Nikon D750 or Sony A7II?

[juggler]

I'm planning to move to full frame from my Olympus OM-D E-M5 (micro 4/3) setup.

I'd narrowed it down to these two options and went and had a fairly lengthy play with both. I was expecting a clear winner but that wasn't the case. Both would involve significant compromises.

I shoot mainly studio and location portraiture of one form or another, and a bit of street work and candid portraiture. Plus the inevitably family snappery.

The pros and cons as I see them..

Nikon D750
+ A proper 'pro' camera
+ Good battery life
+ Decent tracking autofocus
+ Good range of lenses
+ More 3rd party accessories
- Massive
- No EVF
- poor ergonomics

Sony A7II
+ Decent EVF
+ Small, light
+ In-body stabilisation
- Tracking AF merely adequate
- Poor battery life (but probably no worse than Olympus)
- No good f2.8 standard zoom
- uncomfortable
- poor ergonomics

Has anyone else made a similar switch? Or moved from one to the other? I'm interested in all relevant views & experience. In particular, if you found the Sony uncomfortable to hold but got used to - or failed to - that would be worth knowing.

 

[chuckles]

Can't comment upon making a switch but can offer some of experiences/opinions with the technologies

Nikon D750
+ A proper 'pro' camera
+ Good battery life
+ Decent tracking autofocus
+ Good range of lenses
+ More 3rd party accessories
- Massive ----- Have you tried a D4? That's massive
- No EVF - no bad thing but you do have LiveView
- poor ergonomics ---- Interesting

Sony A7II
+ Decent EVF
+ Small, light
+ In-body stabilisation
- Tracking AF merely adequate
- Poor battery life (but probably no worse than Olympus)
- No good f2.8 standard zoom
- uncomfortable
- poor ergonomics ---- Interesting

Ok - so where does that leave you? In terms of taking photos consistently over a longer period (battery), range of accessories/lenses, and options a greater 'compass' resides with Nikon.
As for ergonomics - that's down to you, a personal thing. Interesting that neither suits in that department. If a camera is uncomfortable the chances you will be distracted - the last thing you want when a tool should be a natural extension of you. The 'grip/feel' of a D750 is a huge improvement over previous Nikons without an additional grip. Does feel right with a larger lens, that includes weight too.

I think you've already worked there are more plusses with one over the other.

Personally, I can't get on with an EVF I much prefer the clarity of an optical path - but you do have LiveView if you so desire.

 

[sk66]

Personally, I would go with the lens selection of the Nikon. The other factors I don't really see as being particularly relevant to what you primarily shoot (studio/location portraiture). I've used many compact/mirrorless systems, but the only Sony I've ever used to any great extent was the Nex7, so I can't be of any real help there...

 

[twist]

FF lenses are FF lenses, they are all big if you have the same spec lens, the only size/weight saving you are making is the camera itself. The most important thing to look at is the lenses , 3rd party support for lighting/accessories and ergonomics.

D750 weight is 840g incl battery and card, A7ii with battery and card is 700g. HOWEVER, the D750 battery will give 1200+ shots. The A7 battery around 350-400 so youd need to carry about 2 additional batteries to match the D750 battery life. The additional batteries are 80g each, thats 160g. Add that to the A7ii weight and its........ 860g. Obviously that depends on if you need to carry spares or not.

Im interested in why you say the D750 has poor ergonomics, its one of the most comfortable cameras available?

Ive owned 3x D750, 2x A7 and an A7s so know the systems fairly well.

 

[snerkler]

Ive owned 3x D750, 2x A7 and an A7s so know the systems fairly well.

Funny, I thought it was more than that

 

[snerkler]

FF lenses are FF lenses, they are all big if you have the same spec lens, the only size/weight saving you are making is the camera itself. The most important thing to look at is the lenses , 3rd party support for lighting/accessories and ergonomics.
D750 weight is 840g incl battery and card, A7ii with battery and card is 700g. HOWEVER, the D750 battery will give 1200+ shots. The A7 battery around 350-400 so youd need to carry about 2 additional batteries to match the D750 battery life. The additional batteries are 80g each, thats 160g. Add that to the A7ii weight and its........ 860g. Obviously that depends on if you need to carry spares or not.
Im interested in why you say the D750 has poor ergonomics, its one of the most comfortable cameras available?

