there probably isn’t, since I read accounts of similar impressions. Saying that, would anyone care to share some Z6 RAW files for download just to make sure the camera is fine?

I downloaded more RAW files from Z7s (other users / reviews) and the soft characteristic is still there, regardless of MP count or resolution, therefore, I am not convinced a Z7 is the answer. The Z6’s AA filter appears to be fairly weak as well, as I’ve already seen some moire, where the Df would display none.

I definitely enjoy manual focusing more on the Z6 over DSLR’s focusing screen and I want to keep using my Zeiss Zf.2 lenses with their “classic”, non-corrected rendering (25mm f2.8, 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4) sot Z7’s 47 MPs would be an overkill. I need to shoot some more with Sigma Art lenses to give the sensor a true test with optimal glass as well. I might have panicked ran into too many conclusions too early.

I tried both the latest version of Nikon Raw converter and the latest version of Adobe’s DNG converter as my Photoshop (CS6) does not handle the Z6 files natively. Tried C1 and got so-so results. PS gave me the best overall look, after Adobe’s DNG conversion.

Tweaking the sharpness settings on those Z6 files can transform them. I think I need to experiment with the optimal sharpness settings a bit more. Gentle sharpening in the RAW converter before exporting to PS allows for more sharpening if necessary as well. One thing they do bring to the table is a certain analogue look, without edginess, something that the d810 sometimes displayed, especially with contrasty edges and harsh light. I find it very appealing. It is where the light/dark transitions had a bit of a spill, not a straight cut, if you like. A bit like chrome materials I used to shoot a lot.

Thanks again.

 

[dave.gt]

I am enjoying the thought exchange, thanks for contributing everyone.

I think “mushiness” brings some negative connotations but, in the context of Sigma Merrills, it is a word that describes it well, difference between a biting sharpness, so biting in fact that I stopped using them altogether, and a rather soft, in direct comparison, rendering of a CMOS sensor. I mentioned it to make sure that softness is not necessarily a bad thing. I have a certain preference for P1s CCD sensors as well, despite its technical limitations, so you can appreciate the shock those Z6 files gave me, that’s why I went with “mushy”. I hope there’s nothing wrong with the Z6, and there probably isn’t, since I read accounts of similar impressions. Saying that, would anyone care to share some Z6 RAW files for download just to make sure the camera is fine?

I downloaded more RAW files from Z7s (other users / reviews) and the soft characteristic is still there, regardless of MP count or resolution, therefore, I am not convinced a Z7 is the answer. The Z6’s AA filter appears to be fairly weak as well, as I’ve already seen some moire, where the Df would display none.

I definitely enjoy manual focusing more on the Z6 over DSLR’s focusing screen and I want to keep using my Zeiss Zf.2 lenses with their “classic”, non-corrected rendering (25mm f2.8, 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4) sot Z7’s 47 MPs would be an overkill. I need to shoot some more with Sigma Art lenses to give the sensor a true test with optimal glass as well. I might have panicked ran into too many conclusions too early.

I tried both the latest version of Nikon Raw converter and the latest version of Adobe’s DNG converter as my Photoshop (CS6) does not handle the Z6 files natively. Tried C1 and got so-so results. PS gave me the best overall look, after Adobe’s DNG conversion.

Tweaking the sharpness settings on those Z6 files can transform them. I think I need to experiment with the optimal sharpness settings a bit more. Gentle sharpening in the RAW converter before exporting to PS allows for more sharpening if necessary as well. One thing they do bring to the table is a certain analogue look, without edginess, something that the d810 sometimes displayed, especially with contrasty edges and harsh light. I find it very appealing. It is where the light/dark transitions had a bit of a spill, not a straight cut, if you like. A bit like chrome materials I used to shoot a lot.

Thanks again.

Thanks for more info on your experiences. I wish you well with obtaining the characteristics and results you seek.

As much as I love the freedom of the D850, it falls a little short of the H5D-50c in some ways. But I am happy enough.

Sharpness is not my litmus test anyway. There are so many reason I use the H5D that most will never understand. The D850 is not mushy, nor does it lack anything of consequence for me. I don't think the D810 is much different.

It really depends on what you want..,

P1?
Hasselblad?
Some other MF?
Full frame?

They are all good. It really depends on you but it is still true, the photographer is the most important factor in making great images.

Keep us posted!:thumbs:

 

[dave.gt]

I am enjoying the thought exchange, thanks for contributing everyone.

