Nikon D750

[Mike D]

<p>Human nature leads us to always want more, faster, better. This applies to cars, boats, airplanes, bicycles, and just about everything else in life. If your aren't trying to get ahead, your're following behind. The same applies to cameras and lenses. Nikon and Canon do not appear to be providing the gear that their photo enthusiast customers think they should be so they imagine about what is needed and this is how rumors spread. Just give me a fast, modern, accurate cropped frame sports body that can upload images directly to my web site with little effort and I'm a happy camper. My kid's iPhone's can do this, why can't my D7100. I really don't want to spend $6,200 on a D4S. (PS, I now use a Sony A77 II (24 MP, 12 FPS, 52 image buffer) but it doesn't upload to the internet either.)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>My kid's iPhone's can do this, why can't my D7100.</em></p>

<p>Well the integration of mobile phone technology into a camera would necessarily make it somewhat larger and heavier and most people probably don't use a DSLR that way. I for example may post images online but they go through a rigorous editing procedure and the resulting images are very small compared to the information captured by the camera. So it's like using huge freight ship for the task of a small boat. To me a great part of the creative process in photography is in the post-processing and image selection so I wouldn't normally be posting anything online without going through a critical analysis. There is also a technical issue: high end DSLRs have a metal chassis that gives them some strength which is necessary for the precise relative alignment of the mirror, viewfinder, mount, AF sensor and main imaging sensor. If you want good wireless functionality the circuits relative to that would have to be outside of this chassis. In practice reports suggest that wifi functionality integrated into DSLRs (such as the D5x00) functions less well than that in mobile phones or point and shoots which do not require a metal chassis. The metal chassis attenuates or even blocks transmission of radio waves. Thus Nikon's more common solution is add-on wifi devices which you can use together with a mobile phone or tablet to post pictures online, if you must do this without a computer. Personally there is no situation where I would want to post images online without having gone through a proper computer. I understand that newspaper photographers would need to do that sometimes though, or at least send images to the office.</p>

<p>As for the relative popularity of the D800 family vs. D700, I agree with Shun; in my circle of photography-interested friends the D800 family has been much more popular than the D700 which most people saw as very low resolution for a full frame camera. It basically captures only a fraction of the detail that our lenses that we have paid for can render. The D800(E)/D810 are big improvements in that respect and the resolution is very useful for many practical situations. Of course high fps rates are also another feature of interest, though I never found much use for it since I normally photograph people at large apertures where the depth of field is so shallow that no AF can keep up with at 9fps. 5fps is much more realistic to use at f/2 or f/1.4. For stopped down photography, and some action-oriented lenses such as 70-200/2.8 II or 300/2.8 I suppose high fps and wide open usage can still be compatible but it never was my cup of tea.</p>

<p>That said, I fully support the idea of a versatile FX camera with 24MP and 8fps, I believe it would be a perfect balance of detail and speed for many users. I purchased the D810 and so I am not going to get a D750 (if realized along these specifications), however that is not because I don't like the rumoured specifications but simply because I need to work with a camera that exists today instead of something that may or may not exist in the future.</p>

<p>While I prefer the shallow depth of field and robust AF and detail of FX combined with fast lenses, I have applications where I use the D7100 in combination with a 200mm lens to record extra detail and perhaps better wide open image quality than a 1.4X TC could give with an FX camera. It works nicely for those situations (mainly photography of stage music and dance outdoors) but I wouldn't want to purchase a DX camera that is more expensive than the D7100 for these situations since it can not be my main camera for the shorter focal length work (due to absence of wide aperture DX wide angles mainly, but also for other reasons). So I appreciate that this camera, which I use for tele shots, is light weight and affordable. I do recognize the limitations of the D7100's buffer, but I think this will be remedied soon with an update, it is such an obvious feature to improve upon to beef up further sales. Otherwise I think it is close to being a perfect camera for the task, when combined with a high quality fast telephoto lens. If I were a high fps shooter I would work with the D4s (or D4, or D3s) and get the new TC-14E III, or a longer lens to get access to long focal lengths with the 9-11fps functionality of those cameras. However as I explained high fps is not a priority for me, and so I can work with the 5-6fps cameras that I already own, without experiencing much limitations. I am not interested in using DX for short focal length work at this point in development of the DSLRs, though if a nice lens to cover this need existed 5-10 years ago, I might have found it to work well enough to my needs. As things are I like the fact that Nikon is emphasizing the development of FX products since they are compatible with the kind of aesthetics that I like to strive for in my photos, and I like the big optical viewfinder image that FX DSLRs provide. However I absolutely think DX DSLRs are a great choice for photographers on a budget who do not have specific preference for shallow depth of field in conjunction with wide angle of view. The D7100 is light weight and feels very comfortable in my hands and I have used it more than other cameras this past summer. However, the detail from the D8x0(E) family and the tonal quality are in another class in my experience. And even if you don't make huge prints you can use it in action photography by framing with safety margins around the subject while shooting and then finishing up the composition in post processing. This I find to be a highly effective method for capturing action. I appreciate that for other types of work such as bird photography a DX DSLR can be preferred (especially since birds tend to be small and often there is need of more, not less depth of field) and I think the solution will be in the form of upgrades to the D7100 rather than to the D300s.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Depends entirely on what you shoot, really. If you used a grip with the D700 to shoot sports at 8fps, the D800 is going to disappoint. If you never bothered with the grip the D800 is not quite there, but the D810 has finally equalled the D700, and added its spectacular own pixel count and other advantages. Of course, the faster single digit bodies would be much better for fast action, though heavier and more cumbersome for all-day general use. What the D700 and D300 really nailed was the concept of the gerneral purpose camera that tackled everything reasonably well. Technology has moved on since then, but Nikon has also moved away from this sort of camera. The D750 may, or may not, change that (if it actually exists!).</blockquote>

