D750 vs 5d3 sample test in a review???

Canon_Lover wrote in post #17235545
Not true. I like the viewfinder shooting ergonomics of Nikons. Add the low ISO ability and it would be a dream for outdoor wedding shots in high contrast scenes. I also think the tilt screen is also a huge plus for weddings/events. I'm 6'4" and still need to hold the camera over my head at certain times.

I no longer shooting weddings, so my needs are soley based on landscapes. Landscape photography is ironically the last place low ISO DR is needed if you use simple and solid techniques.

Huh, low ISO DR is one of the most important aspects of landscape photography.

Brexxi wrote in post #17235339
Weddings require more low-light performance. Why would you choose Nikon over Canon for it? The Nikons are supposed to have worse high-ISOs.

Not anymore. In fact the D750 is amazing clean at high iso values...in the range of the 6D type of clean.

CanonVsNikon wrote in post #17235585
Huh, low ISO DR is one of the most important aspects of landscape photography.

Let me clarify that. Dynamic range is important for landscapes. No doubt. But having that DR is a single shot at low ISO isn't important with the current Canon cameras.

I'm seeing a gross level of misinformation when it comes to exmor and the supposed need for landscapes. If you have stuff moving in your frame, you are going to need a higher ISO of 400 or more to stop motion when the lens is stopped down to f8+. All current sensors are about equal in DR from 400 and up.

If you don't have things moving that need to be stopped in motion, then there is plenty of time to bracket shots.

If you want to be lazy and not do extra work, then the low ISO dynamic range isn't available to you anyway because it takes extra work in post processing to make use of it. Landscape photography requires hard work on all fronts to get great results and no current technology offers a shortcut to getting high end results.

One of the funniest things I have seen is one of our resident Canon bashers who used to chime in on every thread saying DR was crippling his landscape ability. His landscapes are really nice! But they are all static scenes that could be captured with bracketing with no problems. He still produces great images but they are not better.

---------------

I will stop there as I do not wish to take the thread off topic too much.

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17235600
Not anymore. In fact the D750 is amazing clean at high iso values...in the range of the 6D type of clean.

Indeed, the D750 is really good, I'd say one of the best. But in fairness, its RAW files are not exactly the same pure RAW files as most other cameras', including Nikon's own FF bodies.

Nikon uses some clever tone curve trickery along with a little bit of noise reduction in RAW to achieve the excellent results. Why is that a problem, one might pose the question. Aren't we all after better results? Yes of course. But then when we compare RAW noise levels between the D750 and other FF bodies, we need to keep that in mind. It's not that the sensor has gone through a revolutionary redesign, it's just that Nikon started to slightly "cook" the D750 RAW files

But the bottom line is they do look good.

gabebalazs wrote in post #17235619
Indeed, the D750 is really good, I'd say one of the best. But in fairness, its RAW files are not exactly the same pure RAW files as most other cameras', including Nikon's own FF bodies.

Nikon uses some clever tone curve trickery along with a little bit of noise reduction in RAW to achieve the excellent results. Why is that a problem, one might pose the question. Aren't we all after better results? Yes of course. But then when we compare RAW noise levels between the D750 and other FF bodies, we need to keep that in mind. It's not that the sensor has gone through a revolutionary redesign, it's just that Nikon started to slightly "cook" the D750 RAW files

But the bottom line is they do look good.

Is that right?!?!? So the RAW files aren't really raw? I wonder how that will affect PP?

gabebalazs wrote in post #17235619
Indeed, the D750 is really good, I'd say one of the best. But in fairness, its RAW files are not exactly the same pure RAW files as most other cameras', including Nikon's own FF bodies.

Nikon uses some clever tone curve trickery along with a little bit of noise reduction in RAW to achieve the excellent results. Why is that a problem, one might pose the question. Aren't we all after better results? Yes of course. But then when we compare RAW noise levels between the D750 and other FF bodies, we need to keep that in mind. It's not that the sensor has gone through a revolutionary redesign, it's just that Nikon started to slightly "cook" the D750 RAW files

But the bottom line is they do look good.

Trickery? So Canon doesn't do the same thing with their sensors?

Canon_Lover wrote in post #17235617
Let me clarify that. Dynamic range is important for landscapes. No doubt. But having that DR is a single shot at low ISO isn't important with the current Canon cameras.

I'm seeing a gross level of misinformation when it comes to exmor and the supposed need for landscapes. If you have stuff moving in your frame, you are going to need a higher ISO of 400 or more to stop motion when the lens is stopped down to f8+. All current sensors are about equal in DR from 400 and up.

If you don't have things moving that need to be stopped in motion, then there is plenty of time to bracket shots.

If you want to be lazy and not do extra work, then the low ISO dynamic range isn't available to you anyway because it takes extra work in post processing to make use of it. Landscape photography requires hard work on all fronts to get great results and no current technology offers a shortcut to getting high end results.

One of the funniest things I have seen is one of our resident Canon bashers who used to chime in on every thread saying DR was crippling his landscape ability. His landscapes are really nice! But they are all static scenes that could be captured with bracketing with no problems. He still produces great images but they are not better.

