Jump to content

d750: still worth looking at?


Renee Shipley

Recommended Posts

<p>I've been looking to replace my d7000 for a while now. I've been trying to hold out as it's still functioning, though little things such as card slot malfuctions are starting to happen. I'm looking for a model with upgraded capabilities such as wifi, and if I'm making a purchase it's going to be FX for my landscape and portraiture. I'm prepared to purchase a lens also.</p>

<p>I realize it's still the current model, but at this time would you still consider purchasing d750? It's been what - two years since its introduction? </p>

<p>And - what lens would you consider as a first FX lens for what I do? No sports or anything. Just landscape, portraits and general photography.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The D750 is an excellent camera, up to date in almost everything. Since you don't include video among the things you expect to do, I see no sense in waiting for a later model, which may, or may not, have better video capabilities.</p>

<p>You might want to look at the Nikon 24-120mm f/4, which is sold at a reduced price if bundled with the D750. It depends on what FX lenses you might already have.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I find the D 750 to be a very capable and useful camera, and the 24-120 F4 to be excellent. With current kit prices through reputable dealers, careful shopping will get you an excellent deal. I will only replace the D 750 near term if Nikon introduces a DF 2, or in the unlikely event that it fails to function.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sandy none of us has any inside information from Nikon (unless Shun does but he pretends that he doesn't) so we don't know what is going to happen. But for guessing I can guess that you will not buy what is rumored to be the Df2. Of course we have to wait for quite sometime to find that out.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>General Principles</p>

<ol>

<li>No camera (or lens, for that matter) gets worse when a newer model of it is introduced.</li>

<li>“Trailing edge” is a lot cheaper than “cutting edge” technology</li>

<li>If the features of the existing or prior model meet YOUR needs, then buying one is a smart move.</li>

<li>Waiting for the next version to come out is an endless loop.</li>

</ol>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The D750 with the 24-120 f4 combo- $2,500 new, 16-35 f4 for landscapes and the 85 1.8 for portraits. The 24-120 f4 is a great all around lens (lens snobs may not agree with that) and takes good portraits too. The 85 1.8 is about $450 new and is a nice portrait lens. The 16-35 f4 is about $1,200 and is really good for landscapes. You can get any of the above used in excellent condition for about 20% less at reputable dealers like KEH, Adorama and some other photo sites like Fred Miranda. Good luck in what ever you decide. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wow, that is quick.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I was referring to this 18-35mm AF-S:</p>

<ul>

<li>http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-18-35mm-f%252f3.5-4.5g-ed.html</li>

<li><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=628662">Tim Holte </a>suggested this 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-16-35mm-f%252f4g-ed-vr.html</li>

</ul>

<p>I am sure the 16-35mm/f4 is also an excellent choice, but as far as I know the last mm or 2 on its wide end is a bit weak. It bigger and pricier, but you gain VR. For landscape photography, I think the less-expensive 18-35mm AF-S is better value for the money.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Renee, in each post on this thread, I have made it very clear that I am talking about the 18-35mm AF-S lens (again AF-S). That has a variable aperture from f3.5 to 4.5 and is a G, i.e. no aperture ring. However, that lens is $750 new.</p>

<p>For $349 used from KEH, I suspect that you are getting the older, 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-D lens that uses the old screwdriver AF; it also has an aperture ring. That lens was fairly popular shortly after year 2000 during the film era. However, I have never used one myself:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon USA site for the 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-D lens (with aperture ring): http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product-archive/camera-lenses/af-zoom-nikkor-18-35mm-f%252f3.5-4.5d-if-ed.html</li>

<li>Roland Vink's site: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#14_24-xx</li>

</ul><div>00eAs9-565786384.jpg.3057a3d80ab33bd3404c7d52fd7259cc.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The 24-120 f4 is a great all around lens (lens snobs may not agree with that) and takes good portraits too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd think it does! About three years ago, I went to a lecture by Steve McCurry in London. At the end of it, during the Q&A portion, someone inevitably asked about which gear he used, surely expecting a cabinet full of exotic and super fast lenses. There were audible gasps from some in the audience as he said that, generally, he just carried around the 24-120/F4. He looked a bit puzzled at the reaction and said, basically, "Errr, well, it's fast enough, it's really sharp, and it has all my favourite focal lengths and means I only have to lug around one lens, so why not?"</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> I'm looking for a model with upgraded capabilities such as wifi,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You will not find full WiFi support in any Nikon DSLR , just a possibility to send pictures to a tablet - like device. Most DSLR's from Nikon will need additional hardware for even that little functionality to.<br>

