Questions before I get a D750

[robert_stig]

<p>When i bought my d600 it had 120 frames on it. I found out after my first event. I uploaded the last pic to a website, minus the pictures it shot total and it had 120 frames. Im almost certain the store sold me a returned camera because the packaging inside wasnt closed properly. Not an issue as i passed the camera to a friend i work with and we traded cameras. He knows this too.</p>

<p>My question is, when u bought the d750, did u check how many frames it had?</p>

<p>my other question is for those whove used a pro dslr camera like a d3 and above. I ask them specifically because id like to know the shutter lag with the d750 vs a pro body. The d600 is molasses slow and want to know if you could feel the difference from the time you depress the shutter release button down till it starts the cycle. The d3/4 are lightning quick but i just hated using the d600 and could very easily feel the huge delay with it. Those who dont have pro bodies dont be offended. The pro cameras a re a certain standard im familiar with and want feedback compared to those</p>

<p>my last question again is to the d3s/d4 only owners/shooter as i shot with a d3s/d4 and want to know how well the image is from iso 4000-12800. At weddings i shoot a lot from 4k-12800 and from my experience with the d600, its limit was iso 4000. It just broke up after that. U may say otherwise but to me it wasnt useable over 4k. Just want to know how useable it really is to 8000( which would be my acceptable limit) yes ive seen reviews but like the d600 where it was said to be great to 6400, at 4000 it was its absolute limit. The same with the d3s/d4. Their limits are around 8000 but can be used at 12800 if ur in an emergency.</p>

<p>As long as u have good lenses and overexpose a bit extra Ill always get a good image.</p>

<p>again non d3+ owners dont be offended. If you asked me something about any other camera i wouldnt know how to help as ive never owned them. Ive only used these cameras. Cheers</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>" The d600 is molasses slow.." - Really?<br>

Imaging Resource <em>measured</em> (as opposed to felt) the D600 shutter lag at 54 milliseconds, and the D4 at 43 milliseconds. That's only 10 thousandths of a second slower, while the D3 was measured at 49 milliseconds, which is a tiny 5 milliseconds slower.<br>

I daresay they'll measure the D750 soon.</p>

<p>Compared to their AF locking times, the difference in shutter lag is absolutely insignificant.<br>

Links: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d600/nikon-d600A6.HTM<br>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3/D3A6.HTM<br>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d4/nikon-d4A6.HTM</p>

 

[robert_stig]

<p>If you go by numbers than u are naive. Reviewers have interest. I dont believe but a few who are very trustworthy. Do u choose gear by what dxomark scores?<br /> and having owned the d600, it was slow. To u maybe it was fast but everytime i switched from the d3s/d4 to the d600 i sighed knowing it was a slow camera. Maybe we have different tolerences of whats slow, i dont know. <br /> But those numbers dont mean a thing to me. It was also said in reviews the pictures that at iso 6400 its better than the d700/d3 but it simply isnt the case. D600 falls aprt from iso 4000 up. Shooting so many weddings with the d600 its not what reviewers hyped it up to be. Af is slow shutter lag is long and iq is good to only iso 4000. Oh and the colors are horrible as well. Even brenizer noted it also<br /> Reviewers today have an interest to tell u what u want to hear so youll buy from their links and they can make<br /> money. So i.Only ask those who are pwners and maybe 1 or two reviewers and not completely trusting even then</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I haven't used the D600 but I have extensively used another sensor that is of the same family, the one in the D800. My experience is that the 12MP sensors in the D3/D700 produced more noisy images at ISO 6400 in daylight but they were well behaved when the images were shot in low K artificial light (such as candle light or tungsten) and colour corrected in post-processing whereas the D800 sensor produces beautiful results at ISO 6400 when correctly exposed in daylight, but it produced a pattern of lines if low color temperature (warm light) images were colour corrected and this was very objectionable to me. It looks like this issue has been fixed in the D810. My general feeling is that Nikon's 12MP and 16MP FX sensors produce images at high ISO that are easier to work with in terms of colour. But of course they are lower resolution, so there is a tradeoff.</p>