---------------

I will stop there as I do not wish to take the thread off topic too much.

these two images taken within 4 minutes of each other

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pNC9​SP

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pxNk​ak

jdizzle wrote in post #17235637
Trickery? So Canon doesn't do the same thing with their sensors?

I was bout to say the same thing. My 6D was older tech but they somehow massaged some great high ISO from it!

If for whatever reason I end up switching system in the near future, I am going to give the D750 a really good look. Such an amazing machine for the price. I also like the fact that Nikon full frame cameras allow APS-C lenses to be mounted. I don't need a honking full frame telephoto for backcountry landscape work.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17235461
Per the DPReview studio review tool... I think the Sony sensor has the edge at the low ISO noise floor, but doesn't have any advantage really at the high end of the spectrum.

2nd set is via the "print" option on the DP review studio tool.

Throw in the D4s and A7 for a comparison.

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17235600
Not anymore. In fact the D750 is amazing clean at high iso values...in the range of the 6D type of clean.

The D750 is cleaner than the 6D at high ISO's, 12,800 vs 12,800, by about a 1/2 of a stop; the higher you increase the ISO, the larger the difference. Of course after post-processing and printing, that high ISO difference lessens.

I sold my 6D and 70D plus some L-glass around a month ago with no regrets. The D750 is a very solid upgrade for me compared to the 6D in every conceivable aspect; except that the the 6D has a quieter shutter and both camera's share the 1/4000 max shutter speed limitation.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #17235649
I was bout to say the same thing. My 6D was older tech but they somehow massaged some great high ISO from it!

If for whatever reason I end up switching system in the near future, I am going to give the D750 a really good look. Such an amazing machine for the price. I also like the fact that Nikon full frame cameras allow APS-C lenses to be mounted. I don't need a honking full frame telephoto for backcountry landscape work.

Well, you can pick either system and shoot low light to your hearts content. I remember when most would moan about a clean 1600-3200 back in the day.


Hehe! You'll enjoy the D750. It runs cirles around my D600.

jdizzle wrote in post #17235637
Trickery? So Canon doesn't do the same thing with their sensors?

No one has mentioned that before, no one has found that to be the case.
No has has mentioned Nikon doing that with their other FF bodies (D610, D810, Df, D4s, etc.) until the D750 RAW files appeared, which look significantly different from the practically same sensor other FF Nikons.

I posted links on the earlier pages.

But regardless, the D750 looks great. I know some call it crippled because of the 1/4000 max SS, but the same people called my 6D crippled for that same reason and it never caused me any problems. (I presume some people probably shoot f/1.2 under noon sun, so they were probably limited by the 1/4000.)

JBlake wrote in post #17235654
The D750 is cleaner than the 6D at high ISO's, 12,800 vs 12,800, by about a 1/2 of a stop; the higher you increase the ISO, the larger the difference. Of course after post-processing and printing, that high ISO difference lessens.

I sold my 6D and 70D plus some L-glass around a month ago with no regrets. The D750 is a very solid upgrade for me compared to the 6D in every conceivable aspect; except that the the 6D has a quieter shutter and both camera's share the 1/4000 max shutter speed limitation.

Thanks for the info. I'll probably be following your footsteps as soon as I can sell a trumpet. Although I'm not thrilled with 1/4000 SS.

Do you have any lens recommendations that works well with it? Have you done any birds/action shots with it? I understand that it has nikon's best AF system.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #17235649
I was bout to say the same thing. My 6D was older tech but they somehow massaged some great high ISO from it!

If for whatever reason I end up switching system in the near future, I am going to give the D750 a really good look. Such an amazing machine for the price. I also like the fact that Nikon full frame cameras allow APS-C lenses to be mounted. I don't need a honking full frame telephoto for backcountry landscape work.

Yeah, but the 6D had a unique sensor, no other Canon body has it, so it's not like they "massaged" the 5DIII's sensor via electronic ways into producing better high ISO RAWs.
However, the D750's sensor (supposedly) is virtually the same as a few other Nikon and Sony bodies still outperforms all of them at high ISOs.

But who knows, I'm not that into Nikon's trade secrets

Charlie wrote in post #17235642
these two images taken within 4 minutes of each other

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pNC9​SP Cabrillo Pier 1 by charlie617, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pxNk​ak Cabrillo Pier 2 by charlie617, on Flickr

I dont have time for brackets, and at 100%, the water is a bit dirty from shadow and exposure pulling. Not completely happy with the first shot, the lighting could have been better, but time is not an unlimited resource for landscape photos.

I can fully understand if people are not personally able to make the captures they need for a good final result. If you are taking 60 second exposures and moving your location every shot, then single shots is probably your only option. If you don't mind the extra work it takes on the computer then your specific needs and skill set are met with exmor below ISO 400.

I personally have plenty of methods for dealing with long exposures and dynamic range. I also rarely move locations as I know the shot I want way before time to shoot it, especially with long exposures.

I just wish to caution people who want to move to exmor, that there is no free lunch. You have to put the work in for great results.

Edit: The quality of both of those shots would look great in print! A lot of the blotching and posterization you see on screen does not show in print. I would even darken the shadows a bit to add depth and a little mystery.