# Nikon D750 vs Canon 5D III



## goodguy (Oct 27, 2014)

Been trying to get as much info of the net as I could on my new camera and I saw there are more then few reviews having quick comparisons between the D750 and 5D III
In them they say Nikon is aiming the D750 at the 5D III
I don't really know but they do make a good case, in many ways the D750 looks like it has many of the featured the 5D III has and improved them.
Now I know the D750 is not a "Pro" camera per say while the 5D III is but still it did made me think.
No doubt for a wedding photographer who is in the market for a new camera the D750 makes a rather interesting choice.
Being new compared to the (still very good and very capable) 5D III it is the better camera in many ways but the one thing that in all reviews they wrote that really blew their top was the 1000$ cheaper the D750 is.

This is not a hate post against the 5D III or against Canon, not at all, as I said the 5D III is still a very good and very capable camera which I deeply respect, its just an interesting observation which I didn't think of.


----------



## DevC (Oct 28, 2014)

Aware me on what makes the D750 not a "pro" camera.


----------



## runnah (Oct 28, 2014)

Honestly, why do you care? Are you searching out article and comparisons to justify your purchase?


----------



## vipgraphx (Oct 28, 2014)

DevC said:


> Aware me on what makes the D750 not a "pro" camera.



Yes I thought that too.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 28, 2014)

Actually I thought the 5dm3 was a prosumer camera.  And the 1dx was their pro camera, as their lineup isn't as filled as Nikons.
Then the 6d was the d600 equivalent.  7d the d7x00 equivalent, etc.

The problem is as a new camera is introduced there are going to be comparisons.
When the d8x0 came out guess which camera it was compared against?  Not the 1dX because that is in d4s and d3s land, but the 5dm3 (because there isn't another on in that arena).

The d750 is another step the Nikon provides in their lineup that can either be compared against the 6d or 5dm3


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 28, 2014)

DevC said:


> Aware me on what makes the D750 not a "pro" camera.


According to posts in the past a Pro camera must have certain features.
Such as a pro button layout, circular eyepiece and a few other odds and ends.
One reason the d6x0 was dismissed.

I think USA and Canada Nikon has a list of which cameras as supported to be considered a professional ...


----------



## DevC (Oct 28, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> DevC said:
> 
> 
> > Aware me on what makes the D750 not a "pro" camera.
> ...


Sure they do, but that doesn't signify  it to be a professional camera. Button layouts will be whatever is most comfortable with the user. If the user is a professional (i.e someone who sells their work) and finds the button layout of the d600 series more comfortable than the d800 series, ofcourse the d6x0 is a professional camera.

Nikon has their list of whats consider professional or not,but at the end of the day, it probably doesn't matter. They can market a "pro" camera for more money to enthusiasts thinking it'll up their photo game.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 28, 2014)

truthfully I think a pro is anyone who makes a living in part or whole from photography  ... regardless of equipment.
There are many professions where you cannot live solely on it's income, so many have multiple jobs.


----------



## runnah (Oct 28, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> Such as a pro button layout, circular eyepiece and a few other odds and ends.
> One reason the d6x0 was dismissed.



lol @ circular eyepiece. That's like saying my car is a race car because I put stickers on it.

There is no such thing as a "pro" camera. Only the right tool for the job that fits your budget. Considering most "pro" photographers are lucky to clear $30k a year the D3000 series is most likely the "pro" camera.


----------



## waday (Oct 28, 2014)

runnah said:


> That's like saying my car is a race car because I put stickers on it.


I don't know about your car, but my car goes faster with flames on it.. The flames aren't moving because of a fast shutter.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 28, 2014)

on a motorcycle forum I used to belong too we came to the conclusion that red motorcycles are faster !!

... just because ...


----------



## lambertpix (Oct 28, 2014)

It looks like you've already got the D750.  If you like it, go enjoy it.


astroNikon said:


> on a motorcycle forum I used to belong too we came to the conclusion that red motorcycles are faster !!
> 
> ... just because ...



Well, *that's* ridiculous.  Red's got the slowest frequency of the visible spectrum.  *Purple* bikes are the fastest.


