# D610 or D750



## gr8five

Im having a hard time making a choice between the two. I realize the 750 is the newer and has some upgrades compared to the 610 but wondering if it's worth the $500 difference. I shoot landscape mostly. If I was to set them up with the same lens and take the same shot would I see a difference? I'm hoping someone has done this already. I think I know the answer but looking for outside help. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.


----------



## MOREGONE

I imagine you would be very hard up to pick out which camera took which picture. Both are 24mp full frame Nikons.

If image quality is your top priority and will be shooting mostly landscapes, I'd go with the D610. If you were doing events with moving subjects or videos the D750 would be well worth the extra money.


----------



## jsecordphoto

The only area I think you'll see much improvement is in low light/high ISO. I have a 750 but have also used my buddies d610, both are amazing cameras with the 750 being slightly better with noise and shadow detail at high ISO


----------



## goodguy

Unless you plan on going above 6400ISO or do sports/wildlife then in most cases there will be very small differences if at all.
Is the D750 worth the extra 500$ ?
Personal preference, for me it was but I do mostly general photography and the D750 is more flexible, I have a feeling for you the D610 might be just as good.


----------



## nerwin

Both have the same sensor, so not much difference there. However, the D750 has a much better autofocus system, silly flip out screen and better video mode (D610 video is still good, come its full frame!). So if you are going to be shooting stuff that moves a lot or also plan on making videos, then I think the D750 is a good choice. 

For everything else, I think the D610 is an amazing camera..I have one and absolutely enjoy shooting with it. I really don't know what else to say, feel like I've talked about this already haha.


----------



## Ron Smith

I asked myself the same question a few weeks ago - I shoot still life and set up shots mostly.  The 750 has Wifi built in (not important to me), a tilt screen (My Oly has this and I really like it, but I tried it out in the store and found it hard to move and not much tilt - it does not flip out),  and a faster continuous shooting rate (good for sports but not what I shoot).  Pretty much the same camera as the 610 after that, so I got a factory refurb 610 for under $1K.  Love it!


----------



## Braineack

If I were buying new today, I'd go with a D750 over the D610
If I were buying used today, I'd go with a D600 over a D750.


----------



## lance70

If you can afford the 750 I would go for it....I have the D610 and it's a great camera but a few people I work with purchased the 750 and it's outstanding...as said many times on here it depends on what your needs are, what style of photography you shoot etc.....I think the strongest feature of the 750 compared to the 610 is the autofocus system and having more cross-type focus points...I personally have not noticed problems focusing in low light with the D610 or had trouble getting a shot with the autofocus system but I still love the D750 autofocus system, when I get a chance to shoot with a friends camera  D610 & D750 are both great bodies.


----------



## shadowlands

Check out the great used prices on D600's.... could save you a ton.....
Check adorama or keh.


----------



## fjrabon

The difference between the two isn't image quality.  The most tangible difference is the focus system.  If you shoot moving objects in low light, go with the D750 and don't think twice, the autofocus on the D750 is substantially better.  But for landscapes, there really isn't much of a difference, with landscape, 95% of the time you're manual focusing at infinity using f/8 and a tripod anyway, so autofocus is completely irrelevant. Landscape you mostly care about dynamic range and total resolution.  They're pretty much exactly equals there.


----------



## goodguy

fjrabon said:


> The difference between the two isn't image quality.  The most tangible difference is the focus system.  If you shoot moving objects in low light, go with the D750 and don't think twice, the autofocus on the D750 is substantially better.  But for landscapes, there really isn't much of a difference, with landscape, 95% of the time you're manual focusing at infinity using f/8 and a tripod anyway, so autofocus is completely irrelevant. Landscape you mostly care about dynamic range and total resolution.  They're pretty much exactly equals there.


100% agree, I think for landscape it will be much better to get the D610 and invest in the best glass possible, for landscaping both cameras should give you same results, glass and skills will be what determine the results on these 2 fantastic cameras.


----------



## Solarflare

The D610 is a bit of a stupid camera, really. You can get a D600 instead and its basically the same camera, just a lot cheaper and if there are any problems with sensor dust, Nikon will fix them anyway.




gr8five said:


> I realize the 750 is the newer and has some upgrades compared to the 610 but wondering if it's worth the $500 difference.


 Yes.

The D750 has a sh***load of improvements that should have been in the D600 already.

The D600 for example has a disappointing autofocus. The D750 has the best autofocus you can get from Nikon right now.

The D750 has a flipscreen, uber useful for video, macro, or simply shooting from the hip.

The D750 can show you the focus point in 100% magnification in a single click ... that alone is extremely valueable (and I'm angry at Nikon that they dont offer an upgrade for the D600/D610 so they can have that too).

The D750 is also smaller, more lightweight, has a better grip, builtin WiFi, ... etc etc etc.

I still have my D600 and I'll probably wait for the next generation, but if I would get a new camera - the D750 is a nobrainer.

And its not 500$ difference ... its a ~20% difference. If you buy a camera for 20$ or one for 520$ is a HUGE difference. If you buy a camera for 20000$ or one for 20500$ is not. Thus its in percent, not in absolute money.






gr8five said:


> If I was to set them up with the same lens and take the same shot would I see a difference?


