Nikon D810 vs D750 + lens choices

[mofunk]

I think Apple Fanboy was just mentioning the differences in focal length and not necessarily using the 18-105mm.


If you shoot a lot in low light and without a flash, then the best kit imo is the 24-70mm f/2.8. If you are on budget the 24-120mm will give you a nice reach like the 18-105mm did on the D90 but a little wider. Or go with a prime like 85mm f/2.8.

The one thing I had to get use to is the wide angle-ness The hard part is really finding the right lenses that fit for you. I'm looking at either adding the 70-200mm or 105mm/85mm to go with my 24-70mm, 50mm, 20mm lenses.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Isn't the 18-105 lens a DX lens and will give vignetting on an FX body?

I have a D90 too and will be going for a D500 later in the year when the prices come down and I have had a chance to handle it. The D750 would be my other choice but I don't have all the lenses to fit it (all bar one are DX type) and would need to spend a small fortune to get replacements. With the D500 I can usefully use all my current lenses without and imaging problems.

In part, but you can use the D750 in crop mode or correct with software.
But as my only DX lens is a 10.5mm fisheye I haven't tried any out.
If you are on a budget a 50mm 1.4 is less than £300 which is pretty cheap.
Or as I said earlier, don't buy glass new. I only have 2 new lenses. Everything else in my signature was bought at a fraction of the cost of new.
The D500 looks an assume camera if you want to stay with the DX format. It depends on what your budget is, and where you see yourself ending up. I always knew I'd go FF eventually so I didn't invest in DX lenses.
Plus I still have a D7100 as my second body.

 

[Freida]

Isn't the 18-105 lens a DX lens and will give vignetting on an FX body?

I have a D90 too and will be going for a D500 later in the year when the prices come down and I have had a chance to handle it. The D750 would be my other choice but I don't have all the lenses to fit it (all bar one are DX type) and would need to spend a small fortune to get replacements. With the D500 I can usefully use all my current lenses without and imaging problems.

Yes, the 18-105 is a DX lens which i started to wonder how bad it is on FX camera. I read somewhere that I will lose half the resolution. Does that meant that 24mpx is going to be only 12mpx or how does it work?

In that case, is there a reasonably cheap lens that I could get for my trip to india (as I don't really think i can do both D750 & 24-70 2.8)
[doublepost=1455449398][/doublepost]So I keep looking at the 24-70 2.8 VR and it does seem that its one of those lenses that will probably last a lifetime and its more like an investment. Maybe I should just bite the bullet and get both so I will be covered for a very very long time.

Hard hard hard decision

 

[Cheese&Apple]

In that case, is there a reasonably cheap lens that I could get for my trip to india (as I don't really think i can do both D750 & 24-70 2.8)

Look into the Nikon 50mm f/1.8. It's a great lens, cost about $250 CDN (new) and is considered by many to be optically better than it's bigger brother the 50mm f/1.4 that goes for over $500.

If considering the 24-70mm f/2.8, you still have the option to save about $500 by buying the previous generation (new) without VR. People can and will debate the need for VR on a lens of this focal length forever but that's a call you would have to make based on need and budget. Personally, I would not consider trading my 24-70 for the newer VR version.

~ Peter

 

[Apple fanboy]

Look into the Nikon 50mm f/1.8. It's a great lens, cost about $250 CDN (new) and is considered by many to be optically better than it's bigger brother the 50mm f/1.4 that goes for over $500.

If considering the 24-70mm f/2.8, you still have the option to save about $500 by buying the previous generation (new) without VR. People can and will debate the need for VR on a lens of this focal length forever but that's a call you would have to make based on need and budget. Personally, I would not consider trading my 24-70 for the newer VR version.

~ Peter

Agree on the 24-70. With the higher ISO you can push on the D750, the need for VR isn't a deal breaker.

 

[talmy]

Yes, the 18-105 is a DX lens which i started to wonder how bad it is on FX camera. I read somewhere that I will lose half the resolution. Does that meant that 24mpx is going to be only 12mpx or how does it work?

