Upgrade to D850 or keep D810 and buy D500

I am looking for help with a decision that ultimately only I can make but would be interested to know what other people would do.

 

I am a keen amateur, with an interest in landscape and wildlife photography. I am very happy with my landscape setup but it is with wildlife where I feel my equipment may need updating.

 

Landscape equipment:

• Nikon D810
  
• Nikon 16-35mm f4G
  
• Nikon 50mm f1.8G
  
• Nikon 70-200mm f4G
  

Wildlife equipment (as move plus)

• Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6
  

The combination of D810 and 80-400mm has served me well on a safari in Africa and on a trip to the Galapagos Islands, where the animals are fairly close, but I have noticed that at the long end the images are not tack sharp and my hit rate could be better. With birds in flight and animals at a distance it is not up to the job. In Scotland where I live, otters and deer keep there distance and may be 'out of reach' with my present equipment. I accept that my personal photographic and bushcraft skills are an important factor as well.

 

I have the new Nikon 500mm PF on back order but am unlikely to receive it for a number of months.

 

My question related to my camera body and whether this needs to be changed or complimented with a more wildlife orientated body. My options are:

1. Keep my present D810
   
2. Keep the D810 and compliment it with a D500 (new or used)
   
3. Sell my D810 and buy a D850
   

Pros and Cons:

Options 2 and 3 would cost the same while option 1 is clearly cheaper.

Options 2 and 3 include a much improved auto-focus systems in the D500 and D850 for wildlife photography, compared to my present D810.

Option 2 gives me 2 cameras with complimentary benefits, (D810 - landscape and D500 - wildlife)

Option 3 gives me one camera that could potentially do everything !

 

I should also say that I would not want to upgrade the D850 (if that is my option) with a battery grip and that the f4, 500m and 600mm Nikon lenses are completely out of my price range.

 

Which option would you go for 1,2 or 3 or perhaps I am missing something and there is a better option.

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Michael

Ordinarily I would recommend against buying a cropping camera as a backup to a FF camera. In your case, however, you are looking for better reach for shooting wildlife, a supplement rather than a backup.

 

The D500 will give you that reach, effectively making your 80-400 work like a 120-600 lens, without sacrificing speed (like a tele-converter). Although the 70-200 and 80-400 have optical image stabilization, your results would improve if you also used a sturdy tripod and head, especially with an APS-C camera.

 

You will find that no lens is long enough for wildlife photography. You need to use stalking and concealment skills, and a lot of patience (and mosquito repellant).

Option 2 gives me 2 cameras with complimentary benefits, (D810 - landscape and D500 - wildlife)

That's what I have - and I pretty much considered the same options you did. For what I use the D810 for (landscape, travel), the D850 offers only marginal (if any) improvements - to me incommensurate with the cost of upgrading. I never even considered the D810 for wildlife (and action) - the camera is too slow and adding a D500 to the bag solved that issue. It also puts the higher "workload" (aka actuations) on the cheaper body. I also like to have two camera bodies around - I sometimes even shoot landscape with the 16-35 or 24-105 on the D810 and the 70-200/4 on the D500. To me it was easier to justify adding a D500 and keeping the D810 than selling the D810 and acquiring a D850 as my sole camera body. I mostly shoot wildlife now with the 200-500 (I may get a 500 PF eventually) - I also own the 80-400 but only use it when the 200-500 is too much of a burden to transport. In a direct comparison, the 200-500 is definitely sharper at 400 (and my copy also at 500) than the 80-400 at 400.

 

 

you are looking for better reach for shooting wildlife

In terms of "reach" the D500 and the D850 are equivalent - set the D850 to DX mode and you've got a D500 (in terms of MP). There are other features to consider though - higher viewfinder magnification with the D500 (compared to DX crop mode on the D850). Faster frame rate - unless (almost parity is established when) the battery grip and larger battery option are purchased for the D850.

 

perhaps I am missing something and there is a better option

Sell your landscape equipment (save the 70-200) and acquire a Z7, the 14-30 and the 50/1.8S. Then add a D500:D Definitely the most expensive option put on the table so far:(

Sell your landscape equipment (save the 70-200) and acquire a Z7, the 14-30 and the 50/1.8S. Then add a D500:D Definitely the most expensive option put on the table so far:(

I'll be more than happy to suggest even more expensive options.

