Is the D750 a "pro" camera?

[Roland Vink]

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?

[John Geerts]

I think your setup is very logical, Roland.

Basically the D750 is the same as the D600-610.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Completely agree with John.

Roland, your layout is logical. Do keep up the good work.

[elsa hoffmann]

"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.

[Almass]

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.

[pluton]

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. 

[the solitaire]

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.

[Tristin]

I suppose going with Nikon's own classification makes sense as your are cataloguing their products. 

[Akira]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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 ...

[David H. Hartman]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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?

[David H. Hartman]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[Peter Connan]

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?