Thinking of upgrading to D750 from D5200

[srvkmr]

Hello,

I am using D5200 since 2014 Jan. I shoot landscapes, birds, macros, little astro, little portraits. Here is a link of my flickr page. https://www.flickr.com/photos/35286525@N08/

Since few months I am thinking of buying D750 for better ISO performance in low light and better image quality. With D750, I wish if the camera could have more cross type auto focus points.

So, to those who have done similar upgrades, price of D750 is roughly 5x that of D5200 but does d750 provides really good bump in image quality and performance?

I own following lenses:

1.) sigma 17-50mm dx lens

2.) nikon 70-300mm ED VR.

3.) nikon 50mm 1.8G

4.) Tamron 150-600mm

 

[TacticDesigns]

Also . . . the D5x00 series have a Pentaxmirror viewfinder which is smaller and darker than a Pentaxprism viewfinder. And . . . going from DX to FX, the size of the viewfinder also increases and is brighter.

I think you should stop using your Pentax. It has infect you. :-D

LOL!!!!

OMG that is funny!!!

Sorry, my bad!!!

I guess I've seen and typed Pentax so many times it is just muscle reflex now. LOL.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

 

[morinor]

So . . . FX @ f/11 would require more light? I guess not an issue if using flash?

You can still use a higher ISO which you already have as an advantage on FX.

But . . . if using the same lens, the image on the sensor of the object being photographed would be the same size. So . . . less pixels on the object with FX versus DX. Does that make any change in IQ?

FX on DX mode is like using a DX. But because the pixel count is on the whole sensor, yes at the end you will have less resolution. That is why the DX is usually better option for wildlife. You do not need the low light capabilities, but you gain more reach with good resolution. But this "zooming" is also makes more apparent the lens flows.

Does that affect the consideration of FX versus DX for macro?

I do not have any experience on macro, but you will have shallower depth of field.

 

[morinor]

I guess I've seen and typed Pentax so many times it is just muscle reflex now. LOL.

I hope also because you have pressed so much times the shutter button on your Pentax.

 

[morinor]

I am planning to buy d750 in Feb. Since I don't have any wide angle for fx, I was thinking of buying Nikon 18-35 or tokina 16-28 instead of getting 24-70 or 24-120.

Then I will sell my sigma 17-50. I am planning to have following lenses for d750.

1. 24-120 or 18-35/16-28.

2. 50 mm 1.8 g

3. 70 - 300 Ed vr

4. 150-600 Tamron.

The 70-300 is the DX or the FX version? If it is the FX then I think you have the whole focal range between 50-600mm. I think it is better to have a good wide lens. Unless you find it difficult to change lenses for going from 50mm to wider or tighter focal length. Though a 35mm can be more versatile to cover most of your cases and if it is a zoom you can go even wider.

 

[Flashlight]

So, to those who have done similar upgrades, price of D750 is roughly 5x that of D5200 but does d750 provides really good bump in image quality and performance?

I made a quick comparison for you from the attic window so you can see for yourself. Best download the full jpegs and compare them side by side in Photoshop or another editor.

I compared the D7200 with 35mm f/1.8 FX to the D750 with 50mm f/1.8. IMO the 35mm is the better lens so that could be a factor, otherwise there's little significant difference that I can see. I used DxO Photolab with the same settings for both files to get from RAW to jpeg.

--
Philip

How about high iso / low light?

That is one primary reason I got the D750 as an upgrade from my D7000.

Shooting indoor sports, low light, no flash allowed . . . using the same f/2.8 zooms, I could crank the ISO up from ISO 3200 to ISO 6400 and get just as clean images (IMHO) but also with less motion blur in the athletes.

Basically what you do when shooting both at the same aperture is accepting a stop less DoF and thus have cleaner files. Not sure about the less motion blur, I think that will only happen if you shoot both at the different framing (same focal length) but then you have to enlarge the FX shot more and you're back to square one for noise and DoF.