<p>As for the perceived delay, without doubt the AF in the D600 (which has the Multi-CAM 4800 sensor) is slower than AF in a camera that has Multi-CAM 3500. As for the delay in triggering the camera, if you set the camera to manual focus mode there should not be much difference in delay between cameras that are this modern. The D810 is known to be a bit slower than the D800 because it has a motor that slows down the mirror movement so that it doesn't cause as loud a sound or as much vibration. This additional deal is to my recollection about 10ms. To me it's entirely acceptable, and I'm very pleased with the D810's sound. It only takes mild chatting between people and they don't notice the camera going off. That's pretty good achivement and worth 10ms delay ... for reference, the F-801s which is a popular Nikon film camera, had a delay of approximately 250ms. And that was without AF, or automatic exposure. In autoexposure mode it was noticeably slower still, and that I found quite annoying and noticeable, so I used it in manual mode to avoid the issue.</p>

<p>As for number of frames in cameras, I have never looked at the shutter count before using the camera, but I have bought all my cameras from stores where I can examine it before actually paying for it, to be sure that everything is in order. I sometimes think mail order store return policy (which I guess is based on legislation) is too liberal. </p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Here is a quote from Fred...a comparisons....<br>

<em>"I've used D300, D700, D3s, D4, D800 and they all feel the same really on shutter release."</em></p>

<p>This is pretty much the way I feel. I'm not throwing D90 into this :>). I currently have D610 (by choice) and it's not lagging behind in shutter or ISO's. I've looked at D750/D610 comparisons (visuals)....and unless you enlarge the images to obscene sizes (over 30x40) it's doubtful that there will be a lot of difference.....and this was at ISO 6400 (imaging-resource).</p>

<p>My take is, that if I can't take the photo with my current rig, there is no camera that could improve my efforts (not from the current lot). Sure, there may be some exceptions in regard to FPS.</p>

<p>But, overall it's the technique of the 'tog that matters and the camera is a tool....that follows. Tho you're free to disagree with this.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_m4]

<p>D600 frames per second rate might make it feel slow in overall handling. D3/D4 are in the 10fps range and the D600 about half that much. A huge difference that really makes just about any other camera feel slow. Something to consider...</p>

[evilsivan]

I didn't check when I got my D750. I will now though...

The shutter pops off pics pretty fast when you're in CH, even by accident. I never had a D3 or higher and I'm not a pro but man I am impressed with the D750 high iso. You can push it hard, really hard.

[evilsivan]

Update, my first pic was image no.1 :)

[robert_stig]

<p>Toda Ofer!</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>" its limit was iso 4000. "</em><br /> <br /> Were you shooting RAW or JPG? How are you processing your files? What size prints were you making that you felt they "broke up"?<br /> <br /> My guess is that you will need to improve your post processing skills and software (and shoot RAW of course), as the D750 is not all that different from the D600/D610 when it comes to IQ.<br /> <br /> This article may be of interest to you:<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> If you are looking for best possible IQ in the same general price range, you may want to consider a D810 instead. But unless you improve your post processing skills and software, you may not be happy with the D810 either.</p>

<p> </p>

[elliot1]

<p>I should add that the IQ of the D600/D610/D750/D800/D810 when it comes to high ISO is excellent at higher ISOs, and certainly at least until ISO 6400 and perhaps beyond.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>not really sure what the OP is asking here. i'm considering a D750 for the video capabilities and extended cropping potential, but in the meantime still using D3s.</p><div></div>

[robert_stig]

<p>elliot you assume to much and u make urself look bad. Dont conclude that people lack skills and know how. <br>

If you tell me that its good at up to 6400 and more, than our standards are different. Thank you for your link to dxomark, i dont buy according to a number and I dont believe them for a millisecond anyway. I prefer to look at the raw file and decide that way only. A number means nothing to me. I also believe they get payed by nikon. Lets leave dxomark out of it. </p>

