Reading mode: Light Dark

D750 as a D7100 replacement?

Go to last post
S

starbase218

Senior Member
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
1,641
Location
London, UK
I have a D7100 with some DX and some FX lenses. The camera generally suffices, but I do notice noise banding in the shadows, even at ISO 100, when pushing shadows in post. So I have been thinking about replacing it. And if I'm going to do that anyway, I might as well get a tilting LCD screen to help me compose shots from low or high angles. I have to say I also like features like the viewfinder shutter that you find in pro bodies. However, I don't think I'm willing to pay the extra money for that.

I have been thinking about maybe going fullframe with a D750. The thing is, though, it's also 24MP, but it has an AA filter. I think I read somewhere that the 20MP D500 is actually sharper because of that. And if that's the case, I'm thinking my D7100 probably is sharper as well. Which may kind of defeat the purpose of going fullframe (except for the shallower DOF).

So my question is, is there any truth to this?
 
I upgraded from a D7200 to a D750 and I haven't noticed any loss in sharpness. And I'm a pixel peeper
 
I had a D7100, and like you say the banding was really frustrating. I didn't like the noise at any ISO over 2000,

I upgraded to a D750, and the high ISO performance and dynamic range is incredible. I'll happily shoot at ISO 6400. You will certainly not regret it, and it is a clear improvement in image quality.
 
Upgraded from a D7100 to D750. Love both cameras. The AA filter on the D750 is relatively benign and is only along one axis. Continue to use both with the D7100 serving as a lighter weight alternative to the D750 when needed. Will happily shoot with the D750 at ISO 6400, the D7100 ISO 1250 is about max for me. More keepers with the D750, better AF lock and tracking. Have not noticed a loss in sharpness at all. This from today and with a lens that everyone says is soft at 200mm go ahead tell me his eyes are soft. Was using AF-C single point. Get the D750, no doubt.

79d1826a9420465786625ecad5c90655.jpg

--
Regards,
Sanjay
 
Last edited:
starbase218 said:
I have a D7100 with some DX and some FX lenses. The camera generally suffices, but I do notice noise banding in the shadows, even at ISO 100, when pushing shadows in post. So I have been thinking about replacing it. And if I'm going to do that anyway, I might as well get a tilting LCD screen to help me compose shots from low or high angles. I have to say I also like features like the viewfinder shutter that you find in pro bodies. However, I don't think I'm willing to pay the extra money for that.

I have been thinking about maybe going fullframe with a D750. The thing is, though, it's also 24MP, but it has an AA filter. I think I read somewhere that the 20MP D500 is actually sharper because of that. And if that's the case, I'm thinking my D7100 probably is sharper as well. Which may kind of defeat the purpose of going fullframe (except for the shallower DOF).

So my question is, is there any truth to this?
Click to expand...
The question is whether you really need FF. If you are willing to pay a lot for serious FX glass AND then carry around a heavy kit, why not. The D7100 is not sharper than the D750 in my experience, as long as you use good lenses and good technique.

However with the latest D500/D7500 DX sensor the high ISO performance is really excellent and with DX you have access to really good lightweight zooms like the 16-80 f/2.8-4 and the 70-300 AF-P. The D7500 with the 16-80 is much smaller and lighter than the D750 with the 24-120 while the results under most circumstances may turn out to be better with the first combo.

If you are willing to seriously invest in primes, it is a different story. There are very few dedicated DX primes so buying FX primes for a DX body makes little sense. In this case, as long as you want to stay with Nikon, buying a D750 makes more sense. Just keep in mind that the FX kit will be heavy with top glass.
 
Dima Sh said:
starbase218 said:
I have a D7100 with some DX and some FX lenses. The camera generally suffices, but I do notice noise banding in the shadows, even at ISO 100, when pushing shadows in post. So I have been thinking about replacing it. And if I'm going to do that anyway, I might as well get a tilting LCD screen to help me compose shots from low or high angles. I have to say I also like features like the viewfinder shutter that you find in pro bodies. However, I don't think I'm willing to pay the extra money for that.

I have been thinking about maybe going fullframe with a D750. The thing is, though, it's also 24MP, but it has an AA filter. I think I read somewhere that the 20MP D500 is actually sharper because of that. And if that's the case, I'm thinking my D7100 probably is sharper as well. Which may kind of defeat the purpose of going fullframe (except for the shallower DOF).

So my question is, is there any truth to this?
Click to expand...
The question is whether you really need FF. If you are willing to pay a lot for serious FX glass AND then carry around a heavy kit, why not. The D7100 is not sharper than the D750 in my experience, as long as you use good lenses and good technique.

