Nikon announced D750

[Orangutan]

Hi,
I think it's should be weather sealed, but does "The structure is also sealed and gasketed to resist dust and moisture" mean it's weather sealed??

Have a nice day.

What does weather sealing really mean anyway? Weather sealed cameras resist weather until the point they don't?

It means my friend takes his Pentax out in steady rain (not downpours) repeatedly, without any kind of jacket or cover over it, and it keeps working. Nothing has gotten in the body or lens over several years of doing this.

 

[EOS AE1]

What does weather sealing really mean anyway? Weather sealed cameras resist weather until the point they don't

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0mOcwSk598

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mggL0Sf2jQ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo61t5fH6Qw

 

[Famateur]

I'm all about competition, so bring it on, Nikon -- whatever you can throw at the market.

One thing I'd love to see is a Canon full-frame body with the tilty/flippy LCD of my 70D. Maybe in a 6DII? Give it similar AF points to the 70D, and I'd go for it. I guess I'm saying I'd love my 70D with a full-frame sensor at a 6D price. ;D

 

[sagittariansrock]

Very nice specs, I am sure many people will love this camera.
Nikon should probably worry about cannibalization, though.

 

[joejohnbear]

This needs to be read by everyone posting here: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/d750-too-little-too-late.html

 

[AcutancePhotography]

It means my friend takes his Pentax out in steady rain (not downpours) repeatedly, without any kind of jacket or cover over it, and it keeps working. Nothing has gotten in the body or lens over several years of doing this.

Pentax does weather sealing properly. They build them good over at Pentax.

 

[x-vision]

This needs to be read by everyone posting here: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/d750-too-little-too-late.html

Too-little-too-late only if you consider the D750 as a D700 replacement.

But Nikon made it very obvious that the D750 is an enthusiast/consumer camera, not a D700 replacement.
The D700 replacement is the D810 - regardless of whether everyone agrees with that or not.

In general, both Canon and Nikon were very conservative with their entry level FF models.
Now that there is more clarity about what cannibalizes what, Nikon is braver.

The skill in spec'ing and pricing a camera like the D710 is to make it appealing to those who would never buy a D810 - and at the same time unappealing to those who would buy the D810.

And judging from initial reactions to the announcement, it appears that Nikon has succeeded.
At the end, the sales figures will determine whether Canon or Nikon got it more right with the 7DII or D750, respectively.
As I said already, I'd rather have the D750 than the 7DII.

 

[joejohnbear]

They really don't. They've sold enough D800's and D810's to pro users and now they've crippled it enough so that it will only compete with (or rather replace) the consumer D610. They're using the D750 name to try to sweep the D600 sensor dust (and more importantly, their customer support screw-up) debacle under the rug.

Very nice specs, I am sure many people will love this camera.
Nikon should probably worry about cannibalization, though.

 

[x-vision]

They really don't. They've sold enough D800's and D810's to pro users and now they've crippled it enough so that it will only compete with (or rather replace) the consumer D610.

Yup - and that's seems to be the intention here.

Just remember that if a more expensive product cannibalizes a cheaper product, the suits at the corner office are popping the champaigne.

 

[joejohnbear]

They're pretty much misappropriating the D700 namesake to dismiss the bad PR of the D600. I agree, I would go with the D810 these days if I were still shooting Nikon, but I'm sure plenty of people wished there was a lower megapixel sensor in the same body at a higher framerate with the same controls. That's something that would have been easy to do. As it stands, this isn't necessarily a 5DIII competitor as many have fashioned it as.

True, it's a good move for product differentiation, but an off-putting one with D700 and D3s loyalists.

7DII and D750 are way different markets. You buy the APS-C flagship for use with supertelephotos and the additional crop on the field or in the wild. The FF/FX camera works better with wide angle lenses and equivalent focal lengths.

This needs to be read by everyone posting here: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/d750-too-little-too-late.html

Too-little-too-late only if you consider the D750 as a D700 replacement.

But Nikon made it very obvious that the D750 is an enthusiast/consumer camera, not a D700 replacement.
The D700 replacement is the D810 - regardless of whether everyone agrees with that or not.

In general, both Canon and Nikon were very conservative with their entry level FF models.
Now that there is more clarity about what cannibalizes what, Nikon is braver.

The skill in spec'ing and pricing a camera like the D710 is to make it appealing to those who would never buy a D810 - and at the same time unappealing to those who would buy the D810.

And judging from initial reactions to the announcement, it seems to me that Nikon succeeded.
At the end, the sales figures will determine whether Canon or Nikon got it more right with the 7DII or D750, respectively.
As I said already, I'd rather have the D750 than the 7DII.

 

[joejohnbear]

I think a D710 at the same price as the D810 with higher frame rate and lower high-iso noise and megapixel count (bigger pixel pitch) would sell like hotcakes, but it would definitely cut into the D4s sales. It's a case of Nikon not giving some customers what they want. I'm pretty sure a lot of the D700 wedding industry jumped back to the mark iii, but it's true, that might not be the customer they're targeting.

They really don't. They've sold enough D800's and D810's to pro users and now they've crippled it enough so that it will only compete with (or rather replace) the consumer D610.

Yup - and that's seems to be the intention here.

Just remember that if a more expensive product cannibalizes a cheaper product, the suits at the corner office are popping the champaigne.

