Friday, May 15, 2015

Nikon D7200 vs Nikon D750: Full frame vs Crop Guide, 2015

Left: Nikon D750     Right: D7200

DX versus FX, crop vs full frame: it's a question that's been on many shooter's minds since the dawn of the so-called "affordable" full frame era. It's a false dichotomy, really. There's no question that full frame is better but the dilemma for many is whether or the cost can be justified. If you are being paid to do photography, even if it's the odd weekend wedding gig, then the answer is easier to arrive at: go with full frame, because that is where most of the competition is already at.

For the non-professional shooter, Nikon has moved the goalposts since the D7100/D6100 era. The D7200 and the D750 are both extremely capable cameras, but the value proposition has been altered somewhat. The D600 (and D610) were designed to be extremely easily "step-up" solutions for DX users: they were more or less the same camera, but with upgraded sensors. Comparatively, the D750 is more when compared to the D7200.

  • Comparatively slimmer body
  • Group Area AF
  • Higher resolution exposure meter
  • Additional highlight priority spot metering
  • Power aperture control during video and live view

Because of these additions, the gap in price between the two tiers has increased. Ordinarily, this would discourage some shoppers from looking at the more expensive option, but the situation is made less clear by the apparent lack of interest Nikon has given the serious DX market in recent years.

Note: You can see a comparison of the D7100 vs D610 here. Things have moved on since then; it's no longer as simple a deliniation between enthusiast DX and FX like it was before.

High(er) ISO Image Quality


Ostensibly, image quality is the reason to step up to full frame, so we'll go straight to the good stuff. Given that a full frame sensor is 2.33x larger in area than an APS-C sensor, this implies that the individual photo-diodes are approximately twice as big. Naturally, the larger pixels of the D750 FX sensor will make for cleaner high ISO images, but the implied difference (twice the area, twice the light gathering ability) implies that the difference is roughly one EV. In years past, this was a big deal, but given the prevalence of image-stabilized lenses and successive generations of sensor improvements, this is no longer the outright advantage that it seems to be. The difference of one stop from ISO 3200 over ISO 1600 is now a modest improvement in real-world performance if you are talking about ISO 6400 FX vs ISO 3200 DX when shot through a stabilized lens.

The following is an ad hoc demonstration of each camera's default  JPEG output quality through a selected ISO range. Pay attention to the legibility of the soda bottles for detail retention (or lack thereof) as the ISO value rises, speckling in the broad colour patches for overall image noise, as well as the harshness of the reflections and shadows as dynamic range decreases. These samples are not directly comparable to similar samples found elsewhere in this blog because of variable ambient lighting conditions.

The test scene. The pop refrigerator is the ad hoc test target.

Both cameras were shot at f/5.6 to make the exposure values easier to understand; in other words, the nominal exposure figures are comparable, but the depth of field isn't equalized between the two cameras. This isn't crucial, as the test target is some distance away and the the target is flat. To make things even easier, each D7200 sample is paired with a D750 sample that is shot at one ISO level higher. (Other settings: ADL off, high ISO NR off, default picture control.) Click on images for 100% crop view.



That's fairly close, isn't it? Except for the fact that they are one ISO step apart, both cameras produce similar, but not identical output. The D7200 holds its own, showing the crispness of not having an anti-aliasing filter. The D750's bigger photodiodes produce a lot of edge acuity even with the low-pass filter that is integrated into its sensor. If anything, the texture of the D750 image noise has a slightly finer grain, but that's about it. If you need the advantage of an extra stop in terms of image noise and dynamic range, the D750 has it.... but if you aren't pushing the camera to the utmost limits, then you aren't missing as much as you would think if you go with the D7200.

Where the differences do show up is in the extremes of shooting, either fairly dark locations or scenes with extremes of light. The qualitative advantages of the D750 are small, but they do add up. As a rule of thumb; if you are presented with a single picture, 90% of the time you will likely not be able to tell which camera it came from. If you are presented pictures from both cameras, you will likely be able to see the difference, but you may not be wowed by it.

