NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Roland Vink on August 21, 2016, 10:40:19
-
I hope you don't mind me asking a silly question. On my camera page (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/camera.html) I listed the D750 with other Mid-range/Enthusiast cameras like the D6xx and D7xxx models, mainly due to the similar interface such as U1 and U2 custom settings and the presence of scene modes.
I received some emails from a photographer who felt quite strongly that the D750 should be listed as an Advanced/Semi-Pro camera due to its more capable processor, AF system and tilting LCD. I still feel the D750 has more in common with the other mid-range cameras, and does not fit so easily with models such as the D700, D8xx and D500, but on the other hand, it is used by a lot of professionals.
Oh, and he also suggested that I should put the latest cameras at the top of each section instead of the bottom. I can see some merit in this, but my lens page has the newest at the bottom and l like to keep things consistent.
In the end a camera is a camera and it shouldn't matter where it sits in my chart, the specs should stand on their own merits, but I do try to make my pages as useful as possible. Your thoughts?
-
I think your setup is very logical, Roland.
Basically the D750 is the same as the D600-610.
-
Completely agree with John.
Roland, your layout is logical. Do keep up the good work.
-
"In the end a camera is a camera "
Technology changes so fast - you get better quality now with mid range cameras than you did with the pro bodies a couple of years back - so yes - the D750 is high on the list - as will be the D500 for pro togs. And in 2 years that picture will change. Maybe its not worth categorising them at all - in the end - a camera is a camera. Ego's are something different of course.
-
The D750 if used by "Pros" does not mean it is a Pro camera.
The new listing for Professional DSLRS is now: D5 - D810 - D810A
The D500 - Df - D610 - D7200 and the D750 are listed as:Enthusiast DSLRS
You are to correct in applying Nikon official product classification.
-
I am fine with your current catagorization scheme. The lines between the categories are blurred in actual use, but having the categories keeps the listings from being blurred.
-
Regardless of who uses what I would prefer having websites like yours adhere to the manufacturers categorisation to prevent confusion further down the road.
I am absolutely certain that a professional photographer will be able to make a better ... let me rephrase...
That a (talented) professional photographer will consistently make better pictures with an entry level camera then an entry level photographer can consistently produce with a professional level camera.
As Elsa said, a camera is a camera is a camera. It's an imaging tool and using tools proficiently requires 10% natural aptitude, 10% talent and 80% experience obtained through practice. When entry level photographers want to hear they own a "pro" camera, then that is purely because they want a shortcut for those 80% and 10+ years of practice.
-
I suppose going with Nikon's own classification makes sense as your are cataloguing their products.
-
I guess that the guy who sent the email to you is a bit upset because you categorized his PROUD purchase as MID RANGE.
At first, I thought "entry level", "mid range" and "flagship" are simpler and "safer" categorization to avoid any "emotional" problem (LOL). But, considering that the lifetime of digital cameras are much shorter than that of film cameras, these three categories would contain too many entries in the very near future and difficult to search.
In short, I would support your current listing.
-
I guess that the guy who sent the email to you is a bit upset because you categorized his PROUD purchase as MID RANGE.
Akira, I think you hit the nail on the head!
Many thanks to all who responded, it is good to have feedback whether my list is working or not; either way helps me to improve it. However for now, I am happy with the five categories. If anyone has any suggestions or new information, please let me know.
I probably should add the processor (EXPEED #) and the AF module (CAM ##) to the specs ...
-
Roland,
Your chart looks fine to me. The D750 is a very capable camera but it is very similar to the D600 and D610 so I'd leave it where it is. Anyway you can't please every one so I'd stay with Nikon category.
New on top/bottom? I'd keep it as is for consultancy with the lens pages.
Looks good to me. You site is a great reference I use often. Thank you?
Dave
----
Yes, I'd add the image processor and AF module.
-
I suppose going with Nikon's own classification makes sense as your are cataloguing their products.
I don't use Nikon's classification ... do they even have one apart from "pro" and everthing else?
I based my classification roughly on the one used by Wikepedia (go to any Nikon DSLR and expand the timeline section), although I merged their "high-end" and "advanced" sections. I noticed they put the D750 in the Advanced section, maybe that's why my emailer was upset?
-
I noticed somewhere that Nikon USA placed the D800 lower than the D810. ?? If memory serves me the D800 was listed as an Enthusiast camera.
-
A camera is a tool. Professionals generally like to use reliable tools, but their skill level can make use of lesser tools due to reasons like the fact that the wonderful 24-Megapixel sensor featured in the D600/610/750 cannot be had in a "professional" package. I consider this a big mistake by Nikon, because they could have sold tons of these.
