Nikon D750 with new Nikkor 24-120 vs. Nikon D7100

[sam_ginger]

<p>I am thinking to switch to Nikon D750 (with Nikkor 24-120) kit from Nikon D7100. (Anyway I'll keep D7100 as a backup).<br>

I can't find any info about AA filter in D750. Does D750 has this filter?<br>

Also what I'll gain if I'll buy D750? What do you think about Nikkor 24-120 lens combined with D750?<br>

How good this lens will be with D7100?<br>

Thanks!<br>

</p>

[chuck]

<p>Yes, D750 has a anti-aliasing filter. I have the 20-120 and use it with D810. It is a pretty sharp lens, but it's color rendition is flatter than I like, noticeably flatter than say 24-70/2.8. It also flares like crazy if the sun is anywhere near the frame. </p>

[sam_ginger]

<p>So, if D750 has a anti-aliasing filter, how you can compare sharpness of D750 vs. D7100?<br /> Also, under picture control menu D750 has option "Clarity" (D7100 doesn't have such option). What this option is doing?</p>

[dmanthree]

<p>I'll take a shot at the simplest answer: you'll gain image quality. The 7100 is a nice cam, but can't match the D750 for IQ. And don't worry about the AA filter. The D750 is outstanding, despite being "crippled" with an AA filter.<br>

<sarcasm mode off></p>

[chuck]

<p>You compare it just as if anti-aliasing filter is not a factor. Since anti-aliasing filter is in fact not an optional feature in either camera, the picture taken with either camera would be what they are, and you then compare them for sharpness just as they are. Since D750 has anti-aliasing filter, while D7100 does not, in some situations, the final image from D7100 would be somewhat sharper, provided both cameras are matched with lenses that can support the full resolution potential of their sensors.</p>

<p>But keep in mind D750's sensors have bigger and less noisy pixels. So even if D7100 might produce slightly sharper picture in good, flat light at low ISO speeds, D750 would produce cleaner pictures with greater dynamic range in most lighting situations. Also, there would be times when D7100's lack of at-aliasing sensors would lead to annoying moire artifacts which D750's anti-aliasing filter would take care of.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D750 with the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR is an excellent combination. I also have the D7100 and D7200. Those DX bodies are mainly my wildlife bodies to be used with a super tele. The D750 is more my everyday body.</p>

<p>With the D750, you will gain a lot of high-ISO capability and better AF. However, the 51 AF points will be more concentrated in the center of the frame. That has been a bit of a problem for the Multi-CAM 3500 on FX since the simultaneous introduction of the D3 and D300 back on August 23, 2007.</p>

<p>Don't worry about sharpness and the anti-aliasing filter stuffs. 3 years ago I did some very careful testing between the D800 and D800E. The difference between with and without an AA filter is minimal, such that when Nikon upgraded to the D810, they don't bother to offer the two different options: <a href="/equipment/nikon/D800/d800-vs-d800e-which-to-choose/">Nikon D800 vs D800E, Which to Choose?</a></p>

<p>24-120mm/f4 is a very good lens, but it is certainly not top of the line. I have had mine since it was introduced back in 2010. After 5 years of usage, it is probably not as perfect as it was new, but it is still a fine lens on today's 24MP and 36MP bodies. The 24mm end is a bit weak and you can see some chromatic aberration.</p>

[chuck]

<p>One more thing. The flip out rear monitor on the D750 is a very useful feature, especially if you don't always take pictures in situations where you can place the camera at eye level.<br>

It is the feature I miss most when decided to go with the D810.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>what I'll gain if I'll buy D750?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To be honest, if you need to ask this question, why do you think of buying a D750 in the first place? What are<em> for you</em> the advantages <em>you see</em> in getting a D750? If you do not know yourself, do you really need a new camera?<br>

I'm not saying there is no advantage to the D750, and the most important are listed already, but there is always greener grass somewhere. Getting a new camera without knowing which problem it solves for you, is just upgrading for upgrading sake... expensive hobby that way.</p>

[chuck]

<p>I think many photography enthusiasts do let equipment partially drive their enthusiasm for the hobby. I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Many fishers, golfers, car and motorcycle enthusiasts, etc, etc are the same way. They help support the industry.</p>

[sam_ginger]

<p>Anyone can answer the question: Under picture control menu D750 has option "Clarity" What this option is doing?<br>

How does it work?</p>

[ShunCheung]

Sam, I have to admit that I don't bother with the clarity feature. I only shoot RAW. And Chuck, after getting the D750 in

December 2014, I find myself using the tilt screen a lot less than I had expected. It is great to be able to shoot some low

angle wildlife occasionally, but live view works well mostly on a tripod. I find it hard to compose hand holding with live

view, but it can be good for video, which I almost always use a tripod.

[chuck]

<p>Clarity increases contrast in the midtone areas of a JPEG image without changing shadows and highlights, unlike general contrast adjustment. This way it makes the mid tone parts of the image more punchy, without blowing out highlights and hiding shadow details.<br /> Shun: I recently took a considerable number landscape photos from a perspective low to the ground. These were not in environments where it would have been convenient for me to lie down on my stomach. So I really wished I could tilt the screen up to see what I was framing.</p>

[Palouse]

<p>Here is very good explanation and illustration of what clarity, and the other picture control do:<br>

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/picturecontrol/</p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<blockquote>

<p>I'll take a shot at the simplest answer: you'll gain image quality. The 7100 is a nice cam, but can't match the D750 for IQ. And don't worry about the AA filter. The D750 is outstanding, despite being "crippled" with an AA filter.<br /><sarcasm mode off></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perfect. :)</p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<blockquote>

<p>I find myself using the tilt screen a lot less than I had expected.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same here. I used it the first day and It drove me nuts. Since I shoot mostly street, it is of no use to me personally. I am not a sneaky shooter as I personally find it creepy, so the tilt screen is of no value. I do agree that for video it could be helpful.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I think many photography enthusiasts do let equipment partially drive their enthusiasm for the hobby. I don't think there is anything wrong with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chuck, agree, and I've got more gear than I need too - and yet, I'm also glad people challenge me on that point and make me think again whether I really need to spend more money on a non-existing problem. After all, you can spend money only once, and at some point a course, a workshop or a few good books on photography do (a lot) more to improve your photos than yet another upgraded body.<br>

So, in no way do I want to tell the OP how to spend his money, but just as a counterweight, offering the consideration whether it's really worth it to spend money on a camera of which you even cannot tell whether it's better than what you currently use - in my view, there is also nothing wrong with that.</p>

[evilsivan]

The D750 was a huge step up from D7000, can't speak to the D7100 though. I like the tilt screen but I don't use it too often, it is useful with kids. I got the D750 with the 24-120 and I just didn't like the lens very much. Seemed like a good compromise on paper but for me it was too many compromises. That said, seems like I'm in the minority about the lens. most pnetters who have it seem to love it. The D750 focuses super fast and sharp even in pitch black where I can't even see the subject, the D750 can somehow.

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>the 24-120 (...) most pnetters who have it seem to love it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I think it's more nuanced than that. Most people here who have it, like it for what it is: a versatile lens. Yes, it makes some compromises - that's inevitable with a wide-range zoom. I can imagine it's too much compromise for some, but that's why other lenses exist. On a whole, the 24-120 does perform well and the extra bit of reach compared to 2x-70/80 lenses is really useful, as is VR. I just used it near exclusively for a recent family city-trip, and only twice thought a longer lens would have been nice. With a 24-70 or similar, that count would have been way higher.<br>

