Nikon Just got a D750

MoonMind

Hall of Famer
Dec 29, 2013
124
Switzerland
Matt
I recently did the same and got a D750. The reason? Well, I got into photography seriously using Nikon film gear (most of which I still own - it was too useful to let go, and I never was in a tight enough spot to sell it), I loved using it (in fact, I still do), and now everything from the 90's still works happily on the D750 - something I had been waiting for for quite some time. I use my Nikon gear for people and event photography mainly, but the D750 is such a joy to handle and use that it might actually be with me a lot more than any of its (D)SLR predecessors. And of course the images are stunning; I'll post some next weekend - haven't had the time to shoot with enough dedication due to work load. For the time being, apart from the 50mm, I mainly shoot it with the 85mm f/1.8G and the 70-200mm f/4G - both are fantastic (I love the latter - it's such a versatile lens, and neither extremely big nor heavy for what it is; no problem at all shooting it hand-held). In addition to that, I plan on getting the Sigma Art primes at some not too distant point in the future (24mm - if it's on par with its longer siblings, 35mm, 50mm) to cover the wider end of things and reach maximum output quality for a reasonable price. I'll keep the 50mm f/1.8G, though - it makes for a very useful walkaround lens, and it's cheap and cheerful, so it minimises worries of loss or damage. To sum up, with the D750, it all seems to fall into place for me in the way I had hoped for.

All that said, on the go and for street stuff, I really, really appreciate the smaller size and the lower weight of the E-M10 - in fact, my whole kit (body and five lenses or three lenses and a flash) is only slightly heavier the D750 with 50mm f/1.8G and sits in a nice and compact bag (ThinkTank Retrospective 5) - a boon for sure. Besides, the 12-40mm f/2.8 still is my best standard zoom, and I love the images I get from it; in fact, I have no plans on supplanting it with a similar lens on the D750. The E-M10 with the 12-40mm is lighter than the lightest setup I can manage with the D750 and a lot more versatile than that one. So, depending on what I'm up to, the E-M10 will always have a decisive advantage over the D750. And the small Olympus primes are great, too, making for even more compact combinations, my favourite being (after some deliberation and testing) the 17mm f/1.8. That's why I'll keep both systems - in my book, they complement each other in a very convincing way.

For even smaller and lighter, I either carry the LX100 or the trusty GR - or both, since they're so compact and fantastic in use with very good results. The GR is still my best wide angle solution - until the Sigma 24mm arrives, I guess. I use a Camslinger belt bag for the pair of them; most of the time, there's another camera in there - a measly Cannon IXUS 132 for some reach in good light; I like to have fun fooling around with cheap cameras sometimes ...

M.
 

davidzvi

Top Veteran
Apr 18, 2014
104
Boston Burbs
David
...All that said, on the go and for street stuff, I really, really appreciate the smaller size and the lower weight of the E-M10 - in fact, my whole kit (body and five lenses or three lenses and a flash) is only slightly heavier the D750 with 50mm f/1.8G and sits in a nice and compact bag (ThinkTank Retrospective 5) - a boon for sure. Besides, the 12-40mm f/2.8 still is my best standard zoom, and I love the images I get from it; in fact, I have no plans on supplanting it with a similar lens on the D750. The E-M10 with the 12-40mm is lighter than the lightest setup I can manage with the D750 and a lot more versatile than that one. So, depending on what I'm up to, the E-M10 will always have a decisive advantage over the D750. And the small Olympus primes are great, too, making for even more compact combinations, my favourite being (after some deliberation and testing) the 17mm f/1.8. That's why I'll keep both systems - in my book, they complement each other in a very convincing way......
My kit, E-M10, grip, 5 lenses, misc stuff, and my Retro 5 combined are lighter than my D800 and 70-200 f/4 (and 90% of the time I have an SB-910 flash on top of that). I love the the weight / size / etc of m4/3.
 

