calson: What was overlooked is how when changes are made to camera settings such as aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc. the entire rear LCD screen displays everything and uses a very large font that is more than 10x what one would usually see on a rear or top display on a Nikon camera.
It is interesting that Nikon put the tilt LCD screen on the D750 but not on the premier landscape photography camera from Nikon, the D810. With landscape shooting and in particular when using live view and a PC-E lens the ability to tilt the display with the tripod mounted camera is a tremendous benefit. Somebody's ego got in the way of adding this feature and functionality to the D8xx cameras.
You don't know of what you write; in comparison to the Canon 7DII few cameras are particularly tough.
It is way simplistic to think that the problems with folding LCDs are only about the hinges, and that being able to flip some LCDs over for flat storage makes cameras tougher.
I'll spell it out:
With a folding LCD, of any type, there are many more body penetrations where grit and water can enter the body.
Then: With any type of folding LCD the hinges are points of weakness.
So you are wrong about folding LCDs ever being a way of toughening a camera.
There are easy and inexpensive ways of protecting a fixed LCD from breakage--these would be in addition to anything the manufacturer has already done.
Right, for a camera with a folding screen, the A77II is tough and well sealed.
Built-in flashes also constitute a point of body weakness, that's one reason that pro bodies like the D4S don't have them.
HFLM: On Nikonrumors a response of Nikon can be found to one commentor:"I am sorry to learn about your disappointment [...] however that we are aware of the this effect and Nikon considers it to be within the quality standards. When photographing scenes with an extremely bright light source (such as the sun or high intensity lighting) is at a certain position along the top border of the frame, this sort of visual effect is common and may occur when shooting using any digital SLR camera.Therefore it does not indicate a problem with the camera's design and we do not plan to implement any measures to address this."http://nikonrumors.com/2014/12/22/nikon-d750-reflectionflare-issue-possible-solution-found.aspx/#comments
Interesting to learn that there are claims the problem can indeed be reproduced with a bare light bulb and different lenses.
So what am I to think when I've very consciously shot into fluorescent bulbs and seen no problem?
Don't misunderstand, I do think people are describing a real problem, it just doesn't seem real frequent.
But does every D750 photo with a strong front light source have this problem? Or is this issue limited to some lenses in combination with that body?
Clearly the dozens of sample photos I've shot into strong fluorescent lights don't create this problem, so does that limit the problem to spot lights? And if so which kinds, including the sun?
The Flickr link you posted: Are you sure the D750 would fail you in that situation, have you tried one?
I'm sorry but it looks to be a very limited problem, possibly only in combination with some particular lens and lens setting. And it may not even be every D750 body that has this problem.
Cars, cameras, computers, table saws, etc have oddities, including weaknesses. I can think of a flaw, very real and very easy to find if you know what you're doing, in the amazing Festool rail saw system.
Web search: "2006 Honda Civic engine block"--I guess Honda did take responsibility. Unlike VW in 2001ish with Golf ignition coils.
Likely the reason Nikon avoided a tilt screen in the D810 is to make it more weather resistant and generally tougher. (All helpful if the landscape involves things like rain and ocean surf.)
Okay, then can you tell by looking at the body or reading the serial number?
Can the problem (if it even exists in more than 1 out of 1000 photos with all Nikon lenses) be fixed without replacing the body?
Mimik: My d70s has 1/8000 and 1/500 x-sync
And building full framed electronic shutters still seems to be a problem.
Sony has it for the A7S, but not the newer A7II.
Smaller areas lower pixel counts help for these purposes.
Whether the D70 had to have X is a different story.
Okay, there are odd shadows in this special D750 flare, how hard is it to induce? Are people reporting this problem with 10 percent of their photos. How about 10 percent of photos taken directly into the sun? Does that smaller percentage hold true?
Is it with all D750s and any lens? Or just some lenses, how about lens aperture, and lens hoods?
As nerd2 says below...
APSC and electronic shutter likely, or did you no get that?
Useable at ISO 6400, I'm sure? NOT.
Amazing AF, well NOT.
Did it shoot 1080/60p video?
And oh, your comment isn't original.
You've never ever had flare with the D300?
To your mind what is the problem with the D7100?