----------



## sashbar (Oct 28, 2014)

I always thought that the only real difference between a pro and a prosumer camera is its robustness. The only real difference between a pro and an advanced amateur is that a pro uses his camera much more often. Forget the button layout and specs, a pro camera just needs to withstand more knocks.

Also, camera lovers are so unlucky compared to hi-fi buffs. They can only compare a very very limited number of cameras. In hi-fi one can have endless group tests of dozens of amps or speakers in each price category, and this kind of threads could last forever.


----------



## goodguy (Oct 28, 2014)

runnah said:


> Honestly, why do you care? Are you searching out article and comparisons to justify your purchase?


Oh no, not at all, I will be able to seriously test the new toy only on the weekend (hopefully weather agrees) and I have lots of time to burn on the way to work, and I am just super excited like a 3 year old that got a new present LOL


----------



## goodguy (Oct 28, 2014)

Ok, looks like you all missed the point I was trying to make and got really hanged up to the "Pro" comment.

What I am trying to say is that to me (a very humble and relatively new to this) Nikon has made a camera that many pro wedding photographers will be able to lust over (at last).
Most of the pro photographers which I saw had the 5D III (Saw just one with D800).
To me it looks like the D600/610 is not enough for them and the D800 was too much and not enough either.
I dont know if Nikon was aiming at the wedding photographers crowd but no doubt it will grab a bigger share in this field.

And for those who wonder why I am saying the D800 wasn't very popular wedding camera then from what I heard (talking to these guys) was they were less then impressed with its AF system and the 36MP was just to much for their needs.

Don't shoot me this is not a huge survey I took, this is just what I got to hear from the few times I spoke to pro 5D III owners and few interesting articles I read in the past.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 28, 2014)

I messed around with the D750 and the 24mm-120mm f/4 AF-S VR-G lens at BestBuy yesterday afternoon. It's a nifty camera, very light in weight, compact, almost small. I'm used to a bigger, heavier camera with an in-built grip or add-on grip. Its viewfinder is okay. I can almost see all four corners of the viewfinder with my glasses on. Not quite, but "almost". The thing I liked the MOST was the WHITE in-finder LED display...easier to see than the green ones Nikon  has been using lately.

It doesn't have all the dedicated button controls that a D2 or D3 or D4 series camera has, but it's a lot less expensive. AF performance was okay, considering it had an f/4 zoom lens on it and the lighting in the BestBuy was a bit dim. I think it could be an okay event camera, for things like weddings. I think it's the nicest entry-level FX camera I've seen from Nikon, and it's certainly far nicer than my Canon 5D Classic, or the 5D-II, which was also a cheap body with a good sensor. It does not have the heft and "feel" of a 5D-III though, and I think in side-by-side, in-store comparisons the D750 would lose the "fit and finish" battle, but the $1,000 or so lower price on the Nikon would sway a lot of people. The 5D Classic and 5D-II are entirely different machines than the 5D III is.

The reason the D800 was not well-accepted by "many" is that "many" were shooting 12 MP Nikon FX cameras, or 16MP Nikon DX cameras, and then BOOM! Nikon went from 12 MP FX to 36MP FX (the D3x never sold enough units to be a factor), and the jump in storage really seemed ominous. The jump from 12MP to 36 MP was fairly abrupt for a lot of people. I think 36MP really is overkill for many, many uses.


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 28, 2014)

Both of them look like they take some awesome photos,  I just looked at a bunch of photos on flickr that were taken with that canon and all of them were excellent images, I looked at a bunch form the Nikon and they are also excellent images.. 



I am sure that most people would be thrilled to own either one.  I have always liked nikon for some reason so If i had the money for a nice camera like that I would either pick up the D750 or the D810  

So far every review I have read or watched on the D750 from people that actually own it has been excellent,  sounds like every one loves their D750 and it sounds like the focusing system on the D750 is just amazing,  same with the video quality and the Image quality looks pretty darn good too. 

bottom line is get the camera in your budget that you think is going to suit your needs best.   everyone likes different things so its all comes down to personal preference in the end and what you can afford.


----------



## greybeard (Oct 28, 2014)

sashbar said:


> I
> 
> Also, camera lovers are so unlucky compared to hi-fi buffs. They can only compare a very very limited number of cameras. In hi-fi one can have endless group tests of dozens of amps or speakers in each price category, and this kind of threads could last forever.


