Nikon Help needed.

Phil White

Phil White

Messages
286
Edit My Images
Yes
I have just read several comparison reviews and YouTube videos on the new D5 and the D810 and feel a little confused. The D810 got better results as far as image quality is concerned on some reviews but the D5 performed better overall which sounds about right.

So my question is if you were looking to to upgrade to either of the two what would your choice be.
 
It would depend on what I wanted to do. What type of photography are doing?

The D5 offers a much higher FPS. If you are going to be doing some form of action,e.g. sports or wildlife then I would go for the D5 without question.
 
D5 for sports and birds in flight; D810 for fashion/portrait and landscapes. Given those parameters though, there are less expensive alternatives. Are you a DX or fx shooter? D5 is $8500 Canadian. D810 is about half that. The new D500 seems to be getting rave reviews (DX format); the D750 (FX) seems to be well received as well. Both those are around $2500 Canadian.
 
What are you upgrading from, and what is it about your current photos that makes you feel the need to upgrade?

As an example I have a D700 and had a D7000. I wanted to go full frame for that 2nd body and after a lot of time looking at D750, D800, D810, D4 I decided that the D700 was still perfect for my needs and bought another one of those. The saving over the D810 which I nearly bought paid for my new 200-500mm
 
Nikon D5 =£5189
Nikon D810= £2099

Depends if you have the cash for the D5 and would you get £3000 worth of use out of it over the D810? The D5 machine guns @12fps which may be ok for newspaper photographers, but I would prefer the D810 and get a decent lens with the £3000 difference.
I have the D800 which I find perfectly adequate for my needs
 
Last edited:
•


In my arsenal I have three bodies with very
different capabilities…

the D3S when I must get a picture and have
no control over the shooting conditions like
concerts for one

the D3X for all my magazine and publishing
works where I control the shooting conditions
like location shoots.

the D800E has it place in studio and technical
shoots

the D810 my prime body for wildlife because
of its pixel count. Very quiet!

If the D5 had or exceeded the 24MP mark, I
would go for it… maybe a future D5X?
 
Last edited:
I am going to watch this with interest. I am at a crossroads. My D3 bodies are still producing very acceptable results (it was a landmark camera when it was launched). They have worked hard, I did two full magazine feature shoots yesterday and I can't really see a need to change them, especially as the final use doesn't even need the image size they produce. My argument with myself is that why should I pay for new bodies that will only fill my computer faster, show up my lenses shortcomings and more of the available file size will be thrown away at the production end of things, because they already don't use all of the file the D3 produces!

Would it be nicer to use? Probably, I did have a go with the D5 on the NikonPro roadshow when it came to Leicester. There were several key features that caught my eye at the time, but I have since forgotten what they were, so they can't have been that important. Just 'nice to have' but not strictly needed. I am interested to know why 24MP is the magic number. The D3 only has 12 of them and does very well indeed. The D5 has 20 and works on the sameprinciple, they might not be as numerous, but each one is much better making an overall benefit. I don't need the ability to shoot at 102,000 ISO, I think I went above 400 ONCE this last year. So I am wondering whether I wouldn't simply be better throwing a couple of hundred quid at the D3 bodies to keep them going...if they gave up the ghost altogether, then I would obviously have a different decision to make.
 
Two different cameras and you need to decide which suits your needs best (if either).

D810 has better dynamic range, better resolution and no AA filter meaning better recovery in post processing, more crop-ability, and sharper images. It's also lighter and much cheaper.

D5 has faster frame rate, better autofocus system (not that the D810 is shoddy in the slightest), less noise at high ISO and is more rugged.

But then there's the D500 which is very similar to the D5 but DX rather than FX, but has no AA filter so should be sharper (in fact Tony Northrup's review shows that it is) and is a lot cheaper.

Then there's the D750 which for me has the best ergonomics and arguably the best all rounder and best bang for buck.
 
texfoto said:
How is the D500 on higher ISO compared to FX?
Click to expand...
Depends which FX you're comparing to. Compared to most of the more recent FX it's not as good from early tests, but still very good.
 
