Select Models wrote:

Well of course it is... it's also 496 gigabites smaller in size...

That's true.  I don't need the extra gigabytes.

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
I agree. Nikon and canon get their specs wrong. Canon got the 6d wrong - the d600 is (largely) better. But there is a massive section of the Nikon market who want a 5d3 spec camera and I think everyone assumed this would be it and are disappointed that it isn't.

I actually think I could do a better job of specing cameras tbh - and I wouldn't just be like "put everything in everything" because that clearly doesn't work.

I think there will always be people disappointed, no matter what Nikon and Canon does.  What is interesting, is for the first time, since the DSLR came out, Canon and Nikon are not chasing each other with models that are precisely "head to head."  They have chosen to approach the market differently.   You are right, there will be people that want a camera that has a spec very close to the Canon 5diii.  Then again, there are those that want Canon to come out with a higher megapixel camera.

What is clear though, is if you look at Canon and Nikon, in many cases, there isn't a direct competitor for any specific product.  There is always, some distinct difference.   The match-ups are much less clear than a few years ago.

Dan Howell wrote:

I think Jerry might be referring to me and for the record, I shoot with D3X and D800 (not D3, never had one of those). I still shoot more with D3X but am bringing my D800 to every shoot and have been incorporating it as the main or additional camera more and more. 

The more I shoot with both cameras within the same shoot, the more I notice how much more the shutter vibration is dampened in the D3X. It is simply a more robust build. I would hope that the future D4X would have the detail and size of the D800/810 in the full professional construction of the D3/D4 platform. Just hope my D3X holds out that long.

Sorry Dan.  I forgot the X.

GPS Studio Services wrote:

I think there will always be people disappointed, no matter what Nikon and Canon does.  What is interesting, is for the first time, since the DSLR came out, Canon and Nikon are not chasing each other with models that are precisely "head to head."  They have chosen to approach the market differently.   You are right, there will be people that want a camera that has a spec very close to the Canon 5diii.  Then again, there are those that want Canon to come out with a higher megapixel camera.

What is clear though, is if you look at Canon and Nikon, in many cases, there isn't a direct competitor for any specific product.  There is always, some distinct difference.   The match-ups are much less clear than a few years ago.

+1

Christopher Hartman wrote:
I just read on DPReview, the D750 DOES have a Low Pass Filter?  Since they ditched it on the 7100 and the D810, I'm surprised they didn't do it for the D750.

I noticed that as well.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
I think there will always be people disappointed, no matter what Nikon and Canon does.  What is interesting, is for the first time, since the DSLR came out, Canon and Nikon are not chasing each other with models that are precisely "head to head."  They have chosen to approach the market differently.   You are right, there will be people that want a camera that has a spec very close to the Canon 5diii.  Then again, there are those that want Canon to come out with a higher megapixel camera.

What is clear though, is if you look at Canon and Nikon, in many cases, there isn't a direct competitor for any specific product.  There is always, some distinct difference.   The match-ups are much less clear than a few years ago.

There are. However, the market should decide what camera that are produced, and the reason they go head to head is because the market on both sides needs that style of camera.

Wedding photographers (and so on) want a 5d3 equivalent on the Nikon side. They don't have a great wedding camera at the moment. The d750 would have sold in droves, but now it's won't. That's a mistake.

You could certainly say the same for the Canon with high MP / low ISO DR, although the reason they've not done this is almost certainly down to the level of investment needed - which much more than producing just a new body. Still there are rumours again about one coming out..

I would say that CaNikon would be game changers if they produced "to spec" cameras - you choose the sensor, the body, the weather sealing, the AF, the features, the fps etc... and we put it together for you and bill you just for what you wanted.

I would have a 5d3 body with a 6d sensor, 5d3 shutter and a deeper buffer

Robb Mann wrote:
The only way I see us getting a D4x is if Nikon pushes back the D5 release date by two or three years, then we might get an up-speced D810 sensor in a D4 body. Given the enormous lack of competition from Sony and Canon, that just might happen.