Full WiFi support is only available if you buy an additional WT-xxx (depending on the model) and those units are expensive ...</p>

<p>D5, D500 and near future camera's support "SnapBridge"which does communicate onle with a select number of phones / tablets and does not support a connection to a windows device or local network at all , for the latter there is still an expensive device (WT-7a) required.</p>

<p>So if you really need WiFi without the use of an off-brand device (Camfi or alike) then Nikon is not the brand that supports this.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'd clarify what you mean by "wifi". If you just want to transfer content off the camera, there's always an Eye-Fi card, which I believe will work in any recent Nikon (with an SD slot). They're not especially fast cards even for on-card storage, and I suspect the wifi isn't all that fast either (not that I've tried), but since it only needs to be faster than you going back to your computer and putting things in a card reader, it may yet suffice. If you want full camera control, that's different.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bernard, thanks for your post, I feel much better now! "Errr, well, it's fast enough, it's really sharp, and it has all my favourite focal lengths and means I only have to lug around one lens, so why not?" I will probably use this quote when I run into some of my lens snob friends.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used the older 18-35 on a D800 when I found it cheap attached to an old Fuji camera that nobody wanted on eBay. It

was okay. Not sharp enough to really make use of a lot of megapixels, but gets the job done. I later sold it and bought a

Tokina 17-35, which was better. But if you want an inexpensive wide zoom and don't plan to make large prints, the older

18-35 is good value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi,<br>

My two cents. I'm very happy with my D750. I was amazed how much better it is compared to my D700 in terms of noise. The images are much cleaner and sharper. I use mine mainly with primes, IMO the 24-120 is a compromise lens and poor performer. But it depends upon what your shooting. It would be fine for portraits but I would not be satisfied with it's edge and corner performance for landscapes. A 24-70 f2.8 would be a much better match for that body. With regards to rumors, there will always be something coming, whether its worth waiting for is up to you. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have quite a few lenses, from a 43-86mm/f3.5 AI I bought back in 1977 to some of the latest AF-S E lenses. Every one is a compromise one way or another, from optical quality, weight, size, cost, the convenience of zoom ....</p>

<p>I have had the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR since it was introduced in 2010 and use it quite often. I picked it over the 24-70mm/f2.8 because of its extended zoom range on the long end, and I also have the older 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. Clearly an 5x (or more) zoom involves some optical compromises.</p>

<p>A few years ago, I accompanied my wife to her high school reunion. After dinner, they wanted a group picture of like 60 people in a fairly small room. I had no choice but to shoot it at 24mm with the 24-120mm/f4 on my D800E. You can see that those people near the right and left edges have a somewhat degraded image, but I managed to produce very decent 8.5x11" prints. Typically, I wouldn't use anything wider than 35mm on FX for group images.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I looked at the 24-70 2.8; the Nikon is more than I want to spend on a lens. I wasn't sure about the Tamron version which is less money. I have the correct 18-35 on the way now. Thanks everyone who owns the camera and responded...Thursday won't be here quickly enough! </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Renee: Enjoy your camera (which I hope is now in your hands!)<br />

<br />

For future reference, I have the Tamron 24-70 VC, and even as someone who doesn't generally like mid-range zooms, I recommend it. It's not much bigger than the 24-120 f/4, and testing suggests it holds on to its corners better, though the 24-120 might have it beat in the middle of the frame at some focal lengths. I've not personally tried to give it a thorough comparison (I mostly used the 24-120 as a home for my IR filter on my most recent trip). As far as I can tell from online reviews the Tamron keeps the Nikkor 24-70 VR very honest; I've not used that lens, but I <i>have</i> used the previous (non-VR) version, which performed perfectly well but I always felt was a lot of money for what it does. But certainly see how you get on with the 18-35 before you start playing with mid-range zooms: I tend to use mine mostly at the 24 or 70mm ends, and I already have a 14-24 and a 70-200.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...