 Probably, since its a different sensor with a different postprocessing. However, you wont see great jumps in image quality, which is more likely your question. Both cameras have a state of the art 24 Megapixel sensors. The details will be slightly different. For example the D750 has the weaker Anti-Aliasing Filter, so you will see a tiny bit more sharpness if you magnify to 100% on a computer screen, assuming you used a really good lens in the optimal way (no blurr from shaking, no blurr from subject movement, no blurr from lens brutally stopped down, etc), but that should be all.





gr8five said:


> I'm hoping someone has done this already.


 I have thought about it, in fact I'm still thinking about it, but I think the difference between the two cameras is too small for me to justify spending a full 2k€ again.

But as I said - if I would get a new camera, I would definitely get the D750.



P.s.: I should maybe also mention the two problems I have with the D750, the reasons I decided to not get one in the end:
- Despite using the same AF sensor is still not as wide as for the D810 and D4s
- The shutter is louder than the shutter of the D600/D610
Both things are caused by the fact Nikon shrinked the D750. A change I would in principle welcome - but not at the cost of a smaller AF field and a louder shutter.


----------



## goodguy

Solarflare said:


> The D750 has a sh***load of improvements that should have been in the D600 already.
> 
> The D600 for example has a disappointing autofocus. The D750 has the best autofocus you can get from Nikon right now.
> 
> The D750 has a flipscreen, uber useful for video, macro, or simply shooting from the hip.
> 
> The D750 can show you the focus point in 100% magnification in a single click ... that alone is extremely valueable (and I'm angry at Nikon that they dont offer an upgrade for the D600/D610 so they can have that too).
> 
> The D750 is also smaller, more lightweight, has a better grip, builtin WiFi, ... etc etc etc.
> 
> I still have my D600 and I'll probably wait for the next generation, but if I would get a new camera - the D750 is a nobrainer.
> 
> And its not 500$ difference ... its a ~20% difference. If you buy a camera for 20$ or one for 520$ is a HUGE difference. If you buy a camera for 20000$ or one for 20500$ is not. Thus its in percent, not in absolute money.



Wow man you are one heck of a sales person, you should consider selling cameras for a living, ok I am convinced I change my recommendation to the D750, you buy a camera once every few years, spend the extra 500$ and get the best FF camera in its price range!


----------



## Braineack

He didn't sell me...

The D610 is not a stupid camera--although it was stupid that Nikon had to resort to it.
The D600 AF is not disappointing.
Only 25% of the current Nikons have articulating screens.
This could be implemented into any Nikon with the inclusion of the 2 lines of code it took to do this.
The D750 is smaller by 3.2%-- in other words: If the D750 were 300 feet wide and 100 feet tall, the D610 would also be 300 feet wide and 100 feet tall because they actually measure the same width and height.
The D750 weighs 1.4% less than the D610. In other words: if the D750 weighed 1,700 lbs, both would be incredibly difficult to pick up.  The burden of my life choices weigh heavier than the difference between the two.
I've read many accounts where people actually prefer the grip of the D600 over the D750...

It's a $500 difference.  You buy cameras in absolute dollars, not percentages.
ps:

The difference in AF area width is trivial at best.  The D750 can AF -3EV where the D810 cant.
The shutter is on par with the sound of a D600, both are quieter than a D800.
Both things have absolutely nothing to do with the size of the case/frame.

The D750 is basically a D4s that Nikon throttled back in firmware so you buy the D760 in a year or two when the only upgrade is another .5fps bump in burst speed.


----------



## pixmedic

Solarflare said:


> The D610 is a bit of a stupid camera, really. You can get a D600 instead and its basically the same camera, just a lot cheaper and if there are any problems with sensor dust, Nikon will fix them anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gr8five said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize the 750 is the newer and has some upgrades compared to the 610 but wondering if it's worth the $500 difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The D750 has a sh***load of improvements that should have been in the D600 already.
> 
> The D600 for example has a disappointing autofocus. The D750 has the best autofocus you can get from Nikon right now.
> 
> The D750 has a flipscreen, uber useful for video, macro, or simply shooting from the hip.
> 
> The D750 can show you the focus point in 100% magnification in a single click ... that alone is extremely valueable (and I'm angry at Nikon that they dont offer an upgrade for the D600/D610 so they can have that too).
> 
> The D750 is also smaller, more lightweight, has a better grip, builtin WiFi, ... etc etc etc.
> 
> I still have my D600 and I'll probably wait for the next generation, but if I would get a new camera - the D750 is a nobrainer.
> 
> And its not 500$ difference ... its a ~20% difference. If you buy a camera for 20$ or one for 520$ is a HUGE difference. If you buy a camera for 20000$ or one for 20500$ is not. Thus its in percent, not in absolute money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gr8five said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I was to set them up with the same lens and take the same shot would I see a difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably, since its a different sensor with a different postprocessing. However, you wont see great jumps in image quality, which is more likely your question. Both cameras have a state of the art 24 Megapixel sensors. The details will be slightly different. For example the D750 has the weaker Anti-Aliasing Filter, so you will see a tiny bit more sharpness if you magnify to 100% on a computer screen, assuming you used a really good lens in the optimal way (no blurr from shaking, no blurr from subject movement, no blurr from lens brutally stopped down, etc), but that should be all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gr8five said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping someone has done this already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have thought about it, in fact I'm still thinking about it, but I think the difference between the two cameras is too small for me to justify spending a full 2k€ again.
> 
> But as I said - if I would get a new camera, I would definitely get the D750.
> 
> 
> 
> P.s.: I should maybe also mention the two problems I have with the D750, the reasons I decided to not get one in the end:
> - Despite using the same AF sensor is still not as wide as for the D810 and D4s
> - The shutter is louder than the shutter of the D600/D610
> Both things are caused by the fact Nikon shrinked the D750. A change I would in principle welcome - but not at the cost of a smaller AF field and a louder shutter.
Click to expand...


wow. 
do you even _*try*_ to confirm any of the "facts" you constantly throw out here?
I would go down the list of how wrong this post is on pretty much every point, but Braineack beat me to it.