Sorry to hear that, but I hold hardily agree.  And for that reason alone, I do not think we will see one (D4x).  I think this is one very good reason why Nikon may not have motivation to bring it to life!  Would luv to see it, but I doubt it will happen.

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
Wedding photographers (and so on) want a 5d3 equivalent on the Nikon side. They don't have a great wedding camera at the moment. The d750 would have sold in droves, but now it's won't. That's a mistake.

Uh, what? It's a world class AF, a 24mp sensor that's clean at ISO3200, 6+fps and dual cards, 100% VF coverage, shoots video... what about this camera makes it not fantastic for weddings?

You can sit back and cherry pick specs you'd prefer all day in your fantasy camera, but the bottom line is it's more than enough to create great work under any circumstance. If you can't get it done at these specs, might as well just hang it up and go home - the camera isn't the problem.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
I just read on DPReview, the D750 DOES have a Low Pass Filter?  Since they ditched it on the 7100 and the D810, I'm surprised they didn't do it for the D750.

Honestly... the difference between having and not having that LP filter is soooooo freakin miniscule... you'll never be able to visually see a difference... BUT without that filter... you may spot some possible moire issues under some circumstances...

Jim Lafferty wrote:

Uh, what? It's a world class AF, a 24mp sensor that's clean at ISO3200, 6+fps and dual cards, 100% VF coverage, shoots video... what about this camera makes it not fantastic for weddings?

You can sit back and cherry pick specs you'd prefer all day in your fantasy camera, but the bottom line is it's more than enough to create great work under any circumstance. If you can't get it done at these specs, might as well just hang it up and go home - the camera isn't the problem.

All those specs sound good except that it looks like a toy camera and the front of the camera is plastic. If you are shooting weddings you know your cameras are going to be bumped and hit by chairs, people and other stuff. The D750 could easily break when shooting weddings because they only put aluminum alloy in the back and top of the camera. They forgot the front which is the most vulnerable part of camera because of the lenses. Not to mention the stupid flip up screen. That is going to break easily.

Jim Lafferty wrote:

Uh, what? It's a world class AF, a 24mp sensor that's clean at ISO3200, 6+fps and dual cards, 100% VF coverage, shoots video... what about this camera makes it not fantastic for weddings?

You can sit back and cherry pick specs you'd prefer all day in your fantasy camera, but the bottom line is it's more than enough to create great work under any circumstance. If you can't get it done at these specs, might as well just hang it up and go home - the camera isn't the problem.

+1

Jim Lafferty wrote:
Uh, what? It's a world class AF, a 24mp sensor that's clean at ISO3200, 6+fps and dual cards, 100% VF coverage, shoots video... what about this camera makes it not fantastic for weddings?

You can sit back and cherry pick specs you'd prefer all day in your fantasy camera, but the bottom line is it's more than enough to create great work under any circumstance. If you can't get it done at these specs, might as well just hang it up and go home - the camera isn't the problem.

me voy wrote:
All those specs sound good except that it looks like a toy camera and the front of the camera is plastic. If you are shooting weddings you know your cameras are going to be bumped and hit by chairs, people and other stuff. The D750 could easily break when shooting weddings because they only put aluminum alloy in the back and top of the camera. They forgot the front which is the most vulnerable part of camera because of the lenses. Not to mention the stupid flip up screen. That is going to break easily.

I have a D600, which gets more than its share of abuse, durability and weather sealing has never been a problem.  I had a D7000 for quite some time, and the same was true.  I had a D300s and didn't find it to be any more reliable.  I think this "fragile" warning is unfounded.

I am most curious as to how the D750 is going to feel in my hands compared to my D600.   I originally thought I would find the D600 to feel smaller, but it has not.  The D750 is thinner and lighter.  I am wondering about it, but I think it will be fine.  I plan to buy one.

Mike Collins wrote:
Built in Wi-FI.  Another great feature.  Again, a lot of pros like the fact that they can place a camera elsewhere and control it with their phone or tablet.  As an event shooter, this is fantastic.   Why stand on a tall ladder when doing large group shots when I can easily place the camera on a tall stand, view it on my camera and take a shot remotely.  Again, great feature for a pro.  Not new, but nice to see built in.

