Used D800 vs. D750

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>personally, i don't feel like camera companies are infallible, especially when it comes to customer service. Nikon didnt even want to admit there were AF issues in the d800 at first. In this age of fast-paced technology-driven markets, it is often the early adopters who suffer, as companies essentially use them as beta testers. Nikon isn't alone in this practice, of course. But at least we are now admitting that there are some things to be wary of with the 800.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Nikon did publish along with the D800 a PDF called "D800(E) Technical guide" the message of which was basically <em>use a tripod and live view to focus</em> (on static subjects). They did inform the public of the potential challenges with the use of the camera. Regarding the left focus issue (that was clearly a manufacturing and calibration problem), but a lot of customers sent in their cameras (suspecting this issue after reading up about it online) and only a fraction of those actually had that particular issue. If Nikon had issued a public statement then basically everyone would have sent their camera in. That's what seems to have happened with the D750, and it made the camera unavailable for many months. It's a careful balancing act what to say in public. The important thing is that when issues arise they do their best to identify the causes and fix them. I don't mind at all if they do this quietly. While the D800 had some issues I believe to most users it was still a huge improvement over previous cameras. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>While the D800 had some issues I believe to most users it was still a huge improvement over previous cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ok, but... to be clear, in this very thread, Ilkka, <em>you have recommended the D750 for the OP at least two times</em>. i think that's the right call, IF accurate AF is important to you. No one is saying here that the D800 wasn't an accomplishment when it was released, three years ago. But since that time, the camera has been tweaked and now the 810 sits alone on its mag-alloy throne as the Nikon FX flagship. And the D750 has come along at a midrange price point (and resolution). The OP didnt ask, was the 800 a good camera at the time of its release? He asked what would be better for him, the 800 or a 750, at this time. The question isn't whether one can overcome the camera's limitations, its whether those limitations make the 750 a better purchase. i think the answer is yes if you are not planning on tethering the camera for most of its intended life, and also yes if you need reliable AF for events, etc. If you need both resolution and reliable AF, the 810 is a much better choice. $1500 for a used 800 is a tempting price. and if you're only shooting portraits with it, probably a good deal. but for me, coming from a photojournalism perspective, i'd rather have a camera that's not going to get in the way of what i need to shoot. YMMV.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I've been out of the country and/or away from a computer for a few days, and I've had the best-known song from Frozen going through my head most of the time, with respect to this thread and D800 "usability issues". But it's dragged on impressively in my absence.<br />

<br />

The D800 isn't a problem hand-held. If you want the same pixel-level (not image-level) sharpness as you'd get from the D750, yes, you have to make sure that everything not pixel-density related is slightly more under control - be that lens aberrations or motion. Kyle has a D7000 already, which is extremely close in behaviour to the middle crop of a D800. If there's a question about hand-holding it, my advice would be to try the same lens on the D7000 that's being considered for the D800, just realise that there's a load of extra image area around the outside. If you can get a sharp image with a 100mm lens on a D7000, you can get a sharp image (technique wise) with the same lens on a D800 - it'll just cover a wider angle. Whether the lens is sharp in the corners is another matter. You can work out how much harder that makes things. Speaking of which, don't knock the utility of the DX crop on a D800, which has saved me when I've not had a longer lens to hand (or even the 1.2x crop if you just want to hit 5fps).<br />

<br />

If AF reliability is an issue, the D750 is probably the better choice, with slight concerns that the AF coverage area is a little smaller. For most portraits, I'm not sure how much that's an issue - you probably don't want to shoot at f/1.4 for most portraits (depending on the effect you want) and people seem to have coped pretty well with the primitive AF systems on medium-format cameras for portraiture. Drop the aperture and any "miss" from the D800 will probably still be within range.<br />

<br />

Incidentally, the D750 <i>is</i> better at video. Not just because of its generation - bigger sensor sites capture more light and skip less of the total sensor area. The D800 really suffers from this, although there's nothing strictly wrong with the video image quality. The live view quality is a bit iffy for related reasons, I believe.<br />

