D750 vs D850 - anything to justify the $2000 gulf? What could be the entry price for D760?

tarous said:

BillyBobSenna said:

I agree if the options are no camera or a DSLR, you buy the DSLR. My concern is the value of the equipment after a couple years when ML are dominating the market. Thanks why I would buy used DSLR today and sell when the gen II Nikon ML are released and you may have more money.

Click to expand...

I don't think early ML equipment will hold value well. That's the case with all new technologies - they are both expensive and not yet perfected upon release - and they later lose value more quickly, as updated technology kicks in.

Click to expand...

At any crossroads in technology, gear you buy will lose it’s value far more quickly than at any other time. In 2000, regardless of whether you bought a D1 or F5, it would be worth very little five years later compared to what you paid.

Right now just buy what you need and treat it as a fee for the privilege of making great photos.

Tony_J said:

tarous said:

BillyBobSenna said:

I agree if the options are no camera or a DSLR, you buy the DSLR. My concern is the value of the equipment after a couple years when ML are dominating the market. Thanks why I would buy used DSLR today and sell when the gen II Nikon ML are released and you may have more money.

Click to expand...

I don't think early ML equipment will hold value well. That's the case with all new technologies - they are both expensive and not yet perfected upon release - and they later lose value more quickly, as updated technology kicks in.

Click to expand...

At any crossroads in technology, gear you buy will lose it’s value far more quickly than at any other time. In 2000, regardless of whether you bought a D1 or F5, it would be worth very little five years later compared to what you paid.

Right now just buy what you need and treat it as a fee for the privilege of making great photos.

Click to expand...

Those are interesting theories. Do you have any statistics to back these claims?

I just bought a D850 and I already have a D750. The answer is yes and no. It just depends on what you expect from the D850 as compared to the D750. I like to shoot loose and crop and sometimes I find the real picture within a much bigger picture. So the D850's 46 MP with top grade glass really opens things up for me. It has a better focusing system, touchscreen, bigger buffer, and will go at 9fps with the grip and EL-EN-18C battery. I bought a Vello grip and aftermarket battery that has not failed me (yet). In crop mode the D850 is still 19MP and the sensors cover the entire frame. I use it this way with my 150-600 for birding. I have no intentions of selling my D750 as it makes a dandy backup and I think it may even be a little better in low light.

BillyBobSenna said:

I am convinced I will not be buying another
DSLR body or lens again. We are at the first
phase of a shift to ML equipment. I don't think
purchasing DSLR equipment is wise unless your
salary depends on it.

Click to expand...

The demise of the SLR is not a given.

There are many advantages to an optical viewfinder.

• First, an optical finder gives a natural image. No matter how good EVF's become, they cannot surpass optics. The OVF is going to remain the solution that gives the clearest, albeit not necessarily the brightest, finder image.
• Second, the optical finder uses no or almost no battery power. In fact, you typically get three to five times as many exposures on X value of mAh from a battery.
• Third, what happens to the mirrorless camera with its electronic viewfinder in really low temperatures? How is it going to function, and how responsive will the rig be in temperatures of -25, -30, -40C? Such temperatures are not at all uncommon in many parts of the world. Realistically, if we consider what low temperatures mean for the battery, it is inevitable that a SLR with an optical finder is going to last much longer in the cold than a mirrorless system.

Lastly, there is one more factor which pertains not so much to the mirrorless principle as much as to the backward compatibility with manual lenses: With SLR and DSLR bodies, we get metering at full aperture with Nikkor AI/AIS lenses. Many of these manual AI/AIS lenses are very good to brilliant, and they perform flawlessly on my D750 and D850 cameras. The manual Nikkors perform even better on the D850 since it has more resolution than the D750.

Here is an example of an image I made with my D850 and the manual Nikkor 24mm 2.8 AI. I see no reason to complain, this is the whole frame:

http://www.coldsiberia.net/phototest/_DSC3054_RTv4_Medium_RawTherapee_2000.jpg;

The manual Nikkors are a viable solution today. And they are many.

