« About the Print Sale Pictures and the Negatives | Main | 9/15/14 The Morning Coffee: Resonance »

Sunday, 14 September 2014


No. The Nikon I want ain't never coming, but it would have been the successor to the D300. And some decent DX sized lenses. And decent customer service without regards to regions. But no, none of those are coming.

I still use my D300 when I need a dSLR. (Don't need full frame and certainly don't need to pay for another set of big, expensive lenses in full frame.) When I don't need a dSLR, which i most of the time now, I use M4/3 or other mirrorless with very good lenses which are about one billionth the size and cost of an equivalent Nikon lens.

I don't get oil and other gunk on the sensor either while Nikon pretends nothing is wrong.

If this had been released when I bought the greater spotted D600, later exchanged for a D800, I would have been very happy with it.

But I suspect that if Fuji put 24MP in the Xpro2, then the D800 and lens collection will go towards the Fuji fund. Fuji optics are a major draw to the system as a whole.

"The Nikon We All Want"

Fortunately, you seldom make such silly inclusive statements.

Seismic reading here is zero.

I liked my Ftn ...


I'd recommend checking out ByThom, as usual I think he's right on the money with this one. It's basically an up-specced D600 in a couple of areas plus more emphasis on movie mode. I do shoot video, but I bought a GH4 for that - having an EVF is a huge benefit for me to shoot run&gun/street type video - using an SLR is a *lot* more hassle with all the add-on rigging required etc.

I'm still using a D700, and yes again this is not the right replacement! I wonder if Nikon thinks the D700 was "too good"? It's such a good action/sports camera, that they think a direct replacement would cannibalise sales from the D4s? Personally, as an amateur sport shooter I will never be able to afford a current-gen Nikon pro camera, so the only upgrade path is a second hand older pro camera (D3s?) and of course that doesn't benefit Nikon sales at all.

To this day, I am curious how the D800 was/is not considered/accepted as the replacement for the D700. Is it that the performance of the D800 was too great a leap forward?

I mean, it must be tough to be Nikon: you create a camera, the D700, that is still widely used, and still renders great quality images, almost a decade after it was brought to market, and it becomes a symbol of your incompetence, and a source of dissatisfaction

Just what do you subtract from the D810 to create the much desired D700 replacement?

If the D750 is a disappointment, a person should just buy the 800/810. Anyone who can choke up $2400 for a camera can surely come up with $3000.

You've probably already been told this, but it's way more a D610 successor than a D700 one. As many have said, it should have been called a D650.

Its not the Nikon I want. I've been a Nikon user for over 20 yrs. They're moving further and further away from my needs. I've got a D300 (not even an 's' - just a straight D300). I've been using it for over 6 yrs. I've not replaced with a full frame camera because I don't want a heavier body.

What do I want:
- Same or lighter weight
- Better autofocus speed with continuous moving subjects in cruddy indoor lighting aka my kids playing indoor sports
- solid build and weather sealing

So not D7100, but something that will last the next 6+ yrs.

If Nikon don't release a D400/whatever the name is soon, I might hear the siren song of Kirk Tuck and his GH4. Kirk just how is the autofocus speed of GH4 for moving kids in a cruddy gym lighting?

There will be a lot of people that will focus on the comparison between the D700 and this new D750. I'm not one of them. There's a lot to like about this camera, the weight, dual cards, carbon fiber and alloy chassis, weather sealed. The focusing system, metering system and Expeed 4, all from the D810. A sensor that's already proven itself in the D610, (even though Nikon claims it's not the same), and a revised shutter mechanism.

This combined with some direct access tools not available on the higher end cameras, like the simple control mode dial.

Yep, of course I'll buy one (or 2), I ordered mine through NPS Priority Purchase.

It might be an adequate insurance replacement for a damaged D700. It doesn't feel to me like an upgrade, though it's better in some ways (it has higher resolution, but that's not better, that's just more). The video is a big step up, since the D700 doesn't do video (whether this is of zero value or is key depends a lot on what you do of course).

