The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

I'm not disputing the speed of the A9 against the D750, more that if the D750's speed is fine for the odd time I need something fast so is it worth the cost and taking a hit on DR/high iso. Initially I thought not and dismissed the A9 but I've been doing a fair bit of reading this afternoon and the A9 seems to have its fair share of fans for general use.
 
I'm not disputing the speed of the A9 against the D750, more that if the D750's speed is fine for the odd time I need something fast so is it worth the cost and taking a hit on DR/high iso. Initially I thought not and dismissed the A9 but I've been doing a fair bit of reading this afternoon and the A9 seems to have its fair share of fans for general use.

The Dr only takes a hit at base, the iso is as good if not better than the mk3 upper range which is better than the d750.
 
I'm not disputing the speed of the A9 against the D750, more that if the D750's speed is fine for the odd time I need something fast so is it worth the cost and taking a hit on DR/high iso. Initially I thought not and dismissed the A9 but I've been doing a fair bit of reading this afternoon and the A9 seems to have its fair share of fans for general use.

I don’t think it’s comparable D750 to A9 as both are completely different cameras and design for different markets. To comparable you need to comparable similar models. For Nikon and Sony those would be:

D750 > A7iii
D810/D850 > A7Riii/A7Riv
D5 > A9

It’s like comparing the D5 to an A7iii. Totally different price brackets and markets.

I used to use a D750. It was a great camera and one I loved quite a bit. I’m now using an A7Riii. So far AF has been enough for me needs and I don’t seem to be missing the D750 for speed. There are good and bad points about mirrorless but I generally finding they are good and would be unlikely to return to a DSLR anytime soon.
 
The D750 is what I would have bought if I'd stayed with Nikon, but TBH with the better focussing and wider dynamic range of the Sony it was a jump I was pleased to make.
 
I don’t think it’s comparable D750 to A9 as both are completely different cameras and design for different markets. To comparable you need to comparable similar models. For Nikon and Sony those would be:

D750 > A7iii
D810/D850 > A7Riii/A7Riv
D5 > A9

It’s like comparing the D5 to an A7iii. Totally different price brackets and markets.

I used to use a D750. It was a great camera and one I loved quite a bit. I’m now using an A7Riii. So far AF has been enough for me needs and I don’t seem to be missing the D750 for speed. There are good and bad points about mirrorless but I generally finding they are good and would be unlikely to return to a DSLR anytime soon.

They're not completely different cameras for my use, the headline feature of the D750 was its very fast AF and the headline features of the A9 are its speed. To put it more simply, if I didn't have the D750 I'd be more inclined towards the A9 as I wouldn't have any high speed options, the D750 may be surpassed but it doesn't diminish the fact that I've never been left wanting by the D750's AF speed. In addition to the fact that I don't need the D750's speed that often along with the A9's higher price and some IQ compromises, I'm trying to work out if it's a suitable camera for me or not. Everything I'd read about the A9 previously would have said definitely not but I've been surprised to find many like it for general use not specifically for its high speed talents.
 
Last edited:
They're not completely different cameras for my use, the headline feature of the D750 was its very fast AF and the headline features of the A9 are its speed. To put it more simply, if I didn't have the D750 I'd be more inclined towards the A9 as I wouldn't have any high speed options, the D750 may be surpassed but it doesn't diminish the fact that I've never been left wanting by the D750's AF speed. In addition to the fact that I don't need the D750's speed that often along with the A9's higher price and some IQ compromises, I'm trying to work out if it's a suitable camera for me or not. Everything I'd read about the A9 previously would have said definitely not but I've been surprised to find many like it for general use not specifically for its high speed talents.
I get you have the D750 but you are still comparing two very different cameras. The D750 sounds like it’s performance is within your needs which is great. You don’t necessarily need an A9 to get close the D750. I would expect the A7iii to be nearly on par (or as good) with the D750 AF speed wise. But the A7iii is also capable of 10fps which is nearly double the D750’s 6.5fps and it can shoot in total silent too! Add in eye AF on the Sony’s and AF performance is very good. The A9 shoots at 20fps in total silence. That’s not the same camera spec as the D750! It’s a totally different beast that would blow the socks off most people. That said a D5 would blow the socks off the D750 AF speed wise too as it’s designed as a pro users camera for fast action just like the A9 is. If it’s a question of LR6 not being compatible with the A7iii there is always the DNG route or the A7iii to A9 cost difference could buy a good 10 years of monthly subscription (even more if you go the paid annual subscription route).

