Nikon D750 vs Canon 5D III

[Derrel]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[theraven871]

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]

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]

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]

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.