<br />

For most portraits, I'd really get the D800, mostly because more resolution is better than less resolution. But I'd really try them (or a D810 if you can't try the D800) for feel - it's going to be pretty different from the D750, and you may not prefer it; a D7000 is pretty dinky compared with a D800. I'd not really pick a 24-120 for portraits anyway, though it's a fine street-sweeper. But the D750 is a remarkable camera, and arguably better as a walk-around body, so I'd not lose sleep over choosing either of them. (And I'd certainly not retrospectively try to decide whether I made the right choice.)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Eric, my recommendation of the two options the OP mentions is the D750 (used D800 vs. D750). However, the claim that 36MP is somehow difficult or impossible to take advantage of hand held I reject. This has not been my experience and is the reason why I continued to add to this thread. However, 24MP vs. 36MP is a small practical difference in the final output and you can do pretty much everything photographically meaningful with a 24MP FX camera, and the D750 has Nikon's best AF at the moment and has no widely reported quality control issues (apart from the initial flare (non-)issue) so it should be a very good choice. I did not buy the D750 mainly because it feels uncomfortable in my hands (and happens to lack the EFCS feature which is not really relevant to the portrait application but is important to my telephoto landscape photography) and this is why I think it is important for the OP to try the cameras out before purchasing. I know many people like the D750 body shape, but to some of us it is not a good fit. I am repeating myself, sorry. I'm running out of clarity in writing it seems.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Definitely agreed with Ilkka, especially about the handling. The D750 feels like a toy; the D800 feels like a brick (both exaggerating for impact, if that's taken too negatively; a D4 feels like an anvil by comparison). Take your pick which you'd rather have hanging around your neck. :-)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm not really expecting anyone to be reading at this point, but I now remember why I wanted to rant here - so, for posterity...</p>

 

<blockquote>That's not correct. It is impossible to take as perfectly good images hand-held (or otherwise) with a D700.<br /><br />

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.</blockquote>

 

<p>To an extent. If one buys a 36MP camera and expects the same quality (or at least, resolution) of images as one gets from a 12MP camera, there are no extra demands on technique. That said, one can certainly argue that perceived sharpness is relative, and having some parts of the frame sharp can make others look subjectively softer than they would be on their own; one could also argue that there are aberrations that are more objectionable than softness, and a D800 may show up (for example) chromatic aberration that's hidden by the blur of a D700. However, if one buys a camera expecting to make the best of its sensor resolution (or, more specifically, for sensor resolution to make a significant contribution to image resolution), there are somewhat higher demands on technique (and equipment) - and it's reasonable that at least some people will be buying a high-resolution camera in the expectation of using the pixel count. We probably need some kind of code on this group to indicate when we're talking about overall image quality or pixel-level detail. Will a D800 produce a worse image (resolution-wise) than a D700? No, all things being equal. Would you be disappointed if it didn't do better? Yes.<br /></p>

 

<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.</blockquote>

 

<p>I concede that hand-holding means that I cannot guarantee complete camera stability. I concede that this means some loss of sharpness. I don't concede that this amount is necessarily noticable, assuming reasonable technique, a reasonably high shutter speed, VR, etc. I don't expect pixel-level sharpness hand-holding at 1/15s with a 50mm lens. At 1/200s, if I can see blur, I'm probably doing something wrong, and it's likely to be dwarfed by other image quality effects. Given the quality of many of Nikon's lens mounts these days, a tripod is hardly a guarantee of sharpness, and unless you've got a completely static subject and plenty of time for framing, there's typically no choice. Which is why some of Nikon's D800 and D800e sample images were hand-held. Whatever images I'm getting, they've been radically sharper at a pixel level than the output of a D700, with its strong low-pass filter, and I know enough about computer graphics and image processing (and I really do) that I'd not have qualms about objecting to the results. Yes, if I have something completely static and time, I use my (expensive) tripod - every little helps. But it's just not true to suggest that a D800 is a tripod-only camera, any more than the same is true of, say, a 'blad - even if one could argue that, once you're using a tripod, a D800 is an exceptional camera to put on it.<br /></p>

 

<blockquote>Eric, both Andrew (to my knowledge) and I are using the D810, not the D800(E).</blockquote>

 

<p>Correct, I upgraded my D800e to a D810. I do see a little more focus reliability, although with the D800 it varied from lens to lens, and was often just fine, especially away from the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (which I hadn't tried to tune with the dock until I got the D810). I upgraded because the live view is better (including the split mode that I explicitly asked Nikon for, if not in that form), the camera is much quieter, it doesn't lock up until it's done while writing images in live view (making an Eye-Fi more practical), it's faster, it has a bigger buffer, there's marginally more dynamic range at ISO 64 (though less at some other points), the JPEG engine is slightly better, the metering is slightly more reliable, the highlight metering mode is useful, the battery life is better, and I wasn't using my D700 so there seemed to be no point in keeping two cameras around when I could trade in for an upgrade. I had a friend's wedding coming up, so it was timely. The D810 is a better camera, slightly, but in lots of ways. The D800 is still a very good camera.<br /></p>

 

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

 

