heimbrandt

Rodeo_joe, I aim to base my replies on input given by the original poster and the original poster’s needs rather than my way of doing things and my needs. There are multiple ways of achieveing indoor photos with a neutral colour balance. I do not always use the same method and I therefore presented an alternative way to achieve that. Since 10974017 first claimed everything worked well with the DX camera and then concluded the problem was most visible with the FX camera up close, could you elaborate on why the flash itself is underpowered for the OP’s use on FX up close since it is not on FX from a distance?

I doubt flash output power is the problem since it worked satisfactory with the D7100. Since the FX D750 should manage with less flash power (better at high ISO) I suggested adding a gel to the flash. I have not looked at any EXIF data to get an idea of how close to the flash’s maximum output the OP might be. I know the ”general rule” says gel the most powerful lightsource when using lights of different colour temperature, In the OP’s case, that is really not an option hence my recommendation to gel the flash.

Another option is to gel the flash and colour balance it to the ambient light. The SB-700 comes with colour balance filters and it knows when you attach which filter and it adjusts the white balance accordingly on your camera when your white balance is set to auto or flash.

A happy new year to all of you! The photo is taken last month in the Botanical Garden in Uppsala. Nikon D850, AF50/1.8D

Erik, if you want to use just one camera for everything, the D850 is your obvious upgrade. I thought long and hard about getting either a D500 or a D4S as a second camera for my D800E. I ended up getting the D850 with the grip and three D4/5 batteries. I sold the D800E and get by just fine with a single D850. If I know I would really need two bodies for something in particular, I can rent or borrow a second camera. Like the MB-D12, the MB-D18 has grown on me and I only remove it when I am on vacation and do not want to carry more than necessary. Two spare EN-EL15s keeps me going for long then. The D500 will be an upgrade from your D810 for sports (better af, frame rate - and resolution if you crop somewhat today) but not much else. For landscape and low light work it is a step back. This holds true for the D7200 as well which has higher resolution but less advanced af than the D500. However, the D7200 is the only alternative with a built-in flash. The D850 will be as good as the D500 for sports and outshine your D810 in all areas as an everyday camera. That is why it gets my vote (and got my money). The only trade-off was that I lost a built-in flash (I barely used), everything else was improved upon. My take on the larger view but smaller magnification on the D850 vs the D500: The larger view really is a noticeable improvement and as I photograph non-predictable subjects (birds) it is more usefull than a higher magnification of a smaller view. However, if you photograph predictably moving subjects the higher magnification is preferable. The D850 is already a step up in terms of magnification from the D810. Add the Nikon DK-17M and you get a 1.2 magnification, which would correspond to a 0.9 magnification. This could also be added to the D500 but there is no way to see more than what ends up on the memory card. (I would advice against using crop modes on DX-cameras.) If you end up with a D850 and a D7200 both can use all iterations of the EN-EL15 batteries.

There are advantages to EVFs, no doubt. A feature I really like about the D850 is the split screen zoom in live view. It appears that it was a new feature with the D810. I have not seen many reviewers comment on it when they tested the D810 and the D850. The same goes for user comments about it beeing used. I guess people either do not like it or maybe even do not know about it. Mr. Kasson’s post made me think he might to appreciate it on a DSLR (perhaps used with a hood). Not sure what I am talking about? Here is the NPS page describing the feature: D810 TIPS | Technical Solutions | Nikon Professional Services I feel that since I am able to use that for landscape and close-up work (with my PC-E lens), I kind of get the best of both worlds.

I think you will be happy with the UHS-II card from Sony. Keep looking for an XQD card though. I have a Sony XQD card and really appreciate it both for shooting and image file transfer (with the cheap Sony XQD/SD UHS-II card reader - yes, sometimes things are cheap in Sweden). I kept the UHS-I SanDisk Extreme Pro when I sold my D800E and have it in the other card slot. When comparing write speeds, the XQD clears the buffer significantly faster. The same goes for file transfer. I do not think I would be that happy with the UHS-I performance only, so the added speed from a UHS-II card should be enough to keep you happy. My Sony XQD is my first non-SanDisk in years but it appears to do the job well.

I would say getting the AF-S 24-120/4 VR for €455 sounds like an easy decision. I got mine for use with a D610 and still use it on the D850. While not as good as more expensive options, you cannot go wrong with it for the price asked.

Nikon D850, AF-S 70-200/2.8VRII

To me the D850’s main selling point is that it replaces both a D500 and a D800E/D810 (on which it improves on) in a single body. While the Z7 would offer VR for all lenses, it does so with a trade-off in both af, speed and viewfinder (for fast moving action). If you will keep the D500, that may matter less and even giving you more shooting options by adding the Z7. I neither need nor want multiple bodies and thus went for the ”do-everything” D850.