Maybe medium format for landscape? :cool:

Maybe medium format for landscape?

Not too many (if any) super-wide lenses available for medium format. But there's always Leica (FF) if one feels Nikon (or Sony/Zeiss) prices are too low.o_O

For now, I'd keep the D810, and find a used D500 with appropriate low shutter activations. And for an interim long lens solution, you could find a 200-500 f/5.6, even a good used one. I have a similar combination, except my FX camera is a D750. I'm happy with both. There's no telling how soon the 500 PF will be on back-order, so for $1500 less you could be in business very quickly. I bought my D500 before the D750, so I used it until I opted for an FX camera.

 

A D500 will use the center part of any FX lens, so you'd be getting the advantage of the high pixel count of the D500 and the sweet spots of your existing FX battery.

 

The question becomes just how much better performance do you expect to gain of the D850 over the D810?

I like the D850 for everything in nature photography. I don't care to carry two camera bodies at the same time (although sometimes I do, such as when I am traveling abroad and the purpose of the trip is photography). It provides excellent image quality and can be used for situations that require speed, although some will criticize its maximum fps rate and burst depth. With the D5 or D500, you can shoot bursts like no tomorrow, but with the D850 you need to be more aware of the camera's limitations in that kind of a situation. If you don't plan on using the battery grip for extra speed, the maximum burst depth at 7fps should be sufficient with fast memory cards provided that you choose suitable settings (e.g., 12-bit lossless compressed NEF instead of 14-bit). If you're not used to a fast burst camera then you might not run into any problem with the D850.

 

Some things about the D850 that I love include the daylight auto white balance mode (which is auto white balance but it tends to deviate less from daylight balance, essentially preserving more of the "feel" of the light in the images, instead of normalizing everything), the camera's support for EFCS in viewfinder shooting (in quiet or quiet continuous drive mode), this really makes a difference when using a hand-held long tele (such as the 500 PF or 300 PF). However, again if you run into a fast action situation and need to use maximum fps rate, you then need to flip from Qc (3ps) to CH (7fps) and make sure your shutter speed is appropriate. Nonethess although I need to flip through settings more with the D850 than with other cameras, I am happiest with the output from this camera. It really produces phenomenal image quality.

 

If you require high speed burst shooting a lot then a D5 or D500 would be better, but they won't give the image quality the D850 is capable of. I wouldn't have thought I'd care so much but I do, there is something special about it especially in the context of nature photography.

 

If you get a D500 to complement your D810 with, that's a perfectly fine choice as well. Then you will have two a bit more specialized cameras. But when you go out and shoot, do you want to carry two camera bodies?

 

Regarding the lenses, I went through 80-400 and 200-500 and ended up selling both, now I have the 300 PF and 500 PF and I am happier with these two, although I recognize there are tradeoffs in image quality either way. I just love the way the PF lenses handle and how one barely notices one is carrying a long lens when walking through forests and hills. The 500 PF is extremely sharp. I don't quite like the 300 PF as much, it seems Nikon were able to reduce flare, increase contrast and MTF in the newer lens. Though I have used both lenses a lot and I can't really argue that they both serve their purpose.

 

My personal choice in your case would be to get the D850 and 500 PF. I suspect many of the phhotographers who prioritise wildlife action photography over other nature subjects will present a different opinion and recommend the D500.

Edited July 29, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

I'll be more than happy to suggest even more expensive options.

Maybe medium format for landscape? :cool:

 

I already have a Hasselblad 503CW with 50mm, 80mm and 150mm. Getting the new digital back might be nice in my dreams but I suspect it is not a financially viable option for landscape.

Not too many (if any) super-wide lenses available for medium format.

 

I am not sure a superwide is needed for landscape photography, but Hasselblad make a 21mm for the X system (33mm x 44mm sensor).

