Nikon D750 & D780

Thanks Laudrup

The Nikon 200mm f2 VR used seems to go for between £2250 and £3k ……. so I may put one in my budget for 2015 as I reckon it would be good for Dragonflies, amongst other things, on the V1 or even the D7100 …….. as it seems to hit 10 Mpix on the D300, (they don't use the V1 in testing), ….. so should get more out of the V1 than with the 300mm f4 … I have a Nikon 105mm f2.8VR mirco but it does not seem to do it for me versus the 300mm f4

I still like to have AF to use as and when required ………… I have a couple of Zeiss RF lens and they are good in fact I prefer them in a way to Leica
 
Last edited:
Radiohead said:
I remember people writing the off Df a year ago. Most hadn't used it. The handling was poo. It was rubbish. It was a fail.

I bought 2. Love them. Have now shot 35 weddings on them. Haven't missed a beat.

Plenty of options. Body too small? Buy an 810. Want a full pro body? D3s/4/4s. Want some thing small and light? D750 or 610.

Everything is a compromise somewhere. Work out where and if it's an issue for you. What anyone else thinks means little.

I'll say again. For my field the 750 could well be the best Nikon option out there now.
Click to expand...

I guess it's because the d700 was pretty much perfect, so surely with something so good you just make the techno tweaks on a new model.

Much is perception. I really think had it been labelled a d620 there would not be the fuss.

Can't make up my mind in the df. Just about to buy an fe so like the style, and I love the idea of an iso dial, for me much more useful than exp comp. if only fuji had helped design it though, then it would have looked stunning.
 
Laudrup said:
The Zeiss 135 f/2 APO sharpness is 36Mpix according to DxO so I'm sure Nikon could do it if they wanted.
Click to expand...

For a price, I'm sure they could. Who would buy it though?
 
Pookeyhead said:
For a price, I'm sure they could. Who would buy it though?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure a Nikon 135mm f/2 APO with 36mp rated sharpness at DxO would sell well. The 135 DC has been needing updated for a long time. People will always pay for quality.
 
Why use anything complex when the likes of DXO get paid to do it for us? :D
 
decigallen said:
Coming from a d700, the 1/4000 shutter with a lower base ISO is surely the same?
Click to expand...
Depends on "how" they expanded the ISO range. If they just added new numbers to choose from like they did w/ the D810 then the lower base ISO isn't really "lower."

With the D6xx, D8xx, D7xxx, D5xxx ranges Nikon started "mislabeling" the ISO's. It seems that somewhere around the release of the D7000 Nikon decided to start labeling ISO ranges as "recommended" and "complete junk" as opposed to what it's supposed to be which is "analog" and "digital" (expanded). The only current Nikon's with the ISO's still "properly" labeled are the D4/s.
Assuming the D750 is based upon the D6xx sensor, without any significant changes, the native (analog) ISO range is actually ISO 100-1400. Which is a touch better than the D8xx at ISO 100-1000.

I don't really think it necessarily matters... if an ISO is "usable" and you need it, then use it. But once you're outside of the analog ISO's and into the "digital" ISO's you're basically using the camera computer to manipulate the exposure just as you would in post...maybe better or maybe worse than you could do. And your files are less "raw" than they were before (but they never are/were completely "raw"). With the D750 they put in a better computer (expeed4) so they gave you a couple more ISO numbers for it to manipulate. Maybe the newer computer is "better" at it... but it didn't work for the D810 raw files (maybe it's better w/ jpegs and video).

AFAIK, All Canon models are all analogue gain except for the low and expanded setting. So if you have a Canon the ISO ranges are labeled "correctly."
 
The other thing David's images do show is that anything more than ~10MP *actually recorded* is more than enough for any conceivable use (if you apply the "sharpness COC standard" for display).
But actually recording more than 10MP worth of detail is *not* controlled only by the sensor resolution, and for that matter the lens either. It's the combination and how it's used.

There are many times where you will get the "exact same image" from two different MP sensors (applying the display COC/sharpness standard); the pMP of DXo's ratings. And there are very few times where you will actually record anything near 24-36MP. And in those cases where you are not getting a different final image there is no real advantage to the higher MP camera and larger files... BUT, that doesn't mean there's a disadvantage (IQ) either.

There are times where you can record significantly more MP's than needed with a high MP camera... but because they are "not needed" they are largely wasted. That's not necessarily a disadvantage either... but it's not of much benefit.

