Should I Enter the FF DSLR World with a 5div or a D850?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by hussain_al_lawati, Dec 1, 2017.


Should I Enter the FF DSLR World with a 5div or a D850?

  1. D850

  2. 5DIV

  1. Ikka, there are varying degrees of depth in reviews,. The key is whether the author has credible work or a suitable background in the subject. If the author does not have a credible background, I certainly would not trust his/her review or comments no matter how many hours he/she had used that piece of equipment. Both of the authors of the two articles are well published. I am not that much into videos, so discussions are academic. Hwvr, the many videos by Ogy Stoilov are respectable enough, though I have seen better ones.

    Another reason I showed those two articles, and not the one you cited, was to hopefully limit the discussion between Nikon and Canon. Yes, I did see the one comparing D850 to Panasonic and Sony. But using this comparison would lead the discussion to go all over the place. I personally use Nikon as well as Olympus EM1 II, which is excellent in many ways, including videos. But that is another story.
  2. Now that I have read the OP posts in the Canon section I feel that the OP already bought the Canon and now has doubt. By the way the 5D mk IV was more expensive than the D850 but over the black friday it was less than the D850 and Canon even throw in the grip for free.
  3. Given how much Nikon charge for the grip, that's considerable, BeBu.

    Unless there was a recent update on the Canon forum, that's not how I read things - but if there's doubt, he certainly shouldn't have any. Whichever camera is "better" or a better deal, it's certainly better to have the camera, and exchanging it just loses you time you could be shooting. :)
  4. In the end, the camera will make the least difference in your photography. I selected Nikon because there were more lenses and accessories available. Here's a graph showing the sensor performance of Canon 5 D4, Nikon D500, Nikon D850, D800E. Note how virtually nonexistent the difference is between the $3,200 D850 and the $1,000 D800E. This is why I refuse to pay big money for camera bodies--the difference to justify it just isn't there.

    Read Noise in DNs versus ISO Setting

    Read Noise in DNs versus ISO Setting

    For some reason the link won't save the D500/D800E/D850/Canon 5D4 comparison. You can add them yourself by clicking on the camera from the list. What you're going to see is there is virtually no difference at all that shows up on a graph.

    Kent in SD
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
  5. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Moderator

    Your time is worth some money, perhaps a lot of money, too. IMO you are over-thinking the whole situation and is leading you to nowhere.

    After a certain point, you are better off just pick a path and move forward. Don't even bother to consider those "what if I choose differently" ....
    Wouter Willemse likes this.
  6. I think the OP already bought the Canon and is having buyer remorse. He is not looking for replacing it with the D850 but rather confirmation from us that he made the right choice.
  7. I could be wrong, but I'm not reading it like that, BeBu. The last posts I see in the Canon forum are asking the same questions - am I missing something? Remember Hussain has a 650D, so we know he has a Canon anyway.

    As for regrets, I hope we've answered. Personally the 5DIV appeals to me less than the D810, never mind the D850 (although it's closer than the 5DIII) - but that's the style of shooting I do, and it's almost definitely less clear cut for Hussain's list of cases. As everyone has said, they're both very capable, and if you're looking back you'll miss the shot.

    Or of interest, if you weren't already in the Nikon system (if you are), who here would have been tempted by the 5DIV over Nikon's options (D810 or D850)? It's very capable, but I'm curious whether it would have converted a biased sample. I'm guessing some D700 stalwarts jumped to the 5DIII for speed when the alternative was a D800 (if you're snobbish about the D750), but I don't know how many would have done if they had no prior investment.
    hussain_al_lawati likes this.
  8. Me neither.
    There have been two occasions where I considered jumping ship (OK, not fully, but adding some Canon equipment): getting a 40D because I wanted the 400/5.6 lens (rather than dealing with my Nikon 300/4 with TC-14E). The second time was with the introduction of the 7D when I was getting rather tired of waiting for Nikon's D400 no-show. In both instances, I didn't follow through. Canon's control layout doesn't really appeal to me and about the only time I thought a Canon body felt better in my hands than a Nikon one was with the 7D compared to what Nikon offered at the time (D7000 or D7100, can't remember which). So no, the Canon 5DIV does not tempt me but (leaving the money aspect out of the equation for a moment) I would get one in order to use three lenses from the Canon system: the 11-24/4, the 400/4DO and the 200-400/4. Not going to happen though.
    photo_galleries likes this.
  9. I could be wrong too! If I jump ship it will never be to Canon. It could be anything but Canon. I am bias against Canon rather than bias for Nikon.
  10. Actually, from a quick look at the thread in the Canon forum yesterday, it sounds like he's expanded his list to Nikon v. Canon v. Sony.
  11. The thread in the Canon forum is the older one, so the OP has actually eliminated the Sony from consideration when posting here.
  12. While we endlessly can debate the merits of the two cameras in question, wonder what argument or comment is the original poster looking for in order to actually arrive at a conclusion on which to buy?

    What is it that you still feel is missing in all answers in both threads?

    If you feel they are so similar that it is very difficult to differentiate them, that is also another way of saying let the wallet choose.
    hussain_al_lawati likes this.
  13. I suspect if the OP knew what to ask that would help him decide, he'd ask it! And, sadly, they're about the same price, too. But you can always flip a coin.

    Here's another way to choose: are we any friendlier than the Canon forum folks? :)
    hussain_al_lawati likes this.
  14. As I pointed out a few days ago, including the two lenses the OP considers, there’s currently about a $1500 price differential here in the US. Don’t know if it is any as drastic where the OP lives.

