>>4361591
The D750 is just newer.
D700 is so lowres it's a toy.
D800 is great.
D810 is a straight upgrade, but just barely (slightly lower ISO cap and a very miniscule increase in dynamic range are the most notable features).
D750 is a downgrade of the D810, with lower (but still relatively high) resolution, but with a higher res LCD and other basically useless features.
The D850 is an insane monster and probably the best DSLR ever made.

>>4361597
D750 has a tilt screen. A digital camera without a tilt screen is sub-larp retarded.

>>4361598
Please see the section labeled
>and other basically useless features

>>4361591
Basically the higher the number the higher the resolution but the slower the burst rate. 12, 24, 36mp and 4, 6.5, and 8fps respectively. Also the D750 gets a tilting screen with a slightly higher res, but also has a 1/4000 max shutter speed instead of 1/8000.

>>4361599
>wow how useless, what do you mean you want perspectives other than eye level if you're not doing contortions. fucking gearfag. back in my day we had to walk uphill both ways
>you dont need that to photograph eagles flying over a swamp anyways
Kek. And if its not bad enough, it doesnt even have IBIS.

Literally the cheapest micro four thirds camera > D810 + tripod.

>>4361602
IBIS would be lovely, I admit.
The D750 does not, however, have IBIS.

>>4361605
So you admit nikon DSLRs are worse than micro four thirds. Glad we're in agreement.

An EM1III shooting landscapes at base ISO with the power of IBIS and the compositional flexibility of an articulating screen will mog a d750
>d750 has to stop down lens 3-4 times to be sharp, m43 is sharp wide open
>d750 has to use ISO 1600 handheld for a single shitty shot without a tripod, m43 can use ISO 200 and then gain even more DR and resolution with handheld pixel shift, mogging fool frame for all eternity
>em1iii: barely weighs anything
>d750: ugly boat anchor the size of a childs skull
Fool frame status: BTFO

Reminder DSLRnosaurs were forced to go mirrorless by the popularity of fujifilm and micro for thads

>>4361608
Look, a schizo

>>4361608
this but unironically

>>4361609
It's just facts. Once equivalence is accounted for the d750 can't compete with micro for thads. And equivalence will be accounted for, because super soft DSLRnosaur lenses need to be stopped down 4 times to approach the sharpness of m43 glass wide open. Only FF mirrorless money wasters with bazooka sized lenses can claim to have anything over micro for THADS.

>>4361612
Oh, it's equivalence tranny

So I've been looking at DP review trying to figure out the differences it seems like aside from the megapixel count the d750, d800 and d700 are basically the same camera. the d800 has more megapixels, the d750 has better low light AF and the d700 is the same as the d800 with 1/3 of the megapixels.

The 810 seems like it has some nice upgrades, lower base iso (thus higher DR), a front electronic front curtain, which is nice. A highlight-weighted metering mode. Which is something I've missed having.

Idk if that's worth the ~$300 price gap though. I also like the idea of an AA filter, I don't like the 'digital sharpness' so inducing a little softness may help me like the character a bit more.

>>4361613
>Be nikon dslrnosaur boomer
>shoot at f1.4, f1.8, f2.8, and f4
>only sharp at f4
>have to raise ISO from 100 to 800 because no IBIS

>be micro four thad
>sharp wide open at f1.8
>amazing sharp image with no noticeable noise

>>4361591
https://viltrox.com/products/viltrox-nf-m1-nikon-f-mount-lens-to-m43

>>4361591
The D750 has a fucked up shutter due to Nikon's attempt at outsourcing; I wouldn't trust it.

>>4361598
>>4361602
Maybe you should buy a camera with decent LCD viewing angles.

>>4361621
I've come to the conclusion that it's not worth the extra money anyway. I'm currently deciding between the d800 and the d810.

>>4361597
how about d780?

>>4361626
You will be so unhappy with these clunky DSLRs. It's nothing like shooting a film camera.

Micro four thirds is much closer to film, and yet still better than it with more dynamic range and resolution

>>4361628
>Micro four thirds is much closer to film, and yet still better than it with more dynamic range and resolution
this but again, unironically

>>4361628
I already consider it a massive step down in quality from 35mm to full frame. If I was okay with m43 quality, I'd just use my phone.

>>4361626
Get the D810 if you randomly find it cheap, but otherwise just go with the D800. It's excellent, and the difference between the two is negligible.

>>4361632
yeah I'll keep my eye on 810s. I'm not in a huge rush. I do really like the highlight weighted metering, it's something I really miss, it makes night shooting a lot less finicky. But that and the EFC aren't worth the price premium, you're right.

>>4361631
Thats delusion and you know it

34mm film is only 12mp with the SNR of a phone sensor

>>4361643
It's not, film just looks better and it's not close. High fidelity reproduction isn't the same thing as an attractive image.

