Used D800 vs. D750

phillips · June 1, 2015

I have both the D750 and D800, and I use the D800 for tripod situations, in the case of portraits, primarily with the 85 mm f/1.8 lens. For almost everything else I use the D750. I think the D800 used is a great bargain, and I would use the price difference to get the 70-200 mm f/4, which I really like. I also like the idea of a 35 mm prime-but I am getting by with the 50 mm f/1.4.

lornesunley · June 1, 2015

I'd favour the D800, after all, I have one.

I also have a D810, both are great cameras

eric_arnold · June 2, 2015

any tiny bit of camera shake or subject motion is literally going to blur any difference between 24MP and 36MP

</blockquote>

that's precisely why 36 mp is problematic for handholding, as i said earlier. the d800 is a tripod camera. it's capable of delivering stunning images which can be printed huge. but outside the studio and off tripod, that extra resolution is wasted and can introduce errors which you wont see with 12, 16, or 24 mp FF bodies. not saying you cant use one handheld, but every single user review i've ever read has said the same thing: that you have to be extra-careful with handholding technique when using that camera. feel free to ignore my advice, but if the body is going to be used in situations where you dont need max resolution and/or are going to be handholding a lot, i would go for the d750. the d750 is also better in low-light.

Andrew Garrard · June 2, 2015

<blockquote>"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."

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'?</blockquote>

Oops. Sorry, my bad, I'd convinced myself that the

D750 was distinguished from the D610 by not having an

olpf. Please put that nonsense down to jet lag. That said,

please do not be scared that a D800 is useless unless

you put it on a tripod!

q.g._de_bakker · June 2, 2015

This "problematic" talk makes no sense. If the higher image quality of a 36 mp camera is wasted due to handholding, and we then have to settle for 24 mp quality, having a 24 mp camera would be "problematic" all the time, whether we handhold the thing or have it on the sturdiest of sturdy tripods. You, of course, will see that you waste image quality when using a 12 mp camera instead. You will see that it is a 12 mp camera all of the time. There is no escaping it. I don't understand why you would think that "you won't", Eric. A rather strange and remarkable decision it would be to select something that is worse all the time because the thing that would be better could be made to perform equally bad sometimes. Would that really make the always-bad option less "problematic", more desirable? Do you really think so? Really?

ilkka_nissila · June 2, 2015

I haven't noticed any significant problems with hand-held use of the D800 or D810, apart from the reduced focus accuracy (due to hands swaying, the subject content changing quickly and intrinsic focus errors due to the design of the camera) which is better when the camera is on tripod and live view is used (on a mostly static subject of course). Hand shake is effectively mitigated by the use of an appropriately fast shutter speed (and/or flash). Of course, any subject that doesn't move is better photographed using a tripod (situation permitting) as then you can choose aperture, shutter speed and ISO freely (well, almost; some long lenses may suffer from shake at medium speeds even on tripod) and focus using live view. I do think 24MP is a good practical compromise between resolution and file size for many real-world applications. Between 12MP vs. 24MP or 12MP vs 36MP the difference in image detail is very obvious in print even when the camera is hand held (using appropriate shutter speed). 24MP vs. 36MP might be not so easy to see, but that's hardly a surprise. As the pixel counts get higher and higher the improvement in detail in the final application will be less significant due to the lens MTF falling as a function of frequency (as well as other causes of blur becoming more visible), but it is not like the detail relative to image dimensions gets worse as the pixel count increases. Of course, that might happen too, at ultra high ISO, depending on the sensor design. For my applications, 20-30MP is probably the best compromise, but of Nikon's current lineup, the 36MP D810 has otherwise the best feature set for my needs, so I use that.

