Nikon D750

Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
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 ;)
I'd be very surprised if you notice any perceivable difference in AF for shooting the equestrian stuff that you've posted tbh.
Thanks, I think I'll try the 12 bit and see what it's like. It's only for sports that I'd do this, and DR is not as important so hoping that 12 bit, or even compressed won't make much difference. I wouldn't use it for landscapes etc though ;)
 
Messages
5,301
Edit My Images
No
I'd be very surprised if you notice any perceivable difference in AF for shooting the equestrian stuff that you've posted tbh.
Yes true - I reckon I will get better results from learing what I have that starting with DX again. Although my lens line up in currently a little on the light side so maybe I should invest in some more glass!!!
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
Yes true - I reckon I will get better results from learing what I have that starting with DX again. Although my lens line up in currently a little on the light side so maybe I should invest in some more glass!!!
TBH I think you have the perfect lens for it in the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. I would invest more time learning how to get the best from the light available and getting some interesting compositions (y)
 
Messages
4,887
Name
Kev
Edit My Images
Yes
Not posted anything for a while, bought a grey vinyl and some speed light gels so had a play.

Testing_Gels
by SEP9001, on Flickr

Not sure how it would work with one speed light and a person as opposed to a teddy.....

Thank you
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,301
Edit My Images
No
So I need to extend my learning abilities.

There are 2 main things I have never explored that much or should I say gone out of my comfort zone!

WB and metering.

WB - auto - check!
Metering - matrix - check!

Mainly because I have had mixed results out of my comfort zone but it’s time to get out!

So metering first. I have always for the most part got ok results with matrix, apart from in certain lights when I have tried and usually failed with spot metering! The trouble is when taking pics of the horses in an arena the direction of light is always changing! So tips advice on metering greatly appreciated!

WB. Never come out of auto. Sorry sad state of affairs but that’s how it is! So any starting points, guides etc greatly appreciated.
 
Messages
1,923
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
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.
Do you rate the 24-120? How is it at the wide and long ends?

I have priced up some new lenses for my A7II and I don't know if I can afford to stay with the Sony system and have the lenses I want.

Considering the D750 24-120 kit then 18-35mm and a 50mm prime.

Also - how do you find it weight wise? Felt pretty hefty when I tested it in JL today but what was only for a short time. But then I was looking at the 24-105mm Sony and it's not too much lighter.

Sony A7II + 24-105 = 1.26kg

D750 + 24-120 = 1.46kg

200g difference but overall a £470 price difference (bodies and lenses).

By no means set in stone - trying to work out other lens combos I would be interested in.
 
Messages
14,609
Edit My Images
No
Do you rate the 24-120? How is it at the wide and long ends?

I have priced up some new lenses for my A7II and I don't know if I can afford to stay with the Sony system and have the lenses I want.

Considering the D750 24-120 kit then 18-35mm and a 50mm prime.

Also - how do you find it weight wise? Felt pretty hefty when I tested it in JL today but what was only for a short time. But then I was looking at the 24-105mm Sony and it's not too much lighter.

Sony A7II + 24-105 = 1.26kg

D750 + 24-120 = 1.46kg

200g difference but overall a £470 price difference (bodies and lenses).

By no means set in stone - trying to work out other lens combos I would be interested in.
You have been pondering this a while. Just do it and stop wondering.
 
Messages
1,923
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
You have been pondering this a while. Just do it and stop wondering.
I have and haven't. I originally went with the A7II, which I do really like.

The two issues I have:

It missed some shots of my dog (fast moving, could have been my technique but SS was fairly high and I was using CAF and burst)

I have been on a couple of landscape shoots and felt that I missed shots because I didn't have long enough lenses - at the moment my budget is pretty much maxed out at £2000 and I have spent that and currently have the A7II, 16-35mm, 28-70mm, 35mm 2.8. I could sell the 28-70mm and 35mm 2.8 and get a 50mm 1.8 + Canon 70-200mm for a similar price and FL's would be fairly covered.