I measure the reliability be reproducible results:
F4s, FM-2 ... nearly perfect
F100 ... a little less perfect but very near
D3 ... nearly perfect
D800E, D810, D500 ... a little less perfect but very near
D70, D600 ... with some practice one can get reproducible results from these but they are no reliable tools out of the box like the cameras mentioned above; I would sure put the D750 into that category.
PS: The selection above is cameras I extensively personally.
-
Frank, as somebody who has never been fortunate enough to have used any of the cameras you list as being nearly perfect, please can you explain what you mean?
Are you saying that the exposure or AF systems in the lesser cameras are inaccurate (or at least less accurate) under certain conditions, where the better cameras aren't?
-
The flagship cameras, or the PRO Nikon cameras are the single digit cameras, and I believe that we don't have a query there. (From D3 onward.)
Now, where does the D750 belong?
I agree with other posts that Nikon official categorization should be followed.
If you were to become a Nikon Professional Photographer and become a member of Nikon Professional Services, you would need to have at least two Nikon camera bodies, of which at least one camera body from group 1!
Group 1:
D3, D3S, D3X, D4, D4S, D5, D800, D800E, D810, D750, D500
Group 2:
D700, D610, D300S, D7100, D7200, Df
In other words, if you own a D750 and a D7200, you could apply to Nikon for NPS membership.
Hence in my eyes the D750 is a professional camera body, because Nikon says so :)
Dear folks, please don't put the D610 and D750 in the same category because Nikon doesn't :)
You would also need two professional lenses from Group 1 (the list is extensive).
I have gathered this information from Nikon Netherlands. It may be different in other countries (but I doubt it)?
The link:
https://www.iamheretohelp.nl/downloads/NPS_Systeem_NL.pdf
-
Are you saying that the exposure or AF systems in the lesser cameras are inaccurate (or at least less accurate) under certain conditions, where the better cameras aren't?
This is difficult to say, because I can only say it from my little island perspective and this is: MF and AF fast primes since 1983. "M" mode and "A" mode. Mostly portraits, architecture, food, some event too.
I could never judge the behavior of these cameras in sports, because the D500 is my first camera I use for "sports like subjects".
I could never judge the behavior of these cameras with zooms, because I do not use zooms.
The "nearly perfect" cameras in my opinion like the F4, (the F5/D5 I used the only for a short while) and D3 deliver as expected out of the box.
The "a little less"-category needs a little adjustment to deliver as expected, whereas
The "with some practice" category feel a little like a hammer made of wood or of rubber in bad cases, usable but you have to expect the unexpected and have to have backup on standby.
That is my experience. Reliability and reproducibility have their price. With a single digit body an error is always a user error, with the lesser models there could be some not so well designed issues one has to know and work around.
-
Thanks Frank.
-
Jakov,
Not that it matters to me as a former semi-pro but I think a professional photographer could do very nicely without any lenses in the No.1 group.
For me D750 doesn't have a professional control layout.
Anyway a professional will use any camera that consistently produces the product they need and an enthusiast will any camera they can rationalize, justify or whatever and that they can afford. Nikon needs all the students, want to be(s) and has beens they can get to support the professional cameras in sales and make them viable in the market.
Dave
I aspire to be a has been. --Robin Williams
-
Jakov,
The Dutch apply-list for NPS-registration is not based on the quality of the camera, but based to push sales of the current models. The same applies for the lenses. I do not really take that list serious.
-
John, how is a D3 or D300s a new model? I don't see a push in sales of new models? :)
-
Interesting discussion. It wasn't my intention to classify cameras on whether they are "pro" or not, I was simply trying more to show relationships between similar cameras. My logic goes something like this:
Pro - flagship single digit digit cameras designed for heavy professional use.
Advanced - cameras with similar features and UI as pro cameras in a smaller, lighter body. No vertical grip but battery pack can be added to make size and handling like the pro cameras. I included the Df mainly due to the price and it's unique interface, although on features it could easily go with the mid-range cameras.
Entry Level - low cost and compact "cupcake" cameras, starting with D50, D40 and continuing with D3xxx series. Aimed at novice photographers, limited manual controls, makes heavy use of automatic features such as scene modes.
Upper Entry - branched from entry level line with the D40x and continuing with the D5xxx series. Slightly better performance and feature set. Since the 5xxx series with tilt screens.