And there are times where you might need/want the higher resolutions such as cropping or large/"critical display" (outside the COC sharpness standards, which is more common these days). This is where the high MP cameras really come into their realm... to do things you can't do with the other cameras (i.e. enlarge). But it's also important to understand that when you're doing "something different" (larger prints/cropping/etc) you're not getting the advertised "relative performance" (DXo ratings) from the sensor. (But it will/should still be better than trying to do the same thing with a lower MP camera).

If you can only have one camera, and you don't have a defined use/result requirement, then the higher MP camera is probably the better choice all else being equal. But "all else" is never "equal"... so you have to weigh the (probably minor/negligible for most) negatives such as file sizes/frame rate/buffer/etc against the potential major positives (larger display sizes/cropping etc) and the (currently) minor positives (slight increase in DR etc) when doing "the same thing." For most people and most uses I think the higher MP camera is generally going to be the better choice (ignoring financial considerations).

The D750 sits in a position of nice balance between the considerations... and at a "balanced" price point as well. It should be a great choice for many photographers as their only/primary camera.
 
jj_glos said:
Nikon have apparently said it's a completely new sensor...
Click to expand...
Yeah... I haven't heard of anything "new" sensor wise being made in quite a while and it's the same 24.3MP... They may have changed the micro lenses or analogue process. I don't know (definitely changed the digital process).

But it wouldn't surprise me if it's only "new" in the sense that it's not "used." It's a "new sensor/processing/camera package." They've gotten pretty good at the "hype."
 
sk66 said:
Yeah... I haven't heard of anything "new" sensor wise being made in quite a while and it's the same 24.3MP... They may have changed the micro lenses or analogue process. I don't know (definitely changed the digital process).

But it wouldn't surprise me if it's only "new" in the sense that it's not "used." It's a "new sensor/processing/camera package." They've gotten pretty good at the "hype."
Click to expand...

I think it was the Matt Granger review, Nikon Australia said it was a completely new sensor and not taken from the D610.
 
The D750 brochure claims that the "The D750 even surpasses the D810 in image quality at high sensitivities, as well as by definition, depth, tonal graduation, and clear colour"
 
jj_glos said:
I think it was the Matt Granger review, Nikon Australia said it was a completely new sensor and not taken from the D610.
Click to expand...

Yes it was that video, Matt said Nikon Australia confirmed it in a telephone call - or very similar wording.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
The D750 brochure claims that the "The D750 even surpasses the D810 in image quality at high sensitivities, as well as by definition, depth, tonal graduation, and clear colour"
Click to expand...
It should... larger pixel sensor of the same generation. The D610 surpasses the D810 already in most areas (marginally).
Even the "old" D3s keeps up with/exceeds the D810. And the D700 isn't far behind... you can't change physics, and they haven't really changed the technology...
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
It should... larger pixel sensor of the same generation. The D610 surpasses the D810 already in most areas (marginally).
Click to expand...

Just to bring up this Dx0 thing again …… the D810 get better scores …….. OK, OK I know that the D810 has more Mpix and that could be the reason …….. but are they closer than they would be because of the (improved) new sensor and also as the pixel density on the D7100 is much greater than that of the D750 … they both have 24MP sensors but the D750 is FX ….. should not the D7100 perform better sharpness wise in Dx0 tests?
 
BillN_33 said:
Just to bring up this Dx0 thing again …… the D810 get better scores …….. OK, OK I know that the D810 has more Mpix and that could be the reason …….. but are they closer than they would be because of the (improved) new sensor and also as the pixel density on the D7100 is much greater than that of the D750 … they both have 24MP sensors but the D750 is FX ….. should not the D7100 perform better sharpness wise in Dx0 tests?
Click to expand...
No. Sharpness and resolution are not the same thing... resolution is how much detail there is (dots), and sharpness is how clear that detail is (contrast).
A higher MP sensor of the same size should always deliver more resolution. And a larger sensor should always deliver sharper results.

IMO, the D7100 24MP APS sensor is beyond anything possibly useful. There are no lenses that can readily resolve to that level, and very few applications that would allow it anyways.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
No. Sharpness and resolution are not the same thing... resolution is how much detail there is (dots), and sharpness is how clear that detail is (contrast).
A higher MP sensor of the same size should always deliver more resolution. And a larger sensor should always deliver sharper results.
Click to expand...