Completely agree, especially the bit in bold. You did forget how poor Sony's white balance is too when compared to the D750, especially for skin tones

 

[twist]

Funny, I thought it was more than that

Completely agree, especially the bit in bold. You did forget how poor Sony's white balance is too when compared to the D750, especially for skin tones

Could be, I do lose track

I only wanted to comment on whats been posted, Im sure the thread will evolve, but yes, there is quite a difference in terms of IQ.

 

[juggler]

Thanks, all. I was expecting the Sony to suit me better - the EVF is a major plus for me and the size of the Nikon is an irrational turn-off - but the Nikon was better in many regards.

The Sony was uncomfortable - when held in one hand the point of bottom right hand corner of the camera is wedged into the base of the thumb. That doesn't matter when supporting the lens to actually shoot but the rest of the time it'd be a right pain.

The Nikon was ok, comfort wise, but ergonomically poor in that I found it difficult to get my fingers to land naturally on the buttons & dials on both the Nikon and the Sony. I had half an hour with each. When I did find them on the Sony I had a much better chance of getting them to behave as I expected.

You did forget how poor Sony's white balance is too when compared to the D750, especially for skin tones

Really? Even if you shoot a grey card? I've started using a colour target so I imagine that wouldn't be a serious issue.

FF lenses are FF lenses, they are all big if you have the same spec lens, the only size/weight saving you are making is the camera itself. The most important thing to look at is the lenses , 3rd party support for lighting/accessories and ergonomics.

I saw a comparison of Sony and Nikon f4(ish) 24-70 zooms. The Sony job was smaller, presumably due to the reduced flange distance. I thought it was considerably lighter too but I can't find any evidence of a weight difference now.

Perhaps I just need to accept that I need two systems.. something small but high-quality for family & street stuff, and a DSLR for more serious work. The E-M5 would seem to fit the bill for the smaller camera but for the fact that the tracking autofocus is dismal. And the studio stuff doesn't need highly advanced AF so perhaps a D610 instead and use the saving to upgrade to an E-M1...

Still confused...

 

[snerkler]

Really? Even if you shoot a grey card? I've started using a colour target so I imagine that wouldn't be a serious issue.

Pass, not seen examples with a grey card.

 

[twist]

I saw a comparison of Sony and Nikon f4(ish) 24-70 zooms. The Sony job was smaller, presumably due to the reduced flange distance. I thought it was considerably lighter too but I can't find any evidence of a weight difference now.

Perhaps I just need to accept that I need two systems.. something small but high-quality for family & street stuff, and a DSLR for more serious work. The E-M5 would seem to fit the bill for the smaller camera but for the fact that the tracking autofocus is dismal. And the studio stuff doesn't need highly advanced AF so perhaps a D610 instead and use the saving to upgrade to an E-M1...

Still confused...

Nikon only makes a 24-70 2.8 which would naturally be bigger and heavier than a 24-70 f4. If the Sony was f2.8 it would be pretty much the same size and weight. If you compare Sonys FE lenses against Canikons direct equiv, the size and weights can swing very slightly in favour and against. FF is FF.

 

[snerkler]

Perhaps I just need to accept that I need two systems.. something small but high-quality for family & street stuff, and a DSLR for more serious work. The E-M5 would seem to fit the bill for the smaller camera but for the fact that the tracking autofocus is dismal. And the studio stuff doesn't need highly advanced AF so perhaps a D610 instead and use the saving to upgrade to an E-M1...

That's what I had to do, and so have the D750 and EM5-II although I would use the D750 for studio work if I did it. I mainly use the EM5-II for travel.

 

[twist]

2 systems also work well for me.

 

[Willo]

Went from an A7 to D750, much prefer the D750. One thing that annoyed me on the A7 was selecting focal point, you had to press a button before you could select the focal point. On the D750 and E-M1 it's mapped to the direction buttons, sounds trivial but drove me crazy!

EVF compared to OVF is a personal preference. Having used EVF’s for a while, going back to an OVF is abit of a revelation. D750 ergonomics are very good, especially with larger lenses.

 

[juggler]

Going back to the reasons for a change - in decreasing priority - just in case that suggests something..

