Nikon D750 & D780

Ed Sutton said:
Yes thanks! :D

Lovely and light, and sharp enough for me. Taking mine for a walk right now.

It does suffer from vignetting (certainly at the wide end) at wider apertures, and a fair bit of CA. But for the money it's a cracker.
Click to expand...

Its very tempting! I was getting a 24-70 Tamron but went primes instead, but when out and about yesterday I found I was missing having some zoom between 35 & 85
 
Super work that David, respect to you for the effort that goes into it. I just haven't the time or patience for landscape.

Been a busy end of week, haven't been out with the camera this weekend as planned. Got a shoot next weekend though and must build a little baby set too, time to plan some projects.
 
It's a hard life...

DSC_1374_zpskd5wpmff.jpg


DSC_1380_zps2dgec1ab.jpg


DSC_1378_zpsjs6ngmc9.jpg
 
I'm really not sure if its me, the lens or the camera that's not working out here!
 
JJ! said:
I'm really not sure if its me, the lens or the camera that's not working out here!
Click to expand...

Was your focus point on the paw on the last one? as the others are on the face.?

I find when I take bird photographs, when I put them on here the don't look as good as when viewing on Flick'r. Some people host from their website and they seem better?? It's as if the forum degrades the photos somewot. theres been loads of discussions of this in the bird section but i'm not sure what the fix is.
 
To my eyes and monitor, the photo's have degraded when hosting from Flickr onto here IMO.
 
Swanseajack said:
Was your focus point on the paw on the last one? as the others are on the face.?

I find when I take bird photographs, when I put them on here the don't look as good as when viewing on Flick'r. Some people host from their website and they seem better?? It's as if the forum degrades the photos somewot. theres been loads of discussions of this in the bird section but i'm not sure what the fix is.
Click to expand...

Yeah face and paw on last one. Things just don't seem as crisp as they used too on my D600.

Maybe its just the 35mm focal length, I don't know. I went out for a walk with it yesterday and some of the shots were actually awful!

Might just be user error and been so set on getting the primes to work for me, I'm trying to achieve something that's not right for a 35mm.

Always been a zoom user and just wanted to try something different, but maybe I should be sticking to zooms. Its made me feel a bit down about my photography this evening.
 
mikeysaling said:
what lens is this ? wonderful images
Click to expand...

Thankyou.

1 and 4 are with a rather old Vivitar 19-35mm and 2 and 3 were with the 24-70.

JJ! said:
Yeah face and paw on last one. Things just don't seem as crisp as they used too on my D600.

Maybe its just the 35mm focal length, I don't know. I went out for a walk with it yesterday and some of the shots were actually awful!

Might just be user error and been so set on getting the primes to work for me, I'm trying to achieve something that's not right for a 35mm.

Always been a zoom user and just wanted to try something different, but maybe I should be sticking to zooms. Its made me feel a bit down about my photography this evening.
Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding like a broken record... You need a 24-70.

What was wrong with the pics from yesterday?
 
minnnt said:
Thankyou.

1 and 4 are with a rather old Vivitar 19-35mm and 2 and 3 were with the 24-70.



At the risk of sounding like a broken record... You need a 24-70.

What was wrong with the pics from yesterday?
Click to expand...

Was out walking with the wife and her horse and everything was just a bit... Well .. Yuck. No colour, no sharpness, no nothing. It was a little bit, well, meh!

Maybe your right.... Maybe I need a zoom as trying to achieve things that are not made for primes.

Merls6_zpsmlck7cg3.jpg


merls7_zpssf3ogqcx.jpg
 
Last edited:
I love my 35, very pleased with it to be honest. Only looking at selling to move to a 24-70 wedding set up. Although in the back of my mind I can't help thinkin my I would prefer to keep it, buy a second D750 to pair the 35 and 85, then go for something like the 18-35 to cover the wide end if needed.
 