I guess I should have listed my budget. £2000 max for the body. I guess I now would imagine that FX is really king in this area of high ISO. I was hoping that although very good, I could get something at 6400 but maybe that's still a bit ambitious with DX today.
 
texfoto said:
I guess I should have listed my budget. £2000 max for the body. I guess I now would imagine that FX is really king in this area of high ISO. I was hoping that although very good, I could get something at 6400 but maybe that's still a bit ambitious with DX today.
Click to expand...
I'd use ISO 6400 shots from the D7200 and D500 at a push.
 
texfoto said:
I guess I should have listed my budget. £2000 max for the body. I guess I now would imagine that FX is really king in this area of high ISO. I was hoping that although very good, I could get something at 6400 but maybe that's still a bit ambitious with DX today.
Click to expand...

Well within the budget you have is the used 800 series......that is where I would look. The D750 is a dog, I wouldn't invest my money in one.
 
Lensflare said:
Well within the budget you have is the used 800 series......that is where I would look. The D750 is a dog, I wouldn't invest my money in one.
Click to expand...


That is not a commonly held opinion.
Fair enough if you don't want to spend your money on one, but that sort of comment is of absolutely no use to the OP.
Define "dog".
 
Everyone has there favourite the only real test is try it for yourself
 
I'm in the process of "upgrading" and have no experience of full frame.

I've done some digging and my findings are echoed in some of the comments above.......D3 & D700 are mentioned above.

I've lined up a low shutter count D700 with grip for £550. By chance I have 3 decent AIS primes 24/2.8, 50/1.8 & 100/2.8 (paid £90 for all and including a nice Nikon FM2)
. If I had your £2000 budget I'd still buy the D700. I'd add a decent zoom and fast AF 35/50 prime. Do you need extra batteries, tripod, filters, cards, decent strap etc?

No point buying the latest all singing and all dancing body then mounting some poor quality glass on it. (Do you have lenses or have you budgeted for them) The body will be old tech very soon (just like the D3/D700). But decent lenses will always be good.

Whatever camera you buy, get one in your hands, try it out, see if you like the feel, layout, menus etc.

Also check out images from D810 and D700 can you see the difference?

Good luck and keep us informed of your choices.
 
Last edited:
Lensflare said:
The D750 is a dog, I wouldn't invest my money in one.
Click to expand...
Based on what? The D750 is in fact arguably the best allrounder FF camera on the market at the moment.
 
I don't think the D750 is a dog (whatever that means) but when I tried one it felt like a toy. The flippy-out screen was asking to get smashed, and the lack of "AF-ON" for almost £1500 is a joke.
 
Gyles said:
Also check out images from D810 and D700 can you see the difference?
Click to expand...

An interesting comment and chances are that the answer would be "no" when looking at the same image taken as a test. The difference, and this certainly would be true when comparing to a D5 or D500, is that getting the image at all is what you're paying for.

I've shot a fair amount of sports and a high frame rate can mean capturing just the right moment rather than just being close, and of course in this situation a better AF system is a massive bonus too.

As ever, it comes down to "what are you going to take photographs of" and for general use, the D750 seems to be the body of choice. I still didn't like it though.

When one of my D700's breaks I might go for a used D4, but chances are I'll just grab another D700.
 
MissingMan said:
I don't think the D750 is a dog (whatever that means) but when I tried one it felt like a toy. The flippy-out screen was asking to get smashed, and the lack of "AF-ON" for almost £1500 is a joke.
Click to expand...
The flippy screen is more robust than you may think (unless you're minnnt ;)) but the lack of AF-ON does frustrate me. The AEL button can be set to AF-ON but isn't in a natural position for my thumb to rest on it.
 
snerkler said:
The flippy screen is more robust than you may think (unless you're minnnt ;)) but the lack of AF-ON does frustrate me. The AEL button can be set to AF-ON but isn't in a natural position for my thumb to rest on it.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to say that if the D750 had an AF-ON button I would have bought one, and then I would have regretted it because what I really wanted was a used D4.
 