There will be extreme vignetting unless you go to crop mode. In crop mode your 24mpx camera will give you the same results as a 10mpx DX camera (think -- D80 from 2006).

The pictures below I quickly shot out the back door showing using an 18-70 DX Nikkor on my FX camera, disabling the auto cropping it normally does when attaching a DX lens. I've got a D810, so the DX penalty is not quite a bad -- it becomes a 15Mpx camera.

Full telephoto (70mm):

Full wide angle (18mm):

In DX crop mode, you get a smaller rectangular picture that eliminates the vignetted corners.

 

[JDDavis]

Yes, the 18-105 is a DX lens which i started to wonder how bad it is on FX camera. I read somewhere that I will lose half the resolution. Does that meant that 24mpx is going to be only 12mpx or how does it work?

In that case, is there a reasonably cheap lens that I could get for my trip to india (as I don't really think i can do both D750 & 24-70 2.8)
[doublepost=1455449398][/doublepost]So I keep looking at the 24-70 2.8 VR and it does seem that its one of those lenses that will probably last a lifetime and its more like an investment. Maybe I should just bite the bullet and get both so I will be covered for a very very long time.

Hard hard hard decision

@talmy gave a good explanation of how the D750 will handle a DX lens. Unless you disable the auto DX mode it will go into the crop mode as soon as you attach a DX lens. That will effectively cut your image down to a 12mp image (@1.5 crop). Even in DX mode you will have some vignetting at 18mm. At least I did on my 18-300. If you want the long end for a reason and don't have an FX lens at 300mm then maybe that's an acceptable tradeoff but there really is no reason to use a DX lens on a D750 unless it's an emergency! There were eagles and the longest lens I had with me was the 18-300 DX. 300mm at 12mp was better than nothing (basically what it would've been on the D90 but better IQ)

If you want to start with an inexpensive lens that will deliver on the D750 then pick up about any 50mm (except for the latest 1.4...it's pricey). The 1.8D or 1.8G will work great on the D750. Even the older AIS manual lens work well. If you need some longer lenses for your trip then they are simply going to cost you. You could also consider renting for your trip. I've had good luck with rentals for special occasions like a big trip.

 

[Apple fanboy]

@talmy gave a good explanation of how the D750 will handle a DX lens. Unless you disable the auto DX mode it will go into the crop mode as soon as you attach a DX lens. That will effectively cut your image down to a 12mp image (@1.5 crop). Even in DX mode you will have some vignetting at 18mm. At least I did on my 18-300. If you want the long end for a reason and don't have an FX lens at 300mm then maybe that's an acceptable tradeoff but there really is no reason to use a DX lens on a D750 unless it's an emergency! There were eagles and the longest lens I had with me was the 18-300 DX. 300mm at 12mp was better than nothing (basically what it would've been on the D90 but better IQ)

If you want to start with an inexpensive lens that will deliver on the D750 then pick up about any 50mm (except for the latest 1.4...it's pricey). The 1.8D or 1.8G will work great on the D750. Even the older AIS manual lens work well. If you need some longer lenses for your trip then they are simply going to cost you. You could also consider renting for your trip. I've had good luck with rentals for special occasions like a big trip.

The 70-300mm is pretty inexpensive. Gives you some reach for not a lot of weight. Paired with the 50mm could be a good cheap FF combo.

 

[Freida]

The 70-300mm is pretty inexpensive. Gives you some reach for not a lot of weight. Paired with the 50mm could be a good cheap FF combo.

Thank you guys. I already have the 50mm 1.4 so I don't think it make sense to get the 1.8.
I was thinking to maybe get the 24-85 (which looks like a kit lens) - is that a good lens? Maybe that way I will not need the 24-70 2.8?
Graysofwestminster might give me a nice deal on my used stuff so maybe I might get the 24-70 2.8 in the end (the VR as its not that different). Is that a lens that I will never regret getting? I get the impression that its very good overall lens for most common situations, right?
I just wanna make a purchase that I know will last me ages and I will not look back. Thats why I keep coming back

 

[Moakesy]

I just wanna make a purchase that I know will last me ages and I will not look back. Thats why I keep coming back

I got my D750 with the 24-120mm kit lens (from Grays as it happens), and to be honest, I am sort of regretting going with that lens now. There is nothing wrong with it as such, but after three months I am left feeling like it's not quite where I want it to be.

