OwlsEyes Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
lorac wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to do this and share. I would have liked to see some high iso examples. Seems your real world experience is with older FX bodies, so you wouldn't know personally about high iso performance comparisons with those vs the D7200. By almost all accounts the "same" AF module in the D750 is superior to the D7200, definitely with low contrast situations. I, as you, still hope for a true D300 replacement some day.
Hello Lorac... thanks for your comment
How high of an ISO do you want to see? The second otter and the spider monkey were shot at iso 800. For me, 800 is pretty high ISO. I have a few images taken at ISO 1600, but they are very low contrast situations. The result is they look noisier than I'd like. As for comparisons, I was shooting with a D300 and D300s extensively. As far as I can tell, the ISO 800 files from the D7200 are cleaner than the ISO 400 files from the D300 (1 stop plus 2 x the pixels). In theory, this means that a down sampled ISO 1600 D7200 image should be about as good as a D300 photo at ISO 400.
In the Nikon world, I have also used the D700 and D610 for wildlife. The files from the D610 were beautiful, but the AF was inadequate. I loved the D700, but the resolution was low and thus I could not crop. I love the files from my D800E, but the mirror slap and loud shutter/mirror combo was too much for me.
I have no doubt that the D750 would have the AF and image quality that would beat the D7200, but the fact that it is a full-frame 24mp vs a crop 24mp means that I will be cropping my photos and tossing out a bunch of pixels. Given my focal length constraints and desire to have high res files, my choices are the D7200 or D810. Being a current owner of a D800E, it seemed that the D7200 would be the better purchase... but like you, I would be quite pleased if Nikon made a real D300/D300s replacement in the near future.
|