To me, that was a real benefit of the upgrade.

And at lower iso in good light, wouldn't the FX have a bigger dynamic range?

Yes, although you only see that if you're going the push the shadows like crazy.

And . . . the D750 is supposedly an ISO-invariant type camera, so pulling detail from the shadows is supposed to be cleaner?

So is the D7200 (and I think the D5xxx cameras too, but not sure). The D7200 gets a magenta cast though when you push it to the max.

All in all the D750 is the most versatile of the two, you can do some things with it that you cannot do with the D7200. But these are on the outskirts, like shooting wide open or pushing shadows a lot. The OP asked for 'really good bump in image quality and performance' and I wanted to inform him better.

That said I have two D750's and one D7200.

--
Philip

 

[HP1999]

IMO, sure make the upgrade but I would buy full frame glass and sell off your DX glass.

 

[TacticDesigns]

So, to those who have done similar upgrades, price of D750 is roughly 5x that of D5200 but does d750 provides really good bump in image quality and performance?

I made a quick comparison for you from the attic window so you can see for yourself. Best download the full jpegs and compare them side by side in Photoshop or another editor.

I compared the D7200 with 35mm f/1.8 FX to the D750 with 50mm f/1.8. IMO the 35mm is the better lens so that could be a factor, otherwise there's little significant difference that I can see. I used DxO Photolab with the same settings for both files to get from RAW to jpeg.

 

[TacticDesigns]

I guess I've seen and typed Pentax so many times it is just muscle reflex now. LOL.

I hope also because you have pressed so much times the shutter button on your Pentax.

When I first got my Pentax dSLR, I shot like crazy with it.

And then my daughter got into gymnastics. So indoor sports, low light, no flash allowed. So I built on my Nikon set-up.

And then I got into volunteer work shooting for others, so not wanting to let them down, I again built on my Nikon set-up.

And then . . . some people wanted to pay my wife and I to shoot for them, so not wanting to let them down, I again built on my Nikon set-up.

LOL.

So, for the last few years, I have been piling on the clicks on my Nikon gear.

But . . . I have recently dusted off the old manual focus Pentax lenses my dad gave me, and I am planning to slow down a bit this summer and do a bit of shooting for myself. LOL.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

 

[srvkmr]

So, to those who have done similar upgrades, price of D750 is roughly 5x that of D5200 but does d750 provides really good bump in image quality and performance?

I made a quick comparison for you from the attic window so you can see for yourself. Best download the full jpegs and compare them side by side in Photoshop or another editor.

I compared the D7200 with 35mm f/1.8 FX to the D750 with 50mm f/1.8. IMO the 35mm is the better lens so that could be a factor, otherwise there's little significant difference that I can see. I used DxO Photolab with the same settings for both files to get from RAW to jpeg.


D7200, Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G FX , 1/500 f/5.6 ISO 800


D750, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G, 1/500 f/8 ISO 1600

--
Philip

So D7200 and D750 don't have much difference in image quality? Above images have different lenses, different aperture and different ISO. I will like to see comparo with same settings and lens. IMO D750 must have some advantage being a full frame.

 

[earthbound_ca]

So, to those who have done similar upgrades, price of D750 is roughly 5x that of D5200 but does d750 provides really good bump in image quality and performance?

I made a quick comparison for you from the attic window so you can see for yourself.

Excellent contribution, Flashlight! Very generous and well done!

<snip>

So D7200 and D750 don't have much difference in image quality? Above images have different lenses, different aperture and different ISO. I will like to see comparo with same settings and lens. IMO D750 must have some advantage being a full frame.

 

[Flashlight]

So, to those who have done similar upgrades, price of D750 is roughly 5x that of D5200 but does d750 provides really good bump in image quality and performance?

I made a quick comparison for you from the attic window so you can see for yourself. Best download the full jpegs and compare them side by side in Photoshop or another editor.

