Nikon D750 & D780

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?


Because cars aren't that at all. If that were the case, they'd all look the same (like all cameras pretty much do... let's be honest) and they'd not be such cultural icons in themselves. Whole cities and the landscape itself has been irrevocably changed as a result of the car. It's changed how we live, work, travel, and even changed the lexicon of language, both written and visual. While PHOTOGRAPHY has has a similar impact... the camera itself, as an artefact, has not. No one writes songs about cameras; No one directs camera chase scenes in movies, and no one treats buying their first camera as a right of passage and ticket to freedom. There's more to a car than a box that moves. Speed, power, noise, freedom... it's visceral and primitive. It's exciting. Cameras are not exciting. Photography is... cameras aren't.

Plus... it cost $42000, and I don't want it to go rusty... which is perhaps the main reason actually. I simply don't need to do that to stop my camera going rusty.

what year

2006
 
Last edited:
Because cars aren't that at all. If that were the case, they'd all look the same (like all cameras pretty much do... let's be honest) and they'd not be such cultural icons in themselves. Whole cities and the landscape itself has been irrevocably changed as a result of the car. It's changed how we live, work, travel, and even changed the lexicon of language, both written and visual. While PHOTOGRAPHY has has a similar impact... the camera itself, as an artefact, has not. No one writes songs about cameras; No one directs camera chase scenes in movies, and no one treats buying their first camera as a right of passage and ticket to freedom. There's more to a car than a box that moves. Speed, power, noise, freedom... it's visceral and primitive. It's exciting. Cameras are not exciting. Photography is... cameras aren't.

Plus... it cost $42000, and I don't want it to go rusty... which is perhaps the main reason actually. I simply don't need to do that to stop my camera going rusty.

You choose to fetishize it though in the way others don't and in the same way as others choose to do it with a camera etc. You could drive to work in a Dacia or a Mustang, it's just a tool that has performed its function in getting you from A to B.
 
Because cars aren't that at all. If that were the case, they'd all look the same (like all cameras pretty much do... let's be honest) and they'd not be such cultural icons in themselves. Whole cities and the landscape itself has been irrevocably changed as a result of the car. It's changed how we live, work, travel, and even changed the lexicon of language, both written and visual. While PHOTOGRAPHY has has a similar impact... the camera itself, as an artefact, has not. No one writes songs about cameras; No one directs camera chase scenes in movies, and no one treats buying their first camera as a right of passage and ticket to freedom. There's more to a car than a box that moves. Speed, power, noise, freedom... it's visceral and primitive. It's exciting. Cameras are not exciting. Photography is... cameras aren't.

Plus... it cost $42000, and I don't want it to go rusty... which is perhaps the main reason actually. I simply don't need to do that to stop my camera going rusty.



2006

What's not to drool over

Nikon_f.jpg


better design that your Mustang??
 
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.
This I don't get... you can get the same video capabilities from a $400 camcorder (fixed lens). Or for ~the same money (Blackmagic), or even less (Panasonic GH4k) you can get true 4k video with interchangeable lens capability.

I'll agree that having descent video capability is a nice bonus, but I don't see it as a reason to buy a DSLR
 
Genuinely no idea where to turn on video on any camera I've owned, more so because I've no interest in video than any other reason, if my boys were still kids it would probably different.
 
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.

And I think people on here are not actually taking taking pictures whilst they are posting. They are talking about the design and engineering before they actually go and use their camera, after they use their camera, or even more importantly, discussing things to determine whether to spend, or not, a insignificant amount of money on a camera.

If you apply your tool logic to every device in your life, you will have perfectly usable products to do what you want, (most of the time) and probably save a whole lot of money doing it, but taking cars as an example, nobody needs a car that can go twice or more than the speed limit. Some wouldn't know whether their car handled well or not, and probably wouldn't care, as long as it gets them from A-B. Very few need a car that can go off road, but they just may do, o maybe they just like the raised driving view. For some, their car is part of the driving experience. Why shouldn't Photographers feel the same way about their cameras? :thinking: There are forums discussing cars, fridges, TVs whatever, and to be discussing the the camera equipment, on a equipment section of a Photography site, shouldn't be so easily dismissed imho.


As for this camera replacing this or that camera, I expect a replacement to improve on the camera it replaces. I didn't expect the D810 to lose any features over the D800. Why is it so unreasonable for the D700 users to expect the D750 to be better in almost every way, than the camera, at is purported to replace? :thinking: Yes, Nikon may have re-arranged their camera line up, mixing and matching features, but until Nikon come out and actually say what they are thinking of about the camera line up (if they know ;)) then it is all up for discussion.
 