Lens Selection


The downside to the D7200 is the apparent lack of love that Nikon has been giving the DX system. This is an issue, but not a pertinent one. You can build a fairly high quality lens collection through careful selection on Nikon and third party lenses, with the only sore spot being the lack of quality primes for the often used 16mm and 24mm focal lengths. For outright quality, the lenses that are available for full frame are better than their crop-frame equivalents.

However, there is an advantage to the D7200 if reach is an importance. Paired with either the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm lenses, the DX camera makes for a more effect bird photography camera than the D750. As a general rule of thumbs, things that are far away also tend to be quick-moving as well. In this regards, the D7200 AF system, even though it is missing the Group Area mode of the d750, is quite up to the task of long-range photography. Except for the Canon 7D Mark II, there isn't a crop frame camera that has as good an AF system as the D7200.

If full frame isn't an immediate possibility there is always the option of gradually accumulating full frame lenses for a possible switch in the future. This strategy is sound but does have its downsides. The crop factor alters the working distance of lenses when they are used on DX; the 24-70mm f/2.8 general-purpose zoom becomes something of a 35-105mm "portrait-zoom plus a bit of wide angle". In other words, what was once a lens that was generally good for walk-around purposes on FX becomes something that you may have to change from time to time. For some lenses the inconvenience factor will come into play and for others it won't, but you are generally better off having gear that is suited to your current needs rather than having non-suited gear in anticipation of a day that may or may not come.

Diffraction and Perceived Lens Sharpness

At typical viewing sizes, resolution loss due to diffraction will start creeping into D750 shots around f/11. However, with the D7200 and its tighter pixel pitch, the onset of diffraction limitation begins at f/8.  Emphasis on the word "begin" as resolution doesn't drop off after the initial point of diffraction limitation... it's more a case that contrast begins to gradually decrease. What this means is that moirĂ© is only a potential problem for the D7200 below f/8. Most people don't expect moirĂ© to be a a big issue in everyday shooting, but it's likely that fashion photographers might have to deal with it (textiles and clothing) more so than others. Note that if you are a landscape aficionado the removal of the anti-aliasing filter isn't any help for small apertures and extended depth of field. Truth be told, as the megapixel counts have increased cameras have already already been using lighter filtration than cameras in the past. So diffraction-wise, the advantage goes to the D750; within it's aperture range you have a slightly wider latitude in depth of field before diffraction starts setting in.

Whatever advantages that the D7200 has in removing the low-pass filter are mitigated by the high pixel density of the sensor and the demands this places on the quality of the lenses being used. Even though full frame lenses are cheaper than DX lenses, the larger pixels of the D750 place "less of a burden" on the quality of the glass.

An Overlooked FX Lens Advantage

Another advantage of the FX over DX is that when both are set to produce the same depth of field, the FX camera will be using a lens one stop down. At close range, this is an advantage that is often over-looked. Imagine going for a trendy super-shallow depth of field shot with the D7200 and a 50mm f/1.4 lens. When shot wide open, fast primes have all sorts of optical flaws, though some would use the more flattery term "dreaminess" rather than "flawed." For the equivalent D750 image, an 85mm (because a 75mm doesn't exist) lens shot at f/2 would give the equivalent depth of field. The D750 image would be superior because stopped down, the FX lens would be operating in a more optimal portion of it's aperture range, meaning that even though both lenses would give similar looking out of focus backgrounds, the D750 and FX lens would be more contrasty and would suffer less from chromatic and spherical aberrations. 

Bokeh



Because lens optical performance is a complex topic, the objective description of such is beyond the scope of this blog. Though there are many aspects to quantify (resolving power, field curvature, distortion, aberrations, etc.), a general sense of a lens’ character can be determined without resorting to lab testing. The following is one aspect; bokeh and apparent background blur with the subject at short distances.  The following is the scene, a camera store with a busy background with the test target set approximately 2~3 feet in front of the camera. The D7200 is equipped with the AF-S 35mm f/1.8 G DX, whereas the the D750 has the AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G. Both are "normal" lenses; the 35mm DX will give a slightly higher amount of magnification than the 50mm under these conditions.

