# 750 or 810 or 800e



## Mashburn (Jun 23, 2015)

Who wins the iso (until you see noise) ,  af,  sharpness? Is there enough of a difference to jump up in price for ? 

I do sports mainly.  But my money comes from weddings.  

Right now I have a d7200 . And I can return it to best buy if there is enough of a difference to make up the price difference.  (yes I want full frame.  But the crop helps me in sports because it is closer with more megapixels)


----------



## ratssass (Jun 23, 2015)

subscribed


----------



## goodguy (Jun 23, 2015)

D750!

Best ISO (even though the D800 and D810 are good too)
Best AF (slightly better then the D810)
D810 is the sharpest but the different for the average user should be negligible compared to the other cameras.
D750 is the cheapest

D800e I wouldnt go for, either the D810 or D750


----------



## ratssass (Jun 23, 2015)

^^^..not biased by any chance??....lol,just looking at your gear...


----------



## nerwin (Jun 23, 2015)

Well any recent full frame DSLR is going to have better high ISO performance. The sensor is 2 times bigger, has bigger pixels so the grain is finer and noise becomes noticeable at a much higher ISO and diffraction occurs at a smaller aperture than crop sensors. The full frame viewfinder is very big and very bright as well, thats one of the first things I noticed when I got my D610. 

If you are going to be shooting a lot in low light then the D750 is a good option, if not, there isn't anything wrong with your D7200, it's a very, very good camera as well.


----------



## Mashburn (Jun 23, 2015)

goodguy said:


> D750!
> 
> Best ISO (even though the D800 and D810 are good too)
> Best AF (slightly better then the D810)
> ...


How much of a difference in iso?


----------



## Mashburn (Jun 23, 2015)

nerwin said:


> Well any recent full frame DSLR is going to have better high ISO performance. The sensor is 2 times bigger, has bigger pixels so the grain is finer and noise becomes noticeable at a much higher ISO and diffraction occurs at a smaller aperture than crop sensors. The full frame viewfinder is very big and very bright as well, thats one of the first things I noticed when I got my D610.
> 
> If you are going to be shooting a lot in low light then the D750 is a good option, if not, there isn't anything wrong with your D7200, it's a very, very good camera as well.


Yeah I'm feeling there isn't a big enough of jump from the 7200 other then crop.  

And low lighting just isn't that bad enough for me to need the better one.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 23, 2015)

Mashburn said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > D750!
> ...



From what I've read, the D750 produces clean files until ISO 3,000 and the D7200 1,300. Give or take of course, but you get the idea. Even beyond that, it's still VERY good.


----------



## Mashburn (Jun 23, 2015)

nerwin said:


> Mashburn said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...


Yes sir.  That's what I was reading.  1600 and  3200. Not enough for me to scream that I need it.  If it did 6400+ iso,  then I would get it.  But just with 3200, I'm good.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 23, 2015)

Mashburn said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > Mashburn said:
> ...



When I had my D7000, I shot often at ISO 3200 with no problems. Sure there was grain..but it was a lot better than my Nikon D60!!




 

Took this (below) with my D610 at ISO 5000. I'd say there is a difference. lol.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jun 23, 2015)

Well, I own both the 7200 and the 750, and there's seriously no comparison with noise and dynamic range. I love my 7200 for wildlife (reach), but even at lower ISO the 750 blows it away. Having shot with all 3 cameras you named, I'd go with the 750 (which I did).


----------



## Mashburn (Jun 23, 2015)

jsecordphoto said:


> Well, I own both the 7200 and the 750, and there's seriously no comparison with noise and dynamic range. I love my 7200 for wildlife (reach), but even at lower ISO the 750 blows it away. Having shot with all 3 cameras you named, I'd go with the 750 (which I did).


How much better is the iso noise?


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jun 23, 2015)

Mashburn said:


> How much better is the iso noise?



Much better? I'm not DxO so I can't give you like a number of stops value, but the d750 is just amazing with noise and dynamic range...not much can really compare right now


----------



## ratssass (Jun 23, 2015)

jsecordphoto said:


> Well, I own both the 7200 and the 750, and there's seriously no comparison with noise and dynamic range. I love my 7200 for wildlife (reach), but even at lower ISO the 750 blows it away. Having shot with all 3 cameras you named, I'd go with the 750 (which I did).


thank you for the hands on report....for some reason I put a lot more stock in "hands on",than an interpretation of someone else's studies...not to say i don't appreciate that homework,either.


----------



## Mashburn (Jun 23, 2015)

Here is something to chew on for me
D800e..... 1700$ used 
D750.... 2000$ new

That there tells me to not to mess with the 800e.  I know it's better megapixel.  And that does matter for my wedding stuff.  But I rather get the other stuff that is slightly better with a better af.  

But keep it coming everyone.  Thanks for your opinions.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jun 23, 2015)

Mashburn said:


> Here is something to chew on for me
> D800e..... 1700$ used
> D750.... 2000$ new
> 
> ...