 

<p>After the weekend... Firstly, a reminder that a D3 (1240g no battery) or D4s (1350g with battery) is slightly lighter than a D700 with a grip (1286g, no batteries). It's also smaller. If Nikon have an 8fps FX body <i>without</i> needing a grip, that's a significant new thing. Canon have had 8fps in the 7D without a grip for some time, but at full frame, the 5D3 can only get to 6fps.<br />

<br />

Given the D800's better low-light performance than the D700, the 1.2x crop mode that hit 5fps on that camera only really left it behind the gripless D700 in depth of field control.<br />

<br />

The D700 was a great low-light and consumer-grade sports camera - unsurprisingly for something with so much D3 in its lineage - but it's a bit questionable how general it was. I've used it for weddings (including mine!) and landscapes, but it really has too little resolution, too strong an AA filter, and insufficient dynamic range at low ISOs for those subjects (not that the 5D2 is better for dynamic range, but the D800 is); it's also a bit on the heavy side. It's a great camera, and by no means bad at these, but I really think for these situations, the 5D2 was somewhat better - while being comparatively hopeless for sports. The D800 reverses this - it's an amazing camera for slower, low ISO work. It's rarely much worse than the D700, but essentially it didn't improve on the D700's strengths, only its weaknesses. Canon made the 5D3 much much better as an action camera, and very slightly better for slower work - I've always said that it seems to be a better generalist than the D800. The D810 improves the responsiveness of the D800 to make it a better general-use camera, but the Canon probably still has the edge on autofocus and un-cropped speed.<br />

<br />

If there's an 8fps D750 (or whatever), it'll be a more direct competitor for the 5D3. But the multicam 3500 is getting quite long in the tooth despite software updates. I'd be a little surprised to see Nikon make a major change here since they didn't for the D4s, though. But Nikon often surprises me, and sometimes it's even in a good way!<br />

<br />

As for fast interweb uploads, may I recommend an Eye-Fi and tethering? I'm sure it's not perfect, but I believe it works. But I agree that this forum<br />

<br />

I've little doubt that the noise on this forum indicates there's more demand for a D7100 replacement, especially if it's closer to a D300s replacement, than yet another FX camera - even if it's a less niche one than the Df. We've spent so long talking about the other possible things Nikon could launch, it's interesting to divert to this area. But I hope we've been clear that it's no more than rumour - those sites which insist on discussing only the "facts" of the rumour itself may well run out of steam far sooner, and have less of interest to say. We've talked far less about what a D750 might be than the limitations and abilities of existing cameras and people's needs, which are reassuringly close to facts.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>But the multicam 3500 is getting quite long in the tooth despite software updates.</em><br /> <br /> Obviously the changes are not just software. The D810's developers stated in an interview published in Japanese and kindly translated by a native speaker at fotozones.com that state that the sensitivity of AF to the colour of the light was corrected in the D810 including hardware changes. Quoting Akira's translation<br /> "7. The AF is improved both on the hardware and the algorithm levels. Further details are classified.</p>

<p>8. The AF inaccuracy problem under incandescent/tungsten lightings is mitigated on the hardware level. Further details are classified."</p>

<p>"3500" in the module name to my understanding refers to the number of sensels (or that's the way it was in the early days) and it is not a part number; there are several different Multi-CAM 3500's units with different behaviour. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, Ilkka - and that may have been unfair of me, since even the D700 to D800 generation gained f/8 support while still claiming a Multicam-3500. Well spotted that there are hardware changes here too. Still, and while I'm glad to hear reports that the D4s and D810 have improved autofocus performance over the D800, there's no doubt that some key features of the 3500 - the total number of points, the number of cross-sensors, the areal coverage - have remained unchanged since the D3/D300 launch. Canon's autofocus in the 5D2 was truly archaic (the 1Ds-III had approximately the AF system of the Eos 1V, which was way more respectable), but the 5D3's system really does seem to have improved coverage. It's better still in the 1Dx because of the colour tracking from the meter (if I'm not confusing reviews I read a while back) - I'll be interested to see how the 5D3 compares to the D810 here - but it's still a little disappointing that Nikon haven't yet responded to the 1Dx/5D3 AF system more spectacularly.<br />

<br />

But if the D810 AF system is the improvement I hear, maybe I wouldn't be disappointed to see it in a "D750" after all.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>If the true spec is indeed 6.5fps in burst mode, Nikon have really messed up big-time....</p>

<p>....unless it's 8 or 9 with a grip..(just like the D700 it's replacing???)</p>

<p>6.5 just doesn't cut it. Sorry that's a big fat FAIL.</p>

<p>The D610 does 6fps...what's the point of 6.5 for 'Action'?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Mike and others, please keep in mind that rumours are not facts. Reading, and believing, rumors so that you are misled by them is going to bring you a lot of frustration.</p>

<p>I have read some stories that certain people sold their Canon 7D a year or two ago because they had read rumors that the 7D Mark II release was "imminent" such that they wanted to dump their old model before used prices were affected by the latest and greatest. They got burned quite badly as no 7D Mark II was actually introduced.</p>

<p>We'll resume the discussion when the dust settles.</p>