>>4361633
I've owned a D810 for six years so I'll share my two cents compared to the D800.

>lower ISO cap has been nice when scanning film
>D800 is the only camera with an AA filter, D800E and D810 don't have one. The difference is pretty negligible unless you are a turbo pixel peeper though
>the D810's shutter is a lot more quiet and crisp (even on regular mode) compared to the D800/E. May be of importance for wildlife or event photography, won't matter otherwise
>D810 has slightly higher FPS (probably irrelevant for you)
>D810 has slightly better autofocus (irrelevant if you're using manual glass or shooting landscapes)

Either camera is a great choice and I'd argue the extra money you'd put towards a D810 would be better spent on nicer lenses. Hope this helps your decision

>>4361668
>the D810's shutter is a lot more quiet and crisp
Quiet yes, but crisp? It sounds mushy to me
I actually prefer the classic KA-CHK of the D800 to the SLO-SLHSH of the D810.

>>4361672
Perhaps crisp wasn't the appropriate word for the feeling I'm trying to capture. The 810's shutter has this tight, direct sound that reminds me of crisp winter air, hence my word choice. The 800's shutter sound is very pleasing in it's own right, too

>>4361631
>If I was okay with m43 quality, I'd just use my phone
They could win me over with a fixed lens compact if the zoom was mechanical and the focus was internal.

>>4361668
Thanks, that was helpful and you're right a lot of those things don't matter to me and I already have a dedicated scanning camera which has a pixel shift feature, which is far more useful than the lower ISO. I'll probably end up with the d800 unless I can get an 810 off ebay for a good price.

>>4361690
I've actually seen quite a few very nice shots from the existing p&s m43 cameras. I can't recall the models just now, but they were Panasonics. But for the most part it seems like the flaws with digital sensors get magnified the smaller the sensor is. The only way I'd use one is if they could somehow make it smaller than existing film cameras like the Pentax LX, Nikon F3, Canon A1, etc.. while retaining the viewfinder and interchangeable lenses, otherwise I'd just rather use those since the character of film is just so much nicer.

>>4361597
>D700 is so lowres it's a toy
>The D850 is probably the best DSLR ever made.
Nigger-tier takes

>>4361591
You'd do fine with any of them I think.
I went with the D750 when I was going from DX to full frame because it was the youngest fullframe Nikon within my budget. As the main reason I was going full-frame at all was for less-noisy high ISO, I decided to go with the youngest sensor I could afford. I also liked that it has the similar controls to the D7200 I used before, so there was nothing to re-learn about using it. But if you're not coming from a DX Nikon DSLR you won't have the muscle memory to consider this as any kind of advantage.

>>4361605
None of the cameras being discussed here have IBIS.
OP, make sure to include money in your budget for at least one VR lens.
VR lenses in the DSLR world has kind of a reputation as being something that was only either for expensive telephoto zooms, or cheap crappy kit zoom lenses. Nobody ever made anything like a good affordable 50mm prime that also had VR.
A dirty little secret of Nikon is that the 18-55mm VR, an APS-C kit lens that costs about $60 used, is usable on full frame from about 24-55mm.

>>4361776
>the flaws with digital sensors get magnified the smaller the sensor is
More like the optical flaws get magnified.

File: image.png (1.27 MB, 865x865)

1.27 MB PNG

>>4361615
I don't know, the D750 looks like it has a very slightly better image quality at high ISO. Also it has the big advantage of being ISO-invariant; The D8xx may also have it but I'm not sure.

>>4361626
Remember that D8xx having a much higher resolution means that they produce much larger files. This means more expenses for storage and post-processing, if you want your computer to be as fast.
The D750 also has an integrated flash (but who uses this anyway).
Also consider the difference in body weight, which can be a factor for some people.

>>4361952
if you still use your camera to take casual family snapshots like ken rockwell does, you will follow ken's advice to always use the popup flash when taking pictures of people

>>4361957
I see one situation for which popup flash could yield decent results: when indoors and using a reflector right on the flash, deflecting the light towards the ceiling

>>4361967
I think the idea is, if you're outdoors at a casua family picnic or whatever, taking pictures of like kids and dogs, and you suddently find yourself wanting a flash because they are backlit or in deep shade with full-sun landscape in the background, you probably didn't bother to bring any other flashes, and the popup flash is better than literally nothing.
of course this is a rare use-case for a pro using camera for pro things, and harkens to the bygone era of the digital camera as "family camera", that everybody uses their phone for now.

File: DSC_2059.jpg (1.41 MB, 1500x1200)

1.41 MB JPG

D700 is the last Nikon DSLR with a Nikon manufactured sensor.

