D500 vs D850?

[trimix125 73]

Hi,
had the D300 and then a Oly OMD5 and now the D500.
For mostly macro, i would take it. Specially for supermacro, simply because of the DOF against any FX.
If you add some plus lenses or even combinate them, your field of raser sharpness will get so small....

If you pm me an email adress, i can send you pics, and you try what you can get out of them.

There will be allways a better, newer camera,
but the question is do we need it???
Or is sometimes the "old"one better for our Goal?

Regards,
Wolfgang

PS: can add you a pic from last weekend in front of a mountain hut.
5 am, lots of stars, a little bit of moon and 15 sec....

Edited March 18, 2018 by trimix125

[vigfus 2]

Thank you for sending med the pictures Wolfgang! The D500 really has an impressive dynamic range. It will indeed be a close call.

[JamesR 26]

I have a D850, and with any luck can sell my D810 and Nauticam housing for it sometime soon. Anyway...

 

I am somewhat tempted to leave my D850 for land use and buy a D500 for underwater, but I am not sure I really want to have yet another camera body. I have really only shot super macro using a DX camera (D7000 in Lembeh), but I do have the 105, SMC, and multiplier. I am going to Sipadan and the surrounding islands (Mabul etc) later this year, so I need to figure out what I'm going to do soon.

[divegypsy 22]

I did not seriously consider the Nikon D500 when I made my decision to upgrade from the D800 to the D850. You can have almost all of the D500 "advantages", if you want them, by shooting the D850 in the DX crop. Or go midway between the two with the 1.2x crop. If you shot the D850 in the DX crop, you have virtually the same MP image, but you can only shoot at 7fps vs 10fps. But no underwater strobe can keep up with either of those frame rates except at tiny fractional power outputs. When you shoot DX with the D850, you see well beyond the DX area and can see fish and other animals that are just outside the DX area. Animals that may be about to enter you picture and which you might like to include by waiting momentarily for them to arrive. Or eliminate by shooting quickly. A fisheye or wide-angle zoom of the same focal length, when on the D850 in DX will exhibit virtually identical depth-of-field as it does on the D500 if you are using the same aperture and same dome port.

 

What you really get with the D850 for that extra money and slightly larger size vs the D500 is far more versatility. The versatility to choose when FX and 46MP will do a better job for you that DX and 20MP. More of Nikon's FX lenses cost more than their DX equivalents (eg. 40mm micro-nikkor vs 60mm micro-nikkor or 85mm micro-nikkor vs 105mm micro-nikkor) and it is likely that you get more for that additional money in things like build quality which affects how long the lens will perform at top specs. Carrying this line of thought further - Alex in his review of the new Nikon 8-15mm fisheye zoom wrote that some of his mates were calling it the "posh toki". But Adam in his write up also mentioned that he and many others he knew had had at least one of their Tokina 10-17mm lenses fall apart or fail in other ways.

 

You always pay for what you get. But you don't alway get what you pay for. Especially when you go the cheap route. And in the Nikon system, all you have to do is look at the DX system as a whole, vs the FX system, and you can see where Nikon is putting their money and effort. That is why I went with the D850.

Edited March 23, 2018 by divegypsy

[trimix125 73]

Hi Divegypsy,

agree with you the DOF in wide angle.
But is it the same in macro and supermacro?
And this is what Vigfus wants.
Can you shoot a pic in FX and in DX mode and show us a croop of some fine structure?
No question that a FX system is fine. And i use FX macro lenses to get just the center, there they are best.
The question is only if it is needed...
Regards,
Wolfgang

[oneyellowtang 95]

I have both the D500 and D850, and have dived with both (in Dec. in Anilao).

 

I have shot DX for years, so the D500 upgrade (from D7000/7100/7200 - yes, shot them all) was an obvious one for me. I added the D850 late last year because I wanted to see what shooting FX was like underwater. The D850 for macro proved to be a really good option (shot with both the 60 and 105), and the primary advantage was the autofocus speed. I have Nauticam housings for both.

 

However, I still prefer the D500 for wide angle (Tokina 10-17 and mini zen dome) because there is still not a cost effective/travel friendly W/A solution for the D850. The two best options right now are the Nauticam WACP (expensive and very bulky) or a converted Nikon RS 13mm (great option, but also expensive).

 

Based on what I've experienced - if I wanted one camera for both macro & W/A, I would pick the D500. The D850 has a ton of potential, but I still need to find a W/A solution that works well, and is reasonably affordable.

Edited March 23, 2018 by oneyellowtang

[sinetwo 26]

Hey all, what housings have you used? I'm considering the Hugyfot one as it's £800-1000 cheaper than the Nauticam one. However, I've found 0 reviews for the hugyfot

[JamesR 26]

I will buy a Nauticam. It'll be my 5th, if that tells you anything (aside from the fact that I change cameras way too often).

[vigfus 2]

Thank you all for the added input - much appreciated!