Test scene.

The crops are taken from the area just off to the left and back of the focus target, approximately seven feet behind the autofocus target.


Many things are going on here. Yes, the FX sensor of the D750 will give more background blur but the difference here is exaggerated by the harsher rendition that the 35mm DX gives in out of focus areas. You are going to get more foreground/background separation with full frame, but the difference will be subtle depending on your lens and focus distance. However, there is something that is visually nice about bokeh on a full frame camera compared to a crop frame camera; you can get more of the subject isolation at wider angles of view, and generally speaking, the higher quality of the FX lenses on FX bodies produces a softer quality to the blur. If we had replaced the 35mm DX with the more expensive and higher spec'd Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ART, the subjective difference between the two formats would be less pronounced.

Video




For videography, the D750 is the better choice by virtue of it's power aperture function. The D750 and D810, unlike the lower-tier Nikon bodies, are able to articulate the lens aperture during live view and video. This feature is absent on the D7200 because it involves extra components to make it work. Nevermind the fact that this is a simple task for the likes of a mirrorless camera like the Sony A7, the stratification of lens functionality is a by-product of the continued evolution of the Nikon F mount over many, many years.  Other tangible benefits of the D750 are the obvious inclusion of a tilt LCD display and the ability to shoot 60 fps video at the full field of view. The D7200 can manage 60 fps, but does so at a 1.3x crop factor.

The Hidden Cost of Depreciation


Based on previous dives into the U.S. used Nikon camera market, average depreciation in terms of asking prices for camera gear runs about 12-15% per calendar year. (The actual picture is much more complicated, as full frame cameras seem to depreciate more quickly in the early part of their lifecycle). Your mileage may vary depending on  how well you take care of your camera, but market forces will inevitably bring down the value of all used equipment. If you take a D7200 and a D750 in 2015, roughly half of the value will be gone within 4-5 years. Even if both cameras depreciate at the same rate, you will lose $500 more with the D750... on just the camera, not even counting the lenses.

This brings up an important point about financing a camera hobby. The cameras themselves are now fairly mature in technology, so there is the temptation to think of any camera that you buy now as "the last camera that you will ever need". While that may true, the inevitable fact is that there will be something else to tempt us down the line. If you had bought a D700 back when many people felt that full frame was finally in grasp, you would have had a great camera. It's still a good camera, and if you don't shoot professionally or don't do large prints, there's no reason to stop using it. However, the D700 is only 12mp, doesn't do video, has no WiFi.....

Concluding Thoughts


Unlike the D7000/D7100 and D600/D610 generations, the D750 is not the direct step-up alternative to the D7200. The D600 and D610 are almost exact FX replicates of the DX cameras, making them "easy choices" for users that were considering one format or the other. The D750 is more of a stretch, as it is better in almost every way over the D7200 (additional AF mode, higher resolution exposure meter and additional highlight priority exposure mode, flip screen and better video options, etc). There is a logic to doing it this way; because all cameras are extremely capable now, it is not merely enough to differentiate on sensor quality alone. In order to justify the higher price point, the D750 doesn't just enhance the "prosumer" DX experience into full frame; it extends it into new areas of functionality.

One analogy that is used frequently on this blog still applies to these two cameras. Moving up to full frame is like moving into a richer neighbourhood. Even if you get a good deal on the house, you will incur more costs due to putting your kids through private school and the cost of fancy cars and keeping up with the Joneses. The camera is the first expense; the lenses, larger bags and sturdier tripods are expenses that will come later. In that sense, the opportunity cost of owning an expensive FX camera but not being able to afford a wide lens selection is like being house-rich but income-poor.

