Is the D750 a replacement for the D700?

<p>I bought a D750 about two months ago. I had already parted with my D7100 and had no backup camera, just the D700. My 7100 just didn't have high enough ISO for me coming from a D700 and the buffer was too shallow for my shooting. My plans were to use both the D750 and the D700, but in practice there isn't anything that the D750 can't do better. Two card slots, with fast cards and it chugs right along for my road race shooting or as a backup for critical events. At first I thought the 24mp size was going to cause me grief, but I heavily use the DX (1.5) and 1.2 crop modes. Completely awesome. Walking around with the D750 is like walking around with an FX and DX camera. Minus the big wad of cash missing from my wallet. Low light is also completely awesome. The compressed focus points give me no issue in practice. I'm coming from a place where I thought there was no replacement for a D700. Portraits and street photography, outstanding! I'm not a huge fan of the way the grip feels, but its not a big deal. Heavy use of custom menus and I don't mind loosing better button layout of the D700. The folding LCD screen, haven't used it yet. but plan on it.</p>

<p>Anyone else make the jump to a D750 from a D700? I figured its good to get feedback over time for anyone else considering doing the same thing.</p>

 

<p>Not from a d700, but I was considering the d750 would be my next camera in a year or so (I would save for a used one and a lens to go with as an upgrade to my d7000). The purchase might come sooner rather than later (I'm down a card slot in my d7000). Good to know you are enjoying yours.</p>

<p>It's a downward jump I would think. The D750 is a lot less expensive than the D700.</p>

<p>The same that has been said in a recent thread about D300 vs D7100/D7200 applies here too. The D300 and D700 are older technology - the newer D7200/D750 have more MP, improved AF, newer processor, better dynamic range, two card slots, quieter operation. They also have a different chassis construction and a different control layout. Adding the MB-D10 (with the proper batteries) to either the D300 or D700 gave 8 fps - a frame rate neither of the new cameras can achieve (and pretty much the only thing where the older is objectively "better").</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The logical (or not so logical) successor to the D700 is the D800 and its twin, the D800E. The initial prices are the same $3000 for the D700 and D800 alike. (The D800E was $300 more at $3300.) The control layout are very similar with the 10-pin connector that is present only on higher-end Nikon DSLRs, and the top shutter speed is the same 1/8000 with 1/250 sec flash sync. But the D800 moved up from 12MP to 36MP, probably more than what a lot of people need.</p>

<p>The D800/D800E were succeeded by the D810, which inherited the D800E's $3300 introduction price but soon dropped back down to $3000. Country of manufacturing moved from Japan to Thailand for the D810.</p>

<p>Nikon attempted to position the D750 between the D810 and D610, probably to justify its $2300 initial price. However, I think it is more like a D600/D610-class DSLR with controls dating back to the D70, D80, D90 and the D7000 series. I know that pointing this out is going to drive those Df lovers nuts, but the D600, D610, D750, and Df are all lower-tier FX bodies with a 1/4000 sec top shutter speed and 1/200 sec flash sync without the 10-pin connector.</p>

<p>The D750 differs from the D600/D610 and Df with Nikon's aging but still currently best Multi-CAM 3500 AF module and an articulated LCD. Otherwise, it is still mostly a D600/D610 class camera, and it didn't take very long before Nikon dropped $300 to restore the D610's original $2000 price point, while the D610 remains current in the line up with deep discounts as the starter FX body.</p>

<p>The advantages The D750 has over the D700 Stephen observes are all due to technological improvements. Back in 2011, I pointed out that the D700 was inferior to even the D7000 in a lot of ways: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Ytvg</p>

<p>See my post at Jun 16, 2011; 05:55 p.m.</p>

<p>I read many of these threads and I tell my self to stay out of them and yet here I am. So here are my 2 cents worth and these are only my personal opinions based on my owning knowledge of some of these bodies. Currently I own a D300s, (Sold my D700), D7000, D7100, D7200 D800E and just purchased a D750. My passion is street photography and nothing is more important to me than Auto focus speed and a nice clean capture rate. First, while the D300s and the D700 were cutting edge when they came out and yes they do give 8fps, what is never mentioned is how many of those captures were out of focus, noisy and the sensors in shadows and high contrast situations simply can't compete with these new modern sensors. As for image quality in real world pixel peeping of which for my style of shooting I do not do, I see very little difference between the the D7000, D7100. In fact, when I went to the D7100 from the D7000, I was hugely dissapointed. I could not see the difference that DPR saw in their review. In fact, I prefer the D7000 over the D7100. When the D7200 came out, I kept reading and hearing of how great the D7200 focus speed and image quality is, so I bought one with great skepticism. Now that D7200 is an animal. It is a beast. Awesome autofocus speed, killer DR, Rarely miss focuses. This is a huge upgrade and now my most used camera. In fact it is the performance of the D7200 that caused me to purchase the D750 and again, this camera does not disappoint. While not a huge upgrade over the D7200, it gives my pictures with a different feel. I love the face detection and the DOF at the same normal appertures I shoot at. I love it, especially as it starts to get dark and I can keep shooting. The lenses seem to perform better for a reason I can't explain. But the same lenses seem to focus better on the D750 over the D7200. As for the D800E, I rarely use it. The Autofocus speed is simply not there. That is however my go to camera when shooting my Daughters Volleyball or basket ball games. For indoor use it Rocks. As for my sons Football games, That D7200 is untouchable. It laughs at my old school D300S. If you wish to see some of my pictures, I leave all the EXIF info all them. If the link is not cool, then a mod can delete it. But in there you will see pictures with the above mentioned bodies along with many others. Again, I am just a hobbyist....<br /> Thanks for reading<br /> Javier <br /> https://www.flickr.com/photos/jgredline/<br>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jgredline/</p>