Some pro's have need for more than the ability to shoot off the top of a brom stick...

J.

me voy wrote:
All those specs sound good except that it looks like a toy camera and the front of the camera is plastic. If you are shooting weddings you know your cameras are going to be bumped and hit by chairs, people and other stuff. The D750 could easily break when shooting weddings...

The day lenses start falling of bodies because the ring girl backed her chair into your camera, let me know.

I think this is the kind of self-deluded anxiety that photographers convince themselves of, but outside their heads, with a little intention and patience, are not really problems. It's exactly the kind of thing camera sellers prey on and convince people to spend money on things they don't *need* but instead use to justify their habit. Like mandatory UV filters. Anything to avoid confronting the reality that, deep down, we make bad photos mostly because we don't do the real work and instead transfer blame to some "missing" feature of our gear.

Small buffer and slow transfer speeds? Alex Majoli made it work in a war zone with *3 shot bursts* - you can probably do it at your weekend wedding in the 'burbs with 6.5fps, 25 shot buffer.

Lower than 11fps max burst? Winogrand somehow made a body of work at under 4fps. Like, 70 of Sports Illustrated top 100 photographs of all time were made before digital - back when people had a max buffer of 36 frames with, like a solid minute "dump" time changing rolls.

Too dinky feel in the hand? Camera "looks like a toy"? Watch "Helmut by June" and Helmut Newton actually says "I use the simplest camera I can find that is sold to any amateur because everything that's unique about my work comes from my head".

I *get* that this isn't exactly the camera we'd each personally design, but that's silly. All that matters is: can you pick this camera up and crank out great photos? Can you do it reliably and repeatedly? I should hope so - plenty of people have been doing it for a long time with much less competent gear.

me voy wrote:

All those specs sound good except that it looks like a toy camera and the front of the camera is plastic. If you are shooting weddings you know your cameras are going to be bumped and hit by chairs, people and other stuff. The D750 could easily break when shooting weddings because they only put aluminum alloy in the back and top of the camera. They forgot the front which is the most vulnerable part of camera because of the lenses. Not to mention the stupid flip up screen. That is going to break easily.

It 'looks' like a plastic toy camera?  So what?  IT DOES THE JOB. 

You think this kind of plastic on the cameras is the kind that easily break?  Do some research.  These aren't kids plastics.  If you constantly bump into chairs, etc. then you might want to check yourself as to how the hell you maneuver (general talk). 

Stupid flip up screen breaking easily    you clearly haven't done any real crowd work.

Mike Collins wrote:
Built in Wi-FI.  Another great feature.  Again, a lot of pros like the fact that they can place a camera elsewhere and control it with their phone or tablet.  As an event shooter, this is fantastic.   Why stand on a tall ladder when doing large group shots when I can easily place the camera on a tall stand, view it on my camera and take a shot remotely.  Again, great feature for a pro.  Not new, but nice to see built in.

JohnEnger wrote:
Some pro's have need for more than the ability to shoot off the top of a brom stick...

J.

Having wi-fi built in is great.  Some clients need the quality photos for social media right away and being able to provide that is awesome.

j3_photo wrote:

It 'looks' like a plastic toy camera?  So what?  IT DOES THE JOB. 

You think this kind of plastic on the cameras is the kind that easily break?  Do some research.  These aren't kids plastics.  If you constantly bump into chairs, etc. then you might want to check yourself as to how the hell you maneuver (general talk). 

Stupid flip up screen breaking easily    you clearly haven't done any real crowd work.

You may be right on a couple of those accounts, but nevertheless it is something about the build quality of a D300/D700/D3... or D4...etc.  that makes me feel awful confident when moving about in a crowd... Build quality is a must for me to consider.... things happen.

Jim Lafferty wrote:

Uh, what? It's a world class AF, a 24mp sensor that's clean at ISO3200, 6+fps and dual cards, 100% VF coverage, shoots video... what about this camera makes it not fantastic for weddings?