Many in this thread came from Nikon having previously owned the D750. I don’t think many would go back even though most don’t shoot with the A9. What I’m trying to get at is you don’t necessarily need to replace an enthusiast’s camera with a pro users camera . There are some fantastic wedding photographers on here that use the A7iii and are getting amazing results.
 
Last edited:
I think I’ve found something that’s so much harder than choosing a camera or lens...... researching printer options! I’m trying to combine a general use printer with the potential to print photos too. It seems general opinion about printing it’s that it’s a money pit in ink and paper costs! I think I’ve found a sensible cost to quality compromise- Epson ecotank ET2710 (£156). It may not give the best quality but it sounds like it shouldn’t bankrupt me as ink costs are about £36 for a set of four colour 65ml ink refills. Dropping down to marrutt 230gsm archival Matt photo paper should hopefully make it a little cheaper at £17 for 50 sheets. Hopefully it gives me a chance to try printing to see if I like it.
 
They're not completely different cameras for my use, the headline feature of the D750 was its very fast AF and the headline features of the A9 are its speed. To put it more simply, if I didn't have the D750 I'd be more inclined towards the A9 as I wouldn't have any high speed options, the D750 may be surpassed but it doesn't diminish the fact that I've never been left wanting by the D750's AF speed. In addition to the fact that I don't need the D750's speed that often along with the A9's higher price and some IQ compromises, I'm trying to work out if it's a suitable camera for me or not. Everything I'd read about the A9 previously would have said definitely not but I've been surprised to find many like it for general use not specifically for its high speed talents.

The headline feature of the D750 was never fast a.f. Not sure where you have gotten that from but that was never the case at all in terms of a.f it wasn’t actually that good especially in terms of speed. The limited a.f coverage with only 51 points wasn’t ideal either. While it performed okay in low light the a.f wasn’t as accurate as say the 5d3 for example.

A lot of people liked the D750 because it did most things reasonably well and the Sony sensor allowed a lot of latitude in post. It was never regarded as a “fast camera” that is just nonsense. The D750 was a good entry level full frame camera that performed well for the price.

While it was adopted by a lot of pros because it was a camera that’s was good value for money at the time. It also had its limitations though such as being limited to 1/4000 and an issue with over exposing images which led to a lot of blown highlights and you had to be careful with controlling your exposure to allow for this. It made using aperture priority for example difficult as you always had to underexpose. I found that a real pain in the bum with the 6 x D750’s I owned and I had to always use them in manual so as not to blow the highlights.

You can’t compare a camera like the A9 to the D750. The A9 is light years ahead of it in terms of technology.

The most similar camera to the D750 in Sony’s range would be the the A7II which launched around the same time. Each of those has their advantages and disadvantages.

The A7III Would be the next step up and is a much better camera. The A9 is better again.
 
The headline feature of the D750 was never fast a.f. Not sure where you have gotten that from but that was never the case at all in terms of a.f it wasn’t actually that good especially in terms of speed. The limited a.f coverage with only 51 points wasn’t ideal either. While it performed okay in low light the a.f wasn’t as accurate as say the 5d3 for example.

It came from Nikon, reviewers and my own experience:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7222282087/nikon-d750-fx-dslr-announced

Fast and full-frame: Nikon announces 24MP Nikon D750

Nikon's press release:

Sharp landscapes and portraits are simple with Nikon’s advanced 51-point AF system, the same used on Nikon’s high-end D-SLRs. The Advanced Multi-Cam 3500-FX II AF focus system also easily tracks fast moving wildlife or sports, even at the rapid, high-speed burst rate of 6.5 frames per second (fps), at full resolution.