Dieter, I am not sure a shutter replacement is much less expensive on a D500 than D850 - in either case, there is an amount of manual labour to get the job done and I would think the cost of the work probably exceeds the cost of parts. The shutter replacement cost is relatively low (a few hundred € or $). Thus the cost per exposure from shutter wear is not that great if you shoot so much that you get to the point of shutter replacement. I think the cost of editing time spent to select the good images and delete the bad ones is by far the greatest cost for a high volume shooter. And indeed, that part takes more time with 45 MP than 20MP. Though NVMe M.2 SSDs make even 45MP files relatively painless (a recent discovery of mine). Storing the files costs money too, if unculled. So yes, there is an additional cost to the larger files but if the subject comes close, you can get phenomenal quality. And you save some weight in the bag if shooting everything with one D850 instead of a D500 for wildlife and a D810 for landscape. Of course, if the one body breaks then this could lead to lost opportunities, but this isn't that common. Nikons can take quite a lot of field use. Edited July 29, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

If I were spending you're money, I'd explore the full frame mirrorless route.

You have gotten good advice!

 

My thoughts are very similar to Ikka’s. I use my d500 with the 500mm PF lens mounted to it a lot. When I need less reach, I mount my 300mm PF to it. I use fast frames per second a lot as I like to take bird pictures.

 

For landscapes, and some nature, I use my D810. Lenses include the 70-200mm f4, 300mm PF, 35mm sigma art prime, and the Nikon 16-35mm, and Nikon 20mm prime.

 

If I were a one body shooter, I would buy the D850 and use it in FX or DX. And the other crop factor, 1.2 .

 

Joe

+1 to Dieter's comments. When considering any advantage of "reach" for the D500 over the D810, keep in mind the actual pixel density: Compare a pixel pitch of 4.88μm for the D810 versus 4.22μm for the D500. This means the D500 offers only a very slight advantage of total available pixels for a given sensor surface area, as opposed to a 24 Mp sensor, like the D7200, with a pixel pitch of 3.91μm, making for markedly more pixels for a given sensor surface unit. Now, the D500 has many other advantages for wildlife photography, and they may be worth the investment, but we need to be careful that we don't assume the previously true assumption that an APS-C sensor provides more "reach". By comparison, the D850 , with a pixel pitch of 4.34 µm loses only 3% on pixel density versus the D500, so there's really no reason to choose the D500 over the D850 unless it is in considerations of other issues.

 

I like my 200-500mm/5.6 very much, and it moves between my D810 and D7100 as needed, though it lives mostly on the D7100.

Personally, I’d worry about not having a backup body when I’m a few thousand miles from home. So the D810 plus D500 seems like the “safer” choice just to have a backup.

An APS-C crop from a 36 MP D810 is only 16 MP, compared to 21 MP for the D500. The D500 is half the price ($1500) of a D850 ($3000), and you would have two cameras, keeping the old D810.

 

I'm trying to temper my personal inclinations against what meets the OP's stated purpose for the least amount of money. If this were a reboot, I would advise against any DSLR, in favor of a mirrorless Nikon Z6, Z7 for high resolution, both highly compatible with the existing Nikon lenses. If the lenses had to go too (beyond obsolescence), I'd give Sony a whirl (which is exactly what I decided 5 years ago).

 

The OP must know the difficulty carrying and using a MF system, whether film or digital (now relatively affordable). Among the less desirable attributes are size, weight, no automation, and limited lens choices.

Z6/Z7 only show a real time viewfinder up to 5.5fps; at higher frame rates the Z6/Z7 give only a slide show of past captures, making it very difficult to keep a fast moving subject in the frame. The current Z6/Z7 AF tracking is widely reported to be not competitive for bird-in-flight photography. For static subjects the AF is regarded to work well.

I recently went through the same decision. I shoot architecture and landscapes with D800E, and last year started using a D500 for sports (ice racing, rodeos) & wildlife. I have some thoughts. My D800E has a broken top LCD so isn't worth all that much on the used market. So, I decided to buy a used D850 now that you can snag used ones for just a bit above $2,000 (and I expect price to drop a bit more in September.) The D500 has pretty much instant focus, astonishingly fast compared to the D800E. I've found the D850 to do the same. I'm now going to sell my D500 and keep the D800E as back up. But wait, there's more! A D850 can not only replace the D500, but I can also sell the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lens AND my Nikon Coolscan V, and eventually even my Epson v750 scanner. The D850 can be rigged up to do excellent scanning! So adding the D850 is allowing me to sell off a lot of pieces. I will add that I buy EVERYTHING used and have been doing that for years. The last camera I bought new was a D7100, and I can't remember the last new lens I bought. You can get about $1,000 for your D810. A used D850 is currently about $2,200 and as I said I expect the price to drop a couple hundred more in a month or two as camera "season" winds down a bit.