No, I am not fishing - it is a dog because there are far better bodies in the same budget available, even if they are used. I have several professional friends who bought into the 750 for the reasons people state - best all rounder...but it is made of chocolate, it isn't fully featured, it is a pro spec camera masquerading in amateur clothes. I know five of those guys who sold the 750 within a month, and were woefully disappointed with it - four of them went back to their 700s!
The 800 series will provide better resolution, better build quality - and unless you make You Tube videos for teenage girls, it is definitely an inferior camera - a dog.

D800 series are way better built.
D700 also a better choice for taking stills.

It was plasticky, felt all worng - you could get a good used D4 for the same budget.

Arguably the best of those 'old' cameras was the D3X - almost as good as the D5, just not got the most modern processing, but an awesome camera - you try and find one being sold, anyone who has one is hanging on to it. They should be throwing them away and buying the new, all singing, all dancing, all new processors etc D750, but they don't want to downgrade.
 
Last edited:
Lensflare said:
No, I am not fishing - it is a dog because there are far better bodies in the same budget available, even if they are used. I have several professional friends who bought into the 750 for the reasons people state - best all rounder...but it is made of chocolate, it isn't fully featured, it is a pro spec camera masquerading in amateur clothes. I know five of those guys who sold the 750 within a month, and were woefully disappointed with it - four of them went back to their 700s!
The 800 series will provide better resolution, better build quality - and unless you make You Tube videos for teenage girls, it is definitely an inferior camera - a dog.

D800 series are way better built.
D700 also a better choice for taking stills.

It was plasticky, felt all worng - you could get a good used D4 for the same budget.

Arguably the best of those 'old' cameras was the D3X - almost as good as the D5, just not got the most modern processing, but an awesome camera - you try and find one being sold, anyone who has one is hanging on to it. They should be throwing them away and buying the new, all singing, all dancing, all new processors etc D750, but they don't want to downgrade.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Lensflare said:
No, I am not fishing - it is a dog because there are far better bodies in the same budget available, even if they are used. I have several professional friends who bought into the 750 for the reasons people state - best all rounder...but it is made of chocolate, it isn't fully featured, it is a pro spec camera masquerading in amateur clothes. I know five of those guys who sold the 750 within a month, and were woefully disappointed with it - four of them went back to their 700s!
The 800 series will provide better resolution, better build quality - and unless you make You Tube videos for teenage girls, it is definitely an inferior camera - a dog.

D800 series are way better built.
D700 also a better choice for taking stills.

It was plasticky, felt all worng - you could get a good used D4 for the same budget.

Arguably the best of those 'old' cameras was the D3X - almost as good as the D5, just not got the most modern processing, but an awesome camera - you try and find one being sold, anyone who has one is hanging on to it. They should be throwing them away and buying the new, all singing, all dancing, all new processors etc D750, but they don't want to downgrade.
Click to expand...

The D750 isn't a 'pro spec' camera. :rolleyes: Besides, not everyone is a pro who needs to get double use from their camera as a hammer - or an anchor for a kayak. :LOL:
 
Ed Sutton said:
The D750 isn't a 'pro spec' camera. :rolleyes: Besides, not everyone is a pro who needs to get double use from their camera as a hammer - or an anchor for a kayak. :LOL:
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but I bet people who buy a camera would like to think it would last the test of time. Unless of course, they are just gear collectors who chop and change every year or two - my gear has to last me 10 years hard use, at least. That is why I am still using my D3 and just getting used to the D4s - having tried the D5 and had it on test run for a month or so - I handed it back not quite as impressed as was when I first saw it, hence the D4s.
 
Lensflare said:
Arguably the best of those 'old' cameras was the D3X - almost as good as the D5, just not got the most modern processing, but an awesome camera - you try and find one being sold, anyone who has one is hanging on to it. They should be throwing them away and buying the new, all singing, all dancing, all new processors etc D750, but they don't want to downgrade.
Click to expand...