<p>Dont know or care about the 800/10 at all. No need to bring it up as it doesnt interest me The bit. </p>

<p>And lets get back to my questions I asked. If you can help with that then great. Otherwise thank u anyway.</p>

<p>1- what frame number was your camera when u bought it new? Mine had 120 frames shot with it before i bought it and it was sold as new. </p>

<p>2-if u use a d3/d3s/d4/d4s how does it compare speed wise in lag to your d750. The d600 was horrible.</p>

<p>3-d3s/d4 shooter how does your d750 compare to the d3s/d4 in terms of color and noise over iso 4000-12800?</p>

<p>nice pic Eric. </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>elliot you assume to much and u make urself look bad</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's funny, I was just thinking the same thing about robert stig. You assume the camera store sold you a used camera, you assume Elliot's standards are low, etc. You seem to know everything and you have snapped at other commenters questioning your knowledge/abilities. Did you buy the D600 without even trying it once? </p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Plus one.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Robert: to your direct questions...</p>

 

<blockquote>1- what frame number was your camera when u bought it new? Mine had 120 frames shot with it before i bought it and it was sold as new.</blockquote>

 

<p>I didn't check my D700 or D800e, but I strongly suspect in your case the box was opened, but it never left the store. I've actually never checked whether I'd expect a zero count, or whether Nikon test things out to this extent before shipping. Honestly, I'd be more likely to trust a D600 that had a few thousand frames on it and had demonstrated whether it had the oil spot issue. I would expect a camera that had been out of the box to be examined a few times might have 120 frames on it. I'd be surprised if someone would take a camera home and return it with that low a number. I could be wrong.</p>

 

<blockquote>2-if u use a d3/d3s/d4/d4s how does it compare speed wise in lag to your d750. The d600 was horrible.</blockquote>

 

<p>I don't use any of these - the closest I can do is an F5 or a D700 with a battery grip. But I'd be surprised if the D600, which as far as I'm aware was deliberately designed to have a quiet shutter and run at a relatively low speed, got its mirror out of the way anything like as fast as a D4s. I'd expect no more than a small improvement out of the D750. I'd expect things to be closer with mirror lock-up.</p>

 

<blockquote>3-d3s/d4 shooter how does your d750 compare to the d3s/d4 in terms of color and noise over iso 4000-12800?</blockquote>

 

<p>Without owning them, of course I can't say, other than that my D800 has blown my D700 out of the water for this. Senscore.org, which has a higher bias towards high-ISO shooting than DxOMark, gives the D4s the edge over the D810 and D750 in that order. Other reviews have indicated that the D750 at least replaced the D3s for some shooters. The JPEG processing difference is probably greater than the sensor advantage.</p>

 

<blockquote>I also believe they get payed by nikon.</blockquote>

 

<p>I wasn't aware that DxO has access to Nikon's encrypted white balance information (other than by generally cracking it), which I'd vaguely expect them to do if Nikon decided to be chummy with DxOMark. Nikon do no better than other cameras with Sony sensors (Sony and Pentax). I don't go by the plain summary figures, but I do look at their graphs, alongside other information. The lack of dynamic range that DxO report in Canon sensors, for example, is backed up by real photographic attempts to recover shadow detail. I believe that DxO have some biases in their testing, because presumably they're relying on their own raw conversion process (which is where the tests came from) and this may be dubious - especially where the A7s is concerned. The lighting conditions of the test obviously matter too. But I don't think they're being deliberately misleading. I wouldn't take sensor data as the only important feature in buying a camera (if I did, I wouldn't care about upgrading my D800e to a D810) let alone any single web site. But more data is good data, and you can't do a universal test standing in a shop. All you <i>can</i> really test is whether the camera handles well for you - which it appears the D600 doesn't.<br />

<br />

I'd have thought it would be best to determine whether the D750 meets your "responsiveness" requirements by trying one out yourself. If you're not prepared to use numbers to make a comparison, I don't see that the opinions of some forum members, however well-informed, will help. If you get the chance to try one, I will be interested in what you make of it, though.</p>