Or

I can get the D750 + 24-120mm + 18-35mm + 50mm 1.8 for around £1860 and it would probably cover what I need FL wise and not as many lens changes.
 
Messages
6,508
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
I have and haven't. I originally went with the A7II, which I do really like.

The two issues I have:

It missed some shots of my dog (fast moving, could have been my technique but SS was fairly high and I was using CAF and burst)

I have been on a couple of landscape shoots and felt that I missed shots because I didn't have long enough lenses - at the moment my budget is pretty much maxed out at £2000 and I have spent that and currently have the A7II, 16-35mm, 28-70mm, 35mm 2.8. I could sell the 28-70mm and 35mm 2.8 and get a 50mm 1.8 + Canon 70-200mm for a similar price and FL's would be fairly covered.

Or

I can get the D750 + 24-120mm + 18-35mm + 50mm 1.8 for around £1860 and it would probably cover what I need FL wise and not as many lens changes.
can't comment on the 24-120mm but the d750 is imo much, much better than the a7ii.
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
So I need to extend my learning abilities.

There are 2 main things I have never explored that much or should I say gone out of my comfort zone!

WB and metering.

WB - auto - check!
Metering - matrix - check!

Mainly because I have had mixed results out of my comfort zone but it’s time to get out!

So metering first. I have always for the most part got ok results with matrix, apart from in certain lights when I have tried and usually failed with spot metering! The trouble is when taking pics of the horses in an arena the direction of light is always changing! So tips advice on metering greatly appreciated!

WB. Never come out of auto. Sorry sad state of affairs but that’s how it is! So any starting points, guides etc greatly appreciated.
TBH I think you're focussing on the wrong things. Whilst these are handy to know, shooting in RAW WB essentially doesn't matter as you can sort that in post later, and 98% of the time Matrix metering will get it near enough and on top of that you have so much flexibility in post with the highlight and shadow recovery that it doesn't matter if you're over/underexposed by a stop to two.

That being said, if I know light isn't going to change much for a range of shots I do sometimes set it to a particular setting so that there is a constant WB between shots. Also if I decide it doesn't quite look right later I can copy and paste the WB settings to the whole lot knowing that they will all look the same.

As for metering, most of the time I will set it to matrix but I do use the others on occasion. For example if I'm shooting subjects that are reasonably central in the frame then I'll use centre weighted, and in dark scenes with bright lights/subjects I'll use highlight weighted metering. For your horse pics I'd use matrix mostly though. You just need to learn for what scenes it might not be best, such as a dark horse against heavy backlight.

But if you really want your images to pop, and also be as sharp as possible learn about light, learn about where to stand so that the light is in the right place and going to illuminate your subject how you want. I know this will not always be possible and you have to stand where you have to stand, but just changing your angle slightly can make a big difference. This is the area that I'm trying to figure out at the moment, exactly how you need the light to fall to make things really pop.

Also composition makes a big difference, and another area where I struggle to get creative. Yes I can take perfectly focussed pics etc but there's nothing special about them. For me now interesting compositions and subjects are far more important than an image being absolutely tack sharp. That's not to say that I want them to be soft, but I'm fed up with sharp boring images.
 
Messages
1,923
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
can't comment on the 24-120mm but the d750 is imo much, much better than the a7ii.
Was going to send you a PM to see how you were finding it actually.

Best thing about the A7II for me is the portability. Just concerned about losing that - but then you can always stick a prime on it and its not too much different.

EVF - not sure on it to be honest - 90% of my shots on the A7II are done using the screen at the back - guess live view can just do this?

Also - not sure if its just me but I treat the Sony and lenses like a baby - they don't feel like something that should be chucked back in the bag, more 'placed gently'
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
Do you rate the 24-120? How is it at the wide and long ends?

I have priced up some new lenses for my A7II and I don't know if I can afford to stay with the Sony system and have the lenses I want.

