D750 1 Point Below D610 In DXoMark Scoring

Very very very good, but still 1 point below the D610/D600:

• D750: 93 pts | color depth: 24.8 | dynamic range: 14.5 | ISO: 2956
• D610: 94 pts | color depth: 25.1 | dynamic range: 14.4 | ISO: 2925
• D810: 97 pts | color depth: 25.7 | dynamic range: 14.8 | ISO: 2853

Nikon cameras sensors Top 10 Ranking:

1. 97: D810
2. 96: D800E
3. 95: D800
4. 94: D600 + D610
5. 93: D750
6. 89: Df + D4 + D4S
7. 88: D3X
8. 84: D5200
9. 83: D7100 + D5300
10. 82: D3S + D3300

Interesting info!

Interesting to see, on the overall sensor list, which HUGE player isn't even in the top 25, too. Yow...

sonicbuffalo said:

Nikon cameras sensors Top 10 Ranking: (modified)

1. D810
2. D800E
3. D800
4. D600
5. D610
6. D750
7. Df
8. D4
9. D4S
10. D3X
11. D5200
12. D7100
13. D5300
14. D3S
15. D3300

Click to expand...

That made 15. The current top camera D4s barely makes it in the top 10.

So makes more sense:
1) D8X0X series
2) D6X0 series
3) D750
4) D4 sensor based
5) D3X
6) D5200
7) D7100
8) D5300
9) D3S
10) D3300

So the sensor does not seem to matter for the first 4, it is the other features that will make the difference.

Nikon has had better sensors for a while. Period. The DxO numbers? They measure one thing on the camera, the sensor's ability to render images under every circumstance. Where they find the differences between that 93 & 94 are the places that I would argue 50% of people with a DSLR never go, and those that do go there do it well less than 2% of the time - with an extremely small exception of pros perhaps living at those extremes. But hey, it's the internet and people need something to argue about.

It's like comparing two Bordeaux's that Robert Parker has scored 97 and 98. Is the 98 "better"? Read the full review and about the "bold, heavy currant flavor" of the 98 will have it living its life on the shelf while I buy the other. The devil is in the details, and until you drill into all the measurements behind those scores it's like saying "Well, my amp goes up to 11". For camera bodies the true differentiators are the features, accessories and menu system. Having played with the D750 and D610 side-by-side for 4 days I can truly tell you that the real difference between them has everything to do with things DxO never looks at. And for the things they do, there isn't a thing in the 3 numbers listed that can possibly be differentiated with the human eye unless you're trying to prove one of the differences.

Nikon has the top 15, and yet there are so many pros shooting Canon - and even spending their own money on them. Must be because they weren't smart enough to go to college and learn about numbers and just went to art school, because it couldn't be about features Canon has on their bodies that makes life in the field that much easier for a pro.

Anyway, sorry to derail the thread. I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of 93 v 94.

Nikon rules - Canon drools!!!

BackdoorHippie said:

Having played with the D750 and D610 side-by-side for 4 days I can truly tell you that the real difference between them has everything to do with things DxO never looks at.
Nikon rules - Canon drools!!!

Click to expand...

So Jake, please don't leave it just like that... What are those differences, please, pretty please. What are your impressions?

I wish that Jake would tell us how he really feels! lol

Come on Jake, let's here the differences you speak of.

i wish someone could explain why so many pro's stick with Canon. The only canon I shot with took film.

im with Jake on the number difference, but really prefer real world test and not benchmarks like these. I would also rather see the test broken out into categories, like portrait, sports, landscape, low light and so forth.

In all honesty, DXO makes my head hurt.

"Well, my amp goes up to 11"

Click to expand...

Your amp is 1 louder then mine.:congratulatory:

Is this yours?

Marcel said:

So Jake, please don't leave it just like that... What are those differences, please, pretty please. What are your impressions?

Click to expand...

Today was the first day of real shooting with both, and I have some work to do to get the images in and processed (need to import, convert to DNG's and then add those to LR), but I plan on sitting down and putting words to it as soon as I can. Weather was so lousy with the Noreaster here since Wednesday that all my shooting was sitting in my office just figuring things out.

Krs_2007 said:

Come on Jake, let's here the differences you speak of.

i wish someone could explain why so many pro's stick with Canon. The only canon I shot with took film.

Click to expand...

