Nikon D750 & D780

OldCarlos said:
Deci, Just read the article http://nikonrumors.com/2014/11/22/creative-underexposure-with-nikon-dslr-camera.aspx/#more-83936 (y) :cool:
Click to expand...
not sure i agree with the method described in the article. some of the images, predominantly with the people occupying large part of the frame and the back ground being relatively small, i would have dialled in exposure for the background and used flash to light up the subject instead trying to create HDR effect from one image source. there bound to be a lot of noise in getting the shadow to light up again in PP.

I know the shadow performance is good on the new sensors, I am relying on this on some of my pictures where the scene is dynamically challenging. but I wouldn't be deliberately doing it, if I can have another more organic way of achieving correct exposure.
 
ricky1980 said:
not sure i agree with the method described in the article. some of the images, predominantly with the people occupying large part of the frame and the back ground being relatively small, i would have dialled in exposure for the background and used flash to light up the subject instead trying to create HDR effect from one image source. there bound to be a lot of noise in getting the shadow to light up again in PP.

I know the shadow performance is good on the new sensors, I am relying on this on some of my pictures where the scene is dynamically challenging. but I wouldn't be deliberately doing it, if I can have another more organic way of achieving correct exposure.
Click to expand...
If you haven't already, I think it's worth having a read of the comments alongside the article as some of them express similar opinions and there's a good bit of discussion about why. From a wedding perspective, I totally get that sometimes you just have to roll with what (little) time you've got to work with. Not every photographer will want to work in the same way, but that doesn't make any approach any less 'valid' whatever 'valid' is supposed to be.

Well done on getting picked up on Petapixel too! Well deserved, Deci.
 
you are probably right in terms of being a wedding environment and you work with what you have and also human factor meaning you have to capture the moment and no time to muck about. but I would imagine a flash gun would be permanently attached to the camera anyway?

but anyway it is a useful tool but I wouldn't like to be too heavily reliant on it as you cannot measure the dynamic range of the scene using your own eyes, so you can easily mis-judge the exposure and result in some unrecoverable images...
 
Last edited:
ricky1980 said:
you are probably right in terms of being a wedding environment and you work with what you have and also human factor meaning you have to capture the moment and no time to muck about. but I would imagine a flash gun would be permanently attached to the camera anyway?

but anyway it is a useful tool but I wouldn't like to be too heavily reliant on it as you cannot measure the dynamic range of the scene using your own eyes, so you can easily mis-judge the exposure and result in some unrecoverable images...
Click to expand...
Personally, I tend to avoid bare, on-camera flash because it's generally not the most flattering light. Natural light works best for me. If I really need extra light and have time and space to set up light stands with modifiers then I might do. Due to the constant flow of a wedding, it's likely that this would only happen during a posed scenario and even then it depends on what's possible in the time available. A shoot-through umbrella outdoors in any kind of breeze is kinda tricky, but if you've something more aerodynamic and also an assistant who can hold onto a light modifier then great. Again, depending on the situation, I might even hold a bare flash in the air with one arm or bounce its light off something to soften the light. Horses for courses.
 
ricky1980 said:
not sure i agree with the method described in the article. some of the images, predominantly with the people occupying large part of the frame and the back ground being relatively small, i would have dialled in exposure for the background and used flash to light up the subject instead trying to create HDR effect from one image source. there bound to be a lot of noise in getting the shadow to light up again in PP.

I know the shadow performance is good on the new sensors, I am relying on this on some of my pictures where the scene is dynamically challenging. but I wouldn't be deliberately doing it, if I can have another more organic way of achieving correct exposure.
Click to expand...

I addressed that in the article a bit. I personally hate on-camera flash as fill - to me it looks fake and is also very obtrusive when I'm trying to capture intimacy (the built in flash on my D750 bodies are taped down) . Setting up the lighting required to get a flash-lit result with which I would be happy takes too long and can be tedious for the couple. I really think that using lighting is a far less organic way than deliberate underexposure for recovery.

The way I work allows me to take advantage of fleeting moments with results that both I and my clients are happy with. And there's actually no real noise in the shadows at all and the colour retention is great - that was the point of the article, the technology is there.

ricky1980 said:
you are probably right in terms of being a wedding environment and you work with what you have and also human factor meaning you have to capture the moment and no time to muck about. but I would imagine a flash gun would be permanently attached to the camera anyway?

but anyway it is a useful tool but I wouldn't like to be too heavily reliant on it as you cannot measure the dynamic range of the scene using your own eyes, so you can easily mis-judge the exposure and result in some unrecoverable images...
Click to expand...

My flash gun is actually seldom on my camera during a wedding.