There's no easy way to answer which is best for any given person, because circumstances vary. Choosing between the two is likely a decision about wants rather than needs; if it were the latter the decision would be arrived at easier and sooner. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as not all choices should be decided upon by cold hard logic. However, remember this point.... it's the job of all companies... camera or otherwise... to give you something that you will like but to make you desire that other shiny new thing that's just out of your reach....




With thanks to Broadway Camera


44 comments:

  1. One of the best FX vs DX commentaries I've read , thanks ....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Really helpful, thanks! I guess now it's time to use your excellent review and make a decision.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great review!... As already stated, probably the best FX\DX comparison around. Thank you.

    I owned the D750 but recently traded down to the D7200...

    Here's why:

    As you already explained in your article, I can't afford to buy new FX lenses. And for $600.00 less than the D750 I was able to get the D7200 with an 18-140 sharp lens... Also, the D7200 is a newer camera and thus embodies a higher proportion of newer (better) features (for it's level) than the D750 such as 1/8000 max shutter speed....And much of the two camera's features remain the same... I don't need aperture control while shooting movies. (Auto iso controls exposure just fine.) And I am not after something as advanced as depth of field control on the fly while making movies...Really, who is? ... And the articulating screen on the D750 is very stiff and awkward to use...I feel like I'm going to bend the arms which attach the lcd to the body every time I move it. And if the exposed ribbon cable ever breaks, goodbye screen.

    The differences are minor and not worth the extra $$ ... Today's APS-C sensors have all but caught up with full frame. The confusion is psychological and not technological... As you say, the differences are in the extremes, and really, who lives there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad to see you enjoying your choice. Just a sneak peak; next week I'll have a JPEG to JPEG comparo of the D7200 vs the Sony A7 Mark II... the D7200 is obviously not as good as the D750 in outright quality, but against the Sony.....

      Delete
  4. Fantastic review! Only yhing i found incorrect is to say that FX are cheaper than the DX counterparts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My point as well. The reason I stayed with DX ( d7200 and 16-80 ) is cost and just as important, weight.

      Delete
    2. Noticed that too that was a typo FX/DX!
      Otherwise, EXCELLENT article - the best on the subject I've come around.

      Delete
  5. Great review - I don't think you talk about focus point clustering. I'm still considering which camera to buy and one of the main reasons for a D7200 over a D750 is the better focus point coverage? OK you can focus and recompose but photographing kids and animals esp at large apartures doesn't really allow recomposing...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The D750 isn't bad. The spread is a tiny bit tighter than on the D810, but the outer points are still close to where the rule of thirds lines would be. In other words, if you need to track focus outside of the D750's area, then likely the composition wont be great. It is a bit nicer with wider spread on the D7200, but because the points cover a proportionally smaller area on the FX camera, motion tracking seems to be a little more reliable when you use the Group modes. Long story short: both will work but for different reasons.

      Delete
    2. True - looking again they are much the same and much better spread than the D610. Your "An Overlooked FX Lens Advantage" is a great section. I've been deliberating FX for a while and have mostly FX primes so the lens cost issue is less so for me now. However - looking through landscape pictures on flickr etc where even with the D750 most images are ISO 100 or way below 1000 and the quality difference is not noticeable. Portraits on flickr do seem to look better with the D750 than the D7200- but that maybe a case of users setting the portraits up more professionally. The fact that we normally pay more to have things small and light also makes me uneasy about an FX purchase although again the difference is less now with the D750. The build quality I have also heard less than favourable things about on the net for the D750. It's not really a clear cut decision at all! But again - thanks for the great writing.

      Delete
    3. Portraits will look better on the D750 because most portrait/event photographers are full frame shooters now, so there is also a higher skill level in terms of shooting discipline and lighting.

      Delete
    4. So you are agreeing with me that it's probably more user than camera for portraits and that it's possible to get as good portraits from the D7200?

      Delete
  6. Great review. I shoot a lot of video. How does the 750 in DX mode for video compare to the 7200 with the same DX lens in video?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I honestly have not had a chance to look at both side by side, but I would say that the results are similar at 1080p. It's nowhere near as crisp as from a GH4 or A7s if you are looking at fine/soft details, but otherwise perfectly usable.

