Nikon D750 & D780

Nikon might as well have named the camera the Jesus mk2, I don't think it would have caused more trouble. ;)
 
Does anyone know what bit rate it records at and how does it compare to the 5D?
 
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.
I agree...
And the same goes for resolution/MP's...

In all honesty Bill, of your three bodies your best results would probably be attained by using an 800mm-1000mm lens that is perfectly sharp by f/8 on the D700. But the costs of doing that (weight/handling/actual $$$) would probably far outweigh the benefit/need. If you were to use the 200mm f/2 instead of the 300mm f/4 the "benefits" would only exist around f/4 and below, you would loose DOF and working distance/pixels on subject (resolution)... that probably wouldn't be an overall beneficial trade and it would cost you money...
My best recommendation is use what you have, as well as you can, and be happy. Right now your biggest limitation is probably getting enough SS to offset ~900mm effective, even on a tripod. Or technique; 900mm on a tripod for a stationary subject is NOT easy... it's technically demanding (akin to 1:1+ macro).

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
"Sharpness" always goes to the larger sensor assuming both have recorded an equally sharp image to start with (lens).... it's basically due to "enlargement" just like zooming in on an image on your screen. A Cx sensor's area has to be enlarged more in order to occupy an 8x10 display area than an 8x10 negative does.

Resolution goes to the camera with smaller pixels... in fact, the D7100 has greater resolution than the D8xx series (just as your V1 does)... it's just a greater resolution of a smaller area. But I don't know of a lens that is able to resolve down to that size. The 200mm f/2 doesn't. Maybe the Zeiss 135 f/2 *when used at f/2.*

Getting all of the benefit from maximum sharpness and/or resolution capabilities imposes certain restrictions on how you use the equipment... quite often limitations that just aren't practical to meet. The good thing is you don't really need all of it most of the time. Especially if you're not printing/displaying large. If you're not printing at least at 1:1 300dpi on a 300dpi printer then the limitation becomes the printer (i.e. because the printer can only do 250dpi and your sending it more than that (ppi) to resolve/print).

While it may seem like all of this is "off topic" it really isn't. What we are talking about is pixel size vs pixel efficiency vs lens resolution vs method of use vs final display.... these decisions/factors apply to all cameras to include the D750.
Most don't, won't, don't want to understand all of this... So I'll just say, once again, the D750 is placed at a very good balance point as a very effective "do-it-all" camera.
 
I agree...
And the same goes for resolution/MP's...

In all honesty Bill, of your three bodies your best results would probably be attained by using an 800mm-1000mm lens that is perfectly sharp by f/8 on the D700. But the costs of doing that (weight/handling/actual $$$) would probably far outweigh the benefit/need. If you were to use the 200mm f/2 instead of the 300mm f/4 the "benefits" would only exist around f/4 and below, you would loose DOF and working distance/pixels on subject (resolution)... that probably wouldn't be an overall beneficial trade and it would cost you money...
My best recommendation is use what you have, as well as you can, and be happy. Right now your biggest limitation is probably getting enough SS to offset ~900mm effective, even on a tripod. Or technique; 900mm on a tripod for a stationary subject is NOT easy... it's technically demanding (akin to 1:1+ macro).


"Sharpness" always goes to the larger sensor assuming both have recorded an equally sharp image to start with (lens).... it's basically due to "enlargement" just like zooming in on an image on your screen. A Cx sensor's area has to be enlarged more in order to occupy an 8x10 display area than an 8x10 negative does.

Resolution goes to the camera with smaller pixels... in fact, the D7100 has greater resolution than the D8xx series (just as your V1 does)... it's just a greater resolution of a smaller area. But I don't know of a lens that is able to resolve down to that size. The 200mm f/2 doesn't. Maybe the Zeiss 135 f/2 *when used at f/2.*

Getting all of the benefit from maximum sharpness and/or resolution capabilities imposes certain restrictions on how you use the equipment... quite often limitations that just aren't practical to meet. The good thing is you don't really need all of it most of the time. Especially if you're not printing/displaying large. If you're not printing at least at 1:1 300dpi on a 300dpi printer then the limitation becomes the printer (i.e. because the printer can only do 250dpi and your sending it more than that (ppi) to resolve/print).

