MaxTheHorse: Genuine no-troll question. In the UK this camera is being sold for almost exactly 2x the price of the APS-C Nikon D7100. It's only £230 less than the new Full Frame D750. That seems somewhat over the top. What am I missing? One other observation. Most people agree that both Nikon and Canon are feeling the heat from mirrorless. With the new (relatively) lightweight D750, Nikon at least seem to be going some way to trying to address one disadvantage of the DSLR relative to mirrorless, namely weight. So how come Canon have put out a new DSLR that is not only heavier than the Nikon APSC equivalent but also their new FF D750? As I say, not trolling, just genuinely curious.
The D7100 handles well with big lenses too and manages to be considerably lighter. While I understand that in a combo with fast telezoom the lens weight will add more to the total weight, why making the camera body heavier than it needs to be?
I can look at the 7D II in two completely different ways and I still cannot decide which is correct:1. the negative view: 5 years after 7D and the changes are subtle, no groundbreaking tech, only small improvements (20 MPx vs. 18 MPx, 10 fps vs. 8 fps...), size and weight of a fullframe DSLR, price of a FF DSLR, picture quality of a 400 EUR mirrorless, so why the hell buying this?2. the positive view: the best APSC camera ever, the only truly pro APSC DSLR, basically a cropped 5D III (with bits of 1Dx), a camera built like a tank that will last years, the best a sports photographer can get apart from 3x more expensive 1Dx/D4s.I guess it is something in between. But having to decide for a new semi-pro DSLR I would go for the D750.
That´s what I thought as well: people switch to mirrorless because DSLRs are mostly huge. While I understand an APSC mirrorless will always be smaller than a DSLR and even that FF CSC is smaller than APSC DSLR, I somehow cannot understand why Canon introduces an APSC! body bigger and heavier! than fullframe DSLR. This has nothing to do with ergonomy, number of external controls etc., since D750 has it all and despite that it manages to be smaller.
iudex: Man it´s huge: http://www.43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/E-M1_SLV_leftside_M4015F28_BLK_LH76_BLK_HLD7.jpgBut I guess it is not possible to make a 300mm eq. lens with f2,8 any smaller and it is perfectly within the competition of fast CSC telezooms:Fuji 50-140/2,8: 995g 72mm filter threadOly 40-150/2,8: 880g, 72 mm filterSamsung 50-150/2,8: 920g, 72mm filtee.
Btw. since it has not been introduced by DPR yet, here are the specs of competing Samsung telezoom:50-150mm/2,8, OIS, 154mm x 81 mm, 920g, 72mm thread, weather-proof:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081863-REG/samsung_ex_zs50150abus_50_150mm_f2_8_ed_ois.html
Man it´s huge: http://www.43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/E-M1_SLV_leftside_M4015F28_BLK_LH76_BLK_HLD7.jpgBut I guess it is not possible to make a 300mm eq. lens with f2,8 any smaller and it is perfectly within the competition of fast CSC telezooms:Fuji 50-140/2,8: 995g 72mm filter threadOly 40-150/2,8: 880g, 72 mm filterSamsung 50-150/2,8: 920g, 72mm filtee.
nerd2: NIKON ARE YOU KIDDING? 'Fast' camera with 6.5fps continuous shooting and 1/4000 max shutter? How dare you use 7xx naming on this? And separate wifi and GPS? Come on, it's 2014 now and just ever other camera have them built in!
I haven´t. As I said, I never needed it, even 6 fps are sometimes too fast and I switch to 3 fps. But that´s maybe because I am not a pro and do not shoot sports, I can understand fot athletics etc. fast framerate is crucial. But even more crucial is reliable AF. Many CSCs have framerate above 10 fps, but without capability to track a subject or autofocus between shots.
While I believe this lens will be better than usual cheap superzooms, I think it came too late. Tamron changed the game with its 16-300mm and for those who prefer maximum reach (i.e. basically everyone looking at superzoom lenses) Tamron is a better choice, those 2mm at wide end make a big difference, plus the Tammy is weather sealed.P.S. Nice they included Pentax mount though.
phoenix15: as ex nikonian, I don't understand why Nikon puts too many FF body in the market.
DaveE1: you are right. I wonder how can someone say he cannot choose a FF from Nikon and hat to look elsewhere: Where? Nikon has unprecedended 5 fullframe DSLRs, what more have other manufacturers to offer? And with 5 FF cameras Nikon has to make clear boundaries. If they made the D750 with all specs people desire, noone would be tempted to buy more expensive D810 or D4s.So while I agree there could be 1/8000s, I still see the D750 as the optimal choice from all the FF DSLRs on the market regarding value and money.
mpgxsvcd: "offering a faster frame-rate than any non-professional full-frame Nikon DSLR since the D700". That is a ton of caveats in that sentence. What they should have said is "Offers half the burst speed of most smaller sensor cameras".