Now, with a mirrorless camera of the Z type, none of these manual Nikkors are compatible. The FTZ adapter will let you mount the lenses and the camera will meter, but since the FTZ adapter and the body has no aperture follower ring the use of manual lenses means you are forced into stop down metering - which is genuine regression back to the old and primitive days. The EVF will of course compensate for the loss of light, but the expense is a severe and very visible drop of clarity and dynamic range in the viewfinder. So for those photographers who intend to use manual AI/AIS Nikkors with a modern camera, a Nikon DSLR is a far better choice than the ML bodies - because only the SLR's with the aperture follower ring can provide full aperture metering.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

BillyBobSenna said:

Tony_J said:

tarous said:

BillyBobSenna said:

I agree if the options are no camera or a DSLR, you buy the DSLR. My concern is the value of the equipment after a couple years when ML are dominating the market. Thanks why I would buy used DSLR today and sell when the gen II Nikon ML are released and you may have more money.

Click to expand...

I don't think early ML equipment will hold value well. That's the case with all new technologies - they are both expensive and not yet perfected upon release - and they later lose value more quickly, as updated technology kicks in.

Click to expand...

At any crossroads in technology, gear you buy will lose it’s value far more quickly than at any other time. In 2000, regardless of whether you bought a D1 or F5, it would be worth very little five years later compared to what you paid.

Right now just buy what you need and treat it as a fee for the privilege of making great photos.

Click to expand...

Those are interesting theories. Do you have any statistics to back these claims?

Click to expand...

Historical pricing availability is not that great, but if we take KR's word for it, the D1 was worth $75 in 2012 (couldn't find an earlier date on archive.org) while the F5 was worth $345 in 2012. By comparison, the D3 is still worth $700 in 2019, 12 years later.

I have a D750 and was considering the D850 for increased pixel density for landscape. Better ISO for Astro and the improved AF system for birds in flight. But the D750 is no slouch and manages well enough in all three areas although the D850 I expect will be well above it for AF.

The D750 was $2000 when new and the D850 recently released is $3300 ish. The D760 if released will be about $2000 but I question if it will ever be released. Think the Z6 is the D760. But thats my guess, why would Nikon need a 24mp DSLR and a 24 MP mirrorless. I expect that Nikon will make improvements to the Z6 instead of releasing a whole other body. It may be in the form of a Z6 MKII .... Of course the thing that makes me cry is that my Zeiss 21/2.8 ZF2 will not function to provide distance information to the camera. I love that lens, it is just a little bit better ....

What am I waiting for. To see what happens with the Z7. The AF system if improved will be my choice. I can get a camera that makes for a better landscape camera, will lock AF (when improved) for BIF and give me insane amounts of ISO for astro. From the sounds of it will need the improved ISO with the higher pixel density to prevent star trailing. What I want for Astro is to be able to "see" more stars. See what happens. Good excuses to get another camera. In the meanwhile my D750 continues to take great pictures.

My suggestion get the D750, its a great camera unless you have immediate need for high speed sports or birds in flight. Spend the extra $2K on great glass. The D850 is a better camera, period. The future however is mirrorless.

All of this is speculation, time will tell.

six34sigma said:

My suggestion get the D750, its a great camera unless you have immediate need for high speed sports or birds in flight.

Click to expand...

I'm sure D750 can handle both sports and birds in flight. It has the AF from D4S but improved, and I am certain people used D4S for both sports and birds in flight.

D850 is better, but I don't think is $2000 better.

That's why I switched to Nikon, because they use good sensors and good AF even in entry level cameras like D750.

Thought I said that .... LOL.

"But the D750 is no slouch and manages well enough in all three areas although the D850 I expect will be well above it for AF."

six34sigma said:

Thought I said that .... LOL.

"But the D750 is no slouch and manages well enough in
all three areas although the D850 I expect will be
well above it for AF."

Click to expand...

As one who owns both the D750 and the D850, I see that a primary differentiator between these two is the resolution. If one wants the absolute max resolution for very large enlargements and really big screens, the D850 is unbeatable. That is hardly a surprise.

It must also be mentioned that in 2009, Nikon introduced the D3x, which was said to provide very high resolution and image detail suitable for landscapes and architecture as well as large enlargements. It still does, at 24 megapixels.The D750 also has 24 megapixels, and its picture quality and dynamic range is superior to what you can get from the D3x.

