Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2014 · D750 design team interview

  
 
flacoramos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · D750 design team interview


Interview link as posted in nikonrumors: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdc.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2Fnews%2Finterview_dcm%2F20141020_671710.html&sandbox=1]HERE[/url]

Interesting to note that body size was the main goal when designing the D750. There's a size compromise that made them go with 1/4000 shutter and tighter AF points.

They seem to confirm the sensor is the same as the D600, and explain why an AA filter is needed on a FF 24MP sensor. Image processing is the same btw D810 and D750, with the 750 having a better signal to noise ratio due to lower resolution.



Oct 21, 2014 at 09:51 AM
Gene_C
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · D750 design team interview


Interesting read, thanks for posting.


Oct 21, 2014 at 06:16 PM
andre2112
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · D750 design team interview


Bummer to read that they were limited to 6.5 fps because of limits to body thickness motor size yet chose the flippy screen requiring so much room instead.


Oct 21, 2014 at 06:49 PM
ahamp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · D750 design team interview


Everybody needs different tools. I have been waiting for awhile now for a serious body with a movable LCD. I get tired of trying to remember my expensive DR-5 angle finder. I just never seem to have it when I need it. This will solve that.


Oct 21, 2014 at 07:50 PM
Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · D750 design team interview


Am I more crazy than I thought, by thinking that body size as a primary consideration for an FX body is simply absurd? I can't imagine why a slightly smaller body size and weight would suddenly make a big difference in sales.

Don't most people buy FX because of the IQ they get from the sensor and its big, fat pixels? To get the best out of an FX system, don't most of us put fast glass on those bodies?

FX camera systems are heavy, but not because the bodies are too big and heavy. Glass is heavy stuff and when you hang lots of it, say an 85 f/1.4, or better yet, a 200 f/2 off of the front of that body, a few grams of weight savings in the body isn't significant.

Man, I hope that body size isn't their top design team goal for the rest of the camera line... That just seems so wrong headed to me.

If they wanted a light weight, small body for street shooters, they missed their chance with the Df by not making it even smaller and lighter. But, who else generally wants a small body attached to their big, heavy lenses?

Wedding and event shooting can wear a guy out, but again, that isn't from camera weight.

This is yet another moment where Nikon has done something that baffles me completely. I just can't fathom making a certain sized box and then altering internal components, like the AF module, to fit it.

Just color me stupid, I guess.
Kerry



Oct 22, 2014 at 02:01 PM
low325
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · D750 design team interview


this is great..only because i am thinking they will apply the "small factor" in future dslrs including (and hopefully!) a Df2!


Oct 22, 2014 at 02:03 PM
Hardcore
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · D750 design team interview


I don't see it as stupid. It is not like they decided to make size their main design goal for all FX cameras. The D800 is bigger and offers more features generally. The D4 is again larger and offering more features. In a time of people becoming tempted to switch to mirrorless cameras like what sony is offering, what is wrong with slimming down the body so that people may be less tempted to jump ship.

This is once again another option for a full frame DSLR from nikon and I welcome it. It may not be for everyone, but they do have a nice lineup now with the D610, D750, D810 and D4s.



Oct 22, 2014 at 02:08 PM
Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · D750 design team interview


Well, the sensor and mount size is a significant limiting factor for body size. Even if you start losing internal and external parts like the AF motor, dual card slots, normal AF modules, and probably a few of the supporting electronics used for speed/performance. Externally you'll have to lose buttons, dials and LCD screens/size.

There will still be a minimum body size, simply because of the size of the mount, sensor and its supporting electronics. If you are okay with an FX Brownie type camera, I guess you'd be good to go.

To me, it's like a phone. No matter how small they can make the electronics, it still has to be a certain size to work properly. There's a reason why phones don't have miniature number buttons that you can cover with your little finger. Same applies to DSLRs. You can't have all of the goodies in a tiny little box.

Sure, use carbon fibre for weight reduction, even on d4. Not sure how well that would work for the pros that typically bang those things around, but we amateurs could deal with that.

Compare the d750 to the d3300. The d3300 is significantly smaller and lighter, 750g vs 430g, and 141 x 113 x 78 mm vs 124 x 98 x 76 mm. Not to mention a significant difference in cost, due to the Brownie style features of the d3300 and sensor size. So, again, I don't see the point.

If weight and size were your primary consideration in a Nikon camera, why would you buy a d750 over a d3300 or something similar like a d5300? Indeed, I bought a d5100 precisely for these reasons and it's a terrific little camera, (that also has a cool flippy LCD) in spite of its limitations.

I think that they'd be a lot smarter by putting a lot of R&D into a Nikon 1 style system and lenses with a high performance DX sensor. Smaller lenses, smaller mount, smaller sensor, equals much smaller body. Hell, I'd buy into something like that, after they filled out the lens line.

Kerry



Oct 22, 2014 at 02:39 PM
craigjohn
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · D750 design team interview


Kerry Pierce wrote:
Am I more crazy than I thought, by thinking that body size as a primary consideration for an FX body is simply absurd? I can't imagine why a slightly smaller body size and weight would suddenly make a big difference in sales.