In the article I cautioned about knowing the limits of your camera's abilities. If you get to know how far you can push it you'll not get unrecoverable images. I still meter the scene (spot metering both skin and highlights) rather than making guesses based on what I see.

As Digitalrelish says, each way is perfectly valid - I'm a massive fan of some 'strobist' work but it just isn't for me, personally. I just hope the article might be useful to some people who will thrive using that technique
 
Interesting article and some good examples. Thanks for sharing,

The good thing about this camera is its so to lighted handheld which means I often use the off-camera Nikon iTTL lead (which is 100% reliable over imitation) coupled with a SB910 defused or softbox handheld.
It's a bit of a juggling match but it works.
 
great article, bound to be a bit of a contentious point, but shadow recovery is just another tool in the box - contrats on being published on such popular websites! I'm a fan of off-camera lighting (of all sorts - flash and constant) but have used similar methods - most often in back lit first dance pics to bring out just a tad of detail in the faces - theres a recent example on my twitter.
 
Last edited:
psenior1 said:
great article, bound to be a bit of a contentious point, but shadow recovery is just another tool in the box - contrats on being published on such popular websites! I'm a fan of off-camera lighting (of all sorts - flash and constant) but have used similar methods - most often in back lit first dance pics to bring out just a tad of detail in the faces - theres a recent example on my twitter.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head there. I was trying to offer it up as another trick at your disposal. It's good to be versatile. I own several flashes, triggers, studio lights and reflectors and I know how to use them, I just find that it's easier to do this in most situations and I personally love how the images look - I appreciate many will disagree.

I believe in using and pushing new tech. I remember Paul McCartney saying that although the beatles were recorded with basic technology compared to now, they always strived to use the best tech that they could. He inferred that, had they been starting out today, they'd definitely not be using limited old gear and techniques from the 60s for the sake of it.
 
whatever it is, if they could give an option to switch it on and apply it to the whole frame that would be awesome, call it Flare Anomaly Reduction System Engine.
 
Last edited:
I haven't picked up a magazine for along time but was bought one the other day. Digital Camera have a lab test and interestingly, compared against the D610, Canon 6D and Sony Alpha 99, the D750 scored lowest in dynamic range and signal to noise ratio but excelled in the detail resolution tests. Seems contrary to what real user experience is. I was waiting for what I felt was a significant upgrade on my old 5D2 in sensor technology so maybe it shows that the current crop have moved on in the last few years.
 
twist said:
I saw more info that shows the D810 and X-T1 both exhibit this, someone setup both cameras in the same conditions and put it down to flare. I shot in very strong backlight and all I saw was flare, not the horizontal line across the top of the frame. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Well, it's not flare in the example photos they give...
 
I prefer my D7100 to my D700 for bird photography

Has anyone moved from the D7100 to the D750 for bird photography ...... if so is a cropped FX image "better" than the D7100 DX image considering that there will be more pixels on the D7100 image .... size for size.

Is the general opinion that the D750 would be an improvement on the D7100 and that the D750 is preferable to the D810 for bird photography when 90% of my images are cropped ...... I have good, some of "the best" Nikon glass for birding.

good low light performance is needed as I'm getting some sh1ty images in this winter light because of slow shutter speeds v acceptable cropped ISO800 images

may as well spend some more money - no good in the Building Society
 
Last edited:
Haven't used the D750 Bill but my choice would be the D810 for image quality and ability to crop (birds etc).
 
gramps said:
Haven't used the D750 Bill but my choice would be the D810 for image quality and ability to crop (birds etc).
Click to expand...

Thanks gramps - as usual always looking to upgrade the D7100 ........ the D750 seems to be getting good reports from "birders" ........ the more I look at my images the more I see "noise" and camera shake .......... just been using the 600mm at f4 and ISO 400 to ISO 800 - the best shutter speed I could get in the light today was 1/125 sec and even on a big Gitzo tripod with my skill level, (lack of), I am not getting sharpe images ....... maybe I also need a new pair of glasses


... it's a bugger!!!
 
Last edited:
You might want to try a micro-adjust on the camera Bill, it could make all the difference.
With the D810 I was doing 1/160 @iso 6400 without issues ... D4/D4S gives brilliant low-light though :)
 
gramps said:
You might want to try a micro-adjust on the camera Bill, it could make all the difference.
With the D810 I was doing 1/160 @iso 6400 without issues ... D4/D4S gives brilliant low-light though :)
Click to expand...