Mid range - fits between the entry level and pro series, starting with the D70 to the D7xxx series, and the D6xx and D750. Has pro features such as having a battery pack, high degree of manual controls, DOF preview, and AI metering (except D70-D90). Also retains entry level features such as scene modes, and the UI is different from the Pro models. The U1 and U2 custom settings are unique to this group.
Based on this criteria, D750 fits in the mid range section. You could argue with that with EXPEED4, CAM 3500 and 91K RGB meter it has features closer to the professional series like the D810, but I tend to go more by the UI, than by technical details.
-
Yes, I think that the UI is a very solid criterion to separate advanced models from the mid range ones.
-
Yes, I think that the UI is a very solid criterion to separate advanced models from the mid range ones.
+1
-
I agree the UI is a logical criterion for further grouping.
The Df is deliberately devoid of features otherwise ubiquitous (video etc.) so lack of such capability cannot count.
-
Yes, I think that the UI is a very solid criterion to separate advanced models from the mid range ones.
+2
-
The Df is deliberately devoid of features otherwise ubiquitous (video etc.) so lack of such capability cannot count.
The Df is a special enthusiast camera in that it has two UIs to be operated with. The classical DSLR
"button, dial & menu" plus one unique UI derived from the Film area with "aperture, time, iso on rotating rings"
I feel the Df does thus not fit into the scheme.
-
Any such classification is going to run into inconsistencies; Nikon does not develop cameras only by improving on a single previous model but often introduces new cameras that are mixtures of features from higher and lower end cameras, thus blurring these categories.
I think the D70 belongs squarely in the entry level segment. Its user interface is quite difficult from an advanced user's perspective, it has a pentamirror viewfinder (one of the most horrible of its kind), doesn't meter with Ai lenses, has no vertical grip option and it was clearly developed with price and compactness as driving factors. The D100 also was derived from the F80 film camera body, which is a mid level consumer body. A D7200 or D750 has clearly much more in common with the high end models than the D100 or D70.
For the sake of simplicity in your listing I think the current categorization is okay. I can understand how someone might feel a D750 and D70 don't belong in the same category, however.
If I were to classify the cameras I would go with something like this:
Professional
D1, D2, D3, D4, D5
D700, D800, D810
D300, D500
Enthusiast/Advanced amateur/Semi-pro
D100, D200
D7000, D7100, D7200
D610, D750
Df
Consumer
D70, D50, D40, D60, D80, D90, D3x00, D5x00
-
I think the whole categorization issue is overvalued. I think categorization arises mainly as a marketing strategy by the manufacturer that serves to justify price differences that would otherwise be more difficult to defend (besides obvious differences in choice of materials etc.). The decisions to leave out features from certain models often seem arbitrary and cannot be easily explained by applying some ad hoc definitions of categories (e.g. tilting screens and pop-up flashes are often called amateurish even when many pros make use of them and many amateurs don't). Regardless of the category, purchase decisions should be based on features vs. price alone and not by some perceived nimbus of a category. There is no pride in owning a camera with features that you don't use. Cameras from 'lower' categories now have features and performance that previous-generation 'pro' models could only dream about.
-
Ilkka! You nailed it. I appreciate such clear thinking.
My experience though is that in practical usage my D7000 (I forgot her in my list above, had her on daily use for 2 years) was less reliable with fast primes than both of my D70ies.
After I replaced her with the D600 I found an article by or member Andy (Former AndyE, aka Nikonandye), that told me that certain serial numbers of D7000 simply could not focus correctly with fast primes. Nikon never committed to the issue publicly but replaced large parts on the camera for free if you complaines insistently. Had I read that / known that my experience with the D7000 could have possibly have been much more pleasent. Had I used her with zoom lenses no issue would have been there. IIRC it was this article:
https://nikonandye.wordpress.com/articles/article-d7000-camera-weakness-with-fast-pro-lenses/
or Ilkka here:
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aT6J?start=10
-
The models like D100, D70 or D50 were released so early that current criteria may not apply.
Even though I do have stated and do believe that the UI is a solid criterion, I don't think that would work well for those early models.
At first, I thought that entry models should not have the in-body AF motor or the Ai meter coupling, and I took it granted that neither of the three bodies have both functions, which turned out to be wrong.
Considering that the functionality of early DSLRs were more limited than that of more current models, it should be safe to put these cameras into the "Advanced" category.
Df occupies a very unique category. Its UI is very intuitive for the pros who has been around since the film era, but its "classkcal" design looks more like a hobbyist camera. Considering that Df is essenatially a D600/610 with heavily modified UI, it could be categorized as Midrange.