While it may seem like all of this is "off topic" it really isn't. What we are talking about is pixel size vs pixel efficiency vs lens resolution vs method of use vs final display.... these decisions/factors apply to all cameras to include the D750.
Most don't, won't, don't want to understand all of this... So I'll just say, once again, the D750 is placed at a very good balance point as a very effective "do-it-all" camera.

Thanks Steven

most of my Dragonfly images are on

https://www.flickr.com/photos/billn_france/

and saved for web at below 250mbte and 1000 x whatever

most are taken with the V1 + 300mm f4
 
Does anyone know what bit rate it records at and how does it compare to the 5D?
14bit analog, 16bit digital, 14bit raw files.
Unless you mean video...1080/60p and uncompressed out to an external recorder. I don't know the specifics of the 5D, but combined w/ the new engine (expeed4) I would expect it to trounce almost every other DSLR for video (maybe excluding Canon's cinema bodies... I know nothing about them. And I know little about video overall so I could be completely wrong).
 
14bit analog, 16bit digital, 14bit raw files.
Unless you mean video...1080/60p and uncompressed out to an external recorder. I don't know the specifics of the 5D, but combined w/ the new engine (expeed4) I would expect it to trounce almost every other DSLR for video (maybe excluding Canon's cinema bodies... I know nothing about them. And I know little about video overall so I could be completely wrong).
Thanks SK66 but by bitrate I meant 50mbps, 100mbps etc... The 5D does 92mbps
 
I've only browsed this thread but, my opinion is, this looking like a cracking camera in a small package much the same way the Canon fanboys look at the 6d. I've got to admit I was initially disappointed it wasn't a genuine replacement for the D700 but, I think it's a pretty smart move by Nikon by putting such a comprehensive camera into such a small body. The way the CSC market is going I think think this will help to keep hold of a lot of customers who are/were thinking of migrating.
 
Last edited:
I've only browsed this thread but, my opinion is, this looking like a cracking camera in a small package much the same way the Canon fanboys look at the 6d. I've got to admit I was initially disappointed it wasn't a genuine replacement for the D700 but, I think it's a pretty smart move by Nikon by putting such a comprehensive camera into such a small body. The way the CSC market is going I think think this will help to keep hold of a lot of customers who are/were thinking of migrating.

I don't get that. Csc cameras are still smaller, and the price point is far different, aside from the Sony ff effort, I would guess that all other cameras are around half the price?
 
I don't get that. Csc cameras are still smaller, and the price point is far different, aside from the Sony ff effort, I would guess that all other cameras are around half the price?

If your talking similar performance with DOF control and IQ in lower light then the Fuji system comes into the same kind of price bracket as well. The most obvious advantage of a DSLR system though is autofocus and you could argue that prior to this Nikon weren't maximising that with the D600.
 
If your talking similar performance with DOF control and IQ in lower light then the Fuji system comes into the same kind of price bracket as well. The most obvious advantage of a DSLR system though is autofocus and you could argue that prior to this Nikon weren't maximising that with the D600.

No Fuji camera has been more than £1k. The d750 is approx twice the price.
 
As I said though if you include faster lenses to try and get close to FF performance the cost does become similar.

No it doesn't. The 50-140 2.8 and 18-55 and 10-24 Fuji are broadly the same as the Nikon 70-200 and 16-35 and 24-85. Yes, the 14mm Nikon is more but then the Nikon 50mm 1.4 is cheaper than the 35mm 1.4 Fuji.

Even the Nikon 610 is twice the price of the xpro.
 
The buffer is a bit poorer than I was expecting. I don't use the buffer a lot but I have a feeling that would block in the times I do.

