DXO has reviewed the D750

<p>According to their analysis, IQ wise, the D750 is basically the same as the D610, which is really no surprise. But I think the many improved features, especially with regard to AF, makes the D750 an excellent choice over many other Nikon choices. You can read the full review here:</p>

<p>http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D750-Sensor-Review-Another-Nikon-sensor-in-the-DxOMark-top-10</p>

<p>A comparison to the D610 and D810 is here:</p>

<p>http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D750-Sensor-Review-Another-Nikon-sensor-in-the-DxOMark-top-10/Nikon-D750-vs-D810-vs-D610-Nikon-D810-still-the-king-of-DSLR-image-quality</p>

<p>Thank you, Elliot! I've been waiting for this one, along with DPReview's full review.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Poking around DxO, the thing I found most surprising is just how badly Canon looks in comparison to the Nikons. I noted that their 6D was scored at 82, and the Nikon D7100 scored 83. One point may not be even noticeable in the real world, but put another way the D7100 is matching Canon's entry level FX model! The D750 is probably Nikon's best wedding camera, all in all. I would bet there are people selling their heavier D800 to get one now.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>Poking around DxO, the thing I found most surprising is just how badly Canon looks in comparison to the Nikons.</blockquote>

 

<p>Canon have a real problem with dynamic range at low ISO compared with Nikon/Sony sensors. They can offset this somewhat with the Magic Lantern dual-amplifier hack, but you really can't do the level of shadow recovery on a conventional Canon raw file that you can with the ISO 100 output of, say, a D800. On the other hand, the 6D is very competitive at higher ISOs (matching the D4) - at least on dynamic range, not so much on colour sensitivity. This from a camera that I'd otherwise dismissed as having very low specs compared with the D600. The 1Dx (and 1Dc) is a different beast, of course.</p>

 

<blockquote>The D750 is probably Nikon's best wedding camera, all in all. I would bet there are people selling their heavier D800 to get one now.</blockquote>

 

<p>Hmm. I don't seem to be able to get DxO's comparison tool to show me graphs for the D750, but I'm not sure there's much in the D750 that would make me want to replace a D800 for weddings, except possibly if I felt 36MP was overkill (and wasn't happy with the 1.2x crop solution). I'm interested that DxO seem to report slightly less dynamic range for the D810 compared with the D800 in the 200-1600 range - this is something that concerns me since I rely on having a lot of dynamic range available and that's likely the most useful range for me, but I'm aware that DxO's measurements might be being thrown slightly by different black level clamping on the 810 vs the 800. It's not a huge difference, in any case. But otherwise, while I'm impressed by what the D750 can do for the price, I'm absolutely not feeling NAS about one from my D800. Probably the biggest wedding-related selling point I could think of would be the highlight metering. It is, however, much more appealing than the D610 for weddings.<br />

<br />

I'd still take a D810 for weddings. Memory is just not that expensive, and the extra pixels are better than not having them. I'd sooner have the D810's handling than the D750's tilt LCD. But YMMV, and I weigh too much for the weight of my camera to be significant to me.</p>

<p>My thinking about D750 vs. D800 for weddings (I've used D800 a few times, D750 obviously not) is that the D750 is less money tied up and lighter. The files would certainly adequate for most low and medium priced weddings (customers who typically won't make huge enlargements) and the specs are in the ball park of the D800 (and better anything Canon offers.) The D7100 is still the best value for those starting out in wedding photography or doing it part time, I think.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p><em>I'm interested that DxO seem to report slightly less dynamic range for the D810 compared with the D800 in the 200-1600 range - this is something that concerns me since I rely on having a lot of dynamic range available and that's likely the most useful range for me, but I'm aware that DxO's measurements might be being thrown slightly by different black level clamping on the 810 vs the 800.</em></p>

<p>It's also possible that different implementations of the electronics causes the difference in dynamic range. The D810 has EFCS and expanded ISO range over the D800/E; these could have affected the signal quality a bit. In any case these differences are fairly small. Personally I prefer to have EFCS since in wintertime I often end up using 1/8s to 1/60s for landscape shots with teles and it affects the results quite a lot with some lenses that I have. Engineers have to deal with compromises all the time. Nikon is not putting EFCS into every camera just yet (neither are Sony, but Canon has it on most higher end models since many years), maybe they are testing and seeing if there are alternatives and what users think of it.</p>