MoonMind

Hall of Famer
Dec 29, 2013
124
Switzerland
Matt
My kit, E-M10, grip, 5 lenses, misc stuff, and my Retro 5 combined are lighter than my D800 and 70-200 f/4 (and 90% of the time I have an SB-910 flash on top of that). I love the the weight / size / etc of m4/3.
Just for the fun of it, I broke out the baggage scales and did a couple of measurements. My almost fully packed mFT kit with five lenses, but without the flash (and with only the tablet missing from my travel configuration - it's being charged) weighs only 2.7kg/6lb., the D750 kit in its Lowepro sling bag (with only three lenses, but including a SB-600 flash and portable softbox) tips the scales at 4.35kg/9.6lb.. Both bags are very manageable that way, but whereas I could cover most situations (except sports and wildlife) with the mFT gear, the Nikon is pretty much geared towards portraiture and people shots at the moment (something it excels at, to be fair). The cameras with their usual lens setups weigh 0.9kg/2lb. (E-M10 with 12-40mm, grip and strap) and 1.1kg/2.4lb. (D750 with 50mm f/1.8G) respectively. This makes the D750 quite light for the powerhouse it is, but in terms of versatility, the E-M10 wins hands down AND is lighter. Both combos can actually be used in similar conditions regarding low light - the D750 has great high ISO performance, the E-M10 has IBIS.

But - there's the image quality of the D750 ... As good as the E-M10 is (and as hard as it will actually be to prove superior image quality in an online setting!), the Nikon smokes the Olympus under all conditions, at least as soon as I put one of the really good lenses on it. RAW quality is excellent - so much so, in fact, that I have to adjust my habits regarding post because there's such a lot more to be had with more care here. I think I even have to relearn a couple of things more thoroughly ...

Besides, as soon as I get the Sigma primes, I'll actually have to look into buying yet another bag - or I'll be shifting gear in and out of the present one a lot ...

M.
 

BillN

Hall of Famer
Aug 25, 2010
123
S W France
Bill
Cameras are for taking images not weighing ……. if you want to weight them go and work in a grocery store

bizarre to discuss weights … buy a set of scales and a few weights if that is your "bag"


modern AF/AFS lens are the best and the Sony sensor, (used by Nikon), is still way ahead of Canon

depends what you shoot and what you want

IQ is important …….. open your eyes

for birds and wildlife DSLR's still rule until Sony produce a good set of long lens for their mirror less FX …

and in the studio … the same, D810

anything can look good on the web as all you get is 1000 x 1000 and 250k

small sensors are small sensors and you get what you get ……… just don't kid yourselves and be happy

….. metric or imperial
 
Last edited:

davidzvi

Top Veteran
Apr 18, 2014
104
Boston Burbs
David
Cameras are for taking images not weighing ……. if you want to weight them go and work in a grocery store

bizarre to discuss weights … buy a set of scales and a few weights if that is your "bag"


modern AF/AFS lens are the best and the Sony sensor, (used by Nikon), is still way ahead of Canon

depends what you shoot and what you want

IQ is important …….. open your eyes

for birds and wildlife DSLR's still rule until Sony produce a good set of long lens for their mirror less FX …

and in the studio … the same, D810

anything can look good on the web as all you get is 1000 x 1000 and 250k

small sensors are small sensors and you get what you get ……… just don't kid yourselves and be happy

sad lot …….. metric or imperial
While no one seems to be saying anything different relative to image quality than what you are also saying. Many are looking for ways to carry less weight. It may not matter to you, but it does to many.
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
123
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
The funny thing about camera and lens weights is that when I was shooting m43, then Fuji, I generally ended up carrying about the same amount I do now with an FX DSLR. I just seem to have a tolerance for what's comfortable to carry for a day and I end up with about that much gear. Arguably I had a more versatile kit with me more of the time with m43 in particular (not really with Fuji), but I so rarely ended up shooting with more than a couple of primes, it was kind of silly to be carrying that stuff. But it was a comfortable amount to carry so I figured "why not, maybe I'll need it". I think I got over that when I spent a month in Italy with basically three fixed lens cameras covering 21, 28, and 35mm, and very occasionally another with a longer lens. So now I carry the Df with 21, 25, and 35mm lenses, and occasionally a small old telephoto either covering 135 or 75-150. And the kit is about the same amount to carry. I don't think I could do much better with any other system. I could with m43 with a small body and a few small lenses, but it wouldn't be all that much lighter and I don't think I'd be any more comfortable carrying it, since I'm very comfortable carrying the kit I usually shoot with now with the Df.

