D850 vs. Df - in real life

[mike_halliwell]

Perhaps your Df is different than all four cameras I've used, but I doubt it.

The only difference, as someone reminded me of somewhere above, is that the Df is the only one NOT to do video.

 

Maybe, somehow, that matters here?

[tonybeach_1961]

The only difference, as someone reminded me of somewhere above, is that the Df is the only one NOT to do video.

 

Maybe, somehow, that matters here?

Neither my D300 nor the A850 I owned does video.

[raczoliver]

In real world usage it's a very marginal issue. I stress test to see what I normally won't see so that I can avoid having unforeseen issues arise in the real world.

 

No kidding, I used the bicycle light that I do night riding with at its brightest setting, and put it right against the rubber eyepiece. Hardly representative of any situation I could realistically find myself taking pictures in.

[tonybeach_1961]

In real world usage it's a very marginal issue. I stress test to see what I normally won't see so that I can avoid having unforeseen issues arise in the real world.

No kidding, I used the bicycle light that I do night riding with at its brightest setting, and put it right against the rubber eyepiece. Hardly representative of any situation I could realistically find myself taking pictures in.

Yep, I also used my bicycle light and shined it right into the viewfinder. It is notable to me how much of a difference there is between my D500 and my D800 when doing this. It's also not completely unlike what might happen if a car's headlights came up behind me and hit the back of the viewfinder for a few seconds while doing a long exposure, which would be one of those unforeseen issues arising.

[mike_halliwell]

Neither my D300 nor the A850 I owned does video.

I was more referring to modern era DSLRs built AFTER video had become a universal inclusion for them.

 

I just looked, the D300 came out in August 2007, that's 14yrs ago now! The Sony was 2 years later.

[mike_halliwell]

It's also not completely unlike what might happen if a car's headlights came up behind me and hit the back of the viewfinder for a few seconds while doing a long exposure, which would be one of those unforeseen issues arising.

Very true! I was shooting the Perseids about 3 years ago from a remote pull-in at the side of a rarely used road, and sure enough at about 01.45, a car came past on main-beam, full of drunk partygoers trying to take the tiny backroads home to avoid the police checks. That frame was spoiled, although AFAIK, it didn't have a meteor streak.;)

Edited March 2, 2021 by mike_halliwell

[kevin_beretta]

A follow up to my original post ... point taken that the two cats were probably not the best test subjects etc. So today I popped the D850 and the Df on the tripod. All shots taken with the 85 1.4G Nikkor, 1/100s for the girl and 1/400s for the boy, f/1.4, ISO100, Auto WB, sharpness 0, lens AF fine tune completed on both cameras, processed with Capture One V12.

 

I can't really tell a whole lot of difference on my 1920 monitor, but on the 4K monitor it makes a world of difference. The D850 digs out more info from the faces for sure, but I still find the pictures made with the Df more pleasing to the eye. One thing that was an eye opener is the difference in white balance for the silver mannequin with both set to auto ... quite different.

 

Would love to hear your feedback.

 

D850 left, Df right

 

D850 left, Df right (zoom)

 

D850 left, Df right

D850 left, Df right (zoom)

[rodeo_joe1]

One thing that was an eye opener is the difference in white balance for the silver mannequin with both set to auto

And that's why auto white-balance isn't always a good idea.

 

What happens if you set a custom white balance on both cameras using the same white surface as reference?

[kevin_beretta]

 

What happens if you set a custom white balance on both cameras using the same white surface as reference?

I could try that but everything is already packed away :-)

[q.g._de_bakker]

I don't think the comparison between the two shows anything that would make me prefer one over the other. Except, that is, the higher resolution of the D850.

The rest will easily disappear by tweaking some settings or in post, without destroying anything.

 

But does it matter? You bought the DF and find it is a good buy. So just enjoy!

[kevin_beretta]

But does it matter? You bought the DF and find it is a good buy. So just enjoy!

Oh absolutely. I am a little amazed that a much older Df holds its own this well against a D850. The D850 is really a great piece of kit. It replaced my D700 and then some. The one thing I thoroughly dislike about the D850 is the horrible battery life, or at least, the fact that it drains when it's "off", no matter what you do or shut off wifi, LE BlueTooth and what not. The D700 I could leave for weeks and the battery level would not shift. The D850 drains about 5-7% per week. Of course, the "official" measurement is to shoot a ton of pictures in one sitting, and there it's fine. But shooting here and there over longer periods, like when traveling, is not so good.