<p>I prefer the D810 for several reasons: it fits my hands better than the D800 did, or the D750 which has an even smaller radius of curvature in the grip. The D810 also has a larger buffer than either the D800(E) or the D750, which can be significant in some event situations, also for sports etc. The D750 has slightly smaller coverage of AF points than the D8x0 family, which to me is a bit of a downside, I would hope the opposite direction of development, but the D750 was meant to be as small as possible for an FX DSLR so some compromises are expected. I understand that for people with smaller hands and shorter fingers the D750 may be just right. The D7100's small raw buffer has made me very much aware of the buffer and I would be reluctant to buy another camera with significant limitations in that area. But perhaps I'm just a prolific overshooter. ;-) To me the combination of faster fps but smaller buffer is a paradox; it doesn't make much sense in terms of optimizing the functionality of the camera.</p>

<p>I know many people like smaller cameras and this has been Nikon's aim in the D610/Df/D750, they are obviously looking at an optimal feature set in a compact FX camera that would sell well and solve user needs, but I personally think the D810 remains the best compact FX, but that assessment is based on my own needs and I would not be surprised if the D750 turns out to be very popular. I might buy one myself if it had a similar buffer as the D810 has in 1.2X crop mode. The developments of tilting LCD, seemingly very rugged construction (the way the body feels) yet quite light weight, high sensitivity AF, etc. are of course welcome. For example in some event situations, being able to use the LCD from a high or low vantage point to aim the camera and get unusual angles is useful, and both the D750 and D810 can shoot full speed in live view mode, something that some earlier models struggled with.</p>

<p>Also, of course it is great that Multi-CAM 3500 is now available in an FX camera at a lower price point than before.</p>

<p>Kent - yes, I agree that as a way of saving money, it's a good option. Though I suspect the used market for the D800 isn't so buoyant that you'd get a lot back if you did a trade in. Interesting that you feel Nikon's oldest camera is the best option! (Not that I particularly disagree, at least so long as you don't need the low light/depth of field abilities of FX.)<br />

<br />

Ilkka: Yes - I agree that, at worst, it's not <i>much</i> worse, and there's always ISO 64. I suspect the extra read-out speed may have had an effect, too. I'm not sure how much I'd use the EFCS, but there's a fair bit in the D810 that makes me want one anyway. Shame it doesn't shoot 4K, though.</p>

<p>interesting review. the buzz coming out of photokina wasn't that great--not just for nikon but for the entire industry, and many people started complaining initially about what nikon didn't deliver, rather than what they did. but the 20/1.8 looks like a winner, and now that reviews/tests are rolling in on the 750, it seems to be a better camera than many initially assumed, and one that clearly delineates nikon's FX line. if you're not absolutely sure you need 36mp, this is the FX body to get, for sure. i read the review from the D3s owner that Lannie posted with interest; as a D3s user myself, mine is starting to get long in the tooth, and i could use a resolution bump, but dont NEED 36mp and dont want to sacrifice too much high-ISO/low-light ability. the smaller weight is a plus for PJ applications, as are the video features. and the inferior AF in the 600/610 would have been too much of a downgrade for me after using the D3s. so just when i was on the fence about investing anymore into nikon, they come out with a lens and a body that both appeal to me and work well with how/what i shoot. damn you nikon! now i have to come up with $3k or so... not that i wouldn't ever want an 810, but i just don't see that as an everyday, all-purpose kind of camera (for what i shoot, anyway).</p>

<p>I think the body is a winner. Its low light AF performance is excellent. Its image quality it excellent even at high ISO (its high ISO performance is very, very close to the D3S - so close it would be difficult to see any differences in typically sized prints). The price is certainly right! What is there not to like? But no, I would not trade a D3S for it. Nor would I get a D750 over a D810 unless money was an issue.</p>