I find, as I work more with the Olympus OM-D E-M5, that I'm getting less and less tolerant of the old optical viewfinders. They're noisy, a source of shake, a source of shutter release delay, something that needs to be repaired more often than most things, etc. And of course they're useless for video (you would not believe the tricks they had to pull to get optical viewfinders on movie cameras!). We're not quite to where mirrorless has the AF I need for roller derby, though. Everywhere else, mirrorless is pretty much good enough in the AF, and there are many other benefits.

As a photographer, it ticks all the right buttons for me. Still won't be buying it, i much prefer the control scheme of the D700 and D810/800e and since i have to use these for a living, and having been enlightened on the joys of a dedicated button for AF (instead of having to reassign the AEL/AFL button) i'll be saving up for the bigger brother.

It's too new to really know, but I get the sense that the D750 is not the more-or-less direct descendent of the D700 that everyone kept asking for. It's decidedly prosumer with scene modes, BI flash and all. That doesn't make it bad or not useable by professionals or in a professional setting (whatever that might be). If it doesn't suffer from shutter lube sputter and doesn't have any odd faults to be discovered by the public and ignored by Nikon, then it's likely going to be a great camera if it holds up (my D700 was camera and a self-defence weapon--it was solid). But the observation that the forums are all atwitter (pun intended) is so spot on.

As someone who works in a large Australian camera store, I've found it amusing conversing with sales staff about these cameras. Nikon is one of the worst offenders for clogging up their inventory with all manner of old, useless stuff, confusing both consumers and sales staff.
Just a few weeks ago, we were offered "deals" on remaining stock of Nikon D60s (announced in 2008!). While the D750 looks like a wonderful camera (as pretty much all Nikons have been for years), the concerning question is "where to" from here? Senior Nikon staff have said to us that they do not take mirrorless cameras seriously, and that if people want to get "serious" about photography, they still buy a DSLR. Hmm...that's not what our sales figures say.


I am a long-time (> 40 yr) user of Nikon SLRs. I'm sure that the D750 is an excellent camera -- one that I would enjoy using. However, I really can't get excited about it, or the D810, or the Df, or any other DSLR for that matter. I am convinced that the future belongs to cameras without moving mirrors and optical viewfinders. I'm not interested in spending any more money on what is essentially ever-more-refined last-century camera design, no matter how well it works. Perhaps, like Apple, Nikon (and Canon) are taking the position that coming later with a superior product is better than being first to market. I hope so, but I'm getting impatient. In the mean while, I'm wondering if I should start listing my Nikon glass on eBay, and be looking more seriously at Sony.

I love the new D750. The Only thing I wish was different is I would have preferred the d810/d4s control layout instead of what it has now. Otherwise looks to be a model I will invest in.

Sometimes i wonder at what is considered a "replacement"!
I bought the Df for exactly the same reasons I bought a D700 in it's time :
• Smaller then the top notch camera
• Same sensor then the top notch camera
• Great battery life
• Perfect for voyages and street pictures

What's not to like ??? (tongue in cheek)

I think you're right, Mike. All over the internet, people are acting like spoiled children every time a new camera is released. "It's not exactly what I think a camera should be like, so it's rubbish!"

I, too, would wish for certain things in a camera that just aren't available in any camera model currently, even though those things could be easily implemented with today's technology. For example, ergonomically we're very far from where cameras could be today, if camera makers didn't adhere so doggedly to the film camera designs of the past - but I still think my D800 is a wonderful camera!

Mark Levison wrote:
> It's not the Nikon I want. I've got a D300. I've not replaced with
> a full frame camera because I don't want a heavier body. [..] I want:
> Better autofocus speed with continuous moving subjects in cruddy indoor
> lighting aka my kids playing indoor sports

Huh ?

