Yes, that's what Nikon probably wants you to think so you feel better about the cameras they give you nowadays. I guess their marketing should be given more credit than is usually the case on this forum.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D750 build?
- Thread starter ncage74
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d300 nikon d750
Gosh, that is SO illogical in several ways. Let me write a parallel sentence about something else:
"Don't underestimate the aesthetic and tactile pleasure of having a nicely designed and beautifully crafted refrigerator as opposed to the dubious pleasure derived from reading gardening magazines."
Refrigerators have as little to do with "gardening magazines" as a "beautifully crafted camera" [you were talking about cameras...right] does to "spec sheets of materials" [there is no such thing as a spec sheet of an unknown material!].
OK. Are "folks" "immortals"?
Where did you get the idea we were discussing "onerous" vs "non-onerous" tools? I thought we were guessing whether the D5 will be plastic or metal?
It may be arrogant to argue that ignorance is pervasive, but I derive great pleasure from doing so. I don't suffer fools gladly. I also take great pleasure from using elegant, capable tools.
Why is it so complicated for you D750 folks? Stay on topic. This is about build, not how great the camera is...and it is great.
However, ask yourself this...
If you had a time-machine, would you rather walk through Mogadishu in 1993 with a D4 or a D750 and you had to return with all photos and a working camera.
I can 100% understand why anyone would choose the D750 over the D4 (besides cost). They both make great photos and the D750's ISO is equal to the D4 in most cases. It is lighter. It does great video. If you are a casual shooter it is fine. If you use it in 8-12 hr stretches in a photojournalistic manner, or take it out in all weather, you cannot honestly think the body is as strong as a D300 or D3/D4. Some of you really do think that and I bet you have never shot with a D3/D4 for any length of time (or owned one). They are robust bricks and feel like you are holding a finely-tuned military rifle.
However, ask yourself this...
If you had a time-machine, would you rather walk through Mogadishu in 1993 with a D4 or a D750 and you had to return with all photos and a working camera.
I can 100% understand why anyone would choose the D750 over the D4 (besides cost). They both make great photos and the D750's ISO is equal to the D4 in most cases. It is lighter. It does great video. If you are a casual shooter it is fine. If you use it in 8-12 hr stretches in a photojournalistic manner, or take it out in all weather, you cannot honestly think the body is as strong as a D300 or D3/D4. Some of you really do think that and I bet you have never shot with a D3/D4 for any length of time (or owned one). They are robust bricks and feel like you are holding a finely-tuned military rifle.
jtan163
Senior Member
Good suggestion.
Why?
OP did not ask about going to Mogadishu or DX range cameras.
But since we're here...
Just because you're in a rough environment you don't necessarily want the biggest heaviest and strongest gear.
Kinda cuts down your agility. And reduces your endurance/increases your fatigue.
Generally speaking your chance of mishap and quality of work will decline with fatigue.
People who carry stuff (be it photographic, camping, or battlefield equipment) for days in the field tend to go for the lightest possible.
That statement makes no logical sense Doc.
What you choose to use might be based on other factors than strength.
Many photographers (paid), have changed to the D750 precisely because it is lighter for those 12 hour shoots.
They realise that they are not going to be whisked away by an AFAIK non existant time machine to Mogadishu n the 90s (god knows why the 90s and not now)
Most don't even hysterically pretend or imagine that that will be the case.
Instead they realise the'll be shooting in dining halls, restaurants ballrooms, churches, parks and gardens or studios. And it it rains or snows they will seek shelter with the talent.
And that weather and dust are different matters to strength.
Most won't leave their gear unattended where a car can run over it, or even wander around with their camera on a tripod over their for hours.
Most won't spend hours outside in the rain or snow, because the talent don't enjoy it.
The worse that is likely to happen to their camera is it is likely to bump a wall, be jostled by a passers by or maybe be dropped a few feet. Or maybe have a small amount o fluid spilt over a small portion of the body/lense - and body construction will have no affect on what happens to the lens if liquid is spilt.
(BTW I notice how your shoot length is slowly increasingly from self important post to self important hysterical post).
The D3 and D4 are likely stronger than the D300 and the D750.
The D300 is possibly stronger than the D750.
But it makes not difference to anything.
Most photographers baby their gear and don't work in scenarios where the absolute greatest strength is required.
They carry it around in padded sofft or even hard cases, they take it out, shoot, maybe walk around for some hours then put it back in the case and go home.
It doesnt bear the weight of an exotic tele lense it does not get run over by a tank ot caught in the turret's traversing gear, it does not sit out on a tripod for 3 days in the snow doing a time lapse.
Not for most photographrs.
Most self proclaimed "pros" are part time or low rent shooters who like pro gear because it makes them feel special.
They are not Joe McNally, they don't shoot for a national publication, they don't go for Antarctic adventures. Those that do tend on the whole to look after their gear.
They also rarely feel the need for the appellation "pro" - they are self confident enough to just say "photographer".