You can sit back and cherry pick specs you'd prefer all day in your fantasy camera, but the bottom line is it's more than enough to create great work under any circumstance. If you can't get it done at these specs, might as well just hang it up and go home - the camera isn't the problem.

Lol! The old "the camera isn't the problem" line. Good one

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
Lol! The old "the camera isn't the problem" line. Good one

I'm not directing it at your skills, which I respect - but I am directing it at your assertion that a couple minor complaints will keep this camera from selling well, or that they will in some way make this camera inadequate for wedding photographers.

Instead of a pithy remark you could, y'know, reply to the substance of my point   

Jim Lafferty wrote:
I'm not directing it at your skills, which I respect - but I am directing it at your assertion that a couple minor complaints will keep this camera from selling well, or that they will in some way make this camera inadequate for wedding photographers.

Instead of a pithy remark you could, y'know, reply to the substance of my point   

Not being rude, but when someone replies with this:

"You can sit back and cherry pick specs you'd prefer all day in your fantasy camera, but the bottom line is it's more than enough to create great work under any circumstance. If you can't get it done at these specs, might as well just hang it up and go home - the camera isn't the problem."

.. I'm not sure of the substance to be replied to.

Anyway.

I was quoting that I agreed with the previous comment. It's a camera which is very close to the D610. It's clearly missing an AF-ON and it's 1/4000th. I'm also not sure how all wedding photographers would feel about tilting screen - how easy will it break? Questionable body... Similar comments have been made here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/d75 … -late.html

.. which was just sent to me.

The d700 was a wedding photographers wet dream. It was nearly a d3 but for a lot less money. Wedding photographers need a pretty specific set of features in their cameras and the d750 was expected by the Nikon community to be that.

There has been a general sigh of disappointment about it.

I'm not in any way being brandist. I'm just reflecting what Nikon users are saying. I feel mildly bad that Nikon seems to have forgotten that wedding photographers exist recently. Many hate their d800's and have sold them, going back to d3s'. Most can't afford d4's or d4s'.

The d750 could so easily have been the d700's equivalent and I would have applauded that. I think they got the d600 spot on for general model work (except for the early issues). The d800 was great too and the d810 is being very very well received, but again not by wedding and event photographers on the whole. They are fantastic studio and landscape cameras though.

The d750 seems to be somehow in no mans land though.

Anyway... it's not my kit but I feel sad for my Nikon wedding photographer buddies who held out so much hope that they were going to get an updated d700.

Maybe it will prove to be better than expected when people get to use it.

Select Models wrote:
Honestly... the difference between having and not having that LP filter is soooooo freakin miniscule... you'll never be able to visually see a difference... BUT without that filter... you may spot some possible moire issues under some circumstances...

I've heard quite the opposite.

Jim Lafferty wrote:
The day lenses start falling of bodies because the ring girl backed her chair into your camera, let me know.

I think this is the kind of self-deluded anxiety that photographers convince themselves of, but outside their heads, with a little intention and patience, are not really problems. It's exactly the kind of thing camera sellers prey on and convince people to spend money on things they don't *need* but instead use to justify their habit. Like mandatory UV filters. Anything to avoid confronting the reality that, deep down, we make bad photos mostly because we don't do the real work and instead transfer blame to some "missing" feature of our gear.

Small buffer and slow transfer speeds? Alex Majoli made it work in a war zone with *3 shot bursts* - you can probably do it at your weekend wedding in the 'burbs with 6.5fps, 25 shot buffer.

Lower than 11fps max burst? Winogrand somehow made a body of work at under 4fps. Like, 70 of Sports Illustrated top 100 photographs of all time were made before digital - back when people had a max buffer of 36 frames with, like a solid minute "dump" time changing rolls.

Too dinky feel in the hand? Camera "looks like a toy"? Watch "Helmut by June" and Helmut Newton actually says "I use the simplest camera I can find that is sold to any amateur because everything that's unique about my work comes from my head".

I *get* that this isn't exactly the camera we'd each personally design, but that's silly. All that matters is: can you pick this camera up and crank out great photos? Can you do it reliably and repeatedly? I should hope so - plenty of people have been doing it for a long time with much less competent gear.

