| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/13/2014 02:12:35 AM · #1 |
|
|
|
09/13/2014 02:14:58 AM · #2 |
| You just want that in your hands ..dont you:) |
|
|
|
09/13/2014 02:20:05 AM · #3 |
Not that I need another camera, but if I were to go FF, this looks like the one I'd get.
It doesn't seem like there will be a next iteration of a D300/300s... |
|
|
|
09/13/2014 10:19:20 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Leo:
Not that I need another camera, but if I were to go FF, this looks like the one I'd get.
It doesn't seem like there will be a next iteration of a D300/300s... |
The D7100 is the replacement for the D300s...
If I had that kind of money to blow, I'd jump all over this... |
|
|
|
09/13/2014 10:43:16 AM · #5 |
| Wish they would have came out with this a few months earlier. It would have saved me money. |
|
|
|
09/13/2014 11:33:26 AM · #6 |
This is everything the D610 should have been had it not come out on the heals of the D600 shutter debacle. In fact, I suspect the D750 was originally going to be the "D610",given the similarities, but Nikon had to jump too quickly to quell the unrest. Here's a great side-by-side with the D610...
//photographylife.com/nikon-d750-vs-d610
Having the D610 I'm not overtly tempted, but if I was moving up to full frame or looking to add a second FX body I'd be all over this. Focus system and one-click 100% zoom is enough for me. I could live without the articulating screen, and almost don't want it (as long as it stays firmly locking in place until needed I'm fine). The only thing I haven't heard firm confirmation on is the buffer size. Not that the D610 is bad, but I'd love to have 20 shots in there before it chokes.
Message edited by author 2014-09-13 11:34:37. |
|
|
|
09/13/2014 12:05:59 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by ShaneBlake:
Originally posted by Leo:
Not that I need another camera, but if I were to go FF, this looks like the one I'd get.
It doesn't seem like there will be a next iteration of a D300/300s... |
The D7100 is the replacement for the D300s...
|
It isn't, though. The D300 was a just about perfect wildlife camera. The D7100 is missing the professional build quality and controls, and the deep buffer. If Nikon were to build a true D300 replacement, I'd still be all over it. |
|
|
|
09/13/2014 12:12:12 PM · #8 |
^^ what  Ann said. |
|
|
|
09/13/2014 08:26:43 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Leo:
^^ what Ann said. |
It would seem that the D750 is pretty much that. It has approximately the same pixel density as the D300s, you just get the whole 35mm frame instead of the APS-C Crop. With a more modern sensor, the results should be leaps and bounds beyond the D300 in many respects. The only thing not improved is the pixel density. |
|
|
|
09/13/2014 09:03:38 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Leo:
^^ what Ann said. |
It would seem that the D750 is pretty much that. It has approximately the same pixel density as the D300s, you just get the whole 35mm frame instead of the APS-C Crop. With a more modern sensor, the results should be leaps and bounds beyond the D300 in many respects. The only thing not improved is the pixel density. |
Yes, but a wildlife camera? APS-C is more suitable because you get that extra crop factor in your zoom. Not a wildlife photographer, but from what I read, anyway, the crops work better for them.
However, it solves one of the worst D600 flaws: the tiny focus matrix area in the center of the frame.
I'd buy one, but I'm convinced mirrorless is the future (for both travel size and the EVFs, which are very good already and I prefer them). I haven't found one that can replace dSLRs yet in terms of body, IQ, and lenses, but they're getting closer!
|
|
|
|
09/14/2014 12:37:23 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Leo:
^^ what Ann said. |
It would seem that the D750 is pretty much that. It has approximately the same pixel density as the D300s, you just get the whole 35mm frame instead of the APS-C Crop. With a more modern sensor, the results should be leaps and bounds beyond the D300 in many respects. The only thing not improved is the pixel density. |
Neil is correct. FF isn't all that useful for wildlife. With an APS-C sensor, a 70-300 is a useful lens for wildlife, and 80-400mm is useful for birds. On a FF sensor, you either need expensive and heavy exotics, or you're doing a lot of cropping. If the pixel density of the D750 is the same as the D300, it isn't all that useful for wildlife.
We used the D300 in Alaska. It's still a really nice camera, despite the age of the thing. A D300 with a modern sensor would be a very cool camera indeed. |
|
|
|
09/15/2014 10:22:14 AM · #12 |
So, apparently this is the D300 upgrade.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2014 05:53:39 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Ann:
So, apparently this is the D300 upgrade. |
+1
Maybe this will make Nikon wake up from its "DX Lethargy" and offer something similar soon... [crosses his fingers]
Message edited by author 2014-09-16 17:54:06. |
|
|
|
09/25/2014 07:56:22 PM · #14 |
An article from Nikon Rumors in case anyone is interested...
D750 uses unsecured wifi... |
|
|
|
09/25/2014 08:09:21 PM · #15 |
| I suppose that would be a problem on a studio shoot with high profile subjects. |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 01:11:58 AM · #16 |
| The Nikon 1 V3 I just got uses the same unsecured Wi-Fi with the same app as well. I suspect the Wi-Fi on all Nikon cameras (at least the few that have Wi-Fi) is exactly the same. The Wi-Fi is turned off by default, so it's not a huge problem. But still... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:26:53 AM EDT.
