Deciding between Nikon D610 or D750

[theraven871]

I'm going to be doing some weddings in 2015 and will be getting one of these two cameras. I'm torn between which I want. Because I will be shooting weddings, ISO performance and low light AF are important.

I already know that the d750 is better than the d610 in both of these areas.

However, does anyone ever shoot a wedding with a D610? Is it doable?
Is the low light AF that bad in the d610? Is it only marginally better in the d750?

Obviously, the advice would be to get the d750. But I also need to upgrade to all new lenses and need to save some money for good glass. Can I get buy with the d610 until I can upgrade to a d750 or d800?

 

[pixmedic]

either camera will do just fine.
I had a D200 in 2006 and shot weddings with it just fine. in fact, some of my wedding shots on my Flickr page were shot with a D200, as well as a lot of my dog park action shots.
soooo....yea. a D600/610 will be great for weddings.
if you can swing the D750, go for it. by all accounts it appears to be a fantastic camera.
otherwise, grab a D600/610, some new glass and have at it!

 

[theraven871]

My only fear would be missing a really important shot at a wedding due to the AF system.
Of course, ANY camera can struggle to find focus in low light.
Just curious if people would advise against the D610 for this reason.

 

[pixmedic]

My only fear would be missing a really important shot at a wedding due to the AF system.
Of course, ANY camera can struggle to find focus in low light.
Just curious if people would advise against the D610 for this reason.

the D600/610 uses the 39pt AF system..perfectly capable. I did just fine with a D200 back in '06 for a number of years and it didn't have NEAR the sophistication of the D610.
neither did any of the older DSLR's of yesteryear that were a wedding photographers staple camera.
shooting weddings is more about knowing where to shoot and when than it is having the newest piece of gear.

I suppose if someones skill level is such that they need the absolute best equipment to get good results, then they really dont have much choice.... but the cameras used to shoot weddings 5 years ago are no less viable today then they were back then. Heck, people still shoot weddings with film cameras and somehow manage to impress.

my point is...
the D600/610 is a perfectly capable wedding camera.
seriously

 

[jaomul]

The d610 has 9 cross points and 39 points in total. It's focus system is more than adequate for most situations. Of course more expensive higher spec cameras have better systems, but this focus system is still very good, just that there are better

 

[pixmedic]

whats more important than having the newest camera is what else you have to go with that camera.
flashses? diffusers? lenses? tripods/monopods? radio triggers?

if you look at my flickr page at the wedding I shot at the Tampa Aquarium, you will see a situation where flash is required to shoot the entire wedding, regardless of what camera body you have. the only lighting in there were colored spotlights. no flash = no white dress. anywhere. period. A fancy new camera body will only get you so far. experience and accessories are equally valuable.

 

[goodguy]

Low light capabilities between the D610 and D750 is minimal, the D750 main advantages are with its awesome AF system (the one on the D610 is pretty good too) and the fact you can shoot freely in 12800ISO which is its native range while on the D610 its Hi1
Up to 6400ISO I don't think you will see a lot of difference between the 2 cameras.
While I will always endorse the D750 over the D610 I does think good glass is far more important then the small jump between the D610 and D750.
D750 with good fast glass is the winner but................. D610 with good fast glass vs D750 with mediocre slow glass is a different thing.
I think D610 with good glass will be a better choice, D610 really is an awesome camera and the D750 and D610 share same sensor which means in most cases you will see very small differences if any.

 

[theraven871]

I think there is some value to what you're saying.
The AF is obviously better, but you're telling me that its only marginally better. Am I understanding you correctly?
If so, I may go with the d610 and get a d750 in the summer or 2015 (keep the d610 as a backup body).

Obviously flash is important. But there are many times that flash photography isn't allowed during the ceremony.
Many times, I will be shooting with a 70-200 f/2.8 (Most likely a Tamron) lens to capture this.
There are many times, during a ceremony, that ambiet lighting is intentionally kept to a minimum.
I think all cameras may have their AF motors "hunt" during these scenarios.
But if someone told me that the d750 performed well in this situation, or the d610 hunted so much that you needed to use manual focus, then it would seriously affect my purchase.

So I'm correct that the AF in the d610 can get the job done?

 

[Braineack]

the D610 works just as well as the D750 in low-light. Both will have just as hard as a time in certain situations, but the D750 AF module might put it over the edge.