The D750 is still very capable, solid and dependable and will remain so, even if the D850 is even better in nearly every respect.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Agreed, The D750 is a carefully thought out camera with a great feature to price ratio. The D850 is like the best possible no holds barred. 24mp is more than enough for just about anything. But, I often find a picture within a shot that requires a lot of cropping. That is where the D850 really shines for me.

Per Inge Oestmoen has it right. I too have owned the D750 and currently the D850. There's a couple things I will add that do make a significant difference: the lack of an anti-alias low-pass filter for one. I've gotten some really beautiful pics with my D750; on the other hand, I've gotten even better, sharper pics in similar situations of similar subjects at the base ISO of 100 with my D7200 that has the same resolution as the D750. However, the D7200 does not do well at higher ISOs; even at ISO 400 noise begins to be a problem, not so with the D750. Now, the D850 combines the best of those two cameras. It's sharper at up to f/11 or so and it can shoot at ISO 1600 or even higher with little noise.

The other advantage the D850 has, like the D810, is the base ISO of 64 that really does make a difference when shooting in high-contrast scenes. The dynamic range is truly awesome in those situations. To be fair, however, it's not all the time that your subject will be in high-contrast lighting, nor will you be shooting at ISO 64 all the time. It's like using Kodachrome 64 slide film (for those who are old enough to remember), it's not for every situation, it's best for landscapes.

As far as resolution goes, yes the more the better; one of the reasons I bought the D850 was to make large prints, but you can use ON1 or Perfectly Clear software to enlarge 24 MP photos to wall-size with truly great results.

And lastly, it's not always the first image but often the last image that really matters. You can take a photo that is mundane to begin with, or lacking in sharpness, and with Lightroom or Photoshop turn it into a piece of art.

So I've eventually bought D750, chiefly because money I was counting on hasn't come on time and I was already packed for a trip I needed the camera for. Settled for the kit with 24-120.

Photo quality is superb, it really is. Having spent seven years with a 7D this is a real step up in every way (visually, at least) - as it should be.

However, when it comes to ergonomics the camera is just really weak. Honestly, the people responsible for designing the bodies and placing all the controls on them should be summarily shot.

2 weeks in the eyecup fell off. I almost lost it once before but now it's gone for good. The strap, which I wrap around my wrist, appears to have dislodged it when I was walking around. It never ever moved on the Canon.

The body is relatively small and even I, not having large hands, have to strain a bit to hold it. But I guess that's a personal thing, fine.

However, the bloody buttons. Whenever I want to change the ISO I zoom out of the photo preview. Bracketing button is barely accessible on the side. The two scroll-wheels for settings require absurd placement of the fingers to change anything - all while trying to look at the screen at the top to get what you actually want.

Photos are fantastic but if you're switching from Canon to Nikon be prepared to curse the bloody morons who came up with all this BS every single day. It's just atrocious, illogical and quite shocking for a brand this well established.

On a side note, when I was picking my camera I had a look at the Z7 and the EOS R - and even the first comparisons between these two cameras bring pretty similar impressions. Z7 appears to be ergonomically half-assed. Plus the EVF is flickering all the damn time - at least it was under artificial lighting in the store.

I have no doubt that image quality is world-class but picking up EOS R it feels like you're really in the 21st century. The body is so well put together and all the little design touches make it look more modern. Pity it doesn't quite deliver in image quality.

So yes - I love the photos that come out of the D750 (though the 24-120 kit lens does have certain distortion and vignetting issues) and for the price this is really a no-brainer but at the same time I'm fantasising daily about putting the Nikon industrial design team through a meat grinder.

And... as a Nikon shooter for 40 years, whenever I pick up a Canon, I struggle with the poorly designed UI, poor button layout, and general cr*p ergonomics. Not as badly as when I pick up a Sony, which is the bottom of the pile for this, but the reality is, once you get used to a systems ergonomics/interface, you tend to prefer that systems ergonomics/interface, and as such, switching is going to cause you pain. So your critique, while a bit over the top, just like my critique, isn't absolute, it's just because we came from different systems.

