# D750 & d7100 differences



## hamlet (Sep 15, 2014)

A -friend of mine wants to also upgrade, but he wants to know what the differences are between the d750 and the d7100? I've never thought about this actually, what makes the d750 better over the d7100 other then that it is full frame? Where i live the d750 costs 3 times more than the d7100.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 15, 2014)

I heard the film is cheaper for the 750


----------



## hamlet (Sep 15, 2014)

I want to go to full frame because of the lenses, but i don't know how to explain to him why it is worth upgrading.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 15, 2014)

it probably isn't, to be honest.
unless need the low light full frame swivel screen and wifi.
Generally speaking, your average shooter probably wouldn't need too. Maybe you guys should DOWN grade? Much cheaper, and you still have a new camera to play with. Plus with less money invested it could be more fun. And if you downgrade, you can be different than everyone else.


----------



## PaulWog (Sep 15, 2014)

D7100 + 18-35 art + dx uwa = 2300-ish.

D750 + 24-70 + 16-35 = 5000+

Decent price difference. There is a difference, don't know how much that difference matters for your pictures... Only you know.


----------



## SCraig (Sep 15, 2014)

I don't know either.  I've never had the urge to get a full-frame body.


----------



## hamlet (Sep 15, 2014)

Thanks everyone. I suppose there is not really a legitimate reason to upgrade. I'll tell him to buy a d7100 instead and get a art lens with it.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 15, 2014)

hamlet said:


> Thanks everyone. I suppose there is not really a legitimate reason to upgrade. I'll tell him to buy a d7100 instead and get a art lens with it.


legitimate reason would be up to him not you. What does he consider a legit reason?


----------



## hamlet (Sep 15, 2014)

bribrius said:


> legitimate reason would be up to him not you. What does he consider a legit reason?


That's what this thread is for. If you can think of something to justify paying 3 times more, then i'm all ears.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 16, 2014)

hamlet said:


> That's what this thread is for. If you can think of something to justify paying 3 times more, then i'm all ears.


I actually am "okay" with the 7100 but I am not a huge fan of it. it isn't very fun to shoot. I will probably still keep it in the family until it stops shooting and dies, however i do plan on moving to another camera to go with it and the others if nothing else. For me the tilt screen and lowlight would be tempting and i like the video.
However the general Nikon feel, well i don't think the cameras are very fun. quite frankly. Far as the 7100 i am not a huge fan of the video, but other than that i still haven't used the camera to near its full potential, or even bought lenses for it to use it toward its full potential (probably keep it ten years in the house and never will).


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 16, 2014)

Have you considered a d3300 instead ?


----------



## Usul (Sep 16, 2014)

The reason is that he won't doubt the rest of his life that FX is better than DX because he already will have had it and will sleep better, forget about equipment and finaly start think about composition, light and other much more important for photography things.


----------



## greybeard (Sep 16, 2014)

I miserate over this from time to time.  I'm still using my D7000 and probably will be for a while.  I do know that the D750 should have a bigger brighter viewfinder.  There should be more recoverable shadow detail and 1 to 2 stops less noise at high ISO.  It should have better snappier auto focus.  So all in all, depending on the circumstances, some pictures but not all should look better.  If he shoots primarily wildlife with long tele's and has to crop a lot, he might be better off with his D7100.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 16, 2014)

To sum it up: One is FX one is DX.


Both have 24MP sensors, so the FX version will have better low-light performance it also has higher native ISO.

Both have the 51pt autofocus system, but the D750 has the latest 91k-Pixel RGB sensor as seen in the D4.  This should provide better focus performance and image results.

The D750 has the EXPEED 4 processor vs. the 3 to improve the continuous FPS speed and gives you better video options (auto-iso in video).

The D750 has a buffer capacity of (15) 14-bit RAW files, the D7100 only (6).

The D750 gives you built in wifi and the tilting screen--and they also packed in a bunch of extra image modes and features such as a Time Lapse shooting mode and the highlight exposing programs.

If you like the D7100 but want to go full-frame and get some of Nikon's latest enhancements/features, then the D750 would make a lot of sense.


----------



## Designer (Sep 16, 2014)

hamlet said:


> I want to go to full frame because of the lenses, but i don't know how to explain to him why it is worth upgrading.



Explaining verbally might be difficult.  Just show him the differences that the two formats make in photographs.  If he can't see the difference, then it will not be worth the extra cost.


----------



## KmH (Sep 16, 2014)

The D750 also has the EXPEED 4 image processor.