Reviews:

the D750 (like the D810) has very impressive focus tracking capabilities. The combination of a 91,000 pixel metering system and 51-point autofocus system not only allow the D750 to track subjects from fore-to-aft, but also from left-to-right, up-and-down. If something cuts in front of whatever's being tracked, the D750 will (by default) almost never jump away from its target (and there's a setting that allows you to bias this). The camera also has face detection when shooting with the viewfinder, which gives people priority over closer subjects. Low light shooters will be pleased to hear that all 51 of the D750's focus points still work well down to -3EV.

Having used the camera for many years, its AF is very quick and remarkably good in C-AF mode which isn't diminished simply because newer cameras are faster. And it will be staying in that role because I'm not changing over its F2.8 lenses when it does that job fine, all I wanted to know as I keep asking was whether the A9 was worth considering as a general use camera. That's it but since the mere mention of the D750 seems to have completely derailed both this topic and my own questions, I'll do my research elsewhere.
 
I carried the 70-200GM halfway round the world and then waited 90min (traffic and ppl) for this. Only instagram filters atm... Im still there.

BSKGlx0.jpg
 
The headline feature of the D750 was never fast a.f. Not sure where you have gotten that from but that was never the case at all in terms of a.f it wasn’t actually that good especially in terms of speed. The limited a.f coverage with only 51 points wasn’t ideal either. While it performed okay in low light the a.f wasn’t as accurate as say the 5d3 for example.

A lot of people liked the D750 because it did most things reasonably well and the Sony sensor allowed a lot of latitude in post. It was never regarded as a “fast camera” that is just nonsense. The D750 was a good entry level full frame camera that performed well for the price.

While it was adopted by a lot of pros because it was a camera that’s was good value for money at the time. It also had its limitations though such as being limited to 1/4000 and an issue with over exposing images which led to a lot of blown highlights and you had to be careful with controlling your exposure to allow for this. It made using aperture priority for example difficult as you always had to underexpose. I found that a real pain in the bum with the 6 x D750’s I owned and I had to always use them in manual so as not to blow the highlights.

You can’t compare a camera like the A9 to the D750. The A9 is light years ahead of it in terms of technology.

The most similar camera to the D750 in Sony’s range would be the the A7II which launched around the same time. Each of those has their advantages and disadvantages.

The A7III Would be the next step up and is a much better camera. The A9 is better again.
The D750 was and still is great in terms of AF. It was massively praised at the time for being fast as reliable and that hasn’t changed. I bet if we could reliably measure the speed/acquisition of AF between the D750 and the very best of today’s cameras we’d be talking milliseconds difference (y)
The only thing that let it down imo was AF point coverage.
 
It came from Nikon, reviewers and my own experience:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7222282087/nikon-d750-fx-dslr-announced



Nikon's press release:



Reviews:



Having used the camera for many years, its AF is very quick and remarkably good in C-AF mode which isn't diminished simply because newer cameras are faster. And it will be staying in that role because I'm not changing over its F2.8 lenses when it does that job fine, all I wanted to know as I keep asking was whether the A9 was worth considering as a general use camera. That's it but since the mere mention of the D750 seems to have completely derailed both this topic and my own questions, I'll do my research elsewhere.


:ROFLMAO: Just because Nikon says something in a press release doesn't make it true, they say same nonsense about every camera they launch.

The D750 was a great value for money camera, it's autofocus system was okay considering the low price, that doesn't make it great and it was launched nearly 6 years ago. Times have moved on and as I mentioned in my last post the 5d3 which you could say was the Canon equivalent was better in terms of a.f at the time.

I did like the D750, we had 6 of them, that doesn't mean that I couldn't see it's failings. Like with most things you get what you pay for.
 
The D750 was and still is great in terms of AF. It was massively praised at the time for being fast as reliable and that hasn’t changed. I bet if we could reliably measure the speed/acquisition of AF between the D750 and the very best of today’s cameras we’d be talking milliseconds difference (y)
The only thing that let it down imo was AF point coverage.