    There are some practical limitations with the D7200, such as the lack of power aperture, and that you can only use 60 fps with the D7200 in 1.3x crop mode.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great review and I love the 'richer neighbourhood' analogy. To be honest I think I may go 7200 especially after reading Anonymous's trade down post.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Awesome review, after givin' a couple of minutes to this useful review I come to know that the Nikon D7200 looks more better than the Nikon D750 according to the given images comparison in this review, so I decided to buy a new Nikon D7200 with 18-140mm Lens which is being offered by TRD Electronics in just £ 755.00 and the Nikon D750 with 70-200mm Lens at £ 2320.00 there is a big difference in those both if we come to see price.
    So now my question is, if D7200 is better than D750 then why is it so cheap?
    or TRD Electronics isn't offering in real?
    What's the price in the market of a new one Nikon D7200?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I still shoot portraits (family) with my D7100. The reviews of my clients are good. Still no need to get the D750. I shoot with primelenses only.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As already said one of the best FX vs DX comparison I've ever read. Thanks a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So, we wait for the d400 then???

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, the very rich neighbourhood D500 has arrived......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's pretty bad for us; the CDN dollar is sliding into oblivion....

      Delete
  14. Hey guys, great thread. I am facing the same dilemma right now. I have a D3100 and am considering an upgrade. Currently it is D7100 vs D750. I do not shoot a lot on telephoto end but want to have a great range for landscapes and good enough mid range for general purposes, group photographs and portraits. My current system:
    D3100 + Kit lens + 35mm 1.8 + 55-300 mm DX.

    My upgrade options are (considering same budget):

    D7100 + Sigma 8-16 or Tokina 11-16 (for landscapes) + Sigma 18-35 F1.8 Art series

    Or

    D750 + 24-120 mm + 50 mm f1.8D

    Of course i would have to get 16-35 for landscapes later for FX. Still thinking.. Thread does help but I am still making up my mind :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As alluded to, the dilemma is usually about the finances, not the equipment. :)

      Is the D750 better? Oh yes. Does it get expensive? Quite a bit more. If its too much, my personal leaning is to the D7200... Nikon re tuned the sensor/processor enough that I feel that it is a worthwhile upgrade over the D7100.

      Delete
  15. any commit on jumping from a D70 to 750 or 7200?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty much everything is better no matter which way you go. Either way though, the D750 is a big jump in price. Even the D7200 is a quantum leap in ability.

      Delete
  16. I bought the D7200 with an 18-140 lens about 6 months ago. Great camera kit. Amazing modern features: improved low-light, buffer, autofocus, wifi, unusually sharp zoom lens... Having said that, I found myself wishing I had purchased the Full-frame D750. I thought about it a lot over that 6 month period, reading articles and and even trying one out...The background blur (especially using fast primes) and the quality of low-light shooting really sold me. The D750 has better metering, same awesome autofocus but with th addition of group area, tilt screen, faster shooting, and a choice of really excellent lenses...Speaking of lenses, I decided to sell my D7200 and lens and got $1100 for it...Since the prices have come down considerably on the D750, $1,195 here in Canada, I was able to combine this sale with my savings and purchase a D750 WITH a 50mm 1.8 ($195) and a 85mm 1.8 ($495)prime lenses!~

    So now I have a system which really amazes me every single time I press the shutter, every time I read a raving review, and every time I wonder if I should have bought something else...I immediately think to myself, nope, I am truly satisfied! (And that alone is worth the extra money.) :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. $1195? Lol, the retail landscape has gotten pretty aggressive lately in Canada.

      Delete
  17. Great article! I have read other DX vs FX ones and your down-to-earth analogies really are effective.