Genuinely no idea where to turn on video on any camera I've owned, more so because I've no interest in video than any other reason, if my boys were still kids it would probably different.


That's the only thing I have used the video on mine for, recorded my kids dancing about, and recently recorded an ice bucket challenge on it :D I see it as a bonus extra, not something I care much about. If I was a blogger, or ran a youtube channel or whatever, I suppose I'd use it more.
 
That's the only thing I have used the video on mine for, recorded my kids dancing about, and recently recorded an ice bucket challenge on it :D I see it as a bonus extra, not something I care much about. If I was a blogger, or ran a youtube channel or whatever, I suppose I'd use it more.
How would Video affect the shuttercount
 
What's not to drool over

Nikon_f.jpg



better design that your Mustang??


Well... it's an iconic camera, sure. Well designed? I'm not sure. That's the F2 Photomic, which has had extra bits added, and bolted onto the original design with no thought for aesthetics whatsoever. The original F2 looked nothing like that.

nikon-f2.jpg


However... Let's be honest.. all cameras look pretty much the same, whereas cars are designed to look good as much as they are to perform. Well.. some are.... some are a design travesty (Fiat Multipla for eg.)
 
Genuinely had no idea


I know that using the intervalometer affects shutter count, but not video, as it doesn't use the mechanical shutter. I was puzzled as I thought you were telling me it would affect shutter count, sorry.
 
Multipla was a masterclass of purposeful, practical design, aesthetically it was a matter of taste. Loads of journalists hailed its design, and rightly so. It was radical and bold. MoMA had a model on display after it was launched.

The second gen model was a bland borefest.
 
Multipla was a masterclass of purposeful, practical design, aesthetically it was a matter of taste. Loads of journalists hailed its design, and rightly so. It was radical and bold. MoMA had a model on display after it was launched.

The second gen model was a bland borefest.

There's design that fulfils a purpose, and there's beautiful design, and then there's design that does both. You're confusing it's interior design and features, which were, and still are class leading in many respects, and superbly designed. However... there was no need to make the outside so bloody ugly. THAT served NO practical purpose, other than to try and look quirky. I'm disappointed in MoMA. Cars like that age horribly, and just become a caricature of themselves... which is why they dropped it as quickly as they embraced it. Some designs are just timeless however, which is why they persist, and their legacy remains in models throughout successive generations - as to change it would be to undermine the very thing that made it iconic. They're usually shadows of their formers selves, but because they were so "right" to begin with, you just can't wipe the slate clean. They become iconic, and part of what makes the object what it is. The Mini, The Routemaster Bus, The Mustang, Times New Roman font, Campbell's Soup logo, The MkI Golf, The VW Beetle.. etc

Anyway.... going massively off topic now. Ths is one for "out of focus" surely?
 
I see what you did there David, you slipped in the Mustang.


Design classic.. whether I own one or not.... but I'm referring to the original 64-68 design here. The S197 I own merely inherits the vestiges of that original concept as discussed in my previous post... anyway... ahem... Off Topic.
 
Design classic.. whether I own one or not.... but I'm referring to the original 64-68 design here. The S197 I own merely inherits the vestiges of that original concept as discussed in my previous post... anyway... ahem... Off Topic.

Ford Mustang - The mid 80's one that I drove in the US in the mid 80's reminded me of a Ford Escort …… no offence to the classic earlier models

Maybe see the icon thread … icons never last

Only Mustang that I have ever driven

I wish that I could find a photo of it that I took - but most of my film stuff is in someones attic somewhere
 
Last edited:
Ford Mustang - The mid 80's one that I drove in the US in the mid 80's reminded me of a Ford Escort …… no offence to the classic earlier models

Maybe see the icon thread … icons never last

Sure they do. Millions of classic Mustangs are still around, and still driving.

David, does anyone call you Saxondale? And do you ever say "I'm taking out The Stang"?

No... and no.
 
Sure they do. Millions of classic Mustangs are still around, and still driving.



No... and no.

It did not mean icons never last - in the physical sense - I mean't that was is an icon ………those after it are not icon

i.e not sure the last year of the Mustang which was an icon …… say 1965 …… but the later model become worse until they cease to become icons

another example 1965 MGB an icon ………….1980 MGB not an icon

or Leica M3 an icon …….. Leica M5 not an icon

(I now see why we have the occasional disagreement - You're from Lancashire)
 
Last edited:
It did not mean icons never last - in the physical sense - I mean't that was is an icon ………those after it are not icon

i.e not sure the last year of the Mustang which was an icon …… say 1965 …… but the later model become worse until they cease to become icons

another example 1965 MGB an icon ………….1980 MGB not an icon

or Leica M3 an icon …….. Leica M5 not an icon

(I now see why we have the occasional disagreement - You're from Lancashire)


Off topic.... go start a thread.... or revive one.
 