"this sort of visual effect is common and may occur when shooting using any digital SLR "
Until it is well demonstrated that other SLRs shooting in the same lighting conditions, and with the same lenses+hoods+filters, don't have this problem, you don't have a point.
nicolaiecostel: DPreview, could you shed some light on the recent accusations made towards the D750, about the nasty flare issue ?
I think that could be quite a sizeable CON.
I hope you mean similar camera, same lens, same lenshood, same lighting.
And the point is that a lot more demonstration is in order.
Then as you imply, other gear can't to the same thing in the same situation--ever.
jkoch2: A fine FF camera. State-of-the art, too, for at least the next six months. Had Nikon engineered the D750 to shoot 4k video from a cropped area of the sensor, plust IBIS, it might have qualified for a 12-month reign, at least.
Po' folk with a stake in both stills and video can't upgrade very often. 4k is s superior tool, even for 1080p video, and anyone who tastes it is reluctant to consider the limits of 1080p for capture, any more than a still photographer would accept only 2mp resolution.
Perhaps Nikon will offer 4k first in its 1" V/J series, to test interest, before deploying it in the FF models, whose disciples include a stodgy cadre of "bah-humbug" videophobes.
There's a contradiction in using the latest tech (or saying so) and only updating said tech every 2 or 3 years.
The GH4 isn't a particularly good high ISO body--so it has limitations for shooting stills that other camera don't.
mls149: Why can't Nikon put a 1/8000 shutter speed on this "pro" camera. It certainly is a desirable feature to this 43 yr pro. Can it add that much to the cost?
Why do you imply there are many full framed DSLRs with amazing AF and good lowlight high ISO cameras selling for say $1200 or less?
(There are none, of current models the least expensive, and neither has good AF, are the Nikon D610 and the Canon 6D for something like $1800.)
nerd2: Put in D800 shutter box (1/8000 max shutter, 1/250 sync, 8fps max shooting) and this would be THE successor of D700. Yes I know it will never happen. Yes I know D750 is still the best all-around FF camera overall out there.
So much better AF than the D700. And a better lowlight camera than the D700.
Thatcannonguy: I chose the GX7. Why ?
Even with the LX100's gold award, the GX7 renders better picture quality. AND the difference becomes even bigger when you attach Panasonic's besr lenses. I already have these lenses.
Also; the GX7 has dropped in price significantly.
Why, I have dozens of raws from both cameras?
I certainly don't go by comparison tools.
Remember, I'm referring to the kitzoom on the GX7. I'm not saying Panasonic and Olympus don't have good lenses for the system.
RomanP: I don't get what the big deal is here, for the price:- same body as 610 (except tilt screen)- same toy-like 4way selector...really inferior to the 810's and 5D's.- same sensor- same 6fps. Wait, that's now 6.5fps. - same buffer! Really, they couldn't double the RAM?
Is it worth an $800 difference between the two models? Yes, better autofocus system, but IQ will be very close, and you won't get more shots at an event than with a D610. It's like Nikon is crippling this model only to queue up a truly high speed 760s next year.
Just see the D750's buffer in glorious action here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1wXGdaNvko
Yeah, I get it.
FYI, with a fast card, I shot about 30 raws in 20 seconds with the D750, and the buffer barely slowed. (I wasn't shooting continuous.) Got bored after 30 shots.
I was prompted to try by a claim here, that I was wrong about the buffer depth of the D750. I was wrong, I'd thought it slower.
Gesture: Nikon doesn't have to sell the most cameras in the world, just be profitable with what it does best.
I'm not simply talking about $400 turntables.
You're completely missing it.
tiberiousgracchus: Fuj where are you ?
I'm pretty sure Sony announced A mount SLR lenses for release in 2015.
David Kinston: I just dusted off my D80. (I have D300, D7000, D750).
All modern cameras are great. Results are 1% camera - 99% you.The D750 is a brilliant piece of equipment.
IMO anyone who cannot pick up a D80 and be 99% satisfied is not a photographer - just a pedantic nitpicker and whinger.
I'll bet B+H would ship it, though that would add significantly to the cost, unless you could ship it surface.
I mailed a $500 piece of electronics to Australia from the US, it was serviced, then it was then posted back to me. It wasn't terribly expensive and the item sure is bigger than an SD card.
"nasty flare"? Well if it were easy to reproduce. And many people were reporting it with say 20 percent of their shots.
Even if it exists, it's flare and that happens, and even if it's extra special D750 "flare" unlike no other, it remains uncommon.