Can I ask ... how many weddings have you personally shot in the last 2-3 years? Is that your field?

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
The d750 seems to be somehow in no mans land though.

With this many upgraded features over the D700... the D750 is gonna be in 'this mans hands' before the end of the year...

(Copied from my previous post)

Twice the megapixels... articulating screen... lighter in weight... built in WiFi... better low light performance... improved Expeed 4 image processor... new 'clarity option' in menu... longer battery life... flat setting option for maximum dynamic range... burst rate of 6.5 frames per second... improved auto-focusing with 'group area' AF... 2 SD card slots... U1 and U2 programmable exposure modes... full HD video with 1080p... yeah it's been replaced...  

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I've heard quite the opposite.

Maybe... BUT... in this particular instance... SEEING is believing... not hearing...

Select Models wrote:

With this many upgraded features over the D700... the D750 is gonna be in 'this mans hands' before the end of the year...

(Copied from my previous post)

Twice the megapixels... articulating screen... lighter in weight... built in WiFi... better low light performance... improved Expeed 4 image processor... new 'clarity option' in menu... longer battery life... flat setting option for maximum dynamic range... burst rate of 6.5 frames per second... improved auto-focusing with 'group area' AF... 2 SD card slots... U1 and U2 programmable exposure modes... full HD video with 1080p... yeah it's been replaced...  

I would reply... but as it's you, there'd be no point lol

Phil Drinkwater wrote:

I would reply... but as it's you, there'd be no point lol

LOL Philmeister... and dude... all those upgrades I listed that the D750 has over the D700 are factual.  Pretty hard to argue with the facts amigo...

Select Models wrote:
LOL Philmeister... and dude... all those upgrades I listed that the D750 has over the D700 are factual.  Pretty hard to argue with the facts amigo...

But what you didn't include is where the camera has taken a *backstep* from the original D700...

So facts are facts, but as they say in court "the WHOLE truth"

Sorry.. but IMO Nikon can do no wrong in your eyes so a discussion with you about cameras is essentially pointless I'll leave it there

Select Models wrote:

With this many upgraded features over the D700... the D750 is gonna be in 'this mans hands' before the end of the year...

(Copied from my previous post)

Twice the megapixels... articulating screen... lighter in weight... built in WiFi... better low light performance... improved Expeed 4 image processor... new 'clarity option' in menu... longer battery life... flat setting option for maximum dynamic range... burst rate of 6.5 frames per second... improved auto-focusing with 'group area' AF... 2 SD card slots... U1 and U2 programmable exposure modes... full HD video with 1080p... yeah it's been replaced...  

What exactly is this "Clarity Option"?

Select Models wrote:

Maybe... BUT... in this particular instance... SEEING is believing... not hearing...

Well, Nikon put a value on it of about $300 for the difference in having it and sort of not having it.  And now not having it at all.  If there was no difference, I think they'd leave it in.

Jim Lafferty wrote:

The day lenses start falling of bodies because the ring girl backed her chair into your camera, let me know.

I think this is the kind of self-deluded anxiety that photographers convince themselves of, but outside their heads, with a little intention and patience, are not really problems. It's exactly the kind of thing camera sellers prey on and convince people to spend money on things they don't *need* but instead use to justify their habit. Like mandatory UV filters. Anything to avoid confronting the reality that, deep down, we make bad photos mostly because we don't do the real work and instead transfer blame to some "missing" feature of our gear.

Small buffer and slow transfer speeds? Alex Majoli made it work in a war zone with *3 shot bursts* - you can probably do it at your weekend wedding in the 'burbs with 6.5fps, 25 shot buffer.

Lower than 11fps max burst? Winogrand somehow made a body of work at under 4fps. Like, 70 of Sports Illustrated top 100 photographs of all time were made before digital - back when people had a max buffer of 36 frames with, like a solid minute "dump" time changing rolls.

Too dinky feel in the hand? Camera "looks like a toy"? Watch "Helmut by June" and Helmut Newton actually says "I use the simplest camera I can find that is sold to any amateur because everything that's unique about my work comes from my head".