I think “mushiness” brings some negative connotations but, in the context of Sigma Merrills, it is a word that describes it well, difference between a biting sharpness, so biting in fact that I stopped using them altogether, and a rather soft, in direct comparison, rendering of a CMOS sensor. I mentioned it to make sure that softness is not necessarily a bad thing. I have a certain preference for P1s CCD sensors as well, despite its technical limitations, so you can appreciate the shock those Z6 files gave me, that’s why I went with “mushy”. I hope there’s nothing wrong with the Z6, and there probably isn’t, since I read accounts of similar impressions. Saying that, would anyone care to share some Z6 RAW files for download just to make sure the camera is fine?

I downloaded more RAW files from Z7s (other users / reviews) and the soft characteristic is still there, regardless of MP count or resolution, therefore, I am not convinced a Z7 is the answer. The Z6’s AA filter appears to be fairly weak as well, as I’ve already seen some moire, where the Df would display none.

I definitely enjoy manual focusing more on the Z6 over DSLR’s focusing screen and I want to keep using my Zeiss Zf.2 lenses with their “classic”, non-corrected rendering (25mm f2.8, 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4) sot Z7’s 47 MPs would be an overkill. I need to shoot some more with Sigma Art lenses to give the sensor a true test with optimal glass as well. I might have panicked ran into too many conclusions too early.

I tried both the latest version of Nikon Raw converter and the latest version of Adobe’s DNG converter as my Photoshop (CS6) does not handle the Z6 files natively. Tried C1 and got so-so results. PS gave me the best overall look, after Adobe’s DNG conversion.

Tweaking the sharpness settings on those Z6 files can transform them. I think I need to experiment with the optimal sharpness settings a bit more. Gentle sharpening in the RAW converter before exporting to PS allows for more sharpening if necessary as well. One thing they do bring to the table is a certain analogue look, without edginess, something that the d810 sometimes displayed, especially with contrasty edges and harsh light. I find it very appealing. It is where the light/dark transitions had a bit of a spill, not a straight cut, if you like. A bit like chrome materials I used to shoot a lot.

Thanks again.

Thanks for more info on your experiences. I wish you well with obtaining the characteristics and results you seek.

As much as I love the freedom of the D850, it falls a little short of the H5D-50c IQ, if you will, in some ways by being a little different. But I am happy enough. It excels in so many other areas that I cannot use the MF so it makes up for it!

Sharpness is not my litmus test anyway. There are so many reasons I use the H5D that most will never understand. The D850 is not mushy, nor does it lack anything of consequence for me. I don't think the D810 is much different.

It really depends on what you want..,

P1?
Hasselblad?
Some other MF?
Full frame?

They are all good. It really depends on you but it is still true, the photographer is the most important factor in making great images.

Keep us posted!:thumbs:

 

[pegelli]

In response to the post before yours and so many others I see every single day...

I'm sorry but you might have missed that my post was pure "tongue in cheek" to try and address the exact same point you are addressing. I agree a technical capable camera determines very little of the final Image Quality in the broadest sense of the word and it's my firm belief that a technically perfect camera doesn't exists yet, and probably never will, simply because one size doesn't fit all.

 

[dave.gt]

I'm sorry but you might have missed that my post was pure "tongue in cheek" to try and address the exact same point you are addressing. I agree a technical capable camera determines very little of the final Image Quality in the broadest sense of the word and it's my firm belief that a technically perfect camera doesn't exists yet, and probably neyver will, simply because one size doesn't fit all.

No, it was not your post. My apology is in order for not being clear. The OP is in a quandary... just trying to clear things up with my experiences with the D850. What little time I have been around the D810 confirms my confidence in it as well.:thumbup:

As Jack said, there are few lenses around sharp enough for the D850, and maybe even for the D810. Both are incredibly good instruments.

If anyone cannot do great work with either the D810 or the D850... then I have nothing more to say.

 

[jdphoto]

I'm sorry but you might have missed that my post was pure "tongue in cheek" to try and address the exact same point you are addressing. I agree a technical capable camera determines very little of the final Image Quality in the broadest sense of the word and it's my firm belief that a technically perfect camera doesn't exists yet, and probably never will, simply because one size doesn't fit all.

Completely agree. For me, it's about an emotional connection too. I don't care that people say that cameras are just tools. Most of us have owned many digital cameras, but because of its digital obsolescence, I just don't bond with any one camera in particular the way I do with film cameras. Today's camera cycles and the price of entry plus, the incredible depreciation must make manufactures laugh at how gullible this market segment is.