-
At the time of D100, D70 there were only a small number of AF-S lenses (most of them very expensive professional lenses) so the in body AF motor was a necessity. Nevertheless Nikon stripped everything out that they could with the D70 and further in the D50. Some of their body features (AF, viewfinder) were below anything that was available in 35mm film cameras. Admittedly Nikon did have even more basic feature set in the F50 which had only a few buttons for controls. However, as far as I know, all the 35mm film cameras had glass prism viewfinders.
-
My argument for the D70 was the image quality with RAW. It was well above the D2H and not much below
the D2X. The interface was ugly. The reliability was bad. Yet my two D70 bodies lay the foundation for my business
I started in 2005, already earning 1000 Euro per week in spring 2006. Being accepted even by NPS because of
my lenses not my bodies. And as they said because I really earn my money with these items.
-
If I were to classify the cameras I would go with something like this:
Professional
D1, D2, D3, D4, D5
D700, D800, D810
D300, D500
Enthusiast/Advanced amateur/Semi-pro
D100, D200
D7000, D7100, D7200
D610, D750
Df
Consumer
D70, D50, D40, D60, D80, D90, D3x00, D5x00
Because of the lack of support for Ai, I have never seen D100 as an advanced camera, So in my eyes, D100 belongs to the same group as D70 and D90. But that is just my opinion.
D200 and D300 are almost identical in almost every aspect, so I can't put them in different groups. If time is in the equation, it has to be D200 that is in the higher group, as it was the little brother of D2X, not D300. D300 was still DX when D3 and its little brother D700 was FX. Because of the almost identical UI of D200, D300 and D700, I would put them i the same group, together with D800, D810 and D500, and in the same group as F100 was back then.
-
The D200 had mid tier AF and mid level fps rate (5). The D300 has top of the line AF and 8 fps with grip.
-
At the time of D100, D70 there were only a small number of AF-S lenses (most of them very expensive professional lenses) so the in body AF motor was a necessity. Nevertheless Nikon stripped everything out that they could with the D70 and further in the D50. Some of their body features (AF, viewfinder) were below anything that was available in 35mm film cameras. Admittedly Nikon did have even more basic feature set in the F50 which had only a few buttons for controls. However, as far as I know, all the 35mm film cameras had glass prism viewfinders.
When these cameras were current, Nikon was apparently trying to reduce the cost of DSLRs by lowering the grade of "SLR" part simply because the digital part was all too expensive. Even D1 series bodies were based on F100 and not F5, as opposed to Kodak cameras based on the flagship models of Nikon and Canon.
-
True, but those cameras from Kodak built over Nikon or Canon SLR chassis were true monsters and handled very poorly. Enter the smart and nifty D1, designed from ground up as a digital camera, and introduced thereby a paradigm shift. The D100 might derive from the F100, but not the D1.
-
To me, D1 series was more like Fuji Finepix S1/2/3 models which were essentially Nikon film bodies with the add-on digital parts.
Even though D1 series had the built-in battery grip which is one of the aspects of Nikon flagship (and Canon counterparts), but the viewfinder of D1 series offered only 96% coverage which is the same as that of F100 and makes D1 series the only "flagship" models in Nikon history that didn't offer 100% coverage.
D100 was more based on F80.
-
I think the D70 belongs squarely in the entry level segment. Its user interface is quite difficult from an advanced user's perspective, it has a pentamirror viewfinder (one of the most horrible of its kind), doesn't meter with Ai lenses, has no vertical grip option and it was clearly developed with price and compactness as driving factors. The D100 also was derived from the F80 film camera body, which is a mid level consumer body. A D7200 or D750 has clearly much more in common with the high end models than the D100 or D70.
I think it is unfair to judge the very early D100 and D70 by current standards, digital cameras have evolved a long way since then both in technical terms and the UI. In the early days there were so few camera models that the modern lineages were yet to be established.
I've never handled a D100 and don't know what the UI is like, but it clearly is the start of the line which lead to the advanced/semi-pro D200, D300, D500 etc, so I feels it belongs in this group. The early models may seem to be mid-tier by today's standards, but the D100 and D200 were advanced cameras where they were new.
The D70 was introduced for the enthusiast, a cheaper alternative than the D100, and is clearly the start of the line which evolved into the D80, D90 and D7xxx. I remember at the time the reviewers spoke favourably of its feature set compared to the equivalent Canon model - front and rear command dials and DOF preview are not entry level features. OK, so this early model does not have a battery grip, but the replacement D80 does, and two generations later the D7000 supported AI metering.