Don't most people buy FX because of the IQ they get from the sensor and its big, fat pixels? To get the best out of an FX system, don't most of us put fast glass on those bodies?

FX camera systems are heavy, but not because the bodies are too big and heavy. Glass is heavy stuff and
...Show more


If you can't fathom why a smaller lighter body is beneficial, then you aren't their target market. It's that easy.

I love the fact the D750 is smaller and lighter, even when mounted to my 70-200 VR (which isn't often), or my 85mm f/1.4D.

After a 10, 12 or even 14 hour wedding day, my elbows, wrists and shoulders are hurting. BIG time. So any number of ounces they can ween off a camera body, I'm all for. Done are the days I want to lug around the D3 and D3s camera bodies. Plus, I spend more time shooting between 1/40s and 1/250s vs anything near 1/8000s. So losing 1/8000s shutter speed wasn't a big loss to me.

If you like the those other features and the larger camera body isn't a big deal, then get the D810 or a D4/D4s.

The best thing Nikon has done that very few people seem to recognize is, they've given us "really good choices". Pick one and run with it.


If weight and size were your primary consideration in a Nikon camera, why would you buy a d750 over a d3300 or something similar like a d5300?

Does this really need to be answered?



Oct 22, 2014 at 03:11 PM
david debalko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · D750 design team interview


I love the fact that the 750 is smaller, lighter.


Oct 22, 2014 at 03:36 PM
Hardcore
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · D750 design team interview


Kerry Pierce wrote:
Well, the sensor and mount size is a significant limiting factor for body size. Even if you start losing internal and external parts like the AF motor, dual card slots, normal AF modules, and probably a few of the supporting electronics used for speed/performance. Externally you'll have to lose buttons, dials and LCD screens/size.

There will still be a minimum body size, simply because of the size of the mount, sensor and its supporting electronics. If you are okay with an FX Brownie type camera, I guess you'd be good to go.

To me, it's like a phone. No
...Show more

I'm finding some of your points difficult to follow. Just seems like your trying to hate on this camera just because they kept in mind size and not wanting it to be as large as the D800. I don't think you value the merits of a full frame sensor if you think that the same image quality can be obtained by a smaller sensor.



Oct 22, 2014 at 03:48 PM
Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · D750 design team interview



craigjohn wrote:
If you can't fathom why a smaller lighter body is beneficial, then you aren't their target market. It's that easy.


I understand why lighter is beneficial. That's not what I was talking about. They *started* the design by making a box, that all of the parts had to fit into.

Is that they way they are going to do all of their DSLR's now, by starting with a box instead of starting with components and fitting the box to them?

If they REALLY wanted a smaller, lighter camera, why didn't they start with a DX camera and make smaller lenses? The IQ on the d5100 is better than anything we had prior to the d3 generation.

craigjohn wrote:
After a 10, 12 or even 14 hour wedding day, my elbows, wrists and shoulders are hurting. BIG time. So any number of ounces they can ween off a camera body, I'm all for. Done are the days I want to lug around the D3 and D3s camera bodies. Plus, I spend more time shooting between 1/40s and 1/250s vs anything near 1/8000s. So losing 1/8000s shutter speed wasn't a big loss to me.


The d750 is 3.5 ounces lighter than the d600/d610, and .3 ounces lighter than the Df, which you list as your cameras in your profile. Part (perhaps a large part) of that is due to the carbon fibre. You are already using very light cameras, so, I don't know why you're talking about the d3 and d3s.

craigjohn wrote:
If weight and size were your primary consideration in a Nikon camera, why would you buy a d750 over a d3300 or something similar like a d5300?

Does this really need to be answered?


Yes, but I'd rather that you actually read what I wrote first.

Lastly, you are trying to make out like I'm against the d750. I never said anything about the d750, one way or the other. It has nothing to do with what I'd buy or wouldn't buy. I even wondered why they didn't apply this to a Df type camera. My entire post was talking about their design process and why they didn't do something REALLY small and light.

Kerry



Oct 22, 2014 at 06:33 PM
craigjohn
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · D750 design team interview


Kerry Pierce wrote:
I understand why lighter is beneficial. That's not what I was talking about. They *started* the design by making a box, that all of the parts had to fit into.

Is that they way they are going to do all of their DSLR's now, by starting with a box instead of starting with components and fitting the box to them?

If they REALLY wanted a smaller, lighter camera, why didn't they start with a DX camera and make smaller lenses? The IQ on the d5100 is better than anything we had prior to the d3 generation.

The d750 is 3.5 ounces
...Show more


The 5100 may have better IQ than anything prior to D3, but we're WELL beyond the D3. I want the IQ of the D750, which is stellar.

I sold my D3 and D3s for the D600 and D610, then added the DF on a whim as an emergency back-up camera. Turns out I love the DF even though it's not perfect. Oh yeah! And it works great with all of my manual focus lenses.