Considering the D750 24-120 kit then 18-35mm and a 50mm prime.

Also - how do you find it weight wise? Felt pretty hefty when I tested it in JL today but what was only for a short time. But then I was looking at the 24-105mm Sony and it's not too much lighter.

Sony A7II + 24-105 = 1.26kg

D750 + 24-120 = 1.46kg

200g difference but overall a £470 price difference (bodies and lenses).

By no means set in stone - trying to work out other lens combos I would be interested in.
Do I rate the 24-120mm f4? For the price I paid yes, for the UK retail price no. It's a good lens, and a great walkabout lens useful for all sorts. IMO it's as sharp as the 24-70mm (I did run tests) and build quality is pretty decent. It renders nicely too, although not quite as nice as the 24-70mm although I'm not sure whether that's to do with the aperture as well. Weight wise I don't find it an issue, but then my most used lenses on the D750 are the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII and Tamron 150-600mm both of which are much bigger and heavier than the 24-120mm. That being said, my favourite walkabout combo at the moment is my EM1 and 12-40mm f2.8 as the size, weight, build quality, and ergonomics are perfect for me.

TBH I wouldn't quibble between 1.26kg and 1.46kg, on a sling strap you're just not going to notice it. IMO the D750 is overall a better camera than the A7II, but it depends if you prefer the mirrorless system or not.
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
Was going to send you a PM to see how you were finding it actually.

Best thing about the A7II for me is the portability. Just concerned about losing that - but then you can always stick a prime on it and its not too much different.

EVF - not sure on it to be honest - 90% of my shots on the A7II are done using the screen at the back - guess live view can just do this?

Also - not sure if its just me but I treat the Sony and lenses like a baby - they don't feel like something that should be chucked back in the bag, more 'placed gently'
Live view on DSLR is just not up to par compared to mirrorless, don't buy a DLSR to use with live view the majority of the time. It's fine for tripod work and the odd handheld shot, but AF is far too slow for most things.
 
Messages
6,508
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
Was going to send you a PM to see how you were finding it actually.

Best thing about the A7II for me is the portability. Just concerned about losing that - but then you can always stick a prime on it and its not too much different.

EVF - not sure on it to be honest - 90% of my shots on the A7II are done using the screen at the back - guess live view can just do this?

Also - not sure if its just me but I treat the Sony and lenses like a baby - they don't feel like something that should be chucked back in the bag, more 'placed gently'
live view on the d750 isn't up to much tbh.
i do prefer an evf -but the a7ii doesn't have great one imo.
im not sure on the weight, but the d750 and 50mm 1.8 is fairly lightweight.
 
Messages
14,609
Edit My Images
No
I have and haven't. I originally went with the A7II, which I do really like.

The two issues I have:

It missed some shots of my dog (fast moving, could have been my technique but SS was fairly high and I was using CAF and burst)

I have been on a couple of landscape shoots and felt that I missed shots because I didn't have long enough lenses - at the moment my budget is pretty much maxed out at £2000 and I have spent that and currently have the A7II, 16-35mm, 28-70mm, 35mm 2.8. I could sell the 28-70mm and 35mm 2.8 and get a 50mm 1.8 + Canon 70-200mm for a similar price and FL's would be fairly covered.

Or

I can get the D750 + 24-120mm + 18-35mm + 50mm 1.8 for around £1860 and it would probably cover what I need FL wise and not as many lens changes.
Scratch the itch and you could add a Nikon 70300vr to meet 2k or a 85g.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,923
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Live view on DSLR is just not up to par compared to mirrorless, don't buy a DLSR to use with live view the majority of the time. It's fine for tripod work and the odd handheld shot, but AF is far too slow for most things.
Cheers for both messages. Yeah LV would be used for landscape shots on a tripod. With my old DSLR I used the viewfinder for pretty much everything. Just not a fan of the A7II evf.
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
Cheers for both messages. Yeah LV would be used for landscape shots on a tripod. With my old DSLR I used the viewfinder for pretty much everything. Just not a fan of the A7II evf.
Live view is fine for that, and I use live view for most of my landscape shots. Certainly all of the ones in a tripod. You just need to make sure exposure preview is on so what you see is what you get. I use the histogram in live view too.