I use to dabble in hi-fi.  $1,000 cables, $10,000 10 watt amplifiers, I never pulled the trigger on any of this non-sense but I looked at it a lot.  Cameras are actually based on something you can see.


----------



## sashbar (Oct 28, 2014)

greybeard said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > I
> ...



I have been there - tube amps, single ended, Kondo wire etc, parts of it are still there. I would say cameras allow you to be more creatively proactive, compared to hi-end.


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 28, 2014)

greybeard said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > I
> ...




But isn't Hi-Fi based on what you can hear?


----------



## theraven871 (Nov 3, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I messed around with the D750 and the 24mm-120mm f/4 AF-S VR-G lens at BestBuy yesterday afternoon. It's a nifty camera, very light in weight, compact, almost small. I'm used to a bigger, heavier camera with an in-built grip or add-on grip. Its viewfinder is okay. I can almost see all four corners of the viewfinder with my glasses on. Not quite, but "almost". The thing I liked the MOST was the WHITE in-finder LED display...easier to see than the green ones Nikon  has been using lately.
> 
> It doesn't have all the dedicated button controls that a D2 or D3 or D4 series camera has, but it's a lot less expensive. AF performance was okay, considering it had an f/4 zoom lens on it and the lighting in the BestBuy was a bit dim. I think it could be an okay event camera, for things like weddings. I think it's the nicest entry-level FX camera I've seen from Nikon, and it's certainly far nicer than my Canon 5D Classic, or the 5D-II, which was also a cheap body with a good sensor. It does not have the heft and "feel" of a 5D-III though, and I think in side-by-side, in-store comparisons the D750 would lose the "fit and finish" battle, but the $1,000 or so lower price on the Nikon would sway a lot of people. The 5D Classic and 5D-II are entirely different machines than the 5D III is.
> 
> The reason the D800 was not well-accepted by "many" is that "many" were shooting 12 MP Nikon FX cameras, or 16MP Nikon DX cameras, and then BOOM! Nikon went from 12 MP FX to 36MP FX (the D3x never sold enough units to be a factor), and the jump in storage really seemed ominous. The jump from 12MP to 36 MP was fairly abrupt for a lot of people. I think 36MP really is overkill for many, many uses.



I agree on the MP comment.   Personally, I think 36MP might be overkill. 
It certainly won't be a benefit unless you have the pro glass to take advantage of it.
However, there are definitely circumstances where the 36MP may be a benefit (landscape photography mostly).
I think the 20-24 Megapixel range is more appealing.

That said, I never considered the D800/D810 a competitor to the Canon 5d Mark III.
It was a very different experience between the two.
The new D750 should be a better direct competitor to the Canon 5d Mark III.

Did you feel that the autofocus was equal to the Mark III?
If so, then its difficult to justify purchasing the Canon over the Nikon.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 3, 2014)

I demo'd the D750 with the 24-120 f/4 AF-S VR-G lens, which was fast but not uber-fast. The last time I shot the 5D-III was with 24-70 and 70-200/2.8 lenses, which are entirely different animals.


----------



## goodguy (Nov 3, 2014)

theraven871 said:


> Did you feel that the autofocus was equal to the Mark III?
> If so, then its difficult to justify purchasing the Canon over the Nikon.


The D750 has an upgraded AF system the D810 has, Tony found the AF system on the D810 is actually superior to the 5D III so I would carfully say that the AF system on the D750 is probably better then the one on the 5D III





 
I never played with the 5D III and it might not make much different but I can tell you so far the my D750 with my Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G seem to be working very well but then I am no pro, not even close so I would say Derrel is probably the best man to really answer this question.


----------



## goodguy (Nov 3, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I demo'd the D750 with the 24-120 f/4 AF-S VR-G lens, which was fast but not uber-fast. The last time I shot the 5D-III was with 24-70 and 70-200/2.8 lenses, which are entirely different animals.


I would really love to hear your input on the D750 with the faster glass compared to the 5D III
I mean it really is just a matter of pure curiosity on my part but still I would love to hear what you think.


----------