----------



## Braineack

I'm not trying to discount that the D750 isn't a great camera itself, but the D610 is a different class.  It's a great camera stuffed with an older AF module and image processor and thusly priced at a lower price point--it's as simple as that.

It's the same way the D3300 and D5500 are basically the same camera but one has the 11pt AF module vs. 39pt and articulating screen.  Oddly enough, they are priced 33% apart!


----------



## gr8five

You all have pointed out some very good things about the two cameras and I thank you very much for your replies.  

Please let me add one more thing. I was talking with a person yesterday that owns a 750 and he told me you can use dx lenses. I asked him what the difference was in the images using the dx lens and he told me none you can readily see. This is something I haven't heard before, is he nuts?


----------



## Raj_55555

gr8five said:


> You all have pointed out some very good things about the two cameras and I thank you very much for your replies.
> 
> Please let me add one more thing. I was talking with a person yesterday that owns a 750 and he told me you can use dx lenses. I asked him what the difference was in the images using the dx lens and he told me none you can readily see. This is something I haven't heard before, is he nuts?


No he's not nuts! As far as I know, most Full frame cameras can take a DX lens, and it goes into crop mode. What that means is you loose some image resolution, any loss of image quality probably has more to do with the lens optics than anything else. I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong somewhere.


----------



## raventepes

You can use DX lenses on any FX camera bodies, such as the D610 and D750. While they'll work, they give you a crop that's often maybe not worth it. Using FX with a DX crop on a 24MP sensor, you're looking at roughly a 10MP DX image, if I remember right.


----------



## goodguy

"raj_555" and "raventepes" are correct you can use DX lenses on FX camera but you loose a lot of resolution, its like asking can I buy a Mercedes S class and stick a 1.6L 4 cylinder engine in it.
Yes you can but why ?
Puting a motor which is obviously not designed for such a heavy high end car.
Same with camera, yes it will work but it will loose some of the FX advantages.

I hope you will make up your mind fast which camera you want to buy before we will start a Nikon battle here LOL
D610 vs D750 both good cameras, lots of people would love to own either, the fact you in a position to choose which one is already putting you in a very lucky spot, you really cant go wrong either way.
Same image quality
Roughly same low light performance till 6400ISO and the D750 has advantage over that
D750 has better AF and the newer processor which means better metering system
For landscaping the D750 advanatge is not coming to effect, for other things it does.

So what will it be ?


----------



## nerwin

You'll want a nice wide angle lens for shooting landscapes, so why not get the D610 and put that $500 difference toward say a 18-35G? Just a thought.


----------



## Braineack

You mean with that 20% he saved he could buy a lens that's 30% the value of the camera body and his net cost at 100% the D750.


----------



## goodguy

Braineack said:


> You mean with that 20% he saved he could buy a lens that's 30% the value of the camera body and his net cost at 100% the D750.


Wait let me get the calculator, you lost me at the 30%


----------



## pixmedic

are you considering used? or only new? if your going to consider a D610 to save $500 to put towards glass, and you are open to buying used, I would recommend  you get a used D600 (<$1000) and have extra money towards a good wide angle lens.


----------



## jaomul

Oh this recommendation for a d600 is one I'd approach carefully. No way I'd buy a camera with a known fault that was indirectly replaced by it's maker after a very short half life


----------



## pixmedic

jaomul said:


> Oh this recommendation for a d600 is one I'd approach carefully. No way I'd buy a camera with a known fault that was indirectly replaced by it's maker after a very short half life



except that nikon will replace your shutter. for free. no questions asked.
you basically get a camera with almost ZERO shutter actuations for the price of a used camera.
win/win to me.

in fact, thats the biggest reason i went with the D600 instead of a D610. much cheaper, free repair IF i even need it. 
Two D600's later, still no oil spots, and no worries if any appear because i know it will be a free fix.


----------



## jaomul

pixmedic said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this recommendation for a d600 is one I'd approach carefully. No way I'd buy a camera with a known fault that was indirectly replaced by it's maker after a very short half life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except that nikon will replace your shutter. for free. no questions asked.
> you basically get a camera with almost ZERO shutter actuations for the price of a used camera.
> win/win to me.
> 
> in fact, thats the biggest reason i went with the D600 instead of a D610. much cheaper, free repair IF i even need it.
> Two D600's later, still no oil spots, and no worries if any appear because i know it will be a free fix.
Click to expand...


I'm glad all is good for you with this. I think Braineack has had the same experience. I still wouldn't chance it. Maybe it's because I know that if something goes wrong I have to send it to a Nikon repair station, but as far as I am aware there isn't one in Ireland, so I got to send it overseas for repair.