In any case the real difference between those "pros" and us amateurs is motivation and production skills not necessary photographic or technical.
And there is no evidence at all that today's pro knows very much about their gear and how it works or how it is built on the other side of the UI.
Yes some do. Just like some amateurs do. But all the knowledge that used to be more or less restricted among the club or professional photographers is now out on the net.
Those days are gone. Cameras are too complex for them to do their own clean ann lubes/adjust their own timing and thereby save a few bucks.
Even if your Nikon Ambassador friend does get info other people can't get he either can't share it or him or some other Nikon Ambassador are sharing it. That's their job - to talk about Nikon gear, provide feedback and help disseminate info that Nikon want's out there.
And, as a rule, pros know zip about manufacturing, product development, engineering or materials science unless their career has otherwise intersected those fields at some point - which is not the case for most.
I guess no one is as dense as someone who doesn't wish to understand. But it would be my pleasure to chew this into edible bites. The point I've been trying to make is that some things have "quality" written all over them, yes, D300 which was mentioned in the beginning of this thread is clearly one of them. It would take some research to convince me that the D750 is made to the same standard, which I still wouldn't believe. The D750 could be bought now new at the price D300 never sold for, even in its twilight days, despite D750 having a presumably much more expensive sensor. If Nikon can dump the D750's on the grey market to be sold for $1400, I can't even imagine how much quality workmanship is in there. Yes, sure sensor and some electronics must be new, and so is the firmware/software. But everything else is a recycled D7000 which couldn't hold a candle to the D300 in terms of either ergonomics or perceived quality. If you're going to put an emphasis on "perceived", I suggest you try to convince your significant other that synthetics is preferable to silk, wool, or cotton. Yes, there are no specs of "unknown" materials, I should have used the word "obscure", I beg your pardon.
Oh, gimme a break please. Yes, they inhabit Nikon heaven.
There have been so many cameras discussed on this thread, I lost track of it already. The thing to note however is that Nikon "pro" (whatever this means) quality build goes hand in hand with certain ergonomics and control layout. You can't choose to pick up a D750 in a full metal jacket anymore than a D750 with the D4 controls. It is what it is. I don't like that style of controls anymore than that type of body material. The body doesn't give me "tactile pleasure", and the controls get in the way. Sure I can use it, but I enjoy using something else. I can't care less about Sereebo or anything else, I like it the way I like it whether it means anything to you or not. And I really like a full metal mount. I can pick up my D3S by the body with a 7 pound lens attached and not blink an eye, -- not that it is a smart thing to do, but it may happen, it happened as a matter of fact. I would be very concerned about the D750's future health under the circumstances.
You sure don't suffer fools gladly, you're just too ready to assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be suffering from an intellectual handicap. It is a bold assumption, to say the least.
Last edited:
"Most self proclaimed "pros" are part time or low rent shooters who like pro gear because it makes them feel special."
You really have a huge chip that resides on that shoulder of yours. LOL
You make a lot of assumptions and your defenses are weak at best. I have made 1 claim, that is it. Maybe a few side-tracked journeys but overall I have stated that the D750 is a fantastic camera. Have I not? Many times. I only stated that the D300 (and D3/D4) are built to tougher physical standards. That is it. You can disagree all you like and even use that ridiculous argument (not sure if it was you) that if the D5 was made of some carbon fiber mix that pros won't trust it.
The lunacy of some people here is laughable. Again, I think the D750 is fantastic. I also would be thrilled if the D5 was 1/2 the weight of a D4 and made of light polycarbonate CF resin or something. As long as it was tough. For now, I stand by my assertions and I am doubtful I am incorrect. If I am, good because it is a win-win for all of us.
And, yes, we will know with the D5 or D820 because Nikon is not dumb enough to use a lesser body material when one exists that is lighter, stronger, and less costly to produce. Period.
--
MY WEBSITE AND BLOG
http://chrisbilodeauphotography.com
http://chrisbilodeauphotographyblog.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Chris-Bilodeau-Photography/208840979172458?ref=hl
Last edited:
Shangri La
Leading Member
- Messages
- 785
- Reaction score
- 435
Why is it so complicated for you D3/D4 folks? Stay on topic. This is about D300 vs D750 build quality. Please re-read the OP. D300 is never meant to be built like D3/D4. All the talk about D3/D4 is irrelevant.
Last edited:
toomanycanons
Forum Pro
"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone." (Rod Serling)
dustyj
Forum Enthusiast
MisterHairy
Senior Member
One of my photographers split his D3 open right across the prism cover just by tapping it against a corner of a wall at a fairly sedate event. Totally wrote it off. That's the thing about mag alloy: it's really rather brittle and does not cope with impulsive point loads as well as modern plastics.
One other thing to bear in mind: modern lenses typically include a designed in fracture point so that if stressed, the lens will snap off near the mount to protect the camera. This breakage will occur before the mount on the camera (D4 or D750) breaks so the argument about relative strengths is somewhat moot.
