Nikon D750

Messages
3,869
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
3,385
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Have I stumbled into Mumsnet by mistake? :LOL:

I used my 70-200 on Saturday and think it's time to use it more often.



I was starting to wonder the same thing!:ROFLMAO:

Great images I really need to get out an use my 70-200 more!
 
Messages
7,257
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Well we are a bunch of helpful lads. We don’t let it off topic too long just now and again. Doesn’t do any harm
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
with light like that i would would of upped the iso and probably shot at f4ish or higher to try and get the rider and horses face in focus.
I would just focus on the rider rather than the horse tbh (y)
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
Can’t of been too full as you had a good shutter and iso. I love going zoo
f2.8 and 1/320 though Andy. I tend to shoot at f8 and 1/640 min which would put my ISO up to around 4000 and with those settings I'd be complaining about the light too ;)

No it all helps thank you! I just need to not be so lazy sometimes.

Yeah I think the D500 would not really change the end results for the majority of my shooting, but I think I need to try it, before committing to one!
Would the D500 be instead or or to accompany the D750? If it's to accompany it then I'd be looking at the D850 instead of both giving you both full frame and reach. When downsampled the noise level on the D850 is comparable to the D750 and better than the D500

ISO 12800 1:1 crops (Resized to match res of D500 i.e. 5568 x 3762)

D850

D850
by TDG-77, on Flickr

D750

D750
by TDG-77, on Flickr

D500

D500
by TDG-77, on Flickr






Edit: Hmm they're very blurry. Here's a link to the crops if you're interested, shows the difference in noise much more clearly
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/e2svczry1t2y0hq/AAAr1k9nSTla1ZflCSCUKVzEa?dl=0
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,195
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
f2.8 and 1/320 though Andy. I tend to shoot at f8 and 1/640 min which would put my ISO up to around 4000 and with those settings I'd be complaining about the light too ;)
Stop moaning you two. I thought I had reasonable lighting for my auctioneer photo at:
Exposure Time 0.0050s (1/200)
Aperture ƒ/3.5
ISO equivalent 10000
:D
 
Messages
7,257
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
f2.8 and 1/320 though Andy. I tend to shoot at f8 and 1/640 min which would put my ISO up to around 4000 and with those settings I'd be complaining about the light too ;)

Would the D500 be instead or or to accompany the D750? If it's to accompany it then I'd be looking at the D850 instead of both giving you both full frame and reach. When downsampled the noise level on the D850 is comparable to the D750 and better than the D500

ISO 12800 1:1 crops (Resized to match res of D500 i.e. 5568 x 3762)

D850

D850
by TDG-77, on Flickr

D750

D750
by TDG-77, on Flickr

D500

D500
by TDG-77, on Flickr






Edit: Hmm they're very blurry. Here's a link to the crops if you're interested, shows the difference in noise much more clearly
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/e2svczry1t2y0hq/AAAr1k9nSTla1ZflCSCUKVzEa?dl=0
Lab coat been dusted off haven’t they Toby

I knew we could rely on you with this. Excellent pal thank you.

D850 has been calling me past couple weeks
 
Messages
5,301
Edit My Images
No
f2.8 and 1/320 though Andy. I tend to shoot at f8 and 1/640 min which would put my ISO up to around 4000 and with those settings I'd be complaining about the light too ;)

Would the D500 be instead or or to accompany the D750? If it's to accompany it then I'd be looking at the D850 instead of both giving you both full frame and reach. When downsampled the noise level on the D850 is comparable to the D750 and better than the D500

ISO 12800 1:1 crops (Resized to match res of D500 i.e. 5568 x 3762)

D850

D850
by TDG-77, on Flickr

D750

D750
by TDG-77, on Flickr

D500

D500
by TDG-77, on Flickr






Edit: Hmm they're very blurry. Here's a link to the crops if you're interested, shows the difference in noise much more clearly
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/e2svczry1t2y0hq/AAAr1k9nSTla1ZflCSCUKVzEa?dl=0
Unless I come in to some money or have a win on the horses, the D850 will never be mine!! I will only have 1 body for the moment. Borrowing a D500 this weekend so will see how I get on with it!
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
Just looked at your drop box images the d750 still kill the 2
I can't see much/any difference between the D750 and D850 tbh after downsampling, but this is why we need to see for ourselves. I wish I could afford the D850 though ;)
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
Messages
5,301
Edit My Images
No
I can't see much/any difference between the D750 and D850 tbh after downsampling, but this is why we need to see for ourselves. I wish I could afford the D850 though ;)
Maybe we can do a group buy and share it through the year!!!
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
So if I sell my 750 and 500 I reckon I will still need to find another £1k to fund it, even buying grey.
Edit, misread your post ;)
 
Last edited:
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
You should get about £1900 in total for both
And the D850 is £2650 grey. You'd have to seriously want a D850 to trade in two new-ish high end cameras and £750 for one :eek:
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
I’ve been looking at ways of getting a few more shots out of the D750 buffer, does anyone know what would produce the better files, lossless compressed 12 bit or compressed 14bit?
 