Give me the one without the known problem please


----------



## Braineack

it's not a chance--they will replace the shutter for free, and if you still have an issue after service, they will send you a brand spanking new D610.

D600s are an incredible value on the used market right now. Coupled with the fact that you can replace the entire shutter assembly and essentially have a brand new camera as is, tripled with the insurance that you'll get a new one if any shutter problems continue, is a no brainer to me.

@MOREGONE just recently acquired his free D610.


but yes, in your situation where its more difficult to send the camera off for service might make you consider other options.


----------



## waday

Braineack said:


> It's a $500 difference. You buy cameras in absolute dollars, not percentages.


I always hate when salespeople try to pull this crap. 

Or the, "Oh, it's only XX dollars more." I always ask if they'll loan me the extra money to pay for it. They say no, then I say, "Well, it's only XX dollars, why not?" It usually gets the salesperson to stop bugging me, haha.


----------



## Braineack

Here's a D6"1"0 used for 40% less than a D750: FS Nikon D600 - FM Forums


----------



## nerwin

Braineack said:


> Here's a D6"1"0 used for 40% less than a D750: FS Nikon D600 - FM Forums



Thats a really good deal. Thats cheaper than used D700's. 5 years ago, I never thought I could ever afford to shoot full frame.


----------



## gr8five

Its been sold


----------



## gr8five

My neighbor has been ill this last 18 months so I've helped him and his wife with little things around the house, trips to the doctor and so on. He passed on three weeks ago and his wife is starting to get rid of his stuff. She called me over today and handed me his camera bag. I could feel it had a camera in it so I told her I will look it over and sell it for her. She said please keep it as a thank you. I opened it up and found his Nikon D5300, Nikor 35mm 1.8g, Tamron 10-24mm 3.5. Tamron 18-270mm 3.5, extra mem cards, a couple of filters, and an extra battery.  She told me if we were going to stay friends I should close up the bag and take it home. I feel a little embarrassed by this gesture and don't know what to do now.


----------



## nerwin

Sorry to hear about your neighbor  

If you and your neighbor were close photography buddies, I'm sure he would of wanted you to have it.


----------



## gr8five

We discussed photography once in a while and I do remember him telling me he had bought a new release from Nikon and also bought a couple of lenses but didn't have a chance to use it much, maybe a 100 pics or so.


----------



## Derrel

Take the camera bag in the spirit in which is was given, and respect the way she gave it to you. That is what I would do. It is a form of payback, and a way for something he liked to "live on", after him...which is really a wonderful gift.


----------



## goodguy

"gr8five" you are a blessed man to have such a good and kind heart, nice that your neighbor appreciate you kindness


----------



## gr8five

Thank you. This has slowed down my hunt for a ff camera.


----------



## lizheaemma

While you have slowed your hunt, I still want to add a few little things to this thread.  I shoot with both camera's and sell camera's.  I have had the D610 for over a year and recent'y picked up  the D750 during a Nikon Employee Pricing Event.  

I shoot for out local weekly, so I shoot a little bit of everything and really put my gear through it's paces.

Nothing wrong with the D610, great camera, but most of that has been covered here.

D750 focusing is great, though I generally can't tell which camera I have shot something with asides from the fact that I have set the file naming information to indicate to myself which is which, so I know if that are problems which camera they are coming from.

So asides from what everyone has already covered, I like the depth of the grip for the shutter hand,  it's feels good, ergonomically, I prefer the feel of the D750.

I also like the setup that you can do with it, which should be possible with the D610 with firmware upgrades.  I love the 100% magnification that was mentioned, and how you can set the record button to be the ISO.

I do put my long lens on the D750 when shooting sports for the autofocus, and tend to leave the wide on the D610.

As far as the DX on an FX camera goes, yuck, is my review... Immediate drop to 10mp and it's noticeable.  I used my Tamron 10-24 on my full frame when I first got the D610 and I was not happy with the results.  I picked up a Tokina 16-24 FX 2.8 and I disliked the DX on the FX even more.


----------



## Danna

gr8five said:


> My neighbor has been ill this last 18 months so I've helped him and his wife with little things around the house, trips to the doctor and so on. He passed on three weeks ago and his wife is starting to get rid of his stuff. She called me over today and handed me his camera bag. I could feel it had a camera in it so I told her I will look it over and sell it for her. She said please keep it as a thank you. I opened it up and found his Nikon D5300, Nikor 35mm 1.8g, Tamron 10-24mm 3.5. Tamron 18-270mm 3.5, extra mem cards, a couple of filters, and an extra battery.  She told me if we were going to stay friends I should close up the bag and take it home. I feel a little embarrassed by this gesture and don't know what to do now.



Nice story ... enjoy the camera.


----------



## Danna

Buying a used 600 ... many say Nikon will fix or replace if it develops oil spots.

How long will Nikon continue this at no charge ?


----------



## Braineack

Danna said:


> Buying a used 600 ... many say Nikon will fix or replace if it develops oil spots.
> 
> How long will Nikon continue this at no charge ?


Forever. And if your repaired D600 develops it again, they'll replace the camera.

using tapatalk.


