Deciding btw D7100 or D750......`

[arbolaez001]

Hi, I been watching a lot of video and reading comments on D750 and D7100. I will like any help that make me decide on which route to go. This is going to be my first DSLR Camera, I will like to learn and have it for now as a hobby, to take picture of Downtown and beaches, and be creative with it. ..but I think I'am going change my Computer Information System to PHOTOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY career, I kind like the street photography, and maybe one day idk be a weeding photographer. Thanks.

My main question is if the D&50 worth $1000 more than the d7100 with 18-140 len

and D750 with 24-120....

I want the best Image I can get

**The the Flare issue with the D750 is big of a Deal?

 

[Kaso]

I would keep my job (or try to get a usually well-paid job) in Computer Information Systems with biweekly paychecks and medical insurance benefits.

On the side, I would also start with the awesome Nikon D3300 with 18-55mm VR II lens (only about $500) for a year and stick to a rigorous 365 project. I would read, learn, shoot, experiment, explore and reshoot passionately -- not for money, but for solid skills.

I am being serious and helpful.

 

[blue_cheese]

Other than price... there is no contest between these two cameras, the D750 is better

The rest of your post is funny

 

[arbolaez001]

I would keep my job (or try to get a usually well-paid job) in Computer Information Systems with biweekly paychecks and medical insurance benefits.

On the side, I would also start with the awesome Nikon D3300 with 18-55mm VR II lens (only about $500) for a year and stick to a rigorous 365 project. I would read, learn, shoot, experiment, explore and reshoot passionately -- not for money, but for solid skills.

I am being serious and helpful.

Really appreciate that, That what I think I'm going do!! Thanks been reading that and analyzing that for 10 minutes... Thanks.

 

[Adrian Van]

D750 is far better for wedding photography and low light, but if it is a first DSLR and a camera to learn, you might be better off starting with a D7100. (Unless budget is not an issue, then go with D750. )

 

[Sunnyjim]

The D7100 is some camera and it's really up there! Are you sure you are ready for that? Maybe you should consider a Kodak Brownie...........

 

[mosswings]

Hi, I been watching a lot of video and reading comments on D750 and D7100. I will like any help that make me decide on which route to go. This is going to be my first DSLR Camera, I will like to learn and have it for now as a hobby, to take picture of Downtown and beaches, and be creative with it. ..but I think I'am going change my Computer Information System to PHOTOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY career, I kind like the street photography, and maybe one day idk be a weeding photographer. Thanks.

My main question is if the D&50 worth $1000 more than the d7100 with 18-140 len

and D750 with 24-120....

I want the best Image I can get

**The the Flare issue with the D750 is big of a Deal?

Two thumbs up for Kaso's suggestion. If you want to get what Nikon considers its Goldilocks camera (not too simple, not too complicated, not too big, not too small, just right), buy a D5300. The D7100 is a superb camera but it's a lot of camera and something many step up to rather than start with. The D750 is sort of in that category as well, but at double the total price (FX lenses are expensive).

Any modern DSLR will take superb pictures and challenge you for quite some time while you spend the time required to develop your eye, your technique, and your passion. The most important money you can spend on equipment is that which develops the computer behind your eyes. Make sure you budget for workshops and classes. Nothing makes a good photographer faster than learning from a good photographer.

 

[herbymel]

Now with the fix announced for the D750 it could be a good time to wait just a bit and see how many refurbished models are going to be available.. I'd prefer that over the 7100, but that's due to be upgraded in a short time as well.

 

[jimoyer]

Now with the fix announced for the D750 it could be a good time to wait just a bit and see how many refurbished models are going to be available.. I'd prefer that over the 7100, but that's due to be upgraded in a short time as well.

The D750 is unavailable at a lot of places right now.

 

[Brev00]

Start with the D7100. Five years ago I was new to digital and started with the D90. A great choice and a wonderful camera for learning and growing. The D7100 is the current model and should allow you to slowly but surely learn the controls and take over command of the camera. Some, of course, like to dive in head first. Nothing wrong with the D750 (that a little recall repair can't fix). My main hesitation in recommending that is you may not wind up sticking with photography. Get your feet wet with the D7100 (more swimming analogies).
--

brev99

Explore brev99’s 6,815 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Credo]

Right now I'd wait a couple of months and see if the rumoured D7200 looks like, it could well be to the D750 what the D7100 was to the D600 - same body, some feature differences (1/8000 sec shutter), and a DX sensor. It will most likely come in under £1500 with a kit lens (the D750 is ~£2300 in the UK in kit lens form).

 

[rhlpetrus]

Other than price... there is no contest between these two cameras, the D750 is better

The rest of your post is funny

 

[rhlpetrus]

I would keep my job (or try to get a usually well-paid job) in Computer Information Systems with biweekly paychecks and medical insurance benefits.

