rehunn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, so it isn't cheap, but it's not much more (in
> fact same price) as the D810 when it came out and
> Jerry's results are pretty spectacular. I've been
> holdiong off
> on a new body (I really want something that
> produces an excellent shot without post
> processing) and the D850 is looking pretty decent.
I'm assuming you're shooting JPEGs, as raw files definitely need some postprocessing, or they just look yucky. The problem with JPEGs is that they're really only good for front-lit shots where the subject has good lighting on it. The minute you get into a situation in which the subject is dark and the sky is bright, you're done. If you expose for the subject, the sky will be irreparably overexposed (basically white) and if you expose for the sky, the subject will need some postprocessing or it will just be dark and featureless. JPEGS also have far less latitude for shadow and highlight recovery. I have images that I shot in challenging situations as JPEGs 10 years ago, and they're toast. There's no recovering the highlights. My advice to anyone is that even if they don't want to deal with raw images now, shoot raw + JPEG. Someday, you will not be sorry that you have those raw files. It is astounding how much dynamic range they have.
Honestly though, if you're going to shoot only JPEGs, I would not spend $3300 on a D850. If you're only shooting front-lit in good light, virtually any of the consumer bodies will do the job very nicely. What you are really buying with a pro camera is a sensor that can handle low light and still produce a clean, usable image, but you pretty much need to be able to postprocess to get the most value out of it. If you're a good-day shooter, spend the loot on some nice, fast glass.
/Kevin