I think we all have our own tolerances and the key thing is you carry what you're comfortable with. This was a hurdle I had to cross before I could move to FX because I had a mis-conception that I'd have to carry a huge amount of gear if I went full frame. Once I realized I could carry a really comfortable kit and cover everything I'd want to, that hurdle was behind me.

When I really want to go ultra-small/light, I take the G7X and maybe the Coolpix A, but if I'm carrying a system camera, I'm gonna be carrying about the same amount regardless of system...

-Ray
 

davidzvi

Top Veteran
Apr 18, 2014
104
Boston Burbs
David
I have no small Nikon gear really, it's all f/2.8 or f/4 zooms though it fits nicely in a Tenba Large Roadie Roller. If I want to go light I have a Domke that will take a body or two, 3 lenses, and a couple of flashes.

But with the m4/3 stuff what I've started doing is putting what I think I'll need in a small Crumpler Haven camera pouch and stick that with other stuff into an Adidas Alliance II Sackpack. Works great.
 

tdekany

Veteran
Dec 21, 2011
103
Portland OR
At what point do you think the larger sensors show their true colors? How large of a print have you compared with lets say the tiny sensor in a M4/3 camera? As far as Canon vs Nikon, are you saying you could tell the difference from 2 identical pictures? At what size print?

And at what point do you think the photographer comes in to the picture?

Thanks

PS: No one is saying that FF isn't better than M4/3

Cameras are for taking images not weighing ……. if you want to weight them go and work in a grocery store

bizarre to discuss weights … buy a set of scales and a few weights if that is your "bag"


modern AF/AFS lens are the best and the Sony sensor, (used by Nikon), is still way ahead of Canon

depends what you shoot and what you want

IQ is important …….. open your eyes

for birds and wildlife DSLR's still rule until Sony produce a good set of long lens for their mirror less FX …

and in the studio … the same, D810

anything can look good on the web as all you get is 1000 x 1000 and 250k

small sensors are small sensors and you get what you get ……… just don't kid yourselves and be happy

sad lot …….. metric or imperial
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
123
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
At what point do you think the larger sensors show their true colors? How large of a print have you compared with lets say the tiny sensor in a M4/3 camera? As far as Canon vs Nikon, are you saying you could tell the difference from 2 identical pictures? At what size print?

And at what point do you think the photographer comes in to the picture?

Thanks

PS: No one is saying that FF isn't better than M4/3
The photographer comes into it before anything else - the gear doesn't matter if the photo sucks to begin with. But assuming a good photograph in the first place, I don't think its about seeing the difference in the final product or the size / format of the final product. For me, it has more to do with the process of making the photograph. A better sensor is more forgiving at the moment of exposure, and has much more latitude when it comes to processing the file. I find processing a file from a really good full frame sensor is unlike anything else I've ever worked with - the dynamic range really makes a difference in this regard. Also, of course, there are pretty enormous differences in low light.

A perfect exposure in good light with minimal processing won't look much different if taken with full frame , m43, or probably even a decent smartphone camera. But the more challenging the conditions and more difficult the shot, the more difference the camera makes both in terms of getting a keeper to. Erin with and then the creative possibilities once you've made the exposure...

-Ray
 

tdekany

Veteran
Dec 21, 2011
103
Portland OR
I want to hear what BillN has to say. :)

The photographer comes into it before anything else - the gear doesn't matter if the photo sucks to begin with. But assuming a good photograph in the first place, I don't think its about seeing the difference in the final product or the size / format of the final product. For me, it has more to do with the process of making the photograph. A better sensor is more forgiving at the moment of exposure, and has much more latitude when it comes to processing the file. I find processing a file from a really good full frame sensor is unlike anything else I've ever worked with - the dynamic range really makes a difference in this regard. Also, of course, there are pretty enormous differences in low light.

A perfect exposure in good light with minimal processing won't look much different if taken with full frame , m43, or probably even a decent smartphone camera. But the more challenging the conditions and more difficult the shot, the more difference the camera makes both in terms of getting a keeper to. Erin with and then the creative possibilities once you've made the exposure...