Maybe for you as you have pretty much only owned entry level/prosumer full frame bodies. It was massively praised because it was cheap and it was great for the price.

It's a.f was no where near as good as the D4 or the D4S both of which I owned as you would expect as they are pro bodies. 5d3 and 5d4 where better as well even though they are not pro bodies.
 
Last edited:
Maybe for you as you have pretty much only owned entry level full frame bodies. It was massively praised because it was cheap and it was great for the price.
Is that so? ;)

It's a.f was no where near as good as the D4 or the D4S both of which I owned as you would expect as they are pro bodies. 5d3 and 5d4 where better as well even though they are not pro bodies.
Maybe it’s just the way you phrase things? Saying “it’s nowhere near as good as the D4” makes it sound garbage to me, as though it’s a night and day difference which imo it’s not, it’s a fraction behind. Again we’ll be talking milliseconds.
 
Maybe for you as you have pretty much only owned entry level/prosumer full frame bodies. It was massively praised because it was cheap and it was great for the price.

It's a.f was no where near as good as the D4 or the D4S both of which I owned as you would expect as they are pro bodies. 5d3 and 5d4 where better as well even though they are not pro bodies.

Pretty sure he had or has a D850?

The only thing that makes a camera pro is the person using it, a camera is a camera.

The D750 was used by many, many pros and probably still is. AF was great and was the major selling feature for many, so yeah you could call it a headline feature.
 
Is that so? ;)

Maybe it’s just the way you phrase things? Saying “it’s nowhere near as good as the D4” makes it sound garbage to me, as though it’s a night and day difference which imo it’s not, it’s a fraction behind. Again we’ll be talking milliseconds.

When you are relying on equipment for work milleseconds are important. It may not matter so much if you are using the equipment for stuff that only you care about and it was a night and day difference in low light.
 
Pretty sure he had or has a D850?

The only thing that makes a camera pro is the person using it, a camera is a camera.

The D750 was used by many, many pros and probably still is. AF was great and was the major selling feature for many, so yeah you could call it a headline feature.

The D850 is not a pro body.

That simply isn't true by the way, nIkon categorise their cameras with the single digit camera bodies being the professional versions.
 
Last edited:
The D850 is not a pro body.

That simply isn't true by the way, nIkon categorise their cameras with the single digit camera bodies being the professional versions.
Opinion or fact?
 
When you are relying on equipment for work milleseconds are important. It may not matter so much if you are using the equipment for stuff that only you care about and it was a night and day difference in low light.
I find that odd being as the D4s is rated to -2ev yet the D750 rated to -3ev. I never had an issue with my D750 shooting the most poorly lit boxing at 12800 iso.
 
The D850 is not a pro body.

That simply isn't true by the way, nIkon categorise their cameras with the single digit camera bodies being the professional versions.
Wrong... :D

Nikon Pro bodies are as follows:-
DF
D750
D810
D850
D500
D5

:D
 
I find that odd being as the D4s is rated to -2ev yet the D750 rated to -3ev. I never had an issue with my D750 shooting the most poorly lit boxing at 12800 iso.

I seen those, based on the photos I would say you did struggle. You won't find any professional sports photographer using a D750 as a main body.


Wrong... :D

Nikon Pro bodies are as follows:-
DF
D750
D810
D850
D500
D5

:D

That is the list needed for inclusion in their support programme that has nothing to do with them being regarded as pro bodies or not. Stick to putting stuff in your cabinet.
 
Last edited:
I seen those, based on the photos I would say you did struggle. You won't find any professional sports photographer using a D750 as a main body.




That is the list needed for inclusion in their support programme that has nothing to do with them being regarded as pro bodies or not. Stick to putting stuff in your cabinet.
That's not true, Nikon have them listed on their site under Pro bodies.
Anybody can think a body is pro or not...... I just refer to manufacturers sites for their definitive status.
Haha, I don't have a cabinet ..... ;)
 
I seen those, based on the photos I would say you did struggle. You won't find any professional sports photographer using a D750 as a main body.