However with the latest D500/D7500 DX sensor the high ISO performance is really excellent and with DX you have access to really good lightweight zooms like the 16-80 f/2.8-4 and the 70-300 AF-P. The D7500 with the 16-80 is much smaller and lighter than the D750 with the 24-120 while the results under most circumstances may turn out to be better with the first combo.
Click to expand...
The D7500 is definitely another option, and maybe even the D500. Having said that, I do like good high-ISO performance and the D750 might still have an advantage there.
Dmderb said:
If you are willing to seriously invest in primes, it is a different story. There are very few dedicated DX primes so buying FX primes for a DX body makes little sense. In this case, as long as you want to stay with Nikon, buying a D750 makes more sense. Just keep in mind that the FX kit will be heavy with top glass.
Click to expand...
I don't really see myself getting fullframe f/2.8 zooms, although I do have such a DX zoom - the 17-55. The appeal of fullframe would also be that there are more primes at focal lengths that make sense. I currently have an 85/1.8 which I think is a little bit too long on DX. On FX it may be better, or I could replace it with the well-regarded Tokina 100mm macro. I could then add the 50/1.8 to replace the 35/1.8 DX. For zooms, I'm thinking of the 18-35, 70-300 and maybe the 24-85 or 24-120. With these lenses, I actually don't think the kit will be much heavier.
 
starbase218 said:
Dima Sh said:
starbase218 said:
I have a D7100 with some DX and some FX lenses. The camera generally suffices, but I do notice noise banding in the shadows, even at ISO 100, when pushing shadows in post. So I have been thinking about replacing it. And if I'm going to do that anyway, I might as well get a tilting LCD screen to help me compose shots from low or high angles. I have to say I also like features like the viewfinder shutter that you find in pro bodies. However, I don't think I'm willing to pay the extra money for that.

I have been thinking about maybe going fullframe with a D750. The thing is, though, it's also 24MP, but it has an AA filter. I think I read somewhere that the 20MP D500 is actually sharper because of that. And if that's the case, I'm thinking my D7100 probably is sharper as well. Which may kind of defeat the purpose of going fullframe (except for the shallower DOF).

So my question is, is there any truth to this?
Click to expand...
The question is whether you really need FF. If you are willing to pay a lot for serious FX glass AND then carry around a heavy kit, why not. The D7100 is not sharper than the D750 in my experience, as long as you use good lenses and good technique.

However with the latest D500/D7500 DX sensor the high ISO performance is really excellent and with DX you have access to really good lightweight zooms like the 16-80 f/2.8-4 and the 70-300 AF-P. The D7500 with the 16-80 is much smaller and lighter than the D750 with the 24-120 while the results under most circumstances may turn out to be better with the first combo.
Click to expand...
The D7500 is definitely another option, and maybe even the D500. Having said that, I do like good high-ISO performance and the D750 might still have an advantage there.
starbase218 said:
If you are willing to seriously invest in primes, it is a different story. There are very few dedicated DX primes so buying FX primes for a DX body makes little sense. In this case, as long as you want to stay with Nikon, buying a D750 makes more sense. Just keep in mind that the FX kit will be heavy with top glass.
Click to expand...
I don't really see myself getting fullframe f/2.8 zooms, although I do have such a DX zoom - the 17-55. The appeal of fullframe would also be that there are more primes at focal lengths that make sense. I currently have an 85/1.8 which I think is a little bit too long on DX. On FX it may be better, or I could replace it with the well-regarded Tokina 100mm macro. I could then add the 50/1.8 to replace the 35/1.8 DX. For zooms, I'm thinking of the 18-35, 70-300 and maybe the 24-85 or 24-120. With these lenses, I actually don't think the kit will be much heavier.
Click to expand...
Agree with your thinking except on the 24-120. It is a good lens but I really dislike that it is such a bulky, front heavy brick, and it gets even worse when you put on its ugly hood. The 16-80 is a much more attractive and lighter option for DX, in my view.
 
The question to consider is whether a 20x30 print produced from a file from the D750 as compared to the D810 is going to be visibly poorer in its overall quality and whether that will be discernible at normal viewing distances. The larger the print the greater the expectation that it can and wil be viewed at a greater distance. Compare how close you need to get to a 8x10 print versus a 16x20 or similar larger size print.

Banding is something I have only seen with NEF files converted by Adobe ACR. The banding has not been evident when I used Nikon Capture NX (any version) with the same RAW files.
 
My first Nikon was a D7000

Second was a D610

Sold the 610 and went D750

Still have the 750 and purchased a Refurbished 7200 as back up

I love the 750 and almost never use the 7200. Unless there is a major improvement in the next model I'll skip the upgrade until another generation. usually for me 2 generations is my upgrade path.

Full frame is a whole new way to shoot.
 
