Nikon D750

**Rondec** · 10-19-2015, 10:08 AM

Full frame has a stop better dynamic range and high iso capability, meaning that you should get roughly the same iso 6400 performance on full frame that you would get with iso 3200 on a K3. That is a very real benefit, but it isn't magic. If you mostly shoot longer lenses or, are trying to maximize depth of field (macro/landscape), then you are probably less likely to see the benefit of full frame.

All of these photos are web size photos, meaning that they don't tell you much about real performance. iso 6400 on K3 is usable, but it isn't great and I wouldn't print photos from it very big.

normhead · 10-19-2015, 10:08 AM

If the question is, are there times when I can get just as good an image with my K20D as with my K-5 or K-3, yes I can. Shooting for 1080 x 800 and in low contrast lighting I'm quite happy with my K20D. It's old, many features are not as goos as a modern camera, but I'd be happy with the IQ, and my guess is that would be true with any image right up to 3000 x 2000.

And during the time period, when the most you'd get even in an FF at 18 or 19 MP, it wasn't half bad. And many of prints I make today could be taken with it, if it were necessary. Starting with something like the K20D, improvements get to be incrementally smaller and smaller as you move up the ladder. And in 25% of my shooting, a D750 is down the ladder not up.It all depends on what you value. Who knows, maybe one day I'll say to myself, "I have to have that snappy AF." It could happen. Right now, there are other things I have to have.

Ian Stuart Forsyth · 10-19-2015, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by normhead

This has been repeated ad-nauseum.
FF sensor because of their bigger size can provide faster AF and more resolution.

That doesn't mean APS_c can't provide adequate AF or adequate resolution. It means for those who want it FF can provide more.
Does it provide an advantage in ever circumstance? Absolutely not.

You seem to ba asking, why would someone use a K-3 instead of a D750. SO let me provide an example... not the only possible example, there are many. But for today, I'm using this one.

Here is a shot taken with my K-3 at with an A-400 + 1.4 TC to equal 560mm.

Notice the 6000 x 4000 images is cropped to 4400 by 3400. giving me about a 15 MP image. Shot on a camera like a D810 in crop made I would have a 10 MP image. Shot with a D750 and cropped I'd have an 7 MP image. The only way you get a similar image on a D750 is to go to a 800 or 900mm lens.

No you would not need a 800mm lens all you would need is a 500mm lens with a tc and the current prices can be had for under $2200 but it does sound more dramatic to say "THE ONLY WAY "

normhead · 10-19-2015, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth

No you would not need a 800mm lens all you would need is a 500mm lens with a tc and the current prices can be had for under $2200 but it does sound more dramatic to say "THE ONLY WAY "

The same 500mm lens and TC gets you to over 1000mm equivalence on APS-c so you still lose. Buy the way my 560mm gets me to the equivalent of 840, with a $500 lens and a $500 TC. SO, more reach, half the price. It would be better debating these things with you if you didn't make it so easy to provide counter points. I didn't have to think much for this one.

**Rondec** · 10-20-2015, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth

No you would not need a 800mm lens all you would need is a 500mm lens with a tc and the current prices can be had for under $2200 but it does sound more dramatic to say "THE ONLY WAY "

A lot of wildlife photographers do shoot full frame, but they also really do spend a lot more on their gear than what "common" folks do. If your main application is shooting telephoto images, you probably do not lose a whole lot going with APS-C, particularly if your budget is limited. Hard to beat, say, a K3 and Sigma 50-500 combo for a similar price (Amazon prices about 2100). You listed a list of your gear somewhere and it was really impressive, but also a lot more expensive than I would dream of spending on what is just a hobby for me.

I am interested in full frame, but I don't plan on buying any telephoto lenses and will probably continue to use APS-C for those situations where I want to shoot longer.

rawr · 10-20-2015, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I am interested in full frame, but I don't plan on buying any telephoto lenses and will probably continue to use APS-C for those situations where I want to shoot longer.

A sensible balance. Use the strengths of each format. Horses for courses. The right tool for the job.

FF for low light, for wides, maybe even for the highest affordable resolution (36MP, 42MP, 50MP), and extra borkeh. APS-C for tele, a bit less weight/size/price, better AF point coverage sometimes.

