Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII

[scottkinfw]

All things considered, Canon is coming under a lot of pressure to advance their sensors. This is great for US!

Sek

 

[jrista]

Anyhow, good news is the competition is good for all of us and hopefully these companies wil continue building tools that we can enjoy. Here is a good article about the D750 written by Thom Hogan:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/d750-too-little-too-late.html

I though Hogan's article was good, and pointed out some of the flaws I see in Nikon's product naming and marketing strategy. It's schizophrenic, haphazard...sometimes just weird. But, I think Tom missed one thing: Many D750 buyers will simply be D700 owners looking for an upgrade. He couldn't seem to find a position for the D750...I think a key part of it's position is the logical upgrade for D700 owners.

As far as I know, many Nikonians don't consider the D750 the real successor of their beloved D700: it's more a kind of "D620".
Which is not necessarily a bad thing, IMO.

Possibly jrista was taken in by the name of the D750 as a successor to the D700 (I was, at first). Hogan's view that the D750 isn't a D700 successor is echoed by the Nikon shooters I've spoken with – including several pros using D700 bodies.

Their complaints included things like the D750's lack of a PC sync port (means needing to buy hotshoe RF flash triggers, bummer Nikon lacks Canon's -RT flash system), the lesser build quality, the 'consumer' remote port (not sure if there's a functional difference, or it's like Canon's -E3 vs -N1 plugs and means currently owned remotes aren't compatible). They weren't really bothered by the drop from 8 to 6.5 fps. The general feel was that the D750 was a consumer camera, not a pro camera. One commented (a little bitterly) that maybe Nikon thought including a Full Auto (green-square) mode made up for dropping the pro features...

I've read similar things on DPR forums, however it does not seem clearly cut and dry that D700 owners think it's not a viable upgrade. It seems more split than that...with many people saying that some tradeoffs were made, but that they still think it's a good upgrade for their D700.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

A shadow is not a dichotomous state of light or no light. A more accurate definition of shadow is "a darker area or shape produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface".

Even if one is inside the penumbra, there is still difuse reflection in the shadow. I personally have never seen a shadow in nature that is devoid of any difuse reflection.

 

[iMagic]

Is it only me? Or am I the only one prefering the SOOC pictures in the review compared to the post processed ones?

when I looked at the raw pre and post processed I thought that the processed were pushed too high for my taste. I would have probably pushed a bit more than SOOC but not to the extent of the finished product. I guess I am more on your side of the preference of some shadow than pushed so high.

 

[Steve]

Is it only me? Or am I the only one prefering the SOOC pictures in the review compared to the post processed ones?

You may not be alone but you'd still be wrong. The lifted photos look much better than the ones with the murky blue-shadowed backgrounds. Its a wedding, not a funeral - the photos should be bright.

Its utterly amazing to me that all of you are falling all over yourselves to say how worthless better sensors are when you all know full well you'd be crowing from the rooftops if this was a review of the 5DIV. If that 5 stop pushed photo comparison were flipped and the 5D3 shot looked like the D750 shot and vice versa, none of you would be saying "yeah, well I don't need all that DR, harumph". You'd be laughing at Sony/Nikon and calling them garbage sensors. The amount of denial on this forum is insane.

And just to nip the argument in the bud, I understand all of the "You buy the camera not the sensor!!" "Lenseslenseslenses!!!" stuff. I'm not switching from Canon because I understand the tradeoffs for what I do (not least of which is the monumental financial cost of selling and rebuying thousands and thousands of dollars in gear collected over a period of several years, btw) but come on. Those Exmor sensors are clearly better and in a way that would be extremely useful in a variety of shooting situations.

One last question: for those of you who think that the Sony sensor advantages are completely unnecessary - an opinion I have seen expressed over and over and over - should Canon just cease doing any development on sensor tech? Why or why not? A lot of you feel like you would never use any DR improvements or care about a reduction in shadow noise and you are perfectly happy with the high ISO abilities of the current full frames so why should Canon spend what I assume to be millions of dollars on sensor research? They already make a perfectly fine sensor that pros use to make great images!

