what camera is good for ISO and has the low pass filter removed?

[Mashburn]

I grew up on the d7000. and about a year ago I went to the 7200 and loved it because of how sharp it is with the low pass filter removed. but I want a camera that can handle the ISO better. so that means going into full frame. and going into full frame will benefit me in many other areas as well.

I would love to get the D3S. but I do not like how low the MP is I want the ability to print large if I need to, and I want it to be sharp when I do so. I know I can print large, but it loses sharpness when you go bigger then recommended..... Also I do not like that it has the low pass filter. and I know there is people out there that will remove it, but honestly I'm sketchy with having someone do it without a 100% guarantee.

so that leaves me looking into the 750 and 810 models. but because of how large the MP is on the 810, it makes the ISO crap. so by chance is there a way to lower the MP? has anyone lowered it to where it handles a 20 MP and seen how good it does on ISO?

or is there something else out there? and don't mention the d5. that is going to be to much for me right now. I'm looking at spending 1500-3000.

 

[Trever1t]

Nikon D810. Obviously you have no hands on experience with it. I can shoot 6400 and you would never know it unless you are pixel peeping.

 

[goodguy]

I believe you are caught up way too much on the low pass filter.
I had the D7100 which is a great camera with no AA filter and I also own the D3300 which doesn't have AA filter.
I own the D750 and I promise you when I nail focus on my cameras in low ISO and use my good lenses you will NOT be able to see any sharpness difference.
The sharpness difference is really for lab test and people who obsessively try to pixel peep, in real life the 2 most important factor is your skills and lenses you use.
I even had a Nikon D60 and on 100ISO and good lenses pictures came out wonderfully sharp!!!

Get the D750, its better in high ISO then the D810 and you are left with a lot of money in your hand to get good lenses.

 

[jsecordphoto]

D810 crap at high ISO....huh? The d750 is slightly better but the d810 is certainly no slouch. And certainly better than the d3s which is a few years old now. Downscale the d810 to 24mp like the 750 and you wouldn't notice any difference.

 

[PaulWog]

Get a D750 and spend the rest on glass. The low pass filter is not an issue at all. It sounds like the change from D7200 to a full frame camera will require quite a bit of lens purchases.

If you're printing *HUGE*, then maybe get the D810.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Without trying to be too rude, I suggest that you spend more time shooting than time worried about gear. If it's one thing tpf and life have taught me, it's the warm thing behind the camera that gets the shot, not the camera. My a7 is sharper than my d7100, both with top tier lenses. Well, my a7 lenses are older than I am.

 

[Dave442]

Compared to the D810, the D750 is laid out much more similar to the D7000 and D7200 that you liked so much. So just based on that the D750 would be a natural upgrade path. I guess you already have f/2.8 FF lenses.

 

[Solarflare]

It is the error of the photography beginner to think sharpness is uber important.

Thats because all the magazines keep talking about it endlessly. But really photography magazines are nothing but thinly veiled plattforms for advertisement for photography equipment. Otherwise they trash talk a lot. The reason they chat about sharpness so much is simply because thats easy, since sharpness is so easily measured.

Well, the D750 still has a weak low pass filter, which helps especially with avoiding moire problems during video, but frankly even the AA-less D810 isnt perfectly sharp at 100% (without artificial sharpening applied), because its still a Bayer color filter sensor. All cameras have such filters, except really exotic ones (Sigma Foveon X3, rare monochrome/achromatic digital cameras), and film.

I would like to point out though that we're talking purely about resolution here. Resolution isnt really something we lack. Even the D750 already has 24 Megapixels, more than sufficient for large prints. Old small format film cameras had approximately 6 Megapixels, and even they had sufficient resolution for large prints.

When I give my pictures to others over the internet, I usually downsize my D750 pictures at 6016x4016 (24 Megapixel) to 4512x3012 (13.5 Megapixel) or 3008x2008 (6 Megapixel) JPEG without any sharpening so I get about the sharpness the camera actually produces (these sizes are carefully chosen to make this shrinking near lossless) since I see no point in wasting memory space for data that wasnt there in the first place.

Look at the D5. The flagship camera for the professional has "only" 20 Megapixels. It also has an AA filter. So apparently the professionals dont care as much about resolution ?

 

[goodguy]

D810 crap at high ISO....huh? The d750 is slightly better but the d810 is certainly no slouch. And certainly better than the d3s which is a few years old now. Downscale the d810 to 24mp like the 750 and you wouldn't notice any difference.

If anyone thinks the D810 is crap at high ISO then he is of course very wrong, but the D810 is a camera that is more designed for studio and landscape while the D750 is a general use camera. Main thing is price, you can get a great extra lens or two for the price difference between these 2 cameras.

 

[JTPhotography]

A used or refurbished d800e is about the same price as a new d750. No brainer.

 

[shadowlands]

D800e
I played with files from a D800 and D800e and I couldn't notice a difference, at least not with the naked eye.
My little Coolpix A has the low pass filter removed (they come that way) and it's awesome, but I couldn't tell it apart from a D7000 image if you paid me.

 

[jsecordphoto]

the 750 is quite a bit better with shadow recovery and high ISO than the d800e. I sent my buddy some RAW files when I first grabbed a 750 and he sold his d800e the next day haha.

 

[Mashburn]

I believe you are caught up way too much on the low pass filter.
I had the D7100 which is a great camera with no AA filter and I also own the D3300 which doesn't have AA filter.
I own the D750 and I promise you when I nail focus on my cameras in low ISO and use my good lenses you will NOT be able to see any sharpness difference.
The sharpness difference is really for lab test and people who obsessively try to pixel peep, in real life the 2 most important factor is your skills and lenses you use.
I even had a Nikon D60 and on 100ISO and good lenses pictures came out wonderfully sharp!!!

Get the D750, its better in high ISO then the D810 and you are left with a lot of money in your hand to get good lenses.

I do have a friend who has the d750. so I will put me d7200 up against it the best possible way. but I do know my 7000 vs 7200 is a big difference in sharpness

 

[jsecordphoto]

I do have a friend who has the d750. so I will put me d7200 up against it the best possible way. but I do know my 7000 vs 7200 is a big difference in sharpness

Well, I owned both, and have since sold the d7200. The d7200 images were a touch sharper OOC in good light, but after sharpening in post you couldn't really tell the difference.

 

[Mashburn]

thanks everyone for mentioning the d750. but it is not for me. I like the removal of the low pass filter from my 7000 to 7200. BUT I will try my friends 750 and see how it is in comparrison to my 7200 in terms of sharpness.

I do have a friend who has the d750. so I will put me d7200 up against it the best possible way. but I do know my 7000 vs 7200 is a big difference in sharpness

Well, I owned both, and have since sold the d7200. The d7200 images were a touch sharper OOC in good light, but after sharpening in post you couldn't really tell the difference.

but sharpen the 7200 in post as much as you did the 750, and you will still see a difference