I am trying to apply this to my needs for close up photography, (not macro photography)

(Comparing real images, surprise surprise, at the original file size and also optimised for the web) …..I find that I get "better" close up results using the Nikon V1 with small CX sensor, (crop x 2.7 and 20 Mpix), + Nikon 300mm f4 versus the D700 or D7100 + Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR …… at the image sizes that I want

Also the requirement of greater DOF may be served better with a smaller high density sensor

I have a couple of M43 bodies and I may try with Nikon or Canon 200mm prime MP glass
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
I am trying to apply this to my needs for close up photography, (not macro photography)
Click to expand...
That's because even the most critical requirements for sharpness, based only on 20-20 vision, only require ~7MP of data for "sharpness." The V1 has more than enough at 10MP. So you're down to actually recording that 10MP of data with more dots representing it (resolution)... essentially the number of dots (pixels) on the subject area. Using the 300mm on the V1 gives you an effective FOV of ~ 900mm with 10MP within that area. And a longer working distance and greater DOF.

That's the same reasons I choose to use my V2 w/ 150mm macro for macro work.
There's other things that play into this such as diffraction/aperture selection for DOF etc... but they generally "wash out" with good technique.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Steven …… 90% of my close up shots are taken with the V1 + 300mm f4 on a tripod …….. sometimes I have used the 300mm f2.8VR and the images just seemed a tad better …… but that could have been the shooting conditions.

The 70 200mm f2.8VR just does not "do it" and sometimes I use a TC14Ell with the 300mm f4 and I am pleased with the results albeit always fighting the DOF on Dragonfly images

It would really be interesting if Sony made a 1" sensor that they would let Nikon use

But I'll stop now as I keep going OT
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Just to bring up this Dx0 thing again …… the D810 get better scores …….. OK, OK I know that the D810 has more Mpix and that could be the reason …….. but are they closer than they would be because of the (improved) new sensor and also as the pixel density on the D7100 is much greater than that of the D750 … they both have 24MP sensors but the D750 is FX ….. should not the D7100 perform better sharpness wise in Dx0 tests?
Click to expand...

No... because it's sensor is bigger. Bigger sensors = sharper images. So a DX 24mp sensor will never be as sharp as a 24mp FX sensor. The 7100 has no AA filter though, so the difference won't be staggering, but it will be noticeable.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
No... because it's sensor is bigger. Bigger sensors = sharper images. So a DX 24mp sensor will never be as sharp as a 24mp FX sensor. The 7100 has no AA filter though, so the difference won't be staggering, but it will be noticeable.
Click to expand...

you mean using the same or similar technology

I know that Nikon do not mention sharpness and in any case you will rubbish what they say, but

The D750 brochure claims that the "The D750 even surpasses the D810 in image quality at high sensitivities, as well as by definition, depth, tonal graduation, and clear colour"
 
BillN_33 said:
Thanks Steven …… 90% of my close up shots are taken with the V1 + 300mm f4 on a tripod …….. sometimes I have used the 300mm f2.8VR and the images just seemed a tad better …… but that could have been the shooting conditions.

The 70 200mm f2.8VR just does not "do it" and sometimes I use a TC14Ell with the 300mm f4 and I am pleased with the results albeit always fighting the DOF on Dragonfly images
Click to expand...
If you can use a lens that is sharp at a wider aperture and still have enough DOF then the images should be better... The V1 is getting into "diffraction limiting" by f/5.6 and diffraction is affecting the image somewhat by ~f/2.8. A perfectly sharp lens at f/2.8 projects a dot of 3.7 microns in diameter and the pixels on the V1 are 3.5 microns in diameter... so f/2.8 is the best match *IF* your lens is perfectly sharp at f/2.8 (not likely).

But because your lenses probably are not perfectly sharp at f/2.8, and are sharper stopped down further, the "best aperture" to use will be the sharpest one at/before f/5.6.
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
you mean using the same or similar technology
Click to expand...


It would make little difference to sharpness. That's down to sensor size and lens resolution. Newer "technology" will yield greater dynamic range, lower noise etc, but sharpness is a product of lens resolution and sensor size (leaving any in-camera processing out of the equation... as most will when shooting raw).

BillN_33 said:
I know that Nikon do not mention sharpness and in any case you will rubbish what they say
Click to expand...

Why would I rubbish what they say?

BillN_33 said:
, but

The D750 brochure claims that the "The D750 even surpasses the D810 in image quality at high sensitivities, as well as by definition, depth, tonal graduation, and clear colour"
Click to expand...

It depends how you define image quality. Sharpness is not the only measure of quality. The D750, from what I've seen DOES surpass the D810 in high ISO noise levels, and as a by-product of that, probably dynamic range as well (they're actually one and the same thing in reality). I've done nothing but heap praise upon this camera in this thread, which is why I found it annoying people were moaning about it, just because it has "scene" modes.. like anyone gives a crap. It's looking like a stunning little camera.

