On the fence between upcoming purchase

B

BruceJ

New member
Hi all,
I will start by saying I know a quality lens is better then getting good body and that neither is a sole reason for great pictures but here is my concern and question.

I have just over 4k to get my first full frame and lens ( switching to Nikon ) I have picked between the D 750 and the D810. Here are a few of my issues, I have larger hands, I like the feel of quality in what ever I am working with (professional Auto Tech) I don't like wishing I did something different. Who does.

OK here is a what would you do moment : Regardless of what you shoot. Note; I really don't shoot sports.

Would you get the D750 and a better lens or would you go with the better D810 and get a lessor lens to start and get better lenses at a later date?
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
1. Read this. Nikon D750 vs D810

2. If you don't understand any of these differences, go and research the hell of out them until you do, and don't go on to #3 until then because you're not ready for either of these cameras.

3. Know what the heck it is you want to do with the camera, soup to nuts. Styles, lighting conditions, fps needs, peripherals. Then make a detailed list of what you want/need to get from it and the hassles you don't want. Then go back and reread #1 against your list.

4. Get it in your head that sensors and bodies change every year but good glass outlasts them all.

5. Look at your computer hardware solution. Think about 36-50MB RAW and 90-140MB PSD/Tiff files (D810) vs. 20-35MB RAW and 80-105MB PSD/Tiff files (D750) and decide if one of them is going to cost you unplanned for money in upgrades.

6. Don't spend four grand without having at least gone to a show or shop where you can handle each of them and preferably shoot photos with your lens of choice.

7. Take no specific recommendation from anyone who doesn't have at least one of the bodies.

8. Make no determination based solely on the recommendation of anyone who hasn't shot with both cameras.

9. Make your decision and live with it.


All that said, if you want to break my rules then just listen to me and go out and get the D750 packaged with the 24-120mm f/4 (assuming you have no lenses now), put the $700 extra in your pocket and put it towards whatever lens moves you forward in the list from #3 above, and a 3rd party grip once they come out to take care of any perceived size issue. The D800 I own is a great camera, and more than what's required (i.e. too much camera) for 95% of what I shoot. 24MP's is about dead on perfect for any style. Truly, if you have to wonder whether or not you need a D8xx then you almost definitely don't. Not that you won't love it. But if you're not there yet then I suspect the D750 will be the better landing point and get you far enough down the road that when it is no longer "enough camera" for you you'll be able to know exactly what is.

(And if you want to be swayed by the sharpness gained with no OLPF I would proffer that a D7100 and grip along with a couple great lenses will make you happy as heck, and save you some money - particularly if you have no need to shoot high fps rates and worry about buffers clogging.)


And for those of you who won't read the link, Nasim's summary pretty much says it all...

So which one to choose? I would say that depends on your priorities and budget. For a landscape or architecture shooter, the answer is pretty clear – the D810 is the way to go. For everyone else, the D750 is going to be an excellent choice. The reality is, most people don’t need 36 megapixels, so instead of spending $1K towards a better camera, why not spend it on better glass?
 
Last edited:
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Reflecting on my post I just want to say that the wording of it is direct, but should in no way be taken as if I think it was a stupid question to ask and it shouldn't have been asked until you knew everything you wanted to know.

What I am saying is that if we're not sure, and we're not 100% comfortable with making the decision on our own (something we know in our heads and hearts) then asking a bunch of internet geeks what they think isn't always the best way to get an informed opinion, particularly if you don't know how to filter. There's a lot of good information here, and when it gets close to decision time if you're 51/49 on something and need a shove one way or another you can get that here. But internet forums are long on opinion and often short on details, so dig deep on your own, and dig in many as many places as you can.

But also know, just because you do, you're still not guaranteed to make the right decision. I let one feature (small buffer) cloud my vision so much that I opted for the D800 instead of the D7100 as a wildlife camera. I wound up with a great camera that gave me massive RAW files that I was perpetually cropping in Lightroom (which doesn't trim file size) to get a 16MP DX image instead of 24MP's. 15 months later I bought a refurb D7100 and have only bitched about the buffer once in 4 months, and it's been my go-to street camera. The D800 is literally on a shelf waiting for me to sell it (on the fence) while shooting with a D610 as my full frame. But hey, I've only sold one lens in 4 years, and I regret that (28-300mm - wish I had it for street, which I didn't shoot at the time).
 
B

BruceJ

New member
weebee said:
All I can say is, Jake layed out some great advice. I can vouch on the 7100 portion of what Jake said.
Click to expand...

He made some very good points. Jake, thank you for linking that review, it' one I hadn't seen,. I take what I read on any forums with a grain of salt and I know everyone has their opinion and I respect them all. I think my question was intended to be more general even though I did say my budget and the 2 bodies I was leaning towards.
The argument towards getting better glass over the higher end body is a strong one.
I have been trying to read all I an on the 750 an have seen images of people holding it in the palm of their hand. This is a major concern, it shooting capabilities really are not.
My first dslr was a Sony A55, while it did the job it felt like a toy. The quality referred to comes from what I do for a living. I would not buy a cheap tool even though it will do the job (for how long, who knows) what I do know is that I have lost a lot of skin off my knuckles by wanting to save a little money.
I know 36 mpix is overkill but all the other features are js what I want. The D750 also has what I want except I don't want a body that feels like a toy.
Ill wait and see if the camera store in Sacramento gets one in a few weeks before I decide.
As far as the 7100, I already own a crop sensor (Sony A77) but want to go FF I know the 7100 is better.
 
