Jump to content

Used D800 vs. D750


kylebybee

Recommended Posts

<p>I'm wanting to upgrade from my D7000 to a full frame body for portrait work. I would like opinions on which to get between a used D800 for around $1,600.00 or the the D750 kit with the 24-120 lens for $2,700.00. Mostly want to hear about performance pros/cons rather than cost effectiveness.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I would take the D750 because of its newer, and very highly regarded AF. The main reason I don't personally use the D750 is because the D810 is quieter and for certain types of events that I shoot, it is a beneficial characteristic, even though the D750 has a bit better high ISO and more sensitive AF in low light. My hands also fit around the D810 better than the D750, but a lot of people actually seem to prefer the handling of the D750, so this is something you should test yourself before buying. Also the D810 and D800 have slightly different grip shapes.</p>

<p>Do you have any FX lenses yet? I typically use 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/4 when I shoot portraits. The 24-70 is used for full body, small groups, and 2/3 body shots and then for the close-ups I usually use the longer zoom. For available light portraits or mixed flash/available light, I usually use fast primes (35, 58, 85, and 105), but these are more optional. I don't like the 24-120/4 much, to be honest; I think it is best used for those situations where you must have the 5x range. I think the 24-70 and both the f/2.8 and f/4 70-200's give much better image quality at a broad range of apertures and focal lengths whereas the 24-120/4 is good at around its optimal aperture range from f/5.6 to f/8. If the 24-120/4 in a kit is what you can afford then I would not object, if the price is right, but to get the best quality in low light you probably want to add some primes (the f/1.8 AF-S Nikkors are very good). The reason I prefer the 70-200/4 over the f/2.8 version is because I typically use this lens for head and shoulders or tighter and the f/4 version is much lighter weight and about equal in image quality and in my opinion has more consistently good out of focus rendering than the 70-200mm f/2.8 II. Also the f/4 zoom does focus closer and there is the option of <em>very</em> tight framing e.g. for head shots of children, if you need it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In which way do you feel a D7000 with 85mm f/1.8 is holding you back from getting good portraits?<br>

I'm not saying that there are no advantages to moving to a full frame camera, but gear-wise, lenses are a more important part (though I happen to like the 24-120VR for what it is - but sure versatility comes at a price). And light is the single most important thing with portraits.<br>

Given that you only have two FX lenses at this point, I'd first start getting the lenses (and in case you do not have those, a pair of flashes) and then upgrade to FX body when the move doesn't leave you with awkward gaps. Personally, I am not so much fan of the f/2.8 zooms; I do not doubt their optical qualities, but they're just too heavy, and expensive, to my taste. Personally, I am fine with the combination of a slower zoom (24-120) with primes alongside. For facial portraits, I much like my 180mm f/2.8. In the end, it's a matter of preference. But I'd first get clear which lens set I'd want, and then see which format sensor fits best with that.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kyle's situation is completely different from Ilkka's. Ilkka has far more lenses than he can ever use, while Kyle has two FX lenses.</p>

<p>As a general rule of thumb, most of one's gear budget should go to lenses, and I would spend money on improving your photo skills, which may mean more seminars, workshops, travel .... Camera bodies are also important, but get out of date quickly and therefore depreciate rapidly. Definitely buy a good enough body to meet your nees, but prepare to upgrade somewhat often should your demands move up. Therefore, there is definitely no point to buy an expensive body and then have insufficient lenses to match it.</p>

<p>If you are willing to buy used, go used. Not sure it is easy to get a good deal on a used D750 like this one: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dIgU, but used D800 are generally very good value for the money. A used D750 should cost about the same.</p>

<p>The main advantage of a new D750 is the package deal with the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR. That is one of my favorite lenses. As a 5x zoom, it is not the best optically, especially on the 24mm end. Chromatic aberration and the loss of quality around the edges is quite obvious. However, it is a very versatile lens. Should you need to make huge prints from wide angles, get an affordable 35mm/f1.8, 28mm/f1.8 or 20mm/f1.8.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I had a D7000 and D800 and recently sold the D7000 and bought a D750 since I have only full frame lenses. IMO the differences in ISO performance, focusing and the like between the D800 and the D750 are insignificant for portrait work. To me the differences between the two cameras is more in the size and weight. I tend to use the D800 more for studio work and the D750 more in the field. If I could only have one I think it would be a flip of a coin that made the decision.<br /> The D7000 is still an excellent camera. I agree that your money might be better spent buying high quality glass. I always liked my D7000 but continually got more respect for what it could do as I purchased pro level lenses. Once you have the lenses then think about a new body.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have the D7000 and D750, the latter purchased earlier this year. You'll notice improvements with focus - including normal situations rather than just low light - and better high ISO performance. Cropped images benefit as well. Either a new D750 or used D800 will decline in value but you would have warranty protection with a new camera. Can't comment about the D800.<br>

