Is the D750 a "pro" camera?

[Akira]

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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[Asle F]

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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[Akira]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Akira]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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,,,

[David H. Hartman]

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

[Mongo]

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

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[Asle F]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.