Difference #1, that they will all mention, is the Canon Professional Services support that they get. My brother worked the Belmont Stakes and they were loaning him anything he wanted to use and didn't have. He had a zoom go on him while working a Giants game and a rep saw him on his way back to the car to swap it out - he sent him back, met him on the sidelines with a replacement, and had a tech looking at his zoom while he shot. Not that Nikon doesn't do that, but he's told me stories about when he was shooting Nikon for the same paper and they were horrible with addressing any problems with the equipment.

Difference #2, camera features. Every pro I've spoken with has said that they can't live without Canon's menu wheel on the back of the camera, and any Nikon guy whose shot Canon has talked about how much they'd love something like that on a Nikon (Kelby listed it as one of the reasons he switched). The jpeg engine in the pro Canons seems to more than make up for much of what they lack in sensor resolution, so if you're looking for results SOOC there isn't a lot of difference. And then there's the real WiFi available on the pro bodies. There are others, but I'd need to dig.

Difference #3, Canon glass. It's all close, and they'll admit it, but there was a post on here a couple months back talking about the differences in focus breathing in the Nikon and Canon 70-200mm f2.8's, and if I was a pro that lived with that lens I tell you that it definitely would be a differentiator for me.

It seems so strange that Nikon made such a point of emphasising that the D750 does not have the D610's sensor, it has a new improved sensor with significantly better low light performance. Yet the DXO tests show it to be virtually identical to the D610 sensor - in fact, I feel it proves it IS the D610's sensor (the tiny differences being just lab measurement differences).

I guess what is really going on is the D750 has better image processing. The EXPEED 4 chip improves low light shots more than the D610's EXPEED 3 does. That is handy, sure. (DXO doesn't measure software processing ability of course, so the D750 might produce low light shots that are perceptually better than the D610 but the DXO results won't show that.)

I'm sure the D750 is a fine camera, but to me it is a bit disappointing that the actual sensor hardware is no better than the D610's. If it had scored 97 or similar I would have bought it, but now I'm going to pass.

Really the camera should have been called the D650.

The biggest things that make the D750 more desirable is the focusing system(51 points, group area focus etc..) and low-light capabilities(-3v).. Not to mention the better quality video recording with power aperture..Those are the main reasons for me wanting one..This will greatly help me in the field on paid gigs..

BackdoorHippie said:

Difference #1, that they will all mention, is the Canon Professional Services support that they get. My brother worked the Belmont Stakes and they were loaning him anything he wanted to use and didn't have. He had a zoom go on him while working a Giants game and a rep saw him on his way back to the car to swap it out - he sent him back, met him on the sidelines with a replacement, and had a tech looking at his zoom while he shot. Not that Nikon doesn't do that, but he's told me stories about when he was shooting Nikon for the same paper and they were horrible with addressing any problems with the equipment.

Difference #2, camera features. Every pro I've spoken with has said that they can't live without Canon's menu wheel on the back of the camera, and any Nikon guy whose shot Canon has talked about how much they'd love something like that on a Nikon (Kelby listed it as one of the reasons he switched). The jpeg engine in the pro Canons seems to more than make up for much of what they lack in sensor resolution, so if you're looking for results SOOC there isn't a lot of difference. And then there's the real WiFi available on the pro bodies. There are others, but I'd need to dig.

Difference #3, Canon glass. It's all close, and they'll admit it, but there was a post on here a couple months back talking about the differences in focus breathing in the Nikon and Canon 70-200mm f2.8's, and if I was a pro that lived with that lens I tell you that it definitely would be a differentiator for me.

Click to expand...

If I may translate:
1) I understand Canon is the largest and treats the Pros well, according to my economics the little ones are probably paying for it, but that is of no importance for the Pros.
Canons service has great reputation, Nikon is OK as well.
2) Canon people have habits, new Canon convicts are told to stress the differentiators. I think it is a personal choice and less essential then picture quality.
3) When Matt Granger looked at the 70-200mm lenses it was the Canon that had more lens breathing than the Tamron or Nikon. Still need to see a neutral review on it, but generally it is accepted that Canon glass is better, even if their sensors can not show it.

Canon can make super pictures (I bet at least 30% of what we see is Canon) and the features of a D750 might be relevant or irrelevant to your photography style.
Seems to me you need to figure out where your creativity needs more technical support and how to get that, that might lead to unique paths for everyone.