Most of the cost difference is from the bigger FX image sensor.
They can make many more DX sensors on a wafer of silicon
So, it costs about 4x more to make an FX sensor compared to making the smaller APS-C (DX) sensor.


----------



## D-B-J (Sep 16, 2014)

There isn't enough of a difference other than the FX sensor and fancier processor.
Similar viewfinder, similar AF system, similar handling, similar button layout. The next Nikon that would really be an upgrade would be the D8x0 series, but that's significantly more expensive. If I were in his/your boat, I wouldn't bother. You'd/he'd probably be upset, or let down, or both,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hamlet (Sep 16, 2014)

He is already playing around with his d7100 & 50mm arty farty f1.4. I have also had a little time with it, it is a pretty incredibly camera for the price. 


Now i'm having doubts myself about the d750 after having watched karl taylor have a go with the 7D MK 2. I'm just thinking: why couldn't nikon come out with a 7D MK 2?


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 16, 2014)

it even has a built in intervalometer so you can do your time lapse photography.


----------



## PaulWog (Sep 16, 2014)

hamlet said:


> He is already playing around with his d7100 & 50mm arty farty f1.4. I have also had a little time with it, it is a pretty incredibly camera for the price.
> 
> 
> Now i'm having doubts myself about the d750 after having watched karl taylor have a go with the 7D MK 2. I'm just thinking: why couldn't nikon come out with a 7D MK 2?



You do realize that the 7D MK II is a crop sensor DSLR right? I thought you were completely against that for yourself?


----------



## hamlet (Sep 16, 2014)

I would have to give up my wide angle aspirations, but i would be willing to make that sacrifice if they came out with a crop version of the d4. The 7d mk2 is as close as it gets right now.


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 16, 2014)

Take an 85mm f1.4 and both cameras.

Shoot a subject with the 7100 and then move up until you get the same image size with the FF camera and then shoot, booth at f1.4.

_Print_ both shots in 8x10 and then as Designer said if the difference isn't worth the cost then his answer is clear.


----------



## DevC (Sep 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> it probably isn't, to be honest.
> *unless need the low light full frame swivel screen and wifi.*
> Generally speaking, your average shooter probably wouldn't need too. Maybe you guys should DOWN grade? Much cheaper, and you still have a new camera to play with. Plus with less money invested it could be more fun. And if you downgrade, you can be different than everyone else.




You just named 3 key features everyone could use that exists within the d750 that doesnt exist in the 7100.

More than enough reason to consider it for most people.


----------



## jaomul (Sep 17, 2014)

WiFi, video aperture control, bigger viewfinder, bigger buffer, likely better image quality due better dynamic range, swivel screen.

It is possible depending on what you shoot that none of the above will matter to you or your friend.

The d750 isn't worth 3 d7100 to me but it looks a fine camera if the various specs are needed


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 17, 2014)

If you wait about a decade you will notice a trend.   Nikon comes out with something that trumps Canon.  Canon comes out with something that trumps Nikon .... and so on and so on and so on.

Maybe if you wait long enough most of them might go out of business then you don't have to compare and waddle back and forth.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 17, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> Nikon comes out with something that trumps Canon.  Canon comes out with something that trumps Nikon .... and so on and so on and so on.



whoa, slow down there you evil capitalist.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 17, 2014)

SCraig said:


> I don't know either.  I've never had the urge to get a full-frame body.



I did once.  Then I woke up in Tijuana with a tattoo.


----------



## goodguy (Sep 17, 2014)

I own the D7100 and am totally in love with it, The D7100 is actually a camera with very few weeaknesses.
Its main weakness is the size of the buffer.
For the general user its AF system is really more then enough, its a super sharp camera (with the right lenses of course) which does very well in low light for a crop sensor camera, the DR onit just just amazing.
It has enough control, knobs, features for anyone that isn't a pro and even for pro's this could be a wonderful second body camera.

I see my future in FX, I upgraded all my lenses to work on FX and I am mentally ready for the jump but yes even the D750 which no doubt is a great camera doesn't makes sense to me to upgrade to. If money wasn't an issue then I would jump on it or probably the D810 but money is an issue and I need to calmly think what will the D750 do much better for me to sell my beloved D7100 to get it and honestly I cant think of one think that will justify such a large investment when I already have a superb, wonderful camera like the D7100

Again at the end of the day its a matter of money, isn't it always ?
If money wasn't an issue I think most of us would own the D810 right now.
I think Nikon made a very big mistake when they made the D7100, it really is such a good camera for the price that it keeps many Nikon users from going up to FX body.