1.2k · June 2, 2015

something you gotta read. this guys explains real well.

otherwise get some physics books on optics.

http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/sensor-resolution-and-lens-mtf/ http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/sensor-resolution/ http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/pixel-resolution/ http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/pixel-resolution-2/ http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/image-sharpness/

Andrew Garrard · June 2, 2015

There has always been a lot of scary talk about not being able to resolve 36MP of detail. Nonsense. Yes, it's easier to see motion blur at 36MP than at 12MP. It's also easier to see motion blur at 200mm than at 50mm, but that doesn't make 200mm lenses unusable, especially with VR. Yes, diffraction is visible sooner, but a lot of lenses are decent at f/4, and - with a small noise increase - you can deconvolve the diffraction. Shoot at f/22 and you'll get mush; run it through, say, DxO, and you get sharpness back (with a little more noise). The D8x0 has slightly more linear resolution than a D750 - you can see it, but not by much. It's like a D7000 vs a D300, or a D7100 vs a D7000. The same will be true of the 5Ds vs the D800. It'll be harder to get a pixel-sharp image, but not impossible. And it can still take perfectly good images if they're not pixel-sharp.

It's possible to take perfectly good images hand-held with an 80MP Phase One back. Yes, it's harder than with a D700, but all things are incremental.

eric_arnold · June 2, 2015

I haven't noticed any significant problems with hand-held use of the D800 or D810, apart from the reduced focus accuracy

</blockquote>

uh... reduced focus accuracy isnt a "significant problem"? in what universe? that reminds me of the line, "other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln"?

Hand shake is effectively mitigated by the use of an appropriately fast shutter speed (and/or flash). Of course, any subject that doesn't move is better photographed using a tripod (situation permitting)

</blockquote>

my point was that you literally have to change your shooting technique to account for high-res sensors. Ilkka's comments (and everything else ever reported on the d800/810) confirm this. if you are handholding 50% or more of the time, it stands to reason the d750 is the logical choice, from a practical standpoint. as always, YMMV.

Andrew Garrard · June 2, 2015

Eric, despite having quite a decent tripod, I hand-hold

99% of the time. You do have to change your technique

to get the best sharpness: I don't bend the 1/focal length

rule as much as I used to, and I shoot wide open less. I

don't use my weaker lenses as much. I often need to

move a lot for framing, and a tripod would be

implausible. A D750 would do the job very well for me,

but do I get pixel-level detail out of the 36MP sensor?

Yes. Incremental differences make using a tripod

SLIGHTLY more useful, not imperative. I'm not saying

the D800 is a better choice than the D750, but I wouldn't

be scared off by the resolution, really.

q.g._de_bakker · June 3, 2015

"It's possible to take perfectly good images hand-held with an 80MP Phase One back. Yes, it's harder than with a D700, but all things are incremental." That's not correct. It is impossible to take as perfectly good images hand-held (or otherwise) with a D700. The fact that one camera performs such that what it can do at best (!) is not better than what a better camera does when something happens (being used handheld for instance) that reduces what that better camera produces is not to be explained as "it's easier too see" or "visible sooner". That's just wrong. Diffraction, for instance, can only be noticeable if there is some level of image quality that is reduced by diffraction. The fact that it is "visible sooner" using a particular camera is only because the level of quality, at best, produced by another camera that shows diffraction later already is below what diffraction would reduce it too. Diffraction isn't visible sooner in th eresults produced by the better camera. The lesser quality is visible always, i.e. from the start, as soon as you let the camera produce an image, no matter what diffraction might do, using the lesser camera. All this talk is like complaining about a Formula 1 car for the reason that in the pit lane under pit lane speed restrictions it doesn't go faster than a clapped out Fiat Panda, drawing the conclusion that because it can't go faster on the track than it is allowed to go in the pit lane, so the difference between pit lane speed and race speed is less "problematic", the Fiat Panda would be the better choice. It quite simply isn't. Nor is it the more "logical choice, from a practical standpoint". Quite the contrary. The problem, if any, is not that you can make a good thing do bad. It is that you cannot make a bad thing do better. It's also not so that you need to change your technique. Yes, using a bad camera, you could think that you can almost get away with anything before noticing that the quality drops below the low level you get anyway. But that's of course not true (handholding, for instance is many times worse than the difference using a lower resolution sensor can make). And it's no more than an excuse, a convoluted way of blaming the camera for not using proper technique and the results of that. A tripod, for instance, always produces visibly better quality images. The fact that it is not always possible, almost never convenient to use a tripod, and that you can get away with the lesser results of not using a tripod does not change that using a tripod always produces visibly better quality images.

ilkka_nissila · June 3, 2015

uh... reduced focus accuracy isnt a "significant problem"?