• A small sensor means diffraction is highly noticeable at relatively wide apertures. Combined with a base ISO of 200 that means I'm constantly pfaffing around with ND filters; a particular irritation in the studio.
• Greater dynamic range should mean more room to manipulate images before degrading
• Tracking AF that works
• Better support for third party lighting options, especially HSS
• Shallower DoF
• More pixels

 

[woof woof]

Just on the WB thing.

I assume you'll be shooting raw and if so it shouldn't be an issue.

Can't comment on the A7rII as I have the original A7 but the JPEG auto WB of my camera is no better or worse than anything else I've tried... but as I shoot raw I don't care.

 

[twist]

Even if you shoot RAW at the exact same custom colour temp different manufacturers RAW files have their own tone curve and idea of colour. Canon reds, Sony green/yellow and the latest Nikons are more neutral and somewhere in between.

... of course theres post adjustment to tweak.

 

[sk66]

Going back to the reasons for a change - in decreasing priority - just in case that suggests something..

• A small sensor means diffraction is highly noticeable at relatively wide apertures.
  That's due to small pixels, and the 24MP FF has pretty small pixels... diffraction ≥ f/8
  Either
• Greater dynamic range should mean more room to manipulate images before degrading
  Not DR really... it's more the tonal/color sensitivities
  Either
• Tracking AF that works
  Nikon
• Better support for third party lighting options, especially HSS
  Nikon
  
• Shallower DoF
  Either
• More pixels
  Either

The sensors seem to be the same between the two, nothing of significance to separate them...

 

[hobodan]

If you are serious about tracking subjects, I wouldn't even look at the Sony - while people say they have improved immensely, a quick YouTube search will show you they are still a long way behind a dslr like the D750.
Again the Sony is FF, there is no difference in lens size for the same focal length & aperture etc, any kind of mid to tele is going to be nose heavy on the smaller Sony body, but I'm sure you can get a grip for it to enhance. You just need to weigh up if the battery life & evf are also going to be problems for you. Both are too big to be pocketable & both need a bag of sorts. Ergonomically I think the D750 would be better with its full size grip. Apart from those differences they are both amazing bits of kit

 

[chuckles]

but as I shoot raw I don't care

Or, perhaps, I do care - that's why I shoot RAW!

 

[twist]

This may or may not help... I find Sony AWB struggles a bit in low and artificial light, outdoors and natural light its good, setting a custom WB is very easy though and does improve things a lot.

 

[woof woof]

Or, perhaps, I do care - that's why I shoot RAW!

I shoot raw for more reasons than to correct the WB.

We seem to have had a few references on this site to this or that cameras WB being poor recently but personally I think that anyone dropping the sort of money we're talking about here on a camera is probably half way serious about photography and therefore will very probably be shooting raw for anything other than record shots and shots for the internet etc when quality doesn't really matter.

 

[snerkler]

Going back to the reasons for a change - in decreasing priority - just in case that suggests something..

• A small sensor means diffraction is highly noticeable at relatively wide apertures. Combined with a base ISO of 200 that means I'm constantly pfaffing around with ND filters; a particular irritation in the studio.
• Greater dynamic range should mean more room to manipulate images before degrading
• Tracking AF that works
• Better support for third party lighting options, especially HSS
• Shallower DoF
• More pixels

Due to the way the guy set the recent Olly studio tutorial up I was shooting at f16 and strangely witnessed no diffraction using the 45mm f1.8 on my EM5-II (4/3 sensor). Why do you need ND filters in a studio, surely you can simply raise the shutter speed or decrease your light intensity. The D700 is a highly regarded pro level camera, but 'only' went to 200 ISO and I don't recall anyone saying they needed ND filters in a studio

The DR and shadow recovery on the D750 is amazing.

Tracking/C-AF on the EM5-II is a far cry from the D750

16MP is surely enough for most things (other than product shots) as you'll not be cropping in a studio isn't it?

 

[snerkler]

I shoot raw for more reasons than to correct the WB.

We seem to have had a few references on this site to this or that cameras WB being poor recently but personally I think that anyone dropping the sort of money we're talking about here on a camera is probably half way serious about photography and therefore will very probably be shooting raw for anything other than record shots and shots for the internet etc when quality doesn't really matter.

