me voy wrote:
Yeah, those photographers you mentioned were great in their time. It is now 2014.

"In their time"? Seriously?

Alex Majoli covered Iraq in 2003.

Newton and Winogrand's legacy's are *timeless*.

Step away from the internet and read a book or something.

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

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

Jim Lafferty wrote:
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 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 20% *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.

Phil, along with some others, are passionate in their views.   Their view is perfectly valid, although you, and many others, may not agree.   I have come to respect the opinions of others, even when I disagree with them.

I can see Phil's point.  I realize that there are many that are attached to the D700 and were hoping for another all metal body that more closely represented an updated D700.  They are disappointed and will remain disappointed.

There are many others, including you and I, who like the camera a lot.  We simply have a different view.  I'm going to buy one, but that is a different subject.

I have said it before.  I find it fascinating how different people see these things so differently.  Good shooting to both of you!

Jim Lafferty wrote:
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?

The 'so what' is that it means you cannot have both AF-On AND AEL. For some of us this is a massive operational and functional difference and one that is a deal breaker irrespective of gaining a floppy screen, more pixels etc.

Then there is the likely lack of aperture / shutter lock option that go hand in hand with this control layout.

Some of us are not after fancy enhancements, just a couple of things that are on other bodies that we use.

photoimager wrote:

The 'so what' is that it means you cannot have both AF-On AND AEL. For some of us this is a massive operational and functional difference and one that is a deal breaker irrespective of gaining a floppy screen, more pixels etc.

Then there is the likely lack of aperture / shutter lock option that go hand in hand with this control layout.

Some of us are not after fancy enhancements, just a couple of things that are on other bodies that we use.

This clearly just isn't the camera for you. If you were really counting on this particular model to match your expectations and it fell this short, maybe write a strongly worded letter to Nikon.

Jim Lafferty wrote:
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.

I like the irony - you're complaining about people complaining

I'm very positive about cameras as well as saying they miss specs. I've said so with the d600. However, it's also not an ideal wedding camera.

Regardless of the *reality* of what you think of the camera, this isn't the direct replacement for the d700 (or their d3s) and it won't be seen that way. This is marketing specs and NOT reality. That's why it will be a disappointment to people looking for a replacement to the d700. You're looking at it too exactly.

In terms of the specs, you are doing everything you can to downplay the difference in specs. You are only seeing through your eyes and what you want to see, not through the eyes of another consumer, several of whom have already agreed that it's not a replacement for a d700. Another forum is saying exactly the same. They wanted a D700+, not a D610+.

THAT'S why it won't sell as much as it could have done. I believe with a few tweaks this negativity wouldn't have happened.

And I'm not specifically complaining - I'm discussing and agreeing with some. Why would I complain? I don't even own Nikon kit. As I've said several times, I'm sad that Nikon didn't release the camera that people were wanting because I would like my Nikon wedding photographer buddies to get what they wanted. A little market research would have told Nikon that. My disappointment is that both top camera manufacturers seem to slightly cripple cameras, needlessly in my eyes. They cost themselves sales.

As it happens I happen to think the d750 is a fantastic camera. Just not ideal for weddings. Does that make you feel better?

Jim Lafferty wrote:
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.

Thanks for not answering the question. I didn't consider it a diversion but relevant. You seem to be placing yourself in a position of understanding what wedding photographers want and need. I was wondering where that experience was coming from.

I don't find myself silly at all. I'll explain why. Nikon hopefully (if they're clever) have people trawling popular boards working out what opinion is on their cameras, if for no other reason that they can use it in their marketing to redirect the camera and answer concerns. Otherwise you probably wouldn't have a d610. Or maybe a d810. By telling camera manufacturers what we want they, in theory, should make more money by providing it. How is that bad?

If everyone just "put up and shut up", as you seem to want, the world would make no progress. Where you see "complaints" I see "opportunity". I guess we're just different people in that respect. Progress starts with looking at what could be "better".

And another point, the word "fantasy" has connotations of "not possible". It certainly doesn't exist - you're totally right about that. However, it's not "fantasy" how I see the word. It's perfectly possible. From the dictionary: "imagination, especially when *extravagant* and *unrestrained*.". This isn't a fantasy camera, just one which someone chose not to make.

However I do find the "this photographer took this photo and it was great so why can't you" arguments .. well odd. They've become really "in vogue" in the last 5 years on boards because, on the face of it, they seem to make sense.

I'll explain why that's not the case.

You don't know what they missed. You don't know what they wanted to take but couldn't. You don't know when the body let them down and you just didn't hear about it. You don't know how many times he thought "My God! I wish I had 6.5fps instead of 3!" or "Damn! That would have been award winning except it's out of focus!".

They aren't very likely to come out publicly and say "Well, this year I took 32 great shots, but I missed 198 because the camera couldn't keep up!!". You just have no idea what they didn't get or what they could have got.

And here's the crux: that photographer was competing with photographers of their time, not NOW. If they were using the same equipment and competing with todays photographers, they might well be out of a job.

Let me also presume that when Nikon released the D800 you didn't say "Oh, damn those complainers - they've gone and produced a camera which is pushing technology on" because that's what Nikon users did - complain like hell for 5 years that the 5d2 had more resolution. Everyone seems to be happy with progress, but some seem to be unhappy with the "complaining" that gets us there.. Odd.

Things have moved on. We're not still using cameras from 30 years ago. Coverage has improved. Missed shots have reduced. If we were back in those days, we'd still be doing wedding photographs, but they'd look like this:



..instead of what we can do now with multiple AF points capable of tracking in low light and sensors capable of shooting in near darkness (if that's the light you want).

And finally, and most important of all, just because someone can get XYZ shot with ABC camera, doesn't mean I can or want to. It also doesn't necessarily say anything about my skills because their XYZ is often different to mine. That's something I've learned by seeing lots of others' photographs. Just because they say they're doing an amazing job, doesn't mean I can't see the holes and how my equipment and how I use it is part of the difference which they can't even see.

I think I'm done with this now

Jim Lafferty wrote:

"In their time"? Seriously?

Alex Majoli covered Iraq in 2003.

Newton and Winogrand's legacy's are *timeless*.

Step away from the internet and read a book or something.

I prefer the internet full of current events than reading history books. Anyways, I understand your points. All I am saying is that I was hoping for a replacement of the D700 to be a work horse, not a bunch of bells and whistles.

ThroughJerrysEyes wrote:
There will never be a D700 replacement.
I have two, and I also use a D800 and D7100.

The features, market placement, and cost of the D700 was a mistake by Nikon.  It was too good, it could be purchased by consumers due to its astounding low price (for the performance).

Nikon will never make that mistake again

Jerry

^^ This ^^

photoimager wrote:
http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/press … A1209-D750

Control style as per D600/610/7000 etc so probably no option to lock the aperture / shutter speed and no dedicated AF-On button.

So?