 

The Df gives me the following:

- incredible low light performance (the D850 is not too good)

- smaller

- lighter

- smaller file sizes

- long battery life (400 pictures in on a full charge over the last week and still have 4 bars of battery!)

 

I also find the pictures it creates more pleasing to the eye. In the pics above I find the difference significant enough but maybe beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

[Nick D.]

the pictures it creates more pleasing to the eye.

That's all that matters.:)

[tonybeach_1961]

 

The Df gives me the following:

- incredible low light performance (the D850 is not too good)

I'm not sure what you are basing this on. If you size the D850's output to match the Df's output then they should be practically indistinguishable. DxO Mark and Bill Claff both confirm that. I would go farther than the published comparisons though and point out that you can sharpen a higher resolution file less and apply more NR to it while retaining acuity than you can with a lower resolution file.

 

I suspect your issue is related to your last point.

I also find the pictures it creates more pleasing to the eye. In the pics above I find the difference significant enough but maybe beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

For one thing, it's been my experience that you will never get the Picture Controls the same between them, regardless of what Raw converter you use. My approach with my cameras is to generally start with a bland conversion and then manipulate it to suit my tastes using curves in Photoshop. I stopped comparing A to B cameras when I moved on from my D300 to a Sony A850, and when I came back to the D800 I didn't even give it a second thought and just learned to get the most out of what I had.

 

If you like the Df more than the D850, great, no one else can tell you otherwise. Speaking for myself, I would rather shoot with a D850 or with my D800 than a Df or any other camera for that matter. To each their own.

[kevin_beretta]

I'm not sure what you are basing this on. If you size the D850's output to match the Df's output then they should be practically indistinguishable. DxO Mark and Bill Claff both confirm that. I would go farther than the published comparisons though and point out that you can sharpen a higher resolution file less and apply more NR to it while retaining acuity than you can with a lower resolution file.

Simple physics really. The pixel area in the Df is far greater (about 2.5 times if I remember correctly). The bigger the pixel, the better the signal to noise ratio and the higher the dynamic range. More smaller pixels (D850) gives you higher resolution. Simply trying this out proves the point. A 6400 ISO picture on the D850 in a dimly lit room is a mess and from the Df it's quite workable. Sharpening at 0 and NR don't make the difference I think you would be after. The NR is Capture One for instance is far more advanced than say Lightroom but even there the limit is quickly reached before you end up with smeared pictures from the D850. Even 400 ISO on the D850 starts to get a little noisy if you look at things on a 4K monitor.

 

The D850 is unbeatable in well-lit situations but higher ISO is not its strength.

Edited March 3, 2021 by kevin_beretta

[mike_halliwell]

The bigger the pixel, the better the signal to noise ratio and the higher the dynamic range.

Humm, sensor age is a factor here, not just physics..

 

Nikon Df vs Nikon D850 vs

 

Interestingly the Z6 seems to be the 'best' high ISO Nikon camera.

[BeBu Lamar]

Oh absolutely. I am a little amazed that a much older Df holds its own this well against a D850. The D850 is really a great piece of kit. It replaced my D700 and then some. The one thing I thoroughly dislike about the D850 is the horrible battery life, or at least, the fact that it drains when it's "off", no matter what you do or shut off wifi, LE BlueTooth and what not. The D700 I could leave for weeks and the battery level would not shift. The D850 drains about 5-7% per week. Of course, the "official" measurement is to shoot a ton of pictures in one sitting, and there it's fine. But shooting here and there over longer periods, like when traveling, is not so good.

 

The Df gives me the following:

- incredible low light performance (the D850 is not too good)

- smaller

- lighter

- smaller file sizes

- long battery life (400 pictures in on a full charge over the last week and still have 4 bars of battery!)

 

I also find the pictures it creates more pleasing to the eye. In the pics above I find the difference significant enough but maybe beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

 

I think if you resize the D850 images down to 16MP the noise is about the same as the Df if not even better.