Seemingly the responses introduced an additional decision branch; camera first then lens or lens first then camera. At some point you'll want better glass for either format.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I bought a used D800E for portrait (and some wedding) work. These are paid gigs. The reasons a used D800E is a better choice than a new D750 are:<br>

1) more resolution. I bought the camera to make really big enlargements.<br>

2) better sharpness than either D70 or D819<br>

3) much lower price. Almost always, maybe 90% of the time, you are FAR better off putting money into lenses than camera bodies. You really are most weak in lenses.</p>

<p>I'll give you a rough idea here. I spent $1,500 for the used D800E. I then had to buy new lenses, and went for the very best. Even buying used that was over $6,000. So, lenses to camera 4:1 seems to be about the average ration when I think of what the full time wedding guys I know are using. OH, the other BIG BIG thing for portraits is the lighting system. I have about $6,000 in lighting gear. Yes, a little light on that, but I'm nowhere near full time with it. If you are just doing this for fun you could easily get by with just $2,000 in lighting. I do see lighting as the difference between a pro and a dabbler though.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If I own a lens that I don't use often enough, I put it on the second hand market as that way it can be of use to someone who would actually use it, and they can get it for a lower price than if they had to buy it new. It was not my intention to suggest that the OP buy a lot of lenses but only to give my favorite lenses for portraiture as suggestions. I think one can easily get by with 2-3 lenses if one specializes in one or a few types of photography. If one shoots a lot of varied photography subjects then the lens collection tends to grow beyond that.</p>

<p>Since you have an 85mm prime and a telezoom, I recommend adding a wide angle (e.g. 35mm prime) for whole body portraits and such; indoors it would be difficult to get more of the body (than head and shoulders) in the image using a tele and outdoors it would require increasing distance between photographer and subject, making it more difficult to communicate. I prefer a more intimate perspective where the subject and the photographer are fairly close to each other, which is why I recommend a 35mm (or 50mm) for full body shots. A 35mm prime is fast enough for indoor available light shots, compact, and affordable. It also gives enough background blur for whole body shots that you get a bit of separation. A 24-120/4 could be used if you must, but at wide angle settings almost everything will be in focus so the background isn't appreciably blurred. Also it is a bit fuzzy at f/4.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For portraits a used D600 should be the best value for money. I think you can find them for $900 or so. You'll get 24 megapixel of full frame greatness. If you get one that has had the shutter replaced you are essentially getting a D610. AF capability is more than enough for portraits.</p>

<p>Don't know what kind of portraits you do but I would sink most money into light. That will make the biggest difference to the end results.</p>

<p>On lenses you don't need edge sharpness like the landscape guys do. So a lot of lenses are fine when it comes to quality. Better to get one or two primes for reasons below.</p>

<p>Images that has quality lighting and images that are creamy with little depth of field are the two kind of images that uncle bob with the kit lens can't make. That is if you want to differentiate your images from what people can take themselves and getting paid. If you're just doing it for fun then it doesn't make a big difference either way.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Buying used there is a lot of risk there so I don't know.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is the risk? It either works as it should or not. If it works then you are in exactly the same position today that you would been after buying a new one and using it for 12 months.</p>

