cameraf4 wrote:
Actually, c-optical, I don't own a D750 or a D7200. If you do, I'd love to see your test results (can I be more of a Nerd?). The test, from my stand point, is to show me when, if I am before a landscape of extra beauty, I would need to use the D850 rather than my trusty Df. For the most part, I am very happy with my images from the Df. But, since from now on I will be carrying both, if the scene is special (and un-repeatable), I will want as much detail as I can possibly get.
I have the D7200 but not D750 - I am waiting till next year for my FF purchase - waiting to see offerings from Nikon and others. I am sure someone, somewhere made this apples-to-apples comparison - Well DX apple to FX apple :) .
Actually I love the classic look and feel of the Df but just wish Nikon bumped up the MP to 20 or 24 - which I think they will do in the next generation of Df...also I hope they would lower the price a bit but I am afraid it will remain a niche interest enthusiast product with high price due to low volume. I remember in the early 2000s when the most advanced digital cameras were in the single digit MP, experts were saying when the sensors got to 16 MP it would equal the resolution of 35mm film (well, possibly not Kodachrome 25/64 which is now obsolete anyway). Well, we reached and passed that level. Also, 16MP is nothing to brush off - people normally don't view pictures at such high magnification for normal sized purposes - web, small to medium and even larger prints. My first digicam was an Oly 3030 3.3 MP (max ISO 400!) which made nice prints up to 8x10 (of course that is now bested by today's double digit MP cameras).