750 or 810 or 800e

[jsecordphoto]

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.

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]

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]

This was shot at ISO 32254 with a D750.

 

[goooner]

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]

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]

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]

Get both, D810 and D750.

 

[Solarflare]

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]

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

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

 

[Braineack]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Roger3006]

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]

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]

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

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

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