Do those smaller sensored cameras have mirrors that flip up and down? ;-) It ie easy to make high fps on a compact/mirrorless, but complicated with a mirror. Within DSLRs 6,5 fps is a good number.
Skulls: When you decrease the number of pixels that increases their individual size and more light is received by the sensor, right? Why then the ISO range is still 12800?6.5 fps in FX mode means 7.5fps in DX mode... well, I have sony a6000 with the same amount of pixels and it can shoot 11fps, with about the same buffer size of 22 shots, 1/4000 max shutter speed, with the same ISO range, it weighs 344 grams and it costs 600 euro. It is APS-C but still... where the price difference comes from?Am I missing something?P.S. And the Sony has got a AEL button which can be programmed to be AF-ON!
Re: "Why then the ISO range is still 12800?" My crop DSLR has ISO 25600, does it mean it makes better pictures than D750? The difference is my camera has the number only as a marketing point while I do believe a fullframe D750 can really shoot at ISO12600.Paper can carry a lot, the reality might be very different.
Mirrorless eat a significant portion of APSC DLSRs and Nikon sees the future of DSLR in FF, which is a clever conslusion. CSCs are getting better and many people ask why should they choose e.g. a D7100 over Fuji X-T1? But Fuji, Oly, Pana, Samsung... have no answer to FF, so it is wise to ocupy this segment. Higher price per body, higher profits.
mclaren777: Having a -3 EV focusing system is fantastic!
I wish all high-end cameras were this sensitive.
Even the old K-5 II had it. That does not mean it is bad when Nikon added this, it definitely makes D750 a much better camera than D610.
MY Latent Image: Yawn...Still waiting for D400 !!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe you should read a book by Eugene Ionesco "Waiting for Godot". ;-)
VadymA: Looks like Nikon let go their entire R&D department; all their new models look like rearrangement of the same parts; no innovation, no new ideas, nothing ;(
If you expect big changes with DSLRs you are wrong; DSLRs heve been developing for decades, so the progress can be only minor, only polishig what already is good. I guess you are spoilt by mirrorless where every generation is a big step forward, since it is a new system. So expecting such giant changes with DSLRs is unrealistic.And if you meant that Nikon is sleeping, then show me what great progress other DSLR manufacturers made in recent years. Canon is even more conservative.
Cheezr: I think this was the planned replacement for the D600 but do to cirmcumstances beyond their control the D610 had to be rushed out leaving Nikon with an upgraded camera and having to grab a new name for it.
Anyhow it was a smart move, taking some wind from the expected 7D Mk II (that is supposed to cost +/- the same).
zakk9: Fine camera, but 1/4000s? Could you guys find out how many RAW frames the buffer will hold?
Indeed, 1/4000 might be a problem. My camera has 1/6000 and I have encountered the problem of needing more for couple of times. My f1,8 lens keeps a CPL all summer long, so I am sure having only 1/4000s I would not be very happy.
Retzius: "So if you're one of those people that's still holding out for a replacement for the D300S... well, you might be looking at it."
I have said all year that Photokina was the year I would stay with or leave Nikon based on the appearance or no appearance of the D400.
It appears I will be leaving Nikon then. Sad really, I love my D200 and have waited almost years for a D400. I am still holding out for a surprise show announcement; if it does not come I will sell my gear and go for the Canon 7D MkII. At least they want my business.
I wonder what you guys espected from a D700 successor: The only issues are the frame rate and 1/4000s. Yes, 6,5 fps is worse than 8 fps of the D700, but that framerate was possible with battery grip only, without the BG the D700 had 5 fps (or thereabouts).1/4000 is a flop though.
brelip: dpreview kept referring D750 closer to spec of D810 than D610. This is a joke. Stop kidding yourself. This is D620. The body style is completely different than pro Nikon's. Build quality different. Sensor different. only 1/4000 shutter. No pro cameras would have 1/4000, period.
Re "build quality is different": DPR writes that D750 is completely from magnesium, rather than magnesium-plastic body of D610, which also implies it is on higher level.
Well I have 6 fps on my camera and never felt like needing more; if there was some trouble with high speed shooting, it was the buffer. And that seems OK with D750.
tkbslc: I am pretty sure it would cost more to put together a high end kit from Fuji than it would a FF kit from Nikon, Sony or Canon. I can't think of any APS-C lenses that cost more than these two.
The story does change since D7100 (the best and most expensive Nikon APSC) is cca. 900 eur, whereas X-T1 is 1200 eur. And don´t forget the Pentax, not only K-3 is cheaper than X-T1, also it´s zooms are APSC and cheaper than Fuji/Nikon/Canon lenses.