pcassity

Thanks to all for your suggestions and advice!

So, I would have needed an iso around 800 to maintain the 1/2500 shutter speed, correct?

Let me start by saying that I am not a very good birds in flight, or action photographer. But occasionally I'll give it a shot. I'm pretty sure I nailed the focus on this (really ugly) guy this afternoon but upon further inspection I was really disappointed in the amount of noise in the wings. My settings were 1/2500, f5.6, and ISO 160 with my new Nikon 500mm PF. To keep things simple, this is a 1:1 crop with only Lightroom's auto setting applied. Increasing the shadows just made the noise even worse. Color Profile is camera neutral. Sharpening is at a minimum at amount 40 and a radius of 1.0. There is no Noise Reduction applied. Your thoughts and suggestions are greatly appreciated!

Interesting! Nikon Is Killing Its Authorized Repair Program

I was never happy with the noise reduction of the 850. Recently bought the z7 and couldn't be happier! I get shots at iso 3200 and 6400 that I would have discarded with the 850. Still have the 850 but find myself using the z7 + 24-70 f4 for many of those non-flash shots. Cant wait to see how it handles the Milky Way in a few weeks in West Texas.

Here a pic of the info from the z7

I was out last night shooting the moon through the trees, experimenting to see if I could get a shot that allowed both the moon and trees to be reasonably in focus. According to the specs for this lens, the minimum aperture is f32. However, I was able to get f57! When imported into Lightroom, the metadata also indicated f57. I’m sure this must be the affect of the 1.7 TC. So, am I actually looking at a photo shot at f57? By the way, LR and the Z7 indicates the focal length to be 500mm instead of 510mm.

Alan, thanks so much for such a thorough explanation. I’ve had similar questions about the difference in focal length magnification. I’ve also found as other have mentioned how important it is to get as close as possible to one’s subject regardless of focal length. Based on the formulas you have stated above, it would appear that given a distance of 50’ (15.2 meters), and shooting with a 300 mm lens, one would only need to move approximately 3’ closer to the subject to obtain the same magnification as using a 500mm at the same distance. Correct?

As Do I, since I shoot entirely RAW, it really makes no difference if its on or off, though. I am trying to understand how the camera reacts to noise in a jpeg. What I have noticed during some very (unsophisticated) tests is that jpegs straight from the camera, with a normal amount of noise reduction applied, appear to be somewhat cleaner and sharper than images in RAW, and processed in Lightroom.

Can anyone explain the noise reduction process for a Nikon DSLR. I certainly understand that one can chose the level of noise reduction but I am wondering how the electronics of the camera determines when to use it. Or, is there a specific level of noise reduction applied to all jpegs regardless of whether is needs it or not, based on what one has selected? If the camera applies noise reduction, does it increase the sharpening to compensate for any noise reduction applied?

Thanks all! I probably shouldn't have included the information about my brother's photography. As I mentioned and has been emphasized in the responses, there can be numerous reasons why there is a difference in detail, noise, sharpness, etc.. between my shots and his. My main interest was about pixel density and how the 850 compared to the 500. I appreciate your thoughts and explanations and now have a much better understanding!

NetR Thank you. So, if the pixels size for both of these cameras are basically the same, the effective pixel density is (almost) the same for the D850 in crop mode as the D500?

Chulkim, if the pixels of a small frame camera and FF are the same size then you basically answered my original question. However, again as I understand it, the pixels of a small frame camera have to be smaller then a FF pixels in order to fit al of the pixels on the small frame sensor. This is what led me to my original question. The sensor on D500 contains 20mp. How can the cropped area of a D850 contain the same number of pixels, since the pixels are larger? What am I missing?

As I understand it a small frame camera is able to capture more detail than a FF because the pixels are much smaller. A FF performs better at higher ISOs because the pixels are larger. Pixel density is determined by the width and height of the sensor and the total number of pixels. When shooting in crop mode on a FF camera, it would seem that the number of pixels available in the resulting area of sensor would be much less than the same number of pixels in the same area of a small frame camera, thus reducing the pixel density.

