Is the D750 a "pro" camera?

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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!

[Wannabebetter]

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.

[Wannabebetter]

...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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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).

[Wannabebetter]

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".

[Macro_Cosmos]

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.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

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.

[Sash]

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. 

[Valerie S.]

It sounds like that guy was heavily invested in his D750 and wanted "proper" recognition of his gear.

[Michael Erlewine]

A "pro" camera is one used by a pro.

[HCS]

And i thought that a "pro" camera is a camera that is not "anti" 

[Abhijit]

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

[Jakov Minić]

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
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

[MFloyd]

In the end, who cares ?