-Ray
 
Jun 3, 2012
103
Melbourne. Australia
Joe
I found myself falling into the same trap with my m43 gear, walking around town with 2 bodies and up to 6 lenses, you know, just in case! As it is, there is nothing wrong per se with doing that, except for the fact that I shot almost exclusively with only 2 or 3 of those lenses, the others just made me feel cluttered and confused and played tricks with the way my eye would 'see' as I walked around town...and yet I STILL kept on carrying all those lenses and 2 bodies....just because I could. The way I've set myself up now, I intend to walk around with a single body and 3 primes, the D610 with the 35 and 85 and a yet to be decided upon 20mm or so wide. (The 50/1.8G came with the camera and will probably spend much of its time at home)....but 20, 35 and 85 will do me just fine and won't be any more a burden to lug around than an EM5 and GX7, plus the 7-14, PL25, O75 and P45-150.

What of those days when I want to go ultra light...I have the LX100.

I'm excited by the idea of a single main body with 3 primes...backed up by an ultra compact....I've always felt like my best work (or work that I've enjoyed the most) happened on those days when my shoulder bag wasn't bulging at the seams and I had LESS to choose from.
 

MoonMind

Hall of Famer
Dec 29, 2013
124
Switzerland
Matt
I'm sorry for having set off Bill (and apparently a few others). My point was about the advantages of mFT on the one hand and of the reasoning behind still getting into full-frame on the other; the weighing was declared to be "fun", i.e. not to be taken too seriously. I was just wondering about my own claims, really.

In principle, I'd actually more or less agree with Bill's points. I just don't think that additional considerations like bulk and weight are unimportant - in fact, far from it. If you don't click with your gear, you don't carry it; if you don't carry a certain setup, you simply can't take a certain kind of images, be it subject or quality or both. And I find it obvious that one type or piece of kit fits a purpose better than another one. That's all.

Now off with my D750 on my back - today, it's about people. And taking pictures. As it always is. Gear doesn't matter by itself - but it's necessary to achieve your goals.

M.
 

BillN

Hall of Famer
Aug 25, 2010
123
S W France
Bill
I want to hear what BillN has to say. :)
I said "cameras are for taking images not weighing" ……. bizarre to discuss weights …

I said it "depends what you shoot and what you want" ….. I take mainly bird shots …….. try doing that consistently with any equipment other than a DSLR and long lens, (600mm) and gimbal, tripod, sandwiches, drinks, energy bars, etc., etc. ….. I usually take 2 bodies, two 300mm lens and a 600mm lens, plus a couple of TC's

I said "for birds and wildlife DSLR's still rule until Sony produce a good set of long lens for their mirror less FX" ……. try getting the "correct" background with an M43 body consistently ……. without a true f2.8/f4 on an FX or maybe DX sensor …….. I have, the M4/3 stuff just dose not work, my M8 is useless and my Sigma is well a Sigma …… and even a V1 + FT-1 plus Nikon AF-S long lens only works in certain light situations

Onto colours, quality, light and sensors size
Most small bird shots are crops, usually big, …… tell me how I can get the quality, low noise, colours, contrast, definition etc., etc., from a small sensor camera? ………….. at 25 mtres, 50 metres or even 5 metres
Try taking shots in poor light when you need as much light hitting the sensor, (you need as larger sensor as possible), with a M4/3 and the available lens…….. light light light …….. try getting the same colours as a basis for post, jpeg or RAW from a small sensor, recovery in the shadows and highlights …………. I have, most get binned for being noisy at normal working distances

Try taking shots of BIF, (birds in flight), with anything other than a DSLR ……. no chance for mortals
Try consistently locking on to focus for birds at a distance and BIF in low light without the AF systems of modern DSLR's …….. no chance …… birds don't hang around to be photographed ……….