 

[goodguy]

I feel I have a very heavy burden on my shoulders so let me tell you first I am saying what I am saying from reading and not from experience.
I own the D750 so I know how amazing this camera is.
I owned the D7000 in the past and is has same 39AF points the D610 has which was very good.
I never used a D610
In DXO the D610 is actually above the D750 in its sensor rating but when you look at the points its ONE point different so it basically means they are identical.
AF on D750 is better, probably the best Nikon currently has to offer but the D610 is not an AF crap machine at all, its simply one generation older.
What I can tell you is that glass really makes a HUGE impact, let me give you a pretty good example.
I used to own the Nikon 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 VR, I sold it and got the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G
The 24-85mm is an excellent lens and if you have good lighting then its more then enough for all your needs but when the lights go dim the 24-70mm with its f2.8 just runs all over it!!! its more then a FULL stop faster and in critical situations it just might be the difference between a good sharp clean shot vs a shaky or very grainy shot.
Also with open aperture you bring more light in and thus helping the AF work better.

What I would do ?
I would try to get the D750 with fast used glass.
I would rather get the D750 with a used Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC then a D610 with new Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G
If you can get the D750 with good used glass then thats the route I would go, if not and the choice is between D610 with good fast glass or D750 with slow glass then I would be more seriously consider the D610.
Very tough call, the D750 is exactly the camera I was waiting for, simply NO compromising for me it just hit the nail perfectly dead on, the D610 is excellent but not so there for me.
What will be best for you will have to be your choice.

I hope I helped a bit.

 

[bigal1000]

D750 as you said it's the better camera.

 

[raventepes]

If you can swing it, go with the D750, the 24-120 f/4, If you need to go longer, pair it with a 70-300 VRII. The body, of course is around $2300. The 24-120 costs around $1300, and the exceptional (considering the price) 70-300 is around $560. Total costs would be around $4160, before CF cards.

I also recommend the 105 f/2.8 macro, which I find VERY useful for rings, portraits, and other applications. It costs around $1000.

Another lens idea for wide group shots is the 16-35 f/4, which is $1620.

I'm not saying this is what you need. This is just what I personally would use to start out with. The Macro and the 16-35 would be lenses to get once you have more money rolling in.

Goodguy also has some pretty sound advice, but I'm detailing what I'd run with the D750. I like a bit of focal overlap in lenses, rather than the Nikon "Trinity". I'm not saying I don't like them...quite the opposite, actually. I want them, but more for low light needs. Also, I'm waiting for some potential updates, especially with the 24-70 (I'm with everyone else saying it needs VR)

 

[goodguy]

There is no right or wrong and of course I respect "ravetepes" thoughts.
I don't like the 24-120 F4, its not cheap and not so well liked and with F4 I think it will be limiting.
As a past Nikon 70-300mm VR I know how nice and versatile this lens is and very cheap but when I moved to the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC I saw how limiting the Nikon 70-300mm is, first its very slow and secondly its reasonably sharp but once you taste the Tamron goodness you see how relatively soft the Nikon really is compared, the D750 deserves more!
Invest once in a good system and you will be happy for a long time! get cheaper stuff and you will feel soon enough how limiting it is and you will eventually get the good lenses anyways.

 

[greybeard]

I think you answered your own question by writing that the D750 had better ISO and auto focus performance than the D610. Why choose the 2nd best if you can have the best?

 

[theraven871]

There is no right or wrong and of course I respect "ravetepes" thoughts.
I don't like the 24-120 F4, its not cheap and not so well liked and with F4 I think it will be limiting.
As a past Nikon 70-300mm VR I know how nice and versatile this lens is and very cheap but when I moved to the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC I saw how limiting the Nikon 70-300mm is, first its very slow and secondly its reasonably sharp but once you taste the Tamron goodness you see how relatively soft the Nikon really is compared, the D750 deserves more!
Invest once in a good system and you will be happy for a long time! get cheaper stuff and you will feel soon enough how limiting it is and you will eventually get the good lenses anyways.

I don't have much ambition to get a 70-300. I'm more interested in the 70-200 f2.8.
However, I do own a 70-300mm for my crop sensor DSLR and the extra reach with that lens is amazing. But I personally feel this lens is better for crop (my own opinion).
The 70-200 is more useful due to the extra light at f2.8 and the bokeh.

Similarly, the 24-120 may be a great walk-around lens; But I really need the f2.8.