You've got no gear at all - Would you get a 5DMKIV or D850

I know the d850 is better overall camera than the canon 5dsr but which has better image quality?

I don't consider those 2 as competing products. If you just want to look at resolution, sure, but if you want to look at the overall package, then it would have to be the 5D4.

Of those, I’d choose the D850

If image quality was the only criteria and budget is not at all, I’d go Medium Format. It’s totally a whole new world. Just like film 35mm and MF.

I produce ok results with a 10? Year old Nikon D300 too.

Photo from ImageMaker...'s gallery.
Image hosted by forum (899598)

Life long canon user here checking to say D850.

It's important to be honest.

Studio shots are less demanding than many other kinds of photography, it would seem. When you have total control over subject movement, timing, and lighting, any camera with good glass can get the shot provided the photographer knows what they are doing.

That isn't the differentiator many are looking for when comparing models. It is more about demanding situations like high DR scenes, low light/high ISO, low light AF, AF speed and modes, sports, wildlife, erratic kids, drama presentations, etc.

Wouldn't you agree? I have always tried to understand why studio shots (sometimes even post processed and airbrushed) are used as examples of how good old or new camera models are. I feel I am missing something or am not appreciative about the complications of studio shooting?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18563500
Studio shots are less demanding than many other kinds of photography, it would seem. When you have total control over subject movement, timing, and lighting, any camera with good glass can get the shot provided the photographer knows what they are doing.

That isn't the differentiator many are looking for when comparing models. It is more about demanding situations like high DR scenes, low light/high ISO, low light AF, AF speed and modes, sports, wildlife, erratic kids, drama presentations, etc.

Wouldn't you agree? I have always tried to understand why studio shots (sometimes even post processed and airbrushed) are used as examples of how good old or new camera models are. I feel I am missing something or am not appreciative about the complications of studio shooting?

I think you have Made the point. Post processing extends the life of any camera. I’ve got an old noisy Sony 3mpixel point and shoot that looks great too.

No need to join the annual camera body subscription upgrade service.

If you like, You can leap frog generations of bodies these days shooting RAW. Medium Format for max DR... if needed. Return on investment differs greatly with business vs hobbies.

Skill matters more than camera. That’s what I see looking all over the photo world.

Same with expensive lighting.

https://fstoppers.com …otography-lighting-216089

If resolution is something your after the Fuji GFX is probably the cheapest way to get into a huge sensor. I'm not interested in that kind of high res as I'm more into events photography and family documentation.

I'll admit I'm incredibly happy with my 5dmk4 as I do not need to buy any special lenses as I own most of the focal lengths that suites my style.

If I had zero gear it would be a toss up between D850 and 5d4. Based on pure specs the D850 is a "better" camera body with more versatility as a relatively high MP camera body with great electronics to provide fast AF and high iso performance. When I was dumping 5grand Canadian $$ on my 5d4 was honestly shaking my head as the D850 was virtually sitting right next to it!!!! I fully understand gear whore and GAS behavior and I wanted the D850 as I purchased the 5dmk4 purely knowing "specs".

In the end in good lighting and semi challenging light I love my crop sensor 80D and Fuji X-t2. I enjoy my 5d3 and 5d4 just as much for casual documentation but it's definitely my goto system for full frame performance.

Studio photography I think you can get away with almost any camera even old tech.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18563500
Studio shots are less demanding than many other kinds of photography, it would seem. When you have total control over subject movement, timing, and lighting, any camera with good glass can get the shot provided the photographer knows what they are doing.

That isn't the differentiator many are looking for when comparing models. It is more about demanding situations like high DR scenes, low light/high ISO, low light AF, AF speed and modes, sports, wildlife, erratic kids, drama presentations, etc.

Wouldn't you agree? I have always tried to understand why studio shots (sometimes even post processed and airbrushed) are used as examples of how good old or new camera models are. I feel I am missing something or am not appreciative about the complications of studio shooting?

I completely agree with your point, Cary.

But I realize the difficulty in using non-studio images for camara IQ comparisons.

Why is it difficult?

Because the sample shot taken by one camera has to be precisely repeatable when taking the same shot with the other camera. . The images used to compare cameras must be taken in scientifically controlled conditions in order to utterly and entirely eliminate any variable other than the camera and lens used.

When one is outside, the ambient light can change by tiny little increments without a human even being able to notice the change. Hence, even on clear days, shots taken a minute or two apart may have very slight variance, which would deem the comparison to be "tainted".

With playing kids, sports, or moving wildlife, the subject will move so that one cannot exactly repeat the shot with different cameras.

And so we see that the photos that most of us take in real life are those that cannot be exactly replicated a moment or two later. There is bound to be some minute, almost imperceptible change, which makes the comparison invalid, if judging it on a scientific basis.

So, while such comparisons as you suggest would be very useful to us on a practical, "real life" basis, we must also recognize that on a purely scientific basis they would largely be deemed inviable. . And most of the highly regarded review sites base their tests on the proper employment of the scientific method, in which variables are not supposed to be tolerated.

.

I just did this switch sort of except I went D750. I no longer do photography in the business sense. So I wanted to start over and get a system for my travels with family, some ok weather sealing etc. Nikon was the way to go for me. Their 50mm 1.8 is way better built etc than the canon equivalent. This little cam is a beast!!! And trust me I've had some of Canons Best bodies (1D3s, 1DIII, 1DIV,5D3,5D,7D,etc etc)


So my answer would easily be D850!

