Comment by KineticLensman | Hacker News Reader

Comment by KineticLensman | Hacker News Reader

> The better cell phone cameras get, the more frustrated I get with their limitations — and the more I recognize how much better a dedicated camera is for those situations

Totally agree, as a long time DSLR user.

Six months ago I bought a Nikon D850 – which has 45 Megapixels (8526 x 5504) at a full-frame resolution, allowing aggressive image cropping if I need it. I often use a 200-500mm lens. If I switch the camera to a cropped sensor mode I get a 1.5 x increase in effective focal length (i.e., 850mm) while still getting a 24 mPx (5408 x 4584) image. The D850 also has very low sensor noise, which makes shooting in low light a pleasure.

If I want an image of some friends for a typical social media application, then, yes, I will use my smartphone and get something that is usually good enough. But, for my main application - wildlife photography – there is just no comparison. I want to be able to see the detail of the individual feathers on a bird. And now I’ve gone up the learning curve, unless I make some stupid mistake, the camera will always get a shot if there is one to be had, not let the opportunities slip away because I can’t control the focusing or similar.

[Edit] The D850 also has a tolerable DSLR video capability, although video autofocus sucks a bit. Shooting video at HD resolution, it has some very impressive live view focusing guides (sharp objects are highlighted in red) and a live histogram display. HD or 4K video with a 850-effective mm lens is truly awesome. The newer mirrorless Nikons (Z series) are functionally very similar from a video perspective.

Also, if I want a stunningly fast burst mode for 'small' (1920 x 1080) JPEG-quality images, I can use slow-mo video to get 120 frames per second.

If you're running in DX crop all the time, consider a D500. The sensor's smaller, sure, but I don't have noise problems at ISO 2000, and the blazing fast shutter has caught a lot of jump shots I'd probably otherwise have missed. I do use a D850 for macro work, but I wouldn't replace the D500 for wildlife. (Or the 200-500, which is amazing, even if it does make people think I must be a pro and lead to being annoyed with questions when I'm just trying to take pictures of birds.)

edit: Doesn't have the D850's focus peaking in live view, though, as far as I know. I never use it for that, so better off checking the manual.

All fair points. I could only afford one camera body to replace my ageing D3s, and I do use FX for other applications, so the D850 was my choice.

Focus peaking for video is amazing: you can move the focus from the foreground to the horizon and literally see a wave of red 'in-focus' tracking up the frame. For video, I'm a complete convert to live-view.

[Edit]. With practice, focus peaking makes it possible to track a moving animal (e.g. a squirrel approaching you across the ground) using manual focusing, without any of the dreaded auto-focus-hunting that can completely wreck a clip. You just have to learn instinctively which way to rotate the lens to move the plane of focus closer or further away.

A video tripod head also helps, so that you can pan and elevate the camera with one hand while focusing with the other. With a normal tripod head, that has separate locks for panning and elevating, simultaneously moving and focusing requires three hands.

How are you liking the 200-500? I was considering getting one.

The 200-500 is stunning, for its price point; I'm really pleased with it. I much prefer it to the 80-400.

I borrowed a friends 80-400 for a day, and it was big and heavy, but I loved the shots I was able to get from it. I purchased the 200-500 when it came out, and some of my favorite photos I've ever taken came out of it. I havent compared them directly, but from memory the 200-500 feels lighter. The 200-500 is great for the money I think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com