michele_anderson2 Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 <p>Hi,<br> I have always been interested in photography, and have taken many photos over the years, but consider myself a beginner. I am interested in buying the D750. I love nature photography and plan to spend more time shooting. I will be looking into taking some classes and will hopefully get better as I am going to be an empty nester and need a hobby! :) Just wondering, do you think that the D750 is too much camera for a beginner? It looks like it has lots of features that I may not understand. Is it a hard camera to learn?<br> Any thoughts would be appreciated.<br> Thank you!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_s. Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 <p>Modern cameras have many features but manufacturers always try to make them easy to use. So in it's simplest form you can just point and shoot, like any simple camera.</p> <p>As you learn more about photography, you will find more layers of complexity in your camera as well. These go hand in hand so it's completely natural for a beginner to not understand all the features of their camera. Even the cheapest models have lots and lots of settings and most users who buy these cameras do not understand or use these features.</p> <p>If you have the money why not? The D750 is a great camera. Otherwise for less money a D7200 would also make a good choice.</p> <p>You also need to budget for lenses. Probably best to start out with a zoom lens like Nikon 24-120 f4 VR. That will get you going for a while.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 <p>I have been using a D750 for about 7, 8 months. It is a fine camera for a beginner, but a D750 camera body in isolation is next to useless. I would say you'll need at least 2, 3 lenses to begin with, plus some accessories such as flash, tripod, etc. As a very general rule of thumb, I would spend twice as much on lenses than the camera body. Since the D750 is now $2000, new, do you have a $6000 overall budget to get some lenses and tripod, etc.? While you don't have to spend all $6000 at once, if you don't have around $6000 for the next few months, you are better off with a less expensive camera body.</p> <p>For example, people are getting refurbished D7100 for like $650 or so. Getting a less expensive body should leave you plenty of money for other accessories. Just be prepared to upgrade the camera in another year or two if you are really into photography.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele_anderson2 Posted July 12, 2015 Author Share Posted July 12, 2015 <p>Thank you for your quick replies. I should add some additional information. Several years ago, my brother in law gave me a professional camera. It is a Kodak DC5 Pro SLR n. He gave me two lenses to go along with it, a Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 28-70 mm1:2.8D and a Nikon ED AF-S VR Nikkor 70-200mm 1:2.8G. The camera and lenses were used and I know they have to be at least 10 years old. Having kids at home, and not having the time to really learn this camera, I used it in the most simple way. Lately the camera is acting up, and I was told by a guy in a camera store near me that the camera is most likely on it's last legs. I was hoping to be able to use the lenses. He told me that they would work on the D750. My hope was to buy the body only, use my lenses and get newer lenses over time. I hope this extra info helps.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Well, since you already have to very good lenses, sure, get a D750. I have one. It's excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen_omeara Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <p>If you can afford it and have the desire to learn then you can do this. It is a great body and if you add great glass to it then wonderful things can happen.</p> <p>-O</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <p>I am very familiar with the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. Those two lenses along with the D750 would be great for wedding and party photography indoors. They wouldn't be my choices for nature photography. For one thing they are heavy, and for nature, you may want something wider for landscape photography and something much longer for wildlife photography. Additionally, a macro lens would also be useful.</p> <p>Please make sure that they weight of those lenses are fine with you, and then think about what lenses you need to add.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <p>Hi Michele. There's nothing that stops a D750 being a good camera for a beginner, other than the price. My biggest concern with your set-up would be the 70-200 mk1, which - while it covers the sensor of an FX camera like a D750 - is <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/6">very soft in the corners</a> at 200mm. For this reason, I tend to think of it as being a much better lens for DX cameras than for FX ones - it was designed when Nikon's only dSLRs were DX, and I suspect it was optimised for this use. This may not bother you depending on what and how you shoot - otherwise, it's an extremely good lens. Unfortunately, the 28-70 is a much better fit for FX cameras - it's not all that wide on a DX camera. It's also not quite up to the standards of the newer 24-70, though.