Keep in mind my main focus for high ISO is astrophotography, where noise becomes more apparent over 25-30" (or sometimes multiple minutes) than a quick shot during a wedding at high ISO (like 1/100 at 6400 or something). My buddy, another astrophotographer, took a look at some of my raw files with the d750, sold his d800e the next day and picked up a 750.


----------



## goodguy (Jun 23, 2015)

When I bought the D750 there was in the store a D800 which cost exactly the same.
D800 or D800e are excellent cameras!!!
But the question why do you want it over the D750 ?
D750 has a better AF system
Better low light performance
Smaller files
For me it was a no brainer, 36MP is too much for me, 24MP is more then enough.
As I said the D800e has sharper images but not by much and it will not be visible unless you pixel peep 
I chose the D750 and I am glad I did, saw few review of wedding photographers who use the D750 as their camera and they cant praise it enough.


----------



## John Hunt (Jun 24, 2015)

This was shot at ISO 32254 with a D750.


----------



## goooner (Jun 24, 2015)

John Hunt said:


> This was shot at ISO 32254 with a D750.
> View attachment 103932


That is impressive. My exif viewer says ISO 6400. Guess the viewer can't go higher


----------



## Roger3006 (Jun 25, 2015)

The 800E is a great camera when you have total control over your lighting. I currently shoot a D800 backing it up with a D7100. I compared the D750 to the D810 thinking it the D750 might be more versatile but giving up a little detail. I will be buying a D810 within the next week.

In my opinion, the DX format does not give you more significantly more "range" than a FX format. All the FX format bodies will shoot in a DX mode. Cropping an FX image tighter should yield the same effect possible loosing some detail. When necessary, I can get very aggressive cropping an image, shot with my D800, and still produce acceptable results.

In my opinion, the D750 and D810 are both very good cameras and I think you will be happy with either one. You will have to weigh the pros and con and figure it out for yourself.

Your D7200,is a great camera capable of producing excellent images; however, in my opinion either of the full frame cameras will out perform it. Something else to consider is your lens inventory. If you have several DX lenses you might want to hang on to your 7200.

All just my opinion.

Roger


----------



## Jasii (Jun 25, 2015)

I can see a lot of people leaning for the D750 and all for a good reason. I too have my sights set on the D750 and am saving for it.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 30, 2015)

Get both, D810 and D750.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 1, 2015)

Well, if I absolutely had to get a new camera body right now, I would probably get the D750 ... but the D810 definitely also has its charms.

If the D810 successor gets a tilting backside monitor and builtin WiFi, I might actually get that instead. I dont really need that many Megapixels, and I'd prefer a smaller, more lightweight body if possible, but a quiet shutter and a larger AF area is something I also definitely will appreciate. Also stuff like ISO 64, 1/8000 sec shutter speed available, higher flash sync, USB 3.0, etc.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 1, 2015)

goooner said:


> John Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > This was shot at ISO 32254 with a D750.
> ...



the EXIF says 6400.... so grain of salt here (no pun intended).


----------



## Braineack (Jul 1, 2015)

Roger3006 said:


> In my opinion, the DX format does not give you more significantly more "range" than a FX format. All the FX format bodies will shoot in a DX mode. Cropping an FX image tighter should yield the same effect possible loosing some detail. When necessary, I can get very aggressive cropping an image, shot with my D800, and still produce acceptable results.



When you crop a 36MP DX image to DX you're left with a 36MP image.
When you crop a 36MP image to DX you're left with a 15MP image.
When you crop a 24MP DX image to DX you're left with a 24MP image.
When you crop a 24MP image to DX you're left with a 12MP image.

It's not really about range, it's about reach--A 400mm lens on a DX can do what a 600mm lens on an FX takes.

Since the OP is doing weddings, I'd go with a D750 over a D7200 for sure.  It will focus and shoot better in low light situations, and the tilting screen might become useful for creative shots.  Plus is actually shoots faster FPS for sports when you need it.  


here's how popphoto rate the two:

D7200:





D750:





It bothers me they ran NR on their ISO tests on the D7200, that defeats the purpose.


----------



## Mashburn (Jul 1, 2015)

Braineack said:


> Roger3006 said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, the DX format does not give you more significantly more "range" than a FX format. All the FX format bodies will shoot in a DX mode. Cropping an FX image tighter should yield the same effect possible loosing some detail. When necessary, I can get very aggressive cropping an image, shot with my D800, and still produce acceptable results.
> ...


Yesterday I went to best buy and did the test there.  The 750 did a step better.  But when the noise wasn't as harsh looking  (if that makes since).  And the color noise was about 1.5 steps better.  

So 600$ for d750 just for a stop better in iso,  is not going to help.  Plus the d7200 was slightly shaper (no low pass filter).  D750 was a lot better at auto white balance (very pleased with that).  But d750 only having 1/4000 stinks.  I use it rarely.  But it's something nice to have.  But d750 is full frame.  

