NostraHistoria
Senior Member
I ask, since I am thinking of getting it.
Is a new D750 coming out anytime soon?
- Thread starter NostraHistoria
- Start date
How could we know?
Nikon is pretty secretive about their new models. They don't want the present sales to be slowed down by people waiting for newer model. If you want to buy the model that isn't out yet, you'll never buy one.
I, for one, prefer to wait a bit after a new model is out. There often seems to be things that have gone wrong with newer products (production or quality control). So my advice is to buy the camera you want/need knowing that within a few months there will be a newer model out. This newer model won't make the pictures you take with your camera uglier or less attractive. One has to learn that the limiting factor is often the person behind the viewfinder.
I have a few camera bodies and can still produce wonderful images (to me) with any of them, so, unless you are a pro and can deduct the expense of replacing your material once every now and then, I don't see the advantage of always trying to keep up with the "Jones".
If you thing the D750 would make your day, just get one and then use it until it drops.
Nikon is pretty secretive about their new models. They don't want the present sales to be slowed down by people waiting for newer model. If you want to buy the model that isn't out yet, you'll never buy one.
I, for one, prefer to wait a bit after a new model is out. There often seems to be things that have gone wrong with newer products (production or quality control). So my advice is to buy the camera you want/need knowing that within a few months there will be a newer model out. This newer model won't make the pictures you take with your camera uglier or less attractive. One has to learn that the limiting factor is often the person behind the viewfinder.
I have a few camera bodies and can still produce wonderful images (to me) with any of them, so, unless you are a pro and can deduct the expense of replacing your material once every now and then, I don't see the advantage of always trying to keep up with the "Jones".
If you thing the D750 would make your day, just get one and then use it until it drops.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
And Nikon is waiting for you to buy a D750 so they can release the D750s... Or "e"... Whichever.
All kidding aside, at some point you need to stop chasing technology, settle in and start chasing better technique; assuming you take this whole "photography thing" seriously.
The D750 is a good place to start doing that.
.....
On the other hand, there's at least one good reason to wait for the new model.
Allow me to tell you my story:
I've been using D7000 for 3 years and wanted to upgrade to the FX, the main reason was to have better selection of good lenses. The D600 was available at the time with an issue, and then was replaced by D610. I could have bought the D610 but instead I waited until D750 came out and compared the differences between D610 and D750, their features and prices, etc.
Finally I bought the D750 and HAPPY EVER AFTER!!!
Allow me to tell you my story:
I've been using D7000 for 3 years and wanted to upgrade to the FX, the main reason was to have better selection of good lenses. The D600 was available at the time with an issue, and then was replaced by D610. I could have bought the D610 but instead I waited until D750 came out and compared the differences between D610 and D750, their features and prices, etc.
Finally I bought the D750 and HAPPY EVER AFTER!!!
From what I read any issues with the D750 can likely be addressed with firmware down the line.....
Other than waiting for the new one to get the current one cheaper I see no reason to wait.
Nikon D750 review | TechRadar
Nikon D750 Review: Nikon... You've Created a Monster
On point I have read no "new D750" rumours anywhere on the WWW
D400 and D5 have been the hot topics.
Other than waiting for the new one to get the current one cheaper I see no reason to wait.
Nikon D750 review | TechRadar
Nikon D750 Review: Nikon... You've Created a Monster
On point I have read no "new D750" rumours anywhere on the WWW
D400 and D5 have been the hot topics.
Last edited:
TL Robinson
Senior Member
Just get it. Worth the money....
Worth the money....singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
I've been involved with technology since the 70's and can tell you that there's always going to be something better coming down the pike. But, state-of-the-art is what's in inventory right now, not what might come out tomorrow, next month or next year. I've known guys who died before the widget they were waiting for shipped. I'm with the rest of the group, if you want it, buy it now. It's at an all-time low price and it's a great camera.
rocketman122
Senior Member
I doubt it will be for another year. the D750 was just released last year in september. when released it had the light leak which meant sales slowed down. I think they want to try to max sales on it. dslr sales are slowing down as it is..
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock
Senior Member
How does that make sense?
Any lens that works on an FX body should work just fine on a DX body as well. The limitation goes the other way, because there are some lenses that are only designed to cover the smaller DX sensor, and don't fully cover an FX sensor.
There are two reasons (to me): (i) an FX lens will perform to its max potential on an FX body, and (ii) it's difficult to justify an expensive FX lens to be used on an old DX body unless you plan to upgrade to an FX body soon.
Or (III) Nobody sells DX version of the FX lens - Super telephoto's.