I *get* that this isn't exactly the camera we'd each personally design, but that's silly. All that matters is: can you pick this camera up and crank out great photos? Can you do it reliably and repeatedly? I should hope so - plenty of people have been doing it for a long time with much less competent gear.

Yeah, those photographers you mentioned were great in their time. It is now 2014. Fast forward to today and there are many photographers that have created better images than the ones you mentioned.

Yes, cameras break. Just because you haven't seen one break doesn't mean that they don't. Otherwise, Nikon wouldn't have a repair department and camera repair stores would not be in business.

j3_photo wrote:

It 'looks' like a plastic toy camera?  So what?  IT DOES THE JOB. 

You think this kind of plastic on the cameras is the kind that easily break?  Do some research.  These aren't kids plastics.  If you constantly bump into chairs, etc. then you might want to check yourself as to how the hell you maneuver (general talk). 

Stupid flip up screen breaking easily    you clearly haven't done any real crowd work.

"real crowd work?" lol

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
Can I ask ... how many weddings have you personally shot in the last 2-3 years? Is that your field?

Of course you can ask, but it's just a diversion from the real point which you've still left unaddressed... how is it that the D750 can't keep up with a wedding environment?

How is it that a Magnum photographer can cover a war zone with a pair of cameras that have a max 4 shot buffer, at 3.3fps... and yet people griping online can't seem to keep it together with a camera that has a minimum 15 shot buffer at 6.5? The camera isn't the problem.

Complaining that it doesn't stack up well against a $3200, $6500, or $6800 body is silly. It's even more silly to say it fares poorly against your cherry picked fantasy camera.

The bottom line is plenty of demanding weddings, live events and sports have been covered on lesser cameras and this one is more than capable.

JohnEnger wrote:

Some pro's have need for more than the ability to shoot off the top of a brom stick...

J.

Just because the screen tilts doesn't mean you have to use it.  But it's there if you need it.  I'd rather have things there and not need them very much then NOT having them at all.  Same with wifi.  Nice to see it built in.  If you don't need it, don't use it.

I'll never be upset with any company that adds any feature.  Just add the ones that we actually need for TODAY's photography.  And, at least for what I do, the 750 has those features that I need almost everyday.

Phil Drinkwater wrote:

Lol! The old "the camera isn't the problem" line. Good one

Well, I do have to agree.  The camera is never the problem.  How can it be?  We decide which ones to put in our hands and it's up to us and our brains to create the work.  The camera just does what you tell it to do.

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
Not being rude, but when someone replies with this:...

I'm not sure of the substance to be replied to.

Just to make myself clear...

It seems like camera specs aren't the only thing you cherry pick 

The post which your quoted only half of has a question directed your way, and I'll just reword it so maybe it's even clearer:

I get that people online have complained about the D750. I get that a lot of people had their imaginary next best thing from Nikon and this didn't overlap with it exactly, so they're disappointed. Bitching about specs is endless online and if you go looking for it you'll find it about any product - and ironically it seldom matches up to real world practice. I get that this isn't the perfect camera, or (maybe?) even the best camera possible in its class.

What I *don't get* is how is this camera in any way *functionally* less of a capable camera than - to quote you - the wedding photographer's wet dream of the D700.

It looks and feels different, sure. You need to remap the AE-L button to function as back-button AF. You lose a little on max shutter speed but gain minimum ISO. You lose a little max sync speed but in practice it's not that major. OK, so... what?

It's twice the res. Shoots 1.5fps faster without the grip. It has a buffer that is... I think minimum 7, maximum 12 frames deeper. 14bit color. 100% viewfinder coverage. World class AF which is by all accounts a huge improvement over the D700. Has files that are a stop or more cleaner at higher ISOs. Dual card slots. Shoots video. All this and it's about 25% *cheaper* on release than the D700 was.

Once the initial bitchfest is over, tell me again why this camera won't sell?      Tell me again why it's incapable of keeping up with a wedding?

And FYI I'm not even in the market for it... just have some time to kill and tired of people needlessly complaining.