 

[Kahuna]

Until I can look through a Nikon viewfinder and change ISO settings with my right index while also adjusting any other setting I need, I'm sticking with Canon.

Haven't you heard? With a Nikon camera, you don't need to change ISO – just set ISO 100 and you're done. In post you can push it to ISO 3200, with a SoNikon sensor that's easy-peasy and the IQ is still better than Canon. Or so I've read somewhere or other... :

You make fun of it...but it's possible. Because there is practically no read noise, digitally lifting ISO 100 to ISO 1600 or 3200 is effectively the same thing as actually using those ISOs (with the added benefit of having massively more dynamic range).

Jon, I hope you are wrong. Serious, whats left when you have eliminated the science and have dug deeply into the art of photography....Composition?! Not really a concern on these massive megapixel cameras....

As Ron Popeil stated - Set It and Forget It -

 

[9VIII]

http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review

This is hilarious, he absolutely bought the wrong camera.
This guy had to work pretty hard to convince himself that the D810 isn't a wholly superior product.

He actually goes on about buffer size on the D750, which at 15 full quality RAW files is still pretty small, even with files four times bigger the D810 has twice as much buffer as the D750.

http://photographylife.com/nikon-d810-buffer-size
http://photographylife.com/nikon-d750-buffer-capacity

He not once mentions using the 6.5 fps stat that was supposed to be a big selling feature, and then goes on to mention shooting 2-4 fps for the confetti throwing, and running out of buffer.

High ISO will be virtually identical, AF is identical, he purposefully skips over the minimal 1.5 fps increase over the D810 (instead comparing it to the D3s) and the DX mode FPS boost that is not to be found on the D750.

The D750 is a budget pro-am camera for people who don't want to shell out for the D810, which is fine, but don't bother trying to convince anyone that the D750 has any reason to exist other than the price tag.

 

[Loswr]

Is it only me? Or am I the only one prefering the SOOC pictures in the review compared to the post processed ones?

You may not be alone but you'd still be wrong. The lifted photos look much better...

If I express my preference, you're free to share your preference even if it's the opposite. But if it's my preference, you cannot reasonably state that my preference is wrong because it differs from yours.

Let me put it this way...I prefer to believe you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[dtaylor]

Its utterly amazing to me that all of you are falling all over yourselves to say how worthless better sensors are when you all know full well you'd be crowing from the rooftops if this was a review of the 5DIV.

Subtract the messy corner shot and it might as well be a review of the 5D3. That is the only shot in the review that the 5D3 couldn't handle and do just as well.

Again, the confirmation bias lately among Exmor / Nikon / Sony fans is staggering.

If that 5 stop pushed photo comparison were flipped and the 5D3 shot looked like the D750 shot and vice versa, none of you would be saying "yeah, well I don't need all that DR, harumph". You'd be laughing at Sony/Nikon and calling them garbage sensors. The amount of denial on this forum is insane.

I can honestly say that if the situation were reversed and a Nikon fan asked me about it my evaluation would be the same: in the occasional extreme case it is valuable, but otherwise makes no difference and I would not switch brands over such a minor practical difference.

Those Exmor sensors are clearly better and in a way that would be extremely useful in a variety of shooting situations.

Then how come every comparison where you can see the difference is a contrived test? None of his pushed wedding shots would have been difficult on the 5D3. SOOC they are brighter then many of the pushed shots forum members here have posted in the past, including my 7D landscape comparison.

One last question: for those of you who think that the Sony sensor advantages are completely unnecessary - an opinion I have seen expressed over and over and over -

I don't think I've seen that exact opinion expressed. I think everyone agrees it can be beneficial. But there's a big difference between "occasionally helps" and "the 5D3 is only good for Facebook."

 

[9VIII]

Is it only me? Or am I the only one prefering the SOOC pictures in the review compared to the post processed ones?

