tlpgolf1 Loc: Southern California

Hi everyone
Trying to decide between 750 or 810. Have read reviews on both and like what I have read. One question I have is about the 810. I have read a couple reviews that say the 810 above iso of 3200 is fair at best. Anyone have experience with this. Plan on using either one for wildlife nature indoor outdoor landscape and Astro and low light. Have a D7200 now and old but goody F5 film. Thoughts on the issue I have read about

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

I've got a d810 and haven't noticed any real problems at high ISO's. Not that I have done it a lot. If I get a chance I'll try and look at my stuff and PM you.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

The D750 is better at high ISO...the D810 has greater resolution.

Noise is subjective and it can be reduced in post.

Resolution has advantages in cropping or printing large.

It depends on what you value and how you shoot, etc..

tcthome Loc: NJ

I have the D810. It was introduced to the public in 2014. By todays standards , it's ISO performance is below parr IMHO. I keep my max ISI setting at 3200. For low light wildlife ( think small birds, sparrows, etc. on cloudy days in shady tree cover) the focus hunts some , I use BBF & just hit the focus button in a pumping motion sort of until it grabs focus to deal with it. As joer mentions you can deal with the noise in post but you do loose some of the detail per a thread done here by chgcanon. Not that big of deal depending on the photo. For larger wildlife, like Egrets, Deer & even small birds in good light it does a great job. 36 MP are great for cropping in post also & provides excellent detail & is great for nature, flowers, macro, etc. I checked out the D750 when I purchased the D810 & the D810 felt better in my hands. Might be different for you. I have not used the D750 at all but reports say it has better ISO performance via less MP sensor, I believe a little more frames per second &, a tilt out screen which I wish I had when shooting low. D810 is not available new any more but you might find one new on the shelf if you hunt around. At the selling prices of the used D810 if you find one in great shape with not to high of a shutter count , are excellent value. I have no regrets. If my main purpose was wildlife , today I would get the D500 new when Nikon runs a sale(if they do). Have fun with what ever you choose.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

And how each camera feels in my hand.
I, myself, would go with the greater resolution.
Super high ISO ability means nothing to me.
I'm not impressed by (nor worried about) high ISO capability.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Have and use both. The D750 is smaller and lighter. The D810 works better for the heavy crops I sometimes need for bugs and birds. I usually have the D750 as part of my travel kit. Can't decide if that should change. Here is a detailed comparison of the two. Link https://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D750-vs-Nikon-D810

tcthome Loc: NJ

Watch this vid at least between the 6 & 7 minute marks.

https://backcountrygallery.com/all-about-auto-iso-nikon-cameras/

bleirer

Camera decision can be helpful side by side. I dont shoot Nikon, but wondereing why the d850 is not on your list?

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D750-vs-Nikon-D810

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Get both,
use for a year,
see which one you use/like the most,
sell the other.

tcthome Loc: NJ

First DSLR & outside of about a dozen rolls of 35mm film shot on a Canon AE-P at least 10 yrs prior. I have to tell you after owning it for just short of 5 yrs, I wish it produced cleaner photos above 2200 ISO, say to 6400. Still, I have no regrets getting the D810. To each their own.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Truth is that when you compare apples to apples - ie downsample a D810 image to 24 mp, you'll find the D810 equal to or better than the D750 when it comes to noise at high ISO, and when not at high ISO the detail capture is considerably better. Or looking at it another way, upsample the D750 image to 36 mp and you'll find the same result. At 300 ppi, the D810 image is 50% bigger than the D750, and that is meaningful.

These first two images were taken with a D810, cropped in camera to 25mp (6144x4080px), and further downsampled to 2048x1360 px.

(Download)


(Download)

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have come to the point of cringing every time questions like yours come up here...not because of the question, which is fine, but because of the answers, which tend to be all over the map and rarely based on fact much at all. With that in mind, and with the advice that you should carefully weigh the value of every piece of advice hat you get, including mine, here are some things for you to think about.