----------



## gr8five

I think if I bought a 610 or 750 I wouldn't care to use the 5300 and it would just go unused. It would seem like a waste of equipment to let sit especially with the condition its in. 
On another note I do like the length of the Tamron 18/270.


----------



## PaulWog

gr8five said:


> I think if I bought a 610 or 750 I wouldn't care to use the 5300 and it would just go unused. It would seem like a waste of equipment to let sit especially with the condition its in.
> On another note I do like the length of the Tamron 18/270.



I would argue that a D750/D610 and a D5300 would go extremely well together.

The D750 offers much better low-light performance (focusing capabilities, ISO performance). The D5300 offers a crop body for telephoto work when the D750 might be less desirable. The D5300 also serves as a smaller body, possibly better for taking out if you're worried about beating up more expensive gear (or having more expensive gear stolen, depending on where you're going / what you're doing). Finally, two bodies can just be great. The D750 can have one lens on it, the D5300 can have another lens on it.

It's definitely not a setup for everyone though.


----------



## Bebulamar

Difficult choice but I think I will pick the D610.


----------



## lacogada

Braineack said:


> Danna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buying a used 600 ... many say Nikon will fix or replace if it develops oil spots.
> 
> How long will Nikon continue this at no charge ?
> 
> 
> 
> Forever. And if your repaired D600 develops it again, they'll replace the camera.
> 
> using tapatalk.
Click to expand...


Thanks ... that's a long time.


----------



## Solarflare

goodguy said:


> Wow man you are one heck of a sales person, you should consider selling cameras for a living, ok I am convinced I change my recommendation to the D750, you buy a camera once every few years, spend the extra 500$ and get the best FF camera in its price range!


 Err, I would be the worst merchant in the world.


----------



## astroNikon

gr8five said:


> I think if I bought a 610 or 750 I wouldn't care to use the 5300 and it would just go unused. It would seem like a waste of equipment to let sit especially with the condition its in.
> On another note I do like the length of the Tamron 18/270.


I have a d600 and a d7000.  
I barely use the d7000 anymore but it does get used a little.


----------



## gr8five

I decided to go with the 750 and Nikon 70/300 ED and Nikon 24/85 VR. I think the lenses will be a good option for me right now. I'm going from dx (D90) to ff and I realize there will be a difference but just how much I'll have to find out for myself.


----------



## goodguy

gr8five said:


> I decided to go with the 750 and Nikon 70/300 ED and Nikon 24/85 VR. I think the lenses will be a good option for me right now. I'm going from dx (D90) to ff and I realize there will be a difference but just how much I'll have to find out for myself.


I owned the D7000, D7100 and now the D750, the D750 has really blew me away especially when it comes to low light performance.
With the crop sensor cameras I always had a 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 lens with me for low light situation, now with the D750 I stopped carrying it and simply uses my f2.8 zoom lenses for all occasions, at f2.8 and a steady hand I can get clean shots at low light situation.
I also used to own the Nikon 24-85mm VR and 70-300mm VR
The 24-85mm VR was a fantastic lens very sharp and may I even say not too far from my Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G which replaced it, only real drawback is that its much slower then the f2.8 lens, I know you will love it
The 70-300mm VR is a good and relative to its price is sharp but it is slow and comparing to the 70-200mm lenses it isnt as sharp, not a big deal but if you will get in the future a 70-200mm 2.8 lens you will notice the difference.

Good luck


----------



## gr8five

Thanks goodguy, Im sure I will probably make some changes/additions to my glass after I use what I'm probably going to buy. I have read a lot about these two from "the experts" and real Photographers, like the people on this forum.One driving factor is price. I can get this setup from Adorama for under 3k,


----------



## gr8five

Ok I admit I haven't made a clear choice on what lenses to buy.


----------



## astroNikon

gr8five said:


> Ok I admit I haven't made a clear choice on what lenses to buy.


It's just be-fudoling !!

I had the 70-300vr but had issues with the way it focused, especially for sports.

I use the built in focus motor a lot with my lenses as I use my 3 "general" lenses that perform really well, and has saved hundreds of dollars are:
18-35 AF-D
24-85/2.8-4.0 AF-D  (the older version of your selected 24-85 AF-S lens)
80-200/2.8 AF-D

I also have a 300/4 prime AF that is great too, and a few other lenses.

It all comes down to budget.


----------



## goodguy

When talking about lenses going used is a great option, yes its risky like any other item you buy used but lenses are in general a fairly well build item and in most cases a rather safe bet.
Most of my lenses I bought used and got really burned only once.
I also bought some new lenses and one was a lemon so my success rate with lenses is actually higher with used then with new, only thing is that buying new you have the warranty and buying used means no warranty.
As an example if you want a good used fast telezoom lens I would suggest the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 (non OS) goes for around 500$ USD and is a wonderful sharp lens.


----------



## gr8five

Im not at all opposed to buying a used lens. The more money I save the more I have to spend, if that makes sense lol.


----------



## goodguy

gr8five said:


> Im not at all opposed to buying a used lens. The more money I save the more I have to spend, if that makes sense lol.


Well then the Nikon 80-200mm 2.8D and Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 (non OS) are 2 good options, both sharp and fast.
As for wider lenses there are lots good used lenses for reasonable prices like the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 and lots others.
I can tell you that the D750 with good fast glass pretty much feels unstoppable no matter what the lighting conditions are


----------



## Solarflare

gr8five said:


> Ok I admit I haven't made a clear choice on what lenses to buy.