I just recently moved from a D7100 to a D600. Definitely no loss in sharpness, and overall IQ is a meaningful upgrade moving from DX to FX. FX clearly has the advantage for portraits, low-light, or low-ISO landscape performance. DX has the advantage for pixel density and sports. Pick which one you do most.

The D600 and 24-85 are very similarly sized to my D7100 and 18-140. Since the 18-140 wasn't great past about 80, the focal length ranges aren't THAT different. I now have the 24-85 VR, 50/1.8G, 85/1.8G, and 70-200/f4. It's a nice setup for what I shoot, and I'll probably eventually add a 2.0TC III to extend the range of the 70-200 f4. But for now, this FL range covers everything in a relatively lightweight, affordable, high-performance package.

I do at times wish I had the AF and tilt-screen upgrades on the D750 (as well as the OK button zoom feature), but it's not anything I care about day to day. I got such a crazy deal on my D600 that I can't really complain about it.
 
As others have said, don't worry about losing sharpness. The D750 produces plenty of sharpness even compared to the D500. I have both cameras and still prefer the IQ of the D750 by a significant margin.

Get yourself some quality lenses and the D750 will shine.

Just something to be aware of if you're a pixel-peeper and you use Nikon's software to process your files,.... make sure that your in-camera sharpening is turned up to 5 or 6. The D750 is set to "0" from the factory, I believe. This will help bring out the details better when you're looking on the back of the screen. I also have my D500 set to "5",.. a little lower than the D750, since it has more pixel density and no AA filter.
 
starbase218 said:
I have a D7100 with some DX and some FX lenses. The camera generally suffices, but I do notice noise banding in the shadows, even at ISO 100, when pushing shadows in post. So I have been thinking about replacing it. And if I'm going to do that anyway, I might as well get a tilting LCD screen to help me compose shots from low or high angles. I have to say I also like features like the viewfinder shutter that you find in pro bodies. However, I don't think I'm willing to pay the extra money for that.

I have been thinking about maybe going fullframe with a D750. The thing is, though, it's also 24MP, but it has an AA filter. I think I read somewhere that the 20MP D500 is actually sharper because of that. And if that's the case, I'm thinking my D7100 probably is sharper as well. Which may kind of defeat the purpose of going fullframe (except for the shallower DOF).

So my question is, is there any truth to this?
Click to expand...
I had both. D750 is night and day to d7100 in higher iso. I was hesitant to shoot at 3200 with d7100 but got lot of great results up to 12800 on d750. Dynamic range etc not so much difference.

Also 24 mp crammed into dx sensor makes lot of demanding from lenses. I was never happy with sharpness until i got sigma 18-35 1.8.

Got d500 now and its great but fx is fx. D4 is on the way :D
 
starbase218 said:
Dima Sh said:
starbase218 said:
I have a D7100 with some DX and some FX lenses. The camera generally suffices, but I do notice noise banding in the shadows, even at ISO 100, when pushing shadows in post. So I have been thinking about replacing it. And if I'm going to do that anyway, I might as well get a tilting LCD screen to help me compose shots from low or high angles. I have to say I also like features like the viewfinder shutter that you find in pro bodies. However, I don't think I'm willing to pay the extra money for that.

I have been thinking about maybe going fullframe with a D750. The thing is, though, it's also 24MP, but it has an AA filter. I think I read somewhere that the 20MP D500 is actually sharper because of that. And if that's the case, I'm thinking my D7100 probably is sharper as well. Which may kind of defeat the purpose of going fullframe (except for the shallower DOF).

So my question is, is there any truth to this?
Click to expand...
The question is whether you really need FF. If you are willing to pay a lot for serious FX glass AND then carry around a heavy kit, why not. The D7100 is not sharper than the D750 in my experience, as long as you use good lenses and good technique.

However with the latest D500/D7500 DX sensor the high ISO performance is really excellent and with DX you have access to really good lightweight zooms like the 16-80 f/2.8-4 and the 70-300 AF-P. The D7500 with the 16-80 is much smaller and lighter than the D750 with the 24-120 while the results under most circumstances may turn out to be better with the first combo.
Click to expand...
The D7500 is definitely another option, and maybe even the D500. Having said that, I do like good high-ISO performance and the D750 might still have an advantage there.
starbase218 said:
If you are willing to seriously invest in primes, it is a different story. There are very few dedicated DX primes so buying FX primes for a DX body makes little sense. In this case, as long as you want to stay with Nikon, buying a D750 makes more sense. Just keep in mind that the FX kit will be heavy with top glass.
Click to expand...
I don't really see myself getting fullframe f/2.8 zooms, although I do have such a DX zoom - the 17-55. The appeal of fullframe would also be that there are more primes at focal lengths that make sense. I currently have an 85/1.8 which I think is a little bit too long on DX. On FX it may be better, or I could replace it with the well-regarded Tokina 100mm macro. I could then add the 50/1.8 to replace the 35/1.8 DX. For zooms, I'm thinking of the 18-35, 70-300 and maybe the 24-85 or 24-120. With these lenses, I actually don't think the kit will be much heavier.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't rule out the D7200 either right now. They can be had for a lot less thanks to the D7500 and your D7100 still has some value to it so it would be an affordable upgrade. You wouldn't get the tilting LCD but the low ISO performance and specifically the shadow recovery is better on it VS the D7500/500.