I just said it was a significant problem (or challenge, would be more accurate way of putting it), but camera shake and subject movement is taken care of fast enough shutter speed.

my point was that you literally have to change your shooting technique to account for high-res sensors.

I did this change already with the 10 MP DX camera (D200) in 2006. It is much easier to get a given level of detail on the D810 than the D200. If you want the best results out of any camera, you have to use good technique.

eric_arnold · June 3, 2015

at this point, several years past launch, there has been far too much written about the d800's shortcomings to pass them off as mere hearsay. from my perspective, it certainly look like Nikon guinea-pigged early adopters of the 36mp sensor, and then put out the cameras they should have made the first time around. i refer you, gentlemen, to exhibit A, a recent longterm <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/03/22/long-term-review-the-nikon-d810/">review</a> of the d810 by Ming Thein. he says:

"I put it down to the D810 really being what the D800/E should have been: AF that’s solid and back to having the tracking abilities of the D3/700 generation; ergonomics that are more comfortable in hand, and just a little bit more responsiveness in live view and for sequential shooting. The shutter and mirror assembly are quieter, faster and better damped – meaning a bit more handholdable shutter speed. The electronic front curtain is a big bonus for tripod work, and there is now no excuse for camera shake or shutter vibration – at all."

</blockquote>

so right there, we can see that shutter vibration and AF accuracy are known issues in the 800 that nikon fixed in the 810. i personally trust MT's reviews -- he's not a click-baiter like KR or a Nikon grouch like Hogan. he buys his own gear and uses the camera for quite some time before doing long-term reviews. in his earlier 'first impressions' d800 review, MT noted,

In reality, this means shooting at one stop lower ISO, and taking care with camera shake.

</blockquote>

and

at base ISO and sufficiently high shutter speeds that camera shake isn’t a concern, there’s more resolution here than you can shake a stick at

</blockquote>

in a later, 'midterm' review of the d800e (which he noted also applies to the d800), MT says:

Something still doesn’t feel right with the autofocus system. Although my camera no longer exhibits any asymmetry with its focus points following the recalibration and fix by Nikon Malaysia, it just doesn’t seem to be as positive or accurate as the D700 was (or D600 is now). There are situations in which the camera nails everything perfectly, and situations under which it just seems to miss by a hair; far more of the latter exist than the former. And no combination of AF settings seems to work; this means that the D800 is effectively an unviable proposition to me as a documentary/ reportage camera. Bottom line: I’m not 100% confident that it’s going to focus where I tell it to.

</blockquote>

and

The bottom line is that if your lens covers say 90 degrees horizontally, then the D800E puts much more resolving power per degree in the hands of the average photographer than they’re used to; this places corresponding demands on lens quality and technique (focusing, camera shake etc) than the vast majority people can manage handheld except under good light. I can’t even get a consistently sharp image unless I’m over 1/2x focal length – and I’m certain I’ve got better technique than average. This, and the size of the files (a throughput issue) make it impractical for a documentary/ travel/ journalism camera. Oh, and you’ve got to use good lenses too, which tend to be large and heavy – not ideal for walking around with.

</blockquote>

and

The shutter appears to have a vibration issue around 1/30s or so. I’ve noticed a strange blurring/ double image that occasionally pops up in the 1/20-1/40s range; even with everything locked down on a heavy – Gitzo 5 series systematic – tripod and studio lights; the only conclusion I can come to is that somewhere in the shutter or mirror mechanism, something is vibrating at that natural frequency and creating a bit of camera shake.