I just did some double and triple checking.

Really wanted to confirm this first.

I can confirm that for over a hundred years Pros took damn good pics with whatever they used.

None of them waited until 2018 to arrive and come up with excuses that if they only had the latest greatest they could accomplish what they’ve done.

They never sweated IQ, Studio, outdoors, tomorrows Tech, rain and even did great stuff on the moon. Pros earned... $Millions were earned. Even today.

So yeah. The best camera is the one you have. Not the next one on the camera subscription replacement program.

There is no best camera digital or film. Just the one you have in your hands.

All else is marketing. That’s the program whereby they separate you from your money with dreams of pixels, DR, IQ and all that Rubish. Or even Just bragging rights.

My recommendation is get a camera and have a ton of fun learning. Start with film even..! You’ll learn not to shotgun your camera around hoping one pic might turn out half way decent.

I started with 35mm film then MF. Only with MF and 12 pics per roll did I actually really really begin learning photography. I was humbled to my knees. Everything I thought I knew was absolutely wrong. Every shot mattered - never wasted. Each had purpose.

Learning is never ending. For Me Anyway.

Develop a vision, set goals, even manual focus & manual exposure, compose, think, do it right in camera, watching the budget. Seeing light or designing it for a shoot for literally the first time is amazing. Then it gets creative and fun. Learn the basics and all the rules - then toss the rules out.

My composing improved vastly only because I was looking at the scene backwards. Wow did I learn.

The best gear is what you have. Guaranteed.

Angmo wrote in post #18564636
They never sweated IQ, Studio, outdoors, tomorrows Tech, rain . . .

Actually, we did sweat this stuff decades and decades ago, just like we do today.

Don't you remember all of the magazine's Submission Guidelines that said they would summarily reject any images taken on film higher than 100 ASA? . How about those rejection letters, citing "insufficient detail" as the reason for rejection - and then you'd see the cover image that they did accept and it was sharper and had more resolved detail than the ones you submitted ..... IQ mattered very much "back then" in the 1980s and 1990s.

What in the world makes you think that the photographers of yesteryear didn't sweat IQ? . You must be into revisionist history, because IQ was at the forefront of many of the Submission Guidelines of the world's top publications.

Gear matters. . Vision matters more, but gear is actually a very important part of the equation for certain types of photography done in certain unfavorable conditions, especially so when one is competing against other photographers who shoot the same stuff with the latest and greatest, and the photo buyers are looking at images at 100% on 5k monitors.

When 200 photographers all submit great content and compelling, dynamic compositions, and the buyer can only pick one or two to publish, whose work do you think gets selected? . Yup. . The guy whose images had impeccable IQ.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18564750
Actually, we did sweat this stuff decades and decades ago, just like we do today.

Don't you remember all of the magazine's Submission Guidelines that said they would summarily reject any images taken on film higher than 100 ASA? . How about those rejection letters, citing "insufficient detail" as the reason for rejection - and then you'd see the cover image that they did accept and it was sharper and had more resolved detail than the ones you submitted ..... IQ mattered very much "back then" in the 1980s and 1990s.

What in the world makes you think that the photographers of yesteryear didn't sweat IQ? . You must be into revisionist history, because IQ was at the forefront of many of the Submission Guidelines of the world's top publications.

Gear matters. . Vision matters more, but gear is actually a very important part of the equation for certain types of photography done in certain unfavorable conditions, especially so when one is competing against other photographers who shoot the same stuff with the latest and greatest, and the photo buyers are looking at images at 100% on 5k monitors.

When 200 photographers all submit great content and compelling, dynamic compositions, and the buyer can only pick one or two to publish, whose work do you think gets selected? . Yup. . The guy whose images had impeccable IQ.

.

Those are publishers or whomevers requirements. Not sweat.

Pick the best one? By picking it.

I do hope you get the point. Marketing by manufacturers don’t mean much. All that marketing fluff folks parrot. IQ..... Boring. Lots of marketing and other “stuff” tells folks what to think and say. I like to think for myself.

If gear matters so much, the best photographer and camera will never exist. So, I respectfully Gotta disagree... I just don’t buy it.

Well... that’s the internet and marketing indoctrination. I just enjoy the craft. Exciting to see it evolve. However, nothing replaces skill. What would? Luck?

It’s a question of what camera to buy. I guess OP will have spend over $100k to get this week’s best IQ Techy box of marketing fluff, only to be a laughing stock the week after for owning an antique. All for his kids 3rd birthday party to post his jpegs online at 256 bits.

thing is in 3 years from now another camera will be out and everyone will be bagging the ones you are talking about as not up to date etc etc etc

for the record Id go the canon but mainly because of the L lenses and the canon ergonomics

Canon.

TS-E 17mm. period.

And 400 DO II. I'd miss that too.

Plus if you don't like Canon DR, you can always get a used Sony for landscapes and use the Canon lenses. Actually that might be my next camera. Why get a 5DIV for the extra DR and MP, when I'd need that for landscapes on a tripod using LV anyway. Might as well get an A7rII or III.

Is the present owner of a 5DIII and a 1Dx plus somewhere between 15-20 lenses (All L's except for my 50 F1.4 and 85 1.8, I would go with the Nikon.