I currently have a D600 and it suits me fine. I do a lot of low light photography so every ounch of better image quality in the dark is most appreciated. ( https://mattihelin.kuvat.fi/kuvat/Maisemat)
The question is, is a D750 any better than D600 considering purely image quality? I've read several reviews and comparisons and some say it is, some say it's the same.
It's pretty much the same. The D750 sensor as a whole is slightly better but don't expect major improvements.
The D750 AF is better though, particularly for very low light. The D600 AF isn't at all bad, but the D750 AF is a solid improvement. If the D600 is working fine for you right now though, then this is perhaps a moot point.
You might find this tool useful, you can drag the little box around the sample photo to see different areas, or change the ISO:
I don't have D750 - but for a photos you show on your page I will not get D750 As I could see on your page D600 just serve you fine. D750 should have much better autofocus but in this case this is not important. Maybe a better ISO on D750 could help a bit for a cleaner shots but I think they are very good.
I did own D600 and D810. Better get D810 when they get cheaper ? A camera of many landscape photographers in last 3 years - or wait what Nikon do next - and go for it
I'm thinking about getting a second body. I sometimes do a little event photography (weddings, funerals..) and having just one body is not ideal.
I've shot with a D800 and it's a nice camera, but I don't like the quality when going around iso 3200.
D810 is probably a good camera, but maybe a bit expensive...
I did shoot with a D4 in one weddings and loved the camera. But it's big and heavy... I do a lots of walking in the woods and I like to travel lightly :/
I only have the D750 and I can share some results that I have got with the camera at high ISO. These were practically captured in the dark; the first one is around 15 minutes after sundown and the second one is approximately 25 minutes after sundown.
Nikon D750, Sigma 500 f/4 lens at f/4, 1/400, ISO 8000 pushed 1.70 stops
Nikon D750, Sigma 500 f/4 lens at f/4, 1/160, ISO 8000 pushed 2 stops
We'll see... I'm a bit torn between D810, D750 and D4... D4 would be the best, probably, in low light, but it's big, somewhat expensive and resolution is a bit low.
D810 has plenty of resolution, even too much for me, but it's even more expensive and not as good in low light as the D750, apparently.
D750 is small, has good resolution and image quality. It's also rather cheap. But will it be any better than the one that I have now?
Or maybe a second D600(D610)? Maybe not.. The autofocus isn't that great in it.
Maybe I'll go with the D750 and leave the D600 as a backup body
M_J_Helin wrote:
We'll see... I'm a bit torn between D810, D750 and D4... D4 would be the best, probably, in low light, but it's big, somewhat expensive and resolution is a bit low.
D810 has plenty of resolution, even too much for me, but it's even more expensive and not as good in low light as the D750, apparently.
D750 is small, has good resolution and image quality. It's also rather cheap. But will it be any better than the one that I have now?
Or maybe a second D600(D610)? Maybe not.. The autofocus isn't that great in it.
Maybe I'll go with the D750 and leave the D600 as a backup body ...Show more →
I love my D750 and have also thought about the D810 for the extra resolution for landscapes. It seems the price on the used market for D810's is starting to come down a bit. I would also assume with the announcement and upcoming release of the D850 that the market may soon be flooded with D810's and could cause prices to drop a bit more. Might be worth keeping an eye on depending on how soon you need a second body.
I've shot weddings side by side with the D610 and D750. The D610 is at least a stop worse in ISO quality, and the idea of them sharing the same sensor is false. I'd get significantly more grain and noise with the D610 than I would with the D750 at the same ISO settings.
What really sets them apart though is the AF. The D610 frankly sucks in low light AF acquisition when compared to the D750. So much so that I sold the 610 out of frustration and put up the funds for a second D750. Sure, if you've used solely the 610 for a while you can get used to its characteristics, but going side by side with the 750 puts it in a very poor light.
eke2k6 wrote:
I've shot weddings side by side with the D610 and D750. The D610 is at least a stop worse in ISO quality, and the idea of them sharing the same sensor is false. I'd get significantly more grain and noise with the D610 than I would with the D750 at the same ISO settings.
What really sets them apart though is the AF. The D610 frankly sucks in low light AF acquisition when compared to the D750. So much so that I sold the 610 out of frustration and put up the funds for a second D750. Sure, if you've used solely the 610 for a while you can get used to its characteristics, but going side by side with the 750 puts it in a very poor light....Show more →
I can agree with this as far as AF goes. I never really put too much thought into AF performance as I was used to my Canon 6d which had great low light AF performance but only using the center point. It was also only an 11 point AF system with the center point being the only cross type point. So when I switched over to Nikon and got the D750 I immediately noticed the difference in the AF ability especially when taking pictures of our 2 dogs that usually won't sit still.
They are pretty much the same for all intents, but the D750 has slightly better high ISO handling specifically relating to the purple amp glow contamination. I can't substantiate by how much better, since it's been far too long for me to remember it clearly, but I know this in an area where they improved upon. Noise level wise, they are probably visibly identical.
Probably, the most likely area for seeing the difference is in extreme low light, high ISO around 12800 and above...
And or long exposures at higher ISO speeds, usually the high ISO exposures one would use for night sky shots, or extreme long exposures at lower ISO values.
I've shot with the Df (D4 sensor), D600, D750, and D800. There is probably some difference in high ISO if you compare structured test shots in exact conditions--but honestly they all perform really well and similarly in the ISO range that I generally work in (ISO6400 as an absolute max, usually less than 3200). For most of those cameras, their low-light AF performance is the thing that is keeping me from getting a shot more than anything else.
It has been mentioned above, but the low light AF performance from the D600 & Df is beyond poor. They are fine in good light, but immediately go to crap when the light gets at all challenging. The center points hold up a bit better though. The D800 is a bit better with the AF, but not worlds apart. The D750 is significantly better.
D750 used prices have been fairly low, and are expected to drop significantly if/when the model is replaced (this year?). Getting a second D6x0 body seems kind of pointless other than being the exact same layout. If you find yourself needing better lowlight AF, go for a D750. Crave more resolution, D8x0.
I've used the D600, D610 and D750 extensively. ISO performance is very close with a slight edge for the D750. However, the D750 is a much more complete camera. AF is miles ahead of the D600/D610 and handling is better, in addition to other features. I can't recommend it enough.
AF is significantly better in low light. Only big difference I was concerned with, as I do a lot of concert photography. Came from a D610. Other than that, I would have stayed with the D610.