Last edited:
S

ShootRaw

Senior Member
BackdoorHippie said:
1. Read this. Nikon D750 vs D810

2. If you don't understand any of these differences, go and research the hell of out them until you do, and don't go on to #3 until then because you're not ready for either of these cameras.

3. Know what the heck it is you want to do with the camera, soup to nuts. Styles, lighting conditions, fps needs, peripherals. Then make a detailed list of what you want/need to get from it and the hassles you don't want. Then go back and reread #1 against your list.

4. Get it in your head that sensors and bodies change every year but good glass outlasts them all.

5. Look at your computer hardware solution. Think about 36-50MB RAW and 90-140MB PSD/Tiff files (D810) vs. 20-35MB RAW and 80-105MB PSD/Tiff files (D750) and decide if one of them is going to cost you unplanned for money in upgrades.

6. Don't spend four grand without having at least gone to a show or shop where you can handle each of them and preferably shoot photos with your lens of choice.

7. Take no specific recommendation from anyone who doesn't have at least one of the bodies.

8. Make no determination based solely on the recommendation of anyone who hasn't shot with both cameras.

9. Make your decision and live with it.


All that said, if you want to break my rules then just listen to me and go out and get the D750 packaged with the 24-120mm f/4 (assuming you have no lenses now), put the $700 extra in your pocket and put it towards whatever lens moves you forward in the list from #3 above, and a 3rd party grip once they come out to take care of any perceived size issue. The D800 I own is a great camera, and more than what's required (i.e. too much camera) for 95% of what I shoot. 24MP's is about dead on perfect for any style. Truly, if you have to wonder whether or not you need a D8xx then you almost definitely don't. Not that you won't love it. But if you're not there yet then I suspect the D750 will be the better landing point and get you far enough down the road that when it is no longer "enough camera" for you you'll be able to know exactly what is.

(And if you want to be swayed by the sharpness gained with no OLPF I would proffer that a D7100 and grip along with a couple great lenses will make you happy as heck, and save you some money - particularly if you have no need to shoot high fps rates and worry about buffers clogging.)


And for those of you who won't read the link, Nasim's summary pretty much says it all...

So which one to choose? I would say that depends on your priorities and budget. For a landscape or architecture shooter, the answer is pretty clear – the D810 is the way to go. For everyone else, the D750 is going to be an excellent choice. The reality is, most people don’t need 36 megapixels, so instead of spending $1K towards a better camera, why not spend it on better glass?
Click to expand...

Nef Said / thread:D
 
H

hrstrat57

Senior Member
I just left Sony and switched back to Nikon let me state that first BDH posts above are spot on me thinks. I would add a brief wrinkle, assuming you have a lot of high end Minolta or Sony glass have you shot with the A99? Moving back to Nikon was a bit of a difficult choice, the A99 is super impressive, flat out blows your A77 away it frankly is not in the same league.

I needed to sell the Sony/Maxxum gear mostly off to fund the switch to Nikon and I find 12 MP FF to be the sweet spot for me thus my patient quest resulting in a D700 mint with 200 clicks when purchased.....I still have 2 A700's and a large collection of beercan era glass remaining I might still grab an Sony A99 for giggles when the replacement comes out....despite it's extreme hunger for batteries to fuel the EVF.
 
B

BruceJ

New member
hrstrat57 said:
I just left Sony and switched back to Nikon let me state that first BDH posts above are spot on me thinks. I would add a brief wrinkle, assuming you have a lot of high end Minolta or Sony glass have you shot with the A99? Moving back to Nikon was a bit of a difficult choice, the A99 is super impressive, flat out blows your A77 away it frankly is not in the same league.
.
Click to expand...

I considered the A99 awhile ago but it doesn't solve some of my wants / needs. Im not happy with the low light performance of the Sonys as well as the lack
of wireless.

I want to be able to connect to a tablet so that I can preview images or let my subject see how things are going as we shoot.
I shoot landscapes, urban decay as well as editoral fashion, glamour and artistic nudes.
All of my glass is vintage Minolta ie 24 2.8, 50 1.7, 70-210 beercan and a 28-75 2.8 KM I do like the EVF of the Sonys
 
W

Wolfeye

Senior Member
BruceJ said:
...

I do like the EVF of the Sonys
Click to expand...