Vincent said:

If I may translate:
2) Canon people have habits, new Canon convicts are told to stress the differentiators. I think it is a personal choice and less essential then picture quality.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue the other two, but on this one it really has more to do with efficiency than mere habits. One of the reasons I jumped on a D750 that I really don't "need" (I have a NIB D610 and a D800 on the shelf) is that it has features that make my life as a photographer easier when I'm shooting. One-button 100% zoom, for instance. Can I click the + button 5-6 times? Yes. But to do that on 10 shots with fading light to see if I can move on means I eventually lose the light that much faster. The Canon wheel in experienced hands lets you review images 3-5X faster than Nikon's method, and when you're deleting crap or marking keepers from the last play while a team is in the huddle that makes a huge difference. It can only be a habit if you have it to experience first, and unless you're offering an alternative then it's not a habit, it's a differentiator.

RRR said:

It seems so strange that Nikon made such a point of emphasising that the D750 does not have the D610's sensor, it has a new improved sensor with significantly better low light performance. Yet the DXO tests show it to be virtually identical to the D610 sensor - in fact, I feel it proves it IS the D610's sensor (the tiny differences being just lab measurement differences).

I guess what is really going on is the D750 has better image processing. The EXPEED 4 chip improves low light shots more than the D610's EXPEED 3 does. That is handy, sure. (DXO doesn't measure software processing ability of course, so the D750 might produce low light shots that are perceptually better than the D610 but the DXO results won't show that.)

I'm sure the D750 is a fine camera, but to me it is a bit disappointing that the actual sensor hardware is no better than the D610's. If it had scored 97 or similar I would have bought it, but now I'm going to pass.

Really the camera should have been called the D650.

Click to expand...

And this is the lunacy of judging a camera with simple sensor numbers. (me thinks me smells an inebriated and out of money troll)

I want to go into a rant about just how utterly ridiculous this point is, but I believe that's the OP's desire. So, I'll speak in terms someone living under a bridge might understand. A Ferrari and a Ford F-150 Super Cab both get 12MPG. Must be the same damn engine.

What the heck does 1 point really mean in DxO scoring system? I wouldn't think vey much. WHen the D610 has an already great sensor, then the D750 can't improve that much. It's as someone else has said...'.....it must be the extra features that makes the D750 a better camera than the D610....' not really quoting but it's been said in so many words. I don't think 1 point in sensor ratings by 1 company (DxO) makes any difference.

I'm trying to find the time to put together my initial thoughts on the D750, which for me would obviously include direct comparisons to the D610, but I just haven't had the time to shoot specific shots to back up the words. With that said I can say with great confidence that they do not have the same sensor. The level and quality of noise at high ISO's visible to the naked eye is evidence enough of that. The thing is, when you keep pushing the bar how much improvement should one expect when the old numbers were world class anyway?

When you're looking at the DxOMark measurement for ISO Sensitivity do you know what the hell that is?! Of course you don't!! How they measure Noise and precisely what that means?! Hell no!! Well, I've given it to you, and I'm betting there aren't more than 3 or 4 people here who can explain to this person with a Minor in Math, in layman's terms, just what each of them means. And who would want to?!?!

I'm not calling these measurements pointless, I'm just saying that they aren't the whole story by a long shot. If Nikon and Sony engineers are sitting in a lab trying to figure out how to get a 98 or higher on their next sensor then they're going about it all wrong - and thank God they're not. DxOMark scores are a measure of sensor capability, they are not a measure of image quality, but people seem to confuse the hell out of that.

BackdoorHippie said:

I'm trying to find the time to put together my initial thoughts on the D750, which for me would obviously include direct comparisons to the D610, but I just haven't had the time to shoot specific shots to back up the words. With that said I can say with great confidence that they do not have the same sensor. The level and quality of noise at high ISO's visible to the naked eye is evidence enough of that. The thing is, when you keep pushing the bar how much improvement should one expect when the old numbers were world class anyway?

When you're looking at the DxOMark measurement for ISO Sensitivity do you know what the hell that is?! Of course you don't!! How they measure Noise and precisely what that means?! Hell no!! Well, I've given it to you, and I'm betting there aren't more than 3 or 4 people here who can explain to this person with a Minor in Math, in layman's terms, just what each of them means. And who would want to?!?!