Yes - the technical side of digital photography is really interesting and a subject almost "apart" from taking the images ……. what's behind pressing the trigger?
 
If anyone actually needs to shoot more than 5fps for more than 3 full seconds to get the shots they need, then they're probably better off buying a used D3s. However... those figures do compare well to the D700, which seems to be the benchmark this camera is being judged by.... for some stupid reason.
 
Last edited:
If anyone actually needs to shoot more than 5fps for more than 3 full seconds to get the shots they need, then they're probably better off buying a used D3s. However... those figures do compare well to the D700, which seems to be the benchmark this camera is being judged by.... for some stupid reason.

Morning David - don't you think that the technology is at least interesting - and I'm not trying to argue at all - I just find invention, design and stuff like that fascinating in all aspects of life, and it is good that there are guys out there prepared to do lots of work to analyse stuff for us.

I agree that information can overwhelm but this thread has brought out quite a lot of areas that have increased my knowledge and interest and maybe it has been the same for others.

as I said I'm not trying to argue at all ….. so please don't take it as such

From this thread my leaning would now be towards a new D810 or used D4 if I were to choose to change ………. and I do realise that both are technically way above my abilities to use to their full potential.

I has also made me realise that my D700, (sorry to mention it), deserves significant respect as a technical creation
 
Last edited:
However... those figures do compare well to the D700, which seems to be the benchmark this camera is being judged by.... for some stupid reason.
Erm, that stupid reason being that this camera is being touted worldwide by those in the industry as the real long awaited replacement for the D700 (but as said on here, more like a D610 replacement)

Please dont tell us that the D800 was the direct replacement for the D700 as youre the only person in the world who would beleive this, hmmmmm, i think ive rumbled you David, you are Ken Rockwell and i claim my £5

Sorry mate, just joshing with you, LOL
 
Last edited:
Morning David - don't you think that the technology is at least interesting - and I'm not trying to argue at all - I just find invention, design and stuff like that fascinating in all aspects of life, and it is good that there are guys out there prepared to do lots of work to analyse stuff for us.

I agree that information can overwhelm but this thread has brought out quite a lot of areas that have increased my knowledge and interest and maybe it has been the same for others.

as I said I'm not trying to argue at all ….. so please don't take it as such

From this thread my leaning would now be towards a new D810 or used D4 if I were to choose to change ………. and I do realise that both are technically way above my abilities to use to their full potential.

I has also made me realise that my D700, (sorry to mention it), deserves significant respect as a technical creation


Yeah, of course I do :) I can divorce it from what's needed to be considered when shooting though. It's like driving. I love cars, and find engineering, design and production of them interesting, but when I'm actually driving, I'm only considering the effects of those things, not the things themselves.

The D700 was a milestone camera, and I feel people are just too emotionally attached to it. While I appreciate the technology of cameras, they are.. to me anyway.... merely tools. I would never get my cameras out to "play" with them, or look at them, and I just don't get the whole put them in a glass case thing - I mean, you wouldn't get a car mechanic putting his tools in a glass case in his living room. Half the time I can't even be arsed cleaning them... LOL. They are tools to me. When a demonstrably better tool comes along, I discard the old one in favour of the new one if I can see a benefit to doing so. I feel no emotional link with the old one. I only seem to have this attitude to digital cameras though. Film cameras are different. While there's no emotional attachment, I think it's the fact that all of them.... every single one, is still viable as a working tool today, because with film cameras, the lens and film stock are what create the differences. I wish I still had a Nikon F3 for instance... just a pleasure to use if I want to work manually with 35mm film (which admittedly isn't often, and probably why I've never bothered getting another F3)... just as much now, as it was back in 1980. However, using a Nikon D1 now, would be a serious pain in the arse, and not only due to quality of image either. Digital cameras, by default, are just like white goods: They become obsolete, and you move on. I won't mourn the loss of my D800 when I move on any more than I mourned the loss of my last fridge.

