It would seem that the Nikon D850 can do no wrong and with this latest test and comparison from Tony Northrup, the results seem even more positive. The dynamic range was something a lot of photographers were concerned about, especially due to the higher megapixel count. At ISO 64, it's safe to say that the dynamic range of the D850 is a solid improvement over the Nikon D810. As Northrup demonstrates in his video, the D810 suffered from a heavy magenta cast in recovered shadows whereas the D850 has a more neutral and pleasing look to it. At higher ISO, however, the differences between the two Nikon cameras may not be as significant.
Articles written by Usman Dawood
EISA recently named the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art as the best DSLR lens for 2017-2018, and based on my experience with this lens, I have to agree. It is a fantastic lens and performs at a very high level, with incredible detail rendering capabilities and beautiful bokeh. For the longest time, the 135mm focal length had a little bit of a gap that really needed to be filled. Canon has their version, which although is a great performer, it just can't match the likes of the Zeiss 135mm f/2. However, due to having autofocus, many tend to choose the Canon version over the Zeiss. With the release of the Sigma version, it would seem that one may no longer need to compromise.
Dynamic range tends to be an important feature for any camera and something many photographers either boast or complain about. Canon cameras aren't really known for their dynamic range performance, but in this "two-minute video," Peter McKinnon explains how you can use the built in Canon picture profiles, to improve performance for video.
Hasselblad holds a special place in the photography community and is well known for making some of the best cameras currently available. I have been using the H6D-100c camera system for more than a year, and I wanted to see if it holds up to the perception. With its huge 100-megapixel sensor, this camera does produce some very detailed and beautiful images. The latest "orange dot" lenses from Hasselblad have all been rated up to and potentially even beyond 100 megapixels, making them very effective. With that in mind, it would seem nonsensical to compare this camera to a full-frame system, however after seeing some of the results, the opposite is true.
Medium format systems are widely known as being the best, producing the most detailed and technically superior images. The lenses are supposedly the best available too, such as the 40mm from Rodenstock which is praised for its amazing performance. If you want the best in image quality, the widest dynamic range, and the deepest depth of field with the least amount of diffraction, then medium format is the answer... or is it? Is this simply perception? If you repeat something enough does it become fact? How many people who believe this to be true have actually tried and compared the best from medium format to the best available from full frame?
When it comes to architectural photography, tilt-shift lenses are quite possibly the best option available. The flexibility and amazing image quality make them very popular amongst architectural photographers and even some landscape photographers. Having said that, there are occasions when you may want to push these lenses to their respective limits by shifting right to the edge. Sometimes the building you're shooting may be a little too close and the lens just isn't quite wide enough. In these circumstances getting the most out of your tilt-shift lens really helps. Doing this, however, creates a vignette in the image and due to tilt-shift lenses not having correction profiles, they can be tricky to remove in post.
When it comes to deciding how good a particular image is, there are three aspects that I think are most important: composition, lighting, and colors. These three properties could be described as the technical attributes of an image. There are those who have compared this image to The Birth of Venus and the Virgin Mary, based on a number of styling choices, one can see some similarities.