We often seem to forget that FF and APS-C can co-exist in one camera bag.

normhead · 10-20-2015, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by rawr

A sensible balance. Use the strengths of each format. Horses for courses. The right tool for the job.

FF for low light, for wides, maybe even for the highest affordable resolution (36MP, 42MP, 50MP), and extra borkeh. APS-C for tele, a bit less weight/size/price, better AF point coverage sometimes.

We often seem to forget that FF and APS-C can co-exist in one camera bag.

IN fact, given the strengths and weakness of both, and that they share the same lenses, the question almost becomes , why wouldn't you have both in your bag, if you could? While I'm sure APS-c is the best single option for what I do, that doesn't mean in a dual system wouldn't provide more flexibility. You could change bodies like you change lenses. Could have my A-400 set up with the FF. IF it isn't long enough, put the APS-c on the back of it. APS-c is essentially pre-cropping. Saying, I know I'm only going to use part of this frame, so I'm going to use a system that optimizes the cropping, by only capturing the part of the frame I'm interested in, and having more resolution in that part of the frame.

rawr · 10-20-2015, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by normhead

the question almost becomes , why wouldn't you have both in your bag, if you could?

Hence - BRING ON THE FF, PENTAX. And hurry up about it.
I have a dual camera harness just waiting for the Pentax FF and my K-3 to sit alongside each other at events

.

biz-engineer · 10-20-2015, 11:50 AM

According to sunny 16 rule and focal length, 99% of the time ISO100 to ISO800 is sufficient. Now, since only about 5 years or less, digital cameras can be programmed with crazy ISO value, essentially high ISO was a must have in the marketing flyers (otherwise it looks bad vs competition), because half of the ISO range gives crappy images (unless there is a lot of light, but then you can use a lower ISO...). In reality, if you do photography like Ansel Adams, you don't need and you don't want high ISO because in low light, you use a tripod that allow you to shoot a one hour exposure at base ISO. From 1/100s to one hour exposure equals more than 18 stop of shutter speed dynamic range (to be compared with one stop advantage of the D750). A good tripod is cheaper than a D750 camera, and while the D750 camera will be obsolete in less than 5 years, you can use the tripod for 20 years and more. No to mention the in camera image stabilization of the K-3, K-5 etc, that sunny 16 rule does not include. So, if you can't take a good photo with a K-5, K5II,K5IIs, K-3, K-3II, you need to question your technique. Or of course, you can spent 2000 Euros on a D750, so that 1000 euros for 1 stop advantage; but, I've afraid that it won't replace a tripod, so then you need to think of buying a medium format camera (roughly one stop better than a D750). The thing is, even guys are using tripods for their 645z. That being said, even if I don't really need a full frame camera, I'm ready to waste some money on it.

normhead · 10-20-2015, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Mr Bassie

Here is an ISO 16000 D750 shot with an old Quantary 28-200 Superzoom.

I have to ask, why did you show us that?

aleonx3 · 10-21-2015, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

.... So, if you can't take a good photo with a K-5, K5II,K5IIs, K-3, K-3II, you need to question your technique. ..

As biz-engineer pointed out, the dynamic range in the sensors of those cameras have given us a more flexibilities and options to shoot without given up a lot in noise penalty. This is NOT my intent to brag or put anyone down, the shot below (which I snapped quickly as you can see she posted for the cell phone shot) shows an example of close to -3 stops underexposed taken in RAW, and processed in Silkypix6 (default NR in camera), ISO 640 1/160 f2 using my Topcor 58f1.4 lens. The original shot in RAW was literally dark. Of course, I couldn't have dreamed about getting this shot when I had my k10 and k-7 years ago. The reason I read this thread is because I have a close relative who also bought the D750 combo, he likes that but he also think that my k5II/k-3 compares well with his D750 if one has better techniques.

K52P1617 by chanats

biz-engineer · 10-21-2015, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by aleonx3

shows an example of close to -3 stops underexposed taken in RAW,

The question is why should we underexpose -3ev when the cameras auto-exposure is right withing +-1ev. I mean, it's nice to demonstrate the amazing DR of a D750 or the great DR of a K-5II by underexposing by 5ev, but unless it happened by mistake, or just for the purpose of showing off the D750 capabilities, I never did that. So, usually is we don't have enough light, we use a tripod, otherwise we use a flash. Tripod and flash deliver way beyond the one stop advantage of the FF.