<p>I like buying used from hobbyists and using the gear for professional use. That way you get gear that someone has been carrying around like it was a newborn baby and it has seen nowhere near the use that pro gear would have in the same time. And the first owner handled the initial value depreciation, because he wanted the latest and greatest (at the time).</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I said I don't know so I offer no recommendation on this issue. But I said I like the D800 better. There may be a problem that upon examination during the few minutes checking you don't see it. I heard some D800 had cracked casting that is very difficult to know when you buy.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Considering all the issues Nikon has been having the past few years, the risk is just as big buying new. Everything photographic I have, I bought used. I've had no issues. In one sense there is no "risk" buying something new: you KNOW you're going to be spending a lot more money for something.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>At the risk of going it alone here I'd get the D800 or 800E and add a manual focus 105/2.5, one of the older ones from KEH. You are then covered by some warranty and know what you are getting. AF is overrated in a portrait situation, nearly a pointless feature in my opinion. I prefer to focus myself nearly always but especially in a studio. It's fun to have several lenses to pick from in the bag but you'll find that there are 2 or three that work for you nearly always in a given situation. The rest will end up being used rarely, nice to have when you need them but you will have what I call the money lenses with you all the time. The zooms are nice and get the job done for portraits but I have a couple of primes, the 105, an 85/2, 28/3.5, that I would never part with. What goes in the bag always? 80-200, 300, 28-75/2.8. So I will stand by my first statement: D800/800E and a 105/2.5 mf.<br>

<br />Rick H.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd handle them and see. I went D700, D800e, D810.

Curious, I tried a D750 in a shop, and it felt like a toy - I

wasn't expecting such a difference. But it will also feel

more like a D7000. The low-light AF is supposedly better

on the D750, but the AF points are also clustered more

centrally (and they'll already probably be more grouped

than you expect if you're used to DX). If you're looking at

an 800 and not an 800e, you might have marginally better

moiré resistance than the D750, if you're doing a lot of

clothing. Both are fine cameras. As others have said,

lenses and light probably matter more - though the

dynamic range is very liberating in post. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love my D750 but I did not like the 24-120 f4. I thought I was tired of carrying around 2.8's (I had a D7000 and a 17-55 f2.8) so I thought the 24-120 would be a nice downsize compromise. But I found the focus tracking slow and the lens was much larger than I expected. The range to 120mm was surprising and a little strange since I was used to the the 17-55 (~24-70 in FF). In the end I sold the lens to KEH for pretty good money, about what I paid for it when considering the kit price. I bought myself a used 24-70 f2.8 and I love it. If you are only doing portraits than maybe the 24-120 is ok for you, I don't know if you'll miss the f2.8-f4 range or not. I love the D750, it is a huge step up from the D7000 in terms of high ISO, focus speed and overall awesomeness. For shooting my kids, you cannot beat the D750 in low light, great colors and AF, for the money that is.

 

As for buying used, I would not hesitate buying used from BH, KEH or Adorama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"If you're looking at an 800 and not an 800e, you might have marginally better moiré resistance than the D750, if you're doing a lot of clothing."<br>

<br>

Why? The D750 has an optical low pass filter over the sensor like the D800. Are you thinking that the higher pixel density will make a noticeable difference in the moire'?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>d 750 - 1/4000<br /> d 800 - 1/8000</p>

<p>id take a d800 anytime</p>

<p>well..back then i only had 1/2000 and it pissed me off, too many times.<br>

this however depends on what you want to do or if it is just another possibility to you.</p>

<p>if i did not destroy everything and was busy buying back what i destroy id pick up a d800.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... Does that make sense? If 36mp can be problematic with anything handheld, anything less than 36 mp is problematic because of being less than 36 mp, even when the real reason for the 'problem' - handholding - is not present. The fact that something less than 36 mp apparently/supposedly is able to mask the loss of IQ due to handholding, 'by virtue of' a lack of IQ due to being less than 36 mp, is hardly a reason to forego the chance to get some better IQ. Using 36 mp will not be worse, but can be better. Les sthan 36 mp can never be better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>36MP is not really problematic for hand holding, but if you are mostly hand holding, 36MP is most likely a waste of pixels, as any tiny bit of camera shake or subject motion is literally going to blur any difference between 24MP and 36MP, and probably for 12MP as well. You'll end up with a lot of huge 36MP image files that take up space and slow down your process but there is no more information and details than 12MP.</p>

<p>Kyle, I suggest you visit a high-end camera store and handle a D750 and a D810 (or used D800) in person. See whether you are happy with the controls on either one of them. There are a lot of tiny changes from the D800 and D810, including the grip. The D810 is a bit more comfortable, but if you are happy with the D810, chance is that you'll also be happy with the D800/D800E. You may also find my article useful: <a href="/equipment/nikon/D810-vs-D750/">Nikon D810 versus D750: Which to Choose?</a></p>

<p>But again, IMO lenses are more important than camera bodies.</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...