</blockquote>

in his conclusion, he says buy the d800/e if:

<ul>

<li>You don’t mind using studio lights and/ or a tripod to maximize image quality</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

So, Andrew, even if you are handholding 99% of the time with a d800, that doesnt mean you are getting the most out of that sensor. in fact, it probably means you aren't.

And, Ilkka, even with adjusting technique and lens selection to accommodate, you're still dealing with issues--AF accuracy, shutter vibration--which frankly should not exist on a camera at this price point.

For those reasons, then, i maintain my original recommendation that the d750 is a better walkaround/documentary/handheld camera, while the d800/e is ideally suited for tripod and studio work. if you need resolution as well as less possibility of vibration being introduced at lower shutter speeds, a d810 is ideal.

eric_arnold · June 3, 2015

A rather strange and remarkable decision it would be to select something that is worse all the time because the thing that would be better could be made to perform equally bad sometimes. Would that really make the always-bad option less "problematic", more desirable? Do you really think so? Really?

</blockquote>

Q.G., this isn't philosophy 101, this is more like physics 232. my last post clarified the problem, but in case you missed it, it's not the handholding per se which is an issue with the d800, it's the camera's tendency to introduce shutter vibration which makes handholding MORE problematic than with a d750. in any event, i hardly think that it could be said that a d750 is "worse all the time" than a d800 just because a d800 has greater resolution. By that argument, four Big Macs would be healthier than two Quarter-Pounders or a small kale salad.

it's been said many times since the d800 was announced back in 2012, but 36mp can be overkill. in situations where you honestly need that much resolution--such as commercial photography, studio portraiture, and extra-large display prints--an 800 series is clearly "better" than the 600 or 700 series. But not in every situation across the board. The reality is that there are many D800 purchasers who would have been better off with a 24mp camera, just as there are d750 purchasers who really didnt need more than a d71/200. We can make emotional arguments based on false equivalence logic until we're blue in the face, or swear that that problem just doesnt impact us because we use superior technique, but the facts remain that design flaws in the 800 which impact shooting parameters do exist and are well-documented, three years after launch. The degree to which that impacts each individual shooter depends on a number of different factors, obviously.

q.g._de_bakker · June 4, 2015

I disagree, Eric. First the shutter vibration thing. That needs both a physics refresher and a reality check. The effect of even the worst shutter vibration is several orders of magnitude smaller than the effect of handholding. Even when the cameras are handheld by those who are proud that, through years of training and huge discipline, they have rock steady hands. Several orders of magnitude, Eric. You cannot detect the effect of shutter vibration (or mirror slap) when you hold a camera in your unsteady rock-steady hands. Then your analogy. The one i provided was perfectly o.k. I don't know why you threw in one that isn't. Reducing something good to the same level as something less good does not make that less good thing as good (or even the better, more logical choice), unless that reduction would be an unescapable constant. It never, even with the assumption of the reductions as a given, makes being better "problematic". But sticking with your food analogy: when eating more of a healthy thing is better than eating less of it, and better than eating the same amount of a less healthy or unhealthy thing, eating so little of that healthy thing that it is, per helping, as (un)healthy as eating that less healthy thing does not turn that healthy food into unhealthy food. Again, the assumption of a reduction is where things first go wrong. The confusion mistaking the manipulated/arbitrary effect for inherent qualities of the item (camera, car, food) is responsible for the rest of the fallacy. And talking about assumptions: yes, when we assume something is too much, it can safely and 'honestly' be said that we can do with a bit less. "The reality" is that you do not know, only assume, that people do not need that much. It is flawed in another way too, assuming that needing something better is an emotional thing based on false logic. People buying digital backs that are even better (shudder! "Is that possible?!" i hear you think) and spending many times more than what a D800 costs do not do that because of emotional arguments based on false logic. They are not all irrational fools driven by emotion. Yes, yes, you can get out of that by pointing at how few those people are in number. But while that is true, it only demonstrates that it again is a confusion of accidentals with substance. There are good reasons to get and use good cameras, even though you could claim (without having anything to base that on except a general hunch) that they end up in the hands of people who do not need them. What do you think we are discussing here? Then that "superior technique" malarky. It has to be addressed, not because it is a big part of this discussion, but because it apparently another of those little blessings of the Digido. We hear a lot that better digital cameras require better lenses, better technique etc. They do not. That superior technique isn't superior, except in comparison to sloppy technique. VR and AF have made people lazy. That was allowed by cameras (reduced to sub 20 lp/mm performace by soft focus filters put in front of their low resolution, Bayer-patterned sensors) not being able to show the difference between a good and a bad lens, not being able to show the results (other things became more important, like how many frames per second you could run through, for how long and what battery you need to do that). See also "The bottom line is [...] than they are used to" in the review you posted (as evidence... hm...). But what you call "superior technique" used to be no big deal, was something everyone does. It still should not be a big deal. It does not require superior skills or superior dexterity. It is not rocket science, but as easy as taking a bite out of your quarterpounder. There are no claims made that it is something only some special people are capable of, so that - as you argue - the rest would be well served with cameras not 'requiring' some "superior technique" they haven't mastered. Because it isn't. And knowing that, this bit of your argument tumbles. People generally are better served with better equipment (Yes, yes: unless we assume they are not). They do not have a specific requirement for a camera that is not as good as it can be (And again, yes; unless we assume they do). All in all, "the reality is" that anyone can make good use of better cameras. That handholding isn't the best thing to do (but if there is no other option...). And that a worse thing isn't a better thing than a better thing, because that better thing can also be reduced to something not better than that worse thing.