 Well, as a general set of lenses with excellent image quality, I can recomment the AF-S 16-35mm f4 VR and AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR duo which I use, and for which at the moment there still is no better option available.

The AF-S 16-35mm f4 VR isnt outright brilliant, but IMHO the best all-around package of all available options. If you think you dont need 16mm (to me thats the highest focal length I personally still would accept as lowest border, but depending upon your taste you might not need it) theres a AF-S 18-35mm (not sure about f-stops, I think f/3.5-4.5 ?) thats cheaper, smaller, more lightweight and optically at least as good (but dont expect wonders from either of them - if you really want sharpness in wide angle on Nikon F, theres no way around the heavy bulky AF-S 14-24mm or the brand new heavy and bulky Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 VC, or those Zeiss manual prime lenses. With the zooms I specified, try to shoot them at f/5.6 for optimal sharpness, avoid the extreme ends of the focal range, and dont have too high demands for border sharpness either. With those cheavats, I typically use my 16-35mm as a 21-28mm f5.6 and cant complain about the results, especially since I rarely do landscape. And yes, sometimes 16mm is not wide enough, but there you go, cant have everything).

The AF-S 70-200mm f4 is simply excellent. But if its too pricey for your taste, the good old AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR is no slouch at all either. If you think you want more light, the AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR2 is of course brilliant too. Theres also cheaper options for f2.8, like the old AF-S 80-200mm f2.8; you might want to think about getting a monopod for using this too, because it has no image stabilization.

Add to those two zooms (or whatever variant specified you choose) an AF-S 50mm f1.8 (or AF-S 50mm f1.4, or Sigma 35mm f1.4 "Art") as a lens for low light and a Tamron 90mm f2.8 VC macro (or AF-S 105mm f2.8 VR micro) as a macro lens, and that would be a great general setup for "anything".

I personally hate "normal" zooms. I think in that focal range, prime lenses are simply vastly superior, and the only reason not to use a prime lens is if you're too lazy for zooming by feet. But others have already made pretty good suggestions about this type of lens, so fortunately I can skip that anyway.


----------



## goodguy

LOL, looking at "Solarflare" post above and I think you really have a lot of options each with its pro's and con's
Each lens has something good and bad to say about it, some are really good but big, heavy and expensive, some are small, cheap but you loose on amount of light coming in camera.
You areally are limited only by your pocket.
Dont rush to buy any lens, it will be a shame if you buy something because it sounds good only to find you are not using it or find its not for your liking.

From my experience I can tell you lenses are the main factor to get good sharp images (when talking about equipment) more important then the camera body.
I rather have nice camera with amazing lenses then amazing camera with nice lenses.

Dont forget third party lenses are a very good option, some of these lenses are excellent and will cost considerably less then Nikon's equivalent lenses.
Today in some cases third party lenses are actually superior to Nikon's lenses.


----------



## gr8five

Do you think the AF-S 50mm f1.4 is worth the extra money over the AF-S 50mm f1.8 lens?


----------



## astroNikon

gr8five said:


> Do you think the AF-S 50mm f1.4 is worth the extra money over the AR-S 50mm f1.8 lens?


Depends upon what you need the extra aperture for.

For "artistic" stuff I use the f/1.4 over my f/1.8 50mm lens - I have both.  

But using it strictly for "low light" is a double edge sword.  One has to remember that a f/1.4 aperture gives you extremely shallow depth of field when up close.  So if you are taking a photo of a person at f/1.4 you'll only get part of the nose in focus if you focused on the nose .. eyes and ears would be out of focus.

So, f/1.4 is great depending upon how you use it and if you can use it.

The one advantage the AF-S G lens has over the AF-D lens is that you can do focus override without switching off the AF switch, which is great for artistic stuff.

I also rarely have any problems handholding my AF-D lenses and rarely use VR with my VR lenses.  It all depends upon how your use them and how you know how to use them.


----------



## PaulWog

gr8five said:


> Do you think the AF-S 50mm f1.4 is worth the extra money over the AF-S 50mm f1.8 lens?



The 50mm 1.8G performs better at f1.8 than the 50mm 1.4G does. Only by about f2.8 does the 50mm 1.4G perform on-par with the 50mm 1.8G. The 50mm 1.8G should focus a little bit quicker as well. The only reason you should purchase the 1.4 is if you need the wider aperture.


----------



## Raj_55555

PaulWog said:


> The 50mm 1.8G performs considerably better at f1.8 than the 50mm 1.4G does. Only by about f2.8 does the 50mm 1.4G perform on-par with the 50mm 1.8G.


If that's true, consider me shocked!


----------



## PaulWog

Raj_55555 said:


> PaulWog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 50mm 1.8G performs considerably better at f1.8 than the 50mm 1.4G does. Only by about f2.8 does the 50mm 1.4G perform on-par with the 50mm 1.8G.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's true, consider me shocked!
Click to expand...


Nikon 50mm f 1.8G vs f 1.4G

Modified my wording, but you caught me in time. Took away the word "considerably."


----------



## Braineack

I don't think the subjective better rendering of the 1.4 over 1.8 makes up for the cost and size.