Relating to your previous posts the 18-35mm G lens (has to be the G lens) is superb. Ok build isn’t as good as some of the other lenses but the sharpness and detail it delivers is superb. Noticeably better than the 24-120mm or 24-70mm in this regard.
 
Messages
1,923
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Live view is fine for that, and I use live view for most of my landscape shots. Certainly all of the ones in a tripod. You just need to make sure exposure preview is on so what you see is what you get. I use the histogram in live view too.

Relating to your previous posts the 18-35mm G lens (has to be the G lens) is superb. Ok build isn’t as good as some of the other lenses but the sharpness and detail it delivers is superb. Noticeably better than the 24-120mm or 24-70mm in this regard.
Cheers for that. Yeah it would be the G lens. Looks nice and lightweight - that’s ideal.

Emailed Panamoz and they can do the kit for £1400 which seems a relative bargain to be fair.
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
Cheers for that. Yeah it would be the G lens. Looks nice and lightweight - that’s ideal.

Emailed Panamoz and they can do the kit for £1400 which seems a relative bargain to be fair.
Kit, as in D750 and 24-120mm? Good price that.
 
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
Messages
2,263
Name
thomas
Edit My Images
Yes
Auto-focus in liveview is very slow on the d750, that the only draw back i have with this camera. Good for landscape on tripod but not really anything else!
 
Messages
4,146
Name
Kris
Edit My Images
No
TBH I think you're focussing on the wrong things. Whilst these are handy to know, shooting in RAW WB essentially doesn't matter as you can sort that in post later, and 98% of the time Matrix metering will get it near enough and on top of that you have so much flexibility in post with the highlight and shadow recovery that it doesn't matter if you're over/underexposed by a stop to two.

That being said, if I know light isn't going to change much for a range of shots I do sometimes set it to a particular setting so that there is a constant WB between shots. Also if I decide it doesn't quite look right later I can copy and paste the WB settings to the whole lot knowing that they will all look the same.

As for metering, most of the time I will set it to matrix but I do use the others on occasion. For example if I'm shooting subjects that are reasonably central in the frame then I'll use centre weighted, and in dark scenes with bright lights/subjects I'll use highlight weighted metering. For your horse pics I'd use matrix mostly though. You just need to learn for what scenes it might not be best, such as a dark horse against heavy backlight.

But if you really want your images to pop, and also be as sharp as possible learn about light, learn about where to stand so that the light is in the right place and going to illuminate your subject how you want. I know this will not always be possible and you have to stand where you have to stand, but just changing your angle slightly can make a big difference. This is the area that I'm trying to figure out at the moment, exactly how you need the light to fall to make things really pop.

Also composition makes a big difference, and another area where I struggle to get creative. Yes I can take perfectly focussed pics etc but there's nothing special about them. For me now interesting compositions and subjects are far more important than an image being absolutely tack sharp. That's not to say that I want them to be soft, but I'm fed up with sharp boring images.
Agree. Though these days I don’t bother going spot in high contrast situations, I’ve learnt my meter well enough to know how much compensation to use. So for example, around the house it’s always at -0.7/-1 but right up against a window -2/-3. It’s far quicker when you’re moving around than faffing with spot metering, just keep an eye on highlights and adjust accordingly.
 
Messages
1,923
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Bit of an odd one - with the direction of mirrorless a big thing now and Nikon supposedly bringing out an FF mirrorless with 'Z' mount or whatever it will be, is anyone in this forum worried about/predicting a big drop in the value of used Nikon FX/DX lenses once the new range is announced/released?

Or do we thing this will be many years down the line as people will be likely to adapt lenses for the foreseeable future?
 
Top