JJ! said:
Was out walking with the wife and her horse and everything was just a bit... Well .. Yuck. No colour, no sharpness, no nothing. It was a little bit, well, meh!

Maybe your right.... Maybe I need a zoom as trying to achieve things that are not made for primes.

Merls6_zpsmlck7cg3.jpg



merls7_zpssf3ogqcx.jpg

Camera​
NIKON D750​
Focal Length​
35mm​
Aperture​
f/2​
Exposure​
1/1000s​
ISO​
200​
​
Click to expand...

I think the lack of sharpness and colour is more to do with the grey skies making for lack of contrast and subdued colours.

I'm not sure what you are expecting from 'primes'. They're not magical. They're just lenses like zooms are.


750_4315.jpg
 
JJ you need to catalogue your photos and see which focal lengths you really use before you splash more cash!
 
JYC said:
JJ you need to catalogue your photos and see which focal lengths you really use before you splash more cash!
Click to expand...

Kind of easy right now as only been using the 35 and 85 lol

On my D600 my most used lens was a the Tamron 28-75 but it seems these days I don't have as quite a steady hand so maybe something with VR or VC should be what I am looking at.

Looks like most my shots are f2.8-f8 range
 
Last edited:
JJ! said:
Yeah face and paw on last one. Things just don't seem as crisp as they used too on my D600.

Maybe its just the 35mm focal length, I don't know. I went out for a walk with it yesterday and some of the shots were actually awful!

Might just be user error and been so set on getting the primes to work for me, I'm trying to achieve something that's not right for a 35mm.

Always been a zoom user and just wanted to try something different, but maybe I should be sticking to zooms. Its made me feel a bit down about my photography this evening.
Click to expand...
Have you checked for front/back focussing? Are you happy with shots with the 85mm on the D750?
 
Well I'm back! My new D750 was delivered quicker than I expected and turned up on Friday evening (2 days from HK, quicker than some UK deliveries!), and I picked up a 50 f1.8 and 35 f1.8 yesterday to go with the used Tamron 24-70 I swapped some gear for.
I think at that my kit is all but complete save for a wide ish angle at some point.

I like a 24-70 for most things but primes are nice if your travelling lightweight (like when I carry my D750 in my Hadley Pro most days) but I never thought I'd use and like a 24-70 as much as I actually do.
 
JJ! said:
Yeah face and paw on last one. Things just don't seem as crisp as they used too on my D600.

Maybe its just the 35mm focal length, I don't know. I went out for a walk with it yesterday and some of the shots were actually awful!

Might just be user error and been so set on getting the primes to work for me, I'm trying to achieve something that's not right for a 35mm.

Always been a zoom user and just wanted to try something different, but maybe I should be sticking to zooms. Its made me feel a bit down about my photography this evening.
Click to expand...

IIRC correctly you have tried a number of zooms and primes and you haven't been happy with anyone of them or you have a little niggle in the back of your mind? Maybe it is worth getting you camera checked out or doing a very detailed MA of all your lenses. You have had the D600 before so you are used to FF cameras and in theory the the D750 should perform better that the D600 from an AF point of view.

Myself, I have had the time to try different settings and for me I have found that I use AFA most of the time and spot or matrix metering and single focus point or I may go to 9 points at time. As I have arm problems and I vary rarely go below 1/640 SS, the camera can take the high ISO.

I would have a go a writing down your settings and start working back from something like F5.6, 1/800, AF Single Point, Matrix Metering along with auto ISO (max 3200) and see where you end up, got to be worth a try. And try the three AF modes and see which you think is best for your style and type of shooting. I wouldn't buy anymore lenses yet until you possibly rule out a camera problem.
 
Last edited:
Do any of you use the D750 in Crop mode?

I'm just getting in to wildlife and I've been mega happy with the D750 / 80-400 AF-S combo but I'm thinking if buying d D7200 body to use for wild life but then I remembered the D750 has crop mode and wondered if any of you use it or keep it FX mode and crop in to the image

Thanks
 
bbg404 said:
Do any of you use the D750 in Crop mode?