----------



## Solarflare

Raj_55555 said:


> If that's true, consider me shocked!


 Err ... why ?!? Thats pretty normal ? More aperture means more lens complexity. More complexity means more sources of error. Thus, in very, very general, lenses with less maximum aperture tend to be better than those of larger maximum aperture.

Again, in very, very general. With countless counterexamples. But assuming both lenses are created with the same set of tolerances, yes the one with the smaller maximum aperture should always win.


----------



## astroNikon

Braineack said:


> I don't think the subjective better rendering of the 1.4 over 1.8 makes up for the cost and size.


The 50/1.4 G and 50/1.8 G are the same size.  They use the same shell.  

The 1.4 is heavier and more costly though, but it's not much comparatively to other lenses like the 85s.


----------



## Braineack

ah, i was thinking about the 58mm size/weight/cost.

If I could find a good deal a on a 1.4G I might go for it,  but you can find the 1.8G for such good prices--In fact I almost bought one last week at $120 shipped.

50mm 1.8D = $180
50mm 1.8G = $220
50mm 1.4D = $370
50mm 1.4G = $480
58mm 1.4G = $1,700

85mm 1.8G = $500
85mm 1.4G = $1,700


----------



## goodguy

gr8five said:


> Do you think the AF-S 50mm f1.4 is worth the extra money over the AF-S 50mm f1.8 lens?


Simply put it ?

No!

Nikon 50mm f1.8 is sharper and the DOF difference between the F1.4 and F1.8 isnt great, if you want the lens for low light then every bit of extra light is helpful BUT if you shoot something that is close then the DOF is so narrow that there is a good chance that your shoot will be OOF.
So I woudnt bother getting the F1.4G


----------



## goodguy

Raj_55555 said:


> PaulWog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 50mm 1.8G performs considerably better at f1.8 than the 50mm 1.4G does. Only by about f2.8 does the 50mm 1.4G perform on-par with the 50mm 1.8G.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's true, consider me shocked!
Click to expand...

Ok Raj I have now considered you shocked  LOL


----------



## gr8five

I've been looking at a lot of my photos to see what I mostly shoot at and for reference using the 1.5 crop factor to get an idea of what I like. I think right now the 50mm f/1.8G and the 70/200mm f/4 VR will be a good starting point for me.


----------



## Raj_55555

Solarflare said:


> Raj_55555 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's true, consider me shocked!
> 
> 
> 
> Err ... why ?!?
Click to expand...

Cause if I am paying twice the amount of money for something, the least I'd expect is to have the same, if not better, level of consistency with everything. I guess things don't work that way in the real world.


----------



## Braineack

I just finished reading a few reviews comparing the two and decided ill never get one 

Nikon 50mm 1.4G vs 50mm 1.8G - ima foto

I could still see splurging for the 58mm as it seems to handle itself better than the 50mm in many regards, but would still only make sense if I was going to be using it a majority of my shoots and could justify it.


----------



## gr8five

Thanks for the review Braineack it confirmed my choice.


----------



## PaulWog

Braineack said:


> I just finished reading a few reviews comparing the two and decided ill never get one
> 
> Nikon 50mm 1.4G vs 50mm 1.8G - ima foto
> 
> I could still see splurging for the 58mm as it seems to handle itself better than the 50mm in many regards, but would still only make sense if I was going to be using it a majority of my shoots and could justify it.



Do you mean you'll never get a 50mm 1.8G and 1.4G, or just the 1.4G? I've heard some hate against the 1.8G, and I still don't understand it (other than possibly copy variation).


----------



## Braineack

The 50mm 1.4G--I'd buy a 50 1.8G or 58mm 1.4G.

But I see no reason to spend twice as much on the 50mm 1.4G over the 1.8G on a worse lens.


----------



## gr8five

PaulWog said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished reading a few reviews comparing the two and decided ill never get one
> 
> Nikon 50mm 1.4G vs 50mm 1.8G - ima foto
> 
> I could still see splurging for the 58mm as it seems to handle itself better than the 50mm in many regards, but would still only make sense if I was going to be using it a majority of my shoots and could justify it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean you'll never get a 50mm 1.8G and 1.4G, or just the 1.4G? I've heard some hate against the 1.8G, and I still don't understand it (other than possibly copy variation).
Click to expand...


Going with the 1.8G


----------



## PaulWog

Alright I'm curious (and I don't want to make a new thread):

How is the ISO performance of the D750 over the D610? And how is the exposure recovery on the D750 over the D610?

I have Googled through as many comparisons as I can find, and I just can't find a good enough one. One I found made the D750 look amazing, but then I looked and it seems like they were comparing JPeg (not RAW), with a ton of noise reduction turned on for the D750.

I've heard that the D750 at ISO 12800 is like the D610 at ISO 6400, but I refuse to believe the difference is that huge. I know the contrast and colors are better on the D750 at ISO 3200 and up, according to some identical shot comparisons I've seen. 

I don't know... anyone have a great link or great video? I've seen the Matt Granger one, and a bunch of other ones, lots of Googling, but again... there's a lot of fluff information.


