# Nikon D750 or Canon 6D



## Matt Glick (Dec 11, 2014)

New guy here.
Im in the market for a full frame DSLR and have narrowed it down to the Nikon D750 and Canon 6D. I am leaning towards the D750, but wanted other's opinions. I have read countless reviews and all of them favor the 750 and the specs show why. I wanted to see other's opinions on these cameras. The noise level in low light, high ISO for the 750 is very appealing to me, as are many other specs and performance reviews. 

Thanks for the help!


----------



## andylucian (Dec 11, 2014)

Hello Matt and welcome
It depends on the usage. Both are very good cameras. Obviously the D750 is a more recent model with a better specs sheet, however you will pay more for it. If you didn't need the extras the D750 gave, it would allow you to get the 6D and a nice lens. 
I cannot bang on about it enough, better glass is more important than a better body. I've learnt the hard way.

The only major aspect of the D750 over the 6D is the focusing. The 6D is not bad in any way, however the D750 borrows the latest system from the higher end Nikon bodies and will focus in lower light more reliably. So if you shoot sports or low light action then the D750, otherwise the 6D and some decent glass.
I hope this helps the decisions.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 11, 2014)

andylucian said:


> Hello Matt and welcome
> It depends on the usage. Both are very good cameras. Obviously the D750 is a more recent model with a better specs sheet, however you will pay more for it. If you didn't need the extras the D750 gave, it would allow you to get the 6D and a nice lens.
> I cannot bang on about it enough, better glass is more important than a better body. I've learnt the hard way.
> 
> ...



And the dynamic range. I recently sold all my Canon gear (just have one 85 f/1.8 left) and bought a D750 with lenses. The Dynamic range is simply amazing. You can bring an underexposed photo up 5 stops and still have a good looking usable photo. You can basically make one shot HDR photos with it because the DR performance with this camera is so insane. This is coming from a 5D MKII. I'm not regretting it at all.


----------



## JacaRanda (Dec 11, 2014)

I agree with Andy.  If money is not an issue then D750.   By no means does it suggest you could not produce great photos with the 6D also.  Don't ignore ergonmics, lens choices (both great) etc.


----------



## Matt Glick (Dec 11, 2014)

Thanks for the replies. When you say better glass is more important then a body, you mean a better lens is more important a better body, correct? I could see that being the case for sure. I'm coming from a Nikon D70, this is going to open up a whole new world for me.


----------



## JacaRanda (Dec 11, 2014)

Matt Glick said:


> Thanks for the replies. When you say better glass is more important then a body, you mean a better lens is more important a better body, correct? I could see that being the case for sure. I'm coming from a Nikon D70, this is going to open up a whole new world for me.



That is correct - for the most part.  If you get the D750 the only thing you should ever worry about for a good long time is lenses.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 11, 2014)

6D is at same level as the D610 so already you are talking about the D750 located one level above both the D610 and 6D.
The 6D is a very good camera and as was said before if you are not looking to do any action shots with it-it could do the trick nicely but the D750 really is a big step above the 6D.
Low light and Dynamic Range on this camera is amazing, if you shoot video then it is one of the best DSLR for that. The tilty screen is nice for high and low shots and the AF system on it is superb.
Lots of more goodies on it but I have a feeling you will get the D750 and I do recommend you to get it, it is just a fantastic camera.
Got mine over a month ago and I love, love it!

The 6D has one big advantage over the D750 and thats the price, is the D750 worth the extra price ?
This is a question only you can answer, I think it is but it really is up to you.
One more thing to consider is that the 6D has been out for a while and it is rumored that it should be replaced soon, I have a feeing the 6D II will be a big step up from the 6D and probably not much more expensive.
Buying an old camera now only to see it replaced in short few months is not a happy thought.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Dec 11, 2014)

I have a 6d now and really like it, but it's not the best for wildlife,sports,etc. the AF system is not the best by any means, and I have thought recently about switching to Nikon. I'm going to wait and see what canon comes out with next for camera bodies. The 6d has been great for landscapes though


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 12, 2014)

My girlfriend wanted photos of the house lit up so last night I took a few with my D750.

Before:






After +2.6 exposure in LR:





Crop of after:





If the D610 has anywhere near this DR, then the only level the 6D and D610 would be on is based on marketing.

Also it used to be that lenses were more important than a camera body and that was that. There wasn’t much to a camera back in the film days. After the advent of DSLRs and when cameras became small computers, the bodies tended to matter a bit more but still not as much. Now a good body can mean as much as a lens depending on what you’re doing. I’d still rank the importance of a lens higher but going from one body to the next depending on sensor size and body age can mean _a lot_ faster and accurate AF, _way_ better dynamic range, and more features that may or may not matter to the type of photography you do.


