The D750 is just a brilliant camera. Can't speak highly enough of it. Hugely better than the D800 which I just never liked - big heavy clunky slow thing that it was.
The D500 looks very impressive. Haven't used one yet. I much prefer shooting full frame so it's not really on my radar, but it looks amazing.
The D7200 is pretty good, but not brilliant. The other two you're considering are legitimate pro bodies; the D7200 is a good consumer model but not in the pro category.
The D3300 is great for how cheap and little it is, but there's a massive chasm between it and the others. Even the D7200 will vastly outperform it by pretty much any measure.
If you're able to afford the pro models, you won't be disappointed by either. Depends on whether you want crop sensor or full frame. I personally like crop sensor for astrophotography, which is the only reason why I own the cheap little D3300; the vignetting renders half a full frame DSLR's FOV useless... but I MUCH prefer full frame for portraits and landscapes.
Is this mainly for astrophotography, or will you use it a lot elsewhere? What lenses do you currently have?
Guys i need to upgrade my cam
Which do u think is better?
D7200?
D750
D500?
Thank u
Hi Z,
Out of interest what camera do you want to upgrade from and what is the nature of its use? Regarding your possibilities -
CROP SENSOR
The D500 adds 4K video over the D7200 1080p and has similar photographic dynamic range at equivalent iso sensitivity (although the D500 will go much higher in ISO, you could do so in post -perhaps). If you want crop sensor and don't need 4K video go for the D7200 (excellent value used, possibly 1/3 price).
FF SENSOR
Well you didn't specify the D810 or D800, not sure if you don't want the high res large file sizes of their 36MP sensor, but for FF I feel that the D600 (careful of oil-on-sensor issue) and D610 would be great choices. Very high dynamic range- as much as their more modern counterparts such as the D750 and D800 / D810 and possibly 1/2 price used. I also dont like the control layout on the D800/810 v D600/D610.
Personally I would like a Nikon FF 4K video body, but not at the price /weight of the D5, that's why my suggestions are centered around used gear for the moment/until then.
Personally I would like a Nikon FF 4K video body, but not at the price /weight of the D5, that's why my suggestions are centered around used gear for the moment/until then.
Please don't take this as a criticism, more simply a desire to understand...
Why do people bother with 4K? Our abysmal Australian internet speeds won't do well streaming it - I say that as a disappointed NBN subscriber. And though I concede that 4K does look a bit nicer when your nose is pressed up against the TV, I've never looked at something in 1080 and thought "geez, if only it was clearer". Perhaps when (if) the standard TV size is 80", then it'll be worthwhile, but while most people are using 55" or less I just can't quite see the point. At the appropriate viewing distance, there's literally no benefit to 4K. To see a difference you have to be close enough to actually resolve individual pixels, and at 1080 with a 55" screen that's uncomfortably close - like 5-6 feet. Who watches TV like that??
Is it more a future-proofing thing? Using the best available technology in the knowledge that one day we'll be glad we did? That's about the only benefit I can think of. Besides that, it's basically pointless as far as I can see.
Again, not a criticism - just trying to understand the appeal of 4K.
Thanks for your question. I understand the issue/argument of the eye's limited resolution at our typical proximity distances to television, but that is not a determining factor for me in not adopting 4K video, albeit that visual acuity is on a wide spectrum around the old 20/20 (6/6). We currently use a 65" 1080p TV viewing at 3-4m and for that situation, I would expect to see some improvement with a 65" 4K TV, all other things being equal, with suitable source material, based purely on resolution alone and the eye's capabilities.
I agree that, Yes 4K video is very slow to upload to and stream from the internet. I use 1080p video output to youtube for school sports (Rugby)video, but I like 4K for the idea of cropping later to perhaps introduce a pan or zoom that I hadn't thought of at the time and/or extracting images for a montage.
As an aside, I wouldn't mind also trying 4K video for astro (moon). I had some fun recently with this and captured some eerie clouds passing the moon forming a sort of nebula. It was an interesting effect.
We currently use a 65" 1080p TV viewing at 3-4m and for that situation, I would expect to see some improvement with a 65" 4K TV, all other things being equal, with suitable source material, based purely on resolution alone and the eye's capabilities.
You won't, not at 3-4m viewing distance. If you see any difference in resolution, you have exceptional vision
The only tangible difference in such circumstances is the wider colour range that is employed in the newer systems. Even then, it's borderline in most domestic situations...a light controlled (i.e. dark) viewing environment is required to appreciate it. And if you think the mainstream viewing demos are impressive, it's not real...from the factory, most TVs are set far away from colour accurate.
I like 4K for the idea of cropping later to perhaps introduce a pan or zoom that I hadn't thought of at the time and/or extracting images for a montage.
That's the best rationale for 4K I've yet heard! Makes a fair bit of sense. I've had to crop various things over the years and the loss in resolution is always a bummer. On the other hand, it's made me be a lot more careful with my framing, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
But yeah besides that, I'm in absolutely no hurry to get anything with 4K capability - either TV or camera. The D750 should do us for a few more years. SUCH a great camera!
I've just downgraded, temporarily, from a FF D800 to the D7200, mainly for a better perceived high ISO capability and the lack of an OLPF. No OLPF supposedly will give better resolution but I think that is a moot point.
While the D7200 is very capable, what I did miss immediately was the wider field of view of the D800. If you want to do wide field stuff like the Milky Way, the DX sensors just don't cut it
Of the three you mention I'd lean toward the FF D750 because unless you are using a laptop for focusing, the tilt screen is a huge advantage.
With hindsight I probably should have gone for a second hand D600/D610 for around the same money as the D7200.
I
With hindsight I probably should have gone for a second hand D600/D610 for around the same money as the D7200.
Yes - Absolutely (Unless you need the 1.5x crop).
Here is a comparison from the DPReview noise widget thingy to back up your hindsight - Set to RAW at iso 3200. Even when compared to the D4, D5, D810, Df, Canon 1D... etc.. the D610 is remarkable for a now ~ <=$1000 (used) camera. I chose the RGB-Black part of the studio image for comparison.
Sports (Low-Light ISO) rating is the ISO at which for a standard low light level, the noise is 30dB less than signal.
The result for the three cameras listed is
D750 ISO2956
D7200 ISO1333
D500 ISO1324
My experience with other cameras is that you can, when necessary, capture at 3-6x the Sports (Low-Light ISO) rating given especially when stacking. My camera has a Sports (Low-Light ISO) rating of ISO1160. But I have used it at ISO 3200 and 6400
The D750 is clearly the best for low light & astrophotography of the three Nikon cameras listed above. It also comes with the biggest price tag. The other two cameras are line ball and with higher ISO ratings than mine are very capable of good results.
