D7100 to D750?

[pebbleheed]

I've been using a D7100 for a while now. I love it. It's the best camera I've owned so far in both canon and nikon.

I tend to do street photography, landscape and portraits. I currently own the Tamron 70-300 vc lens and the tamron 17-50.

The 7100 does a good job but I'm always envious of the shots I see from full frame cameras. I prefer the Bokeh effects of full frame that they seem to pull of with ease compared to what I can achieve on DX. I also like shooting wide glass and FX seems better for this.

I would prefer a bigger buffer than the 7100 has as occasionally it frustrates me.

I love the look of the D750. But it's a lot of cash. I'm in two minds. Do I sell the D7100 and get a D750 or keep the D7100 and get more lenses?

I know I'd have to change the 17-50 lens and would probably go for the Tamron 28-75 if I could find one (seems hard for some reason) to replace it.

I know ultimately it's down to my own preferences but I'd like to hear from others on this. Any thoughts?

 

[480sparky]

Why not have both?

 

[jaomul]

Firstly none of your lenses are extremely fast. You can get shallower dof even with crop sensor with an f1.8 or f1.4 lens, maybe a 50mm or longer

I bought an extreme pro card for my d7100. When it slows it still goes about 3 fps. Of course the d750 is a class up, and I'm sure goodguy will chime in soon. That was his upgrade path

 

[Derrel]

Get the D750 and jettison the D7100. Or do those things in reverse order. If you want an FX Nikon, then get one and start using it. I prefer the way lenses actually function on FX: a 50 is a 50, a 24 is a 24, a 70-200 is useful both indoors and outdoors and not just from 30 feet away or more. Same with an 85mm lens,useful indoors for more than just head shots, and a 24-70 is what it was designed to be; a WIDE to normal to short telephoto zoom that spans three different lens classes.

Nikon has vastly more lenses for FX than for DX.

 

[pebbleheed]

Why not have both?

Too expensive and seem too similar?

 

[pebbleheed]

Firstly none of your lenses are extremely fast. You can get shallower dof even with crop sensor with an f1.8 or f1.4 lens, maybe a 50mm or longer

I bought an extreme pro card for my d7100. When it slows it still goes about 3 fps. Of course the d750 is a class up, and I'm sure goodguy will chime in soon. That was his upgrade path

The shallow DOF pictures with fx look better though. Sharper and clearer. There's something about the images that just have a better appearance over shallow DX dof images.

 

[Braineack]

Sometimes I miss the amount of dof I had with dx at similar apertures. Luckily I have Iso flexing abilities to make up for it...

 

[480sparky]

Why not have both?

Too expensive and seem too similar?

One's DX and the other's FX. Both have their strengths.

 

[pebbleheed]

I would struggle to justify it with the wife at those prices.

 

[bribrius]

I would struggle to justify it with the wife at those prices.

don't do that then wont be no nookie for you!

 

[goodguy]

Get the D750 and jettison the D7100. Or do those things in reverse order. If you want an FX Nikon, then get one and start using it. I prefer the way lenses actually function on FX: a 50 is a 50, a 24 is a 24, a 70-200 is useful both indoors and outdoors and not just from 30 feet away or more. Same with an 85mm lens,useful indoors for more than just head shots, and a 24-70 is what it was designed to be; a WIDE to normal to short telephoto zoom that spans three different lens classes.

Nikon has vastly more lenses for FX than for DX.

Oh, I saw this post and my eyes started to light up.

Up to 3 weeks ago I had the D7100, wonderful, amazing, gorgeous camera.
I sold it and got the D750 and I gotta tell you I am very happy I made the move.
Pictures are cleaner in lower light
I tried it only once but I got 12 frames before the buffer filled while I never got more then 6 on the D7100
Pictures on the D7100 came most of the time very sharp but on the D750 I am always getting sharp pictures in any aperture, yes even F1.8 comes out very sharp (I almost never shoot f1.8 but its nice to know I can use it).
The D7100 raised the bar VERY high but the D750 has raised it even higher.

Dont think twice get the D750, you will thank me!!!

 

[PaulWog]

Get the D750 if you:
1) Want better shadow recovery in underexposed areas of a shot.
2) Want a shallower depth-of-field.
3) Want superior high ISO performance.

The D750 is very much like what you'd get if you took the D5300 and D7100, merged them, and made a full frame camera. Plus you get the slight improvements, focus system, buffer, etc. It's really nice...

If I picked up a D750, it would be likely that I would want to sell my 70-300. I would also likely want to sell my 18-35 (which is like an equivalent to your 17-50). So... getting a D750 might be a big deal for you. It will mean selling your 17-50 and D7100, at the very least.

With that all said, if you want the benefits of a full frame camera with the features of the D750, then there's really little alternative... take the plunge if you've got the cash.

 

[cgw]

Honestly? Wait. D750s, being new, won't go for much less than full price this season. If you've gotta have FX, look for deals on the D800 twins or even a D610. Can't see Nikon suffering fits of generosity on Black Friday or later when it comes to the D750. Six Months out? Who knows.

 

[astroNikon]

I bought a d600 and kept my d7000.

I kept the d7000 because I thought it had an advantage in certain situations, primarily sports.

BUT
I now rarely use the d7000.

Even with the increased pixel density of the d7000 in the same sized area I think my d600 still takes better images. As soon as the lighting gets less than perfect then you start really seeing the advantages of Nikon's FF cameras over a crop.

And how often to we have control over lighting outside ??

My 2 cameras may seem *similar* but looks are deceiving.
They're totally different cameras.

also, I've really improved my photography, I think, but the d600 is just still better technically.

So .. my vote is to sell the d7100.

 

[goodguy]

My 2 cameras may seem *similar* but looks are deceiving.
They're totally different cameras.

also, I've really improved my photography, I think, but the d600 is just still better technically.

Agreed, I also found FX camera really is much more then it seems when reading the dry technical specs, these bodies look the same but those are really different cameras, FF sensor really elevated my photography too, much more then I ever expected!