That is the list needed for inclusion in their support programme that has nothing to do with them being regarded as pro bodies or not. Stick to putting stuff in your cabinet.

While I agree with your first part that the d750 isn’t on the same level as the A9 or even A7iii from what I’ve seen( very low light is the only thing I’ve not done a lot of shooting in). The a7iii is better in af speed/ accuracy and FPS, the d750 was no slouch hence why it’s still used long after release similar to how the d700 was at the time.

** Mod edit** play nice :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When you are relying on equipment for work milleseconds are important. It may not matter so much if you are using the equipment for stuff that only you care about and it was a night and day difference in low light.

some people use manual focus for weddings, if you rely on milliseconds that’s not an issue with the equipment.

I’m pretty sure you’d still be able to shoot weddings with a D750 so, for your work those factions of a second mean little.
 
some people use manual focus for weddings, if you rely on milliseconds that’s not an issue with the equipment.

I’m pretty sure you’d still be able to shoot weddings with a D750 so, for your work those factions of a second mean little.

Nice try at having a go at how I do my work, not getting sucked in though. I am more than comfortable with how I do things and what is required to give the best results to my clients.

I also shoot a lot more than just weddings for work.
 
Last edited:
Nice try at having a go at how I do my work, not getting sucked in though. I am more than comfortable with how I do things and what is required to give the best results to my clients.

I also shoot a lot more than just weddings for work.

I am not having a go at how you do your work, I am stating a fact. I am sure you're very good at your job, and weddings - otherwise you wouldn't be as busy as your are. You only talk about weddings, so nobody else would be aware of that.

What I am saying is that for what is most of your job, D750 would be just fine and the improved AF of other systems, whilst nice, is something you could do without. The AF on that camera is undeniably fast.
 
I am not having a go at how you do your work, I am stating a fact. I am sure you're very good at your job, and weddings - otherwise you wouldn't be as busy as your are. You only talk about weddings, so nobody else would be aware of that.

What I am saying is that for what is most of your job, D750 would be just fine and the improved AF of other systems, whilst nice, is something you could do without. The AF on that camera is undeniably fast.

Yep, it all comes down to individuals wants / needs....... some professional photographers shoot using the Fuji APS-C system which arguably has weaker sensors and AF performance etc. :)
 
I seen those, based on the photos I would say you did struggle. You won't find any professional sports photographer using a D750 as a main body.
Care to expand where AF struggled? They’re not great shots granted (combination of my skill and the appalling light), but they’re in focus.
You’re now changing the goalpost, sports cameras were never mentioned previously.


That is the list needed for inclusion in their support programme that has nothing to do with them being regarded as pro bodies or not. Stick to putting stuff in your cabinet.
So Nikon are wrong?
 
I am not having a go at how you do your work, I am stating a fact. I am sure you're very good at your job, and weddings - otherwise you wouldn't be as busy as your are. You only talk about weddings, so nobody else would be aware of that.

What I am saying is that for what is most of your job, D750 would be just fine and the improved AF of other systems, whilst nice, is something you could do without. The AF on that camera is undeniably fast.

I could shoot a wedding using any camera that doesn’t mean that I want to. It is my choice to use the equipment that I feel is best suited to the job.

The D750 was fine but it was absolutely not my preferred choice and for my last year of shooting Nikon while we had at that point 4 x D750’s I often used a D4s. I also used a D810 and a D850 but I didn’t like those for weddings either.

For other work I never used the D750.
 
Last edited:
D750 AF was/is great, the a7 and a7ii are nowhere near as good at continuous AF or low light.
 
Not had much chance to play which is annoying, but it's a beast.
Sucks when life gets in the way doesn’t it? :( By usual standards I’ve hardly used my cameras this year for one reason or another, although I’m getting a new puppy next week so that should make for some photo opportunities, although she’s bonkers at the mo and doesn’t sit still for a second :LOL:
 
Back
Top