    Given how he’s apparently agonizing over the decision what to purchase, I would not be surprised if he would end up unhappy with whatever camera he ends up purchasing (if it ever comes to that). A case of analysis paralysis, I’m afraid.
  15. True, Dieter - I was only counting the body, and as you've said, the whole system counts (although the price is somewhat closer if you don't try to get the latest and greatest versions of the lenses Nikon has updated more recently than Canon, and will probably reverse the next time Canon updates things).

    Hussain: Are you still following? How are you doing? Is there any other input we can give you?
  16. (leaving the money aspect out of the equation for a moment) I would get one in order to use three lenses from the Canon system: the 11-24/4, the 400/4DO and the 200-400/4.

    I think the 12-24/4 Sony gets comparable reviews but is more compact (and less expensive), so I would assume a Sony/Nikon user would choose that lens over the Canon 11-24/4. For me the Canon wide angles of interest were the 17 TS-E and 24 TS-E II but the 19 PC is certainly a good Nikon option, money permitting (which it rarely does). I absolutely love Nikon's 8-15mm fisheye zoom, it is very compact and produces very high quality images with a wider angle of view, provided that the subject is suitable for a fisheye rendering.

    I have used the 300/4 PF a lot and can see the attraction of the 400/4 DO II but in the end a conventional refractive lens has some advantages. While a PF lens may make it more enjoyable to go out and shoot, in the end I find the 300 PF to fit some lighting conditions (bright, high contrast, rim light, colourful subjects and light) well and not so well others (soft, dim light, subjects lacking colour); don't know how this would relate to Canon's offerings but I suspect similar advantages and disadvantages as with Nikon's. The bokeh on the 300/4 PF is generally quite good on the back side but I've seen some odd effects on the front side and for example when photographing an animal in tall grass the out of focus areas could have a less distracting look at times. I guess I am asking a lot and I do appreciate the advantages of the 300 PF but in the end after a few years I will appreciate having gotten really beautiful images and no one will remember or care how much effort was required - a light lens is fun but if it doesn't quite do the trick (in some circumstances) then it might not be the right choice.

    Nikon Rumors have suggested a new 200-400/4 Nikkor may be announced in a few months. I suspect it will be priced in a way that will make it a rare item, but other than that there are advantages to an internal zoom (contant center of gravity) that covers a range of long focal lengths.
  17. Yes, Canon does seem to have better T-S lenses (especially ergonomically), with the possible exception of the 19mm. I may well go Samyang for that, despite the slight quality loss. I'm not sure why it took Nikon (or Canon) so long to work out that the Hartblei super-rotators had the right idea.

    The Nikkor 200-400 is an ancient design, now - the current one was a very minor update to the previous design (as was the 200 f/2, which is why I have the previous one). They've never entirely appealed to me, on the basis that while they're an acceptable 400 f/4, they're just a bit unwieldy compared with my 200mm f/4 AI-S - and I can always stick a teleconverter on my 200 f/2. If I did a lot of close-range sport (other than tiddlywinks) I'd probably have a different opinion. Thom Hogan has been complaining about the performance at range for a long time, and that's probably significant for wildlife uses, so it's about time Nikon did something - especially since Canon have had such good reviews on their 200-400 (except for price).
  18. I did. Chose it above the Sigma 12-24/4 Art that costs about the same but weighs twice as much.

    I was seriously considering the 200-400 (first Nikon version) a few times but was put off when pros who bought one got rid of them; Thom Hogan’s review sealed the no-deal. And since money does matter, considering Canon’s 200-400 is a mere hypothetical. Nikon’s 200-500 will have to do it for me.

    I do enjoy the 300 PF and Canon’s 400 DO appeals mostly because of its weight and compactness but would not give me sufficient reach. Allegedly, the first version doesn’t work well with a TC whereas the second one does and is also optically better. A potential 500/4 PF will be out of my price range and I doubt there will be a 500/5.6 PF offering.
  19. The 200/2 II was a nice upgrade for me; it increased the contrast at f/2. The old version was problematic at slow shutter speeds because of its vibration prone tripod mount and I was happy to see this problem solved in the II version. This is also why I didn't purchase the VR 300/2.8G II as I did not find the tripod collar satisfactory and am hoping an improvement in tripod collar stiffness in a future version.

    I don't know how much difference there is between the two Nikon 200-400/4 versions. This comparison

    Nikon 200-400mm f/4G AF-S VR II Nikkor Lens Image Quality

    would seem to indicate that the t-stop of the nano coated version is smaller than the old one (the image is brighter) and there to be a slightly better resolved details as well. However, I'm not confident in that site's testing methodology, often the pics are sharper at edges than center which suggests focusing issues.

    When testing the 200-400/4 II I felt the tripod mount of the zoom was quite good for use of the lens at up to 400mm; better than the VR 300/2.8G II's.

    While the 200-400/4 Nikkor is criticised for its long distance sharpness, I suspect it is a tradeoff, if you optimize the lens for long distance then you may lose some sharpness at close-up distances, so it becomes debatable, whether such changes are good or not (it depends on the usage). The Canon 200-400/4 is so expensive that I'd rather not see Nikon go there. I think a 200-400/4 should be priced comparably or only slightly higher than a 400/4 and certainly much lower than a 400/2.8.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  20. Yep, but I would not consider the previous G versions now that E versions are available.

Share This Page