Differences between d7200 & d750 ?

[RemcoDo]

so a d7200 with good glaces can perform as a d750 with good glaces , but d750 and lenses will be more expensive ?

In normal light situations it is very hard to see the difference between a D7200 and D750 shot. (or even a D5500)

 

[BarnET]

so a d7200 with good glaces can perform as a d750 with good glaces , but d750 and lenses will be more expensive ?

No that's more or less a myth.

The D750 uses a larger sensor. Therefor it will yield more detailed images with less sharp glass becouse it's less demanding.

Now some lenses may have a problem being sharp in the corners on larger sensors.

Check this comparison of the cheap but remarkably good 50mm F1.8g ($200)

Loading…

www.dxomark.com

Loading…

www.dxomark.com

You see that the Fullframe is slightly better with this very cheap lens

Another example this time with really good glass

Loading…

www.dxomark.com

Loading…

www.dxomark.com

again the fullframe is slightly sharper

Now comparing Similar FOV standard zooms

Loading…

www.dxomark.com

You can see that the optimized for high RES Apsc sensors is performing similar to the 24-70 on the D610.

But it is not stabilized. And the stabilized Nikon isn;t even close. Prices of these lenses are rather close.

 

[wassim al malak]

thanks a lot for such reply ,

i think it must be an article on that site .

that's the simpliest answer for the hardest question .

really thank .

 

[BarnET]

The main difference is that the 750 is Full-Format (FX) and that the 7200 is APSC format. (Others have mentioned this)

and i knew that , but i didn't try the FX yet to compare .

But what does mean for image quality?

can't i ask it like that ? can't i ask about IQ between those ?

The larger FX sensor has more surface area and gathers more light.

that's clear .

It also means that wide angle lenses are effectively a lot 'wider', and tele lenses 'shorter'.

that's what i'm searching for .

You also have less DOF meaning less in focus and more 'blur'.

so , if i wanna shoot landscape with 15-30 on d750 , i will don't have the big DOF if i dial the right aperture and focus at the right point ?

must i use a DX body to achieve that ?

No you need to stop the fullframe down more. losing the low-light advantage in the process. But diffraction kicks in later so you will maintain detail.

When it comes to sharpness and IQ though. In good light with equivalent lenses you'll probably not be able to see any relevant difference.

that's clear .

However, in poor light the D750 will clearly be superior because the larger sensor gathers more light.

that's a point , will it be sharp in such case ? or it will turn to softness ?

thanks for your helpful reply ,

thanks for your answers .

 

[wassim al malak]

so , the big advantages of the d750 will be in low-light ?

 

[j_photo]

You say: indoor events , landcape , portrait , and family

FX advantages:
For shooting indoors with low light, the D750 should have somewhat less noise when shooting at high iso compared to the D7200.

When shooting portraits, the D750 allows more control over depth of field. The selection of available lenses for portrait work match up somewhat better with FX sensor size than DX.

FX disadvantages:
FX bodies cost more and in some cases FX lenses cost more than equivalent DX lenses, for example 24-70/2.8 (FX) compared to 17-55/2.8 (DX).

Lasltly: In good light and unskilled hands, you won't see any difference between results from the two bodies. Judging by the kinds of questions you are asking, my guess is you will see no difference between the two. But if you gain experience and develop your skills, the FX body could offer advantages over time.

If you can afford FX gear and are ambitious in your goals, there is no harm in purchasing something you can grow into. But if funds are limited, you will probably get more value by sticking with DX at least for now.

 

[wassim al malak]

i think i get a lot from your helpful notes .

i think i begin to lean to d750 more , since i prefer the low light photography .

 

[wassim al malak]

i think you're right in all your words , and i'm thinking about d750 more then d7200 since i shoot low light more then good light .

and a d750 may satisfy my desires more for a long time even it will cost me more money .

 

[j_photo]

i think you're right in all your words , and i'm thinking about d750 more then d7200 since i shoot low light more then good light .

and a d750 may satisfy my desires more for a long time even it will cost me more money .

Good luck!

 

[wassim al malak]

if so , how can we run out of that diffraction ?

ND filters ?

 

[wassim al malak]

thanks , and same for you and all

 

[drivecancel]

so , the big advantages of the d750 will be in low-light ?

Basically any situation where you have to push the ISO past 3200 is where the D750 will be quite noticeably better...I believe it also has better AF

You will want a good prime to shoot sharp images in low light though, the Nikon ones are a bit soft wide open but Sigma's Art series are all sharp from f/1.4 (reaching a nice sweet spot around f/2 for low light)

 

[RemcoDo]

You say: indoor events , landcape , portrait , and family

FX advantages:
For shooting indoors with low light, the D750 should have somewhat less noise when shooting at high iso compared to the D7200.

When shooting portraits, the D750 allows more control over depth of field. The selection of available lenses for portrait work match up somewhat better with FX sensor size than DX.

FX disadvantages:
FX bodies cost more and in some cases FX lenses cost more than equivalent DX lenses, for example 24-70/2.8 (FX) compared to 17-55/2.8 (DX).