ilkka_nissila · June 4, 2015

Eric, both Andrew (to my knowledge) and I are using the D810, not the D800(E). I wouldn't buy a D800 second hand myself at this point because it is not so easy to test for AF issues (since they can be lens, distance and lighting condition dependent) and the repair and AF adjustment which is normally free of charge to the original owner under warranty (and usually a bit after, as in my experience Nikon has been quite relaxed about the warranty time period) might be costly to carry out for the owner of a used camera that is several years out of warranty. So if the choice is between used D800 and D750 I would pick the latter, to be safe. I would not be so quick to criticize Nikon for the D800 issues; after all they did dramatically improve upon the D3X's image quality yet put it in a camera body that is 1/3 of the price. This they did just one year after their factories and infrastructure was devastated by a historical earthquake and tsunami. Of course there would be some issues when working in such a time and with such ambitious goals. They were able to fix most of the issues and improve many aspects of the camera in the D810. I think they recovered quite well from the year 2011's events. A lot of people are very quick to forget large-scale human tragedy but still expect perfection in some products that they buy.

it's the camera's tendency to introduce shutter vibration which makes handholding MORE problematic than with a d750.

The D800 and D750 both use a spring to lift the mirror up, causing a certain amount of shake. The D750's slower shutter may cause a bit less vibration than the faster shutter in the D800, but for a portrait photographer the 1/250 s flash sync is a feature that allows one to use a bit smaller and less heavy flashes to still have enough light to balance with sunlight. 1/3 stop might not seem much but when you're on the verge of running out of light it is an unnecessary burden to have to be prepared to provide 1/3 stop more light (that could be surprisingly significant when carrying the equipment in the field). Third party flashes often require 1/3 stop slower sync speed to be used (because of delays in triggering) which puts the user of a D750 at 1/160s. The D810 uses a motor-driven mirror which slows down prior to impact so it creates less vibration (than either D800 or the D750). If you are concerned about shutter or mirror related vibrations then either a DX camera like the D7200 (since it has a smaller mirror and shutter it should create less vibration) or the D810 would be ideal choices. However, this is a factor mostly for telephoto landscape shooters and macro, not for portrait photography. I don't believe the differences in vibrations created by the D800 vs. the D750 is a significant factor in hand held work unless you use shutter speeds that are not fast enough to freeze the subject and in that case you're asking for blur.