So I'm leaning towards d7200.  because I feel the d750 is not much better and I lose out on shutter speed and a hint of sharpness.  And I'm going to use that extra money and put it into a sigma 50mm art (might do the older version with something else).  Then sell off the tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and then upgrade to the fx lens for wide angle.  And maybe in a year or two get a d3s and give away my d7000 for free at that time.  

Thoughts?


----------



## Braineack (Jul 1, 2015)

when's the last time you shot at 1/8000?


----------



## Roger3006 (Jul 1, 2015)

What ever it is worth, I will take the full frame anytime.  As far as shutter speed, my Hasselblad 500C fastest shutter speed was 1/500" and I was fine with that.


----------



## Mashburn (Jul 1, 2015)

Braineack said:


> when's the last time you shot at 1/8000?


This was about a month ago out at white sands national monument. did I have to shot at 1/4000-8000, not really. Only time I had to was on a plant in that park at f/2.8 so I could get a nice Bokeh. 















there has been times in football where I shot over 1/4000 because of how harsh the sun was on the white uniforms. of course I know how to get around it and add a filter even. but some times you hit a spot where you want the bokeh and you don't have a filter you can throw on fast.


----------



## Mashburn (Jul 1, 2015)

Braineack said:


> goooner said:
> 
> 
> > John Hunt said:
> ...


If it did that at 32,000...... oh man I would be grabbing the d750............ Nikon needs to make that camera that can do that great at 32,000 iso. LOL


----------



## chuasam (Jul 1, 2015)

I got the D810. When I bought it, the D750 was not even available.
My GF is facing the same decision. She currently has a dying D700. NPS loaned her a D800 for use. She has borrowed my D810 for a few shoots. Her assistant/apprentice has a D750.
The D750 looks good on paper but when she picked it up, she did not like the handling one bit. It felt too cheap and plastic compared to her usual camera and she likes the 36.3 megapixels.
But since you have a D7200, the D750 might be the logical choice.
For her the D700 to D810 handling is less of a stretch.

She regularly shoots at 1/8000s.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 1, 2015)

Mashburn said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > when's the last time you shot at 1/8000?
> ...



the D750 can do ISO 50 and 1/4000 -- granted it's exteded ISO, but I quite often go to 80 iso on my D600 to cut out light when I dont wanna give up my other settings.  That's equal to 1/8000 at 100 iso.


----------



## Mashburn (Jul 1, 2015)

Braineack said:


> Mashburn said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...


Forgot all about that. well besides going to iso 50, better recording, better white balance, a stop better ISO and to be full frame. I just feel it's not worth to spend 600$ more towards. and I don't think ISO 50 would have brought it down from 1/8000 to 1/4000

if it got 3 stops better at ISO, I would be all over this.


----------



## PaulWog (Jul 1, 2015)

Braineack said:


> the D750 can do ISO 50 and 1/4000 -- granted it's exteded ISO, but I quite often go to 80 iso on my D600 to cut out light when I dont wanna give up my other settings.  That's equal to 1/8000 at 100 iso.



I've tried Googling how that works, and I don't quite understand:

Is ISO 50 at 1/4000 exactly the same as shooting ISO 100 at 1/4000 and compensating in Lightroom later? Or will shooting at ISO 50 first provide better results (if needed to expose correctly)?


----------



## chuasam (Jul 1, 2015)

Braineack said:


> the D750 can do ISO 50 and 1/4000 -- granted it's exteded ISO, but I quite often go to 80 iso on my D600 to cut out light when I dont wanna give up my other settings.  That's equal to 1/8000 at 100 iso.


No it isn't. The movement isn't frozen quite as much.
the D810 can extend to ISO 32 if needed.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 1, 2015)

chuasam said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > the D750 can do ISO 50 and 1/4000 -- granted it's exteded ISO, but I quite often go to 80 iso on my D600 to cut out light when I dont wanna give up my other settings.  That's equal to 1/8000 at 100 iso.
> ...


True. But show me two images shot at those speeds where you could see the difference.

The *exposure* of 1/8000 and iso 100 vs. 1/4000 and iso 50 is exactly the same.

Like the OP mentioned, he's using those shutters when shooting large apertures in bright sun in order to cut out the light  He can still do that on the D750.

It was never about stopping movement.

using tapatalk.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 1, 2015)

PaulWog said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > the D750 can do ISO 50 and 1/4000 -- granted it's exteded ISO, but I quite often go to 80 iso on my D600 to cut out light when I dont wanna give up my other settings.  That's equal to 1/8000 at 100 iso.
> ...


It's software, so more or less like shooting a raw at 1\4000 with iso 100, and then reducing by 1ev in lr.

using tapatalk.


----------



## Mashburn (Jul 1, 2015)

Braineack said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...


Not me.  Never had to have it,  but I could change quick instead of throwing a filter on.  

But I know wildlife photographers state they need to at times.


----------



## John Hunt (Jul 2, 2015)

Mashburn said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > goooner said:
> ...


Sorry I am an idiot I posted the wrong picture. here is the correct one.


----------