    A few years ago I sold my D7000 and DX lenses (18-200, and 40mm micro) and purchased a D610. I started collecting FX lenses (50mm 1.8D, 14-24, 28-300, and most recently 200-500 - all Nikon lenses). You are right - FX is usually higher cost, not just for the body! I updated to FX because I wanted to do more astrophotography and found although my D7000 was a great all around camera, the quality and lens selection was much better in FX. I have got some nice star shots especially with my 14-24. This past boxing day I purchased a D750 at a great price (CAN$2049). I found reviewing my star shots on my D610 difficult especially at low angle and having the camera always pointing up, so the flipping screen of the D750 was a big advantage. Also, I found I was getting more sensor noise and higher ISO noise with the D610 than I had anticipated. Reviews consistently rate the low light ability of the D750 as very high although I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet. Very pleased with the overall feel and handling of the D750 over my D610 and am extremely happy with it so far.

    Recently I purchased another DX camera - a D3300 with kit lens (18--55) to complement my D750. Why? I am doing a photo project where I take a picture a day for a year and wanted a camera that I could carry everywhere with me, that was small and light, and that wouldn't cost an arm and a leg to replace since it was a fraction of the cost of the D750 and my FX lenses. I have been extremely pleased with it as well considering it is the basic nikon DSLR with the kit lens. I love the collapsible lens. Photos are crisp, clear and sharp from it which has surprised me since it cost under CAN$500 at Amazon. I am even considering the collapsible 55-200 to complement it. Anyway, I feel I have the perfect system now. A full featured FX camera and lenses for my specialized projects and an everyday DX camera for daily shots of my kids and stuff that I can carry everywhere. Took me awhile to figure out my photo needs but now I feel I have it covered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel that the D3300 and the D5500 are woefully underrated. In some ways they are more capable than the mid-range mirrorless cameras, and practically speaking they aren't that much bigger.

      Delete
    2. I agree. When I was considering my PAD project I thought about a mirrorless camera but the cost of entry is higher and the lenses are different unless you buy an adapter. I wanted to spend the minimum amount but still have the flexibility to use existing lenses. The additional features the D5500 would give me are something I don't need for almost twice the price I paid for my D3300. The D3300 is a fantastic camera not only for beginners but for enthusiasts as well.

      Delete
    3. D5500/D5300 have some bonuses over D3300 that enthusiasts might appreciate: Bracketing (for HDR), instant HDR (for JPEG only), interval timer (for timelapse), exposure delay, 14bit RAW vs 12bit, in-camera multiple exposure, and D3300 has less options in quick access menu - "i button" (but you can access them from the main menu).
      But here's my story. When I bought D5300 I thought its features would be sufficient for my use and that I wouldn't be thinking of needing a new camera. But after two years, I'm so wanting to get D7200. I tend to change a lot of settings for different shooting scenarios and with D5xxx it's a pain. While D7200 has U1/U2 settings, two dials, more bracketing options, auto tune feature.... I feel my D5300 is holding me back sometimes as I often have to sift through the menu to change Fn button between bracket/ISO, turn on/off auto iso, change exposure compensation through the menu instead through the dials (manual mode in D5xxx doesn't have dedicated control for exposure comp.), having to control fill flash through the menu instead via dials, having to enable timer after each shot because it turns off automatically, having to set exposure delay mode through the menu, and so on.... I mean it's pure pain. But D5300 is an excellent camera for more casual use or for less demanding tasks. If you can fit your shooting style in the existing type of controls, a D5xxx model will also be great for you.

      Delete
  18. The ISO performance for D7200 is simply worse than the D750.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Good article and some good points. However, one thing that continually drives me crazy is comments about what a particular camera a pro photographer can or can't use. As if a D700 couldn't be used as a wedding (or pro) camera. I used a D700 exclusively while shooting weddings and even during commercial assignments, with pro results. One time I even had a second shooter use a D40 (circumstances dictated that scenario...equipment malfunction) and the results were awesome. Yes, a good camera matters, but it's "the photographer skills" that make up what works and what doesn't. I'd have NO issue using either the D7200 nor the D750 for pro work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's absolutely true, but time does move on. Eventually the 5DmII's and D700's will have to be replaced, but they way they structure the product lineups it virtually forces you to get the default "pro" model if you want the features/dependability... the camera companies do that by design. I had a coworker that I ribbed endlessly for looking for a D3x because that was what he was used to back in the day... 90% of what he does now the D3300 could do at the same resolution.

      Delete
  20. the bokeh is the same provided they have similar aperture lens, namely 7200 with 1.8 aperture lens will have the same bokeh as 750 with 2.8 aperture lens

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mostly true... the *depth of field* will be the same but the bokeh will not be. Bokeh is the quality of the out-of-focus rendition, not the amount. The 35DX has nasty bokeh at f/1.8, very harsh and fringey (but hey, the price.) The other reason as I mentioned is tha the D750 with the 50mm will be at f/2.8 vs f/1.8 on the DX system, meaning that the lens is shooting at a more optimal aperture, so things like vignetting clean up a bit, and the overall resolution goes up.

      Delete
  21. Nice review. Two small points. 1) the 7200 and 750 weigh almost the same, so the weight is not a factor in this case, if you use same lenses, 2) the comparison between cameras while also substituting DX for FX lenses is a bit of a penalty on the camera rating since the FX lenses tend to be higher quality. But I understand the point of doing that. Just that it introduces some bias.

    I still cannot decide if my second camera should be another 7200 (already have one) or a 750. Money is not a barrier, but I want to be practical about "need". The two things that tempt me to the 750 are promise of better low light shooting and the ability to get more in the frame from the same lens in an indoor close quarters setting. I already have FX lenses, but also have a couple of DX that would only work on the 7200 and would need an FX substitute (Tamron 17-50 2.8 would probably be augmented with a 24-70 FX).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right, for most people FX is more about wants than needs; that is why so many people struggle with the question. I find that I'm perfectly happy with my 17-50mm, which makes it hard to move off of DX. (Basically, my preferred setup would be a D750 and the Tamron 24-70... I only shoot for myself and the Nikon 24-70's are definitely not "casual" )... yes it is better, for 80% of my own personal shooting it's more weight and more money for almost the same field of view and image quality (baring high ISO.) I find that the things that would really tempt me to go up to the D750 are things like Group Area Focus and the better exposure meter.... the low light noise is a bonus, but to be perfectly honest the D7200 overachieves in low light quality, it was fairly ahead of its time when it was introduced. Also the ability to use some key lenses (for me) like the AF-S 20mm and the sigma 35 ART at their FX focal lengths is a big plus for FX.

      It's been hard(ish) this summer with the D750; that and a lot of other cameras were affected by the sensor shortage (or whatever is ailing Nikon in general). Even if it gets superceded by a Photokina announcement it should last anybody for many good years to come.

      Delete
  22. Using both cameras for last few days..feel d7200 gives sharper images over all..and d750 little better when same settings at low light..for background blur d750 slightly better..but 7200 equally good..I would keep d7200 and invest in lens better

    ReplyDelete
  23. Curious...doesn't the d750 have a crop mode that will give you more reach? Wouldn't this be the "best of both worlds", so to say?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, if you only had DX lenses you could use it in a pinch, but it will crop to something like 10mp, it's an expensive way to do it when you could have a D7200 for 1/2 the cost.

      Delete
  24. I've been set on buying the Nikon D750 with the 24-120mm lens (which I can buy for $1950), but recently after reading reviews on both of these cameras, I'm begining to think that I just "want" the Nikon D750. I don't think I really need a full-frame camera. As of now, I only shoot as an enthusiast, but I plan on shooting weddings in the near future. The price isn't really a barrier, it's just that I could buy other lenses for the price difference...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I were a betting person, I would guess that there might be another crack at deeply discounted D750's late spring, though who knows what stock might be like in this topsy-turvy environment. It will only get more expensive if there is a replacement, as new models usually mean a price re-set.

      Delete
  25. Thanks. My election is Nikon D7200 + sigma 18-35 1.8 + sigma 50-100 1.8

    ReplyDelete