WB and tones is important to me as it can save a lot of faffing in post. For example, with my D750 I rarely have to alter WB but with my EM5-II I always have to alter WB, especially for portraits, and it can take a lot of time to say the least to get it right and not throw colours off elsewhere. This is true for RAW as well as jpeg.

 

[juggler]

Due to the way the guy set the recent Olly studio tutorial up I was shooting at f16 and strangely witnessed no diffraction using the 45mm f1.8 on my EM5-II (4/3 sensor). Why do you need ND filters in a studio, surely you can simply raise the shutter speed or decrease your light intensity. The D700 is a highly regarded pro level camera, but 'only' went to 200 ISO and I don't recall anyone saying they needed ND filters in a studio

The DR and shadow recovery on the D750 is amazing.

Tracking/C-AF on the EM5-II is a far cry from the D750

16MP is surely enough for most things (other than product shots) as you'll not be cropping in a studio isn't it?

A few reasons for using ND filters - studio lights don't always go that dim and you can't increase shutter speed beyond sync speed - usually 1/200. You can just use the modelling lights if there's no significant contribution from the ambient light. If you're balancing flash with daylight, or overpowering daylight, then reducing the power of the light isn't an option. I do definitely see softening due to diffraction but the degree to which it is noticeable depends on the scene and lighting as much as anything else. You can stop down and going to f11 is sometimes ok on m4/3, often it isn't but I can't tell until I get the images on the PC and I don't like relying on it.

(That's another reason for a change of body; I want to shoot tethered and the E-M5 doesn't).

• A small sensor means diffraction is highly noticeable at relatively wide apertures.
  That's due to small pixels, and the 24MP FF has pretty small pixels... diffraction ≥ f/8

That's still about three times the area of the E-M5's pixels. This calculator would have you believe that diffraction is an issue at f16 on a D750 but at f8 on m4/3. That, combined with the extra ISO range, would give me 3 stops to play with.

(For the avoidance of going off topic I recognise that whether it is a genuine issue is purely subjective, that image content is more important than absolute sharpness, that careful processing will have more of an impact than almost anything else, etc, etc. Can we take all that as read?)

I rarely use Auto WB so that shouldn't be an issue.

16MP is just about ok for printing to 3 feet on the long edge. More cropping options would be nice - even for posed stuff - but not essential; the extra 8MP would be a bonus.

I don't need perfect AF tracking but something which worked even 25% of the time would be a vast improvement. The only way I can shoot moving subjects with the E-M5 is to prefocus, but that may just be me..

WB and tones is important to me as it can save a lot of faffing in post. For example, with my D750 I rarely have to alter WB but with my EM5-II I always have to alter WB, especially for portraits, and it can take a lot of time to say the least to get it right and not throw colours off elsewhere. This is true for RAW as well as jpeg.

That's interesting, given Olympus' reputation for their rendering of skin tones.

 

[snerkler]

A few reasons for using ND filters - studio lights don't always go that dim and you can't increase shutter speed beyond sync speed - usually 1/200. You can just use the modelling lights if there's no significant contribution from the ambient light. If you're balancing flash with daylight, or overpowering daylight, then reducing the power of the light isn't an option. I do definitely see softening due to diffraction but the degree to which it is noticeable depends on the scene and lighting as much as anything else. You can stop down and going to f11 is sometimes ok on m4/3, often it isn't but I can't tell until I get the images on the PC and I don't like relying on it.

Interesting, you can tell I don't do studio stuff can't you Is there a reason that you can't use HSS rather than having to use filters?

That's interesting, given Olympus' reputation for their rendering of skin tones.

Maybe it's jpeg where they shine, or maybe Lightroom is poor at converting the Olly RAW, either way I'm rarely happy with the SOOC RAW WB on my EM5-II (or my old EM10 for that matter). Maybe if I shot with a grey card it would be better, but most of my pics are spontaneous/not organised shoots.

 

[juggler]

Interesting, you can tell I don't do studio stuff can't you Is there a reason that you can't use HSS rather than having to use filters?

Most studio strobes don't do HSS at all. Some of Oly's own flashguns do HSS, but only with IR triggering. That's useless in daylight - which often when you want to use HSS. There's no good radio HSS solution for Olympus (other than the Aokatec piggy back system, and that won't work with things like the Godox 360).