[robert_stig]

<p>Thanks chipster. Great to get your opinion ;)</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Robert, as a previous owner of the D800, I know what its high ISO performance is capable of. I brought it up because I don't know the noise performance of the D750 personally but it is my understanding that it is almost the same as the D800. So IF you are shooting RAW and IF you are using good image processing software/technique, you can get exceptional high ISO results, but print size does make a difference. All of Nikon's newest bodies are capable of high ISO prints that look like they were shot at low ISO, IF you shoot RAW and IF you are using good image processing software. The best of them all in the price range you are looking at seems to be the D810, which I still recommend if the best IQ is indeed what you are after.</p>

<p>While I no longer have my D800, my old D3 is now capable of producing excellent high ISO images and was given a 'refresh' because of software advances in both noise reduction and color enhancement. I was never happy with the high ISO results (ISO 6400) previously. </p>

<p>So ultimately how once processes his/her images is, as it always has been, very important in obtaining great high ISO results. Eric's sample image demonstrates this well. And because I am so picky, I use the best software available. And get great high ISO results. So how do you process you high ISO images and what size prints are you making?</p>

<p>Whether you like it or not, the D750 is basically an updated D600, so if you were not happy with the D600's IQ at higher ISOs, you likely will not be happy with the D750. I know both cameras (actually all those that I listed) are capable of exceptional results at high ISO depending on print size. But you do have to work the images a bit in post.</p>

<p>And DXO's numbers are accurate when it comes to IQ, especially with regard to noise characteristics, and if you take the time to examine them, you will see why the D750 and D600 are very much alike in IQ. All I was trying to do was save you from disappointment based on your own comments. I remember reading when the D750 came out how much improved it was over the D600 (related to high ISO). It turns out its JPGs are improved over the D600 but the RAW images are basically the same as what you get with the D600.</p>

<p>Andrew's final comments above may prove be the most helpful to you.</p>

 

[5711]

<p>d800 or d810 are bad when it comes to noise...to many mp.<br /> how would be any different</p>

<p>d4s<br /> d4/df<br /> d750/d600<br /> d3s<br /> d3</p>

<p>do not read dxo marks and ken rockwell reviews..go take pictures :)</p>

<p>comapring high iso jpgs..<br /> srsly guys?<br /> srsly?</p>

<p>on a sitenote<br>

i am working with d3, 1dx and 5dmk3.<br>

they all produce very great images and high iso is great<br /> on all of them..</p>

<p>a d4s would be better than the 1dx, right? :))</p>

<p>well..howmany stops?<br>

1?<br>

wow..gotta get it..jeez .. :)</p>

<p>jk</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>d800 or d810 are bad when it comes to noise...to many mp.</blockquote>

 

<p>They're about as "bad" as the D7000, with similar pixel size, if you compare pixels for pixels. If you compare for image area, they're a little behind the D4s, but not hugely. If you're shooting at high ISO the whole time, the D4s is the better camera; if you spend a reasonably amount of time at minimum ISO, the dynamic range of the D800/D810 and D750 are significantly better.</p>

 

<blockquote>how would be any different<br />

<br />

d4s<br />

d4/df<br />

d750/d600<br />

d3s<br />

d3<br />

<br />

do not read dxo marks and ken rockwell reviews..go take pictures :)</blockquote>

 

<p>It's pretty hard to take photos with all of the above, and especially to do so under controlled conditions that makes the test fair. I say read the measurements (which <i>are</i> measurements, albeit of something very specific), read reviews (yes, even KR's) and bear in mind that there's opinion and error interleaved with the information. Yes, I'd add to that trying out the camera yourself, but it's very hard to do an exhaustive test on a very large number of cameras if you're just standing in a store. Reviews pack a lot of tests into a small amount of time and space. Yes, you could repeat them all yourself at great cost and time, but I'd rather have a review and be prepared to discount portions of it than ignore it completely. Absolutely try out the camera you're considering before buying, but refusing to read any reviews and insisting on trying out <i>everything</i> is a very wasteful approach.</p>