A friend of mine told me to go for the 24-70 f/2.8, but I ignored him on cost grounds. He shoots using the f2.8 lens at some of the same sports events as me, and you can tell the difference when comparing his images vs mine.

Although I saved money at the time of purchase, I know in my heart that at some point in the next six months I will getting the f2.8. If you don't want to look back, and if you can afford it, do it....

 

[MCAsan]

I just wanna make a purchase that I know will last me ages and I will not look back. Thats why I keep coming back

Then make your major investment first and foremost into top quality glass. Excellent lenses can last a lifetime. With the fast moving pace of change in camera bodies, accept that the lifetime of a camera body is 3-5 years. While a camera body may still work after 5 years and post processing software can still read the raw files......there will likely be many new features (higher resolution, higher ISO, high res mode, focus stacking and bracketing....etc.).

 

[Apple fanboy]

Thank you guys. I already have the 50mm 1.4 so I don't think it make sense to get the 1.8.
I was thinking to maybe get the 24-85 (which looks like a kit lens) - is that a good lens? Maybe that way I will not need the 24-70 2.8?
Graysofwestminster might give me a nice deal on my used stuff so maybe I might get the 24-70 2.8 in the end (the VR as its not that different). Is that a lens that I will never regret getting? I get the impression that its very good overall lens for most common situations, right?
I just wanna make a purchase that I know will last me ages and I will not look back. Thats why I keep coming back

What are you shooting? If I'm only taking one lens then it's the 24-70mm 2.8.
But I prefer the 14-24mm for landscapes and the 70-200mm or 200-500 for wildlife.
Of course what we all want is a lightweight 10-600mm 1.4 lens with no distortion!
But if it existed (and the laws of physics say it can't), imagine the price!
Decide what you want to shoot, then buy the glass to do so. Buy the body once you can or get a cheaper body to buy both together like the D610. Or go second hand.

 

[Moakesy]

Somewhat off topic (kinda) but I just noticed an addition to your footer Apple fanboy...

200-500mm f5.6,.

So, you got it in the end? You like?

 

[Apple fanboy]

Somewhat off topic (kinda) but I just noticed an addition to your footer Apple fanboy...



So, you got it in the end? You like?

I haven't used it much, but what I see I like yes. It's a great lens for the price. Three of us at work now have it, and a fourth is getting it soon.

 

[JDDavis]

Thank you guys. I already have the 50mm 1.4 so I don't think it make sense to get the 1.8.
I was thinking to maybe get the 24-85 (which looks like a kit lens) - is that a good lens? Maybe that way I will not need the 24-70 2.8?
Graysofwestminster might give me a nice deal on my used stuff so maybe I might get the 24-70 2.8 in the end (the VR as its not that different). Is that a lens that I will never regret getting? I get the impression that its very good overall lens for most common situations, right?
I just wanna make a purchase that I know will last me ages and I will not look back. Thats why I keep coming back

I have a 24-85 with my D750 and it is a good lens but both it and the often suggested 24-120 can not keep up with the older or new version of the 24-70. Don't get me wrong, they are good lenses but not "as good". I find the 24-85 a little soft in some spots but more than useable especially stopped down. It's a nice compact size too. In the end, as far as Nikon zooms go, the 24-70 and 70-200 remain on top of the heap for that focal range. The main reason I will take the 24-85 is the size and weight. When I do, it's a slight compromise in IQ but worth it most of the time.