[sinetwo 26]

Well, Ikelite has their housing now and reviews are stating they're pretty solid. Any thoughts on that?

 

I know they're "cheap", but perhaps D500+Nauticam vs D850+Ikelite would be a decent topic?

 

I'm still unconvinced that paying double for the D850 is really going to result in double the pleasure. Also for the FF camera, you're looking at extremely expensive glass as well.

[JamesR 26]

I feel like if you somehow made me choose between a the D500 with a Nauticam housing vs a D850 with the Ikelite housing I would pick the D500 because of the housing alone. I would basically ignore everything else.

[sinetwo 26]

Yeah I totally agree, I'm going down the D500 route now as the D850 provides very little gain for a lot more cash, and the lenses you need to get aren't as good'a bang for buck.

 

What lenses did you go for? 105mm VR and Tok 10-17?

[Aussiebyron 57]

I have been shooting the D500 since it was released mainly because I have a collection of DX lenses left over from earlier D7000 and D90 and simply the cost. I mainly shoot Fisheye's and I am of the opinion that DX camera perform better than FX in this instance especially when you use the Nikon 10.5mm. The D500 ticks all the boxes which I want it to do at a price which much lower than the FX range.

 

I use the following on my D500:

 

Nikon 10.5mm

Tokina 10-17mm

Tokina 11-16mm

Nikon 60mm

Tokina 100mm

 

I went with the Tokina 100mm as I dont shoot much macro and the Tokina 100mm is a great lens and is half the price of the Nikon 105mm. It does the job for me.

 

Regarding the battery life of the D500, once changed to the newer nikon battery EN-EL15 Li-ion 20 and turning the camera onto flight mode I was able to get well over 1200 shots for stills. If video was used ther battery life is reduced greatly but I think that is the same for the D850. The D500 has excellent video and custom WB of the fly is great.

 

I can't comment on the D850 as I have never used one but at the end of the day I think it comes down to you sitting down with your budget and seeing what the best bang for buck. Going for a housing which is made of clear plastic isnt one of them either.

 

Regards Mark

[vigfus 2]

Thanks for the additional input guys!

[JamesR 26]

I guess i have decided to house my D850. I am not excited at all on the WACP due to price or size, and not thrilled about a 230mm dome either. I will likely end up using my Sigma 15mm FE and Zen 170mm dome for most wide angle stuff and the 16-35/4 and 8.5" dome with some crop planned to clean up the corners, or just shoot it in DX mode...I generally don't like cropping, but the D850 file size will leave plenty of room for doing it.

 

Anyway, I fear I will end up buying the WACP anyway, but I realllly don't want to.

 

All this stuff sometimes makes me wonder why I didn't just keep shooting the RX100

[sinetwo 26]

JamesR: yeah that's pretty much sealed it for D500 for me.

 

Whilst I would absolutely LOVE to have the D850 on land, I think I can make do with some UWA lenses for landscape photography, as that's really all I need a full frame for.

 

I'm selling my rx100ii in case you're interested, haha

[JamesR 26]

It's funny, in a sad way, I keep going back and forth about these. I've had my D850 since March 2nd and have yet to even open the box. It has sat in my camera safe (gun safe haha) untouched for 5 months plus.

 

The more I think about it, the more I am leaning to the D500, but I'm still on the fence! Ugh. Need to decide in the next month.

[trimix125 73]

Happy that i decided a D500 for both, under and above water then it came out.
And a few weeks ago bought a used D750 for above....
Only because a wedding of a friend ;-))
Regards,
Wolfgang

[Undertow 31]

I've had my D850 since March 2nd and have yet to even open the box. It has sat in my camera safe (gun safe haha) untouched for 5 months plus.

 

Seriously, I do think the D500 is a better camera for UW for a couple reasons. I'd still go for the D850 myself for certain reasons. Currently shooting D810 UW and love it.

 

If you're stuck with an extra D850 and nothing to do with it, I'd be happy to help you out there!

Edited August 17, 2018 by Undertow

[JamesR 26]

What are your reasons for the D850? Just wondering/looking for something that will help me decide.

 

I wish I had time for the upcoming mirrorless to come out and be proven, housing and such, but I dont.

 

Thanks,

[Undertow 31]

What are your reasons for the D850? Just wondering/looking for something that will help me decide.

 

I wish I had time for the upcoming mirrorless to come out and be proven, housing and such, but I dont.

 

Thanks,

 

Well I haven't read through this thread, perhaps this has all been said but...

 

D500

1. Smaller, which translates to significant size/weight reduction in housings. Its under-appreciated but very important - it will handle better in and out of the water.

2. 10fps would come in very handy in some shooting situations - I wish I had that.

3. In a certain sense it has better magnification/DOF for macro - though one can crop a D850 file to nearly D500 dimensions, but it would change your shooting style.