I'm not calling these measurements pointless, I'm just saying that they aren't the whole story by a long shot. If Nikon and Sony engineers are sitting in a lab trying to figure out how to get a 98 or higher on their next sensor then they're going about it all wrong - and thank God they're not. DxOMark scores are a measure of sensor capability, they are not a measure of image quality, but people seem to confuse the hell out of that.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't put too much thought into their scores. I look for real world examples. Case in point, Jared ( fro knows photos) took the d750 to a night time high school football game. His shots with the 750 at high ISO was a lot better than my 600, enough that I had the wow look on my face. Do the scores tell me that, not really its a number. You can draw a comparison but I need examples that match up to the type of shooting I do.

And yes he shot with 2 high end lenses that I don't have, but I made my comparison with the shots he took using the 70-200, which I do have. And he allowed everyone to download the full size shots for you to draw your own comparison.

If you are looking at this camera, go take a look at his video. It's an impressive camera, which has me eating my words saying that I wouldn't upgrade to it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I dont believe dxomark for a millisecond. yes i believe the sensor is the same as the d600/610 and I think they only tweaked. my logic is they didnt sell enough to profit from that specific sensor. imo the sensor is good, not as good as a d3s but probably to 8000 iso will be acceptable vs the 12800 of the d3s. the d3s holds more dynamic range in the shadows and the D750 is less.

there was a dprevew post showing that in nef its exactly the same as the d610 but in jpeg its clearly better. I do plan on selling my D3 and getting the D750 to shoot along side with the D3s and I also plan to get a D5300 as a backup camera I will use for specific shots for weddings that I will keep on a tripod JIC.

but I dont believe dxomarks reviews. its nonsense. its just numbers. no one can understand what it means and there is more than just numbers to what a piece of gear can create. were trying to go by scientific numbers which mean jack crap.

Krs_2007 said:

Honestly, I don't put too much thought into their scores. I look for real world examples. Case in point, Jared ( fro knows photos) took the d750 to a night time high school football game. His shots with the 750 at high ISO was a lot better than my 600, enough that I had the wow look on my face. Do the scores tell me that, not really its a number. You can draw a comparison but I need examples that match up to the type of shooting I do.

And yes he shot with 2 high end lenses that I don't have, but I made my comparison with the shots he took using the 70-200, which I do have. And he allowed everyone to download the full size shots for you to draw your own comparison.

If you are looking at this camera, go take a look at his video. It's an impressive camera, which has me eating my words saying that I wouldn't upgrade to it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Click to expand...

yes, from all those that used video with the D750, all said its on the level of the D800/D810. thats the bigger reason im getting it as my main camera for VDSLR. the D600 wasnt great from the video I shot with it.
stills..I think its limit is around 8000iso. pixel density is the main reason it cant compete with D3s/D4/D4s

BackdoorHippie said:

I'm trying to find the time to put together my initial thoughts on the D750, which for me would obviously include direct comparisons to the D610, but I just haven't had the time to shoot specific shots to back up the words. With that said I can say with great confidence that they do not have the same sensor. The level and quality of noise at high ISO's visible to the naked eye is evidence enough of that. The thing is, when you keep pushing the bar how much improvement should one expect when the old numbers were world class anyway?

When you're looking at the DxOMark measurement for ISO Sensitivity do you know what the hell that is?! Of course you don't!! How they measure Noise and precisely what that means?! Hell no!! Well, I've given it to you, and I'm betting there aren't more than 3 or 4 people here who can explain to this person with a Minor in Math, in layman's terms, just what each of them means. And who would want to?!?!

I'm not calling these measurements pointless, I'm just saying that they aren't the whole story by a long shot. If Nikon and Sony engineers are sitting in a lab trying to figure out how to get a 98 or higher on their next sensor then they're going about it all wrong - and thank God they're not. DxOMark scores are a measure of sensor capability, they are not a measure of image quality, but people seem to confuse the hell out of that.

Click to expand...

A lot of that is what I just said.....in fewer big words.....it doesn't even matter if it's the same sensor or not (I don't think it is), but the improvement, as you said is like comparing a D610, which was already world class to a different (albeit similar) sensor that's ALSO world class. I mean damn, the scores only go to a high of 100, so how much leeway does DxO Mark have to explain the technical differences between the two sensors? Not much. 1 point is nothing. You get what you pay for. If you want a better sensor, then Nikon is saying to you to step up to the D810. They're sqeezing everything they can out of you for the low end FF with the D610 and D750.