----------



## goooner (Dec 12, 2014)

^^ Can't see any photos using Firefox...


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 12, 2014)

goooner said:


> ^^ Can't see any photos using Firefox...



Try that. TPF hasn't been playing nice with image links lately.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Dec 12, 2014)

Yeah that is pretty insane DR. If I try and pull the shadows/exposure that much with the 6d I get a ton of noise and purple/magenta fringing


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 12, 2014)

jsecordphoto said:


> Yeah that is pretty insane DR. If I try and pull the shadows/exposure that much with the 6d I get a ton of noise and purple/magenta fringing



And although some people may say this is a crutch and that you should expose correctly in the first place, they may not realize the benefit this would give a photographer that shoots in high dynamic range situations, like outside on extremely sunny days.


----------



## runnah (Dec 12, 2014)

jsecordphoto said:


> purple/magenta fringing



Chromatic abberations?


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 12, 2014)

runnah said:


> jsecordphoto said:
> 
> 
> > purple/magenta fringing
> ...



Chroma noise.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 12, 2014)

Village Idiot said:


> My girlfriend wanted photos of the house lit up so last night I took a few with my D750.
> 
> Before:
> 
> ...


Very good example of the true power of modern Sony sensor, not only its very good in low light but the amount of DR is insane!!!
The D610 sensor is actually located ever so slightly above the D750, only one point so it doesn't mean anything but still the D610 sensor is just as good as the one on the D750, the D750 advantage over the D610 is in other areas including the new processor that lets you use a higher native ISO of 12800 rather then the highest on the D610 6400ISO and lots of other goodies.


----------



## runnah (Dec 12, 2014)

Village Idiot said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > jsecordphoto said:
> ...




Well that's more lens than body was my point.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 12, 2014)

runnah said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



If it is CA, then yes, but increasing exposure and getting the color in the noise is the camera.


----------



## Ido (Dec 12, 2014)

Between those two cameras, I think it's really a no-brainer: the D750 is definitely the better buy, unless you're not comfortable with it from an ergonomic standpoint. But before you go ahead and buy one, I strongly recommend that you think long and hard if you actually need the full frame sensor. APS-C is more than good enough for pretty much anything, especially good sensors like the one in the Nikon D7100, Sony a6000, Pentax K-3 / K-5 IIs, Samsung NX1, etc. To me, the Four Thirds sensor in my Olympus OM-D E-M5 is sufficient, too.


----------



## Matt Glick (Dec 12, 2014)

Thanks for the feedback. I am wanting an FX, so I am going to go with the D750, just need to gather up some extra dough and going to get a pckg at a local shop.


----------



## Matt Glick (Dec 12, 2014)

The christmas lights on the house pictures are extremely clean. Its super impressive what the camera can do.


----------



## Matt Glick (Dec 12, 2014)

How much do you think I could get for selling a good condition Nikon D70 with 18-55 lens?


----------



## goodguy (Dec 12, 2014)

Matt Glick said:


> How much do you think I could get for selling a good condition Nikon D70 with 18-55 lens?


Just guesstimating 100$ ?


----------



## Matt Glick (Dec 12, 2014)

goodguy said:


> Matt Glick said:
> 
> 
> > How much do you think I could get for selling a good condition Nikon D70 with 18-55 lens?
> ...


 
haha ouch. Thats an ND filter!


----------



## goodguy (Dec 12, 2014)

Matt Glick said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > Matt Glick said:
> ...


I just bought a near mint D60 with 10k on it for close to this amount and the D60 has 10MP while yours is 6MP if I am not mistaking so I doubt you will get more.
Either way good luck


----------



## iolair (Dec 15, 2014)

Just to throw a spanner in the works - if you're starting from scratch, you may also want to see if the new Sony A7 suits you.  It's still full frame, great value (although the lenses are pricey), better focusing than 6D, but the same great sensors that Nikon use ... but it's also a bit of a different feel, and more lightweight.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 15, 2014)

iolair said:


> Just to throw a spanner in the works - if you're starting from scratch, you may also want to see if the new Sony A7 suits you.  It's still full frame, great value (although the lenses are pricey), better focusing than 6D, but the same great sensors that Nikon use ... but it's also a bit of a different feel, and more lightweight.


A7 can produce great pictures but has 2 issues to consider.

1.No serious fast zoom lenses, meaning you cant get f2.8 zoom lenses on it, only F4 and if you go for F4 you are loosing a lot of low light potential.
2.AF is not briliant, its ok but nothing more then that.


----------



## iolair (Dec 17, 2014)

goodguy said:


> A7 can produce great pictures but has 2 issues to consider.
> 
> 1.No serious fast zoom lenses, meaning you cant get f2.8 zoom lenses on it, only F4 and if you go for F4 you are loosing a lot of low light potential.
> 2.AF is not briliant, its ok but nothing more then that.