The D50, which was introduced a little later as the entry-level model also shows that at the time, the D70 was pitched as the mid-range model.
The Df does not fit neatly anywhere, I put it in the "advanced" section partly due to the price, and the manual controls do require the user to have "advanced" knowledge on how to use it.
-
For me the Nikon D1 was the game changer DSLR
Sure it was close in design to an F5 but appeared to be a fully working digital unit on it's own - The similarities to F5 just made the transition to digital so much easier,,,
-
Roland,
I think it might make more logical sense to place the Upper Entry camera group above the Lower Entry Level group. All the other groups are listed in descending order.
Dave
-
Just a brief comment on what has been said in this thread without specifically answering Roland's question.
Mongo's two cent's worth is that a camera is what it does and how well it does it. This, of course includes build quality, features, reliability, durability, image quality etc , etc. It should be judged by that criteria relative to other cameras. That should decide its place in the pecking order from pro to entry level and perhaps some layers in between.
Mongo does not think it is meaningful to simply go by what is said by the manufacturer who very often has pure marketing as its measure of anything and often does not know its product as well as the photographers who use them.
In relation to what Roland does, Mongo has nothing but praise and gratitude for all his excellent work and efforts for all our benefits
-
I think it is unfair to judge the very early D100 and D70 by current standards,
I understand that but it is fair to judge them by standards that existed at the time when they were introduced. The SLR part came from film SLRs and one can see what kind of use a product was targeted for based on features and components that were included and the design of the whole.
-
Enter the smart and nifty D1, designed from ground up as a digital camera, and introduced thereby a paradigm shift. The D100 might derive from the F100, but not the D1.
If D100 was derived from anything, it was F80.
If D1 really was designed from ground as a digital camera with DX sensor, it would not have the focusing screen of F100.
I think it is unfair to judge the very early D100 and D70 by current standards, digital cameras have evolved a long way since then both in technical terms and the UI. In the early days there were so few camera models that the modern lineages were yet to be established.
It is, but the physical UI was adopted from earlier SLRs, and so was many of the users.
I've never handled a D100 and don't know what the UI is like, but it clearly is the start of the line which lead to the advanced/semi-pro D200, D300, D500 etc, so I feels it belongs in this group. The early models may seem to be mid-tier by today's standards, but the D100 and D200 were advanced cameras where they were new.
D100 had the UI of F80, both did also lack support for AI-lenses. D1 and D200 had much of the UI known from F100. The way I see it, D100 is not a start of the line which lead to D200. D200 was the first DSLR in the line of F100. This is how I saw it then, and this is how I still see it.
-
The size and layout of the mirror, mirror box and the finders of these early DSLRs were quite variable. Probably the mothership experimented to find optimised designs.
One can find cameras with the bigger mriror suited for FX (such as D1 and its siblings), or small mirrors (D40 for example). Even the pretty low end D70, with its peep-hole pentamirror finder, had an oversized mirror. One could criticise many of the early models, rightfully so, for their finders, but the designs improved and the D2-series had (for their time) very good finders.
I have it on good authority that the D1 was developed from the ground up as a digital camera. It still used a mechanical shutter so naturally Nikon didn't invent the shutter system anew, but used whatever design they already had to incorporate in the new camera.
Some of the design flaws of the D1-class cameras became evident when these cameras were put to use under a wide variety of conditions. For example, the rear port (for Firewire and remote control/tethered shooting) had its internal components soldered directly onto the main circuit board and thus allowed humidity to enter the camera innards, leading to malfunction or corrosion of critical parts.
Asle: your assumption about D100 being related to F80 probably is correct. I'm not familiar with D100 and draw hastened conclusions on meagre data.
-
The D70 is also derived from the F80. When the shutter unit of
my first broke they replaced the "Film transport mechanism".
The error codes were still F80-coded, the repair similar in some parts.
-
I think it might make more logical sense to place the Upper Entry camera group above the Lower Entry Level group. All the other groups are listed in descending order.
Thanks Dave, good point. The current layout is just the way things fell when I first developed the list and was deciding how to arrange everything. I only split the entry and upper entry sections relatively late. I'll change the order.
As for the D100, I still regard it as the first "advanced" DSLR:
The name is derived from the semi-pro F100, and shows Nikon was trying to create the same impression in digital cameras.
It was introduced in 2001 as the only Nikon DSLR besides the D1 series, so categories like mid-range and entry-level did not yet exist. The D70 was introduced two years later in 2003, not as a replacement but as a cheaper alternative for the enthusiast. In 2005 the entry-level D50 was introduced. Simply going by price and we have: D50 (entry), D70 (mid), D100 (advanced), D2 (pro).
