And snapsort say the D700 is over 1 stop better, however, i freekin hate these s***e lab tests, I USED BOTH in the real world and the D700 wins hands downDxO rated the D700 cleaner at high ISO than the D7100
Just compare that blue box / packaging with TRADE written on it, way noisier in the D7100 image
Do you like to pixel peep more than take photographs pookeyhead?
It would be good to see if Dilip could put a picture up of the D750 file @ 25600 iso, just to see what sort of noise is on that.
I've always said It is more than enough if you don't ever print anything, sure... anything is more than enough if you don't print anything.
Personally I found my 8mp 20D and my 12mp 5D good enough for prints
How big?
The D750 kicks the arse of both cameras quite convincingly.
Why do you think you can't print a picture taken with a 12mp camera?
How many mp's do you think are needed for what size prints?
It does, in fact it does so so seriously that it... it is a huge 0.4 stops better. Better pick my jaw up from the ground now!
Are you saying that the D750 is only very slightly better in poor light and at high ISO values than the D7100 and therefore if I use high ISO values to enable me to push up the shutter speed that the noise in the image will be the same as with the D7100
Maybe I should move to Canon?
Maybe less complaining??
I've never complained, I've never seen any facts explaining the extent of the problem or problems - but it seems as though everyone on here is sending their D750's back to Nikon
Well yes, as Nikon are fixing cameras for free, even grey ones, why wouldn't you send it back? There is no such thing as a perfect camera, noise or not I would prefer Nikon at the moment for the superior shadow recovery and noise.I've never complained, I've never seen any facts explaining the extent of the problem or problems - but it seems as though everyone on here is sending their D750's back to Nikon
That's what I was asking you. How big?
Pookey, as I've been (obviously quite wrongly) very happy with my 12mp and sub 12mp prints and as many people have been producing and selling 12mp and sub 12mp prints for years now (also obviously quite wrongly) I'm waiting for your expert knowledge to educate the world on the subject and rewrite history but if your statements here have just been the histrionic hyperbole they appear to be then I'll gladly just move on
but I'm not surprised that someone else thinks 12mp is unsuitable as I obviously have low standards.
And f*** me don't we know about itI've written long and expansively on this subject in many other trheads, .
And f*** me don't we know about it
LOL, you get a touche and round of applause from me David.Well.. you have to be persistent when talking to stupid people
I've written long and expansively on this subject in many other trheads, and it inevitable always comes back to this tired old argument of "at reasonable viewing distances" thing. IMO as someone who regularly prints for gallery exhibition to very high standards.. both my own work, and that of others, I wouldn't be happy with a 12MP file over A3.
Maybe that is indeed the case, yes.
blah blah blah....
How come you dont ignore me, i give you a much harder time, NOT happy.I get why you're called woof woof now... dog with bone etc.
If you think being just about able t get away with A3 is great or something, then yes, you have low standards.
Take a leaf out of my book then if you're concerned.....
The new dp review test is much better as the cameras are tested in a real, dimly lit environment. This is when the real noise starts to creep in Really. Lol
I get why you're called woof woof now... dog with bone etc.
If you think being just about able t get away with A3 is great or something, then yes, you have low standards.
Take a leaf out of my book then if you're concerned.....