 

Below photo:

Outlaw Ice Races,

D500 (never once missed focus.)

 

 

Kent in SD

 

Dieter, I am not sure a shutter replacement is much less expensive on a D500 than D850

Most certainly true - I was more considering having to replace the camera rather than just the shutter and the D500 certainly costs a bit less than a D850.

I am not sure a superwide is needed for landscape photography, but Hasselblad make a 21mm

Stand corrected on the "any" - but one sure isn't "many". The OP uses a 16-35 - so I assume he sees value in a superwide. For me personally, there are sufficient occasions to go even wider than 16mm and hence I now own a 12-24 FX lens.

 

Both Ilkka and Kent make excellent points for the acquisition of a D850 - I certainly wouldn't mind exchanging my D810 for a D850 (and probably will at some point). Even then, I doubt I'll give up the D500 then. At this point, trading a D810 for a D850 involves too much cash in the process for me to be worthwhile to consider. I believe Andrew kept his D810 when he acquired the D850 because the trade-in value for the D810 was (too) low.

But when you go out and shoot, do you want to carry two camera bodies?

That's the question the OP has to answer for himself. I provided mine - I do. If only to avoid some lens changes or some fiddling around with camera settings.

 

A used D850 is currently about $2,200 and as I said I expect the price to drop a couple hundred more in a month or two as camera "season" winds down a bit.

I have only seen one used D850 at the local camera store (sadly now closed) - and it was barely discounted from the D850 price new (which at the time had a discount on it).

 

If this were a reboot, I would advise against any DSLR, in favor of a mirrorless

I suggested as much above. I currently have one foot in each camp, not sure I want to make a full transition quite yet (and quite a bit surer that I don't want to call a retreat from the mirrorless front). Currently Sony is certainly a step or two ahead of Nikon especially when it comes to lenses native to the respective mirrorless mount and will play catch-up for some time to come. For the time being, I am taking a wait-and-see approach that will find its natural end when one or more of my cameras cease to function properly. Or way earlier if an opportunity presents itself that's to good to pass up.

Edited July 30, 2019 by Dieter Schaefer

Michael I would go with # 2.

Buy a refurbed or good used D500 if you have a need for speed and Bob's your uncle.

 

In the future consider a good condition fixed focal length long lens and sturdy tripod and action head. I have a 600mm f4 that is fantastically sharp but greatly regret selling my 1st generation 500mm f4 afs that is the perfect carry on. Buying a fixed focal length long lens will really up your game . Good hunting.

...

• Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6
  

The combination of D810 and 80-400mm has served me well on a safari in Africa and on a trip to the Galapagos Islands, where the animals are fairly close, but I have noticed that at the long end the images are not tack sharp and my hit rate could be better...l

Michael, a year ago my options looked the same as yours do (I had the D800E, which is equal to the D810 you have in terms of image quality). After much though and testing, I went with option 3. Here is why that was the right choice for me and my needs/wants.

 

I used the Nikon 16-35 f4 VR, Nikon 24-120 f4 VR, Nikon 70-200 f2.8VRII and the Nikon 300 f2.8VR (the latter with TC-14EIII and TC-20EIII for birds). Reach is a concern for birds and it was my interest in bird photography that got me thinking about an upgrade in the first place. For horses, studio work and general photography I was more than happy with my D800E. Even 5 fps in DX crop mode was ok for birds, but I felt the af could perform better for birds (@600mm f 5.6) and that I wanted more pixels in DX crop mode.

 

A question, which Nikon 80-400mm do you have?

If you have the older version (non-G), consider upgrading that as well. The G-version is noticeably sharper, has faster AF and better VR than the older D-version. Regardless, have you tried AF fine tune at 400 mm? I noted that you have the 500 PF on order, which will sort your long end.

 

In order to help me make my mind up I rented a D500 for a weekend and used it at an airshow. I had previously borrowed a D850 from a friend (who upgraded from the D810 to the D850 - a decision he never regretted.) The D850 proved to be a significant upgrade from my D800E in terms of image quality, af, speed and general handling. The difference in DX crop mode was much greater than I expected it to be. The D800E/D810 are good in DX crop mode but the D500/D850 are significantly better in DX mode. I believe this is also why Option 2 makes much sense and why others have went down that path.