Messages
1,006
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
So... I decide that seeing as it's a sunshiny kind of day (2 in a row!) I'm going to go to a local shopping mall that has a magnificent view of Mt. Baker, which is a dormant volcano just across the border in Washington State. As I'm putting the camera, lens and tripod in the car (from the passenger side as I'd just finished washing it) I notice a black lump in a corner of the seat. Lo, and behold, the prodigal viewfinder has returned to the fold! :p Now I've got the original back and two Amazon spares. Should do me for a while!
 
Messages
1,006
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No

Mount Baker by Paul, on Flickr

Here's a b/w conversion. Did a little work in ps as the haze is something that that the human eye really takes into account when looking at it in real life. I'll try again in a few hours for a sunsetty kind of photo. Fair warning, I did clone out a rather ugly, lonely evergreen that was almost in the middle of the photo.
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
I bought my D750 last year and bought a 70-200 2.8 VR lens. I have just also bought the 28-70 2.8 VR lens but it doesn't seem to get the rave reviews I was expecting or is that just from the hypercritical ?
Do you mean the 24-70mm f2.8? The 24-70mm has always seemed to split opinions, and I think it's because it's a high price pro lens and as such you would expect stellar IQ, which imo it isn't. That's not to say it's not good, it is, in fact it's very good, it's just not stellar as the price might suggest. It's not a patch on my 70-200mm f2.8 VRII for example. I've had two now, but always decided to keep my 24-120mm f4 instead as I prefer the flexibility and I couldn't see any noticeably difference in sharpness between the two, even stopped down. Where the 24-70mm wipes the floor with the 24-120mm is in focus speed and build quality, of and obviously it's a stop faster. The 24-70mm is a tank, and AF speed is lightning quick.

So it depends how you view the 24-70mm. If you are expecting the best of the best in terms of IQ then you'll likely be disappointed. If you're expecting a workhorse of a lens that's built to last a lifetime, has amazing AF speed and very good IQ then you won't be disappointed.
 
Messages
1,344
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I’d agree with the above, I have the non-VR version and it is a very good lens but perhaps not as sharp as you may expect as Snerkler suggested. Wide open is sharp at the wide end but suffers a little once zooming in, it’s perfectly acceptable but not Sigma Art or anything. Stopping down even slightly greatly improves it though. That’s my copy, and the VR version may differ. Other characteristics of it shine through for me though, sharpness isn’t everything, and the images it produces are really quite nice.

I was underwhelmed at first too doing sharpness tests etc, but stuck with it; using it in the real world I’ve grown to love it, I really have. I’ve found myself using it more and more for weddings and it covers an awful lot, and is invaluable for bridal prep especially if space is getting tight. AF is rapid and accurate, I can only see myself using it more now I’ve moved over to D750 from D700, the hit in aperture over a 1.4 won’t be so bad with improved high ISO
 
Messages
5,301
Edit My Images
No
Though not all Sigma Art lenses are of the same sharpness either - its certainly (in tests / reviews) better than the Sigma Art 24-70 f/2.8 :)

The 24-70 Sigma Art is meant to be a bit dissapointing when compared to the brilliance of the Art primes. The new Tamron 24-70 G2 is meant to be good.
 
Messages
3,364
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
I’ve been looking at ways of getting a few more shots out of the D750 buffer, does anyone know what would produce the better files, lossless compressed 12 bit or compressed 14bit?
I don't know one way or the other, but any form of compression that discards data is something I'd avoid. So based on that I'd suggest 12 bit lossless would be the way to go. I did a non scientific test one my D810 between 12 & 14 bit lossless, other than file size I couldn't really see any differences. However, like most things it depends on what you need/want and shooting conditions (the more demanding then having more data to work with "may" help).

As frame rates are irrelevant to me, I stayed with 14 bit lossless ;)
 
Messages
1,344
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Though not all Sigma Art lenses are of the same sharpness either - its certainly (in tests / reviews) better than the Sigma Art 24-70 f/2.8 :)
My apologies, I should have been more specific, I was talking more along the lines of the primes :) The Art 24-70 hadn’t registered on my radar at all!
 
Messages
5,301
Edit My Images
No
Just trying to cover all bases for you mate, as i think that if you shot with the same settings on the d500 the results would be the same thats all.

dont want to see you get a new body and cost you money when there could be possible other options thats all. If im speaking out of turn and sound condescending im not trying to be that way. As i say just trying to offer my little opinion from my observations
Just looking through previous images and some I can find on Flickr - I'm not sure why, but the D750 photos seem to produce more life to a picture. Maybe it is the processing etc.

I think I am just looking at the D500 because the focussing is meant to be that good. However, equestrian is not a super quick sport and the D750 has tracked galloping ponies without too much of a problem! I think swapping to a D500 will probably cost money in the long run!
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
Just looking through previous images and some I can find on Flickr - I'm not sure why, but the D750 photos seem to produce more life to a picture. Maybe it is the processing etc.

I think I am just looking at the D500 because the focussing is meant to be that good. However, equestrian is not a super quick sport and the D750 has tracked galloping ponies without too much of a problem! I think swapping to a D500 will probably cost money in the long run!
I'd be very surprised if you notice any perceivable difference in AF for shooting the equestrian stuff that you've posted tbh.
 
Top