Isn't there another recent thread on icons ?

Anyway, the D750 could be. I think it has a lot going for it.

For me I'm impressed that's it's lightweight, it's capable of producing some quality images, Good ISO range. Despite using a viewfinder for 30 + years I like the articulated screen it's a really useful feature.

On paper it looks good although there are a couple of features that I would of liked included a) Eyepiece shutter, b) AF - ON button c) shutter speed of 1/8000.

In balance, everything is a trade off, before I commit myself though I want to get hands on, there is no substitute for trying things out first and reading some unbiased reviews. Looking at Nikons recent track record it's worth waiting a while to see if there any emerging QC issues.
 
Isn't there another recent thread on icons ?

LOL.. I dunno... someone link to it please :) Just searched "Icons"... you can imagine the number of results that search results in.
 
Last edited:
I'll be keeping my D700. The size of this is horrible to a BBF left eye dominant shooter. I guess I'm a minority so don't really count.
 
I'll be keeping my D700. The size of this is horrible to a BBF left eye dominant shooter. I guess I'm a minority so don't really count.

No I reckon that you are "with it" for the discerning shooter …….. although no one of here as yet seen or used the D750 ………

D810 or D4 must be the way to go …… although I have never used either

"The D750 could be obsolete before it is on general release for some of us" …….. dead in the water
 
Last edited:
No I reckon that you are "with it" for the discerning shooter …….. although no one of here as yet seen or use the D750 ……...

I don't need to use it. I can see from the size and design that using the AE-L/AF-L button to focus with my left eye at the viewfinder would leave my right thumb sticking into my eye socket exactly like the D7000. Now I've grown my nails out play guitar the problem would be worse, although I don't blame Nikon for that. ;)
 
No I reckon that you are "with it" for the discerning shooter …….. although no one of here as yet seen or used the D750 ………
D810 or D4 must be the way to go …… although I have never used either

"The D750 could be obsolete before it is on general release for some of us"

That's because it isn't available for another week :)

It's due for release in shops on the 23rd - not to long to wait this will shortly be followed by hundreds of reviews on YouTube of people shining Torches in every socket looking for light leaks. People comparing it to the D700 and Nikon -v- Canon shoot outs ! Sometimes these can be quite useful but other times really tedious.
 
Last edited:
No I reckon that you are "with it" for the discerning shooter …….. although no one of here as yet seen or used the D750 ………

D810 or D4 must be the way to go …… although I have never used either

"The D750 could be obsolete before it is on general release for some of us" …….. dead in the water
for the amount of shooting I do these days a D810 or D4 would be a ludicrous waste of money.
 
I don't need to use it. I can see from the size and design that using the AE-L/AF-L button to focus with my left eye at the viewfinder would leave my right thumb sticking into my eye socket exactly like the D7000. Now I've grown my nails out play guitar the problem would be worse, although I don't blame Nikon for that. ;)
I have the same issue with smaller bodies... except I wear glasses so (usually) instead of poking myself in the eye I wind up with a smudged lens.
Luckily, there's really not much need/benefit of BBF in most situations... it just takes a little different approach to accomplish the same things. And if you REALLY want BBF behavior, AF-on can be assigned to a front button (Fn/Pre) on most of the newer bodies (all that I'm aware of).
 
I have the same issue with smaller bodies... except I wear glasses so (usually) instead of poking myself in the eye I wind up with a smudged lens.
Luckily, there's really not much need/benefit of BBF in most situations... it just takes a little different approach to accomplish the same things. And if you REALLY want BBF behavior, AF-on can be assigned to a front button (Fn/Pre) on most of the newer bodies (all that I'm aware of).

It's how I have become accustomed to shooting and I have no desire to change. I owned a D7000 for a year and couldn't adjust to regular focusing on that so sold it. Focusing with the Fn button is just wrong! ;)

Besides that 1/4000th top shutter speed and 1/200th sync speed also suck.
 
I'm a left eye, glasses wearing shooter and never had issues with smaller bodies.
 
It's how I have become accustomed to shooting and I have no desire to change. I owned a D7000 for a year and couldn't adjust to regular focusing on that so sold it. Focusing with the Fn button is just wrong! ;)

Besides that 1/4000th top shutter speed and 1/200th sync speed also suck.
I get it... there are some reasons one might choose the D700 over a D750.
The best one being owning a D700 and not needing a D750. That's a smart move!
 
Back
Top