It won't be sharper than a D810 or D800/E though.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
If you can use a lens that is sharp at a wider aperture and still have enough DOF then the images should be better... The V1 is getting into "diffraction limiting" by f/5.6 and diffraction is affecting the image somewhat by ~f/2.8. A perfectly sharp lens at f/2.8 projects a dot of 3.7 microns in diameter and the pixels on the V1 are 3.5 microns in diameter... so f/2.8 is the best match *IF* your lens is perfectly sharp at f/2.8 (not likely).

But because your lenses probably are not perfectly sharp at f/2.8 and are sharper stopped down further, the "best aperture" to use will be the sharpest one at/before f/5.6.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's interesting and helps as I have been taking most of my shots at f8 thinking that will be the sharpest aperture and accepting that in order to get acceptable DOF I need to make sure that I am "head on" or sideways on to the image …… if you see what I mean.

Also a feature of macro lens is that they have a higher range of narrower apertures than normal lens, obviously to help as much as possible with the DOF, so presumably they are trading sharpness for DOF
 
Last edited:
so to summarise simply,

in order to get the sharpest image you need the biggest sensor with the highest number of absolute pixels …….

Obviously the high quality the lens the sharper the image will be

but I will never get near my Dragonflies with a D810 and a 85mm f1.4
 
Last edited:
It's all tradeoffs...
If your lens is actually sharper at f/8 and the difference in sharpness is greater than the penalty for being "diffraction limited" then f/8 would be the best choice relative to "sharpness" (but you will be recording less than 10MP of detail). In that case, a different lens would be preferable.
 
BillN_33 said:
so to summarise simply,

in order to get the sharpest image you need the biggest sensor with the highest number of absolute pixels …….

Obviously the high quality the lens the sharper the image will be

but I will never get near my Dragonflies with a D810 and a 85mm f1.4
Click to expand...


Don't start getting too obsessed with sharpness. There's more to an image than just sharpness. It;s not as if you are using rubbish lenses... just use them at their sharpest apertures and I'm sure you'll be happy. Do you print big? If not, you'll probably only be resizing them and posting them online, surely. No one will even notice that extra sharpness anyway.
 
sk66 said:
It's all tradeoffs...
If your lens is actually sharper at f/8 and the difference in sharpness is greater than the penalty for being "diffraction limited" then f/8 would be the best choice relative to "sharpness" (but you will be recording less than 10MP of detail). In that case, a different lens would be preferable.
Click to expand...

Thanks Steven ….. that's is what I am trying to figure out

My main interests are nature, birds and dragonflies

I am trying to figure out the best combination and (general), settings for taking Dragonfly shots, accepting that to be most effective you need to be a certain distance away.

So far it's V1 + 300mm at f8 on a tripod

It would seem to be the CX sensor with a Nikon 200mm f2 if I want AF or a Zeiss if I am happy with MF
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Don't start getting too obsessed with sharpness. There's more to an image than just sharpness. It;s not as if you are using rubbish lenses... just use them at their sharpest apertures and I'm sure you'll be happy. Do you print big? If not, you'll probably only be resizing them and posting them online, surely. No one will even notice that extra sharpness anyway.
Click to expand...

Thanks David,

I need sharpness for my Dragonfly shots, OK I do not print much, but I will print more and want to produce the best images technically that I can, as well as the images being attractive and informative

As I have indicated to you in past thread my interests are recording (images) not necessarily creating them
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Thanks David,

I need sharpness for my Dragonfly shots, OK I do not print much, but I will print more and want to produce the best images technically that I can, as well as the images being attractive and informative

As I have indicated to you in past thread my interests are recording (images) not necessarily creating them
Click to expand...

I know... but you've got some good lenses.. just use them at sensible apertures and they'll be fine. Chasing that last few percent of available sharpness is a cash sink you'll regret.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I know... but you've got some good lenses.. just use them at sensible apertures and they'll be fine. Chasing that last few percent of available sharpness is a cash sink you'll regret.
Click to expand...

My view is that good used glass it better (investment) than part of the money in the Building Society …… and the "dividend" you get is the enjoyment of using them …… I am retired and so I decide to spend money on photographic gear and holidays each year rather than leaving it for the "bankers" to use and my kids to spend
 
bit late to the thread party but can we please remember to not post in such a way that would make other members think bad things?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top