I compared the D7200 with 35mm f/1.8 FX to the D750 with 50mm f/1.8. IMO the 35mm is the better lens so that could be a factor, otherwise there's little significant difference that I can see. I used DxO Photolab with the same settings for both files to get from RAW to jpeg.


D7200, Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G FX , 1/500 f/5.6 ISO 800


D750, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G, 1/500 f/8 ISO 1600

--
Philip

So D7200 and D750 don't have much difference in image quality? Above images have different lenses, different aperture and different ISO. \

These images are what is called 'equivalent'. It means that both images have the same content; they have the same exposure, the same 'motion stopping ability' (freezing moving objects in the frame) and the same DoF. Comparing apples to apples.

I will like to see comparo with same settings and lens.

If you use the same lens the framing will be different and you have to enlarge the image to get the same framing meaning you'll have a 10MP image with more noise and DoF.

If you use the same framing, as I did above, but use the same settings the FX camera will have a stop less noise and a stop less DoF.

IMO D750 must have some advantage being a full frame.

Discussed earlier with TacticDesigns.

--
Philip

 

[srvkmr]

So, to those who have done similar upgrades, price of D750 is roughly 5x that of D5200 but does d750 provides really good bump in image quality and performance?

I made a quick comparison for you from the attic window so you can see for yourself. Best download the full jpegs and compare them side by side in Photoshop or another editor.

I compared the D7200 with 35mm f/1.8 FX to the D750 with 50mm f/1.8. IMO the 35mm is the better lens so that could be a factor, otherwise there's little significant difference that I can see. I used DxO Photolab with the same settings for both files to get from RAW to jpeg.


D7200, Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G FX , 1/500 f/5.6 ISO 800


D750, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G, 1/500 f/8 ISO 1600

--
Philip

So D7200 and D750 don't have much difference in image quality? Above images have different lenses, different aperture and different ISO. \

These images are what is called 'equivalent'. It means that both images have the same content; they have the same exposure, the same 'motion stopping ability' (freezing moving objects in the frame) and the same DoF. Comparing apples to apples.

I will like to see comparo with same settings and lens.

If you use the same lens the framing will be different and you have to enlarge the image to get the same framing meaning you'll have a 10MP image with more noise and DoF.

If you use the same framing, as I did above, but use the same settings the FX camera will have a stop less noise and a stop less DoF.

IMO D750 must have some advantage being a full frame.

Discussed earlier with TacticDesigns.

--
Philip

yes I understand that field of view/framing will be different on fx and dx with same lens from same point, but by moving little forward/backward it can be made similar. I was asking for same aperture and ISO because you said there is little difference. I believe for comparison should be done with same setting (aperture and iso). I found this link

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[Flashlight]

yes I understand that field of view/framing will be different on fx and dx with same lens from same point, but by moving little forward/backward it can be made similar. I was asking for same aperture and ISO because you said there is little difference. I believe for comparison should be done with same setting (aperture and iso). I found this link

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...16_3=6400&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0

Yes, they shoot a test scene without depth. Look, if you want a D750, get one, I have two. Fantastic cameras!

 

[srvkmr]

yes I understand that field of view/framing will be different on fx and dx with same lens from same point, but by moving little forward/backward it can be made similar. I was asking for same aperture and ISO because you said there is little difference. I believe for comparison should be done with same setting (aperture and iso). I found this link

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...16_3=6400&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0

Yes, they shoot a test scene without depth. Look, if you want a D750, get one, I have two. Fantastic cameras!

 

[morinor]

yes I understand that field of view/framing will be different on fx and dx with same lens from same point, but by moving little forward/backward it can be made similar. I was asking for same aperture and ISO because you said there is little difference. I believe for comparison should be done with same setting (aperture and iso). I found this link

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...16_3=6400&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0

I think you confuse your self. You should know that you have about 1 stop advantage on FF relative with ISO and DoF. This means with the D750 your maximum ISO, with current technology, is about 6400 while for the D5200 is about 3200. You can increase more but it depends usually to everyone's taste and the occasion. You can check your current photos what is the ISO that you are using and you are satisfied. If you find a lot of pictures that a full stop would be helpful then the FF will benefit you. If not then the upgrade is useless on this matter.

