D810 & D750

<p>I'm not financially ready to buy yet, but for fun and to see how they feel I went to my local camera store to hand hold both these bodies. I can honestly say that they are completely different in feel and handling, I didn't really expect them to be similar. I currently shoot with the D7000 and when I move to FX I'm leaning towards the D750 due to familiar layout. It also feels better in my hand, I have short fat fingers. I plan on using the new body for portraits and maybe eventually a wedding or two if I can handle the pressure. It was fun holding the both of them and enlightening.</p>

 

<p><< I plan on using the new body for portraits and maybe eventually a wedding or two if I can handle the pressure.>></p>

<p>Remember that for weddings you need TWO of them. Saying, "I was only able to photo half the wedding because my only camera died/got stolen/had drink spilled on it/got dropped/etc. won't cut it with a customer. You can't say, "Hold everything while I go to the store and buy another camera." You also need a few pro flash units (e.g SB-910).</p>

<p>--->For a wedding, I'd rather have two D7000 than one D750.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I have an SB800 and a Photix Mitros for flashes and the Photix Odin trigger system. I was planning on keeping my D7000 and using it for second/back up body if I should venture into wedding photography. </p>

<p>This is what a pro wedding photographer has to say about using a D750 for weddings</p>

<p><a href="http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review</a></p>

<p>Paul K, that links to a VERY happy camper...:-))</p>

<p>....and as to the deliberate -5EV 'test', that's just crazy recovery!</p>

<p>Hey, maybe the 2nd hand price for the D3S will drop now so i can afford one for dim, outdoor fast-action sports where high fps is as important as high ISO?</p>

Why "venture" into wedding photography? How about just enjoying your hobby? I don't do weddings but if I did, I would

not choose the D750 over the 810 because the 810 is much quieter than the 750. I own both but I think the 810 is a better

camera for my corporate journalism work, it is just so quiet. I bought the 750 for ski season and it will be great for that.

<p>I'm concentrating on portraits for now, but if I get request for weddings, I don't think I want to turn them down, especially if I know the client. As with any business supply and demand dictates your progression, maybe I won't have to worry about weddings :) I was/am concerned about the shutter noise on the D750, but Ross Harvey seems to be ok with it. </p>

<p>I haven't used the D750, at least not yet, but have the D810. It is true Nikon has managed to keep the sound from the mirror movement to the minimum in the D810 (basically the slap at the end of the mirror raise is eliminated by slowing down the movement towards the end), which is nice, but not necessarily a requirement for photographing weddings; I've used louder cameras without ever getting a complaint at a wedding, where people expect to be photographed. It is a different matter in some classical concerts where you can hear the camera from the music quite easily and it can be a problem. The D750's tilting screen may be helpful in getting some variation in the height and angle from which the shots are made. I think either camera would do well. Personally I find the 36MP files from the D800/D810 a little heavy in terms of post-processing and 24MP files are faster to work with. The D750's enhanced sensitivity in low light (AF system) may turn out to be an asset in wedding photography in dark churches and restaurants, though the D810 AF is already very good. I think the D7000 would suffice as backup camera though you may need some lenses that are different lenses for each, while the majority can be used for both assuming you use FX lenses.</p>

<p>The D750 would be a great choice for any type of photography, but especially for shooting weddings, events, etc. Personally, I think far too much is made of resolution. Sharpness in a photo is important, but resolution is absolutely not unless you're making very, very large prints. I'm still shooting with my D300s and it still takes great photos. . . I find 12mp plenty for my landscape photography, or anything I shoot. I always like looking at the top rated photos on Photo Net, and am always amazed at how many outstanding pictures are taken with 10 or 12 mp cameras, or less. A smaller, more agile camera body definitely has its advantages. And the $1,000 difference is no small amount. That could help buy a great professional lens.</p>

<p>While the D810 has an excellent quiet mode, in particular, I really appreciate Quiet Continuous, but it is not a must have for wedding photography. Several years ago I captured a wedding with the D3, back then the high-ISO champ, and that was loud. After the D3, Nikon started adding the quiet mode to the D3S, D300S, etc. When I first got the D7000, it was so quiet that I was wondering whether the shutter fired or not before I got used to it.</p>