So why the D750 if I already have the D610? The D610 doesn't have the D750 AF motor. That's the BIGGEST benefit for me. While I made the D610 work, if the D750 makes my job that much easier, then dammit! I want it.

Nikon already has something REALLY small and light. They have the Nikon 1 and a crapton of Coolpix. There's room for another FX camera between the smallish DX bodies and the bigger D800 with an FX sensor.

In the end, I really don't care how they came to their design decision on the D750. The camera just kicks ass on every level - I'm going to have three for next 3, 4 or even 5 wedding seasons, and never worry about what else Nikon releases. For once I'm wildly happy with my camera(s) on a personal level and a professional level.

Edited on Oct 23, 2014 at 06:29 AM · View previous versions



Oct 22, 2014 at 06:58 PM
Joseph.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · D750 design team interview


More choices is always a good thing, and I'm glad that Nikon designed the D750 the way they did. Not everyone needs 1/8000 and 36mp. If you don't like the D750 then that's fine too.. just pick up a D810 and move on As for me, I'm ecstatic with it. Awesome camera!



Oct 22, 2014 at 07:31 PM
carlitos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · D750 design team interview


>>Don't most people buy FX because of the IQ they get from the sensor and its big, fat pixels? To get the best out of an FX system, don't most of us put fast glass on those bodies?<<

Fast glass doesn't necessarily equate to the best image quality. I'd like to see Nikon, or someone else, produce a series of compact f2.8 lenses, critically sharp across the frame. These days, with ISO 6400 capabilities, f2.8 is fast. Slower lenses with fewer elements "should" equate to better image quality. That could make the D750 a smaller, lighter landscape or PJ camera.



Oct 22, 2014 at 09:14 PM
mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · D750 design team interview


carlitos wrote:
>>Don't most people buy FX because of the IQ they get from the sensor and its big, fat pixels? To get the best out of an FX system, don't most of us put fast glass on those bodies?<<

Fast glass doesn't necessarily equate to the best image quality. I'd like to see Nikon, or someone else, produce a series of compact f2.8 lenses, critically sharp across the frame. These days, with ISO 6400 capabilities, f2.8 is fast. Slower lenses with fewer elements "should" equate to better image quality. That could make the D750 a smaller, lighter landscape or PJ camera.


I'd kill for Nikon to make a 135/2.8VR as a high quality backpackers tele prime. I like fast glass (I love Nikon's commitment to the f1.8 prime) but once you get longer than 105 or wider than 20 I'd rather give up the speed and get high quality in a smaller package, and frankly the only reason I want 1.8 on a 20 is so it can double as a fast wide/normal on DX and a great wide on FX. For actual FX use I don't need faster than 2.8 at 20mm.



Oct 22, 2014 at 09:20 PM
Tubby
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · D750 design team interview


I just replaced my Canon 6D with the D750 is about the same size. Maybe even a slightly larger than the 6D. It's not THAT small. I have XL hands and it fits well. Probably will go with the battery pack for a bit better grip.


Oct 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM
Ben Horne
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · D750 design team interview


I bought a D750 specifically because of the smaller size, the flip screen, and the better high ISO ability. Though some of you might find it hard to believe that people would want a compact FF body with a flip screen, I find it to be incredibly useful.


Oct 22, 2014 at 11:16 PM
brett maxwell
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · D750 design team interview


mawz wrote:
I'd kill for Nikon to make a 135/2.8VR as a high quality backpackers tele prime. I like fast glass (I love Nikon's commitment to the f1.8 prime) but once you get longer than 105 or wider than 20 I'd rather give up the speed and get high quality in a smaller package, and frankly the only reason I want 1.8 on a 20 is so it can double as a fast wide/normal on DX and a great wide on FX. For actual FX use I don't need faster than 2.8 at 20mm.


The Sigma 150/2.8 OS is actually very close to what you describe, though unfortunately still pretty big/heavy. Perhaps if it wasn't a macro it could be smaller/lighter?



Oct 23, 2014 at 12:09 AM
craigjohn
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · D750 design team interview


carlitos wrote:
>>Don't most people buy FX because of the IQ they get from the sensor and its big, fat pixels? To get the best out of an FX system, don't most of us put fast glass on those bodies?<<

Fast glass doesn't necessarily equate to the best image quality. I'd like to see Nikon, or someone else, produce a series of compact f2.8 lenses, critically sharp across the frame. These days, with ISO 6400 capabilities, f2.8 is fast. Slower lenses with fewer elements "should" equate to better image quality. That could make the D750 a smaller, lighter landscape or PJ camera.



I would LOVE Nikon if they came out with a small compact 35mm f/2 and a 50mm f/2 that would perform to the level of the Leica Summicron series - especially wide open. Throw those on the DF, and it's my perfect walk-around/PJ camera.

As of right now, you can stop down the little 50/1.8D and the 35/2D to 2.8, and get great image quality. In fact, those are the lenses I wish would perform like the Cron wide open. Then all they'd need is 24 and an 85, and I'd be done. And they don't need to be AF-S. Let the camera body AF those little puppies so they can keep the size small.



Oct 23, 2014 at 06:33 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.