I think the AF is good enough for most people's purposes ... but I have to agree with you on the lens range.  (And the lenses seem seriously pricey for what you get, too).


----------



## gsgary (Dec 17, 2014)

goodguy said:


> iolair said:
> 
> 
> > Just to throw a spanner in the works - if you're starting from scratch, you may also want to see if the new Sony A7 suits you.  It's still full frame, great value (although the lenses are pricey), better focusing than 6D, but the same great sensors that Nikon use ... but it's also a bit of a different feel, and more lightweight.
> ...


No1 is not an issue almost any lens that has been made will fit if you have the money even the 50mm F0.95 noctilux

No2 not an issue manual focus is very fast and for a lot of photography you do not need auto focus


----------



## goodguy (Dec 17, 2014)

gsgary said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > iolair said:
> ...


We went through this in the past, if you ok with MF then you are right, depends of your style of shooting and personal ability and preference.
Me I can hardly see the screen from up close so MF is useless, I also tend from time to time get into hyper mode when shooting where I will focus very fast at few different moving things.
As an example I was at a Hockey game where I had to switch between the game with players erratically moving on the ice and the girls dancing and cheering only few meters away from me, for me MF is not even an option, for me the Sony A7 needs to grow few more models to be attractive in few things but mostly in its lens option.
Emphasis is for me, everybody has different needs and preferences!


----------



## snerd (Dec 20, 2014)

DP Review just gave the nod to the D750, with a 90% rating!



> ....... It's not often that we review a camera that does nearly everything right. The Nikon D750 is one of those cameras, due in large part to its top-notch sensor and autofocus system. It also wins points for its responsive (but buffer-limited) continuous shooting mode and video quality. While it has a few flaws, they're minor and won't affect the majority of photographers. Given just how good the D750, it should come as no surprise that it's earned our top award.....


Nikon D750 Review: Digital Photography Review


----------



## snerd (Dec 20, 2014)

And they dissed my 5D3......

"..... The EOS 5D III is a nice enough camera, but its sensor and AF systems are behind the times, so unless you have a large collection of Canon lenses, the D750 will fit you better...."

<snif>


----------



## goodguy (Dec 20, 2014)

snerd said:


> And they dissed my 5D3......
> 
> "..... The EOS 5D III is a nice enough camera, but its sensor and AF systems are behind the times, so unless you have a large collection of Canon lenses, the D750 will fit you better...."
> 
> <snif>


 
Oh dont be like that, the 5DIII is still an amazing camera, the AF system on it is nothing to sniff at, got loads of respect to it, the only area where it really lags behind my D750 is Dynmic range which sadly is an issue with all current Canon cameras.
Cant wait to see what wabbit Canon will pull out of their hat when they introduce the new D5 IV, I hope it will stay a good general use camera and not a studio camera with loads of MP


----------



## D-B-J (Dec 20, 2014)

Nikon's Dynamic Range is KILLING IT these days  


D800 (random shot from a botched shoot when my pocketwizard broke, but that's almost 5 stops of exposure increase.... pretty damn clean for a 100% crop


 !)


----------



## jsecordphoto (Dec 20, 2014)

I'm still curious how these nikon sensors will handle landscape astrophotography work. Being able to pull a ton of detail out of an underexposed photo @ ISO100 is great and all, but what about pulling shadows at ISO3200-6400? I love doing big milky way pano's, usually shooting at ISO4000, and then pulling the shadows in my foreground. With my 6D I get a ton of noise (not that it's unexpected). If I can pull shadow detail like this at high ISO's I'd be in heaven


----------



## D-B-J (Dec 20, 2014)

jsecordphoto said:


> I'm still curious how these nikon sensors will handle landscape astrophotography work. Being able to pull a ton of detail out of an underexposed photo @ ISO100 is great and all, but what about pulling shadows at ISO3200-6400? I love doing big milky way pano's, usually shooting at ISO4000, and then pulling the shadows in my foreground. With my 6D I get a ton of noise (not that it's unexpected). If I can pull shadow detail like this at high ISO's I'd be in heaven




Remember my milk way shot? That was f4 @ ISO 5000. Drop it to 2.8 or lower and you'll be floored. Blown away. Amazed. Awed. Excited.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 20, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> jsecordphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still curious how these nikon sensors will handle landscape astrophotography work. Being able to pull a ton of detail out of an underexposed photo @ ISO100 is great and all, but what about pulling shadows at ISO3200-6400? I love doing big milky way pano's, usually shooting at ISO4000, and then pulling the shadows in my foreground. With my 6D I get a ton of noise (not that it's unexpected). If I can pull shadow detail like this at high ISO's I'd be in heaven
> ...