swear that that problem just doesnt impact us because we use superior technique

This isn't about some "superior" technique but simply using a shutter speed that is fast enough to freeze the camera and the subject. It is not much different between 36MP and 24MP. In fact a user of 24MP DX would need a bit faster shutter speeds to clear of subject movement related blur with a given lens than the user of 36MP FX. But those differences are small really; good technique is pretty universal. If someone doesn't see the blur at 1/FL using a 12MP FX camera then probably they aren't looking very closely, or simply have never seen a sharp image for reference (made with tripod at the same shutter speed).

q.g._de_bakker · June 4, 2015

Boring, i know, but i will repeat: "I don't believe the differences in vibrations created by the D800 vs. the D750 is a significant factor in hand held work unless [...]" absolutely nothing. This is a popular, recurring theme. There's nothing in it that makes sense. There is a huge difference in magnitude between the vibrations caused by even the worst mirror or shutter and the movement of even the steadiest hands. The difference is so big that it really (and i really mean really) makes no sense at all to worry about whatever the shutter or mirror will do as long as you are handholding a camera. Just as an illustration, have a look at <a href="

video</a>. Since it was posted enough has been said about whether or not a penny balancing on a lens is a good measure for mirror or shutter induced shake. But whether it is or not is not the point. First of all try to balance a penny on a handeld camera (and you may try on a flat surface on the camera first, before trying to put it on a curved surface as in the video). Good luck trying! Again (and hopefully there will be no need to repeat it later): handholding a camera makes any worries about camera induced shake moot. Handholding is many orders of magnitude worse. Don't waste your time discussing camera induced shake issues when and as long as that camera is used handheld.

q.g._de_bakker · June 4, 2015

With that out of the way, time to turn to the mirror size thing. A moving mirror coming to an abrupt stop must be able to get rid of its energy. Since the mirror must come to a dead stop, something else will have to take it on. Smaller format cameras have (some of them, that is) a smaller mirror. Smaller mirror = less mass = less impact, less energy. But whether that also translates to a system that vibrates less depends on whatever it is the energy is transferred to. If that is proportionally smaller, less massive, too, there is no reason to expect that the smaller mirror camera will have a benefit. Now i'm not saying that a DX camera can not be better in this respect than an FX camera. But it is not a given. It depends. So just the fact that the D7200 mentioned has a smaller mirror doesn't mean that it should create less vibration. I think you are spot on (or awfully close) with your "or simply have never seen a sharp image for reference", Ilkka.

ilkka_nissila · June 4, 2015

Q.G. I haven't tested the effects of mirror movement on sharpness but I did compare the D810 with and without EFCS and the D7100, using two 200mm lenses, in the shutter speed window roughly from 1/10s to 1/100s using a tripod. While EFCS produced the best results, the D7100 (which doesn't support EFCS) didn't seem to cause much shutter induced blur in the shots, whereas the D810 with EFCS off did cause quite significant sharpness loss at some of the shutter speeds tested using the 70-200/4 at 200mm. So the DX shutter seems to cause less vibration than the FX shutter, at least with the setups that I tested. The mirror slap effect I didn't test as I was using a cable release and M-UP. Perhaps someone else can do that comparison. I was doing this test for figuring out the relative merits of using a TC-14E III with D810 vs. the D7100 for telephoto photography and at the same time I was able to do some testing of the EFCS feature, which I use for tripod based landscape shots. The other lens that I tested was the 200/2 II and didn't seem to be much affected by shutter shake using either camera. This illustrates one benefit that large aperture teles have due to their weight most likely.

For portraiture I try to stay at faster shutter speeds (1/200s or faster, 1/500s more typical if I'm not using flash) to eliminate subject movement blur as well as camera shake. I remember one shot I made at 1/60s in a church wedding ceremony; the subject was a child and she turned her head during the exposure, resulting in the face registering as a homogeneous gray blob with no features. A 1000 pixel image would have been enough to see that it was blurry, no need to talk about megapixels. I try to avoid such risks by using a reasonable shutter speed where I can.

lornesunley · June 4, 2015

Why is it that no one comments on the "hand hold ability" of any of the DX cameras.

The currents models all have a much higher pixel density than the D800/D800e/D810.