----------



## hamlet (Sep 17, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> If you wait about a decade you will notice a trend.   Nikon comes out with something that trumps Canon.  Canon comes out with something that trumps Nikon .... and so on and so on and so on.
> 
> Maybe if you wait long enough most of them might go out of business then you don't have to compare and waddle back and forth.


Sounds like a plan.


----------



## hamlet (Sep 17, 2014)

goodguy said:


> I own the D7100 and am totally in love with it, The D7100 is actually a camera with very few weeaknesses.
> Its main weakness is the size of the buffer.
> For the general user its AF system is really more then enough, its a super sharp camera (with the right lenses of course) which does very well in low light for a crop sensor camera, the DR onit just just amazing.
> It has enough control, knobs, features for anyone that isn't a pro and even for pro's this could be a wonderful second body camera.
> ...


I'm glad you don't work at nikon.


----------



## West - (Sep 17, 2014)

Give it 6 months or so, and the D750 will be under $2K.  The upgrade will make more sense then.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 17, 2014)

goodguy said:


> If money wasn't an issue I think most of us would own the D810 right now.



I'd own a d4s and a d810, and *all* of their lenses.


----------



## goodguy (Sep 17, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> I'd own a d4s and a d810, and *all* of their lenses.


Nah I dont like the D4S, way to big for me and the extra featured it has over the D810 will be a total waste on me, actually even the D810 has tons of stuff that will be a total waste on me........oh crap if I go down this root even the D7100 has tons and tons of features that are a total waste on me


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 17, 2014)

yeah but if money was no issue what so ever .. why not just have all the pro cameras .. d3x, d4s, d810 etc etc etc

no need to actually use them ..... just plop them on a tripod an enjoy looking at them.


----------



## goodguy (Sep 17, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> yeah but if money was no issue what so ever .. why not just have all the pro cameras .. d3x, d4s, d810 etc etc etc
> 
> no need to actually use them ..... just plop them on a tripod an enjoy looking at them.


 
I like your idea


----------



## sonicbuffalo (Sep 18, 2014)

No....why couldn't Canon come out with a D7100?


----------



## DevC (Sep 22, 2014)

WestCoast said:


> Give it 6 months or so, and the D750 will be under $2K.  The upgrade will make more sense then.


I highly doubt it will be this low in 6 months. 

Maybe in about a year/2 years more or less...but 6 months...i can see it possibly drop 100 bucks, or B&H/adorama will just start including their typical goodies.


----------



## West - (Sep 22, 2014)

DevC said:


> WestCoast said:
> 
> 
> > Give it 6 months or so, and the D750 will be under $2K.  The upgrade will make more sense then.
> ...



I've already been offered the camera for $2,200 Canadian, granted it's from a shop I have done business with before.


----------



## DevC (Sep 22, 2014)

WestCoast said:


> DevC said:
> 
> 
> > WestCoast said:
> ...


Is this an offer just for you?


----------



## Braineack (Sep 22, 2014)

sonicbuffalo said:


> No....why couldn't Canon come out with a D7100?


the 7DmII will be this.


----------



## West - (Sep 22, 2014)

DevC said:


> WestCoast said:
> 
> 
> > DevC said:
> ...



I don't think I'm that special, most likely available to anyone that's in good standing with their local shop.
Once Nikon approves a price cut incentive it should be a very attractive offering for ALL.  I think the D610 is at $1,800 right now.
BTW the D750 + 24 - 120 $2,900


----------



## DevC (Sep 22, 2014)

WestCoast said:


> DevC said:
> 
> 
> > WestCoast said:
> ...



I don't know...that still seems odd considerin nikon price cuts are typically after a good year or two or a new model comes out. I've rarely seen them go down that quick. Not grey market correct?


----------



## West - (Sep 22, 2014)

It's only "grey market" if you buy it from the States.
North of the border Nikon.ca is advertising the D610 for $2,199 but street price is $1,800 or less.  The same will happen with the D750

D610 Nikon Digital Camera | Digital SLR Camera from Nikon


----------



## DevC (Sep 23, 2014)

WestCoast said:


> It's only "grey market" if you buy it from the States.
> North of the border Nikon.ca is advertising the D610 for $2,199 but street price is $1,800 or less.  The same will happen with the D750
> 
> D610 Nikon Digital Camera | Digital SLR Camera from Nikon




Ahh. I'm not very familiar with canda or canada pricing.

Cheers to a cheaper camera although.

Here in the U.S i highly doubt it'll drop in 6 months though.


----------