 

[sk66]

This calculator would have you believe that diffraction is an issue at f16 on a D750 but at f8 on m4/3. That, combined with the extra ISO range, would give me 3 stops to play with.
More cropping options would be nice - even for posed stuff - but not essential; the extra 8MP would be a bonus.

"Diffraction limiting" (causing an apparent/visible degradation) and "actual diffraction" (limiting resolution) occur at different points. A whole lot of information (too much?) on it here: https://luminous-landscape.com/do-sensors-out-resolve-lenses/ but the last chart (and the one before it) kind of makes it clear.

Keep in mind that cropping equals image degradation... every sensor characteristic/performance/rating is based upon using/combining the entire sensor area for a given exposure. If you use DX crop on a D8xx the image is pretty much equivalent to a 16MP D7000 image in every way (except no AA filter for D810/800e).

 

[sk66]

Interesting, you can tell I don't do studio stuff can't you Is there a reason that you can't use HSS rather than having to use filters?

ND filters are generally (a little) better for killing ambient assuming you're not trying to freeze motion.

 

[juggler]

"Diffraction limiting" (causing an apparent/visible degradation) and "actual diffraction" (limiting resolution) occur at different points. A whole lot of information (too much?) on it here: https://luminous-landscape.com/do-sensors-out-resolve-lenses/ but the last chart (and the one before it) kind of makes it clear.

That concurs with the calculator I posted - there's basically two stops difference, regardless of the point at which anyone (subjectively) thinks it becomes an issue.

 

[snerkler]

ND filters are generally (a little) better for killing ambient assuming you're not trying to freeze motion.

I just assumed any use of filters was less desirable due to potential degradation of images, guess I was wrong

 

[sk66]

That concurs with the calculator I posted - there's basically two stops difference, regardless of the point at which anyone (subjectively) thinks it becomes an issue.

Not quite...
The chart shows how many MP's worth of dots of the three spectrums are projected onto the sensor by the lens (2 pixels per w/ AA), and that is the max that can be optimally recorded.
At f/8 it is already less than 24MP for red spectrums on a FF sensor. It's not until f/16 on the chart that all spectrums are limited to less than 24MP (blue finally breaks at ~ f/12). Green, which is arguably the most important, drops below 24 MP by f/11 (~f/9).



But yes, it's still way ahead of the 4/3 format.

 

[sk66]

I just assumed any use of filters was less desirable due to potential degradation of images, guess I was wrong

Maybe I should have said "a high quality ND"... and even then it will probably cause a color shift... so maybe I should just retract my statement...
An ND is a little more efficient at killing the ambient and preserving flash power.

 

[chrism_scotland]

I'm planning to move to full frame from my Olympus OM-D E-M5 (micro 4/3) setup.

I'd narrowed it down to these two options and went and had a fairly lengthy play with both. I was expecting a clear winner but that wasn't the case. Both would involve significant compromises.

I shoot mainly studio and location portraiture of one form or another, and a bit of street work and candid portraiture. Plus the inevitably family snappery.

The pros and cons as I see them..

Nikon D750
+ A proper 'pro' camera
+ Good battery life
+ Decent tracking autofocus
+ Good range of lenses
+ More 3rd party accessories
- Massive
- No EVF
- poor ergonomics

Sony A7II
+ Decent EVF
+ Small, light
+ In-body stabilisation
- Tracking AF merely adequate
- Poor battery life (but probably no worse than Olympus)
- No good f2.8 standard zoom
- uncomfortable
- poor ergonomics

Has anyone else made a similar switch? Or moved from one to the other? I'm interested in all relevant views & experience. In particular, if you found the Sony uncomfortable to hold but got used to - or failed to - that would be worth knowing.

I've had both the D750 and A7ii very recently and while I'm not going to get down to the technical level of comparison that seems to be going on I will weigh in more generally.
IQ wise they're basically the same, same Sony 24mp sensor although I do think that Nikon are able to extract a bit more quality out of the sensor and also noise is probably a little less on the Nikon sensor at higher iso's but broadly its a wash.

AF is much better on the Nikon, I'd go as far as to say the D750 AF is certainly the best I've ever had on a DSLR it can basically focus in the dark, the A7ii is no slouch but as you say yourself tracking AF isn't wonderful.