Just a little funny tidbit :3

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	794
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:19 02:31:36
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	32.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1200
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4362063
Nikon never manufactured their own sensors.

>>4362078
yeah uh

>>4361952
D800 and D810 have a flash, what are you talking about.

>>4361591
I have a d700. It takes amazing portraits. Pictures have a film filter on them it seems. But it's dog shit indoors. Don't buy if it's your only camera, it should be used in good lighting only.

I got a d810 from Adorama for $315 under 50k s/c. More modern resolution.

>>4361591
d750 is better in low light, has a flippy screen and shoots video. i've had mine since it was released and still enjoy it. the d700 and d800 aren't as new, but the build is more robust on both of those cameras.

>>4362083
nope

>>4362343
Yea

>>4361952
>(but who uses this anyway)
I do, lick deez nuts now

>>4362280
>But it's dog shit indoors
Kek it's funny how time marches on. When the d700 came out it was absolutely the market leader for low light performance.

>>4362409
The performance hasn't changed, only the pixel peeping

>>4362411
No, this shit is noticeable even if you purposefully gimp cameras by viewing on jewstagram and call everything 4k and larger “muh heckin gearfag pixel peeping” (to cope)

>>4362424
whats with the anti-gearfag gearfags
>art from beginning of time to 2004
>you can look at it far away and also close up to admire the detail
>photography, from the advent of digital: LOOKING AT IT CLOSELY IS FUCKING IMMORAL YOU HAVE NO SOUL FUCK OFF I DID NOT WASTE MY FUCKING $2000 MONEYS ON THIS FUJIFILM KILL YOURSELF! ANYTHING MORE THAN SCROLLING PAST AND CLICKING LIKE ON INSTA = YOU ARE NOT A FUCKING PERSON YOU STEMBUG HYLIC AUTIST! VIBES ONLY WE DO NOT! DO! DETAIL! HERE! DEATH TO THE BOURGEOSIE! KILL YOURSEEEEELF! YOU WILL NEVER BE A REAL ARTIST! I HATE YOU! EVERYONE HATES YOU!
>woah man i just called it blurry

>>4362426
Basically 100% of the pseudo-philosophical and emotionally charged arguments in photography boil down to either not being able to afford something and hating everyone who can, or being able to afford something somewhat unusual and wanting to appear better than everyone who can not.

Pre-photography art without quality detail: Just don't present it so large that people can care.

Now they get angry while posting full sized 24mp jpegs and being accused of posting blurry/noisy photos
>NOOO MUH PIXEL PEEPING!
Then for what fucking purpose do they upload at 6000x4000

>>4362428
It's actually worse than you think. Abstract it one more layer:
>There are people who will see a photo then zoom in 1600% and call it shit
also
>There are people who get upset that someone zoomed in 1600% and called it shit.
Both groups of people are retarded. If you liked your photos you wouldn't care what people thought and if you enjoyed photography, you wouldn't care if someone's photo was bad, you'd just move on. The call and response of pixel peeping is insecurity, people desperate for validation take all criticism as fact and people scorned for not receiving the validation they think they deserve go out and get mad about bad photos enough to the point where they feel the need to comment.

>>4362509
>Take photo
>Zoom in to make sure it can be enlarged by whoever sees it, tailor export size to actual detail level (read: cover up mistakes)
>Hold my equipment to basic standards that have been easy to meet since 1970 and yet somehow still get missed ahrd by major companies that charge thousands for their shit
>no, you have to buy the fuji and ttartisan and shoot motion blurred asian pedestrians!

>>4362512
>Zoom in to make sure it can be enlarged by whoever sees it, tailor export size to actual detail level (read: cover up mistakes)
No one is doing this to your photos. No one cares. You have autism.

>>4362516
No, people are. Then again I don't share them with chinese bots on instagram.

Usually people like to zoom in on parts of group portraits and crop them for a phone wallpaper but I've also caught them zooming in on bugs and their cats eyeballs

>>4362516
anon it is piss easy to have photos that can be zoomed in on stop being so dramatic

just follow these 3 simple rules

rule 1: no micro four thirds
rule 2: no fuji
rule 3: learn to use a camera

>>4362280
Good price on the D810.

File: IMG_20240923_130710182.jpg (1.94 MB, 4080x3072)

1.94 MB JPG

New D800 who dis?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	moto g stylus 5G (2022)
Equipment Make	motorola
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Sensing Method	Not Defined
Image-Specific Properties:
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	4080
Image Height	3072
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:09:23 13:07:11
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Height	3072
Brightness	-5.4 EV
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	16666667/250000000 sec
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
F-Number	f/1.8
ISO Speed Rating	17856
Image Width	4080
Digital Zoom Ratio	3.3
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Focal Length	4.27 mm
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	D65

>>4361905
Yeah, my nigga tier takes