Not just you, that immediately stuck out to me.

The more I look at high profile wedding photographers the more I want to shoot my own wedding (don't ask how).

 

[dtaylor]

Is it only me? Or am I the only one prefering the SOOC pictures in the review compared to the post processed ones?

Not just you, that immediately stuck out to me.

The more I look at high profile wedding photographers the more I want to shoot my own wedding (don't ask how).

"Do you, take this woman..."
"Hold on a minute, my CF card is full."

;D

 

[JorritJ]

Some great imagery coming out of that camera. Amazing shadow lifting. Yes, I like the Canon glass, and the Canon flash, and the Canon UI/UX, and some more, but imagine having that sensor in the 5DmkIII ... (salivate!)

Maybe all of you are just much more skilled than I am, but the more I can lift the better it is for my PP. Sure, technically, if I need to lift three stops my technique may be shit and I need to hand in my amateur photographer card, but what if it was that one special moment? A better sensor means more of your shots can be PP'd into good prints, and the more shots you can do that with, the higher the chance you caught that special one.

Oh well. In other news, naysayers continue to say nay.

 

[zlatko]

Its utterly amazing to me that all of you are falling all over yourselves to say how worthless better sensors are when you all know full well you'd be crowing from the rooftops if this was a review of the 5DIV. If that 5 stop pushed photo comparison were flipped and the 5D3 shot looked like the D750 shot and vice versa, none of you would be saying "yeah, well I don't need all that DR, harumph". You'd be laughing at Sony/Nikon and calling them garbage sensors. The amount of denial on this forum is insane.

If the situation were flipped, I absolutely would not be making HDR-ish photos with the shadows dramatically boosted to create "lightness". Bad technique is still bad technique, even if technological progress allows you to get away with it in order to prove you have a "superior" sensor. Such photos have a crummy aesthetic, period.

If you're a student of art history, and not just current technology, then you know that shadows are an important part of how artists represent life. The shadow side of an object helps to define the midtones and highlights. Shadows are often essential to giving a photograph a 3-dimensional feel.

This sensor-based effort to banish shadows "because it's a wedding" or some other reason, flies in the face of good aesthetics and strong image-making. Look at the work of Steve McCurry, Annie Leibovitz, Sebastiao Salgado, etc. and you see some dark or black shadows that in real life had some detail in them. Look at the work of the great painters, such as Rembrandt, and see that shadows have an important purpose. The great painters could have painted with "tone-mapped" detail in every shadow, but they knew that would look ridiculous and in its own way unreal.

If and when the situation is flipped, I will congratulate Canon for the extra DR, but I will still not be doing 5-stop pushes or posting HDR-ish photos just to show it can be done.

 

[cap7ainclu7ch]

Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action? Being able to bring up my sports pictures in post without degrading the image would be extremely useful for maintaining high shutter speeds and lower ISO's. It seems like the images hold up way better than my 5D3 shooting at a high ISO.

 

[unfocused]

When you nail all of those other factors. And, it's more than possible to nail every one with any pro- or semipro-grade DSLR from Canon or Nikon (and some even from Sony, and probably Pentax as well). We already have cameras with phenomenal AF systems, with very high frame rates (although the best frame rates do tend to cost), and composition is a simple matter of preference...reframe to taste. When you get all that right, what's left? Sensor IQ Is the picture interesting?

I fixed your statement.

 

[Sporgon]

I know Sarangiman would probably disagree.

--------------

They only lack in one primary area...fundamental image quality

Does that mean there's won't be a wedding any time soon ?

Fundamental. Do you know what that means ? How can you say that in the face of all the superb quality imagery produced on Canon sensors they have a fundamental problem with image quality ?

 

[Loswr]

They only lack in one primary area...fundamental image quality

Fundamental. Do you know what that means ? How can you say that in the face of all the superb quality imagery produced on Canon sensors they have a fundamental problem with image quality ?

I believe it was Emperor Mikael who said, "Strike Canon down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!"