Later that year the D100 was discontinued and replaced by the D200, which further points to the D100 being the first in the line of "advanced" models.
The D100 suffers in this comparison because it was a very early model. The D100 was already 2 years old when the D70 appeared so it was already looking dated. Also, the body was based on the mid-range F80 film camera, probably to keep costs down - digital cameras were still very expensive in those days. So, in terms of build it is mid-range, but the technology is entirely different ... yes I know I said that I go mainly by UI rather than technical details, but I'll make an exception here.
So, I'm keeping the D100 where it is... :)
I never expected this thread to generate so much discussion!
-
I think it is unfair to judge the very early D100 and D70 by current standards, digital cameras have evolved a long way since then both in technical terms and the UI. In the early days there were so few camera models that the modern lineages were yet to be established.
I've never handled a D100 and don't know what the UI is like, but it clearly is the start of the line which lead to the advanced/semi-pro D200, D300, D500 etc, so I feels it belongs in this group. The early models may seem to be mid-tier by today's standards, but the D100 and D200 were advanced cameras where they were new.
The D70 was introduced for the enthusiast, a cheaper alternative than the D100, and is clearly the start of the line which evolved into the D80, D90 and D7xxx. I remember at the time the reviewers spoke favourably of its feature set compared to the equivalent Canon model - front and rear command dials and DOF preview are not entry level features. OK, so this early model does not have a battery grip, but the replacement D80 does, and two generations later the D7000 supported AI metering.
The D50, which was introduced a little later as the entry-level model also shows that at the time, the D70 was pitched as the mid-range model.
The Df does not fit neatly anywhere, I put it in the "advanced" section partly due to the price, and the manual controls do require the user to have "advanced" knowledge on how to use it.
Just a small digression, not entirely off topic: As an experiment, I elected to use my venerable, much-loved if for sentimental reasons, D100 mounting a (ghastly?) Nikkor 70-210mm f4-5.6D lens the other morning to capture some early spring flora. Shot in NEF, after my usual "proprietary", secret, cocktail of post processing machinations involving all the freeware Nikon, Microsoft, Hasselblad ( :oHASSELBLAD, for friggin' sakes!) has to offer, I had to remind myself which lens/camera combo I used to create the final output -- the image was that good. In fact, it's my current desktop background and I've even received a print request. I did this "experiment" to ground myself, remembering that technique often trumps new toys, while laboring over the necessity for a new[er] used camera upgrade. (Currently a toss-up between a malfunctioning but Nikon serviceable D750 and a used D500 some wealthy dentist has apparently grown bored with, both for about the same price.) After all these years, I still don't quite understand why the D100 was so vilified as compared to the vaunted D70. But I will say this much: My D100 never failed me. And the OEM battery grip was a real plum! Not least of all for its voice-memo, feature. Furthermore, no one extrudes plastic like Nikon does. Or did, in Japan. I could have fended-off wolves swinging that camera. As older gear goes, I still feel the two fist Nikon D300s/D700 bodies pack a powerful wallop when put to their best use. Had the D700 featured video capability or 100% OVF, I'm not sure I would even be thinking "upgrade" just now.
-
...but on the other hand, it is used by a lot of professionals....
In the end a camera is a camera and it shouldn't matter where it sits in my chart, the specs should stand on their own merits, but I do try to make my pages as useful as possible. Your thoughts?
My sentiments, exactly! Something I saw on a quiz show or afternoon talk show, I forget which, as a young child starting out in photography made quite an impression on me when it was revealed that the stunning, large, photograph images being shown were shot with a crumbling Kodak Brownie™ held together with tape. It was as impressive then, in the 1960s, as it is today that a relic from World War One was still a capable image producing tool, when in capable hands. In the ensuing years, I've either heard anecdotal stories or read articles concerning similar cases wherein Lomography® or "toy camera" enthusiasts and graphic artists saw their work grace the walls of the Smithsonian Institute or the Museum of Modern Art; I forget which and am neither impressed or surprised in any case. And I'd wager much of it is dreadful, or at the very least a studied attempt to be just that -- which is just fine in an art-for-art's sake manner. (To which end, they could all congratulate themselves for "succeeding" [sic] beyond my wildest nightmare of equipment failure.) Not so the box-Brownie image as I recall. It was a "real" effort made to rival the ability of some of the best gear then currently available.