Let's compare the weights of an APS-C and a FF kit, consisting of fairly equivalent lenses (a wide-angle zoom, a standard prime and a tele zoom)

Camera body:

APS-C: either one of:
• Nikon D7100 body incl. battery: 765g
• Nikon D300 body incl. battery: 905g

• Nikon D750 body incl. battery: 750g


APS: Nikon DX 12-24/4G: 465g
FF: Nikon 18-35/3.5-4.5: 385g

APS: Sigma 30mm F/1.4: 435g
FF: Nikon 50mm F/1.4G: 280g

APS: Tokina 50-135/2.8: 845g
FF: Nikon 70-200/4: 850g

Total weight, Nikon D300 kit: 2650g
Total weight, Nikon D750 kit: 2265g

An APS-C kit would actually be heavier than the FF kit, thus.

Also note that it's extremely unlikely that any existing Nikon APS-C body would have a better AF system than the new D750's: the D750's CAM3500v2 AF module (-3EV~+19EV sensitivity, 51 AF points of which 15 are cross-type AF points, and 11 are F/8-compatible) is basically a derivative of Nikon's CAM3500 AF module (-2EV~+19EV sensitivity, 51 AF points of which 15 are cross-type AF points, and 11 are F/8-compatible) used in the professional-class Nikon D4s body...

Oops. Correction. DPreview lists on their spec sheet that the D750's weight, incl. battery, is 750g.

On Nikon's web site, the D750's weight is specified as 750g without battery, and 840g incl. battery.

This doesn't change my conclusion that it's quite possible to have a FF body + lens outfit that's actually lighter than an equivalent APS-C outfit.

As I age I wish my D800 was lighter. But, I'm mostly not interested in the D750 because it has an AA filter.

Yet another instance of how deep Nikon's denial of a mostly MILC future truly is. With DX relegated mostly to big box display pedestals, Nikon's plan seems to be sales of fewer, pricier, high margin FX cameras. That's it. Atrocious QC/CRM, plus major jacking around of their dealers are making a once great brand look old, slow and tone deaf relative to Fujifilm.

Spec. wise D750 is what we want 2 years ago (or even more if one has a D350 or DX 24 mbps with pro body etc.) but not even that as it should be D700 body not D7100 consumer body. Too late not for me. And if I have to buy it, I would still wait for 6 months - let others get the dust, the focus and the bright spot issues of D600, D800 and D810.

Other than this QA issue, the problem I have enough is the Nikon camera I have is sort of fine now. Not the best but D600 (repaired free of dust and if further dust, the street wisdom Nikon will just give me a D610 as some did get this) and D7100.

More surprisingly, In the last trip I went (2 weeks in Canada and 2 weeks in St. Andrews of Scotland), I do not even bother to bring any Nikon - one trip is 3 Sigma and a Canon bridge 24-1200mm (!) and the other trip is GH4 and BMPCC. Do not miss Nikon at all.

If I have to use a bigger camera, I am still waiting for the 4x5 Travel one (which is your reader and so far not yet shipped) and even the Hasselblad iphone camera back (with a real Hasselblad back that fit in a iphone 5 which listen to the sound of the click to take photo from the ground glass). Even bigger, my 8x10 development kit was also arrived and winter is coming (for 4x5 and 8x10 photo taking and development).

I do not see any reason I am using even existing Nikon, let alone buying a new one.

In fact, I originally think I am going to get the 500F4 this winter's bird season (Hong Kong has 1/3+ of all the bird species in China). But I found out for birding I actually like video more than photo. Here, the Gh4 and the BMPCC is okish as I can do without bird in flight. The Nikon glass of 80-400 VR2, 70-200 F2.8 is good enough if one does not use the Panasonic one I got. However, the 100-300 bmpcc got stablised 900 f8 equivalent. It is not the best, but it might be good enough.

No Nikon strangely for more than 1 years, after coming back from Sony.

If they had released this one instead of the D600 a few years back I might have gotten one then. It at least has the right AF part now, even though the top deck controls are still wrong.

That said, I probably would have stuck with the D700, whose only sin is that it is too large and heavy. This camera does not really fix that. It's still too large. So I think I'd still have ended up where I am now, with the E-M5.

Pffff... the new Panasonic LX100 is much more interesting than this "new" iteration...

Ohh so close. LOTSof what I want to pay for and almost as much that I just don't need. I wish they'd make a version of this camera and just drop all video capabilities (and pop-up flash) and adjust the price accordingly. THEN with the improved autofocus, "right size" megapixle range flippy screen etc I would consider it the perfect upgrade to my D7100. Alas I'll I still want it and will probably pay more than I should for video that I don't want and a built in flash will never use. So it goes.

Not the Nikon I want, but then I think I'm done with DSLRs. I've got a D700 that works fine when I actually have it with me, but even the m43 cameras don't get much use any more, since they don't fit in the tank-bag on the motorcycle. The Canon PowerShot G16 (the replacement for a G10 that I gave to a friend's kid who's showing an interest in photography) gets all the clicks nowadays.

It's not the Nikon I want.

I want a high-end, crop sensor (DX) with the matching lenses (small, fast, prime) to go with that camera.

When that happens, I'll be interested. Until then, other manufacturers are making very good cameras for my needs.

To bad I just bought the (camera to use my formidable collection of ) Nikon (lenses) that I want.
I even covered up the big Sony A7 logo on the front.

I wish I could afford something like that. I love to take photos but I can never earn enough money to actually get enough to get one. There are just too many expenses in life. http://radshotphotos.com/Photography.php

Reactions to the D750 prove this (to me): Things are indeed good for photographer... We are now bitching about size and control layout. IQ? No one asks, it will be great. AF? Bingo. Metering? Bullseye nearly every time. Speed? Ka-ching (mostly). Video? Oy ve.

I spent part the week-end comparing the footage from an expensive tip-top-of-the-line 3 chip video camera from 10 years ago to what I get out of my 2 year old iPhone 5. Well, no surprises, but still: shee-ite, we've come a long way...

Hardware engineers are my heroes.

As the others have said, it really should be called the 650 and should be viewed as a replacement for the 600/610. Nikon management has lost its way and this is just another classic example of not listening to its customers.

No. I still use a D300, and would like to upgrade that. The D750 is less camera than the D300 in several important to me ways. I do not need a big sensor. I cannot spend $2400 on a camera body. Nikon disappoints.

The Fuji X-T1 was the Nikon that I wanted.

If Nikon wants to make a video priority camera, it has to have an EVF, period.
Oh, and the Df is the replacement for the D700.

I find this comparison even more interesting:


Looks like DX served Nikon well in the transition but it's no longer needed. Except for the price, that's it. That's what will keep it alive for some time in the entry levels. But I think it's safe to say DX is history. That there is no D400 in the horizon may be another clue.

If I was planning on going Full Frame, then the D750 would be very attractive. For 40% less than the price of a D810 (here in South Africa, at least) you lose 12 MP, some bulk, and... not much else.

However I can't justify spending US$ 5000 on a D750 and the additional FF lenses I would need to take advantage of it. And as primarily a wide-angle shooter, I can't justify buying one of the current 24 MP DX bodies either, because my 10-20mm f/3.5-4.5 just doesn't have the resolution to take advantage of high-res sensors, and Nikon gives me no other options except the very similar 12-24.

So I guess I'll just stick with my D5000 until I go mirrorless. Bye bye Nikon.

Yes, I kinda like it. It would work for me, since I have a few older Nikon lenses that I like and currently don't own a Nikon DSLR; And this D750 has got the flip-out RGBW screen that makes it so much easier to shoot with a lower camera perspective (assuming that live view works), or with macro lenses.

I also have some old(er) Minolta AF and Leica R lenses. I wouldn't mind if Leica would bring an enthusiast full frame R-mount camera like this on the market. Not going to happen, I guess, but this Nikon would work for me on the same level: a way to continue to use my old lenses. Hardly revolutionary, but maybe just the ticket for me.

I'll wait a few months and see what the internet thinks of it. Maybe Saint Nic will surprise me.

It seems like a great camera. Not for me though, the quality of the D800 has spoiled me and I really desire the D810, which is a too expensive upgrade.

But video... there may be a time when Nikon does good video, but the time is not 2014.

The nikon I want: size and weight and grip exactly like a nikon F6 with the D4s abilities.

The D750 is just another blah in a recent string of blah, blah, blah from Nikon.

Don't get me wrong. They are all fantastic photographer's cameras, all of them. But it's hard to shake the feeling that we've come to a plateau in recent years in the Nikon DSLR world, specs notwithstanding.

that was a great link, @Ragnarok - i'm actually less convinced about the D810 now...

"Approximately speaking, every single photo enthusiast in the world bought an F100 just before buying their first digital camera. Okay, not exactly."

That'd be me! Loved the F100. While features-wise many DSLRs have come close to it none have equalled its viewfinder.

I honestly don't know how typical a camera consumer I am, and so the following is just another data point. In the 1990's, I finally had the scratch to purchase the kind of cameras that I always wanted. I got my first Leica M6 (used) and a Nikon F4 (new) (still have both, BTW, but I haven't used either this year -- a mildly depressing fact). But for the 1990's as a decade, let's call the expense: $3,000. My digital camera progression over the last 12 years has been dictated by the lenses I wanted to use and was (counter-intuitively):

Canon digi-rebel (+ Nikon adapter)(!)
Epson RD-1 (to use the Leica lenses)
Sold the Digi-Rebel and bought a Canon 5D.
Sold the Epson and bought an M8.
Sold the 5D and bought a Nikon D3.
Sold the M8 and bought an M9.
Added a Fuji X-1 Pro
Added an Olympus EP-2

And there I paused in breathless wonder at the unbelievably profligate amount of money I had spent on cameras in that decade. For 2000-2010, let's call it $15,000. Actual money spent on the hobby was certainly more, but we are just talking cameras here. While the increase in potential picture quality and certainly in camera ability was very real over those years, when I look back at those earlier digital photos, the technical aspects that govern picture quality are _never_ an issue in terms of choosing an image to print. Never. This simple fact, for me, argues very, very strongly for sitting out ALL future camera innovations until one of my existing cameras breaks, is lost, or stolen. And I suspect I am not alone in this. The problem for Nikon is that they are now wedded to a model of consumer behavior in terms of their incremental upgrades and I, and customers like me, are returning to our older model of consumption, or finding out that their cell phones work just fine as cameras.

So this is not the camera that I have been waiting for. And sadly for Nikon, when my D3 dies, I am much more likely to look at the used market for an interim used model that has been discarded by someone else with upgrade fever. In five years, the technically superior D800 may have come down in price on the used market enough for me to snap one up. But the days of my plunking down $2000-3000 for a new digital SLR are now over. And that is, I think, a huge problem for a company that produces cameras.

I'm hoping a couple of Fuji XPro 2s will replace my D700s. Unless during the wait for these to appear I succumb to a D810 which hadn't previously been on my radar (too many pixels) but which now calls to me owing to the continuing absence of a D4 sensor in a less costly body (the Df doesn't count - too clunky).

That square eyepiece says "crappy VF" to me.
But who in their right mind needs a DSLR these days?

I was on the Nikon upgrade path until last year, when I bought a Panasonic Lumix with a Leica lens. I didn't know when I bought it for a European trip, but it will take multiple exposures in the dark, and produce a photo brighter than you were seeing with your naked eye.

It also has a stupidly huge zoom factor, with the single Leica lens mounted on it... I don't think I need anything more. I also shot my first video since the 1970s, when good video cameras weighed 90 pounds, plus glass.

So there are state-of-the-art cameras that are not Nikon, or Canon. I won't buy Sony equipment after they introduced the root-kit pre-installed on a CD, but even they have great cameras with Zeiss lenses.

"Senior Nikon staff have said to us that they do not take mirrorless cameras seriously, and that if people want to get "serious" about photography, they still buy a DSLR." - RichardM

That sounds like something from Kodak.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007