I could also say the same about wildlife photography, but I have less experience in that area

It may be about the photographer …… …. for me and what I take it is equally about the equipment ……….. I could not take most of the shots that I do without the correct equipment

Tell me how I can reduce the weight and cost of my kit whilst still getting as many keepers of a quality that I want without the equipment that I have ……. I'd love to know ………. and the V1 plus new 70 300mm CX will not do it
My tripod and gimbal weights much more than most M43 kit and lens range

If you want consistency, quality etc., etc., for bird and wildlife photography buy a pick up ……… or take your wife with you as a "porter"

If you have another solution I would dearly love to know what it is …….. I am now approaching 70 years old ……. carrying all this kit, walking around for miles and hiding behind bushes and in long grass, sitting around for hours just in the hope that the bird perches in the correct position and dose not hide behind a leaf or similar, maybe keeping me fit ……. but with my "dicky knee' sometimes it's not much fun

apologises if my comments seem "sharpe" and direct but that usually my problem

Sunny today, so may pack my wife up with my gear and visit the local nature reserve ……. just joking really, about my wife I mean ……… I'll rent a 4 x 4 mobility scooter and load that up


Stick an old 50mm Nikon f1.8E MF lens on a D750 body if you want lightweight
 
Last edited:

pdh

Legend
Jan 2, 2011
123
Much as I hate to agree with Bill about anything, he is spot on about this.

if you want absolutely top notch wildlife/birding results, absolutely consistently, under any conditions of light, with subjects that are often moving or distant or both, that will print large or bear close examination on screen, you need deep pockets and a strong back.

If shots to show on forums or Flickr or whatever at 1024x768 are quite good enough, there are a zillion lower cost and lighter weight options.
 

SnapDawg

Rorschach Test Pilot
Apr 18, 2014
103
Canary Islands
Ken
For me weight is an issue because I regularly travel with nothing but onboard luggage - 10kg max. That means an ultralight 640g backpack, tablet PC, no extra photo bag but a photo jacket with huge pockets (the boarding jacket) and so on. Photography is a part of what I do for a living but luckily it's not bird photography; I actually could do just about everything with a standard zoom, hence the Fuji with mainly the 1855. I get Ray's points but as someone who carries a camera all day long I'm still glad I made the switch from Nikon to something more compact even though I somehow miss a DSLR or rather an old SLR for the direct, transparent, no BS experience. At the moment my APS-C rigs deliver all the IQ I need for the serious, job related stuff and there's no real need to go FF.
 

tdekany

Veteran
Dec 21, 2011
103
Portland OR
Well, your initial post was very general, that is why I asked. Now it turns out that you shoot birds. Good for you. But that doesn't address my questions.

I said "cameras are for taking images not weighing" ……. bizarre to discuss weights …

I said it "depends what you shoot and what you want" ….. I take mainly bird shots …….. try doing that consistently with any equipment other than a DSLR and long lens, (600mm) and gimbal, tripod, sandwiches, drinks, energy bars, etc., etc. ….. I usually take 2 bodies, two 300mm lens and a 600mm lens, plus a couple of TC's

I said "for birds and wildlife DSLR's still rule until Sony produce a good set of long lens for their mirror less FX" ……. try getting the "correct" background with an M43 body consistently ……. without a true f2.8/f4 on an FX or maybe DX sensor …….. I have, the M4/3 stuff just dose not work, my M8 is useless and my Sigma is well a Sigma …… and even a V1 + FT-1 plus Nikon AF-S long lens only works in certain light situations

Onto colours, quality, light and sensors size
Most small bird shots are crops, usually big, …… tell me how I can get the quality, low noise, colours, contrast, definition etc., etc., from a small sensor camera? ………….. at 25 mtres, 50 metres or even 5 metres
Try taking shots in poor light when you need as much light hitting the sensor, (you need as larger sensor as possible), with a M4/3 and the available lens…….. light light light …….. try getting the same colours as a basis for post, jpeg or RAW from a small sensor, recovery in the shadows and highlights …………. I have, most get binned for being noisy at normal working distances

Try taking shots of BIF, (birds in flight), with anything other than a DSLR ……. no chance for mortals
Try consistently locking on to focus for birds at a distance and BIF in low light without the AF systems of modern DSLR's …….. no chance …… birds don't hang around to be photographed ……….