The shake will have a much worse effect on those cameras than it will on a D800/D800e/D810

ShunCheung · June 4, 2015

Lorne, pixel density is an issue related to camera shake only if you blow the images up in the same way you would with a 36MP DSLR/mirrorless. Think about it, pixel density on an iPhone camera is by far higher than even a 24MP DX body, so is the pixel density on a Nikon 1 mirrorless camera. Typical usage of iPhone images is e-mail'ed or text'ed to other phones or posted to FaceBook type web sites. Image quality is usually not a serious concern.

Albins images · June 5, 2015

I bought my D800 in 2012, my first 'fullframe' camera after 24x36mm slidefilm was 'replaced' by my (much used and loved) D200 and D300.

Yes, it has it's limitations. Sometimes fidgety AF is one of them. But then, I usually do not depend so much on AF.

The 36Mpx images are so addictive, that I would not easily go 'back' to less now.. And I now see moderately used D800's offered for around 1500 euro. Tempting! Would I dare to buy second-hand? Yes. The typical high-end camera body that the D800 is, offers a lot of control buttons, which are welcome too.

That is not to say that I would advice a first-time fullframe buyer to stay away from the D750. That is a lovely camera too, with some improved features over the D800 (see above posts).

lornesunley · June 5, 2015

Shun, you said "pixel density is an issue related to camera shake only if you blow the images up in the same way you would with a 36MP DSLR/mirrorless"

When people are using a D7100 or D7200 for "reach" when doing bird in flight photography or macro photography or event photography they would be aiming at the same size prints as anyone using a D800.

The smaller pixel pitch wpuld show far more movement blur with the same angular movement as a D800, and that would be more evident on the same size print made from a DX 24 MP camera image as that from a D800.

You comment about an iPhone is correct but that has nothing to do with the use of the DX cameras.

andylynn · June 5, 2015

The difference between those cameras in blur caused by mirror slap is such a minor thing, I wouldn't even put out on my

list. He's my list:

Used D800:

Pros: Resolution, price

Cons: No warranty

Might be a pro or a con, depending on preferences: Larger body

D750:

Pros: Speed, Can be bought with a discounted 24-120 lens, flippy screen, better in low light

Cons: Build is more like a "consumer" DSLR.

Might be a pro or a con, depending on preferences: Size, resolution, SD only

ShunCheung · June 5, 2015

When people are using a D7100 or D7200 for "reach" when doing bird in flight photography or macro photography or event photography they would be aiming at the same size prints as anyone using a D800.

</blockquote>

Not in my experience.

Typically people make large prints for wide-angle type vast landscape images, group portraits, and perhaps certain architecture images. That is where people use 36MP DSLRs (or Canon's up-coming 50MP ones), or better yet, large-format film cameras that provide lens and back movements to alter the plane of focus.

We also see huge prints on billboards. If you look at them closely, their quality is actually very poor, but typical viewing distance is from pretty far away. Therefore, while the print is huge, due to the long viewing distance, the realistic magnification is not. Next time you walk by a fashion store, e.g. Victoria's Secret, Old Navy ..., get close to their window and look at the details of their fashion prints.

Not many wildlife images are blown up to huge prints. Occasionally you may see images of a pride of lions or some polar bear family in a large print, but those are not captured with long teles because they include several animals. At least I rarely see birds in flight in a huge print, and even so, the main issue for sharpness is either focusing error or subject motion. I shoot a lot of birds in flight, usually with the 80-400mm AF-S VR @ 400mm, on either a D7100 or D7200 in these days. My typical shutter speed is 1/1600 sec and even that doesn't always stop all the subject motions, e.g. wing beat, especially when it comes to hummingbirds.

The difference between those cameras in blur caused by mirror slap is such a minor thing, I wouldn't even put out on my list.

</blockquote>

Totally agree. In those shutter speeds where mirror slaps could be an issue, i.e. 1/15 sec +- a stop or so, your main issue is subject motion, since the OP is talking about portraits.

Sign In

Used D800 vs. D750

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in