[tonybeach_1961]

Simple physics really. The pixel area in the Df is far greater (about 2.5 times if I remember correctly). The bigger the pixel, the better the signal to noise ratio and the higher the dynamic range.

That applies to comparing pixels, but not to the same area of the sensor.

More smaller pixels (D850) gives you higher resolution. Simply trying this out proves the point. A 6400 ISO picture on the D850 in a dimly lit room is a mess and from the Df it's quite workable. Sharpening at 0 and NR don't make the difference I think you would be after.

I've done the comparisons using DPR's studio scene, and up to about ISO 12800 the D850 actually does better.

The NR is Capture One for instance is far more advanced than say Lightroom but even there the limit is quickly reached before you end up with smeared pictures from the D850. Even 400 ISO on the D850 starts to get a little noisy if you look at things on a 4K monitor.

Here's DPR's studio scene at ISO 12800, both camera's files processed with NX-D using the same NR settings:

 

 

Guess which one is the Df and which one is the D850.

The D850 is unbeatable in well-lit situations but higher ISO is not its strength.

Compared to the Df it does just fine if you are comparing the same sized output. In fact, from what I see above at DPR's studio scene the D850 soundly beats the Df.

 

I would welcome you pulling your cameras back out and finding a test target that includes fine detail and shooting them both under controlled light (probably not the case with DPR's studio scene, but that was a quick comparison that I just did) using the same settings, much as you did before, at ISO 12800 and then making the Raw files available for us to see.

Edited March 4, 2021 by tonybeach_1961

[Dieter Schaefer]

And that's why auto white-balance isn't always a good idea.

Both the Df and the D850 have different options to set AutoWB that can be selected in the menu. So simply setting to AutoWB may not have both cameras at the same setting.

[Sandy Vongries]

Say what you will - I've lived with and used the Df since the spring of 2014. It delivers some very fine images. Hard to quantify what the differences are, but they are superior, despite tech advances and more MP. The color rendition is frequently extraordinary.

[tonybeach_1961]

Hard to quantify what the differences are, but they [presumably, Df files compared to D850 files] are superior,

I would say that's your opinion, which of course you are entitled to, but it's not a fact (which is how you stated it).

[rodeo_joe1]

The bigger the pixel, the better the signal to noise ratio and the higher the dynamic range.

Not really. 'Old' sensors aren't as good as newer generations. For example, there's no way that my 12 megapixel D700 can tackle low light as well as my 36mp D800 can. And that D800 is in turn put to shame at high ISO speeds by my 60mp Sony a7Riv.

 

BSI technology trumps bigger pixels.

 

Dynamic range hasn't really related to photosite size since CCDs became obsolete, and in any case is now far greater than is demanded by most subjects; at least on most recent digital cameras - like made in the last decade.

[Nick D.]

Hard to quantify what the differences are

I had the same thing when I had Canon 1D3 and 6D. 6D had newer sensor with twice more pixels, but somehow pictures from 1D3 were looking better in my opinion.

[Sandy Vongries]

Depends on weather or not you like the output from a particular camera, how much you want to do in post, in my case, maybe nothing or nearly nothing. It isn't about pixel peeking - the Df is not equal even to my D810 in that respect. Comes down to the fact that I like most of the photos I take with it. They work for me. There are times when even my ancient D2x produces color, not necessarily "correct" except in respect to the result I wanted, that is marvelous. I think it is a question of becoming accustomed to a tool set and employing it to meet your individual photographic requirements.

[tonybeach_1961]

• weather [sic] or not you like the output from a particular camera,
  
• how much you want to do in post,
  
• Comes down to the fact that I like most of the photos I take with it.
  
• They work for me.
  

I just wanted to underline where you have expressed your opinions as opposed to facts. There's nothing wrong with differences of opinion, and all I'm saying is that I wouldn't have said a word if in your earlier post you had simply written, "In my opinion..."

[Sandy Vongries]

I just wanted to underline where you have expressed your opinions as opposed to facts. There's nothing wrong with differences of opinion, and all I'm saying is that I wouldn't have said a word if in your earlier post you had simply written, "In my opinion..."

It is quite clear from my diction in both cases that I was expressing personal opinion.