 

The D500 is truly a great camera for birding and I completely understand why birders love it, For me, I noted that I wanted more versatility which made me decide against it. A D850 with a grip would be equal to a D500 for birds and "add the FX advantage" for everything else. Moreover, I wanted to see what Nikon's mirrorless offerings would bring to the table. I was at Nikon's Z-series launch event and quickly experienced that the Z7 was behind the D850 for bird photography (both the EVF, AF speed and its FPS lagged behind). Add to that the lack of a grip (I want a grip for better balance with the 300 f2.8VR.) and I realized that I should either get a D850 and be done with it or add a D500 and later upgrade the D800E to a D850 - and probably sell the D500 at that point. The D850 would stay for years to come, thus I got the D850, grip and D4/5 batteries (and that stupid expensive MH-26 charger - which I fortunately found used). I have not looked back since. It should be noted that I only remove the battery grip for travel photography - like I did with my D800E before.

 

I have since replaced the 70-200 f2.8VRII with Nikons current 70-200 f2.8E FL. It was another costly upgrade that I am yet to regret. Being a birder, I also tested the 500 PF, but noted flare that might be problematic. (It is otherwise an excellent lens that really takes the TC-14EIII well, should one want more reach.) Since reach is key for birds and 500mm would mean even more use of a TC (which slows the AF down and the 2x reduces IQ noticeably), more cropping, I got a used Nikon 600 f4G VR this spring (which I gladly use with the TC-14EIII). A 500mm f4G VR or the 500 PF would also be excellent choices but I can use the workout of handling the 600 f4. I suppose the misty highlands would render any potential PF flare problems moot, so I am sure you will be very happy with it once it arrives.

 

I hope this helps.

Without wanting to muddy the waters with as-yet unreleased cameras, the latest Sony mirrorless 60MPix sensor is thought to be going in the new 'top end' Nikon FX DSLR. Mirrored and/or Mirrorless. This would make the in-camera DX crop notably superior to the DX D500.

 

Sure, for purchases NOW, the OP can only buy available cameras....:)

 

Anyone think Nikon is going to upgrade the D500 to match pixel density?

 

I've currently got a D7200 and a D500......and a D810 and a D850., as back-up pairs. I've noticed I now take out my gripped D850 instead of my D500.

 

Somethings gotta go, so I shall be following this thread intently!

A question, which Nikon 80-400mm do you have?

 

I have the newer G version.

I have the newer G version.

Which is what I had assumed in my answer above. Since I owned the non-G version, I doubt that anyone would be happily using one on a 36MP FX camera body.:oops:

 

Anyone think Nikon is going to upgrade the D500 to match pixel density?

I don't - I think there will be no DSLR D500 successor and am by no means certain that Nikon will even bother with any DX mirrorless (and certainly not one with features that match or exceed those of the D500). I think Nikon barely has the capacity to provide the much needed lenses for the Z-mount and is already strained to come up with any FX camera or lens update; anything DX seems out of the question.

 

D7200 and a D500......and a D810 and a D850 ... Somethings gotta go

That one's easy - get rid of the D7200, D500, and D810 and get a second D850. At the very least, your bag(s) will be lighter:D

as back-up pairs

I really really like it when my backup is the same model as my primary. I like it even more if I actually use my backup camera and not just have it sit in the bag - but I guess that doesn't really make it a backup, just a 2nd body.

 

I shall be following this thread intently

As shall I - there are good arguments for both options 2 and 3.

I am attaching a picture of a Carolina Wren (no cropping and no processing except for slight sharpening in NX-D) I took last evening in my backyard at 7:34 PM about 30 minutes before sunset. Camera was my D 500 and Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF lens. Shooting data: Hand held. ISO 5600 (auto ISO) , 1/500, f 5.6 , EV +.3. VR set to Sport on the lens.

....the latest Sony mirrorless 60MPix sensor is thought to be going in the new 'top end' Nikon FX DSLR.

Crikey. It doesn't seem like five minutes since the D850 came out!

 

And is there really a market for 'single digit' Pro DSLR bodies anymore? 60 Megapixels, a fast frame rate and good high ISO performance doesn't sound a very likely combination. Not with a mirror flapping up and down like a hummingbird's wing as well.