| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
hmmm thanks for the quick reply Eric , but that doesn't really answer the question , lets put it this way what would you shoot in for wildlife use cant get my head round all the connotations .. processed a few from today and possibly slightly better in 14 bit , but would I be better off simply upgrading the camera body and would that then give a advantage in i.q and focussing ..or is the difference only marginal , I know j.k went from the d300 to the d500 is there that great a difference in what it produces
The point I was making, obvious not clearly, was if you want to be absolutely bombproof sure that you get the best possible out of your currrent setup .....you need to shoot at 14bit raw, save the nefs uncompressed and process the files at 16bit. It can't get any better FOR ANY CAMERA.
The question is whether the improvement is significant enough for you to put up with slower file handling, more file storage space and longer processing times.
You can determine this empirically and only you can say if the benefit is worth it. Personally I think some are overkill.
The second part of the question is whether a different camera sensor would be even better.
(Of course with another camera you still have the same dilema as to whether 14bit/compressed files are any better on THAT camera.)
For my part the D500 is a better camera than the D300 in most ways. And if someone dropped £1500 on your lap tomorrow I am sure you know what choice you would make.
The problem is...where do you stop with comparisons? If you lined up a
D5, D850, D500 they would all out perform a D300 in most departments. Opinions will differ as to which of those 3 is best (I've read some wildlife people say the D5 is best under low light conditions for example.)
Last edited on Sat Jan 26th, 2019 14:11 by Eric
____________________
Eric