I could also say the same about wildlife photography, but I have less experience in that area

It may be about the photographer …… …. for me and what I take it is equally about the equipment ……….. I could not take most of the shots that I do without the correct equipment

Tell me how I can reduce the weight and cost of my kit whilst still getting as many keepers of a quality that I want without the equipment that I have ……. I'd love to know ………. and the V1 plus new 70 300mm CX will not do it
My tripod and gimbal weights much more than most M43 kit and lens range

If you want consistency, quality etc., etc., for bird and wildlife photography buy a pick up ……… or take your wife with you as a "porter"

If you have another solution I would dearly love to know what it is …….. I am now approaching 70 years old ……. carrying all this kit, walking around for miles and hiding behind bushes and in long grass, sitting around for hours just in the hope that the bird perches in the correct position and dose not hide behind a leaf or similar, maybe keeping me fit ……. but with my "dicky knee' sometimes it's not much fun

apologises if my comments seem "sharpe" and direct but that usually my problem

Sunny today, so may pack my wife up with my gear and visit the local nature reserve ……. just joking really, about my wife I mean ……… I'll rent a 4 x 4 mobility scooter and load that up


Stick an old 50mm Nikon f1.8E MF lens on a D750 body if you want lightweight
 

BillN

Hall of Famer
Aug 25, 2010
123
S W France
Bill
Well, your initial post was very general, that is why I asked. Now it turns out that you shoot birds. Good for you. But that doesn't address my questions.
my post made it clear that I shoot birds …. and depends on what you shoot

"depends what you shoot and what you want

IQ is important …….. open your eyes

for birds and wildlife DSLR's still rule until Sony produce a good set of long lens for their mirror less FX …"

cropped bird image at 50 ft - any settings really - should be able to tell full stop
 
Last edited:

tdekany

Veteran
Dec 21, 2011
103
Portland OR
If shots to show on forums or Flickr or whatever at 1024x768 are quite good enough, there are a zillion lower cost and lighter weight options.
I'm not sure if you are addressing me or just doing general talk, but in my case I think I made a few references about prints and sizes. I'm pretty sure EVERYONE knows what's needed for small sizes.
 

BillN

Hall of Famer
Aug 25, 2010
123
S W France
Bill
At what point do you think the larger sensors show their true colors? How large of a print have you compared with lets say the tiny sensor in a M4/3 camera? As far as Canon vs Nikon, are you saying you could tell the difference from 2 identical pictures? At what size print?

And at what point do you think the photographer comes in to the picture?

Thanks

PS: No one is saying that FF isn't better than M4/3
"At what point do you think the larger sensors show their true colors? How large of a print have you compared with lets say the tiny sensor in a M4/3 camera? …….. would never use a M4/3 camera for a bird shot - what lens do you suggest that I use? ….. I have tried with Panasonic and Oly . with a 300mm …. doesn't work for me ……. also with these super-bridge cameras … gave it away the next week

As far as Canon vs Nikon, are you saying you could tell the difference from 2 identical pictures? At what size print? …….. I said that Nikon was ahead of Canon …….. read the reviews on low light shots, etc., it is not about taking images, it is about having the ability in the equipment to take images ………… sometimes at the extremes of light available

And at what point do you think the photographer comes in to the picture? …….. I have answered this as far as I am concerned …………. a pin hole camera works for some …………….but not for me in what I shoot

I started by saying "cameras are for taking images not weighing"

"PS: No one is saying that FF isn't better than M4/3" - "better" is a relative term …… M4/3 stuff is better to carry …… never said that it was not …….. although I prefer the V1 and Sigma DPM's in this respect
 
Last edited:

tdekany

Veteran
Dec 21, 2011
103
Portland OR
my post made it clear that I shoot birds …. and depends on what you shoot

"depends what you shoot and what you want

IQ is important …….. open your eyes

for birds and wildlife DSLR's still rule until Sony produce a good set of long lens for their mirror less FX …"

cropped bird image at 50 ft - DSLR v M43 at ISO 1250 and f2.8 or any settings really - should be able to tell on a 5 x 7 or smaller
You made a broad statement but now talking about bird photography. What about non bird photography? Btw, seems like I'm a lot younger and my eyes ARE open. I see pictures from top FF cameras that suck and wonderful pictures from much smaller sensors. I also see excellent shots with FF gear and terrible pictures from m4/3

PS: what about canon vs Nikon? Do you see the DR difference?
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom