D750 v. D810 (Page 3): High quality in low light was for me also the killer argument between the two - like you I um'ed and ah'ed but came to the conclusion above.

Techrod

High quality in low light was for me also the killer argument between the two - like you I um'ed and ah'ed but came to the conclusion above.

CO

Dan De Lion wrote:

----- br br Not only does the D750 produce much m... (show quote)

I have the D500 and someone in my camera club has a D750. We did comparison shots using the same lenses and made sure the images were post processed the same way. We took shots up to ISO 5000. Our conclusion was that the D500 produced sharper images but the D750 had slightly less digital noise.

I don't agree with your assessment that the D500 is not up to the very high standards of the D750 or D7200. I would say that it's at least up to the high standards of the D750 and D7200 if not higher. For example, the D500's autofocus system is superior to the autofocus system in either the D750 or D7200. The Nikon D5 and D500 are the first two Nikon DSLR cameras to have a processor dedicated to just the autofocus system. With other cameras, the same processor does both image processing and autofocus functions. The D500's autofocus is rated to work down to -4EV. The D750 and D7200 are rated to work down to -3EV. The D500's shutter life is rated to 200K actuations. The D750 and D7200 have a shutter life of 150K actuations.

Jim Bob

Dan De Lion wrote:

-----

Dpreview has an excellent comparative test chart in most of their body reviews. There you can compare up to four bodies from many brands at different ISOs. I'm currently on a very weak WiFi signal in Rotterdam and can't check the comparison.

Dan

-----

Yeah. I've checked it on many occasions and it seems to confirm my observations.

Jim Bob

CO wrote:

I have the D500 and someone in my camera club has ... (show quote)

You're entitled to your opinion even if it is wrong.

adm

I would go with the D750. D810 has a higher pixel count but size, weight, and relative ease of handling of D750 outweighs that in my opinion.

CO

Jim Bob wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion even if it is wrong.

You didn't even read my post. Your response is just a blanket statement about everything.

Basque

Thanks, I'm leaning that direction. I' looking for higher quality at higher ISO.

On another note:
I wish they would produce just a DSLR w/o video and sink the $$$ spent on duel technology into high quality still imagery.
I shoot video professionally but use dedicated pro equipment for what is to be produced. I don't think one machine can fulfill two purposes exceptionally well.

redlegfrog

Basque wrote:

I've been shooting with a Nikon D7100 for quite awhile and now am thinking of jumping to full frame. I would like feedback on whether the difference in price between the two models is justified. I understand that "justified" is subjective, but I'd like to hear different opinions.
I'm not getting rid of my D7100, I like the advantages of the DX format.
Thanks for listening.

I've been stewing on this decision for some time. Both have great selling features. Heres hoping Nikon will make some changes this year to force me in one direction or the other.

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

Basque wrote:

Thanks, I'm leaning that direction. I' looking for higher quality at higher ISO.

On another note:
I wish they would produce just a DSLR w/o video and sink the $$$ spent on duel technology into high quality still imagery.
I shoot video professionally but use dedicated pro equipment for what is to be produced. I don't think one machine can fulfill two purposes exceptionally well.

They do. It is called the DF. It is a full frame dslr with the same sensor as the D4. High quality still images w/o video capability. About $2700 if memory serves.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

Basque wrote:

I have both format lenses.
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
24-120mm 3.5-5.6
35mm 1.8 DX
18-55 mm 3.5-5.6 DX
55-300 mm 4.5-5.6 DX

I ask the question because I'd like to fully utilize my FX lenses. I'm also currently looking into a 24-70 2.8.

Thanks for your response.

I started with a D7000, decided to purchase a full frame camera, bought the D810. Also kept the D7000. If carrying a little extra weight is a problem, then you probably ought to go with a lighter weight camera. However, looking at specifications you will find that there really is not too much weight difference among most DSLR cameras. My reasoning for buying the D810 was influenced by the higher image resolution, as well as the low level of noise at higher ISO. Love the camera, glad I chose it.

As others have pointed out, the camera/lens combination is defined by what will do the job most effectively. With a DX camera, either a DX or FX lens might be the right choice. With an FX camera, you will only want to use FX lenses, but have a greater variety of excellent lenses to choose from. One camera type can be used for all kinds of subjects, but having both DX and FX gives you a wider choice of tools to use!

As for the 24-70mm f/2.8, I have one and use it extensively! Very versatile lens, and sharp. Highly recommend it. Nikon has 3 classic lenses described in various ways such as the "golden triad": 14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8. The 14-24 and 70-200 are on my wish list! Also, I no longer own any DX lenses, so all my lenses can be used on either camera. Just have to remember how the crop factor affects their use on the DX camera.

Basque

That intrigues me!

Thanks!

Dan De Lion Loc: Montana

Jim Bob wrote:

Yeah. I've checked it on many occasions and it seems to confirm my observations.

Hi JB - Finally got some bandwidth. Comparing the king's hair in the playing cards, using the RAW setting. The 7200 beats the 500 from ISO 100 to 50000. The 500's 100000 is obviously better but practically useless. Of course, the 750 easily beats them both. AF is a plus for the 500 and U settings and built in flash are pluses for the 7200. I'd probably pick the 500 if I did sports or bird photography. For general use the 7200 would be my choice.

-----