I'm just getting in to wildlife and I've been mega happy with the D750 / 80-400 AF-S combo but I'm thinking if buying d D7200 body to use for wild life but then I remembered the D750 has crop mode and wondered if any of you use it or keep it FX mode and crop in to the image

Thanks
Click to expand...

I do both, I use it and also did with my D7100. I find it useful to have although many think it's a gimmick. You can still crop in if needed. Have a practice in the garden as the DX box can take a a little while to get used to for framing. If your doing mostly wildlife then the D7200 would be an ideal companion to your D750 if budget allows.
 
Swanseajack said:
I do both, I use it and also did with my D7100. I find it useful to have although many think it's a gimmick. You can still crop in if needed. Have a practice in the garden as the DX box can take a a little while to get used to for framing. If your doing mostly wildlife then the D7200 would be an ideal companion to your D750 if budget allows.
Click to expand...

Well yes I've been told its just a gimmick and not to bother with it as if I shoot in FX id retain more detail and be able to crop in just as much as if I shot in DX mode which becomes around 10mp not 24mp. (Or so ive been told)

I think I will test it but I think ultimately buying a crop body for wild life is the way to go
 
I tried the D750 in crop mode but I see no advantage over shooting in FX and cropping in post. Some say that it meters slightly differently, but I find the metering that good on the D750 that it's never been an issue. If you're wanting reach then maybe a 1.4x TC or a crop body is a better option to give you the full 24MP resolution that you can then crop further.
 
bbg404 said:
Well yes I've been told its just a gimmick and not to bother with it as if I shoot in FX id retain more detail and be able to crop in just as much as if I shot in DX mode which becomes around 10mp not 24mp. (Or so ive been told)

I think I will test it but I think ultimately buying a crop body for wild life is the way to go
Click to expand...


If you can afford it then the D7200 makes sense. I have replied to your other thread for you to consider the Nikon 200-500mm lens which is fixed @ f5.6 and will take 1.4 TC also if needed.

To add, theres no point buying a FX camera to use it in DX mode all the time, so you may as well buy a DX body. The crop is there if needed and will also be available on the D7200.
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
IIRC correctly you have tried a number of zooms and primes and you haven't been happy with anyone of them or you have a little niggle in the back of your mind? Maybe it is worth getting you camera checked out or doing a very detailed MA of all your lenses. You have had the D600 before so you are used to FF cameras and in theory the the D750 should perform better that the D600 from an AF point of view.

Myself, I have had the time to try different settings and for me I have found that I use AFA most of the time and spot or matrix metering and single focus point or I may go to 9 points at time. As I have arm problems and I vary rarely go below 1/640 SS, the camera can take the high ISO.

I would have a go a writing down your settings and start working back from something like F5.6, 1/800, AF Single Point, Matrix Metering along with auto ISO (max 3200) and see where you end up, got to be worth a try. And try the three AF modes and see which you think is best for your style and type of shooting. I wouldn't buy anymore lenses yet until you possibly rule out a camera problem.
Click to expand...

Great advice thanks, I am going to try a full range of tests as I have not really been happy with any of the lenses. Honestly might have got a D750 with issues as I dont think I have had any of these issues before!

I'm not ordering anything else until then, as I am just throwing money down the pan on postage costs alone!
 
Last edited:
JJ! said:
Kind of easy right now as only been using the 35 and 85 lol
On my D600 my most used lens was a the Tamron 28-75 but it seems these days I don't have as quite a steady hand so maybe something with VR or VC should be what I am looking at.

Looks like most my shots are f2.8-f8 range
Click to expand...