-
The D100 is modified from the F80 film body, with poorer viewfinder (since it is cropped and not magnified to compensate) and poorer AF (because the images are cropped, to obtain similar resulting focus performance, the accuracy would had to have been improved by 1.5X but was not). So I would regard it as lower middle class consumer camera body.
I don't see how excuses should be made for a camera just because it is digital.
The D70 is a further degraded camera with historically poor focus (both auto and manual), the first time Nikon used the atrocity known as the pentamirror viewfinder in an SLR. However, the image quality was good and it wasn't horribly slow even writing NEFs and so many of us bought one. I must have written half of my online posts complaining about the many problems using this camera; mainly the horribly unclear viewfinder and difficulty getting shots at wide apertures reliably in focus. The D70 style viewfinder was continued in the D40/D60/D3x00/D5x00. I wish I had never looked through one.
The D200 was closer to F100 level (very good viewfinder, 5fps capability, and decent but not excellent AF) except it still didn't have Nikon's professional AF system which was given to the compact DX finally in the D300, which is the first of the Dx00 series Nikon marketed as a professional DSLR. At this point the D300 also became the DX top of the line body.
Only in the D3 did I feel the digital SLR was a replacement for the F100/F5 and still the viewfinder was fuzzy and difficult to focus with compared to the F5. So in a way the digital bodies even at that point (and high cost level) didn't equal the best film body. The D810/D5 viewfinders start to feel clear enough again after a long period of slightly unclear viewfinders but there has been a reduction of eyepoint which I don't like. I wonder if Nikon will ever make a DSLR with the kind of viewfinder that was in the F3HP or even F5. Both excellent for manual focus and easy to view with glasses (especially the F3HP).
-
I don't know if your comment was a followup to Roland's or mine. However, to be clear, I certainly wasn't making any excuses for the D100. And coming off a thirty year engagement with all-things Nikon professional at the time of my first digital camera -- the aforementioned D100 -- it was quite an experience, say let-down, for me. At least, initially so. It was a valuable tool for me on which to learn -- or hope to endeavor to -- all things digital. Incidentally, I have rarely owned a new Nikon-anything, owing to the plethora of excellent used equipment in New York City, and certainly couldn't have justified the expenditure for a D100 at its time of launch, even if I could've afforded to which, frankly, I couldn't. As for the N80: No thanks! (Although I have often considered one for a display piece along side a D100.) However, and to the credit of its enduring architecture, many good cameras were built on its stellar frame. And one would have been hard pressed during the film age to get me to accept any camera that required a battery to be minimally functional. It took an F4 to bring me to a place in my mind where I could even begin to accept the fact that most environments I generally found myself had AA batteries available. (I always packed my F2, just in case... ) D70? I chose a used D100, at pennies on the dollar, over a D70. I eschew "camera cults", then as now, and wasn't easily swayed by the D70's incremental merits over its predecessor. What the D100 lacked, I made up for with experience. (And I used the money saved to buy a used Nikkor 35-70mm f2.8D for $33.00 on eBay! Yes, it was quite a stroke of luck and good timing.) That, and I revile "pentamirrors".
-
My 2 cents. Onwer of D750 and D810.
I wouldn't call the D750 a pro camera at all. It doesn't feel like one, because it isn't one.
Don't get me wrong, it's a brilliant camera and great all-around (being good at a bit of everything means being specialised in NOTHING).
It simply lacks the professional feel. It has the in my opinion silly "modes" such as landscape... macro... etc. Things you find on a D3000. The true performance of the camera is achieved after the AA filter is removed!
Secondly, button layouts. It doesn't have a dedicated AF-ON button, but one can program the AE-L to do exactly that. The D810 feels far more professional, in my opinion.
I do miss the flippy screen which has proven to be indispensable when taking specific shots, but with regards to everything else, the D810 and above trumps it. Don't get me started on that horribly (probably intentionally) designed crappy rectangular viewfinder cover piece that gets loose so easily. I've lost 4 of them. Ended up buying 5 genuine ones and replacing it with a circular rubber cap, which I also nearly lost TWICE! Grrr >:( >:(
I personally draw the line at battery grip implementation. Professional bodies take batteries from the single digit lines. For example, D810 and D500 takes EN-EL18/18a/18b[?] batteries, the D750 doesn't. The deeper D750 grip is a huge plus too, love it. :)
D750 is a great camera with brilliant low light performance. The D810 downsampled to match isn't by any means worse however.
-
I hope you don't mind me asking a silly question. On my camera page (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/camera.html) I listed the D750 with other Mid-range/Enthusiast cameras like the D6xx and D7xxx models, mainly due to the similar interface such as U1 and U2 custom settings and the presence of scene modes.