 

[Kahuna]

Until I can look through a Nikon viewfinder and change ISO settings with my right index while also adjusting any other setting I need, I'm sticking with Canon.

Haven't you heard? With a Nikon camera, you don't need to change ISO – just set ISO 100 and you're done. In post you can push it to ISO 3200, with a SoNikon sensor that's easy-peasy and the IQ is still better than Canon. Or so I've read somewhere or other... :

You make fun of it...but it's possible. Because there is practically no read noise, digitally lifting ISO 100 to ISO 1600 or 3200 is effectively the same thing as actually using those ISOs (with the added benefit of having massively more dynamic range).

Jon, I hope you are wrong. Serious, whats left when you have eliminated the science and have dug deeply into the art of photography....Composition?! Not really a concern on these massive megapixel cameras....

As Ron Popeil stated - Set It and Forget It -

Sorry, not sure I understand... You hope I'm wrong about what? ???

Composition is obviously important. Getting good focus is obviously important. Getting the right frame is obviously important. I'm not saying they are not, no one who appreciates more DR is.

But here is my stance on the issue. When you nail all of those other factors. And, it's more than possible to nail every one with any pro- or semipro-grade DSLR from Canon or Nikon (and some even from Sony, and probably Pentax as well). We already have cameras with phenomenal AF systems, with very high frame rates (although the best frame rates do tend to cost), and composition is a simple matter of preference...reframe to taste. When you get all that right, what's left? Sensor IQ.

I already have awesome AF. I already have a great frame rate (7D) and a good frame rate (5D III, the 1D X is out of my acceptable range of cost). I already know how to get good composition. When it comes to landscapes, a lot of it is simply a waiting game...waiting for the right light, the right weather, and being at the right place in time to get the shot. When all that comes together...the only thing I don't have, is the best sensor IQ money can buy.

It's not a complicated equation. 8)

I used to say that technology is killing XX .... in this case photography. I am wrong about that, technology is taking photography in another direction, IMHO the wrong direction. When technology levels the playing field for all afforadably, when all I have to do is turn that dial to the green P, not worry about the photo because post processing will take care of any issues, photography is dead. Composition, lighting, position, weather are just reduced to chance moments that anyone carrying an IPhone has an equal probability of capturing that moment....Probably a higher probability ...

The younger generation are not looking for technology advances in a DLSR camera, what they do expect is that the technology advances are crammed into their IPhone 6.

A camera is slowly becoming nothing more than a vehicle to take a selfie and quickly post it online for every to "LIKE".

 

[dtaylor]

Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action? Being able to bring up my sports pictures in post without degrading the image would be extremely useful for maintaining high shutter speeds and lower ISO's. It seems like the images hold up way better than my 5D3 shooting at a high ISO.

There's no high ISO difference between the two. Check the IR RAWs which are available.

Underexposing for more shutter speed then pushing in post? I suppose you could argue that the Nikon would give more room here. But the further you push the less tonal separation and the higher contrast you get. I'm not sure how good an athlete's face would look at +4 or +5. I've struggled with this issue at +2 and it is NOT sensor related. It's just the way tonality is encoded.

 

[ishdakuteb]

The stuff Ross Harvy produces? That's art. It may be his job, but it's also his art.

i am not sure that images producing by ross harvy are considered as real art works (since art works take much of time to work on), but at least they are not to me after checking out all of his images (about 7000 images that he posts on his blog. you can ask him to count all of them to see as if i am correct. have you seen all of them? lol...)

i do not deny that all of his images are good, but all of them are still not there, to the point of stand out quality of art prints. all of his posted images are simply documentary/journalism (style that i like).

additional thing is that he does not have his own proprietary styles, instead his style is mixing between cliff mautner, jonas peterson, etc... (but not even there)

for some of fine art work, see annie liebovitz's (someone previously mentioned), a photographer with disney-theme, or jay maisel for color art, erik johansson for creative art, or even jakontil, a canonrumor member. below are some of wedding art work, at least to me: