Now I'm just bragging! (D750)

[JDDavis]

I was going through some recent pics and I was just thoroughly impressed with the IQ on the D750 and I thought I'd share. Now I know that many other camera/lens combos can produce these results as well but being a new convert to FX....I'm a little excited, so forgive me.

Granted this shot was taken in just about perfect late morning light with the D750 and a 50mm f/1.8 so I should expect really good results. The first file is the original with no edits (opened and exported in C1 Pro) and the second is a crop down to 1:1 (or 100%...however you explain it). I was just really impressed with how good the gigantic crop was with no editing (other than the crop). I guess I'm just providing it for posterity if anyone is on the fence about the D750 or the mighty 50 f/1.8.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Glad to hear it! I ordered mine Monday. Should be delivered with the 105mm Macro lens this week. Looking forward to FF body to take advantage of all my FF glass!

 

[simonsi]

Ace! Loved that lens when I had one, now have the 50/1.4

 

[Meister]

Amazing! D750 and 50mm 1.8g - an awesome combo!

 

[tomnavratil]

Looks great! I currently own D610 but D750 might be next body! Thanks for sharing

 

[JDDavis]

For $200 I'm a 50 1.8g fan for life. It might seem counterintuitive to put a $200 lens on a $2000 body but it works. The 50 1.8 was great on my D90 (at 75mm, though) but on the D750 it really smokes.

 

[mofunk]

Nice to know. Great capture of the action.

 

[Traverse]

I've found Nikon to make excellent products (I love my D3300)

I don't really understand why Cannon seems to be the standard and Nikon the underdog in so many circles.


EDIT: I will add that I don't care for how Nikon uses proprietary RAW files instead of regular .raw, but maybe there's a benefit to it?

 

[beavo451]

EDIT: I will add that I don't care for how Nikon uses proprietary RAW files instead of regular .raw, but maybe there's a benefit to it?

What? Every camera manufacturer has their own RAW file format. Panasonic and Leica are the only ones that I know of that actually use the .raw extension.

 

[Traverse]

What? Every camera manufacturer has their own RAW file format. Panasonic and Leica are the only ones that I know of that actually use the .raw extension.

My friend's entry level Cannon DSLR shoots .raw

 

[maflynn]

EDIT: I will add that I don't care for how Nikon uses proprietary RAW files instead of regular .raw, but maybe there's a benefit to it?

All camera makers use proprietary RAW formats, That's why Adobe tried (and continues to try) to get everyone to use DNG, so that there is a single cross platform format

 

[The Bad Guy]

I don't really understand why Cannon seems to be the standard and Nikon the underdog in so many circles.

Pros for Canon:
Sports shooters, photo journalism (maybe wildlife shooting?): better AF and burst rate.
Portrait shooters: better skin tones.

As far as I'm aware Nikon does the rest better.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Pros for Canon:
Sports shooters, photo journalism (maybe wildlife shooting?): better AF and burst rate.
Portrait shooters: better skin tones.

As far as I'm aware Nikon does the rest better.

I think this thread is going the way of a few others. Nikon vs Cannon.

Truth is it's the guy behind the camera that makes the difference. The body and lens less so. They are just tools. You might prefer one over the other.

 

[mofunk]

I've found Nikon to make excellent products (I love my D3300)

I don't really understand why Cannon seems to be the standard and Nikon the underdog in so many circles.


EDIT: I will add that I don't care for how Nikon uses proprietary RAW files instead of regular .raw, but maybe there's a benefit to it?

I went to my local camera shop once and asked why they had more Canon gear than Nikon… Their reason was that Canon was more widely used in the newspapers. Now I don't think its more so a standard but what people prefer. If you can shoot with any camera you pick the one that fits your needs. (what Apple Fanboy said)..


(back to the topic)

I like how the colors are in the OP photo. You can even see the detail in the faces even when they were moving.

 

[JDDavis]

I like how the colors are in the OP photo. You can even see the detail in the faces even when they were moving.

I was pretty pleased with the level of detail. That crop probably can't be printed much larger than it actually is on the screen and I wouldn't make a habit of doing giant crops off a 50mm (I'd rather have had a 300mm prime) but it was just for an example.

I'm 100% in agreement on "it's not the gear but the person behind the gear" but moving from the D90 and Aperture to the D750 and Capture 1 Pro has been eye opening. I still like the D90 and Aperture but at this point I couldn't go back. The 750 and C1 Pro won't make me a better photographer but it will allow me to do more with what I got.

 

[Fishrrman]

The Bad Guy wrote above:
[[ Pros for Canon:
Sports shooters, photo journalism (maybe wildlife shooting?): better AF and burst rate.
Portrait shooters: better skin tones. ]]

Which Canon model would be the rough equivalent to the D750?

My main interest is small-venue acoustic music photography, in both daylight and evening/night low-light situations. Mostly folk and bluegrass festivals, where the lighting at night isn't anywhere near that of "big-venue" high-buck shows.

In some ways, I sense that photographing musicians is congruent to sports photography, in that it's difficult to capture the performer at the most complimentary moment, unless going to multiple-frame shots. I've even thought of 4k video (which yields an image of around 8megapixels, right?), and then carefully sorting through the frames for the best "poses"...

The other camera that interests me would be the SONY A7s (lower number of pixels but supposedly excellent low-light performance, also good 4k video)...

 

[phrehdd]

I was pretty pleased with the level of detail. That crop probably can't be printed much larger than it actually is on the screen and I wouldn't make a habit of doing giant crops off a 50mm (I'd rather have had a 300mm prime) but it was just for an example.

I'm 100% in agreement on "it's not the gear but the person behind the gear" but moving from the D90 and Aperture to the D750 and Capture 1 Pro has been eye opening. I still like the D90 and Aperture but at this point I couldn't go back. The 750 and C1 Pro won't make me a better photographer but it will allow me to do more with what I got.

I think it is often a combination of the "eye" and the equipment. Capturing an image is one thing but rendering it is another. Unlike film cameras, part of the "rendering" is done within the camera itself. - In essence the camera/lens does make a difference (depending on what you are trying to accomplish).

Btw, thanks for sharing your image and the crop from the image. Glad your camera gives you the confidence to think more about imaging and not worry about the hardware.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

Unlike film cameras, part of the "rendering" is done within the camera itself. -

Glad to know that my Agfa Clack doesn't render any differently from my Mamiyas....

 

[Attonine]

Pros for Canon:
Sports shooters, photo journalism (maybe wildlife shooting?): better AF and burst rate.
Portrait shooters: better skin tones.

As far as I'm aware Nikon does the rest better.

I don't know if you can break it down this simply (and I don't agree with your breakdown, there are a heck of a lot of photojournalist who use Nikon!). I think the trends are also geographical. In some countries you will find Canon far more popular, in others Nikon.

 

[simonsi]

Truth is it's the guy behind the camera that makes the difference. The body and lens less so. They are just tools. You might prefer one over the other.

Yep, I choose Nikon because the ergonomics suit me. I'd rather have (as a hobby), a tool I enjoy using. The Nikon vs Canon image quality debate is pointless and circular.

 

[The Bad Guy]

I think this thread is going the way of a few others. Nikon vs Cannon.

Truth is it's the guy behind the camera that makes the difference. The body and lens less so. They are just tools. You might prefer one over the other.

I'm confident I've been around here long enough for folks to know I'm not a fanboy of anything. As a matter of fact, my comment was a compliment to Nikon...a brand I don't use. Their DR is better than Canon's.

Which Canon model would be the rough equivalent to the D750?

Not sure there is one at the moment to be honest.

I don't know if you can break it down this simply (and I don't agree with your breakdown, there are a heck of a lot of photojournalist who use Nikon!). I think the trends are also geographical. In some countries you will find Canon far more popular, in others Nikon.

I can and I did. You can disagree all you like. Nothing touches the 1Dx in those respective fields and that's why they are used.

 

[dimme]

Well I just had to jump in.
I bought my first SLR in the late 1970's it was a minolta, after about 4 years I started working in the photo finishing industry in a high end pro lab. Everyone used Nikons then, and for me it was time to upgrade so I started investing I Nikon lenses and bought a F3 and FM. Fast forward to today, the bodies have changed but I still use some of those lenses, amazing image quality and control, of course they are all manual focus. I only own a few modern Nikon lenses so I'm not a expert when it comes to newer lenses. But when I made my choice years ago Nikon lenses were buy far the best, not only in front of the camera but on enlargers, dupe cameras and copy equipment.

 

[AppleHater]

I definitely appreciate the new headroom that I got by switching to D750 from D700 when it comes to cropping. When I feel lazy and taking not so critical photos, I can just use wider lens and crop it later instead of switching lens.

 

[beavo451]

My friend's entry level Cannon DSLR shoots .raw

No it doesn't. Canon's raw file extension is .cr2

 

[Traverse]

No it doesn't. Canon's raw file extension is .cr2

Oh. She said .raw, but Ive never used it.