Erm, that stupid reason being that this camera is being touted worldwide by those in the industry as the real long awaited replacement for the D700 (but as said on here, more like a D610 replacement)

Please dont tell us that the D800 was the direct replacement for the D700 as youre the only person in the world who would beleive this, hmmmmm, i think ive rumbled you David, you are Ken Rockwell and i claim my £5

Sorry mate, just joshing with you, LOL


I'M not viewing it as a "replacement" for anything. Why not just judge it for what it is instead? At the time, the D800 was without a doubt the closest thing to a D700 possible. Same size, weight, handling, layout, price point, pro body.. etc etc. The only difference was a loss of continuous shooting speed, and the 36mp... which I personally never saw as a problem. That role, so far as I'm concerned now rests with the D810, which I think that anyone who wants a D700 replacement should be thinking of as the "new D700", not the D750. There's far more reason to think of the D810 as the D700 replacement. For some reason that utterly baffles me, people refuse to consider this because "the files are too big".... which is a laughable reason IMO.
 
Think youre right about the D810 being the closer replacement for the D700 than the D750, I only ever shoot Jpeg so file size never bothered me anyway
 
The D750 appears to have been thought out a lot better than the D4 and D4S.It's nice to have a full frame camera with tilting screen, 24mp, two card slots the same(are you reading Nikon). With the same group AF as the D4s and 6.5fps it is well capable of doing sports and anything else.Who would but the D4 now or a D4s,just for the faster frame rate and loose 8mp. It looks like Nikon got this one right.:cool:
 
Not sure if its been mentioned but I popped into Jessops on Friday to see what it was listed as. After the chap in the store was finished searching for a canon 750D I asked him to look for a Nikon D750 on the system, it was listed at £1799 for body only.
 
Yes - the technical side of digital photography is really interesting and a subject almost "apart" from taking the images ……. what's behind pressing the trigger?
I try to anticipate an image but I am also aware I have nearly 0 talent so on occasion I just spray and pray. More often though I stick it at in the 3-5 fps range and fire off the odd shot or 2 at a time. Doing this with my D7000 I've maxed the buffer several times, possibly more down to the card but the small buffer didn't help.

All the gear no idea me, but I'm having fun so screw it.
 
Yeah, of course I do :) I can divorce it from what's needed to be considered when shooting though. It's like driving. I love cars, and find engineering, design and production of them interesting, but when I'm actually driving, I'm only considering the effects of those things, not the things themselves.

The D700 was a milestone camera, and I feel people are just too emotionally attached to it. While I appreciate the technology of cameras, they are.. to me anyway.... merely tools. I would never get my cameras out to "play" with them, or look at them, and I just don't get the whole put them in a glass case thing - I mean, you wouldn't get a car mechanic putting his tools in a glass case in his living room. Half the time I can't even be arsed cleaning them... LOL. They are tools to me. When a demonstrably better tool comes along, I discard the old one in favour of the new one if I can see a benefit to doing so. I feel no emotional link with the old one. I only seem to have this attitude to digital cameras though. Film cameras are different. While there's no emotional attachment, I think it's the fact that all of them.... every single one, is still viable as a working tool today, because with film cameras, the lens and film stock are what create the differences. I wish I still had a Nikon F3 for instance... just a pleasure to use if I want to work manually with 35mm film (which admittedly isn't often, and probably why I've never bothered getting another F3)... just as much now, as it was back in 1980. However, using a Nikon D1 now, would be a serious pain in the arse, and not only due to quality of image either. Digital cameras, by default, are just like white goods: They become obsolete, and you move on. I won't mourn the loss of my D800 when I move on any more than I mourned the loss of my last fridge.