I have a question about pixel density. But first let me explain my eventual question. I shoot ocassional wildlife, mostly birds with a D850 and a 200-500mm lens. My brother shoots with a D500 and the same lens. I shoot raw entirely and edit with LR. He shoots jpeg only and edits only with the photo editor on his IPad. His photos literally blow me away in detail, sharpness, and lack of noise. I have recently learned that the pixel density of the D500 is 5.68 compared to the D850 at 5.32, a 7% difference. I understand that there all kinds of variables (shooting technique, tripod vs handheld, etc...) that can affect picture quality. I also understand that even though the pixel density of a small frame camera may be higher, the FF will have the advantage of lower noise since the pixels are larger. My question, finally. Is there a way to determine the pixel density of the D850 when switched to crop mode? Since the size of of the pixels certainly doesn’t change, does shooting in the D850 crop mode significantly reduce pixel density?

Lensrentals shows an available date of 1/04/2019. Any ideas as to what is taking so long?

Has anyone (that has ordered) received they're 500mm f5.6 yet?

Thanks to all. Just changed the canvas size as chulkim described above. Works great! Ed_farmer, I am comparing images using the 1.5 crop mode in the D850 to FX images cropped in Photoshop. Using different lenses and a 1.4 teleconverter. Trying to determine if one method of cropping results in sharper images than another.

Forgive me if this has been asked and answered. I have searched everywhere. Using Photoshop or Lightroom, I want to crop a full frame (36x24) image to the same dimensions of a DX (24x16) image. I know I can easily change the size of the image but that doesn't result in a crop. I want to compare the cropped image using the PS or LR to the same image using the D850's crop feature. Thanks for your help!

i want to replace the collar on my 200-500 but it looks like there is only a couple of options. One from Kirk and the other Really Right Stuff. I’ll be using it on a Manfrotto monopod. Would love to hear what your using and if one better than the other.

Thanks all again for your input. As Rodeo Joe indicates there is a significance WB balance difference between the two cameras. Both in temperature and tint. Again, not having the technical knowledge of the camera as many of you, I always thought raw from one body would be the same as raw from another. Photoshop's Raw converter proves otherwise. I am now able to adjust the WB settings of the 810 to match the 850. Doing so has significantly reduced the oversaturation of greens and reds.

Both cameras are set to Auto1Normal

I certainly don't have the technical knowledge that many of you have expressed. But I thank all for the input. Its been very educational. I thought I would do a quick comparison test to show the differences that I am seeing. Both photos were shot with the the same lens (24-70mm) at 24mm. Using the exact same settings on both cameras. (For those that are examining the EXIF, you will notice the time difference is substantial. They are actually just minutes apart. I need to reset the time on the 810. What I am noticing may just be a difference in white balance. The 810 does, in fact appear to be a bit warmer. I processed both in LR with all settings zeroed out, exported to jpeg.

After using the D850 for over 6 months now, I am noticing significant differences in color accuracy between it and my D810. Which, actually, I noticed immediately after purchasing. I use both cameras on a daily basis in my Real Estate Photography work. I shoot everything in RAW and process in Lightroom. In the beginning, I wasn't happy with the differences as the 810 appeared to have more contrast and much more vibrancy (saturation?) in its colors. However, I have now begun to realize that, in fact the difference is a result of the improved accuracy of the D850, especially in these areas which I really have begun to appreciate!. Specifically, reds and greens. In the past I have owned numerous bodies, going all the way back to the D70. I have used two bodies at all times during the last 8 years and there was never a difference as there appears to be with the D850. Has anyone else noticed these differences? I would suppose that it isn't just a difference between the 810 and 850 but probably the 850 and previous Nikon DSLR bodies.

Been shooting Real Estate for 8 years now. Lots of good tips here - Photography For Real Estate The 18-35 is fine. I use the 24 PC-E for all my exterior shots and the 12-24 for my interiors. Look for Scott Hargis on the photography for real estate site. He is absolutely the expert! HDR is fine as a tool. No reason not to use it. It can take care of a lot of your exposure and lighting issues. Photomatix now has Architecture presets that make processing a lot easier. I export all of my raw files from LR to Photomatix and then apply an auto white balance. The new auto tone control on LR is amazing. It has taken the place of many of the LR presets I have developed over the years. Good luck!