The "Holy Trinity" of Nikon zooms has always been the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. Those are "lifetime" lenses for most people. The 3rd party makers like Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron are starting to catch up and put pressure on Nikon in those focal lengths though.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I have a 24-85 with my D750 and it is a good lens but both it and the often suggested 24-120 can not keep up with the older or new version of the 24-70. Don't get me wrong, they are good lenses but not "as good". I find the 24-85 a little soft in some spots but more than useable especially stopped down. It's a nice compact size too. In the end, as far as Nikon zooms go, the 24-70 and 70-200 remain on top of the heap for that focal range. The main reason I will take the 24-85 is the size and weight. When I do, it's a slight compromise in IQ but worth it most of the time.

The "Holy Trinity" of Nikon zooms has always been the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. Those are "lifetime" lenses for most people. The 3rd party makers like Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron are starting to catch up and put pressure on Nikon in those focal lengths though.

Those three certainly are good lenses. Even better when you pick up all three for less than £500!

 

[Freida]

What are you shooting? If I'm only taking one lens then it's the 24-70mm 2.8.
But I prefer the 14-24mm for landscapes and the 70-200mm or 200-500 for wildlife.
Of course what we all want is a lightweight 10-600mm 1.4 lens with no distortion!
But if it existed (and the laws of physics say it can't), imagine the price!
Decide what you want to shoot, then buy the glass to do so. Buy the body once you can or get a cheaper body to buy both together like the D610. Or go second hand.

The purpose for this purchase now is a trip to India where I will be taking loads of pictures but the main one is a traditional indian wedding.
In the past - the 18-105 worked usually quite fine for me. As it was DX then technically i started on 24 so having 24-70 i will only lose the reach but that was usually not the problem with the kit lens as i hardly needed the 105 (yes there were occasions but not that often.
I look at 24-70 as very universal for what i do. Holidays/ weddings/ events with friends etc. For portraits for fun etc. I have the 50mm 1.4.

So I guess that 14-24 can be purchased later as its more specific and in my case not that important. I love wildlife but haven't gone on a proper trip so that can wait too i guess. One step at a time.
I'm not that rich so I wanna build something that will last me ages or forever. Hence pay little more for D750 instead of D610 as the D750 should last longer, right?

 

[Apple fanboy]

The purpose for this purchase now is a trip to India where I will be taking loads of pictures but the main one is a traditional indian wedding.
In the past - the 18-105 worked usually quite fine for me. As it was DX then technically i started on 24 so having 24-70 i will only lose the reach but that was usually not the problem with the kit lens as i hardly needed the 105 (yes there were occasions but not that often.
I look at 24-70 as very universal for what i do. Holidays/ weddings/ events with friends etc. For portraits for fun etc. I have the 50mm 1.4.

So I guess that 14-24 can be purchased later as its more specific and in my case not that important. I love wildlife but haven't gone on a proper trip so that can wait too i guess. One step at a time.
I'm not that rich so I wanna build something that will last me ages or forever. Hence pay little more for D750 instead of D610 as the D750 should last longer, right?

Yes and no!
You currently have a D90. That camera is 8 years old. The D750 is more than a year old and the D610 is about 2 years old.
Later bodies will always be more up to date, but nobody could tell the difference between those two cameras in terms of IQ.
The differences are (from memory) the video quality of the D750 and the higher ISO. Neither are deal breakers for you.
Nothing is forever. But I believe the returns we get from body updates become less each generation. What will a D1050 do that my D750 doesn't? The only gain for stills photography will probably be FPS and higher ISO.
But tbh by the time we are there, they will probably just have videos you can pull a high quality still from. Cannon already demonstrated one at a show last year. 8k video I believe.
Glass however is a different story. It lasts for years and years. That's why in your shoes I'd not bother buying a lesser quality lens.
If money is an issue, buy a refurb D750 (or open box) and rent the 24-70 for your trip.

 

[hiddenmarkov]

I never used the U1 U2 stuff. Can someone give me examples or common settings they have, so i can test it out, please?

You go into a shooting mode, make lots of changes, save them. with the U1 saved...you then reset the shooting mode. Do over over for U2 if desired.