I'M not viewing it as a "replacement" for anything. Why not just judge it for what it is instead? At the time, the D800 was without a doubt the closest thing to a D700 possible. Same size, weight, handling, layout, price point, pro body.. etc etc. The only difference was a loss of continuous shooting speed, and the 36mp... which I personally never saw as a problem. That role, so far as I'm concerned now rests with the D810, which I think that anyone who wants a D700 replacement should be thinking of as the "new D700", not the D750. There's far more reason to think of the D810 as the D700 replacement. For some reason that utterly baffles me, people refuse to consider this because "the files are too big".... which is a laughable reason IMO.

We are all different

I have an "old" 911, (well I don't as I gave it to my son a few years ago, but he still lets me drive it now and again), - I do not like new ones to drive - I much prefer(ed) my Merc …. maybe my age

I still have my 1976 R90S which I much prefer to the R1150GSA that I had

I still have an F3 it's a great "paper weight" - looks great on the shelf and if I still used film it would give me great satisfaction - much more than the F80 which is still in the box "as new" …… a purchasing mistake …… but I don't think I had the internet to advise me at the time

But even the ones that "I don't now prefer" at the time I had them they were the latest and gave me great satisfaction.

and - some of the mechanics, (my ex next door neighbour here in France who worked for a motor manufacturer all his life - he is now dead or I would take a picture of his cabinets), that I have known …… do clean and present there "tools" in many strange ways

Maybe you have to experience one to appreciate the other

each to his own, that's why the UK is such an interesting place, (and other countries of course, but not all)

PS - as I write my neighbour is jet spraying the underside of his ride on mower after which he will dry it all off and clean the engine before he puts it after …….. he really enjoys doing this and does it at least monthly in the season
 
Last edited:
Why is the D800 not the replacement to the D700?

FPS, and the mp count is far more than many want. A natural replacement would have been 18-24 mp, 7fps and all the other normal stuff like 2 slots, new expeed etc
 
Why is the D800 not the replacement to the D700?
Simple, because its not, never was, never will be and was never introduced as such, was never accepted as such even by those who thought it was, a totally different ball game for a totally different market
 
Crumbs, I bet let everyone know who swapped their D700 for the D800 and have been using it for two years. Clearly they were completely wasting their time.
 
PS - as I write my neighbour is jet spraying the underside of his ride on mower after which he will dry it all off and clean the engine before he puts it after …….. he really enjoys doing this and does it at least monthly in the season

I d the same with my Mustang at least once a year. Up on stands... pressure wash the floorpan. Just good maintenance that (American cars have no underseal).
 
I'd just like to add to this thread.

I'm a professional photographer and have been for about 3-4 years. I started photography with a Nikon D90 and I'm still using that same camera. I'm in-house for a major youth publication and I also co-run/own a wakeboarding publication. I've had galleries, printed in national newspapers, the lot and not once shot with anything better than a D7100

Anyone who sits here and is bitching about the camera not being a 'pro' body, you're having a laugh really.. Anybody can turn a body into a pro body, as long as you know how to use a camera. This camera isn't pointed at pro's, it's pointed at people who know how to use a camera but don't want to blow £5k on a pro-body, this camera is the nuts. The specs are crazy good.

If you want a pro body and the same specs, get a D3s. If you want to 'look the part' get a D810. The problem with this website, is there are far to many wannabes and not enough people who actually have any idea what they're talking about - one of the reasons why I don't bother with this site anymore.

And lets not talk about the massive advatages this camera has on video... Any aspiring journalist, as myself will eat these features up. Filming broadcast quality films on a tiny body - genius.

The D750, is amazing. It's a full frame pro spec camera in a user friendly body (same as my D90). I'd buy it, without a doubt. At the end of the day, I don't care people can laugh at my equipment but I can tell you for a fact I'll be laughing all the way to the bank!
 
Last edited:
I d the same with my Mustang at least once a year. Up on stands... pressure wash the floorpan. Just good maintenance that (American cars have no underseal).

Why do you drool over your car which is essentially a tool getting you from A to B but dismiss dong it over a camera which you refer to as just a tool?
 
Back
Top