<br /> <br /> If you go down the D750 route, I'd think about eventually trading both of these in for their newer equivalents (if you want to make the best of the sensor), although neither are exactly bad. And <i>if</i> you're thinking about replacing both anyway, that's quite an argument for not ruling out a DX system (for which the 70-200 would be just fine) and buying a replacement for the 28-70 better suited to it. A D7100 or D7200 would save you quite a bit of money and still give you extremely good image quality. However, if you like the large viewfinder of the Kodak (and that's quite an exotic camera, by the way), you may find the DX cameras a bit restrictive, and I can see why the D750 might appeal more.<br /> <br /> I'd try handling a D750 and a D7200 (or D7100) and see how they feel to you, and whether you think the price difference is worth it - and they will both be much more pleasant to use than the Kodak - technology has moved on. As Shun says, I'd also think carefully about what you want to shoot (when you decide) before doing anything expensive about buying or replacing lenses, but bear in mind that you may want to do so. Good luck, and don't rush. The good news is that there are pretty much no bad cameras these days, so anything you get should do you fine.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_alton Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <p>The d750 is a heck of a camera and I'm sure you're capable of learning its ins and outs. It may take some time but it has 'beginner modes' that will work fine. And you have good lenses to start with (which you could sell or exchange later if you wish for whatever reason).<br> Before you commit a lot of money, you might see about renting one. I'd say more than the complexity, the size, weight and just comfort (whether it fits in your hands and you like the feel of it) may end up being decisive factors. You may find some other camera brands or models fit you better.<br> But again, it's a great camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Helmke Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <p>I think the D750 is more camera than you can use as a beginner but one you will grow in to and learn to make the most of its features over the next few years. The lenses you have will get you going and you can do a lot with them, maybe upgrade later on as you progress. Honestly while that 70-200 is not my favorite you can get many years of use from it still even as old as it is. Next thing you will need will be something longer and that will come later as you become more advanced. So get one and get shooting! You'll love it and have a ball with it.<br /><br />Rick H.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <p>If by "nature" you mean wildlife, I think a D7200 with Nikon 80-400mm AFS would be a much better use of money. The big thing about wildlife photography isn't the camera, it's the lens. A D7200 + 80-400mm AFS will cost somewhere around $3,000. This would be a great medium priced combo. A 200mm is way too short for wildlife, unless it's in a zoo.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_simpson1 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <p>My first DSLR was a D700. I was bewildered by the array of settings, but soon realised that only a few needed to be changed, and the camera would work fin with the remainder set to their defaults.<br> I haven't regretted the purchase. I would recommend that you "go for it", it's better to have more camera than you can use, than to discover, a year from now, that you don't have enough flexibility.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <p>As far as functionalists go, the D750 is not all that different from the D7100, and D7200. In fact, they are very similar. The D750 has some additional AF features such as the latest group dynamic mode while the D7100 and D7200 have 1/8000 sec and 1/250 sec flash sync.</p> <p>Therefore, the D750 is going to be just as easy or as difficult as a D7200 for beginners (or anybody else). The D750 costs a lot more mainly because it is FX. Again, it boils down to whether you want to spend $2000 or so on a camera body or you are better off spending some of your budget on lenses, etc. Generally speaking, since digital camera bodies tend to depreciate quickly, I think it is wiser to spend more on lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_rochkind Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <p>To echo what a few here have said, with today's sensor technology, I wouldn't go with FX. The best DX sensors today are where FX was when I bought my D700 a few years ago.</p> <p>If you think you'll get very serious, when you acquire new lenses you could make sure they cover an FX sensor. That way you can go to an FX body at some point and keep your lenses.</p> <p>Actually, I now think of my D700 as a monster, and use it only for special purposes. I've mostly switched to m4/3. If you're starting out, you should think about whether you want such a large camera as the 750 along with its large, heavy lenses to lug around all the time.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 But with today's sensor technology, i would get an FX camera, not a DX.<br>And why would you decide not get an FX camera, but then spend money on lenses that will cover FX and plan to get an FX camera? Save some money and get an FX camera straightaway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <p>The OP <em>already has</em> FX lenses. With a DX camera she'd be stuck with a 28-70 lens on DX and would have to get a new lens if she wanted any wide angle. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <blockquote> <p>The OP <em>already has</em> FX lenses. With a DX camera she'd be stuck with a 28-70 lens on DX and would have to get a new lens if she wanted any wide angle.</p> </blockquote> <p>Some of you are not picking up what I wrote.</p> <p>The OP indeed has FX lenses, but those FX lenses are mostly for indoor wedding, party type photography. If she were going to specialize in birthday parties for kids, the 28-70mm/f2.8 would have been great.</p> <p>Nature photography is almost always outdoors and frequently involves some traveling and/or hiking. At least for me, a heavy 28-70mm/f2.8 wouldn't be my choice. For FX landscape, I would get a 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR. For wildlife, I would get something longer than a 70-200mm/f2.8 and DX maybe preferable.</p> <p>Therefore, one way or another, I think the OP will be getting different lenses anyway. Since those lenses were given to her, hopefully she is at liberty to sell them to help fund the lenses she really needs for nature photography, or she has the budget to buy more lenses. That is where the overall budget comes into the picture.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Different proposition though. Add a body to replace the defunct body. Or get a completely new kit, body and lenses.<br>Personally, i wouldn't go for either a DX camera or a complete reshuffle. Just replace the body with a decent FX body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Sorensen Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <p>If you are fairly sure that nature photography will become a serious hobby, the D750 would be a very appropriate purchase. Its technology is new and should be useful for at least several years. I disagree that your lenses aren't appropriate for nature, as my older 80-200/2.8 AFS and other older lenses including a 500/4 AFI still produce very reasonable quality images when used with my D700 and D800 and I do a lot of nature shooting between 28 and 200mm. 28mm is wide angle on an FX body. Sure you might want to get something to cover even wider angles, but what you have does not have to be traded immediately for more modern glass. Yes the lenses are heavy, but you can choose what to carry and you can also do a lot of nature photography with your photo gear in the back of your vehicle.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <p>Independent from the lenses, as a learning tool, there can be issues with the D7<em>x</em>00 or a D750. They do offer a wealth of features, settings and options, and it is tempting to get lost in those while learning. I've seen people a few too many proudly showing how they set some exotic function exactly right, while messing up the composition of the photo completely.<br> Now obviously this is not a problem of the camera obvious, but simpler cameras sometimes can be easier to learn on by virtue of having less distractions built in. And the D3x00 and D5x00 aren't bad cameras at all - people here may not prefer them because they're used to some features found on the more expensive models but if you do not have those habits, the smaller cameras work perfectly fine. That all said, though, a D750 and a good, solid course on photography with a teacher who will have you focus on the core essentials, and you will be just fine.<br> I do agree with Shun that your lenses aren't a natural fit for nature work, but there is also merit in just getting started (with that course!) and finding out for yourself what works and does not work for you.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I don't think a camera with a too volumnious user manual is a problem, as long as that manual also has a 'quick start' section.<br>There is a simple camera hidden inside a camera offering (too) many modes and settings. Just set it to aperture priority or shutterspeed priority mode, manual if you so wish, and forget about all of the rest until the day you think you need something more.<br>So why not get a camera that will allow you to explore more settings, if and when you are ready?<br>And after all, photography isn't that difficult that it takes years of learning. Don't let those manuals and menus fool you. There are only three technical parameters that need to be understood: aperture, shutterspeed and focus. And they are easy too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <p>Agree, but I see countless get lost in secondary options at the point of ignoring of simply looking at the light, verifying exposure and so on. I'm not saying a camera with a thick manual should be avoided. Just a fair warning that the abundance of options is a lot of fluff-that-can-be-ignored.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele_anderson2 Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 <p>Thank you all for your responses! I so appreciate everyone who has shared their thoughts with me. I was relieved that most of you think that the D750 would be a good choice for me, and that you believe that it is a camera that I can learn over time. I know it's a costly investment but as a few of you pointed out, I already have FX lenses, it would be nice to use them. At this point, I'd like to only invest in a new body because the camera body I have isn't working well for me, while the lenses are fine. They ARE heavy!! I haven't even checked into new lenses, but have they gotten lighter? A few of you mentioned getting a longer lens for doing wildlife. If they haven't gotten lighter, I don't know that I'd be able to deal with one that is much larger. I will try to do what I can with what I have for now in order to keep my costs down. I appreciate the comments regarding the DX, but honestly I don't want to find myself in a situation where a couple years down the road that I'd be wanting to upgrade. I plan to keep whatever I buy for years. I notice that many people who are into photography seem to change cameras often, but since it's a hobby for me, and not a career, I don't foresee myself being able to do that. Thank you all once again for your input. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Unfortunately good long lenses don't tend to come light. Nikon has a new, lighter 300mm f/4, but it's a $2000 lens. I have a Tamron 150-600 lens and and long lenses go it's pretty light and affordable, but it still feels heavy after carrying for a while and it's not easy to shoot handheld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 <blockquote> <p>I haven't even checked into new lenses, but have they gotten lighter? A few of you mentioned getting a longer lens for doing wildlife. If they haven't gotten lighter, I don't know that I'd be able to deal with one that is much larger. </p> </blockquote> <p>Michele, you were given two professional lenses which at the time were state of the art. both are geared toward event shooters. they are big and heavy because they have constant 2.8 apertures. neither is optimal for nature photography. although both have good optics, even being as old as they are, they are probably overkill for what you are trying to do here. Lugging a 70-200 and a lens whose nickname is "The Beast" through the backcountry could be a windfall for your chiropractor, though. As Shun has pointed out, lighter lenses such as the 18-35 would probably be better for nature. For wildlife, 200mm is a little short unless you are shooting a petting zoo. if you stick with FX, you either have the option of super expensive longer lenses, or the consumer oriented 70-300 VR, which adds 100mm to the length and saves weight. however, that same 70-300 will have an equivalent focal length of 450mm on a DX camera. to get to 400mm on FX, you are either looking at an 80-400 VR which costs $2700 new and weighs about 100g more than your current 70-200, or a 400mm prime lens, <strong>which only costs about $12,000 new</strong>.<br> <br> That's why people were trying to steer you toward DX, which isn't necessarily a "lesser" format than FX, despite what Nikon marketing wants you to believe. you have to decide if the benefits of FX--shallower DoF, better image quality when printing larger than 20x30, better low-light ability--are worth the downsides: bigger, heavier bodies and lenses, potentially more expensive lenses. if you are serious about shooting wildlife and dont have unlimited budget, a d7200 would be a better option than a D750, as it essentially offers a 1.5x teleconverter with no optical penalty. the D750 does offer extended reach in "DX Mode," but the images are only about 10mp.<br> <br> A D750 with appropriate lenses would be a good camera if you are only shooting nature, but for nature AND wildlife, a high-end DX body will do almost everything an FX body will do, at a lower price and with more available reach. i hear what you're saying about not wanting to upgrade for some years, but the fact of the matter is that bodies are the most disposable part of photography these days, as technology keeps advancing.<br> <br> The way i see it, you have a few options here:<br> 1. Buy the D750 and use it with your current lenses. You could get a 1.4x teleconverter which will almost get you out to 300mm for wildlife, but then there's still the issue of carrying two lenses which weigh a combined 85 oz. or 5 lbs., plus the camera's weight of another 2+ lbs., so 7 lbs. total right there.<br> 2. Buy the D750 and sell one or both of your current lenses. the 28-70/2.8 is going for $700-$800 used on the auction site, depending on condition; the 70-200 VRI goes for about $1200-$1500 used, depending on condition. selling both of those lenses could net you $2000 or more which can be put toward an 18-35, a 70-300, a tripod, and other lenses.<br> 3. Sell both lenses and buy a D7200. that saves you about $800 from the D750 price. instead of an 18-35, you'll perhaps want a DX ultrawide, like the Nikon 10-24 and the 70-300. you may also want a standard zoom, or perhaps some primes in the 24-70 range. <br> 4. Buy a D7200, sell the 28-70, and keep the 70-200. Note that if you go this route, it will effectively be a 105-300mm on DX, and a teleconverter can extend this range even more. However, a 70-300 VR not only costs less, but weighs about 1/2 as much as the 70-200. you could also sell the 70-200/2.8 and buy a 70-200/4, which saves weight and cost and is more optimized for landscape than events, but you'd still have the same issue with maximum reach.<br> 5. Sell 28-70 and 70-200 and buy a mirrorless system. if you need to shave weight, mirrorless is the way to go. i would recommend Fuji for nature photography as they have excellent lenses. However for wildlife, or anything requiring extended telephoto reach (past 200mm), the best choice is probably an m4/3 camera like the Olympus E-M series. m4/3 has a 2x multiplier, meaning a 100-300mm lens effectively becomes a 200-600mm lens. that system also offers some quality zooms and primes at the wide end, like the 7-14 and the 12/2.<br> <br> i realize this is a lot to digest, but i think it's important to get camera gear which fits your needs. when you're diving in head-first, you may not know all this stuff. and once you buy a camera body, it immediately starts to depreciate in value.</p> <blockquote> <p>I will try to do what I can with what I have for now in order to keep my costs down.</p> </blockquote> <p>well, you're talking about spending $2000 on a camera which may or may not be optimal for what you want to do, depending on what lenses you use with it, and will almost certainly require you to incur further costs. Your current lenses arent optimized for nature, so you can either soldier on with them, or put some thought into replacing them. once you buy a body, you're pretty much locked into that system, but one generally doesn't "keep costs down" by buying the most expensive gear out there. you can keep costs <em>and weight</em> down by selling those lenses as ive outlined, but realistically, a couple years down the road, you may indeed want to upgrade, or at least make a lateral move, to a lighter system. <br> <br> By way of comparison, an E-M5 weighs about 1/2 as much as a D750 and is a steal at current closeout prices (> $500). adding a 100-300 would cost about $600 and would again <em>shave more than 2 lbs off the weight of the 70-200 while giving you 3x the reach of a 200mm on FX</em>. a lighter kit means you can stay in the backcountry longer while maintaining comfort level. And, you'd still have $900 to spend on other lenses from your proposed D750 budget -- even without the $2000 you could get from selling the Nikon glass. and just because these cameras cost less doesnt mean they have less bells and whistles; the E-M5, for instance, has 5-axis in-body stabilization, so any lens you use with it becomes stabilized. Nikon doesn't offer that.<br> <br> at this point, i would suggest further research before committing. but speaking as someone who owns a Nikon FX setup with a 70-200 and 24-70 (the equally bulky successor to the 28-70), lugging that much weight around for hours is a lot less fun than packing a light mirrorless kit into a smaller bag for a day of outdoor shooting in nature. if you're planning on hiking at all, weight is a serious consideration, perhaps more than megapixels or sensor size. and if you dont print huge; need shallow DoF; extreme low-light ability; or have a lot of older legacy lenses you plan on using at their native focal lengths, FX probably isn't what you absolutely need. The truth of the matter is that any high-end camera body these days can deliver excellent image quality -- the E-M5 i mentioned once retailed for $1100 -- but the trend is toward lighter, equally-capable systems, except for those who need to use specialty or exotic lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now