4. Its much cheaper, as are some housings.

5. Rectilinear super wide lenses will perform better behind the same size dome. Soft corners are a real challenge.

6. If you prefer fisheyes, the Tokina 10-17mm is a DX gem that has no FX equivalent (perhaps the new 8-15mm + kenko TC).

7. It really is right up there in quality - I've shot it alongside my D810 topside and its brilliant, the price difference does not reflect an overall image quality difference. Better value for money.

 

Why I'd personally go D850:

 

1. I want the highest resolution possible - I've had my images blown up to full wall size (7+ meters across) for up-close viewing. Every pixel matters then. But honestly the 12mp from my old D700 is plenty of resolution for 99% of things.

2. I'm set with my full frame lens lineup. I'd have to buy new lenses (superwide zoom, 40mm macro as I love the 60mm view on FX).

3. Marginal edge in dynamic range (0.8 stop by DXO's measurements). It means nothing for 99.99% of people and situations, but I often push my camera's boundaries. I've managed some impressive high contrast shots with the D810, but I shoot some weird stuff.

4. I do love my 16-35mm on the D810 - its my go-to lens (but only behind Aquatica's 9.25" megadome). Perhaps the 10-24mm or some other lens on a D500 would perform as well or better but I don't really know (yes I'm sort-of contradicting #5 above... with a smaller dome D500 would win)

5. I shoot topside more than UW and would prefer the D850 there.

 

Mirrorless:

 

1. Hugely smaller & lighter. World of difference.

2. Come such a long way, with the right setup (quality body & lenses) most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference from a DSLR.

3. I generally tell people today that unless they know they want an SLR, if you have to ask yourself the question, just go mirrorless.

 

Hope that helps. Cheers,

 

Chris

 

Edit:

Oh and just looked at some of your work. Awesome stuff. I see you shoot some action sports too - I'd go for the D500 hands down for that.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Undertow

[Walt Stearns 52]

D500 vs D850, DX vs. FX, the justifications and arguments always play out the same.

The true question is what you need all those pixels for from your camera.

 

Is it for making prints for the wall?

 

If truth be known, most of todays digital printers used by facilities that turn the image captured by your digital camera is printed at 90 ppi. Translated, an image from a Nikon D500, which produces a 5568 x 3712 size image at 300 ppi, will render a print (working with the printers full resolution) approximately 61 inches wide by 41 inches tall. For entertainment, even if a printer having a tighter pixel pattern of say 110 ppi will still render a 53.5 x 33.5 inch size print.

 

If you are in the business of making gallery wall prints larger than 5 feet across, than yes, more pixels are going to be desired.

 

Image usage in print publications like magazine, catalogs and brochures.

 

In the golden age of print magazine publication, the gold standard for an image to grace a cover or a two page spread needed to meet 300 dpi (240 dpi) resolving capabilities to work. Having worked directly on the creation (from conceptual layout to press) of multiple print ads for magazine publications, brochures, as well as a few catalogs with more than 80 to 90 pages each, I can tell you no commercial printer I know of is printing with even 240 dpi. More like the same used for creating your wall print, often times less than even that.

 

Web?

 

Most websites image area is 690 to 1024 pixels wide with a resolution of 72 to 73.58 ppi. For example, this image here (see below) only holds an image space of 600 wide x 400 pixels high with a resolution of 73 ppi.

 

If I were still shooting more topside commercial photography than I am now, oh yes I would be all over the D850. Namely because I know how art directors think more is better, even if the image itself doesnt really have it in the artistic/composition category.

 

The truth of the matter is not so much of a question as to what you need, but what you really feel you need to have.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Walt Stearns

[TimG 62]

Really good point there, Walt: "The truth of the matter is not so much of a question as to what you need, but what you really feel you need to have."

 

At the end of the day, you need to be really happy with what you have bought and not be thinking, if only....... So what you really feel you need is maybe more the issue than what you need.

 

Nice pic too!

[Walt Stearns 52]

Right on TimG! In world of underwater photography, top shelf camera systems is seldom a case of I got to have it for the work I do, but in all actuality case of I gotta have it because, because I really desire having one. In technical diving, see pretty much the same play out on rebreathers. Very few divers actually need these expensive pieces of equipment, but it hasn’t stopped many from jumping into it. Bottom line, it’s all a matter of what floats your boat. Like you said, if your happy with what you have at the end of the day, then you have what you need.

[JamesR 26]

Oh and just looked at some of your work. Awesome stuff. I see you shoot some action sports too - I'd go for the D500 hands down for that.

 

Thanks for the complement. Fortunately, I have a D5 for sports and pretty much anything else I shoot topside, so the 850 or 500 would be used as a 2nd camera with a different lens/focal length.

 

I do have all FX glass, which is a small consideration. The $500 or so for a Tokina 10-17 doesn't even factor into my decision much at this level of spend.

 

You guys are 100% accurate on "need vs want." I don't personally need anything, it's just a hobby that occasionally makes me 1% of my investment back if I am lucky. I could be happy using a GoPro if I didn't have to edit video

 

Really good conversation in this thread. Thank you all for the great points to consider.