<p>36MP is often an overkill so that the D750 may work for you. While having multiple compatible camera bodies is important for wedding so that you have backups, by no means it is a requirement to have two identical bodies. In fact, I have never owned two identical Nikon models; for me, the closest was an FE and an FE2 in the 1980's. If I shoot weddings, I bring a minimum of three camera bodies, but I in fact prefer different camera to take advantage of their different strengths. For example, a D800/D810 can be better for group images where there is more potential for larger prints, while a D4 or D750 may give you better high-ISO results.</p>

<p>If necessary, you can always rent a camera for the day you need a backup, until you acquire a full set of equipment that meets your needs.</p>

<p>At ISO 9000:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No chroma noise, no patches and no banding. Uniform and consistent. Quality stuff, guys and girls. Remember that’s <strong>SOOC without any noise reduction whatsoever</strong>. --Ross Harvey, as cited above by Paul K at <a href="http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review"><strong>this link</strong></a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I saw the shot Ross Harvey was talking about at the link just noted. (The woman sitting on the front pew has a broad grin.) The shot is indeed impressive in terms of noise management at high ISO. There is some noise at that ISO, of course, but he is right: "no patches and no banding."<br /><br />Now I am getting interested.</p>

<p>He even likes it better than the D3S in some respects. Wow.</p>

<p><strong>Manageable noise. Twenty-four megapixels. </strong></p>

<p>Sounds too good to be true. I will still wait for more full-sized files, but I am encouraged. Every 24-mp camera to date has had more noise than I have felt comfortable with for my style of shooting--sometimes I shoot<a href="/photo/17505721"><strong> moving subjects in low ligh</strong></a>t. Could the D750 be the one that finally makes 24 megapixels truly useable in low light?<br /> <br /><br />--Lannie</p>

<p><<While having multiple compatible camera bodies is important for wedding so that you have backups, by no means it is a requirement to have two identical bodies. >></p>

<p>Not a "requirement", but it is extra insurance you won't inadvertently set something wrong, or miss a shot while you're hunting for a setting that's done differently from your "usual" camera. Consistency is a definite virtue for this kind of shooting, and for that reason only I have x2 D7100. A bonus is they render color the same way, naturally.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Kent, actually I think it is not necessarily a good idea to have two of the latest DSLR, as you have two of them depreciating rapidly. I typically buy one new model and use the older one that was my primary camera as the backup. I find that to be a much more efficient way to spend my money.</p>

<p>Now, if one's photo business generates so much income so that you can justify several new D4S at once, as some high-profile sports photographers can, that is a totally different story.</p>

<p>I just found<a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM"><strong> this. </strong></a></p>

<p>(This was on Imaging Resource.)</p>

<p>My own quick comparison indicates that the D750 can give cleaner files than the D610. My conclusions are impressionistic, and perhaps someone else can give a more definitive comparison.</p>

<p>The site allows for comparisons of the D750 with other cameras (including the D810). I was concerned only with high ISO comparisons of the D750 with the D610. I apologize if that is off-topic, but perhaps the Imaging Resource site can be used to make other comparisons more relevant to this thread.</p>

<p>--Lannie<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p><a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d750/nikon-d750A7.HTM"><em>These</em> </a><a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d750/nikon-d750A7.HTM"><em>sample images</em></a> from the D750 (also from the Imaging Resource site) have been up for several days, but I did not see them.</p>

<p>I presume that DPReview will start posting more samples as they become available.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>The Imaging Resource site posts only out-of-the-camera JPGs for their comparison images and IMHO, are not necessarily a fair test of a camera's ability. There are many excellent 3rd party programs that can probably do a better job of processing images than the in-camera processing. I think the DXO numbers, once published, will be quite interesting.</p>

I have the 810 & 750. I love the 750 but find the shutter / mirror noise to be louder than the D800 which was the loudest

35mm SLR I have ever owned. On the other side of that equation, the 810 is the quietest SLR I have ever owned so it

seems to be working out.