That why I really thought about Carl's D4 ……. i reckon with all these new semi pro - AF etc., etc., is really good, - but low light performance is the most important factor for bird shooters in most N Europe light situations

I'm struggling with this micro adjustment "business" - I have tried it various distances and have the Focal stuff - the Focal software is really a bind and I just give up with it, (a waste of almost £100 in my opinion), … I tend to just test the lens at my normal shooting distance … take about 6 images, usually at a slight angle along a wall or something similar, from -20 to +20 and then review then and see which looks the best

I'm still tempted by a used D4
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
That why I really thought about Carl's D4 ……. i reckon with all these new semi pro - AF etc., etc., is really good, - but low light performance is the most important factor for bird shooters in most N Europe light situations

I'm struggling with this micro adjustment "business" - I have tried it various distances and have the Focal stuff - the Focal software is really a bind and I just give up with it, (a waste of almost £100 in my opinion), … I tend to just test the lens at my normal shooting distance … take about 6 images, usually at a slight angle along a wall or something similar, from -20 to +20 and then review then and see which looks the best

I'm still tempted by a used D4
Click to expand...

Interesting what you say about MA. I started out using my target, tripod mounted as have done in the past and one of my lenses was still front focussing by quite a bit. In the end I shot various targets at normal shooting distances and kept tweaking until happy. It's not too difficult to do it that way under normal conditions but couldn't work out why the usual method failed, hey ho.
 
BillN_33 said:
That why I really thought about Carl's D4 ……. i reckon with all these new semi pro - AF etc., etc., is really good, - but low light performance is the most important factor for bird shooters in most N Europe light situations

I'm struggling with this micro adjustment "business" - I have tried it various distances and have the Focal stuff - the Focal software is really a bind and I just give up with it, (a waste of almost £100 in my opinion), … I tend to just test the lens at my normal shooting distance … take about 6 images, usually at a slight angle along a wall or something similar, from -20 to +20 and then review then and see which looks the best

I'm still tempted by a used D4
Click to expand...
Look up "dot tune" AFMA... it works a lot better than FoCal with long lenses.

Everything is a compromise, but I still tend to use my D4 the most (I was on a kick w/ the 810 for a while, but I got over it). I can crop a cleaner image harder than a noisier/softer image with "better" results (as long as the remaining pixels are adequate for the display size).

IMHO, the D7100 is probably the most difficult Nikon DSLR to use (right now; at 1:1) due to the pixel pitch/size.

http://photographic-academy.com/camera-basics/84-camera-basics/141-mp-s-detail-contrast
 
Just gotten around to looking at some sots taken a few weeks ago in Greenwich and I came across this one which as yo can see isn't quite right. The first 2 shots are the original and a crop SOOC, the second two are the same ones with the settings applied. Ignore the image itself, I don't even think I took it! Nothing else was done to the images.


141106_4.jpg

141106_3.jpg

141106_5.jpg

141106_1.jpg

141106_2.jpg
 
Ok guys, so you who have bought grey imports, have you been able to upgrade the firmware obviously not on this camera as yet, i so want one, but on flickr someone says if you buy an import you might not be able to upgrade the firmware, does anyone know from previous experience. Many thanks.
 
Jango said:
Ok guys, so you who have bought grey imports, have you been able to upgrade the firmware obviously not on this camera as yet, i so want one, but on flickr someone says if you buy an import you might not be able to upgrade the firmware, does anyone know from previous experience. Many thanks.
Click to expand...

Rubbish :)
 
:agree: Have bought several grey cameras, 2 x Nikon & 1 x Fuji and have been able to upgrade the firmware on all cameras. Anyway, I couldnt see how they could stop the firmware upgrade even if they wanted to. If for example you had an USA camera, you could log onto Nikon USA to update, if they tried to stop UK customers upgrading etc..........................
 
Cheese Scientist said:
UPDATE:
'I would like to thank you for your patience while we are looking into the issue you reported with your D750.
The issue has been confirmed and is currently be researched by us, we do not have a timeframe for an update/fix as of yet.
For being so observant and for taking the time to time to report this issue to us I would like to send you a small goodwill gesture ( I am sorry this option wasn't available to me when I last e-mailed you)
I will organise for a small something to be sent to you, you should receive it within 10 working days.'

I won a prize!!!
:)
Click to expand...

I know you've all been desperate to know what Nikon sent me for letting them know that their cameras aren't working properly.
It was a tiny rubber camera.
Oh dear...

View attachment 25947
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's a full scale prototype of a new, soon to be released, spy-cam. :LOL:

tbh the `thank you gift` is even less than I was expecting them to send you! :(

(n) Nik0n.
 
I think it's cute.

I might have mentioned this earlier but I bought a D750 and the command dial became intermittent then failed altogether after a week; I sent it back and bought an 810 instead -- expensive, but a lovely camera.
 
:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top