I will note that while I found the EOS-R a bit awkward to handle upon first glance, I could adjust myself to using it and I thought it was a nice camera, particularly with that gorgeous 28-70/2 lens of theirs. Ergonomically, I'd prefer a Z7, but I could live with the EOS-R, much as I expect you could live with a Nikon once you spent some time with it and got used to it.

-m

The camera was designed in a certain way which you have to get used to and adapt to. No sense in getting all worked up over the fact that a Nikon is not a Canon. I'm used to the Nikon way and have non of the 'issues' you report. Just relax and spend some time with the camera, you'll get used to it fast enough.

I have owned the Nikon D750, and now own a D700. I also own a slew of Canon 5D bodies and 1D bodies. Honestly, I find the controls on the D750 to be just fine.. the D700 is a bit different in that respect, but still not bad. I find the controls on my Sony A7II to be atrocious though.. although I like using my adapted Canon gear on it.

I think it's just a matter for you to get used to the controls, OP. You aren't shooting Canon anymore, and there is a learning curve (just as there is with anything new). Give it time, and practice. I think in time, you will have a change of heart.

You may or may not like some of the buttons or some of the functions on a Canon or prefer some on a Nikon. Fine - personal preference, I get it.
But quite objectively speaking having to do THREE DIFFERENT THINGS to change ISO on D750 is absolutely absurd. And those three things are in completely different places.

1. You have to actuate the AF after a previous photo preview. Otherwise it zooms out of a picture instead of changing ISO, since it's not a dedicated button.
2. You have to press the ISO button on the back of the camera with your left hand.
3. You have to the wheel with your right hand.

Effectively the ISO read out on the top screen is useless, apart from providing information when carrying the camera around, since controls are on the back anyway. And if you want to modify bracketing it's in a completely different place altogether.

These are functions that all deal with exposure and lighting in the photo and they are all over the place even as you need to change them frequently - especially in travel photography.

On a Canon you press a button at the top and you adjust the ISO from the very same screen, just next to the button itself. The same with bracketing.

Again, having functions and their display put in different places is quite illogical and confusing (to say the least).

You may get used to it, fine. But it's hardly intuitive. I don't talk about other things since they are a matter of preference. I actually like the locking on the wheels adjusting the mode and even found the placement of ON/OFF switch rather good, since it allows operation with a single hand.

But having an ISO button shared with a fuckin' zoom in the gallery deserves capital punishment.

tarous said:

However, when it comes to ergonomics the camera is just really weak. Honestly, the people responsible for designing the bodies and placing all the controls on them should be summarily shot.

The body is relatively small and even I, not having large hands, have to strain a bit to hold it. But I guess that's a personal thing, fine.

However, the bloody buttons. Whenever I want to change the ISO I zoom out of the photo preview. Bracketing button is barely accessible on the side. The two scroll-wheels for settings require absurd placement of the fingers to change anything - all while trying to look at the screen at the top to get what you actually want.

Photos are fantastic but if you're switching from Canon to Nikon be prepared to curse the bloody morons who came up with all this BS every single day. It's just atrocious, illogical and quite shocking for a brand this well established.

...

So yes - I love the photos that come out of the D750 (though the 24-120 kit lens does have certain distortion and vignetting issues) and for the price this is really a no-brainer but at the same time I'm fantasising daily about putting the Nikon industrial design team through a meat grinder.

Click to expand...

Well, established Nikon folks tend to prefer Nikon ergonomics and controls. ;-) Both systems have good ergos and controls, though neither is necessarily the most wonderful for everyone. Most users can, probably, adjust soon enough.

My first lessons in close-range shooting, which was also my first experience with digital photography, were with a Nikon D300s, issued to my wife, by her employer. For shooting on my own, she offered me a bag of Canon kit, which she had bought pre-owned, from a colleague*. I soon replaced the Rebel XTi with a more hand-filling 40D, and built upon that Canon gear. So, by accident of availability, I learned with both systems at the same time. Today, my D850 feels as “right” as my 5D IV; it takes only a short moment to adjust.