On the side, I would also start with the awesome Nikon D3300 with 18-55mm VR II lens (only about $500) for a year and stick to a rigorous 365 project. I would read, learn, shoot, experiment, explore and reshoot passionately -- not for money, but for solid skills.

I am being serious and helpful.

I don't know, why spend money on a DX body at this point? The D3x00 line is very limited for someone wanting to learn it seriously, like lack of dual wheels for manual exposure, MLU for many situations, and so on. The D7100 is a good camera, I'd get that if staying DX, but if I were starting today I'd get a D750, no doubt. Only reason I haven't done it yet was the flurry of issues that have plagued the FF releases (D600, D800, D750). But the flare issue is very minor and seems to have been resolved, and the D750 is almost all a photog needs.

 

[Brev00]

Other than price... there is no contest between these two cameras, the D750 is better

The rest of your post is funny

 

[briantii]

I would keep my job (or try to get a usually well-paid job) in Computer Information Systems with biweekly paychecks and medical insurance benefits.

On the side, I would also start with the awesome Nikon D3300 with 18-55mm VR II lens (only about $500) for a year and stick to a rigorous 365 project. I would read, learn, shoot, experiment, explore and reshoot passionately -- not for money, but for solid skills.

I am being serious and helpful.

Couldn't agree more. The d3300 is great for starting out and the kit costs less than most FF lenses.

 

[blue_cheese]

Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt (based on the starting post I have a lot of doubt), the goal is the best image quality: "I want the best Image I can get" , and a very clear intent to do a career change to a professional photographer (Albeit the details on that plan are a little wonky at best... but for all you know the OP has some talent that we are all unaware of, I personally did not see any samples of their attempts to photography to judge either way)

Extrapolating from what was asked, money and weight of the rig is not a primary concern... given the subjects identified I do not understand why a DX camera is being recommended (especially given Nikon's clear intention not to have professional grade DX lens offering - maximizing on your lens investment simply means you will need an FX body which also is needed for low light ability for events such as weddings. A D3xxx as a first time DSLR is probably the worst possible advice, I would argue that these cameras are NOT for beginners given their limitations and lack of expandability, rather they are for experienced photographers who know exactly what they are getting and that it will meet their needs in a smaller compact package. Auto mode on the D750 is just as easy to use, and doing everything else is easier given how many options you have (if you care to learn them).

Again, I am not so sure about how serious the OP was or what potential they have, but everyone else seems to be making assumptions that for some reason try to politely say that the OP does not know what they are asking for.

--
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."
-Harlan Ellison

 

[blue_cheese]

I would keep my job (or try to get a usually well-paid job) in Computer Information Systems with biweekly paychecks and medical insurance benefits.

On the side, I would also start with the awesome Nikon D3300 with 18-55mm VR II lens (only about $500) for a year and stick to a rigorous 365 project. I would read, learn, shoot, experiment, explore and reshoot passionately -- not for money, but for solid skills.

I am being serious and helpful.

Couldn't agree more. The d3300 is great for starting out and the kit costs less than most FF lenses.

How is the D3300 great? Unless you are experienced photographer and are certain the D3300 has the features you need, it is actually more difficult to use in challenging situations than a full featured body. I also do not believe the OP raised cost as an issue, as a matter of fact there was indication of this being a professional investment.

 

[Brev00]

Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt (based on the starting post I have a lot of doubt), the goal is the best image quality: "I want the best Image I can get" , and a very clear intent to do a career change to a professional photographer (Albeit the details on that plan are a little wonky at best... but for all you know the OP has some talent that we are all unaware of, I personally did not see any samples of their attempts to photography to judge either way)

Extrapolating from what was asked, money and weight of the rig is not a primary concern... given the subjects identified I do not understand why a DX camera is being recommended (especially given Nikon's clear intention not to have professional grade DX lens offering - maximizing on your lens investment simply means you will need an FX body which also is needed for low light ability for events such as weddings. A D3xxx as a first time DSLR is probably the worst possible advice, I would argue that these cameras are NOT for beginners given their limitations and lack of expandability, rather they are for experienced photographers who know exactly what they are getting and that it will meet their needs in a smaller compact package. Auto mode on the D750 is just as easy to use, and doing everything else is easier given how many options you have (if you care to learn them).

Again, I am not so sure about how serious the OP was or what potential they have, but everyone else seems to be making assumptions that for some reason try to politely say that the OP does not know what they are asking for.

I was responding really to the popular notion that a dx shooter is always feeling inferior to his fx counterpart and lives in some sort of permanent state of envy. I am also responding to much in the op's post which says that his is just starting out in his path. At the very end of his post, he says he might one day want to be a wedding photographer. I don't know about you, but when I buy gear it is for today and the near future not some hypothetical possibility. He can start from zero with a D7100, see if he likes it, learn and grow, and one day, if he moves on to wedding photography, he can make choices that best suits him then. He seems quite aware of the price difference between dx and fx yet still underestimates it by a wide margin. $1.000 is not nearly enough to cover the difference of the D7100 with 18-140 and the D750 with 24-120 along with other expenses. Do you recommend the 24-120 for wedding photography or should he invest in pro lenses right away?