We are just waiting for a D5X ;)
 
Lensflare said:
Maybe not, but I bet people who buy a camera would like to think it would last the test of time. Unless of course, they are just gear collectors who chop and change every year or two - my gear has to last me 10 years hard use, at least. That is why I am still using my D3 and just getting used to the D4s - having tried the D5 and had it on test run for a month or so - I handed it back not quite as impressed as was when I first saw it, hence the D4s.
Click to expand...
TBH I think what you're looking for from a camera is very specific, and whilst the D750 might not suit you are your friends that does not mean in any shape or form that it is a dog, nor made of chocolate. If someone wants a camera I could chuck about willy nilly, wasn't afraid of dropping etc then they would have to look at one of the pro body cameras. If folk want an 'affordable' FF camera that has one of the best sensor performances, has one of the best AF systems despite it 'only' being a prosumer body, is robust enough for most enthusiasts needs, is arguably better than any of the competitors bodies at a similar price point then you'd be hard pressed to look beyond the D750.

Yes you can buy used D700's and D4's etc, but with tech it's not really 'fair' to compare new and much older tech as we know the newer the tech the higher the price. Also, the only thing the D700 has over the D750 is build (and function layout for some), the performance of the D750 is better in every regard I believe.

You have your opinion on the D750 and that's fine, it's just there's ways to put these things across that won't potentially 'upset' folk. For a lot of people the D750 is their pride and joy, and no doubt had to work hard to afford it.
 
Last edited:
Lensflare said:
Maybe not, but I bet people who buy a camera would like to think it would last the test of time. Unless of course, they are just gear collectors who chop and change every year or two - my gear has to last me 10 years hard use, at least. That is why I am still using my D3 and just getting used to the D4s - having tried the D5 and had it on test run for a month or so - I handed it back not quite as impressed as was when I first saw it, hence the D4s.
Click to expand...
You obviously need 'build quality' for the type of work you do. That's fine. Not everyone does, which is why manufacturers make a range of products to suit differing needs/wants. It's why kayaks and Strikliners are made - different tools for different tasks.
 
Ed Sutton said:
You obviously need 'build quality' for the type of work you do. That's fine. Not everyone does, which is why manufacturers make a range of products to suit differing needs/wants. It's why kayaks and Strikliners are made - different tools for different tasks.
Click to expand...

I bet I can take my kayak through, or fish more uncomfortable seas than you can take your tin boa out in ! :D




:banana:
 
snerkler said:
TBH I think what you're looking for from a camera is very specific, and whilst the D750 might not suit you are your friends that does not mean in any shape or form that it is a dog, nor made of chocolate. If someone wants a camera I could chuck about willy nilly, wasn't afraid of dropping etc then they would have to look at one of the pro body cameras. If folk want an 'affordable' FF camera that has one of the best sensor performances, has one of the best AF systems despite it 'only' being a prosumer body, is robust enough for most enthusiasts needs, is arguably better than any of the competitors bodies at a similar price point then you'd be hard pressed to look beyond the D750.

Yes you can buy used D700's and D4's etc, but with tech it's not really 'fair' to compare new and much older tech as we know the newer the tech the higher the price. Also, the only thing the D700 has over the D750 is build (and function layout for some), the performance of the D750 is better in every regard I believe.

You have your opinion on the D750 and that's fine, it's just there's ways to put these things across that won't potentially 'upset' folk. For a lot of people the D750 is their pride and joy, and no doubt had to work hard to afford it.
Click to expand...

If this is you as well - then you need to grow broader shoulders and thicker skin. If you are speaking on behalf of others - they need to do the same. :runaway:
 
Lensflare said:
If this is you as well - then you need to grow broader shoulders and thicker skin. If you are speaking on behalf of others - they need to do the same. :runaway:
Click to expand...
It is kind of my pride and joy and yes I had to work hard to afford it, but my skin's thick enough ;) Besides, I know what it's capable of. Also I don't mollycoddle it, but i just choose not to throw it around and drop it :p
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
It is kind of my pride and joy and yes I had to work hard to afford it, but my skin's thick enough ;) Besides, I know what it's capable of. Also I don't mollycoddle it, but i just choose not to throw it around and drop it :p
Click to expand...

You haven't done the helicopter test yet? Shame on you! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top