Forgot to mention my take on the shutter speed. only 4000, but in practice I haven't seen any issues. Base ISO is 100 vs

200 on the d700 makes up for that. ISO 100 also makes outdoor model/portraits easier since I can shoot with say f4

where I was only able to get to f5.6 with a studio light since I routinely run into the sync speed issue.

<p>The lack of the 1/8000 sec top shutter speed is more an indication of the quality of the camera (and its shutter). Most people don't use 1/8000 sec that often.</p>

<p>While there are some improvements for the latter versions of the Multi-CAM 3500 to the earlier ones, I see less of a difference than a lot of people do.</p>

Yup.. Agreed. The one thing I wish is that the shutter were quieter. It's better than the d700' but still not as quiet as it

could be.

<blockquote>

<p>The lack of the 1/8000 sec top shutter speed is more an indication of the quality of the camera (and its shutter). Most people don't use 1/8000 sec that often.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, I'm confused, why would the lack of a 1/8000 sec top shutter speed be an indication of the quality of the camera? </p>

<p>I use f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses routinely with my D700, and ISO LO 1.0 (i.e. ISO 100) and 1/8000 sec is a great convenience compared to having to put on an ND filter. The D750 can go to ISO 1.0 (i.e. ISO 50) and 1/4000 sec, which is the same EV. But it would have been terrific if the D750 could go to 1/8000 sec as well, and pull out another stop in bright sunlight without having to go to an ND filter. I recognize that not everyone needs to shoot white buildings in direct sun at f/1.4, but like many features it's a nice to have --- some people wouldn't care, but for me, it would be a useful convenience.</p>

<p>The D4s goes to ISO 50 and 1/8000 sec; surely that's not because it's a low quality camera!</p>

<p>Samuel, it was my choice of words that leads to the ambiguity. Let me re-phrase what I wrote:<br>

<br /> The lack of the 1/8000 sec top shutter speed is more an indication of the absence of top quality of the camera (and its shutter). Most people don't use 1/8000 sec that often.</p>

<p>In other words, the lack of 1/8000 sec indicates that the D750 is not a top-of-the-line, pro quality camera, so is the 150K-actuation shutter rating, instead of 200K for the D800/D810 and 400K for the D4/D4S.</p>

<p>Nikon seem a bit schizophrenic when it comes to what "pro" means. I currently struggling to find the list of cameras that qualify you for "pro" membership, and the support system that has historically split between pro and amateur cameras now seems not to be. However, Nikon Europe's <a href="http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/products/category_pages/digital_cameras/category_SLR.page?">SLR finder</a> lists only the D810A, D4s, D810, D300s(!) and F6 as "professional photography level". The D700 used to count as well, although I'm not sure the D300 did. Whether this makes a difference in the real world is another matter.<br />

<br />

The D750 does have a smaller AF area coverage than the D700 (or D8x0), although it also has slightly better low-light performance. I'm glad to have a 1/8000 shutter on the D810, and I did hit that last week while shooting into the sun with deliberate underexposure for later tone mapping (even at ISO 64), but I agree that the ISO base makes up for it - the flash sync is the same. I never used my D700 at 8fps, although I did pick up a cheap third-party battery grip for it just in case; I have a V1 which can match this (in good light) anyway.<br />

<br />

Having gone from a D700 to a D800, I absolutely always thought of the D800 as the successor, especially using 1.2x crop to match the 5fps shooting rate. There are handling changes that got worse from the D700 to D800 (and D800 to D810), but other things improved. The D750 is very much a D7200's big brother, just as the D610 is the D7000's big brother - it handles more like those cameras than the D300/D700 generation. Whether "different" is "worse" is a matter of opinion. Enough cheese moved between the D700 and D800 (especially the +/- buttons) that switching between them drove me nuts anyway. I got a D800 partly for dynamic range, partly for resolution; I got a D810 for a number of minor upgrades, especially autofocus. The AF downgrade would have stopped me taking the D600 route from my D700; the D750 fixes that, and really should make most D700 upgraders happy.<br />

<br />

The exception will be those who got the D700 to use with a grip as a budget D3. The thing about that is that it impacted D3 sales to some extent (I say that with confidence, because I considered a D3), and Nikon had the D3s with a better (low-light) sensor waiting in the wings. If you want the D4 sensor, there's obviously the Df, but it's no competition to the D4 for sports shooting in the way the D700 was to the D3. If Nikon come up with a "D710" (or whatever) that's a D800-class body with a D4s sensor in it, with some high(ish) frame rate shooting ability, I'd immediately be looking to see what sensor the D5 will have in comparison. To be clear, Nikon's FX range is already packed, and I'm not expecting any such camera (not that I'd know...) Sorry to the D700-plus-grip users; at this point, your "cheap upgrade" is a D3s or a D4.</p>