I am not disregarding the op's post. Rather, I am suggesting that going dx is a fine choice, one that I and many others (Renato included) continue to use and has oodles of image quality.

 

[briantii]

I would keep my job (or try to get a usually well-paid job) in Computer Information Systems with biweekly paychecks and medical insurance benefits.

On the side, I would also start with the awesome Nikon D3300 with 18-55mm VR II lens (only about $500) for a year and stick to a rigorous 365 project. I would read, learn, shoot, experiment, explore and reshoot passionately -- not for money, but for solid skills.

I am being serious and helpful.

Couldn't agree more. The d3300 is great for starting out and the kit costs less than most FF lenses.

How is the D3300 great? Unless you are experienced photographer and are certain the D3300 has the features you need, it is actually more difficult to use in challenging situations than a full featured body. I also do not believe the OP raised cost as an issue, as a matter of fact there was indication of this being a professional investment.

--
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."
-Harlan Ellison

To me if you're just getting started it would make sense to start small to see if you're ACTUALLY interested in it. Too often people think one thing, and reality is completely different.

The D3300 is great because it's 95% the camera of a D7100, yet costs 50% as much, and even includes a decent starter lens. I think it's poor advice to expect someone who thinks they want to get into photography the advice to run out and start buying a ton of expensive gear. Learn the basics with a D3x00, see if you even have a passion for it, and then move to something more expensive if you like it. In a year if the OP feels they have the passion and wants to pursue a career in photography they'll only be down $100 - $200. If they buy a D750 with the kit lens, initial cost will be $3000, and in a year or two if they don't like photography they'll be out probably $1000+ on resale. It's really a question of how committed the person is.

Additionally the D3x00 has everything one could want for learning the basics. A D7100 / D750 encourages one to use more of the options that are on the camera, however if you haven't learned the basics first, they're just crutches. Spend a year shooting a D3x00 in full manual, auto NOTHING. Do it until you can walk into a room, look around, come up with a shutter speed, ISO, and aperture setting that gets you real close. Think human light meter. You'll learn more about the technical elements of exposure and learn what works / doesn't work than you'd ever hope to learn than by sticking a D750 on Aperture priority, matrix metering, and auto iso. Sure the pictures will be better with the D750, but when you get in a tricky situation you'll be stuck. Yes you can learn these things on a D750, but if it turns out you don't LIKE them... then you're out a ton more money. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people buy the most expensive camera they can afford, never invest the time to learn how to use it, and then wonder why I got much better results with my old D3200 in the same exact situation they were shooting in... and I'm far from a professional. Focus on basics, not the gear first.

If $$$ truly isn't an issue, then by all means, buy a D810, the holy trinity of Nikon 2.8 glass, 3 SB-910's, some flash stands, and hope that it works out.

 

[mosswings]

Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt (based on the starting post I have a lot of doubt), the goal is the best image quality: "I want the best Image I can get" , and a very clear intent to do a career change to a professional photographer (Albeit the details on that plan are a little wonky at best... but for all you know the OP has some talent that we are all unaware of, I personally did not see any samples of their attempts to photography to judge either way)

Extrapolating from what was asked, money and weight of the rig is not a primary concern... given the subjects identified I do not understand why a DX camera is being recommended (especially given Nikon's clear intention not to have professional grade DX lens offering - maximizing on your lens investment simply means you will need an FX body which also is needed for low light ability for events such as weddings. A D3xxx as a first time DSLR is probably the worst possible advice, I would argue that these cameras are NOT for beginners given their limitations and lack of expandability, rather they are for experienced photographers who know exactly what they are getting and that it will meet their needs in a smaller compact package. Auto mode on the D750 is just as easy to use, and doing everything else is easier given how many options you have (if you care to learn them).

Again, I am not so sure about how serious the OP was or what potential they have, but everyone else seems to be making assumptions that for some reason try to politely say that the OP does not know what they are asking for.

I was responding really to the popular notion that a dx shooter is always feeling inferior to his fx counterpart and lives in some sort of permanent state of envy. I am also responding to much in the op's post which says that his is just starting out in his path. At the very end of his post, he says he might one day want to be a wedding photographer. I don't know about you, but when I buy gear it is for today and the near future not some hypothetical possibility. He can start from zero with a D7100, see if he likes it, learn and grow, and one day, if he moves on to wedding photography, he can make choices that best suits him then. He seems quite aware of the price difference between dx and fx yet still underestimates it by a wide margin. $1.000 is not nearly enough to cover the difference of the D7100 with 18-140 and the D750 with 24-120 along with other expenses. Do you recommend the 24-120 for wedding photography or should he invest in pro lenses right away?

I am not disregarding the op's post. Rather, I am suggesting that going dx is a fine choice, one that I and many others (Renato included) continue to use and has oodles of image quality.