**Rondec** · 10-21-2015, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

The question is why should we underexpose -3ev when the cameras auto-exposure is right withing +-1ev. I mean, it's nice to demonstrate the amazing DR of a D750 or the great DR of a K-5II by underexposing by 5ev, but unless it happened by mistake, or just for the purpose of showing off the D750 capabilities, I never did that. So, usually is we don't have enough light, we use a tripod, otherwise we use a flash. Tripod and flash deliver way beyond the one stop advantage of the FF.

I think the point is just that things have come a long way over time. This is iso 6400 f4 1/8 second.

It is fine. Not great, but for a dark museum, it is what you can get. Flash isn't an option because there was glass in the way. On the other hand, iso 6400 shots and above aren't great, just passable, even on full frame. If I have a choice, I am going to use lower iso however I can.

biz-engineer · 10-21-2015, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

It is fine. Not great, but for a dark museum, it is what you can get. Flash isn't an option because there was glass in the way. On the other hand, iso 6400 shots and above aren't great, just passable, even on full frame. If I have a choice, I am going to use lower iso however I can.

No bad at all. As long as the image remain at a reasonable size, we don't see any noise / blur. This one is free of noise.

cxdoo · 10-21-2015, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

It is fine. Not great, but for a dark museum, it is what you can get. Flash isn't an option because there was glass in the way. On the other hand, iso 6400 shots and above aren't great, just passable, even on full frame. If I have a choice, I am going to use lower iso however I can.

To further support your point, the biggest drawback to using high ISO is dramatic loss of dynamic range. Yes, you can get relatively sharp and bright but the colors are just not there.

This was shot in a very dark museum. However, a tripod and ISO100 makes it look even better than what I could see with my own eyes.

10-19-2015, 10:08 AM	#17
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	If the question is, are there times when I can get just as good an image with my K20D as with my K-5 or K-3, yes I can. Shooting for 1080 x 800 and in low contrast lighting I'm quite happy with my K20D. It's old, many features are not as goos as a modern camera, but I'd be happy with the IQ, and my guess is that would be true with any image right up to 3000 x 2000. And during the time period, when the most you'd get even in an FF at 18 or 19 MP, it wasn't half bad. And many of prints I make today could be taken with it, if it were necessary. Starting with something like the K20D, improvements get to be incrementally smaller and smaller as you move up the ladder. And in 25% of my shooting, a D750 is down the ladder not up.It all depends on what you value. Who knows, maybe one day I'll say to myself, "I have to have that snappy AF." It could happen. Right now, there are other things I have to have. Last edited by normhead; 10-19-2015 at 01:04 PM.

10-20-2015, 11:50 AM	#24
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,225	According to sunny 16 rule and focal length, 99% of the time ISO100 to ISO800 is sufficient. Now, since only about 5 years or less, digital cameras can be programmed with crazy ISO value, essentially high ISO was a must have in the marketing flyers (otherwise it looks bad vs competition), because half of the ISO range gives crappy images (unless there is a lot of light, but then you can use a lower ISO...). In reality, if you do photography like Ansel Adams, you don't need and you don't want high ISO because in low light, you use a tripod that allow you to shoot a one hour exposure at base ISO. From 1/100s to one hour exposure equals more than 18 stop of shutter speed dynamic range (to be compared with one stop advantage of the D750). A good tripod is cheaper than a D750 camera, and while the D750 camera will be obsolete in less than 5 years, you can use the tripod for 20 years and more. No to mention the in camera image stabilization of the K-3, K-5 etc, that sunny 16 rule does not include. So, if you can't take a good photo with a K-5, K5II,K5IIs, K-3, K-3II, you need to question your technique. Or of course, you can spent 2000 Euros on a D750, so that 1000 euros for 1 stop advantage; but, I've afraid that it won't replace a tripod, so then you need to think of buying a medium format camera (roughly one stop better than a D750). The thing is, even guys are using tripods for their 645z. That being said, even if I don't really need a full frame camera, I'm ready to waste some money on it. Last edited by biz-engineer; 10-20-2015 at 12:20 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nikon D750	Winder	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	535	06-18-2015 08:29 AM
Good deaL on Nikon D750 from tommorow	Shanti	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	1	04-14-2015 08:47 PM
Pentax colors on Nikon D750	skyer	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	26	03-06-2015 01:42 PM
Nikon D750 - Amazon has stopped listing the model	interested_observer	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	7	01-17-2015 06:32 PM
Nikon D750 Owners Reporting a Dark Band Problem That Causes Ugly Lens Flares	interested_observer	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	5	01-07-2015 10:50 PM