For the DoF you should search around the net to see some comparison between f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2, f/2.8 and f/4 in order to find what satisfies you. On the DX for lenses with similar apertures these are f/2.1, f/2.7, f/3, f/4.2, f/6 or approximately f/2, f/2.8, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6. This means that if you want f/2 or f/2.8 FF equivalent depth of field then you have to get a prime f/1.4, f/1.8 or f/2. For zoom only the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 and Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 are available. For other zooms you have maximum f/4 FF equivalent DoF. Some times though this strict DoF maybe is not needed, but the reverse. You should think also that you can find cheaper DX format lenses.

The FF gives specific "superiority", while having some drawbacks.

 

[historianx]

Plus, for shooting birds, [D500] has a higher FPS than the D750.

And D500 has a MUCH deeper buffer to handle those RAW bursts. 200 14-bit shots? Deep.

If I was still shooting FT pro that would be my crop body.

 

[historianx]

Since few months I am thinking of buying D750 for better ISO performance in low light and better image quality. With D750, I wish if the camera could have more cross type auto focus points.

And I wish pigs could fly . New DPR acronym: PIF

but does d750 provides really good bump in image quality and performance?

Yes times two, meaning I have two of them. Older one that's been serviced under the shutter service advisory, has about 80K clicks since, and a newer one.

Best DSLR I've ever owned. Nikon usually has sales on them a couple times a year, where they mark the price down and throw in a free grip.

 

[historianx]

oh and one more thing: you will need a HQ general range-purpose FX zoom to get the best out of that D750. Your Sigma zoom is inadequate for FX.

Figure that into your upgrade equation.

 

[srvkmr]

oh and one more thing: you will need a HQ general range-purpose FX zoom to get the best out of that D750. Your Sigma zoom is inadequate for FX.

Figure that into your upgrade equation.

As I have mentioned, sigma is dx format lens so I will replace it with tamron 15-30 or nikon 18-35. You can wish for pigs to fly or PIF. Wishing for more cross type focus points in nikon is obvious because sony and canon give more cross type points. Now dont tell me to buy a sony or canon. I dont have enough budget to replace all my existing lens line up.

 

[srvkmr]

yes I understand that field of view/framing will be different on fx and dx with same lens from same point, but by moving little forward/backward it can be made similar. I was asking for same aperture and ISO because you said there is little difference. I believe for comparison should be done with same setting (aperture and iso). I found this link

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...16_3=6400&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0

I think you confuse your self. You should know that you have about 1 stop advantage on FF relative with ISO and DoF. This means with the D750 your maximum ISO, with current technology, is about 6400 while for the D5200 is about 3200. You can increase more but it depends usually to everyone's taste and the occasion. You can check your current photos what is the ISO that you are using and you are satisfied. If you find a lot of pictures that a full stop would be helpful then the FF will benefit you. If not then the upgrade is useless on this matter.

For the DoF you should search around the net to see some comparison between f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2, f/2.8 and f/4 in order to find what satisfies you. On the DX for lenses with similar apertures these are f/2.1, f/2.7, f/3, f/4.2, f/6 or approximately f/2, f/2.8, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6. This means that if you want f/2 or f/2.8 FF equivalent depth of field then you have to get a prime f/1.4, f/1.8 or f/2. For zoom only the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 and Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 are available. For other zooms you have maximum f/4 FF equivalent DoF. Some times though this strict DoF maybe is not needed, but the reverse. You should think also that you can find cheaper DX format lenses.

The FF gives specific "superiority", while having some drawbacks.

Yes I know about this shallow depth of field and have searched on internet already. Still thanks for explaining it with numbers.