If I were you I would consider one of the following before spending too much money

1. Check if the camera needs back/front focusing tuning - You may use free Dot tune and it takes max 30 min for each zoom lens and less for primes. At least you'd know if your camera needs any tuning on certain lenses. Some of your lenses might be fine

2. Narrow down your choices to walk around and general purpose zoom covering 24-85/120 mm focal length and pick one of the following

a. Nikon 25-85 VR - It is a very sharp lens. I have one and used extensively on D600 and D610 and it performs like a champ. This has VR and covers a good range. It does not have 2.8, but only you can tell if you'd need 2.8.

b. Tamron 24-70 F2.8 - Perhaps the most value and performance lens and sits nicely between the Nikon 24-85 and Nikon 24-70 2.8. It has 2.8 which can be very handy, has VC and professionally made. It is sharp, but only downside is you may have to go through a few copies to get one that is top quality. Of course you can fine tune.

c. Nikon 24-70 - No doubt this is the best lens you can buy for this range. The micro contrast, 2.8 and sharpness is legendary and will beat the other lenses on IQ any day. Downsides - bit heavy, pricey and no VR.

d. Nikon 24-120 F4 VR - Cnstant F4, VR and flexibility over others in this group in terms of range. These are being sold under £400 nowadays from panamoz D750 kits and are good value.

Lot of people who use this focal range a lot has either settled with the Tamron or Nikon 2.8 after some time and it might be a good idea to get one and forget about this subject and keep shooting. On the other hand, if you'd wish to try out something, I'd suggest the 24-85 second hand or sold as spare from a kit as it is less expensive to try.

3. For shooting movement with the primes you have (35 and 85), you may need to improve your technique as these lenses are not fast focusing, but using the correct AF setting, fast speed and burst you may get the picture you want. So. you may try that before dismissing the prime.

Here's a link to my 24-85 VR gallery with few shots taken with on D600/D610 and and I am sure it'd be similar on a D750 (I am getting one). Adding two out of those images here.

1. Wide open at 80 mm and used as a portrait.

24-85 VR by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr


2. Used inside the cathedral of Cordoba in low light and handheld with VR

Holy Cathedral of Córdoba by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
The 24-85VR seems to produce images way over its price point. Very crisp wide open it seems.
 
JJ! said:
The 24-85VR seems to produce images way over its price point. Very crisp wide open it seems.
Click to expand...

It is indeed a cracking lens for the money. The only drawback is distortion, but if you are using LR, it is a one time fix for all images.
I have shot with this lens a lot in Spain and haven't got the time to process them all, but going through the lot, I feel so satisfied with its performance. Having said that in certain cases I wish I had a 2.8. I will process and post more images in Flickr this weekend.

One more thing - if you plan to shoot indoors with challenging lights without tripod (either you don't like them or they are not allowed), then go for the VR/VC versions as it is better to get a sharp and noisy image that you can fix in post rather than a blurry image that is bit more cleaner, but unusable.
 
I had the 24-85 VR and wasn't a fan. You had to stop it down to get sharp images all over (on my lens anyway) and it wasn't that bright wide open to start with. Felt a bit too much like a kit lens (which it was).

IMO full frame deserves decent lenses, otherwise you might as well get a decent APS-C camera like the D7200 with 17-55 f2.8 and achieve image quality on a par if not better.
 
Which of the two would you? Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 or the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR
 
Bored again, so reverted to off and on camera flash, and my beaten up old converse ...

Old but Loved by Paulie-W, on Flickr
 
saul01 said:
Which of the two would you? Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 or the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR
Click to expand...

The Tamron is a fine lens, I used mine on my D600 90% of the time. I bought another for my D750 but find myself a little unsteady when shooting these days so looking at VC or VR. My brand new one is for sale in classifieds.

The 24-85 is small and light and has VR but its not f2.8 so depends what is more important.
 
Sir SR said:
In other good news....SWMBO noted the credit card bill this month......all was good as I had done extra work to pay for it!!
Click to expand...

I have been selling off some fishing gear to fund my second body. It's great having two bodies. Looking forward to a shoot Saturday where I can use the two with 35/85 combo and no swapping lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top