It basically gives you several custom shooting presets. U1 and U2 and whatever is currently stored in the shooting modes. In my case I have U1 and U2 and whatever is programmed into aperture and shutter priority mode. Manual mode kind of set but I only use for video and most of those settings are video menu based. I am finding pure manual mode the most reliable way to keep shutter constant for video.

Currently I have U1 set for flash. Custom changes include timing changes, number of focus points available (limit it to least number, think 21...) and other things like AF assist turned off (otherwise known as the annoying light to me that shoots out before a shot). Other changes include ae lock being AF selector to get off the shutter button. For reasons unknown Nikon puts a dedicated af button on their pro bodies only. I liked this feature on my d700 (now use d750)...I got it back in a way but would be happier if had a real button instead.

Rest of this...while eyeing the higher iso potential of the d750 keep in mind even it can need good post processing software for noise reduction. This same software could serve your d90 shots. I settled on DxO. Used to be aperture with nik tools installed but that went away. tried going back to adobe with nik, realized why I left abobe in the first place...and found a new alternative in DxO. Try what's out there on free trials, software a personal choice as always.

How you hold the camera can also help here. Good solid hand hold and decent shots at iso 6400 are doable. Even with the d750's high iso I still try to keep her at iso 3200 or 6400 worst case.

Also remember the main thing higher end bodies offer is better shooting control via menu's. Not using these to potential on a d90 some of the oooh ahhhh effect will be lost on a higher end body. D90 a capable body, had one many years ago. I left as I wanted full frame.

Which ties into knowing why you are going fullframe to begin with. My case was I can go landscape heavy at times (FX liked for landsacape). I also like nikkor's older glass from the Ai(s) days (manual focus has its allure..and these can be picked up for decent prices nicely). They are FX glass. Zeiss makes some nice stuff too for modern manual focus glass.

Of late this was a side bene....manual focus glass a better fit to video work. Much smoother and better feeling focus ring adjusting usually. Dslr video the need to manual focus becomes clear fast. As even the most silent AF motor lens I have craps on the shoot's audio with a quickness.

Video being brought up as its the d750's other thing. big + 1 to why I got it. If getting for any video work...just order an external mic for it same day. Don't go I will just use the on body mic. You will learn the error of your ways...then have to wait for the new mic to come in when you order it lol. Been there....doh.

 

[kallisti]

Two little comments.

I have a D810 but don't have a D750. High ISO performance on the D810 isn't great. It is better than on your D90, but it is worse than several other current bodies. Noise on the D810 becomes visible at relatively low ISOs (by current standards).

The D500 is currently in theoretical status regarding performance since it's not yet released. Should have amazing high ISO performance, though we don't know yet. Even one stop can matter, but two to three usable stops would be great.

One little feature that it has advertised but also hasn't been tested yet is auto AF fine tuning.

Lenses are often *slightly* out of kilter with AF on a given body. When using a lens with a new body, you frequently have to take a series of test shots to check auto focus and then fine tune for the specific lens. The ability to focus in LV and have this automatically create an AF profile for each lens would be fantastic (assuming it actually works).

 

[mofunk]

I say go with the D750 mainly because it has more improvements from your D90. When you get it, start learning each week how to use the features. Gradually step out of Aperture mode. That's the easiest part. This is what I tell my friends who want more from their cameras. Start by picking a start off point.

If you are shooting fast action subject, set your camera shutter at 125 and then your Aperture around f/8 or f/11. Take a few test shots then adjust your shutter.

If you are shooting in low light, like an event or concert, Shutter speed around 60 and aperture at f/4 to start. Then adjust.

It's really not that hard. With digital you can shoot till the cows come home.


As for the lens, you can pick that up later. Start a lens fund. Right now the 24-70mm cost around $1200 used and $1700 new. That $50 a month for 2yrs. In that two year period, rent one whenever you shoot at a wedding. A three day rental is like $80 from lensrental.com Also, for holidays and birthdays ask your friends and family for money or gift cards to B&H photo to help you get the 24-70mm f/2.8. I love using this lens and if you shoot a lot in low light, get one.