----------



## goodguy

PaulWog said:


> Alright I'm curious (and I don't want to make a new thread):
> 
> How is the ISO performance of the D750 over the D610? And how is the exposure recovery on the D750 over the D610?
> 
> I have Googled through as many comparisons as I can find, and I just can't find a good enough one. One I found made the D750 look amazing, but then I looked and it seems like they were comparing JPeg (not RAW), with a ton of noise reduction turned on for the D750.
> 
> I've heard that the D750 at ISO 12800 is like the D610 at ISO 6400, but I refuse to believe the difference is that huge. I know the contrast and colors are better on the D750 at ISO 3200 and up, according to some identical shot comparisons I've seen.
> 
> I don't know... anyone have a great link or great video? I've seen the Matt Granger one, and a bunch of other ones, lots of Googling, but again... there's a lot of fluff information.


I will not claim I know from experience the differences between D610 and D750 as I never really used a D610 but the native ISO on it is 6400ISO while the D750 has max ISO of 12800.
I think the jump in ISO is only 1/3 of a stop between 6400 and 12800 which considering the D610 really is a D600 and the D750 is only 6 months old then 1/3 of a stop improvement is reasonable and not a huge improvment.

In many areas the D750 is better then the D610 but not by much.
Main advanatge really is AF system.


----------



## PaulWog

Alright thanks. I'm seriously considering picking one up tomorrow. There's a sale for $2200 Canadian (which is really good since the exchange rate is $1 Canadian to $0.81 US). I want to up my ISO game with my 150-600, and I sort-of want to dump my 18-35 Art due to some OCD issues (functions perfectly but I can't get over the little bit of play on the focus ring).

I sold my 70-300 for $360, I expect to get between $700 and $760 for my 18-35 Art, and I expect to get $300-$360 for my 10-20. The D5200 I think I could get $360-$380 for with an extra battery. Realistic? Hopefully. Sadly my 18-35 Art isn't even a year old, and I think I paid after import fees and exchange rate about $950 (Canadian) for it. I think I'll be netting having wasted $100 from the UWA, and $200 from the Art lens (and I don't chock the D5200 to a loss since it got used nicely). Then again, if I got the D750 8 months ago, I'd be spending $300 more or so.


----------



## Braineack

sounds like a plan.  Youll love the D750.


----------



## enerlevel

I have used both the d600 and the d750. I think the d750 files are cleaner than the d600 at high ISO. So the grip is much deeper and feels better in the hands. 
The d750 which I have refuses to work with D lens .. So dunno maybe you would want to check it before buying and also the d750 comes in two editions. With and without wifi.
Hope this helps


----------



## gr8five

I didn't know it was available with or without WiFi.


----------



## seedubxj

It's not available without WiFi.


----------



## PaulWog

seedubxj said:


> It's not available without WiFi.



It is, the model is the D750 K. Page 281 of the user manual addresses it.

I'm not sure which countries Nikon supplies that version to, or whether it's a special-order type of thing.


----------



## seedubxj

Interesting. I've been researching this camera for the better part of 3 months and have yet to see, rear or hear ANYONE mention this. I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who actually owns that version. Is it any cheaper I wonder???


----------



## levueny

gr8five said:


> Im having a hard time making a choice between the two. I realize the 750 is the newer and has some upgrades compared to the 610 but wondering if it's worth the $500 difference. I shoot landscape mostly. If I was to set them up with the same lens and take the same shot would I see a difference? I'm hoping someone has done this already. I think I know the answer but looking for outside help. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.


I had the same question.  But you can get the 610 so much cheaper at a refurbished price for almost the same features minus the gimmicks.  And if you're not going over 6400, just go save a dollar with the 610


----------



## Solarflare

As I've said before - the "gimmicks" of the D750 are very, very helpful stuff - like a much better AF including face detection outside lifeview, a flipscreen, 100% magnification of the focus point in review mode (able to quickly check if focus was nailed), buildin WiFi, etc.

The D750 is the camera the D600 (and D610) should already have been.

The IQ however wont increase too much. And no, of course ISO 12k on the D750 isnt as good as ISO 6400 on the D6x0. That would be a twice as good performance. Still, my D600 is brilliant until 6400, then suddenly theres a huge drop - I would thus hope the D750 allows still useable ISO 12k.


----------



## Braineack

But you can also say 6400 on the d750 is just as good as the D610 at 6400.

The reason for the drop off is because the native high iso is 6400.  If you are shooting at 12K, then youre capturing a shot at 6400 and pushing it 1EV after the fact.


----------



## enerlevel

yes they do come with and without wifi. The one without is called as D750 (k).  The high ISO files from d600 and the d750 are different. Cleaner yes but I think the colours are better on the d750 as well.


----------



## goodguy

Solarflare said:


> I would thus hope the D750 allows still useable ISO 12k.


It absolutely does!


----------



## jsecordphoto

I haven't compared the d610 to the d750 personally, but I have tested it side by side the the d810 and 800e, and the  high ISO performance is noticeably better, by about a stop. I do shoot above 6400 somewhat regularly doing astrophotography and even at 12,800 the noise isn't that bad- certainly manageable. If you don't shoot often at high ISO (3200+) often, I'd say get the d610. For me, the d750 is pretty much the perfect camera, but your needs may vary


----------



## Daniel The Cool

D610 is actually a good one. I'm currently using that right and its also my first FX I owned.


----------



## crusheddiced

For me, I'm more familiar with the D750.  I found it to be a good camera!


----------