I most certainly do not love this lens - it's nothing really special or exceptional; out of all lenses I have, this is by far the most utilitarian, a swiss army knife that does a lot of things right, but nothing excellent. Yet, it is pretty excellent at being a swiss army knife. Have a small, fast prime alongside it, and you've got a solid toolkit that doesn't break your back and can do what you need it to do.</p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, I think it's more nuanced than that. Most people here who have it, like it for what it is: a versatile lens. Yes, it makes some compromises - that's inevitable with a wide-range zoom. I can imagine it's too much compromise for some, but that's why other lenses exist. On a whole, the 24-120 does perform well and the extra bit of reach compared to 2x-70/80 lenses is really useful, as is VR. I just used it near exclusively for a recent family city-trip, and only twice thought a longer lens would have been nice. With a 24-70 or similar, that count would have been way higher.<br />I most certainly do not love this lens - it's nothing really special or exceptional; out of all lenses I have, this is by far the most utilitarian, a swiss army knife that does a lot of things right, but nothing excellent. Yet, it is pretty excellent at being a swiss army knife. Have a small, fast prime alongside it, and you've got a solid toolkit that doesn't break your back and can do what you need it to do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>You could upgrade to a D7200 and spend the money saved on a better lens like the 17-55mm f/2.8. The extra stop of lens speed will level the playing field as far as low-light and shallow depth-of-field ability goes. You'll only notice a difference in IQ between the D750 and the D7200 if you push the ISO beyond 1600 regularly. You'll also be able to use any existing DX lenses and accessories on the new body.</p>

<p>I suggest you use Imaging Resource's "Camera Comparometer" to see how the two cameras stack up against each other with a variety of subjects, and at different ISO speeds. Personally I don't see much difference in IQ between them until the ISO is pushed quite high. Apart from the slight softening of detail due to the D750's AA filter that is.<br>

Dave Etchells' excellent "Comparometer" can be found here: https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</p>

[andylynn]

Neither camera is going to be noticeably sharper than the other. The D7100 would be the camera of choice if you want to

extend your telephoto range, the D750 excels in low light and when you want huge dynamic range (e.g. for a lot of

landscape uses). Other than that, they're about the same size and are both quick cameras with good AF that are both

capable of making a great image, so if you're mostly shooting JPGs in good light at mid apertures you'll be hard pressed

to see a difference in the output.

[ShunCheung]

<p>The 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR is a 5x zoom. That is a rather wide zoom range and the optical design definitely involves some compromises. I find its weak point to be edge sharpness and performance (chromatic aberration, etc.) on its wide end. Therefore, it is not a very good choice for landscape around 24mm, 28mm if you are looking for corner-to-corner sharpness. However, center sharpness is quite good and therefore suitable for people photography.</p>

<p>I see the 24-120mm/f4 as an extension to the traditional 24-70mm/f2.8 for people photography with a longer range but slower aperture. It also can focus to quite close, but it is not that sharp in any near-macro range such that the difference from a true macro lens is quite obvious.</p>

[raczoliver]

<p>I consistently get better sharpness using the 24-120 f/4 VR lens at 24mm than the somewhat outdated AF 24 f/2.8D prime lens, and that's on a lower resolution D700. I imagine it may be because the 24mm prime was my beater lens for a long time, it's what I stuck out of windows of airplanes flying through ice crystals and such, so it may be more my fault than the lens' (but hey, I got nice pictures that I otherwise wouldn't have), but now I choose the 24-120 zoom over this prime if I want the better image quality.</p>

<p>I think the 24-120 is a nice lens, it has some distortion at pretty much all focal lengths and heavy light falloff at the wider apertures, but the sharpness is very good for a 5X zoom. The lens is definitely not the limiting factor for resolution on the D700, and from what I read, it should hold up pretty well on the D750 too. If you want a general purpose zoom lens, I think it is a good choice, and although sometimes I feel like it is too bulky and would rather take a 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 instead, I tend to use the long end of its zoom range fairly often, so I think I would miss it in the end.</p>