Obviously you cover battery life, not really a lot you can do except stock up on spare Sony batteries!

As for ergonomics... this is where the A7ii falls down for me and in fact most mirrorless bodies, I've got large hands and there just isn't enough to hold on to for me, I like what Fuji do with offering larger handgrips for the XT1, something like this would probably make the A7ii better handling to me.

The D750 is obviously bigger but its certainly not huge and its horse for courses.... a D750 and a prime (35 f1.8 or 50 f1.8) is actually fairly small, obviously add a 24-70 f2.8 and that gets bigger!
The A7ii though with zooms added bulks up quickly, but is very small with a nice prime!

It obviously depends on your own needs but I'd vote for the D750 myself, it a whole lot of camera for the money and as you say a proper "pro" camera, it can be small with a prime or bigger when you want it to be with the zooms.

 

[juggler]

As for ergonomics... this is where the A7ii falls down for me and in fact most mirrorless bodies, I've got large hands and there just isn't enough to hold on to for me, I like what Fuji do with offering larger handgrips for the XT1, something like this would probably make the A7ii better handling to me.

I can manage the Olympus with half-grip just fine but the in-between size of the A7II makes it more awkward & uncomfortable than either the E-M5 or the D750.

 

[snerkler]

As for ergonomics... this is where the A7ii falls down for me and in fact most mirrorless bodies, I've got large hands and there just isn't enough to hold on to for me, I like what Fuji do with offering larger handgrips for the XT1, something like this would probably make the A7ii better handling to me.

.

I have large hands too but do find the EM5-II (and EM10 for that matter) without grip really comfortable to hold. I really like the thumb grip/pad on the back, makes for a very stable grip. As for the A7's, they feel all wrong to me.

 

[SoDoSoPa]

Interesting to see a comparison between Nikon & Sony other than the ergonomics of both cameras they more or less share the same sensor technology unlike Canon who don't make sensors for anyone else.

 

[snerkler]

Interesting to see a comparison between Nikon & Sony other than the ergonomics of both cameras they more or less share the same sensor technology unlike Canon who don't make sensors for anyone else.

They share sensors but have different processors etc and I always seem to prefer the results from Nikon.

 

[snerkler]

Interesting to see a comparison between Nikon & Sony other than the ergonomics of both cameras they more or less share the same sensor technology unlike Canon who don't make sensors for anyone else.

They share sensors but have different processors etc and I always seem to prefer the results from Nikon.

 

[juggler]

A last update in case anyone stumbles across this thread in the future. After much experimenting in shops with both the A7II and the D750 it came down on the side of the D750.

I really wanted to like the A7II but in the end the only things in it favour were the EVF and the in-body stabilisation.

• it was too uncomfortable to hold. A grip may have helped a bit.
• focusing not a patch on the Nikon
• lens range expensive and incomplete - but getting better. Nikon's maturity means there are some cheap top quality primes.
• tethering patchy
• HSS flash support weak and all sorts of flash trigger issues reported from the field
• battery life was woeful
• the EVF was not as good as my Olympus (IMO)
• awkward buttons, esp for adjusting ISO or focus points
  
• slow to operate
• it went dark for a disconcertingly long time between shots

and one last concern.. will Sony change the format / mount / system all over again in the future? How committed to it are they?

I suspect that the A7IIR is still something of a game changer so if you want that sensor then it'd be worth putting up with the deficiencies. Or just wait a bit. I'm sure Sony will catch up sooner or later.

 

[magicaxeman]

I can manage the Olympus with half-grip just fine but the in-between size of the A7II makes it more awkward & uncomfortable than either the E-M5 or the D750.

I think you've answered your own question here, button & dial positioning is just a matter of adapting to their locations on the body.

The main thing that lets the Sony down is the lens range available & the cost Vs Quality of those lenses, Nikon wins hands down in that respect.

I think your idea of two systems, one for the family & street the other for your portraiture/studio work is the way to go, when you want to grab & go you could use the EM5 for now with a 25mm or 15mm prime or replace it with something else at a latter date.

I wouldn't worry to much about the EVF issue, an optical finder has advantages over an EVF and you can always use the rear screen for previewing exposures when setting flash power etc in the studio.