 

[stefsan]

If you want both IQ and features, you need to fork out another $1000-$1500 to move up to the 5DIII.

If you already own EF lenses, that is. If your glass predominantly consist of EF-S lenses, you'll have to shell out a whole lot more for the lenses to go with the 5DIII… :-\

 

[MichaelHodges]

I think even DPreview ripped Canon for cutting features from the 6D.

 

[x-vision]

7DII and D750 are way different markets. You buy the APS-C flagship for use with supertelephotos and the additional crop on the field or in the wild. The FF/FX camera works better with wide angle lenses and equivalent focal lengths.

I understand that very well.

I mentioned the 7DII here because Canon and Nikon are demonstrating different thinking of what the market needs/wants today.

Canon thinks that the market wants an action camera with pro-AF system but run-of-the-mill crop sensor.
And Nikon thinks that it's a very well spec'd - and yet non-pro - FF camera.

That's the reason I'm mentioning the 7DII here.

 

[MichaelHodges]

7DII and D750 are way different markets. You buy the APS-C flagship for use with supertelephotos and the additional crop on the field or in the wild. The FF/FX camera works better with wide angle lenses and equivalent focal lengths.

I don't know a single pro photog who uses a crop camera. They all bailed on the 7D pretty quick and never went back.

Anyone who pays $2000 for an inferior APS-C sensor is getting ripped off.

 

[joejohnbear]

You can always use a crop as a backup, or to close extra distance between you and your subject without resorting to a more expensive and heavier supertelephoto. The birding people will probably love this camera. Pro's a bit of a wide category. Lots of people are paid for their work. I don't use a crop sensor for wedding photography, but like I said, it's helpful on a NCAA Div 1 or PAC-12 field.

7DII and D750 are way different markets. You buy the APS-C flagship for use with supertelephotos and the additional crop on the field or in the wild. The FF/FX camera works better with wide angle lenses and equivalent focal lengths.

I don't know a single pro photog who uses a crop camera. They all bailed on the 7D pretty quick and never went back.

Anyone who pays $2000 for an inferior APS-C sensor is getting ripped off.

 

[x-vision]

I don't know a single pro photog who uses a crop camera. They all bailed on the 7D pretty quick and never went back.

Exactly.

Whether Canon intends it or not, the 7D2 will be bought by enthusiasts/consumers - not pros.
Same as the D750.

From that perspective, it makes sense to compare the two and ponder who got it more right - Nikon or Canon.

 

[MichaelHodges]

You can always use a crop as a backup, or to close extra distance between you and your subject without resorting to a more expensive and heavier supertelephoto.

I do this myself, but I don't make my entire living from images, just a small portion. I do shoot with people who go full time and they absolutely trash crops any chance they get. The reason is noise. They've been burned too many times with what they thought were going to be great images at ISO 800 and 1600. The noise and IQ destroys fur and feather detail for larger prints.

All the AF focus points in the world and FPS won't make up for a lack of shutter speed or too much noise. Get the sensor right first, then start piling on the croutons and dressing.

It just doesn't make sense, IMHO, to spend almost $2000 on an inferior sensor. The 70D is a solid camera for the money, and about the limit of what you should pay for APS-C image quality.

 

[x-vision]

All the AF focus points in the world and FPS won't make up for a lack of shutter speed or too much noise. Get the sensor right first, then start piling on the croutons and dressing.

It just doesn't make sense, IMHO, to spend almost $2000 on an inferior sensor. The 70D is a solid camera for the money, and about the limit of what you should pay for APS-C image quality.

Agree 100% on all points (again ).

 

[joejohnbear]

It depends on what kind of environment you're working in. If you're shooting high school ball games with poor lights, or wedding dance floors, then of course, FX or FF is the way to go and why I use it as my primary camera. That said, I knew a wedding photographer who would choose his 7D over his 5D mk ii for focus purposes, and he shot well over $12k weddings before he switched to Sony (they bought him basically and now he's a Sony Artisan). If you shoot with NCAA Div I stadium lights or games/events during the day, it's not as huge of an issue, each tool has its purpose. That said, I would have appreciated if my 7D had better high ISO and I absolutely detested it because of that compared to my Mk III. However, it got me the game-winning shot, so it's a necessary evil to deal with. I suspect the improvements in processor technology and the 70D sensor are more than enough enough for my needs (NCAA Div I stadium lights, which are quite bright compared to high school and Div 2/3 lights). I really see full frame as useful for smaller environments for that. See? Different usage scenarios. For wedding, the 7D is like a third or fourth backup. There's still a market for pro shooters in sports and wildlife scenarios, and that's this camera's target market.

You can always use a crop as a backup, or to close extra distance between you and your subject without resorting to a more expensive and heavier supertelephoto.

I do this myself, but I don't make my entire living from images, just a small portion. I do shoot with people who go full time and they absolutely trash crops any chance they get. The reason is noise. They've been burned too many times with what they thought were going to be great images at ISO 800 and 1600. The noise and IQ destroys fur and feather detail for larger prints.

All the AF focus points in the world and FPS won't make up for a lack of shutter speed or too much noise. Get the sensor right first, then start piling on the croutons and dressing.

It just doesn't make sense, IMHO, to spend almost $2000 on an inferior sensor. The 70D is a solid camera for the money, and about the limit of what you should pay for APS-C image quality.