On the other hand, Canon and Nikon zoom and focus rings operate in opposite directions, which can be important when shooting active subjects, so my zoom lenses tend to be Nikkors. (My favored Canon zoom, the EF 100-400L II IS, has adjustable zoom ring tension, so when shooting hand-held, I loosen the adjustment, and push-and-pull to zoom.)

*My wife became a dedicated Nikon DSLR shooter, which is why it is not fiscally silly for me to use two systems. We do not normally share camera bodies, but will share lenses, flash, and accessories.

--
By accident of availability, I learned to use Canon and Nikon DSLRs at the same time. I love specific lenses made by both Canon and Nikon, too much to quit either system. Dabbling with Leica-M is fun, too. I am, certainly, not an expert.

tarous said:

You may or may not like some of the buttons or some of the functions on a Canon or prefer some on a Nikon. Fine - personal preference, I get it.
But quite objectively speaking having to do THREE DIFFERENT THINGS to change ISO on D750 is absolutely absurd. And those three things are in completely different places.

1. You have to actuate the AF after a previous photo preview. Otherwise it zooms out of a picture instead of changing ISO, since it's not a dedicated button.
2. You have to press the ISO button on the back of the camera with your left hand.
3. You have to the wheel with your right hand.

Effectively the ISO read out on the top screen is useless, apart from providing information when carrying the camera around, since controls are on the back anyway. And if you want to modify bracketing it's in a completely different place altogether.

These are functions that all deal with exposure and lighting in the photo and they are all over the place even as you need to change them frequently - especially in travel photography.

On a Canon you press a button at the top and you adjust the ISO from the very same screen, just next to the button itself. The same with bracketing.

Again, having functions and their display put in different places is quite illogical and confusing (to say the least).

You may get used to it, fine. But it's hardly intuitive. I don't talk about other things since they are a matter of preference. I actually like the locking on the wheels adjusting the mode and even found the placement of ON/OFF switch rather good, since it allows operation with a single hand.

But having an ISO button shared with a fuckin' zoom in the gallery deserves capital punishment.

Click to expand...

I think you'll need to give yourself more time to investigate the various options that the D750 provides - maybe a read of the manual would be in order? For example, page 341 will tell you about the "Easy ISO" feature - Custom Setting d8 - which allows you to change ISO simply by turning a Command Dial.

I also think you'll get better responses here if you cut out the bad language!

Thank you for this example as it perfectly illustrates the problem with Nikon's industrial design. If you need to read the manual to operate any modern electronic device it means the device has not been designed properly.

I have never in my life read the manual for my Canon - I took the camera out and went to shoot, that's it. Of course I learned about the functions as such but the icons and adjustment wheels provide plenty of guidance on their own.

If I need to go to page 341 in a manual to read about a function that allows easier ISO adjustment rather then have it available outside the box then clearly somebody screwed up their job massively.

tarous said:

You may or may not like some of the buttons or some of the functions on a Canon or prefer some on a Nikon. Fine - personal preference, I get it.
But quite objectively speaking having to do THREE DIFFERENT THINGS to change ISO on D750 is absolutely absurd. And those three things are in completely different places.

1. You have to actuate the AF after a previous photo preview. Otherwise it zooms out of a picture instead of changing ISO, since it's not a dedicated button.
2. You have to press the ISO button on the back of the camera with your left hand.
3. You have to the wheel with your right hand.

Effectively the ISO read out on the top screen is useless, apart from providing information when carrying the camera around, since controls are on the back anyway. And if you want to modify bracketing it's in a completely different place altogether.

These are functions that all deal with exposure and lighting in the photo and they are all over the place even as you need to change them frequently - especially in travel photography.

On a Canon you press a button at the top and you adjust the ISO from the very same screen, just next to the button itself. The same with bracketing.

Again, having functions and their display put in different places is quite illogical and confusing (to say the least).

You may get used to it, fine. But it's hardly intuitive. I don't talk about other things since they are a matter of preference. I actually like the locking on the wheels adjusting the mode and even found the placement of ON/OFF switch rather good, since it allows operation with a single hand.

But having an ISO button shared with a fuckin' zoom in the gallery deserves capital punishment.

Click to expand...

Well, the D5, D500, and D850 have ISO buttons in the “right” place. ;-)