Finally, anyone who insists on hanging a 70-200/2.8 off the camera mount, rather than supporting the lens via its own mount is asking for trouble whatever the camera. That is little more than blind stupidity. It also goes against Nikon's own recommendations and is likely to void warranty on both camera and lens.
--
Really beautiful photograph!
One other thing to bear in mind: modern lenses typically include a designed in fracture point so that if stressed, the lens will snap off near the mount to protect the camera. This breakage will occur before the mount on the camera (D4 or D750) breaks so the argument about relative strengths is somewhat moot.
Finally, anyone who insists on hanging a 70-200/2.8 off the camera mount, rather than supporting the lens via its own mount is asking for trouble whatever the camera. That is little more than blind stupidity. It also goes against Nikon's own recommendations and is likely to void warranty on both camera and lens.
--
Really beautiful photograph!
Last edited:
MorningWalk
Leading Member
That is exactly the point. You can find reports of D750's being dragged through mud, dropped from trees, dropped on concrete, etc, and still working fine afterwards.
This is what counts, not the perceived strength when picking up a body that is lighter than what you are used to. Those new materials were not invented for nothing, they improve on older technology like Mg alloy, etc. We can only be happy about that, can't we?
MisterHairy
Senior Member
We won't know any such thing because, as has already been stated, Nikon will need to continue to build their flagship cameras according to the expectations of its users. People still (wrongly) equate heft with quality and Nikon know that. Changes will come, but photographers are rarely also engineers and a single step change will be too much for many, leading to cries of "cheap plastic rubbish!" from the Luddite masses.
If the D5 is made of Mag Alloy then all that it will prove is that I am correct about this. ;-)
--
Really beautiful photograph!
Last edited:
dustyj
Forum Enthusiast
fishy wishy
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 9,358
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 6,647
People often underestimate the force of a blow depending on how easy it was to make. If you lose your balance while moving and bump into a wall, be prepared to write off almost anything because you have tens, maybe over a hundred kilos of force on whatever breaks your fall.
For those arguing that the D750 must be good enough pro build because wedding shooters use it- since when are they more than a couple of hours from a camera centre? Since when do wedding shooters hike to the shoot and hike back home? These things can be pampered in roller cases. They just have to avoid drunk Uncle Albert backing into them.
Dismayed
Leading Member
The D750 is a superb camera. The low light performance is stunning, and the AF module is the same as in the D4. Babies don't move quickly, but little kids do.Hi everyone, sorry my title wasn't a little better but i couldn't come up with a better one. Anyways unfortunately about 4 years ago i sold most of my photography equipment because of marriage and what not. Anyways i have the perfect reason to get back into it (our son is about to be born).
I previously had a D300 and plan to stick with Nikon because thats what i'm comfortable with. To try not to spend too much money at this point i think i'm just going to get a Nikon 50mm 1.8D (which i believe is a FX lens) and i'm planing on getting a Nikon D750 (probably going to go for a grey market body) for both its low light/high iso performance.
Hopefully Thom comes out with his book on the D750 soon.
My biggest question is how would you compare the build of the D750 to the D300? I'm hoping the D750 build is as good as the D300 or if you want to make any other comments feel free
I'd opt for the 50/1.8 G over the 50/1.8D. better edge performance and the AF is very quiet.
MisterHairy
Senior Member
I saw the accident. Nobody fell on the camera.
Since when did "professional" photographers have to hike? Since when did "professional" photographers have to climb mountains or go onto war zones? I employ seven full time photographers and while we all do a LOT of air travel, not once has any of us found ourselves in a war zone, up a mountain or in a desert. Obviously, some journo type photographers do the above, but most (nearly all) do not.
--
Really beautiful photograph!
Last edited:
sandy b
Veteran Member
You don't even own the camera and yet you feel compelled to post on its build 27 times in a post you don't even own. Talk about meaningless. Nikon approves it as pro. So do lots of pro users. Enginneers have commented on meaningless comparisoms with modern composites. And yet you still repeatedly protest. and protest.
And you know what? Magnesium is strong, light and one of its other properties? Its brittle. cracks easily.Carbon reinforced polymers are used to make motorcycle helmets. motorcycle components. Car fenders. aircraft wings.
And you know what? it's all meaningless, because drop them both from 5 feet onto a concrete floor, odds are they both would be toast. But i would bet a little more on the 750. It might bounce.
And you know what? Magnesium is strong, light and one of its other properties? Its brittle. cracks easily.Carbon reinforced polymers are used to make motorcycle helmets. motorcycle components. Car fenders. aircraft wings.
And you know what? it's all meaningless, because drop them both from 5 feet onto a concrete floor, odds are they both would be toast. But i would bet a little more on the 750. It might bounce.
Well, I didn't look for this, but it just came my way:Just for the record I am a photographer and also an engineer. You're still right though
--
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
In my mind it is a good indicator of the level of quality of materials one should be expecting from a D750 grade body. Makes me feel good about being a Luddite.
Dismayed
Leading Member
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum