Nikon D750 & D780

Yes try a reset hold down the buttons next to green dot one on back and one on top hold it a few seconds till the top screen blank out.
 
wilt said:
My Friends D750 seems to be under exposing and neither of us can figure out why. Matrix metering, no exposure compensation.
Using a light meter it indicated F1.4 1/160 ISO100, he was using a 50mm 1.4.
On reviewing of the images on the back LCD and a computer they would appear to be under exposed, both on look and histogram.
Shooting both RAW+Basic.

Any ideas how to cure this?
Click to expand...

IMO it's the way the D750 is set up as standard.

You can set the the base exposure for each metering mode to plus or minus in the menus. b6 Fine-tune optimal exposure.

I have matrix metering set at +4/6
 
AndrewSt said:
I am thinking a 28/58 combo might be perfect! Although I do love my 85!
Click to expand...

I'm thinking you might miss the 85 focal length? I did consider the 58, but it would mean getting rid of the 85 or 35 to fund!
 
Ed Sutton said:
IMO it's the way the D750 is set up as standard.

You can set the the base exposure for each metering mode to plus or minus in the menus. b6 Fine-tune optimal exposure.

I have matrix metering set at +4/6
Click to expand...

I was going to do that but decided to just add a stop of light in LR to a new preset I'm working on so it'll be corrected on import.
 
Ed Sutton said:
IMO it's the way the D750 is set up as standard.

You can set the the base exposure for each metering mode to plus or minus in the menus. b6 Fine-tune optimal exposure.

I have matrix metering set at +4/6
Click to expand...
As a general rule I've not found mine underexposes with matrix, however if there are extreme highlights it does and I think it does this to help try and preserve highlight detail knowing you can lift the shadows. I find spot metering tends to overexpose quite a bit though.
 
minnnt said:
But degrade the IQ? If it's a regular occurance then surely it's best done in camera?
Click to expand...

Not really. I purposely underexpose most of my shots anyway so the fact it's done automatically (for whatever reason) in camera doesn't bother me.

I'm not someone who looks for imperfections anyway but pushing a D750 RAW one stop does absolutely nothing in terms of degrading IQ (to my eyes).
 
Last edited:
UaeExile said:
Not really. I purposely underexpose most of my shots anyway so the fact it's done automatically (for whatever reason) in camera doesn't bother me.

I'm not someone who looks for imperfections anyway but pushing a D750 RAW one stop does absolutely nothing in terms of degrading IQ (to my eyes).
Click to expand...

A lot depends on the light levels and ISO though. Underexposing and pulling back at ISO 100 is a different kettle of fish to doing the same at ISO 8000. I tend to use ISO 400 and upwards most of the time and have found that overexposed shots from the D750 retain more detail in the highlights than other cameras I've used/use so prefer to err in that direction to keep shadow noise down.
 
From my own experience, the D6XX/D750 is biased towards a -0.3 to -0,7 EV underexposure by default on matrix. My all other Nikon cameras before that were different.
This can be easily tested on an average scene with either auto or aperture priority mode and on looking at histogram you can see this easily. For raw shooters, this is fine, but jpeg shooters, they need to change the bias or compensate the exposure.

It is not a big issue as the camera allows to change the bias based on how one wishes to use the camera.
 
ukaskew said:
very tempted to ditch them for a light Nikkor AF-S 1.8 combo of the 35 and 85 and something like the 24-120 f4 as an emergency back-up lens
Click to expand...

I didn't appreciate how light the 35 1.8 is until I got the 35 1.4. It really does make you feel like you don't have a lens mounted!

The 28 is a great lens, but personally I didnt see any major differences in IQ compared to the 35. Just think it mainly depends on yur choice of focal length more than anything else.
 
JJ! said:
I didn't appreciate how light the 35 1.8 is until I got the 35 1.4. It really does make you feel like you don't have a lens mounted!

The 28 is a great lens, but personally I didnt see any major differences in IQ compared to the 35. Just think it mainly depends on yur choice of focal length more than anything else.
Click to expand...

Lightness is my primary concern as carrying a D750, D700, 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4 and 135mm f2 was a pain in the backside, particularly having come from Fuji gear where I could fill my bag with whatever I wanted with very little penalty.

A little bit torn on the best approach really, although I've shot over 2000 frames at 50mm in the past three weeks I can easily leave behind that focal length. 35mm is how I normally compose mentally before holding the camera up, so the 1.8 AF-S is a no brainer for size/weight/quality. It gets tricky after that, the 85mm 1.8 is the obvious choice but I feel like something a little more special at the longer length. How is the Nikkor 85mm 1.4 compared to the Sigma Art glass in terms of size/weight?
 
ukaskew said:
Lightness is my primary concern as carrying a D750, D700, 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4 and 135mm f2 was a pain in the backside, particularly having come from Fuji gear where I could fill my bag with whatever I wanted with very little penalty.

A little bit torn on the best approach really, although I've shot over 2000 frames at 50mm in the past three weeks I can easily leave behind that focal length. 35mm is how I normally compose mentally before holding the camera up, so the 1.8 AF-S is a no brainer for size/weight/quality. It gets tricky after that, the 85mm 1.8 is the obvious choice but I feel like something a little more special at the longer length. How is the Nikkor 85mm 1.4 compared to the Sigma Art glass in terms of size/weight?
Click to expand...

Nikon is 130g lighter and about 4mm shorter.

But costs a lot more and 2nd hand prices are still high!
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
A lot depends on the light levels and ISO though. Underexposing and pulling back at ISO 100 is a different kettle of fish to doing the same at ISO 8000. I tend to use ISO 400 and upwards most of the time and have found that overexposed shots from the D750 retain more detail in the highlights than other cameras I've used/use so prefer to err in that direction to keep shadow noise down.
Click to expand...
But would exposing at 8000 ISO and lifting by 1 stop in post degrade the image any more than shooting at 16000 ISO to get the exposure right in the first place?
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
But would exposing at 8000 ISO and lifting by 1 stop in post degrade the image any more than shooting at 16000 ISO to get the exposure right in the first place?
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the D750 was pretty much ISO invariant, so you could in theory lift a shot from ISO400 to ISO8000 purely in post and achieve generally as good results as the camera itself would have at ISO8000 in the first place.
 
ukaskew said:
I was under the impression that the D750 was pretty much ISO invariant, so you could in theory lift a shot from ISO400 to ISO8000 purely in post and achieve generally as good results as the camera itself would have at ISO8000 in the first place.
Click to expand...
I would have thought that was a bit too much tbh, surely there'd be crushed shadows if it was that far underexposed and detail lost? But I understand what you mean, and not sure if it's true or not. I was going to run tests a while back checking noise differences between underexposing and lifting in post, and raising the ISO to expose 'correctly' but never got round to it ;)
 
snerkler said:
But would exposing at 8000 ISO and lifting by 1 stop in post degrade the image any more than shooting at 16000 ISO to get the exposure right in the first place?
Click to expand...

I think that depends on the amount of light available at the time of exposure. In my experience you can uses high ISOs in good light in order to get a high shutter speed and the shadows stay pretty noise free, but use the same ISO in low light to get a usable shutter speed and the noise increases in the shadows.

A lot also depends on how the picture is displayed - how big, print or screen. At 900 pixels along the long edge you can get away with murder!
 
snerkler said:
I would have thought that was a bit too much tbh, surely there'd be crushed shadows if it was that far underexposed and detail lost? But I understand what you mean, and not sure if it's true or not. I was going to run tests a while back checking noise differences between underexposing and lifting in post, and raising the ISO to expose 'correctly' but never got round to it ;)
Click to expand...

DPReview have tested it, if I've read it right between ISO200 and ISO3200 you're actually slightly better off in some ways sticking with ISO200 and pushing it in post.

The a7RII is even better, where as the Canon's are utterly terrible and are much better off shot 'natively' at whichever ISO is required.
 
ukaskew said:
DPReview have tested it, if I've read it right between ISO200 and ISO3200 you're actually slightly better off in some ways sticking with ISO200 and pushing it in post.

The a7RII is even better, where as the Canon's are utterly terrible and are much better off shot 'natively' at whichever ISO is required.
Click to expand...
Well that's 4 stops underexposed which I read was about the limit of recovery. Interesting that they've tested it and say that it's better to underexpose like this rather than raise ISO. From my experience of pushing dramatically in post it tends to throw the colours off. As always YMMV.
 
ukaskew said:
DPReview have tested it, if I've read it right between ISO200 and ISO3200 you're actually slightly better off in some ways sticking with ISO200 and pushing it in post.

The a7RII is even better, where as the Canon's are utterly terrible and are much better off shot 'natively' at whichever ISO is required.
Click to expand...
Just had a look at those test shots comparing ISO 6400 to iso 100 +6stops, 200 + 5stops etc. To my peepers ISO 800 + 3 stops, and maybe even ISO 400 + 4 stops looks to have a similar noise level to ISO 6400, 100+6 and 200+5 look noisier to me, although I am only on my laptop at the mo. Interesting that you have a s4 stop latitude though.

Can you not clip shadows/blacks too though so you have no data to recover like you can highlights?
 
Just splashed out on a new fancy strap for my D750... Cost me a packet but I look hipster as anything now...Just need a beard :D
 
UaeExile said:
Just splashed out on a new fancy strap for my D750... Cost me a packet but I look hipster as anything now...Just need a beard :D
Click to expand...

Whats this fancy strap..
 
Well another from me.. Sorry if I am becoming boring... Need to get this good weather back to do some city scape

DSC_1145-Edit.jpg by Andrew Rookes, on Flickr
 
rookies said:
Well another from me.. Sorry if I am becoming boring... Need to get this good weather back to do some city scape

DSC_1145-Edit.jpg by Andrew Rookes, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Once again, absolutely nothing wrong with the sharpness. Nice shot, my only critique would be the composition, cropped too much of her body off for my taste.
 
snerkler said:
Once again, absolutely nothing wrong with the sharpness. Nice shot, my only critique would be the composition, cropped too much of her body off for my taste.
Click to expand...

Yup agree with the sharpness as what I did before i went out I reset the camera so all lens are default value now... Not Micro Tuned..
 
Paulie-W said:
How much ....:eek:
`tis a nice looking strap, but dayum ;)
Click to expand...
I don't mind paying more for stuff I like (when I've got the money that is!) especially something that will last like a strap.

Plus I saved that money buying my D750 here rather that in the UK like I was going to. So in effect, it's free :D
 
Last edited:
UaeExile said:
I don't mind paying more for stuff I like (when I've got the money that is!) especially something that will last like a strap.

Plus I saved that money buying my D750 here rather that in the UK like I was going to. So in effect, it's free :D
Click to expand...

Fair play mate, but it`s still a lot for a strap, even if it was free ;) ...... I did see some lovely Italian leather camera bags at the photography show; only a few quid, and would go really well with that strap :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top