First...you have listed a number of areas of photography in which you are interested. These present widely varying shooting environments and situations, and require a wide range of capabilities from whatever camera you choose. And whether you shoot JPEG or raw, you are going to need to be making a lot of camera adjustments as you move from one to another, if you do it right. For this reason alone, I would suggest that you strongly consider the D810. Its professional user interface, even though more different from your D7200 than the consumer user interface of the D750, will provide you with much more flexibility and will make the transitions easier and more mistake-proof once you learn how everything works. I'm guessing that you are working against a budget, so will not try to steer you anywhere but your two stated choices.

Now...for the whole low-light, high ISO thing...

I shot a D200 for years (about 9 years, in fact). I loved the rendition that its CCD sensor delivered. (And still do.) It was good to about ISO 400, but could still do fine in low light, because sensor noise in long exposures was nowhere near what it is in modern CMOS sensors. I'll hang on to that camera as long as it will capture an image. I then traded a big box of Olympus film equipment for a D300 and a D300s. They were a little better at higher ISOs, maybe to 800 or 1000, but still nowhere near today's cameras. I have a lot of images captured with them.

But about 4 years ago, when I was preparing to attend a night sky workshop, I bought a D810, knowing that I needed more capability in situations with very limited lighting. The D810 worked beautifully all the way up to ISO 6000 for the night sky, and I have used it way beyond that for other types of low light photography without any problems at all. Are the images the same as landscapes exposed at ISO 200? No. But it has nothing whatever to do with noise. It's because of the loss of dynamic range that occurs with ALL cameras and sensors when using high ISOs. The D810 (and the D750 and the D850 (and the D500, by the way) all have just about 5 stops of dynamic range left when you get to ISO 8000, and it continues to drop from there.

You can go to a site like Photons to Photos and see that the curve (line, really) for the D750 is a hair's breadth higher than the one for the D810. The one for the D850 sits a tiny bit higher than either of them. But the truth is that the difference is not enough to talk about. And it's not enough to make a difference, either, if you know how to use the camera that you have. If the D810 "is fair at best" above ISO 3200, then a review that is honest and truthful would have to say exactly the same thing about the S750 (or the D850...see the next paragraph).

I have now attended two night sky workshops, where I've learned two different approaches to the problem. One focused on using the highest reasonable ISO, the other focused on backing off the ISO a little and trusting the camera's dynamic range. Both work fine. I've also bought a second camera so that I don't have to worry about trying to change lenses in the dark. The second one is a D850. From an exposure standpoint, I consider it essentially identical to the D810. But it works a little bit better overall, because the sensor elements are smaller. (Since a star is a point source of light, it all fits on one sensor element if focused properly. Higher resolution is therefore better.

So if I were you, I would just decide whether 24MP will meet your needs (and if you are prepared to deal with the impacts of the larger files from a 36MP image) and whether you can see a benefit of the professional user interface of the D810. Those two factors will give you enough to tink about. And don't ignore what Gene said just above.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I have owed and used the D800, D810, and D850. All three handle low light well. I know you have been comparing the D810 to the D750, please consider the hidden factor (your personal level of skill) that hidden factor is very important. A good photographer can capture excellent results from either of these camera's.
The D750 has an EXPEED 4 processor, one generation ahead of the D810, but the D810 has more megapixels than the D8750. You may get more info from this
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Nikon_D810_vs_Nikon_D850_vs_Nikon_D750/BHitems/1062499-REG_1351688-REG_1082599-REG?gclid=Cj0KCQiAvbiBBhD-ARIsAGM48bx5ZAp8SFQUvC4GqGc6JHjHSit8a7nWwsuNqOXg-y7REukwnTnMaOMaAlCzEALw_wcB

For birds in flight I always want the most frames per second I can get, the D750 delivers 1.5 more per second than the D810, that could make a difference in unique situations.

jsfphotos Loc: New York, NY

I thought the D750 has been replaced (upgraded?) to D850. Why not compare 850 to 810? I’m not a gear freak...just wondering .