<p>That really ignores some fundamental characteristics of the vibration. Hand-held shake is likely to be of a much higher magnitude than camera shake, but the shutter vibration is at a much higher frequency. Can I hold my 200 f/2 absolutely steady? Of course not. Can I make its 3kg change direction significantly within 1/200s? Really no. Even more common lenses have enough mass that jiggling them is hard, and VR is pretty good at tracking consistent movement. The shutter/mirror slap is a sharp impact, albeit a small one. Different shutter speeds are affected. No, I don't believe the camera's mechanical movements make much difference to 99% of my shots (at least, I'm happy with the sharpness, and I'm good at not being happy with sharpness), but discounting one because of the other is dubious.<br />

<br />

Sorry, end rant. I turn my back for a few days... (But I hope that helps people looking at the used D800 market - or the D750.)</p>

[andylynn]

"The D750 feels like a toy; the D800 feels like a brick (both exaggerating for impact, if that's taken too negatively"

 

That's very subjective, though, and based on personal preference. After a while shooting only mirrorless, a D800 felt way

too big to me, even though I'd been completely comfortable holding one before (when I had an F100, then a D700, then a

D800). To somebody who's used to small cameras a D750 will feel better. But I'm sure if I'd got my hands on a D750

when I was used to a D800, it would have felt uncomfortably small and light. Now I have a D750 and can attest that it's a

fantastic camera. I'd rate it above a D800 unless super high res is a priority, and for most people it's not. Really, if there

had been a lower res option I probably would have taken it over the D800 back in 2012.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Andy: Agreed, it's very subjective - hence Kyle really needs to try the cameras himself. My other Nikon is an F5... if it was an F75 I'd probably have a different view myself.<br />

<br />

I didn't buy the D800 particularly feeling I needed the resolution - although my D700 was certainly behind the curve and I had run out of pixels in landscapes. The dynamic range, shared by the D750, is what persuaded me. In the end, I found it's surprisingly useful to have the extra pixels - but obviously the difference between the D750 and D800 is much smaller than the difference between the D700 and D800. I'd rather have them than not, all else equal, but frankly other features are probably more important (1/8000 shutter? better AF? speed?) - most importantly, feel. Yes, storage costs more per shot with the D800 (although storage is reasonably cheap these days, and would be more so if I ever got around to throwing out useless images) but it's rare for it to be a major issue in what a computer can handle. Except, of course, in my office's photo competition, where they said "as big as you like", then failed to cope when I gave them a minimally-compressed 36MP JPEG at 42MB...</p>

[5711]

<p>i suggest we all buy leica and then argue why leica is better than anything else.</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

"i suggest we all buy leica and then argue why leica is better than anything else."

 

That's what the Steve Huff site is for.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Obviously, if we'd bought a Leica, we'd <i>know</i> why Leica is better than anything else. I think you get an induction or something. (I went into a Leica store last time I was in the US, last week. Strange how a lot of things didn't have price labels... if you have to ask... but then I also played with a Nikkor 600 f/4 on the same trip, so people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as the saying that probably wasn't supposed to be about lens manufacture goes.)<br />

<br />

We could argue about whether it's possible to hand-hold an A7R-II as well, if you like. :-)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Andrew,<br><i>"To an extent. If one buys a 36MP camera and expects [etc.] "</i><br>No, not to any extent. If one camera is at best not better than what a better camera can be reduced to, it does not make poor image quality more of an issue with the better camera than with th epororer camera. The fact that the poorer perfomance of the worse camera is all what it can do, at best, and never any better, does not make it less of a problem, but more of a problem. Any recommendation of picking a worse camera over a better one because being worse, it doesn't show that it is worse as much as the better one would when being reduced to that level of performance is - how shall i put this - rather strange.<br><br><i>"That really ignores some fundamental characteristics of the vibration. Hand-held shake is likely to be of a much higher magnitude than camera shake, but the shutter vibration is at a much higher frequency. "</i><br>Is not relevant. The only thing that matters is over how wide an area the supposedly point image is spread. Not how many times it moves back and forth across that image during the exposure. A blur is a blur.<br>So yes indeed. hand held shake is of much, much higher magnitude, creating a much larger spread, is several orders of magnitude worse that camera induced shake.<br>It is a recurring theme that shutter and other moving parts in a camera can affect performance of a camera that is handheld. One that has never ever been anywhere close to the truth. One of those photo myths that don't want to go away, mainly because of people inventing some sort of rational that would suggest it does make sense after all. ;-) A rational however that always is (by necessity - things just have that annoying habit of being as they are) as flawed as the myth itself.

[mukul_ranjan]

<p>I have both and the D750 is the way to go. The 800 has serious focus issues that Nikon seems unable to fix.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>The 800 has serious focus issues that Nikon seems unable to fix.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mukul, this blanket statement is not accurate. Nikon has fixed the focus issue on my D800 for free. They also cleaned the sensor and replaced some components with new parts. I am very grateful. If yours still has a problem after repair, why not send it to them again? Good luck.</p>