Lasltly: In good light and unskilled hands, you won't see any difference between results from the two bodies. Judging by the kinds of questions you are asking, my guess is you will see no difference between the two. But if you gain experience and develop your skills, the FX body could offer advantages over time.

If you know what you are looking for you can see some difference in the RAW file. But if you have to compare the two shots from the D7200 and D750 that were post processed it really is up to the experts.

If you can afford FX gear and are ambitious in your goals, there is no harm in purchasing something you can grow into. But if funds are limited, you will probably get more value by sticking with DX at least for now.

If you can afford it choose the FX. If not, go for DX and invest in FX lenses so you can eventually grow into FX. If JPG is the output that you want I would not invest in FX. If you only look at your photos on a screen I also would not choose FX.

 

[wassim al malak]

Cool , that's interesting .

 

[Hans vdC]

Do keep in mind that for low light photography (without flash) you will also need a fast lens (aperture F2.8 or lower), which on a FF (D750) can be challenging to use since there's a very small DOF when using large apertures. It's quite a bit easier to get a 'sharp' picture at F2.8 on a crop than it is on a FF body.

 

[wassim al malak]

can you please explain this " ... If JPG is the output that you want I would not invest in FX. If you only look at your photos on a screen I also would not choose FX. ... "

 

[wassim al malak]

that's a very important point .

how shooting at f2.8 on DX has more DOF then 2.8 on FX ?

 

[drivecancel]

that's a very important point .

how shooting at f2.8 on DX has more DOF then 2.8 on FX ?

Shooting at f/1.8 on a subject 1-2 feet away is still pin sharp with my Sigma, light sources in the background will be very blurry though, f/2.8 is even better but that will push you up to high ISO in low light.

If you are not doing people shots or taking quite close up photos, then shooting at wide apertures is fine, the DOF won't be much of an issue.

 

[Flashlight]

Hello for all ,

Except some features as tilting screen , 1080 @60fps , group AF , except such features what's the differences between the d750 and d7200 ?

using the same lenses in same cases on the d750 and the d7200 , what is the differences in terms of :

1- resolution , pixel density , pixel peeping .

2- IQ , sharpness , colors .

any opinions are thankful .

Hey Wassim,

I get that some people might be confusing by not giving a clear black/white difference between the two, that's because it really isn't that defined a difference if you think about it from a professional/enthusiast level. But since you're working your way up, I'll try to make it a bit clearer.

It's like the difference between a point and shoot camera with a lot of buttons and a DSLR. Why did you start using a DSLR instead of a regular camera? It was probably for blurrier backgrounds (bokeh), and more dynamic range (ability to adjust RAW files by a lot, and make dark pictures brighter, etc,), and to take better pictures when it's dark out. It's not just about detail, because even Cell phone cameras can take really detailed pictures when there's enough light. Yet you still bought and use a DSLR.

Well, going to full-frame cameras is essentially the same thing. Essentially, a bigger sensor. It allows for even blurrier backgrounds (bokeh), More dynamic range in post, and much better pictures in darker situations than APC-S Sensors. The difference won't be as dramatic as going from cell-phone to DSLR, but there is still a big difference, especially with the D750.

DxO reports more dynamic range for the D7200 than for the D750.

The only reason you would want to stay with the smaller APC-S sensor is if you like to take pictures of things far away, like birds or planes. The smaller, denser, APC-S sensor lets you use smaller, less expensive, and basically more convenient lenses than full frame counterparts.

That's about it. If you can afford a full-frame camera, which aren't crazily expensive as they used to be (~$3000+ Canon 5DMKIII, new vs. ~$1900 D750, new (or you can buy grey market with a good credit card, ~$1400 with credit card warranty)), then go for the full-frame and get the best consumer image quality available today.

Random

 

[ArtAlt]

to be frank, if you don't know the difference, there is very little reason for you to go for the d750. the d750 is a full frame camera, the other apsc. that is about the most important difference.

One substantial difference is the articulated screen. Having gotten used to it on Sony a6000 and now the D750, there is no turning back. I get candid shots with more subtlety by shooting from waist level and I get clearer shots over the heads of a crowd, both using the articulated screens.

BUT....

There might also be important differences that are subtle.

Example: Face recognition.

I am still trying to nail this down but I think the D750 has face recognition for autofocus in both viewfinder and live view (LCD screen) whereas I think the D7200 only has it for live view. If true, this is a massive difference, at least for me.

I come to D750 from a Sony a6000 which not only has exceptionally good face recognition but you can program it to prioritize faces! You photograph a list of faces and tell the camera what order to prioritize them for autofocus.

I am finding that the D750 does face recognition in the viewfinder when in autofocus "auto" mode (I think) and this seems to be working well. It is quicker and often more reliable than moving a focus spot or focus and recompose.

Various descriptions of the D7200 say it either has no face recognition for autofocus or that it only has it in live view mode, which is disappointing as live view is pretty slow autofocus. Hunt, hunt, hunt. Viewfinder autofocus is FAST!