 

[Jack]

I just have to add this comment re mushy results with a D810 -- and yes, I also believe it's a silly --and I'd even say idiotic-- comment... If your final results out of a D810 are "mushy," then you either used poor capture technique, a screwed up lens, or don't know how to properly post process...

 

[robdeszan]

Like I said earlier, the "mushiness" comes from the drawing differences inherent to a Foevon vs CMOS sensors. Both are capable cameras, I owned and shot both in the past; hence my original post to revisit the d810 but, notice, not the Merrill. It is more of a comment on the image rendering characteristic of both technologies.

 

[dave.gt]

Like I said earlier, the "mushiness" comes from the drawing differences inherent to a Foevon vs CMOS sensors. Both are capable cameras, I owned and shot both in the past; hence my original post to revisit the d810 but, notice, not the Merrill. It is more of a comment on the image rendering characteristic of both technologies.

Cool!:thumbup:

 

[jdphoto]

I'm curious how the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC lens would perform on the D850?

 

[dave.gt]

Me, too! Time to research it myself!

Then I can compare to the 200/2.0:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/200f2/pool/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/56159557@N07/32021788107/in/pool-200f2/

Both are amazing!:thumbup:

 

[Thorkil]

I'm curious how the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC lens would perform on the D850?

I'm looking forward to get myself putting my 135/2DC and 105/2DC on the Z7, while they draw in a dreaming way at the Df, and I'm curious how it will get handled by the Z7 ...

 

[jdphoto]

The FTZ adapter only works AF with newer lenses like the G models, but MF on the Z's is the best i've ever used on any camera. Good bargains on the 135/105mm f.2.

 

[Paul T]

I'm curious how the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC lens would perform on the D850?

Hi,
I used the 135 DC with film on my F5 many moons ago and on a D3x not so many moons ago. The lens is not very sharp wide open. By f4 it tightens up. If you want a bit of softness for people, or other types of shots wide open or at 2.8, you may like it.

My 105 DC is sharper at f2 and quite good at 2.8, even on my D800e. This was a nice surprise.
Paul

 

[Jack]

The 105DC is FAR superior to the 135DC. More, the 135DC has such a heavy front group that over time it tends to develop some wobble and loss of alignment. The added front weight also makes it relatively fragile against bumps for the same reason...

Actually, if there's a lens I regret selling, the 105DC is probably it. I had the 85/1.4G and used it more, but I find myself yearning for the 105 now that I don't have it

Personally, I never cottoned up to the 135 focal, much preferred the 180, though it was sometimes too tight. That's where the 70-200 came in, but it's a tank. I finally settled on a Sigma 150 macro. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but at least as sharp as the best 180/2.8 Nikkors or the zoom at 150, and sharper than the 135 DC. I find it a very compelling lens and focal to use for *my* style of shooting, and of course has the added bennie of macro. Respect YMMV...

PS: I still struggle not having a 105... I keep thinking maybe the Nikon macro, but I'd likely never use it as a macro with the Sigma 150 available, so for the time being I'm sans 105 except my zoom. Which I really don't like...

 

[Thorkil]

..bought the 135DC + the 105DC + the 180/2.8D from new on your advice Jack (and certainly no blame) but I think the 135DC have some magical drawing(so I won't leave it), the 180 too, but perhaps mostly the 135DC in my head. I haven't used the 105DC yet but now I'm really looking forward to it. The 135DC certainly don't have the bite as the Sigma 135 (got a pal who bought the Sigma but he still regret not buying the 135DC instead, after looking at my pictures) but the 135DC certainly has something else, and with a lovely character I think, and with the Z7 so easy to MF as JD pointed out, there might be sweet going-back-times in the near future ...
some old reviews:
https://www.opticallimits.com/reviews/225-nikkor-af-135mm-f2-d-dc-review--test-report?start=2
https://www.opticallimits.com/reviews/222-nikkor-af-105mm-f2-d-dc-review--test-report?start=2
PS. just a repition of the duck-mother & children (in my head the water back there is simply just to die for):
nikkor 135DC at f2 (iso280 1/1000) on a Df though (I just never use the DC-function):

 

[foveon]

.... think the 135DC have some magical drawing..... the 135DC certainly has something else, and with a lovely character...

same here

 

[Paratom]

When I sold off my last Nikon body there were few lenses I kept anyway. The 105DC is one of them. Each time I used it it amazed me with its natural looking IQ, great colors, lovely bokeh and gentle rendering.
Now I have Nikon bodies again (F6 and Z6) - I wish the AFD lenses would AF as well on the adapter...