Ok, ok boy relax, wipe your chin


----------



## D-B-J (Dec 20, 2014)

goodguy said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > jsecordphoto said:
> ...



Who me? I won't bother, every time I use my D800 I drool. So, unless it leaves me life there's no point.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 20, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > D-B-J said:
> ...


You sir are ONE, BIG, FAT Teaseeeeeeee, now I want a D800 too


----------



## Ido (Dec 21, 2014)

jsecordphoto said:


> I'm still curious how these nikon sensors will handle landscape astrophotography work. Being able to pull a ton of detail out of an underexposed photo @ ISO100 is great and all, but what about pulling shadows at ISO3200-6400? I love doing big milky way pano's, usually shooting at ISO4000, and then pulling the shadows in my foreground. With my 6D I get a ton of noise (not that it's unexpected). If I can pull shadow detail like this at high ISO's I'd be in heaven


DxO measurements show that the Nikon holds a firm lead until ISO 400, still better at ISO 800, but more or less identical to the Canon after that.
(Compared dynamic range measurements throughout the ISO range of the Nikon D750, Canon EOS 6D and Canon EOS 5D Mark III. The D810 is apparently very similar to the D750 in dynamic range - even just a tad worse at higher ISOs.)


----------



## goodguy (Dec 21, 2014)

Ido said:


> jsecordphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still curious how these nikon sensors will handle landscape astrophotography work. Being able to pull a ton of detail out of an underexposed photo @ ISO100 is great and all, but what about pulling shadows at ISO3200-6400? I love doing big milky way pano's, usually shooting at ISO4000, and then pulling the shadows in my foreground. With my 6D I get a ton of noise (not that it's unexpected). If I can pull shadow detail like this at high ISO's I'd be in heaven
> ...


 
Well buddy the D810 has a pretty big advantage over all other cameras even my beloved D750 in base ISO but once the ISO start going up its heavily MP populated sensor will loose its advantage and even be leaft slightly behind but not by much.
The D810 is a better general use camera then its older D800 sister but it is still more directed to studio work or landscape where you have more controlled situation can shoot at lower ISO and get the best advantage out of this amazing beast of a camera!

And BTW Happy Hanukka


----------



## Crysalisx (Mar 26, 2016)

Hello , I could really use some advice . I'm getting ready to purchase a new camera and think I'm set on the Nikon 750. 
I will be shooting portrait , landscape and night skies mostly . Which lenses should I purchase with my camera? There are lots of different packages online and I'm confused. I am an amature but hope to take my skills to the next level with my new camera and want the right lenses . Thank you in advance!


----------



## Ido (Mar 27, 2016)

Crysalisx said:


> Hello , I could really use some advice . I'm getting ready to purchase a new camera and think I'm set on the Nikon 750.
> I will be shooting portrait , landscape and night skies mostly . Which lenses should I purchase with my camera? There are lots of different packages online and I'm confused. I am an amature but hope to take my skills to the next level with my new camera and want the right lenses . Thank you in advance!


Hi there
Your question will be easier to notice if you post it in a thread of its own on the forum. You should get more answers there, so try doing so.

Anyway, I'll start here. Will the D750 be your first camera? Do you already know what exactly you want to shoot, and what sort of lenses will be best for that?
If the answers are 'yes', 'no' and 'no', the best option for you is to start with the offered kit lens. In the case of the Nikon D750, that's one hell of a lens; the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 is sold separately for over $1,000, but when you buy it in a kit with the D750, it only adds $300 to the price of the camera. This, to me, means that buying the kit is a no-brainer; use it for a little while, and if you find it's not the right lens for you, you might even be able to sell it at a profit!

I'd also advise against buying a camera like the D750 as your first camera. Most likely, it will prove to be an overkill. But it is a great camera, no doubt—you basically can't go wrong with choosing it, unless you feel it's too big and heavy for you (keep in mind that the lenses aren't small and light, either). And it is your money, after all.

*Edit:* I've just now noticed you did specify what you want to shoot: portrait, landscape, and night-sky. You may want to forgo the 24-120mm f/4, and jump straight to a 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom instead. The wider aperture will come in handy for the night-sky shots, and 70mm at f/2.8 is a decent combination to start out with portraits. This range is pretty much my most used range for landscapes, though I do tend to shoot a lot with longer focal lengths, too, and sometimes I need to go even wider. That can wait, though; start out with one versatile lens, and learn what else you need as you progress.

The best options for a 24-70mm f/2.8 are the Nikon VR version and the Tamron VC. The Tamron is a lot less expensive (I wouldn't say it's cheap, though), and you may even find good deals on used ones. It is a fine lens, not really worse than the Nikon in any way.


----------