10-19-2015, 10:08 AM	#16
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Full frame has a stop better dynamic range and high iso capability, meaning that you should get roughly the same iso 6400 performance on full frame that you would get with iso 3200 on a K3. That is a very real benefit, but it isn't magic. If you mostly shoot longer lenses or, are trying to maximize depth of field (macro/landscape), then you are probably less likely to see the benefit of full frame. All of these photos are web size photos, meaning that they don't tell you much about real performance. iso 6400 on K3 is usable, but it isn't great and I wouldn't print photos from it very big.

10-19-2015, 08:46 PM	#18
Ian Stuart Forsyth Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Somewhere over the rainbow Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,531	Originally posted by normhead This has been repeated ad-nauseum. FF sensor because of their bigger size can provide faster AF and more resolution. That doesn't mean APS_c can't provide adequate AF or adequate resolution. It means for those who want it FF can provide more. Does it provide an advantage in ever circumstance? Absolutely not. You seem to ba asking, why would someone use a K-3 instead of a D750. SO let me provide an example... not the only possible example, there are many. But for today, I'm using this one. Here is a shot taken with my K-3 at with an A-400 + 1.4 TC to equal 560mm. Notice the 6000 x 4000 images is cropped to 4400 by 3400. giving me about a 15 MP image. Shot on a camera like a D810 in crop made I would have a 10 MP image. Shot with a D750 and cropped I'd have an 7 MP image. The only way you get a similar image on a D750 is to go to a 800 or 900mm lens. No you would not need a 800mm lens all you would need is a 500mm lens with a tc and the current prices can be had for under $2200 but it does sound more dramatic to say "THE ONLY WAY "

10-19-2015, 09:33 PM	#19
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth No you would not need a 800mm lens all you would need is a 500mm lens with a tc and the current prices can be had for under $2200 but it does sound more dramatic to say "THE ONLY WAY " The same 500mm lens and TC gets you to over 1000mm equivalence on APS-c so you still lose. Buy the way my 560mm gets me to the equivalent of 840, with a $500 lens and a $500 TC. SO, more reach, half the price. It would be better debating these things with you if you didn't make it so easy to provide counter points. I didn't have to think much for this one.

10-20-2015, 03:19 AM	#20
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth No you would not need a 800mm lens all you would need is a 500mm lens with a tc and the current prices can be had for under $2200 but it does sound more dramatic to say "THE ONLY WAY " A lot of wildlife photographers do shoot full frame, but they also really do spend a lot more on their gear than what "common" folks do. If your main application is shooting telephoto images, you probably do not lose a whole lot going with APS-C, particularly if your budget is limited. Hard to beat, say, a K3 and Sigma 50-500 combo for a similar price (Amazon prices about 2100). You listed a list of your gear somewhere and it was really impressive, but also a lot more expensive than I would dream of spending on what is just a hobby for me. I am interested in full frame, but I don't plan on buying any telephoto lenses and will probably continue to use APS-C for those situations where I want to shoot longer.

10-20-2015, 05:26 AM	#21
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Rondec I am interested in full frame, but I don't plan on buying any telephoto lenses and will probably continue to use APS-C for those situations where I want to shoot longer. A sensible balance. Use the strengths of each format. Horses for courses. The right tool for the job. FF for low light, for wides, maybe even for the highest affordable resolution (36MP, 42MP, 50MP), and extra borkeh. APS-C for tele, a bit less weight/size/price, better AF point coverage sometimes. We often seem to forget that FF and APS-C can co-exist in one camera bag.

10-20-2015, 05:49 AM	#22
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by rawr A sensible balance. Use the strengths of each format. Horses for courses. The right tool for the job. FF for low light, for wides, maybe even for the highest affordable resolution (36MP, 42MP, 50MP), and extra borkeh. APS-C for tele, a bit less weight/size/price, better AF point coverage sometimes. We often seem to forget that FF and APS-C can co-exist in one camera bag. IN fact, given the strengths and weakness of both, and that they share the same lenses, the question almost becomes , why wouldn't you have both in your bag, if you could? While I'm sure APS-c is the best single option for what I do, that doesn't mean in a dual system wouldn't provide more flexibility. You could change bodies like you change lenses. Could have my A-400 set up with the FF. IF it isn't long enough, put the APS-c on the back of it. APS-c is essentially pre-cropping. Saying, I know I'm only going to use part of this frame, so I'm going to use a system that optimizes the cropping, by only capturing the part of the frame I'm interested in, and having more resolution in that part of the frame.