I had a D800 and soon realised the D800E would offer a noticeable improvment in image quality. I got my D800 for a steal and sold it for much more than I paid for it. That helped me justify getting a D800E in mint condition with warranty. The D810 was still much more expensive and only offered slightly better af (for me). While I tought I could be happy with the D800E for years, I still felt its af could be better (for birds and indoor show jumping) and that I often wanted to be able to crop slightly more than its DX mode would allow for. I took a long hard look at both the D850 and the D500. Borrowed the D850 for a week and rented a D500 for a weekend. As I only wanted one camera I decided to go for the D850. Or so I thought; Nikon had revealed the Z6/7 and I felt I had to wait until I could get my hands on a Z7 to see for myself if I should get the D850 or the Z7. Ibis was really appealing since it would give me VR with non-stabilized lenses (stabilized super teles really do cost a lot more than non-VR glass do). The Z7’s better live view af mean it could finally be useful for video. It took one pan, following a taxi, to realize the evf was not for me. If I was to use that for flying birds with foliage backgrounds or jumping horses in indoor arenas, I would get dizzy. I checked the available settings but could not get past the limits of the evf. While I am not a huge fan of Nikon’s 3D tracking, I still find it nice to have. Add to that the unknown release date for the battery pack (I do not call it grip as it will not have a trigger). I often use my camera on a gimbal head and appreciate both the vertical trigger and the added weight from the battery grip. I liked the Z7, but for my intended use, the D850 was still the better choice. Since I knew what the D850 was capable of, I got one, a grip, some D4/5 batteries and was lucky enough to find a used MH-26 charger for clone charger money. I have not looked back at the Z-series since. While I would love have stabilization on my PC-E85/2.8D it really is a tripod lens once you use tilt. Video? Well yes af could be a lot better but I really do not use my camera much for video. I like the D850, it gets the job done all the time and I feel confident that I will still like in a couple of years from now. I still feel I made the right choice. However, if fast moving action is not your cup of tea, a Z7 might make more sense or even be the better choice. Both are highly capable cameras.

If your flash only accepts 7 mm shafts, look at Elinchrom umbrellas. They only use 7 mm shafts and come in a wide variety.

Which 70-200 Nikkor lens do you have? The current 2.8E FL version is much better than the first 2.8 version. For close-ups, my 2.8G VRII (version 2) is not ideal due to its focus breathing (@200 mm and minimum focus distance it is more like 135 mm than 200 mm). If your 24mm is not wide enough, the 14-24 makes sense. I went for the AF-S 16-35/4 VR which was cheaper but still gets the job done well on my D850. I currently have 85 mm in three lenses; 70-200/2.8 VRII, 24-120/4 VR and Micro-Nikkor PC-E 85/2.8D. I sold the 85/1.8G before I got the PC-E. I have since considered an 85/1.4 but could not really justify getting a fourth lens in the same focal lenght. It may be the excuse I ”need” to justify getting a 105/1.4G... The 85/1.8G is very good. I did not care much for reviewers’ complaints about chromatic aberration as that is easily fixable in post. It really is excellent value for money. How serious about macro are you? Would a high quality close-up filter (B+W or Canon) be enough or could a second hand hand 105/2.8 VR be an alternative? I am with Shun; wait a while untill you know what you will have the most use for.

I really like the idea of a Df as a second body. While I am not a fan of its low resolution as an only camera, its combination of small file size and low light capabilities does make perfect sense as a second camera. Its AF is adequate and I am confident it would encourage me to use older manual focus lenses more. Having said that, a Df2 would lower the prices on used Dfs.:)

On my way north a few weeks ago I drove past Lake Bergviken in central Sweden. The mountains where not high at all, but the clouds were very low. Nikon D850, AF-S 16-85/4VR

So, no one longer believes in a D5s before the D6?

Dog week, is it? Well,I will bite. A friend just got a new puppy the other week. Meet Stella: Nikon D850 with AF-S 70-200/2.8VRII and Elinchrom lighting

More or less is relative. I would use less to describe a viewfinder that lags when you pan (and has parts in the image that move fast, such as the wheels on a car) and a viewfinder that always superimpose some information over the image. In my book the Z7 still has some basics to sort out before I call its viewfinder really good. (I am not blaming Nikon as much as I note that we still have a long way to go before mirrorless is truly better than DSLRs in all respects.)

Anthony, the autofocusing system on your EOS 1200D is more than what you need in terms of af requirements for air shows. Airplanes do not stress af systems that much. Any cross-type af-sensor system would do. I would even say, that it is still one area where ”ancient” af systems would still hold their own against modern cameras. I agree that with pre-focusing, you could even use manual focus. Birds however are a completely different subject... I am with Ken and Gary; give us more insight to your settings.

I still use a tripod but not as often as I used to. I have three; a small Gorillapod that I bring on holidays (lately, I have realised that it can also double as a light stand for fixing an Elinchrom head to a tree). I have a medium sized tripod with a heavy duty camera head for landscape, night and closeup or tilt/shift work. The third is a heavy duty tripod with a gimbal head that I use for my super telephoto lens when I shoot birds. (That also doubles as a tripod for my spotting scope when I go birdwatching. The gimbal head is great for spotting scopes, but I have only met one fellow birdwatcher who uses a gimbal head for supporting their spotting scope.) I also have a heavy duty monopod with a tilt head that I use occasionally with longer glass or raised fully extended above my head when I want a different perspective with a wide-angle lens.

BeBu, autofocus and battery life for starters. For some, that is more than enough.