To each his own! :) I recently sold off my Sony SLT cameras because of the EVFs. I have enough of that from my various non-SLR cameras. The LCD on a compact or a smartphone is pretty much the same. One area where they fail, and Sony could fix this if they thought ahead and anticipated photographer needs, is that if you select the option to show exposure in the EVF, and you're using flash, you get a dark, useless view. Why? Because the typical flash setting, say 1/125th at f5.6, is what the camera uses to show exposure in the EVF. Even though the flash will fire and light up the scene, the EVF is (dumbly) set to show you the scene as if the flash were not a factor. That's just plain stupid. I'm not saying the EVF can show you how the flash shot will come out (even though that should be possible too, knowing subject distance and such) but they could at least show you the "non exposure" view when flash is used.
 
H

hrstrat57

Senior Member
A99 successor is imminent and should have wifi and ability of shooting at high ISO. Keep tabs on sonyalpharumours and Dyxum for news. I still have Maxxum 50 1.7, 28 2.8, orig 35-105, 70-210 f4 (bc ) 24-105 and a 200 2.8 which is the finest lens I have ever owned. You glass is good if you don't have to sell gear to switch might be worth waiting another week or two,

the good Nikon news is cheap older FX glass (D) is cheap and fantastic! My three bits of D glass astound!

....but Minolta magic is tough to give up!
 
R

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
As long as using a tablet to connect to the camera via wireless is your goal, then you should be okay with the built-in wireless functionality on Nikon. I had expected the marketing references specifically to mobile devices as not implicitly stating that desktop platforms were NOT supported, which caused me some heartburn. I'm not down on the Nikon functionality, just trying to make sure others don't make the same assumptions I did only to regret that later.
 
B

BruceJ

New member
Wolfeye said:
To each his own! :) I recently sold off my Sony SLT cameras because of the EVFs. I have enough of that from my various non-SLR cameras. The LCD on a compact or a smartphone is pretty much the same. One area where they fail, and Sony could fix this if they thought ahead and anticipated photographer needs, is that if you select the option to show exposure in the EVF, and you're using flash, you get a dark, useless view. Why? Because the typical flash setting, say 1/125th at f5.6, is what the camera uses to show exposure in the EVF. Even though the flash will fire and light up the scene, the EVF is (dumbly) set to show you the scene as if the flash were not a factor. That's just plain stupid. I'm not saying the EVF can show you how the flash shot will come out (even though that should be possible too, knowing subject distance and such) but they could at least show you the "non exposure" view when flash is used.
Click to expand...

Wolfeye, are you talking about getting a black screen even after you go to settings and turn off live view ?
 
B

BruceJ

New member
Rocketcowboy, for my intended use the Nikons wireless would be fine or I would buy a Camranger setup which is only available for Nikon or Canon.
 
W

Wolfeye

Senior Member
BruceJ said:
Wolfeye, are you talking about getting a black screen even after you go to settings and turn off live view ?
Click to expand...

Not sure what it's called. Basically it means when you look thru the EVF it will show your exposure, so in M mode if you set a higher shutter speed, the EVF will darken reflecting the exposure change you made.
 
B

BruceJ

New member
Yes, I found that out the fist time in studio. While it wasn't totally dark I had my settings the same as my friend (Nikon shooter) who owns the studio. I couldn't see anything to focus on. Had to change my shutter and f. So that I could at least see her. We ended up turning on more overheads so that I could see however this messed most things up. I later found out that if you go into settings and turn off live view you are able to see your subject no matter what the other settings are similar to an optical view finder.
 
G

Geoffc

Senior Member
I'll just throw two points in. First, why full frame? A good number of the old arguments are a lot less now like higher ISO noise. Yes full frame has. The edge but not what it used to. You may have other reasons to think full frame is best.

Secondly, on the subject of body size, I had a D300s which is a similar size to the D800 that I now have. I was convinced that the D600 and D7100 would feel small and toylike by comparison and partly got the D800 as a result. I now have a D7100 as well, mainly for the crop factor as it's higher resolution than the D800 unless you can completely fill the frame and that's often not possible even with a 600mm lens attached. And on that last point, both the D7100 and D800 both look like toys when you put a 600mm lens on them.

For most use, the D800 and D7100 both produce high quality images and I often need to confirm which was used to tell the difference.

I think this supports the point well made that Jake raised earlier.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I think Pentax does that in general, even with a OVF, and it's more annoying than helpful IMO. A feature to bind to a button is a much better idea for exposure preview. Another reason to never have to worry about split-prism screens going darker past f/5.6.
 
B

BruceJ

New member
Geoffc said:
I'll just throw two points in. First, why full frame? A good number of the old arguments are a lot less now like higher ISO noise. Yes full frame has. The edge but not what it used to. You may have other reasons to think full frame is best.
Click to expand...


The reason I have decided to move to full frame is mainly due to the fact that I dislike the quality of images in lower light that my A77 does. Since I was going to "upgrade" I decided on Nikon FF. My decision on the Nikon was based on comparing the images from my friends D800 (not sure if its an e) to what I took.
Yes I know its not a fair compairing the two but I liked how sharp his came out and in my eyes, mine where no where near as sharp.
For landscapes the A77 works fine but I dislike it for studio.
Also I have submitted shots to a few magazines that were published. You can see the difference between my shots and the others, not the composition but the whole image.
Im going to keep the Sony as a backup and also for my wife to play with if she decides.
 
Top