10-20-2015, 06:16 AM	#23
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by normhead the question almost becomes , why wouldn't you have both in your bag, if you could? Hence - BRING ON THE FF, PENTAX. And hurry up about it. I have a dual camera harness just waiting for the Pentax FF and my K-3 to sit alongside each other at events .

10-20-2015, 05:00 PM	#25
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Mr Bassie Here is an ISO 16000 D750 shot with an old Quantary 28-200 Superzoom. I have to ask, why did you show us that?

10-21-2015, 10:48 AM	#26
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Originally posted by biz-engineer .... So, if you can't take a good photo with a K-5, K5II,K5IIs, K-3, K-3II, you need to question your technique. .. As biz-engineer pointed out, the dynamic range in the sensors of those cameras have given us a more flexibilities and options to shoot without given up a lot in noise penalty. This is NOT my intent to brag or put anyone down, the shot below (which I snapped quickly as you can see she posted for the cell phone shot) shows an example of close to -3 stops underexposed taken in RAW, and processed in Silkypix6 (default NR in camera), ISO 640 1/160 f2 using my Topcor 58f1.4 lens. The original shot in RAW was literally dark. Of course, I couldn't have dreamed about getting this shot when I had my k10 and k-7 years ago. The reason I read this thread is because I have a close relative who also bought the D750 combo, he likes that but he also think that my k5II/k-3 compares well with his D750 if one has better techniques. K52P1617 by chanats

10-21-2015, 11:10 AM	#27
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,225	Originally posted by aleonx3 shows an example of close to -3 stops underexposed taken in RAW, The question is why should we underexpose -3ev when the cameras auto-exposure is right withing +-1ev. I mean, it's nice to demonstrate the amazing DR of a D750 or the great DR of a K-5II by underexposing by 5ev, but unless it happened by mistake, or just for the purpose of showing off the D750 capabilities, I never did that. So, usually is we don't have enough light, we use a tripod, otherwise we use a flash. Tripod and flash deliver way beyond the one stop advantage of the FF.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-21-2015, 11:19 AM	#28
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by biz-engineer The question is why should we underexpose -3ev when the cameras auto-exposure is right withing +-1ev. I mean, it's nice to demonstrate the amazing DR of a D750 or the great DR of a K-5II by underexposing by 5ev, but unless it happened by mistake, or just for the purpose of showing off the D750 capabilities, I never did that. So, usually is we don't have enough light, we use a tripod, otherwise we use a flash. Tripod and flash deliver way beyond the one stop advantage of the FF. I think the point is just that things have come a long way over time. This is iso 6400 f4 1/8 second. It is fine. Not great, but for a dark museum, it is what you can get. Flash isn't an option because there was glass in the way. On the other hand, iso 6400 shots and above aren't great, just passable, even on full frame. If I have a choice, I am going to use lower iso however I can.

10-21-2015, 11:27 AM	#29
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,225	Originally posted by Rondec It is fine. Not great, but for a dark museum, it is what you can get. Flash isn't an option because there was glass in the way. On the other hand, iso 6400 shots and above aren't great, just passable, even on full frame. If I have a choice, I am going to use lower iso however I can. No bad at all. As long as the image remain at a reasonable size, we don't see any noise / blur. This one is free of noise.

10-21-2015, 11:43 AM	#30
cxdoo Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Limassol, Cyprus Posts: 1,150	Originally posted by Rondec It is fine. Not great, but for a dark museum, it is what you can get. Flash isn't an option because there was glass in the way. On the other hand, iso 6400 shots and above aren't great, just passable, even on full frame. If I have a choice, I am going to use lower iso however I can. To further support your point, the biggest drawback to using high ISO is dramatic loss of dynamic range. Yes, you can get relatively sharp and bright but the colors are just not there. This was shot in a very dark museum. However, a tripod and ISO100 makes it look even better than what I could see with my own eyes.