 

<blockquote>comapring high iso jpgs..<br />

srsly guys?<br />

srsly?</blockquote>

 

<p>Were we? I think it was mentioned that the JPEG engine of the D4s was a considerable step up from the D4's; the same is probably true of the D810 over the D800. For critical shooting I don't care; for quick snaps that I need to deliver in a hurry, having better JPEG is nice. If I were a photojournalist or sports pro who needed to get many acceptable low-light images delivered by a deadline, I'd absolutely care about the JPEG performance.</p>

 

<blockquote>on a sitenote<br />

i am working with d3, 1dx and 5dmk3.<br />

they all produce very great images and high iso is great<br />

on all of them..</blockquote>

 

<p>True. More of the Canons than the D3, but true.</p>

 

<blockquote>a d4s would be better than the 1dx, right? :))</blockquote>

 

<p>At high ISO, not particularly. At low ISO, yes, though not by as much as a D800.</p>

 

<blockquote>well..howmany stops?<br />

1?<br />

wow..gotta get it..jeez .. :)</blockquote>

 

<p>Actually, the D4s is probably not a stop better (if it's better at all) than the 1Dx. It may have slightly better colour fidelity. Any difference between the two is likely swamped by the difference in lens cost from switching, though it appears you do are already running two lots of lenses. To a new buyer, there's absolutely no harm in choosing the best equipment available for the money rather than the second best, and therefore knowing which is best really matters. In recent cameras, there's very little high ISO difference in raw files between cameras with the same sensor size, for the most part. Canon's low-ISO dynamic range performance in the current generation is a reason I have absolutely no interest in defecting to the 5D3, but that doesn't make the 5D3 a bad camera, just one that would sometimes take worse shots. The D3 (or, to pick a camera that I actually own, a D700) is a perfectly good camera, but it <i>does</i> take worse high-ISO images than a D3s - or, resampled, a D800. It's perfectly valid to say that small differences in performance won't make much difference to quality of the images, but that's not the same as saying that all cameras are the same. If you believe otherwise, I'm happy to take the 1Dx off your hands and you can have my Eos 300D.</p>

[5711]

<p>well, i mainly shoot nikon, got 2 d3 and bought the other two cameras for the jobs that require canon gear for different reasons. see my fixed job from tuesday to wednesday in my portfolio .. :) (for example, but not only that)<br /> <br />i have always used both along side since..i left kodak as a child for canon eos300 ( :) )and do not care what was shot with what camera brand or who uses what...at all..i couldnt care less</p>

<p>however, if i ever can afford a camera that i do not need, i would go for a d810.<br /> why?<br /> 1/8000th over the 1/4000th of the d750 and d610...</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Good argument for the D810, Norbert (along with the lower native ISO, of course). I do still have my Eos 300D, because it's not worth enough to justify selling it (and I still have an Eos 500 and an Eos 610 to go with my beaten-up F5), but I did get rid of my more expensive EF fit lenses when I switched to Nikon. I have a Pentax 645 (original) and a Voigtlander Bessa R as well. All are perfectly good bits of photographic equipment, and each have their strengths in different situations. I think you're unusual in having two sets of relatively high-end bodies, though!</p>

[5711]

<p>well..it is something that developed over time.<br>

i did lose alot of equipment over the last years and kinda always bought what was good value for money at that moment and somehow i ended up owning both..more per accident though.<br>

the oldest digital camera i own is a nikon d1x<br>

and it now looks like this:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/17007738<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17007738-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p>

<p>___________</p>

<p>back to topic, please :)</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>After showing that corpse of a historical camera? I'm too traumatised! (But I envy you having both systems. My wife would kill me...)<br />

<br />

Anyway, yes, topic. Robert, I really hope you'll report back if you get the chance to use the D750 and tell us how it compares. The best person to report on an issue in a camera is someone who is bothered by that issue, and who knows what to look for.</p>