Bob Blaylock
Senior Member
I'm not so sure about your first point. In general, I think most lenses tend to have better quality toward the middle of their image circle; with any aberrations tending to be more prominent out toward the edges. Using an FX lens on a DX body means you're avoiding the outer edges, where quality is going to tend to drop off more. Granted, an FX lens is going to be engineered to meet whatever quality specifications are demanded of it; across the entire FX-sized area of its image circle. A lens that can cover an FX-sized sensor, but whose quality drops off too much toward the edges, could possibly be sold as a DX lens.
In any event, there is no disadvantage to using an FX lens on a DX body, other than that the FX lens might have cost more than a comparable DX lens. Which sort of leads to your second point, but I think even that point is rather weak. If the lens that meets your needs happens to be an FX lens, then that's that. It's still a perfectly-fine lens,even if you only ever use it on a DX body. You may lament the lack of a cheaper DX version of that lens, but doing so does not detract from the usability of the FX version.
No real disadvantage here, to a DX body. The DX body can still use the FX lens, just fine. The DX body offers the potential advantage that a lens manufacturer could offer a cheaper DX version of a lens, but failing to do so does not constitute a disadvantage to the DX body compared to an FX body; only an unrealized potential advantage.
If you're particularly interested in long-focus lenses, then the DX actually has an advantage, inasmuch that the crop factor effectively increases the “reach” of a telephoto lens by that factor. The same “reach” that you'd get with a 600mm lens on an FX body, a DX body will get with only a 400mm lens.
Last edited:
bklynkenny
Senior Member
Blade Canyon
Senior Member
It's funny how, in the digital age, we are so hung up on the camera bodies themselves. In the film days, if you could meter the scene then set the f stop and shutter speed correctly on your body, then the body itself wasn't the big deal. (I know, I know, active photographers needed rugged weather proof bodies). My point is that if you used the same glass and the same settings and the same film, you would not be able to tell the difference between something shot on a cheap old body or an expensive new body. You always wanted new and better and faster glass, but there was no huge pressure to upgrade the film bodies (until AF came out).
Now, however, the digital sensor and the processor and the software in the camera body itself is what makes a lot of the difference, so we are constantly thinking about body upgrades to use with our more static glass collection.
Now, however, the digital sensor and the processor and the software in the camera body itself is what makes a lot of the difference, so we are constantly thinking about body upgrades to use with our more static glass collection.
Bob Blaylock: Thanks for your comments.
1. I think an FX lens works better on an FX body than on a DX body. Let's look at three Nikon prime lenses: 35, 50, and 85mm f/1.8G mounted on D7100 and D600. According to DxO Lab the overall scores are 23, 22, and 30 with D7100 and 32, 31, 40 with D600, respectively. That's a huge difference.
I have an analogy for this: If I stand near a window (the lens) looking out to my garden, I'll see part of the garden between the edges of the window. If I cover half of my eyes (the sensor), I'll see smaller part of the garden thru half of the window. I consider it's a waste of money to build the bigger window but only to use half of it because I cover half of my eyes.
2. I think camera, lenses, filters, flash, tripod, etc... are components of a system, and they should work together in such a way that there's no bottleneck. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link! In my case I wouldn't buy expensive (to me) FX lenses such as 16-35mm f/4, 24-70mm f/2.8, or 70-200mm f/4 to be used on my old D7000 because I believe that the D7000 can't utilize those lenses to their max potential, and the camera becomes the bottleneck of the system.
3. I don't expect that everyone would agree with me, but it's good to have discussion like this, and again thanks for your comments.
1. I think an FX lens works better on an FX body than on a DX body. Let's look at three Nikon prime lenses: 35, 50, and 85mm f/1.8G mounted on D7100 and D600. According to DxO Lab the overall scores are 23, 22, and 30 with D7100 and 32, 31, 40 with D600, respectively. That's a huge difference.
I have an analogy for this: If I stand near a window (the lens) looking out to my garden, I'll see part of the garden between the edges of the window. If I cover half of my eyes (the sensor), I'll see smaller part of the garden thru half of the window. I consider it's a waste of money to build the bigger window but only to use half of it because I cover half of my eyes.
2. I think camera, lenses, filters, flash, tripod, etc... are components of a system, and they should work together in such a way that there's no bottleneck. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link! In my case I wouldn't buy expensive (to me) FX lenses such as 16-35mm f/4, 24-70mm f/2.8, or 70-200mm f/4 to be used on my old D7000 because I believe that the D7000 can't utilize those lenses to their max potential, and the camera becomes the bottleneck of the system.
3. I don't expect that everyone would agree with me, but it's good to have discussion like this, and again thanks for your comments.