I have the 7200/750 and both are great cameras but one thing bto be mindful of with FX is the small AF coverage. I'd definitely try the 750 out to make sure that this wouldn't be too big of an issue.

Otherwise there's really no wrong choice between any of the bodies you listed.
 
CBR1100XX said:
I have the 7200/750 and both are great cameras but one thing bto be mindful of with FX is the small AF coverage. I'd definitely try the 750 out to make sure that this wouldn't be too big of an issue.
Click to expand...
This has never been too big of an issue for me given all other strengths of the D750, but this is my biggest gripe with this camera as well. The AF array coverage is really small; it is especially obvious after using my small mirrorless cameras where focus points are all over the frame AND can be chosen with a tap on the screen...
 
Just wanted to post an update. I can't decide what to get if I upgrade, so instead I'll continue to use my D7100 for some time. It's not ideal, but then nothing is. But it does allow me to focus on photography itself, which I think could be more important. Besides, it has enough qualities for me to use it for some time.

I'm still not dismissing getting a D7200 to replace it because of the noise banding. But only when I can get a really good deal on it.
 
I have been the happy owner of a used D7100, which I upgraded to from a used and after two years nearly broken D5100, spending most of my money on lenses after a friend told me to spend 3:1 lenses / camera and am on the whole happy with it. I don't want to go crazy (i spent so far about 3000 USD on the stuff, and on the whole want to keep it that way). I have had gear lust when I was in Japan and went on a spree of nikon primes, and am happy that I have them. But then I went to my brothers wedding, and a friend came with a big Canon monster (I wasn't bad - with the 85mm 1.8), and then he sent the photos around, and 'damm' I am now jealous and am thinking of upgrading. This is the 70-200 canon and a full frame 4k usd camera. Am I crazy, could I have gotten these colours with my set ? I don't want to go all FX given the expenses, but some part is now thinking of taking he plunge.

maybe waiting for a D620 if it ever comes and then go for it ?

7c480153cefd4c03b2dbf8f40b74418f.jpg
 
Well Canon colours are different from Nikon colours (some say they are more natural) but you will lose dynamic range with Canon and with some tweaking in post you can improve the colours anyway.
 
Right, well, I won't be switching. I think being content for with what I have for now
 
Basilfawlty1981 said:
Right, well, I won't be switching. I think being content for with what I have for now
Click to expand...
That's the same reason I'm not upgrading right now. Maybe some day I will, when a good deal comes along. But realistically, you'll always have something to complain about. It's time that I stop these things from automatically creating a craving for newer gear. I'm not doing it professionally or even semi-professionally (I'm with a few stock agencies, but haven't made a penny so far).

Btw, I went on a meditation retreat some time ago which was about living with fewer cravings and aversions. Looks like it kind of worked. :)
 
Last edited:
Basilfawlty1981 said:
I have been the happy owner of a used D7100, which I upgraded to from a used and after two years nearly broken D5100, spending most of my money on lenses after a friend told me to spend 3:1 lenses / camera and am on the whole happy with it. I don't want to go crazy (i spent so far about 3000 USD on the stuff, and on the whole want to keep it that way). I have had gear lust when I was in Japan and went on a spree of nikon primes, and am happy that I have them. But then I went to my brothers wedding, and a friend came with a big Canon monster (I wasn't bad - with the 85mm 1.8), and then he sent the photos around, and 'damm' I am now jealous and am thinking of upgrading. This is the 70-200 canon and a full frame 4k usd camera. Am I crazy, could I have gotten these colours with my set ? I don't want to go all FX given the expenses, but some part is now thinking of taking he plunge.

maybe waiting for a D620 if it ever comes and then go for it ?

7c480153cefd4c03b2dbf8f40b74418f.jpg
Click to expand...
Yes you could, I shoot with a D750/D7200 and a D700/D7100 before that...my second shooters for the most part use Canon 7 & 5D's and I can match the colors pretty easily. Looking at the shot above there's some desaturation going on as well.

Honestly with a 85 1.8 for any given scene you should have similar or better image quality compared to that photographer. And if you upgraded to a D7200 it would give you more flexibility than a Canon FF (other than maybe the 5D mkIV).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top