I received some emails from a photographer who felt quite strongly that the D750 should be listed as an Advanced/Semi-Pro camera due to its more capable processor, AF system and tilting LCD.
A camera cannot be professional, only the photographer can be.
More importantly, Nikon has suggested that the mechanism of the D750 has been built to withstand 150 000 shutter cycles. If that is close to the truth, the D750 may not be a first choice for high volume sports shooting. For all other kinds of use, the 150 000 cycles should mean that the D750 is a solid and durable camera indeed.
Correct me if I am wrong.
-
In my view, these days, a processor, AF or a tilting screen do not define if it is a professional camera.
The only meaningful difference between a professional and an advanced amateur photog is that a pro has to work every day and his camera is used and abused much harder than an amateur's one. Hence the only difference between an enthusiast and a pro body is how durable and robust it is. All other stuff is irrelevant, you can find similar AF, processor etc in a pro and an amateur body.
And here comes the question - if you are an amateur, caring about your camera, using it on weekends, if you do not need to carry around two bodies every day, do you really need a super robust, more expensive and heavier camera?
In my view vast majority of amateurs buy pro bodies entirely because of its prestige. Other that that they do not really know why do they need it. They will tell you that a pro body will give you 10 fps instead of 8 and try to convince you and themselves that it is so important for an amateur...
A good prosumer camera will serve them for many many years, will shoot as well as a pro body and will be cheaper and lighter to carry around. Ask the pros tho finish their careers and switch to mirrorless.
Just my 5p.
-
It sounds like that guy was heavily invested in his D750 and wanted "proper" recognition of his gear.
-
A "pro" camera is one used by a pro.
-
And i thought that a "pro" camera is a camera that is not "anti" ::)
-
Hello all
Compared to many here, I don't have much history with photography and camera equipment, so please take my perspective with a pinch of salt.
The discussion seems to be mostly a matter of perception vs reality, marketing, price and weight. To me, if the manufacturer says it is pro, then it is pro. Why - because they made the camera and the only opinion that truly matters is theirs. They set the price and dictate what kind of support / service they are going to offer to that model.
As many others have stated in this thread and as well as other threads, most cameras nowadays are pretty good. Those who know what they are doing can take amazing photos with the most modest of cameras. Those who don't know what they are doing take bad pictures even with high end cameras. Objectively speaking, the true limitation is the photographer and not the camera.
All that said, I'm genuinely curious about this - time and again, "robustness" and "resistance to abuse" come up when differentiating between pro and consumer models. Are there standardized or tangible metrics that quantify how robust a camera is? I know that some metrics such as shutter rating and improved weather sealing are often listed as pro features. However, these claims seem to be mostly (very) rough estimates or come with a lot of caveats. Are there any other features or design specifications that matter or taken into serious consideration when constructing a pro body? Superior interior electronics that have more life before failure (or some such metric) when subjected to vibrations from a vehicle or from repeated soft impacts? A design that facilitates easy disassembly and reassembly for more frequent maintenance ? Resistance to accidental drop tests from a certain height?
... or do I drop a D5 and a D3400 into the sea in a simulated 'accident', observe that neither camera survived, and conclude that neither is a pro caliber model?
Hope I don't offend anyone with those post...
- Abhijit
-
Micheal Erlewine, I completely agree with you! (and with anti-Hans)
For me a D750 is a PRO camera.
Those who mention "robustness", "resistance to abuse", and "weather sealing" certainly don't own an AW-1, which beats any PRO body with ease :D
Also, the shutter count means nothing. Must I make more than 150k photos to be a PRO?
I own it and I love it and I prefer it to a D4 or a Df, but that's just me :)
-
In the end, who cares ?
-
Must I make more than 150k photos to be a PRO?
Yes! I read about a Nikon F5 that showed up in Germany with five million shutter cycles.
Dave
I wouldn't call the D750 a pro camera for it's control layout and yes its build but plenty of Pro use the D750 so there isn't much importance to what Nikon calls it nor what I call it.
-
The discussion seems to be mostly a matter of perception vs reality, marketing, price and weight. To me, if the manufacturer says it is pro, then it is pro. Why - because they made the camera and the only opinion that truly matters is theirs.
I totally disagree. In my eyes, the only opinion that truly matters is the opinion of the actual user. If the gear suit my usage, it doesn't matter at all what the manufacturer says it is made for. It is also totally worthless if the manufacturer is saying it is made for me, if it doesn't works for me.
-
A different approach, or not ? https://youtu.be/jvqjibfGUIg